nad Pho Sans testator 
 Fee CaF nila e Seton, 
 
 ο΄ κα, γε λον 
 ΡΝ] 
 
 3 Creme athe 
 ha hav AOA ha ge ae Lae 
 “τὸ σα AS Chetek νὰ δ ἢ oko 
 
 ama ent whet e τε τιν, τ, 
 
 ial 
 
 RRA yee ae Sas 
 
 ee er eR Oe pL cs 
 
Ἢ 
 " oN 
 
 he is 
 
 ᾿ ᾿" 
 
 υ 
 yy 
 
ties bOOkK, On. KOHELE TH. 
 
| 
 
 THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1878. 
 Second Edition, 8vo, cloth, price 14s. 
 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES, 
 Considered in relation to Modern Criticism: 
 
 RITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY, AND NEW 
 TRANSLATION, 
 
 By the kev. Ὁ. H. H. WRIGHT, D.D., M.A., Ph.D. 
 
 ‘*Mr. Wright has produced a very valuable and exhaustive monograph 
 upon this, with the exception of Hosea, the most interesting of the minor 
 prophets. It is because Mr. Wright has furnished us with such an abun- 
 dance of sound philological criticism in his noble and scholarly book, that 
 we heartily recommend it to all earnest students of Holy Scripture.”— 
 Ecclesiastical Gazette. 
 
 “ΤΕ is incomparably the best commentary hitherto published by an 
 English author on Zechariah. It is the fruit of great industry and sound 
 scholarship, of wide erudition combined with sober judgment. The new 
 translation and critical and grammatical commentary will be of great 
 service to critical students of the Hebrew tongue.”—Ayitish Quarterly 
 Review. 
 
 ‘*The Bampton Lecturer for 1878 has produced an elaborate and learned 
 commentary on Zechariah. There is no doubt as to his candour and 
 erudition.” — Westminster Review. 
 
 “*Characterised by sound scholarship, wide erudition, and sober judg- 
 ment—dqualities very necessary in handling the apocalyptic and eschata- 
 logical visions of Zechariah. It is indispensable to the student of this 
 obscure and difficult prophet.”— Zhe Expositor. 
 
 Lonpon: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER Row. 
 
THE 
 
 ει ἢ- OF KOHELETH. 
 
 COMMONEY CALLED ECCLESIASTES, 
 
 CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO MODERN CRITICISM, AND 
 TO THE DOCTRINES OF MODERN PESSIMISM, WITH 
 A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY 
 AND A REVISED TRANSLATION. 
 
 Che Donnellan Lectures for 1880-1, 
 
 ῳ 
 
 BY THE REV. 
 
 = i 
 CHARLES HENRY HAMILTON WRIGHT, D.D., 
 
 of Trinity College, Dublin; M.A. of Exeter College, Oxford, 
 Ph.D. of the University of Leipzig ; Incumbent of St. Mary's, Belfast. 
 
 London : 
 POD DEr AND - STOUGHTON, 
 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 MDCCCLXXXIII. pt 
 WK 
 
Butler & Tanner, 
 The Selwood Printing Works, 
 Frome, and London. 
 
En {Memoriam 
 
 OF MY BELOVED PARENTS, 
 
 EDWARD WRIGHT, LL.D., BARRISTER-AT-LAW, 
 
 OF FLORAVILLE, EGLINTON ROAD, DUBLIN, 
 AND 
 CHARLOTTE WRIGHT, His WIFE, 
 
 WHO ENTERED INTO “THE SAINTS’ EVERLASTING REST,” 
 ON NOVEMBER IST, AND MARCH 30TH, 1881, RESPECTIVELY, 
 AND WHO BOTH TOOK A DEEP INTEREST 
 
 IN THESE | 
 
 DONNELLAN LECTURES. 
 
Neen ee 
 RT Re Bot 
 
 "ὁ 
 a 
 
 at pa 
 we <r 
 
 i, On 
 al oa ee ἢ ya" As 
 
 i 4 “he Ad at ΝΜ κῃ. fhe 
 εἰς ote UP ἀν | Me Raa ne 
 αι ἘΔ 
 ἈΝ. " ; Es ae Nee As ᾿ “Vy ὑπο Ἢ Peay 
 ἊΣ Mi eH ΚΑΙ ΤΥ ee 
 
 qe 
 
 ; OP oye Thee 1 
 f ΟΠ το κὸν ἢ ἢ 
 
 ‘ 7. 
 ~ " a J 
 “ἢ 
 if 
 
 νὰ eS a 
 ἐν ΕΛ ᾿ ὡ 
 
 Ἷ ἐκ Τὴ SEAR "ee a a 
 
THE greater part of the following work consists of the 
 Donnellan Lectures delivered from the pulpit of Trinity 
 College, Dublin, in 1880-1. In a course of lectures, restricted 
 to six in number, it was impossible to do more than allude 
 to several questions which are here more fully discussed. 
 Most of the second chapter, and considerable portions of 
 other chapters were not included in the Donnellan Lectures, 
 and the larger part of that on “the Song of Koheleth,’ was 
 delivered as a lecture in the Law School of the University 
 of Cambridge, in April, 1882. The publication of Prof. 
 Robertson Smith’s Lectures in 1881, on Zhe Old Testament 
 in the Jewish Church, and of M. Ernest Renan’s work on 
 Ecclesiastes early in 1882, necessitated considerable altera- 
 tions and additions being made to this work. As in my 
 Bampton Lectures at Oxford, so in the Donnellan Lectures, 
 I did not consider it advisable to throw my dissertations 
 into the shape of ordinary pulpit discourses. Such a form 
 would have fettered the treatment of the subject, and have 
 been entirely unsuited to the object I had in view. That 
 some critics should have blamed this exercise of freedom 
 is only what might have been expected, but I have seen 
 no reason to regret the course taken. Hence the following 
 chapters exhibit few traces of having been delivered as 
 University sermons. 
 
 The work will, I believe, be perfectly intelligible to the 
 ordinary English reader, and does not, save in a very few 
 
 Vii 
 
Vill: Introduction. 
 
 places, require for its comprehension any acquaintance with 
 Hebrew. The grammatical and critical commentary is, of 
 course, mainly designed for the use of students of Hebrew 
 and theology. But an intelligent reader of the English Bible 
 will find, even there, much of which he can avail himself 
 with almost as much ease as the observations in a purely 
 English commentary, if he be not deterred from its perusal 
 by the necessity of having to pass over the critical and 
 esrammatical remarks. The grammatical and critical com- 
 mentary, which ought to be studied in connexion with the 
 translation of the Book of Koheleth on pp. 283-304, will 
 be considered by some too copious, and yet there are 
 defects in it, which could have been amended, had it not 
 been necessary to curtail the work as much as possible. I 
 trust that, even as it is, it may be useful to those engaged in 
 Biblical researches, and may help in some measure to raise 
 the tone of Hebrew scholarship in this country. 
 
 I have not attempted to conceal the obligations which 
 I have been under to scholars of almost every school of 
 thought. I have freely availed myself of their writings, and 
 have striven to do full justice to the opinions of those from 
 whom I have felt constrained to differ. For myself, I firmly 
 adhere to the doctrine which I have always held, namely, that 
 the Holy Scriptures contain a Divine revelation, and that God 
 has of old time spoken unto men “by divers portions and in 
 divers manners” (Heb. i. 1) through the writers whose books 
 compose the Old and New Testament (see p. 200). I deeply 
 regret the want of scholarship too often exhibited in this 
 country on the part of many, who, however, hold much which 
 I believe to be true; and I deplore the suspicion with which 
 all higher Biblical researches are regarded in many quarters 
 where they ought to be most warmly welcomed and prized. 
 It is not, I confess, without some feelings of regret that 
 I have felt myself constrained, by the evidence adduced 
 
Introduction. ΙΧ 
 
 by modern critics, to abandon the traditional view of the 
 Solomonic authorship of the Book of Ecclesiastes. But I 
 do not consider the canonical character of the book, or its 
 Divine inspiration, to be at all affected by the abandonment of 
 a theory at variance with the linguistic features of the book, 
 as well as with internal evidence, and with the statements of 
 its epilogue, when rightly understood. In the investigation 
 of many questions connected with the Sacred Volume the 
 Christian theologian will act wisely to hold aloof from the 
 adoption of those popular theories of inspiration which only 
 fetter and encumber him, when seeking to defend “the truth 
 once delivered to the saints.’ The cautious remarks on this 
 point of the Rev. Professor Charteris of Edinburgh (a theolo- 
 gian whose orthodoxy is above suspicion) in his recent popular 
 volume on The New Testament Scriptures: their Claims, His- 
 tory, and Authority (London, 1882), are worthy of the attention 
 of those who falsely imagine that the truth of Scripture depends 
 upon the acceptance of some special theory of inspiration. 
 
 In the brief, but thoughtful and suggestive, commentary of 
 Mr. Tyler on the Book of Ecclesiastes (Williams & Norgate, 
 1874), an attempt has been made to prove that the author 
 of the book was acquainted with the writings of the Greek 
 philosophers. Notwithstanding some interesting and curious 
 coincidences of thought, most of which will be found noted 
 in the course of our work, I cannot but concur in the opinion 
 arrived at by scholars, differing so widely in opinion as 
 Delitzsch and Renan, that no real trace of Greek influence 
 can be pointed out. Zirkel’s former attempt to discover 
 Grecisms in the Book of Ecclesiastes has been admitted 
 to have been a failure even by Graetz, though the latter 
 scholar has endeavoured to show that a few of the instances 
 adduced by Zirkel are genuine. Plumptre has, however, 
 exhibited a disposition to adopt partially at least the view 
 advocated by Tyler. And, if I am not mistaken, the theory 
 
 b 
 
τς Lntroduction. 
 
 of the close connexion of the Book of Ecclesiastes with 
 Greek thought is likely shortly to be presented in a more 
 developed form by an able Continental scholar. We shall 
 wait to see what new arguments will be adduced by that 
 writer. But the intimation I have received on this point has 
 made me indisposed prematurely to re-open a discussion, 
 which for the present may be considered as closed. 
 
 In the sixth and seventh chapters I have ventured to 
 contrast the teachings of the Book of Koheleth, which are 
 unquestionably in some aspects pessimistic, with the con- 
 clusions arrived at by the writers of the modern school of 
 Philosophic Pessimism. Notwithstanding the raciness and 
 brilliancy which characterize the writings of Schopenhauer 
 and von Hartmann, I cannot but regard the appearance of 
 such a school of philosophy as not only one of the most 
 remarkable, but also one of the saddest phenomena of the 
 present age. The doctrines of Modern Pessimism are cer- 
 tain soon to attract in England more notice than they have 
 yet received. For two of the most important writings of 
 that school, Schopenhauer’s Welt als W2lle und Vorstellung, 
 and von Hartmann’s Philosophie des Unbewussten, will shortly 
 appear in an English translation in the Philosophical Library 
 series of Messrs. Triibner & Co. The vigour of style of 
 those authors, and the novelty and boldness of their con- 
 clusions, are certain to awaken as much discussion in this 
 country as they have called forth in Germany. It is more- 
 over a sad fact, admitted by advocates of that philosophy, 
 that the disregard shown by Schopenhauer and von Hart- 
 mann for what some persons are pleased to speak of merely 
 as “the conventionalities of society,’—and the plain-spoken 
 manner in which matters are discussed, of which the Apostle 
 was constrained to remark, “it is a-shame even to speak of 
 those things which are done of them in secret” (Eph. v. 12),— 
 have attracted a vast number of readers who do not generally 
 
I[utroduction. xi 
 
 trouble themselves with philosophical speculations. In a 
 work of this kind, it would have been quite out of place to 
 enter into any formal refutation of that philosophy. My 
 object has been mainly to point out, from these and other 
 writings of the philosophers referred to, the conclusions at 
 which they have arrived, conclusions destructive not only 
 of faith, but of morality,—to show the source from whence 
 some of their principles have been derived, and to contrast 
 them with the teaching of the sacred Jewish philosopher, 
 whom Schopenhauer and other writers of his school vainly 
 claim as a precursor. 
 
 It may be well, however, to call attention not only to the 
 important works published in England on this subject by 
 Mr. Sully and Dr. M. M. Kalisch (of which considerable use 
 has been made in the following pages), but also to refer to 
 a work, little known on this side of the Atlantic, by Pro- 
 fessor Bowen, of Harvard College, Cambridge, United States, 
 namely, Modern Philosophy, from Descartes to Schopenhauer 
 and Hartmann (3rd edit., New York, 1877), in which Modern 
 Pessimism is treated from a philosophical and Christian point 
 of view. Of more importance, however, is the vigorous and 
 able essay, recently published by Professor Barlow of Trinity 
 College, Dublin, entitled Zhe Ultimatum of Pessimism: an 
 Ethical Study (London : Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1882). 
 Though written from a purely philosophic standpoint, this 
 work deserves the attention of theologians, and cannot fail to 
 interest even the general reader. The quiet manner in which 
 Mr. Barlow’s reductio ad absurdum of some of von Hartmann’s 
 speculations is conducted is worthy of all commendation. 
 Mr. Barlow’s book was published too late to permit of its 
 being made use of in the present work. It must be noted 
 that it is difficult to define what Pessimism really means. The 
 term is generally employed throughout the following work in 
 the sense in which it is used by Schopenhauer, although the 
 
τς Lntroduction. 
 
 further development of Pessimism as represented in the writings 
 of von Hartmann has been duly noted. I observe that Mr. 
 Barlow has drawn attention to the argument in favour of 
 Pessimism against Christianity arising from the exaggera- 
 tions of theologians on questions concerning which little has 
 been revealed in sacred Scripture. See his remarks on p. 24 
 of his essay, and compare our note on p. 179. Lllogical and 
 unscientific, when thoroughly examined into, as many of the 
 conclusions of the Pessimist philosophers may be, I cannot but 
 believe that their philosophy is but the natural outcome of 
 atheism. There are, indeed, few halting places on the terrible 
 road which begins with the denial of the existence of the 
 Eternal,—too often because men do not like to retain God in 
 their knowledge (Rom. i. 28), and long to cast away from them 
 the bands and cords of religion (Ps. ii. 3),—and that “reprobate 
 mind” which generally leads men to do those “ things which 
 are not fitting” (Rom. 1. 28), and finally conducts them to the 
 precipice over which they not unfrequently hurl themselves 
 by suicide. 
 
 The literature which has been evoked in Germany on this 
 subject is far too extensive to be mentioned here. Some 
 of these works will be found referred to in the following 
 pages. It may be useful to call attention to the thoughtful 
 work of Professor Gass of Heidelberg, entitled, Optimismus 
 und Pessimismus : der Gang der christlichen Welt- und Lebens- 
 ansicht (Berlin, 1876). 
 
 In the treatment of this important subject,—superficially 
 though it has been handled by me,—I have to acknowledge 
 my obligations to my friend Pastor Dr. Hermann Ferdinand 
 von Criegern, of the S. Thomaskirche, Leipzig, an able scholar 
 as well as an earnest and eloquent pastor, whose lately 
 published work on Johann Comenius als Theolog (Leipzig, 
 1881), will, it is to be hoped, not be his last contribution 
 to theological literature. 
 
Introduction. ΧΙ 
 
 It was originally my intention to have affixed to the work 
 a sketch of the extensive literature in connexion with the 
 Book of Koheleth. But inasmuch as, notwithstanding all my 
 efforts to compress this volume into smaller compass, it has 
 srown unduly large, I must reserve the carrying out of this 
 project for some other opportunity. I have given up the 
 idea. for the present with less reluctance on account of the 
 valuable historical sketch of the exegesis of the book, both 
 Jewish and Christian, given by Dr. Ginsburg in his Hzstorzcal 
 and Critical Commentary, published in 1861. The list of 
 works on Ecclesiastes compiled by Dr. Ginsburg has been 
 considerably added to by Delitzsch, in the Einleitung to his 
 Commentary, which is, in my opinion, the ablest and most 
 instructive which has yet appeared on this portion of the Old 
 Testament. Zéckler has made important additions to the 
 catalogue in his contribution to Lange’s Bzbelwerk, and it has 
 in turn been considerably added to in the American edition of 
 Zockler’s work by the late Prof. Tayler Lewis, which appears 
 in the series of Lange’s Commentary, published not only in 
 America, but also by Messrs. T. & T. Clark, of Edinburgh. 
 
 I shall therefore content myself with mentioning the com- 
 mentaries chiefly used in the execution of this work, observing 
 only that many others have been occasionally consulted by 
 me in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. Owing to the 
 pressure of other public duties, I have not had the opportunity 
 of prosecuting my researches as widely as I would have de- 
 sired, It is, however, scarcely necessary to make any apology 
 for passing over without special mention most of the popular 
 Commentaries of the Bible in general use in this country. 
 True exegesis must be built upon a thorough grammati- 
 cal and critical examination of the original text, a point 
 generally neglected in those commentaries. The main 
 object of my work, moreover, was to exhibit the results 
 arrived at by modern criticism, and it would have been 
 
XIV L[utroduction. 
 
 impossible in any reasonable compass to have noted either 
 the mistakes or the excellencies of such writers as Bishop 
 Reynolds, Matthew Henry, and Thomas Scott; or of the 
 more recent popular expositions of Ecclesiastes, such as 
 those of Hamilton, Wardlaw, and Buchanan. This work 
 does not profess to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject. 
 Some commentators of considerable eminence I have been 
 obliged to quote at second-hand, and consequently their 
 works are not included in the subjoined list. 
 
 Arnheim, H., Transl. in the German Version of the Old 
 Testament, by Zunz, Arnheim, First and Sachs, 8th edit. 
 (Berlin, 1864). Bauer, Ch. F,, Erlauterter Grundtext vom 
 Prediger Salomo, etc. (Leipzig, 1732). Bernstein, H. G., 
 Questiones nonnullz Kohelethanz (Vratislav, 1854). loch, 
 7. 5., Ursprung und Entstehungszeit des Buches Kohelet 
 (Bamberg, 1872); Studien zur Geschichte der Samml. der 
 alt-heb. Lit. (Leipzig, 1875). Bleek, Fried. Einleitung in 
 das Alte Test., 2te Aufl. (Berlin, 1865), and 4te Aufl. by 
 Wellhausen (Berlin, 1878). Boehl, Ed. De Aramaismis Libri 
 Koheleth (Erlang. 1860). Bunsen, C. C. /., Vollstandiges 
 Bibelwerk (Leipzig, 1858-69). Bridges, Rev. Charles, M.A., 
 Exposition of the Book of Ecclesiastes (London, 1860). 
 Loticher, Fried. Proben alttest. Schrifterklarung (Leipzig, 
 1833); Exeg.-kritische Aehrenlese zum alten Test. (Leipzig, 
 1849) ; Neue exeg.-kritische Aehrenlese zum A.T. (Leipzig, 
 1863, 1864); De Inferis rebusque post mortem futuris 
 (Dresden, 1846). Criticc Sacri (Frankf. 1695). Bullock, Rev. 
 W.7Z., M.A., Comm. and Critical Notes on Ecclesiastes, in 
 the Speaker’s Commentary (London, 1878). Cox, Samuel, 
 D.D., The Quest of the Chief Good ; Expository Lectures on 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes with a New Translation: A Com- 
 mentary for Laymen (London, n.d., but published in 1867). 
 Dathe, J. A., Job, Prov., Eccl. and Cant., Latine versi notisque 
 illust. (Halle, 1789). Dale, Rev. T. P., M.A., A Commen- 
 
Introduction. XV 
 
 tary on Ecclesiastes (Lond. and Camb., 1873). Davidson, 
 Dr. S., Introduction to the Old Test. (Lond., 1862, 1863). 
 Derenbourg, 7. Notes détachées sur |’Ecclésiaste, 1880, see 
 note 1, p. 190. Delitssch, Prof. Dr. Franz, see General 
 Index. Elster, Ernst, Commentar iiber dén Prediger Salomo 
 (Gottingen, 1855). von Essen, Ludwig, Der Prediger 
 Salomos (Schaffhausen, 1856). zwald, Prof. H., see General 
 Index. First, Prof. J., Der Kanon des alt. Test. nach den 
 Ueberlieferungen in Talmud u. Midrasch (Leipzig, 1868), 
 see General Index. Given, Prof. Dr, Truth of Scripture 
 in connection with Revelation, etc. (Edinb. 1881). Gzms- 
 burg, Dr. C. D., Coheleth, commonly called the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, with comm., hist. and crit. (London, 1861). 
 Graetz, Dr. H., Kohélet oder der Salomonische Prediger 
 iibersetzt und kritisch erlautert (Leipzig, 1871); Monats- 
 schrift fiir Gesch. u. Wissenchaft des Judenthums. Gezger, 
 Dr. Abraham, Urschrift u. Uebersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau, 
 1857); Jiidische Zeitschrift (Breslau, 1862-1875). Hengsten- 
 berg, Dr. E. W., Comm. on Ecclesiastes, Engl. Transl. by 
 D. W. Simon (Edinb. 1860). Hévernick, H. A. C., Einlei- 
 tung in das alt. Test. 2te Aufl. by Keil (Frankf, 1854). 
 Hahn, Dr. Heinr. Aug., Commentar iiber das Predigerbuch 
 Salomos (Leipzig, 1860). Hezligstedt, Aug., Comm. gramm., 
 hist. crit. in Ecclés. (1848), in Maurer’s Comm. in Vet. Test. 
 Herzfeld, Dr. L., Coheleth iibersetzt u. erlautert (Braunschweig, 
 1838). Aztzig, Dr. Ferd, Der Prediger Salomos erklart; in 
 the Kurzgef. exeget. Handb. z. A. T. (Leipzig, 1847). oele- 
 mann, Prof. Dr., Bibelstudien. This work I have only quoted 
 second-hand. I have, however, used his Exeget. Adversarien 
 in the Sdchsisches Kirchen- τι. Schulblatt for 1882. Janichs, Dr. 
 G., Animadversiones Critic in vers. Syriacam Peschitt. Libb. 
 Koheleth et Ruth (Vratisl., 1871). /ohuston, Rev. David, A 
 Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes (Macmillan & Co.,, 
 1880), issued anonymously, see p. 114. Kazser, Dr. G. P.C.K. 
 
Xvi L[utroduction. 
 
 Koheleth, das Collectivum der Davidischen Konige in Jeru- 
 salem (Erlangen, 1823). Kalisch, Dr. M. M., Path and 
 Goal: A Discussion on the Elements of Civilisation and the 
 Conditions of Happiness [with a translation of the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes] (London, 1880). Kleinert, Dr. P.. Der Prediger 
 Salomo, Uebersetzung, sprachliche Bemerkungen τι. Erorter- 
 ungen zum Verstandniss (Berlin, 1864). ποεῖ August, 
 Commentar iiber das Buch Koheleth (Leipzig, 1836). 
 Leathes, Prof. Stanley, see n. on p. 114. Lewis, Prof. 
 Tayler (see under Zockler). Luther, Martin, German Ver- 
 sion of the Bible; Exeg. Opera Latina cura Irmischer 
 et Schmidt, vol. xxi. (Erlang., 1858), Ecclesiastes cum an- 
 notat. Meyer, ἢ. H. Comm. Exegetica in Koh. xi. 1-6 
 (Heilbronn, 1803). Perowne, J. J. S., Dean of Peterborough, 
 Articles in “The Expositor” for 1879. Plumptre, E. ΗΠ, 
 Dean of Wells, Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, with Notes 
 and Introduction (Cambridge, 1881), see p. 133. Poli, 
 Matthei, Synopsis Criticorum (London, 1699-1674). Preston, 
 Theodore, Ecclesiastes, Hebrew Text and a Latin Version, 
 with original Notes philol. and exeget. and a Transl. of the 
 Comm. of Mendelssohn (London, 1845). Renan, Ernest, 
 L’Ecclésiaste traduit de l’Hébreu avec une Etude sur l’age 
 . et le caractére du livre (Paris, 1882). Rosenmiiller, E. F. C, 
 Scholia in Vet. Test., Koheleth and Cant. (Lipsiz, 1830). 
 Schiffer, Dr. Bernhard, Neue Untersuchungen iiber das Buch 
 Koheleth (Freiburg in Breisgau, 1870). S¢dhelin, J. 7... Spe- 
 cielle Einleitung in die kanon, Biicher des A.T. (Elberfeld, 
 1862). Strack,.Prof. H. L., Einleitung in das A.T., in the 
 Handbuch der theolog. Wissenschaften (Nérdlingen, 1882). 
 See General Index. Taylor, Dr. C, The Dirge of Coheleth in 
 Eccl, xii., discussed and literally interpreted (London, 1874). 
 See General Index. Tyler, Thomas, M.A., Some New Evidence 
 as to the Date of Ecclesiastes (London, 1872) ; Ecclesiastes : 
 A Contribution to its Interpretation, with Introd., Exeget. 
 
L[utroduction. XVIL 
 
 Analysis and Transl., with Notes (Lond., 1874). Uwmbreit, 
 F. W. Ο, Koheleth’s des weisen Konigs Seelenkampf, oder 
 philos. Betrachtungen iiber das héchste Gut (Gotha, 1818) ; 
 Coheleth Scepticus de summo bono : Comment. philos.-critica 
 (Gottingee, 1820). Vazhinger, 7. G. Der Prediger und das 
 Hohelied (Stuttgart, 1848). Wordsworth, Bishop, Holy Bible 
 in the Auth. Version with Notes and Introd.: Proverbs, 
 Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon (Lond., 1872). Wara- 
 law, Ralph, D.D., Lectures on the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 (Edin., 1821). Waonzer, J. F., Comm. de Koh, xi. 9—xii. 7. 
 Three parts (Leipzig, 1818, 1819). Young, Rev. Loyal, D.D., 
 A Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (Philadelphia, 
 1865). Zzrkel, G., Untersuchungen iiber den Prediger nebst 
 kritischen und philolog. Bemerkungen (Wiirzburg, 1792). 
 Zockler, Prof. Otto, Das Hohelied ἃ. der Prediger, theolo- 
 gisch-homiletisch bearbeitet in Lange’s Bibelwerk (Bielefeld 
 and Leipzig, 1868); American edition, with annotations, 
 dissertations, etc., by Prof. Tayler Lewis, LL.D., of Schenec- 
 tady, N.Y. (Edin., 1872). 
 
 The General Index will show the books which have been 
 consulted on questions affecting the text, and on other sub- 
 jects. It is only here necessary to observe that, alongside of 
 Field’s splendid edition of Origen’s Herapla (Oxon. 1875), 
 which has been used for the Greek versions, I have used 
 Nestle’s (E.) Vet. Test. Graec. Codd. Vat. et Sin. cum textu 
 recepto collati, Lee’s edition of the Syriac Peschitto, and for 
 the Targum, Walton’s Polyglott, along with de Lagarde’s 
 edition of the same (Hagiographa Chaldaice, Lipsiz, 1873). 
 
 On questions of Hebrew Grammar I have uniformly 
 referred to the last and most valuable edition of Gesenzus’s 
 Heb. Grammatik, the 23rd “vielfach verbesserte τι. vermehrte 
 Auflage,” edited by Kautzsch (Leipzig, 1881), though in al- 
 most all cases the references can be verified in the earlier 
 editions. It has been necessary occasionally to refer to 
 
XVIil I[utroduction. 
 
 Gesenius’s Lehrgebidiude der Heb. Sprache (1817). Side by 
 side with Kautzsch’s edition of Gesenius (noted as Ges.- 
 Kautzsch), references have been given to Kalisch’s Hebrew 
 Grammar (London, 1862, 1863),—the sections numbered 
 with Arabic numerals refer to the first vol. those in 
 Roman numerals to the second,—and also to Ewald’s 
 Ausfihrl. Lehrbuch, 8th edit. (Gottingen, 1870). English 
 students have now the inestimable advantage of possessing 
 an excellent translation of the more important part of Ewald’s 
 great work in the edition of Ewald’s Syntax of the Hebrew 
 Language of the Old Test, translated from the 8th German 
 edition, by James Kennedy, B.D. (Edinb, T. & T. Clark, 
 1879), to which reference can be made without difficulty. 
 I have also used Olshausen’s Lehrbuch der Heb. Sprache 
 (Braunschweig, 1861), Philippi’s sagacious work on the Wesen 
 und Ursprung des Stat. Constructus in Hebriiischen (Weimar, 
 1871), and more especially Driver's (5. R., now Regius Pro- 
 fessor of Hebrew at Oxford) most instructive Treatise on the 
 Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 2nd edit., 1881. I would gladly 
 have made much more frequent reference to these works had 
 space permitted, and if grammatical commentaries were more 
 popular in England. But it is to be feared that such notes 
 as are here appended, while they increase the bulk of the 
 volume, may considerably lessen its sale. Bottcher’s Ausfiihrl, 
 Lehrbuch, edited by Miihlau (Leipzig, 1866, 1868), has neces- 
 sarily often been referred to, as well as the two most recent 
 works on Hebrew grammar, namely, Stade’s (Professor 
 Bernhard, of the University of Giessen) Lehrbuch der Heb. 
 Grammatik, Erster Theil (Leipzig, 1879), and Prof. Dr. 
 Friedrich E. Ké6nig’s Historischkritisches Lehrgebiude der 
 feb. Sprache, Erste Halfte (Leipzig, 1881), both original 
 works well worthy of careful study. 
 
 For the Babylonian Talmud I have generally used the 
 very convenient edition of the same in 25 quarto vols. recently 
 
Introduction. ΧΙΧ 
 
 completed in Warsaw (Sussman τι. Wolf Jabez), the pagi- 
 nation of which coincides with the earlier editions. For the 
 Jerusalem Talmud I have employed the folio edition issued 
 in Krotoschin in 1865. The text of the Midrash Rabboth 
 has been cited from the Warsaw edition printed by Gold- 
 man in 1867. I need scarcely say that I have availed 
 myself of the valuable work of Dr. Aug. Wiinsche, £70- 
 liotheca Rabbinica: Eine Sammlung alter Midraschim sum 
 ersten Male in Deutsche tibertragen, a work which, though 
 defective in some particulars, is not to be judged as a whole 
 by the portion on the Midrash Koheleth, which is its 
 weakest part, and which no doubt will be greatly improved 
 when a second edition is called for. 
 
 I have to apologise for the want of uniformity in the 
 transliteration of Hebrew words and proper names in my 
 work. It has partly arisen from the fact that I had not 
 the advantage of being able to revise the work as a whole 
 before sending it to press. The duties of my clerical profes- 
 sion,—largely increased by the present state of things in 
 Ireland,—which have entailed upon me weekly often five 
 or six sermons or addresses, besides the work of pastoral 
 visitation in a very large and populous town district, the 
 building of large schools connected with my parish, opened 
 only a month ago; all these, and many other duties also, 
 involving incessant interruptions, have rendered it exceedingly 
 difficult to execute a work of this kind, requiring such con- 
 stant care. Possibly at some future time I may have an 
 opportunity of devoting my main energies to Old Testament 
 studies. Meanwhile, under circumstances of considerable 
 difficulty, I have endeavoured in this, as in my previous 
 commentaries, to help forward the important work of Old 
 Testament criticism which has been for a long time sadly 
 neglected in our country. 
 
 With regard to the translation given on pp. 280-304 of 
 
5 Introduction. 
 
 this work, it may be well here to observe that a few notes 
 have been added in thin brackets. It has been my en- 
 deavour there to give the results of modern criticism. In 
 reply to the charge, often recklessly preferred, of “ needlessly 
 departing” from our Authorized Version, I would refer to 
 Ὁ ix. of the preface of my Bampton Lectures. In every 
 attempt to translate faithfully the work of an ancient 
 author the ruggedness of the original must occasionally 
 reflect itself in the translation. The headings assigned to 
 the various sections of the Book of Koheleth will, it is 
 hoped, be useful ; while a general synopsis of the subjects 
 touched on by the Sacred Writer can be obtained from the 
 “contents” on pp. xxii. xxiii, The explanation of several 
 technical words employed in this work may be obtained by 
 the help of the Index. 
 
 I have in conclusion to acknowledge my warmest thanks 
 to my dear friend, Professor Dr. Franz Delitzsch of the ~ 
 University of Leipzig, for most kindly revising the proof- 
 sheets of this work while passing through the press. Several 
 valuable remarks of his have been embodied in the notes. I 
 have also to acknowledge with grateful thanks the readiness 
 with which Professor Dr. H. L. Strack of the University of 
 Berlin undertook the same kind service, and the important 
 help I have in many places received from him. The respon- 
 sibility of the work is, however, solely and entirely my own. 
 Professor Dr. William Wright, of Cambridge, has kindly 
 given me the benefit of his opinion on many points, though 
 unable to undertake as a whole the revision of the proof- 
 sheets. Mr. R. L. Bensly of Caius and Gonville College, 
 Cambridge, has afforded me much assistance in the correction 
 of the proofs, as has also Rev. T. J. Corr, M.A., Ex-S.T.C.D., 
 Curate of the Magdalen Church, Belfast. 
 
 ANTRIM ROAD, BELFAST, 
 feb. 20th, 1883. 
 
ΟΝ ΤΌΝ 5: 
 Ἐπ τ τς: -. 
 
 GHAPTER. I. 
 
 THE ADMISSION OF THE BOOK OF KOHEIETH INTO THE CANON 
 OF THE JEWISH CHURCH . : : : 
 
 CHAPTER, ΤΙ: 
 
 Tue ΒΟΟΚ oF KOHELETH AND THE BOOK OF JESUS THE SON 
 OF SIRACH . - : : 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 THE BOOK OF WISDOM AND THE BOOK OF KOHELETH 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH. . ᾿ 
 
 ν CHAPTER ν. 
 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH (continued) - 
 
 )/CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH AND THAT OF 
 SCHOPENHAUER AND VON HARTMANN 
 
 Supplementary Note on Buddhism ‘ : : : : 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH, ESPECIALLY IN 
 RELATION TO A FUTURE STATE AND THE CHARACTER 
 OF WOMEN, CONTRASTED WITH MODERN PESSIMISM 
 
 \/CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Tue. CLOSING SECTION OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH— THE 
 Days oF LIFE AND THE DAYS OF DEATH 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Qo 
 
 55 
 
 79 
 
 109 
 
 141 
 182 
 
 187 
 
XXil Contents. 
 PAGE 
 THE BOOK OF KOHELETH: A NEW TRANSLATION, ARRANGED 
 IN SECTIONS, WITH A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COM- 
 MENTARY :— 
 Preliminary Note on the title Koheleth : : - 27,0 
 The Jewish Division of the Book ἐ ; : : > 205 
 THE NEW TRANSLATION : : . 283-304 
 § 1. The absolute vanity of everything earthly Bate 
 phenomena like a circle with no real progress » 283 
 
 . Koheleth’s first discovery—The vanity of wisdom . 284 
 
 im 
 NO 
 
 § 3. Koheleth’s second discovery—The vanity of pleasure 
 and riches : ἐ ι i Ἵ ; : . ΖΘ 
 
 § 4. Koheleth’s third discovery— 
 (a) The vanity of wisdom, since the end of the 
 
 wise man and the fool is alike . ‘ 285 
 (2) Riches, though obtained by much toil, are 
 
 vanity . : . 286 
 (c) The conditions necessary a ‘chescial enjoy- 
 
 ment . ; ; : Ἶ ς : a she 
 
 § 5. The short-sightedness and powerlessness of men 
 before God, the Disposer and Arranger of all things 287 
 
 § 6. The unrighteous actions of men when left to them- 
 
 selves—Men compared to the beasts that perish . 288 
 § 7. The misery common to man— 
 (a) The oppression of man by his fellow. . 290 
 (6) The rivalry and useless toil of man ; 5209 
 § 8. The disadvantages of a man being alone by himself, 
 and the benefit of companionship . : : - 200 
 § 9. The vanity of popular enthusiasm for a new monarch 290 
 § το. Vanity in religion—Divine worship, and vows . SezOd 
 § 11. The vanity of riches (4) in a state under despotic 
 
 rule ; (4) riches are little advantage in themselves, 
 and (c) are gathered for others. - : . 220% 
 
 § 12. The ultimatum—The vanity of possessing riches 
 without enjoying them . : : : ; . 205 
 § 13. The insatiability of desire. 4 ὃ : : “205 
 
 § 14. Human powerlessness and short-sightedness with 
 respect to destiny . : 2 . 4 - «Ὁ 205 
 
 § 15. Proverbs concerning things to be preferred by man. 294 
 
 an —— 
 
Contents. XXIll 
 
 ὃ 16. Patience and wisdom the best preservatives in the eG 
 time of oppression and adversity . 204 
 § 17. The importance of keeping “the middle mean,” and 
 the practical advantages of wisdom 295 
 § 18. The snare by which men are generally caught— The 
 wicked woman 295 
 § 19. The benefit of wisdom in days of oppression—The 
 wise man will be obedient and patient, knowing 
 that there is a God who judgeth the earth 296 
 § 20. Man knows not the work of God, but is in all things 
 conditioned by a higher power than his own, which 
 permits the same things to happen to all alike 297 
 § 21. The fate that awaits all, the state of the dead—Men 
 ought therefore to enjoy life, while working for 
 their daily bread—The uncertainties of life, and 
 the certainty of death in an unexpected time 298 
 § 22. The poor wise man, and the benefits of wisdom 299 
 § 23. The usefulness of wisdom and the danger of folly, 
 shown by various proverbs 299 
 § 24. The fool noted for his useless talk and aimless toil . 300 
 § 25. The misery of a land cursed with a foolish king, and 
 the necessity of prudence in the subjects of such 
 a monarch ἧ : 301 
 § 26. Thewisdom of beneficence—The future belongs to 
 God, but man ought to labour and enjoy life while 
 he can . 301 
 § 27. The Song of ae σεις τς - Life and the 
 Days of Death : : : ἘΝ Ὁ 2 
 § 28. The Epilogue 303 
 GRAMMATICAL AND CRITICAL COMMENTARY 305-448 
 APPENDIX :— 
 Excursus 1. The statements of the Talmud with respect to 
 the Old Testament Canon in general, and specially in 
 reference to the Hagiographa 451 
 § 1. The Tradition as to the Canon 451 
 § 2. The Threefold Division of the Jewish Sern 458 
 § 3. The Aboth of R. Nathan . : : : : 2465 
 § 4. The Book of Ben Sira 467 
 § 5. The Book of Koheleth 469 
 
ΧΧΙ Vv Contents. 
 
 FE-xcursus 11. On the Talmudic statement that “the Holy 
 Scriptures defile the hands” : 
 E-xcursus III. “The Men of the Great ἜΤ ΝΕ, ᾿ 
 Excursus \V. ὃ τ. Grammatical peculiarities of the Book δ 
 Koheleth 
 § 2. Glossary of ebien donde) phaeeet and forts 
 peculiar to the Book of Koheleth 
 
 INDEX OF TEXTS ILLUSTRATED 
 
 GENERAL INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 470 
 475 
 
 488 
 490 
 
 501 
 
 506 
 
4ι. 
 56. 
 
 343. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Line 7 from bottom, add a comma before “‘ cod. B.” 
 Line 7 of note read 4). 
 
 Line 10 from bottom read ‘‘ synonym for wisdom.” 
 Last line read ἐς fact!” for ‘‘ fact 1.” 
 
 Line 18 add a comma after ‘‘ godliness.” 
 
 Line 9 delete comma after ‘‘ soon.” 
 
 Line 15 from bottom read “ taught” for ‘‘ thought.” 
 Line 16 read ‘‘ Isa.” for ‘‘ Jer.” 
 
 οσ- aj) & “ΞΕ 
 Line 13 from bottom read ds SI pee ΛΩΝ and 8551) 
 Line 7 from top remove comma before ‘‘ instances.” 
 Line 9 from bottom read ‘‘ whose head he ts.” 
 Line 9 x read **12” in place of ‘*13. 
 Line 8 ae read ‘*‘ Nah. for ‘*‘ Neh.” 
 Line 5 add ‘‘ 13” at beginning of line. 
 Line 14 read OPTS 
 Line 5 read ‘‘ Sirach (xii. 13).” 
 
 ” 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 Notice additional remarks on Sirach xii. 13, on p. 426. 
 
 Line 1 of notes, add: See a paper by Prof. J. E. B. Mayor, upon the 
 history of the phrase ‘‘the four cardinal virtues,” in the Transactions 
 of the Cambridge Philological Society, vol. i. p. 96. 
 
 On chap. iii. 11, notice additional remark on p. 437. 
 
CHARTER FE 
 
 THE ADMISSION OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH INTO 
 i THE CANON OF THE JEWISH CHURCH. 
 
CHAPTER ea. 
 
 The tradition of the Talmud, 3—Hezekiah and his religious reforms, 3—His 
 college of scribes, 4—Succeeded by the men of the Great Synagogue, 5—Their 
 work with respect to the Canon, 5—Views of Kuenen and Robertson Smith as 
 to the legendary character of that tradition, 6—Summary of their leading argu- 
 ments, 7—Arguments in favour of its historical truth, 8—The testimonies of 
 the Talmud, 9—The early difficulties felt with regard to the Book of Ecclesi- 
 astes, 12—These difficulties, according to tradition, solved by the men of the 
 Great Synagogue, 11, 13—The later contests with respect to Ecclesiastes 
 between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, 14—The book admitted into the 
 Canon previous to that controversy, 1 5—Explanation of the point in dispute, 
 16—‘‘ The Holy Scriptures defile the hands,” 16—The canonicity of the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes, 18—The Herodian theory of Professor Graetz, 1g—The Book 
 of Ecclesiastes quoted as canonical in the interview between Herod the Great 
 and Ben Biita, 19g—And in the discussion respecting the Messianic age between 
 Gamaliel and his disciple, 22 ff.—Probabilities in favour of that disciple having 
 been St. Paul, 22, 24, note—The Book of Ecclesiastes prior to the Herodian 
 era, 24—The Antilegomena of the Old and New Testament Canons, 26, 
 
me) BOOK OF KOHELETH, 
 
 IN RELATION TO MODERN CRITICISM AND 
 MODERN PESSIMISM. 
 
 CHAPTER. I. 
 
 THE ADMISSION OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH INTO THE 
 CANON OF THE JEWISH CIIURCH. 
 
 “MOSES received the law from Sinai, and delivered it to 
 Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the 
 prophets, and the prophets to the men of the Great Syna- 
 gogue.” Such are the opening words of the remarkable 
 treatise of the Talmud, entitled Massecheth Aboth, “the 
 Sayings of the Fathers,” often termed Pirke Aboth, or “the 
 Chapters of the Fathers.” The Prophets and the men of 
 the Great Synagogue were, according to the Talmudic tradi- 
 tion, important links in the line of succession, not only of the 
 Law, but also of the other Sacred Writings of the Jews. 
 
 In the latter days of the Jewish monarchy, Hezekiah was 
 remarkable for the extent and boldness of his) religious 
 reforms. He restored the true religion of Jahayeh, the pre- 
 cepts and ritual of which had been disregardéd in the dark 
 days of Ahaz, and suppressed the open practice of idolatry 
 throughout the land. But while he brake down the carved 
 
 and molten images erected in every place, and aecording to qa 
 
 νννυνννυν 
 
4 The Men of King Hezekiah. 
 
 the Jewish tradition! destroyed the books of sorcery and 
 incantations then current among the people, he also mani- 
 fested the utmost concern in all matters connected with the 
 preservation of the Sacred Writings of the nation. For this 
 purpose, as may be inferred from Proverbs xxv. 1, he organ- 
 ized a special company of learned men interested in the 
 study of that ancient literature. They busied themselves in 
 collecting from all sides the Sacred Writings then extant, 
 and in multiplying copies of those books. Under their 
 superintendence a considerable number of the proverbs of 
 Solomon, not previously included in the Book of Proverbs, 
 were rescued from oblivion and added to the original collec- 
 tion. On account of such labours Hezekiah has been justly 
 styled by a great modern critic and expositor, “the Pisis- 
 tratus of Israelitish Literature.” ? 
 
 This important company, or College of Scribes, entitled ‘in 
 the Proverbs, “the men of Hezekiah king of Judah” (inas- 
 much as the society was originally founded by that monarch), 
 continued to exist as a Jewish institution for several centuries. 
 It may have lasted, under some form or other, down to and 
 during the period of the exile. According to the Talmud, 
 
 1 According to the traditions mentioned in Berach. 104, and Pesach. 56a, 
 Hezekiah ‘‘ hid a Book of Remedies” (ΠῚ 5 15D 134), or, according to the 
 
 Jer. Sanhedr. I. 18d, “ἃ Table of Remedies” (MINID7 9 MP3), in order 
 that the people might seek to God in sickness for recovery, and not look to the 
 physicians (2 Chron. xvi. 12). The old remedies for disease probably consisted 
 in great part of incantations. Vid. Gideon Brecher, Das Transcendentales, 
 Magie u. magische Heilarten im Talmud, Wien, 1850; D. Joel, Der Aberglaube 
 und die Stellung des Fudenthums zu demselben, 1 Heft, Breslau, 1881. Dukes, in 
 the introduction to his Radb. Blumenlese, however, notes that the remarks of Ben 
 Sira in honour of physicians (in Sirach xxxviii. 1 ff) were intended to counteract 
 the prejudice against the use of medicines, probably based on a mistaken view 
 of Exodus xv. 26. Ben Sira, however, also urges on the sick at the same time 
 the duty of prayer (Sirach xxxyiii. 9, 10). The recommendation of St. James 
 (ν. 14, 15), which urges prayer combined with the use of the best known remedies 
 (such as the anointing with oil, Luke xi. 34) seems directly or indirectly to have 
 been based on the maxim of Ben Sira; see chap. ii. p. 49. 
 2 See Delitzsch’s Comm. tiber das Salomonische Spruchbuch, in loco. 
 
Their Work and Period of their Activity. 5 
 
 “ Hezekiah and his college wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of 
 Songs and Koheleth” (Baba Bathra, 15@).! This statement 
 is not to be regarded as a stupid anachronism. The fact that 
 Hezekiah died previous to Isaiah was not forgotten, and the 
 word “wrote” was probably used in the sense of “ copied out 
 and edited.” For the College of Hezekiah continued in exist- 
 ence for centuries after the death of that monarch. “The 
 men of Hezekiah” appear to have employed themselves in 
 editing correct copies of the Sacred Writings, and while doing 
 so to have occasionally, as in the case of the Book of Pro- 
 verbs, added new matter to the old.? It is highly probable 
 that this body decided from time to time what books were 
 to be regarded as of Divine authority. Fiirst estimates the 
 period of its activity as extending from B.C. 724, when Heze- 
 kiah ascended the throne of Judah, to 8.6. 444, when Nehe- 
 miah became governor of Judea. ‘The men of Hezekiah” 
 no doubt included in their number some of the “former 
 prophets” (Zech. i. 4) and others known afterwards as “the 
 latter prophets.” Hence that company may, perhaps, be 
 referred to in the passage quoted from the Treatise Aboth, 
 under the general term of “the Prophets.” 
 
 According to the tradition referred to, “the men of the 
 Great Synagogue” in later days discharged the functions 
 performed in earlier times by “the men of Hezekiah.” The 
 establishment of the Great Synagogue is generally ascribed 
 to Ezra. The accounts given of its origin and acts cannot, 
 indeed, in all points be relied on as historically correct. Part 
 of the work said to have been accomplished by the mem- 
 bers of this body is thus described by Rashi: ‘“ The men 
 
 1 See Excursus on the Talmud and the Old Testament Canon. 
 
 2 Ewald considers it probable that nine Psalms contained in the first book of 
 the Psalms (Ps. i-xli.), namely, Psalms vi., xiii., xv., xx., xxi., Xxili., xxvil., XXx., 
 xli., may have been out of a collection arranged by Hezekiah. See Ewald’s Gesch., 
 vol. iii. p. 654 [vol. iv. p. 198 of the English translation by J. Estlin Carpenter], 
 etc. ; Fiirst’s Bz6/. Lit., vol. ii. p. 369. 
 
6 Tre Men of the Great Synagogue. 
 
 of the Great Synagogue, namely, Haggai, Zechariah and 
 Malachi, seeing that Ezekiel and Daniel had died during the 
 Babylonian Exile, and that the books of the twelve minor 
 Prophets, as also the history of Esther, were of small size, 
 wrote out these anew from the books of the exile and formed 
 the twelve into one book, in order that the single books 
 might not be lost on account of their small size, and thus 
 Esther and the four other books, Ruth, Koheleth, Song of 
 Songs, and Lamentations, were united together. But they did 
 so because they knew that after them the prophetic spirit would 
 depart from Israel.” See his Comm. on Baba Bathra, 15 a. 
 
 Kuenen has, indeed, ably maiitained that the whole story 
 of “the men of the Great Synagogue,” and of their work in 
 reference to the Canon of the Old Testament, is a legend 
 utterly devoid of any real historical truth.1 Professor Robert- 
 son Smith has adopted the same view, and regards Kuenen’s 
 arguments as conclusive. It has, in his opinion, “been 
 proved in the clearest manner that the origin of the legend 
 of the Great Synagogue is derived from the account given 
 in Nehemiah viii. ix. of the great convocation which met at 
 Jerusalem and subscribed the covenant to observe the Law. 
 It was, therefore, a meeting and not a permanent authority. 
 It met once for all, and everything that is told about it, 
 except what we read in Nehemiah, is pure fable of the later 
 Jews.” 2 
 
 Such a conclusion is, however, not justified by the facts 
 of the case. It is true indeed that much of that which 
 tradition asserts to have been performed by “the men of the 
 Great Synagogue” proves, when carefully examined into, to 
 be merely a repetition with legendary accompaniments of 
 
 1 A. Kuenen, Over de Mannen der Groote Synagoge.—Verslagen en Mededeelingen 
 der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Tweede 
 Reeks. Zesde Deel. Tweede Stuk. 1876. 
 
 ? See his work on Zhe Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 156-7, and his 
 
 note, pp. 408-9. 
 
Arguments against the Tradition. | 
 
 facts recorded in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which 
 occurred in connexion with the great assembly of the Jews 
 at Jerusalem after the Return from Babylon. But this is just 
 what might have been expected. Ezra, Nehemiah and the 
 prophets of that day are constantly spoken of as belonging to 
 “the men of the Great Synagogue.” Hence it is natural that 
 what was done by Ezra and his fellows, or performed in con- 
 sequence of their directions, should be spoken of in later times 
 as performed by “the men of the Great Synagogue.” It does 
 not, therefore, surprise us to find that even the acts and 
 sayings of the chief men of the families who returned from 
 Babylon should be referred to as acts and decrees of “the 
 men of the Great Synagogue.” Many things ascribed to the 
 latter body turn out on investigation to have actually occur- 
 red in the great assembly of the Jewish people recorded in 
 the Book of Nehemiah. But this fact in itself is not sufficient 
 to justify the assertion that all that is said respecting the 
 existence of such a governing body in the Jewish Church of 
 that age ought to be set aside as entirely legendary. The 
 silence of the Apocryphal books, as well as of Josephus and 
 Philo, with respect to “the men of the Great Synagogue,” is 
 neither strange nor remarkable. It is well known that the Jew- 
 ish annals from the death of Nehemiah (circa B.c. 415) down 
 to B.C. 175 are almost a complete blank. ‘The writers of the 
 Apocryphal books had no occasion at all to refer to the acts 
 of “the men of the Great Synagogue,” and Josephus appears 
 to have been almost totally devoid of information with respect 
 to the Jewish annals during the period referred to. That 
 writer has, indeed, been clever enough to prevent this gap 
 in his history from being perceived by ordinary readers. 
 Although he may have been fully aware of the existence of 
 such a body as “the men of the Great Synagogue,” and may 
 have often heard of the difficulties which that body felt with 
 respect to certain books of the Canon, such facts were scarcely 
 
8 Lhe Earliest References to their Work. 
 
 those which Josephus would have cared to record in his | 
 Antiquities when he had no further incidents to adduce which 
 bore on the history of the period in question. In writing 
 against Apion, Josephus had every reason to pass over such 
 facts in silence. His silence, too, is not so inexcusable; as 
 the facts known to us, while not really opposed to the 
 conclusions at which he arrived, would readily have placed 
 convenient weapons in the hands of an unscrupulous anta- 
 gonist. 
 
 It must not be forgotten that the earliest references to 
 the existence of such a body, namely, those in the Treatise 
 Aboth, are entirely free from those legendary accretions of 
 later days on which Krochmal and Kuenen rely in support 
 of their hypothesis. The last man of distinction who, accord- 
 ing to tradition, was a member of that body previous to its 
 final dissolution, lived at least two centuries prior to the 
 Christian era. 
 
 Many of the acts of “the men of the Great Synagogue” 
 referred to in the Talmuds cannot, indeed, in the exact form - 
 in which they are there related, be regarded as historically 
 true. The very numbers mentioned in connexion with that 
 body (85 at one time and 120 at another) are curious trans- 
 formations of the narrative of Nehemiah. The formule of 
 prayer said to have been drawn up by them, and the epithets 
 which they are said to have directed to be made use of in 
 addressing the Almighty, are but echoes of the self-same 
 narrative ; while other works ascribed to them, such as the 
 well-known “corrections of the scribes” in certain passages 
 of the Sacred Writings (the DDD Pp), are generally ac- 
 knowledged to have been the work of the “scribes” of a 
 much later era. 
 
 But, though we are not prepared to endorse as indubitable 
 
 ‘See my Bampton Lectures on Zechariah and his Prophecies, critical note on 
 Zech, 11- 12, Ρ. 541: 
 
The Members of that Body. 9 
 
 facts of history many of the statements made in reference to 
 the Old Testament canon and its authoritative settlement in 
 the days of Ezra, it is going too far in historical scepticism 
 to call in question the existence of “the men of the Great 
 Synagogue” at, or shortly after, the Restoration. There was 
 a grave necessity for the creation of some such body then 
 in connexion with the Jewish Church, a body whose special 
 business it should be to collect together and preserve the 
 Sacred Writings of the nation, to decide in.cases of doubt 
 what books were to be regarded as authoritative in matters 
 of faith and ritual as having been composed in “the spirit 
 of prophecy,” and to investigate any difficulties which might 
 be raised concerning their interpretation. 
 
 Although, according to the common tradition, Ezra, Ne- 
 hemiah, and the prophets of that period, namely, Haggai and 
 Zechariah, along with Malachi (who, however, prophesied 
 somewhat later), belonged themselves to “the men of the 
 Great Synagogue,” “the men of the Great Synagogue” are 
 in other places spoken of as a body who were the successors 
 of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. The idea 
 of Elias Levita that the whole period of “the men of the 
 Great Synagogue” did not last more than forty years is 
 utterly groundless. ! 
 
 The name of Simon the Just is mentioned in the Treatise 
 Aboth as one of the last of “the men of the Great Syna- 
 gogue.”2 This statement is not to be interpreted as if it 
 signified that Simon was one of the last survivors of the band 
 
 1 See Ginsburg’s edition of Levita’s Massoreth ha-Massoreth, p. 108, and 
 Ginsburg’s note there. 
 
 2 « Simon the Righteous (or the Just), was of the remnants of the Great Syna- 
 gogue. He used to say, on three things the world stands: on the Law (the 
 Thorah), and on the worship [or ‘on prayer’], and on the bestowal of kind- 
 nesses.” See Taylor’s (Rev. Dr., Master of St. John’s College, Camb.) notes in 
 his excellent edition of the Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, p. 26, and compare 
 Romans ix. 4. See Excursus No. 3—‘‘On the Men of the Great Synagogue,” 
 at the end of this volume. 
 
10 The Character of their Work. 
 
 of men who co-operated with Ezra in the restoration of the 
 Jewish Church, after the return from Babylon. Its meaning 
 is rather that Simon was one of the last members of that 
 Synagogue, which appears to have been finally dissolved 
 prior to the era of the Maccabees, or about that time, in some 
 way or other not mentioned in extant annals or traditions. 
 Simon is in other parts of the Talmud identified with Jaddua 
 the high priest, who, according to Josephus, went forth with 
 his fellow-priests in solemn procession to meet Alexander 
 the Great, when that conqueror, after having taken Tyre, 
 marched against Jerusalem.1 He is with greater probability 
 regarded as high priest during the reign of Ptolemy Lagus 
 from B.C. 298 to 287. Herzfeld and Holtzmann have main- 
 tained that “Simon the Just” is rather to be identified with 
 Simon II., who was high priest from B.c. 226 to B.c. 198 or 
 196.7, No very conclusive arguments can be adduced on 
 either side of this question. 
 
 The Treatise Aboth thus pithily describes in its opening 
 verse the work of “the men of the Great Synagogue.” “They 
 said three things: be deliberate in judgment ; and raise up 
 many disciples; and make a fence to the Thorah” (the Law of 
 Moses). In other words, the business of the men of the Great 
 Synagogue was to define, to teach, and to develop the Law. 
 The last clause has been well explained by Taylor as fol- 
 lows: They were “to surround the Law with a margin of 
 casuistry, to evolve the principles which underlay its words, 
 to develop and apply its decrees, accommodating them to 
 the varied requirements of the time.” 3 
 
 1 See my Bampton Lectures, pp. 224 ff. 
 
 ? See Taylor's Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, note on Simon the Just on p. 26. 
 See also Chap. II. p. 36. 
 
 3 Taylor’s Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, p. 125. It is, however, not certain 
 that this is really the true sense of the saying in Aboth i. 1. Under the term 
 *‘the Law,” not merely the Books of Moses but also the other books of the Holy 
 
 Scriptures were sometimes comprehended, and Bloch, in his Studien zur Geschichte 
 d. Sammlung der altheb. Literatur, p. 56, maintains that the sense of making a 
 
Their Deliberateness in Fudgment. II 
 
 An illustration of the sense and application of the first of 
 these “three words,” namely, “be deliberate in judgment,” is 
 afforded in the Aboth of Rabbi Nathan. “The men of Heze- 
 kiah” are there adduced as an example of persons who were 
 deliberate in judgment, in that they, after careful investiga- 
 tion, added to the original Book of Proverbs as composed by 
 Solomon many proverbs which they considered to have been 
 uttered by that king. A spirit of the opposite kind was, 
 according to it, displayed by those in the Jewish Church who 
 denied the authenticity of the Book of Proverbs, the Song 
 of Songs, and Koheleth, “ because they spoke proverbs,” and 
 also because “they were not of the Kethubim,” the third 
 great division of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the 
 Hagiographa. On such grounds certain persons “stood up 
 and declared those books apocryphal, until ‘the men of the 
 Great Synagogue’ came and interpreted them.” ! 
 
 The difficulties felt with respect to the first admission of 
 the books in question into the sacred Canon, or their con- 
 tinued retention in that Canon, were, if one can judge from 
 the statements of later days, of a rather singular character. 
 Some of the maxims contained in the Book of Proverbs 
 which relate to the ordinary matters of human life, appeared 
 too homely to have been the subjects of Divine inspiration, 
 and the existence in the same collection of proverbs appar- 
 ently of a contradictory character increased the perplexity.” 
 One of the passages in the Song of Songs which in the eyes 
 of the early critics presented peculiar difficulties, is the 
 beautiful description of the charms of nature as incentives 
 fence to the Law was to separate the books which were of Divine origin from 
 those which had merely a human source. See on the nomenclature of the books 
 of Holy Scriptures in the Talmud, our Excursus No. 1. 
 
 1 Aboth R. N. 69 a, 696. See Excursus No. 1. 
 
 2 The passages mentioned in the Aboth of R. Nathan as having presented diffi- 
 culties are Proy. vii. 7, 10-20 ; Song of Songs vii. 11, 12 ; Koh. xi. 9; Song of 
 
 Songs vii. 10. Other passages are cited in Sabbath 304. The latter are those 
 referred to above. 
 
12, Larly Difficulties as to Ecclesiastes. 
 
 . 
 
 to love (chap. vii. 12-14), a passage which causes no difficulty 
 whatever to a modern theologian. 
 
 The objections brought forward against the Book of Ko- 
 heleth or Ecclesiastes were of a graver character. They were 
 founded on the apparent contradictions met with in the book 
 itself, the alleged opposition between some of its statements 
 and others in the Psalms of David, and the countenance 
 given in parts of the work to heretical opinions. 
 
 The following were adduced as specimens of the contradic- 
 tions referred to. Koheleth affirms at one time that “sorrow 
 is better than laughter” (chap. vii. 3), while at another he 
 actually commends merriment.!. He represents Solomon as 
 in one place praising joy (chap. viii. 15), and exclaiming on 
 another occasion, “to joy, I said, what doeth it?” (chap. ii. 2) 
 In chapter iv. 2 Solomon praises “the dead which are already 
 dead,” but in chapter ix. 4 he affirms that “a living dog is 
 better than a dead lion.” Hence the Talmudic writer feels 
 himself driven to exclaim, “O Solomon, where is thy wisdom, 
 where thine intelligence? Is it not enough that many of thy 
 words contradict the statements of David thy father, unless 
 they also contradict one another ?” 
 
 Another class of difficulties arose from the apparently 
 erroneous opinions propounded in parts of the book. The 
 Midrash on Koheleth (xi. 9), states that “Rabbi Samuel bar 
 R. Isaac said: The wise (men) sought to declare the Book of 
 Koheleth apocryphal because they found in it expressions 
 which inclined to heresy. They said for instance, Is this 
 all the wisdom of Solomon when he says, Rejoice O young 
 man mm thy youth? [Although] Moses says, and go not after 
 your own heart (Num. xv. 39) Solomon says, and walk after 
 
 1 The objection in this case is based on a misunderstanding of chap. ii. 2. See 
 Excursus on the Talmud and Old Testament Canon. On the contests mentioned 
 in the Talmud with respect to various books of the Old Testament, see Prof. H. L. 
 Strack’s article on the Kanon des alten Test. in Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encyclopidie 
 SJ. protest. Theologie u. Kirche, 2te Aufl. Band viii. 1880, ῬΡ. 429, 430. 
 
 ee 
 
The Solution of these Difficulties. +. eres 
 
 o 
 
 the ways of thy heart. When the rein is let loose there is no 
 judgment nor judge. But inasmuch as he says also, but know 
 that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment, 
 they said, Solomon has spoken well.” ἢ 
 
 These and other difficulties were, however, finally adjusted 
 by comparing carefully the passages objected to with others 
 which explain or modify their meaning. The clqsing verses 
 of the book (xii. 12-14) were considered perfectly satisfactory, 
 inasmuch as a belief in the existence of a future state is there 
 clearly expressed, and the doctrine of a final retribution in 
 another world is there distinctly taught. 
 
 The genuineness of the epilogue, or the closing verses of 
 Koheleth, which, according to the traditions preserved in the 
 Talmud and Midrash, finally satisfied the “ wise men” who 
 investigated these subjects, has, indeed, been often called in 
 question by modern critics. It can, however, be satisfactorily 
 maintained on critical grounds. But a more important 
 question to be considered is the period at which this con- 
 ‘troversy actually took place. 
 
 Taking it here for granted that the Book of Koheleth 
 was received into the Canon of Scripture before the Chris- 
 tian era, these discussions could not have taken place in the 
 earlier days of “the men of the Great Synagogue.” Such 
 a controversy could not have occurred in the days of Ezra or 
 Nehemiah. The very expression made use of, namely, “to 
 declare apocryphal,” implies the existence of a literature that 
 was “apocryphal” alongside of literature which, for want of 
 a better term, must be designated as “sacred.” The Book 
 of Koheleth must have been recognised by a large number 
 as belonging to the latter class before any controversy at 
 all could have arisen on the subject. Fiirst maintains that 
 the objections brought forward against the book arose from 
 
 1 Midrash Koheleth on chap. xi. 9. See Excursus No. I. 
 
14 The Later Discussions in the Fewish Schools 
 
 the supposed countenance given by its teachings to the 
 heresies propounded by the Sadducees. Consequently, as 
 the Sadducees only came into notice after the Maccabean 
 wars, that scholar considers that “the wise men” referred to 
 were not “the men of the Great Synagogue,” but the 
 Teachers of the Law, or Tannaim, who lived in the century 
 immediately preceding the Christian era. 
 
 Inasmuch, however, as the difficulties already detailed 
 have been felt more or less by Biblical students in all ages, 
 it is probable that the tradition preserved in the Aboth of 
 R. Nathan (see p. 11), may be historically correct, and these, 
 or similar objections may have been discussed and answered 
 by “the men of the Great Synagogue” in the latter days of 
 the existence of that body. The form, however, in which 
 the objections have been cast in the Rabbinical writings is 
 certainly derived from later times. But, as other evidence 
 can be adduced to prove that the Book of Koheleth was 
 recognised as part and parcel of the Canon previous to the 
 century preceding the Christian éra, we incline to main- 
 tain the essential trustworthiness of the tradition referred 
 to. * 
 
 It has been often stated that much difference of opinion 
 prevailed on the question of the canonicity of the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes between the rival Jewish schools of Hillel and 
 Shammai. The controversy on this point is said not to have 
 been finally closed until the Synod of Jamnia, A.D. 90, when 
 the Book of Koheleth or Ecclesiastes was acknowledged 
 as one of the canonical books of the Jewish Church. Dr. 
 Samuel Davidson, in his Zutroduction to the Old Testament, 
 regards these statements as admitted historical facts, and 
 they have recently been ably defended by Professor Graetz, 
 
 ' The controversy referred to is not to be regarded as identical with that which 
 certainly took place at a much later era between the rival schools of Hillel and 
 Shammai, see next page, and Excursus No, 2. 
 
Imply the Canonzicity of Koheleth. 15 
 
 on whose authority they have obtained unquestioned accept- 
 ance in many quarters. 
 
 The facts of the case are as follows. In the Talmudic 
 treatise entitled Yadaim mention is made of a difference 
 between the schools of Hillel and Shammai as to whether the 
 Book of Koheleth was or was not included in the dictum 
 “the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.” The school of 
 Hillel maintained the affirmative of this proposition, while 
 that of Shammai upheld the negative. When the question 
 was put to the vote in B.C. 65, the school of Shammai was 
 found to be in the majority. Some twenty-five years later a 
 similar controversy agitated these schools. On the latter 
 occasion the dispute affected not only the Book of Kohe- 
 leth, but also the Song of Songs, which is not said to have 
 been alluded to in the earlier discussion. The strife was 
 brought finally to an end at a second Synod of Jamnia (A.D. 
 118), remarkable for the deposition from the patriarchal chair 
 of Gamaliel II., the renowned grandson of the great Gamaliel. 
 Seventy-two doctors of the law took part in that assembly, 
 and its decision was that both Koheleth and the Song of 
 Songs “ defile the hands.” 
 
 Graetz has maintained that this controversy was about 
 the reception of the Song of Songs and Koheleth into the 
 Canon. But the very opposite is the fact. The decisions 
 arrived at prove rather that the books in question had been 
 admitted into the Canon at an earlier period. The point of 
 dispute was not, whether these particular books were to be 
 admitted for the first time into the Canon, but rather, 
 whether, though acknowledged to be canonical, they ought 
 to be regarded as inferior to the other books of Scrip- 
 ture. For, even long after the general acceptance of certain 
 books as canonical, objections were occasionally brought 
 against their Divine inspiration. Thus Simeon ben Manasseh, 
 who was a contemporary of the editor of the Mishna, main- 
 
16 “7726 Holy Scriptures defile the hands.” 
 
 tained that the Book of Koheleth ought not to be regarded as 
 holy, its contents being not the result of Divine inspiration, 
 but the outcome of Solomon’s natural wisdom." 
 
 It is necessary here to explain the meaning of the strange 
 phrase used in this controversy, namely, that the Holy Scrip- 
 tures “defile the hands.” It has often been pointed out by 
 J. S. Bloch, Levy, and others that the reverence with which 
 the Holy Scriptures were regarded by the Jews, led to the 
 destruction of valuable manuscripts of the Sacred Books. 
 For the people often deposited copies of the Holy Scriptures 
 in the place where they kept bread and other things de- 
 signed for the use of the priests. The bread and other things 
 designed for the holy offerings were holy, and the Scriptures 
 were also holy, and hence they imagined that both ought to 
 be kept in one and the same place. Manuscripts preserved in 
 such localities were not unfrequently injured, and sometimes 
 utterly destroyed, by the attacks of mice and rats. This pro- 
 fanation of the Sacred Writings occasioned no little scandal, 
 and often involved serious pecuniary loss, books being pe- 
 culiarly valuable in that early age. To put an end to such 
 a state of things, and to prevent its recurrence at any future 
 period, a solemn ordinance was made, whereby the bread and 
 other things touched by the Holy Scriptures were declared 
 ceremonially “unclean,” and consequently unfit to be pre- 
 sented to the priests as heave-offerings. The result of this 
 regulation seems to have been most beneficial. The Sacred 
 Writings were no longer kept in larders, where they were 
 exposed to peculiar dangers, but were henceforward pre- 
 served in more fitting depositaries. 
 
 loch has clearly shown, by a quotation from another 
 Talmudic tract, that the regulation “the Holy Scriptures 
 defile the hands,” though applicable only to certain canonical 
 books, had no real bearing upon the canonicity of any book. 
 
 1 See Excursus No. 1—‘‘On the Talmud and the Old Testament Canon.” 
 
Not connected with the question of Canonicity. 17 
 
 For it is expressly stated in the Talmud that the said regu- 
 lation did not apply to the copy of the Pentateuch used by 
 the high-priest inthe temple. It is evident that it would be 
 absurd to interpret such a statement to mean that that copy 
 of the Pentateuch was to be viewed as uncanonical. The 
 reason of its special exemption from the regulation was 
 because serious inconvenience might otherwise occur, and the 
 copy used by the high-priest was not exposed to the same 
 danger of profanation as copies of the Holy Scriptures in 
 private houses.! 
 
 Moreover, in Megillah 7@ mention is made of Samuel 
 having asserted that the Book of Esther was inspired by the 
 Holy Spirit, although he is reported at the same time to have 
 affirmed that the Book of Esther did not “defile the hands,” 
 or, in other words, did not properly come under the ceremo- 
 nial regulation referred to.2, That ordinance appears to have 
 been designed at first to apply only to those sacred books 
 which were in most common use among the people, and to 
 have been by degrees extended to others. There was no 
 need, however, to apply the directions to a work which was 
 read only once a year, like the Book of Esther, or even to 
 the Book of Koheleth, which was not in such common use as 
 the others. The Samuel referred to, who lived nearly a 
 century and a half after the Synod of Jamnia, could not pos- 
 sibly have impugned the canonicity of the Book of Esther, 
 inasmuch as he himself distinctly asserted its inspiration ; 
 but he did dispute the propriety of applying to that particular 
 book the regulation agreed to by the Synod of Jamnia. 
 
 Bloch (p. 142) gives a passage from the commentary of 
 Maimonides on the Mishna (Megillah 7.4), in which he ex- 
 
 1 AYA ADD PIN OTT Ns Pops OHO 55; “6411 the books (of the 
 Sacred Scriptures) defile the hands except the book belonging to the temple.” 
 Kelim xv. 6. See Excursus No. 2, ‘‘On the Talmudic statement that the Holy 
 
 Scriptures defile the hands.” 
 2 See Excursus, as before. 
 
18 Koheleth quoted in the Talmud as Canonical. 
 
 presses himself to the same effect, namely, “ and already 
 thou knowest that the Holy Writings defile the hands, and 
 that they differ with respect to Koheleth, whether it is in 
 this particular one of the Holy Writings,”? that is, the Jewish 
 doctors differed not as to whether that book actually belonged 
 to the canonical Scriptures or no, but whether it came under 
 that special regulation. 
 
 Bloch refers also to the dispute mentioned in the Talmud, 
 between R. Joshua and Rabbi Eleazar ben Hyrkanus. 
 The latter teacher belonged to the school of Shammai, 
 and lived not long after the destruction of Jerusalem. He 
 was the pupil of Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, and the pre- 
 ceptor of R. Akiba. Both these Rabbis seem to have taken 
 a part in the Synod of Jamnia. The subject of controversy 
 on the occasion was the special sins which are punished by 
 the early death of one’s children. In the course of discussion, 
 Rabbi Joshua affirmed that only the total neglect of the Law 
 was thus punished by God, and cited Hosea iv. 6 in support 
 of his view. Rabbi Eleazar on the contrary maintained 
 that sins committed with respect to vows would jer se be 
 visited with such a punishment. He cited in defence of 
 his opinion Koh. v. 5, with the formula “as it is written,” 
 explaining the words “thy flesh” in that passage to mean 
 children.” As a disciple of the school of Shammai, he would 
 scarcely have done this, had that school denied the canonical 
 character of the Book of Koheleth. 
 
 Professor Robertson Smith is, therefore, incorrect in fol- 
 lowing Graetz so far as to assert that the Book of Ecclesi- 
 astes and the Song of Solomon “ were still controverted up to 
 the very end of the first-Christian century,” ὃ and in quoting 
 in defence of that opinion the contest between the rival 
 
 817 ON ΓΌΠΡΕ ypdnay ion AN PROD ΦΥῚΡ ΠΣ nyt say 
 
 mt PY Wp INDI 
 2 See Excursus No. 1. et Ὁ» , 
 
 3. The Old Testament in the Fewish Church, p. 172. 
 
The Story of Herod and Ben Bita. 19 
 
 schools of Shammai and Hillel. That controversy was not 
 on the question of the canonicity of those books. Whatever 
 difficulties may have been occasioned by some of the state- 
 ments of the Book of Koheleth, that book was accepted as 
 canonical, and its teachings regarded as authoritative, long 
 previous to the time assigned by Graetz for its reception into 
 the sacred canon, z.e., prior to the reign of Herod the Great, 
 who, according to that critic, is the monarch pourtrayed in 
 the book under the name of Koheleth. 
 
 That the Book of Koheleth was looked upon as Holy 
 Scripture even in the days of Herod the Great is evident 
 from the following narrative, related in the pages of the 
 Talmud (Baba Bathra, 4 4), of which we subjoin a somewhat 
 free translation, accompanied by a few introductory remarks 
 and explanations :— 
 
 In the early part of his reign Herod put to death the 
 members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, partly in revenge for the 
 insult done to him of having been once tried for his life before 
 that bedy (Foseph. Antig., xiv. 9, 4), and partly because he 
 feared their influence among the people. He, however, spared 
 Sameas (identified by some with Shimeon the son of Shatach, 
 by others, with Shemaiah, both mentioned in Aboth i. 
 g-I1), “on account of his righteousness,” and also, as we learn 
 from other sources, Baba ben Bita, a distinguished follower 
 of the school of Shammai. The latter was, however, by 
 the orders of Herod deprived of sight. Some time after, 
 Herod desired to know whether that Rabbi was hostile to 
 him on account of the loss of his eyesight, or grateful because 
 his life had been spared. Herod used often to go about 
 disguised in the garb of a private citizen, in order to ascer- 
 tain the feelings of the Jews towards himself and his govern- 
 ment (Foseph. Antig., xv. 10, 4). He accordingly visited Ben 
 Bita in disguise, and complained bitterly to him of the 
 tyrannical yoke to which the Jews were subjected. “See 
 
295. The Story of Herod and Ben Pitta. 
 
 master,” said the subtle monarch, “ what this wretched slave 
 is doing.” “And what can I do to him?” was the reply of 
 the Jew. “Curse him, master,” rejoined his visitor. “Curse 
 not the king, no, not in thy thought,” said Ben Buta, quoting 
 the words of Koheleth (x. 20). “But he is no king,” urged 
 the stranger. “And if he were only a rich man,” replied 
 the Rabbi, “it is also written, ‘curse not the rich in thy bed- 
 chamber,’” citing the concluding words of the same passage 
 (x. 20): “yea, if he were only a ruler, it is written, ‘Curse 
 not the ruler of thy people’” (Exod. xxii. 27, E.V. ver. 28). 
 “True,” rejoined the crafty inquirer, “if he acts according to 
 the practice (religious customs) of thy people, but that fellow 
 does not act according to the practice of thy people.” “I 
 am afraid of him,” exclaimed Ben Bita. “There is no one 
 here,” urged the king, “to go and tell it to him, for I and 
 thou are here alone.” “It is written,” rejoined Ben Bita, 
 quoting again from the same passage in the Book of Kohe- 
 leth, “the birds of the heaven shall carry the voice, and 
 that which hath wings shall tell the matter.” “I am he,” 
 exclaimed Herod, struck with admiration at the caution of 
 the Rabbi, “and if I had known that the Rabbis were so pru- 
 dent, I should not have put them to death. But now, what 
 reparation can I make?” “Let him,” answered Ben Buta, 
 “who has extinguished the light of the world,—for it is 
 written, ‘the commandment is a lamp and the Law a light’ 
 (Prov. vi. 23),—go and busy himself about the light of the 
 world [that is, let him rebuild the temple], for it is written, 
 ‘and all nations shall flow unto it’ (Isa. ii. 2).” 
 
 Herod hesitated for a little, and pleaded as an excuse 
 the peculiar position in which he stood to the Roman power. 
 He consented, however, at last after due consideration to do 
 so, in order to win over the Jewish Rabbis to his side. 
 
 ' Bloch also observes (Ursprung u. Entstehungszeit d. Koheleth, p. 143) that on 
 the occasion of another controversy between two teachers of the. law respecting 
 
Evidence of Gamaliel the First. 21 
 
 Although this narrative may at first sight strike one as 
 somewhat legendary, it appears on a closer examination 
 worthy of credence. The conduct of Herod in the story 
 corresponds with other facts recorded by Josephus. In later 
 times, as Bloch observes, the Jews were wont frequently to 
 discuss the question whether Ben Bata was justified in having 
 given Herod this advice, but no one ever called in question 
 the truth of the narrative. 
 
 If the story be true, it is a proof that the Book of Koheleth 
 was cited in the days of Herod the Great as of co-ordinate 
 authority with the Law of Moses; and even if its historical 
 truth be questioned, it is clear from the foregoing and from 
 other passages that the compilers of the Talmud had not the 
 faintest conception that the Book of Koheleth sprang into 
 existence in the days of Herod the Great. 
 
 Bloch has called attention to another narrative of the 
 Talmud which in some respects is even more interesting, and 
 which is found in Shabbath, 304. We think it well to give 
 the passage at more length than Bloch has done in his in- 
 teresting treatise. Gamaliel, the grandson of the celebrated 
 Hillel, and, like his grandfather, President of the Jewish 
 Sanhedrin, flourished about a.D. 44.1 He is remarkable 
 
 the shape of the world and the movements of the sun, which those Rabbis 
 naturally thought could be most certainly proved from expressions of the Holy 
 Scriptures, Koheleth i. 5 was the verse round which the whole discussion 
 turned. See Baba Bathra, 254, compare also Erub. 404, Mishn. Succ. ii. 
 5, Chag. i. 2. Nor are these the only instances which could be cited of 
 cases in which even the most ancient and renowned Jewish divines referred to the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes as canonical Scripture. See Excursus, No. 1. 
 
 1 Gamaliel died about eighteen years before the destruction of the temple. 
 There is a Christian legend that he became a secret convert to Christianity. A 
 grave of St. Gamaliel is pointed out at Pisa. His father is mentioned in Shabb. 15a 
 as having had the name of Simeon. Nothing more is known of him. In Aboth 
 i. 16 a saying of Gamaliel is preserved: ‘‘ Make to thyself a master, and be quit 
 of doubt ; and tithe not much by estimation.” Leusden (as quoted by Strack in 
 his handy edition of Die Spriiche der Vater mit kurzer Einl., Anmerk., und einem 
 Wortregister: Leipzig, Reuther, 1882) explains the last clause: ‘* Ne dato szpius 
 decimas ex conjectura, vel minus dando vel plus. Si minus dederis, avarus judi- 
 
22 Gamaliel on Prophetic Interpretation. 
 
 among other things as having been the teacher of the Apostle 
 Paul (Acts xxii. 3), and as having given the notable advice to 
 the Jewish council, when Peter and the other apostles were 
 brought before that august assembly, “ Refrain from these 
 men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be 
 of men, it will be overthrown ; but if it is of God, ye will not 
 be able to overthrow them ; lest haply ye be found even to 
 be fighting against God” (Acts v. 38, 39). 
 
 Though Gamaliel gave such advice to the Sanhedrin, he 
 soon found that it was impossible to ignore altogether the 
 remarkable progress of the Christian Church. He appears 
 to have set himself to oppose the spread of Christian ideas 
 among Jewish students, by arguing that the statements in 
 the prophets concerning the Messiah and the dispensation 
 to be brought in by him were totally different from those 
 advanced by the new school which acknowledged Jesus of 
 Nazareth to be the Messiah sent from God. In pursuing this 
 line of argument, he laid great stress upon the literal inter- 
 pretation of the prophecies, which, if it had been maintained 
 in all cases, would have been fatal to the new views so 
 widely disseminated among the people. 
 
 The following narrative occurs in the Talmud (Shabbath, 
 30 4). We have introduced explanatory remarks into our 
 translation in order to show more clearly the drift of the 
 argument. Bloch considers, but the matter is incapable 
 of positive proof, that the anonymous disciple of Gamaliel, 
 contemptuously referred to as “that disciple,’ was none 
 other than Gamaliel’s most celebrated pupil, the great 
 Apostle Paul. 
 
 caberis et peccabis ; plus dando vel prodigus habeberis vel hypocrita.” Taylor 
 explains the whole saying : ‘‘ Let duties be defined as far as possible by rule ; let 
 doubts be resolved by authority ; leave as little scope as possible for personal bias 
 and the temptations of self-interest.” 
 
 1 It is, however, quite possible. But the expression syobn JNA, on which Bloch 
 seems to lay stress, is so often used in an indefinite manner in the Talmud, that 
 
Narrative of Gamatiel and his Disciple. 55 
 
 Rabban Gamaliel was sitting one day explaining to his 
 disciples, that in the Messianic age it would come to pass that 
 “the curse pronounced in Paradise on woman would be re- 
 moved, and that a woman would be able to bear a child every 
 day. In proof of this he quoted the words of Jeremiah 
 xxxi. 8: “She travails and brings forth at once.” That 
 disciple, laughing at this, said, “ Rabbi it is written ‘there is 
 nothing new under the sun’” (Koh. i. 9). Gamaliel said to 
 him, “Come, and I will show you instances, even in this 
 world” (or in this dispensation). He went out and showed 
 his opponent hens which lay eggs ‘every day. By this 
 example Gamaliel sought to prove that there was nothing 
 absolutely novel in the opinion propounded, for that some- 
 thing analogous might be observed even in the present 
 dispensation. Another day the Rabbi was sitting and ex- 
 plaining to his pupils that in the new dispensation the trees 
 would bear fruit every day, in accordance with the prophecy 
 of Ezekiel (xvii. 23), “and it shall bring forth boughs and 
 bear fruit,” that is even as a tree shall produce boughs every 
 day, so it shall likewise bear fruit. That disciple, laughing 
 at this, said, “ Rabbi, it is written, ‘there is no new thing 
 under the sun.” Gamaliel quickly replied, ‘Come, and I 
 will show instances in this world,” (or in this dispensation). 
 He went out and pointed out to him the caperberry which 
 bears fruit and leaves at all seasons of the year. Again, 
 as Gamaliel was sitting and teaching his disciples that the 
 land of Israel in the Messianic age would produce cakes 
 and clothes of the finest wool, for it is written “there shall 
 
 it can scarcely be pressed. It is remarkable, however, that a Rabbi like Bloch 
 should take this view. Though the narrative in the Talmud intends to represent 
 Gamaliel as the victor in the controversy, one can easily see how hardly he was 
 pushed, and the judgment of modern readers, we fancy, will be in favour of the 
 disciple rather than of the great master. Bloch’s opinion on this point is 
 quoted with approbation by David Cohen (Kahana) in his Rabb. Hebrew Com- 
 mentary on Koheleth, printed in Wilna, L. L. Maz, 1881. See more in the note 
 on p. 25. 
 
24 The Importance of Gamalhel’s Argument. 
 
 be an abundance of corn! in the earth” (Ps. xxii. 16) ; 
 that disciple, laughing, said, “ Rabbi, and it is also written 
 ‘there is nothing new under the sun,’” (Koh. i. 9). Gamaliel 
 replied, “Come, and I will show thee instances of what I 
 mean even in this dispensation.” He went out and showed 
 him cakes, mushrooms and funguses (which spring up rapidly, 
 and are round like cakes of bread), and clothes of Milesian 
 wool, and the fine bark which surrounds the soft twigs of 
 the date-palm.? 
 
 Gamaliel thus seems to have endeavoured to prove that 
 it was quite possible that the predictions of the prophets 
 might be literally fulfilled without anything taking place 
 which could not be more or less paralleled by processes 
 which are even now observable in nature. We have, indeed, 
 no sympathy with the views of the great Rabbi on this 
 head, though they show a great deal of ingenuity; but his 
 arguments may be profitably commended to the attention 
 of those would-be expositors of prophecy in the present day, 
 who so constantly exhibit a longing after the marvellous 
 and after so-called literal interpretations of Scripture. 
 
 The importance of this story, which is narrated in the 
 Talmud as one of several practical illustrations of the precept, 
 “answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his 
 own conceit” (Prov. xxvi. 5),3 is, so far as our present 
 
 1 There is a connexion falsely assumed here between 3 NDS (in Ps. 
 Ixxii. 16), and the word DB which occurs in the phrase D°DS NIND (Gen. xxxvii. 
 3,233; 2 Sam. xiii. 18,19). The Talmud assumes that DB hada plural niDb; 
 Compare Kimchi in his Dictionary. Of course there is no real connexion between 
 the words. 
 
 5. It is difficult to comprehend the full meaning of this passage. The true reading of 
 the last sentence seems to be SYP 72.8722 ΠΟΥ "051 NywA|L PAD Mxpords, 
 instead of ND Y2IN1- See Rabbinowicz, Band vii., in loco. 
 
 ® Immediately following this narrative there occurs the story illustrative of the 
 patience of Hillel, quoted by Delitzsch in his valuable tract, Fesus und Hillel, 
 mit Ricksicht auf Renan und Geiger, verglichen von Franz Delitesch (316 Aufl. 
 Erlangen, 1879). The anecdote is also quoted by F. W. Farrar, in his Life of 
 Christ, vol. ii. Appendix. See also Strack’s article on αὐ in Herzog-Plitt’s 
 
The Citation from Koheleth. 25 
 
 purposes are concerned, that it tends strongly to disprove 
 the novel theory that the Book of Ecclesiastes was a pro- 
 duction of the Herodian age. Had this been the case, 
 Gamaliel need not have given himself any trouble to refute, 
 by far-fetched illustrations, his refractory disciple, inasmuch 
 as the entire force of the latter's argument rested on the 
 assumption of the canonicity of the Book of Koheleth.' 
 
 Real-Encyclopidie, 2te Aufl. Band vi. 1880, where he points out the incorrect- 
 ness of the wild assertions of Geiger and others as to our Lord’s teaching being 
 founded on that of Hillel. 
 
 1 These stories of the Talmud, though probably embellished by later additions, 
 may be justly regarded as resting in the main on a real historical basis. 
 They often preserve valuable incidents concerning individuals as well as much 
 that is illustrative of the life and manners of very early days.—In his Studien 
 zur Geschichte der Sammlung der αἰλεῦ. Literatur, p. 154 ff. Bloch defends the 
 narrative given above at greater length than in his Ursprung und Entstehungs- 
 zeit des Kohelet. He considers that it is an historical fragment of undoubted 
 antiquity. The style in which it is composed differs materially from that of the 
 treatise in which it is embedded, and certain peculiar forms of expression in the 
 narrative are indicative of a high antiquity. In his later work Bloch maintains 
 even more clearly than in his earlier, that Gamaliel was controverting the idea that 
 the Messianic prophecies were accomplished in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 That distinguished Jewish Rabbi argued that a Redeemer could not have atoned 
 for the sins of the world, and have left in full force the penalty pronounced in 
 Paradise upon man for his disobedience. Not only the guilt of sin, but the effects 
 of sin were, according to him, to be done away with in the Messianic days. In 
 that era in place of the ‘ great pain and peril of childbirth,” which was the curse 
 pronounced on the weaker sex, women would bring forth children without pain 
 and without long expectation ; fruitful trees would take the place of the thorns 
 and briers; and man, in place of being forced to ‘‘eat bread in the sweat of 
 his face,” would have his food provided by the bounteous earth ready for use. 
 Such were the views propounded by Gamaliel. Christianity had not realized such 
 expectations, and consequently, according to him, Jesus was not the Messiah. 
 Hard pressed by his obstinate pupil, who urged again and again that all such 
 ideas were contrary to the written word in Eccl. i. 4, Gamaliel maintained that 
 there was no opposition whatever between his views and the teaching of the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes, inasmuch as even a superficial examination of nature showed that 
 the fulfilment of his expectations would require nothing absolutely new; for 
 although the world has, in consequence of man’s sin, been thrown into confusion, 
 facts of a similar character can be actually pees out even under the present 
 constitution of nature. 
 
 Bloch still maintains that the pupil who so pertinaciously opposed the great 
 Jewish master was in all probability the Apostle Paul. In defence of this 
 view he argues: (1) That that disciple must have been a well-known individual. 
 The expressions used concerning him indicate that he must have been one 
 
26 Difficuities zn certain Books of the Old Testament. 
 
 It is not surprising that peculiar difficulties should have 
 been felt even at that early day to exist with respect to 
 certain books of the Old Testament, though long recognised 
 as forming part and parcel of the sacred Canon, nor that 
 attempts should have been made to exclude them from the 
 Canon. These difficulties seem, however, to have been at 
 that time fairly examined and discussed again and again 
 by men versed in Sacred Scripture. No attempt appears 
 to have been then made to stifle discussion on such points 
 by any a priori theory of inspiration. Some of the learned 
 Jewish Rabbis had no doubt higher views of “inspiration” 
 than others of their class. But no dogmatic utterance on 
 the question of inspiration was promulgated by the Jewish 
 Church, The precedent is worthy of imitation by all 
 Christian Churches, The Canon of Old Testament Scrip- 
 ture, like the Canon of the New, had, as Delitzsch has justly 
 observed, also its antilegomena. Certain books in the Old 
 Testament Canon, long after that canon had been closed, were 
 from time to time objected to, not only by the assailants, 
 but also by many avowed defenders of revelation. “These 
 books. were opposed because their contents were regarded 
 as “militating against the truth of revelation and the 
 
 who had achieved a certain fame and popularity. (2) That he was no stranger 
 to the Pharisees, but one who belonged to their school, although opposed to 
 many of their views and disposed to ridicule the same. He was evidently one 
 who was not loved by them, as is shown by the suppression of his name. The 
 name of Jesus is in a similar manner suppressed in the Talmud, though there is 
 much there spoken against him. ‘* Recollections of a painful character,”’ were, 
 notes Bloch, “ connected with the name ” of the anonymous disciple, ‘*‘ which the 
 Talmud, according to its usual custom, did not wish to revive.” (3) The pupil in 
 question was himself a disciple of Gamaliel. (4) The answer of Gamaliel contains 
 a vigorous onslaught on Christianity, and his style of argument shows that the 
 discussion affected him not a little. His opponent was one who held very different 
 views concerning the Messianic dispensation. ‘‘In a word,” says this dis- 
 tinguished Jewish writer of the present day, ‘‘we have brought before us in the 
 narrative of the Talmud, a very well known disputant on the side of Christianity, 
 
 well acquainted with the Rabbinical mode of argumentation, therefore, no other 
 than the fiery and zealous Apostle Paul.” 
 
The Difficulties Solved. 27 
 
 spiritual character of revealed religion.” Those difficulties 
 were, however, after careful examination shown to be capable 
 of a fair explanation, and both the scholars who attacked 
 the books referred to, and the Doctors of the Law who 
 defended them, jointly agreed, after full and repeated dis- 
 cussion, to recognise their Divine authority and to maintain 
 their canonicity. 
 
τὴ 
 
CHAPTER ΤΙ 
 
 THE BOOK OF KOHELETH AND THE BOOK OF JESUS 
 THE SON OF SIRACH. 
 
CHARTER 11. 
 
 Testimony borne to the Book of Ecclesiastes by the Book of Jesus the Son of 
 Sirach, 31—The author of the latter work, 31—Ecclesiasticus translated from 
 a Hebrew original, 32—Fragments extant in Hebrew and Chaldee, 32—Its 
 use of the LXX., translation, 33, 38—The first note of time in the prologue, 
 namely, “‘Euergetes the king,” 34—The second note of time, the eulogium on 
 Simon the high-priest, 36—The two high-priests of the name of Simon, 36— 
 No decisive conclusion possible, 383—Ben Sira’s reference to the Canon, 39— 
 Graetz’s attempt to invalidate this testimony, 4o—Use made by Ben Sira of 
 the Book of Koheleth, 41—Ben Sira’s additions to old proverbs, 46, 48 note. 
 —References in the Talmud to Ben Sira’s work, 46, 47—Sometimes referred to 
 as if canonical, 47—Explanation of that fact, 43—New Testament allusions to 
 Ben Sira, 48, 41—His work that of a Palestinian Jew, 48—The LXX. version 
 of the Book of Koheleth, 49—Its peculiarities, 50, 51—Traces of the influence 
 of Aquila on the present LXX. text, 50—Origen a witness to the existence of a 
 LXX. translation of Ecclesiastes, 507—The importance of this fact in relation 
 to the theory of Graetz, 51. 
 
CHAPTER: I. 
 
 THE BOOK OF KOHELETH AND THE BOOK OF JESUS THE 
 SON OF SIRACH. 
 
 THE silence of the New Testament and of the early Fathers 
 of the Church with respect to the Book of Koheleth is, as 
 Graetz fully admits, no argument in favour of the late date 
 of this book. That scholar, however, maintains that this 
 silence proves that a dislike to the book prevailed in the 
 Christian Church as well as in the Jewish Synagogue. In- 
 asmuch, however, as he has brought forward no evidence in 
 support of this latter dictum, it may be passed over without | 
 any formal discussion. 
 
 Satisfactory evidence, however, is afforded of the existence 
 of the Book of Koheleth at least two, if not three centuries 
 before the Christian era. That evidence is contained in 
 the Book of Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, more 
 commonly known by the title of Ecclesiasticus, a title the 
 meaning of which is still a subject of dispute. The full 
 name of the writer of that remarkable book of proverbs and 
 wise sayings appears to have been Joshua ben Sira ben 
 Eliezer, or Ben Sira (δ Ὁ }2) as he is called by the Rabbinical 
 writers. We shall speak of him under the latter designation. 
 
 The reference to the Jewish Scriptures in the prologue of 
 Ecclesiasticus, when viewed in connexion with the statements 
 
 1 The fact of his grandfather's name being Eliezer rests only upon the reading 
 of the Alex. and other MSS. in chap. 1. 27, where that name is inserted 
 before the word ‘IepocoAvutrys. But the authority for this reading is doubtful. 
 See Fritzsche in the Kurzgef. exeget. Hand). zu den A [pokryph. 
 
 31 
 
22 Lcclesiasticus translated from the Flebrew. 
 
 on the subject found in the literature of a later period, goes 
 far to prove that the Book of Koheleth had been admitted 
 into the Canon long before the time of Ben Sira’s grand- 
 father. The Greek text of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son 
 of Sirach is avowedly a translation from a Hebrew original. 
 More than forty verses of that Hebrew original have for- 
 tunately been preserved in the Babylonian or Jerusalem 
 Talmuds; a few are also to be found in other early Rab- 
 binical writings. Some sayings ascribed to Ben Sira are 
 extant only in Chaldee, others in both Hebrew and Chaldee. 
 By far the greater number of the verses extant in Hebrew 
 and cited by Delitzsch (in his Geschichte der jiidischen 
 Poesie), or inserted in the larger collection of Ben Sira’s 
 Hebrew and Chaldee proverbs (in Dukes’ Radbdinische 
 Llumentese), may be easily identified with passages which 
 occur in the Greek version.1 
 
 Though there is reason to doubt the genuineness of all 
 these sayings of Ben Sira, most of the Hebrew proverbs 
 ascribed to him, and not a few of those in Chaldee, must 
 be regarded as genuine. The Greek version executed by 
 Ben Sira was by no means a simple translation, but rather 
 a working-up of the old materials left by his grandfather, 
 with a considerable number of new aphorisms. 
 
 The Book of Ecclesiasticus is supposed by Dr. Pusey and 
 others to have been composed as early as the latter part 
 of the third century before Christ. The majority of the 
 critics of the present day consider, however, that it cannot 
 be assigned to an earlier date than the second century before 
 Christ. For the earliest date assigned by tradition to the 
 
 ' The following are the verses extant in Hebrew: chaps. iii. 21 ; vi. 63 vii. 
 10; ix. 8, 9; ix. 10; xi. 13 xii. 4, 5; xiii. 15 (xxvii. 9); xiii. 25} Χιν. Ε1, ty) 2 
 XVill. 23 5 XXV. 3, 45 XXV. 17; xxvi. I, 3; ΧΧΗ 12 (14) 5 xxx. 22, 23; ΧΧΧΙΙΪ. 
 20, 24 ; xxxvii. 17 ; xxxviii. I ; xxxviii. 4, 8; xl. 30; ΧΙ. 9, 10. Some of these, 
 however, assume a somewhat different form in the Hebrew from that in which 
 they appear in the Greek, 
 
Use made by Ben Sira of the LXX. Version. 33 
 
 Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, commonly known 
 as the LXX. version, is the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus 
 (B.C. 283-247). Reference is made in the prologue of Ben 
 Sira’s work to a translation of the Jewish Scriptures into 
 Greek as then in existence, and the allusion is of such a 
 nature as to leave the impression on the readers mind 
 that it was even at that period no recent innovation. The 
 proverbs of Ben Sira, moreover, afford evidence not to be 
 gainsayed of an intimate acquaintance on the part of the 
 editor with the LXX. translation,! and that fact has been 
 regarded by some as inconsistent with the hypothesis of 
 the early composition of the work. 
 
 It must, however, be remembered that the earliest date 
 assigned to Ben Sira’s Greek edition of his grandfather’s 
 work is B.C. 237-211; and if the correct explanation of the 
 title commonly given to the Greek translation, namely, the 
 version of the LXX., be that that translation,—though it 
 afterwards fell into disfavour,?—received the formal sanction 
 of the Jewish Sanhedrin of the day (for no one, of course, 
 credits the story told by Aristeas of the seventy translators), 
 it is quite possible for Ben Sira to have made use of it even 
 SOuedkiynas, B.C 237-211. 
 
 The account given by Ben Sira in his prologue with regard 
 
 1 Fritzsche (Zindeitung, p. xxii.) compares in proof of this, chap. ii. 2 with the 
 LXX. version of Deut. xxxii. 36; chap. xx. 29 with Deut. xvi. 19; chap. 
 xxxvi. 29 with Gen. ii. 18; chap. xliv. 16, 17, 19, 21 with Gen. v. 24, vi. 9, 
 xvii. 4, xxii. 18; chap. xlv. 12 with Exod. xxviii. 36; chap. xlix. 7 with Jer. 
 i. 10, and notes that in chap. xlv. it is plain from a comparison of the references 
 there made to the Book of Exodus that the LXX. translation of the passages 
 in question formed ‘the model which Ben Sira followed. As examples of this 
 he adduces words or phrases, such as περισκελῆ, ἔργον ποικιλτοῦ, λογεῖον κρίσεως. 
 Moreover, certain phraseology had been introduced into popular use from the 
 Greek translation which preceded Ben Sira, and the mode of writing Hebrew 
 names in Greek had become fixed, so that even errors were perpetuated without 
 any attempt to alter them. Bissell also, in his excellent work on the dfocrypha 
 of the O.7., gives additional instances. See his introd. to Eccles. p. 277. 
 
 2 See note, p. 38. 
 
 D 
 
:4 Two Kings of Egypt surnamed Euergetes. 
 
 to the time when he visited Egypt is unfortunately obscure. 
 His words may be interpreted to mean that he visited Egypt 
 when he was thirty-eight years of age, ‘‘when Euergetes was 
 king.” But they have been also interpreted to mean that 
 he visited Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of 
 Euergetes. If the latter translation could be proved to be 
 correct, the actual date of the book could be approximately 
 ascertained. Able scholars, however, differ as to the correct: 
 translation of the clause, and very confident assertions have 
 been made on both sides of the question.1 Two of the mon- 
 archs of Egypt bore the title of Euergetes, or Benefactor. 
 The first was Ptolemy III., who was justly designated a bene- 
 factor of the people. He reigned from B.C. 247 to 222, and 
 during his reign Egypt was prosperous and flourishing. The 
 second monarch known by that title was Ptolemy VIL, nick- 
 named Physcon, or the Fat, who was noted for his immorality 
 and cruelty. He assumed the title of Euergetes, misnomer 
 
 1 The Greek phrase in the prologue ἐν yap τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ 
 τοῦ Evepyérov βασιλέως is obscurely rendered in the A.V. ‘‘for in the eight 
 and thirtieth year coming into Egypt when Euergetes was king.” Fritzsche 
 translates: ‘‘ coming into Egypt in the eight and thirtieth year of king Euergetes.” 
 Professor Westcott of Cambridge, in his article on Lcclestasticus in Smith’s 
 Dictionary of the Bible, remarks in a note that ‘‘it is strange that any doubt should 
 have been raised about the meaning of the words, which caz only be, that the 
 translator ‘in his thirty-eighth year came to Egypt during the reign of Euergetes ἢ ; 
 though it is impossible now to give any explanation of the specification of his age. 
 The translations of Eichhorn and several others, ‘in the thirty-eighth year of the 
 reign of Euergetes,’ is absolutely at variance with the grammatical structure of the 
 sentence.” Many instances, however, of this very same construction actually 
 occur in the LXX. translation of Haggai and Zechariah, e.g, ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ ἔτει ἐπὶ 
 Δαρείου λυ αν, ὉΠ 9 Ξ), Hagg. i. 1, ii. 1; Zech. i. 7, vii. 1, etc., and it is 
 quite possible that one so thoroughly acquainted with the LXX. translation as 
 Ben Sira was, would imitate its renderings, even if Dr. Pusey (Daniel the Prophet, 
 Pp: 301, 302, and note) be correct in maintaining that the rendering of the passages 
 in Haggai and Zechariah ‘‘is no natural translation, not the way in which a 
 Hebrew would think in Greek, and so not a Hellenistic idiom, but a mere 
 rendering of one man.” Dr. Pusey refers to 1 Macc. xiii. 42, xiv. 27, to prove 
 that the idiom implies a concurrent date, but the examples referred to tell quite in 
 the opposite direction, Bissell well remarks : ‘‘ The grammatical point of West- 
 cott, upon which Winer [De utriusgue Siracide etate (Erlangen, 1832) ; and Bidl. 
 
What ts meant by the Thirty-etghth Year. 35 
 
 though it was, with the royal diadem in B.c. 170. Though 
 he did not obtain real possession of the throne of Egypt 
 until the death of his brother Ptolemy VI., or Philometor, in 
 B.C. 146, he yet termed that year the twenty-fifth of his 
 reign, thus dating his reign back from the year in which he 
 had first assumed the royal title’ Hence Ben Sira might 
 well speak of the thirty-eighth year of Euergetes IL., although 
 that monarch’s actual reign over Egypt did not extend to 
 more than twenty-nine years. in facewon, thet fact that 
 Ptolemy VII. actually assumed the title of Euergetes, we can 
 attach little importance to the argument of Dr. Pusey, that 
 a pious Jew would not have referred to a blood-stained 
 monarch like Physcon by the title of Euergetes. It would 
 probably have been dangerous for Ben Sira to have applied 
 any other title to the then reigning monarch. It must not 
 be forgotten that the expressions used in his prayer at the 
 close of his book, prove that he himself was once in imminent 
 
 Realwérterbuch, ed. v.] also insists is not proved. Winer says, if the thirty-eighth 
 year of the reign of Euergetes were meant, the Greek would not have been émi τῷ 
 ὀγδοῷ etc., but ἐν... ἔτει τῷ ἐπὶ τοῦ Evepyérov. But the passages from the 
 LXX. cited by Stanley [fewiskh Church, vol. iii. p. 266, namely, those mentioned 
 above, with the two passages from I Macc.], and others adduced by Abbot in his 
 note in the American edition of Smith's Bible Dictionary, have a direct bearing 
 on the question ; and, if allowed the full weight that belongs to them in a gram- 
 matical point of view, they approach the binding force of a rule. Hence the 
 opinion that Euergetes I., who reigned but twenty-five years (B.C. 247-222), is not 
 meant, but that Euergetes II., Physcon, is meant, who reigned jointly with his 
 brother twenty-five years (B.C. 170-145) and alone twenty-nine years (B.C. 145-116), 
 must be accepted as probable.” 
 
 1 This strange fact is proved beyond dispute. Fritzsche refers in proof of it 
 to Lepsius’ Kénigsbuch der alt. Aegypter, 1858, Synopt. Taf. p. 9, and quotes the 
 following passage from Porphyrius (in Euseb. Chron. ed. Aucher, vol. i. p. 240) : 
 μετακληθεὶς ἐκ Κυρήνης ὁ Εὐεργέτης καὶ βασιλεὺς ἀναγορευθεὶς τὰ ἔτη αὐτοῦ ἀναγράφει, 
 ἀφ᾽ οὗ πρῶτον βασιλεὺς ἐνομίσθη, ὡς δοκεῖν μετὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τελευτὴν ἄρξαντα 
 αὐτὸν ἔτεσιν εἴκοσι πέντε ἀνατιθέναι ἑαυτῷ τέσσαρα καὶ πεντήκοντα. Td γὰρ 
 τριακοστὸν ἕκτον Φιλομήτορος δέον προσαγορεύεσθαι τῆς τούτου βασιλείας, πρῶτος 
 αὐτὸς εἰκοστὸν πέμπτον προσέταξε γράφεσθαι, καὶ οὕτως ἀμφοτέρων μὲν ἑξήκοντα 
 τέσσαρα, τοῦ μὲν Φιλομήτορος λέ, τὰ δὲ ὑπολειπόμενα τοῦ Εὐεργέτου. Ἢ δὲ ὑπο- 
 διαίρεσις ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος ποιεῖ πλάνην. 
 
26 The two High Priests named Simon. 
 
 peril on account of some accusations preferred against him 
 before the king of Egypt (chap. li. 2-12). 
 
 Hence the note of time given in the prologue to the 
 book does not afford as much assistance as might have 
 been expected on the question of the date of its com- 
 position. It, however, proves clearly that the book cannot 
 have been translated much later than B.C. 120, and that 
 the date of Ben Sira’s grandfather cannot be assigned to 
 a later period than B.C. 170. 
 
 The second note of time found in the work, namely, the 
 poetical eulogium on Simon the son of Onias the high priest 
 (chap. 1. 1-21), is somewhat more decisive. The language, 
 indeed, of that glorious eulogy suggests the idea that the 
 writer is there speaking from personal recollections. Too 
 much reliance, however, cannot be placed on this argu- 
 ment, for it is of course possible that the writer took his 
 description from some poet of an earlier date, or from 
 the reminiscences of his grandfather. If there were two 
 monarchs of Egypt who bore the title of Euergetes, there 
 were also two remarkable high priests named “Simon the 
 son of Onias.” The first of these was Simon the Just, 
 spoken of in the Talmud as one of the last of “the men of 
 the Great Synagogue” (see p. 9). He probably lived in the 
 earlier days of the Grecian domination (B.C. 299-287). The 
 second was Simon II., who was high priest from B.C. 266-108. 
 Scarcely any historical incidents of the life of the latter are 
 recorded, although he appears to have been held in reputa- 
 tion among the Jews. The legend concerning him given 
 in 3 Maccabees ii. 1-24 proves this. According to it, when 
 Ptolemy Philopator was about to profane the sanctuary 
 at Jerusalem, he was, at Simon’s earnest prayer, suddenly 
 stricken down, and had to be dragged out half-dead from 
 the temple which he had just entered. The narrative of 
 3 Maccabees has, no doubt, little claim to be regarded as 
 
The Character of Simon 77. 37 
 
 historical fact, but it proves at least that the hero of such 
 a story must have been popularly regarded as a man of sanc- 
 tity. Bissell, indeed, asserts that Josephus does not give a 
 single favourable feature in his delineation of Simon II.’s 
 character, but on the contrary describes him as siding with 
 the sons of Tobias, “who were violent supporters of Hel- 
 lenism as opposed to the strict interpretation and practice of 
 the Mosaic law” (Aztig., xii. 4, δ 11). But this statement is 
 scarcely correct. Josephus nowhere gives any delineation of 
 the character of Simon II. In the passage referred to, he 
 simply states that when the elder sons of Joseph, the distin- 
 guished farmer of the taxes of Syria,—whom Josephus speaks 
 of, as “a good and magnanimous man,” ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ 
 μεγαλόφρων, Antig., xii. 4, § 10,—broke out into open hosti- 
 lity against Hyrcanus their half-brother, Simon the high 
 priest sided with them because he was nearer of kin to them 
 than to Hyrcanus. 
 
 It is, however, worthy of note that Schiirer, one of the 
 most eminent modern scholars who have investigated the 
 subject, asserts (eutest. Zeitgeschichte, p. 453) that there is 
 no doubt that Simon the Just was the high priest Simon I. 
 Fritzsche argues that Ben Sira must necessarily refer to 
 Simon II., because he speaks of “the house” as having been 
 repaired again in his days and of the temple as having been 
 fortified (chap. 1. 1-4). Tradition is silent on this point, and 
 this silence of history is, according to him, in favour of Simon 
 II. But as Bissell well notes, the silence of history tells as 
 much against Simon II. as against Simon I. He argues also 
 that history is not wholly silent. “In his wars with Demetrius, 
 Ptolemy I. Soter found it necessary at one time to leave his 
 possessions in Coele-Syria and Pheenicia, and, in doing so, in 
 order to give his opponent no advantage on account of the 
 fortified places which they contained, he caused such fortifi- 
 cations to be destroyed. This we know to have been true of 
 
38 Probable Date of the Book of Ecclestasticus. 
 
 Acco, Joppa, Gaza, and Samaria, and there is good reason 
 for supposing that it was true of Jerusalem also. Here, 
 then, would be found the needed occasion for Simon I. to 
 repair the house again and fortify the temple.” 
 
 If, however, Simon I. be the high priest alluded to in the 
 eulogy of Ben Sira, it is possible that, after all, the interpreta- 
 tion of the doubtful expression in the prologue defended by 
 Dr. Pusey and by not a few German scholars may be correct, 
 and that the book was composed in the reign of Euergetes I. 
 The use of the LXX. translation is by no means a certain 
 proof that Ben Sira’s translation of his grandfather's work 
 must have been so late as B.C. 120. The book of Ben Sira, 
 as it lies before us, is unquestionably the production of a 
 Palestinian Jew, and the translation of the LXX., though, as 
 noted before (p. 33), held at first in high esteem, was after- 
 wards looked upon as a national calamity, when the results 
 of the Hellenic influence on Jewish national life became 
 fully apparent! A Palestinian Jew, though he might write 
 in Greek for the benefit of his Greek-speaking countrymen, 
 and for others also, would scarcely, so shortly after the revolt 
 against the Grecian supremacy, allude, in the way Ben Sira 
 
 ‘ The manner in which the LXX. translation of the Pentateuch is spoken of in 
 the Babylonian Talmud (AZegi//a, 9 a), where reference is made to the legend of 
 the seventy translators, and to King Ptolemy’s command to translate the Law, is 
 highly favourable. The number seventy-two, which occurs in the text of the 
 Talmud, is a mistake (See Miiller, Sopherim, p. 13). Even certain differences of 
 ‘ reading between the LX X. and the Hebrew text are spoken of as made by Divine 
 suggestion. A similar spirit pervades the parallel place in the Jerus. Talmud, 
 though no mention is made of several points in the legend. See Frankel, Vor- 
 studien zu der Sept., pp. 25 ff. But the Masechet Sopherim, i. § 8, which speaks 
 of only five translators,—one probably for each book of the Pentateuch,—breathes 
 a different spirit. There the day in which the Greek translation was completed 
 is spoken of as a day of misfortune to Israel, like that in which the golden calf 
 was made at Horeb. The latter view, according to the opinion of Dr. Joel 
 Miller, Masechet Sopherim (Leipzig, 1878), p. 12, dates from the times of war 
 and conflict with the Greeks, when war was also waged against the language of 
 the foe. See also Biesenthal’s remarks in his Zrostschreiben des A dostels Paulus an 
 die Hebrier (Leipzig, 1878), pp. 60 ff. 
 
The References in Ben Sira to the Canon. 30 
 
 has done, to a translation which had caused so much offence. 
 An Alexandrian Jew would, of course, have no difficulty in 
 this matter. 
 
 All such arguments are, however, not only inconclusive but 
 specially liable to be fallacious, and hence we are disposed to 
 accept, provisionally at least, the general conclusion arrived 
 at by modern scholars, namely, that Ben Sira’s work was 
 executed about B.C. 120; the date of his grandfather, accord- 
 ing to this, cannot have been later than B.c. 170. If then 
 evidence can be adduced to show that the original author, or 
 his translator, was acquainted with the Book of Koheleth, the 
 latter work must have been in existence at least two cen- 
 turies before the Christian era. And, if it can be shown that 
 Ben Sira speaks of a canon of Scripture, and no proof can 
 be adduced that that canon received additions at a later 
 period, the conclusion is rendered more certain that the Book 
 of Koheleth formed part of the Jewish Scriptures prior to 
 the Maccabean era. 
 
 In the prologue to his work Ben Sira refers to the triple 
 division of the Jewish Scriptures not only as well-known to 
 himself, but also as in use in the days of his grandfather 
 Jesus. Short as that prologue is, it contains no less than 
 three distinct references to this fact. It begins with the 
 clause: “ Whereas many and great things have been delivered 
 to us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others who have 
 followed after them.” Next Ben Sira remarks, “ My grand- 
 father Jesus, having given himself up more and more to the 
 reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other Books 
 of our fathers, and having obtained sufficient experience in 
 those, was drawn on to write something himself.” And 
 finally he observes that not only his own translation of his 
 grandfather's work, “but even the Law itself and the Pro- 
 phecies and the remainder of the books, have no small differ- 
 ence when recited in their own language,” in which last 
 
40 The Canon closed before the time of Ben Szra. 
 
 clause distinct reference is made to the Greek translation of 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 . These allusions to the Jewish Scriptures as forming one 
 great whole sub-divided into three parts, the Law, the Pro- 
 phets, and the Writings, are just as clear as our Lord's 
 allusion to the same fact in Luke xxiv. 44. Such references 
 are not, indeed, sufficient evidence to prove that all the 
 books included in the third division of the Jewish Scriptures 
 in later times were actually contained in the canon as it 
 existed in the days of Ben Sira. Nor do they altogether 
 exclude the possibility that the Canon of Scripture in that 
 early day may have contained some books which at a later 
 date were not permitted to retain their place in it. 
 
 But, in order to render such hypotheses at all probable, 
 evidence must first be adduced to prove that new books were 
 actually added to the number of the Sacred Writings subse- 
 quently to the time of Ben Sira, or at least that the canon 
 was altered in. some way or other. No such evidence, how- 
 ever, has yet been discovered. Considerable controversy, no 
 doubt, arose at a later period on the question whether certain 
 books ought not to be excluded from the number of the 
 Sacred Scriptures, the argument put forward for such ex- 
 clusion being that they did not bear the impress of Divine 
 inspiration. But the fact of such discussions having taken 
 place actually proves that the special books objected to 
 were regarded as “ canonical” at that time. 
 
 Graetz admits that the prologue to Ben Sira’s work proves 
 that the “Canon” of the Prophets was already closed. But 
 he maintains that its language indicates plainly enough 
 that the third division of the Scriptures was not then re- 
 garded as completed; inasmuch as that division, designated 
 in later times by the name of “the Writings” (21ND), or 
 Hagiographa, had then no special name. It is sufficient 
 
 ' See pp. 15 ff, and Excursus No. 2. 
 
Ben Siva an imitator of Koheleth. 41 
 
 here to observe in reply, that the order and arrangement of 
 the Sacred Books were not always the same. Such books as 
 Ruth and Lamentations, ete., which in later times were placed 
 in the Hagiographa, are said, though this is doubtful,! to 
 have been in earlier days classed among the Prophetical 
 Writings. The third division of the Sacred Writings re- 
 ceived no fixed appellation for centuries later, a fact abun- 
 dantly proved by the references to that division in 2 Macca- 
 bees, in the New Testament, in the writings of Josephus, and 
 even in the traditions of the Talmuds.? 
 
 In addition to the general testimony borne in the prologue 
 to the Jewish Canon as a whole, the work of Ben Sira con- 
 tains not a few passages which show beyond all reasonable 
 doubt that the writer was well acquainted with the Book of 
 Koheleth. It may indeed be affirmed that it is as easy to 
 maintain that the author of the Book of Koheleth borrowed 
 ideas from the Book of Ben Sira. But the latter work is 
 confessedly the work of a compiler, while the Book of Kohe- 
 leth is, as is generally acknowledged, “marked by an almost | 
 exceptional originality” (Plumptre). 
 
 An examination of a few of the aphorisms found in the 
 Book of Ecclesiasticus will be sufficient to show that Ben 
 Sira in many passages imitated Koheleth. 
 
 Little importance must, indeed, be attached to resemblances 
 such as that which exists between aphorisms like, “ Who will 
 Ια πὶ charmer that is bitten by 8. serpent’> (Sir. xii. 13), 
 and “ Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment ” 
 ἀπ τὴ But the expression used in Sir. xii. 25, “The 
 heart of man changeth his countenance,” is certainly akin 
 to that in Koh. viii. 1, “A man’s wisdom makes his face to 
 shine, and the coarseness of his face shall be changed.” The 
 
 1 See Strack on the Kanon des alt. Test. in Herzog-Plitt’s Real-Encyclopadie, 
 
 Ρ. 433- 
 2 See Excursus No. r—On the Talmud and the Old Test. Canon. 
 
4 Ben Sira’s imitations of Koheleth. 
 
 two passages appear even more nearly related when com- 
 pared, as is possible in this case, in the original Hebrew. 
 The question asked in Sir. xix. 16, in reference to the undue 
 notice often taken of careless or angry expressions: “ There 
 is one that slippeth in his speech, but not from his heart; and 
 who is he that hath not offended with his tongue?” may well 
 be compared with the remark of Koheleth, “ There is not a 
 just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not;” which 
 observation, it must not be forgotten, is immediately followed 
 by the precept, “take no heed unto all words that are spoken, 
 for oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself 
 hast cursed others” (Koh. vii. 20-22). St. James seems to 
 refer to the aphorism of Ben Sira in a remark which he 
 makes to the same effect, namely, “in many things we all 
 offend,” or “stumble,” in words (James iii. 2). 1 
 
 Ben Sira observes (xx. 6, 7) that “ There is one that keeps 
 silence, knowing there is a time” (καιρός) ze. for silence. 
 “A wise man will keep silence until the time (ἕως καιροῦ) ; 
 but the braggart and the fool passes over a time” (καιρόν). 
 These are observations evidently founded on the teaghing 
 of Koh. iii. 7, who speaks of a “time to keep silence and 
 a time to speak” (καιρὸς τοῦ σιγᾶν καὶ καιρὸς τοῦ Nadeiv— 
 LXX.). On the fool and his propensity for talking Ben Sira 
 also says, “ The lips of talkers will be telling such things as 
 pertain not unto them; but the words of such as have under- 
 standing are weighed in the balance” (xxi. 25, 26). Com- 
 pare with this Koheleth’s sayings (x. 2, 3), “A wise man’s 
 heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left; yea 
 also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom 
 faileth him, and he saith to every man that he is a fool ;” 
 and (verses 12, 13) “The words of a wise man’s mouth are 
 
 ' It is worthy of notice that the Epistles of the two “ brethren” of our Lord, 
 
 James and Jude, are full of references to current Jewish traditions, and to writings 
 not canonical. 
 
Ben Sira’s tmitations of Koheleth. 43 
 
 gracious, but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself... The 
 beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness; and the 
 end of his talk is mischievous madness.” 
 
 In Sir. xxvii. 26 we read, “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall 
 therein ; and he that setteth a trap shall be taken therein.” 
 This is nearly identical with Koh. x. 8, “ He that diggeth a 
 pit shall fall into it ; and, whoso breaketh a hedge, a serpent 
 shall bite him.” But, forasmuch as the same thought is found 
 in Prov. xxvi. 27, “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein; and 
 he that rolleth a stone, it shall return upon him” (also in 
 Ps. vii. 15), we cannot consider such passages as conclusive 
 proofs of an acquaintance on the part of Ben Sira with the 
 Book of Koheleth. A number of other passages may be 
 accounted for by the fact that parallels are to be found in 
 other books of Scripture, such as the Proverbs, Psalms and 
 Prophets. Hence we do not adduce such texts as Sir. ix. 3 ; 
 ἘΠ 3 RVI 28; CX, 19..6 (Ὁ. 
 
 The maxim “Make not much babbling (or rather “re- 
 peat not thy words ”) when thou prayest ” (Sir. vii. 14),—an 
 injunction which is also given by our Lord in a somewhat 
 modified form in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vi. 7),—is 
 most probably founded on the directions given by Koheleth 
 (chap. v. I, in A.V. chap. v. 2) with respect to prayer, “let 
 thy words be few.” Similarly, the warning of Ben Sira with 
 respect to vows is so evidently based on Koh. v. 3, that it is 
 impossible to believe that the two passages can be independent 
 of one another. “Let nothing,” says Ben Sira, “ hinder thee 
 to pay thy vow in due time, and defer not till death to be 
 justified (by the performance then of vows made long before). 
 Before thou prayest (rather, “before thou vowest,” for the 
 original Hebrew of this maxim, which is fortunately pre- 
 served, proves that the latter is the correct interpretation of 
 the Greek phrase!) prepare thyself (Heb. “thy vows”), and be 
 
 1 Sir. xviii. 232. The verse preceding is, ‘‘ Let nothing hinder thee to pay thy 
 
44. . Ben Sira’s tmitations of Koheleth. 
 
 not as a man that tempts the Lord.” Similarly, the saying 
 of Ben Sira (xxi. 12), “ There is a wisdom which multiplieth 
 bitterness,” strongly reminds us of Koheleth’s statement 
 (i. 18), “In much wisdom is much grief, and he that in- 
 creaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” 
 
 Who will not at once perceive in the aphorism of Ben Sira 
 (xiv. 18) “One cometh to an end and another is born,” a 
 repetition in other words of Koh. i. 4, “One generation cometh 
 and another goeth”? In Sir. xvi. 30, “ And they (the living) 
 shall return into it (the earth) again,” there is a reappearance 
 of the thought expressed by Koheleth (iii. 20), “All are of the 
 dust, and all turn to dust again,” although both passages are, 
 of course, founded on Gen. iii. 19. A more distinct reference 
 to Koheleth, however, is to be found in Sir. xl. 11, “All 
 things that are of the earth shall turn to the earth again, and 
 that which is of the waters doth return into the sea,” which 
 certainly reminds us of the remark of Koheleth, used, how- 
 ever, in another connexion: “all the rivers run into the sea.” 
 Sir. xiii. 22, 23, and x. 23, may be profitably compared with 
 Koh. ix. 14-16; and the warning against a presumptuous 
 continuance in sin because God does not immediately punish 
 the sinner, which is given in Sir. v. 5-7, seems, though the 
 words are dissimilar, to be a reminiscence of Koh. viii. 11-13. 
 The latter passage appears also to have been in the mind 
 of Ben Sira when he wrote (i. 13), “ Whoso feareth the Lord, 
 it shall be well with him at the last.” The directions given 
 in Sir. xiv. 14 ff. not to refrain from enjoying a day of 
 festivity, and to do so because death will soon deprive men 
 of all such enjoyments, must unquestionably be regarded as 
 
 vow in due time ;” or, as Bissell better renders it, ‘* be not hindered from paying 
 a vow (εὐχήν) in due time,” ‘‘and defer not until death to be justified” by the due 
 performance thereof ; verse 23 is rendered in the Auth. Version, ‘*before thou 
 prayest prepare thyself.” The Greek is πρὶν εὔξασθαι ἑτοίμασον σεαυτόν, which is 
 explained by the Hebrew ἢ.) 13} ὙΠ OWA, “before thou vowest, prepare 
 thy vows,” i.e., see that thou hast the power and readineés to fulfil the same. See 
 Dukes’ Rabb, Blumeniese, p. 70, and Fritzsche’s note on the passage. 
 
Ben Stra’s wmitations of Koheleth, 45 
 
 based on the teaching of Koheleth (v. 18 ff; vi. 1 ff, “εἰς... 
 The like may also be affirmed of Sir. xl. 1, which is akin in 
 some respects to Koh. i. 3, 5. 
 
 Nor is this all. Mr. Tyler has admirably pointed out the 
 intimate connexion which exists between the several clauses 
 of Sir. xxxili. 13-15 and those of Koh. vii. 13-15. The 
 remark about the potter's clay in the former passage is no 
 doubt derived from Isaiah, but in every other clause of the 
 passage of Ben Sira, when examined in the original, there 
 appears such a remarkable correspondence with the verses in 
 Koheleth that it cannot be regarded as fortuitous. Similarity 
 of phraseology between the two books often occurs when 
 we least expect it, and even in the original of single ex- 
 pressions such as Sir. xxxiil. 11, “in much knowledge” 
 (ἐν πλήθει ἐπιστήμης) we often come across imitations of 
 the Hebrew Koheleth. (Compare M357 13, Eccl. i. 18). 
 
 Casual readers of the two books may be struck by the 
 allusion made by Koheleth to princes walking on foot and 
 servants riding on horses (ix. 15), and the similarity between 
 it and Ben Sira’s remark that “many kings have sat down 
 upon the ground, and one that was never thought of hath 
 worn the crown” (xi. 5). But far more noteworthy is the close 
 resemblance between Ben Sira’s aphorism (xiii. 26), “The 
 finding out of parables is a wearisome labour of the mind,” 
 and the observation of Koheleth (xii. 12), “Of making many 
 books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of 
 the flesh.” It has also been thought that Sir. xviii. 6 is 
 founded on the expressions used in Koh. vii. 13; xi. 5. The 
 connexion is more plain between Ben Sira’s proverb (xxvi. 
 23), “A wicked woman is given as a portion to a wicked man; 
 but a godly woman is given to him that feareth the Lord,” 
 and the remark of Koheleth on the evil woman (vii. 26), 
 concerning whom he says, “ whoso pleaseth God shall escape 
 from her, but the sinner shall be taken by her.” Equally 
 
46 ‘Ben Sira’s additions to Old Proverbs. 
 
 significant is the likeness between the aphorism of Ben 
 Sira (xxxiv. 7), “Dreams have deceived many, and they 
 have failed that put their trust in them,” and the saying of 
 Koheleth (v. 7), “In the multitude of dreams and many 
 words there are also divers vanities; but fear thou God.” 
 The praise of agricultural pursuits in Sir. vii. 15, is also 
 remarkable, and may be an imitation of the second clause 
 of Koh. v. 8. 
 
 We are tempted to append to this enumeration of pas- 
 sages, proving that Ben Sira was well acquainted with the 
 work of Koheleth and borrowed thoughts from it, a remark- 
 able quotation from the latter among the proverbs in Chaldee 
 ascribed to Ben Sira. “Cast (lit. strew) thy bread upon the 
 face of the water and on the dry land, and thou shalt find ‘it 
 in the end of days.” The reader need not be told that this 
 aphorism is quoted from Koh. xi. 1, with the addition of the 
 words “and on the dry land.” It is this latter that marks 
 _ the aphorism in this form as probably a genuine saying of 
 Ben Sira. For that sage was fond of tacking on new endings 
 to old proverbs. One of the Hebrew proverbs several times 
 ascribed to him in the Talmud is, “All the days of the 
 afflicted (poor) are evil, (and) also their nights,” the first 
 portion of the saying being a quotation from Prov. xv. 15. 
 The same peculiarity may be observed in many passages 
 found in the Greek Sirach, as for instance chap. xv. 109, the 
 first part of which is a quotation from Ps. xxxiii. 18; and 
 chap. xvi. 16, where a similar addition is made to Gen. i. 4.1 
 
 Many interesting questions present themselves with respect 
 to the Book of Ecclesiasticus which cannot here be fully 
 discussed. Though the Talmud cites Ben Sira’s sayings with 
 approval, it prohibits his book to be read in public; persons 
 being permitted to read it in private as they might read 
 ordinary letters. It classes the work with “the extraneous 
 
 1 See note 2, on p. 48. 
 
Ben Stra sometimes guoted as Canonical. 47 
 
 books,” and R. Akiba declared that the man who reads 
 such profane works “has no portion in the world to come” 
 (Jer. Talmud, Sanhedrin, chap. x. 28 a). Delitzsch con- 
 siders (Gesch. der jiid. Poesie, Ὁ. 20) that the unfavourable 
 judgments of the Babylonian teachers relate only to the 
 Chaldee Targum, or version, of the book, and not to its 
 Hebrew original. The Hebrew original was, however, driven 
 out of the field by the Chaldee version, which, though 
 abounding in interpolations, was more accessible to the 
 people. Earlier Jewish authorities of repute strangely speak 
 of Ben Sira’s work as if it were canonical, notwithstanding 
 that the prologue distinctly speaks of it as making no claim 
 to “canonicity.” Among those persons who speak of it 
 as “canonical,” the name of Simon ben Shatach (B.C. 90) 
 stands pre-eminent. He was esteemed as one of the Jewish 
 “fathers,” and a saying of his is given in the Treatise 
 Aboth (i. 10). A remarkable instance of a similar fact oc- 
 curs in Baba Kamma (92 ὦ), where the proverb is quoted “ἃ 
 bad palm-tree wanders about and goes along with lazy, 
 or barren, trees,’ and Rabbah bar-Mare observes that “ this 
 matter is written in the Law, repeated in the Prophets, 
 reiterated a third time in the Kethubim (the writings, or 
 Hagiographa), and handed down in the traditions, and again 
 in the Barajtha. Written in the Law, as it is written 
 [Gen. xxix. 9] ‘and Esau went to Ishmael,’ repeated in the 
 Prophets, as it is written [Judges xi. 3], ‘and there were 
 gathered to Fephthah vain men, and they were with him ;’ 
 and reiterated a third time in the Kethubim (the writings), 
 as it is written, ‘every bird dwells by its kind, and the 
 son of man by one who ts akin to him.” The last passage 
 is a saying of Ben Sira, found in chap. xiii. 15 ; xxvii. 9. 
 These facts give an appearance of plausibility to the opinion 
 advanced by Professor Graetz, namely, that the Book of Ben 
 
 1 See Excursus No. 1. 
 
Ὁ: Explanation of this curious fact. 
 
 Sira and other Hebrew writings may have been at one time 
 admitted into the Jewish Canon, though eliminated from it 
 at a later age. This is, however, scarcely probable, and the 
 evidence adduced in favour of the opinion is not sufficient 
 to justify such a theory. The true explanation of the 
 difficulty seems to be, as Strack has pointed out, that 
 Rabbah bar-Mare quoted from memory as usual, and forgot 
 that the passage adduced by him as a proof text was not 
 to be found in the Kethubim, from which he had intended to 
 
 have quoted an appropriate text.’ 
 Graetz refers, indeed, further to the statement of the 
 
 1 See Excursus No. I. 
 
 2 The passages adduced to prove that the Book of Ben Sira was at one time or 
 other regarded as canonical are as follows :—The first instance is a passage quoted 
 in the Babyl. Talmud (Aerach. 48 a), with the formula 19N35, ‘‘as it is written,” 
 and quoted in the Jer. Talmud (Berach. vii. 11 ὁ), in the Midr. Bereshith ὃ 91, and 
 in the Midr. Koh. vii. 12, with the formula 2'ND δὲ 12 NIHDA. The 
 citation which immediately after follows is in the Jer. Talmud and Midrash, 
 Jawin ΣᾺΣ p93) ἼΘ᾽ ΠῚ mp0 ; the first two words are the beginning of 
 Prov. iv. 8, ‘‘exalt her and she shall promote thee,” to which Ben Sira added, 
 ‘and she shall set thee between princes.” See my remarks, on p. 46. In the 
 Babyl. Talmud the latter clause does not occur, but Prov. iv. ὃ is quoted entire, 
 so that the quotation there is wholly from canonical Scripture ; and that instance 
 is not ad vem. It may be noted that this proverb of Ben Sira does not occur in 
 the Book of Ecclesiasticus. The nearest approach to it is perhaps chap. xv. 5. 
 The second case is Erub. 65a, where Chija bar Ashi is adduced quoting the 
 remark of Rab, ‘‘he who is not of a calm understanding should not pray.” It is 
 added ‘‘according to that which is written (771° bs TSA TONY DW), in 
 excitement let him not pray.” The corresponding passage in Ecclesiasticus is 
 supposed to be chap. vii. 10, μὴ ὀλιγοψυχήσῃς ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ σου, ‘be not faint- 
 hearted in thy prayer” (Comp. Luke xviii. 1), The identity of the proverbs is 
 disputed by several scholars. Strack, in his article in the Kanon des alt. Test. 
 before referred to, considers that in this instance, as in the third example which 
 is fully quoted above in our text, there was a direct intention on the part of the 
 teacher in question to give a quotation from canonical Scripture, but that by a slip 
 of memory in both cases the passage cited was from Ben Sira, the mistake arising 
 from his book being for the most part written in the phraseology of the Sacred 
 Writings. No Jewish authority ever speaks of the Book of Ben Sira as belonging 
 to the Canon; on the contrary, the reverse is expressly stated. It is worthy of 
 note that John Bunyan similarly relates, in his Grace Abounding, § 65, that he 
 was for a long time comforted by a passage which he thought was from canonical 
 Scripture, and was perplexed at last on discovering that the passage was from 
 the Book of Ecclesiasticus, namely, chap. ii. to. 
 
New Testament allusions to Strach. 49 
 
 Barajtha (to be found in Yadaim iii. fol. 141 @) in which, 
 commenting on the books which do not “defile the hands” 
 (see p. 15) the remark is made that “the Book of Ben Sira 
 and all the books which were written from that time onwards 
 (TN 1NI!D) do not defile the hands,” or, in simple language, 
 are not canonical. But Graetz’s view of this passage, namely, 
 that it refers, not to the period later than the age of Ben 
 Sira, but rather to that after the Synod of Jamnia (which 
 Synod is alluded to in the text of the Mishna) or even to 
 a later period, is not likely to meet with the approval of 
 scholars.} rd 
 
 Broad and liberal in its tone, the work of Ben Sira, though 
 its Greek translation was executed in Alexandria, is a 
 genuine product of the Old Testament dispensation, and in 
 the main reflects the opinions of a Palestinian Jew. Not a 
 few passages of the New Testament seem to show an ac- 
 quaintance with its sayings, though they are nowhere 
 quoted as Scripture? The Epistle of St. James, peculiarly 
 Palestinian as it is in its tone, exhibits perhaps the most 
 distinct traces of its influence. Even the exhortations of 
 
 1 The words of the Toseft. Yadaim are, according to the edition of Zuckerman- 
 del, p. 683, 53) ND 12 MDD OTA MN ΓΊΝΘΟΣ WN PIT ADI DIN 
 DTT AN PND PIN abs) }NI 1ANIIW PMD: ‘the gospels (aban for 
 SUPT 2} 0) and the books of the heretics do not defile the hands, the Book of 
 Ben Sira, and all the books which were written from that time onwards, do not 
 defile the hands.” 
 
 2 The only distinct reference to Ben Sira in the New Testament is that in 
 James i. 19, the phrase used there, ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, being 
 based on, though not a quotation of, Sirach v. 11, γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει cov. The 
 thought contained in the latter clause of James i. 19, βραδὺς els τὸ λαλῆσαι, is akin 
 to Sirach iv. 29, μὴ γίνου τραχὺς ἐν γλώσσῃ σου, but is far nearer that of Koheleth 
 vy. I. See also our remarks on James ili. 2, p. 42. The direction in James ν. 
 14-15 shows traces of an acquaintance with Ben Sira’s remarks on prayer and 
 medicine. See note on p. 4. St. Paul in Rom. ix. 20, 21 may have had Sirach 
 Xxxiii. 13 in his mind, though his illustration of the potter is more akin to Isa. xlv. 
 9; Ixiv. 8; or Jer. xviii. 6. Other supposed references, such as that to Sirach ii. 15 
 in John xiv. 23, to Sirach xi. 18, 19 in Luke xii. 19. and to Sirach xv. 15 in Matt. xix. 
 17, are fallacious, and arise from the fact that “similarity of topics led to similar 
 modes of expression.” (See Davidson’s /ntraduction to the O, 7., vol. ili. p. 421.) 
 
 E 
 
so. The LXX. Translation of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 that epistle, directing men in the case of sickness to make 
 use, along with earnest prayer, of the best remedies which 
 human skill could suggest, may be traced to the influence 
 of the Jewish sage of an earlier period. For Dukes has 
 satisfactorily shown that the praise and commendation of 
 physicians to be found in the book of Ben Sira (xxxviii. 
 11-1 5) are not to be regarded asa proof that Ben Sira exercised 
 that profession himself, but on the contrary that his exhort- 
 ation “to honour a physician” and his medicines, “for the 
 Lord hath created him” and them, was levelled at the 
 spirit of fatalism which was beginning to leaven the minds of 
 the Palestinian Jews. The Book of Ben Sira, we would only 
 note in conclusion of this subject, must have been composed 
 at a considerably earlier date than the “ Book of the Wisdom 
 of Solomon,” and prior to that outburst of sensual scepticism 
 which led to the production of the latter work by a writer, 
 who with all his failings was inspired with a spirit more akin 
 to the New Testament dispensation. 
 
 The existence of the Book of Ecclesiastes in the Canon of 
 the LXX. is opposed to the novel hypothesis of its compo- 
 sition so late as the time of Herod the Great. There are 
 no doubt many points with respect to the LXX. which are 
 as yet very imperfectly understood, and the Greek translation 
 of Ecclesiastes, which forms now part and parcel of that 
 version, presents some very striking peculiarities which require 
 more investigation than has yet been bestowed upon them. 
 The phraseology used in the LXX. version of that book is 
 in some particulars strongly redolent of the translation of 
 Aquila, and Graetz has maintained that it is really the 
 second and improved edition of Aquila. But if the version 
 incorporated into the LXX. translation be that of Aquila, 
 then that portion of the LXX. text cannot be ascribed to 
 an earlier date than A.D. 120 or 125. 
 
 One of the most remarkable peculiarities of Aquila’s 
 
Traces of Aquila in the present Text. 51 
 
 version is his rendering by the Greek σύν the Hebrew par- 
 ticle (ΠΝ) which distinguishes in certain cases the accusative. 
 This phenomenon appears in the translation of the Book of 
 Koheleth. But it is to be observed that the rendering is by 
 no means uniform. Graetz remarks that twenty-one cases 
 occur in the book in which the Hebrew particle is not thus 
 rendered. He explains this fact by supposing, first, that the 
 particle in question did not occur so often in the Hebrew 
 text which Aquila used, as in that which formed the basis of 
 the Masoretic recension ; and by supposing, secondly, that 
 the Greek copyists may have in many cases, either from 
 accident or deliberation, omitted the same. Prof. Graetz has, 
 however, not given an accurate statement of the facts of the 
 case. There are more than seventy instances in the book in 
 which the Hebrew particle is found in our present text; and 
 in less than half does the favourite rendering of Aquila occur 
 in the Greek text of the Septuagint.! Whilst, therefore, it is 
 tolerably certain that the Greek translation of the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes found in the LXX. version in the form in which 
 it has been handed down to us, has incorporated not a few 
 
 1 TN is rendered by σὺν in chap. ii. 17, iii. 10, iii. 17 δὲς, iv. 3 (ΠΤ ΤΣ, 
 σὺν πᾶν τὸ ποίημα, the reading of the Greek differing here from the Hebrew text). 
 So also in υἱῖ. 14, as a prep. with dative, vii. 26, vii. 29, viii. ὃ (AITO NN), viii. 
 15, Vili. 17, ix. 15 (VUNMTNN), xi. 7, xii. 9, ze, 14 times. So also NN when 
 followed by b> is rendered by σὺν in composition with mas eg. chap. i. 14 
 σύμπαντα, ii. 18, ili. 11 δὲς ; in this verse in the second instance codex B., but not 
 A. or S., inserts ‘‘ all’? which is omitted in our Hebrew text, σύμπαντα τὸν αἰῶνα, 
 poyacny. So in chap. iv. 1 (not in S.); in chap. iv. 2, B. (not A. or S.) in- 
 serts ‘‘a@//,” which is omitted in the Hebrew text, σύμπαντας τοὺς τεθνηκότας, 
 Dn NS ; inchap. iv. 4 d2s, iv. 15, vii. 15, viii. 9, viii. 17, ix. I 42s (the clause, how- 
 ever, in which this occurs, forms part of viii. 17 in the Greek) ix. 11 cod. B, alone 
 has σύμπασιν αὐτοῖς, 22 ΓΙ ; xi. 5, xil. 14, 1.6. 17 times. Inall14+17=31 times. 
 
 MN is not rendered by σὺν in chap. i. 13, ii. 3, ii. 10, ii. 12, 11. 20, 11, 24, iil. 11 
 (AWYDATNN), iii. 15, iv. 3 ΠΝ NN), iv. 5 δὲς, iv. 8, iv. 10, v. 3 (σὺ οὖν ὅσα 
 ἐὰν εὔξῃ ἀπόδος), nor inv. 5, in three instances, 7) NX, Wl NS, ΠΟ ns. 
 In chap. v. 6 for the Heb. 81’ ondsn MN, the Greek has ὅτι σὺ τὸν Θεὸν φοβοῦ. 
 So also the MN is not rendered by σὺν in chap. ν. 19, vii. 7. vii. 13 δίς, vii. 18 
 
52° A LXX. Translation independent of Aguila. 
 
 of the renderings of Aquila, it is unlikely that it was itself 
 the work of that translator. 
 
 Dale has noted the care taken in the LXX. text to preserve 
 the order of the Hebrew words. ‘In Ecclesiastes this order 
 is so strict that, with hardly an exception, it would be possible 
 to print the Greek text as it stands as an interlinear transla- 
 tion.” 
 
 But the fact that Origen actually made use of another 
 Greek translation of the Book of Koheleth which he cites 
 as that of Aquila,—alongside of the Greek translation of 
 Koheleth, which is given as that of the LXX.—proves 
 very clearly that, although the present text of the LXX. is 
 probably a composite one and may actually contain many 
 of the renderings of Aquila, a Greek translation of Eccle- 
 siastes was in existence in the days of Origen, which was 
 recognised as forming an integral part of the well-known 
 LXX. translation. Something similar may have occurred 
 in regard to the version of Ecclesiastes like that which 
 happened to that of the Book of Daniel, in which the trans- 
 lation of Theodotion has for many centuries taken the 
 place of the LXX. The fact that Origen made use of a 
 version of the book known as that of the LXX., as also that 
 the present Greek one cannot in its entirety be regarded as 
 that of Aquila, is a proof that the Book of Ecclesiastes itself 
 must have been in existence for a considerable time previous 
 to the execution of the LXX. translation of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, or, in other words, at an earlier period than the 
 work of Ben Sira. . 
 
 bis (ΤἼ) MN and O53 ΠΝ), in vii. 21, viii. 8. VD NN, rendered τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτῆς; nor 
 in viii. 9, (°29 NN), viii. 16 dis, ix. 7, ix. 12, ix. 15 (YVAN), x. τὸ O37 NN), 
 x. 20, xi. 5 (Π ΠΟ Π NN), xi. 6, xi. 8, xii. 1, xii. 13 δὲς, or in all 40 times. 
 
 This matter, as well as other points of a kindred nature, needs more critical 
 examination than it has yet received. Aquila has no σὺν for NN in Gen. vi. 3, ix. 
 22, 23, ΧΧΙΙ. 2. xxvii. £5 ; Exod. xxiv. 10, and possibly in other passages. 
 
CHAPTER. EEE. 
 
 THE BOOK OF WISDOM AND THE BOOK OF 
 KOHELET A. 
 
CHAPTER ir: 
 
 Leaning of the Book of Wisdom towards Greek philosophy, 55—Composed 
 before the time of Philo, 56—Probably in reign of Physcon, 57—Viewed as 
 inspired by several of the Fathers, 57—Not the production of a Christian Jew, 
 58—Written under the name of Solomon, 60—Strange denial of this fact, 60 
 —The author not guilty of imposture, 61—His object in assuming the mask of 
 Solomon, 61—Forgeries of Jewish writers in later times, 62—Favourable con- 
 ception of the character of Solomon, 64—Difficulties of belief referred to in 
 Book of Koheleth, 65—Object of the writer of that book, 66—Different state 
 of thought in the later days of the Greek rule, 67—The free-thinkers of 
 Alexandria, 67—Their appeal to the Book of Koheleth, 68—The writer of the 
 Book of Wisdom opposes their views, 70—Apparent contradictions to the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes, 7o—Value of the Book of Wisdom, 72—Supplied a gap in the 
 creed of the Jewish Church, 73—Allusions to its phraseology in the New 
 Testament, 74—Wisdom a guide to immortality, 75—The description of the 
 righteous man in the Book of Wisdom, 75—That book a preparation for the 
 revelation of Christ, 76. 
 
 54 
 
CharT eR. Lai: 
 
 THE BOOK OF WISDOM AND THE BOOK OF KOHELETH. 
 
 WE cannot enter further upon the consideration of the 
 various questions connected with the date and authorship of 
 the Book of Koheleth without considering at some length 
 the peculiar relation which exists between it and the Book 
 of Wisdom. 
 
 The latter work, generally known by the title prefixed to it 
 in the LXX. version, namely, “ The Wisdom of Solomon,” 
 must have been composed at a date subsequent to the com- 
 pletion of the celebrated Greek translation of the Jewish 
 Scriptures. This is evident from the use made of that 
 version. The writer of Wisdom exhibits a deep and ardent 
 faith in the leading doctrines of the Jewish creed, but at 
 the same time shows that he has an acquaintance with, 
 and a sympathy for, some of the characteristic tenets of the 
 Greek philosophers. Thus, for instance, he has borrowed 
 from the Platonic school the mention made of the four 
 cardinal virtues, namely, temperance, prudence, righteousness, 
 and manliness.? His doctrine about “shapeless matter” (ὕλη 
 
 1 For instance, in chap. xv. 10, the author quotes from the LXX. translation 
 of Isaiah xliv. 20, the phrase σποδὸς ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ, though that is not a correct 
 rendering of the Hebrew. In chap. ii. 12, the phrase put into the mouth of the 
 free-thinkers concerning the righteous man, ὅτι δύσχρηστος ἡμῖν ἐστί, is taken 
 from the LXX. translation of Isaiah iii. 10. Moreover, as Grimm notes, thesense 
 in which ἐτάζειν is used in chap. vi. 7 is derived from the usage of the LXX., 
 and in chap. xvi. 22, and xix. 21, there is a reference to the LXX. translation 
 of Exodus xvi. 14, and specially to that of Numbers xi. 7. 
 
 2 Chap. viii. 7, καὶ εἰ δικαιοσύνην ἀγαπᾷ τις, of πόνοι ταύτης εἰσὶν ἀρεταί. 
 σωφροσύνην γὰρ καὶ φρόνησιν ἐκδιδάσκει, δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀνδρείαν. ‘These are the 
 
 55 
 
56 The Book of Wisdom prior to the time of Philo. 
 
 ἄμορφος, chap. xi. 17) the pre-existence of the soul, and 
 sundry other matters is derived from the same source. 
 Such a combination of Jewish faith and Greek philosophy 
 was a marked characteristic of the Jews in Alexandria from 
 the third century before Christ, but cannot be traced to an 
 earlier period. 
 
 On the other hand the Book of Wisdom must have been 
 written long before the age of Philo. It cannot have been 
 composed after the Roman conquest, as Holtzmann considers 
 possible, for its teaching on the chief points discussed is 
 far from being identical with that of Philo. The Divine 
 wisdom, though a central subject throughout, is nowhere 
 regarded as a personified being like the Logos of the Alexan- 
 drian philosopher. Many Platonic doctrines which occupy 
 an important place in Philo’s system are sought for in vain 
 in the Book of Wisdom. Opinions, which in Philo’s writings 
 assume the form of fundamental dogmas, appear in the Book 
 of Wisdom only in a rudimentary form. In other words, 
 the Book of Wisdom presents us with a far earlier stage 
 of philosophic thought than the works of Philo. The two 
 authors must have been separated from one another by a 
 considerable interval of time.! 
 
 For these and other reasons it is most probable that the 
 work was composed about a century, or a century and a half, 
 before the Christian era. It was evidently written at a time 
 when the Jews resident in Egypt had to suffer consider- 
 able persecution at the hands of their heathen neighbours. 
 During the reign of the earlier Ptolemies the Jews were well 
 
 four cardinal] virtues known to Greek ethics. In 4 Macc. v. 22, 23, εὐσέβεια takes 
 the place of φρόνησις, but in 4 Mace. i. 18, the list is identical to that given in 
 the Book of Wisdom. See Grimm on this passage, and Deane’s note in his 
 recent excellent commentary on the book (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1881). See 
 also Grimm on the passage in 4th Mace. in his Comm., pp. 300-1. 
 
 ‘ See Deane’s Prolegomena, p- 333 Grimm, Linleitung, p. 22; and Bissell, 
 Introduction to Book of Wisdom, p. 226. 
 
Viewed as inspired by some of the Fathers. 57 
 
 treated in Egypt. They were, however, much persecuted 
 during the reign of Physcon (B.C. 145-117) and his succes- 
 sors. These persecutions called forth the reflections in the 
 closing chapters, in which the writer enlarges on the origin 
 and folly of idolatry, and the punishment of idolaters. His 
 remarks were designed to comfort and support his country- 
 men amid the severe trials they had to suffer under Egyp- 
 tian misrule. The original language of the book was Greek, 
 not Hebrew or Aramaic, a fact which even a cursory ex- 
 amination is sufficient to prove.! 
 
 The writer was evidently a Jew resident in Alexandria, 
 and his book contains several striking indications of its 
 having been composed amid the scenes daily witnessed in 
 that great maritime city. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary, in the face of such facts, to 
 do more than allude to the opinion held by several of the 
 Christian Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus 
 and Tertullian, namely, that the Book of Wisdom was 
 written by Solomon. No modern scholar of repute defends 
 such a theory. But it is worthy of note that some of the 
 Fathers, such as Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine, who 
 doubted or denied the Solomonic authorship of the work, 
 maintained withal its Divine inspiration.? 
 
 1 No doubt a Hebrew colouring, as Grimm observes, pervades the first ten 
 chapters in the parallelism which imitates the Psalms, Job and Proverbs, and in 
 certain Hebraisms which occur in that portion. But the genuine Greek 
 character of the book is seen in the richness of its vocabulary and the number of 
 the synonymes employed, especially adjectives, in the technical expressions of 
 the Platonic and Stoic philosophers, and in the numerous examples of compound 
 words and expressions, as well as in the frequent play upon Greek words, 
 and such figures of speech as paronomasia, onomatopceia, oxymora, etc. See 
 Grimm, Zinleitung, pp. 5-7; Bissell, p. 224. 
 
 2 Thus Origen Cont. Cels. iii. 72, cites it as ὡς ὁ θεῖος λόγος ὁρίζεται : Eusebius 
 Prap. Evang., i. 11 (Tom. i. p. 66, ed. Gaisford) says κατὰ τὸ map’ ἡμῖν λόγιον τὸ 
 φάσκον: ἀρχὴ πορνείας ἐπίνοια εἰδώλων (Wisdom xiv. 12) &c. Augustine (De 
 predest. sanct. i. 11) says, “‘ quee cum ita sint, non debuit repudiari sententia libri 
 
 Sapientize, qui meruit in ecclesia tam longa annositate recitari et ab omnibus Chris- 
 tianis . . . cum veneratione divine auctoritatis audiri . . . etiam temporibus 
 
O08 νΣ Not written by a Christian Jew. 
 
 It has sometimes been maintained that the Book of 
 Wisdom was the production of a Christian Jew. But this 
 hypothesis has been conclusively disproved by Grimm. The 
 speculations of Plumptre rest upon no real basis.! Some of 
 the sayings which occur in the book sound indeed like echoes 
 of sentiments found in New Testament writings. But all 
 
 proximi apostolorum egregii tractatores, . ... eum testem adhibentes nihil se 
 adhibere nisi divinum testimonium crediderunt.” It must, however, here be noted 
 that the Book of Wisdom mentioned in Melito’s letter, found in Eusebius “77s. Ecc. 
 iv. 26, in which a list of the books of the Old Testament Canon is given (the 
 Book of Esther being, however, omitted), is not the Apocryphal book, but only 
 another title of the Proverbs of Solomon. The words of Melito are Ψαλμῶν 
 Δαβὶδ, Σολομῶνος Παροιμίαι, ἢ καὶ Σοφία, Ἐκκλησιαστὴς, ἤΑισμα ἀσμάτων, ᾿Ἰώβ. 
 It can be clearly proved that some of the Christian Fathers called the Proverbs 
 Πανάρετος Σοφία; and traces of the same usage are extant even among early 
 Rabbinical writers. See Delitzsch, Das Salomon. Spruchbuch, Einl. p. 31. Grimm, 
 El. in Weishett, p. 36. 
 
 1 Noack (in his Ursprung des Christenth., Leipz. 1837, vol. i. p. 222) was the 
 first to suggest the idea that Apollos was the author of the Book of Wisdom. The 
 theory has been further developed and ably defended by Professor (now Dean) 
 Plumptre in two articles on the Writings of Apollos, which appeared in the first 
 vol. of Zhe Expositor, edited by the Rev. 5. Cox (Hodder and Stoughton, 1878). 
 Plumptre partially reproduces some of his arguments in his Introd. to his work 
 on Ecclesiastes, pp. 67 ff. He maintains that the Book of Wisdom was 
 written by Apollos before his conversion to Christianity, and the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews after that event. His whole argument is based on the admitted fact 
 that certain phraseology peculiar to the Alexandrian school of Judaism occurs in 
 the Book of Wisdom and reappears in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This, how- 
 ever, proves nothing more than that the writer of the latter book was well 
 acquainted with the former. Deane well observes: ‘‘To any unprejudiced mind 
 the contrast between the two is most marked ; the difference of style is too great 
 to be reasonably attributed to different phases of the same intellect. There is 
 nothing in Wisdom like the continuous interweaving of the Old Testament 
 Scriptures which is found in the Epistle ; there is no exhibition in the Epistle of 
 the acquaintance with Pagan learning which is so prominent a feature of the 
 earlier work. The resemblance in language may be paralleled from Philo, and 
 might be equally well used to support his claim to the authorship of either. 
 For those who hold the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, no other 
 argument is needed to discredit this theory ; for those who leave the question 
 about the Epistle doubtful, it is enough to say that the date of Apollos does not 
 coincide with what we have shown to be the probable date of our book, that we 
 know absolutely nothing of that Apostle’s writings, that the verbal similarities 
 are capable of another explanation, and that the scope and object of the two 
 writings are wholly different.” See also Grimm’s able remarks on the supposed 
 
 Christian origin of the book, in his Zix/eitung, p. 25. 
 
Its Teachings different from those of the N.T. 59 
 
 such sayings can easily be accounted for, as the author of 
 the Book of Wisdom and the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment drew their inspiration in this respect from a common 
 source, namely, the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Ewald 
 is certainly correct when he asserts that not even a single 
 verse of the Book of Wisdom is derived from any Chris- 
 tian source. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul 
 propounded in the Book of Wisdom is very different indeed 
 from the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead taught 
 by the writers of the New Testament. The author's dogma 
 of the pre-existence of the soul was certainly not derived 
 from an Apostolic source. The beautiful description of 
 the righteous man (in chap. ii. 12-20), though regarded by 
 many of the early Christian writers as a prophecy of Christ, 
 and curiously corresponding in some of its details with the 
 facts of gospel history, can be proved, on a closer examina- 
 tion, to have no such meaning.! 
 
 1 The chief grounds on which it is maintained that this passage is intended as 
 a description of Christ, prophetical or otherwise, are the statements ‘‘he calleth 
 himself the child of the Lord” (ver. 13), and ‘‘he makes his boast that God is 
 his father” (ver. 16) when compared with John ν. 18, xix. 7. Compare also ver. 18 
 with Matt. xxvii. 40, 43. The statement also “ he professeth to have the know- 
 ledge of God” (ver. 13) is strikingly parallel with those in John vii. 16, xv. 15 ; 
 Matt. xi. 27. Theshameful death of ver. 20, corresponds with the death on the 
 cross, and the references of ver. 21 may be compared with John xii. 40, 1 Cor. 
 ii. 8. But Grimm well remarks against this interpretation: (1) that δίκαιος, the 
 righteous man is clearly a collective. This is plain from the interchange of the 
 plural δίκαιοι (chap. iii. 1 ff) with the sing. δίκαιος (chap. iv. 7 ff). The δίκαιοι in 
 chap. iii. 1 ff are identical with the δίκαιος of chap. ii. (2) The relation of the 
 pious to the worldly and godless is the same atall times. Hence it is not strange 
 that a description of the ideal righteous one should tind its counterpart in Christ. 
 (3) The similarity of the circumstances fully explains the similarity of many expres- 
 sions in this chapter of the Book of Wisdom with certain found in the speeches of 
 the Jews against our Lord. Several of the expressions are borrowed from Psalm 
 xxii. If the description be regarded as having proceeded from the pen of a 
 Christian writer, Grimm fairly argues that two points are incomprehensible : (1) 
 That the author should have brought forward as the opponents of Jesus materialists 
 and frivolous sensualists in place of hypocritical and self-righteous Pharisees who 
 blindly adhered to the Mosaic law and the Jewish tradition. Noack’s attempt to 
 make out that the Sadducees are here described is most unsuccessful. (2) There 
 
60 The Book of Wisdom professedly by Solomon. 
 
 The writer of the Book of Wisdom put forward his views 
 under the mask of Solomon. This fact has indeed been very 
 strangely called in question by the Rev. David Johnston, the 
 author of a recent 77eatise on the Authorship of Ecclestastes.' 
 That gentleman asserts that “the allegation that the Book of 
 Wisdom personates Solomon is scarcely borne out by the 
 contents of the book.” He adds, “In Ecclesiastes Solomon 
 is specified as the author and autobiographer every whit as 
 distinctly and definitely as if he were actually named ; 
 whereas he is neither named nor specified in the Book of 
 Wisdom. It is indeed true that much which is said in the 
 seventh chapter would suit Solomon, especially where the 
 writer says, verse 7, ‘Wherefore I prayed, and understanding 
 was given me: I called won God, and the spirit of wisdom 
 came to me.” Yet this is just such language as a Hellenistic 
 admirer and imitator of Solomon might honestly use, with- 
 out any desire or attempt to pass off his Greek treatise in the 
 ‘praise of wisdom as a production of the Hebrew monarch.” 
 
 From such a statement—which, as it occurs in a work 
 exhibiting a certain amount of scholarship, cannot be passed 
 over in silence—it is evident that the writer of the Zreatise 
 on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes never read through ‘the 
 Book of Wisdom. One of the most striking peculiarities 
 of the book is, that, although it abounds in allusions to the 
 patriarchs and other heroes of the Old Testament, no proper 
 name of person, town, country, or river, is ever mentioned? 
 It is true, therefore, that the name of Solomon does not 
 
 is not in all the description of the Book of Wisdom the slightest hint afforded 
 
 of the atoning power of the sufferings and death of the righteous man pourtrayed 
 by the author. 
 
 ' See chap. iv. pp. 85 ff. and chap. v. p. 114. 
 
 2 This verse is given by Mr. Johnston in the original Greek. We have taken 
 the liberty of quoting it above in English. 
 
 * The mention of the Red Sea in chap. xix. 7 is the only apparent excep- 
 
 tion to this usage throughout the book, and it cannot be regarded as a real 
 exception, 
 
Lis Author not guilty of imposture. 61 
 
 occur in the book. But it is no less certain that the author 
 writes in the name and under the character of Solomon. 
 Solomon’s royal birth (chap. vii. 4, 5; ix. 12), his prayer for 
 wisdom (chap. vii. 7, 8; ix. 4-12), his desire for that gift in 
 his early days (chap. viii. 2) in order that he might be fitted 
 to act as king over Israel (chap. viii. 10, 11, 14, 16; ix. 4-12; 
 compare I Kings iii. 7, 8 ff), for which position his youth 
 and inexperience would have otherwise rendered him unfit 
 —all these facts, and more also, are distinctly referred to 
 by the writer as his own personal experiences. In proof 
 of this it is only necessary to quote the words of the prayer 
 in chap. ix. 7,8. “Thou hast chosen me to be a king of thy 
 people, and a judge of thy sons and daughters: thou hast 
 commanded me to build a temple upon thy holy mount, and 
 an altar in the city wherein thou dwellest, a resemblance 
 of the holy tabernacle, which thou hast prepared from the 
 beginning.” 
 
 It is not, however, right to accuse the author of the Book 
 of Wisdom as guilty of forgery, or of “deceit and false- 
 hood,” because he chose to put forward his work under the 
 name of the great monarch of Israel. Whatever may have 
 been the misconceptions of later days in consequence of 
 this assumption of a fictitious character, no person in the 
 author’s day and generation could have been ignorant that 
 the mask of Solomon was put on only for a special purpose. 
 The fact of the author having composed and published his 
 book in Greek would of itself have been sufficient to prove 
 that the work was not by the great king of Israel, and 
 the frequent references to philosophic opinions current in 
 Alexandria at the writer’s day made it still more apparent. 
 
 The reasons which induced the author to put forth his views 
 under the name of Solomon appear to have been as follows: 
 The Jewish free-thinkers in the great Egyptian capital had 
 dared not only as individuals to put in practice the ungodly 
 
62 The Book of Wisdom an Anti-Ecclestastes. 
 
 maxim, “Let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die” (1 Cor. 
 xv. 32), but had even ventured to defend their scepticism, 
 and to apologise for their sensuality, by appealing to the 
 authority of the wisest of men, and to his experience as 
 recorded in the Book of Koheleth. It was to manifest their 
 impiety, and toconfute their folly, that the writer of the Book 
 of Wisdom sought under the name of Solomon to point out 
 the teachings of true wisdom, and to demonstrate that what 
 these would-be wise men termed “wisdom,” was, to use the 
 Apostolic language of a later day, a wisdom which “cometh 
 not down “from above,” but “earthly, sensual,” and—the 
 last epithet applied by St. James to similar aberrations may 
 also be added, namely,—“ demoniacal” (James iii. 15). 
 
 The Book of Wisdom has, therefore, in some respects been 
 correctly described as an Anti-Ecclesiastes. Its author does 
 not venture to condemn the canonical Book of Ecclesiastes, 
 but he again and again distinctly refers to that book, and 
 unhesitatingly condemns false views of life and false prin- 
 ciples of morality apparently enunciated under the sanction 
 of a great name. 
 
 In assuming, therefore, the name and stand-point of Solo- 
 mon, and in stepping forward in that character to do battle 
 for the cause of God and of religion, the writer of the Book 
 of Wisdom acted more nobly than other Jewish writers in 
 Alexandria, who at a later period laid themselves fairly open 
 to the charge of “deceit and falsehood” by attempts, which 
 seem to have been for a time successful, to introduce Jewish 
 opinions, and even Old Testament prophecies, into the pro- 
 ductions of heathen authors. Hence the oracles of the 
 Sibylls were found to give utterance to Jewish sentiments. 
 
 1 This lecture was delivered before the University of Dublin, Nov 28th., 1880. 
 Plumptre, in his Introd. to his work on Ecclesiastes, published in 1881, has partly 
 taken up the same ground, though he adheres to his theory as to the author- 
 ship of the Book of Wisdom, noticed in note on p: 58. 
 
Forgeries by the Jews of a later era. 63 
 
 a 
 
 “The voice was Jacob’s voice,” although the form in which 
 the teaching was presented was of Gentile origin. The evil 
 practice once introduced soon became popular among a class 
 of writers not deficient in a certain kind of literary ability, 
 and Jewish ideas and Jewish principles were instilled into the 
 minds of Gentile students under the apparent authority of 
 ancient heathen poets, such as Linus and Orpheus.! 
 
 But, although forgeries such as those referred to, originally 
 devised in the interests of religion, must be unhesitatingly 
 condemned by all real lovers of truth and righteousness, 
 it must not for one moment be supposed that the author 
 of the Book of Wisdom, in assuming the mask of Solomon, 
 has exposed himself to the same righteous condemnation. 
 He wrote under the full conviction that the views advocated 
 in his work were the conclusions of Divine wisdom, and he 
 ventured to publish his opinions in the intellectual capital 
 of the heathen world as in reality echoes of that wisdom 
 which had been bestowed upon Solomon from above. 
 
 Grimm has well remarked that David was ever regarded 
 as the great hero and religious poet of the nation of Israel. 
 Psalms written by unknown writers at various times of Jewish 
 history were without scruple ascribed to “ the Sweet Singer of 
 Israel,’ who had himself composed so many hymns. Solomon, 
 on the other hand, was looked upon as the impersonation 
 of wisdom; and, inasmuch as he was renowned both for 
 the number and variety of his own proverbs, and as a col- 
 lector of the wise sayings of others, the majority of the moral 
 maxims and proverbs which passed current among the 
 Israelites were ascribed to him. Justly celebrated in sacred 
 history as the wisest of mankind, and as having had the 
 largest practical experience as well as the highest intellectual 
 knowledge, is it to be wondered at that moral writers, whose 
 great object was to point out the teachings of the highest 
 
 ° 
 1 See Dahne’s ‘fidisch.-Alexandr. Religions-Philosophie, vol. i. pp. 81 ff. 
 
. ᾽ 
 64 Favourable conception of Solomon's character. 
 
 wisdom, should have been led to represent its utterances as 
 proceeding from the lips of Solomon ? 
 
 One of the peculiarities of the Book of Wisdom is the 
 favourable light in which the author throughout regards the 
 character of Solomon. The contrast which exists in this 
 point between the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon and the 
 canonical Book of Koheleth is remarkable, and may be 
 adduced as a proof of the composition of the latter book at 
 a far earlier period than that of the former. The Book of 
 Koheleth does not scruple to refer to Solomon’s polygamy 
 in uncomplimentary terms, while the writer of the Book of 
 Wisdom has gone so far on the other side as, without any 
 allusion whatever to Solomon’s gross misconduct in this 
 particular, to put exhortations to chastity and purity into the 
 mouth of that king. The silence of the Book of Wisdom 
 with respect to the sensuality of the great monarch is highly 
 significant. For in later times Jewish authorities, quoted with 
 approbation in the Talmud, ventured not only to palliate 
 but actually to explain away all the crimes which David and 
 Solomon committed. These writers even dared to maintain, 
 in face of the statements contained in the First Book of Kings, 
 that Solomon was really innocent of the sin of idolatry.! 
 
 ‘In the Talmud Babli, Shabb. 564, Rabbi Samuel bar Nachmani states that 
 Rabbi Jonathan said that “he who says Solomon committed sin makes a mis- 
 take.” Compare Delitzsch, Rohling’s Talmudjude beleuchtet, 7te Ausg. pp. 93 ff., 
 where more will be found about Rabbi Jonathan and his attempts to exculpate 
 Solomon, etc. Another authority quoted there attempts to prove that Solomon 
 did not actually erect temples to the false gods of his wives, but merely had the 
 intention of doing so. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhed., chap. ii. fol. 20 4, 
 Rabbi Jose is reputed to have maintained that Solomon loved his strange wives in 
 order to win them under the Law, and to bring them under the wings of the 
 Shekinah. The same idea is propounded in the Midrash on the Song of Songs 
 on chap. i. 1, where many authorities are cited in its favour. The same Midrash 
 in an earlier place endeavours to explain away the fact that Solomon spent thirteen 
 years in building his own palace, while he spent only seven years in the erection of 
 the temple, by maintaining that Solomon’s palace was not more splendid than the 
 
 temple, but that the work of building the former was prosecuted in a less energetic 
 manner, 
 
The Scepticism noticed in Book of Kohelcth. 65 
 
 If we possessed no other account of his career than that 
 given in the Book of Wisdom, we should naturally conclude 
 that Solomon, not only at the commencement of his reign, 
 but throughout his whole life, was a bright example both of 
 intellectual wisdom and of moral purity. It must here in 
 fairness be observed that the writer of the Book of Chronicles 
 also makes no allusion to Solomon’s grievous transgressions. 
 In the latter case, however, it would be rash to assign a 
 cause for the omission of all mention of that king’s apostasy, 
 for the Books of the Chronicles exhibit numerous other 
 omissions which cannot with safety be ascribed to any par- 
 ticular causes known to us. 
 
 The form of scepticism presented in the Book of Koheleth, 
 if it can with any propriety be designated by such an ap- 
 pellation, was that found among persons not only outwardly 
 reckoned among “the faithful,’ but really believers. Those 
 whom he addressed may perhaps be described as believers 
 walking in darkness, and crying out amid the gloom for 
 “light, more light.” They were, like the Psalmist of old, 
 pained within them because the ungodly were in such 
 prosperity (Ps. Ixxiii.), and because little or no distinction 
 seemed to be made in the arrangements of Divine provi- 
 dence in this world between the just and the unjust. The 
 secrets of the life to come had not yet been clearly revealed. 
 The stone had not been rolled away from the grave by the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The earnest 
 remonstrance, which even the prophet Jeremiah was con- 
 strained to give utterance to, may be considered as expressing 
 the thoughts of many a heart. “Righteous art thou, O 
 Lord, when I plead with thee; yet let me talk with 
 thee of thy judgments: wherefore doth the way of the 
 wicked prosper ? Wherefore are all they happy that deal very 
 treacherously?” The deep mystery of the sufferings of the 
 godly in this life had even at an earlier period formed the 
 
 Ε 
 
66 " Object of the Book of Koheleth. 
 
 subject of the Book of Job. But the difficulty still remained. 
 It was deeply felt in the days in which Koheleth poured 
 forth his bitter complaints. For, if that writer lived after the 
 return from captivity, it was only natural that he and his 
 fellow-believers should have felt perplexed at the fact that, 
 notwithstanding the restoration of Israel to their own land, 
 days of prosperity had not dawned upon the chosen people. 
 Some of his fellows had gone over to the ranks of the 
 sceptics; a still larger number, perhaps, were “murmurers” 
 against the dispensations of Providence. Hope deferred had 
 made many hearts: sick. It was verily a time when some 
 divinely inspired teacher was needed to strengthen and 
 confirm the faithful in Israel. 
 
 Though sympathising deeply with the difficulties in which 
 such persons were placed, Koheleth, the philosophic prophet 
 or preacher, urged upon the “murmurers ” the duty of con- 
 tentment. That there was darkness around their path he 
 did not venture to deny; but there was also, he argued, much 
 to console them amid that darkness, and no man ought 
 sullenly to refuse to enjoy the good things God has provided 
 for him even in this life. If the question “Wherefore doth 
 the way of the wicked prosper?” could not be answered, not 
 even by a prophet in Israel—for the day for manifesting that 
 “mystery,” and for revealing that secret had not yet come— 
 those who believed in God should at least learn to receive 
 with thankfulness the common gifts freely bestowed upon 
 mankind ; and, by enjoying the blessings which they actually 
 possessed, to make the best use of the short span of existence 
 appointed to man on earth (Koh. iii. 13 ; v. 18). 
 
 Such was at least one of the objects for which the Book 
 of Koheleth was written. But the difficulties expressed in 
 that book in regard to God's dealings with man did not 
 diminish in number, as the dreary ages rolled on during 
 which the Gentile power continued more or less heavily to 
 
Object of the Book of Wisdom. 07 
 
 oppress the once-favoured Israel. The charm of Greek litera- 
 ture began to be appreciated after the days of the Maccabean 
 heroes, the once-detested Greek philosophy made its way 
 into Jewish schools, and Greek manners began to corrupt 
 the simplicity of the Jewish national life. In place of the 
 “murmurers” who existed in the days of Koheleth, a race 
 of “blasphemers” sprang up in the days of the writer of 
 the Book of Wisdom. The Jewish free-thinkers of Alex- 
 andria dared to defend their obnoxious tenets by arguments 
 derived from the Book of Koheleth itself. They boldly 
 propounded materialistic opinions, they denied a future state 
 of existence, and even went so far as to persecute those 
 who opposed their pernicious views. These daring spirits 
 advocated the full enjoyment of all the pleasures of sense, 
 and defended their actions and principles on the plea that 
 Solomon, the very impersonation of wisdom, had declared 
 himself on their side ; for he had demonstrated human life 
 to be but vanity, and had advised men to enjoy earthly 
 pleasures, while time remained for such enjoyment. 
 
 It need not, therefore, surprise us if some of the statements 
 put forth by the writer of the Book of Wisdom appear to be 
 almost direct contradictions of those found in the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes. The young scoffers of Alexandria had based 
 their arguments upon certain positions taken up in the latter 
 book. The writer of the Book of Wisdom denies many of 
 the statements of Koheleth, that is, as interpreted by the 
 adversaries of true religion. The verbal similarities which 
 exist between the expressions of the adversaries of religion 
 and morality as set forth in the second chapter of the Book 
 of Wisdom, and the expressions which actually occur in the 
 Book of Koheleth, are most remarkable. 
 
 Thus, the materialistic free-thinkers of that day are de- 
 scribed as asserting that life is short and troublesome 
 (λυπηρός), Wisdom ii. 1, in conformity with the statement 
 
68 ᾽ The Free-thinkers of Alexandria. ° 
 
 in Koheleth: “All his days are sorrows and his travail 
 grief” (Koh, ii. 23; so also v. 16, 17). They laid stress 
 upon the fact that there is no deliverance from death 
 (Wisdom ii. 2, 3, 5), a fact repeatedly alluded to by the 
 Preacher (Koh. viii. 8; iii. 2, 18, 21) as one of those. par- 
 ticulars which tend to lower man to the level of the brute 
 creation. These materialists further asserted that men were 
 born accidentally, by chance (avtocyediws),! echoing, though 
 in different phraseology, the thought which occurs several 
 times in Koheleth, “the children of men are a chance” (Koh. 
 iii. 19), “time and accident happen to them all” (Koh. ix. 
 11). It is of small advantage, said they, to seek to leave 
 a good name behind us, “for our name shall in time be 
 forgotten, and no one will remember our works” (Wisdom 
 ii. 4). Compare this with the statements of Koheleth, “there 
 is no remembrance of former things, neither shall there be 
 a remembrance of things that are to come” (Koh. i. 11), 
 “the fool and the wise man shall be alike forgotten (Koh. 
 ii. 16), for “the memory of the dead is forgotten” (Koh. ix. 5). 
 Life, these Jewish Alexandrians asserted truly, is a shadow 
 (Wisdom ii. 5, comp. v. 9), a comparison also taken from 
 
 1 αὐτοσχεδίως is explained by Schleusner to mean, ‘‘casu, sine Dei consilio et 
 providentia.” The rendering of the Vulgate is incorrect, ex wihilo. Deane renders 
 it “at all adventure,” and explains it as meaning ‘‘ off-hand, at hap-hazard.” 
 For this English rendering he refers to the marginal rendering of Lev. xxvi. 21, 
 and Shakespeare, Comedy of Errors, ii. 2. A manuscript glossary on the book 
 quoted by Schleusner explains it as ἐκ τοῦ παρατυχόντος, ταχέως, ἐκ τοῦ παραυτίκα 
 παραχρῆμα, αὐτόματα. Hesych. explains αὐτοσχεδίως by αὐτομάτως. Grimm gives 
 our translation ‘‘ durch Zufall,” and notes that the-sentence contains an allusion 
 to the Epicurean doctrine according to which all appearances of nature owe their 
 origin to chance; and refers to Ritter, Gesch. d. Philosophie, vol. iii. p. 395. He 
 also quotes Lactant. Jnstt., ii. 1, 2, ‘Shomines . . . ne se, ut quidam 
 philosophi faciunt, tantopere despiciant, neve se infirmos et supervacuos et frustra 
 omnino zatos putent, quee opinio plerosque ad vitia compellit,” and also Cic. Tusc. 
 i. 49, “ Non femere nec fortuito sati et creati sumus, sed profecto fuit vis queedam, 
 que consuleret generi humano ; nec id gigneret aut aleret, quod, quum exan- 
 clavisset omnes labores, tum incideret in mortis malum sempiternum; portum 
 potius paratum nobis et perfugium putemus.” 
 
Ther false interpretation of Koheleth. 69 
 
 Koheletl “Soh. vi. 12; viii. 13). Hence, argued they, men 
 ought to seek to compensate themselves for the sad circum- 
 stances under which they are placed by giving themselves 
 up as far as possible, without any ἘΒΒΒΔΕΑΒοχτ restraint, to 
 a life of pleasure. 
 
 There is a similarity between Koheleth’s advice to make 
 use of the innocent joys of life (Koh. ix. 7-9), and the ex- 
 hortation of the free-thinkers in the Book of Wisdom, to 
 enjoy the pleasures of sin in their season. 
 
 “Go, eat with joy thy bread, 
 
 And drink with joyful heart thy wine, 
 
 For long ago God hath approved thy works. 
 
 At all times let thy garments be white ! 
 
 And let not oil on thy head be wanting! 
 
 Enjoy life with a wife whom thou lovest, 
 
 All the days of thy life of vanity 
 
 Which he hath given to thee under the sun, 
 All the days of thy vanity, 
 
 For this is thy portion in life 
 
 And in thy toil with which thou toilest under the sun.” 
 
 Should this advice of Koheleth appear somewhat Epi- 
 curean, its real character will be better seen by contrasting 
 it with the exhortation of the ungodly depicted in the Book 
 of Wisdom; that exhortation being evidently the interpreta- 
 tion or misinterpretation put upon the words of Koheleth by 
 the sensualists of Alexandria. 
 
 “ Come therefore and let us enjoy the good things present 3 
 And let us eagerly make use of the world? as long as we are young. 
 
 1 Koheleth nowhere gives any encouragement to a life of dissipation, though 
 he frequently urges on men the use of the natural pleasures presented to them in 
 this life. See Koh. ili. 12, 22; v. 17, 18 (E.V. v. 18, 19) ; viii. 15; xi. 19, and 
 our remarks on the latter verse in chap. viii. 
 
 2 The phrase τῶν ὄντων ἀγαθῶν means actual good things in opposition to such 
 ideal blessings as piety, virtue and wisdom, and things which are in existence at 
 the present time and not merely expected in a future state of being. 
 
 3 So Grimm translates the clause καὶ χρησώμεθα τῇ κτίσει ὡς νεότητι σπουδαίως. 
 Deane renders ‘‘ let us use the creatures like as in youth,” but we prefer Grimm’s 
 
ci Contradictions between the Book of 
 
 With costly wine and unguents let us fill ourselves, 
 
 And let no flower of spring pass by us, 
 
 Let us crown ourselves with buds of roses before they wither, 
 [Let there be no mead though which our luxury does not pass, | ? 
 Let not one of us be without a share of our wantonness, 
 Everywhere let us leave behind us signs of our joyousness,? 
 
 For this is our portion, and this our lot.” 5 
 Wisdom ii. 6-10. 
 
 It can scarcely escape notice, that the last words of this 
 passage re-echo an expression which occurs several times in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes (ii. 10; iii. 22; v. 18 ; 1x. Q). 
 
 Strange it is in face of such clear proofs (even if no others 
 could be adduced), that Hitzig, who sought to prove that 
 Koheleth was a book of a later age than the Book of Wisdom, 
 should have ventured to assert that “for many reasons ”— 
 reasons be it observed which the learned critic has nowhere 
 given in detail—the reference to Koheleth in this passage of 
 the Book of Wisdom is “in the highest degree improbable.” ὃ 
 
 Such are a few of the more striking of those passages in 
 the Book of Wisdom which were evidently directed against 
 a one-sided and too-literal interpretation of the language of 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes. The stern condemnation of the 
 
 rendering, which is also adopted by Bissell. τῇ κτίσει, the creation is used in the 
 sense of created things, the world, as in Rom. vili. 19, 20; Heb. iv. 13. On the 
 readings of the passage, see Grimm and Bissell. 
 
 1 This addition is τς in the Vulgate, “ nullum sate sit quod non per- 
 transeat luxuria nostra.” It is accepted as genuine by Grimm and Bissell, and 
 Deane remarks, ‘‘it is true that nothing to correspond with this clause is found 
 in any existing Greek MS., but a clause parallel to the first half of the verse is 
 required, if we regard the careful balancing of periods exhibited in the rest of the 
 paragraph.” 
 
 ? Or joyfulness, dyepwxias. Deane observes, ‘‘this word in classical Greek 
 means insolence, haughtiness. Here, wsrestrained voluptuousness, insolentia in 
 luxurie vitzeque mollitie conspicua, Waki. Clav. Comp. 2 Mace. ix. 7 ; 3 Macc. 
 Livi, 
 
 3 Hitzig, Der Prediger Salomo’s, p. 121 in the Kurzgef. exeget. Handb. sum 
 A.T. 
 
 * Dean Plumptre has in his Introduction to his Comm. on Ecclesiastes, pp. 71 ff, 
 given other examples, with some of which we are unable to coincide. See our comm. 
 on Koh, ix. 9, and our remarks in chap. viii. on Koh. xi. 9, But the following in- 
 
Koheleth and the Book of Wisdom. 71 
 
 young free-thinkers of Alexandria which follows the passage 
 already cited was perhaps the more scathing, as it was 
 represented to come from the lips of Solomon, whom they 
 falsely quoted as having given judgment on their side. 
 
 There are, moreover, other passages in which the writer of 
 this apocryphal book was not at all backward to express his 
 opinion in language which savours of the spirit of contradic- 
 tion to the Book of Koheleth, although it may be maintained 
 that there is no more real contradiction between the 
 apparently opposing statements when compared with one 
 another, than actually exists between several passages of the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes itself. 
 
 Thus, if Koheleth affirms (ix. 2) “all things come to all 
 alike, one chance happens to the righteous and the wicked, to 
 the good, and to the clean and unclean,” the writer of the 
 Book of Wisdom maintains “the souls of the righteous are in 
 the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them. In the 
 eyes of the unwise they seemed to die, and their departure 
 is reckoned a misfortune, and their going from us destruction, 
 but they are in peace” (Wisdom iii. 2, 3). In contrast with 
 the ungodly, who are likened to dust blown away before the 
 wind, to fine frost driven away by the whirlwind, to smoke 
 dispersed by the storm, “the righteous” are said by him to 
 “live for ever,” “and their reward is with the Lord, and the 
 care of them is with the Most High” (Wisdom v. 14, 15). 
 
 Koheleth asserts (i. 18) “In much wisdom is much grief, 
 
 stances may here be quoted :—‘‘ to the ever-recurring complaint that all things are 
 ‘ vanity and feeding upon wind,’ (Eccles. i. 14, 17; ii. 26, e¢ a/.) he {the author of 
 the Book of Wisdom] opposes the teaching that ‘murmuring is unprofitable’ 
 (Wisd. i. 11). The thought that death was better than life, to be desired as an 
 everlasting sleep (Eccl. vi. 4, 5), [we dispute the correctness of this interpretation, 
 see our comm.], he meets with the warning, ‘seek not death in the error of your 
 life’ (Wisd. i. 12) ; and ventures even on the assertion that ‘ God made not death,’ 
 that it was an Enemy that had done this, that life and not death was contemplated 
 in the Divine purpose as the end of man (Wisd. i.13). It was only the ungodly 
 who counted death their friend (Wisd. i. 16).”’ 
 
72 + Importance of the Book of Wesdom. 
 
 and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow”; but 
 the writer of the apocryphal book says of wisdom, “con- 
 versation with her hath no bitterness, and to live with her 
 hath.no sorrow, but mirth and joy” (viii. 16). Solomon, in the 
 Book of Koheleth, complains that wisdom does not bring 
 bread to the wise, that riches do not fall to the lot of the 
 understanding, nor favour to the knowing (ix. 11); while, in 
 the Book of Wisdom, he is described as saying, through wis- 
 dom “1 shall have honour (δόξαν) among the multitudes, and 
 veneration (τιμήν), though young, among the elders” (viii. 10). 
 According to the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is no remem- 
 brance after death of the wise man any more than of the 
 fool (ii. 16); in the Book of Wisdom, Solomon asserts “I 
 shall have by her (wisdom) immortality, and I shall leave 
 an everlasting remembrance to those after me” (viii. 13). 
 
 It is unnecessary to do more than mention the remark- 
 able contrast before alluded to between the retrospect of 
 Solomon’s career given in Ecclesiastes i. and ii. and that pre- 
 sented in Wisdom vii—ix. In the former the great monarch 
 is represented as seeking to obtain satisfaction not only by 
 following after noble ends, but also by following on every 
 side after sensual pleasures, and to be from first to last dis- 
 satisfied with the result of his endeavours. Throughout the 
 latter Solomon is described as an ardent seeker after wisdom, 
 and a veil is drawn over the dark traits of his character. 
 
 The Book of Wisdom was a valuable contribution to theo- 
 logical literature at the time in which it appeared. The noble 
 ideas expressed in it concerning the Divine Being, its fre- 
 quent mention of love and charity, were peculiarly important. 
 The writer manifests throughout a sympathy for man as 
 man, and he exhibits also a firm belief in the Divine mission 
 of Israel, although that people is not once mentioned by 
 name in his book. The clear enunciation of the doctrine of 
 a life beyond the grave, of future rewards and punishments, 
 
Supplied a gap in the Jewish Creed. 73 
 
 and of the immortality of the righteous, though the doctrine 
 of the “resurrection” was hidden from his eyes, tends to 
 invest the book with a special interest.1_ In its grasp of these 
 verities the work occupies a higher standpoint than the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes. It does not ignore the fact that “there are 
 righteous who perish by their righteousness, and there are 
 evil men who protract their lives by their wickedness” (Koh, 
 vii. 15). But, in the light of the doctrine of future retribution, 
 so prominently taught on its pages, the recognition of such a 
 difficulty does not cast that heavy pall of gloom over the 
 spirit which oppresses us in perusing the pages of the Book 
 of Koheleth. Nor does the writer of the Book of Wisdom 
 forget to emphasise the truth that the punishment of the 
 ungodly is not always reserved for another world, and that 
 God’s anger frequently breaks out against the wicked even 
 on this side of the grave (iii. 11 ff., iv. 3-6, etc). This truth 
 is exhibited in the closing chapters, where an account—dis- 
 figured indeed in many places by needless and occasionally 
 even absurd exaggerations—is given of the plagues poured 
 upon the land- of Egypt in the days of Moses, and of the 
 marvellous exemption vouchsafed on that occasion to the 
 people of Israel. 
 
 The Book of Wisdom, therefore, supplied an important 
 gap in the creed of the Jewish Church. It guarded many 
 a Greek-speaking Jew from errors, which either were di- 
 rectly founded on a narrow and over-literal interpretation 
 of the Book of Koheleth, or indirectly drew a portion of their 
 support therefrom. It brought into fuller light certain im- 
 portant doctrines, which in the Book of Ecclesiastes are dis- 
 coverable only in the germ. In respect to the doctrine of 
 the resurrection, the Book of Wisdom has fallen short of the 
 
 1 On this subject compare Dr. Aug. Wiinsche, Die Vorstellungen vom Zustande 
 nach dem Tode nach Apokryphen, Talmud, und Kirchenvatern, in the Jahrbicher 
 fiir protest. Theologie, Band vi. 1880, pp. 355-383 and 495-523. 
 
74 Phrases in N.T. borrowed from Wesdom. 
 
 standard reached in the Book of Daniel. But it retains 
 throughout a firm grasp of “the hope full of immortality.” 
 Many of the peculiar terms and phrases employed in it, 
 such as “Holy Spirit,” “only begotten,” “fatherhood of 
 God,” “philanthropy,” and “love,” reappear in ἃ higher 
 sense in the New Testament. As Deane notes, “allusions 
 to its phraseology are frequent in St. Paul’s Epistles. That 
 noble passage in the fifth chapter of Wisdom seems to be 
 the groundwork of the grand description of the Christian’s 
 armour in Ephesians (vi. 13-17), ‘He shall take to Him 
 His jealousy for complete armour’ λήψεται πανοπλίαν: 
 ‘take unto you the whole armour of God, avadaBere τὴν 
 πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘He shall put on righteousness as 
 a breastplate,’ ἐνδύσεται θώρακα δικαιοσύνην : ‘Having on 
 the breastplate of righteousness,’ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν θώρακα 
 τῆς δικαιοσύνης. ‘And true judgment instead of a helmet. 
 He shall take holiness for an invincible shield’; ‘above 
 all taking the shield of faith . . . and take the helmet 
 of salvation. The passage too about the potter in Romans 
 ix. is an echo of a similar sentiment in Wisdom xv.” The 
 language of Hebrews i. 3 is partially identical with that of 
 Wisdom vii. 26 ; and many other instances are cited by Deane 
 and others.! Of course, the use of the phraseology found in 
 the Book of Wisdom is far from being equivalent to direct 
 quotations from that book. These occur nowhere in the New 
 Testament Scriptures. But in these and many other par- 
 ticulars the Book of Wisdom may well be viewed as a bright 
 harbinger of the more glorious gospel revealed by our Lord 
 and His apostles. If the Book of Koheleth must be regarded 
 in some respects as the last piercing cry of the Old Testa- 
 ment dispensation for “light, light,” the Book of Wisdom 
 not merely re-echoes that cry, but partly answers it, marred 
 
 * See Deane’s Prolegomena to his edition of the Book of Wisdom, chap. v. 
 pp. 35 ff. 
 
The Description of the Righteous Man. | 75 
 
 though the work be, in some places, by the inspirations of the 
 Greek philosophy. Only one great Teacher, the Son of Man 
 and Son of God, the Light and the Life of men, was able to 
 shed a new and a true light upon the dark problems touched 
 upon in the Book of Ecclesiastes. In His blessed light may 
 we see light! 
 
 Throughout the apocryphal work, “wisdom” is com- 
 mended as the true guide to a blissful immortality, and 
 the conditions are laid down under which alone man can 
 obtain possession of that Divine gift (chaps. i-iv.). The 
 Divine character of wisdom, and its mode of operation in 
 enlightening the intellect and directing the life of man, are 
 described in the second section, which closes with Solomon’s 
 prayer for wisdom (chaps. vi—ix.). The beneficial result of 
 wisdom in early Israelitish history is described in what 
 appears at least at first sight to be a continuation of that 
 prayer, which is so protracted as at last to become unnatural 
 and tedious (chaps. x.—-xix.). Some places in that description 
 are occasionally obscure, owing to the artificial plan of the 
 writer, which is consistently maintained throughout, of omit- 
 ting all mention of proper names. The writer speaks of 
 all men under the designation of the godly and ungodly, 
 although he relates the histories of Adam, Enoch, Noah, 
 Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Israel in Egypt, and 
 many incidents in the life of Solomon. 
 
 It was but natural that the Christian Fathers should re- 
 gard the beautiful description of the righteous man in chap. ii. 
 12-20, as a prophecy of the life and sufferings, the death 
 and exaltation of the only-begotten Son of God. When 
 that passage, however, is submitted to a closer examination, 
 it is manifest that the writer is there speaking of the 
 righteous as a class, and not of any single individual.’ But 
 the picture there presented of the righteous man bold in his 
 
 1 See note, on p. 59. 
 
76 ° A Preparation for Christzanity. 
 
 reproof of sin in every form, even when cherished in the 
 hidden recesses of the soul, of his sufferings on account of 
 his testimony against evil, and of his being put to death by 
 his foes, must recall vividly to our minds the Righteous Martyr 
 in whom the writer’s ideal was more than realized. The ideal 
 of the Book of Wisdom is a grand one, though the pas- 
 sage cannot be compared for beauty or force with the still 
 grander prophecy of Isaiah liii, where the Righteous Servant 
 of Jahaveh is represented as atoning by his sufferings, not 
 for his own sins, but for the sins of the people. 
 
 The Book of Koheleth, in its exhibition of the darkness 
 of the old dispensation, and the Book of Wisdom in its 
 anticipations of New Testament light, were both prepara- 
 tions for the better revelation of Jesus Christ. We may 
 safely endorse the beautiful remarks of Ewald concerning 
 the Book of Wisdom: “but for such books there are many 
 things which it would be difficult to comprehend in a Paul, 
 a John and their contemporaries. In the nervous energy 
 of his proverbial style, and in the depth of his representa- 
 tion we have a premonition of John, and in his conception 
 of heathenism a preparation for Paul, like a warm rustle of 
 the spring ere its time is fully come 
 
 ' Ewald, //ist., p. 484, vol. v. (Engl. Ed.), Gesch. des Volkes Isr., Band iv. 3te 
 Ausg. 1864, p. 632. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH. 
 
 77 
 
CHAPTER IV, 
 
 Summary of preceding chapters, 79—The authorship of the Book of Koheleth, 
 S0— Earliest doubts as to its Solomonic authorship, 80—Traces of hesitation 
 even in early times, 81—Koheleth a title of Solomon, 82—The name not chosen 
 to conceal the writer, 83—Meaning of the title, 8g—Solomon a preacher, 85 
 —The name no evidence of authorship, 85—Mr. Johnston’s argument on this 
 point, 86—Reasons assigned by Bloch for the use of the name, $7—Significance 
 of phrase, ‘King in Jerusalem,” 88—Attempts to explain it away, 87 Solomon 
 redivivus, 90>-—Legend of Talmud, 91—Meaning ‘‘I was king,” 91—Other at- 
 tempts to explain the perfect tense, g2—The predecessors of Solomon, 94— 
 Historical accuracy not aimed at, 95—Attempt of early translators to evade the 
 force of the passage, 95 The Masoretic reading of the passage, 96—The epilogue 
 of the work, 97—Opinions of Krochmal and Fiirst, 97~—-Of Graetz, 98 —Bloch’s 
 modification of Krochmal’s view, 99—The view of M. Renan, 100—Koheleth 
 and the Koheleth, 1o1—The three points of the epilogue, 100—Disavowal of 
 Solomonic authorship, 102—Views of Ewald and Delitzsch as to epilogue, 102 
 τ΄ Masters of collections,” 103—The words of the wise, 103—The inspiration 
 of the Sacred Writings affirmed by the writer, 1og—The warning how to learn, 
 105—The announcement of a coming judgment, 106. 
 
CHAPTER: IV, 
 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH. 
 
 IN our first chapter we endeavoured to show that it is 
 probable that the Book of Koheleth or Ecclesiastes was 
 admitted into the Jewish Canon by “the men of the Great 
 Synagogue,” who flourished between B.C. 444 and B.C. τοῦ, 
 The fact of disputes having taken place on the question 
 of the canonicity of the book between the rival schools of 
 Hillel and Shammai, some thirty or forty years before the 
 Christian era, is quite consistent with the theory that long 
 prior to that date it was regarded as one of the books of 
 Sacred Scripture. We also pointed out that Graetz’s theory 
 of the composition of the work in the days of Herod the 
 Great is untenable, being contrary to the following facts. 
 (1) That the Book of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, 
 or’ Ben Sira, written in Palestine, in Hebrew or Aramaic, 
 at latest about B.C. 180, contains many passages which 
 show an intimate acquaintance with the Book of Koheleth. 
 (2) That the Greek work entitled The Wisdom of Solo- 
 mon, composed in Egypt about B.c. 150, was designed 
 specially to counteract the false opinions propounded by 
 the Jewish sensualists of Alexandria, and professedly based 
 by them on statements which occur in the Book of Eccle- 
 siastes. (3) That a translation of the Book of Koheleth 
 formed part and parcel of the LXX. version of the Jewish 
 Scriptures, and that, therefore, the book must have been in 
 existence prior to the second century before Christ. And 
 
 (4) lastly, that the Talmud contains direct proofs that the 
 Ae. 
 
80° Lhe Authorship of the Book of Koheleth. 
 
 Book of Koheleth was actually quoted as Sacred Scripture, 
 on a par with the Law of Moses, in the days of Herod 
 the Great, and even by the great Jewish teachers who 
 flourished before that period, and consequently must have 
 been looked upon as canonical long prior to that era. 
 
 In discussing the question (treated of in our last chapter) 
 of the relation which subsists between the Book of Kohe- 
 leth and the Book of Wisdom, we pointed out that the 
 writer of the latter did not scruple to put forth his work, 
 which contained profitable doctrine most necessary for the 
 time at which it appeared, under the name of Solomon; 
 but that in so doing the author had not the slightest idea 
 of committing any fraud whatever, but simply sought to 
 assert in the strongest manner possible that the views 
 he advocated, in direct opposition to the Jewish sensualist 
 school of Alexandria, were in full accordance with the 
 utterances of that heavenly wisdom which had been bestowed 
 upon the great Solomon. 
 
 We come now to consider more particularly the question 
 of the authorship of the Book of Koheleth. It must be 
 conceded at the very outset that no distinct evidence can 
 be adduced of any doubts having been expressed as to the 
 Solomonic authorship of the book earlier than the period 
 of the Reformation. Nay more, if our theory respecting the 
 object and aim of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon be 
 correct, a further concession must be made, namely, that the 
 Book of Koheleth, known to the Alexandrian Jews through 
 the medium of the Greek translation of the LXX., was re- 
 garded by them at that early period as a veritable production 
 of the great monarch of Israel. This, however, is no more 
 than might be expected under the circumstances of the case 
 in that uncritical age, especially if it be borne in mind that 
 the book was not generally studied by the Alexandrian Jews 
 in its original language. But the fact remains that Luther, 
 
The Sayings of the Midrashin. 81 
 
 in his Zable Talk, was the first who ventured distinctly to 
 deny the Solomonic authorship of the work; and the great 
 Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, more than a century later, was 
 the first who ventured to assign critical arguments (not, it 
 must be acknowledged, of the most cogent character) in 
 support of that novel opinion.! 
 
 But, although the judgment of antiquity in favour of the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, as far as we possess 
 distinct evidence, appears to have been unanimous, it is to 
 be noted that certain sayings handed down in the Midrashim 
 exhibit traces of hesitation on this very point. Again and 
 again one encounters in these early commentaries (which, 
 in spite of Dean Plumptre’s unfavourable opinion,” are by no 
 means to be despised as worthless) the distinct assertion that 
 “while Solomon taught the Law the Holy Spirit descended 
 upon him, and he composed the three books, Proverbs, Song 
 of Songs, and Koheleth.”? In the same place Solomon is 
 represented as one who in his lifetime had experience of 
 three worlds, having been “a king, a private person, and 
 
 ’ 
 
 again a king;” or, as it is otherwise expressed, having been 
 
 in succession “a wise man, a fool, and again wise.”* Such 
 sayings are probably based upon the legend preserved in 
 the Targum, according to which Solomon, after he had 
 provoked God to anger by his foreign marriages, was driven 
 from his throne, and went through the towns and cities of 
 Israel as a preacher, everywhere lamenting his own folly, 
 
 1 See Luther’s Werke, Erlangen Ausg. vol, Ixii. p. 128. He affirmed the same 
 opinion in the preface to his German translation of the work in 1524; but in his 
 Latin Comm., issued in 1532, he has adopted the traditional view. See his Exeg. 
 Operi Lat. vol. xxi. ed. Irmischer & Schmidt, 1858. 
 
 2 One will often find that what seems to be childish has a deeper signification 
 than at first sight appears. The trivialities, or as Dean Plumptre calls them, ‘‘the 
 insanities,” of the old Jewish expositors can be paralleled by similar quotations 
 from the Patristic writers, and even from the works of commentators of later date 
 who ought to have been better instructed. 
 
 3 Midrash Shir ha-shirim, i. 1. 
 
 4 See p. 76. 
 
82 " Koheleth used as a title of Solomon. 
 
 and reproving sin, crying out, “I am Koheleth, whose name 
 was formerly called Solomon, who was king over Israel in 
 Jerusalem.”! This legend, which in later times assumed 
 yet stranger forms, does not appear to have been originally 
 intended to set forth an historical fact, but rather to be an 
 allegory, illustrating the truth that the career of Solomon was 
 a remarkable example on the one hand of the glory and 
 honour attained by pursuing the path of wisdom, and on 
 the other of the ruin and disgrace which result from following 
 the way of folly. For, inasmuch as the story of that great 
 monarch’s transgression and fall is replete with lessons of 
 wisdom, Solomon, “though dead yet speaketh,” and utters,in 
 the Book of Koheleth lessons and words of wisdom, whether 
 the book be an actual production of Solomon’s pen, or the 
 work of another author, who adduces that king as the most 
 remarkable example of the vanity of all earthly things. 
 
 There have not, indeed, been wanting scholars who have 
 had the hardiness to deny that the name of Koheleth was 
 intended as a designation of Solomon.? A similar assertion, 
 just as groundless, has been made with respect to the Book 
 of Wisdom (see p. 60). Neither the one statement nor the 
 other can for a moment be defended unless by persons 
 either ignorant of facts or fond of paradoxes. 
 
 The record of the acts of Koheleth, the son of David, 
 set forth in chap. ii, and the description given there of his 
 wisdom, prove beyond all reasonable doubt that no other 
 person can be meant by the name Koheleth than the world- 
 renowned Solomon. 
 
 1 See p. 91. 
 
 ? Nachman Krochmal, in his Afore Neboche ha-seman (i.e. Director errantium 
 nostra τοῖα 15), published after the author’s death by L. (Leopold) Zunz (Lemberg, 
 1551), as cited by Delitzsch, maintained that the name Koheleth was the 
 designation of some descendant of David, who acted probably as governor of 
 Jerusalem in the times of the Persian domination ; and hence the expression used 
 in chap. i, 12, ‘‘ Koheleth, the son of David, who was king in Jerusalem.” 
 
Not designed to conceal the real Author. 83 
 
 There are, however, passages to be found in the Book of 
 Koheleth itself in which the author lifts up his visor in such a 
 manner as to show the intelligent reader that the character 
 and name of Solomon were simply assumed, not for any pur- 
 pose of deception, nor as “a pious fraud,” but by a perfectly 
 allowable literary device. 
 
 Hengstenberg, indeed, has gone too far when he asserts 
 that the name of Koheleth was affixed to the work to indi- 
 cate that it was not intended to be regarded as Solomon’s. 
 For, argues Hengstenberg, the proper name of Solomon is 
 prefixed to all his genuine writings. But the induction of 
 particulars is too small to permit of any such conclusion 
 being arrived at with safety. The use of the name Koheleth 
 in itself is of no real significance in deciding the disputed 
 question of the authorship of the work. 
 
 The name Koheleth could not possibly have been made 
 use of for the purpose of concealment. For, if Solomon had 
 been really the writer, no assumption of a fictitious name 
 could for one moment have rendered the authorship uncer- 
 tain, as his acts and wisdom are so plainly spoken of in the 
 first two chapters of the book. ‘On the other hand, if that 
 monarch is referred to merely as the highest impersonation 
 of wisdom, he would have been more fitly brought forward in 
 that character under the world-renowned name of Solomon, 
 which in process of time became a synonym of wisdom 
 itself. Even were the assumption of a Solomonic authorship 
 to be regarded as a “pious fraud,” one can scarcely under- 
 stand what object a writer could have had in view in 
 designating Solomon by a title not by any means easy of 
 comprehension, instead of referring to him by the ordinary 
 name by which that great king of Israel was universally 
 known. 
 
 This is not the place in which to give a sketch of the 
 various interpretations proposed for the title Koheleth, by 
 
84 ° _ Meaning of the term Koheleth. 
 
 which Solomon is uniformly characterised in this book of 
 Scripture, and in no other. The matter cannot, however, 
 here be altogether passed over in silence. The word 
 Koheleth (n>mp) is, by no means so enigmatical as Renan 
 has asserted it to be. It is properly speaking a second form 
 of the feminine of the active participle of the first conju- 
 gation of the verb kahal (2), used, however, in a neuter 
 signification. Nouns of this particular form are often applied 
 to individuals without regard to gender, to indicate that such 
 persons are to a high degree possessors of the special form 
 of activity expressed by the verb. Hence Koheleth signifies 
 “a preacher” without any reference to the gender of the indi- 
 vidual; and the term has been thus explained by the LXX., 
 the Vulg., 
 
 The use of nouns of that form as proper names of men 
 
 and the earliest expositors, as well as by our A.V. 
 
 belongs probably to a late stage of the Hebrew language.” 
 Inthe present case the feminine has been supposed by Ewald, 
 Hitzig, Ginsburg and others, to indicate Solomon as the 
 personification of wisdom. This explanation is not, however, 
 justified by the contents of the book. The writer nowhere 
 brings forward Wisdom addressing men as in the Book of 
 Proverbs. Solomon is not depicted in the Book of Eccle- 
 Siastes, as in the Book of Proverbs, in the character of a 
 teacher who regards his readers as “children,” “sons,” or 
 pupils. The single instance of this usage in the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes (xii. 12) is only an apparent but not a real 
 exception. In the character of personified wisdom Solomon 
 could not have spoken of himself as having gotten more 
 wisdom than all before him in Jerusalem, or be described 
 as relating how his heart had great experience of wisdom 
 (chap. i. 16-18), or how he had applied his heart to discover 
 by means of wisdom certain things (chap. vii. 23). 
 
 The verb (7p) from whence the name Koheleth is derived, 
 
 1 See our Crit. Comm. 2 See our Crit. Comm. 
 
Lfistorical fact on which the title ts based. 85 
 
 signifies ¢o call, to call together, for the purposes of as- 
 sembling. The noun signifies a “speaker” or “preacher” 
 before an assembly convened for religious purposes, rather 
 than a “convener” or “assembler.” The historical fact 
 which gave rise to the name was most likely that spoken 
 of in 1 Kings viii. 55-61, where the historian records that 
 Solomon gathered all Israel together (1 Kings viii. 1, comp. 
 verse 65) for the consecration of the temple. On that occasion 
 Solomon preached, as Delitzsch has rightly observed, to the 
 people indirectly in the remarkable prayer which he then 
 poured forth, and directly when he afterwards blessed them 
 and exhorted them to continue faithful to the Lord God 
 of Israel (1 Kings viii. 55-61). 
 
 Although the discourse delivered by Solomon before that 
 great assembly in Jerusalem was probably the special reason 
 which led the author of the book before us to designate 
 Solomon by the peculiar name of Koheleth, it is to be 
 observed that no other allusion whatever is made in the book 
 to that “crowning period” in that king’s history. In the 
 Book of Koheleth Solomon is not represented as one who 
 preached to assembled Israel at a great crisis in the nation’s 
 history ; nor, indeed, is he introduced as addressing specially 
 the Israelitish nation. He is represented rather as a preacher 
 teaching mankind in general lessons drawn from his own 
 personal experience, which led him to the mortifying con- 
 clusion that “all is but vanity and vexation of spirit.” Hence 
 the name Koheleth so far from being, as Mr. Johnston 
 considers it, “intrinsic evidence of Solomon’s authorship,” is 
 quite the reverse.| Solomon once “ preached” to the people. 
 Then he was “ἃ wise man,” “a rich man,” and “a king.” In 
 the Book of Koheleth he speaks as “a poor man,” who once 
 indeed had been rich, but for whom riches no longer had any 
 
 1 4 Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes. Macmillan & Co., 1880. Ρ. 119. 
 See our remarks on p. I14. . 
 
86 “The title no proof of Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 charms. Though endued with the gift of wisdom above all 
 who preceded him, he narrates how he had acted like a fool, 
 and had thus learned the vanity and vexation even of 
 earthly wisdom. He speaks, indeed, as “8 wise man,” but as 
 one who had learned wisdom by experience, and had “come 
 to himself,” after having been first guilty of extreme folly. 
 He speaks, too, no longer as “a king,” but as one who had 
 sat upon the throne in days gone by, and now sought to 
 rule his fellow-men only by pointing out to them the lessons 
 which he had learned by experience. The remark of Rabbi 
 Judan and Rabbi Onyah, already quoted from the Midrash, is 
 more profound than it appears at first sight to be. Solomon 
 was “a king, a private person, and a king—a wise man, a 
 fool, and a wise man—a rich man, a poor man, and a rich 
 man.” Rabbi Judan quotes in proof of this the words of 
 Koheleth: “all have I seen in the days of my vanity,” 
 (chap. vii. 15), and observes, “a man reflects on his punishment 
 (PVT ΩΝ τ τὴν ἀνάγκην αὐτοῦ) only in the hour of his 
 enlargement.” Rabbi Onyah cites as his proof simply the 
 text: “I, Koheleth, was king over Jerusalem”! (chap. i. 12). 
 It is strange that Mr. Johnston did not perceive that 
 the instances he has given (in p. 336 of his Treatise) cannot 
 possibly be regarded as evidence in favour of the Solomonic 
 authorship. He calls attention to the fact that “in con- 
 trasting a poor and wise child with an old and foolish king, 
 Koheleth represents the child as standing up in the king’s 
 stead, adding: ‘there is no end of all the people’” (chap. 
 iv. 16). This statement, Mr. Johnston maintains, coincides 
 remarkably with the expressions used by Solomon in his 
 prayer at Gibeon in reference to the vast numbers of the 
 people over whom that monarch was called to reign (I Kings 
 iii. 7, 8), and also with the narrative of 1 Kings, in which the 
 crowds are spoken of who hailed with acclamations his 
 See p. 90. 
 
Reasons assigned for tts use. 87 
 
 accession tothe throne. This critic regards it as “a peculiarly 
 interesting circumstance” that the only other place in which 
 mention is made of the “people” (DY) in the Book of Ec- 
 clesiastes is in chap. xii. 9, ‘and moreover, because Koheleth 
 was wise, he still taught the people knowledge.” From an 
 array of such statements Mr. Johnston seeks to derive an 
 argument in favour of the Solomonic authorship of the book. 
 But he seems to forget that even if it be granted that there 
 is a connexion between the two passages, all that can pos- 
 sibly be proved from such trifling coincidences is, that the 
 writer of the Book of Ecclesiastes was well acquainted with 
 the incidents of Solomon’s life which are recorded in the 
 Sacred Writings, and that his book contains allusions to 
 those incidents. 
 
 Bloch, in his able defence of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes, seeks to account in another manner for Solo- 
 mon’s styling himself by a different name than that by which 
 he designated himself as the author of the Book of Proverbs 
 and the Song of Songs. He maintains that it was becoming 
 that the writer-of the Book of Ecclesiastes should assume a 
 name different from that by which he was ordinarily known. 
 The glorious name of Solomon would have presented too 
 glaring a contrast to the character of Koheleth. It would 
 have been unsuitable to have prefixed to such a book the proud 
 name of Solomon, the wisest among men, the prince of peace, 
 the king of Israel, who ruled over a territory larger than that 
 governed by his warlike sire, and vastly greater than that 
 of any of his successors. For the Book of Ecclesiastes pro- 
 nounces all his might, majesty, and wisdom to be but vanity. 
 Hence, according to Bloch, in the Book of Koheleth Solomon 
 sought as far as possible to assume the place of a private 
 individual, who, though he had been a king, wished to be 
 regarded in the light of an ordinary man addressing his 
 fellow-mortals. Solomon had had full experience of the 
 
88 " Why Solomon ἐς called Koheleth. 
 
 bitterness of life; and, in consequence of the extensive know- 
 ledge of men and things which he possessed, might well 
 be justified in regarding his own experience as typical of 
 that of mankind in general. If, therefore, in the course of 
 his philosophical lamentations he speaks of himself as a king, 
 and as a wise man, it is only to prove that he was thoroughly 
 acquainted with the matters of which he treats. For he 
 knew better than any other man the vanity of all earthly 
 things. 
 
 The reason assigned by Bloch for the use of the name 
 Koheleth is ingenious. But, if it were well-founded, it would 
 afford a strong argument against the Solomonic authorship 
 of the book. Such considerations might have great weight 
 in the eyes of a writer of a later date than Solomon, but 
 it would scarcely have had any in the case of Solomon 
 himself. It is highly probable that the real reason why 
 Solomon is termed in the book by the name of Koheleth is 
 that he is represented throughout as one who, not only by his 
 teaching, but in a greater degree by the incidents of his in- 
 dividual career, demonstrated the vanity of all human efforts 
 to attain real satisfaction. The experience of a Solomon 
 proves distinctly that the certainty of death on the one hand, 
 and the uncertainty attending all human efforts on the other, 
 must necessarily cast a dark shadow over the path even of 
 the most favourably situated, and of the wisest of mankind. 
 If such persons are forced to exclaim, “all is vanity,” much 
 more must ordinary mortals be driven to the same con- 
 clusion. 
 
 Koheleth is represented as “king in Jerusalem” (chap. i. 
 1), and “king over Israel in Jerusalem” (chap. 1. 12). The 
 phrase “king in Jerusalem” occurs nowhere else in the 
 Sacred Writings. The phrase “reigned in Jerusalem ” occurs 
 often. It is used of David when his reign in Jerusalem is 
 spoken of in contrast to his reign at Hebron (2 Sam. v. 5; 
 
The phrase “ King in Jerusalem.” 89 
 
 1 Kings ii. 10). It is used also in reference to Solomon, 
 in 1 Kings xi. 42, where it is said “he reigned in Jerusalem 
 over all Israel.” The historian uses the same phrase of 
 Rehoboam (1 Kings xiv. 21), of Abijam (1 Kings xv. 2), of 
 Asa (1 Kings xv. 10), and others. In the case of the kings 
 of Judah the phrase is applied by way of contrast, either 
 expressed or implied, to the kings of Israel who reigned in 
 Tirzah, or in Samaria. Hence Eichhorn and others naturally 
 consider that its occurrence in the book of Koheleth points 
 to a time subsequent to the schism between the kingdoms 
 of Israel and Judah. When Preston lays stress on the fact 
 that Solomon was “the ov/y ‘king over Israel in Jerusalem’” 
 —for David held his court both in Hebron and in Jeru- 
 salem—and when he maintains that the statement of 
 chap. i. I ought to be regarded as “an undesigned evidence” 
 in favour of the hypothesis of the Solomonic authorship of 
 the work, he is strangely unmindful of the fact that, however 
 suitably such a phrase might have been used after the time 
 of Solomon in referring back to events which occurred in 
 the reign of that monarch, it could not have been used by 
 that king himself in any such signification. Solomon is 
 naturally spoken of as “king of Israel” (2 Kings xxiii. 13 ; 
 Neh, xiii. 26). Bullock tries to account for the mention of 
 the city of Jerusalem in chap. i. 1 on the ground that that 
 city was “the scene of Solomon’s peculiar work for many 
 years,” and “the place which he had made the chief monu- 
 ment of his grandeur.” But this explanation is not satis- 
 factory, especially when one calls to mind the number of 
 other cities mentioned by the writer of 1 Kings (chap. ix.), 
 which were built by Solomon in various parts of the land 
 of Israel. 
 
 It may fairly be argued that the phrase “king in Jeru- 
 salem” could not have been used by Solomon without some 
 reference expressed or implied to Jerusalem as the seat of 
 
90 Evidence against the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 the theocracy. Bloch has endeavoured to interpret the 
 phrase in the disputed passage as having such a reference. 
 But the interpretation is scarcely defensible. For the nation of 
 Israel is not mentioned at all in the book, much less spoken 
 of as God’s peculiar people. No allusion is made throughout 
 the work to “the Gentiles,’ or to the position of Jerusalem 
 as the centre of the religious worship of Israel. Even the 
 great theocratic name of Jahaveh does not once occur in 
 the work. In this last particular the Book of Koheleth pre- 
 sents a striking contrast to the Book of Proverbs. 
 
 Consequently—although the expression “reigned in Jeru- 
 salem” is a common one, and is very suitably used by 
 historians like the writers of the Books of Samuel, the 
 Kings, and the Chronicles—the fact that the title “king in 
 Jerusalem” occurs only in the Book of Koheleth must be 
 regarded, not indeed as affording positive proof against 
 the theory of its Solomonic authorship, but as a piece of 
 evidence which, as far as it goes, tells in favour of the 
 conclusion that the writer of that book lived at a time when 
 Israel had ceased to be looked upon as an independent 
 nation, and when Jerusalem was no longer a royal resi- 
 dence. 
 
 Delitzsch, in common with the ablest modern critics, not 
 only regards the phrase “king over Jerusalem” as evidence 
 against the Solomonic authorship of the book, but also main- 
 tains that the use of the perfect tense ΟἿ) in the same 
 sentence (chap. i. 12) is strongly in favour of this conclu- 
 sion. In the statement “I Koheleth was king over Israel 
 in Jerusalem,” Solomon does not speak of himself as a reigning 
 monarch, but rather as one who had in past times exercised 
 regal authority. The remark of Vaihinger cannot easily be set 
 aside, namely, that the past “was” indicates a writer of later 
 date who adduces Solomon as speaking from his grave ; that 
 scholar, moreover, observes that the very expression proves 
 
Legends of the Talmud respecting Solomon. 91 
 
 that the author of the book had no intention to make use of 
 any deception in representing Solomon as thus addressing 
 mankind. Delitzsch calls attention to the fact that a 
 Talmudic legend, probably connected with that already 
 mentioned (p. 81), is based on this very expression, and 
 that the legend exhibits a correct grammatical compre- 
 hension of the force and signification of the tense employed. 
 The legend referred to relates that Solomon was driven from 
 his throne on account of his sins and follies, and that his 
 throne was for a season occupied by an angel who assumed 
 the features and appearance of the great monarch, while 
 the latter was forced to wander about through the land of 
 Israel, begging his bread from synagogue to synagogue, and 
 from school to school, and crying out all the while, “I Kohe- 
 leth was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” The dethroned 
 monarch, according to the story, in the course of his sor- 
 rowful wanderings, was often beaten with a stick on account 
 of his apparently insane pretensions to regal dignity, and was 
 fed upon beans. In the bitterness of his soul he was wont 
 ever and anon to exclaim, “This is my portion of all my 
 labour” (chap. ii. 10). 
 
 Delitzsch maintains that it is mere self-deception to en- 
 deavour to persuade oneself that Solomon (who was king 
 for forty years without any interruption of his sovereignty, 
 and whose reign only terminated with his death), could, 
 in giving a retrospect of his life in advanced years, have 
 written, “I Koheleth was king over Israel.” He might, 
 indeed, have used the phrase in the sense of “I Koheleth 
 became,” or “have become, and still am king over Israel.” 
 But that sense is inadmissible in‘ chap. i. 12 on account of 
 the perfect tenses which follow, which are all used in a 
 past signification. Had the writer intended to express the 
 
 1 Compare Longfellow’s Zales of a Wayside Inn, in which he depicts in a 
 similar condition Robert, King of Sicily. 
 
92 " “I Koheleth was king over Israel.” 
 
 J 
 
 present tense, “I Koheleth am king,” in contrast to the 
 past tenses which follow, he would have made use of a 
 different construction. The verb cannot, in the context in 
 which it occurs, be grammatically translated “I Koheleth 
 am king,” nor can it be explained to signify, “I have been 
 king and am still so.” 
 
 Bloch and, still more recently, Bullock (in the Speaker's 
 Commentary) have attempted to explain the perfect tense 
 in Ecclesiastes i. 12, by adducing the story of Louis XIV. 
 of France, who, after the unsuccessful war of the Spanish 
 succession, was often wont to cry out: “when I was yet a 
 king.” In giving utterance to such an expression, the 
 French monarch compared his condition of powerlessness 
 with his former power and might. No such comparison 
 between the past and the present can have been in- 
 tended by Solomon in the simple narrative of chap. i. 12." 
 For, although he is represented in this book as taking a 
 retrospect of his life, and as arriving at the conclusion that 
 all his might, glory, and wisdom were but vanity and vexa- 
 tion of spirit, he is nowhere depicted as comparing the sad 
 present with the glorious past, nor as looking back with regret 
 upon days of enjoyment which had passed away for ever. 
 Such a comparison would have been foreign to the purpose 
 of the book, though it might be required in order to justify the 
 interpretation sought to be put upon the terms of chap. i. 12.3 
 
 ‘ As Dr. Given, Professor of Hebrew, Magee Coll., Londonderry, maintains in 
 his Zruth of Scripture in connection with Revelation, Inspiration, and the Canon. 
 T. & T. Clark, 1881. He appeals to Exod, ii. 22, but see note on next page. 
 
 2 The dying words of the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211), 
 omnia fui et nihil expedit, ‘‘I have been all and it profits me nothing ” 
 might, indeed, be suitably quoted in illustration of the meaning of Kohe- 
 leth. But the second part of the sentence of the Roman Emperor expresses 
 that very comparison between the past and the present of his individual life, the 
 contrast between the state of glory he had attained and the dark future imme- 
 diately before him, which is required in any interpretation of the words before 
 us in order to make them suitable to Solomon. 
 
 3. Passages like Gen, xxxii. 10 (11) or Psalm Ixxxviii, 5 (4), have no bearing 
 
Attempts to answer Objections. 93 
 
 Mr. Johnston has attempted to put another sense on the 
 words, and argues that they may signify “that Koheleth 
 (whether he was or was not king when he wrote the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes) was king at the time when he did what 
 he details throughout the treatise” (Zveatise on Authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes, p. 162). The suggestion is ingenious but 
 improbable. Had Solomon been the writer, he would have 
 added some such qualifying clause as “for many years” in 
 verse 12, or, omitting that verse entirely, would have com- 
 menced verse 13 with: “I Koheleth gave my heart to 
 seek, etc.” Mr. Johnston is far from being able to justify 
 his statement that the perfect in the passage in question, 
 in place of being “adverse to the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes,” is “strongly confirmatory ” of that theory ; and 
 the passages adduced by him in support of this statement 
 entirely fail to prove his conclusion. 
 
 But the passage just discussed is not the only one which 
 presents a difficulty in the way of accepting the traditional 
 view of the authorship of the work. There are several ex- 
 pressions found in other passages which equally conflict with 
 the supposed Solomonic authorship. Thus, in chap. i. 16, 
 Solomon is represented as recording his experience in the 
 
 whatever upon the interpretation of the text. For N'% in those passages is 
 evidently used in the sense of ‘‘Z am become”—‘ 7 am.” Such presents are the 
 results of the historical past. Nor can the perfect in Exod. i. 22. *N A 
 993] YYN2 be regarded as a fitting parallel. The perfect there is not equi- 
 valent to the Latin fwd, but is rather factus sum ; or, still better, is equivalent 
 to the Greek perfect which denotes an action completed in the past, whose con- 
 sequences last up to the time of the speaker. Hence Exod ii. 22 is best 
 rendered, “41 am (lit. have become) a stranger in a strange land.” (See Driver's 
 Heb. Tenses, § 8). In the passage (Prov. iv. 3) quoted by Mr. Johnston (p. 165 
 of his Zreatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes), the reference is solely to the 
 past ; while in Eccl. vii. 19 the perfect in the second clause is conditioned by 
 the imperfect in the preceding, and consequently is rightly translated by the 
 English present tense. Those passages, therefore, are not ad rem. The pas- 
 sage in the Song of Songs viii. 10, quoted by Mr. Johnston, is not an appro- 
 priate parallel, while the perfect tenses in 1 Kings x. 6; 1 Kings xi. 11; 
 2 Chron, i. 11, are used in a strictly past signification. 
 
94 Phrase opposed to Solomonic A authorship. 
 
 following terms: “I communed with my heart, saying, 
 Behold I have attained great and ever increasing wisdom over 
 all who were before me over Jerusalem.” As that monarch 
 had in reality but one predecessor who ruled over Israel in 
 Jerusalem, namely, his father David, the passage is naturally 
 considered to have been written at a time when the writer 
 could look back to a long line of Jewish kings who had ruled 
 in the sacred capital. The last clause of the verse is, as 
 Delitzsch has noted, singularly like that met with so fre- 
 quently in the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs, namely, 
 “the kings who were my predecessors.” Hengstenberg, 
 Bloch, and others have indeed maintained that the reference 
 is to the ancient Canaanitish kings who reigned over Jeru- 
 salem previous to the Israelitish conquest of the country, 
 such as Melchizedek in the days of Abraham (Gen. xv.), and 
 Adonizedek in those of Joshua (Josh. x.). The phrase, those 
 “who were before me over (29) Jerusalem,” evidently refers 
 to kings who ruled over that city! Prof. Taylor Lewis, 
 the American commentator, has ventured to characterize 
 such a conclusion as “entirely gratuitous.” He maintains 
 that the verse may refer to “any men of note and wealth 
 together with David and Saul, or the writer may well have 
 had in view old princes in Jerusalem, away back to the days 
 
 1 Tt is curious that Bullock, in his Introduction to Ecclesiastes in the Speaker's 
 Commentary, could write (p. 623) ; ‘‘the limitation of the word ‘all’ to kings is a 
 pure assumption which nothing in the context justifies. The writer compares 
 himself with all who in former times, in Jerusalem, possessed wisdom or riches, 
 possessions which are certainly not confined to kings.” The same expositor, 
 however, in his note in chap. i. 16 says, that ‘‘the reference is probably to the 
 line of Canaanitish kings who lived in Jerusalem before David took it, of whom the 
 names of Melchizedek (Gen, xiv. 18) ; Adonizedek (Josh. x. 1), and Araunah 
 (2 Sam. xxiv. 23), are known to us; or it may be to Solomon’s contemporaries 
 of his own country (1 Kings iv. 31), and of other countries who visited him 
 (1 Kings iv. 34 and x. 24). He mentions, at the end of the note, the fact which 
 upsets completely his former argument, namely, that ‘‘the preposition ‘in’ Jeru- 
 salem should be translated ‘over’”’! And yet he refers back to his Introduction, 
 p. 623, where no notice is taken of this important fact 1 
 
Difficulty felt by the Early Translators. 95 
 
 of Melchizedek.”' Such assertions only show how far pre- 
 possessions in favour of a certain view may lead the mind 
 away from the simple truth. 
 
 The sacred historian speaks of Solomon’s wealth and 
 wisdom as greater than those of the kings of other nations 
 (1 Kings ili. 12; x. 23, 24). His wisdom is said to have ex- 
 ceeded that of the children of the East country, and the 
 wisdom of Egypt (1 Kings iv. 30, 31). But such statements 
 are very different from that in Ecclesiastes i. 16, namely, that 
 it was greater than the wisdom of the rulers over Jerusalem 
 who were before him. An allusion to the old Canaanitish 
 kings who had lived centuries before Solomon would have 
 been here singularly incongruous ; nor were any of them, as 
 far as we know, specially renowned for wisdom. It is far 
 easier to suppose that the passage contains an anachronism 
 of little importance, and not caused by any ignorance on 
 the part of the writer of the well-known facts of Israelitish 
 history, as Hitzig arbitrarily supposes. It was not necessary 
 that the writer of the Book of Koheleth, in bringing forward 
 a Solomon redivivus recounting to mankind the lessons de- 
 rived from his experience, should study historical accuracy 
 in such unimportant points of detail. On the contrary, such 
 trifling inaccuracies make it tolerably plain that the writer 
 desired his readers to understand that he had assumed the 
 role of Solomon only for a special purpose, and that his work 
 was not to be regarded either as an historical treatise, or as 
 an actual production of Solomon’s pen. 
 
 The early translators appear to have been quite aware of 
 the difficulty of explaining the statement in question as 
 Solomonic. They, therefore, had recourse to the device of 
 slightly modifying the text to suit their views. Thus the 
 Targum has translated the passage : “ Behold I have increased 
 
 1 See in his note 1 on p. 42 of the English and American edition of Lange's 
 Commentary. 
 
96 The Masoretic reading of the text correct. 
 
 and multiplied wisdom above all the wise men which. were 
 before me in Jerusalem,”! evidently referring to the four 
 Israelitish sages, Ethan and Heman and Calcol and Darda, 
 mentioned in 1 Kings iv. 31. The reading “in Jerusalem,” 
 although apparently supported by the LXX,, Syr, and Vulg., 
 and found in not a few Hebrew MSS. (as well as adopted by 
 our Authorised Translation), must unquestionably be viewed 
 as a conjectural emendation of the original text. It is 
 specially mentioned by the Masorites ; and, notwithstanding 
 their general belief in the Solomonic authorship, such a 
 reading of the text is distinctly condemned as erroneous.” 
 The Masoretic reading “over Jerusalem” could never have 
 found its way into the Hebrew text in preference to the 
 easier, and far more comprehensible, reading “in Jerusalem,” 
 had it not been genuine. 
 
 In spite, then, of all the efforts of commentators to evade 
 the fact, we cannot but regard this as one of several indica- 
 tions given by the author himself, that his work was not 
 really intended to be regarded as a production of the great 
 Israelitish monarch, although written in his name. 
 
 The only other instance which we shall here adduce 
 occurs in the epilogue of the work, which begins with verse 
 9 of chap. xii, the Book of Koheleth itself properly ending 
 with the eighth verse of that chapter. 
 
 A sketch of the various interpretations proposed for the 
 last six verses of the book will be found in the commentary. 
 We must, however, here notice briefly the view put forward 
 by Krochmal in 1851, and adopted with slight modifications 
 by several other Jewish scholars, such as Fiirst in his work on 
 the Canon of the Old Testament (1868), and Graetz in his 
 Commentary on Koheleth (1871). 
 
 According to Krochmal, the verses in question were added 
 
 1 ΘΡΟΝῚ ὉΠ ΣῈ NovDn Sp Sy ssnnsin mepDINy "NDS NO NN, 
 2 See Levita’s Massoreth ha- Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, p- 228, 
 
Opinions of Krochmal and Fiirst. 97 
 
 at the final settlement of the Canon at the Synod at Jamnia, 
 A.D. 90, and were designed to serve not merely as a con- 
 clusion to the Book of Koheleth, but as a fitting close to 
 the end of the third and last division of the Jewish Scrip- 
 tures, commonly known as the Hagiographa. Krochmal 
 considers Koheleth to have been the last book in that 
 division, although no proof of this can be adduced except 
 his interpretation of the epilogue of that work. He inter- 
 prets the clause “the words of the wise are as goads,” in 
 verse 11 to refer to the authors of the several books con- 
 tained in the third division. By the NiSDN mya the “lords 
 of assemblies,” he considers the members of the Jewish San- 
 hedrin to be signified, who are likened to firmly fixed nails 
 which cannot be moved. Why the members of the Jewish 
 council should thus be referred to in the epilogue, and what 
 is meant by their being thus termed, is hard to divine. 
 The modification of this translation given by Fiirst, namely, 
 “the words of the wise are like goads, and like pegs driven 
 in by the men of the assembly” is ungrammatical ; because, 
 as Delitzsch observes, “the accusative after the passive par- 
 ticiple can express any nearer definition, but cannot, like 
 the genitive, express the effective cause.” It must be ob- 
 served, too, in passing, that for the same reason our English 
 Version “as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies” 
 must also be abandoned, although formerly given by a 
 scholar like Lightfoot, and recently adopted and commented 
 on by Bullock in the Speaker's Commentary. The transla- 
 tion of Fiirst being thus inadmissible, it is unnecessary to 
 discuss his interpretation of the second clause, namely, that 
 the books of the Hagiographa are signified by “the pegs 
 firmly driven in,” or, finally admitted into the Canon by the 
 men of the Assembly. 
 
 The rendering given by Graetz requires several alterations 
 to be introduced into the Hebrew text which are not sanctioned 
 
 H 
 
δ. Opinions of First and Graetz. 
 
 by the authority of the MSS. or of the ancient versions (see 
 our comm.). He translates: “Words of the wise are as 
 ox-goads and like pegs planted in. The members of the 
 Assembly have handed them down from one shepherd.” 
 Graetz, after Krochmal, considers “ the words of the wise” to 
 signify the writings of the Hagiographa, which were, according 
 to him, not considered, like the Pentateuch, to be the outcome 
 of direct revelation from God, nor to be books, like the writ- 
 ings of the Prophets, which could be indirectly traced up to 
 the same source, but works written by various authors, who, 
 though not prophets, were “wise men.” The last clause, 
 therefore, he considers to be an endorsement of the Book of 
 Koheleth as a book approved of by the men of the Assembly 
 as being the production of a truly wise man, or “shepherd.” 
 
 Fiirst explains the clause “they (the writings of the wise) 
 are delivered from one shepherd,” to mean that the books 
 referred to were to be regarded as really proceeding from 
 God, who is meant by the “Shepherd.” But Graetz regards 
 that sentence as “obscure,” because God is termed only in 
 poetry “the Shepherd of Israel,’ while the passage cannot 
 possibly refer to Moses; although the latter is the interpre- 
 tation given in the Targum and the Midrash.! 
 
 1 The Targum paraphrases the verse thus: ‘* Words of wise men are like to 
 goads and to sharp-pointed instruments which are sharp to teach wisdom to those 
 deficient in knowledge, as a goad teaches the ox ; and the Rabbis of the San- 
 hedrin, the masters of the Halachas and the Midrashim which were given by means 
 of Moses the prophet, who himself fed the people of the house of Israel in the 
 wilderness with manna and with precious food.” The Midrash Koheleth takes 
 the word NIBDN in the sense of ‘‘ assemblies.” It quotes in its explanation the 
 saying of God to Moses in Deut. vi. 6, ‘‘ these words which I command thee this 
 day,” which ‘‘words” it considers were partly handed down by tradition to the men 
 of the Sanhedrin. In proof of this the saying of God in Num. xi. 16 is adduced, 
 ‘*gather unto me seventy men,” and the remark is made that the words are not to 
 be regarded as if they came from the mouth of the Sanhedrin, but as heard ‘‘ from 
 the mouth of Moses, because it is written ‘ they are given from one shepherd,’ that 
 is Moses; and not as if one heard it from the mouth of Moses but from the mouth 
 of the Holy One, blessed be He! as it is written ‘from one Shepherd,’ and there 
 
 is no shepherd except the Holy One, blessed be He! As it is written ‘Give ear, 
 O Shepherd of Israel.’” Ps, Ixxx. 1, 
 
Opinions of Bloch and Renan. 99 
 
 - Bloch (in his Studien, Ὁ. 139 ff) has adopted another modi- 
 fication of Krochmal’s view. He maintains that the epilogue 
 consisting of ch. xii.9-14 is an addition appended to the book 
 not at a much earlier date than the Synod of Jamnia, namely, 
 by the collectors of the third and last division of the Jewish 
 Canon centuries before the Christian era. These, “the men 
 of the Great Synagogue,” are the MBOX ya, “the masters 
 of assemblies,” the descendants in office and position of “the 
 chief of the fathers” mentioned in Nehemiah viii. 13. They 
 inserted the Book of Koheleth in the last collection of the 
 Holy Scriptures because they regarded it as a production of 
 Solomon’s pen, but they interpolated passages here and there 
 in the original work. For, when the canon was finally closed, 
 no book found admission into that collection which was 
 supposed to have been written later than the period which 
 terminated with the death of Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 
 425). It did not lie within the compass of Bloch’s later 
 work to give any detailed explanation of the several clauses 
 of the epilogue of Koheleth, so that we cannot be certain 
 how far he agrees in the other details with the explan- 
 ations of Krochmal, Fiirst, or Graetz. But, if the epilogue 
 really referred to the closing of the third part of the Jewish 
 Canon, it is strange that the early expositions should have 
 never spoken of that fact; and it is remarkable that no 
 evidence whatever can be discovered, even in Talmudic 
 sources, of a period in which the Book of Koheleth stood at 
 the end of the third division of the O.T., which, according to 
 this theory, is its true and proper place. The fact of the 
 epilogue being found in the version of the LXX., and in all 
 the other ancient versions, is opposed to Krochmal’s ideas. 
 
 Renan in his recent work on Ecclesiastes has adopted the 
 views of Krochmal and Graetz with respect to the composi- 
 tion of the epilogue. The work of Professor Graetz, which 
 has found few admirers in Germany, is regarded by the 
 
100 The three points of the Epilogue. 
 
 French savant as one of the most important contributions to 
 the study of Ecclesiastes, while the far more profound work 
 of Professor Franz Delitzsch is passed over by him in utter 
 silence. The latter scholar has satisfactorily proved that the 
 style and language of the epilogue is marked by the same 
 peculiarities which characterise the other parts of the book. 
 The language of the Book of Koheleth is akin to that of the 
 Books of the Chronicles, Its idiom approximates in some 
 respects to that of the Mishna, although the Hebrew is of a 
 decidedly more ancient type. Several of its expressions are 
 regarded by the Talmudists as obscure, and are commented 
 on by them in such a manner as to prove that the words 
 made use of were antiquated at the time when the Talmuds 
 were composed. The language of the epilogue is identical 
 with that of the body of the work. This fact tells strongly 
 against a theory founded on no real basis of evidence. 
 
 The Book of Koheleth considered apart from the epilogue 
 begins and ends with almost the same words: “ Vanity of 
 vanities, saith Koheleth, the whole is vanity.” A note- 
 worthy modification of this clause occurs, however, in the 
 refrain at the end of the book. The name Koheleth is there 
 found with the article affixed, “the Koheleth.” Proper names 
 in Hebrew, when special reference is made to their meaning, 
 sometimes take the article. This appears to be the case in 
 the epilogue, where a contrast seems to be drawn between the 
 ideal Koheleth or Solomon, who is represented as the speaker 
 throughout, and the actual Koheleth who ventures at the 
 close of his work to say a few words concerning himself and 
 his book. 
 
 The epilogue intimates that the author felt it necessary 
 to say something in conclusion (1) about himself and the 
 manner in which he had composed his book, (2) about the 
 importance of the sacred writings in general and of his own 
 book in particular, and (3) concerning the ultimate conclusion 
 
The Epilogue against the Traditional view. 101 
 
 at which he arrived. The remarks of the writer on each of 
 these three heads occupy in each case only two lines. The 
 terseness and brevity of the author cause considerable 
 difficulty in attempting to comprehend exactly his mean- 
 ing. 
 
 In verse 9 the mask hitherto worn by the writer is cast 
 aside, and he ceases to speak in the name of “the Koheleth” 
 the son of David, but now addresses the reader in his own 
 person. The change is denoted by the use of the title “ Ko- 
 heleth ” without the article in verse 9 in close proximity to, 
 and in striking contrast with “the Koheleth,” with the article 
 in verse 8. The writer thus proceeds: “And, moreover,” that 
 is, what remains to be said now at the close of the book is, 
 that Koheleth, the actual preacher and author of the work, 
 “was a wise man,” not an actual king or a ruler in Israel, as 
 was “the Koheleth,” or Solomon. Still speaking of himself 
 in the third person the author continues: “Further,” that is, 
 over and above being gifted with wisdom, “he (Koheleth) 
 taught the people knowledge, and (in doing so) pondered 
 over (lit. weighed) and investigated, arranged many proverbs.” 
 Inasmuch as he was himself a wise man, though not so wise 
 as the great Koheleth of Israelitish history, the writer states 
 further that he, too, had sought to make use of his wisdom by 
 instructing the people of his own generation, and was wont 
 to teach, like his great model the wise Solomon, by means 
 of proverbs, well pondered over, carefully investigated and 
 duly arranged for the special object in view. In drawing up 
 original proverbs, or in collecting together such sententious 
 sayings from various sources, “ Koheleth sought to discover 
 words of pleasantness, and that which was written in upright- 
 ness, words of truth.” That is, the writer of the Book of Kohe- 
 leth had adopted the plan of teaching by means of proverbs, 
 because he found that they were peculiarly attractive to the 
 popular taste. But he took great care to make use only of 
 
Lo2 The views of Ewald and Delitzsch. 
 
 such “sayings of the wise” as were written with an honest 
 and good intention, and were in reality “ words of truth.” 
 
 Language such as this could scarcely have been written by 
 the actual Solomon of history. 
 
 The next verse of the epilogue (verse 11) speaks more 
 generally concerning “words of the wise,” and indirectly 
 asserts the importance of the Book of Koheleth. This verse 
 unquestionably presents considerable difficulties to the ex- 
 positor. Its great difficulty lies in the use of the expression 
 DON ya. The first word of the phrase signifies “lords,” 
 or “masters,” but usage forbids it to be explained in the 
 sense of “leaders” or “editors,” as some have sought to 
 interpret it. It is quite possible to expound the phrase as 
 referring to the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, or even 
 in the sense of “members of academies,” if such interpre- 
 tations could be shown to convey any appropriate meaning, 
 and were agreeable to the context. Despairing of being able 
 to extract any satisfactory sense by such forced explanations, 
 Ewald, Delitzsch, and other eminent scholars have been led 
 to maintain that the phrase is a designation of the proverbs 
 to which reference is made in the previous verse. Ewald 
 translates the clause, “and like driven nails the well-com- 
 pacted [sayings] given by one shepherd.” That is, proverbs 
 delivered not as isolated maxims, but well-compacted and 
 well-arranged in their connection one with another “by one 
 shepherd,” or teacher of a congregation, are like nails well 
 driven in. Delitzsch considers the expression to be a designa- 
 tion of the words of the wise as forming “collections” standing 
 together in order and rank, which, like nails driven in, secured 
 against separation, and standing on one common ground, are 
 both a help to the memory on the one hand, and to a correct 
 comprehension of their meaning on the other.! 
 
 The objection to this interpretation is, that although the 
 
 = : é ees 
 For other interpretations of the clause see our Crit. Comm. 
 
What 7s meant by “ masters of collections.” 103 
 
 second word in the phrase, viz., MSDN, is a term which can 
 be applied to “collections” of things or of sayings, as well 
 as to “assemblies” of persons,} the first, (oy) is always used 
 of persons, except in cases where things are personified.’ 
 Such a personification does not appear natural here. We 
 prefer, therefore, to understand the phrase in the sense of 
 “persons skilled in collections,’ or well acquainted with 
 collections of wise sayings, namely, with books in which 
 such sayings are “intelligently grouped together” and com- 
 pacted into one whole. Compare the well-known expressions 
 ΝῊΡ ya, “masters of Scripture,’ meaning, persons well 
 vemsed in Sacred Scripture, Mw bya “a master of the 
 Mishna,’ or one well versed therein ; Daw) 3) “ masters 
 of incantations,’ or persons skilled in coe use. 
 
 Our explanation of the verse is as follows : “ Words of wise 
 men are like the goads,” for, as oxen are driven forward and 
 guided by the goad into the path in which they should go, so 
 are men impelled onward, and preserved in the right way by 
 the “sayings of the wise.” “And like nails firmly driven in 
 (the noun does not signify fent-pegs or stakes) are those well 
 versed in collections (of such sayings)—they (the collections 
 themselves) are given from one Shepherd.” Disciples 
 thoroughly versed in “the sayings of the wise,” and who not 
 only “hear” the words of wisdom, but “do” what wisdom 
 enjoins—for this is plainly the meaning of the writer —“ are 
 like nails firmly driven into” some wall, which cannot be 
 easily pulled out. Such are, to use New Testament language, 
 
 1 The Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedr. x. 28 a, takes the word in the last signifi- 
 fication. Its words are: ‘‘ There are no MDDS except the Sanhedrin, according 
 as it is written, gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel (Num. xi. 16). 
 Another interpretation is that the MIDIDN bys [the masters of the assemblies] are 
 the words which are spoken in the assembly” (ADDN). See Excursus No. 4, 
 
 Glossary, s.v. 
 9 Delitzsch regards the proverbs or maxims as here personified, and compares 
 
 ‘the expression eb alg (Prov. xxii. 20) excellent men, princes, used there of such 
 aphroisms. Compare D'3'4), Prov. viii 6. 
 
Ι04" Divine inspiration claimed by Koheleth. 
 
 no longer like “children tossed to and fro, and carried about 
 with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in crafti- 
 ness, after the wiles of error” (Eph. iv. 14). They are rather 
 “like nails firmly riveted” which cannot be removed from 
 the ground or place into which they are fastened. 
 
 The author evidently regarded his own book as belonging 
 to the category of such collections of the sayings of the wise. 
 Many of the proverbs in it were borrowed from other wise 
 men, not a few being probably aphorisms of Solomon borne 
 by tradition down the stream of time. The value and im- 
 portance of such “collections” of. the “sayings of the wise ” 
 as Koheleth speaks of, arise from their having a common 
 origin, being alike the outcome of Divine inspiration. “They 
 are given from one Shepherd,” who is above, and from whom 
 cometh “every good gift and every perfect boon” (Jas. i. 17). 
 That great Shepherd of men imparts the ability to utter 
 words which have power to impel men onward in the path 
 of rectitude, and to preserve them from falling away into 
 sin. The Books of the Old Testament in general, inclusive 
 of the Book of Koheleth, are profitable for teaching, both in 
 the way of conviction and correction, and are fitted to train 
 up believers “in righteousness ” (2 Tim. iii. 16). The “ words 
 of the wise” contained in the Book of Koheleth, whether 
 sayings of Solomon himself, or attributed to him by a lawful 
 literary device, “are given from the one Shepherd,” who not 
 only leads Israel as a flock, but also directs all those who put 
 their trust in Him. 
 
 Words such as these of the epilogue cannot have proceeded 
 from Solomon. They are only intelligible when explained, 
 as Delitzsch has interpreted them, as containing “an impor- 
 tant apologetic hint,” indicating that the collection of the 
 sayings of the wise in the Book of Koheleth, though not 
 proceeding from the pen of Solomon, was, as well as the 
 well-known Book of Proverbs (which is in the main a 
 
Koheleth on the whole duty of man. 105 
 
 collection of that monarch’s sayings), justly entitled to take 
 rank as a book written under Divine inspiration. 
 
 “Moreover,” adds Koheleth, who, here in the epilogue 
 (though not in his book), addresses himself to an individual 
 disciple, “ My son, be warned,” be on your guard ‘against error 
 in this matter. “Of making many books there is no end, and 
 much study is a weariness of the flesh.” In the pursuit after 
 wisdom the learner’s true motto ought to be “sz«ltum non 
 multa” (Plinit Ep., viii. 9). A real knowledge of a little is 
 better than a superficial acquaintance with many branches of 
 human learning. Let the disciple deeply persuaded of the 
 sad truth of the fact that “vanity of vanities, all is vanity,” 
 amid all the vanities of this present life be guided by the 
 “words of the wise,” especially by the words of those holy 
 men upon whose shoulders the mantle of inspiration was cast 
 by the great Shepherd of the flock of man. “For the end of 
 the matter, when all is heard (which can be adduced by the 
 wisest of mankind) is, fear God and keep His commandments 
 —for this ought every man todo.” This is the duty of the 
 high and of the lowly, of the king and of the subject, of the 
 rich and of the poor, of the learned and of the unlearned, of 
 the man whose faith is so strong, that it can remove mountains, 
 and of him whose faith is so feeble that he stumbles over every 
 stone which may lie in his path. For there is a judgment 
 which awaits man in a future state of existence. God shall 
 not merely judge the nations—a doctrine often taught in Old 
 Testament literature—and execute judgment on the ungodly 
 by punishments meted out in this world, but He shall also 
 judge all men. In that great judgment the inequalities of the 
 present shall be duly adjusted, and its enigma fully solved. 
 
 1 The expression for ‘‘ moreover” in this verse is somewhat different from that ? 
 in verse 9, and either signifies, as Ewald understands it, that what follows is to be ig 
 . = I> Ar 
 looked upon as the result of what had been already said ; or better, perhaps, 85 [[Ὁ- 
 
 Delitzsch, ‘‘ what still remains to be mentioned is” that which follows. 
 
 ΟΝ Ϊ 
 
106 . Revelation of a coming judgment. 
 
 “God shall bring every work into a judgment (which shall 
 pass) upon all that is concealed, whether good or whether 
 evil.” 
 
 This revelation of a coming judgment, in which every in- 
 dividual man is to be rewarded according to his deserts, is, 
 perhaps, the most striking truth contained in the whole Book 
 of Koheleth. In this particular Ecclesiastes is in advance of 
 the other writings of the Old Testament. It was not even 
 granted to a Daniel to understand this truth fully. He was 
 permitted to speak of the resurrection of “many of those 
 who sleep in the dust of the earth” in Messianic days, and 
 to announce that some should then “awake to everlasting 
 life” and others “to shame and everlasting contempt.” 
 Nowhere else in the Old Testament is it plainly revealed 
 that in the judgment day every secret thing shall be made 
 manifest, and that “each of us shall give an account of 
 himself to. God” (Rom. xiv. 12). 
 
 The announcement of this new doctrine at the close of 
 this strange Book of Koheleth was the breaking forth, amid 
 the darkness, of the dawn of a better and fuller revelation. 
 It forms a precious link in the chain of the Old Testament 
 preparations for the New. The revelation of Messianic days 
 has shed a clearer light upon our path. Jesus Christ hath, 
 indeed, brought immortality to light by His Gospel. He 
 hath overcome death, and doubt too, and opened the gate of 
 everlasting life to all them that believe on His name. 
 
ἘΠ Εν. 
 
 THE AUZHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH. 
 
CHAPTER Γν. 
 
 The denial of the Solomonic authorship does not detract from the authority of 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes, 109—No new facts of Solomon’s life contained in 
 the Book, 110—Charge of forgery unjust, 111—The practice of Greek and 
 Roman historians, 111I—The Emperor Claudius’ speech, 111—The Sacred 
 Writers availed themselves of similar freedom, 112—Rey. David Johnston’s 
 work on Ecclesiastes, 114—-Endorsed by Prof. Leathes, 114—His argument in 
 favour of the common authorship of the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, 114 
 —Reply to this argument, 115—The Writer of Koheleth uses Solomonic expres- 
 sions, 116—Renan’s former opinion as to the date of the book, 117—The 
 linguistic features of the book, 118—Why Solomon is introduced by the writer 
 as spokesman, 118—Dr, Pusey’s unfair charge against the scholars who deny 
 the Solomonic authorship, 119—Bloch’s attempt, and the earlier attempt of 
 Renan, to assign the phenomena of the book to copyists, 121—Peculiarities of 
 grammar, 121—The picture of life given by Koheleth, 122—Oppression and 
 tyranny during the days of Solomon, 122—Legend of the Midrash as -to 
 the stages of Solomon’s fall, 123—The complaints of oppression in the book 
 opposed to the Traditional view, 124—The book no penitential confession, 124 
 —M. Renan’s new work on Ecclesiastes, 125—-His ideas as to Canticles and 
 Ecclesiastes, 126—Maintains the modern date of the book, 126—Denies its 
 Solomonic authorship, 127—His suggestions as to the name Koheleth, 127— 
 His portrait of the author, 129—That portrait a caricature, 129—Renan 
 maintains the writer to be a mere man of the world, 130—A type of the 
 modern Jew, 132—Dean Plumptre’s ideal biography of the writer, 133—His 
 early life, 133—Crossed in love, 134—Turns philosopher, 134—Returns to 
 his early faith, 135—Comments on this view, 135—Probable date of Koheleth, 
 
 36—The last of the Hebrew Prophets, 136—The work a preparation for | 
 
 Christ, 137. 
 
 tui. ua, 
 
CHAPTER VY. 
 THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH. 
 
 IN our last chapter, on a survey of one portion of the 
 evidence presented by statements which occur in the Book 
 of Koheleth itself, we saw that it was highly probable that 
 the real author of that work was not the great king of Israel, 
 although the writer thought fit to put his own reflections on 
 the vanity of human life into the mouth of Solomon. No 
 more suitable person could have been adduced as a preacher 
 of such sermon on the vanity of all earthly things than a 
 monarch universally regarded as the wisest of men, and one 
 who had fully experienced in his own case the unsatisfying 
 character of all earthly joys. 
 
 A recent defender of the Solomonic authorship has ventured 
 to affirm that “the impeachment of the traditional authorship 
 of Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes detracts from their trust- 
 worthiness, by representing as literary fictions what those 
 ancient writings themselves represent as _ historic facts. 
 Hence the interests at stake in discussing the authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes or of Deuteronomy are vastly more momen- 
 tuous than any interests affected by discussing the authorship 
 of anonymous writings like the Epistle to the Hebrews.” ἢ 
 This critic further asserts that ‘‘the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 claims Solomon as its author, precisely as Deuteronomy 
 claims Moses, and the Pauline Epistles claim the Apostle 
 Paul ; and it is not easy to conceive how, if such indications 
 
 1 Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes. (Macmillan ἃ Co.) p. 11. 
 
 109 
 
110 Authority of the Book of Koheteth. 
 
 of authorship as are contained in Ecclesiastes are not literally 
 true, any averment of authorship found elsewhere in the 
 Scriptures can be accepted as trustworthy; or how, if the 
 Scriptures ought not to be believed in such a plain matter 
 of fact as the authorship claimed in them, they can deserve 
 to be trusted in other details purporting to be simple state- 
 ments of historical and doctrinal facts.” ! 
 
 The authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy cannot be 
 discussed here. But the assertion just referred to, so far as 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes is concerned, is completely unjustifi- 
 able. The authority and trustworthiness of the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes are not imperilled by the dental of its Solomonic 
 authorship. No “ historical fact ” whatever is thereby neces- 
 sarily resolved into a mere “literary fiction.” It is highly im- 
 proper for any defender of the authority of Sacred Scripture 
 to assert that the Book of Ecclesiastes is open to the charge 
 of “deceit and falsehood,’ and that its doctrinal statements 
 must be received with suspicion, if the superscription of the 
 book (ch. i. 1) is viewed, not as expressing an historical truth, 
 but as a literary device. 
 
 The general character and value of the Book of Koheleth 
 are in no wise affected by a denial of the traditional opinion. 
 The experience of Koheleth may have been truly and really 
 the experience of Solomon, although not a single sentence 
 in the book proceeded actually from the pen of the latter. It 
 is remarkable that this so-called “autobiography ” does not 
 mention a single fact connected with Solomon’s life which 
 might not easily have been derived from the narrative set 
 forth in the First Book of Kings. This could scarcely have 
 been the case had Solomon been the writer. Nay more, the 
 most important acts of his reign are passed over in silence. 
 Not one word is said concerning the building of the temple, 
 not a single allusion is made throughout the book to that 
 
 ' Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes. (Macmillan & Cq.) p. II. 
 
Not open to the charge of forgery. IIT 
 
 sin of idolatry whereby he provoked Jahaveh to anger, nor 
 to the adversaries who were raised up to chastise him on 
 account of that transgression, and whose actions embittered 
 his last years. 
 
 It would be unjust to regard the Book of Wisdom, though 
 professedly written by Solomon (see p. 60), in the light of 
 an imposition or a forgery. The charge of forgery would 
 be preferred against the Book of Koheleth with still greater 
 injustice. It has always been considered perfectly justifiable 
 for an author, in accordance with the indications found in 
 history, to pourtray in prose or in verse the feelings and 
 sentiments of distinguished persons on remarkable occasions. 
 As instances of such a practice, Delitzsch pertinently cites the 
 speeches of distinguished commanders and statesmen which 
 are to be found in the works of the great Greek and Roman 
 historians. Some of those orations rest no doubt upon a 
 positive historical basis. But in the majority of instances 
 the individual historian has himself worked up the material 
 afforded to him, and the speeches to be found in his pages 
 exhibit the same style and linguistic peculiarities which 
 characterise the other parts of his work. The Emperor 
 Claudius delivered in A.D. 48 a remarkable oration in favour 
 of the full privileges of Roman citizenship being granted 
 to the communities of Gallia Comata, or Gaul proper, and of 
 the A®duan senators being permitted to present themselves 
 as candidates for civic honours at Rome. This has been 
 duly recorded by Tacitus (Aumal, xi. 24). But the form 
 in which it appears on the pages of the Roman historian 
 is very different from that which it assumes on the bronze 
 tablets discovered in Lyons in A.D. 1528, and still pre- 
 served in the Museum of that city. The tablets repre- 
 
 1 The tablets in question are beautifully cut and are as legible now as when 
 first engraved. The inscription is given in full in Grateri Inscriptiones Antique 
 totius orbis Romani, p. Dit. The tablets themselves, which are duly regarded as 
 a monument of great national interest, are kept in the Palais des Arts, Lyons. 
 
112 ° Liberty taken by the sacred writers. 
 
 sent the speech as it was originally published by the 
 Imperial command. But the Roman historian, in relating 
 the emperor’s oration in a form suited to his Annals, and 
 in giving it a more elegant form than it assumes on the, 
 Bronze Tablets, had not the slightest intention of imposing 
 on the credulity of his readers, nor has any scholar ventured 
 to accuse him as guilty in this particular of “ deceit and 
 falsehood.” ! 
 
 Instances can also be given in which the sacred writers 
 of the Old, and even of the New Testament Scriptures, 
 have not hesitated to avail themselves of a similar literary 
 freedom. The pen of the historian himself, as Delitzsch 
 observes, is distinctly perceptible\in the greater part of the 
 prophetic addresses recorded in the Books of Kings and 
 Chronicles. Caspari, an eminent scholar, and one of the 
 most earnest defenders of the truths of Revelation, notices 
 that several of the discourses in the Chronicles, when com- 
 pared with those in the Books of the Kings, are distinguished 
 by a noteworthy peculiarity of style, specially characteristic 
 of the writers of the former books.? The sacred historians 
 
 1 Delitzsch, in his important article, in Luthard?’s Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche 
 Wissenschaft u. kirchl. Leben, Heft vi. 1882, on “the Decalogue in Exodus and 
 Deuteronomy,” adduces other instances. Cicero’s third oration against Cata- 
 line (Caz. ili. 2) contains the letter.of Lentulus to Catiline, which is also com- 
 municated by Sallust in his Bed/um Catilinarium (cap. xliv.). The substance of 
 the letter has been given by both, but the form which it assumes varies consider- 
 ably in the two narratives. Delitzsch points out that the differences in accounts 
 of the Decalogue in Exod. xx. and Deut. y. are owing to the same cause. 
 
 ? Caspari, in his treatise Ueber den Syrisch-Ephraimitischen Krieg, pp. 52 ff, 
 adduces certain proofs to show that the writer of the Chronicles did not invent the 
 speeches which appear in his history, but that he worked them up in a free manner 
 from the original sources, clothing them in a form peculiar to himself and his 
 time. A comparison of the discourses common to the Chronicles and the Kings 
 shows that the editor of the Book of Chronicles has on the whole faithfully 
 reproduced his original, but still has altered it in several places ; and he has dealt 
 in the same manner with the original of those speeches which are not found 
 in the Books of the Kings. Compare, for example, 2 Kings xviii. 22 and 
 Isaiah xxxvi. 7, with 2 Chronicles xxxii. 12. There is, moreover, a very striking 
 similarity between the most of the speeches which occur in the Books of the 
 
Examples of such literary freedom. 113 
 
 a 
 
 sometimes incorporate records into their narratives substan- 
 tially in the form in which they were originally composed. 
 But it is more usual for such authors to reproduce in their 
 own style those poems and speeches which were suited to 
 the object in view. 
 
 That the sacred writers did not consider themselves 
 debarred from making use of the liberty ordinarily accorded 
 to other historians is plain from a candid examination of 
 their productions. The Psalter itself, notes Delitzsch, “con- 
 tains not a few Psalms entitled 19 (“of David”), which 
 were not composed by David himself, but by unknown poets 
 who transferred themselves in thought into David’s place, 
 situation, and feelings.” Delitzsch considers Psalm cxliv. to 
 be an instance of such usage. That Psalm, according to his 
 opinion, was founded on the expressions used by David in 
 his celebrated combat with Goliath (1 Sam. xvii. 47). This 
 fact is also recognised by the LXX., who add to the simple 
 superscription “of David,’ which occurs in the Hebrew 
 Psalter, an explanatory clause, πρὸς tov Toned, “ concerning 
 Goliath.’ Still more noteworthy is the fact that the writer 
 of the Chronicles (1 Chr. xvi.), when he attempts to give 
 an idea of the songs of praise sung on the occasion of 
 the removal of the ark from the house of Obed-edom to the 
 tabernacle which David pitched for it in Jerusalem, actually 
 puts into the mouth of David the first and the last two verses 
 of Psalm cvi.; although that psalm, as has been admitted 
 by the most orthodox critics (as for example, Dean Perowne), 
 must have been composed after the date of the Exile. 
 
 Other instances might be adduced. These are, however, 
 
 Chronicles, which proves that the author considered himself at liberty to make a 
 free use of the material which he had at hand, and did not consider himself 
 bound in all cases to give the zpsissima verba. 
 
 1 It is also worthy of note that passages from Psalms xcvi. and cy. are also 
 quoted in the same song of praise, although these Psalms were evidently written 
 in post-exilian times, and refer to the period ot the captivity. 
 
 I 
 
114+ Argument drawn from “identical” words. 
 
 sufficient for our present purpose. Such points have been 
 passed over in silence by the recent defender of the traditional 
 theory of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes ; whose 
 work, as it is the most elaborate, though not the most 
 scholarly, which has lately appeared on that side, cannot be 
 left altogether unnoticed. It has been highly praised and 
 its arguments have been pronounced conclusive by Pro- 
 fessor Stanley Leathes of London.! Hence it requires more 
 than a mere passing reference. Though issued anony- 
 mously, we are permitted to state that the writer is Rev. 
 David Johnston of Herray, Scotland. 
 
 This critic has attempted, by an elaborate induction of 
 “identical words” and “coincidences” in style and phrase- 
 ology, to demonstrate that the Book of Proverbs and the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes have one and the same author. The 
 references to “kings” and “rulers,” the frequent mention of 
 “the eyes” in proverbial sentences, the occurrence of the 
 same words in both books, such as the nouns signifying 
 “street,” “delight,” “orchard,” “slothfulness,” “fool,” “ wis- 
 dom,” “riches,” “wealth,” the frequent use of the common 
 adjectives meaning “ good,” “ better than,” etc., have all been 
 carefully registered, tabulated, and counted up, and the re- 
 sults are triumphantly paraded as undesigned evidences of a 
 cumulative character in proof of the traditional view. The 
 isolated instance of the expression “ my son” in the epilogue 
 has not been forgotten. The strength or weakness of this 
 line of argument can be as well appreciated by the English 
 student as by the Hebrew scholar. Professor Stanley 
 Leathes in his review has incautiously observed that “the 
 force of this evidence, so far as it goes, seems to be irresistible.” 
 These critics seem to forget that the argument on which they 
 rely proves too much. By the same line of argument the 
 
 ‘In the Christian Church (London : Hodder and Stoughton), numbers for 
 February, March, April, 1881. 
 
Solomonic expressions found in Koheleth. 115 
 
 Book of Wisdom and the Book of Ecclesiasticus, or Ben 
 Sira, although extant only in Greek,! may with equal reason 
 be ascribed to Solomon. For, if the English student will, 
 with the aid of Cruden’s Concordance to the A.V. transla- 
 tion of the Apocrypha, count up the number of times the 
 majority of such words as are referred to by Mr. Johnston 
 occur in the Books of Wisdom and of Ben Sira, and then 
 compare the whole with the Book of Proverbs, he will obtain 
 results of a similar character to those noticed by the Scotch 
 critic. Nor have we to go far to discover the reason of 
 this phenomenon. It is simply because the Book of Kohe- 
 leth (or Ecclesiastes), the Book of Wisdom, and the Book of 
 Ben Sira (or Ecclesiasticus), abound in “ proverbs,” more or 
 less directly modelled after the pattern of the sententious 
 sayings contained in the ancient Solomonic Book of Proverbs. 
 
 An attempt has been made by Mr. Johnston to derive an 
 argument in favour.of the Solomonic authorship of the Book, 
 from the occurrence in it of a few expressions also found in 
 several prayers of Solomon recorded by the writers. of the 
 Books of Kings and Chronicles. It will be readily admitted 
 that there are some phrases common to the three books, 
 namely “the heart of the sons of men,” “there is no man who 
 sinneth not,” etc.2 All, however, that such “ correspondences” 
 can be fairly considered to prove is, that the writer of 
 
 1 The Greek text of Ben Sira is, as has been already noticed, a translation 
 from a Hebrew original. See p. 32. 
 
 2 Mr. Johnston, in p. 115 of his 7reatise, seems to regard it as a significant 
 fact that the temple is called in ch. iv. 17 (English Version, ch. v. 1) by the 
 name of ‘‘house,”’ inasmuch as Solomon uses that term of the temple no less than 
 sixteen times in 1 Kings viii. It is not, however, certain, though it is, perhaps, 
 probable, that the temple is alluded to in the passage in question. But as has 
 already been noticed, in an “autobiography” of any kind whatever, Solomon 
 could scarcely have avoided making some allusion to the building of the temple, 
 which was the grand event of his reign. No such allusion, however, can be 
 pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes. That the phraseology of Solomon should 
 have been imitated by a later writer, writing under his name, is only what we 
 might have expected. 
 
116° Renan on the critics of Gesentus’ School. 
 
 Ecclesiastes was acquainted with the records of Solomon’s 
 sayings and acts as given by the sacred historians, a fact 
 which no critic has ever called in question. 
 
 For it was only natural that the writer of the Book of 
 Koheleth in representing Solomon as setting forth his views 
 upon the vanity of human affairs, arrived at after long and 
 extensive experience, should occasionally employ words and 
 expressions used also by Solomon. The wonder is, not that 
 there are some words and phrases in the book drawn from 
 such a source, but that there are so few. The “ linguistic 
 features” of the book, however, are decidedly not Solomonic. 
 The author may, indeed, have availed himself in some places 
 of certain genuine sayings and proverbs of Solomon handed 
 down by oral tradition. But to what extent he has done 
 so, it is, of course, now quite impossible to ascertain. 
 
 Renan’s remarks in reference to the Song of Songs have 
 been of late frequently quoted by English writers, as if they 
 afforded a conclusive answer to all the objections against 
 the traditional view of the authorship of Ecclesiastes derived 
 from its linguistic characteristics. In speaking of the Song 
 of Songs, Renan observes that the critics of Gesenius’ school 
 have occupied themselves too exclusively with grammatical 
 and philological considerations, and have been too prone 
 neglect historical and literary considerations in deciding 
 questions concerning the authorship of particular books.” 
 There is, no doubt, much truth in this remark, but it has no 
 real bearing upon the question before us. There is a very 
 
 _marked distinction observable between the language of the 
 Song of Songs and that of Ecclesiastes ; and distinguished 
 
 1 It ought to be noted in justice to Mr. Johnston that he has himself perceived 
 the difficulty of urging such points as evidence on the question of authorship. 
 He attaches, however, great importance to the occurrence of ‘certain words 
 or phrases strikingly confirmatory of the Solomonic authorship,” such as those 
 noticed above. 
 
 *“ Renan, Le Cantique, pp. 90, 108. See Johnston’s Zyeatise, p. 38. 
 
 —< 
 
 ee ee 
 
flis former views on the date of Koheleth. 117 
 
 critics like Delitzsch, while upholding the Solomonic author- 
 ship of the former poem, have felt themselves compelled to 
 deny that Solomon was the writer of the latter work. 
 
 The grounds, on which Renan in his History of the Shemitic 
 Languages affirmed that the Book of Koheleth ought to be 
 regarded as a work of the Solomonic period of Hebrew litera- 
 ture, are not such as are likely to commend themselves to 
 critics with any belief whatever in the Divine inspiration of 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes. It is dangerous in such a question 
 to seek for an ally amongst writers of the school to which 
 M. Renan belongs. In his work on The Antichrist, that critic 
 speaks of Ecclesiastes as the only charming book that has 
 ever been written by a Jew.? He praises it, however, not so 
 much for its literary charms as for its scepticism. A work full 
 of such daring sceptical opinions could not, he there maintain- 
 ed, have originated in the post-exilian period, when a severely 
 Rabbinical type of Judaism held sway. Hence he argued 
 
 1 «Ce dernier criterium [les nombreux aramaismes], toutefois, ne doit pas étre 
 employé sans quelques précautions, lorsqu’il s’agit de déterminer l’age des differ- 
 ents écrits de la littérature hébraique. Nous avons déja dit que les plus anciens 
 fragments de la poésie des Hébreux présentent des aramaismes. Trois ouvrages 
 du plus grand caractere, le Livre de Job, le Kohéleth et le Cantique des Cantiques, 
 offrent la contradiction singuliére d’une pensée vraiment antique et d’un style qui 
 appartient aux plus basses époques. Ces livres décelent une inspiration vive et 
 une liberté d’esprit presque incompatibles avec les idées étroites et les habitudes 
 d’imitation servile qui régnent chez les Juifs depuis la captivité. Je croirai diffi- 
 cilement, pour ma part, qu'un poéme philosophique comme celui de Job, une 
 idylle aussi passionnée que le Cantique des Cantiques, une ceuvre d’un scepticisme 
 aussi hardi que le Koheleth, aient pu étre composés ἃ une époque de décadence 
 intellectuelle, ot l’on voit déja percer les petitesses de l’ésprit rabbinique. Avec 
 leurton dégagé et nullement sacerdotal, leur sagesse toute profane, leur oubli de 
 Jéhovah, ces ouvrages sont, ἃ mes yeux, des produits de l’époque de Salomon, 
 moment si libre et si brillant dans Vhistoire du génie hébreu. Peut-étre n’en 
 possédons-nous qu’une rédaction moderne, ot le style primitif aura été altéré.”— 
 Renan, Histoire des Langues Sémitiques, livre ii. chap. 1, pp. 130-1. 
 
 2 <* Nous essayerons de nous figurer Paul, en ces derniers jours, arrivant a re- 
 connaitre 41 a usé sa vie pour un réve, repudiant tous les prophétes sacrés pour 
 un écrit qu'il n’avait guére lu jusque-la, l’Ecclesiaste, livre charmant, le seul livre 
 aimable qui ait été composé par un juif.”—Renan, /’Antechrist p. 101. Troisieme 
 edit. Paris, M. Lévy Freres, 1873. 
 
118 Lnternal evidence against Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 that the book was most probably a work of Solomon’s, which 
 had, however, undergone considerable revision by some later 
 hand. To this supposed reviser Renan considered the lin- 
 guistic peculiarities of the work to be mainly due. This 
 theory, however, has found few supporters, and has been 
 now abandoned by M. Renan himself, whose matured views 
 on the authorship and character of the work will be shortly 
 considered, : 
 
 The internal evidence afforded by many passages of the 
 Book of Koheleth itself is against the traditional view. The 
 epilogue affirms the non-Solomonic authorship of the work. 
 So far from the author having left himself open to the charge 
 of being guilty of a “pious fraud,” by writing under the 
 mask of Solomon, he is not slow to inform his readers that 
 that king was not the real author of the composition. Solo- 
 mon is introduced as the speaker throughout the work in the 
 same way as Cicero in his treatises “On Old Age” and on 
 “Friendship,” selects Cato the elder as the exponent of his 
 views, or as Plato in his Dialogues brings forward Socrates.} 
 Similarly, in the literature of the Old Testament, the writer 
 of the Book of Job introduces into his magnificent dialogue 
 that patriarch and his friends as speakers. 
 
 The linguistic features which characterise the Book of 
 Koheleth are incompatible with the theory that Solomon was 
 its author. Objections may, indeed, be made with an appar- 
 ent show of reason to some of the examples cited by Delitzsch 
 in his glossary of linguistic peculiarities. That list contains 
 nearly one hundred words and forms occurring in the Book 
 
 ἘΜ. Renan has well remarked in his recent work on Ecclesiastes to the same 
 effect: ‘‘L’auteur n’est donc pas plus un faussaire que Platon ne lest dans /e 
 Parménide ou dans le Timée. Voulant nous donner un morceau de philosophie 
 éléate, Platon choisit Parménide ; voulant nous donner un morceau de philosophie 
 pythagoricienne, il choisit Timée, et il leur met dans la bouche des discours 
 conformes aux doctrines de leur école. Ainsi fait notre auteur ; Solomon n’est 
 pour lui qu’un préte-nom pour des idées qwil trouve appropriées au type légen- 
 daire [Ὁ] de ’ancien roi de Jerusalem.” —Z’ Zcclésiaste, Daze 
 
The Linguistic features of the work. 119 
 
 of Koheleth characteristic of an era of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage far later than that of Solomon. But objections to 
 points of detail do not afford a sufficient answer to such an 
 induction of particulars. The conclusiveness of the argu- 
 ment does not depend upon the decisive character of any 
 one or two instances separately considered, but on the cumu- 
 lative force of all such instances taken together.' Some of 
 these words or forms occur only in books of the Old Testa- 
 ment composed at an era later than that of Solomon; while 
 others, which do not occur in the whole range of Biblical 
 literature save in this single book, are words or phrases of 
 common use in the Hebrew of the Mishna.? 
 
 The attempts hitherto made to meet this philological 
 difficulty have been unsuccessful. Boehl’s pamphlet on the 
 Aramaisms of the book is, perhaps, the best treatise on that 
 point which has appeared in defence of the traditional view. 
 The Roman Catholic theologians, von Essen and Schafer, 
 have argued with much ability on the same side. But their 
 arguments are unsatisfactory. Dr. Pusey’s observations on 
 the same subject in his Lectures on Daniel the Prophet (third 
 edit. p. 327), though quoted by Bullock as conclusive, do 
 not fairly represent the state of the case. Dr. Pusey’s re- 
 
 1 In enumerating the instances of words common to the Books of Proverbs, 
 Canticles and Ecclesiastes as items which ‘‘collectively establish identity of 
 authorship,” Mr. Johnston has endeavoured to make use of this argument in his 
 favour. See his treatise, p. 66, and note our observations on ἢ. 114. 
 
 2 Mr. Johnston has unfortunately confined himself to the use of the English 
 translation of Prof. Delitzsch’s Commentary on Canticles and Ecclesiastes, issued 
 by Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, in 1877. I freely acknowledge the ser- 
 vices Messrs. Clark have rendered to the public by their valuable translation of the 
 works of many of the great German Divines. But the translation in question has 
 been executed in a most slovenly manner. It not only omits many passages of 
 the original German, but incorrectly translates it in many places ; and it is partly 
 owing to this fact that Mr. Johnston has fallen into several serious mistakes. The 
 translation of the glossary appended by Delitzsch to his work is peculiarly faulty 
 in the English edition. Hence I have deemed it necessary to append to the 
 present work, in Excursus No. 4, a glossary which is based to a considerable 
 extent on that of Delitzsch. 
 
120 " The verdict of Modern Criticism. 
 
 marks are, moreover, based on the uncharitable assumption, 
 that the scholars who have expressed opinions opposed 
 to the traditional view have been influenced by a personal 
 dislike of “the doctrine of future judgment and retribution 
 according to our works,” set forth in the book. This as- 
 sumption, indeed, is abundantly disproved by the fact that 
 Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Zéckler and others, whose ortho- 
 doxy is beyond suspicion, have felt themselves constrained 
 to accept the verdict of modern criticism. Scarcely a scholar 
 of eminence now ventures to dispute this verdict. Notwith- 
 standing the assertions of Dr. Pusey and Professor Taylor 
 Lewis of Schenectady, it is impossible to account for the 
 linguistic characteristics of Koheleth on the principle that 
 its peculiar phraseology is necessitated by its:subject matter. 
 Bloch’s treatise, short as it is, is on the whole the ablest work 
 written in defence of the traditional opinion. But even that 
 scholar has found it necessary to admit the fact that the work 
 abounds in Aramaisms.! His words are: “It is a truth, that 
 
 1 Prof. Given, in his work on the 7ruth of Scripture, referred to in note 1, 
 p- 92, has sought to account for the Aramaisms of the book by the following 
 extraordinary statements. He maintains (pp. 197-8) that Solomon ‘‘ by such an 
 accommodation and approximation to the dialect” of the eastern peoples which 
 were under his sway, ‘* would occupy a vantage ground in securing their attention 
 to the great subjects, ethical and religious, discussed in this book. He would thus 
 place himself in full accord with their sympathies, enlist their affections, and 
 make his most effective appeals to both head and heart. The Book of Ecclesiastes 
 would thus be a great missionary manifesto to the heathen inhabitants of those 
 lands. Amid all the perplexities that embarrass human life, and all the dissatis- 
 faction attendant on human pursuits, it would acquaint them with the living God 
 as the true source and centre of all real happiness. It is no small confirmation of 
 this view that God is not presented under the designation of Jehovah, the name 
 by which he was known in his covenant relation to Israel, but as Alohim, the 
 God of all the nations and peoples that call upon His name.” If the above had 
 been written by one who was only a popular preacher, it might be passed over in 
 silence, but Dr. Given is a Professor of Hebrew, and ought to know better. 
 The linguistic features of Koheleth are not such as to render the book useful in the > 
 way suggested. Though the Hebrew is more modern than the age of Solomon, 
 it is very far from being Aramaic. The Aramaisms found in the work are 
 indications of date, but could not have been designedly made use of by the writer 
 in order to render his book popular among Aramaic-speaking peoples. It is 
 
Grammatical peculiarities of the work. 121 
 
 no one can ever get rid of who has a feeling for linguistic 
 peculiarities, that this book has throughout’ an Aramaic 
 colouring ” (p. 124). Bloch seeks to reconcile this fact with 
 the hypothesis of the Solomonic authorship by assuming, 
 not unlike M. Renan in his former work, that such late 
 words and forms are owing to copyists who introduced 
 considerable interpolations into the work of Solomon. For, 
 while that scholar defends the unity of the work as a whole, 
 he maintains that words and passages have been added 
 to it in later times. The epilogue he views as such an 
 interpolation, though not by any means the only one to be 
 found in the book. Such views appear to us arbitrary, 
 while they are utterly unsupported by any evidence what- 
 ever. 
 
 In Excursus, No. 4, certain peculiarities of grammar will 
 be found noticed in detail, conducting to the same con- 
 clusion at which modern criticism has arrived. The most 
 characteristic of these are certain verbal inflexions and the 
 unfrequent use of several forms of mood of the verb which are 
 of common occurrence in the more ancient language. The 
 very fact that only three instances occur in the entire book 
 of the use of the imperfect with strong vav (the so-called 
 “vay conveérsive,” or “vav consecutive”), while instances of 
 the perfect with simple vav abound, is in itself strongly 
 characteristic of a late date of Hebrew literature. The very 
 opposite usage would have been expected in a work of the 
 Solomonic age. Mr. Johnston has bravely, but in vain, 
 sought to account for these phenomena, as well as for the 
 absurd to speak of Ecclesiastes as a ‘‘missionary manifesto.” A book which 
 contains no allusion whatever to idolatry could never have been designed for mis- 
 sionary purposes; for which, for many other reasons, it is manifestly unsuited. 
 Nor can the book have been designed primarily to teach that God is ‘‘the true 
 source and centre of all real happiness.” Such statements only do harm to the 
 cause they are intended to advance. 
 
 1 Bloch considers chap. xi. 9 as another such interpolation. Luzzatto has 
 propounded similar views in reference to chap, xii. 1, 7. See Bloch, p. 127. 
 
122 Oppressions of the people noticed by Koheleth. 
 
 peculiar use of the personal pronouns, and of the relative, 
 on principles favourable to the traditional view. 
 
 Knobel and other critics have maintained that the dark 
 picture of human life presented in the pages of Ecclesiastes 
 is inconsistent with the theory that the book was written by 
 Solomon. Such gloomy views do not harmonize at all with 
 the description of the Solomonic age given by the writer of 
 1 Kings, where the people are spoken of as eating, drinking, 
 and making merry (1 Kings iv. 20), and his reign is depicted 
 as a time in which Judah and Israel “dwelt safely, every man 
 under his vine and under his fig-tree, from Dan even to Beer- 
 sheba, all the days of Solomon” (1 Kings iv. 25). 
 
 It is, no doubt, quite true that there was a dark side to the 
 bright picture of peace and prosperity. Even in the lifetime 
 of Solomon there were not a few premonitory symptoms of 
 that great national schism which occurred in the days of 
 his successor. The magnificence and luxury of his court 
 and the enormous works which he carried on in all parts 
 of his kingdom entailed a heavy burden on his subjects. 
 The forced labour which was required in order to effect such 
 results was peculiarly irksome to a people accustomed to 
 greater liberty, and the taxation necessary to pay for such 
 gigantic operations could not under any circumstances have 
 been long borne by the Israelites. There must have been 
 no doubt considerable oppression, especially in remote parts 
 of the kingdom, and the heavy taxation was one of the chief 
 causes of the great rebellion which broke out immediately 
 after Solomon’s death, and led to the establishment of the 
 independent kingdom of Israel. 
 
 This state of things, even in the reign of that monarch, was 
 in all probability considerably aggravated by the number of 
 
 1 It is strange that the Books of the Kings and Chronicles give only scanty 
 notices of the real history of the time of Solomon, while they contain detailed 
 accounts of the events which occurred in the reign of David. 
 
The tyranny practised in Solomon's dys. 123 
 
 foreign wives which he had, who exercised no little influence 
 for ill over the mind of the king. The erection of temples 
 and shrines to the foreign gods which they worshipped gave; 
 no doubt, deep offence, not merely to the priests and the 
 prophets, but also to large numbers of the people. The 
 existence of a royal harem has ever been a fertile source of 
 evil in every country which is cursed by such an institution. 
 In Solomon’s later years it must have resulted in much 
 oppression, and in the perversion of justice throughout the 
 land. For it is only natural to suppose that the government 
 must by degrees have fallen into the hands of his concubines 
 and their favourites. The legend of the Midrash, based 
 though it be on a misinterpretation of several passages, is 
 not far from the truth when it states that Solomon fell from 
 the height of his glory by several successive stages. He 
 was first the mighty ruler of a vast empire, but that empire 
 was so diminished that he was king only over Israel (Prov. 
 i. 1); and afterwards his kingdom was further reduced so 
 that he reigned only over Jerusalem (Koh. i. 12). Finally 
 he was acknowledged as king only over his own house, 
 and there had not rule even over his own bed, but was in 
 constant dread of evil spirits. 
 
 The statements which occur in the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 concerning the oppression of the people by those in authority, 
 and the lament of the writer that the past was better than 
 the present (vii. 10), are supposed by some to be the natural 
 reflections of Solomon as he pondered over the state of his 
 kingdom in the closing years of his life.2_ The Midrash Kohe- 
 
 1 Midrash Shir-ha-shirim, i. 1 and iii. 8. 
 
 2 It is strange that Professor Taylor Lewis, in his edition of Zéckler’s Com- 
 mentary in the American edition of Lange’s Bibelwerk p. 28, could write that the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes ‘‘is just such a series of meditations as the history of that 
 monarch would lead us to ascribe to him in his old age, after his experience of the 
 vanity of life in its best earthly estate, and that repentance for his misuse of God's 
 gifts, in serving his own pleasure, which would seem most natural to his con- 
 dition.” What verse of the book can be honestly considered as breathing the 
 language of repentance ? 
 
124 ᾿ No penitential confession in Koheleth. 
 
 leth (chap. i. 12) represents Solomon as there exclaiming as 
 he looked back upon the glories of the earlier part of his 
 reign: “I was, when I was, but now I am no more.” But 
 the complaints against unrighteous government found in the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes are evidently penned by one who had 
 himself writhed under such injustice, and cannot with any 
 propriety be regarded as proceeding from the ruler who could 
 have put a stop to such tyranny and wrong. The remark 
 of Jahn (Zznlettung, ii. p. 849) must commend itself to every 
 thoughtful student. “ Solomon,” 
 scarcely complain so bitterly concerning oppressions, the 
 unrighteous acts of judges, and the elevation of fools and 
 slaves to high honours, to the neglect of the rich and the 
 noble, unless he had wished to write a satire on himself.” 
 Had he been desirous of writing a penitential confession of 
 his own shortcomings and misdoings he must have expressed 
 himself in a very different strain. In such a case the lan- 
 
 observes that critic, ‘‘ could 
 
 guage of the book would have been more akin to that of 
 David in the fifty-first Psalm, and the book would have 
 contained some allusion to the sin of idolatry into which 
 he fell, possibly through a desire to prove his large-hearted 
 liberality and to conciliate his foreign wives. 
 
 Bloch gives an ingenious, if not satisfactory answer to this 
 last objection. He maintains that in a book like Koheleth 
 —which consists of a series of sorrowful reflections upon the 
 deficiencies of human life, lamentations over the discord- 
 ances of nature and spirit, and painful declarations con- 
 cerning the unsatisfying character of all earthly things, and 
 the nothingness of all happiness—a condemnation of idolatry 
 would have been altogether out of place (p. 58). 
 
 We have only glanced at a few points of the evidence 
 derivable from an examination of the contents of the book 
 itself. The more deeply the matter is investigated the 
 stronger does the internal evidence against the Solomonic 
 
Date pointed to by internal evidence. 125 
 
 authorship appear. Though much may indeed be urged in 
 support of the view that the misery and oppression of Israel 
 in the latter days of king Solomon were grievous, the details 
 of the tyranny and violence given in the Book of Eccle- 
 siastes do not suit that period, while they vividly represent 
 the state of affairs at the time when the Jews groaned under 
 the yoke of their Persian and Grecian oppressors. The 
 doctrine concerning submission to unjust decrees and the 
 absolute authority of the prince was of prime. importance 
 under the circumstances of that trying period. 
 
 All such considerations, indeed, would not be decisive, 
 if positive proof could be brought forward in favour of the 
 Solomonic authorship. But such evidence is not forthcoming. 
 That tradition should have all but unanimously ascribed the 
 composition of the work to Solomon is exactly what might 
 have been expected from the fact that the book was written 
 in the name of that monarch, and represents him throughout 
 as the speaker. 
 
 The English defenders of the traditional view of the author- 
 ship of the Book of Ecclesiastes, inclusive of Mr. Johnston 
 (industrious though he has proved himself to be), have in our 
 opinion passed over without fair examination the real argu- 
 ments against that theory, although long since presented in a 
 convenient form at the close of Ginsburg’s valuable introduc- 
 tion to his Azstorical and Critical Commentary on the book. 
 
 In the present state of critical opinion with regard to the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes, it is unnecessary to combat the old 
 arguments (long since refuted) against the unity of the book. 
 But it is quite possible that the work may contain here and 
 there fragments of earlier writings or poems, as Renan and 
 others are disposed to maintain. The arguments in favour 
 of the genuineness of the epilogue have been already briefly 
 noticed. 
 
 M. Renan’s recent “Study” on Ecclesiastes, has not 
 
126 Renan’s matured views on Ecclestastes. 
 
 thrown that light upon the age and the character of the 
 book which might have been expected from a scholar of his 
 celebrity. The Song of Songs and the Book of Koheleth 
 are in his view, a few “profane pages” which by some curious 
 accident have found their way into that “strange and admir- 
 able” volume which is termed the Bible. These two books 
 were, according to Renan (who in this particular has adopted 
 the views of Graetz), first introduced into the Jewish Canon 
 at the Synod of Jamnia (see p. 15). But the Jewish doctors 
 understood neither the one book nor the other, for, had they 
 done so, they would not have inserted such compositions in 
 the collection of Sacred Writings. It was their stupidity that 
 made them “able to make out of a dialogue of love a book 
 of edification, and out of a sceptical book a book of sacred 
 philosophy.” For the Canticles and Koheleth are just “like 
 a love-ditty and a little essay of Voltaire which have gone 
 astray among the folios of a theological library.” } 
 
 On the question of the antiquity of the Book of Ecclesiastes, 
 Renan has widely departed from his former views (see p. 117), 
 inasmuch as he now maintains that Ecclesiastes must be 
 “certainly reckoned among the more modern books of the 
 Hebrew literature,” and that its very language proves it to be 
 a modern work. For, although the language is but slightly 
 tinged with Aramaisms, Koheleth is of all the Biblical books 
 the one “most akin to the Talmud.” He notes, however, 
 at the same time that some have attempted to prove that the 
 author’s work exhibits traces of the influence of the Greek 
 philosophy. “Nothing is less certain. Everything absolutely 
 explains itself in this book by the logical development 
 of Jewish thought. The author is very probably of a later 
 date than Epicurus ; it seems indeed that he did not receive 
 a Greek education. His style is in the first place, Shemitic. 
 In all his language there is not a Greek word, not a charac- 
 
 1 Renan, /’£cclésiaste, pp. 1, 67, 41. 
 
His conjecture as to the term Koheleth. 127 
 
 teristic Hellenism. On the other hand he is far from pushing 
 so far as Epicurus the radical negation of Providence, and the 
 principle of the indifference of the gods in regard to human 
 affairs.” } 
 
 The author of the Book of Ecclesiastes, according to M. 
 Renan, never intended his work to be regarded asa production 
 of Solomon. It must not by any means be classed among 
 the apocryphal writings of later days, whose authors, in 
 order to secure a more wide acceptance of their opinions, 
 endeavoured to palm off their works as productions of well- 
 known personages of ancient times. The statements made 
 in the epilogue to Ecclesiastes are, in M. Renan’s opinion, 
 decisive against the theory of the Solomonic authorship of 
 that work. 
 
 While fully admitting the fact that Koheleth is used as a 
 sort of “symbolical name” for Solomon, M. Renan expresses 
 himself dissatisfied with the explanations of that name 
 hitherto suggested by scholars. He considers it probable 
 that the letters which form that word (K,h,|,t) may have been 
 the initials of words, which initials were formed into a proper 
 name,”? as in the Middle Ages the great Jewish scholar 
 Maimonides received the appellation of Rambam, a name 
 composed of the initial consonants of his own name and 
 title (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon); or as Rabbi Solomon 
 Isaac (R. Shelomo Yizhaki) was similarly known by the 
 designation of Rashi. M. Renan considers the words whose 
 
 1 See /’ Eeclésiaste pp. 52, 53, and 63. 
 
 2 Professor Strack has informed me that De Lagarde has attempted to discover 
 in the beginning of Psalm xxv. 22 a reference to the proper name S775, Num. 
 xxxiv. 28, and similarly in the opening words of Psalm xxxiv. 23 an allusion to the 
 ordinary proper name 1), Pedaiah, But no such references to proper names 
 can be proved to exist in the Bible. 
 
 3 M. Renan refers also to the mystic alphabet known as the Athdash, wherein 
 the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet was expressed by the last, the second letter 
 by the penultimate and so forth, δὲ being substituted for N and 3 for & and vice 
 versa. Jeremiah is supposed to have made use of this device when he designated 
 
128 Renan on the object of the Book. 
 
 initials were thus united in the om de plume of Koheleth are 
 now unknown, so that his suggestion has cast no light what- 
 ever upon the supposed difficulty. It may prove fruitful in 
 opening a door to fanciful interpretations on the part of in- 
 genious scholars. There is not, however, the slightest founda- 
 tion on which one might fairly base such a conjecture. For 
 the name Koheleth can be so easily explained (vid. p. 84), that 
 there is no real ground to consider it as an enigma yet unsolved. 
 
 Though M. Renan considers the title of the book 
 enigmatical, he regards its object as plain and simple. The 
 book he observes, has been generally considered as one 
 of the most obscure in the Bible. Theologians for dogmat- 
 ical purposes have endeavoured to darken its real signifi- 
 cance. Its general import and character are perfectly clear, 
 though there are a few difficulties to be found here and 
 there. The author teaches that “all is vanity,” for the world 
 presents a series of phenomena which constantly recur, and 
 there is no progress to be observed anywhere. “The past has 
 been like the present, the present is like that which is to come. 
 The present is bad, the past has not been better, and the 
 future will not be preferable. Every attempt to ameliorate 
 human affairs is chimerical.” “Crime is undoubtedly a folly, 
 but wisdom and piety are not recompensed. The villain is 
 honoured as the virtuous ought to be. The virtuous man is 
 overwhelmed with misfortunes which ought by right to fall 
 upon the villain.” Society is quite out of course, kings are 
 egotistical and bad, judges are unjust, the people ungrateful. 
 What then is the only practical wisdom? One should, if 
 
 Babylon (533) by Sheshach C12), Jer. xxv. 26 ; and the Casdim coy), 
 or Chaldeans, are possibly referred to by the words "DP. 12 (rendered in our 
 A.V. by “in the midst of them that rise up against me”) in Jer. li. 1. But these 
 instances of Athdash cannot be relied on with certainty. For, as Prof, Friedrich 
 Delitzsch has pointed out in his very able work Wo lag das Paradies ? (Leipzig 1881) 
 p. 215, Shésh-ku appears to have been originally a designation of one part of 
 Babylon. The second instance of this usage referred to is also open to doubt. 
 
[fis attempted portrait of the Writer. 129, 
 
 possible, quietly endeavour to enjoy the fortune which may be 
 acquired by toil, and to live happily with a wife whom he has 
 loved when young. One should seek to avoid excesses of every 
 kind. It is vain to imagine that by any efforts of our own 
 we shall be able to triumph over destiny. But it is dangerous 
 to abandon oneself to folly, for sensuality is always punished ; 
 the man who 15 very rich is weighed down by anxiety; but it is 
 well, on the other hand, to avoid poverty, for the poor man is 
 despised. In order to live a quiet life one must not run counter 
 to the prejudices of the world, must not fight against them, or 
 seek to reform mankind. The wise man will be a practical 
 philosopher; seeking to follow the just mean, he will be 
 “without zeal, without mysticism.” \The writer of the Book 
 of Koheleth, whose views M. Renan thus summarises, was 
 “a worthy man, devoid of prejudices, good and generous at 
 bottom, but discouraged by the baseness of the time and the 
 sad conditions of human life.” “ He would willingly be a hero, 
 but, verily, God rewards heroism so little, that one asks one- 
 self if it is not going against His intentions to take up things 
 in that manner.” 
 
 Such is the “charming” portrait of the writer of the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes as delineated by the pen of the French writer. A 
 more selfish, mean-spirited and contemptible character could 
 scarcely be described, one more dead to all the loftier aspi- 
 rations of humanity, or more regardless of its bitter sorrows, 
 provided only he might be able himself quietly to enjoy a 
 moderate fortune! The portrait which M. Renan has painted 
 is not a real likeness; it is a caricature. 
 
 Koheleth was, indeed, according to him, no atheist. 
 He believed in the existence of a God who occasionally 
 interposed in the affairs of the world. But the God of his 
 creed was one who was too great to concern Himself deeply 
 with human actions in general. God occasionally punishes 
 men for their crimes. Hence it is a matter only of simple 
 
 K 
 
1:32 Renan on the religion of Koheleth. 
 
 prudence to abstain from crimes of a gross character. For 
 in certain well-defined cases punishment for sin is a sort of 
 natural law. The principles on which God acts are utterly 
 incomprehensible to man. The religion which Koheleth, 
 as explained by M. Renan, inculcates is a religion without 
 zeal, without love, “without excess.” Devotees are the most 
 unbearable blockheads. “The impious man is a fool; he 
 defies God, he exposes himself to the most terrible danger, 
 but the pietist is a simpleton who wearies God with his 
 prayers, and displeases Him while he imagines that he 
 honours Him.” ji 
 
 Renan’s views of the various passages in the book in which 
 reference is made to the state of the dead will be noticed 
 elsewhere. Koheleth was (according to his conception of his 
 character) not a man who like the patriarch Job would burst 
 forth into indignant complaint against the Most High. He 
 was of a more phlegmatic disposition. “It is so useless” to 
 trouble oneself about such matters. He had learned to take 
 things more quietly. He had no hopes of a coming Messiah, 
 no belief in a resurrection of the dead, no pride in the history 
 of his own people. He had no patriotism. His idea was, 
 that his bodily frame would be dissolved at death, and then he 
 would exist no more. Why then should he give himself any 
 unnecessary trouble? Others might fancy, with the prophets 
 of old, that at a future period there would be a reign of justice 
 on the earth. Not so our enlightened and “ charming” writer. 
 He believed that the day of Jahaveh would never come. God 
 would never leave heaven to reign on earth. For himself, 
 Koheleth only desired to live in peace, to enjoy the fortune 
 he had honestly obtained. He knew old age was coming on, 
 and that death would inevitably follow, but he would wait 
 quietly until it came, and meanwhile amuse himself with 
 describing it in witty phraseology. “The fine and voluptuous 
 temperament of our author shows us that he had many an 
 
Koheleth a mere “man of the world.” 130 
 
 inward sweetness wherewith to console himself for his pes- 
 simist philosophy. Like all the pessimists of talent he loved 
 life ; the idea of suicide, which at one time crossed the mind 
 of Job [Job vii. 15; but qu.?] in view of the abuses of 
 the world, did not for a moment enter into his thoughts 
 (?’Eccléstaste, p. 40). 
 
 The chief interest which the Book of Ecclesiastes, according 
 to this critic, possesses, is, that it is the only book which 
 presents us with a picture of an intellectual and moral po- 
 sition which must have been that of a large number of the 
 Jews. The book is a rarity. It contains the only pages of 
 sang-froid to be found in the gloomy volume of the Scrip- 
 tures. The author was a man of the world, he was not a 
 pious man or a theologian. One might almost imagine he 
 had never known the Zzorah, and if he had read “the 
 prophets, those furious tribunes of justice,” he had imbibed 
 very little of their spirit. He did not believe in the victory 
 of godliness for the world would never be better than it is. 
 The Sadducees, who did not believe in angels or spirits or in 
 a resurrection, those followers of Boethus, who were almost 
 synonymous with the Epicureans, “all that rich aristocracy 
 of the priests of Jerusalem who lived of the Temple, and 
 whose religious coolness irritated so strongly Jesus and the 
 founders of Christianity, were in reality the intellectual 
 brethren of our author.”! As M. Renan observes in another 
 place : “the author was perhaps some great grandfather of 
 Annas or of Caiaphas, of the aristocratic priests who with 
 so light a heart condemned Jesus.” 
 
 The bad taste which directed these last remarks needs no 
 comment on our part. But such, according to M. Renan, was 
 
 1 χ᾽ Ecclésiaste, pp. 50, 62. M. Renan observes, ‘‘the true commentary on 
 Koheleth is to be found in Books xii. and xiii. of the Avtigudties of Josephus, 
 that tissue of crimes and of baseness, which especially about 200 8.6. and a little 
 earlier than that time, made up the history of Palestine.” P. 59. 
 
132  Koheleth pictured as a “ Modern Jew.” 
 
 the author who has bequeathed to posterity one of the most 
 charming books of antiquity (/’Ecclésiaste, p. 85)! 
 
 What pleases M. Renan especially in the Book of Koheleth 
 is the personality of the author. “No one was ever more 
 natural or more simple. His egoism is so frankly avowed 
 that it ceases to shock us. He certainly was an amiable 
 man. I would have had a thousand times more confidence 
 in him than in all the Hasidim! of his contemporaries. The 
 good nature of the sceptic is the most solid of all; it rests 
 upon a profound feeling of the supreme truth, Δί expedit.” 
 It is in consequence of this that Koheleth is a book so 
 profoundly modern. The pessimism of our day finds there 
 its finest expression. The author appears like a resigned 
 Schopenhauer, very superior to that one whom a bad stroke 
 of fortune forced to live at German tables @héte.””* “One 
 loves to picture him to oneself as an exquisite man and one 
 of polished manners, as an ancestor of some rich Jew of Paris 
 gone astray in Judea in the time of Jesus and the Mac- 
 cabees.” In fact, the best representative one can have of the 
 author of Ecclesiastes is “the modern Jew,” as he appears in 
 some of the great commercial cities of Europe. From Ko- 
 heleth to Heinrich Heine, there is, according to Renan, only 
 a step. When one compares him with the prophets of Israel 
 one has some difficulty to understand how the same race 
 could have produced characters so essentially different. 
 
 Such is the description of Koheleth presented to us 
 by the French savant. M. Renan’s eminence as a scholar 
 renders it impossible to pass his work over in silence. He 
 has unquestionably seized upon, and painted in striking 
 colours, some of the more salient features of the book, but 
 
 The Hasidim, or the pious, ‘‘ puritans,” were the party of the orthodox Jews 
 whose fiery zeal is spoken of in the First Book of the Maccabees. Our English 
 version has transcribed the word there by “ Assideans.” 
 
 2 In M. Renan’s article in the Revue des Deux Mondes for Feb., 1882, he 
 speaks of “les brasseries allemandes,” the German beer-houses. 
 
Dean Plumptre's Biography of Koheleth. 133 
 he has altogether failed to comprehend its deeper meaning. 
 As an article, M. Renan’s essay may be deemed brilliant ; 
 but, judged as a contribution towards the understanding of 
 the book, his “Study” is of little value, and must be charac- 
 terized as flippant. 
 
 It may be interesting to notice here an attempt more 
 reverent, though scarcely more successful, on the part of an 
 English scholar to solve the mystery which enwraps the 
 writer of Ecclesiastes. Dissatisfied with the efforts of former 
 commentators, Professor, now Dean, Plumptre, first tenta- 
 tively in his article in Szuzzth’s Biblical Dictionary, then in 
 the pages of the Exposztor for 1880, and still later in his 
 edition of Ecclesiastes with Notes (1881), has struck out for 
 himself a new and ingenious line of interpretation. 
 
 He regards the book as of the nature of an autobio- 
 graphical confession, in some places distinctly, in others 
 unconsciously revealing itself beneath the veil assumed by 
 the author. 
 
 According to Dean Plumptre, Koheleth lived in Judza 
 about B.C. 220; -not far from the city of Jerusalem, the road 
 to which was often traversed by him. He was trained up as 
 a child in the school attached to the synagogue of his native 
 village, at a time when religion had become in general 
 merely an empty form. In that synagogue school the boy 
 learned to regard with reverence and affection the memory 
 of the wise king, Solomon. His parents were wealthy, 
 though the boy was from early years trained up to agri- 
 culture. Koheleth’s mother was unfortunately one who left 
 her son “no memory of a true pattern of womanhood for 
 him to reverence and love.” The young man was not long 
 before he saw through the emptiness and hypocrisy of 
 the religion current in his day, marked as it was with long- 
 winded prayers, easily made and soon forgotten vows, and 
 a superstitious regard for dreams, He by and by travelled 
 
134 Plumptre’s “ideal biography” of Koheleth 
 
 into other lands, and in the course of his wanderings settled 
 in Alexandria. There he lived for a considerable time under 
 the yoke of a despotic government. He observed the 
 oppression of the masses, and the artifices adopted by men 
 who aspired to power and place. His wealth led him to 
 indulge in all kinds of sensual pleasure and permitted him 
 to gratify a taste for luxury and magnificence. In his 
 wildest excesses his wisdom preserved him from utter ruin. 
 He however, soon, learned to question the reality of a life 
 beyond the grave, in which in earlier days he had been a 
 believer. 
 
 During his stay in Alexandria, Koheleth met with one 
 who proved in very deed to be a true friend, “one among 
 a thousand.” This friendship kept him in his darkest hours 
 from abandoning himself to despair. For he had also a 
 bitter experience of another kind. He imbibed a passionate 
 affection for a beautiful woman whose utter baseness he 
 discovered barely in time to escape from her net. Hence 
 his strong denunciation of the female sex in the pages of 
 his work. To solace himself for his bitter disappointment, 
 Koheleth turned to the contemplation of art, and afterwards 
 to the study of Greek philosophy. He was peculiarly drawn 
 towards the philosophical schools of the Epicureans and the 
 Stoics. The natural science and physiology of the former 
 attracted a mind eager for knowledge. In chaps. xi. and xii. 
 of his book he exhibits more than an ordinary acquaintance 
 with the anatomy and construction of the human frame. 
 But in both these schools of philosophy, while he found some- 
 thing to attract, he found still more to repel. They could 
 not solve the mystery of human life. The old faith of the 
 Jew revived at last in a purer form within his heart, and 
 experience had taught him lessons of wisdom. His course 
 of life for a while was more cheerful than before, and he came 
 forward as a debater in the philosophic schools, But, like 
 
Not the result of sober Criticism. 135 
 
 many others, Koheleth had to pay the penalty of his former 
 life of dissipation, and premature old age weakened his 
 frame. After a long and painful illness he had time to 
 reflect on the past, and became a firm believer in a personal 
 God and a personal immortality. In old age he learned 
 to wait for death with calm trustfulness in the God who 
 was above, and the thought of returning to his Maker sup- 
 ported him in the contemplation of the tomb. “It was in 
 this stage of mental and spiritual growth, of strength growing 
 out of weakness, that he was led to become a writer, and 
 to put on record the results of his experience. He still 
 thought in the language of his fatherland, and therefore in 
 that language he wrote ‘the Book of Ecclesiastes.’ ” 
 
 Thus does the learned Professor construct an interesting 
 novel from indications supposed to be given in the course 
 of our author’s reflections. But what may not be constructed 
 out of the most unlikely material by a similar display of 
 ingenuity? If one is at liberty first to disconnect sentences 
 from their natural position, and then to piece them together 
 again, chipping off inconvenient corners, and filling up the 
 gaps with imaginary details, what kind of a tesselated mosaic 
 may not be formed? Such patchwork can scarcely be re- 
 garded as the honest result of sober criticism. For, whatever 
 may have been the position in life of our author, if Solomon 
 was to be brought forward by him in his book as the spokes- 
 man of his sentiments, the wealth, riches, and magnificent 
 works of that monarch had of necessity to be mentioned. 
 Nay more, as it was impossible to avoid making some refer- 
 ence under the circumstances to Solomon’s enormous harem, 
 the remark of the writer. on the female sex (chap. vii. 28), 
 especially in the connexion in which it stands, utterly loses 
 the significance with which Professor Plumptre seeks to in- 
 vest it. 
 
 But we must of necessity draw our remarks to a close. 
 
138 ἡ Probable date of Koheleth. 
 
 We have in previous chapters pointed out that the Book 
 of Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom presuppose the 
 ‘existence of the Book of Ecclesiastes. We may thus con- 
 clude with tolerable certainty that the work itself could 
 not have been composed later than B.c. 250. But if, as 
 we have seen reason to believe, “the men of the Great 
 Synagogue” were those who admitted the work into the 
 ‘Canon, it must have been written some time between B.C. 
 444 and 328. The internal evidence makes it likely that 
 it was towards the close of this period that the author lived. 
 The simple reason why no more definite date can be assigned 
 is, as mentioned elsewhere, that Jewish history is almost a 
 blank from the death of Nehemiah (about B.c. 415) down 
 to the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes in B.c. 175. The 
 annals of the Persian empire, too, are very deficient from 
 the death of Xerxes in B.c. 465 down to the appearance of 
 Alexander the Great on the stage of history. But, ere the 
 Persian empire was finally broken up, Koheleth, who in 
 some respects may be considered as the last of the Hebrew 
 prophets, had appeared, and his work had been recognised by 
 the ecclesiastical leaders of the Jewish nation as worthy to be 
 inserted among their sacred writings, as bearing on its brow, 
 however difficult some of its statements may be to us to 
 comprehend, the unmistakable impress of Divine inspiration. 
 
 In speaking of Koheleth as the last of the Hebrew prophets 
 of the Old Testament, we, of course, use that term not in 
 the signification attached to it in the popular mind, but in 
 the proper sense of the Hebrew word, namely, one who 
 announces the Divine will. There are, indeed, in the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes no passages which can in any proper sense 
 be termed Messianic—though Hahn has attempted to point 
 out some sucht The Messianic expectations of the Jewish 
 
 1 - ΠΩΣ, τ . . . 5 
 For instance, chap. iv. 13 ff. and chap. v. 7, 8. But his interpretation of 
 these passages cannot be sustained. See our Crit, Comm. 
 
Koheleth, the last of the Hebrew prophets. 137 
 
 people seem in Koheleth’s days to have been at the lowest 
 point. It was not his mission to revive those waning hopes. 
 The appointed time for that had not yet fully come. The 
 age in which he lived was one of restlessness of thought, . 
 and of that kind which often precedes an age of action, of 
 that general uneasiness of feeling which is a premonitory 
 symptom of some coming storm. There were daring spirits 
 who, perplexed with mysteries they could not comprehend, 
 were inclined to cast aside altogether the yoke of religion; 
 and others, who, sullenly dissatisfied with their earthly lot, 
 were disinclined to make the best use of the good things 
 within their grasp, and disposed at the same time to dash 
 impatiently aside as vain and deceptive the solace presented 
 by the thought of a life beyond the grave. The restlessness 
 of the age was fully shared in by Koheleth, and he does not 
 scruple to express in the boldest terms his feeling of the 
 vanity of life. He was far, however, from abandoning himself 
 to utter sadness or despair. He thought that it was man’s 
 duty to enjoy the gifts of God, to fear God, and keep His 
 commandments. Heine has somewhere styled the book 
 “the Song of Scepticism,” but, as Delitzsch observes, it would 
 bemmore correctly termed, “thé Song of .the Fear of God,” 
 Throughout his work Koheleth holds fast his faith in the 
 eternal. He never loses himself in the abyss of atheism. 
 His belief in God, in a judgment to come, in the final victory 
 of goodness, comes forth ever and anon distinct and clear. 
 The book was, as already observed, in many ways a 
 preparation for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It pointed out 
 man’s sin and helplessness, the vanity of his best estate and 
 the darkness that enwrapped the tomb. In contrast with its 
 teachings the surpassing glory of the New Testament revela- 
 tion is more clearly seen, for the latter tells of One who has 
 abolished death and brought life and immortality to light 
 by His Gospel. Much of the advice given in the Book of 
 
138 - Koheleth on future blessedness. 
 
 o 
 
 Koheleth indeed might be summed up in Apostolic aphor- 
 isms, such as: “ See that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, 
 but as wise, redeeming the time because the days are evil.” 
 _ “Rejoice in the Lord, and again I say, rejoice.” It is not 
 granted to man as such to know the secrets of the life that is 
 to come; the keys of that unseen world and of death are in 
 the hands of the Crucified and Risen Redeemer. But Kohe- 
 leth saw into the mystery, as far as it was possible under the 
 circumstances in which he was placed; and his conclusion on 
 this point is well expressed in chap. vili. 12: “I know surely 
 that it shall be well with them that. fear God.” 
 
CUAPTER VL 
 
 ΟΣ ΠΡ). OK THE BOOK OF KOHETATE 
 AND THAT OF SCHOPENHAGCER AND VON 
 HARTMANN. 
 
 139 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The unique character of Book of Koheleth, 141—The work pervaded by a pessi- 
 mistic tone, 141—The meaning of the phrase ‘‘under the sun,” 142—The 
 uniformity of nature depressing, 143—The unsatisfactory character of the search 
 after wisdom, 145—Solomon as a philosophical investigator, 145—Advantages 
 of wisdom in common life, 147—Vanity of riches, 148—Corruption of magis- 
 trates and rulers, 149—Koheleth’s commendation of the day of man’s death, 
 150—The cause for such a commendation, 151—Pessimists before Schopen- 
 hauer, 152—Schopenhauer and yon Hartmann, 152—Natural temperament of 
 Schopenhauer, 153—Sully on ‘‘unreasoned pessimism,” 153—Principles of 
 Schopenhauer’s philosophy, 155—von Hartmann on ‘‘unconscious will,” 155 
 -- Will” identified with ‘‘desire,” 157—‘‘ The will to live” a curse, 158— 
 Koheleth claimed by the Pessimists, 158—Venetianer’s description of the 
 results of Pessimism, 159—von Hartmann’s three stages of illusion, 159— 
 Schopenhauer’s abuse of the Jews, 160—Pessimist doctrines conduct to ascetic- 
 ism and suicide, 161—Schopenhauer’s attempt to deny this, his extraordinary 
 views, 162—Taubert’s reference to suicide, 163—Taubert on. Koheleth, 164— 
 The doctrines of Koheleth opposed to those of modern Pessimists, 164—Pessi- 
 mism and the socialistic movement, 165—Inconsistencies of Pessimist philo- 
 sophers, 166—The natural results of Pessimism, 167—Schopenhauer’s explana- 
 tion of the passion of love, 168—Results of such teaching, 169—Polygamy and 
 monogamy, 170—Schopenhauer’s apology for sodomy, 170—Rapid progress of 
 Pessimism, 171—Pessimism and modern science, 171—Points of truth in Pes- 
 simism, 17I—Resemblance to Buddhism, 172—Inferiority to Buddhism as a 
 moral system, 173—The Buddhist doctrine of Nirvana, 173, 182—Buddhism 
 selfish in its aims, 175—Charge of selfishness bronght against Christianity, 176 
 —Christianity and Pessimism, 177—Optimistic and pessimistic features of 
 
 Christianity, 179—Selfishness of the new Philosophy, 181—Practical failure of 
 Buddhism, 182, 
 
 140 
 
CHAPTER. VI. 
 
 THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH AND THAT 
 OF SCHOPENHAUER AND VON HARTMANN, 
 
 THE Book of Koheleth is unique in the whole range of 
 Biblical literature. There is no other book among all the 
 Sacred Writings with which it can properly be compared. 
 If, in the prominence it assigns to “wisdom,” and in the use 
 it makes of aphorisms, it has certain features in common with 
 the Book of Proverbs, the general structure and design of the 
 two are entirely dissimilar. Few works can be at all fairly 
 judged by isolated passages considered apart from their 
 
 gaat ext, and none have been more unfairly treated in this 
 
 respect than the Book of Ecclesiastes. It is not at all sur- 
 prising, therefore, to find that its writer has often been 
 regarded as a sceptic, not only in the good sense of the 
 term, that is, as a bold and impartial seeker after truth, but 
 in its more objectionable signification. Nor is it, perhaps, 
 strange that it should have been appealed to by several 
 writers belonging to the school of Modern Pessimism 
 as a work which, though received into the Old Testament 
 Canon, sets forth substantially several of the most startling 
 tenets of that new philosophy. 
 
 It is, indeed, undeniable that the Book of Ecclesiastes is 
 pervaded by a kind of gloom, and distinguished by a pessi- 
 mistic tone peculiar to itself. Inasmuch, too, as this har- 
 monised with the feelings of Schopenhauer, the founder of 
 
 the school of philosophy to which reference has been made, 
 141 
 
142. The gloomy tone of the work. 
 
 its writer has been designated by him as “the genial, philo- 
 sophical Koheleth.” ἢ 
 
 The book opens and closes (for the epilogue may here be 
 left out of consideration) with the words: “ Vanity of vanities, 
 saith Koheleth, all is vanity.” The clause “all is vanity,” 
 occurs also in other passages (chaps. i. 14; 11. 11; Π|. 19; xi.8; 
 and, slightly modified, in chap. xi. 8). The phrase “this also 
 is vanity” is even more frequent.? As the writer noted how 
 man obtains no certain benefit on earth in return for all his 
 toil and trouble, and as one phase after another of the vanity 
 of human life passed successively in review before his mind, 
 he uttered again and again the same piercing cry, “all is 
 vanity and a striving after wind.” 
 
 An Anjierican commentator maintains that the key to the 
 meaning of the writer lies in the oft-recurring expression 
 “under the sun,” in which there is a mental contrast in- 
 tended to be drawn between the rewards of toil expended 
 on the things of time, and “the rewards of another world.” 
 According to this commentator the book was designed to 
 answer the question: “ What advantage is there in this life 
 irrespective of another? What advantage has this life with- 
 out another life?” The treatise is thus regarded as an argu- 
 ment, “for a God, for immortality, and for future rewards.” ὃ 
 
 Very little consideration is required in order to show that 
 such an interpretation is not warranted by the contents of 
 the work. The most cursory examination of the numerous 
 passages in which the phrase “under the sun” occurs, is 
 quite sufficient to prove that our author never intended to 
 
 ' Or, ‘‘the Jewish but so philosophical Koheleth,’’ Schopenhauer, Welt als 
 Wille u. Vorstellung, Band iii. p. 731. See also Venetianer, Schopenhauer als 
 Scholastiker, p. 273. 
 
 2 So in chaps. i. 15, 19, 21, 233 ii. 26; iv. 4, 8, 163 v. 10; vi. 2, 9; vii. 63 
 Vili, 10, 14. 
 
 3A Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes by the Rev. Loyal Young, D.D., 
 with Introductory Notices by the Rev. Prof. McGill, D.D., Princeton, and Rev. 
 Prof. Jacobus, D.D. Philadelphia : Presbyterian Board of Education, 1865. 
 
The writer offended by the untformity of Nature. 143 
 
 contrast the state of things “under the sun,” with those 
 things which belong to “another or a future life.” 
 
 There is some truth in the remark of Schopenhauer, that a 
 man cannot fully understand the second verse of Koheleth 
 until he has reached the age of seventy. It is then that 
 the feeling of the vanity of all earthly things is experienced 
 in its keenness. There are, however, circumstances which 
 may cause the vanity and melancholy of earthly existence to 
 come home at any age with a crushing power to a human 
 soul, especially if it has not learned to seek consolation from 
 above. ; 
 
 The impressions made upon men’s minds by the things 
 of nature depend in a great measure upon the state of 
 mind of the beholder. A melancholy spirit naturally sees 
 everything through a distorted medium. ‘Optimism and 
 pessimism,” as a philosopher of the present day observes, 
 “have their deepest psychological roots in differences of 
 sensibility,” though he carefully adds that “these are not the 
 only internal factors. Other mental influences co-operate to 
 turn the judgment in this or that direction.”? Though man, 
 as at present organised, is dependent in a great measure on 
 his bodily organs and conditioned by them, there are other 
 forces which must also be taken into account; and intellectual, 
 moral and spiritual influences have no unimportant part to 
 play in the formation of the opinions of an individual. 
 
 The writer of the Book of Ecclesiastes represents Solomon 
 in his opening verses as offended by the uniformity every- 
 where exhibited in nature. In doing so, he shows an accurate 
 knowledge of human character. Solomon in his old age, 
 “sated and weary,” had, to use the language of Cox, “large 
 experience of life, had tried its ambitions, its lusts, its plea- 
 
 1 See our Crit. Comm. on chap. i. 3. 
 2 Sully, Pessimism: A History and a Criticism. H.S. King & Co., London, 
 
 1877. 
 
144 Depressing effect of the uniformity of Nature. 
 
 sures; he had tested every promise of good which it held 
 forth and found them all lies; he had drunk of every stream 
 and found no pure living water that could slake his thirst. 
 And men such as he, sated but not satisfied, jaded with 
 voluptuous delights, and without the peace of faith, com- 
 monly look out upon the world with haggard eyes.” Hence 
 the tone in which in the opening prologue the author 
 expresses himself: “ Generation goes and generation comes, 
 and the earth stands for ever.” The sun rises and sets the 
 same as ever, the winds continue to blow in their perpetual 
 circuits, the rivers run into the sea. All the things of nature 
 are in a state of ceaseless activity, human language cannot 
 express this constant coming and going ; which, however, 
 produces only the same effects as ever; “there is nothing 
 new under the sun.” This restlessness of nature on the one 
 hand, and the uniformity of its action on the other, were felt 
 by the writer to be depressing, especially when he reflected 
 that he himself also was rapidly passing away from the ever- 
 lasting earth, trodden by so many men before him, and which 
 so many generations of men would tread after he was gone, 
 each generation destined in its turn to be alike forgotten. 
 Urged forward by such considerations, and inspired with 
 special wisdom from above, Koheleth set himself diligently to 
 discover that thing which man ought to strive for on earth. 
 What is there “under the sun” which can afford real satis- 
 faction to the heart of man, jand what man ought to regard as 
 beyond his powers? With this special object in view, Kohe- 
 leth sought to make use of the wisdom he possessed in order 
 to take a survey, not so much of the phenomena of nature 
 (which are only glanced at in the prologue), as of the 
 actions of men. He desired to note carefully all that was 
 
 : The Quest of the Chief Good: Expository Lectures on the Book Ecclesiastes, 
 with a New Translation, by Samuel Cox, D.D. A Commentary for Laymen : 
 London, Arthur Miall. 
 
 “ 
 
Solomon as a philosophical investigator. 145 
 
 done “under the sun,” and to ascertain, if possible, that 
 which was best for the sons of men. He, however, states 
 in the outset the conclusion at which he ultimately arrived, 
 namely, that the investigation itself was an evil toil, inas- 
 much ,as it could lead to no definite result, “for all is 
 vanity and a striving after wind.” In his case, the inquiry 
 only brought into clearer light the various evils connected 
 with man’s lot, while it showed his inability to remove them : 
 “the crooked cannot be made straight.” For many of the 
 sorrows of life can be traced up to a higher source than 
 man. “Who can make that straight which God hath made 
 crooked?” (chap. vii. 13). Hence the search after wisdom 
 brought no satisfaction to Koheleth. He discovered that 
 man was shut in on all sides, and confined within bar- 
 riers which could not be passed. The highest conclusion 
 to which human wisdom and knowledge can attain is to 
 understand that one knows nothing yet as he ought to know 
 (1 Cor. viii. 2). Still more unsatisfactory Koheleth dis- 
 covered the attempt to attain “the highest good” by means 
 of what is usually termed pleasure. The endeavours of 
 Solomon to obtain satisfaction in this way are described as 
 the writer's personal experience. He gives a vivid sketch 
 of the eagerness with which that monarch pursued after all 
 kinds of enjoyments. 
 
 Solomon is depicted in this part of the work in the | 
 character of a philosophical investigator, who, by the pos- 
 session of more than ordinary wisdom, was preserved from 
 ultimate ruin, although he indulged for a time in the keenest 
 pursuit of those things which could gratify his desires. His 
 wisdom enabled him to maintain such a control over his 
 passions that he was not swallowed up in the abyss of 
 sensuality never to rise again, as is the case with the majority 
 of those who venture on such a dangerous course.’ As 
 
 1 In Professor Mozley’s Sermons, Farochial and Occasiona! (Rivingtons, 1879), 
 Τ᾽ 
 
ν 
 
 146 The evils of Folly tested by experience. 
 
 Delitzsch observes: “There are drinkers who know how to 
 ‘regulate their drinking so that they do not end in the madness 
 of intemperance; and there are habitual voluptuaries who 
 so far understand how to control themselves as not become 
 roués altogether ruined in body.” Though Solomon possessed 
 this great advantage over others, yet, when at the close of 
 his life of “pleasure” he reviewed one by one the various 
 “ delights” in which he had so freely indulged, and contem- 
 plated the works of grandeur erected to cratify his purer 
 tastes, he was constrained to confess that “ all was but vanity 
 and a striving after the wind, and there was no profit under 
 ‘the sun ” (ii. 13). 
 
 Thus Solomon learned by experience the inability of wis- 
 dom on the one hand, and of folly on the other, to secure 
 happiness or satisfaction. But though alike incompetent to 
 
 there is a remarkable discourse on this subject, entitled ‘‘ Wisdom and Folly tested 
 by experience.” Speaking of this section of Ecclesiastes, Mozley observes that 
 for a discerning person deliberately to set about a course of folly and madness 
 in order to discover the evil effects of such a course, is something in the highest 
 degree superfluous. There are two ways of arriving at the knowledge of the 
 truth respecting the importance and benefit of holiness and goodness, either by the 
 experience of that which is good or by the experience of that which is bad. 
 Mozley contrasts the knowledge of the advantages of a good life gained by experi- 
 ence with the knowledge of the disadvantages of an evil life obtained in a similar 
 manner. The conviction of sin in persons recovered from a course of transgression 
 is no doubt deep and acute. But the great use of wisdom is to lead men to act 
 uprightly, and the wisdom that comes after action comes too late. In both cases 
 ἃ moral conviction is gained, but in the case in which it has been obtained by the 
 practice of ill, the conviction comes not in time to prevent the evil, but merely to 
 acquaint one with it. Sin itself produces an effect upon the soul which does not 
 cease when the course of sinning is past. The conviction of a man who does not 
 yield to immorality is the result of his faith. He goes through life with the 
 belief that a course of sin must end in misery. There is no similar exercise of 
 faith in the case of the man who seeks first to discover by his personal experience 
 the effects of sin, In the former case there is a gain in moral discipline which 
 is wanting in the latter. In answer to the crude objection that the man who 
 has actually proved the effects of sin is the only one who can speak with authority 
 on the subject, Mozley observes that such a person may indeed speak with author- 
 ity, but his advice is always open to the retort from the person whom he seeks to 
 dissuade from a path of sin, You have learned your wisdom from experience, and 
 I desire to follow the same course. Ἵ 
 
The superior excellency of Wisdom. 147 
 
 procure “the highest good,” Koheleth affirms the vast 
 superiority of wisdom over folly. Speaking still under the 
 mask of the Israelitish king, Koheleth carefully guards against 
 any misrepresentation of his real sentiments on this important 
 point, and points out the advantages of wisdom in a few terse 
 sentences. Who could venture to speak on such a subject 
 with greater authority than Solomon? “For what is the 
 man that is to come after the king, whom they made” king 
 “long ago” (chap. ii. 12) amid the acclamations of the mul- 
 titude (1 Kings i. 39, 40, comp. 1 Kings v. 1; 1 Chron. xxix. 
 22)? Surely a wise man like Solomon with his experience 
 could point out the superiority of wisdom better than any 
 other teacher that might come after him (chap. ii. 12). The 
 excellency of wisdom is distinctly taught by that monarch in 
 the Book of Proverbs, and consequently Koheleth was fully 
 justified in expressing the views of the ideal Solomon in the 
 following terms: “I saw that the superiority of wisdom over 
 folly is like the superiority of light over darkness. The 
 wise man has his eyes in his head, and the fool walketh in 
 darkness” (ii. 13} 
 
 Koheleth points out the advantage which the possession of 
 wisdom gives to man even in the ordinary affairs of daily life. 
 “Wisdom strengthens a wise man more than ten powerful 
 men which are in the city” (vii. 20). For there is no just 
 man on the earth who doeth good and sinneth not. The 
 most righteous are liable to fall into faults of some sort or 
 other, but wisdom may deliver the truly upright from the 
 evil results of such offences. Mindful, however, of his own 
 natural tendency to evil and of his liability to fall, the wise 
 man ought to pass over the minor offences of others, and 
 take little notice of the angry speeches or curses uttered in 
 moments of bitterness by persons in subordinate positions 
 (chap. vii. 20, 21). Wisdom thus will often protect a man amid 
 dangers which would swallow up a fool. It will teach him 
 
148 Vanity of Wisdom as proved by death. 
 
 how to conduct himself in the presence of Oriental despots, 
 it will instruct him how to moderate his speech and temper 
 his manners. It will teach him to obey the king on account 
 of the oath of allegiance which he has taken, while it will 
 lead him to be patient in days of oppression, and to wait 
 for the coming day of vengeance in which God will punish 
 transgressors (chap. viii. 1 ff). 
 
 The story related in chap. ix. 13-15 of the little city besieged 
 by the mighty king and delivered by the wisdom of a poor 
 wise man may be adduced as an illustration of this truth. 
 For wisdom, though despised in days of prosperity, when 
 proclaimed by the lips of a poor wise man, has often been 
 found in the day of adversity superior to all earthly power 
 and might (chap. ix. 16). 
 
 Notwithstanding the essential superiority of the wise man 
 over the fool, their ultimate lot in this world is identical. 
 Wisdom may preserve a wise man from many dangers, but, 
 sooner or later, he, too, must succumb to the common lot. 
 “One chance happens to all” (chap. ii. 14). Death strikes 
 down the wise man in the exercise of his wisdom, and the 
 fool while intent on his folly. Both are swept away by that 
 mighty torrent (Ps. xc. 5), and their memory is alike forgotten 
 (Koh. ii. 16). The bitter lament of David over Abner (2 
 Sam. iii. 33) has ever and anon been repeated over the wise 
 man’s grave, “How dieth the wise man like the fool!” 
 (chap. ii. 16). 
 
 It was under the pressure of such thoughts that Koheleth 
 was driven to exclaim: “Then I hated life, for evil to me 
 appeared the work which was done under the sun, for the 
 whole is vanity and a striving after wind ” (chap. ii. 17), 
 
 Similar were his reflections as he contemplated the vanity 
 of riches which, though amassed by constant toil, must at 
 last be left to others (chap. ii. 18-23, comp. v. 9 ff). Men 
 are seldom disquieted in the day of prosperity (chap. v. 19) 
 
Koheleth’s pessimistic views of life. 149 
 
 by reflections on the uncertainty of life, or on the possibility 
 of a reverse of fortune. But it not unfrequently happens 
 that riches are kept and guarded, only at last to be a source 
 of greater grief to him who has amassed them, when he sees 
 them borne away from his grasp by some terrible wave of 
 misfortune. A man who has brought up his children in pros- 
 perity and with reasonable expectations of enjoying a life of 
 affluence, is sometimes by a change of circumstances left with 
 nothing in his hands, and though once wealthy is consigned at 
 last to a poor man’s grave. This, too, Koheleth notes as one 
 of the worst evils of life that “as a man comes naked into the 
 world so must he depart naked out of it again” (chap. v. 
 12-15). The final conclusion of Koheleth as to the unprofit- 
 ableness of riches to procure man’s highest good may well 
 be summed up in Apostolic language: “They that desire 
 to be rich (βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν) fall into a temptation, and 
 a snare, and many foolish and hurtful lusts (desires) such as 
 drown men in destruction and perdition” (1 Tim. vi. 9, 10). 
 Reflections such as these naturally predisposed Koheleth 
 to take a pessimistic view of life. The peculiar evils pre- 
 valent in his own day made the misery of life appear still 
 more bitter in his eyes. It is difficult in any age to point 
 out what man should strive for on earth, and this difficulty 
 was in Koheleth’s day aggravated materially by many 
 circumstances. The careful student will note how often 
 Koheleth wanders off from other subjects to make some 
 reference to the galling despotism then rampant, and the 
 terrible evils with which it was accompanied. Although he 
 enjoined on his readers the duty of obeying those in authority, 
 “for conscience sake,’ he was not unmindful of the frightful 
 oppression which marked the government of the day. Not 
 only did the lower magistrates tyrannise over the people, 
 but they who were higher in office watched in turn for an 
 opportunity to oppress their subordinates. Such was the case 
 
150° Koheleth on the oppression of the people. 
 
 from the lowest officials up to the persons who stood high- 
 est in authority and power. Alongside of the satraps, the 
 chief rulers under the Crown in the Persian Empire, there 
 were other dignitaries in some respects “higher than they.” . 
 Such an official was the Royal Secretary, designated “the 
 King’s Eye” and “Ear;” such were the royal inspectors.’ 
 These were often ready, sometimes under the influence of 
 a wretched inmate of the royal harem, to pounce down like 
 vultures on an unlucky satrap and gorge themselves with 
 his plunder (chap. v. 7, comp. chap. x. 4-7, 16 ff). Under 
 such a system, which was eating at that time like a cancer 
 into the very heart of the Persian empire, a man of wisdom, 
 though he might by the exercise of prudence and under- 
 standing escape personal danger, would often be compelled 
 to behold human sorrows which he could not alleviate. 
 Koheleth thus relates his own observations on_ this 
 point :—“ And again I saw all the oppressions which occur 
 under the sun, and behold the tear of the oppressed, and 
 they have no comforter, and from the hand of those who 
 are oppressing them violence, and they have no comforter ” 
 (chap. iv. 1). It was at such moments that Koheleth felt, 
 to use the words of a pessimist philosopher, “the torment 
 of existence,’ and was driven to exclaim that “he who in- 
 creaseth knowledge increaseth also sorrow”? The thought 
 amid such scenes forced itself upon his mind, what ends 
 and objects were to be attained by the endurance of such 
 misery? It was then that he regarded the state of “the 
 dead that were already dead long ago” to be preferable 
 to that of the living, and thought that the lot of those was 
 to be envied who had never been born, and who had not 
 
 1 Prof. George Rawlinson’s Ancient Monarchies, vol. iii. pp. 423 ff. Xenophon, 
 Cyropedia, lib. viii. 2, 10. 
 “ Vide Moritz Venetianer, Schopenhauer als Scholastiker; Eine Kritik der 
 
 Schopenhauer’schen Philosophie mit Riicksicht auf die gesammte Kantische 
 Neoscholastik (Berlin : Carl Duncker, 1873), p. 275. 
 
Koheleth on the Day of Death. 151 
 
 beheld “the evil that was done under the sun” (chap. iv. 2, 3). 
 The toil and moil of life, and the constant efforts of men to 
 overtop and surpass their fellows seemed to him but “vanity 
 and striving after the wind.” 
 
 Koheleth was in a similar frame of mind when he wrote 
 “better is a name than good ointment and the day of (one’s) 
 death than the day of his birth” (chap. vil. 1). The first 
 expression shows how deeply the desire was implanted in 
 the writer’s soul that his name should be kept in remem- 
 brance. The connexion in which the aphorism concerning 
 “the day of one’s death” occurs shows its meaning to be 
 that expressed later, namely, “better is the end of a matter 
 than its beginning” (chap. vii. 8). When “a man is born 
 into the world” no one can tell “what manner of child it 
 shall be.” But, when the day of death has brought the indi- 
 vidual’s career to a close, a true estimate can be formed οἱ 
 the happiness of his life as a whole. The remark of Solon 
 in reply to the inquiry of Croesus, that “no man is to be 
 counted happy until he has closed his life happily” (Herod, 
 i. 32), partly illustrates these aphorisms of Koheleth. Under 
 the Old Dispensation, in times of terrible affliction such as 
 that which darkened the life of Job, it was natural to bemoan 
 the day of one’s birth (Job tii. 3 ff, x. 18, 19), or even to give 
 utterance to similar expressions in days of dire national dis- 
 tress and individual persecution, as in the case of Jeremiah 
 (Jer. xx. 14-18). But to argue, with Venetianer, from such 
 lamentations that the pessimism of Job and Koheleth is in 
 accordance with that of Schopenhauer, is to assign to the 
 expressions of these Old Testament writers a meaning never 
 for a moment contemplated by them. 
 
 For what is the teaching of the modern school of Pessim- 
 ism as to the life of man? This school of philosophy, as 
 represented by Schopenhauer and others, it should be noted 
 in the outset, is avowedly atheistic in its creed, though in 
 
152 “ Unreasoned Pessemism.” 
 
 the shape it has assumed in the writings of von Hartmann 
 it exhibits somewhat of a Pantheistic tendency. It is in 
 many respects one of the most extraordinary phenomena 
 of the present age. Men have existed in all ages predis- 
 posed to melancholy and inclined to look upon life as dark 
 and gloomy. This “unreasoned pessimism,” as it has been 
 well termed by Mr. Sully,! has assumed many forms. Some 
 of the finest outpourings of poetry have been the outbursts 
 of the feeling of melancholy which often seizes upon the 
 human heart. The optimism of Leibnitz,? eagerly embraced 
 both by the Deist philosophers and the Christian theologians 
 of the eighteenth century, produced a reaction in an opposite 
 direction among philosophic thinkers, a reaction strongly 
 aided by the writings of David Hume. Several of the 
 leading poets of the succeeding age, such as Byron and 
 Shelley in England, and Heine and others in Germany, were 
 deeply imbued with a dislike of the then prevalent optimism, 
 and their poems often complain of the misery of human life. 
 Some of them went further, and even Herder in some of 
 his poems expressed sentiments not very different from those 
 lately propounded.’ Pessimism, however, may be considered 
 to have been first elevated to the position of a philosophic 
 creed by the writings of Schopenhauer and von Hartmann 
 
 1 Sully’s Pessimism: a fiistory and a Criticism (London: H. S. King ἃ Co., 
 1877), chap. ii. 
 
 2 See Venetianer’s remarks on Leibnitz, in his Schopenhauer als Scholastiker, 
 p. 281, and still better, Sully’s observations on the Theodicy of Leibnitz, in his 
 Lessimism, chap. iii. 
 
 ° As for instance in his poem entitled “Das Ich.” 
 
 4 A. Taubert, in her work Der 2 ‘essimismius und seine Gegner (Berlin : Duncker, 
 1873), remarks (p. 10) that the term ““ pessimism” is not well chosen, as it might 
 express the idea that the present world was the worst that could be conceived, 
 The term, however, she regards as correct so far as it conveys the idea that the non- 
 existence of the universe is to be preferred to its existence. She observes that the 
 more suitable expression would be that proposed by Knauer, namely, A/alismus, 
 or, as Haym has proposed, Afiserabilismus. For these terms permit one to hold 
 the opinion that, in spite of its badness, the world as it exists is the best of all 
 possible worlds, while the word “pessimism ” conveys a much stronger idea. On 
 Taubert, see note 2 on p. 158, 
 
 πασᾶν τ - 
 
Natural temperament of Schopenhauer. 153 
 
 It is highly probable that the natural temperament of 
 Arthur Schopenhauer, the real founder of the modern school 
 of Pessimism,' had not a little to do with the philosophic 
 tenets he ventured to propound. The genesis of philosophic 
 pessimism is a matter which we cannot here more than allude 
 to. We have to deal with it as a fact, the existence of which 
 is one of the most remarkable phenomena of the day. It is, 
 however, worthy of mention that Schopenhauer’s sanity has 
 been seriously called in question.? 
 
 “Unreasoned pessimism” is, as Sully has well observed, 
 in many cases but the natural outburst of a carping, fault- 
 
 1 In his work Zur Geschichte und Begriindung des Pessimismus (Berlin, 1880) 
 von Hartmann maintains that, although Schopenhauer was the first philosopher 
 who set forth Pessimism as a definite philosophy, the real author of that philoso- 
 phy was Kant, though the term Pessimism does not occur in his writings. That 
 Kant was the real Father of Pessimism is a startling statement, the truth of which 
 cannot be here discussed. E. von Hartmann naturally seeks to roll away from the 
 philosophy, of which he himself is now the most conspicuous advocate (but which 
 is presented in some respects in a more objectionable form in his writings), the re- 
 proach of deriving its beginning and strength from the melancholy temper of its 
 first advocate. Hence his efforts to trace its origin to one who was admittedly 
 the greatest philosopher of his day. 
 
 2 See the remarkable tract, Doctor Arthur Schopenhauer vont medicinischen 
 Standpunkte betrachtet, von Carl von Seidlitz. Dorpat, 1872. Gwinner, his ablest 
 and latest biographer, speaks of him as one who from childhood was always dis- 
 posed to believe that some terrible misfortune was about to happen to him. He 
 admits that his hero’s intense anxiety often bordered on madness. As a young 
 man he was tortured constantly with the idea that he had all sorts of diseases. 
 When a student he once fancied he was dying of consumption. He fled from 
 Naples through a nervous dread of the smallpox, and from Berlin on account of 
 the cholera. For many years he was miserable, owing to his fear of a criminal 
 process. He was greatly deficient in personal courage, and was in a constant 
 state of alarm in 1813, fearing lest he should be forced into the army. If he was 
 awoke by any noise at night he would rush out of his bed armed with a dagger 
 and pistols, which he always kept loaded. He was more than inclined to bea 
 regular misanthrope, although sometimes desirous not to be regarded as such, 
 but simply as one who despised mankind in general. In his old age he seemed to 
 look upon any contact with men as a contamination and a defilement, and main- 
 tained that the wisest man is he who in the whole course of his life has the least 
 intercourse with his fellows. He regarded the vast majority of mankind as either 
 knaves or fools. See Schofenhauer’s Leben, von Wilhelm Gwinner, 2te umgear- 
 beitete τι. vielfach vermehrte Auflage der Schrift ‘‘ Arthur Schopenhauer aus per- 
 sénlichem Umgange dargestelt.” Leipzig: Εν A. Brockhaus, 1878. 
 
154 " The starting-point of Schopenhauer. 
 
 finding disposition. Many take pleasure in finding fault with 
 all around them, and in thus seeking to exhibit their own real 
 or fancied superiority. “By how much, one wonders, would 
 the amount of human criticism be diminished, if one no 
 longer derived from the process any agreeable feelings of 
 intellectual elevation.” ‘“ Pessimism flatters a man by pre- 
 senting him with a portrait of himself in which he appears as 
 another ‘Prometheus vinctus,’ suffering tortures from the 
 hand of the cruel Zeus-pater, the World-all, which begot and 
 holds us, yet bearing up and resisting in proud defiance. 
 Pessimism enables its adherent to pose as some 
 wronged and suffering divinity, to the admiration of himself 
 at least, if not of spectators around him,”! an admiration 
 not less real though it is generally disavowed. Many persons 
 have adopted the creed of modern Pessimism, not because 
 they have made for themselves any deep study of its prin- 
 ciples, and still less any careful study of the arguments in 
 favour of Christianity, but simply because of the novelty and 
 temporary popularity which that system has attained in some 
 quarters, and because, like other atheistic theories, it is un- 
 questionably upheld by some writers of ability and renown. 
 Schopenhauer claims to start from the standpoint of 
 idealism as expounded in the writings of Kant. He de- 
 nounces the three great leaders of philosophic thought in 
 Germany who succeeded that philosopher, and further de- 
 veloped his principles—namely, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, 
 as “the three German sophists.” The writings of Hegel 
 especially are the subjects of his fiercest denunciations. He 
 characterises them as full of such monstrous combinations 
 of words, as to have destroyed in many persons all faculty of 
 
 1 Sully’s Pessimism, PP: 423, 424. Kalisch observes in his Path and Goal, 
 P- 437, that Nihilism or Pessimism is for many ‘a practical canon adopted be- 
 cause they find it congenial to their nature, and grasped with increased tenacity 
 because they hear it praised and supported by men of ability and fame.” 
 
Schopenhauer and von Hartmann on the Unconscious.1 55 
 
 thinking, and made them consider “ hollow empty phrases” 
 as real thoughts, and look on “transparent sophisms” as lofty 
 wisdom. 
 
 The world, according to Schopenhauer’s conception, con- 
 sists of “will and representation” (Wille und Vorstellung). 
 The external world of appearance exists only for the per- 
 cipient mind. But, underlying the outer veil of phenomena 
 there is something real, namely, “will,” which is the ultimate 
 cause of all existence. This “will,” however, is “ unconscious.” 
 It has no object or aim in its action. It exists outside all time, 
 and is “one and indivisible,” although it manifests itself in 
 numberless individual appearances. How such “unconscious 
 will” could, in the course of things, ever attain to conscious- 
 ness is a problem of metaphysics which need not here be 
 discussed. One is, indeed, often tempted to ask whether the 
 language of condemnation so unsparingly applied by Scho- 
 penhauer to the philosophy of Hegel is not as applicable to the 
 mystical principles of his own philosophy? It is not, indeed, 
 strange that the man who invented such a philosophy should 
 propound it as the highest wisdom, little as it is deserving of 
 that title. But it is strange that it should have captivated 
 the imagination of other able critics. It has been presented 
 in a more developed form in the work of Dr. Eduard von 
 Hartmann, namely, Die Philosophie des Unbewussten, and 
 defended in other productions of his pen, especially in his 
 Phinomenologie des sittl. Bewusstseins. It is hard to form 
 any intelligible conception of the fundamental principle of a 
 philosophical system which asserts the existence of an “un- 
 conscious Absolute,” one of whose modes of manifestation is 
 consciousness. “An Unconscious which performs acts of the 
 will by which, as by sorcery, it is at any moment able to 
 destroy matter and to call it again into existence? An Un- 
 conscious which is a spirit, serving as ‘the common bond of 
 the world, and as the principle of unity pervading its plan of 
 
156 -An “unconscious will” a contradiction. 
 
 creation’? An Unconscious that not only possesses ‘reason 
 and intelligence,’ but is endowed with a clear-sighted wisdom 
 infinitely superior to any conceivable consciousness ?” ἢ 
 
 It is out of our province to seek to give more than a 
 sketch of this philosophical school. It is the use its leading 
 advocates have made of the Book of Koheleth which 
 renders it necessary to notice the wide difference between 
 the pessimism of that book and that inculcated by the school 
 of modern Pessimism. But, in order to understand the funda- 
 mental difference between the two, it is necessary to under- 
 stand the leading ideas on which the new philosophy is founded. 
 
 An “unconscious will” is almost a contradiction in terms. 
 Volition cannot exist without some object towards which 
 that volition or desire is directed, or without some mental 
 representation of that which is desired. Schopenhauer main- 
 tains that “will” may exist without intellect ; because the 
 lower we descend in the scale of creation the less intellect is 
 _ perceptible, while “will” is as strongly marked as ever; and 
 von Hartmann maintains that unconscious objects and 
 aims are traceable throughout the whole course of nature. 
 Sully, however, observes rightly that there is a radical dis- 
 tinction to be drawn between actions which are merely in- 
 stinctive, and actions which proceed from volition. He 
 argues that it is false to regard will or volition as including 
 all emotional phenomena. The very idea of “will” pre- 
 supposes some instinctive impulse, which exists prior to any 
 exercise of volition, as well as some imagination of the act 
 to be willed or not willed as one likely to be followed by some 
 pleasure or pain. It is this imagination which ultimately 
 excites the exercise of volition, although in the analysis of 
 higher volitions other elements come into play 
 
 ' See the sketch of Pessimism in Dr. M. M. Kalisch’s interesting work, Path 
 and Goal: A Discussion on the Elements of Civilization and the Conditions of 
 Happiness. London : Longmans, Green & Co., 1880, p: 427. 
 
 * See Sully’s Pessimism, pp. 207, ZOO M2UTe 
 
Identification of “will” and “ destre.” 157 
 
 The philosophy of Schopenhauer and von Hartmann has 
 for its fundamental basis this tenet of an “ unconscious will.” 
 Is this, as Sully thinks, the reappearance in another form 
 of the old hypothesis of a “substantial will,” long since cast 
 into the philosophical lumber-room as utterly incapable of 
 proof? All human knowledge is necessarily phenomenal. Man 
 cannot rise above the law of his being and grasp in thought 
 that entity or substance which underlies phenomena. The pre- 
 tence of having attained to such a knowledge will in every case, 
 when investigated, be found to rest upon a fetztio principit. 
 
 “Will” regarded by these philosophers as the cause of 
 all existence is identified by them with “desire.” It thus 
 necessarily implies want on the one hand and a longing to 
 appease that want on the other. Hence they maintain that 
 it more or less distinctly involves the idea of suffering. It 
 may, however, be seriously questioned whether “desire” 
 of itself pre-supposes in all cases suffering, while on the 
 other hand the correctness of the identification of “ will” 
 with “desire” is more than doubtful. Schopenhauer may be 
 wrong in asserting that pleasure is in all cases preceded by 
 “desire”, or in other words, is absolutely inseparable from 
 pain. Eduard von Hartmann has acknowledged that the con- 
 clusion is not. justified by facts. For there are often pleasures, 
 as Sully justly observes, which are wholly unexpected, and, 
 therefore, not preceded by any volition whatever, while there 
 are pains which are in like manner entirely independent of 
 “will”’ In order to uphold the theory that pleasure and pain 
 are nothing else than the satisfaction or non-satisfaction of 
 “ will,” von Hartmann has recourse to his hypothesis of the 
 Unconscious, and maintains that, in all cases “where we 
 cannot find in consciousness any state of volition underlying 
 our pleasures and pains, this substratum exists as uncon- 
 scious will.” 
 
 1 See Sully’s Pessimism, pp. 200 ff. 
 
158 Schopenhauer on the misery of Existence. 
 
 Inasmuch as Schopenhauer affirms that existence itself is 
 the consequence of “ will,” or, of “the will to live,” and every 
 act of will is attended by more or less suffering, the exercise 
 of will is looked upon as the real cause of all the misery of 
 life. The non-existence of the world is to be preferred to its 
 existence. The world is cursed with four great evils, birth, 
 disease, old age, and death. “Existence is only a punish- 
 ment,” and the feeling of misery which often accompanies 
 it is “repentance” for the great crime of having come into 
 being by yielding to the “will to live”? Happiness is un- 
 attainable in this world, while a future state of existence is 
 pronounced a mere delusion. And, even if there were another 
 life, the pessimist asserts that there could be no real happi- 
 ness in it. For life implies “will;” and the existence of 
 “will,” inasmuch as “the will” must ever meet with some 
 hindrances to the attainment of its desires, is incompatible 
 with happiness.” 
 
 In arriving at such conclusions, the pessimist writers assert 
 that they are only carrying out to their natural consequences 
 the doctrines taught in the Books of Job and Koheleth. In 
 both these books (as we have seen, p. 151) the day of birth 
 is spoken of as a day of sorrow. The circumstances under 
 which the sacred writers gave utterance to such expressions 
 ought indeed to have been sufficient to restrain our would-be 
 modern philosophers from bringing them forward in favour 
 of their doctrine of the absolute misery of all existence.® 
 
 The following is a description of the results arrived at by 
 
 1 Schopenhauer's siimmtliche Werke, vol. iii. p. 666 (Die Welt als Wille und 
 Vorstellung). 
 
 2 See Taubert’s Pessimismus 16. seine Gegner, Kap. ix. pp. 85 ff. ‘*A. Taubert,” 
 whom Sully in his Pessimism, pp. 108, 109, has mistaken for an author be- 
 longing to the sterner sex, was the name under which Dr. Eduard von Hart- 
 mann’s first wife wrote in defence of the philosophy of which her husband is so 
 conspicuous an advocate, 
 
 * Dean Swift's practice of bemoaning, or affecting to bemoan, the day of his 
 birth does not deserve to be more than alluded to here. 
 
E. v. Hartmann’s three stages of tlluston. 159 
 
 this new philosophy as drawn by no unfriendly pen. “To 
 live signifies to have wants, signifies suffering. Living implies 
 having a body with the iron law of preserving and protecting 
 it against a thousand dangers and pains. Then there is the 
 preservation of the family, all which brings every day new 
 sorrows and demands, calling for the exercise of all the 
 powers, though with the full conviction, however, that we 
 must at last lose the game, and that one is steering steadily 
 towards death. If a man casts off all other burdens, he 
 becomes a burden to himself. When cares vanish, man is 
 consumed by ennui, and the greatest efforts have to be made 
 to kill time. . . . These and similar meditations are the 
 everlasting theme of Schopenhauer. Eduard von Hartmann 
 has reduced these ideas to a system and carried them out 
 still further in his three stages of illusion, (1) illusion especially 
 as to the expectation of happiness here, (2) illusion as to the 
 expectation of individual happiness in another ‘world, (3) 
 illusion as to the expectation of happiness as ultimately to be 
 attained by the world’s progress. ΑἹ] is illusion ; for the more 
 knowledge, thé more suffering.” Such is the interpretation the 
 pessimist puts upon the statement of Koheleth i. 18, “he that 
 increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” ' Schopenhauer 
 has, however, curiously enough maintained that Pessimism 
 may be made the means of benefiting mankind. “Everything 
 is miserable, everything entreats for pity, be pitiful. Think 
 not that thou hast before thee a wicked stupid creature, 
 but think upon the suffering necessarily belonging to it, 
 Virtue, indeed, according to Schopenhauer, can by no means 
 be taught, but that does not hinder him from teaching it as 
 forcibly as any one else. . . . No one down to Schopen- 
 hauer has known how to make such an idea (that of universal 
 misery) the principle of a metaphysic of morals, which can 
 also be supported by the finest psychological investigations.” ἢ 
 
 1 See Venetianer, Schopenhauer als Scholastiker, p. 275. 2 Venetianer, pp. 281, 282. 
 
160 + Venetianer on the Pessimist Philosophy. 
 
 Such is Venetianer’s estimate of the results achieved by 
 the Pessimist philosophy. He has, however, severely criti- 
 cised his master for the intolerable pride and conceit which 
 he everywhere exhibits, a pride which characterises other 
 writers of the Pessimist school. Schopenhauer has been 
 soundly rated by his disciple for his “barbarous ignorance ἢ 
 and gross attacks upon the Jewish religion as an utter 
 “abomination,” for his shameless misrepresentations of its 
 principles, and for his bigotry against the Jewish race in 
 general, to which Venetianer himself belongs. He points out, 
 however, with considerable truth, that, although Schopenhauer 
 may abuse and revile Jews and Judaism, not. a little of his 
 metaphysics may ultimately be traced up to Jewish sources. 
 
 1 Venetianer maintains that much of what Schopenhauer says about the unity 
 of will harmonises with what Maimonides teaches about the unity of God. He 
 notes also that a distinguished Jewish poet and philosopher, Salomo Ibn Gabirol, 
 who died in A.D. 1070, conceived God chiefly as ‘‘ will,” an opinion which was 
 followed by Duns Scotus, one of the most eminent of the scholastic doctors of the 
 fourteenth century. As a philosopher, Ibn Gabirol was known by the name of 
 Avicebron or Avicembrol in the Latin of the middle ages. On Ibn Gabirol’s 
 doctrine on this point Dr. David Asher’s pamphlet (Arthur Schopenhauer : Neues 
 von thm und ziber, Berlin 1871) may be consulted with profit. Schopenhauer, in 
 a letter to Dr. Asher, in 1857, speaks of Ibn Gabirol as follows: ‘* Gabirol may be 
 regarded as my forerunner inasmuch as he teaches that the will is, performs, and 
 makes all in all, but there also his entire wisdom is at an end, because he teaches 
 it only thus 27 adbstracto, and repeats it a thousand times. In relation to me 
 he is like a glow-worm which gives light by night in a thick mist compared with 
 the sun.”—See Gwinner, Schofenhauer’s Leben, p. 584. The pride exhibited in 
 these remarks is characteristic of Schopenhauer. Venetianer notes that Schopen- 
 hauer, though an opponent of faith, has not been able to emancipate himself from 
 his traditional inclinations, and that his idea that ethics are closely connected 
 with metaphysics when examined into is almost equivalent to the statement that 
 morality depends upon faith in God. It is well, however, to be cautious 
 against making a mistake on such points. Similarity of expression may cover 
 radical differences of thought. The language of Trinitarianism has been often 
 used to express ideas which are essentially pantheistic. Schopenhauer’s ethics 
 are far from corresponding with the doctrines of Christianity. It must not be 
 forgotten that that philosopher declared that Christianity was quite possible, 
 provided only that the ‘‘Jewish dogma” on which the gospels are based be 
 abandoned, namely, that man is created by God, when the truth is that man is 
 in reality only the product of his own will, z.e., is in fact his own creator! See 
 Kalisch’s Path and Goal, pp. 430-432; Schopenhauer, Welt als Wille τι. Vorstel- 
 lung, Werke, vol. i. pp. 477-483. 
 
Pessimism leads to ascetictsm and suicide. 161 
 
 Life is regarded by Schopenhauer as necessarily involving 
 suffering. Man and animated nature are preyed upon by 
 a burning thirst or desire which can never be quenched. 
 Human life oscillates like a pendulum ever between the 
 two points, of pain on the one hand and of ennui on the 
 other! Hence true freedom can only be effected by the 
 “denial of the will to live.’ The fourth book of Schopen- 
 hauer’s remarkable treatise is devoted to this subject. 
 Existence is an evil which, according to his idea, can only 
 be destroyed, as it has been created, by will. The goal 
 which the pessimists set before them as the great object to 
 be kept steadily in view is to lose all self-consciousness, and 
 to be swallowed up in the great nothing out of which man 
 rose. This doctrine, as taught by Schopenhauer, conducts 
 first to asceticism,” and ultimately to suicide. 
 
 Schopenhauer admits the validity of the first conclusion, 
 and consequently recommends celibacy and asceticism as 
 ‘‘a denial of the will to live.’ He maintains, however, that 
 his tenets do not lead to suicide. The denial of “the will 
 to live,” according to him, implies a denial of the pleasures 
 of life, and not merely of its sufferings ; and it is an inability 
 
 1 Schopenhauer’s Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Werke, vol. i. pp. 366 ff, 
 418, and Parerga, ii. § 173. 
 
 2 In his Phenomenologie (pp. 688 ff.), von Hartmann criticises the asceticism 
 recommended by Schopenhauer and Mailander. He refers to the practices of the 
 Skopzecs of Russia, but without approving of them, and notices the still more 
 objectionable recommendations in another direction, tending to the same end, 
 namely, the lessening of the human race, which have been put forward unblush- 
 ingly as a new “‘ gospel of nature,” by English writers whose names need not here 
 be mentioned. It is too much the habit to trace all that is evil in practice, and 
 unsound in theology, to continental sources ; and hence the following remarks of 
 von Hartmann may not be without instruction to those in England who are dis- 
 posed to think ‘‘ more highly than they ought to think” of the nation to which 
 they belong :—‘‘It is a remarkable irony of history that this weapon should have 
 been forged by Manchester Bourgeois-Liberalism for the social democracy ; for it 
 is the land of Bentham and of Mill, from which this new ‘gospel’ comes to us, 
 that appears to be essentially a medical outrider of the Ricardo-Malthusian Over- 
 population theory.”—Phenom. sittl, Bewussteins, p. 691. 
 
 M 
 
162° Lxtraordinary views of Schopenhauer. 
 
 to bear up against the inconveniences of life which drives an 
 individual to suicide. “The true pessimist” is anxious not 
 only to get rid of existence for himself, but is actuated still 
 more by a desire to benefit his species. Hence he ought to 
 live in order to point out to others the misery of life, and 
 to induce them by his example voluntarily to deny the “will 
 to live,” and thus hasten the time when the whole species 
 shall reach the Paradise of Nirvana.! 
 
 Hence these philosophers have asserted that sufferings of 
 every kind are useful inasmuch as they drive men to feel 
 the weariness and misery of life, and events of the contrary 
 character are hurtful because they make men love that 
 which is so evil. One of the speakers in Kalisch’s ingenious 
 book Path and Goal (p. 424) points out pithily what results 
 from such extraordinary premises: “ Plainly this, that we can 
 show to our fellow-man no greater love and affection than by 
 inflicting upon him every possible torture and anguish, since 
 we thereby bring him nearer to his true salvation, whereas 
 it is fiendish malice and cruelty to show him any kindness, 
 to help him out of difficulties, or to protect him against 
 injustice and ignominy, since we thereby lure him away from 
 the blessed path of deliverance which leads through trials, 
 and thus make him miss the true object of existence.” 
 
 However theoretically opposed Schopenhauer’s philosophy 
 may be to suicide, and however much his followers have tried 
 to avoid the accusation that the doctrines of Pessimism tend 
 
 1 See on Nirvana the notes on pp. 173, 175, 182. 
 
 In his Phenomenologie des sittlichen Bewusstseins, pp. 42-46, von Hartmann 
 has some striking criticisms on these notions of Schopenhauer. He points out 
 that Pessimism in the form advocated by Schopenhauer is essentially selfish in its 
 aims. It is selfish for a man to seek to escape from life and leave others to go on 
 in the same ‘‘mad dance of fools which common life is.” One ought, according 
 to von Hartmann, to be perfectly indifferent to life or death, to the idea of our 
 existence being prolonged indefinitely or terminated. The latter idea is in some 
 
 aspects akin to the doctrine of the Yoga taught in the second chapter of the 
 Bhagavad-Gita, 
 
Taubert’s reference to Suicide. 163) 
 
 to that result, suicide cannot but be regarded as a logical 
 outcome of such doctrines. It must be borne in mind that 
 pessimists are not opposed to suicide on any principles of 
 morality. Every real basis of morality is destroyed by their 
 system. If life be hateful and its burden unendurable, and 
 if death lands us in the everlasting rest of nothingness (for 
 we need not here discuss the possibility of some continuity 
 of existence when consciousness has ceased), then the con- 
 clusion of the song is logical “the sooner ’tis over the sooner 
 to sleep.” Why should an individual continue to live a life 
 of martyrdom and useless striving when the end of all is 
 that nothing, into which ascetics and voluptuaries shall alike 
 descend? Why not, as speedily as possible step behind the 
 veil into the rest of unconsciousness? For even the miseries 
 of those who remain still on earth, whose sufferings the 
 individual might by living perhaps help to alleviate, only 
 tend to make them more willing to seek the same blissful 
 goal. 
 
 Taubert sneers at the man who regards life without plea- 
 sure as unendurable, at him who must needs whine over his 
 sorrows. It may be a question for such a man to consider 
 ‘““whether existence for him at least is preferable to non- 
 existence,” She observes, however, that the choice, though 
 a bad one, is open to.every one; and she intimates tolerably 
 plainly that many persons have made a much worse choice.! 
 
 This last-named writer has, also, the hardiness to maintain 
 that the Pessimism which characterises the Books of Job and 
 
 ! Taubert Der Pessimismus und seine Gegner, p. 128. Suicide in the present 
 day is in many places almost an epidemic. Its frequency in Germany, especially 
 in Saxony and the adjacent countries, has evoked a small literature. But it is not 
 only in Germany that this fact is arousing attention. If it cannot be distinctly 
 traced to the prevalence of the pessimist philosophy, it may without doubt be 
 attributed in a great measure to that disbelief in a personal God, one of the results 
 of which is this very philosophy. Men are beginning to practise that which they 
 believe. It may be well that the natural fruits of atheism and ungodliness have 
 thus terribly manifested themselves. 
 
ιΙ64  Taubert on the Book of Koheleth. 
 
 Koheleth, and the Prophecies and Lamentations of Jeremiah, 
 is not essentially different from that of Schopenhauer. This 
 fact she considers of great importance, because the writings of 
 the Bible still exercise an influence over many minds. She 
 terms chap. i.-iii. and chap. iv. 1-4 of the Book of Koheleth 
 “a Catechism of Pessimism,” and recommends these chapters 
 to be read by every person not thoroughly acquainted with 
 their contents.1. But in these very chapters Koheleth ex- 
 presses a firm belief in a personal God who, in His own 
 time (for to everything there is a time and a season), will 
 judge the righteous and the wicked. Koheleth also affirms 
 the existence of a life beyond the grave ;” and his faith in God 
 and eternity, taken together with the belief in the reality of 
 sin which pervades his entire book, is enough to show the 
 essential difference which exists between his pessimism and 
 the doctrines of the modern Pessimistic school. 
 
 If the doctrines of modern Pessimism be indeed true, then, 
 as the writer just referred to grants,’ the happiest persons on 
 earth are those who (as long as no special misfortune occurs 
 to them individually) live without troubling themselves with 
 any speculations on such subjects, unconcerned with the 
 misery of the universe in general, and untroubled with reflec- 
 tions on the difficulties it presents. If Taubert affirms that 
 such a life is degrading to humanity, and is like that of the 
 cattle in the pasturage, what matters it if men are little 
 better than the beasts, and are destined to return to nothing- 
 ness as they? If such be the ultimate goal of humanity, it is 
 only wanton cruelty to seek to disturb men’s present ideas 
 respecting a future life, which at least hold forth to the more 
 deserving sweet hopes of a better and more glorious life 
 
 ' Taubert, Der Pessimismus und seine Gegner, p. 75. 
 
 See our remarks in chap. vii. on Koheleth’s views as to a future state of exist- 
 ence. 
 
 . See Taubert, p. 24. Compare ἐν τῷ φρονεῖν yap μηδὲν ἤδιστος Bios. Sophocles’ 
 Ajax, 550. The opposite sentiment is expressed in Sophocles’ Antigone, 1328. 
 
ων 
 
 Taubert on the Socialistic movement. 165 
 
 beyond this earthly existence. It is well to be able to dream 
 of something pleasant, even if it were but a dream ! 
 
 Taubert lays stress upon the fact commonly observed, that 
 the higher men advance in the scale of civilization the greater 
 are their wants. Lassalle (in his Avrdezterlesebuch, p. 32) has 
 maintained that the virtue suitable to the national economy 
 of the present day is “to have the greatest possible wants, and 
 to satisfy them in an honourable and proper manner.’ The 
 working classes, though their condition is far better than in 
 former days, are for the most part permeated with a feeling 
 of discontent.. Taubert regards this state of affairs as one of 
 hope, for the more widely spread is the recognition on the 
 part of the masses of the misery of their condition, the more 
 easily will they be induced to adopt the principles of Pessim- 
 ism unconsciously developing themselves in all socialistic 
 movements. These principles are “the impossibility of 
 human happiness” on the one hand, and “the wretchedness 
 of existence” on the other. Taubert regards the adoption 
 of Pessimism as a step towards the healing of all social evils, 
 inasmuch as then men would recognise that misery is in- 
 separable from being itself! Such language might well be 
 interpreted as that of bitter scorn. To attempt to soothe the 
 woes of humanity by teaching the doctrines of Pessimism 
 would be like seeking to quench raging flames by pouring 
 oil upon them, or attempting to mollify wounds by rubbing 
 salt into them. The Pessimist propaganda may well be 
 compared to the “mad man” of the Book of Proverbs, who 
 casts in every direction “firebrands, arrows and death” 
 (Prov. αν! 19). 
 
 It is utterly impossible that the Pessimist philosophy, with 
 its doctrine of the abnegation of the will to live, should gain 
 any large number of adherents prepared to carry out its prin- 
 ciples to their logical end. ‘The asceticism of the Jewish 
 
 1 See Taubert’s Pessimismus und seine Gegner, p. 105, and pp. 114, 115 ff. 
 
166, -. Inconsistencies of the Pessimtsts. 
 
 Essenes, and of the Christian hermits, was called forth by 
 nobler principles, and directed to loftier ends. The world is 
 not likely to see an outburst of a similar enthusiasm on the 
 part of atheists desirous of hurrying on the human race to 
 their imaginary goal of non-consciousness. Men are, more- 
 over, often better than the creeds to which they profess to give 
 their assent, and generally too wise to carry out absurd princi- 
 ples in practice to their legitimate conclusions. The lives of 
 the Pessimist philosophers and writers of the present day have 
 not yet exhibited any marked difference from those of others 
 of the human species.|_ They have not yet shown themselves 
 indifferent to the love of fame, to the attractions of the fair 
 sex, or to the other “illusory pleasures” of life. They have 
 not been as consistent as was the Cynic of antiquity. A filthy 
 Diogenes in his earthenware tub (according to the popular 
 legend) would not now attract many adherents. The spread 
 
 1 Schopenhauer, though strongly inclined to misanthropy (see n. 2, p. 153), was 
 keenly susceptible to all adverse criticism of his writings, and to matters affecting 
 his reputation. He endeavoured in early life to obtain distinction as a University 
 Professor, and failed. His denunciation in after life of all University Professors 
 and of ‘‘Katheder-philosophie” (Parerga und Paralipomena, Werke, vol. v. 
 Ῥ- 151 ff) was not a little influenced by his own failure. His great work, too, Die 
 Welt als Wille und Vorstellung,was, notwithstanding the vigour of its style and the 
 novelty of its opinions, for many years an utter failure (see Sully’s Pessimism, 
 p- 78 ff). Misogynist, too, as he became in later life, he was at least once guilty 
 of writing a love-poem, and, when he was a Docent in the University of Berlin, 
 thought seriously of marriage. His dread of the necessary cares and trouble 
 of married life, however, led him to abandon his intention. The troubles of 
 married life he describes characteristically as ‘‘ endlose Ausgaben, Kindersorgen, 
 Widerspenstigkeit, Eigensinn, Alt-und-garstigwerden nach wenigen Jahren, Be- 
 triigen, Horneraufsetzen, Grillen, hysterische Anfalle, Liebhaber, und Hélle und 
 Teufel” (Gwinner’s Leben, p. 335). It was thus his melancholy forebodings 
 rather than his philosophical opinions which restrained him from marrying. He 
 was, however, not without exhibiting at times a susceptibility to the power of 
 female charms, and was wont to confess, with Lord Byron, that he found it hard 
 to fall out with women, and easy to fall out with men (Gwinner’s Leben, p. 527). 
 Luthardt (MWJoderne Weltanschauungen, p- 188), alluding to the phenomenon 
 noticed above, very appropriately refers to the scoff of Voltaire, that, however 
 pessimistically men may often express themselves, they usually try to live as 
 optimistically as possible, and seldom prove insensible to the pleasures of venison 
 and champagne. 
 
The natural results of Pessimism. 167 
 
 of the principles of the Pessimist philosophy, and its adoption 
 by numbers as their intellectual creed, are certain to lead to 
 results different from those contemplated by its founders. 
 Pessimism will not make men more self-denying (strange if 
 it did 1), or induce them to make (as Taubert imagines) the 
 alleviation of suffering in all forms the object and aim of their 
 fleeting existence. It will not lead them to make the smallest 
 distinction possible between themselves and others, between 
 the “me” and the “ot me,” and finally to become wholly 
 engrossed with thoughts of how to benefit mankind.! But it 
 will lead many to cast aside all belief in the existence of a 
 God, of a future life, and of atime of retribution. It will 
 break down many a barrier that restrained men as “with 
 bit and bridle” (Ps. xxxii. 9) from a course of sin and folly. 
 And, inasmuch as life is not only brief but uncertain, such a 
 philosophy will impel men to seek to make the best use of 
 their time (as far as is consistent with prudence) by enjoying 
 the pleasures of sin for their little season.? Like other 
 atheistic philosophies, it will lead to the same conclusions as 
 those at which the Astronomer Poet of Persia arrived : 
 
 “ But if in vain, down on the stubborn floor 
 Of earth, and up to Heav’n’s unopening door, 
 
 1 Vid. Schopenhauer’s Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Werke (herausg. von 
 Dr. J. Fratenstadt), vol. iii. pp. 581-2. See also our remarks on Tawdert, Ὁ. 165. 
 
 2 Sully has endeavoured to combat this idea in his Pessimism, p. 318 ff. But 
 he is driven almost to concede the point in his note on p. 319. However the 
 highly trained philosopher may act, the adoption of an atheistic creed must lead 
 the multitude to seek after sensual gratifications, and ultimately drive them into the 
 most terrible excesses. Even Renan has clearly perceived this. Hence he writes 
 (Etude sur 1 Ecclésiaste, p. 88): ‘In his greatest follies Koheleth does not forget 
 the judgment of God. Let us do as he does. In the midst of the absolutely 
 fleeting character of things let us maintain the eternal! Without that we shall not 
 be free nor easy in discussing it. The morrow of the day when men believe no 
 more in God, the largest number of victims will be the atheists. One never 
 philosophises more at ease than when he knows that his philosophy will not be 
 carried out to its consequences. Ring, ye bells, entirely at your ease; the more 
 you ring, the more I will permit myself to say that your voice does not mean 
 anything definite. If I believed that I could silence you, ah! it is then that I 
 swould be timid and prudent.” 
 
168 + Schopenhauer on the passion of love. 
 
 You gaze TO-DAY while You are You—how then 
 TO-MORROW, You, when shall be You no more? 
 
 “ Waste not your Hour, nor in the vain pursuit 
 Of This and That endeavour and dispute ; 
 Better be jocund with the fruitful grape 
 Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit. 
 
 “ VESTERDAY ¢his day’s madness did prepare ; 
 To-morrow’s Silence, Triumph, or Despair : 
 Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why : 
 Drink ! for you know not why you go, nor where.” 
 
 This is the old conclusion at which the Jewish sensualists 
 of Alexandria arrived, and which is combated so vigorously 
 in the Book of Wisdom. This is the practical outcome of 
 the fool’s philosophy so pithily characterised by the Psalmist 
 (Ps. xiv. liii.), and glanced at by the Apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles: “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die” (1 Cor. 
 xv. 32). This is the real logical result of all atheistic or 
 agnostic theories of philosophy, however the devisers and 
 founders of new systems may attempt to deny it. 
 
 The explanation given of the passion of love forms one 
 of the strangest dogmas of the Pessimist philosophy. It is 
 highly conducive to immorality, and the more hateful and 
 degrading inasmuch as the conclusions arrived at are digni- 
 fied with the name of “science.” It is only possible to allude 
 briefly to this subject. Though Schopenhauer was an idealist 
 in his philosophical principles, he expresses on this point 
 views closely akin to those of the materialistic philosophers of 
 the present day. Schopenhauer maintains that the feeling of 
 affection with which two young persons who are “in love” 
 regard each other is but the working of “the will of the 
 species” seeking an objectification of its nature in a new 
 individual. He maintains, no doubt, that there is no con- 
 
 * Omar Khayyam, stanzas liii. liv. xxiv. See the Rudbdivdt of Omar Khayydm 
 
 and. the Saldman and Absdl of Fdmt, rendered into English verse. London: 
 Bernard Quaritch, 1870. 
 
Evil results of such teachings. 169 
 
 sciousness of this “will” present to the mind of the lovers 
 But, if it be borne in mind that this philosophy recognises 
 nothing which in a Jewish or Christian sense can be pro- 
 perly termed “sin,” and that its “ethics” such as they are, 
 are based not upon moral grounds but upon metaphysical 
 arguments, the practical danger to morality can easily be 
 conceived when all “love” is traced up to the “genius of 
 species” represented anthropomorphically as plotting certain 
 results. The longings of the “lover” and the pains of love 
 are described as “the sighs of the spirit of species,” and 
 Schopenhauer informs us that that “genius in carrying out 
 his purposes despises all human arrangements, such as mar- 
 riage contracts and vows, and blows away like chaff all con- 
 siderations which oppose the aim and object he has in view. 
 Honour, duty, fidelity, yield to him alone, after they have 
 withstood every other temptation, even the threat of death.” ἢ 
 
 It may be argued that this is only a scientific statement, 
 and no incentive is thereby given to immorality. But it 
 must be noted that Schopenhauer does not stop here. The 
 preservation of a woman’s honour he traces only to a feminine 
 esprit de corps, while he observes that the esprit de corps of 
 men on such points is different from that of women.” Eduard 
 
 1 See Schopenhauer in chap. 44 of his Welt als Wille u. Vorstellung, entitled 
 ‘“Metaphysik der Geschlechtsliebe.” On page 629 he says: ‘‘ Dieses Forschen 
 und Priifen [mit welchem zwei junge Leute verschiedenen Geschlechts einander 
 betrachten] ist die Meditation des Genius der Gattung iiber das durch sie beide 
 mégliche Individuum und die Kombination seiner Eigenschaften, . . . Der- 
 gestalt also meditirt in allen, die zeugungsfahig sind, der Genius der Gattung das 
 kommende Geschlecht. Die Beschaffenheit desselben ist das grosse Werk womit 
 Cupido, unablassig thatig, spekulirend und sinnend, beschaftigt ist.” See also 
 p- 632, and p. 633: ‘‘Ihm allein weichen daher Ehre, Pflicht und Treue, 
 nachdem sie jeder andern Versuchung, nebst der Drohung des Todes, wider- 
 standen haben.” And on p. 634 he says that the Genius der Gattung ‘‘seine, 
 endlosen Generationen angehérenden Zwecke verfolgend solche Menschensatzungen 
 und Bedenken wie Spreu wegblist.” See also Sully’s Pessimism, p. 60 ff., and 
 v. Hartmann’s Philosophie des Unbewussten, 316. Aufl., Berlin, 1871, on ‘‘ Das 
 Unbewusste in der geschlechtlichen Liebe.” 
 
 2 Schopenhauer, Parerga τε. Paralipomena, p. 387 ff. Werke, vol. 5. 
 
Zo * Fearful results of Pesstmism. 
 
 von Hartmann also observes that the natural instinct of men 
 is in favour of polygamy, and that of women in favour of mono- 
 gamy, hence, where men exercise exclusive rule, polygamy is 
 lawful; but where, owing to a higher civilization, men have 
 conceded to women a more honourable position, monogamy 
 alone is recognised as legal, though the law to this effect is 
 not practically observed by men in any quarter of the world.! 
 
 The acceptance of such a philosophy must of necessity 
 lead many of its followers with “no fear of God before their 
 eyes” (Ps. xxxvi. 1) to follow their so-called “instincts,” 
 whenever they can do so without inconvenience to themselves. 
 “ Nature,” observes Schopenhauer, “only knows the physical 
 not the moral, hence there is a decided antagonism between 
 it and morality.”* And if there be no God over all, whose 
 laws we, as His creatures, are bound to obey, we cannot 
 blame men for acting like “children of nature.” Venetianer, 
 pessimist though he is, has pointed out some terrible con- 
 clusions which result from Schopenhauer’s theories.3 But 
 there are still lower “depths of Satan,’ when the vilest 
 of all human crimes, that referred to by St. Paul in the 
 Epistle to the Romans (i. 27), is apologised for as an attempt 
 of nature to prevent the depravation of the species. Such a 
 
 1 E. v. Hartmann’s Philosophie des Undewussten, p. 201. See our remarks on 
 p. 210, Note, however, that monogamy prevails among Hindus. 
 
 ? Morality itself is described by von Hartmann as only a middle step between 
 the unrestrained affirmation of the will to live and its negation, it is merely a 
 palliative, whilst the latter is the radical cure. See his Phenomenologie des sittl. 
 Bewussts., p. 42. 
 
 3 See Venetianer, Schopenhauer als Scholastiker, pp. 264-270. 
 
 4 See Schopenhauer’s Appendix to his chapter on the ‘‘ Metaphysik der 
 Geschlechtsliebe,” in his Welt als Wille u. Vorstellung, p. 650. He says: 
 ‘*Demnach griff die in Folge ihrer eigenen Gesetze in die Enge getriebene Natur, 
 mittelst Verkehrung des Instinkts, zu einem Nothbehelf, einem Stratagem, ja 
 man mochte sagen, sie bauete sich eine Eselsbriicke, um, wie oben dargelegt, von 
 zweien Uebeln dem grésseren zu entgehen. Sie hat namlich den wichtigen Zweck 
 im Auge, ungliicklichen Zeugungen vorzubeugen, welche allmalig die ganze 
 Species depraviren kénnten, und da ist sie, wie wir gesehen haben nicht skru- 
 pulds in der Wahl der Mittel. Der Geist, in welchem sie hier verfahrt, ist derselbe 
 
Rapid progress of Pessimism. 171 
 
 philosophy, despite the efforts to trick it out with all the 
 adornments which a vigorous and racy style can bestow, can 
 only justly be described in the language of the Apostle as 
 “earthly, sensual, demoniacal” (James iii. 15). 
 
 The rapid progress of Pessimism makes it impossible to 
 ignore its existence. Its popularity in Germany at the pre- 
 sent time is owing partly to circumstances connected with 
 the political and social life of that country, partly also to 
 the vigorous style of its first apostle, as well as to the fact that 
 Schopenhauer and von Hartmann have addressed themselves 
 not only to the students of philosophy but to the ordinary 
 class of readers. Unverified as are many of the doctrines of 
 “scientific pessimism,” and palpably erroneous as are some 
 of its scientific statements, its doctrines have been defended 
 with no little parade of an acquaintance with modern science 
 in all departments. The Philosophy of the Unconscious by 
 von Hartmann is avowedly constructed upon the latest 
 results of biology. It is satisfactory, therefore, to observe 
 that an eminent biologist like Professor Oscar Schmidt has 
 pronounced that philosopher mistaken in his interpretation of 
 biological phenomena, and has pointed out numerous errors 
 into which he has fallen.' 
 
 We are not forgetful of the fact that Pessimism has certain 
 points of truth ; and there is something to admire, while there 
 is, perhaps, more to condemn in the writings referred to. It 
 does. not come within the limits of our subject to notice the 
 better features of this philosophy. Its appearance at the 
 present time may be regarded in some aspects as seasonable, 
 
 in welchem sie wie oben, Kapitel 27, angefiihrt die Wespen antreibt, ihre Jungen 
 zu erstechen [He refers to Kirby and Spence’s Entomology, vol. i. p- 374] : denn 
 in beiden Fallen greift sie zum Schlimmen, um Schlimmern zu entgehen ; sie fuhrt 
 den Geschlechtstrieb irre, um seine verderblichsten Folgen zu vereiteln.” 
 
 1 Die naturwissenschaftlichen Grundlagen der Philosophie des Unbewussten, 
 von Oscar Schmidt, Professor der Zoologie und vergleichenden Anatomie in 
 Strassburg. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1877. See also a sketch of the con- 
 clusions arrived at by this scholar in Sully’s Pessimism, pp. 201-5. 
 
172: Elements of truth in Pessimism. 
 
 for its tendency is not only to prevent men from being satis- 
 fied with that superficial optimism which has long borne sway, 
 but also to keep them from too quickly imbibing the more 
 novel doctrines of the new philosophy of “ Meliorism,” which, 
 though adopted by Sully and other able English writers, rest 
 in our opinion upon no very firm philosophical basis, though 
 for a season Meliorism may also subserve a useful purpose. 
 Pessimism, to whatever extravagant lengths it may logically 
 conduct its adherents, is one of the natural outcomes of a 
 materialism which denies the existence of a God, and of an 
 agnosticism which regards the existence of the Divine Being 
 as outside and beyond all human knowledge. It is well in 
 some respects that the choice should lie between the accept- 
 ance of Christianity on the one hand, and of Pessimism on 
 the other. Pessimism has unquestionably made considerable 
 progress in philosophical circles, and has spread itself even 
 more widely among the middle classes. It already counts 
 adherents in England and America, and its tenets continually 
 turn up in unexpected quarters. It is, therefore, no proof 
 of wisdom to seek to ignore its existence or to refuse to take 
 notice of the approaching danger. 
 
 The doctrines of this modern school, the reader cannot 
 fail to have observed, bear a close resemblance to the prin- 
 ciples of Buddhism. But, although Buddhism teaches that 
 existence is an evil which the wise man will seek to get rid 
 of, that system does not so directly lead to immorality and 
 suicide as the doctrines of Schopenhauer and von Hartmann, 
 if carried out to their logical consequences. For Buddhism 
 maintains that there is a life after death, and a transmigra- 
 tion of souls in the case of the wicked, and of those who are 
 deficient in virtue! There is, according to Buddhism, some- 
 
 * Schopenhauer actually exhibits some leaning in this direction. He remarks 
 in his Welt als Wille und Vorstellung that there is some relation between the 
 number of births and deaths, He notes that in the fourteenth century after the 
 
Resemblance of Pessimism to Buddhism. 1753 
 
 thing which the wicked may well fear, and something which 
 the upright may desire to attain. The Buddhist dreads to be 
 involved in an indefinite rotation of births, followed in each 
 case by decay and death. The object of his desire is not 
 merely to escape from life in one form, but from existence 
 in any shape whatever, and to reach, as speedily as possible, 
 his haven of rest and “city of peace,” the Nirvana where 
 desire is totally extinct. Nirvana is not, indeed, philo- 
 sophically speaking, identical with annihilation, but it is a 
 suspension from all exercise of thought and will, and has 
 been described as “a perfect and unutterable tranquillity, 
 for ever imperturbable, including exemption from all pain 
 and uneasiness, and deliverance from the terrible law of 
 transmigration.” ἢ 
 
 great mortality caused by the Black Death in the Old World a very great increase 
 of births took place with a large proportion of twins. In proof of this he refers 
 to Schnurrer’s Chronik der Seuchen, 1825, and observes that Caspar confirms the 
 principle that the number of births and deaths in every place rises and falls 
 proportionately. See his Werke, vol. iii. p. 577. In connexion with the strange 
 inclination towards Buddhism exhibited by this philosopher, it may be worth 
 while quoting here an anecdote told by his biographer Gwinner (Leven, p. 547). 
 He says that in a corner of Schopenhauer’s room, upon a marble slab, stood a 
 gilded statuette of Buddha. When Schopenhauer got the statuetfe from Paris in 
 1856, after removing the black polish with which it was covered, he stood con- 
 templating it with satisfaction in the presence of his Roman Catholic servant 
 (who had erected for herself in her own room a small altar richly adorned with 
 artificial flowers). The latter, however, soon burst out into coarse laughter, saying, 
 “he sits there just like a tailor.” Schopenhauer was seriously offended at her re- 
 mark and observed, ‘‘she is a rude person to speak thus of the Victoriously- 
 Perfected One! Have I ever abused her Lord God?” Such an expression might 
 have been reasonably expected from the lips of a Buddhist, scarcely from those 
 of a philosopher. 
 
 1 Kalisch, in Path and Goal, pp. 447-8. It is difficult to ascertain exactly 
 what is meant by Nirvana. Spence Hardy observes that the notices of Nirvana 
 in the sacred books are few, not by any means so frequent as we should have 
 supposed from the importance of the subject in the system of Buddhism. He 
 maintains that ‘‘that which is void, that has no existence, no continuance, 
 neither birth nor death, that is subject to neither cause nor effect, and that pos- 
 sesses none of the essentialities of being, must be the cessation of existence, 
 nihilism, or non-entity.”—Legends and Theories of the Buddhists, p. 174. On the 
 other hand Rhys Davids, who is perhaps even a greater authority, maintains that 
 it is ‘‘the extinction of that sinful grasping condition of mind and heart, which 
 
ἐν Ὁ Buddhism aud Pessimism. 
 
 The misery of human life is the starting-point of Buddhism 
 as well as of Pessimism. The former has assumed the 
 dogma as a fact; the latter seeks to demonstrate its truth 
 by a variety of arguments.! Buddhism, as it has been well 
 
 would otherwise, according to the great mystery of Karma, be the cause of 
 renewed individual existence.’ It is evidently then a cessation of individual 
 existence though it may imply ‘‘ideas of intellectual energy,” and if not actual 
 annihilation, leads to it. ‘* Death, utter death, with no life to follow is then 
 a result of, but it is not Nirvana.” See Rhys David’s Buddhism: being a Sketch 
 of the Life and Teachings of Gautama, the Buddha. Iondon:) ΘΕ Ge 
 1880. 
 
 Professor Beal’s remarks on the subject are also worthy of notice here. He 
 says :— : 
 
 “Tt appears that the idea of annihilation as the one equivalent of Nirvana 
 must be confined .(if at all) to one period only in the history of the system, and 
 that period one during which scholastic refinement sought to explain or define 
 that which is, in its very nature, incapable of definition, viz., the condition of 
 the Infinite ; for, all along, Buddhism assumes that the same condition awaits the 
 ‘emancipated soul’ as is enjoyed by the Supreme Mind, and hence the constant 
 reference to the state of the soul that has gone across (paraméta) to that shore 
 where there is no ‘ birth or death.’ This state, because it admits of no positive 
 definition, is described w@ remotionis, z.e. by stripping from it every conceivable 
 imperfection, and the process is carried to such an extent by the subtle logic of 
 the schools that at length nothing is left for the mind to lay hold of, and this 
 is the annihilation spoken of. But in the earliest and latest schools there is a 
 different complexion given to the idea of Nirvana. In the first period the thought 
 seems to have been simply confined to a state of rest—rest or escape from all 
 possible sorrow ; and at this state, without attempting to describe or define it, 
 Buddha directed his followers to aim. In the latest school, the idea of Nirvana 
 was ‘restoration to the true condition of Being.’ It would be tedious to bring 
 proofs of this, for many of the latest works or Sfitras consist of the one idea, 
 that there is but one Nature, to which all other Natures must in the end return; 
 and this ‘return’ or ‘ultimate union’ is the perfection of the one nature of 
 Buddha.” —Beal (Samuel), A Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese. 
 London: Triibner, 1871. See note 2, next page, and the supplementary note at 
 the end of this chapter (p. 182) on Dr. Oldenberg’s recent work. 
 
 Sully has pointed out that the empirical proofs adduced by von Hartmann 
 in favour of Pessimism are unsatisfactory. Many of the statements of von 
 Hartmann respecting the illusory character of human progress are founded on 
 arbitrary assumptions. For instance, he asserts that ‘the amount of immorality 
 is to be regarded as a constant quantity ; that diseases increase in a greater ratio 
 than the remedies ; that industrial progress has achieved nothing positive for the 
 happiness of mankind ; that the sense of misery arising from the fierce uncon- 
 trolled passions of savage races ‘‘is equalled by the sum of misery arising from 
 the prudentially restrained but still active immoral tendencies of civilized society.” 
 Sully notes that a general theory of pleasure and pain is still far from complete, 
 
The selfishness of Buddhism. 175 
 
 observed, builds “not on conscience but on man’s craving 
 for happiness, and its ultimate end is not to free man from 
 inward evil, but to emancipate him from misery, that is, 
 from existence.”! Hence, notwithstanding all its pretensions, 
 it is, as popularly understood, essentially selfish in its aims; 
 for, although it inculcates brotherly love and sympathy, it 
 urges men to practise these virtues with the view only of 
 personal advantage, namely, with the direct object of reach- 
 ing the perfect calm of unconsciousness. The truth of this 
 charge has no doubt been called in question, and probably 
 with some amount of truth. For it is argued that the Bud- 
 dhist in striving toward this object is impelled also by the 
 belief, that he is helping to lessen the aggregate sum of 
 human misery, and aiding on the progress of the universe 
 to its goal of non-existence. ” 
 
 and that it is impossible to estimate scientifically the relative value of different 
 kinds of pleasure. He maintains that happiness is a balance of pleasure, and, 
 though happiness is unattainable here, when thought of as an unbroken state 
 of delicious excitement, yet it is to a very considerable extent attainable as an 
 object of human pursuit. Sully admits that ‘‘the view of the present life 
 as an opportunity of laying the foundations of our eternal well-being, or of 
 helping to secure this immeasurable good for the souls of our fellow-men, has 
 no doubt, its unique value as a stimulus to human effort.” He observes also that 
 ‘*if men are to abandon all hope of a future life the loss in point of cheering 
 and sustaining influence will be a vast one, and one not to be made good, so 
 far as I can see, by any new idea of services to collective humanity ;” and yet 
 he remarks sadly in the next paragraph that ‘‘it is one thing to see the limits 
 of an object, another to deny it its proper magnitude. After all, this earthly 
 life may be our sole portion, and it is well not to dismiss it from view too scorn- 
 fully.” —Fessimism : A History and a Criticism, p. 250 ff., p. 303 ff. and p. 317. 
 We maintain that it is only a one-sided induction that can lead to any such miser- 
 able conclusion. Some valuable remarks on Sully’s standpoint will be found 
 in Professor Flint’s Azti- Theistic Theories, being the Baird Lectures for 1877 
 (Edin, and Lond.: Blackwood & Sons, 1880). 
 
 1 Dods’ Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, 1878, p. 169. Kalisch has well 
 contrasted Christianity and Buddhism in his Path and Goal, pp. 456-7. 
 
 2 So Rhys Davids in Contemporary Review, 1877, but see Dods’ remarks on 
 p. 171 of his book. The former scholar observes, in his excellent sketch of Bud- 
 dhism referred to in our previous note: ‘‘ the true Buddhist saint does not mar the 
 purity of his self-denial by lusting after a positive happiness, which he himself shall 
 enjoy hereafter. His consciousness will cease to feel, but his virtue will live and 
 
176. Chrostianity charged with selfishness. 
 
 The same charge of selfishness may, indeed, with some 
 show of justice, even be brought against Christianity. All 
 creeds must begin with the individual, and hence are more 
 or less open to the charge of egoism. Starting from the 
 standpoint presented by Judaism, that “all have sinned and 
 come short of the glory of God,” Christianity makes known 
 first to individuals a salvation designed and procured by 
 God’s fatherly love for all men, and insists on the necessity 
 of “holiness without which no man can see the Lord” (Heb. 
 xii. 14). It presses upon its followers the duty of doing 
 good unto all men, and exhorts them to work for the sal- 
 vation of the whole human race, taking as their noblest 
 motive, “the love of Christ constraineth us” (2 Cor. v. 14). 
 But it does not ignore the great fact that the love of self 
 is implanted in our very nature, although it warns men 
 against the sin of “selfishness,” and seeks, by the principle 
 of love, to transform the love which begins with self into 
 
 the love of God.! 
 
 work out its full effect in the decrease of the sum of the misery of sentient beings.” 
 Rhys David notes in continuation: ‘‘Most forms of Paganism past and present 
 teach men tc seek for some sort of happiness here. Most other forms of belief 
 say that this is folly, but the faithful and the holy shall find happiness hereafter 
 in a better world beyond. Buddhism maintains that the one hope is as hollow 
 as the other; that the consciousness of self is a delusion; that the organized 
 being, sentient existence, since it is not infinite, is bound up inextricably with 
 ignorance, and therefore with sin, and therefore with sorrow. ‘ Drop then 
 this petty foolish longing for personal happiness,’ Buddhism would say! ‘ Here 
 it comes of ignorance, and leads to sin, which leads to sorrow; and there the 
 conditions of existence are the same, and each new birth will leave you ignorant 
 and finite still, There is nothing eternal ; the very kosmos itself is passing away ; 
 nothing is, everything becomes ; and all that you see and feel, bodily or men- 
 tally, of yourself will pass away like everything else ; there will only remain 
 the accumulated result of all your actions, words, and thoughts. Be pure, then, 
 and kind, not lazy in thought. Be awake, shake off your delusions, and enter 
 resolutely on the ‘Path’ which will lead you away from these restless tossing 
 waves of the ocean of life,—the Path to the Joy and Rest of the Nirvana of 
 Wisdom and Goodness and Peace!’”—Buddhism, pp. 104-5. 
 
 1 See also remarks in chap, vill. on Koh. xi. 2. In Row’s remarkable work, Zhe 
 Jesus of the Evangelists (2nd ed. London: Fred. Norgate, 1880), the necessity of 
 appealing to an enlightened self-love as a motive for human action is well pointed 
 
The Pessimism of Fudaism and Christianity. 177 
 
 Christianity is pessimistic in so far as it recognises that 
 “the world is out of course” on account of sin, and that 
 “the world” as it is “lies under the power of the Evil One” 
 (1 John v. 19). This is also the doctrine of the Old Testa- 
 ment. For Judaism, notwithstanding Schopenhauer’s asser- 
 tions to the contrary, has also a pessimistic side. Judaism 
 and Christianity both recognise the fact that “the whole 
 creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” 
 (Rom. viii. 22). The doctrine that “all things work together 
 for good to those that love God” (Rom. viii. 28) was taught 
 even in the Old Testament, and the Book of Job was written 
 with the distinct object of pointing out that afflictions and 
 sorrows are not always to be regarded as marks of the 
 Divine displeasure, but are often permitted in order to purify 
 the righteous, and to test their integrity. Inasmuch as 
 pain and misery exist in this world, Christians are taught 
 by their great Master not to endeavour to go out of the 
 world, but continuing in the same to seek to be preserved 
 from the evil that abounds in it (John xvii. 15), while 
 working for the good of others. They are not called upon 
 to become ascetics, though “bodily exercise is profitable for 
 a little,’ but to “exercise’’ themselves rather “unto godli- 
 ness” (I Tim. iv. 7, 8), bearing in mind, whether they eat 
 or drink or whatever they do, to do all to the glory of God 
 (ior, x. 31). 
 
 A Christian, though convinced with the Psalmist that “the 
 out. Bishop Butler, long ago, in his great work on Zhe Analogy of Religion, chap. 
 v., has satisfactorily discussed the same subject in answer to the objections adduced 
 by the Deists of his day. Row derives an important argument in defence of the 
 historical character of the Jesus of the Evangelists from the fact that, although the 
 Evangelists depict our Lord Himself as a moral teacher acting on a morality 
 absolutely unselfish, they have narrated how He was wont to appeal to the hopes 
 and fears of His disciples in order to incite them to action. In so doing, the 
 Evangelists have ever ‘‘ preserved the clearest distinction between the morality of 
 the Master and that which is possible for the disciple” in a manner utterly impos- 
 
 sible to conceive, if the Evangelists be regarded as a body of credulous men spon- 
 taneously elaborating myths. 
 
 N 
 
178° Christianity has an optimustic side. 
 
 earth is full of the goodness of Jahaveh ” (Ps. xxxiii. 5),—and 
 constrained at times, in contemplation of the glories of 
 created nature! (Ps. Ixv., civ., cxlv.), to sing and make 
 melody with his heart unto God (Eph. v. 19)—may, when 
 viewing the life of man from another standpoint, consistently 
 express himself in a different strain. Thus the Christian 
 poet Quarles, though he firmly believed in a life of glory 
 beyond the grave, has used language quite as pessimistic as 
 that of Koheleth :-— 
 
 “ E’en so this little world of living clay, 
 The pride of nature, glorified by art, 
 Whom earth adores, and all her hosts obey, 
 Allied to Heaven by his diviner part, 
 Triumphs awhile, then droops, and then decays, 
 And, worn by age, death cancels all his days. 
 
 “ Thus man that’s born of woman can remain 
 But a short time: his days are full of sorrow ; 
 His life’s a penance, and his death’s a pain, 
 Springs like a flower to-day, and fades to-morrow ; 
 His breath’s a bubble, and his day’s a span, 
 ’Tis glorious misery to be born a man!” ? 
 
 Christianity, however, no less than Judaism has its optimistic 
 side. It declares emphatically the blessedness of existence 
 by its doctrines of the Fatherhood of God, of a life of happi- 
 ness beyond the grave, and of a resurrection to everlasting 
 glory. If the New Testament Scriptures teach the doctrine 
 of the destruction of the ungodly, they teach also that God 
 is “the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe” 
 (1 Tim. iv. 10). If Christ speaks of His people as “a little 
 flock” to whom it is “the Father’s good pleasure to give the 
 
 ΤῈ must not be forgotten that Schopenhauer had also an eye for the beauti- 
 ful. He says in his Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (p. 667), on this point : 
 “‘Inzwischen heisst ein Optimist nicht die Augen 6ffmen und hineinsehen in 
 die Welt, wie sie so schén sei, ein Sonnenschein, mit ihren Bergen, Thalern, 
 Stromen, Pflanzen, Thieren, u.s.w.—Aber ist denn die Welt ein Giickkasten? Zu 
 
 sehen sind diese Dinge freilich schén ; aber sie zu sein ist ganz Anderes.” 
 * Quarles’ Hieroglyphics of the Life of Man, No. 15. 
 
Christianity a religion suited to man. 179 
 
 kingdom” (Luke xii. 32), His words, most true when spoken, 
 are not to be understood as referring to the Church in all 
 ages, nor to be interpreted in such a manner as to contradict 
 the glorious vision beheld by John in Patmos, of those “who 
 came out of great tribulation,” a “great multitude which 
 no man could number, out of every nation and of tribes 
 and peoples and tongues” (Rev. vii. 9). Christian theo- 
 logians have often, by their narrow-minded interpretation of 
 Scripture, put weapons into the hands of the assailants of 
 their holy religion. Christianity must not, however, be held 
 responsible for the mistakes of its disciples, and we may hope 
 and believe that in the great day of Jesus Christ there will 
 be manifested, in a far grander manner than it is now possible 
 to conceive, a blessed harmony between the perfect justice 
 and the everlasting love of the Eternal.! 
 
 Christianity is a religion suited for man in his present 
 state. It teaches distinctly that, notwithstanding all the ruin 
 wrought by sin, it is possible to live to Christ on earth, and 
 that the life in Christ even here is a state of happiness. 
 “To me,” writés the Apostle, “to live is Christ, and to die 
 is gain” (Phil. i. 21). It looks forward, too, with hope to an 
 era when “the creation itself shall be delivered from the 
 bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the 
 children of God” (Rom. viii. 21). Thus it has an optimistic 
 as well as a pessimistic side; and its optimistic features, it 
 is willingly conceded, though enlarged and ennobled, are 
 derived, more or less distinctly, from the Old Testament 
 revelation.” 
 
 1 The use Taubert (pp. 90-96) has made of the exaggerations which Christian 
 theologians have fallen into in depicting the everlasting consciousness and torture 
 of the ungodly in a future state on the one hand, and setting forth the doctrine of 
 the predestination of a special few to everlasting happiness on the other, ought 
 to make those who hold evangelical doctrine careful not to exaggerate the state- 
 ments of Holy Scripture. 
 
 2 It may be well to quote here the words of Prof. Dr. Luthardt, in his chapter 
 on Pessimism in Die modernen Weltanschauungen (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 189, 190. 
 
180° The unselfishness of Christiantty. 
 
 When the pessimist philosopher shall have shown some 
 evidences of love to the human race such as that which has 
 led missionaries of the cross to labour in foreign lands amid 
 difficulties and privations for the benefit of the most de- 
 graded and savage races; when the system they have pro- 
 pounded shall have exhibited some such power to raise and 
 improve mankind, it will be time enough to sing pzeans over 
 the approaching downfall of Christianity and to taunt Christ- 
 ianity with its selfishness.!_ While professing to be unselfish, 
 this newborn philosophy is convicted at the very outset of 
 
 ‘Pessimism is the doctrine of hopelessness and despair. . . . Christianity 
 is the announcement of a hope which lifts man out of his impotence into a new 
 joyousness of life. ‘The pessimist gives up the battle for lost before it is begun : 
 it is all vanity. The Christian goes forward into the battle of life with the 
 certainty of victory. ‘ This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our 
 faith’ (I John v. 4). Pessimism and Christianity are the two great contrasts. 
 They are, indeed, not unfrequently said to be closely related. Christianity is 
 pessimistic, because it declares the earth to be a vale of sorrow. Yes! they are 
 related, as contrasts are related. Both proclaim the misery of earth, and the 
 inability of one’s own will. But, while Pessimism pleases itself with the thought, 
 and makes pain a subject of pride; Christianity makes use of the fact to point 
 the look upwards to those ‘hills from whence cometh our help’ (Psalm cxxi. 1). 
 With the former, the preaching of the misery of life is a subject of vain-glory ; 
 with the latter, itis a matter of humility. . . . Both speak of the impotence 
 of man, but Christianity understands and says with the Apostle, ‘When I.am 
 weak then am I strong’ ; for it is God’s strength which is powerful in our weak- 
 HESS ΤΣ COT EXT O ΤΟΙΣ: 
 
 ‘It is absurd and unphilosophical for persons to sneer at missions, who have 
 never honestly investigated the results attained by the missionary efforts of the 
 Churches of the Reformation in modern days. The wonderful triumphs exhibited 
 in Madagascar, where within very recent times the Protestant converts bravely 
 endured for many years a terrible persecution; the success of the Wesleyan 
 missions in Fiji, borne witness to by the highest authorities; the marvellous 
 results of mission work in Sierra Leone and its neighbourhood, where there exists 
 a large native Church supporting its own pastors and carrying on Christian work 
 on its own behalf among the heathen in ‘ the regions beyond” ; the Christianiza- 
 tion of New Zealand (borne witness to even by Charles Darwin); of the Sandwich 
 Islands ; the progress of the native church in Tinnevelly and Travancore; the 
 evangelization of Metlahkatlah in North-West America,—these and many other 
 instances of success which have resulted from modern missionary work accom- 
 plished by various sections of the Church of Christ can here be only alluded to. 
 The heroism exhibited by many a martyr in Madagascar and even in China, the 
 devotion of such men as Krapf and Livingstone, are proofs of the inner life 
 and unselfishness of true Christianity. 
 
Practical failure of Buddhism. 181 
 
 the charge it brings against other systems. On what grounds 
 but such as are essentially selfish, are men urged to seek 
 the great “Nothing,” which is so loudly extolled as the 
 wished-for goal of humanity ? Is it not in order to get rid of 
 the misery and striving of life, and to obtain rest from all 
 thinking, willing, and working? It is to the credit of von 
 Hartmann that he has detected this defect in the original 
 theory of Schopenhauer, but he has only disentangled himself 
 from one difficulty to entangle himself the more deeply in 
 absurdities worse than those enunciated in Buddhism. 
 
 Buddhism, notwithstanding its lofty pretensions, and its 
 remarkable philosophy, has proved a practical failure. How- 
 ever noble some of its principles, it has been a curse and not 
 a blessing in all lands wherever its system has taken root. 
 Its ascetics, like those of other countries and other faiths, 
 have not, as might have been anticipated, been able to 
 conquer the tendencies of nature. It has sought not to 
 regulate but to overcome nature, and nature has overcome 
 fit. 
 
 “ Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.” 
 Hor: Episi., τ. ΤΌ, 24: 
 
 Its monasteries and abodes of contemplation have proved 
 frightful sources of corruption and sensuality. ‘“ That which 
 is born of the flesh is flesh” (John iii. 6). Its religion, 
 however spiritual in theory, has developed among other 
 things the monstrosity of praying by machinery: and prayer 
 wheels and prayer mills are the practical outcome of its 
 teaching.? It is the “old, old story,” “men professing to be 
 
 1 See Kalisch, Path and Goal, pp. 428-9, and the notes appended at the end 
 of his volume. 
 
 2 Lieut. Col. Prejevalsky writes : ‘‘ All lamas must be celibates, an abnormal 
 state, which gives rise to every kind of immorality. . . . Lamaism is the most 
 frightful curse of the country, because it attracts the best part of the male popula- 
 
 tion, preys like a parasite upon the remainder, and, by its unbounded influence, 
 deprives the people of the power of rising from the depths of ignorance into 
 
185. Supplementary note on Buddhism. 
 
 wise have become fools” (Rom. i. 22). Are the results of 
 European Buddhism, as modern Pessimism may well be 
 termed, likely to be more beneficial ? 
 
 which they are plunged.”—Mongolia, the Tangat Country and the Solitude of 
 Northern Tibet, by Lieut. Col. N. Prejevalsky of the Russian Staff Corps, 
 translated by E. Ὁ. Morgan. London: 1876. 2 vols. vol. i, p. 80. Wilson 
 also says: ‘‘ Captain Harcourt, late Assistant Commissioner for the three British 
 Provinces of Kuli, Lahaul and Spiti, alleges that there are at times scenes 
 of gross debauchery in the monasteries, a state of things which can be believed 
 when lamas and nuns are living promiscuously together.” —(Wilson’s Adode 
 of Snow, p. 245). The same writer has a whole chapter on Tibetan polyandry, 
 or the polygyny, as he prefers to call it, which is prevalent in Tibet, namely, the 
 custom for the same woman to be acknowledged and supported as the wife in 
 common of several men. Wilson, indeed, observes that C. F. Koppen in his 
 work on Die Lamaische Hierarchie und Kirche maintains that the religion of 
 the country is not responsible for this enormous monstrosity, but thinks it 
 existed before the introduction of Buddhism, and has arisen from the desire to 
 set some bounds to the increase of the population. He refers to Cesar, De 
 Bello Gallico, ν. 14, and to the Mahabharata and Ramayana where instances of 
 a similar custom are referred to. Sir E. Tennant also speaks of its prevalence 
 in the interior of Ceylon. But Wilson observes that all such cases are not to be 
 compared with ‘‘the regular, extensive, and solidified system of Tibetan 
 polyandry.”—See Andrew Wilson’s Adode of Snow. Observations on a Fourney 
 Srom Chinese Tibet to the Indian Caucasus. Edinburgh and London: Blackwood 
 & Sons, 1875. 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE ON BUDDHISM. 
 
 The most recent, as well as perhaps the most careful and elaborate work on 
 Buddhism is that by Dr. Hermann Oldenberg, entitled Buddha, sein Leben, seine 
 Lehre, seine Gemeinde (Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin, 1881). The author has pointed out 
 in this treatise the original teachings of Buddha himself. A translation into Eng- 
 lish of the work of Dr. Oldenberg has been recently executed in an able manner 
 by William Hoey, D.Lit., of the Bengal Civil Service (London: Williams & 
 Norgate, 1882). 
 
 Oldenberg has discussed the following interesting points, namely, the growth of 
 Indian thought previous to the time of Buddha, and its pessimistic tendencies, as 
 well as the monasticism to which it gave rise. For monasticism was necessarily 
 the outer form of life by which the professors of a pessimistic faith sought to ἡ 
 attain their desired goal, the Nirvana. Dr. Oldenberg expounds the four cardinal 
 tenets of Buddha, viz. :—(1) the suffering of all being ; (2) the origin of suffering ; 
 (3) the extinction of suffering ; (4) the path to the extinction of suffering ; and 
 analyses the causal nexus of being, the theory of the will to live as the cause of 
 being, and points out the weakness of that theory. The metaphysical hypothesis 
 of the five constituent elements of our being is carefully discussed with special 
 
Nirvéna attainable in life. 183 
 
 reference to the question of metempsychosis and annihilation, and the meaning 
 of Nirvana is clearly expounded. He points out, as Rhys Davids has also done, 
 that the Nirvana is the state which follows the extinction of the desire to live, and 
 that it is attainable during life. But what follows on the death of a saint who has 
 attained this state? The logical reply which suggests itself to most minds on the 
 premises stated by Buddha is ‘‘the Nothing.” But Oldenburg shows that in the 
 early and primitive Buddhist Church the answer always given was, ‘this hath the 
 Exalted One (Buddha) not revealed.” In connexion with the tendency of 
 Schopenhauer towards asceticism, it is well to note that the first great com- 
 mandment laid on the Buddhist professor is, as stated by Oldenberg, ‘‘ ein 
 ordinirter Monch darf nicht geschlectlichen Verkehr pflegen,” τ. 5. w., p. 358. 
 We forbear to quote the conclusion of the commandment, which points out the 
 terrible sins, into the commission of which such unnatural and vain attempts to 
 overcome nature have often driven the sons of men. 
 
 Dr. William Hoey has kindly supplied me with the following remarks on the 
 matters alluded to above :— 
 
 “The first of the cardinal tenets of Buddha’s doctrine is a wail over the imper- 
 manence of everything earthly. Birth, old age, sickness, death, union with the 
 unloved, separation from the loved, the clinging to earthly things, these all are 
 suffering. The second tenet is the origin of suffering, and here we touch the 
 kernel of Buddhism, and are face to face with the great difficulty of the origin of 
 being, for being is suffering. The terms are equivalent in Buddhist thought. ‘The 
 thirst for being leads from birth to birth, together with lust and desire, which finds 
 gratification here and there; the thirst for pleasure, the thirst for power :’ this is 
 the origin of suffering. The third tenet is the ‘sacred truth of the extinction of 
 suffering,’ which is said to be accomplished by the extinction of the thirst for 
 being, the annihilation of desire. Buddha evidently felt that there was something 
 needed as an explanation and as a support of these two tenets, and hence he pro- 
 pounded the ‘causal nexus of being.’ It is not possible to quote the formula here 
 in extenso [vid. pp. 223-252 of Dr. Hoey’s translation], or to enter into the meta- 
 physical analysis of our being, but suffice it to say that the ultimate origin of our 
 being is ‘ignorance,’ the non-possession of that knowledge which is comprised in 
 the four sacred tenets or truths. ‘ The ultimate root of all suffering is the delusion 
 which conceals from man the true being, and the true value of the system of the 
 universe. Being is suffering ; but ignorance totally deceives us as to this suffering ; 
 it causes us to see instead of suffering a phantom of happiness and pleasure. 
 From ignorance come ‘conformations,’ a term used to translate the technical 
 Buddhist word ‘ Saxkhéra,’ and ‘from conformations comes consciousness ;’ and 
 it is consciousness which, entering the womb at conception, assumes some material 
 form. This brings us to the Buddhist idea of Kamma [Kamma is the Pali form 
 of the Sansk. Karma] or moral retribution. Whatever a man 1s is the result of 
 former action, and hence his present state of being involves that some other unit 
 of being occupied his place at a former time, and acted through ignorance so as to 
 necessitate a re-birth. The cutting. off of re-birth can only be attained by the 
 attainment of knowledge, 7.6. of the four cardinal truths, and the extinction of 
 ignorance and desire,—the extinction of all clinging to the earthly. To express 
 this clinging a figurative word is used, and the underlying figure is that of flame. 
 A flame feeds on wood or other fuel, and not only devours it but also goes out on 
 
184. Supplementary note on Buddhism. 
 
 the air, seeking other fuel. This is the state of our being ; it is a continuous pro- 
 cess of burning. The wise man does not supply the fuel to the flame of desire. 
 He extinguishes desire (for being) and all thirst. His state is that of ‘ Nirvana.’ 
 The ignorant man, on the other hand, supplies fuel to the flame, and the flame of 
 existence presses on in transmigration to further stages of being. The cessation 
 of clinging to being may begin at any moment, and from that moment Nirvana 
 begins. 
 
 “The fourth tenet of Buddhism is the path to the extinction of suffering, and 
 is a rule of life leading to pure habits of thought and action. The scope of 
 Buddhist ethics is very different from that of the Christian. Buddhism does not 
 recognise the will of a supreme lawgiver, or the principle of the good of others as 
 a rule to regulate conduct. The Buddhist practises any course of good action 
 solely because it is the best policy, not because it is right. 
 
 “ΤῸ the Buddhist, ‘soul,’ as we understand it, is unknown. The identity of a 
 soul, or the continuity of consciousness in transmigration is not a Buddhist tenet. 
 The continuity of being, or of Kamma (the inner form of life), is all the Buddhist 
 propounds. The usual illustration is that of a lamp, where the flame is continu- 
 ous, but not identical at all hours of the night. 
 
 ‘¢ The Buddhist analyses our being thus : corporeal form, sensations, perceptions, 
 conformations [p. 245, et passim, Dr. Hoey’s translation], and consciousness. Each 
 of these ceases to exist at death. Does this cessation of earthly existence imply 
 a total cessation of being? This is the vexata queestio of Buddhist metaphysics, 
 and a clear discussion of the matter is given in Oldenberg’s work [Transl. pp. 
 267-285]. On this point ‘ Buddha has revealed nothing.’ Buddha did not deem 
 it advisable to dwell on what might be hereafter, but only on the suffering of 
 life, its cause, and the path to its extinction by the extinction of desire. Every- 
 where the cry is suffering, and the problem which Buddha desired to solve was the 
 extinction of suffering, not the penetration of that which lies beyond death.” 
 
ἘΠ ροῦν Ὁ 
 
 THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH, ESPECH- 
 ΠΡ ΤΑ ΚΕ ΧΟ TOA FULORE STATE AND 
 THE CHARACTER, OF WOMEN, CONTRASTED WITH 
 MODERN PESSIMISM. 
 
 185 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ——— 
 
 Koheleth’s belief in a God, 187—God directs all the events of human life, 187— 
 And makes all beautiful in its season, 188—The vanity of philosophizing, 189— 
 All the working out of a Divine plan, 189—Koheleth’s tendency to fatalism kept 
 in check by his creed, 1g902—Does death put an end to the difference between 
 men and brutes? 191—The spirit of man and that of beast, 191—The interro- 
 gative rendering of the passage (chap. iii. 19), 192—The interrogative rendering 
 not suggestive of doubt, 192—The expression ‘‘upwards and downwards,” 193 
 —Aphorism in the Book of Proverbs, 193—No contradiction in the words of 
 Koheleth, 193—The idea of eternity implanted in man, 193—Different ren- 
 dering of the passage, 195—The ‘‘ world” or ‘‘ eternity,” 195—Man’s thoughts 
 grasp after eternity, 196—Koheleth’s idea of a future state obscure, 197— 
 Cheerless and gloomy, 198—Anecdote of the Talmud respecting the dead as 
 knowing nothing, 198—Other attempts to explain, 199—Koheleth’s idea of the 
 dead as unconscious, 199— But destined to be awakened, 200—Imperfections 
 of knowledge permitted, 200—The difference between Koheleth’s pessimism 
 and that of modern days, 201—The grave an eternal home, 201—Practical 
 lessons learned by Koheleth, 202—His description of the evil woman, 202— 
 Agreement with the Book of Proverbs, 202—Degradation of women under 
 Persian rule, 202—‘‘One in a thousand,” 203—Koheleth’s opinion of men in 
 general, 204—Proverbs relative to woman, 204—Principle on which proverbs 
 are framed, 205—Contradictory proverbs, 205—Jewish proverbs respecting 
 women, 205—Koheleth no woman-hater, 206—Low views of women held by 
 Pessimists, 207—Opinions of Schopenhauer and von Hartmann, 207—One- 
 sided evidence, 208—Schopenhauer on women’s intellectual powers, 208—von 
 Hartmann’s view of the want of rectitude in women, 209—The Pessimists on 
 female education, 210—Schopenhauer’s approval of the position of women in 
 the East, 210—von Hartmann on the advantage of female society, 211—Vene- 
 tianer’s critique of Schopenhauer’s views as unphilosophical, 212—Monogamy 
 and polygamy, 212—Schopenhauer’s praise of Mormons, 212—Degradation of 
 the female an outcome of atheism, 213—Woman a help-meet for man, 214. 
 
 186 
 
CHAPTER Vii. 
 
 ‘THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH, ESPECIALLY 
 IN RELATION TO A FUTURE STATE AND THE CHAR- 
 ACTER OF WOMEN, CONTRASTED WITII MODERN PES- 
 SIMISM, 
 
 IN our preceding chapter we have given a sketch, necessarily 
 imperfect in many particulars from its brevity, of some 
 of the leading doctrines of modern Pessimism, and of that 
 remarkable Oriental philosophy to which the system of 
 Schopenhauer and von Hartmann owes so many of its lead- 
 ing features. We have now to notice more in detail the 
 pessimistic view of human life, and of its anxieties and 
 sorrows as set forth in the pages of the wise Koheleth. 
 
 However constrained by the facts which came under his 
 own observation to take a pessimistic view of life as a whole, 
 and however boldly he ventures to give utterance to his 
 sentiments on this head, Koheleth everywhere expresses an 
 unshaken belief in the existence of a God, who is not con- 
 ceived of as withdrawn from connexion with the world, but 
 as presiding over that world, which was originally called into 
 being by the exercise of His Divine power and will. 
 
 God, according to Koheleth, makes a distinction even in His 
 mundane arrangements between the sinner and the righteous. 
 Koheleth was not blind, however, to the numcrous exceptions 
 in violation of this general rule which are to be met with. 
 Man is under the government of a power above and beyond 
 him, without whose permission he cannot even enjoy life. 
 
 All events on earth are directed by God, who has ap- 
 187 
 
188 - Fluman events directed by God. 
 
 pointed a season for everything and a time for every purpose 
 under heaven. Birth and death, planting and uprooting, 
 slaying and healing, take place according to the Divine ar- 
 rangements. There are seasons appointed for pulling down 
 and for building up, times for weeping and for laughter, days 
 for mourning and for dancing. The times and occasions for 
 each of what are termed the ordinary events of human life 
 are all ordered by this superhuman power. It overrules also 
 the extraordinary occurrences which happen in human his- 
 tory. Times of war and peace, though apparently brought 
 about by the exercise of man’s free action (which is not 
 denied), are still under the control of the Most High. 
 
 Man, however, has no profit in all his labour, for he has 
 no certain power to regulate his own destiny. His utmost 
 efforts may result in failure. All is a sore labour which 
 God hath given to the sons of men to plague themselves 
 withal. It is remarkable that even here, when the discontent 
 of Koheleth seemed to be reaching a climax, his faith was 
 able to pierce some way through the dark clouds, and he 
 appears to have caught a glimpse of the grandeur and sub- 
 limity of the Divine actions, notwithstanding the mystery in 
 which they were enwrapped. For Koheleth added, “all this, 
 however, God hath so designed as to be even beautiful in its 
 season.” Rashi gives a striking interpretation of this saying : 
 “At a good season to reward good works is beautiful, and at 
 an evil season to punish evil works is becoming.” ! 
 
 The powerlessness of man, and his shortsightedness with 
 regard to his fate are set forth in other passages. All things 
 are conditioned by a higher power. The actions of the wise 
 
 * Rashi’s commentary on chap. iii. 11 is as follows: ΣΟ sin np naa nya 
 
 ryan Avy oiwnd sen Ay ΠΡῚΠ ΠΡΣῚ en ney sow mbwn 
 Hengstenberg observes on this that even ‘things which in and for themselves are 
 evil must occur in such a connexion that they further the good purposes of God. 
 Only at such a fit season are they beautiful, and then they form an indispensable 
 link in the chain of this world’s events,” 
 
The vanity of philosophizing. 189 
 
 and the righteous are “in the hand of God.” “ Man knoweth 
 not love or hatred, all lies before them” (chap. ix. 1 4). In 
 other words, there are events connected with man’s own being, 
 circumstances which will happen in an individual's history, 
 which will necessarily call forth his love or hatred; but 
 all such things are concealed in a futurity impenetrable to 
 the sons of men. Events of all kinds lie before us; that 
 which will actually occur is known to God. All things seem, 
 _ indeed, to a casual observer, to be governed by chance, and 
 the heart of man is full of evil. Madness is in men’s hearts 
 during their lives, and then they pass onward—‘“to the 
 dead.” Men may talk much concerning the dealings of God, 
 but the multiplication of words on such a subject is vain, 
 fools prate often about things too high for them (chap. x. 
 12-14); “who can dispute with Him that is stronger than’ 
 he?” Hence men, conscious of their own ignorance and 
 weakness, should fear God and submit to His decrees. For 
 no man knows what is really good for him, what position it 
 is best for him to occupy, or how to conduct himself properly 
 under difficult: circumstances—while as to the future, whether 
 it is near or far off, he understands nothing (chap. vi. 10-12). 
 Thus Koheleth forcibly points out the vanity of all that 
 philosophising which man is naturally prone to engage 
 in. He was, however, very far from abandoning himself to 
 atheistic conclusions. Though unable to explain the diffi- 
 culties which beset life, he was able at least to rest on the 
 thought that everything occurs according to the working 
 out of a Divine plan. He had, indeed, himself laboured to 
 get practical wisdom, and having attained that object, he 
 applied himself to examine into the toil which man has to 
 undergo on the earth. The result of his search was to 
 ascertain clearly that man could not find out the work of 
 God which was done under the sun (chap. viii. 16-17). “The 
 distinguishing characteristic of the wise,” as Delitzsch has 
 
190 + The existence of fixed laws τᾷ Nature. 
 
 well observed, “is not so much the actual possession of 
 wisdom as the striving after it. The wise man strives after 
 knowledge, but the highest problems remain for him un- 
 solved, and his ideal of knowledge is unrealized.” 
 
 If a tendency to fatalism is exhibited in certain passages 
 of this book, it is kept in check by the firm hold which the 
 religious creed of Koheleth had upon his mind. As a dis- 
 tinguished Jewish critic, Derenbourg, writes: “The idea of a 
 just God had penetrated too profoundly into the heart of 
 Koheleth not to restrain his disappointed and discontented 
 spirit. It is this that gives the peculiar charm to his little 
 book ; it is scepticism tempered and limited by the impas- 
 sable barrier which that dogma, which was the base and 
 centre of Judaism, opposed to it.” 1 
 
 It is interesting to note that Koheleth expresses his belief 
 in the existence of fixed laws in nature. This is the real 
 meaning of a passage, frequently and yet strangely adduced 
 as a proof-text in support of the idea that the final destiny 
 of man is irrevocably fixed at death. We refer, of course, 
 to chap. xi. 3: “If the clouds are full of rain, they empty 
 themselves on the earth, and if a tree fall toward the north 
 or the south, in the place where the tree falleth there it shall 
 lie.” Koheleth, as the context of the passage shows, refers 
 to the fact that men know not what misfortunes may take 
 place on earth, many calamities which fall upon individuals 
 being the result of laws beyond human control.2 We ought, 
 therefore, in all cases to remember that such contingencies 
 may happen, though we ought not to permit the possibility 
 of such accidents to make us inactive. The wise man will 
 have boldness and courage to act in the same way as if 
 confident that success would attend his efforts, although fully 
 
 ‘ Notes détachées sur l’Ecclésiaste in the Revue des Etudes Fuives, No. 2, Oct.- 
 Dec., 1880. Paris: 17, Rue St. Georges, 
 * See our remarks in chap. viii. p. 229. 
 
Koheleth on the difference between man and beast. 191 
 
 conscious that the future depends upon a higher power and 
 will than his own. 
 
 The darkest feature in the Book of Koheleth is the uncer- 
 tainty which the writer seemed to feel as to the doctrine of a 
 future state of existence, and the cheerless view he expresses 
 concerning the state of the dead. In chap. iii. 19 ff. Koheleth 
 speaks as if he regarded man and beast as merely the 
 creatures of chance, the actions of men being often dependent 
 upon accidental circumstances, and man and beast alike being 
 subject to the inexorable law of death. The language used by 
 him on this subject is indeed so general in its terms, that he 
 has often been charged with believing that death finally puts 
 an end to all distinction between man and the brute creation. 
 Koheleth contemplates the matter, however, solely from the 
 standpoint of the present life. He makes no allusion to the 
 explanation which the Book of Genesis gives of the entrance 
 of death into the world, although he uses the language of 
 that book. Nor does he speak of any distinction to be 
 made after death between the righteous and the wicked, 
 though it is almost certain from his phraseology that Ps. xlix. 
 14,15 was in his mind, where that truth is plainly stated. 
 In the passage in chap. iii. Koheleth thinks only of the earth 
 under the aspect of a vast burial-place for successive genera- 
 tions, “All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all 
 return to the dust” (chap. iii. 20). 
 
 Different translations have been proposed for the verse 
 which follows. Our Authorised Version renders it: “ Who 
 knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward and the spirit 
 of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” This 
 version has found a few defenders in modern times (such as 
 Hengstenberg, Hahn, Prof. Tayler Lewis, and others). It 
 must be admitted that the Masorites intended their vocaliza- 
 tion of the text to give that turn to the passage in order to 
 avoid the appearance of scepticism (vid. crit.comm.). But the 
 
192 .Koheleth’s question and that of Lucretius. 
 
 ancient translators with one consent recognise the fact that the 
 interrogative particle, and not the article, is the true reading 
 in both clauses. The most eminent scholars (such as Knobel, 
 Ewald, and Delitzsch) agree substantially in translating the 
 passage: “Who knows with respect to the spirit of the sons 
 of men whether it goes upward, and with respect to the spirit 
 of the beast, whether it descends downward to the earth?” 
 This translation is condemned by Bullock as a rendering 
 which is “neither necessary nor suitable.” But he is plainly 
 mistaken. Apart from purely critical reasons, the rendering 
 of our A. V. does not suit the context, which would require 
 a question of a very different kind, and the analogy of the 
 two other passages in the book (chap. ii. 19; vi. 12), in which 
 the expression “who knoweth” is used, is in favour of the 
 opinion that the phrases which follow are really interrogative. 
 
 A similar question is found in the celebrated poem of 
 Lucretius (i. 113),’ but the answer there designed to be given 
 to it is negative. The very manner in which Koheleth: 
 puts the interrogation shows that no infidel “sneer” was 
 intended by him. Although forced to regard the translation 
 of our A.V. as incorrect, we maintain that the interrogative 
 clauses do not convey the insinuation that there is no differ- 
 ence between man and beast. On the contrary these inter- 
 rogative clauses suggest, if they do not actually assert, the 
 very opposite. Hence it is not surprising to find that the 
 writer at the end of his book avows his real belief as to the 
 future of man, and affirms that, although at death “the dust 
 shall return to the earth as it was,” ze. from whence it was 
 originally taken (Gen. iii. 19; Ps. civ. 29), “the spirit shall 
 return unto God who gave it” (Koh. xii. 7). 
 
 1 His words are : 
 “ἢ Ignoratur enim, que sit natura animai, 
 Nata sit, an contra nascentibus insinuetur ? 
 An simul intereat nobiscum morte diremta ?” 
 
The expressions “upwards and downwards.” 193 
 
 In the passage under consideration (chap. iii. 21) reference 
 is made to an aphorism in the Book of Proverbs (xv. 24) in 
 which the peculiar expressions “upwards” and “downwards” 
 occur, which are found only in these two passages of Sacred 
 Scripture. The aphorism in the Book of Proverbs is ren- 
 dered in our A. V. “the way of life is above to the wise 
 that he may depart from hell beneath.” Its meaning, how- 
 ever, is rather: “to the wise man is the way of life up- 
 wards,” 2.6. the wise man goes the way of life which leads 
 upwards, “in order that he may depart from Sheol (Hades) 
 downwards.” In other words, the wise man proceeds on the 
 way of life which leads one upwards, with the distinct object 
 before him of escaping from’that path which leads to Sheol 
 and ends there. Believers under the Old Testament dis- 
 pensation were able at times to contemplate their ultimate 
 deliverance from that Sheol into which, however, they 
 believed even the righteous had to descend at death (Ps. 
 xlix. 14; A.V. ver. 15). Sheol, or Hades, was regarded 
 by them, even in the case of the godly, as a gloomy place 
 of rest, and net asa place of felicity. In the passage in the 
 Book of Proverbs the term Sheol begins, as Delitzsch has 
 noted, to lose its general signification of a place in which 
 all the dead are gathered together without any distinction 
 being made between the good and the evil, and to assume a 
 more definite signification as the place of punishment of the 
 ungodly. The term “Hades” is possibly used in this latter 
 sense in the end of the Book of the Revelation (xx. 14), 
 comp. Matt. vii. 13, 14. 
 
 If this aphorism in the Book of Proverbs, and the state- 
 ments of Ps. xlix. 14 (to both of which passages reference 
 seems here to be made), be borne in mind, it is tolerably 
 plain that there is no contradiction between the sentiments 
 expressed by Koheleth in chap. iii. 21, and those given utter- 
 ance to at the close of his book. Koheleth was not ignorant 
 
 O 
 
194 + Koheleth on a future state. 
 
 of the doctrine of a future life, still less did he deny the truth 
 of that doctrine. If it be remembered what the teaching οἱ 
 the book is respecting the punishment of all transgressors 
 at a time and season appointed by God—a doctrine taught 
 not merely in the epilogue, but in other parts of the book— 
 it cannot but appear most unnatural to explain the return of 
 the spirit to God (chap. xii. 7) as signifying a mere yielding 
 back to God the vital breath of life which He has bestowed 
 on man.! 
 
 For Koheleth on several occasions calls attention to the 
 fact that God does not always execute judgment on men in 
 this world according to their deserts. He affirms that God 
 deals with men after this fashion in order to sift them, and to 
 make them feel that, when left to themselves, they are natu- 
 rally like the beasts (chap. iii. 18), and conduct themselves 
 like wild beasts in the deeds of violence and oppression so 
 often committed by them against one another. One reason 
 why God has permitted such a state of things to exist for a 
 season is, in order that the character and disposition of indi- 
 vidual men may in all cases be made manifest by the scope 
 thus afforded to every one for free action; and that the real 
 distinction between the righteous and the wicked may at 
 last become apparent to all. Though Koheleth, therefore, 
 asks how man can arrive at any definite conclusion even 
 on a question of such great importance as whether there is 
 really any difference between the final destination of the 
 spirit of man and of beast, it by no means necessarily follows 
 that he was himself in doubt as to the doctrine of a future 
 life. The longing after “eternity,” described in this very 
 context as implanted in the heart of man (chap. iii. 11), leads 
 necessarily to a belief in the existence of a life beyond the 
 
 ' Bottcher, De Lnferis, ὃ 473, has sought to explain away chap. xii. 7 in this 
 manner. But the way in which the future judgment is spoken of in chap. iii. 17, 
 viii, 10-15, and chap. xi. 9, proves that the writer did not refer merely to a judg- 
 ment to be inflicted on transgressors in the present world, 
 
Eternity implanted tn man’s heart. 195 
 
 grave, even though the reality of such a life cannot be 
 satisfactorily demonstrated by the deductions of human 
 reason. Man cannot by his own powers discover “that 
 which shall be after him” (chap. iii. 21), inasmuch as all such 
 knowledge has been denied to him. But the very fact of their 
 ignorance in such matters ought, Koheleth argues, to lead 
 men to enjoy all they lawfully can in this present life, ever 
 remembering to “fear God and keep His commandments,” 
 because there is a judgment after death. 
 
 The statement that “eternity” is naturally implanted in the 
 heart of man (chap. iii. 11) is one of the most profound sayings 
 contained in this interesting book—‘‘ God hath made every- 
 thing beautiful in its season, also eternity hath He placed in 
 his heart, although man cannot find out the work which 
 God hath done from the beginning to the end.” The word 
 ’ is that translated “world” in our 
 A.V. The text, according to the latter translation, has often 
 been explained to teach that man is a little world (microcosm) 
 reflecting the greater world (macrocosm) in the midst of 
 
 rendered here “ eternity’ 
 
 which he is placed. His mind, to use Lord Bacon's para- 
 phrase, is like a mirror “capable of (reflecting) the image of 
 the universe, and desirous to receive it, as the eye to receive 
 the light.” The “world” has been explained by others to 
 mean “the love of the world” so natural to the heart of man, 
 which in some aspects may be regarded as almost identical 
 with that “love of life,” that “will to live” (Wille zum Leben), 
 so fiercely and so unnaturally denounced by Schopenhauer 
 and his school. But, however true in itself it may be that 
 man is “a little world,” and that the love of the world or of 
 life is natural to him, such is not the meaning of Koheleth. 
 The Hebrew word used by him, D51Y, is indeed found in the 
 signification of “world” in later Hebrew, and possibly it may 
 (though of this there is no proof) have been thus used in the 
 popular Hebrew spoken in the days of Koheleth. But no 
 
196° Man's thoughts grasp after eternity. 
 
 other example of its use in that signification has been dis- 
 covered in the entire range of Biblical literature) On the 
 other hand, the very same word occurs several times in the 
 Book of Koheleth in the sense of “eternity,” 2 and in no other 
 signification. These considerations, apart entirely from any 
 argument fairly derivable from the unsuitability of such a 
 rendering to the context—a point as to which there is 
 considerable difference of opinion—are, in our judgment, 
 decisive against the rendering of the A. V., backed up though 
 that translation unquestionably is by the authority of the 
 LXX., Aquila, the Vulg., Jerome and many modern scholars, 
 such as Knobel and Ewald. 
 
 The passage (chap. iii. 11) has been well interpreted by 
 Delitzsch. God has assigned to each man his appointed 
 place, and has thus made him fully conscious that he is a 
 being bounded by certain limitations which cannot be passed. 
 God has also implanted in man’s heart impulses and desires 
 which are not satisfied with the things of time, but grasp at 
 eternity. Man would fain burst the trammels which restrain 
 him, but, in his discontent with the temporal, he consoles 
 himself with the thought of something which lies beyond it. 
 “That which is transient gives him no hold, it carries him 
 away like a rushing stream, and compels him to save himself 
 by seizing hold of the eternal.’ But Koheleth notes that 
 man’s powers fail whenever he attempts to comprehend the 
 works and doings of God; and, notwithstanding that 
 “eternity” is thus implanted “in his heart,” it is practical 
 
 ΤῈ may, however, be well to note that Rashi, Grotius, Tarnov., Heidenheim, 
 
 etc., have translated the expression Ἢ obdiy nian, in Habb. 111. 6, by ‘‘ zt¢nera 
 seculi ei,” “omnia que in mundo sunt, ipsi subsunt.” But such a rendering is now 
 defended by no critic, and is, moreover directly opposed by the fact that in the 
 same verse the phrase odiy ΤῚΝ 33 occurs, in which the word in question is used 
 in the ordinary signification. 
 
 ? It is, however, to be noted that the use of the word “eternity” in the sense 
 in which here alone it can be taken, 2.6. in the signification of the idea of eternity, 
 must in any case be regarded as unique. 
 
Obscurity of the doctrine of a future state. 197 
 
 wisdom to content himself with that which is seen, and can 
 be attained here on earth. 
 
 That Koheleth, at the very moment when the gloom of 
 unbelief seemed to be settling down upon his soul, should 
 thus give expression to the conviction that there is something 
 grander and more noble than “things temporal,” reminds us 
 forcibly of the case of Job, whose faith in the advent at some 
 distant day of One who was to be his Avenger and Re- 
 deemer, burst forth suddenly, like a bright gleam of sunshine, 
 at the very time when the tempest of suffering and tempta- 
 tion seemed well-nigh about to overwhelm his soul (Job xix. 
 23-27). 
 
 The belief of Koheleth, however, in a future life was far too 
 shadowy to lead him to “seek the things that are above” 
 instead of “the things that are upon the earth” (Col. iii. I, 2). 
 For this end the fuller light of the New Testament dispen- 
 sation was imperatively needed. His knowledge of the life 
 beyond the present state of existence had all the imperfec- 
 tions which belonged to the Old Testament dispensation. A 
 heavy stone then lay over man’s sepulchre, and the time for it 
 to be rolled away had not yet fully come. 
 
 The statements of Koheleth respecting the state of the 
 dead show clearly that he had not those cheering views with 
 respect to the blessedness of the pious dead, which can alone 
 irradiate the darkness of the tomb. He was among those 
 “who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to 
 bondage” (Heb. ii. 15). A living dog was in his eyes better 
 than a dead lion (chap. ix. 4). “For the living,” he adds 
 almost sarcastically, “know that they shall die, but the dead 
 know not anything, and have no further reward (that is, 
 on earth), for their memory is forgotten” (chap. ix. 5, 6). 
 The recollection of their deeds soon passes away; new 
 generations spring up who trouble themselves but little about 
 the actions of their forefathers. Love, hatred and envy exist 
 
198 Gloomy views of a future life. 
 
 for the dead no more. All such affections and strivings, at 
 least so far as the persons and things of earth are concerned, 
 are at an end. Those who have passed into another state 
 of existence have no further concern with that which is done 
 here on earth. Hahn adds: “In eternity they take no part 
 any more in that which is done under the sun. Why there- 
 fore should any one on earth seek to obtain anything by the 
 help of the dead?” This latter thought, however, does not 
 occur in the Book of Ecclesiastes, and cannot well be inter- 
 polated here. 
 
 The description of the state of the dead presented in this 
 passage is, it must be admitted, dark and cheerless. The 
 account of the shadowy existence of the dead in Hades as 
 set forth in Job and even in some of the Psalms is gloomy 
 enough. But the view of Koheleth surpasses all others in 
 gloominess. The Targumist has felt this, and, therefore, has 
 ventured to explain the text as speaking of the state of the 
 wicked. This interpretation is also given in the Midrash, 
 which relates the following anecdote in explanation of the 
 passage :— 
 
 “Rabbi Chiyya the elder (or the great) and Rabbi Jonathan 
 were walking before the bier of Rabbi Simeon ben Jose ben 
 Lakunya, when the tallith (or prayer-mantle) of Rabbi Jona- 
 than hung down upon the coffin. ‘ Lift up thy tallith, my son, 
 said Rabbi Chiyya to him, ‘that they (the departed) say not, 
 “ to-morrow (even) they are coming down to us, and (yet) they 
 despise us.”’ ‘Rabbi,’ said Rabbi Jonathan to him, ‘is it not 
 written the dead know not anything? ‘My son,’ said he to 
 him, ‘thou knowest well the letter, but not the interpretation ; 
 the living know, they are the just, for even after their death 
 they are termed Living ; and the dead they do not know, they 
 are the wicked, for even during their life they are termed 
 dead, ‘And how is it proved that the just are called living 
 even when they are dead?’ ‘Because it is written (Num. 
 
The unconsciousness of the dead. 199 
 
 Xxxii. 10), to the land which I have sworn to Abraham, Tsaac, 
 and Facob, saying, etc. He said not Zo the fathers but to 
 Abraham, to Isaac, and to Facob4 He said to Moses, Go 
 and say to them, The oath which I have sworn to them I have 
 Julfilled, as it is written fo thy seed I will give it. And the 
 wicked are termed dead, as it is written (Ezek. xviii. 32), 
 1 have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth (or, the 
 dead). Does a dead man then die? But these are the 
 wicked because in their life they are called dead.’ He (Rabbi 
 Jonathan) said to him, ‘Blessed be thou for teaching me the 
 interpretation,’ and he kissed him upon the head.” 
 
 This explanation, though ingenious, is not satisfactory. 
 Nor are the attempts which have been made by many Chris- 
 tian interpreters to evade the meaning of the passage more 
 so: such as, for instance, by explaining the words as those of 
 an atheistic objector ; or supposing that the writer speaks of a 
 conflict between the voice of the flesh and that of the spirit. 
 The same gloomy view of the state of the dead is found in 
 several passages of the Book of Ben Sira, though brighter and 
 more consoling views of the future are throughout charac- 
 teristic of the Book of Wisdom. The happy and cheerful 
 pictures of the state of the righteous after death presented 
 in the latter work far surpass anything to be found in the 
 Book of Koheleth. 
 
 But, if the passage in chap. ix. 5, 6, be taken in its most 
 literal signification, it does not, when viewed in connexion 
 with the distinct utterances of Koheleth with respect to the 
 final judgment of the righteous and the wicked, conduct us 
 to the miserable conclusions at which modern Pessimism has 
 arrived. If Koheleth affirms that the dead know not love, 
 hatred or envy, or in other words imagines that the con- 
 sciousness of the dead in another world is but dim and 
 
 1 It is interesting to note the resemblance of this argument to that employed by 
 our Lord in His controversy with the Sadducees, as related Matt. xxii. 31, 32, etc. 
 
2.0 . The dead destined to be awakened. 
 
 shadowy, he maintains at the same time that “God will bring 
 every secret thing into judgment” in “His own time and 
 season.” Consequently the dead, even though regarded by 
 him as existing in a semi-conscious state in Hades, are sup- 
 posed to be still in existence, and destined at some future 
 period to be awakened out of this dreary slumber, and re- 
 warded according to the merit or demerit of their actions on 
 earth. Koheleth does not, it is true, speak of this awakening 
 out of sleep, still less does he allude to the resurrection 
 of the body. His book is mainly occupied with the search 
 after man’s highest good on earth, and it is only incidentally 
 that he refers at all to the state of the dead. Too great 
 stress must not, therefore, be laid upon the fact of the writer's 
 silence with respect to points on which we would fain have 
 understood his views. Koheleth teaches that there will be 
 a personal judgment for every man, a judgment which will 
 take place at some future period, beyond man’s present state 
 of existence. This doctrine of a personal judgment for all 
 men without exception is a point on which the writer of this 
 strange though fascinating book exhibits a knowledge sur- 
 passing that of all the other writers of the Old Testament. 
 It has been well termed “the breaking forth of the dawn 
 of a new revelation” (K7Zeznert). A day when all men shall 
 be judged according to their works, a day of personal and 
 individual retribution, requires as its necessary condition a 
 conscious existence after death, though at a time and season 
 appointed by God. 
 
 It must, as Delitzsch has well remarked, be admitted that 
 there were imperfections of knowledge which made it impos- 
 sible for Koheleth to rise above a certain sense of Pessimism. 
 It was, indeed, “in divers portions” (πολυμερῶς) as well as 
 “in divers manners” (πολυτρόπως), Heb. i. 1, that God made 
 known the mystery of His doings to the holy men of old, 
 the men who spake from God (2 Pet. i. 21). And, though the 
 
The grave termed an everlasting house. 201 
 
 revelations of the New Testament on this point far trans- 
 cend those of the Old, a veil is still to a great extent drawn 
 over the future state, which man would fain lift, but cannot. 
 But the Pessimism which was permitted to cloud the soul of 
 Koheleth was different from that taught by the miserable 
 school of modern atheists. Koheleth never lost sight of his 
 faith in a personal God, of a belief in a judgment to come, 
 or even ina future state of existence, dark and cheerless in 
 some respects though his conceptions of the latter may have 
 been. He exhorted his fellow-men to live righteously, 
 soberly, and circumspectly. In spite of his pessimistic views 
 of life, he advised them cheerfully to enjoy the present, and 
 not be unduly anxious for the future. If he spoke of the 
 grave as man’s “everlasting house” (chap. xii. 5), a phrase 
 rendered with questionable fidelity in our Authorised Version 
 by his “long home” (notwithstanding Bullock’s attempt to 
 defend that rendering), it must not be forgotten that he also 
 speaks of the earth as abiding for eternity (chap. i. 4) without 
 the smallest intention for a moment of denying the fact of 
 its creation in time by God. A similar designation of the 
 grave was in use not only among the Egyptians and the 
 Assyrians, and in later times the Romans, but also among 
 the Jews at a period not much later than that of Koheleth 
 (see Tobit iii. 6), and may, therefore, have been in existence 
 in his days. The phrase was used by him as harmlessly as it 
 was by the Jews themselves, who, long after the doctrine of 
 the resurrection had become a definite article of their creed, 
 were wont to call their cemeteries by that designation. 
 
 The limited nature of man’s knowledge is nowhere more 
 distinctly taught by Koheleth than in chap. vii. 23. He 
 points out there that, after his utmost endeavours to obtain 
 wisdom with the view of solving the perplexing questions 
 connected with mankind, their actions, and their relation to 
 God, he found all such knowledge to be far beyond mortal 
 
202 . Koheleth on the Wicked Woman. 
 
 ken. “For that which is,” that which exists, or “the world 
 of things in its essence and with its causes” (Delitzsch) “is 
 far off,” far removed from the sight of man, “and it is deep, 
 deep, who can discover it ?” (chap. vii. 23.) 
 
 While busied with searching after wisdom, Koheleth learned 
 more than one practical lesson of utility as to the actions of 
 the sons of men. In his endeavours to sift things to the 
 bottom he learned to comprehend that wickedness was folly, 
 that foolishness was madness (chap. vii. 25); that men who 
 lived in the pursuit of folly were “beside themselves,” and 
 were mad. One great source of madness and folly to the 
 sons of men he thus introduces: “And I found more bitter 
 than death the woman who is like snares [hunting nets], and 
 like nets is her heart, her hands (the voluptuous arms with 
 which she seizes her prey) are like fetters, he who is good 
 before God will be saved from her.” 
 
 The expressions used by Koheleth in this passage show 
 that he did not intend to condemn promiscuously the whole 
 female sex. The language accords substantially with the 
 description given in the Book of Proverbs of the strange 
 and wicked woman, who is a snare to the “simple” and 
 “foolish” among men, and who ultimately “descends with 
 her house (all that appertains to her) to death, and her paths 
 (the tracks of her chariot-wheels) are towards the shades” 
 (Prove 11. 18). 1 . 
 
 The verses that follow, indeed, show that Koheleth had 
 a low opinion of the women of his day in general. Nor 
 need the expression of this opinion cause any astonish- 
 ment. Degraded as women have ever been more or less in 
 the Eastern world, they were, perhaps, peculiarly so at the 
 time of the Persian rule. Shut up for the most part in strict 
 seclusion, isolated from general society, and yet liable to be 
 
 1 Prov. v. 3 ff. ; vi. 24 ff. ; vii. 6 ff. compare especially verse 23, also xxii. 14 5 
 XX ee δ. 
 
Koheleth on female character. 203 
 
 ordered in violation of their feelings of propriety to display 
 themselves in public to men heated with wine (Esther i. ro, 
 11); at times tyrannised over in private, and crushed in heart 
 and feeling ; often treated as the mere toys and playthings 
 of men—no wonder that women should have been deficient 
 in virtue and goodness. The Book of Esther gives a terrible 
 picture of the state of the female world, and shows us also 
 that the evil example of those in high position had a perni- 
 cious effect upon the morals of the Jewish people, although 
 Jewish women were not subjected to all the disabilities under 
 which the Persians suffered. Under such circumstances it 
 is not to be wondered at, that Koheleth, after having depicted 
 the danger arising from the thoroughly licentious woman, 
 should proceed to express himself more generally: “See! 
 this have I found, saith Koheleth, adding one to one (one 
 case to another) to find out the account (or, reckoning), what 
 still (on and on, up to the present) my soul hath sought, and I 
 have not found; one man out of a thousand I have found, but 
 a woman among all those I have not found ” (chap. vii. 27, 28)... 
 Among a thousand men who came under his observation, 
 Koheleth discovered only one to come up to the ideal of 
 what a man ought to be; while among an equal number of 
 women he did not find one who attained to his ideal of the 
 proper perfection of female character. 
 
 The expression “one of a thousand” is borrowed, like 
 sundry other phrases in the Book of Koheleth, from the Book 
 Gi ΠΡ; where it occurs twice (Job ix. 3; xxxiil).23).. Jt, is 
 scarcely necessary to observe that it is not used in either of 
 the passages in that book, or in that in the Book of Koheleth, 
 in reference to the Messiah. The phrase recurs in the 
 Book of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), chap. vi. 6, “ Let many per- 
 sons be friendly with thee, but let thy counsellors be one of a 
 thousand,” or, as the aphorism is worded in the Hebrew 
 fragment, “Many will greet thee; reveal thy secret only to 
 
204 Proverbs relating to women. 
 
 one of a thousand.”! There is, therefore, no necessity to 
 suppose that the author makes any reference to the number 
 of women in Solomon’s harem (1 Kings xi. 3), though it is 
 quite possible that, writing as he did from the standpoint of 
 Solomon, that fact was present to his mind. 
 
 Koheleth’s opinion of mankind in general is by no means 
 flattering. There is abundant proof afforded in his book that 
 he regarded man as “very far gone from original righteous- 
 ness,’ and “of his own nature inclined to evil.” In the 
 statement that follows the passage just quoted, the writer 
 endorses the main points of the story told in the Book of 
 Genesis about man’s fall and his present sinful condition. 
 For he observes: “Only this, see! I have found, that God 
 made man (the whole human race, including both male and 
 female) upright, but they (men in general) have sought out 
 many calculations,” devices, or inventions, whereby to gratify 
 their inclinations towards that which is evil (chap. vii. 29). 
 
 If suth was his opinion of the human race in general, it 
 τ is not surprising that he expresses himself in even less com- 
 plimentary terms when he speaks specially of women. In 
 almost every country proverbs are in current use in which 
 women are alluded to more or less contemptuously. Men in 
 every age have been wont thus to vent their spleen on the 
 other sex. The remark of the lion in the fable must however 
 be borne in mind: “If there were sculptors on our side you 
 would have seen more men conquered by lions than lions by 
 men.”* There are, however, it must not be forgotten, among 
 most nations maxims in existence which speak of women 
 in terms of praise. In proverbs all facts are expressed in 
 
 1See Dukes, Radbbinische Blumenlese, p. 81. This passage of Ben Sira is 
 several times quoted in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 100 4, Jebamoth 63 4, etc. ; in 
 the former place the words of Micah vii. 5 are added, ‘‘ keep the doors of thy 
 mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom.” See on Ben Sira, chap. ii. 
 
 * Fabule sopie coll. ex recogn. Halmii, No. 63 4. The fable as usually 
 quoted in England speaks of painters, not of sculptors. 
 
Principle on which proverbs are framed. 205 
 
 general terms, and no notice is taken of exceptions, however 
 numerous they may be. Such exceptions, however, in their 
 turn are formed into aphorisms of a different type. Instances 
 of this usage occur frequently in the Book of Proverbs, where 
 unfavourable judgments expresséd in general terms in one 
 place are practically modified in another by the admission of 
 sentiments of an opposite nature. The intelligent reader is 
 in all such cases left to decide for himself as to the cases in 
 which the one or the other saying is really applicable. Some- 
 times in the Book of Proverbs the two apparently opposite 
 aphorisms occur side by side, e.g. “ Answer not a fool accord- 
 ing to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a 
 fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” 
 POV <XVIRA, 5 
 
 There are many Rabbinical proverbs which speak severely 
 of the female sex, such as, “It is better to follow a lion than 
 a woman.” “ He who follows the counsel of his wife falls into 
 hell.” “If an ass can go up a ladder, then knowledge may be 
 found among women.”! But, side by side with proverbs of 
 this kind, many sayings of the very opposite character can be 
 adduced, such as, “ Honour your wives that you may become 
 rich.” “Is thy wife of small stature, bend down to her, and 
 whisper to her,” 24. do nothing without her opinion.” “God 
 hath given to the woman more intelligence than to the man.” 
 “He who is without a wife is without luck (Gen. ii. 18), 
 without help (zd.), without joy (Deut. xiv. 26), without a 
 blessing (Ezek. xliv. 30), without atonement (Lev. xvi. 6), 
 without peace (1 Sam. xxv. 26), and without life (Koh. ix. 
 9)" ® 
 
 1 See Buxtorf’s Morilegium Heb. p. 122. INN AWN “IOS dy 7S ΠΝ 
 ἘΝ ams ND) ΠΝ Similarly in p. 210. 03732 ἮΝ IAN NYY sbinn by 
 
 So also in p. 211. Ὁ 533 ΓΟ ΝΡ nbioa nt my? DN. 
 
 2 Dukes, Radbinische Blumenlese, p- 124. Compare also the essay of J. Stern, 
 Die Frau im Talmud, Zixich, 1879. 
 
 3 So says the Midrash Rabba, Gen. ii, 18. Par, 18. “WON NDT j3 °DY "DvIaN' 
 
ν 
 
 206 Koheleth no hater of women. 
 
 Hence a single aphorism is by no means sufficient to show 
 that Koheleth was a hater of the female sex. On the con- 
 trary, there is sufficient evidence in his book to prove that he 
 adhered firmly on this point to the teaching of the Mosaic 
 law, which sets forth plainly that woman was designed to be 
 a “help meet” for man.! Despite the corruption of the 
 period at which he wrote, he plainly recognised the truth that 
 there were even then in existence women worthy of a man’s 
 honour and love. Thus, in urging the duty of making a 
 cheerful use of present mercies granted from the hand of 
 God, the writer says: “Enjoy life with a wife whom thou 
 lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which He (God) 
 hath given to thee under the sun” (chap. ix. 9). 
 
 Koheleth has, moreover, given a description (chap. iv.) of 
 the aimless troubles and vexations of the single man, and he 
 alludes to the miserly habits of life which such a one is 
 apt to contract. His remarks on this point prove, though 
 no direct mention of woman is made in the passage, that 
 the writer had a full perception of the advantages of married 
 life. For he, observes that the man “who is one without 
 a second, without son or brother,” as he contemplates his 
 severe labour and endless striving after riches, may well ask 
 
 WONT YO IM ND ADIN. Soalsoin Par. 17. . ΠΝ 1d paw S> apy 9 ὉΠ 
 may sda mes xda . ΠΞῚΞ ΝΟΣ - ΠπῸ ΝΟΣ ary ada «ΠῚ sda ony 
 row ono xda tis ἫΝ ὁ megs oy ΝΟΣ ΟὙἼδὺ ΝΠ mn aw xd 
 Sya) yWyY3 5D) (ΚΓ Np) «ἀξ ἼΞ9. Noa. may ANS nme) (π᾿ ὩΣ Δ) 
 Say owa pov Ὕ na bs mana Π πο 7p Spiny - ΠΞῚΣ Nba ana 
 "Ἢ «ΟΣ qnvay ody ansy (n’a ὁ Seine) saw -ordw eda ὩΣ ΟἼΝ 
 pYn AN (Ὁ ndmp) rosy «ὍΣ Π ΝΟΌΣ as ox Ὁ nwa 15 perm 
 ΔΝ WE TWN oY 
 
 1 The Midrash says 17319 wd on) WY Dt ON ‘when a man is good his wife 
 is a help to him, but if not she corresponds to him,” or perhaps better, ‘‘she is an 
 opposition to him,” 2.6. stands in his way and contends with him. The clause 
 is explained by the commentator, 17333 ΠῚ" ND ON} syd 5 mnn nD ON 
 
 Wiinsche translates the second clause ‘‘she is to him like a thorn,” and he notes 
 ©9993 like 7°335 as a thorn.” 
 
Low views of women held by Pessinists. 207 
 
 himself the question, “ For whom am I toiling and depriving 
 my soul of good ?” (chap. iv. 8.) 
 
 From this brief review of Koheleth’s sentiments concern- 
 ing woman (so far as they can be gathered from the scanty 
 allusions in his book to the subject), we turn to notice the 
 opinions on this point propounded by the chief writers of 
 the Pessimist school. These philosophers have no: sym- 
 pathy whatever with the views so energetically propounded 
 and urged in many quarters at the present day respecting 
 so-called “women’s rights.” On the contrary they are dis- 
 posed to look upon woman at the best as only the “ moral 
 parasite of man.”! If the advocates of “women’s rights ” 
 have gone too far in one direction, the defenders of the 
 novel school of thought have on the other hand propounded 
 views which lead directly towards the degradation of the 
 female sex and the demoralization of humanity. 
 
 Schopenhauer has a low opinion of women both intellec- 
 tually and morally. Women, from a deficiency in their 
 powers of reasoning and reflection, are, according to him, 
 predisposed to cunning. E. von Hartmann remarks that “it 
 is quite natural for the female sex to be more inclined to 
 lying and cunning than the male, inasmuch as it is the 
 weak sex, and cunning is the natural weapon of the weak. 
 Moreover, women in their daily occupations have more to 
 do with women than men have, and, consequently, more fre- 
 quently have to carry on war with lying and cunning, which 
 of itself induces them to use similar weapons.”® Hence, 
 according to Schopenhauer, women as naturally make use 
 of deceit and lying in fighting their battles, as a lion does 
 of its teeth and claws, or a bull of its horns. The sex is 
 in his opinion so disposed to lying that it is impossible to 
 find a really truthful and ingenuous woman. He regards 
 
 1 E. von Hartmann, Phenomenologie des sittlichen Bewusstseins, p. 526. 
 2 Jbid., p. 348. 
 
208 Schopenhauer and v. Hartmann on women. 
 
 the character of women in general as a compound of false- 
 hood, faithlessness, treachery and ingratitude, and asserts 
 that women are more inclined to commit perjury than men. 
 
 It is unquestionable that a certain amount of evidence may 
 be adduced in support of all these charges against the female 
 sex. But it must not be forgotten that such charges may 
 be retorted, and men may with equal justice be accused of 
 similar baseness. The depravity of the entire human race 
 is a doctrine which no believer in the Divine revelation will 
 for a moment seek to call in question. But the railing of 
 sex against sex, of men against women, or of women against 
 men, is altogether unphilosophical. All such assertions, 
 whether made on one side or the other, are utterly incapable 
 of real proof. And, if it could be clearly shown that women 
 are more depraved than men, or, as von Hartmann maintains, 
 that the notions of morality held by women are lower than 
 those of the other sex, it would by no means follow that 
 this was a natural result of the physical constitution of 
 woman, seeing that other reasons might be assigned for such 
 a state of things. Notwithstanding, therefore, the arguments 
 by which Schopenhauer and von Hartmann have sought to 
 uphold their opinion, we regard all such representations as 
 gross caricatures. 
 
 Schopenhauer’s description of women’s intellectual powers 
 is equally unflattering. He would thoroughly endorse the 
 Turkish proverb: “ Long hair, little brains.” Women have 
 no real and true sense or susceptibility for music, poetry, or 
 the plastic arts. They often indeed pretend to have such 
 tastes, but the pretence is only made for the purpose of 
 coquetry. A portion of this description of women has been 
 borrowed by Schopenhauer from Rousseau. Schopenhauer 
 complains especially of the way in which women keep on 
 talking to one another in the theatres, and suggests that 
 the Apostolic direction, “let the women keep silence in the 
 
Deficiency of moral rectitude in women. 5209 
 
 churches” (1 Cor. xiv. 34), in order to be rendered suitable 
 to the present day, ought to be altered into “let a woman keep 
 silence in the theatre.” He denies that women have ever 
 produced anything great or original in the fine arts. There 
 may, he cautiously admits, possibly be a few exceptions to 
 this general rule; but, as a class, women are “the most 
 thorough-going and incurable Philistines.” 
 
 Nor is von Hartmann, albeit that he has twice entered into 
 the bonds of matrimony, a whit more complimentary to the 
 female sex. He, as well as Schopenhauer, maintains that 
 women are grossly wanting in the sense of rectitude and 
 righteousness; that, out of love for a particular person, they 
 will readily act with the grossest injustice to a competitor ; 
 that they are naturally inclined to commit acts of dishonesty, 
 and are in many cases only restrained by the fear of de- 
 tection; that they have an instinctive leaning towards lying 
 and falsification, and cling thereto the more readily as they 
 have often no idea of the criminal character of the alteration 
 of a word or a date. In proof of this he adduces the fact 
 that one-fourth of the “service-books” of the female servants 
 in Berlin contain gross falsifications. Where women have 
 influence, nepotism prevails, and, consequently, in public life 
 and in the State unrighteousness extends exactly so far as 
 the influence of the female sex reaches. Nor is there, in 
 his opinion, much hope of a gradual improvement of the 
 female character in the course of generations, because 
 mothers usually have the management of the education of 
 their daughters entirely in their own hands, and daughters 
 cannot in general be removed away from their mothers’ 
 influence without still greater disadvantages. ‘“ Their de- 
 ficiency in a proper moral firmness, their weakness in moral 
 reason, and, above all, their want of the sense of recti- 
 tude” form the most powerful arguments “against every 
 female-emancipation swindle, and especially against the 
 
 P 
 
210 v; Hartmann opposed to higher female education. 
 
 female sex being allowed actively to participate in political 
 life,” + 
 
 Most sensible persons will, indeed, agree with von 
 Hartmann in advising that women should be kept as far 
 as possible from all contact with the rough battle of life ; 
 and many justly maintain that the education of women, 
 even of the highest kind, ought to be such as is adapted 
 to the special requirements and peculiar position of their 
 sex. If, however, the advocates of the higher education 
 of women have been injudicious in the claims they have 
 often put forward, it is not a little remarkable that those 
 European apostles of a semi-Oriental philosophy, who de- 
 preciate the female sex for its want of intelligence and 
 comprehension, should so strongly urge that particular care 
 ought to be taken not to make women too intelligent. 
 These modern preachers of “the rights of man” express as 
 strong opinions against “the higher education of women” as 
 the most bigoted ultramontane priests might be expected to 
 give utterance to, through fear of their craft being in danger, 
 inasmuch as a higher education might weaken their hold 
 over the female sex. This advice savours somewhat of a 
 sort of male “trades-unionism,” which, for its own selfish 
 purposes, seeks to emblazon upon its banner the old Jewish 
 proverb, “No other wisdom becomes a woman than the 
 knowledge of the spindle.”*? We do not forget that von 
 Hartmann recommends the enlargement of women’s edu- 
 cation in another direction, which motives of propriety forbid 
 us here to particularize.’ 
 
 According to Schopenhauer, the position which women 
 occupy in the East is in many respects more befitting the 
 sex than that which is conceded to women in Europe and 
 
 1 Ἐς von Hartmann’s Phenomenologie des sittl, Bewusstseins, p. 520 ff. 
 2 Dukes’ Rabbinische Blumentlese, p. 100. 
 3 Ἐς, von Hartmann’s Phenomenologie des sittl. Bewusstseins, p. 697 ff. 
 
v. Hartmann on the use of female society. 211 
 
 America. The deference paid to the fair sex in the West 
 is, in his opinion, altogether unnatural. Woman ought not to 
 be the object of man’s respect and veneration ; nor ought she 
 to be permitted to assume the position universally granted 
 to her in civilized countries. The real European lady was a 
 special object of Schopenhauer’s abhorrence ; and he was wont 
 to maintain, strangely enough, that one result of the honour 
 and respect paid to ladies of the higher ranks in Europe is 
 that the women of the lower classes there are more unhappy 
 than those in the East. No arguments, however, have been 
 adduced by him in support of this extraordinary statement.! 
 It must not, however, be supposed that all the writers 
 of the Pessimist school endorse these extravagancies of their 
 master. The asceticism recommended by Schopenhauer has 
 not met with the approval of von Hartmann. Low as is his 
 estimate of female virtue and intellect, the latter philosopher 
 strongly maintains that proper female society is more 
 beneficial to young men than intercourse with persons of 
 their own sex, and that such society is of essential impor- 
 tance for men ‘inclined to philosophical studies. The loss of 
 male society can, in his opinion, be compensated for by the 
 study of books, that of women never. The philosopher who 
 dispenses with female society is like a man who seeks to 
 obtain an acquaintance with real life only by reading books.’ 
 The ideas of von Hartmann on this point are in accordance 
 with the Sanskrit proverb which says, “ women are instructed 
 by Nature, the learning of men is taught by books,” or again, 
 “Nature is woman’s teacher, and she learns more sense than 
 man, the pedant, gleans from books.”* Venetianer justly 
 
 1 Schopenhauer, Parerga und Paralipomena, Band 2, cap. xxiv. ‘‘ Ueber die 
 Weiber.” Sammtliche Werke, 6ter Band, p. 649 ff. 
 
 2 E. von Hartmann, Die Philosophie des Unbewussten, 3te Aufl. Berlin: 1871, 
 Ρ- 370. 
 
 3 Eastern Proverbs and Emblems illustrating Old Truths, by Rev. J. Long, 
 Member of the Bengal Asiatic Society, F.R.G.S. London: Triibner & Co. 1881. 
 
ΠΑ ἘΝ δὲ Polygamy and Monogamy. 
 
 considers Schopenhauer’s hatred of women philosophically 
 absurd, inasmuch as at least one-half of the human race 
 consists of women. He asks, “Is the love of a mother, the 
 devotion of a sister, the fidelity of a wife, worthy of being 
 despised as only common selfishness, and gratitude towards 
 him who feeds them ? Schopenhauer has not indeed omitted 
 to instance the fact, that a mother’s love may go so far as 
 to sacrifice her own life, as a ;proof of the strength of the 
 animal instinct in humanity!” ? 
 
 Such is the manner in which the new Atheistic philo- 
 sophy seeks to.lower the estimation of the female sex. Such 
 lucubrations might be despised, if they had not an important 
 practical bearing. But, in matters of morality, “facilis de- 
 scensus Averno.” 
 
 We have already noticed the fact (p. 170) that Schopen- 
 hauer and von Hartmann maintain that the natural instinct 
 of men is in favour of polygamy, while the feeling of women 
 is in favour of monogamy. Both writers bear testimony to 
 the present degraded state of men in general, notwithstanding 
 the ameliorating influences of modern civilization. They 
 assert as an undeniable fact that by far the larger majority of 
 men in the present day are, at least for a season, virtual poly- 
 gamists. Bad as unregenerate human nature is, even in 
 professedly Christian lands, we cannot but hope that such a 
 statement is to a large extent an exaggeration. But, if the 
 principles of Pessimism, and of Atheism in general, should 
 continue to spread (and such principles are spreading in an 
 alarming degree), a largely increased crop of immorality must 
 be the result. Schopenhauer, with that boldness and freedom 
 of speech on all subjects which is so remarkably character- 
 istic of his writings, is not ashamed to praise the Mormons, 
 
 1 Venetianer, Schopenhauer als Scholastiker, p. 272. Wenetianer remarks that 
 Schopenhauer’s chapter upon women might usefully be read aloud for pastime 
 and amusement on the occasion of a feast, or on the evening of Purim. 
 
Degradation of women caused by atheism. 2153. 
 
 because they have made converts by throwing off what he 
 terms the unnatural bondage of monogamy. He maintains 
 that the practice of polygamy, though opposed to the esprit 
 de corps of women in civilized lands and against the interests 
 of individual women, is on the whole a benefit to the female 
 sex. It must not be forgotten that his writings, as well as 
 those of von Hartmann, are shortly to appear in an English 
 translation. 
 
 It need not create any surprise that, boldly avowing such 
 detestable sentiments, Schopenhauer should maintain that 
 women ought to possess no real property, that at most they 
 should, when unmarried, be permitted to enjoy an income for 
 life, that they should be always placed under guardians, and 
 in no case be permitted to act as sole guardians of their own 
 children. He quotes the opinion of Aristotle (Polztzc., ii. 9), 
 who maintained that the liberty granted to women in Sparta, 
 and the large dowries and inheritances of which they came 
 into possession, were among the causes which led to the 
 downfall of that state. Schopenhauer himself maintains, 
 and history on this point supports his opinion, that the 
 French Revolution was brought about by the corruption 
 engendered by female influence. Woman, concludes Scho- 
 penhauer, is by nature intended to obey, and she is wont to 
 place herself under some master by whom she permits herself 
 to be ruled and directed ; “if she is young, it isa lover; if 
 she is old, a confessor.” 
 
 It is important, though melancholy, to note the degrada- 
 tion of male and female which, sooner or later, is ever the 
 outcome of atheism. St. Paul has vividly described the state 
 of the heathen world who “knowing God, glorified Him 
 not as God” (Romans i. 21 ff.), and his description may be 
 regarded (exceptis excipiendis) almost as a prophecy of the 
 results that always follow in the wake of atheism and false 
 philosophy. 
 
5 Woman a blessing to man. 
 
 “ Amongst the heathen,” writes the great German reformer, 
 “there was a saying—ria mala, mala pessima, ignis, agua, 
 Jemina—that is, there can be nothing worse than what these 
 three can do, to wit, fire, water, and woman. But these and 
 many like sayings against the female sex have been vomited 
 forth by the devil out of pure hatred and venom towards 
 God and His work, meaning in this way to disgust every 
 man with the married state and with God’s word.” But, as 
 Samson is said to have obtained honey in the carcase of 
 the lion, we may deduce from this saying of the ancients 
 something higher and nobler. How could the world, ruined 
 as it is by sin, exist at all without fire to warm us, water 
 to refresh us, and woman to comfort us. A French writer, 
 Jouy, quoted by Schopenhauer, well says: “ Without women 
 the beginning of our life would be deprived of its succour, 
 the middle of our life of pleasure, and its end of consola- 
 tion.” The student of the Holy Scriptures need not be 
 reminded of the numerous examples of noble women men- 
 tioned in Old Testament Writ, or of the devoted heroines 
 of New Testament days. Their names stand forth con- 
 spicuously, side by side with those of men, in the muster- 
 roll of the “noble army of martyrs,’ concerning which our 
 Christian poet has sung :— 
 
 “A noble army, men and boys, 
 
 The matron and the maid, 
 
 Around the Saviour’s throne rejoice, 
 In robes of light arrayed ; 
 
 They climbed the steep ascent of heaven, 
 Through peril, toil, and pain ; 
 
 O God ! to us may grace be given, 
 To follow in their train !” 
 
CHAPTER. VALLI. 
 
 THE, CLOSING SECTION OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH. 
 JHE DAYS OF LIFE AND THE DAYS OF DEATH. 
 
 215 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The closing section of Koheleth, 217—Its poetic character, 217—Koheleth on the 
 duty of submission to kings, 218—Woe to the land whose king is a child, 219— 
 The importance of noble birth in a ruler, 220—The ruin often caused by the 
 revelry of king and nobles, 221I—Koheleth’s book no’encouragement to rebel- 
 lion, 222—‘‘ Curse not the king,” 222—Words uttered in secret, 223—Casting 
 bread on the waters, 223—Hitzig’s explanation untenable, 224—Koheleth sup- 
 posed to recommend merchants to engage in foreign enterprises, 224—Objection 
 to this interpretation, 226—The passage in Koh. xi. 1, 2 an exhortation to bene- 
 ficence, 226—Anecdote from the Kabus,; 227—Thin cakes of bread, 227—Bene- 
 ficence should be generous and not stinted, 228—Advantages of beneficence from 
 a worldly point of view, 228—The uniformity of the laws of nature, 229—False 
 interpretation of Koh. xi. 3 by Bridges, 229—Opportunities not to be neglected, 
 230—The way of the wind and the secrets of embryology, 231—Constant occu- 
 pation a blessing, 231—The sweetness of life, 232 The darkness of the grave, 
 233—Cheerfulness commended in youth, 234—The advice not ironical, 234— 
 The direction of the Law and the advice of Koheleth, 234—The judgment of the 
 future, 235—The condemnation of anger and peevishness, 237—The evil of the 
 flesh, 238—Cheerfulness of mind and early piety, 238—The importance of piety, 
 238—The days of evil, or man’s passage to the tomb, 239—Death like a winged 
 Pegasus, 240—Koheleth’s description of ‘the evil days,” 240—The absence of 
 pleasure, 240—The Hebrew mode of speaking of the seasons, 242—The alle- 
 gorical explanation of the light of the sun, etc., 242—The watchers. of the 
 house, 243—The house the body of man, 244—The grinding maids ceasing from 
 work, 244—The organs of sight, 244—The doors shut to the street, 245—The 
 sound of the mill ceasing, 246—The rising up at the voice of a bird, 247—The 
 weak voice of old age, 248—The storm theory of the passage, 249—The 
 daughters of song, 250—The fears on the way, 251—Hahn’s exposition of the 
 passage, 252—The night of death and the terrors of the grave, 253—The pro- 
 phetical exposition of the passage given in the Midrash, 255—The almond-tree 
 in blossom, 257—Plumptre on “the tree of wakefulness,” 259—The various 
 explanations of the locust, 260—Objections adduced, 261—Plumptre’s strange 
 exposition, 261—The anecdote of the Talmud, 262—The song of the grass- 
 hopper, 262—The reference to the caperberry, 263—Its use, 263—The objec- 
 tionable views of Hitzig, 263—The mourners going about, 265—The silver cord, 
 266—The golden bowl, 266—The shivering of the pitcher, 268—The end of 
 man and the beast, 268—The new interpretation, 269—The evil days of man, 
 269—The Palestinian winter, 270—‘‘ The days of the old woman,” 271—The 
 legends on which the phrase is based, 271—The division into seven stanzas, 272 
 —The days of advance to the grave, 272—The slave and the master, 272—The 
 maid and her mistress, 272—The advent of spring, 273—The two pictures, 
 death and life, 273—Free translation of the whole passage, 274. 
 
 216 
 
CHAPTER. VAIT, 
 
 THE CLOSING SECTION OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH.—THE 
 DAYS OF LIFE AND THE DAYS OF DEATH. 
 
 THE various sections of the Book of Koheleth are not 
 always distinctly marked off from one another, and it is a 
 matter of considerable uncertainty at what precise point the 
 last section of the book really commences. Chapter xii. 
 cannot be regarded as forming in itself a complete section, 
 for it is clearly connected with the two concluding verses 
 of chap. xi. And even these verses: are in their turn con- 
 nected, though not so intimately, with those preceding them. 
 Delitzsch considers the final section to begin at chap. x. 16. 
 As the question is not of any great importance, we may 
 assume the latter opinion to be correct, and regard that as 
 the commencement of the closing portion of the book. 
 
 No survey of the Book of Koheleth in relation to modern 
 criticism would have any claim to be regarded as complete 
 even as an introduction to the study of the work itself, if it 
 passed over in silence the conflicting interpretations given of 
 the 12th chapter. We may indeed fairly refer the student 
 who wishes to learn our opiniom on other passages to the 
 commentary appended to this work, but it is necessary here to 
 attempt to give a general outline of the contents of the closing 
 chapter. This chapter is so intimately connected with the 
 passage that precedes it, as to render it hopeless: for a critic 
 to maintain with any plausibility that it is the work of an- 
 other writer. And yet it exhibits powers of poetical expres- 
 sion so remarkable, when compared with the heavy diction 
 
 217 
 
218 ‘Koheleth on the duty of obedience to kings. 
 
 of the other parts of the book, as ought to make critics 
 cautious in asserting (as is often done too rashly) the incapa- 
 city of a writer, whose general style on some subjects may 
 be dull and prosaic, to rise at other times to the level of 
 poetry. 
 
 If, as has been maintained in the preceding chapters, the 
 Book of Koheleth is to be regarded as a production of the 
 later portion of the Persian era, it is worthy of special notice 
 that, just as the Apostle Paul in the days of Nero exhorted 
 Christians to exhibit a ready obedience to the temporal 
 rulers of the Roman Empire (Rom. xiii. 1-7), so Koheleth, at 
 the very time when the Persian rule must have been felt most 
 galling, advised his readers to submit to that authority under 
 which Providence had placed them. 
 
 The views of Koheleth as to the wisdom and duty of sub- 
 mission to the king are so decided, that Hitzig, believing 
 that such opinions cannot be reconciled with the severe re- 
 marks on unworthy princes and nobles contained in chap. 
 x. 16, 17, ventures to assert that these strictures ought to 
 be regarded as part_of the speech of the fool spoken of in 
 the preceding verse. Tia ee EST ΑΝ 
 
 But Hitzig’s judgment is here seriously at fault. Koheleth 
 may well maintain on the one hand that kings and those 
 in authority ought to be respected and obeyed, and yet con- 
 demn in scathing terms the effeminacy and immorality often 
 exhibited by princes, and the drunkenness and debauchery 
 too generally practised by the nobles at the Persian courts, 
 and well known to all the subjects of the empire. The 
 prophets of the Old Testament, though ever ready to up- 
 hold the lawful authority of princes, were, as Delitzsch ob- 
 serves, no less ready to rebuke with bold frankness the 
 impiety and oppression often shown by those in high places. 
 Thus, Elijah boldly rebuked Ahab; Isaiah was not behind- 
 hand in reproving Ahaz; and the solemn denunciations of 
 
Koheleth's condemnation of a child-king. 219 
 
 Jeremiah against the unrighteous acts of Jehoiakim, Jehoi- 
 achin, and Zedekiah are sufficient of themselves to prove, 
 that respect for the office and person of a monarch is not 
 inconsistent with a manly condemnation of the sins of men 
 placed in the loftiest earthly position. 
 
 The expression of Koheleth, “Woe to thee, O land, whose 
 king is a child” (chap. x. 16), is partly an echo of the saying 
 of Isaiah (iii, 12), “as for my people their ruler (1W3) is a 
 wilful child, and women rule over him (1.6. the child).” In 
 place, however, of referring, as Isaiah does, to the misery of 
 a land whose prince is under the government of women, 
 Koheleth directs attention to the misfortune of a country 
 whose ruler spends his time in the society of revellers. 
 “Woe to thee, O land, whose king is a child, and whose 
 princes eat in the morning,” that is, who “rise early in the 
 morning that they may follow strong drink, and continue 
 till night, till wine inflame them” (Isaiah v. 11). 
 
 It is no wonder that so striking an aphorism as that of 
 Koheleth has often been referred to at vdrious epochs of 
 history. Delitzsch notes that Salomon, Bishop of Constance, 
 alluded to it as fulfilled in.the time of Louis III., surnamed 
 the Child, the last of the Carlovingian emperors of Germany. 
 Catharine de Medici made frequent mention of it when she 
 spoke of the state of France in the early portion of the reign 
 of Charles IX.!. There is a Rabbinical proverb formed by 
 the combination of the thought in the aphorism of Koheleth 
 with the saying of Isaiah before quoted, “Woe to (or, unhappy 
 is) the generation, whose leader (ΝΥ 3:7) is a woman ;” and 
 its spirit is breathed in another Jewish proverb, “ Woe to the 
 generation which has lost its leader (19733), woe to the ship 
 
 ) Ὁ 
 
 which has lost her steersman. 
 
 1 See Henry White’s Massacre of St. Bartholomew. London: John Murray, 
 
 p- 151. 
 See Dukes’ Radbinische Blumentlese, pp. 120, 89. 
 
220 ‘The importance of noble birth in a king. 
 
 The truth of the aphorism was strikingly exemplified in 
 the early part of the reign of Rehoboam the son of Solomon. 
 But this fact is not, as some have imagined, an argument in 
 favour of the Solomonic authorship of the book, but rather 
 the reverse. The writer was, as has been already noticed, 
 well acquainted with all the incidents of the reign of 
 Solomon and of his successor. 
 
 The proverb which immediately follows, “ Happy art 
 thou, O land, whose king is a son of nobles” (chap. x. 17), 
 is strongly suggestive of the later period of Jewish history. 
 Koheleth, in another place (chap. x. 7), expresses his disgust 
 at beholding slaves unduly exalted, while nobles were forced 
 to occupy humble positions. He pronounces that land for- 
 tunate, whose ruler is born and trained up in the higher 
 ranks of society, and is not a mere upstart slave or low-born 
 eunuch, elevated like Bagoas by atrocious crimes to lofty 
 estate! That slaves should occupy the place of nobles, and 
 nobles should be degraded from the position due to their 
 rank, was in his eyes a reversal of the proper order of things. 
 Men born to the purple have not, indeed, always acquitted 
 themselves with honour; but, as a general rule, men are best 
 fitted to be rulers of men who by early education and train- 
 ing have been prepared for such office and authority. The 
 phrase made use of by Koheleth might, indeed, be inter- 
 preted metaphorically to indicate men of noble character. 
 But the literal sense is well suited to the passage. For though 
 nobility of blood has in no age been any certain guarantee 
 of nobleness of action, or of the possession of the wisdom 
 desirable for one invested with royal authority, the history 
 
 ‘ Bagoas was raised for his valuable services to the most eminent position in 
 the state by Artaxerxes Ochus. He afterwards murdered that monarch (B.C. 338) 
 and all his sons save Arses, whom he placed on the throne of Persia, but murdered 
 also shortly after. He was put to death himself by Darius Codomannus—whom he 
 had placed upon the throne in room of Arses—shortly after the accession of that 
 monarch, 
 
The revelry of kings and nobles. 221 
 
 of the Persian empire abounds with illustrations of the truth 
 that persons raised from a state of slavery to the place of 
 authority have generally proved the most terrible oppressors 
 of their fellow-men. It need not cause any surprise that, 
 as is usual in such aphoristic maxims (see p. 205), the writer 
 should have spoken in general terms of the advantage to a 
 country of its ruler being of noble blood, and should have 
 passed over without notice the numerous exceptions pre- 
 sented in history. 
 
 Koheleth also does not forget to remark on the evil con- 
 sequences which are the result of a monarch and his nobles 
 abandoning themselves to sensuality and revelry. Men 
 ought to eat and drink in order to refresh themselves for 
 the higher work they may have to perform. When the 
 king and nobles, through indolence or debauchery, neglect 
 their proper duties, the whole fabric of the empire soon falls 
 into a ruinous condition ; just as the timberwork of a house, 
 the repairs of which have been neglected, rapidly decays, and 
 its roof becomes leaky and useless (ch. x. 18). 
 
 Under such pictures the writer portrays the danger which 
 arises from those apparently harmless feasts, spread for pur- 
 poses of pleasure, which frequently prove nets to catch and 
 destroy the simple. In the round of such festivities rulers 
 and men of high position have often drowned themselves 
 and their country in destruction and perdition. The wine- 
 bowl gladdens for a season the life of such gay revellers, 
 and they yield themselves to all the blinding joys of sen- 
 suality (ch. x. 19). Men who are rich are able for a season to 
 make provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof (Rom. 
 ΧΙ]. 14), by the means of money which renders it possible for 
 them to obtain that which they lust after ; for little is denied 
 to those wealthy transgressors who can pay handsomely the 
 slaves of their passions. 
 
 In days when a state is plainly falling to pieces by 
 
222 . The duty of submission to authority. 
 
 reason of the dissolute conduct of its prince, the thought 
 must needs arise in many a heart whether it be not advisable 
 to seek to hurl the unworthy monarch from his throne. But 
 Koheleth did not intend his work to be an encouragement to 
 rebellion. While, therefore, he censures the wretched king 
 and nobles, and drops a lament over the land cursed with 
 such a plague, he calls to mind the truth alluded to in several 
 parts of his book, namely, that God has a proper time and 
 season at which He will punish men for their transgression 
 (ch. iii. 17). The individual sufferer must wait for that season, 
 and make the best use he can of the trial which the “ King 
 of nations”! (Rev. xv. 3,) hath given to men to exercise them 
 therewith. Like St. Paul in a later day—whose teaching 
 seems founded on Koh. viii. 2, though the Apostle nowhere 
 quotes the book—Koheleth, at a much earlier period, urged 
 as a matter of conscience the duty of submission to lawfully 
 constituted authority. .It would have been simple madness 
 had Jewish believers, through indignation at the sensuality 
 or immorality of any of the Persian monarchs, burst out into 
 rebellion against their rule. The weapons with which they were 
 armed were far nobler than merely carnal ones; the latter 
 would have been unsheathed in vain; their success by means 
 of the former would ultimately have been certain.? 
 
 Hence it was that Koheleth, under the guidance of a 
 higher than human inspiration, warned his readers not even 
 in their inner consciousness to curse the king, or in their 
 bed-chambers to execrate the rich man, however unworthily 
 either might act. The dictum “vengeance belongeth unto 
 
 1 The reading, “‘king of saints,” followed by our A.V., is unsupported by 
 Greek MSS., and was smuggled into the Greek text of the New Test. from the 
 Vulgate by Erasmus. See Delitzsch’s Handschrifiliche Funde, tstes Heft, p. 40. 
 Delitzsch has consequently, in his Hebrew New Test., adopted the reading 
 Dyan ane. The Revised English Version of the N. T. follows in its text the 
 reading ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων, king of ages, which is that adopted by Westcott 
 and Hort in their edition of the Greek Testament (Cambridge, 1881). 
 
 ? See remarks in my Bampton Lectures on Zechariah, PP. 240, 247, 252. 
 
Danger of words uttered in secret. 223 
 
 me: I will recompense, saith the Lord,” which is so strikingly 
 commented on by St. Paul (Rom xii. 19 ff.), is one of the 
 great sayings of the Law, and necessary to be obeyed for 
 the sake of conscience towards God, and also for the sake of 
 one’s own personal safety in dangerous days. Men sometimes 
 fancy they are alone when they are not. Words uttered in 
 secret are often proclaimed on the housetops. The curse 
 denounced against the monarch may be carried by the fowls 
 of heaven screaming in the open air, and the winged crea- 
 tures may publish the secret to the outer world.!. ‘“‘ There are 
 ears on the road and ears in the wall” open to listen to 
 imprudent expressions ; and, though the wise man should not 
 take heed to every bitter word that may be spoken against 
 himself in secret (if he accidentally overhears such lan- 
 guage), but should act as if he heard it not (Koh. vii. 21, 
 22), he need not expect an immoral tyrant to exhibit such ἡ" 
 magnanimity. 
 
 There is considerable difference of opinion as to the sense 
 of the opening verses of the eleventh chapter. There is no 
 allusion there, as was long supposed by popular commen- 
 tators, such as Bridges and others, to the sowing of seed 
 upon the waters which takes place in Egypt during the 
 inundation of the Nile. This interpretation, however, is as 
 old as Jerome, and probably older. It is scarcely possible 
 to explain the phrase “ over the face of the waters” as equi- 
 valent to “beside all waters” (Isa. xxxii. 20), though the 
 word translated dread is sometimes used in the sense of seed- 
 corn (Isa. Xxvili. 28, xxx. 22, and Ps. civ. 14). But the verb 
 
 1 Compare the story told of Ibycus, who having been set upon by robbers near 
 Corinth called upon a flock of cranes which were flying over head to avenge his 
 death. Soon afterwards, when the people of Corinth were assembled in the 
 theatre, a number of cranes appeared hovering over the heads of the spectators, 
 and one of the murderers exclaimed: ‘‘ Behold the avengers of Ibycus!” This 
 exclamation led to the discovery of the crime. The expression ‘‘the cranes of 
 Ibycus”’ afterwards passed into a proverb. See for authorities, Swzth’s Dict. of 
 Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. 
 
BOA " Casting bread upon the waters. 
 
 which occurs in the passage does not mean to cas¢ or scatter 
 abroad seed, but to send, or send forth, It is used of the 
 sending forth of plagues, wild beasts, or famine upon a land, 
 and of the sending forth of a king by God in judgment as 
 a scourge against a country. It is technically used in a few 
 passages of the sending forth of arrows from the bow (1 Sam. 
 xx. 20), or of the sending or casting forth of the fire of judg- 
 ment into a city (Amos i. 4 ff.) in order to consume it; but 
 this latter usage does not afford any help in the explanation 
 of the passage of Koheleth. 
 
 The verb also occurs in the sense of casting away, and 
 Hitzig considers it has that signification in the passage 
 before us. But the direction “cast away thy bread upon 
 the face of the waters” is scarcely defensible on exegetical 
 grounds. For the passage cannot be interpreted with Hitzig 
 " as a recommendation to those who desire to see their hopes 
 fulfilled to cherish no expectation of success, and to have no 
 faith in their best exertions. Hitzig imagines that Koheleth 
 is urging on his readers the wisdom of being prepared for 
 adversity, and he quotes as a parallel the words of AEneas, 
 “una salus victis nullam sperare salutem (Virg. AEn. 11. 354). 
 But the language of the passage is not certainly that of 
 desperation. 
 
 Hitzig’s interpretation has not found much favour among 
 expositors. But there are two other explanations of the pas- 
 sage for which much can be said. The view which Delitzsch 
 has taken is a modification of that formerly held by Martin 
 Geier, J. 19. Michaelis and others—namely, that Koheleth 
 recommends the practice of the prudent merchant, who sends 
 forth his merchandise in ships, which go over the face of the 
 waters to distant lands, with the expectation that on their 
 return he will receive his own with an_increase. He regards 
 the word dread, which is expressed in the first clause of the 
 verse, and “is represented by the pronoun in the second, to 
 
Supposed to refer to foreign enterprises. 2525 
 
 signify in the former the means_of making gain, and in the 
 latter “the bread of acquisition,” or that gained by trading. 
 The word bread cannot, indeed, be translated wealth or pro- 
 perty, as was maintained by some of the earlier expositors 
 who took this view of the passage. It might be urged that 
 bread is scarcely a suitable expression for the gains of the 
 merchant who naturally seeks to obtain a large return from 
 his enterprises. But Proverbs xxxi. 14 may be cited in 
 defence of the aphorism being so understood. For the wise 
 woman is there said to be “like the ships of the merchant, 
 “she bringeth her food (ΠΌΤ, her bread) from far.” Delitzsch 
 compares Psalm ον]. 23, where mention is made of those 
 who go down to the sea in ships, and do business in the 
 great waters. The picture, according to him, is taken from 
 the corn-trade of a maritime city. Mendelssohn maintains 
 that Solomon is here urging on the Israelitish merchants of 
 his day the advantage to be obtained from foreign commerce, 
 with an under reference to the practice which he first intro- 
 duced into Israel, of sending ships to Ophir and Tarshish 
 in search of the products of distant lands. 
 
 If the first verse be so interpreted, the second must bear a 
 similar sense. It has, therefore, been explained by Mendels- 
 sohn, Preston, Delitzsch, etc., as a continuation of the advice 
 to those inclined to engage in foreign ventures. Koheleth 
 recommends a person to “divide the portion into seven, yea 
 eight portions, for thou knowest not what evil will occur 
 upon the earth.” The precept, according to Delitzsch, enjoins 
 a speculative ens similar to that displayed by Jacob 
 on a critical occasion (Gen. xxxii. 9), and its sense is: do 
 not commit all your goods to one ship. The proverb thus 
 understood is equivalent to our maxim, “ Do not put all your 
 eggs into one basket.” 
 
 The critical arguments by which Delitzsch defends this 
 interpretation will be seen in our commentary. The great 
 
 Q 
 
55,6... Objection to this interpretation. 
 
 objection to it is, that the phrase Zo give a portion or a part to 
 a person (2 pon 3, Josh. xiv. 45 xv. I 3) is _used elsewhere 
 in a different “signification, namely, as synonymous with to 
 \ give gifts to (? Mm 33, 1 Sam. i. 4,5; 2 Chron. xxxi. 19; 
 Esther ii. 9). Moreover, it may be fairly questioned whether, 
 if the writer had intended to refer to disaster by sea, he 
 would have used the phrase in the second clause, “thou 
 knowest not what evil shall happen on ‘the earth.” It is 
 rather far-fetched to suppose that in the latter he had in his 
 mind the possibility of the disasters which might happen to 
 a caravan on land. 
 
 Hence we are disposed rather to agree with those who 
 explain both verses 1 and 2 as exhortations to beneficence. 
 The earliest comment on the passage is that of Ben “Sira, who, 
 in a maxim of his, extant only in Chaldee, observes “strew 
 (pt) thy bread upon the surface of the water and on the dry 
 land, and thou shalt find it in the end of days.”! It will be 
 observed in this earliest comment upon the verse that the 
 difficulty of considering the verb to refer to sowing of seed 
 was felt even at that time, and an attempt made to obviate 
 it by translating the word in a sense in which it certainly 
 occurs. Bishop Lowth in his work on Hebrew Poetry has 
 explained the phrase as equivalent to the Greek expression #0 
 sow the sea. But the aphorism of Koheleth was not meant as 
 an exhortation to engage in labour though apparently fruitless. 
 Its signification is better conveyed in the Arabic proverb quot- 
 ed from Diez by several commentators, “Do good, cast thy 
 bread into the water, at some time a recompence will be made 
 thee.” Delitzsch observes that the same proverb has been 
 naturalised in Turkish, ‘Do good, throw it into the water, if 
 the fish does not know it, God does.” A very suitable paral- 
 lel is quoted by Herzfeld from Goethe’s Westéstlich. Divan, 
 
 1 Dukes’ Radbinische Blumentlese, p. 73. See on this proverb of Ben Sira our 
 remarks on p. 46. 
 
Anecdote from the Kabus. 227 
 
 “Was willst du untersuchen, 
 
 Wohin die Milde fliesst ! 
 Ins Wasser wirf deine Kuchen: 
 Wer weiss, wer sie geniesst !” 
 
 A similar interpretation is found in Voltaire.!| Dukes gives 
 in his note the following story, quoted from the Kabus by 
 Diez (Denkwiirdigkeiten von Aszen, τ Th. p. 106 ff.), which, 
 whether it be a fact or a fiction, well illustrates the meaning 
 of the Arabic proverb. 
 
 The caliph Mutewekkil in Bagdad had an adopted son 
 Fettich of whom he was very fond. As the latter was bath- 
 ing one day, he sank under the water and disappeared. The 
 caliph offered a large reward to any one who should recover 
 the boy’s body. A bather was fortunate enough after seven 
 days to discover the boy alive in a cavern in a precipitous 
 mountain by which the river flowed. On investigation, the 
 caliph ascertained that the boy was kept from starving by 
 cakes of bread borne to him over the surface of the water, 
 on which cakes was stamped the name of Mohammed 
 
 ben Hassan. The caliph, having summoned Mohammed ben 
 
 Hassan into his presence, asked him what induced him to 
 throw the bread into the water. Mohammed ben Hassan 
 replied, that he had done so every day for an whole year in 
 order to test the truth of the Arabic proverb already cited. 
 The caliph, according to the story, was so pleased with his 
 conduct, that he made over to him on the spot five ees 
 in the neighbourhood of Bagdad. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that bread in the East is 
 generally made in the form of thin cakes, which, if cast 
 into the water, would remain for a considerable time on 
 
 1 In his Précis de 1 Ecclésiaste en vers, Voltaire paraphrases : 
 Repandez vos bienfaits avec magnificence, 
 Méme aux moins vertueux ne les refusez pas. 
 Ne vous informez pas de leur reconnoissance ; 
 Il est grand, il est bgau de faire des ingrats. 
 
228° Koheleth on the advantage of beneficence. 
 
 the surface and be easily carried along by the current of the 
 stream. 
 
 The second verse is best explained in the same way as an 
 exhortation to the practice of a benevolence towards others 
 that does not stop at any precise limits, but is willing to 
 exceed “the seven times” which might satisfy the mere 
 legalist (Matt. xviii. 21). Nothing is more opposed to the 
 spirit of the passage than the objection made by Preston, 
 who considers such an exhortation inconsistent with the large- 
 hearted liberality recommended in the previous verse. On 
 /seven and eight as indicative of a large but indefinite num- 
 ber see Micah v..4, Compare the expression in Job v. 19: 
 “He shall deliver thee from six troubles, yea, in seven there 
 shall no evil touch thee.” ᾿ 
 
 The advantage of beneficence, even considered purely 
 from an utilitarian point of view, is glanced at in the close 
 of the verse. In times of evil and calamity the kind and 
 the good often escape when others find no place of refuge. 
 “ Peradventure for the good man some one would even dare 
 to die” (Rom. v. 7). Many misfortunes occur which fall upon 
 the most deserving as well as upon the most worthless of 
 mankind. Man knows not when he may need the help of 
 his fellow ; and it is well to act kindly and liberally in the 
 day of prosperity.1 True philanthropy is not, indeed, based 
 on a calculation of chances. But, though there are higher 
 motives to impel men to do good unto others, the lower 
 motives cannot be altogether left out of consideration. “St. 
 
 1 Compare our Lord’s direction to the rich tax-gatherers or publicans who, 
 touched by His acts of grace and words of kindness, avowed themselves His 
 disciples, ‘‘ make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteous- 
 ness (2. 6. money often gained by and spent in unrighteousness) ; that, when it shall 
 fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles” (Luke xvi. 9), that is, 
 spend your riches in doing good in this world, seek to make friends of the poor 
 and the maimed, the lame and the blind, by doing acts of kindness, and distribut- 
 ing to their necessities (Luke xiv. 12-14), that they may welcome you when you 
 shall enter the mansions of the blessed. 
 
The untformity of the laws of nature. 229 
 
 Paul,” writes Cox, “urges us to help a brother who has fallen 
 before temptation (Gal. vi. 1) on the express ground that we 
 ourselves may need similar help some day: and ἀξ was not 
 in the habit of appealing to mean and base motives.” Self- 
 love is implanted in man’s nature, and men who affect to 
 despise such a motive are often themselves, with all their 
 professed loftiness of aim, actuated by no higher objects than 
 those of pleasure, fame, or advancement. When a country 
 is visited by some great calamity, the rich and the great 
 are often the first to suffer. It is wise, therefore, for those 
 in prosperity to remember that they may themsevles taste 
 the bitterness of adversity. 
 
 If this be the meaning of verses 1 and 2, it will be seen 
 that there is a close connexion between these thoughts and 
 that brought under notice in verse 3, where Koheleth reminds 
 his readers of the uniformity of the laws of nature. The 
 good and bad alike are exposed to the action of these laws. 
 If the clouds are full of heavy showers, these showers must 
 discharge themselves in due course upon the earth ; and if a 
 tree falls in the north or the south, in the place where the 
 tree falls there it will lie. 
 
 The last remark proves that the uniformity of natural law 
 was the thought-uppermost in the writer’s mind. The future 
 depends on laws beyond the control of man, and a prudent 
 individual ought to be prepared for all contingencies. Knobel 
 imagines that the first clause refers to the refreshing showers 
 which come from the clouds when they are full of rain, and 
 considers that the writer exhorts those who are rich in this 
 world’s good to be equally ready to communicate out of their 
 abundance to those who are in need. But the second clause 
 shows that this is not here the meaning of the writer; for it 
 will scarcely bear the interpretation put upon it by Knobel, 
 that no generous action is performed without some benefit 
 resulting to the doer, since the tree is always found in the 
 
230 . False interpretation of Koh. xi. 3. 
 
 place where it falls, and can be utilised for the good of the 
 owner. Bridges explains the passage as teaching that “there 
 is good security for the return of well-principled benevo- 
 lence.” But he suggests at the close of his note that “the 
 accommodation of Solomon’s figure” in this passage brings 
 vividly the truth before one’s eyes that death may soon 
 strike and then “our state is unchangeably fixed for eter- 
 nity ; where the tree falleth there shall it be. Death changes, 
 purifies nothing.” This is a glaring example of a meaning 
 assigned to a text which the commentator did not feel him- 
 self at liberty to reject, but well knew it never was intended 
 to bear. Bullock is perfectly correct when he says that 
 “there is nothing in the text to indicate that the common 
 application of the image of the fallen tree to the state of 
 departed souls (see St. Bernard, Sermones de Diversis, \xxxv.) 
 was in the mind of the inspired writer.” In the interests 
 of evangelical truth one must protest strongly against all 
 such popular misinterpretations of Scripture: 
 
 The wise man, while he must not be unmindful of dangers 
 ahead, but prudently seek to provide against them, ought 
 not be too anxious about the future. There is, as Lord 
 Bacon observes, no greater impediment to action than an 
 _overcautious observance of times and seasons. Such calcu- 
 lations often defeat their own purpose. The man who puts 
 off the sowing of his fields from day to day, through fear of 
 the wind or the rain, will at last lose his harvest. There is 
 ‘ no absolute’ certainty in human affairs} Opportunities, as 
 Bacon notes, are as often made as found. A man “must 
 have faith and courage to run some risk; the conditions 
 of success cannot be reckoned on beforehand ; the future 
 belongs to God, the all-conditioning ” (Delitzsch). 
 
 The latter is the idea presented in the next verse (verse 5), 
 
 1 «* Probability,” as Bishop Butler has well remarked in his work on Zhe 
 Analogy of Religion, “is the very guide of life.” 
 
The secrets of the wind and embryology. 251 
 
 “As man knows not what is the way of the wind,” the ways 
 and working of which are concealed from mortal knowledge, 
 as is also the way in which “the bones come into being in the 
 womb of her who is with child, even so man cannot under- 
 stand the work of God who maketh all.” The context shows 
 that it is not the “ sfzrzt” which Koheleth here speaks of, as 
 our Auth. Version, following the Targum, has translated 
 the word. The wind is mentioned in the preceding verse, 
 and the writer speaks of it in chap. i. 6, and in viii. 8. Man 
 knows not the way of the wind (John iii. 8), because he has 
 not the control over it, and man only knows that which he 
 governs (Delitzsch). The secrets of the wind are as profound 
 as are those of embryology, the latter being always regarded 
 as some of the deep things of nature which cannot be 
 searched out to perfection. If such secrets exist in the works 
 of nature, the acts of the God of nature must necessarily 
 be inscrutable. He overrules the future as well as the past. 
 “The growth of the child in the workshop of the mother’s 
 womb is compared to the growth of the future in the bosom 
 of the present, out of which it will be born (Prov. xxvii. I, 
 comp. Zeph. ii. 2) ”»—Delitzsch. 
 
 Since, therefore, the future rests in the power of One who 
 arranges all things, but who does not act arbitrarily, and 
 since a finite being cannot unravel the secrets of the Infinite, 
 man should act faithfully, and perform energetically his ap- 
 pointed task. “ Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it 
 with all thy might” (chap. ix. 10). This is the thought which 
 reappears here. Man should sow his seed in the morning, and 
 continue his work till evening (Ps. civ. 23). Agriculture is 
 used as a synonyme for work of every.kind. Man’s work 
 is often spoken of α΄ ἃ sowing of seed ; for, whether he will or 
 nill, he is working for the future, sowing seed of one kind or 
 another (Gal. vi. 7, 8). It was the curse pronounced upon 
 him after his fall that in the sweat of his face he should eat 
 
2322. The sweetness of the light of the sun. 
 
 bread (Gen. iii. 19). But the curse can be transformed into a 
 blessing. Constant occupation, without too much anxiety for 
 the future, is a blessing here on earth. Man knows not, in- 
 deed, whether his individual work shall prosper; but he knows 
 that, as in the natural world “seedtime and harvest” do not 
 cease (Gen. viii. 22), so men, as a general rule, do not labour 
 in vain. The harvest they reap is usually proportionate to 
 their exertions. 
 
 So far as we have gone in our explanation of the chapter, 
 an intimate connexion exists between each of the verses. 
 This is true also with respect to the verses on the exposition 
 of which we have now to enter (chap. xi. 7 ff.). 
 
 Koheleth proceeds further to speak of the pleasures of life 
 which lie within the grasp of men, and which they ought 
 thankfully to enjoy, inasmuch as they come from the hand 
 of God. The honest and earnest worker has a full right to 
 enjoy such harmless pleasures as life affords him. “ This joy 
 of life, based upon fidelity to one’s vocation, and sanctified 
 by the fear of God, is the truest and highest enjoyment here 
 below” (Delitzsch). The previous admonitions to be diligent 
 in earthly business are closely connected with the exhortation 
 to enjoy life. Though St. Paul may not have had man’s 
 ordinary labour in view in his remarks in Rom, xii. 11, 12, 
 the sequence of his thoughts in that passage is very similar 
 to that of Koheleth. 
 
 The spirit which actuated the writer was the very opposite 
 to that of the modern Pessimist. This is shown by the 
 remark of Koheleth: “And sweet is the light, and good it 
 is for the eyes to behold the sun, for, though a man live 
 many years, let him rejoice in them all, and let him re- 
 member the days of darkness, for they shall be many. All 
 that cometh is vanity.” 
 
 The light here commended as sweet is the light of the 
 upper world, the light of life (comp. Ps. lvi. 14, A. V. verse 
 
The darkness which envelopes the grave. 233 
 
 13; Job. xxxiii. 30), the glorious light of the sun. The 
 enjoyment of life is confined to no special season of human 
 existence, though it may be less at one season than at 
 another. As long as the eyes can drink in the light of day, 
 it is good for them to behold the glory of the sun. Days of 
 evil may come; clouds may, during long hours of sorrow, 
 obscure the glory of the sun; but even if a man live many 
 days he should endeavour to rejoice in them all; and all the 
 more so, if a long night of darkness awaits him ultimately 
 at the close of his earthly career. By the days of darkness, 
 which Koheleth in chap. xi. 8 says “shall be many, ” he does 
 not mean the days of sorrow in this life, or even the days of 
 old age. To explain the passage in such a way would be to 
 make it self-contradictory, for Koheleth asserts that a man 
 ought to rejoice all the days of his life. Nor would he be 
 justified in asserting that the days of darkness in every man’s 
 case are “many,” if days on this side of the grave are signi- 
 fied. He evidently refers to the state after death; “all that 
 cometh,” that is, whatever comes in the future after the life 
 on earth is over, is but vanity. A long, shadowy, unsub- 
 stantial existence was all that, with his limited knowledge, 
 ’ Koheleth saw before man. The darkness which shrouded the 
 future state had not then been illumined by the light which 
 now shines brightly from the sepulchre of the Redeemer, from 
 whose door the stone was rolled away by a mighty angel 
 (Matt. xxviii. 2). Job similarly describes the land beyond 
 the grave as it appeared in his eyes, as “a land of darkness 
 and of the shadow of death, a land of darkness, as darkness 
 itself, and of the shadow of death, without any order, and 
 where the light is as darkness” (Job x. 21, 22). 
 
 Inasmuch as a long dark night, a life which seemed to be 
 only a shadow of life, appeared to Koheleth to be the future 
 which awaits all men, he urges on young men the wisdom of 
 
 1 See our remarks in chap. vii. p. 197 ff. 
 
2324. Cheerfulness recommended to youth. 
 
 taking all the legitimate enjoyment possible in early years, 
 and of plucking those flowers of pleasure which grow along- 
 side the path of life. Hence the section begins with the 
 words : 
 
 Rejoice, young man, in thy youth, 
 
 And let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, 
 
 And walk in the ways. of thy heart, 
 
 And according to (lit. 2) the sight of thine eyes, 
 But know, that for all these God shall bring thee into the judgment. 
 
 A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance (Prov. xv. 
 13); and the heart of the young man should be full of joy 
 in the days of youth. If he cannot enjoy himself in early 
 days of health and vigour, it is unlikely, should his time be 
 prolonged upon the earth, that he will be able to rejoice in 
 all the days of his mortal life, which Koheleth, in the verse 
 immediately preceding, affrms to be a bounden duty of man. 
 The life which begins in a self-created gloom will probably 
 be dark and gloomy up to its close. If a man does not seek 
 to cultivate a cheerful spirit while young, he will be still 
 more morose and discontented in advancing years. 
 
 The language of Koheleth in this passage has been 
 often explained as ironical. But this idea does not suit 
 the context. His advice is meant seriously. Koheleth was 
 far from recommending the young man, either in jest or in 
 earnest, to make provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts 
 thereof (Rom. xiii. 14). Men were forbidden. in the Law of 
 Moses to follow after the inclination of their heart and their 
 eyes (Num. xv. 39). The opposition between the recom- 
 mendation of Koheleth and the direction of the Lawgiver is, 
 indeed, more apparent than real. What is signified by the 
 ways of the heart in the two passages is by no means iden- 
 tical. Koheleth was not an ascetic, and disapproved of all 
 attempts to drive men into courses contrary to nature. But 
 he was very far from being a sensualist. While the young 
 
Koheleth’s advice and that of the Law. 2535 
 
 Jo 
 
 are bidden to enjoy the morning of life, they are at the 
 same time admonished in all things to have the fear of God 
 before their eyes. 
 
 It is interesting to note that the LXX. (if, as is probable, 
 the original text of that version be faithfully represented by 
 the Vatican Codex) have ventured to amend the recommenda- 
 tion of Koheleth into: “and walk blameless in the ways of 
 thy heart and not after the sight of thine eyes.” The Arabic 
 version has followed the Vatican text. But the negative μή 
 is wanting in the Cod. Alex. and other Μ55.: The Targum 
 exhibits the same disposition to explain away the meaning 
 of the writer, paraphrasing the text: “walk humbly (lit. 
 in humility) with the ways of thy heart, and be cautious 
 (prudent) in the seeing of thine eyes, and look not on evil.” ” 
 
 All such emendations are, however, unnecessary.. For 
 Koheleth adds: “and know thou that for all these things 
 God will bring thee into the judgment.” Hitzig imagines the 
 writer to refer to the fact that the sins of youth are often 
 punished by Providence by sickness and premature old age. 
 And Winzer and Knobel cite in defence of the idea that the 
 writer refers to a judgment in this. present life, such passages 
 as chap. iii. 17: “I said in my heart, God shall judge the 
 righteous and the ungodly, for there is a time there for every 
 purpose and for every work.” Compare also chaps. ii. 26; 
 vii. 17, 18, 26.5 But something further seems to be intended. 
 
 1 Cod. B (the Vatican) omits after ἐν ὁδοῖς the words καρδίας cov. A (the Alex. 
 MS.), C (the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), and S? (the secondhand of the Cod. 
 Sinaiticus), along with the Complutensian, omit μή. See Nestle, Veterts Test. 
 Greci Codices Vat. et Sin. cum Textu Recepto Colt. (Lipsiz: F. A. Brockhaus, 
 1880). 
 
 2 The LXX. read καὶ περιπάτει ἐν ὁδοῖς καρδίας σου ἄμωμος, καὶ μὴ ἐν ὁράσει 
 ὀφθαλμῶν σου. The Targum is ΠῚ "ΠΠῚ 130. US OY KI Ww PANS 
 wena ΞΟ xy yy Mra. The Vulg., Jerome and the Syr. follow the 
 
 reading of the Hebrew. : 
 
 3 Reference may also be made to chap. viii. 5, 6, although that text is not a dis- 
 tinct parallel. The same truth is taught in many other places of the Old Testa- 
 ment, as Ps. vii. 7-9 ; ix. 5, 20; Isa. Ixvi. 16 ; Ezek. xxi. 30. 
 
936)" The judgment of the future. 
 
 We do not lay stress upon the use of the article, “the judgment,” 
 because it occurs in cases where no reference is intended to 
 the judgment in another world (as in Job ix. 32; xxii. 4). 
 But Koheleth notices on several occasions the fact that sin is 
 not always punished in this world (chap. viii. 14), while he 
 affirms at the same time that God has His own time and sea- 
 son for everything, and will ultimately execute vengeance on 
 transgressors. This consideration is especially urged on the 
 attention in chap. iii. 16,17. The thought of a judgment to 
 come reappears, too, in the epilogue (chap. xii. 14), where at 
 first sight the expression seems to be more general than that 
 in the passage before us (chap. xi. 9). But, if in the latter 
 the noun is rendered definite by the article, it is no less 
 clearly defined in the former by the words with which it is 
 connected. Had the writer, argues Winzer, intended to refer 
 to a judgment after death, he would not have spoken so 
 briefly on such a topic. But brevity is one of the peculiar 
 characteristics of the writer, and it is noteworthy that the 
 epilogue (whether its writer be identical or not with the 
 author of the work) contains an equally brief though most 
 distinct allusion to the final judgment. - Although therefore 
 it cannot be denied that the same phraseology is used in 
 other books of the Old Testament in a general signification, 
 we are fully justified in maintaining that Koheleth refers in 
 this passage to a final judgment after death. This is the 
 view of the passage taken by J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, 
 and Delitzsch. Of the time and nature of this final world- Ὁ 
 judgment Koheleth, indeed, had no clear perception. His 
 faith in God led him to affirm its truth as a moral necessity, 
 
 1 Thus for instance the Psalmist prays that God would not enter into judgment 
 with him FJF7IV NS yawna NIIADN (Ps. exliii, 2). And Job complains 
 (chap. xiv. 3) that “Thou bringest me into judgment with Thee” δ 2 "ΠΝ 
 DY Dawa. So in Job. ix. 32. Davina VAN? NII, ‘let us enter together into 
 the judgment, ” and in chap. xxii. 4, paving τῶν 2), ‘will He enter with 
 thee into the judgment ὃ "ἢ 
 
Condemnation of anger and peevishness. 257 
 
 though he did not possess the clearer light of Messianic 
 days. 
 
 Koheleth’s advice to the young is based upon the fact that 
 both “youth and manhood are vanity.” The opportunities 
 for enjoying life presented in youth are fleeting, and will soon 
 be past. Hence the joys peculiar to that season must be 
 embraced then or never. Koheleth’s advice is summed up 
 under three heads—“banish moroseness from thy heart,” 
 “remove evil from thy flesh,” and “ remember thy Creator in 
 the days of thy youth.” 
 
 The first recommendation is rendered by the ancient 
 versions, and in the margin of the A.V., by “put away anger 
 from thy heart.” ! The translation in the text of the Author- 
 ised Version is much to be preferred: “ put away sorrow from 
 thy heart.” But the word is even better rendered in this place 
 by moroseness or peevishness, which is often the outcome of 
 a mind discontented, and therefore angry, on account of the 
 conditions of life in which its lot has been fixed by an over- 
 ruling Providence. For the opposite to cheerfulness and 
 joyousness is that which is meant by the writer. The bane of 
 youth is a certain peevishness which, when no real sorrows or 
 troubles are present, often embitters the heart and oppresses 
 the individual by evils of its own creating. The state of 
 the heart has much to do with the health of the body. For, 
 where peevishness and moroseness of disposition obtain the 
 mastery, the individual becomes often careless as to his 
 bodily health. Life becomes to a great degree irksome, and 
 
 1 This ‘‘anger” has been explained by some to refer to the wrath of God, by 
 others to that excited in the breast of youth when called away from pleasure and 
 reminded of the fear of God. Bishop Wordsworth has ventured to translate the 
 word (DYD) by provocation, which sense, that of incitement to anger, it bears in 
 some passages (1 Kings xv. 30; xxi. 22; 2 Kings xxiii. 26, etc.) He explains 
 the passage to mean : ‘‘take heed lest thou provoke God by the thoughts of thy 
 heart.” But the Bishop is unmindful of the fact that when the word is used in 
 such a signification its meaning is defined by the words with which it is united, 
 aud that the word has not that meaning when used absolutely, as in this passage. 
 
2208 - Importance of early prety. 
 
 the youth speaks and acts as if it were a matter of indifference 
 when his earthly existence may terminate. 
 
 The second admonition “ remove evil from thy flesh” refers 
 rather to physical than to moral evil. The days of evil (in 
 chap. xii. 1) are days of sorrow and calamity, which our Lord 
 speaks of as an evil (ἡ κακία), “ sufficient unto the day is the 
 evil thereof” (Matt. vi. 34). The ancient versions (such as the 
 LXX., Vulg. and Jerome, Targ. and Syr.) agree in explain- 
 ing the evil alluded to in the passage to be “ wéckedness.” 
 But this does not harmonise with the expression “the evil 
 days,” which immediately follows (chap. xii. 1). But, if it be 
 borne in mind that Koheleth often speaks of sorrow and 
 trouble as directly caused by sin, it is highly probable that he 
 includes under the expression those sins common to youth 
 which the Apostle characterises as “sins against the body ” 
 (1 Cor. vi. 8). 
 
 If Koheleth in his advice to young men urges the impor- 
 tance of cheerfulness: of mind, and of the proper care of the 
 body, he is still more emphatic in pressing upon them the 
 importance of piety as a guide in the days of youth and a 
 solace in “evil days.”! For he adds: “and remember thy 
 Creator in the days of thy youth.” The plural in the original 
 Hebrew is the plural of excellence? The older Christian 
 interpreters sought to explain all such expressions as having 
 reference to the plurality of persons in the Godhead, and 
 Bishop Wordsworth has recently adopted that view. It can- 
 not, however, be sustained by a critic. Some of the older 
 critics ventured to delete the plural ", and on the authority 
 
 1 So Job χχχν. 10, wy mtg MN, “where ἐς God my maker,” and in Isaiah liv. 5 
 Tow ΓΊΝΩ mo Ὧν pov ‘2, “γον thy husband is thy maker, Fahaveh (the 
 God) of hosts is His name ;” also Ps. cxlix. 2. Comp. Josh. xxiv. 19. 
 
 ? It might be somewhat fanciful to trace in this threefold admonition, in which 
 directions are given with respect to the mental, bodily, and spiritual requirements 
 of youth, any distinct intention to set forth the doctrine of the tripartite nature 
 of man, 
 
The Days of evil or of old age. 239 
 
 of a few MSS. to read the word in the singular. But the 
 reading of the Masoretic text is unquestionably correct. 
 
 The Midrash Koheleth states on the authority of R. Joshua 
 ben Levi that the following saying in the Treatise Aboth 
 (iii. 1) was founded on this text: “Consider three things and 
 thou wilt not come into the hands of transgression, know 
 from whence thou comest,; and whither thou art going; and 
 before whom thou art to give account and_ reckoning.” 
 “ Remember JON, thy source, Ta, thy grave, TNA, thy 
 Creator” This Talmudic exposition was, as Dr. Ὁ. Taylor 
 has well noted, only designed as a mnemonic.? But the hint 
 given has been eagerly caught at by Graetz, who arbitrarily 
 asserts that the form of the word in the accepted Hebrew 
 text is “abstruse,” and maintains that the wife of youth 
 is metaphorically referred to under the term 2 or ἽΝ. 
 
 “The days of evil” described by Koheleth in these and 
 the following verses are the days of old age. He refers to 
 the bodily decrepitude which usually marks the closing 
 scenes of a long life. There is, however, much difference of 
 opinion as to whether the writer relates literal facts, or whether 
 the verses are an allegorical representation of the decay in 
 old age of the various parts of the human frame. We do 
 not consider the anatomical interpretation satisfactory. But 
 there are also difficulties in the way of regarding this last 
 strain of Koheleth—a strain which exhibits many of the 
 characteristics of real poetry—as a formal “dirge of death.” 
 
 1 Tt is incorrect to refer to the ancient versions in a case like this as affording 
 evidence in favour of the singular reading. For they could not do otherwise than 
 render the word in the singular, whatever reading they might have had before them. 
 The suggestion of Schmidt and Nachtigal that O'S) might be taken as an 
 abstract noun in the sense of existence, as if the writer bid the young man rejoice 
 in his existence, is untenable; as is also the alternative suggestion of the former 
 critic that the word is to be connected with the cognate root in Arabic, and 
 explained to signify the years of health and vigour. 
 
 2 See Ὁ. Taylor, Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, p. 57. The saying is also cited 
 in the Jerus. Talmud, Sotah ii. 2, and elsewhere. 
 
 3 Soalso A. Geiger, Urschrift u. Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 405. 
 
240 Man's thoughts turn oft towards the grave. 
 
 It seems to us to speak of man’s progress to the tomb, 
 through days of gloom and trial, through days of darkness 
 and bitterness, at a season even when all nature around is 
 blithe and gay. Death itself, though present throughout to 
 the mind of the writer, and contemplated by him as the last 
 and greatest “evil,” is not distinctly mentioned until near 
 the close of his verses. In every day of earthly trial man’s 
 thoughts naturally turn towards his grave. Death, like a 
 “winged Pegasus,” as a quaint writer expresses it, “ posts 
 and speeds after men, easily gives them law, fetches them up 
 again, gallops and swallows the ground he goes (over), sets 
 out after every man as soon as he comes into the world, and 
 plays with him, as the cat with the mouse, as the greyhound 
 with the badger; sometimes he follows fair and afar off, 
 lingers aloof, and out of sight ; anon he spurs after, and by 
 and by is at the heels in some sickness, and then, it may be, 
 gives us some breath again, but in the end overtakes us, and 
 is upon us with a jerk, as the snare over the fish or the fowl.” ἢ 
 
 In discussing the sense of the closing passage of this re- 
 markable book, it is necessary to review briefly, in detail, 
 the various conflicting interpretations, proposed by eminent 
 scholars for each verse, ere we present a connected picture 
 of our own views. 
 
 Koheleth thus commences his description of “the evil 
 days” and of the years in which all joy is gone and man 
 is forced to exclaim: “I have no pleasure.” He bids the 
 young to remember their Creator — 
 
 Ere the sun is carkened, and the light ; and the moon and the stars, 
 And the clouds return after the heavy shower (BWA) ; 
 
 In the day that the keepers of the house tremble, 
 
 And the men of power bend themselves, 
 
 And the grinding women cease because they are few, 
 And the women that look-out through the lattices are darkened. 
 
 1 Samuel Ward’s Life of Faith in Death, in Ward’s Sermons and Treatises at 
 the end of the 3rd vol. of Zhomas Adam’s Works (J. Nichol, 1862). 
 
The darkening of the light of heaven. 241 
 
 The oldest interpreters consider this and the following 
 verses to be an allegorical description of old age. But, while 
 they thus agree in the general outline of their exposition, 
 they manifest in the details.the utmost difference of opinion.! 
 
 Modern commentators have generally, though not always, 
 avoided the extravagancies of the earlier Jewish interpreters. 
 Knobel draws attention to the fact that the darkening of 
 the sun and the moon is descriptive of a change of days 
 of joy into days of mourning. He quotes such passages as 
 Job xxx. 26: “For I looked for good, and there came evil, 
 and I waited for light and there came darkness.” Compare 
 also Job xxix. 2, 3; and the language of Isaiah (xiii. 10, 11) 
 in speaking of the downfall of Babylon; “For the stars of 
 heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their 
 light. The sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and 
 the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” Similar is the 
 language of the prophet Ezekiel when predicting the over- 
 throw of Egypt: “And when I put thee out, I will cover 
 the heaven and make the stars thereof dark, I will cover the 
 sun with a cloud and the moon shall not give her light. All 
 the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and 
 set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord Jahaveh” (Ezek. 
 xxxii. 7, 8). And Joel, in writing of the coming of the 
 terrible locusts, describes the day as “a day of darkness and 
 of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the 
 
 1 Thus the Talmud (Sad. 151 ὁ and 152 a) interprets the sun and light to 
 signify the forehead and the nose, the moon to be the soul, and the stars to be the 
 cheeks ;—while the Midrash on Koheleth explains the sun and light to be the 
 countenance and the nose, the moon to be the forehead (these latter are transposed 
 in the Midrash Vayikra), while the stars are explained to be the corners of the 
 cheeks which fall in in old age. According to the Targum the sun and light are 
 the brightness of the countenance and the light of the eyes, the moon and stars 
 are the comeliness of the cheeks and the apples of the eyes. The Talmud and 
 Midrash agree in explaining the last clause with the Targum—‘ thy eyelids drop 
 down tears like clouds after rain.” Other interpretations, like those of Wedel 
 (in Schleuchzer, Physica Sacra, tom. iv.) and Witsius, etc., which explain the clouds 
 to mean severe attacks of catarrh, need only be alluded to here. 
 
 R 
 
241. The seasons according to the Hebrews. 
 
 morning spread upon the mountains . . . Before their 
 face the people shall be much pained; all faces shall gather 
 blackness. The earth shall quake before them ; the heavens 
 shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the 
 stars shall withdraw their shining.” ! 
 
 Vaihinger draws attention to the fact, that, while in the West 
 four seasons of the year are generally spoken of, the Hebrews 
 usually spoke only of two, summer and winter. They were 
 also wont to talk of youth and age as contrasted, understand- 
 ing under the designation of “youths” persons below forty 
 years of age, and under the designation of “old men” persons 
 sometimes not much over fifty. According to this expositor, 
 the writer is contrasting the winter of man’s existence with 
 the morning of life referred to in chap. xi. 10. His similes 
 are drawn from the gloomy winter of Palestine, when heavy 
 storms of rain succeed one another in rapid succession, and 
 darken the whole face of nature. Under such imagery 
 Koheleth pourtrays the time when the heavy sorrows and 
 storms of life set in, and the joy of existence is obscured by 
 its gloomy earnestness. 
 
 Hitzig, Ewald and Zéckler take substantially the same 
 view. Delitzsch considers the passage as allegorical through- 
 out. He explains the sun to mean the sfzrzt of man (M1 or 
 M2W2), and calls attention to the fact that I, the spirit, like 
 wr, the sun, is both masculine and feminine. The spirit of 
 man, according to the Book of Proverbs (Prov. xx. 27), is the 
 candle of Jahaveh, which with its light of self-examination 
 and self-knowledge pierces through the innermost parts of 
 our nature. He compares our Lord’s description of the 
 spirit,—‘“the light that is in thee” (τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοί, Matt. 
 vi. 23). The “light” is accordingly explained to be the 
 activity of the spirit in its unweakened intensity, sharp com- 
 
 ‘ Compare also Amos viii. 9, 10, and by way of contrast, Job xi. 17; Isaiah 
 xxx. 26, and Ix, Io, 
 
Allegorical exposition of the lights of heaven. 243 
 
 prehension, clear thinking, true and serviceable memory. 
 The moon on the other hand represents the sow/. For the 
 moon (whether termed ΓΤ or 722) when contrasted with the 
 sun is a feminine symbol.! The animal soul by means of 
 which the spirit becomes the principle of the bodily life (Gen. 
 ii. 7) when viewed in relation to the spirit is, according to 
 Delitzsch, “the weaker vessel.” Hence the spirit cheers the 
 soul with the words, “why art thou cast down, O my soul 
 (UDI) ? (Ps. xlii. 6). As Koheleth was acquainted with the 
 seven planetary gods of the Babylonian-Assyrian astrologi- 
 cal system, namely, the sun, moon, and the five planets, 
 Delitzsch thinks it probable that the writer considered the 
 five stars to be allegorical of the five senses by which the soul 
 has cognizance of the outer world. The clouds which return 
 after the rain are explained by Delitzsch to be those attacks 
 of sickness and bodily weakness which in old age confuse 
 thought, obscure self-consciousness, and which, when they 
 have once seized hold of the frame, though they may for a 
 time cease, return again, and hinder the aged one from enjoy- 
 ing perfect health. 
 
 The third verse admits of easy explanation on the lines of 
 the allegorical interpretation. The watchers of the house are, 
 according to this view, the ribs and the loins, or the knees; 
 “the men of power” the bones, and those that look out at 
 the windows, the eyes. The Midrash explains the watchers 
 to be the ribs, “the men of power” the arms, and the grind- 
 ing women the organs of digestion,? while the teeth are re- 
 garded as the subject of the verb “are few.’ The Targum 
 
 1 Compare Gen. xxxvii. 9, ff, where the sun in the dream of Joseph symbol- 
 izes the patriarch Jacob, and the moon Leah. 
 
 2 The Midrash Koheleth has DD97, which, though the word possibly may have 
 a Semitic origin (vid. Levy’s Newheb. W. B.), is probably derived from the Latin 
 omasum, the gut, or intestines, which in Midrash Lev. rab. sec. 4, is said to serve 
 to grind up the food. The Midrash divides the two clauses of the last sentence of 
 
 verse 3, ‘‘the grinding maids cease because they are few,” into ‘‘the grinding 
 maids stand still, that is the digestive organs, and are few, that is, the teeth.” 
 
244 The watchers and the grinding-mazds. 
 
 more naturally considers the watchers to be the aged knees 
 which tremble, the men of power the arms, the grinders 
 the teeth. Both agree in explaining the lookers out at the 
 windows to be the eyes. 
 
 Knobel, Ewald and Delitzsch consider the body of man to 
 be here pourtrayed as a building threatened from within with 
 impending ruin. (Compare Job iv. 19, and the Apostle’s 
 language in 2 Cor. v. I, etc.) They explain the keepers or 
 watchers of the house to be the hands and arms; and the 
 verb “tremble” might very suitably be used in reference to 
 the limbs of the old and palsied man. They further interpret 
 “the men of power” to be the feet and legs, in accordance 
 with the language of the Psalmist (Ps. cxlvii. 10, compare 
 Cant. x. 15); and the expression “bend themselves” harmon- 
 izes well with this explanation. 
 
 Nor can it be denied that the expression “the grinding 
 maids cease,” might naturally mean that the teeth can no 
 longer perform their ordinary work! Female slaves in the 
 East generally perform the duty of grinding the corn for the 
 daily consumption of the family. 
 
 The clause may be rendered “the grinding women cease 
 because they are few,” which is the translation of all the 
 ancient versions (except the Targum), and thus the statement 
 might refer to the loss of teeth in old age. The verb has also 
 been rendered transitively, as Dr. C. Taylor translates it: “the 
 grinding maids cease when they have wrought a little,” that 
 is, according to his idea, they have little to do because, at the 
 approach of death, entertainments are no longer given.? 
 
 1 The molar teeth are termed in Arabic and Syriac, as by us, the grinders, and 
 the word for teeth, though masculine in the ancient Hebrew is, as Delitzsch 
 observes, feminine in the later or Mishnaic. He notes that the Greeks also used 
 the expression μύλαι or μύλοι for the teeth, and compares the translation of the 
 LXX. of Psalm lvii. 7, ras μύλας τῶν λεόντων. 
 
 4 The Targum renders loosely: ‘‘and the teeth of thy mouth are destroyed 
 until they cannot chew food,” The piel OY) may be intransitive, according to 
 
The lookers-out at the windows. 245 
 
 “Those that look out at the windows” might without 
 violence be interpreted of the organs of sight, whose windows 
 are the eyelids with their accompanying eye-lashes, behind 
 which the eyes are partly concealed. In any description 
 of old age some reference would certainly be expected to 
 be made to the common infirmity of loss of sight. 
 
 But serious difficulties beset the allegorical interpretation 
 in the explanation of the fourth and following verses. We 
 may here render the fourth verse :— 
 
 And doors are shut in the street 
 
 ‘ When the sound of the mill is low (07 ceases) ; 
 And one rises at the voice of the bird, 
 And all the daughters of song are humbled. 
 
 The Targum explains the first line of the old man being 
 no longer able to go out into the street.1 Some, as Knobel, 
 have explained it of the old man’s silence. Delitzsch lays 
 stress on the fact that the word for doors is dual, and, there- 
 
 the analogy of MP, to decome blunt, in chap. x. 10. Taylor, however, in his 
 critical notes on Aboth iv. (Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, p. 16), maintains that 
 the constant usage of the Mishna is in favour of the transitive sense of the verb 
 
 in question. In Aboth iv. 14, it is contrasted with Spa: “Rabbi Meir used to, 
 say, have little business (PDYD WY!) 1), and be busy in the Thorah (in reading 
 and studying it) . . . and if thou ceasest from (studying) the Thorah (BN), 
 MAD 1 nov), thou wilt have idlers many against thee,” or, perhaps, as Levy, 
 Neuheb. W. B., translates the clause, ‘‘ many disturbing things will set themselves 
 against thee.” But the verb can scarcely be regarded as a transitive in the passage 
 in question ; for the 3, which is ‘‘ for,” ‘‘ because,” not ‘‘ where,” and the perfect 
 tense seem to require the intransitive sense. In Strack’s edition of the Spriiche 
 der Vater, the passage is Aboth iv. 10. Strack has retained the numeration found 
 in the editions of the Mishna. A different numeration of the sections is to be 
 found in the editions of the Jewish Prayer Book (WD). Dr. C. Taylor follows 
 in his arrangement the Cambridge Manuscript. 
 
 1 The ancient Jewish interpreters in the Talmud and Midrash explain the 
 doors to be the openings in the human body for the purposes of excretion, which 
 are closed in old age when the teeth can no longer masticate, or the stomach 
 digest, the food. In the morning prayer of the Jews there is a thanksgiving as 
 follows: ‘‘ Blessed be thou, Lord our God, King of the world, who hast wisely 
 formed man and created in him many openings and orifices (23) Ὡ 392) 12 8} 
 pido Ὁ 530). But a poet would scarcely introduce such representations into 
 his verses. i 
 
246. The doors shut towards the street. 
 
 fore, points to a pair of similarly fashioned and related 
 members of the body. He also insists on the point that the 
 expression “in the street,” or “towards the street,” indicates 
 that the members referred to are such as are generally ex- 
 posed to view, and not those which decency requires to be 
 screened from ordinary gaze. Hence he follows here in the 
 main Jerome’s interpretation. The jaws of the leviathan are 
 termed “the doors of his face” (Job xli. 6, A.V. xli. 14), and 
 the Psalmist prays that God will “keep the door” of his lips 
 (Ps. cxli. 3). A similar phrase, but not identical, is used by 
 Micah (chap. vii. 5). Hence Herzfeld and Delitzsch consider 
 the lips or jaws to be compared to a double-leaved door, and 
 the passage to refer to the lips closing together in old age in 
 consequence of the loss of the teeth, which while they remain 
 keep the jaws and lips apart. Zockler takes the same view ; 
 but his American editor Tayler Lewis remarks that the dual 
 is just as applicable to the eyes and the ears as to the lips. 
 The latter considers the interpretation of Hengstenberg more 
 in accordance with the context. Hengstenberg explains it of 
 the ear, which in old age is closed to external sounds, and 
 - Tayler Lewis of all the various senses being closed to 
 ordinary impressions, the senses being the avenues to the 
 outer world. 
 
 Delitzsch translates “the doors are shut towards the street ” 
 or “on the street side,” referring the clause, as already noted, 
 to the closing together of the jaws from loss of teeth. Ewald 
 and Vaihinger also refer it to the closing of the mouth; but 
 the former considers the allusion to be to the shutting of the 
 mouth against food, while the latter thinks that the reference 
 is to the silence of the aged man. 
 
 Ewald, Delitzsch and others interpret the sound of the mill 
 becoming low as signifying that, when the old man masticates 
 his food, the jaws of the toothless mouth being closed, the 
 dull sound of munching is all that can be heard. Hitzig’s 
 
The sound of the mill ceasing. 247 
 
 objection to this interpretation seems valid, namely, that no 
 great noise is usually made in chewing, and such a trifle is 
 unworthy of notice by a poet. Hitzig himself explains the 
 passage of the weakness of the voice in age. But, if the teeth 
 are interpreted to be the grinding maids, the mouth must (to 
 be consistent) represent the mill; and, if it be unpoetical to 
 regard the clause as referring to the dull munching noise 
 made by the old man in masticating his food, this fact dis- 
 credits the allegorical interpretation.! 
 
 According to our view, the clause “when the sound of the 
 mill is low” is best regarded as a note of time.2 The words 
 that follow, translated in our Authorised Version, “and he 
 shall rise up at the voice of the bird,” have been variously 
 rendered and expounded. The true reading of the Hebrew 
 text is the imperfect jussive, and not the imperfect indicative, 
 as printed in the ordinary Hebrew Bibles.? The importance 
 of this fact will be noticed presently. 
 
 The Talmud, Midrash and Targum render the clause, as 
 our A.V., “and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird,’ 
 or, as St. Jerome explains it, at cock-crowing.4 The objection 
 urged by Ginsburg against this interpretation is not for- 
 
 1 Tt is curious to notice that Prof. Tayler Lewis asserts that the grinding maids 
 undoubtedly represent the teeth, and yet maintains that the grinding itself, or ‘‘ the 
 mill is not so much metaphorical as illustrative,” and is to be taken in its primary 
 sense as showing the old man’s dulness of hearing, by whom ‘‘the most familiar 
 and household sounds, such as that of the grinding mill, are faintly distinguished.”’ 
 
 2 The word Say in this sentence has been regarded by all the ancient versions 
 (except that of Symmachus) as a noun, It is, however, manifestly the*infinitive 
 construct. The form in a is rare, though it occurs in a few verbs which have a 
 in the imperfect, or whose second radical is a guttural. See Gesenius-Kautzsch, 
 § 45, 1a; Bottcher, Zekrd. §987,5; Konig, Lehrg. § 21, 4; Stade, ὃ 619 a. The 
 LXX. have erroneously regarded HIND as a participle. 
 
 3 That is, DIP, and not 0459), vid. crit. comm. See Ges.-Kautzsch § 72, 
 rem. 4; Konig, Zehrged., p. 442. The Masora magna notes that the word occurs 
 twice, once with cholem (milel), and once with a short vowel, kametz-chatuph (milra). 
 See Ochla-ve-Ochla, no. 5 ; Levita’s Massoreth ha-Massoreth, p. 208 ed. Ginsburg. 
 
 4 The rendering of the Targum is: ‘‘and thou shalt awake from thy sleep 
 at the sound of a bird, as at thieves that go about during the night.” The last 
 clause is significant as showing an attempt to combine two opposing interpreta- 
 
248 . Lhe rising up at the voice of the bird. 
 
 midable, namely, “that, though aged people may easily be 
 awakened by a slight noise, yet they do not rise up at the 
 sound of a bird.” For the phrase may simply mean that 
 the old man’s sleep is broken by the first chirping of the 
 birds in the early morning. 
 
 If, however, the clause that follows be supposed to refer to 
 deafness as a characteristic of old age, which prevents the aged 
 man from taking pleasure any longer in female singers, there 
 is an apparent incongruity. For the old man would be repre- 
 sented in one clause as having his slumbers broken by the 
 chirping of the birds, and in the next as too deaf to hear 
 the songs of women. There is no difficulty in explaining the 
 first clause of the singing of birds in the early morning as a 
 note of time, the idea of the passage being that one wakes 
 early in the morning when the birds begin to sing. 
 
 Hitzig, Ewald and Zéckler consider the allusion in the 
 passage to be to the weak voice of the aged man. The verb 
 is regarded by them as impersonal, inasmuch as no previous 
 mention is made of the voice. They accordingly translate : 
 “and it seems (lit. riseth) like the voice of a sparrow,” or, as 
 Kleinert, “and when it raises itself it is as the chirping of a 
 bird,”? understanding the allusion to be to the piping, whisper- 
 ing voice of old age, “his big manly voice, Turning again 
 towards childish treble.””* Ewald refers in illustration of the 
 idea to Isaiah xxix. 4, where Cheyne translates: “thy speech 
 shall be subdued (coming) from the dust, and thy voice 
 shall be as that of a ghost from the ground, and from the 
 dust thy speech shall come chirpingly.”® In support of the 
 tions. Jerome’s words are: ‘‘porro consurgere eum ad vocem volucris ostendit, 
 quod frigescente jam sanguine et humore siccato, quibus materiis sopor alitur, ad 
 levem sonitum evigilet, noctisque medio, quum gallus cecinerit, festinus exsurgat.” 
 
 1 Ginsburg’s statement that the rendering of Ewald, Hitzig, and others, ‘‘the 
 noise of the mill rises to the voice of a sparrow” is at least open to misconception. 
 
 ® Shakespeare, As you dike it, Act ii. hs 
 
 * On the supposed chirping and muttering of ghosts, see Cheyne on Isaiah 
 Vili. 19. 
 
The storm theory of the passage. 249 
 
 rendering of the phrase used in the original as signifying 20 
 pass from one state to another, Hitzig refers to Zeph. iii. 8 ; 
 1 Sam. xxii. 13; Micah ii. 8. But these references are un- 
 satisfactory! Delitzsch observes that, whenever the words 
 “at the voice” or “at the cry” (4p) are connected with a 
 verb denoting motion, whether bodily or mental, the exciting 
 cause of the movement is referred to, Thus the Israelites are 
 represented as fleeing at the cry (02p?) of those who were 
 swallowed up in the earthquake (Num. xvi. 34). The coasts, 
 suburbs, or fleets belonging to Tyre (whatever be the mean- 
 ing of ΓΟ), are represented by Ezekiel (chap. xxvii. 28) 
 as trembling at the sound of the cry (ΡΣ 29?) of the 
 Tyrian pilots; while Job speaks of the children who rejoice 
 at the sound (5§p9) of the pipe (Job xxi. 12). See also Habb. 
 iii. 16. 
 
 According to Umbreit, Koheleth depicts in these verses 
 the advance of death under the imagery of an approaching 
 storm, which darkens the heavens, startles even men of power, 
 and puts a stop to all work. He translates the clause in 
 question, “and the bird raises its voice toa shriek.” Ginsburg 
 adopts this view, and, regarding the swallow as the bird re- 
 ferred to, renders “and the swallow shall rise to shriek,” in 
 allusion to the cries of that bird before a storm. But this is 
 opposed to the Hebrew accentuation.2, The use of the jus- 
 sive is also against this rendering. For that form indicates 
 that the clause is to be viewed as conditional, and connected 
 either with the “in the day when” of verse 3, or the “before 
 that,” or “ere,” which is twice repeated in the previous verses. 
 
 1 For in the latter two passages the ordinary signification of 77simg up is the 
 true one ; as also in Zeph. iii. 8, where it is necessary, in order to extract the sense 
 
 given to the passage by Hitzig (namely, ‘‘unto the day, when I come forward as 
 witness ’’), to abandon the traditional vocalization of the Hebrew text, and on the 
 
 authority of the LXX. and Syr. to read sd instead of awd, Similarly the LXX., 
 Targ. and Syr., read in Isaiah xxx. 8 awd in place of ww, 
 2 According to which Oy is the construct governing BY i in the genitive. 
 
250 Lhe expositions of “the daughters of song.” 
 
 The phrase does, indeed, sometimes mean to rise up for the 
 purpose of performing an action.!. But, had the writer in- 
 tended to say “the swallow shall rise to shriek” (Gzzsburg), 
 or “the bird of evil omen (the owl or raven) raises his dirge,” 
 (Taylor), he would have used a different construction.? 
 
 The Talmud explains the last clause in the verse, “and all 
 the daughters of song shall be brought low,” to mean that 
 music and songs appear to the old man like ordinary chat- 
 tering, while the Targum considers the clause to refer to the 
 man himself, “thy lips will lower themselves (DDI) from 
 singing a song.” Several modern scholars have followed the 
 rendering of the Targum, though without referring the words 
 to the lips. Thus Hitzig understands “the daughters of 
 song” to mean the simple songs which the old man tries to 
 sing, but for which he finds that his voice is no longer equal ; 
 and Ewald translates the phrase “daughters of song” by 
 “singing birds,” but considers the voice to mean allegorically 
 the old man’s song, and his words? to be the singing birds, 
 once loud and distinct, now feeble like the chirping of a 
 small bird. Singing, however, is not such a common ac- 
 
 1 Ginsburg refers in proof of this to Psalm Ixxvi. 10, where the phrase Dap 
 Dav? occurs in the sense of to rise to judgment, i.e. to rise in order to execute 
 judgment. So also nroner? Dip, to rise up for war, Jer. xlix. 14. But the third 
 passage he refers to, Ps. cxxxii. 8, a talegbyaP) MYA? ΠΡ is somewhat doubtful. 
 
 IP .. 5 Cc -Ξ - 
 The Arabic construction ξ To) cwels, she began to lament, cited by Taylor 
 
 is not ad rem. See W. Wright's Arab. Gram., ii. § 42 rem. g. (p. 118, 2nd ed.). 
 
 Taylor, however, observes justly that the idea of rising for the purpose of speaking 
 is a very ordinary one, but the verb would be then used without bip> or any 
 such equivalent. It is moreover open to serious doubt whether that noun would 
 thus, without any qualification in the context, be used in the sense of a shriek or a 
 screech. 
 
 2 He would have written, as Delitzsch has observed Sip nnd SST Dap? 
 or at least WENO Sid DAP». 
 
 ἣν Ewald considers the pdr, words, which is feminine, to be pointed to by the 
 ΤῊΣ, 
 
That expression must refer to singing women. 251 
 
 complishment as to justify a poet speaking of the loss of 
 voice as one of the striking features of old age. 
 
 Ginsburg, who adopts the view of Umbreit as to the general 
 meaning of the passage, explains with Ewald the “ daughters 
 of song” to be “singing birds,” although he takes the phrase 
 literally. But, as Taylor observes, “the word WW is only used 
 of articulate song.” It can be applied to a “song” such as 
 those of David, but not to the song of a bird. The daughters 
 of song are evidently “singing women,” like those of whom 
 Barzillai spoke when he said that he was unable by reason 
 of his advanced age any longer to hear “the voice of singing 
 men and singing women” (2 Sam, xix. 36).! 
 
 If the fourth verse has been variously interpreted, much 
 more the fifth, which we may here render,— 
 
 Even they are afraid of that which is high, 
 And all-kinds-of-fears are in the way ; 
 Then the almond-tree is in bloom, 
 
 And the locust drags-itself along, 
 
 But unavailing is the caperberry ; 
 
 For the man is going to his eternal house, 
 And the mourners go about in the street. 
 
 Delitzsch regards the explanation of the first clause given 
 by the Talmud and Midrash as correct in the main. These 
 Jewish authorities refer it to the dread which aged persons 
 have of hills on the road, which are magnified by their fears 
 
 1 The verb used in the passage for ‘‘ are humbled,” or ‘* brought low” is snes, 
 from the stem MMW. This form, however, has been explained as an imperfect kal 
 formed after the Aramaic fashion by the doubling of the first radical. So Olshausen, 
 § 243 d., Ges.-Kautzsch, § 67, rem. 3, Stade, § 490 a. But, inasmuch as an imper- 
 fect kal in o of the same verb, mys , is in use, and has a transitive force, it is 
 better with Rodiger, Bottcher, Konig and others, to regard Mt’ as a regular imper- 
 fect niphal. The niphal may be viewed as the regular passive of kal, the latter 
 being used in the sense of being bowed down with sorrow ; or it may be explained 
 after the analogy of Isaiah xxix. 4, where the subdued sound of the voice is signi- 
 fied. The majority of the ancient versions understand it in the sense of ‘‘ being 
 humbled.” So the LXX., Syr. and Aquila; but the Vulg. and Jerome interpret 
 it in the sense of being ὭΣ into silence (obsurdescent, obmutescent). Umbreit 
 and Elster explain it as referring to the birds who lower themselves in the air, fly 
 low, and flutter about uneasily in dread of the coming storm. 
 
£52 30s The fears on the way. 
 
 into veritable mountains, so that every journey appears for- 
 midable. The Midrash observes that, if an old man is asked 
 to a feast, the first question he asks is, how many steps will 
 he have to mount to get to the banqueting room? Such an 
 explanation scarcely suits the dignity of the poem. Delitzsch 
 understands the passage to mean that the old man is afraid 
 of any hill, for his breath fails him and his legs are unequal 
 to the strain. 
 
 A similar view is taken by the ancient versions, and by 
 Ewald in his later editions.' Umbreit, Elster, and Ginsburg 
 explain the clause as depicting the storm gathering overhead. 
 The rendering of the Targum seems like an attempt to com- 
 bine in one idea two different interpretations. It is “thou 
 shalt even be afraid to call to mind the actions (done) before 
 this (time), and a small ascent shall be in thy estimation 
 like a great mountain when thou art walking on the road.” 
 Plumptre observes: “to be afraid of a hill expresses not 
 merely, or chiefly, the failure of strength of limb to climb 
 mountains, but the temper that, as we say, makes mountains 
 out of molehills ; that, like the slothful man of Proverbs xxii. 
 13, sees a lion in the path.” But the view of the passage pro- 
 pounded by Taylor seems to us preferable, namely, that the 
 expression “from on high” in the former part of the sentence 
 is contrasted with “in the way” in the second. The thought 
 would then be similar to that in the Book of Job (chap. xviii. 
 11), “the terror not only lowers upon them from above, but 
 lurks also beneath their feet.” 3 
 
 It may be worth while here to notice the peculiar inter- 
 pretation which Hahn has given of the whole passage. He 
 
 * See note on p. 254. 
 
 * Taylor aptly compares the passage in the Koran (Sura vi. 65). ‘“ Say, He it 
 is that hath power to send upon you punishment from above you and from beneath 
 your feet.” He refers also to Isaiah viii. 21, 22, where a similar contrast is found : 
 “they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and God, and look upward. 
 And they shall look unto the earth ; and behold trouble and darkness.” 
 
Flahn’s exposition of the passage. 253 
 
 o 
 
 ‘rightly rejects the idea of Hengstenberg, adopted by some 
 later expositors of less note, that Koheleth had in view the 
 old age of the ungodly; or, as others have suggested, that 
 the last days of a worn-out sensualist are here depicted. 
 Had the writer had either the one or the other idea in view, 
 he would not have expressed himself in such general terms. 
 Moreover, as Hahn notes, the old age of the wicked is not 
 always miserable. Job speaks of it as the very reverse (xxi. 
 7 ff... Hahn maintains that “the night of death” is here 
 described. Man, according to him, emerged at his birth from 
 darkness to the light of day, and Koheleth refers to this fact 
 when he speaks of the clouds of darkness returning after the 
 destructive storm (Ezek. xiii. 11; comp. Isa. xxv. 4) which 
 destroys the building. 
 
 In common with the other allegorists, Hahn maintains 
 that the house is the body of man in which his spirit resides. 
 But he interprets the watchers and strong men to be the 
 powers of life which have their root in the spirit and pervade 
 the whole body,—which, instead of resting by night, as do 
 the legs and arms, continue always to discharge their ap- 
 pointed tasks. It is when these become powerless that death 
 forces its way into the building. 
 
 Hahn explains the grinding women to be the vital powers 
 pervading the frame, which provide for its wants and assimi- 
 late the food necessary for its support. The street, according 
 to him, is the outer world ; the doors thereto are the senses. 
 So far the interpretation seems to run smoothly enough ; but, 
 when the sound of the mill becoming low is explained as a 
 reference to the heart and its pulsations, one sees how much 
 better it would have been had the sound of the mill been 
 viewed as merely part of the drapery of the allegory ; for the 
 more noiselessly the heart performs its functions, and the less 
 it forces itself into notice, the more healthy and vigorous is 
 the life of the individual. 
 
δε er. The soul like a caged bird. 
 
 But far more objectionable is his explanation of the next 
 clause, where he supposes the soul to be compared to a bird 
 in a cage, and renders, “and the bird rises (from its earthly 
 prison) at the voice,” ze. of God, which calls it to return 
 (comp:nesxc.%3). There is no article in the original OiPp?), 
 and it is almost impossible that the soul, which, according to 
 this interpretation, has been all along spoken of as the master 
 directing the watchers and men of power, and ruling over the 
 grinding maids, etc. should, without warning, be suddenly 
 compared to a bird in a cage. Nor is there anything to 
 justify the explanation of “the daughters of song” as mean- 
 ing “songs, which are his daughters.” 
 
 Hahn’s translation of verse 5 is unique, and unlikely to 
 find favour with Biblical interpreters: “Also they are afraid 
 before the High One (God),! as well as of the terrors on the 
 way”; namely, the terrors of death, which intervene between 
 that which is on this side and the other side of the grave ; for 
 Hahn considers the way spoken of to be that which leads 
 from earth to the High and Lofty One who is throned in 
 heaven. In order to extract this sense from the passage 
 he is forced to reject the translation “almond tree” or 
 “almond fruit,’ which is the uniform sense of the Hebrew 
 noun in verse 5, and to take it in the signification of “the 
 watchful one”? as an appellation of the soul of man “whose 
 
 1 To bring out this meaning Hahn arbitrarily supplies 12 before D'ANNA out of 
 the preceding 72319. Hahn says that Ewald takes the same view of 1319, re- 
 ferring it to God, and appeals to Koh. v. 7ζ. The absence of the article in itself 
 makes this translation improbable. Whatever Ewald’s earlier opinicns may have 
 been, in his Dichter des Alten Bundes he rejects this view, as he explains. his 
 translation ‘‘vor dem Hohen” to mean ‘‘ was schwer zu ersteigen ist.” In his 
 Ausf. Lehrb. (8te Ausg. 1870) § 179 a, note, he says, ‘‘ Erschrecken ist am Wege 
 d. 1. man erschrickt vor dem Wege (aus Altersschwiche) ist der sicherste Sinn der 
 Worte Qoh. xii. 5, ahnlich wie das vorige Glied sich auf die Furcht vor dem Em- 
 porsteigen bezieht.” It may be noted that Ibn Ezra also gives this turn to the 
 passage, as he says that the fear alluded to is that the old man’s thoughts tell him 
 that his spirit must soon quit his body and go to the high heaven. 
 
 2 Note Plumptre’s rendering of this word, which is commented on at p. 259. 
 
Lhe prophetical exposition of R. Levt. 255 
 
 being is watchfulness, self-consciousness and freedom.” The 
 verb in the clause he translates “¢o get feathers.’ Thus the 
 sense is explained to be, “the watchful one obtains pinions, 
 and the locust disburdens itself,” this expression being re- 
 garded as synonymous with “the butterfly emerges from its 
 chrysalis,” “and the poor (one)? breaks forth”; ze the 
 spirit breaks its earthly shell, “the body of our humiliation ” 
 (Phil. iii. 21), “for man goeth to his eternal house,” the king- 
 dom of glory, which would be almost equivalent to that 
 which the Apostle speaks of in 2 Cor. v. 1, 2. 
 
 This attempt to ingraft New Testament ideas upon the 
 book of the Old Testament philosopher cannot be regarded 
 as successful. However ingeniously worked out in its details, 
 it cannot stand the test of any critical examination ; and, in- 
 dependently of this fact, it is in itself too fanciful. Its very 
 originality is its most decisive condemnation. 
 
 A remarkable prophetical exposition of the chapter is 
 given by R. Joshua of Sikhnin, in the name of R. Levi, in 
 the Introduction to the Midrash on the Book of Lamenta- 
 tions (sect. 23). It explains “the days of youth” in verse I 
 of the period of Israel’s prosperity, “the days of evil” of the 
 time of the exile. The darkening of the “sun” describes the 
 obscuration of the glory of the Davidic house (comp. Ps. 
 
 ΔΎ ΝΟΣ is explained as equivalent to 142) from 72, which Hahn regards a 
 denominative from mio, a pinion (Job xxxix. 13). See on this verb, note on 
 Ρ- 258. 
 
 * Hahn takes ΠΣ ξ to be the feminine of the adjective ay. The daghesh 
 forte in the is no “decided objection to this view. For the word might be re- 
 garded as a strengthened form of m2. Compare, on this use of the daghesh, 
 Bottcher, Zehrd. § 295, 2. But the peculiarity of punctuation was more probably 
 adopted by the punctuators to preserve the true traditional view of the passage, 
 according to which the word was regarded not as the feminine of 2s, but as a 
 noun denoting the cagerberry, although the Rabbinical word used for the latter 
 in the Talmud is pronounced exactly in the same way as the feminine adjective 
 referred to. See p. 263. Compare the difference between {J and 1 }), which, 
 though slight in itself, is highly significant. See Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo lag das 
 Paradies? p. 3 ff. 
 
256 . The prophetical exposition of R. Levi. 
 
 Ixxxix. 37); “the light” is the Law (Prov. vi. 23); “the 
 moon,” the Sanhedrin ; “the stars,” the Rabbis (Dan. xii. 3) ; 
 “the clouds returning after the rain,’ the troubles predicted 
 by Jeremiah. “The watchers of the house” are the watches 
 of the Priests and Levites (Num. viii. 21); “the sound of the 
 mills,” the great Mishnaioth, “few” of which are contained 
 in the Talmud ; or, according to others, the Israelites them- 
 selves, busied day and night about the Law (Josh. 1. 8); 
 “the lookers out of the windows” who are “darkened,” the 
 Jewish exiles scattered among the nations. “The voice of 
 the bird” is explained to be that of the cruel Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, whose actions caused the songs of “the daughters of 
 song” to cease throughout the land (Isa. xxiv. 9); “the fears 
 in the way” are interpreted of the difficulties which Nebu- 
 chadnezzar dreaded when seeking to discharge that work 
 of judgment which he was commissioned by the Most High 
 to perform. (Comp. Ezek. xxi. 26 ff, A.V. xxi. 21 ff.). The 
 blossoming of “the almond” tree is explained, after the 
 analogy of Jer. i. 11, of the hastening of the day of wrath; 
 the “locust” being ‘‘burdensome” of the golden image of 
 Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. iii. 1); the powerlessness of “the 
 caperberry ” of the merit of the fathers as of no avail to stay 
 the destruction. The clause “for man goeth to his house of 
 the world” (for so the phrase in verse 5 is evidently under- 
 stood), is explained of Babylon itself; while the mourners 
 are interpreted of the weepers for Jeconiah or Jehoiachin.! 
 The “silver cord” is explained of “the chain of genealo- 
 gies” (pony nowhw) ; “the golden bowl” of the words of 
 the Law (Ps. xix. 11) ; the “pitcher at the fountain” either 
 of the pitcher of Baruch at the fountain of Jeremiah, or of the 
 pitcher of Jeremiah at the fountain of Baruch (Jer. xxxvi. 
 18). The “wheel broken at the cistern” is also interpreted 
 
 1 DT_DIDA pws yap) - mm ow vn 22) why ma Ss own ἼΘῚΠ 3 
 may mda ΠῚ 
 
The almond-tree in blossom. 257 
 
 of the destruction at Babylon (comp. Jer. li. 49). The dust 
 returning to the earth as it was is explained of the return 
 to Babylon. “They were from Babylon and they returned 
 there.”* “And the spirit returns to God,’ etc. that is, the 
 Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit was taken away from 
 them, they went into captivity, and, when they went into 
 Captivity, Jeremiah’s lamentation arose over them, ‘how doth 
 the city sit solitary’ (Lam. i. 1).” 
 
 Kaiser, in his curious book on Koheleth, in which he en- 
 deavours to make out that the work describes under various 
 forms the history of Israel from the time of Solomon to the 
 exile, naturally explains the 12th chapter in reference to the 
 downfall of the Jewish State. His interpretation, though not 
 by any means identical with that given in the Introduction 
 to the Midrash nor borrowed therefrom, is in some respects 
 similar. Such prophetical interpretations, though strained in 
 a few particulars, require scarcely more violence to be done 
 to the original than is done in the endeavour to interpret the 
 whole chapter as an allegorical picture of old age. 
 
 But to return. A review of all the various expositions 
 suggested for the clause in the 5th verse rendered by us, 
 “and the almond-tree flourishes,” or “is in bloom,” would 
 here be impossible. The explanations of the Talmud, 
 Midrash, and Targum are too far-fetched to require special 
 notice. The noun in the sentence is used to denote both 
 the almond-tree and the nuts which grow thereon. This in 
 itself opens the door to a variety of interpretations. The verb 
 is rendered by Gesenius “ shall be despised,’ and that scholar 
 considers the writer to refer to:the almonds which the old 
 man can no longer eat, his teeth being gone. The fact, 
 however, that the correct reading of the passage has the 
 
 1 yin aw wn 5230. auld 
 2 Koheleth, das Collectivum der Davidischen Konige in Ferusalem, ein historisches 
 Lehrgedicht tiber den Umsturz des jiidischen Staates (Erlangen, 1823). 
 
 5 
 
288 ᾿ The difficulty of the verse. 
 
 verb in the jussive is a serious difficulty in the way of this 
 and many other interpretations! The best translation of 
 this verb is unquestionably that given by the majority of 
 the ancient versions, inclusive of the LXX., Vulg. and partly 
 of the Syr., and adopted by our A.V., namely, zs zz dlos- 
 som; and the peculiar form which appears in the Hebrew 
 text is to be regarded either as caused by an early blunder 
 of some scribe, or as having arisen from an old marginal 
 reading. 
 
 Ewald, Delitzsch, and many modern as well as ancient 
 commentators, regard the clause as picturing the snowy hair 
 
 1 Gesenius in his Thesaurus regards γ᾽ ὲ)ὴ) as the hiphil of NJ, for YN2?: 
 Similar instances can be cited in which an δὲ gives its vowel to a vowelless con- 
 sonant preceding. There is, however, a second irregularity in the word, namely, 
 the — in place of the >. The verb is regarded by other scholars as the impf. 
 hiphil of ὟΝ), 40 shine, to bloom ; the perfect hiphil of this verb occurs, though 
 with a peculiarity of punctuation, in Cant. vi. 11. But the form in Koheleth is 
 altogether irregular, as the δὲ cannot be satisfactorily accounted for. The vowels 
 appended to the word show that the punctuators connected it with /¥J. The 
 instances, however, adduced by Ewald and Delitzsch, in order to prove that 
 the form in the Hebrew text is simply an incorrect mode of }'}! are not satis- 
 factory. Kimchi’s derivation of the verb from 72, an unused stem, as if it were 
 a denominative from 18), a d/ossom, affords no assistance. The form is, perhaps, 
 best viewed as a simple blunder, if the vowels of the text be not regarded as 
 belonging to an unnoticed k’ri, as Bottcher has suggested in several cases, and 
 which Konig (Hist.-krit. Lehrgeb. der heb. Spr., pp. 313, 314) considers probable 
 here. It has been thought that the punctuation was the result of an early attempt 
 to amend the text. For Bottcher and Konig maintain that Te, the almond, is 
 a euphemism for the Phallus, and that it was considered desirable to give a better 
 turn to the passage. The authority of the ancient versions is against this notion, 
 which, besides having no evidence on which it can be based, is in itself repulsive in 
 the extreme. 
 
 If the vowels attached to the word be regarded as belonging to an unnoticed 
 k’ri, the word in the text must, as in all such cases, be treated as unpointed. 
 The word then must be connected with PN3, but can be read in several ways. 
 (1) As ~&3! imperf. kal used impersonally, ‘‘ one despises the almond.” Hitzig 
 renders the clause thus pointed, ‘‘and the almond-tree,” an allegorical name for 
 the youthful maiden, ‘‘ refuses,” 2.6. to give its fruit to the aged man. This 
 explanation, like many of Hitzig’s, is remarkable for its perverse ingenuity. (2) 
 The word may be regarded as the imperf. hiphil “S), scriptio defectiva, or 
 Y'S2', or (3), which would be the easiest mode of pointing, as 782), the impf. 
 niphal, we// be despised, a view taken by several critics, 
 
The white blossoms of the almona-tree. 259 
 
 on the head of the aged man. The blossoming almond-tree 
 would thus indicate what is expressed by the Latin poet: 
 
 “Temporibus geminis canebat sparsa senectus.”— Virgil, 4en. v. 416. 
 
 The objection urged against this interpretation by Knobel, 
 and repeated by Plumptre, namely, that the colour of the 
 blossoms of the almond-tree is pink and not white, has 
 long ago been answered by Ch. F. Bauer (1732). The latter 
 has noted that the almond blossoms turn to a snowy white 
 ere they fall from the tree. The American missionary 
 Thomson, who was well acquainted with this appearance of 
 the almond-tree in Palestine speaks of it (in his Land and 
 the Book) as often completely covered with white blossoms.! 
 Plumptre, who “records but only to reject” the opinion that 
 the almond blossoms represent the white hairs of old age, 
 falls back, with Symmachus and the Syr., upon the original 
 meaning of the stem TW, to watch, to be watchful, and 
 maintains that “the true meaning is to be found in the 
 significance of the Hebrew name for almond-tree (Shaked = 
 the early waking tree), comp. Jer.i.11.”’ His idea is that “the 
 enigmatic phrase describes the zxsomnia which often attends 
 old age. The tree that flourishes then is the tree of Vigi/an- 
 tia or Wakefulness.” But, as the noun in question is never 
 used in any other sense than that of the almond-tree, or 
 the almond-nut, all interpretations which seek to assign 
 another signification to it may be worthy of record, as proof 
 of ingenuity, but must be rejected. 
 
 The noun used in the next clause (A237) certainly means 
 the locust, and it is so rendered by the LXX., Syr., Arab. 
 and Vulg. It is found in four other passages (Lev. xi. 22 ; 
 Num. xi, 23, Isa τὶ 22> ¢ Chron. vii. 17). It occurs 
 
 1 Ewald in his footnote cites a passage from Bodenstedt (1001 7age iw Oriente, 
 
 ii. p. 237), where that traveller incidentally speaks of the white blossoms falling 
 off the almond-trees like flakes of snow. 
 
260 Various expositions of “ the locust.” 
 
 in the list of animals, which, according to the Mosaic Law 
 (Lev. xi. 22), might be used for food. Jewish interpreters 
 have, however, explained it to signify the bone at the ex- 
 tremity of the spine, or even the joints,’ while Jerome 
 imagined that the swollen legs of the old man were meant. 
 Hitzig, Bottcher, and Graetz, with a critical nose degenerat- 
 ing (to use Delitzsch’s strong expression) into a hog’s snout, 
 have sought to interpret it of the phallus. Delitzsch trans- 
 lates the sentence, “the locust crawls along,” or is “ with 
 difficulty dragged along,” the hithpael, SAND’, being regarded 
 here almost as equivalent to a passive. Comp. chap. viii. 
 10. The allusion is supposed to be to the loss of elasticity 
 in the hips, and their inability to bear any weight. In 
 this interpretation Delitzsch substantially adopts the view 
 of the Talmud, regarding the locust as being the coxa, the 
 hips, or the back part of the pelvis, in which the muscles 
 used in rising and walking are concentrated. Delitzsch 
 thinks that this part of the body is so termed because its 
 mechanism is somewhat similar to that in the locust. But 
 this interpretation appears to us too artificial. We can 
 scarcely conceive that a poet would choose under such an 
 image to depict the stiffness felt by old men in the morning, 
 which they attempt to remedy when getting out of bed, or 
 when rising from a seat, by putting their hands behind their 
 backs, and thus pushing themselves forward. 
 
 The verb used in this sentence can only mean to drag 
 oneself along, or to crawl along, or to load oneself with some- 
 thing. It is doubtful whether it can convey the sense of 
 
 1 The Talmud however explains the Jocust to mean MIP, nates ; the cognate 
 word to this in Arabic signifies the os coccygis, or the bone at the extremity of the 
 spine; while the Midrash explains it by ‘‘¢hese are his joints” (dip 128), 
 Targ. 32 MADN, the ancles of thy feet. The Targum makes use of the word 
 peop in Ley. xi. 21 to denote the joints above the feet of the locusts, used by 
 them in springing from the ground. 
 
 2 See note on p. 263. 
 
Strange interpretation of Dean Plumptre. 261 
 
 “being a burden to another,” or of becoming troublesome, or 
 dull. The ancient translators have indeed taken the word in 
 the sense of being burdensome, not to others, but zo oneself. 
 Under the influence of the allegorical exposition (which was 
 adopted in very early times) the LXX., Vulg. and Syr. deduced 
 from this signification the meaning of becoming fat. Tyler 
 seems to coincide with this view. It was only going a step 
 further to explain the locust itself, rapacious as is its appetite, 
 to signify the stomach. 
 
 Some commentators have maintained that the locust is 
 referred to as a favourite kind of food. They consider the 
 sense of the passage to be that all such luxuries are no longer 
 attractive, either by reason of the terror inspired by the 
 gathering storm (Gzusburg), or by the failure of appetite in 
 old age. But the locust, though occasionally eaten in Pales- 
 tine, is not regarded there (as in Arabia) as an agreeable 
 kind of food.t Zockler considers that the locust is mentioned 
 simply on account of its littleness (comp. Isa. xl. 22 ; Num. 
 ΧΙ, 33), and that the aphorism is equivalent to “the gnat 
 becomes a burden, or the fly,” or, as the Germans say, “a 
 fly on the wall annoys him.” Professor Tayler Lewis has 
 defended the popular exposition of the phrase found in our 
 English version, “the grasshopper shall be a burden,” as, if 
 it meant to describe the old man as so feeble that he 
 cannot bear the smallest weight. So Wardlaw. One would 
 have thought such an interpretation unlikely to find favour 
 with critics; but it has actually been adopted by Dean 
 Plumptre, who observes, “that which is least weighty is a 
 burden to the timidity of age. Assuming the writer to have 
 come in contact with the forms of Greek life, the words 
 
 1 An interesting story told by Palgrave of the relish which the Arabs exhibit for 
 this food is given by Prof. E. Percival Wright, M.D., in his popular work on Ani- 
 mal Life, being a series of descriptions of the various sub-kingdoms of the Animal 
 Kingdom, p. 493- 
 
505 Anecdote from the Talmud. 
 
 may receive an illustration from its being the common prac- 
 tice of the Athenians to wear a golden grasshopper in their 
 heads as the symbol of their being autochthones, ‘sprung 
 from the 5011. Such an ornament is to the old man more 
 than he cares to carry, and becomes another symbol of his 
 incapacity to support the least physical or mental burden.” 
 We may safely predict that such an explanation will in time 
 find its proper place in a museum of curiosities of Biblical 
 exposition. 
 
 We must here pass over Ewald’s interpretation of the 
 clause. But the following anecdote, cited in the Talmud 
 (Shabbath 151°, 152”) in connexion with its interpretation, 
 presents the allegorical exposition in the most favourable 
 aspect, and hence deserves quotation. An anecdote some- 
 what similar is given in the Midrash. “The Emperor asked 
 Rabbi Joshua ben Hananyah, How is it that you do not go 
 to the house of Abidan (JN %2)?” a place where learned 
 discussions and disputations on religious questions were wont 
 to be held. “He said to him (in reply), The mountain is 
 snow (my head is white); the hoar frosts surround me (my 
 whiskers and beard are also hoary); its dogs do not bark (I 
 have lost my wonted power of voice); its millers do not grind 
 (Ithave no teeth); the scholars ask me, whether I am looking 
 for something which I have not lost?” referring, probably, to 
 the old man feeling here and there, on account of his short- 
 ness of sight, as if looking for something.! 
 
 We are not unmindful of the fact that this clause has been 
 ingeniously explained by Taylor to refer to the chirping of 
 the grasshopper, or the song of the τέττιξ, which was much 
 admired by the ancients. The passage alludes, indeed, to 
 the time of spring when the τέττιξ gives forth its notes. But, 
 
 rp Sx ἸῺΝ 0 mms xb om sean 132. penny rand app bs 
 NOUN TIN 372 wom Nd omany ΠῺΣ) xd made pods rnp adn 
 NIV NITIN 
 
The use of the caperberry. 263 
 
 as no mention is made in Biblical literature of the chirping 
 of the locust, or the grasshopper, as a sound admired by the 
 Hebrews; and moreover, as the conjugation of the verb 
 presents a difficulty in the way of this interpretation, we 
 regard it as more than doubtful. 
 
 The allegory passes on, according to Delitzsch, in the next 
 clause to describe the dying out of the sensitive desires and 
 the decay of the organs which minister to these wants, 
 Koheleth speaks of the caperberry as no longer able to 
 excite the sluggish appetite. It is certain from the render- 
 ings of the LXX., the Syr., and the Vulg., that MPN is the 
 caperberry, whose flower-buds and berries were used as a 
 relish in ancient as well as in modern times. The caperberry 
 was also used as an aphrodisiac in the middle ages, but no 
 conclusive evidence has been adduced that the ancients em- 
 ployed it: for that purpose! M2VIN in the Talmud denotes 
 
 1 Pliny, though he says much about the capparis (Nat. Hist. xiii. 44, and xx. 55) 
 and describes its medical properties, does not mention this use of it. Gesenius 
 and Hitzig refer to Plutarch (Symp. vi.; Quest. 2), but, though it is there spoken 
 of as a provocative to appetite, the other use is not mentioned. His words are 
 πολλοὶ τῶν ἀποσίτων ἐλαίαν ἁλμάδα λαμβάνοντες, ἢ κάππαριν γευσάμενοι ταχέως 
 ἀνέλαβον, καὶ παρεστήσαντο τὴν ὄρεξιν. The Talmud renders the word here by 
 WON, desire, the Midrash by another synonyme (see ἢ. 3, p. 264). The Targum, 
 both according to Walton’s text and that of Lagarde, has NIDVD, which Ginsburg 
 renders by vest, Winzer better by ¢abernaculum. The word does not occur in the 
 former signification, and in the latter is not suitable here. Delitzsch quotes the 
 Targum according to the reading of the Antwerp Polyglott, N23). Bottcher 
 (Achrenl, pp. 98, 99) regards all three words (a/mond, locust, and caperberry) as 
 having concealed references to the sexual organs. This is the view of several old 
 Jewish commentators, and of Graetz, who refers to the use of the word for cafer 
 
 c 
 in Arabic. But the Arabic ype the caper, is used of several aromatic plants 
 
 (see Lane’s Arab. Lex.), and there is not the slightest necessity for supposing such 
 allusions. Koheleth was, as Delitzsch well observes, no Martial or Juvenal to de- 
 light in such references. On the rapidity of growth of the caper, see the anecdote 
 from the Talmud given on p, 232. The word used for the plant in that passage is 
 εν. There does not appear to be any authority for the statement made by 
 Buxtorf that 731938 occurs in the meaning of odive-derries, although that transla- 
 tion is adopted by Taylor. The latter scholar explains, however, that he has used 
 the word o/ive in his translation merely because it is ‘‘a more familiar poetical 
 symbol.” 
 
264 ° The use of the caperberry. 
 
 caperberries. The translation, “desire shall fail,” given in 
 our A.V., on the authority of the Jewish lexicographers, and 
 defended by Knobel and others among the moderns, is con- 
 demned by Delitzsch as “impossible,” on the ground that the 
 form of the word would be “unexampled and incomprehen- 
 sible 
 
 The verb which occurs in this sentence? is used elsewhere 
 in the sense of breaking, bursting, and also with reference to 
 the making a covenant zzvalid, and the declaring of a vow 
 null and void. Koheleth employs it here in the sense of 
 becoming void, becoming fruitless, or ineffective. This is in 
 accordance with the usage whereby that which is viewed by 
 the Shemitic people as an act, is regarded by Europeans as 
 a state. If the context admitted of the meaning, the clause 
 might be translated, “and the caperberry bursts,” in allusion 
 to the bursting of the ripe caperberries, from which that 
 plant receives, according to Wetzstein, its Syro-Arabic proper 
 name, i.e. MPDw, the burster,a term which for a similar reason 
 is also applied to over-ripe dates.2 Ewald translates the 
 clause literally, “and the caper bursts.” He explains it 
 however, allegorically. According to his view, the soul, 
 which in the former clause is compared to a locust beginning 
 
 1 That is, the feminine form cannot denote desire in the abstract, but must refer 
 to something which has, or arouses, desire. 
 
 ? IBA, the imperfect hiphil from 7D, Zo dreak. The hiphil is also used in the 
 same sense. Gesenius in his 7165. describes the hiphil as here intransitive. But 
 see Konig’s Zehrged., § 27, and compare W. Wright's Avab. Gramm., vol. i. § 45, 
 rem. c. Some have proposed to read here 15M}, the hophal. 
 
 8 Hence the translation of the LXX. καὶ διασκεδασθῇ ἡ κάππαρις. The Syriac 
 
 : o> 00 y i.) ΟΥ̓ THY. an 
 gives a double rendering | ZQlesD ZaZo i +ao 3-DLLo “and 
 the caperberry shall burst, and want shall cease.” The translation of Symmachus, 
 καὶ διαλυθῇ ἡ ἐπίπονος, has much exercised the ingenuity of scholars. Dr. Abr. 
 Geiger, in his able article on Symmachus der Uebersetzer der Bibel, in his Siidische 
 Zeitschrift, vol. i. (1862) p. 57, prefers the reading ἡ ἐπιγονή, which he explains as 
 
 identical with the exposition of the Midrash, ws ja Didw nbyon mxnn tt 
 inwd, but Field, in his edition of Origen’s Hexapia, has clearly shown that 
 
The going about of the mourners. 265 
 
 to fly, is here likened to the caperberry which has burst its 
 capsule. 
 
 But it is far more probable that Koheleth speaks here of 
 the caperberry as powerless any longer to excite the appetite 
 of the dying man. The idea of Hitzig, that the poet refers 
 to the uselessness of the caperberry as an aphrodisiac in 
 extreme old age, must be unhesitatingly rejected. For, even 
 if the Jews were acquainted with that use of the plant, the 
 writer would not naturally have referred to it, unless he were 
 giving a picture of the last days of a miserable sensualist. 
 This is certainly not the theme of Koheleth’s verse, or some 
 reference would have been made in the poem to the sensual- 
 ist’s former habits of life. But, as Renan truly observes, the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes is never immoral or obscene, its author 
 was “not a professor of libertinism.” Ὁ 
 
 We have already spoken of the name here (verse 5) given 
 to the grave, namely man’s “eternal house” (see p. 201). 
 The mourners have been explained often as the relations 
 of the deceased man, but the verb in the passage (33) is 
 more suitably applied to the going up and down, or the going 
 in procession, of the hired mourners who were wont to 
 accompany the rich to their graves, often moving onward 
 with funereal music, singing dirges for the dead. Classical 
 scholars will naturally think of those “guz conduct: plorant in 
 Junere” (Horat. Ars Poet, 431). The Targum regards the 
 this is impossible. Symmachus has probably taken the Hebrew word in the 
 sense of ‘‘miserable,” and the word {w4 may be understood after 7 ἐπίπονος, or 
 the reference may be, as Delitzsch thinks, to the spirit of man. The word, as 
 Field observes, is found nowhere else in the Greek versions except in a fragment 
 of Symmachus on Isaiah liii. 3, where he renders ‘‘a man of sorrows and 
 acquainted with grief,” by ἀνὴρ ἐπίπονος καὶ γνωστὸς νόσῳ. On the caperberry see 
 n. on p. 263. 
 
 1 «*C’est un livre de scepticisme élégant ; on peut le trouver hardi, libre méme ; 
 jamais il n’est immoral ni obscéne. L’auteur est un galant homme, non un 
 professeur de libertinage, et c’est ce qu'il serait vraiment si la fin du livre renfer- 
 
 mait les étranges sous-entendus admis par M,. Graetz,’’—Renan, Etude sur 
 P Ecclésiaste, p. 72. 
 
266 + The snapping of the silver cord, 
 
 DYIDID, the mourners, as the persons who go about here and 
 there to gather information concerning the life of the de- 
 ceased man, to be worked up for the funereal dirge, and 
 thinks at the same time, that, while those on earth are busied 
 about such matters, the angels are also going about to in- 
 vestigate on their part the deeds done in life by the de- 
 parted. 
 
 The sixth verse presents some difficulties which, however, 
 do not affect much the interpretation.1 Almost all com- 
 mentators agree in assigning to the verb, however it may 
 be read, the signification of breaking. The allegorists have 
 explained the silver cord variously as the spine, the spinal 
 cord, the nerves, or the vital powers in general. Delitzsch 
 interprets it to mean the soul, which like a cord holds up the 
 body (the lamp); the spirit, according to his notion, being the 
 oil contained therein. 
 
 It is impossible to discuss here with any fulness these or 
 other interpretations. Our view is that Koheleth, who (as 
 we shall shortly point out) in the first five verses pourtrays 
 death as slowly but surely advancing in old age, in the sixth 
 
 1 The text must be read either kal, ΡΠ), or niphal, 7). As there is a k’ri, 
 the vowels attached to the consonants of the word in the text belong to that in the 
 margin. IM signifies 4o go away from, or to be far off from, so the clause with 
 the imperfect kal may be rendered, as Zéckler, ‘‘ before that the silver cord gives 
 way.” The Grecus Venetus translates the verb as a niphal, μακρυνθῇ, probably 
 thinking of the cord being stretched out until it finally snaps asunder. Winzer 
 renders the niphal ‘‘ before that the silver cord be removed,” while Knobel 
 regards the niphal as used in the same sense as Zockler has rendered the kal. 
 Delitzsch prefers the reading of the margin, which is ΡΤ), though he confesses it 
 is not without its difficulties. That verb in kal signifies ¢o dind together, to chain, and 
 is used of the binding of prisoners (Nah. iii. 10). The Targum explains the clause 
 to refer to the tongue, and paraphrases ‘‘ ere thy tongue is lamed so that it cannot 
 speak.” Rashi and Ibn Ezra consider the idea to be rather that of contracting. 
 The notion of Kimchi and others that the niphal ought to be regarded as a nega- 
 tive of kal, and that the verb signifies in kal ¢o dcnd, and in niphal Zo Joose, is in 
 violation of the laws of the language. The ancient translators have all, more or 
 less explicitly, given the verb the sense of breaking. There is no necessity what- 
 ever to alter the text, and to read [)3) with Pfannkuche, Gesenius, and Ewald, 
 or, by transposing the consonants, to read with Hitzig, PIM}. 
 
and the breaking of the golden lamp. 267 
 
 verse speaks of it as coming suddenly, with little or no 
 warning. The idea of the golden bowl (753) or reservoir for 
 oil seems to be borrowed from the fifth of Zechariah’s visions. 
 In that vision Zechariah beheld a candlestick of gold, similar 
 in most respects to that of the Mosaic tabernacle, with, how- 
 ever, some remarkable differences. No ministering priests 
 were there to supply its lamps with oil, but its oil flowed 
 directly from two olive-trees which stood on either side of 
 the candlestick and discharged their oil through two golden 
 channels into a common reservoir, or bowl (a 7753), from which 
 by means of pipes it was conveyed to each of the seven lamps.! 
 The oil that fed the lamps of Zechariah’s candlestick was 
 in Koheleth’s mind a fit emblem of the spirit, which, as 
 Delitzsch rightly notes, is termed (in Prov. xx. 27) a lamp of 
 God. The lamp in Koheleth’s picture is, however, supposed 
 to hang from the top of a tent, or from the ceiling of a house, 
 suspended by a silver cord. The oil (not mentioned by Ko- 
 heleth, but the pouring out of which is necessarily implied in 
 the picture) is thought of as contained in the golden bowl. 
 But suddenly the silver cord snaps asunder, the golden lamp 
 falls, the precious oil is poured out like water, and the light 
 which once shone in the dwelling is extinguished.” 
 
 The fact that a vessel of gold cannot be shivered in pieces 
 need create no difficulty, for the writer may have thought of 
 some merely gilded lamp. Moreover the verb is also used of 
 things which may be “crushed in,” and not actually broken 
 in pieces. Comp. Y987 3), @ bruised reed, in Isaiah xlii. 3. 
 
 The next picture under which the sudden death of man 
 
 1 See my Bampton Lectures on Zechariah and his Prophecies, p. 81 ff. 
 
 2 The conjecture of Taylor that m3 is nearly synonymous with 055} is surely 
 unnecessary. He argues that ??4 in some passages might mean ro//er and then 
 ΤᾺ might mean a veel ; and hence he translates the two clauses, ‘‘ Ere the silver 
 thread escape, and the golden reel hasten,” 1.6. spin round rapidly when the 
 wheel is released from the strain put upon it. But conjectures of this kind are to 
 be avoided except in cases where the passage will otherwise afford no good sense. 
 
208. ὦ The shivering of the pitcher. 
 
 is pourtrayed is that of a pitcher shivered at the fountain,! 
 so that in the breaking thereof there is not found “a sherd 
 to take fire from the hearth or to take water withal out of 
 the pit.” (Isa. xxx..14). «The noun: (53) 15 msedgboth of a 
 pitcher and a bucket, but it is evident that the first is its 
 real meaning here. 
 
 The third image presented by Koheleth is that of a wheel 
 suspended over a well for the purpose of lightening the 
 operation of drawing up water from the depths below. An 
 ancient expositor cited in the Midrash makes mention of 
 the wheel whereby the water was drawn up from the deep 
 well at Sepporis. The well of Sychar will at once suggest 
 itself to one’s mind. The word in the original (533) is to be 
 taken in its ordinary meaning of a wheel. There is no ne- 
 cessity whatever for seeking to assign to it the signification 
 of ducket. The last word in the verse may be explained to 
 be either a well artificially constructed, or a cistern. Death 
 is thus likened by Koheleth to the sudden breaking down 
 of the wheel during the process of drawing water, whereby 
 bucket, rope, wheel and all, are precipitated into the well. 
 
 The end of man, however, is not like that of the beast. If 
 the dust returns to its kindred dust, the spirit of the dying 
 man goes not downwards (chap. iii. 21) but upwards. This 
 reference back to the passage in the former part of the work 
 proves that the writer does not teach the absolute cessation 
 of man’s existence. In that case there would be no difference 
 between man and the beast; the comparison of the two pas- 
 sages shows that the writer believed in the existence of a 
 real difference. The paraphrase of the Targum is, as Delitzsch 
 notes, in full accordance with the teaching of the book, “thy 
 
 } The word (9372) is used in the signification of fountain or spring in the two 
 other passages where it occurs (Isaiah xlix. 10; xxxv. 7). Taylor thinks there is 
 
 some propriety in the use of by over the Pia. Our A.V. renders simply ‘‘ at,” 
 “at the fountain.” 
 
Concluding sketch of the passage. 269 
 
 spirit will return to stand in judgment before God who gave 
 it to thee.” And, as that expositor says, in this connexion of 
 thought Koheleth expresses more than Lucretius (ii. 998 ff.) 
 
 “Cedit item retro, de terra quod fuit ante, 
 In terras, et quod missum est ex ztheris oris 
 Id rursum cceli rellatum templa receptant.” 
 
 A comforting thought lies, as Delitzsch goes on to ob- 
 serve, in the words “who gave it.” What God gives He 
 repents not of having given (Rom. xi. 29). If He takes 
 back any gift, He takes it back in order to restore it again 
 more glorious than before. 
 
 It now remains for us to give a brief sketch of what we 
 think to be the true interpretation of the entire passage. 
 
 In the verses with which he concludes his remarkable book, 
 Koheleth depicts man’s days of sorrow in contrast with the 
 joyous days of boyhood and early manhood. Such days 
 form part of that sore trial which God hath given to man to 
 be exercised therewith. In contrast with the days of youth, 
 our poet describes first the gradual waning away of life in 
 old age; and then, in a few rapid touches, that sudden death 
 which carries off many ere they have arrived at the utmost 
 span allotted to mortals here below. 
 
 The first seven verses of chap. xii. may be regarded as a 
 description of the evil days of man. Considered as a whole 
 they naturally fall into seven short sections or stanzas of 
 unequal length, not however exactly corresponding with the 
 seven verses of the Masoretic text. Three of the sections 
 begin with the phrase “ere” (ND TWN TW), and one is dis- 
 tinguished by commencing with “zz the day when” (W Ov). 
 Two others are sufficiently marked out by 1} (and, or then, 
 etc.), followed by the imperfect jussive, which form proves 
 that the clauses with which it commences are conditional, 
 and that we must supply either the “eve” which occurs in 
 the first verse, and whose force is felt from the beginning to 
 
270 «©: Peculiarities of the Palestinian winter. 
 
 the end, or the alternative expression “in the day when,” 
 made use of in verse 3. In the fifth and remaining section, 
 which, as we maintain, consists of verse 5 (with the omission 
 of the opening clause) the imperfect indicative is found ; but 
 it is plain from the context that this also is to be regarded 
 as forming in itself a complete stanza. 
 
 The imagery employed in the first five verses is drawn 
 from the closing days of the Palestinian winter. The seven 
 last days of that season (though viewed as the heralds of the 
 approaching spring), are peculiarly dreaded in Palestine as 
 fraught with death to persons advanced in years. The 
 following facts noticed by Consul Dr. J. G. Wetzstein’ as to 
 certain striking peculiarities of that season cast considerable 
 light upon the poetry of Koheleth. 
 
 In Europe the autumnal season is the period of the year 
 which is most dangerous for the old, But it is very different 
 in Palestine. The months of October, November, and part 
 of December are mild and pleasant, and the rain which occa- 
 sionally falls imparts new life to the vegetation scorched by 
 the summer sun. In the end of December the weather 
 begins to be unpleasant, and the Palestinian winter with its 
 piercing cold, accompanied by frequent storms of rain and 
 snow sets in in January, and continues until late in February. 
 There are, however, in February occasional intervals of more 
 genial weather. But in the latter days of that month an after 
 winter occurs with undeviating regularity. It lasts generally 
 for seven days, during which the cold is bitterly felt, especially 
 as it always comes after warm weather. These seven days 
 are noted as dangerous to the aged, and are styled in the 
 
 native almanacks the soll Aa the days of the old woman. 
 
 } See the valuable E.xcurse which are to be found in the German edition of 
 Delitzsch’s Commentar tiber das Hoheslied u. Koheleth, but not in the English 
 translation. I deeply regret that this valuable work is so marred and misrepre- 
 sented in the English version. See note on p. 119, 
 
The seven “days of death.” se 
 
 The legends connected with this name are given by Wetz- 
 stein and Lane.! The appellation is a very ancient one, 
 and (as founded upon popular experience) may have been 
 well-known in the days of Koheleth. But, whether the special 
 appellation be as old as his time or not, Koheleth, as a 
 native of Palestine, must have been well acquainted with 
 these seven “days of death.” 
 
 In his description of the evil days of man, Koheleth 
 derives much of the imagery he employs from the. features 
 which characterise this deadly week. With that partiality 
 for the number seven, which the sacred writers often exhibit, 
 
 1 Wetzstein notes that these days are noted in the native almanacks, “ the 
 scale of the times” (Deregat el-aukat). He observes that the locusts crawl out 
 in Syria in the early days of spring, and that the native almanacks mention this 
 fact. On the signification of the term applied to these days, he quotes a native 
 Arabic rhyme, in which February is represented as speaking to March, “Ὁ 
 March, dear cousin, the old women are mocking at me. Three [days] of thine 
 and four of mine, And we will bring the old people to singing [another tune.]” 
 The old women mock at February on account of its mild weather, for so many 
 fine days occur in that month that old women, who are susceptible of the least 
 cold, are represented as treating the month as devoid of danger. Hence February 
 asks the loan of a few days from March, in order to put an end to the merriment 
 of the old. With respect to the one month borrowing days from another, it may 
 be worth noting that the idea is found even in sayings current in the north of Ire- 
 land, where it is said that March having undertaken with its cold winds to ‘‘ skin 
 a cow,” was compelled to borrow three days from April in order to accomplish 
 the task completely ; and hence the first three days of April are called in many 
 parts by the name of ‘‘the borrowing days.”. The legend given by Beidawi, and 
 quoted by Lane in his Arabic English Lexicon, book i. p. 1961, is that during 
 the seven days before alluded to the people of the tribe of ’Ad in Arabia perished, 
 according to the tradition of the Koran (Sur. lxix. 7), by a scorching wind which 
 prevailed seven days and eight nights, and the days are so called as being in the 
 
 latter part (59) of winter; or from an old woman (3 9s) ‘of "Ad who concealed 
 
 herself in a subterranean excavation, from which the wind dragged her forth on 
 the eighth day and destroyed her. Another legend given by Wetzstein, from 
 Tha‘alibi (A.H. 400), is that the old woman who gave the name to these days 
 wished to marry again, and to prove that she was strong enough, determined 
 at the advice of her seven sons to sleep out seven bad nights in the open air, 
 
 on the seventh of which she died. The days in question are called also the 
 2 2C— 2 DE 
 
 Ρ pwd | ell, the days of the cutting off, the unlucky days, or the deadly days of 
 the old. See Wetzstein, and Lane, p. 569. 
 
oma. The seven stanzas of Koheleth. 
 
 Koheleth (probably in allusion to the seven days of death 
 of the Palestinian after-winter), divides his verses into seven 
 stanzas, all of which more or less distinctly savour of decay 
 and death. 
 
 The first stanza alludes briefly to those days of evil where- 
 in man exclaims, ‘‘I have no pleasure ;” a marked character- 
 istic of the season referred to. The second stanza depicts 
 the darkening of the atmosphere, the pouring rain, and the 
 return of storm and rain after the clouds seemed to have 
 passed away. The gloom of life increases, and man feels he 
 is wending his way towards the place whence he will not 
 return (Job xvi. 22). Inthe third stanza the picture drawn 
 is still more vivid. It describes the effects of the bitter 
 weather upon all. The men-servants tremble; the men of 
 power, their masters, also bow themselves together. For 
 death is beginning to cast its dark shadow over the high 
 and the low alike, and the limbs both of the noble and 
 peasant tremble when they feel the touch of that “king of 
 terrors.” 
 
 But these “days of evil” affect also “the weaker sex.” 
 The grinding maids cease for a time from their task of 
 erinding corn, either “because,” their fellow-companions 
 being prostrated with sickness, “they are but few”; or 
 “when they have worked but little,” for the sickness common 
 to the season has weakened their bodily frames. The ladies, 
 too, who were wont to gaze out at the lattices are darkened. 
 Like the Nazarites, or princes, described in the Book of 
 Lamentations, once brighter than snow and whiter in ap- 
 pearance than milk, but whose countenances by reason of 
 terrible sorrow had become darker than blackness itself—so 
 the faces of these gazers at the lattice-windows are now 
 darkened, as they too have to look into the face of death. 
 Hence the doors are shut towards the street, and the sound of 
 the mill ceases. The voice of mirth is gone, and the voice of 
 
\ 
 Death in life and life in death. 273 
 gladness, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the 
 lamp (Jer. xxv. 10). The ordinary occupations of man and 
 woman are at an end. Every house is shut up, all joy is 
 gone, “as with the slave, so with his master, as with the 
 maid, so with her mistress” (Isa. xxiv. 2, 10): 
 
 The fourth stanza begins in the middle of verse 4, where 
 the jussive form shows that the phrase “in the day when” 
 is to be supplied. In it Koheleth describes the passing 
 away of the severe season and the advent of spring. The 
 after-winter has done its work, and the old men and women 
 are now dying. Nature has its spring, but there is no spring 
 for the aged. There is hope for the tree, as Job says, but 
 man dieth and wasteth away, he lieth down and riseth not 
 (Job xiv. 7, 10, 12). At the approach of spring, when those 
 yet in the vigour of manhood rise early at the glorious 
 concert of birds, with whose melody the humbled daughters 
 of song cannot compete, the aged sick in their chambers 
 are beset with all sorts of fears from above and _ below. 
 Tennyson almost expounds the words of Koheleth when he 
 says: 
 
 “ Ah sad and strange, as in dark summer dawns 
 The earliest pipe of half-awakened birds 
 To dying ears, when unto dying eyes 
 The casement slowly grows a glimmering square ; 
 So sad, so strange the days that are no more.”— 
 ‘The Princess. 
 
 The writer presents two pictures, the one death in life, the 
 other nature re-awakening from its temporary grave. The 
 almond-tree is in blossom, and the locusts are crawling out, as 
 they are wont to do at this season, coming forth from the holes 
 in which they were hatched, and just beginning to prepare for 
 their destructive flights. But in yon chamber the old man 
 is lying, and even the caperberry cannot arouse his failing 
 appetite. The food lies untouched, for the man is going to 
 
 = 
 
294 Koheleth’s last warning. 
 
 his eternal home; and lo! the mourners, ready to be hired to 
 escort him to his last earthly resting-place, are going to and 
 fro in the street not far off from the house of death. 
 
 But remember thy Creator, young man, cries Koheleth, 
 in the days of thy youth, for death may advance upon thee 
 unawares. The silver cord that suspends from the ceiling 
 that shining lamp with its golden bowl may suddenly snap ; 
 the pitcher often borne before to the spring for water may 
 fall and be shivered into pieces in the very place from whence 
 the refreshing draught was so often procured; the wheel set 
 up with care to draw up from the depths of earth the cool 
 waters may suddenly give way and fall itself into the well. 
 Therefore remember thy God, and prepare while here to 
 meet Him, “before that the dust shall return upon the earth, 
 dust as it was; for the spirit shall then return to the God 
 who gave it. 
 
 We close with a translation of the whole passage. 
 
 Rejoice, young man, in thy youth, 
 
 And let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, 
 
 And walk in the ways of thy heart 
 
 And according to the sight of thine eyes ! 
 
 But know—that for all these God shall bring thee into the judgment. 
 
 Therefore banish moroseness from thy heart, 
 And put away evil from thy flesh, 
 For boyhood and manhood are vanity— 
 And remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth, 
 
 (1) 
 Ere there come the days of evil, and years approach 
 In which thou shalt say, I have no pleasure ! 
 (2) 
 Ere the sun is darkened, and the light, and the moon, and the stars, 
 And the clouds return after the pouring rain. 
 
 (3) 
 
 In the day when the keepers of the house tremble, 
 And the men of strength bow-themselves-together— 
 
Koheleth's last warning. 27 
 
 Or 
 
 And the grinding-maids cease because they are few, 
 
 And the ladies that look out at the lattices are darkened ! 
 And doors are shut towards the street, 
 
 When the sound of the grinding-mill ceases. 
 
 (4) 
 When one rises at the voice of the bird 
 And all the daughters of song are humbled ! 
 Even they fear from on high, and all-sorts-of-terrors are in the path, 
 
 (5) 
 Then there blossoms the almond, 
 And crawls out the locust ; 
 But unavailing is the caperberry— 
 For the man is going to his eternal house, 
 And there go the mourners about in the street ! 
 
 (6) 
 Ere the silver cord be snapped asunder, 
 And the golden bowl break— 
 And the pitcher be shivered upon the spring, 
 And the wheel be broken (and fall) into the well ; 
 
 (7) 
 And ere the dust return upon the earth as it was ; 
 For the spirit shall return to the God who gave it. 
 
irae ΠΟΙ OF ROME RET ΕΣ 
 
 A NEW TRANSLATION, ARRANGED IN SECTIONS, 
 WITH A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL 
 ; COMMENTARY. 
 
 277 
 
ΒΒ ΠΝ αν NOTE ON THE TITLE 
 KOHELETH. 
 
 IT is unnecessary to give any extended notice of the various inter- 
 pretations proposed for the name Koheleth, as such will be found 
 in the commentaries of Knobel and Ginsburg. See, however, our re- 
 marks on pp. 84 ff. The word is the active participle fem. which has 
 two forms MPbiP (in pause MPP) and NYP, often found together in 
 the same verb, as 72%’ and N2¥1. Chap. vii. 27 is often referred 
 to in proof of the name having been given to Solomon as the 
 personification of wisdom, since the noun is there construed with a 
 feminine verb. But the ordinary reading of that passage is con- 
 sidered by Olshausen, Bottcher and Delitzsch to be ἃ blunder. 
 Had the author desired to pourtray Solomon in such a character, 
 he would hardly (as Delitzsch rightly argues) have made him 
 speak as in chap. i. 16-18, and vii. 23 ff. Moreover, the language 
 of chap. vii. 27 is not that of wisdom personified. One would 
 have expected in that passage some stress to have been laid upon 
 the masculine gender of the speaker. Several explanations of the 
 noun, such as ‘“‘the penitent one” (Cocceius), “the congregation, 
 academy ” (Bauer, Déoderlein, Nachtigal, etc.), “old man” (Simonts, 
 Moldenhauer), have been long since abandoned. 
 
 The word is of the same formation as the following proper names 
 of men, viz. NED Sophereth, “scribe,” Neh. vii. 57, and NID Pokereth, 
 in the compound name 0°33 ΓΒ “the hunter of gazelles,” Ezra 
 ii. 57, where our A. V. has incorrectly “ Pochereth of Zebaim.” 
 Bottcher considers such fem. participal forms to be feminine abstract 
 nouns used as titles of honour, like the titles AMJajesty, Excellency, 
 Highness, Grace, which in German and other kindred languages are 
 feminines (Majestit, Excellenz, Hoheit, etc., Zehrd.,§ 645). But 
 the feminine appears to be used in such cases, as in Arabic, to 
 intensify the meaning (see W. Wright’s Avad. Gramm.,, 2nd edit. 
 vol. i. p. 157, and p. 203. Comp. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 107, 3 ¢). The 
 
 279 
 
280 ἡ Note on the title Koheleth. 
 
 feminine is often found in Hebrew in a neuter signification. Nouns 
 of the form of the fem. part. active were originally regarded as neu- 
 ters, and then applied to persons as possessors in a high degree of 
 the particular quality specified by the verb, Hence such names 
 occur with the article. So M257 in Ezra ii. 55; the article is not 
 expressed in our A.V. The article too before the second word in 
 the compound name 5°27 125 renders the first definite according 
 to the well-known Hebrew idiom. The use, however, of proper nouns 
 of this form to denote men is rare, and seems to belong to a late 
 stage of the language, for such forms do not occur in early Hebrew. 
 As an example of the same form as a fem. proper name we may 
 
 cite npn used with the article, 1 Chron. vii. 18, and n2a¥, used 
 similarly with the article, 1 Chron. iv. 8. But the limited extent 
 of the induction does not permit such a statement to be made with 
 any degree of certainty. The observations of Rev. D. Johnston in 
 his Zveatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes are beside the question, 
 and exhibit a strange misunderstanding of the point of Delitzsch’s 
 remarks, which he attempts to controvert. To the names Sophereth 
 and Pochereth mentioned by Delitzsch, Johnston adds “‘and Mis- 
 pereth in Neh. vii. 7,” a name not quoted by that scholar, and not of 
 the same grammatical form as the others. Feminine nouns of other 
 forms are, indeed, made use of in early Hebrew as proper names 
 (Olshausen, Ζελγό., p. 224), but the use of the fem. of the part. active 
 as such constitutes the special peculiarity in the name Koheleth. 
 Delitzsch observes that the language of the Mishna not only uses 
 the feminine of participles active as proper names of men, but even 
 makes use of the fem. of the part. pass. in an active signification 
 in place of the proper active part., and moreover employs plurals 
 of the form of the fem. part. pass. (np wp) in a masc. signification. 
 He cites as instances M3077 “those who tread the wine-press,” 
 Terumoth iii. 4, Mimwr7, “the reapers,” Erub. iv. 11. These sub- 
 jects are construed with masculine predicates. See, for similar 
 instances, Geiger, Lehrb. zur Sprache der Mischnah, § τό, 6, p. 44. 
 Hebrew feminine forms, like 0725, 1725 and nap , applied to men, 
 correspond exactly both i in grammatical form and signification with the 
 
 σ- 
 
 Arabic nouns 4} ὯΝ γα hander-down of traditions, a traditionary ; 
 
 als, an emissary, OY misstonary ; ἃ ον a deep investigator. See 
 
Note on the title Koheleth. 281 
 
 W. Wright’s Arad. Gram., vol. i. § 233, rem. ὦ, p. 157. Delitzsch 
 considers Koheleth to be an official title of a preacher. So the 
 Assyr. has the fem. plural form Aazandti in place of the Hebrew 
 D315. In Ethiopic, masculine nouns which signify an office, busi- 
 hess, or profession, take in the plural a feminine termination. See 
 Dillman, Gramm. der 4ithiop. Spr., § 133. The verb bhp is only used 
 in the sense of collecting together persons, and not in reference to 
 things, and the nouns, like DAR, derived from that stem, are used in 
 a similar signification, the noun nomp is not therefore to be taken in 
 the sense of a collector of proverbs, or one who gathers wisdom, or of 
 one who seeks to combine various opinions. The LXX. render it by 
 ἐκκλησιαστής, Aquila κωλέθ, not συναθροιστής (as Knobel has erro- 
 neously stated) as Rodiger (in Gesenius’ Z%es.), and Field (an Ovigen. 
 ffex.) have pointed out. Symmachus is said to have rendered the 
 word by παροιμιαστής in chap. xii. το, but the reading given there 
 as that of Symmachus was probably taken from Aquila’s version of 
 the preceding verse. See Field zz /oco. The Gr. Ven. has rendered 
 it by ἡ ἐκκλησιάστρια in chap. i. 1, 23 vil. 27, and in chap. xii. ὃ ; 
 but by ἡ ἐκκλησιάζουσα in both chap. xil.g and το. Vulg. eccleszastes. 
 Jerome notes: “ἐκκλησιαστής greeco sermone appellatur qui ccetum 
 ze. ecclesiam congregat: quem nos nuncupare possumus concio- 
 natorem, eo quod loquatur ad populum et ejus sermo non specialiter 
 ad unum, sed ad universos generaliter dirigatur.” Kleinert regards the 
 
 word as a denominative from Sap an assembly, congregation, like ἽΡΙΞ ὦ 
 shepherd from ἼΡΞ, cattle, and considers it to signify δημαγωγός, one 
 who speaks to the people, a preacher, in contrast to the 123 who 
 represents the congregation before God. The feminine ending he 
 explains not as denoting an office, but as indicating the wisdom 
 personified in the sayings of Solomon (Zwald, Hitzig, Hengstenberg). 
 He refers in proof to chap. vii. 27, and to the predicates used in 
 chap. xii. 8 ff. Similarly Hoelemann, save that he regards the fem. 
 as indicating the personified voice of the preacher (referring to John 
 i. 23). We prefer, however, Delitzsch’s explanation. 
 
 In an article on Renan’s work on Ecclesiastes, Dr. Paulus Cassel, 
 in the No. of Swnem for May 19th, 1882, referring to Renan’s 
 remarks on the letters of Koheleth (see p. 127), draws attention to 
 the fact that the numerical value of the letters in nbap is 5355 
 while the value of 7997 317 12. mow is 536. He thinks that the 
 
282 ᾿ The Jewish Division of the Book. 
 
 comparison is interesting. It would be so if the numbers corre- 
 sponded exactly, but in this case one might use the English proverb, 
 ‘¢a miss is as good as a mile.” 
 
 : THE JEWISH ‘DIVISION OF THE BOOK. 
 
 The Masora divides the Book of Koheleth into four sections, or 
 O7D, containing in all 222 verses. The mnemonic word which 
 contains this number is 723 (3, 20 Ὁ 3, 2+, 200= 222) in the phrase 
 toy NIP] 723 MW, chap. vi. το, which is the middle of the book. 
 The first two sections are of equal length, each containing 57 verses, 
 the first embracing chap. i. 1—chap. 111. 13, the second chap. il. 14 
 to chap. vi. 12. The conclusion of chap. vi. is the logical end of a 
 section, but so much cannot be said in reference to the artificial break 
 at chap. ill. 12. The third section, which contains 52 verses, ends at 
 chap. ix. 6; and the fourth, containing 56 verses, runs on to the end 
 of the book. These divisions have been made without respect to 
 the logical connexion of thought presented in the work, and afford 
 little or no help in any attempt to arrange the book into its compo- 
 nent parts. 
 
§ 
 
 if 
 
 2 
 
 - 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 ΙΟ 
 
 ΡΟ 1 OF ΚΟΠΈΕΤ ΤῊ, 
 
 A NEW TRANSLATION, 
 
 1. The absolute vanity of everything earthly. Earthly 
 phenomena like a circle with no real progress. 
 
 1 The words of Koheleth, son of David, king in Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 Vanity of vanities, saith Koheleth, the whole is vanity. 
 
 What profit is there to man in all his toil (in) which 
 he toileth under the sun? A generation is going, anda 
 generation coming, and the earth is abiding for ever [ze. 
 continually]. And the sun rises, and the sun sets, and 
 even (when going) to its place, longing it is to arise there! 
 
 Going towards the south, and circling towards the 
 north, the wind is going, circling, circling ; and the wind 
 is (ever) returning to its circlings. 
 
 All the streams are going to the sea, and the sea— 
 it is not full; to the place whither the streams are going, 
 there they are again going. 
 
 All things have become weary, no man can express it ; 
 the eye will not be satisfied with seeing, and the ear will 
 not be filled with hearing. 
 
 That which hath been is that which shall be ; and that 
 which hath been done is that which shall be done ; and 
 
 there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of 
 283 
 
284 ‘Koheleth’s first and second discovery. (Ch. 1. 10-ii. 2. 
 
 It 
 
 12 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 which one says, “See this is new!” it was already for 
 ages which were before us. There is no remembrance 
 of those (persons who lived) in former times, and even of 
 those in after times who shall come into being, there will 
 be no remembrance of them with those who shall be in 
 the after time. 
 
 § 2. Koheleth's first discovery.—The vanity of wisdom. 
 
 I Koheleth have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. 
 And I gave my heart to search into and to seek out 
 by wisdom with regard to all that is done under the sun ; 
 it is a woful exercise which God has given to the sons of 
 men wherewith to exercise themselves. I have seen all 
 the works which are done under the sun, and behold! 
 the whole is vanity and a striving after wind. 
 
 “The crooked cannot be straightened, 
 
 And a deficit cannot be counted in” [z.e. counted as a 
 
 part of the whole]. 
 
 I spake [communed] with my heart, saying, Behold I 
 have become great, and have gathered wisdom, above all 
 (the rulers) who were before me over Jerusalem, and my 
 (own) heart has seen abundantly wisdom and knowledge. 
 And therefore I have given my heart to know wisdom, 
 and to know madness and folly. I perceived that even 
 this was a striving after wind. For in much wisdom 
 is much sorrow, and he who increases knowledge in- 
 creases pain. 
 
 § 3. Koheleth's second discovery.—The vanity of pleasure and 
 
 Il. 
 
 Z 
 
 riches. 
 
 1 I said in my heart, Come now, I will test thee by joy, 
 therefore enjoy [lit. see] good! And behold! even this 
 was vanity. To Laughter I said, It is mad; and to Joy, 
 
Ch. 
 
 3 
 
 U1 
 
 IO 
 
 II 
 
 ii 3-12] Lhe end of the wise man and the fool. 285 
 
 What doeth it? I searched out [lit. spied out] in my heart 
 (how) to attract my flesh with wine, while my heart was act- 
 ing [guiding] with wisdom, and to take hold of folly, until 
 that I should see what might be good for the sons of men, 
 which they should do under the sun during the number of 
 the days of their life. I undertook great works ; I built 
 for myself houses, I planted for myself vineyards. I made 
 for myself gardens and parks; and I planted in them trees 
 of all sorts of fruit. I made for myself pools [tanks] of 
 water ; in order to water by them a wood sprouting out 
 (with) trees. I procured servants and maidens, and 
 I had also “sons of the house” [slaves born in my house]; 
 also herds, oxen and sheep in abundance belonged to me: 
 above all those who were before me in Jerusalem. I 
 gathered for myself even silver and gold, and the peculiar 
 treasure of kings, and of the countries; I got for myself 
 singing-men and singing-women, and the delights of the 
 sons of men, a wife and wives. And I became great, and 
 I increased above all who were before me in Jerusalem: 
 moreover my wisdom remained with me. And all that 
 which my eyes asked, I did not keep back from, them ; 
 I did not deny my heart any joy, for my heart had joy 
 from all my toil, and this was my portion from all my 
 toil. 
 
 And I turned towards [ze. turned to contemplate] all 
 my works which my hands had made, and towards my toil 
 with which I toiled to make them; and behold! all was 
 vanity and striving after wind, and there was no advantage 
 under the sun. 
 
 § 4. Koheleths third discovery—(a) The vanity of wisdom, 
 
 Ve 
 
 4 
 
 since the end of the wise man and the fool is altke. 
 
 And I turned to behold wisdom, and madness, and 
 folly, for what is the man, who shall come after the king, 
 
286 ~§ Leches acquired by toil are vanity. [Ch. ii. 13-23. 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 No 
 NO 
 
 him whom they made (king) long ago! And I saw that 
 
 there is an advantage to wisdom over folly, like the 
 advantage of the light over the darkness. As regards 
 
 the wise man, his eyes are in his head; and (as for) the 
 
 fool, he walks in darkness. 
 
 And I perceived, even I, that one chance happens to 
 them all. And I said in my heart, As the chance of 
 the fool, even to me will it happen; and for what (end) 
 have I then been exceedingly wise? So I spake in my 
 heart, that this also is vanity. 
 
 For there is no remembrance of the wise man more 
 than of the fool for ever. In the days which are coming 
 [it will be said by and by], “The whole (of them) are long 
 ago forgotten!” and how dieth the wise man like the 
 fool ! 
 
 Therefore I hated life, for evil to me [z.e. in my eyes], 
 was the work which was done under the sun, for the 
 whole is vanity and striving after wind. 
 
 (0) Riches though obtained by much toil are vanity. 
 
 And 1 hated all my toil with which I was toiling under 
 the sun, because that I shall leave it, (even) to the man 
 who shall be after me. And who knows whether he 
 shall be a wise man or a fool? And he shall rule over 
 all my toil for which I have toiled, and in which I have 
 wisely acted, under the sun. Even this is vanity. And I 
 turned round to give my heart up to despair, concerning 
 all the toil with which I had toiled under the sun. For 
 there is a man whose work is (performed) with wisdom, 
 and with knowledge, and with success; and to a man 
 who has not toiled therein must he give it as his portion. 
 Even this is vanity and a great evil. For what is to be 
 the result to'the man in all his toil, and in the striving of 
 
Ch. ii. 23-ii1.6.] Cheerful engoyment—Catalogue of times.” 287 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 25 
 26 
 
 his heart, wherewith he is toiling under the sun. For all 
 his days are pains, and trouble is his occupation, even by 
 night his heart does not rest. Even this is vanity itself. 
 
 (c) The conditions necessary for cheerful enjoyment. 
 
 There is nothing better among men than that one 
 should eat and drink and that his soul should see good 
 in his toil. Even this have I seen, that it is from the 
 hand of God. For who can eat and who can enjoy 
 himself without Him? For to a man who is good in 
 His sight He has given wisdom and knowledge and 
 joy; but to the sinner the exercise to gather, and to 
 collect together, in order to give it to one who is good 
 before God. Even this is vanity and a striving after 
 wind. 
 
 § 5. The shortsightedness and powerlessness of men before 
 
 III. 
 
 God, the Disposer and Arranger of all things. 
 
 1 To everything there is a season, and a time for every 
 purpose under the heavens. 
 A time to have children [or, to be born], and a time 
 to die.. 
 A time to plant, and a time to root up what is planted. 
 A time to kill, and a time to heal, 
 A time to break down, and a time to build up. 
 A time to weep, and a time to laugh, 
 A time to mourn, and a time to dance. 
 A time to throw stones (over the fields), and a time 
 to gather up the stones, 
 A time to embrace, and a time to draw off from em- 
 bracing. 
 A time to seek, and a time to lose, 
 A time to guard, and a time to throw away. 
 
288 ἡ Alen left to themselves lrke the beasts. τ Ὁ, iii. 7-18. 
 
 9 
 10 
 
 II 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 A time to rend, and a time to sew, 
 
 A time to be silent, and a time to speak. 
 
 A time to love, and a time to hate. 
 
 A time of war, and a time of peace. 
 
 What profit has he who is acting in that with which 
 he is toiling. I have seen the exercise which God has 
 given to the sons of man in order that they may exercise 
 themselves with it. The whole of this [or, Everything] 
 He hath made beautiful in its season, even Eternity hath 
 He put into their heart, so that man cannot find out 
 from the beginning to the end the work which God hath 
 made. 
 
 I perceived that there is nothing good among them 
 [men], except to be glad, and to do good in one’s [lit. his] 
 life. But also that every man should eat and drink, and 
 see good in all his toil, it is a gift of God. I perceived 
 that everything which God doeth, it shall be for ever, to 
 it it is not (possible) to add, and from it it is not (pos- 
 sible) to take away ; and God.has made it so that they 
 may fear before Him. That which has been, long ago 
 it is (in existence), and that which is to be, long ago it 
 has been, and God seeks after that which has been driven 
 away [z.e. the past]. 
 
 § 6. The unrighteous actions of men when left to themselves. 
 Men compared to the beasts that perish. 
 
 And again I saw under the sun the place of judgment, 
 (that) iniquity was there; and the place of righteous- 
 ness, (that) iniquity was there. I said in my heart: the 
 righteous and the wicked shall God judge; for there is a 
 time for every purpose, and for every work THERE. I said 
 in my heart, it happens according to the manner of the 
 sons of men, in order that God may test them, and in 
 
Ch. iii. 18-iv.6.] Zhe misery common to man. 289 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 order that they may see that they are beasts, they with 
 respect to themselves. For a chance are the children 
 of men, and a chance is the beast, and the same [lit. one] 
 chance happeneth to them: like the death of the one, so is 
 the death of the other; and one breath is to all; and a 
 superiority of the man over the beast there is not; for all 
 is vanity. All are going to one place, all were from the 
 dust, and all are returning to the dust. Who knoweth 
 with regard to the spirit of the sons of men whether it 
 ascendeth upwards, and with regard to the spirit of the 
 beast whether it descendeth downwards to the earth ? 
 
 So I saw that there was nothing better than that. man 
 should rejoice in his works, for that is his portion. For 
 who can bring him to see that which shall be after 
 him. 
 
 § 7. The misery common to man—(a) The oppression of man 
 
 IV. 
 
 by his fellow. 
 
 1 And again I saw all the oppressions which were done 
 under the sun, and behold! the tear of the oppressed, 
 and they had no comforter; and from the hand of those 
 who are oppressing them (proceedeth) violence, and they 
 have no comforter! And I praised the dead which 
 were dead long ago, more than the living who are living 
 still. And better than both of them is he who does 
 not yet exist, who has not seen the evil work which is 
 done under the sun. 
 
 (6) The rivalry and useless toil of man. 
 
 And I saw all the toil, and all the superiority of work, 
 that it is the rivalry of man over his fellow—even this 
 is vanity, and a striving after wind. The fool foldeth 
 his hands together, and eateth his own flesh. Better is 
 
 U 
 
290. Solitary life—Popular enthusiasm. [Ch. iv. 6-16. 
 
 the full of a hand with rest, than the full of two (closed) 
 hands with toil and striving after wind. 
 
 § 8. The disadvantages of a man being alone by himself, and 
 the benefit of companionship. 
 
 7,8 And I saw again vanity under the sun. There is one 
 without a second, even son and brother he has not, 
 aud there is'no end to all his toil,seven, his eyes vane 
 not satisfied with riches;—And for whom am 1 toiling 
 and depriving my soul of good? Even this is vanity 
 
 Ὁ and a woful exercise it is. The two are better than 
 the one, because they have a good reward in their toil. 
 
 10 For, if they fall, the one will lift up his companion ; 
 and woe to the one who falls, and there is not a second 
 
 11 to lift him up. Moreover, if two lie together, then they 
 
 12 are warm; but how can one be warm (alone)? And 
 if any make an attack on the one, the two will stand 
 up against him ; and the threefold cord will not quickly 
 be broken, 
 
 § 9. The vanity of popular enthusiasm for a new monarch. 
 
 13 Better is a youth poor and wise than a king old and 
 foolish, who does not any longer understand how to be 
 
 14 warned. For out of the house of the prisoners goeth 
 he [the youth] forth to reign ; though even in his [the old 
 
 15 monarch’s] kingdom he was born poor. I have seen all 
 the living who walk under the sun on the side of the 
 youth, the second [person just mentioned], who stands up 
 
 16 in his [the old monarch’s] room. There is no end to all 
 the people, to all those at whose head he is. (But) truly 
 those who come after [the people of a younger generation] 
 shall not delight in him. For even this is vanity and a 
 striving after wind. 
 
Ch. iv.17-v.10.] Vanity in Religion—-vanity of riches. 291 
 
 δ 10. Vanity in Religion—Divine worship, and vows. 
 
 17 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, 
 for to draw near to hear is (better) than the fools offering 
 sacrifices ; for they are ignorant [lit. do not know], so 
 
 V.1 that they do evil. Be not hasty with thy mouth, and 
 let not thy heart hasten to utter a word before God; 
 for God is in the heavens, and thou upon the earth, 
 
 2 therefore let thy words be few. For the dream cometh 
 by reason of much occupation; and the voice of a fool 
 in consequence of many words. 
 
 3 When thou vowest a vow to God, defer not to fulfil 
 it, for there is no delight in fools—that which thou 
 
 4 vowest fulfil. Better is it that thou dost not vow, than 
 
 that thou shouldest vow and not fulfil, Suffer not thy 
 
 mouth to cause thy flesh [thyself] to sin, and say not 
 before the angel [the priest] that it was an error; where- 
 fore should God be angry on account of thy voice, and 
 
 6 destroy the work of thy hands? For in the multitude 
 
 of dreams are also vanities, and (in) many words (as 
 well) ; but-fear God. 
 
 un 
 
 § 11. The vanity of riches (a) in a state under despotic rule; 
 (6) riches ave little advantage in themselves, and (c) are 
 gathered for others. 
 
 7 If thou seest oppression of the poor and robbery of 
 judgment and righteousness in the province, be not 
 surprised at the matter; for there is a high one over a 
 
 8 high one watching, and higher persons. over them. /And 
 an advantage of a land in all respects it is (to have) a 
 king devoted to the field [z.e. agriculture]. 
 
 9 He who loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver, 
 and he who loveth riches has no fruit (of them), Even 
 
 10 this is vanity. When the property increaseth, those that 
 
202 - Vanity of riches. [Ch. v. 10-vi. 2. 
 
 II 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 4,0. 
 
 consume it increase also ; and what advantage pertains to 
 its possessor except the seeing of his eyes? Sweet is the 
 sleep of the husbandman, whether he eats little or much ; 
 but the abundance of the rich, it does not allow him 
 to sleep. 
 
 There is a sore evil I have seen under the sun, riches 
 preserved by the owner thereof to his misfortune. And 
 these riches perish through bad circumstances ; and he has 
 begotten a son, and there is nothing in his hand. As he 
 came out of his mother’s womb, naked shall he return 
 again, just as he came; and nothing shall he take by his 
 toil that he can bring with him in his hand. And even this 
 is a sore evil, that in all respects as he came, so he must 
 go; and what profit has he that he toils for the wind ? 
 Even all his days he eateth in darkness, and has vexed 
 himself much, and (oh!) his sickness and anger! Behold 
 what I have seen good, which is beautiful, (namely,) to 
 eat and to drink, and to see good in all his toil with 
 which he toils under the sun, during the number of the 
 days of his life which God has given him; for this is 
 his portion. Also for every man to whom God hath 
 given riches and treasures, and hath given him rule over 
 it in order to eat of it, and to take his portion, and to 
 rejoice in his toil; this (indeed) is a gift of God. For he 
 does not think much about the days of his life, for God 
 answers in [z.e. corresponds with] the joy of his heart. 
 
 δ 12. The ultimatum—the vanity of possessing riches without 
 
 VI. 
 
 2 
 
 enjoying them. 
 
 1 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and 
 it is great upon man: A man to whom God gives riches, 
 wealth, and honour, and he denies himself nothing of all: 
 that he desires ; but God does not give him the power to 
 
Ch. 
 
 on 
 
 vi. 2-12.] HZuman powerlessness against destiny. 293 
 
 eat thereof,—for a man, a stranger, eateth thereof.—This 
 is vanity and an evil disease. If a man begets a hundred 
 (children), and live many years; yea, however numerous 
 may be the days of his years, if his soul be not satisfied 
 with that which is good, and he has also no burial—I say, 
 better than he is the untimely birth. For it came into 
 nothingness, and it goes into the darkness, and with the 
 darkness shall its name be covered. Even the sun it saw 
 not, and knew not—the rest (that falleth) to the one is 
 more than (that which falleth to) the other. And [the 
 same thing is true even] if he lived a thousand years 
 twice (told), and did not see good. (For) are not all going 
 to one place ? 
 
 δ 13. The insatiability of desire. 
 
 All the toil of man is for his mouth, and even the soul 
 is not filled. For what advantage hath the wise man 
 above the fool? What (has even) the poor man who 
 knoweth how to walk before the living? Better is the 
 sight of [Ze. that which is seen by] the eyes, than the 
 wandering to and fro of a soul. Even this is vanity and 
 
 _ striving after wind. 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 12 
 
 § 14. Human powerlessness and shortsightedness with respect 
 
 to destiny. 
 
 That which has been, long ago has its name been 
 pronounced, and known is that which a man shall become ; 
 and he cannot contend with Him who is stronger than 
 he. For there are many words which increase vanity ; 
 what profit (are they) to man? For who knoweth what is 
 good for man in life, during the number of the days of 
 the life of his vanity, for he spends them as the shadow ? 
 For who can point out to man what shall be after him 
 under the sun? 
 
294 Patience and wisdom in adversity. [Cb. vii. 1-14. 
 
 § 15. Proverbs concerning things to be preferred by man. 
 
 vil. 1 Better isa name than good [z.e. perfumed] oil, and the 
 
 2 
 
 day of death than the day of one’s birth. Better is it 
 to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of 
 feasting ; because that is the end of every man, and the 
 living will lay it to his heart. Better is sorrow than 
 laughter, for through the sadness of the face the heart 
 is made better. The heart of wise men is in a house 
 of mourning, and the heart of fools in a house of mirth. 
 Better is it to hear a reproof of a wise man, than that 
 a man should be hearing a song of fools. For, like the 
 noise of the nettles under the kettle, so is the laughter of 
 the fool. Even this is vanity. 
 
 § 16. Patience and wisdom the best preservatives in the time 
 
 7 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 IO 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 of oppression and adversity. 
 
 Because oppression maddeneth a wise man, and a gift 
 [a bribe] destroyeth [breaketh] (his) heart, better is the end 
 of a matter than its beginning ; better he who is patient 
 in spirit than he who is haughty in spirit. Be not hasty 
 in thy spirit to be angry, for anger rests in the bosom of 
 fools. Say not, How is it that the former days were 
 better than these? for not with wisdom dost thou ask 
 after this. Wisdom is good along with an inheritance, 
 and an advantage to those who behold the sun. For in 
 a shade [shelter] is wisdom, in a shade [shelter] is money, 
 yet an advantage of knowledge is that wisdom gives life 
 to those who possess her. Consider the work of God ; 
 for who can make that straight which He hath made 
 crooked? In a day of prosperity be in good spirits ; 
 and in a day of adversity consider that even God hath 
 made this [the evil day] as well as that [the day of pros- 
 perity], in order that man may find out nothing of that 
 (which shall come) after him. 
 
Ch. vii. 15-27.] Lhe middle mean—The terrible snare. 205 
 
 δ 17. Lhe tmportance of keeping “ the middle mean,” and ihe 
 practical advantages of wisdom. 
 
 15 All (sorts of things) have I seen in the days of my 
 vanity. There isa righteous man perishing in (spite of) 
 his righteousness, and there is a wicked man prolonging 
 
 16 (his life) in (spite of) his evil-doing. Be not righteous to 
 excess, and do not show thyself too wise; why wilt thou 
 
 17 ruin thyself? Be not wicked to excess, and be not a 
 
 18 fool; why wilt thou die before thy time? Good (is it) 
 that thou shouldest lay hold on this [proverb] ; and also 
 from that withdraw not thy hand; for he who feareth God 
 fulfilleth [or, shall come out of] them all. 
 
 19 Wisdom proves stronger to the wise man than ten 
 
 20 rulers which are in the city. Fora man there is not (so) 
 
 21 righteous on earth who doeth good and sinneth not. Also 
 give not thy heart [thy attention] to all the words which 
 they say, that thou hear not (about) thy servant cursing 
 
 22 thee. For many times even, thy heart knoweth, even thou 
 hast cursed others. ὃ 
 
 23 +All this have I proved by wisdom; I said: Wise will 
 
 24 I become, but it was far from me. Far [from man’s 
 comprehension] is that which is, and deep, deep, who can 
 discover it. 
 
 δ 18. The snare by which men are generally caught. The 
 wicked woman. 
 
 25 I turned myself (to another matter); and my heart was 
 to know and to spy out, and to seek wisdom and (know- 
 ledge based on) reckoning ; and to know wickedness (to 
 
 26 be) folly, and foolishness (to be) madness. And I find 
 more bitter than death the woman who is snares, and a 
 net [lit. nets] is her heart, fetters are her hands—he who 
 is good before God shall be saved from her; but a sinner 
 
 27 shall be caught by her. See, this have I found, saith the 
 
295 Wisdom in days of oppression. [Ch.vii.27-viii.10. 
 
 Koheleth, adding one to one to find out the reckoning, 
 28 what still my soul hath sought, and I have not found, 
 one man out of a thousand I have found, but a woman 
 29 among all those I have not found. Only, this see! I have 
 found: that God made man _ upright, but they have 
 sought out many devices [lit. reckonings]. 
 
 § 19. The benefit of wisdom in days of oppression—The wise 
 man will be obedient and patient, knowing that there ts a 
 God who judgeth the earth. 
 
 vill. 1 Who is as the wise man? and who understands the 
 explanation of a thing? The wisdom of a man causes 
 his face to shine, and the coarseness of his face is changed. 
 
 2 I (say), observe the command of a king, even on account 
 3 of the oath of God. MHasten not to go away from him, 
 stand not in an evil affair ; for all that he desires he will 
 
 4 do. Foraword of aking is powerful, and who can say 
 to him, What doest thou (there) ? 
 
 5 | He who observeth (his) commandment shall experience 
 no evil thing ; and time and judgment knoweth the heart 
 
 6 of awise man. For to every purpose there is a time and 
 judgment ; for the wickedness of man is heavy upon him ; 
 for there is no one who knoweth that which shall be ; for, 
 
 7 how it shall be, who can tell to him? There is no man 
 who has power over the wind so as to restrain the wind ; 
 
 8 and there is no ruler in the day of death; and there 
 is no discharge in the war; and wickedness does not 
 deliver its masters. 
 
 9 ΑΙΙ this have I seen, even by applying my heart to all 
 the work that is done under the sun, at a time when 
 
 10 man ruleth over man to his hurt [ze. of the latter]. And 
 thus [under such circumstances] have I seen wicked men 
 buried ; and they came (into being) ; and from the place 
 
Ch: 
 
 II 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 viii, 10-17.] Lhere ts a God who judgeth all. 297 
 
 of the holy they went (to their graves) ; and they are for- 
 gotten in the very city where they acted thus (wickedly). 
 Even this is vanity. 
 
 Because sentence against the work of wickedness is not 
 executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men 
 within them is full [has full courage] to do evil: because 
 a sinner commits evil a hundred times, and prolongeth (his 
 days) for it; although indeed I know that it shall be well 
 for those that fear God, who fear before him: and well it 
 shall not be for the wicked, and he shall not prolong his 
 days, (he shall be) like the shadow, because he feareth 
 not before God. 
 
 There is a vanity which is done upon the earth, (namely) 
 that there are righteous men to whom it happeneth accord- 
 ing to the work of the wicked ; and there are wicked men 
 to whom it happeneth according to the work of the 
 righteous. I said, that this indeed is vanity. 
 
 And I commended joy [cheerfulness], because there 
 is nothing better for man under the sun than to eat, and 
 to drink, and to enjoy himself; and that this should 
 accompany him in his work during the days of his life, 
 which God hath given to him under the sun. 
 
 § 20. Man knows not the work of God, but is in all things 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 conditioned by a higher power than his own, which permits 
 the same things to happen to all men alike. 
 
 As I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to see into 
 the business which is done upon the earth, for even 
 by day οἵ ΡΥ night, there is no seeing sleep in his 
 [man’s] eyes,—then have I seen all the work of God, 
 that man is not able to find out the work which is done 
 under the sun; because that man labours to seek it, and 
 does not find it; and even if the wise man says that he 
 knows it, it is not to be found out. 
 
2908 ° The duty of cheerfulness in life. [Ch ix. 1-9. 
 
 1X.1 For all this I have laid to my heart, and I strove [lit. 
 
 I have been about] to test [prove] all this: that the 
 righteous and the wise and their actions are in the hand 
 of God; even love or hatred man knoweth not, all lies 
 before them. ΑἹ] (is) like that which (is) to all, one fate 
 [chance] happens to the righteous and to the wicked, to 
 the good, and to the clean and to the unclean, both to the 
 man who sacrificeth and to him who sacrificeth not ; as is 
 the good (man) so is the sinner, the man who sweareth is 
 as he who fears an oath. 
 
 § 21. The fate that awaits all, the state of the dead. Men 
 
 4 
 
 5) 
 
 oe) 
 
 ought therefore to enjoy life, while working for their daily 
 bread. The uncertainties. of life, and the certainty of death 
 in an unexpected time. 
 
 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun; that 
 one fate [chance] happens to all, and also that the heart of 
 the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their hearts 
 during their lives, and after it [z.e. their life]—to the dead ! 
 For he who is joined to all tthe living [ze. to all living 
 beings] has hope, for even a living dog is better than the 
 lion which is dead. For the living know that they shall 
 die; but as for the dead, they know nothing, and they 
 have no more a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 
 Even their love, yea their hatred, and their rivalry, long 
 ago has perished; and they have no portion more for 
 ever in all that which is done under the sun. 
 
 Go, eat with gladness thy bread, and drink with good 
 heart thy wine; for, long ago, God hath approved of thy 
 doings [in this matter]. At every time let thy garments 
 be white, and let oil upon thy head not be wanting. 
 Enjoy life with a wife whom thou lovest all the days of 
 the life of thy vanity, which God hath given to thee under 
 
Ch.ix.g-x.1.] Zhe certainty of death —the use of wisdom. 599 
 
 the sun ; all the days of thy vanity, for this is thy portion 
 in life, and in thy toil, wherein thou toilest under the sun. 
 
 10 = All that thy hand may find to do with thy strength, 
 do; for there is no work, nor reckoning, nor knowledge, 
 nor wisdom in Sheol, whither thou art going! 
 
 1 I came back even to see under the sun that the race 
 belongs not to the swift, nor the battle to the heroes, nor 
 even bread to the wise, nor even riches to the prudent, 
 nor even favour to the knowing; for time and chance 
 
 12 befall all of them. For indeed man knoweth not his time; 
 like the fishes which are caught in an evil net, and like 
 the birds which are caught in the trap ;—like these are 
 the sons of men ensnared in a time of evil, like that 
 which [or, when it] falls upon them suddenly. 
 
 § 22. The poor wise man, and the benefits of wisdone. 
 
 13 Even this have I seen as wisdom under the sun, and it 
 14 was great in my estimation; a little city, and men in 
 it but few, and there came to it a great king, and encom- 
 
 15 passed it; and built against it great intrenchments ; and 
 found in it a poor wise man, and he [the latter] delivered 
 the city through his wisdom, and not a man remembered 
 that same poor man. 
 
 16 Then said I, Better is wisdom than strength ; but the 
 wisdom of the poor is despised, and his werds are not 
 heard. 
 
 17 Words of wise men (uttered) in quiet are heard, better 
 
 18 ἀράν αὶ shout of a ruler among fools. Better is wisdom 
 than weapons of war; and one sinner destroyeth much 
 good, 
 
 § 23. The usefulness of wisdom and the danger of folly, shown 
 by various proverbs. 
 
 ΧΟ I Poisonous flies make the oil of the perfumer to stink 
 
300 The necessity of forestght—the fool's talk, (Ch. x. 1-15. 
 
 Ww be 
 
 12 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 and ferment; heavier than wisdom, than honour, is a 
 little folly. The heart of a wise man (inclines) towards 
 his right, and the heart of a fool towards his left ; and 
 even on the road, as [or, when] the fool is going along, 
 his heart [understanding] fails him, and he says to all that 
 he is a fool. 
 
 If the spirit of the ruler rise against thee, leave not 
 thy post; for patience puts an end to great transgres- 
 sions. 
 
 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, like 
 an oversight which proceedeth from the ruler. Folly is 
 placed on great heights, and rich men sit in lowliness. 
 I have seen slaves upon horses, and princes walking like 
 slaves upon the earth. 
 
 He who digs a pit may fall into it, and he who breaks 
 down a wall a serpent may bite him. He who heweth 
 out stones may be hurt by them; he who cutteth down 
 trees may be endangered by them. 
 
 If the iron has become blunt, and he has not whetted 
 the face (of it), then must he put forth strength; a 
 superiority in setting right (has) wisdom. 
 
 If the serpent bites before enchantment, then there is 
 no use for the master of the tongue [z.e. the snake-charmer]. 
 
 § 24. The fool noted for his useless talk and aimless toil. 
 
 The words of a wise man’s mouth are grace, but the 
 lips of a fool swallow up himself. The beginning of the 
 words of his mouth is folly, and the end of his mouth 
 wicked madness. And the fool multiplieth words, 
 (although) man knows not that which shall be, and that 
 which shall be after him [ze after his death], who can 
 narrate to him? Fools-work [ze. foolish philosophizing] 
 wearies him who does not know (even) how to go to the 
 city. 
 
Ch. 
 
 x. 16-xi. 6.] The foolish king—Waesdone of beneficence. 301 
 
 § 25. The misery of a land cursed with a foolish king, and the 
 
 necessity of prudence in the subjects of such a monarch. 
 
 x. 16 Woe to thee, O Land, whose king is a child, and whose 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 princes eat in the morning! O thy happiness, O Land! 
 whose king is a son of nobles; and thy princes eat at 
 the (right) time in strength, and not in drunkenness. 
 Through great indolence the beam-work sinks, and. by 
 laziness of hands the house leaks. For merriment they 
 make feasts [lit. bread], and wine gladdens life, and 
 money grants all (they desire). 
 
 Even in thy consciousness curse not a king, nor in thy 
 bed-chambers curse a rich man; for the fowl of the 
 heaven shall carry the voice, and the possessor [lit. master] 
 of wings [the winged birds] shall tell the word [or, ex- 
 pression]. 
 
 § 26. The wisdom of beneficence. The future belongs to God, 
 
 XI. 
 
 2 
 
 but man ought to labour and enjoy life while he can. 
 
 1 Cast thy bread upon the surface of the waters, for in 
 the (course of) many days thou shalt find it. Give a 
 portion to seven, yea even to eight, for thou knowest not 
 what evil shall be upon the earth. If the clouds are 
 full of heavy showers, they will empty themselves upon 
 the earth; and if a tree falleth in the north or in the 
 south, in the place where the tree falleth, there it will 
 be [or, let it be]. He who observeth the wind shall not 
 sow, and he who looketh at the clouds shall not reap. 
 
 As thou knowest not which is the way of the wind, like 
 the bones in the womb of her who is with child, even so 
 knowest thou not the work of God who maketh all. In 
 the morning sow thy seed, and until evening slack not 
 thou thy hand, for thou knowest not whether this shall 
 
369: Ὁ» The Song of Koheleth. [Ch. xi. 6-xii. 4. 
 
 prosper, either this or that, or if both together shall be 
 good. 
 7 And sweet is the light, and good for the eyes it is to 
 8 see the sun. For, if the man lives many years, let him 
 rejoice in them all, and let him remember the days of 
 darkness, for they shall be many. All that which is 
 coming is vanity. 
 
 δ 27. The Song of Koheleth. The Days of Life, and the 
 Days of Death. 
 
 9 Rejoice, young man, in thy youth, 
 And let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, 
 And walk in the ways of thy heart, 
 And according to the sight of thine eyes! 
 But know—that for all these God shall bring thee into 
 
 the judgment. 
 10 Therefore banish moroseness from thy heart, 
 And put away evil from thy flesh, 
 For boyhood and manhood are vanity ; 
 
 x11. 1 And remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth : 
 
 ERE there come the days of evil, and years approach, 
 Of which thou shalt say, “1 have no pleasure in them!” 
 
 2 ERE the sun is darkened, and the light, and the moon, 
 and the stars, 
 And the clouds return after the pouring rain. 
 
 3 IN THE DAY WHEN the keepers of the house tremble, 
 And the men of strength bow-themselves-together, 
 And the grinding-maids cease because they are few, 
 And the (ladies) that look out at the lattices are darkened ! 
 4 And doors are shut towards the street, 
 When the sound of the grinding-mill ceases, 
 
Ch. 
 
 σι 
 
 10 
 
 12 
 
 xii. 4-12.) The Epilogue of the Book. 303 
 
 WHEN one rises at the voice of the bird, 
 And all the daughters of song are humbled, 
 Even they fear from on high, and all-sorts-of-terrors 
 are in the path. 
 
 Then there blossoms the almond tree, 
 And crawls forth the locust ; 
 But unavailing is the caperberry— 
 For the man is going to his eternal house ; 
 And there go the mourners about in the street! 
 
 ERE the silver cord be snapped asunder, 
 
 And the golden bowl break— 
 
 And the pitcher be shivered upon the spring, 
 And the wheel be broken (and fall) into the well ; 
 
 And ERE the dust return upon the earth as it was; 
 For the spirit shall return to the God who gave it. 
 
 § 28. The Epilogue. 
 
 Vanity of vanities, saith the Koheleth [Solomon], the 
 whole is vanity. 
 
 And, moreover (note), that Koheleth [the writer] was a 
 wise man ; further, he taught the people knowledge, and 
 pondered-over [lit. weighed], and investigated, [yea] ar- 
 ranged many proverbs. Koheleth sought to discover 
 words of pleasantness, and what was written in upright- 
 ness, words of truth. 
 
 Words of wise men are like the goads; and like nails 
 firmly-driven-in are the masters of [z.e. persons well versed 
 in] “collections” (of such sayings). They [the ‘“collec- 
 tions”’] are given from One Shepherd. 
 
 And, moreover (note) more than that: my son, be 
 
304. The Epilogue of the Book.  [Ch. xii. 12-14. 
 
 warned, of making many books there is no end, and much 
 study is a weariness of flesh. 
 13. Theend of the matter when all is heard is, Fear God 
 and keep His commandments, for this ought every man to 
 14 do. For God shall bring every work into a judgment, 
 (which shall pass) upon all that is concealed, whether good 
 or whether evil. 
 
CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 CHAPTER: ἢ: 
 
 1. “The words of Koheleth, son of David, king in Jerusalem.” 
 The greater distinctive zakeph is placed in the Hebrew over David, 
 to point out that the words following are in apposition to Koheleth, 
 and not to David. The smaller distinctive (pashta) over ‘27 is 
 necessary, for zakeph-katon, as a general rule, requires to be accom- 
 panied by its minor, 79) is rendered definite by the following 
 pews, The expression is peculiar. On the name Koheleth, see 
 prelim. note on p. 287 ff. One would have expected, “ king of Israel 
 in Jerusalem,” or, as in the r2th verse, “ king over Israel in Jeru- 
 salem.” Comp. 2 Kings xiv. 23. See remarks on p. 88 ff. 
 
 2. p24 bam, The full phrase occurs three times, twice in this 
 verse and once in chap. xii. 8. The concluding words ban ban 
 are, however, to be found also in verse 14, in chap. 111. 19, and in 
 xi. 8, in a modified form, ban saw 52, The expression is used in a 
 superlative sense. Compare the phrases “heaven of heavens,” 
 r Kings vil. 27; ‘servant of servants,” Gen. ix. 25; ‘ ornament of 
 ornaments,” Ezek. xvi. 7; “‘song of songs,” Cant. i. 1. Compare 
 DINY NY) 3B, Hos. x. 15. It is to be regarded as an accusative 
 of exclamation; not as a nominative, as if a kind of predicate, 
 LXX., Vulg., etc., and by Rosenmiiller among the moderns, “ vanis- 
 sima inquit Concionator, vanissima sunt omnia.” The form of the 
 construct 22 is peculiar. It is best explained with Delitzsch after 
 Ewald, § 32 4,as an Aramaising form like, 72, Dey, yo Zockler 
 
 compares Day in Ps, xxxv. 14, but that word is not a segholate, nor 
 3°5 Xx 
 
σούς: The Book of Koheleth. [Ca 2.73 
 
 are the instances cited by Olshausen, § 154 ὦ, in which the original 
 vowel reappears between the second and third stem letters. See 
 Kalisch, ὃ xxvii. 2 ὁ. Jerome seems to have read 523 from his 
 remarks ‘“‘in Hebrxo pro vanitate vanitatum ABaL ABALIM scriptum 
 est.” There is some uncertainty as to the translation of the other 
 Greek translators, for Jerome quotes their rendering as ἀτμὸς ἀτμίδων 
 Sive ἀτμῶν, while others give it as ἀτμὶς ἀτμίδων or ἀτμὸς ἀτμῶν. See 
 Field. In Heb. and Chald. ban is used in the sense of dreath or 
 vapour, or a slight breeze (Isa. lvii. 13), such as that which comes 
 from the mouth, and it is frequently used in a figurative sense for 
 vanity. The signification of mst assigned to it in some passages of 
 Koheleth (chap. vi. 43 vill. 14; xi. 8) is more than doubtful. 
 
 ON may be taken either as a past or a present, but the latter 
 signification is more suitable here. 
 
 2237, All ts vanity. Some writers have considered the reference 
 here to be the wzverse, but Koheleth speaks only of the things done 
 under the sun, or of those matters which affect the earth and man. 
 
 As to the subject matter of the verse, suitable parallels are found 
 in Ps. xxxix. 5-7 3 XC. 3-10; cil. 25-28. Comp. also Gen. xlvii. 9. 
 
 4. n' 79. The word ἢ ἼΠ)) occurs nine times in this book, 
 and in this only ;.viz. chap. 1.- 35.1.1 n 15 (bis)s τ 8. τὸ: 
 vii. 12; x. το. But the shortened form 1! (comp. Olshausen, 
 § 215 g) occurs as a proper name (/e¢hro) in Exod. iii. 1; xviii. 1, 
 5, 6, 9, 12, called also once 1}, Exod. iv. 18. 497° might, however, 
 be explained otherwise as an apocopated form of }10N}, like > from 
 
 Hew, Hence it cannot be fairly asserted that the word is later 
 Hebrew. The Chald. and post-Biblical word for ἡ 12) is 171, Syr. 
 
 4 
 ion It signifies that which remains over and above, gain, profit, 
 advantage, and, when construed with }, as in chap. ii. 13, pre-emin- 
 ence. In chap. iii. 19 the noun 719, derived from the same stem, 
 occurs as a synonyme. LXX. literally, τίς περισσεία τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ. 
 The LXX. always so translate the word. Aq. and Symm. here τί 
 πλέον τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ. Symm., in chap. v. 15, translates it by περισσόν, 
 and in chap. x. 10 by προέχει. A primary form | (comp. 173}, 
 const. {173}, HD, const. 13, vid. Bottcher, Zehrb., § 751 f) is un- 
 known, vid. note on verse 11. Delitzsch observes that Simson the 
 punctuator (Cod. 102 a, of Leipzig Univ. Lib.) blames those that 
 use ]09*} in a liturgical prayer for the Day of Atonement. 
 
ch.i3,4] Cretecal and Grammatical Comme. 307 
 
 Kleinert translates ‘ND pn nN, man has nothing abiding, a transla- 
 tion guoad sensum. Its peculiarity lies in the rendering of ΠῸ by zof, 
 a force which it seems to have in some few instances, as Job xxxi. 1 ; 
 Cant. vill. 4; 1 Kings ΧΙ. 16, when compared with 2 Sam. xx. 1. 
 See Ewald, § 325 4. Ewald, however, does not assign that meaning 
 to 1 in this passage. Compare the negative lL. in Arabic. The 
 negative meaning has arisen out of its interrogative sense. See 
 Ewald, Gram. Crit. Arab. Ling., § 698. Comp. Bottcher, Lehro., 
 § 532. 
 
 In all his work. “Hahn translates “ zotwithstanding,” or ‘‘in spite 
 of all his work,” appealing to Isa. v. 25, where NNT b23 is rendered 
 “for all this.” But this is unnecessary. 
 
 yw, ΄Ψ does not here denote the accusative of the manner, but 
 of the object (Delitzsch). The same expression recurs in chap. v. 17, 
 and a cognate expression 722 Δ, chap. il. 19, 20. 
 
 Under the sun. Seep. 142. This formula is frequently found in 
 Koheleth, and is peculiar to it, See verse 9, 14; chap. 1: ΤΙ, 17, 
 ἘΠ ΠΟ 29: 22} ΠῚ LO ΙΝ ἢ: Vit D3 LS 3° VE 1, ΤῊ; Villy.) ΤΡῚΣ 
 ix. 6, 9, II, 13; x. 5. Compare the phrases “ under heaven” and 
 ἐ upon the earth.” ‘The former occurs in verse 13; 11: 3; ili. Ὁ, and 
 is an expression often found elsewhere, as in Exod. xvii. 14; Deut. 
 Vil. 23; 1X. τῇ; XXV. Τὸ; xxix. 203; 2 Kings xiv. 27, as well as in the 
 Chaldee verse in Jer. x. 11, and in Lam. ili. 66. The phrase occurs 
 also in Greek in Baruch ii. 2; Luke xvii. 24; Acts ii. 5; Iv. 12; 
 Col. i. 22. The cognate expression “under the whole heaven” is 
 used in Deut. ii. 25; iv. 19, and several times in the Book of 
 Job (xxvill. 24; xxxvii. 3; xli 11). The phrase “fon the earth” 
 yasnby is found in chap. vill. 14, 16; xi. 2, and often elsewhere, as 
 
 in Gen. viii. 17. Compare the kindred expression 1787 by in Exod. 
 x. 6. See Deut. iv. 4 and 36. 
 
 4. PF to πο, to depart, henceto diz, chap. Vv. 155. Job. x. 21; Ps. 
 Xxxix. 14. On the subject matter of this verse comp. Sir. xiv. το. 
 
 NY, zs abiding. Comp. Ps. xix. ro. The copula in this sentence 
 may intimate “wAd/st.” The earth “remains standing as it is, with 
 its entire order and arrangement. He does not deny that there is 
 movement within, but it is movement in a circle which leads to 
 nothing” (Hi¢z/g). Delitzsch considers that this is not the meaning 
 of the verse, which is rather that the earth fulfils its destiny by re- 
 
208 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 4, 5. 
 
 ὥ 
 
 maining immovable. It is the only thing that remains unmoved 
 while generations go and come. The thought, dwelt on by the 
 Psalmist, of the contrast between the unchangeableness of God and 
 the changeableness of all things earthly, is foreign to the object 
 which Koheleth had in view. Jerome thus comments on the pas- 
 sage : “ quid hac vanius vanitate quam terram manere, que hominum 
 causa facta est, et ipsum hominem, terree dominum, tam repente in 
 pulverem dissolvi.” It is unnecessary, with Zockler, to suppose that 
 the writer is thinking of the earth as founded upon pillars, Ps. xxiv. 2; 
 civ. 5 ; Job xxxviii. 6. Graetz maintains that the earth here signifies 
 the inhabitants thereof, which still continue to exist, though one 
 generation succeeds another. 
 
 5. The LXX., Vulg., Targ., Luther, Herzfeld, Hitzig, Hahn, connect 
 ANI 3191919 Ss} with the preceding, translating the clause substantially 
 as: “and hastens to tts place where it also arises.” In this case the 
 relation WS is considered to be understood before OY, DY WS, 
 signifying where. The LXX. translate NY by ἕλκει, Vulg. reverte- 
 tur. Jerome remarks: ‘‘pro eo autem, quod Vulgatam ed. sequentes 
 posuimus, ad locum suum ducit, in Hebreeo habet soeph, quod 
 Aq. interpretabatur εἰσπνεῖ, id est aspirat; Symm. vero et Theod. 
 recurrit.” The transl. of Symm. and Theod. is generally given 
 as ἐπαναστρέφει, but Field (Ovzg. Hex. in loco) points out that 
 Symm.’s rendering here, and even that of Aquila, is somewhat 
 doubtful. But the accentuation distinctly connects |“ with the 
 second part of the sentence, as if “and the sun rises, and the 
 sun sets: and (going) fo its place [namely, the place of its 
 rising]; panting, rises (the Heb. has also here the participle) ἦέ 
 there.” Ewald renders “and the sun arises, the sun goes down, and 
 thither back again where it arises panting.” But, as Delitzsch ob- 
 serves, the verb NY does not signify panting from fatigue so much 
 as panting after something. This is the meaning in which the word 
 occurs in Isaiah xlii. 14 ; Job vii. 2, and Ps. cxix. 131. The picture 
 drawn by Koheleth is not the same as that in Psalm xix. 6, where 
 the sun is represented as rising, rejoicing as a hero to run his race. 
 Delitzsch translates, ‘‘and the sun goes down, and to its place it 
 goes panting back in order to arise there.” The place where the sun 
 goes is most naturally conceived as the place of its setting. Delitzsch 
 considers the idea of the passage to be, that the sun hurries back to 
 the place where it is again to arise, and must continue both day and 
 
ἊΣ 
 
 Chis.)  Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 309 
 
 night on its constant course, however wearied it may be. Kleinert 
 regards the two participles as expressing together one idea. So in 
 the rendering given above, “and (the sun goes) even to its place, 
 longing it is to arise there.” Somewhat similar is the rendering of 
 Ginsburg, “and though it pantingly goeth to its place, it riseth 
 there.” Similarly Herzfeld, who notes that the Syr. likewise renders : 
 
 ἘΡΗ͂Ν ἘΠ πὸ ἘΠ ΠΝ The objection to this is that the DY 
 would naturally be regarded as connected with the preceding suffix 
 (\p!). A similar construction with two participles occurs in 1 Sam. 
 xvi. 16, 122 YD, one who understands playing. See Ges.-Kautzsch, 
 § 142, 4, Kalisch,§ c.2. On the meaning of }8% compare Habb. ii. 3, 
 
 where it is said of a vision Pe ΠΡ) “and 12 pants for the end.” 
 
 Graetz, regarding all attempts to extract a satisfactory meaning 
 out of ἮΝ) as vain, proposes to read ἮΝ 2 ~The meaning of the 
 clause would then be, “and to its place it returns, rising there again.” 
 There is, however, no necessity’ for this alteration. Clericus un- 
 suitably compares the panting horses of the sun, spoken of by Ovid 
 (Metam. xxi, 418) and Virgil (Georg. 1. 250), but such an idea is 
 totally foreign to the Hebrew conception. Rosenmiiller more suita- 
 bly adduces Catulli Carm. v. 4 ff:— 
 
 “ Soles occidere et redire possunt ; 
 Nobis, cum semel occidit brevis lux, 
 Nox est perpetua una dormienda.” 
 
 Jerome observes: ‘Sol iste, qui in lucem mortalibus datus est, 
 interitum mundi ortu suo quotidie indicat et occasu. Qui postquam 
 ardentem rotam Oceano junxerit, incognitas nobis vias ad locum, 
 unde exierat, regreditur, expletoque noctu circulo rursum de thalamo 
 festinus erumpit.” 
 
 S17 ΠῚ Οη the pronoun see Ewald, § 311 @. (1). The Book of 
 Koheleth is remarkable for the partiality which the writer exhibits 
 for the participle. See chap. i. 4, 6, 7; ii. 14,19, 21; ili. 20; iv. 5; 
 V. 7,93 Vi. 123 vlil. 12, 14,16; ix. 5, 10,16, 17, etc. The personal 
 pronoun is also frequently used with such participles, even when 
 there is no emphasis whatever to account for its use, as well as with 
 finite verbs. This use of the personal pronoun, and the fact that it 
 is placed after the word and participle, is indicative of a late stage of 
 the language, ‘38 ΝΙΝ, and J find, chap. vii. 26, so here, 817-77, 
 
31Ou. The Book of Koheleth. (Chi. ee 
 
 he rises. Verbal adjectives are also used by Koheleth with the 
 personal pronouns to express the present tense, as boy 8 7 weary 
 myself, chap. 11. 18 ; iv. 8; Sey mms, chap. ix. 9 ; boy N47, chap. il. 22 ; 
 ili. 9. In all these cases the pronoun is preceded by the relative. 
 When a negative is required, the writer expresses such by |S, to 
 which the personal pronoun is appended as a suffix, as YIN’ 35 8, he 
 knows not, viii. 7 (so also with verbal adj., chap. vi. 2; vill. 13) ; 
 DY DS, they know not, chap. iv. 17. 
 
 6. The first part of this verse is referred to the sun by the LXX., 
 Targ., Syr., Vulg., and, among the moderns, by Geier and Graetz. 
 But the verse division of the Hebrewis evidently correct. The writer 
 adduces the wind as a fresh example of motion which continually 
 repeats itself. The use of the participles adds life indeed to the 
 picture, but it gives at the same time the impression of weariness. 
 Wolfg. Menzel (in his Waturkunde in christ. Geiste aufgefasst, 1. 270) 
 considers that Dove’s law of the circuits of the winds is here alluded 
 to. We agree with Zockler in thinking otherwise, though not with 
 the reason he gives, namely, that the author in verse 4 depicts 
 the earth as standing unmoved. Hahn considers that the author 
 refers to the constant change between hot and cold winds, the cold 
 wind blowing from the north and going toward the south (comp. Job 
 XXxvll. 9; Sir. xlill. 20), and the warm wind coming up from the 
 south (Job xxxvii. 17; Luke xii. 55). He supposes these winds to 
 symbolise respectively prosperity and adversity in the life of man; 
 but the verse, however, does not suggest any such symbolism. 
 
 In the fourth verse all the predicates are participles. In the first 
 part of the fifth verse two perfects occur, followed in the second 
 clause by two participles. In the fourth verse, 3¥ in the last clause 
 is most probably the participle. So the Syriac regards it. In such 
 verbs 1’Y, the participle active is identical in form with the perfect. 
 The participle expresses habit and continuance more distinctly than 
 the perfect. It will be noted that the subjects in ver. 4 precede 
 the predicates in all three cases. In ver. 4 they follow, and similarly 
 in ver. 6. 
 
 The wind, according to Hitzig, is described as blowing from north 
 to south, the sun being spoken of in connexion with the two other 
 quarters of the heavens, namely the east and west. But the clause 
 that follows “circling, circling goes the wind,” proves that the 
 
Ch. i. 6,,7γ1 Ογεξίραζ and Grammatical Commi. aus 
 
 winds were not conceived by the writer as blowing only from north 
 and south, but as blowing from all quarters of the heaven. The 
 repetition of the participle 3315 331D denotes the repetition of the 
 phenomena. See Ewald, § 313 a Comp. Ges.-Kautzsch, § τοῦ, 4. 
 The sense is merely the same as that of 2°23 3°20, round and round, 
 Ezek. xxxvil. 2. The comparison of the two passages led Jerome 
 to translate gyrans gyrando vadtt spiritus. 
 
 mm ay ‘Dd Yt, Knobel and Ewald translate, “returns upon its 
 circles,” 2.6. returns by the same paths again. But it is better to 
 construe 5Y with the verb, after Delitzsch and Zockler, as in Prov. 
 Savi ἘΠ (comp. Mal) iti: 24; Ps. xix. 7). So Hitzg “the wind 
 returns to its circlings,” 2,6. begins the same course over again, its 
 movements constantly repeating themselves anew. 
 
 ie DPN) isa general term which includes all streams. The state- 
 ment that all the streams flow into the sea is a general one. It does 
 not involve the error which the Targum has fallen into that the 
 ocean surrounds the earth like a ring, or that the rivers regain their 
 sources by subterranean channels (Giséurg, after the Targ.), or that 
 the sea replenishes the fountains from which they flow (/Zz¢z7g). 
 Nor is there necessarily any allusion to the fact, probably well-known 
 even in that day, that the water rises from the sea in vapours, and is 
 collected in rain-clouds (Job xxxvi. 27, 28) and thus replenishes the 
 streams and causes the rivers to flow on continously (Deditzsch). 
 This view is, however, preferable to the others. Koheleth’s instances 
 are selected from common experience, and would have lost much 
 of their force if any facts not generally known had been alluded 
 to. The phenomenon referred to is the same as that noted by 
 Aristophanes, Nubes, 1291 ff. 
 
 Strepsiades : καλῶς λέγεις. 
 ᾿ τί δῆτα; τὴν θάλατταν ἔσθ᾽ ὅτι πλείονα 
 
 Ἂς / A \ -“ 
 νυνὶ νομίζεις ἢ πρὸ τοῦ ; 
 
 Amyntias: Ma A’, ἀλλ᾽ ἴσην 
 Ly ᾽ VY; 
 3 Ν , , ᾽ > 
 ov yap δίκαιον πλείον᾽ εἶναι. 
 Streps.: KATO πῶς 
 
 9 \ 3 ΄ Bon ΄ 
 αὐτὴ μεν, ὦ κακόδαιμον, OUOEV γίγνεται, 
 
 ἐπιρεόντων τῶν ποταμῶν, πλείων ; K.T.A. 
 
 N20 322°. On construction vid. ἢ. on p. 5. Delitzsch observes 
 
Sha The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 7, 8. 
 
 that 1338, Mishnaic }3°§, has the reflexive pronoun, as in Exod. iii. 2; 
 Lev. xiii, 34, and elsewhere. 
 
 uy Dip-by. On the construct state before the relative compare 
 chap. xi. 3, and see Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 116, 2; Gesenius, ZeArg., p. 
 679; Ewald, ὃ 332 ¢; Kalisch, § 87 αὶ 
 
 The OY in the second part of the verse is not to be combined with 
 the preceding relative and translated whence or from whence (as Symm. 
 af’ οὗ, Vulg. wzde, Grotius, Umbreit, etc.), which would require 
 nv, The relative in descriptions of places often means by itself 
 in which, i.e. where, Gen. Xxxix. 20, or 209 which, i.e. whither, Num. 
 xii. 27; 2 Kings ΧΙ. 2 (where our A.V. has incorrectly “ for”), but 
 never from which, or whence. But, as Delitzsch observes, OY after 
 
 verbs of motion (eg. after 33% in Jer. xxii. 27, and after 77 in 
 1 Sam. ix. 6) has frequently the signification of Πρ, Hence the 
 passage is “20 the place whither (Ὁ in '30Y) the rivers are going, 
 thither (DY) they go again,” that is, they flow on ever again and 
 again into the all-devouring sea. In combination with another verb, 
 3% is often best rendered by the adverb “ again.” The verb quali- 
 fied is placed either in the same tense, and (1) connected with }, as 
 in 2 Kings i. 13; or (2) without 1, as Gen. xxx. 31. Or, (3) as 
 
 here, followed by 4 with the inf, Hosea xi. 9; Job vii. 7, etc. The 
 use of the participle is intentional, as continuity is intended to be 
 expressed, Seen. on verse 6, Compare Lucretius vi. 631-638 :— 
 
 “ Postremo quoniam raro cum corpore tellus 
 Est, et conjuncta est, aras maris undique cingens, 
 Debet, ut in mare de terris venit humor aquai, 
 In terras itidem manare ex aequore salso ; 
 Percolatur enim virus, retroque remanat 
 Materies humoris, et ad caput amnibus omnis 
 Confluit ; unde super terras redit agmine dulci 
 Qua via secta semel liquido pede detulit undas.” 
 
 rp) 
 
 here, may either mean word or thing. In the latter sense it is found 
 in the next verse, as also in chap. vi. 12; vii. 8; Josh. v. 7 A, ete 
 The LXX., Syr., Targ., with many modern commentators, translate 
 it here by “words.” But the expression would be strange, if the 
 meaning sought to be conveyed is that given by Gesenius (in the 
 
 8, O°}? ΘΠ ΟΞ, The word 724, the plural of which is found 
 
Ομ. 1.81] Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 2 
 
 Thes.) “all words are wearied,” that is, the man would be wearied 
 who should endeavour to declare all these things in words. Equally 
 ‘strange is it if the translations of Winer, Knobel, etc., be adopted, 
 “all words weary,” 2.6. render the ears of those weary who hear 
 them ; the adjective being regarded as active. Knobel, after Rosen- 
 miiller, urges in defence of this rendering that words of a similar form 
 are often active in signification, as by, a workman, Judges v. 26; 
 32Y, Ps. xlix. 6; TY Job xvi. 19; OWN, Ezra x. 19. This explana- 
 tion is, apart from other considerations, scarcely consistent with the 
 close of the verse where the writer speaks of the ear, not as wearied, 
 but as never satisfied with hearing. Graetz renders “all things weary 
 themselves,” ze. in the same way as related, by ceaselessly going 
 the same rounds. Not dissimilarly Delitzsch, “all things weary 
 themselves,” z.e. working with all their might and main, or, in other 
 words, ‘‘all things are in activity.” He compares the signification 
 of the noun 23’, work, labour, used specially of hard toil (comp. the 
 verb in piel, chap. x. 15). The fem. noun 702) occurs in same sense 
 in chap. ΧΙ]. 12. This is better than Rosenmiiller’s “ omnes res fati- 
 gantur h.e. in perpetua versantur vicissitudine qua fatigantur quasi.” 
 Yi" signifies not causing weariness, but suffering from weariness. So 
 in Deut. xxv. 18; 2 Sam. xvii. 2, which are the only other passages 
 where the adjective occurs. Closely related however is the adjective 
 ΝΣ which occurs once in plural, Job. ii. 17, also in an intransitive 
 sense; unless indeed Y3! and 9.2) be regarded as identical, vid. 
 Bottcher, Lehvb., § 751 a, ὃ 994, 8. Perowne, in the Expositor, 
 translates ‘‘all things are weary,” and observes: ‘‘this is the poetry 
 of the heart. The weary spirit sees its own weariness reflected on 
 all sides. Man interprets nature,—reads into it his own unrest and 
 dissatisfaction, and weary, profitless, laborious monotony.” But the 
 explanation of Delitzsch seems more in accordance with the context. 
 
 The object to be supplied after 121 is 3, The restless activity 
 exhibited by the things of nature communicates itself also to man, 
 and makes him restless; his eye is not satisfied with what it sees, 
 nor his ear content with what it hears. The expression about the 
 eye is not used in the same sense as in Prov. xxvii. 20.  Hitzig 
 and Zockler render YOU, “so that it will no longer hear,” lit. 
 “away from hearing.” But this is unnecessary. YY is construed 
 with Ὁ of the thing with which one is satiated or satisfied. (See 
 chap. vi. 3; Job xix. 22; Ps. civ. 13.) Similarly N?1D? is construed 
 
6): ΩΡ The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 8, 9. 
 
 with } preceding the object of which anything is full. See Ezek. 
 xxxii. 6, and comp. the verb in kal in Isaiah 11. 6 ; in piel, Jer. li. 
 ZASoPSAGRXVIL 5: 
 
 g. mnw nd, The LXX. render ΠΟ interrogatively in both 
 parts of the verse, τί τὸ γεγονός ; αὐτὸ τὸ γενησόμενον: καὶ τί τὸ 
 πεποιημένον ; αὐτὸ τὸ ποιηθησόμενον ; and similarly Vulg. So the 
 Arab., Grotius, Bauer and others. So ‘YM is a phrase indicative οἱ 
 a late period of the language. It means that which, identical with 
 
 Aram, , [%, 7 79, "19, Dan. ii. 28, 29, 45; Ezra vii. 18. Comp. 
 Koh. iii. 15; x. 14. The older language uses in this sense the 
 
 simple relative 1S, and WS 59 in that of whatever (chap. vi. 10; 
 vii. 24). 2 though properly interrogative, was in certain cases used 
 to denote whatever (quodcunque), Job xiil. 13 (in which sense the 
 more definite "ΠΡ 123, Num. xxill. 3, is also employed), also to 
 denote something, anything (aliquid, quidquam), Gen. xxxix. 8; Prov. 
 ix. 13, and Ἵ or WS "Ὁ is used ,in the sense of guisguis, whoever, 
 Exod. xxiv. 14 ; xxxil. 33. These references are those of Delitzsch. 
 See also Ewald, § 331, 3; Ges.-Kautzsch, § 124, 2; Kalisch, § 80, 
 11. In ¥ N17, (compare WN 8, Gen. xlii. 14), Delitzsch notes 
 the meanings 2d (est) guod and zdem (est) guod are combined. 1 is 
 sometimes used to denote that two things are placed on the same 
 footing, as Job iil. 19, or are the same, Ps. cil. 28. ΠῚ is used 
 throughout the book specially with reference to events or circum- 
 stances in nature which occur of themselves, or independently of 
 the will of man (chap, 1. ΤῈ; 225 Vi. 10, 12.5 Vill.-7); ec ΠΠ: σι τὴ: 
 ΓΙ of events which are the results of human action (i srs thene 
 il. 173 ἵν. 3, 8; 1x. 3,6). Koheleth by no means, however, affirms 
 here the Stoic doctrine of a recurring cycle of human history as set 
 forth in Virgil, Ecl. iv. 
 
 win 52 PN. There is nothing new. . Comp. Dani. 4; Num. xi. 6; 
 Deut. vill. 9; and in N.T. οὐ πᾶς, Matt. xxiv. 22; Luke i. 37; 
 Apoc. xxi 27. Sée Ges.-Kautzsch, ὁ τ, 1 Ewald, δ 5 ἢ, 
 Kalisch, ὃ 106 αὶ 
 
 The same thought appears in the Roman and Greek authors. 
 Thus Seneca, Epist. xxiv.: ‘Nullius rei finis est, sed in orbem nexa 
 sunt omnia; fugiunt ac sequuntur. Diem nox premit, dies noctem ; 
 eestas in autumnum desinit, autumno hiems instat, qua vere com- 
 pescitur, Omnia transeunt ut revertantur, nihil novi video, nihil 
 
Ch. ig, 10.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 315 
 
 novi facio. Fit aliquando et hujus rei nausea. Multi sunt qui non 
 acerbum judicent vivere, sed superfluum.” So Marcus Aurelius: 
 Lib. vi. 37, ὃ τὰ νῦν ἰδὼν πάντα ἑώρακεν, ὅσα τε ἐξ ἀϊδίου ἐγένετο, καὶ 
 ὅσα εἰς τὸ ἄπειρον ἔσται: πάντα γε ὁμογενῆ καὶ ὁμοειδῆ ; Vil. τ, οὐδὲν 
 καινὸν, πάντα καὶ συνήθη καὶ ὀλιγοχρόνια ; Xi. 26, πᾶν τὸ γινόμενον 
 οὕτως ἀεὶ ἐγίνετο καὶ γενήσεται καὶ νῦν πανταχοῦ γίνεται. The same 
 thought occurs in Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 57, though his words are 
 too general to be regarded as a distinct reference to this text : od yap 
 δεδοίκαμεν θάνατον: τοῦ πάντως ἀποθανεῖν ὁμολογουμένου, καὶ μηδενὸς 
 ἄλλου καινοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐν τῇδε τῇ διοικήσει ὄντων. See ἃ τὸ- 
 markable parallel also in Manilius, As¢tronomica, i. 522 ff. 
 
 το. ΔΙ δ᾽ “Js there anything, εἰς." = Assyr. isu, has here 
 the force of a hypothetical antecedent, granted that there is a thing 
 of which one might say—Delitzsch. On 137 see n. on verse ὃ. LXX. 
 have ὃς λαλήσει Kal ἐρεῖ, and similarly Syr. alec ς MG : ee Knobel 
 considers they read TONY) 127, The Vulg. paraphrases the verse 
 “ nihil sub sole novum, nec valet quisquam dicere.” 
 
 Mis used after M87 as its object in chap. vii. 27, 29, in the second 
 of which cases it is preceded as here by makkeph, but in both cases 
 connected with the following word by a conjunctive. Here, though 
 substantially the subject referring to that which follows it is marked 
 with a distinctive (tippecha), as if “see this, new it 15." 722 See 
 our glossary. pybye, b expresses the rule or measure with which 
 the comparison is made. yAdd m7 WN, The irregularity here 
 of the singular verb instead of the plural, pby being the antece- 
 dent, is best explained by regarding the verb as neuter. So chap. 
 vitae fa δ m3 M92 123, and vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 147, rem. 2. Ewald 
 and others suppose the relative to be understood, “that which has 
 occurred before our eyes was already long ago.” See also Ewald, 
 § 294 ὦ 2, and ὃ 295 4. Comp. Gen. xxxv. 26; xlvi. 22 ; 1 Chron. 
 ii. 9; iii. 1. Several MSS. have corrected the irregularity, and Renan 
 would read also the plural here and in verse τό. On ἜΡΩΣ com- 
 pare DEP, 155. ἘΠ: σῷ»; D250, Deut. 11. 10, 12, etc. ; 0°23, 2 Sam. 
 x. 9. That which is considered new in one generation sometimes 
 turns out to have been known in another, and afterwards to have 
 fallen into oblivion, so that the old, when it re-appears, seems to 
 be new. 
 
10. The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 11, 12. 
 
 rr. D3WNI2 Ὑ PX, fis generally regarded as placed in the 
 construct before ? owing to the intimate connexion. So Gesenius, 
 Elster, Knobel. See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 116, 1; Philippi, Stat. Consz., 
 p. 59. 193% may be viewed with Delitzsch as in the absolute state, 
 being then regarded as another form of }03t, and one more common 
 in later Hebrew. Comp. 117), verse 3, ᾿Ξ, chap. 11. 213 iv. 4. 
 
 DWN and ΣΝ are often regarded, especially by the older 
 comm. as neuters, and so Graetz among the modern. In such cases 
 the fem. would be expected, as in Isaiah xlii. 9; xlil. 9, 18; xlvi. 9. 
 Elster and Herzfeld think both men and things are referred to. 
 Knobel, Delitzsch, etc., consider the reference to be to persons. 
 DWN is used for those of former time (Deut. xix. 14) and DYJINN for 
 those of later generations (chap. iv. 16; Job xvilil. 20.) Comp. also 
 Gen. xxxili. 2. The article is used with both words, hence the 
 
 kametz under the . Compare 5°37? used of persons, 1 Sam. xxiv. 
 14, and N¥'372 used adverbially, Isa. xlviii. 18; and even in this 
 
 very verse the masc. b and 'N? in the first part are contrasted with 
 ΠΟ ΠΝ in the close. 
 
 Marcus Aurelius (Lib. iv. 34) speaking of the names of great men 
 as mere words which need interpretation, says ἐξίτηλα γὰρ πάντα 
 καὶ μυθώδη ταχὺ γίνεται: ταχὺ δὲ καὶ παντελὴς λήθη κατέχωσεν. Of the 
 ordinary class of men he notes, ot γὰρ λοιποὶ ἅμα τῷ ἐκπνεῦσαι, αἴστοι, 
 ἄπυστοι, and in cap. 35 he observes, πᾶν ἐφήμερον, καὶ τὸ μνημονεῦον 
 Kal TO μνημονευόμενον. So in Lib, i. 17 he remarks, 4 ὑστεροφημία 
 δὲ λήθη. 
 
 12. See our remarks on this verse p. 88 ff. and specially note on 
 p- 93. Graetz translates ‘‘I Koheleth am king,” and calls atten- 
 tion to the fact that 77 often means to decome as well as 20 Le. 
 He regards the word as signifying that the person represented here 
 as the speaker is described as a parvenu king. “I have become 
 king.” But, even if Graetz’s theory were true that Herod the Great 
 was depicted under the person of Koheleth, this explanation would 
 not suit the passage, for the speaker is relating actions performed 
 in the past, and is not speaking of his condition at the moment of 
 
 writing. The expression ‘‘king over (20) Israel” is occasionally 
 found in the earlier books, 1 Sam. xv. 26; 2 Sam. xix. 23; 1 Kings 
 xl. 37. The more usual expression is “ king of Israel.” 
 
 ἘΠ. b ab D2 is to give one’s heart or mind toa matter. The phrase 
 
Ch. i. 12, 13.] Critical and Grammatical Comm. Str 
 
 occurs in chap. i. 13, 173 Vil. 2% viil, Ὁ: 16, also in Dan. x. 12; 
 1 Chron. xxii. 19. Similar phrases are ony NY, Ps, xlviii. 14; 
 ὃ ab 2 2 Chron. xii. 14, Compare jabs 102, ἐν φρεσὶ θεῖναι, 
 Koh. vii. 2; ix. τ. The synonymes 71 and WA do not refer to a 
 lower or higher degree of investigation (Zéck/er), but to two different 
 methods ; &77 signifies to search into the root of matters (the word 
 implying rubbing, desting), WF rather to investigate on all sides. So 
 Delitzsch. Hence the latter word is suitably used of the spies 
 searching the land of Canaan (Numb. xiii. 1, 16, 17), and in this 
 passage figuratively of intellectual research. The Midrash Shir-ha- 
 Shirim, chap. i. 1, considers the word Fi to be used by Koheleth 
 in reference to the work done by the spies spoken of in Numbers, 
 to which he figuratively compares his work. One would have 
 expected the author to have used in this place and in verse 16 (also 
 Muechap. di, 5, O, 12; 43, Etc; Ul. 223 ἰνι Τὴ 3) vill. 175115, ete.) 
 the imperf. with vav conversive, instead of which he has made use 
 of the perfect with simple vav. See Ewald, ὃ 343 ¢, Driver, Hed. 
 Tenses, § 133. See especially the note of the latter in his 2nd edit. 
 EOI 
 
 yr py sin, This ἐς an evil business, or exercise, te. the investi- 
 gation and search after those things which are done under the 
 sun, Nis subject as chap. ii. 1. It is generally used in this book 
 as a predicate. The ordinary reading is Y) {228 in which case 'Y is 
 the construct, and 39 either the adj. or the noun (see Ewald, 
 § 287 a, 1). But the better MSS. and the older editions, as Delitzsch 
 mentions in his Azhdnge, have }!2¥ with kametz, and so also in chap. 
 Υ Τῇ: 
 
 2, trouble, business, occupation, in Biblical literature occurs only 
 in Koheleth, where it is found eight times, ΟΣ 12.711. 22. 50}. 
 iii. 10; iv. 8; v. 2, 13; vill. 16. It is very common in Rabb. Hebrew, 
 where it is used in the sense of business in the largest sense of the 
 word, for instance in that of the subject-matter of a discussion. See 
 examples cited by Delitzsch and Graetz. In Chaldee it is used (as 
 sometimes in the Targ. of the Psalms) in the signification of crcum- 
 stances, thing, kind, affair. It is found in the Targg. in PS, 31x56 
 ὙΠ 2; (πη: 1 BE NEU observes “verbum ANnrAN Aquila, 
 LXX., et Theod., περισπασμὸν similiter transtulerunt, quod in disten- 
 fionem Latinus interpres expressit, eo quod in varias sollicitudines 
 
518. - The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 13-15. 
 
 mens hominis distenta lanietur. Symm. vero ἀσχολίαν, id est, occu- 
 pationem, transtulit.”  '19) DyAON! [ΠΣ for DION 1Π2 WR, 
 
 14. ΠῚ Maya, The word MY occurs seven times in this book, 
 chap. i. 143 il. 11, 17, 263 iv. 4, 6; vi. 9, in all these cases followed 
 by ΠῚ. The word occurs elsewhere only in the Chaldee parts of 
 Ezra (v. 17; vii. 18). It has been erroneously derived from YY or 
 DI, to make a noise, to break, and hence rendered by perturbation of 
 mind, or afflictio spiritus (Vulg.), or by kindred phrases in the Syr. 
 and Targ.; Symm. in vi. 9, κάκωσις πνεύματος. But MY) as well as 
 HY, chap. ii. 22 (used also in a parallel formula, 7 {1'Y1 verse 17 ; 
 chap. iv. 16) are both derived from 11, Renan would in all these 
 cases read MP7, But the two distinct words are in existence, and 
 Y2 occurs frequently in the Chaldee of Daniel (ii. 29, 30; iv. τό, 
 etc.). ΠΥΡῚ is the fem. of 27 or ἡ» (in PNW) like 1N9 (in NwAND) = 
 ΓΙ or ND (Bottcher, Lehrd. ὃ 704). The wh is the abstract feminine 
 ending like maby, which in Aramaic was apocopated into 3391), 
 mM’ means both to feed and to delight in. Hence some have 
 rendered the phrase here a ‘‘feeding on wind.” So Aq. and Theod., 
 νομὴ ἀνέμου, Symm. (chap. 1. 14), βόσκησις ἀνέμου, which rendering 
 he gives for 7 })'¥0 in chap. iv. 16. The LXX. render both phrases 
 alike by προαίρεσις πνεύματος. Compare on the sense, Hosea xii. 2, 
 mo myo DMA, which is explained by the parallel 07? 47}, and 
 Jer. xliv. 20. BS MW), he strives after ashes. 
 
 15. pn? boa ND nw. The crooked cannot be straightened. Knobel 
 adduces the proverb from Suidas ξύλον ἀγκύλον οὐδέποτ᾽ ὀρθόν. jPA 
 occurs in two other passages of this book, viz. chap. vil. 13, and 
 xii. 9, both piel. The word is not found elsewhere in Bibl. Heb. 
 It occurs in the Chald. of Dan. iv 33, in hophal, and is of frequent 
 occurrence in both Chald. and Syr. in the sense of to arrange, to 
 set in order. Delitzsch notes that itis common in the Mishna. A 
 derivative }}PF in later Hebrew is the technical term for arrange- 
 ment, order, ODD }PA, the arrangement of the scribes, bby Π ΠΡ, che 
 order of the world. Note the intransitive inf, in ὁ, }PA instead of 
 iPF. Delitzsch compares 3, 7p, 5B); compare 1%, in chap. v. 
 11. The sentiment of this passage recurs again at chap. vii. 13. 
 The LXX. διεστραμμένον οὐ δυνήσεται ἐπικοσμηθῆναι. The Targ., 
 Vulg., Syr. and some later commentators have misunderstood the 
 passage to refer to the sins or immoralities of man. 
 
Ch. i. 15,16.] Cretzcal and Grammatical Comm. 319 
 
 15. D9. An ἅπαξ dey. in the Biblical writings. The idea is ex- 
 pressed in the other books by "4012, a derivative from the same root. 
 ‘TD itself occurs frequently in Rabb. Hebrew to signify @ loss, a deficit, 
 the phrase D°D {Di} being commonly used for a deficit in the purse, 
 or 55 of money. See Levy, Meuheb. W. B.,s. ν.  Delitzsch in his 
 glossary quotes the words of the high priest in the prayer on the 
 Day of Atonement: ‘Should loss (j0DM) befall us on this day 
 or this year, may our loss be one caused by good works (132.000 Sn" 
 nso dv jypN3),” 
 
 The meaning of the niphal 42!97 must here be 7 de brought to the 
 full number. The phrase means “a deficit cannot be counted,” ie. 
 as a whole, and is similar to the proverb, “where there is nothing, 
 there is nothing to count.” So Delitzsch, similarly Kleinert, and, 
 among the ancient interpreters, Theod. καὶ τὰ ὑστεροῦντα οὐ δυνάνται, 
 numerart calculo. Syr. Hex. φόβο asrvdivo\. See Field’s 
 Lexapla. ‘Knobel takes ΠῚ in the signif. of the Chald. °32 70 se¢ 
 up, and explains the sense to be: the wants in life are innumerable, 
 and what is once wanting in circumstances of life for a full enjoy- 
 ment thereof cannot be made up by human efforts. Symm. renders 
 (καὶ) ὑστέρημα μὴ δυνάμενον ἀναπληρῶσαι ἀριθμόν. LXX. καὶ ὑστέρημα 
 οὐ δυνήσεται ἀριθμηθῆναι. Bridges supposes the passage to refer to 
 man as being “a creature of so many wants.” ‘The latter idea is, 
 however, quite foreign to the text. Renan and Plumptre are probably 
 correct in regarding this verse as a quotation of an aphorism either 
 common in the writer’s day or borrowed from an earlier writer. 
 
 16, NN. The "38 is pleonastic, see Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 137, 3, 
 
 rem. 2, and Excurs. 4. Ὁ py 37, means most probably, as the sand 
 following shows, to speak to the heart, but the phrase might be used in 
 
 the sense of fo speak in the heart, as Deut. viii. 5 ; comp. Ὁ by WAT, 1 
 Sam. i. 13. See Delitzsch’s Bzb/. Psych., p. 134 (Engl. ed. p. 293). 
 
 snapimwneIA, The second verb might be regarded as the com- 
 plement of the first, the phrase implying “I became very great in 
 wisdom. See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 142, 3 ὦ, Ewald, ὃ 285 ὦ, Kalisch, 
 § 103, 2. Kleinert renders the perfects here, after 137, as futures, 
 “JT will become great, etc.,” and refers to 1 Kings 11]. 12, the phrase- 
 ology of which is imitated here. See Ewald, ὃ 135 ¢ The em- 
 ployment, however, of the perfect in the next clause is some objec- 
 
 tion to this, 7 ΚΣ 5¥, On the sing. °F yid note on verse ro. 
 
230, \ The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 16, 17. 
 
 ‘y) DY 93H? 71. WR, Compare 1 Chron. xxix. 25, qoo-ba-by aay) TWN 
 bysnipsnby 1230, The phrase in Koheleth if strictly construed would 
 imply that there were more kings than one before Solomon who 
 reigned over Jerusalem, and is therefore to be regarded as a slight 
 anachronism. But the phrase in Chronicles construed strictly could 
 be justified by fact, inasmuch as Saul as well as David ruled over 
 Israel, though not over Jerusalem. See on the whole passage our 
 remarks in pp. 88-95. 
 
 My ΠΙΝΣῚ 991, Zo see wisdom, etc., to have knowledge and appre- 
 hension of it. Compare the cognate phrase 193M ΔΜ)", chap. vill. 16, 
 and John ii. 21, οἴδατε ἀλήθειαν. See on the expression, Delitzsch’s 
 Bibl. Pyschology, p. 254 (Engl. ed. p. 276). 
 
 nai prop. inf. hiph., used also as an adverb, Ges. Zehrg. p. 627, 
 Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 100, 2 d, Ewald, ὃ 240 4, ὃ 280 a. Konig, Lehrg., 
 p. 536. It qualifies both verbs and nouns, but is placed after and not 
 before the word qualified. It is here used as an adverb qualifying the 
 M87 which precedes, and not the 93M which follows it. See 2 Kings 
 x. 18; 2 Sam. vill. 8; 1 Kings v. 9. In Koheleth it is used as an 
 adjective with nouns, chap. il. 7; v. 6, 16; vi. 11; ix. 18; xi. 8; xii. 
 Ὁ, 12; as an adverb, chap. v. 19; vil. 16, 17. Hence the transl. 
 “‘ My heart saw much wisdom and knowledge” (Zwadd, Ginsburg, 
 Plumptre) is incorrect. The Gr. Ven. in translating ἢ καρδία μου 
 τεθέαται καταπολὺ σοφίαν καὶ γνῶσιν has shown a nice perception 
 of Hebrew Grammar. See Delitzsch’s Pref. to Gebhardt’s edition 
 of the Greecus Venetus, p. vil. 93M and NY differ as σοφία and 
 γνῶσις, sapientia and intelligentia; the former indicates practical 
 wisdom, the latter theoretical insight (A7ode/). 
 
 17. ΠΗ), The cohortative ending gives here an intensive mean- 
 ing to the imperfect. The cohortative Ππ is really the remains in 
 Hebrew of the energetic form of the imperfect in Arabic. See W. 
 Wright’s Avab. Gram., § 97, rem. c. On the form in Hebrew see . 
 Ewald, § 232 g., and better Stade, Zeirb., ὃ 480, especially rem. 2. 
 The form is often used after the strong νὰν or νὰν conversive. The 
 imperfect with νὰν conversive occurs only three times in this 
 book, viz. chap. i. 17; iv. 1, 7, whereas the perfect with simple 
 vav occurs repeatedly. Comp. remarks on chap. ii. 5. Driver 
 remarks that “this circumstance, estimated in the light of what is 
 uniformly observable in other parts of the Old Testament, is of itself, 
 
Ch. i. 17.] Critical and Grammatical Con. 220 
 
 though naturally it does not stand alone, a strong indication of the 
 date at which that book [Koheleth] must have been composed.” 
 Febrew Tenses, § 133. See his note in the second enlarged edition 
 in reply to the arguments adduced by Johnston in his Zvea¢ise on 
 the Authorship of Leclestastes. ‘The νὰν conversive denotes in this 
 case the chronological sequence of the statement in the verse in its 
 relation to that in the preceding verse. See Driver, § 74 a. 
 
 wy mide ΓΙ, In consequence of nya having been used in the 
 
 cae? 
 
 previous sentence, NY is used as an infinitive without the repetition 
 of the 9. There is no occasion to strike out the words which follow 
 
 (2301 mipon), as Ginsburg does in his translation. He considers that 
 they “crept into the text through the carelessness of a transcriber,” 
 and with the LXX. he views ΠΡῚ as a noun connected with the 
 preceding 73h, It is certain, however, from the ancient versions 
 that the words so rejected were in the text. The LXX. render them 
 παραβολὰς καὶ ἐπιστήμην, not unnaturally regarding moa to be the 
 same as bay understanding ; the Gr. Ven. has similarly rendered it 
 by νόησις. Hence Graetz would read mia movin, But προ 15, 
 according to the Masora, the same as ἘΣ which latter form 
 occurs frequently in this book. See Delitzsch on this passage, and 
 Ewald, § 50 a. Many MSS. have ΣΝ contrary to the Masora. 
 We find mioein, independently of this passage, coupled with Ὁ in 
 chap. ii. 12. It follows mye3DM1 in chap. vil. 25. It occurs without 
 Ὁ in chap. ix. 3, while in chap. x. 13 the form mi>5in occurs. These 
 are the only cases in which the word appears; it is found only in this 
 book. npain in the same signification occurs once at least in the 
 Midrash Koheleth. The form in ΠῚ is that of the abstract sing.; the 
 form in ΠῚ is, as Delitzsch has pointed out, that of an intensive 
 fem. plur. as n}433 Zeph. iii. 4, ΓΔ, NW3N, vid. Bottcher, § 700 ὦ 
 The LXX. render it here by zapaBodai, which rendering is followed 
 by the Syr., but in chap. ii. 12, and vii. 25 by παραφορά. Aquila, 
 πλάναι. 
 
 ‘ya. 817741. Compare 1 Chron. xxii. 1," 2 817 ΠῚ ~The personal 
 pronoun is generally regarded in such cases as equivalent to the 
 substantive verb; the 817 is placed as copula between the subject 
 and the noun which is used as predicate, as Gen. il. 14; ix. 18 and 
 “here, and sometimes after both, as chap. ii. 23; Gen. xxxiv. 21. 
 
 Υ 
 
‘Beer The Book of Koheleth. (Chi. ἀπ τ 
 
 Vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 121, 2, but see Driver’s Hebrew Tenses, second 
 edit. § Zon, 3. 
 
 YY9, See note on verse 14. 
 
 18. Di is more easily explained as a participle kal for 41D)’, 
 than as a participle hiphil for the regular ἢ Θ᾽ which is found 
 Neh. xii. 8. Bottcher has maintained the latter view, Lehré., 
 § 994, 3. But see Ewald, ὃ 169 a, Stade, § 214 ὦ, and § 100, and 
 specially Konig, § 36, 1 (p. 404). For similar forms, reference is 
 made’ to Isa xxix. 14; xxxvill. 5; Ps. xvii 5. But Delitzsch) im 
 his comm., points out that in all these passages the verb can be 
 explained as the imperfect, and so Ges.-Kautzsch, 8 50, rem. 1. In 
 reply to Bottcher’s assertion that there is no other exampie where 
 two imperfects taken impersonally follow one another, Delitzsch 
 adduces Prov. xii. 17, PY$ 13) 4328 MD’ Hoelemann notes that 
 this verse is a striking contrast to “sapere aude” and the panacea 
 of the present day. 
 
 Renan regards this verse as an aphoristic quotation from some 
 older source, but this is improbable. Delitzsch notes that the 
 proverb “‘much learning causes headache” may be suitably com- 
 pared with chap. xii. 12, but not here where mental grief and pain 
 is that implied by both the nouns which are made use of. 
 
 CHAPTER. II. 
 
 τ. ‘202 NON, Vid. note on chap. i. 16. 
 
 NPBIX imperf. piel of 7D}. The Vulg. renders ef afiuam delicits, 
 connecting it in some way (like Ibn Ezra) with 103, to pour out 
 (as if 1338 niphal, see Delitzsch on Ps. ii. 6). The signification 
 of the latter verb, however, will not admit of this. D2 is construed 
 with 2 of the means, or instrument, by which the trial is made, chap. 
 vii. 23; 1 Kings. x. 1. Hengstenberg thinks that the germ of the 
 parable of our Lord in Luke xii. 16-21 is contained in the first two 
 verses of this chapter. The 13, the fuller form of the suffix 4, is 
 used, (1) to make the suffix more distinct in words which end in 
 caph, eg. 1328, 1 Sam. 11. 22, (2) to lengthen in writing shorter 
 words, as NDN3, Gen. x. 19, (3) less frequently, as in this passage, in 
 longer words, which last usage may be a mark of later date. See 
 Bottcher, ὃ 871. 3{62 487). Words which refer primarily to the 
 
Ch. ii. 1, 2.) Crztical and Grammatical Comme. 323 
 
 senses are often used in a figurative sense of any experience however 
 derived. Hence 0 see is often used in the signification of 20 experi- 
 ence and fo enjoy. Comp. in N.T. Luke ii. 26 ; John iii. 36; viii. 51. 
 Knobel notes that the idea of enjoyment which is sometimes sup- 
 posed to lie in 180 when construed with 2 does not necessarily 
 belong to that phrase, as it is also employed with respect to experi- 
 ences by no means pleasurable (Gen. xxi. 16; xliv. 34). Vis the 
 imp. and forms part of the address to the heart. It cannot be the 
 infinitive, as Graetz regards it. 
 
 2. Joy and laughter are personified ; the words spoken to them 
 are put in the oratio obligua. Knobel understands the passage differ- 
 ently, and translates ἢ by zz reference to, appealing to Ps, ill. 3; xxil. 
 31; Isa. v. 1, etc. - Pleasure in general is signified by “joy,” and un- 
 restrained merriment by “laughter”; which latter often appears to 
 be folly, if not worse, to an unconcerned looker-on. Compare 
 Seneca, Epist. 23, ‘‘ Animus debet esse alacer et fidens, et super 
 omnia erectus. Res severa est verum gaudium. Ceteree hilaritates 
 non implent pectus, sed frontem remittunt ; leves sunt, nisi forte tu 
 illum judices gaudere, qui ridet.” 
 
 btm part. poal sad, comp. Ps. cil. 9. It is masculine and not 
 neuter, hence Hitzig’s rendering “dummes Zeug,” a foolish thing, 
 is incorrect. Thé hithpoal is used in the sense of 29 de mad in 
 1 Sam. xxi. 14; Jer. xxv. 16; li. 7. The Greek translators have all 
 understood the word in the sense of 47707, and so Vulg., but the old 
 Latin better, amentia. 
 
 ny min. On Πὶ see Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 34. ΠῚ is ashortened and 
 later form of MXt. It occurs in 2 Kings vi. 19; Ezek. xl. 45, and 
 in several places in this book. It must not be confounded with it 
 another form of 3", which is of the common gender. Nor is it identi- 
 cal with the ΠῚ found in the phrase 13) 119, thus and thus, Jud. xviii. 
 4. See Bottcher, Zehrd., ὃ 897 a. Delitzsch observes that the use 
 of 7% in Koheleth is similar to that in the Mishna. For Koheleth 
 uses it regularly without the article in cases similar to those in the 
 Mishna, 2 ΠῚ, his dinar, VV ΠῚ, this interpretation, In cases 
 where the writer does not use the masculine ΠῚ in a neuter sense 
 (such as chap. vii. 10, 18, 29; Vili.9 3 ix. 1; Xi. 6), he employs in 
 this signification no other feminine form than 41, Mishnaic %, as in 
 chap. 11. 2; v. 15-18}; vil. 23; ix. 13. The use of the pronouns is 
 
324 The Book of Koheleth. [ἷ: ἢν 2, Ὁ 
 
 also, as Delitzsch notes, in other points akin to that of the Mishna. 
 So in chap. i. το, 817 ΠῚ is like the Mishn. 47, zhzs zs. 
 ny is the feminine of NYY agreeing with ΠΟ, The Syriac ren- 
 
 ders freely, ae iss to what use? But there is no reason to sup- 
 pose it had a different rendering. ΠΡ is used in the sense 20 get, 
 to obtain, Ezek. xxviii. 4; Judg. xiii. 15. Hitzig regards the meaning 
 as equivalent to 12 ΠΡ, Delitzsch compares the use of the noun 
 MY to signify the result or effect of work in Isaiah xxxil. 17. 
 
 Renan views this verse also as a quotation, but it is scarcely 
 probable. 
 
 3. See p. 145. AN. The verb 7 does not mean to prove (as 
 Hengstenberg), but to spy out, to explore, to look round about, etc. 
 See Num. x. 33, and many other passages. The word occurs three 
 times in Koheleth (chap. 1. 13 ; il. 3; vil. 25), in the sense of seek out 
 and discover by mental effort. It means scarcely fo purpose or {0 resolve. 
 The verb 322, with which it is connected, literally means 40 draw, 
 and has been variously explained as signifying ¢o strengthen the body 
 in the sense of Horace’s se benignius tractare (so Gesentus in Thes.), or 
 to hold fast the sensual desires by wine, ze. to give free indulgence to 
 them (Avode/). But these and other meanings assigned to the word 
 rest on no sufficient basis. The passage is loosely paraphrased in our 
 A.V. “I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine.” Hitzig 
 considers that the writer in this verse compares his body in the first 
 clause to a carriage, wine, as the motive power, being thought of 
 as the horse ; while in the second clause he compares wisdom to a 
 coachman placed on the box, in order to prevent the steed from 
 throwing the carriage into a pit or morass. Later writers, as Tayler 
 Lewis, in the English edition of Zéckler, and Perowne, in the 
 Expositor, have improved on this by comparing the supposed picture 
 drawn by Koheleth to the beautiful parable of Plato (Phedrus, 54 f) 
 of the νοῦς or Reason as a charioteer driving his two horses, the fierce 
 steed being the flesh with its lusts, and the gentle one Platonic love. 
 But the resemblance is purely fanciful. For, as Delitzsch has pointed 
 out, 12 does not mean to draw in this sense, but to draw ‘towards 
 oneself, to attract by sensual delights. Similarly Syriac eomasss 
 ᾿ξ [pam0, 10 delight my flesh with wine. This seems to be the 
 sense put upon the passage by the Targ. “fo draw out (87322) my 
 flesh in the house of the banquet of wine,” and of the more literal 
 rendering of the Grec. Ven., ὡς ἕλκοιμι ἐν οἴνῳ τὴν σάρκα μου. 
 
Ch. 1.31  Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 
 
 325 
 7) is often employed in this signification in Rabb. Heb. Buxtorf 
 quotes the phrase DYN ANS WD as equivalent fo indulge in 
 pleasures. Comp. also Chagiga 14 a. by ya pow ΜΝ dys abs 
 DD3 DIN “ these are the masters of the Aggada who draw (entice, refresh) 
 the heart of man as water does.” Tayler Lewis’ explanation, “I sought 
 diligently when my flesh was furiously driving on i” wine, or 
 pleasure [73 being supposed to signify the state or condition] to 
 draw it, to restrain it, to bridle it, to keep it, in the path of temper- 
 ance” is, for many reasons, perfectly impossible. 2 is nowhere 
 
 used in such a signification. Graetz alters the text, rendering mw, 
 He notes, indeed, that that verb is used chiefly of anointing with oil ; 
 but, inasmuch as it occurs also in the sense of panting with ver- 
 milion (Jer. xxii. 14), he translates the text so amended by “ zo 
 embrocate my body with wine,” and observes that herein lies a raffine- 
 ment that, while others were satisfied to anoint themselves with oil, 
 Koheleth wished to do so with wine. Delitzsch remarks on this that 
 Koheleth might with more propriety have spoken of bathing himself 
 in wine, and, if such a conjecture were admissible, the text might even 
 further be improved by reading *31°2 in place of {%5, 24. in Grecian 
 (wine), e.g. Chian, Falernian, Champagne!! The idea of the 
 Breslau professor is about as good as that of a well-known temper- 
 ance advocate who, unable to answer the argument of those who 
 were defending the moderate use of strong drink, drawn from St. 
 Paul’s advice to Timothy to “use a little wine for his stomach’s 
 sake” (1 Tim. v. 23), had the hardihood to affirm that the Apostle 
 intended the wine to be used as an embrocation!! The LXX. 
 translation is unsuitable, καὶ κατεσκεψάμην εἰ ἣ καρδία pov ἑλκύσει ὡς 
 οἶνον τὴν σάρκα μου, but it is evidence in support of the present 
 
 reading. Aquila and Theod. also translate 2? by ἑλκῦσαι. The 
 Vulg. expresses the very opposite of the sense of the passage ‘‘ cogi- 
 tavi in corde meo abstrahere a vino carnem meam.” 
 
 The clause “‘ my heart acting with wisdom” is to be regarded as 
 a kind of parenthesis, as is evident from the use of the participle 373 
 and from the TAY), which is connected with Twn, and, like it, under 
 the government of ‘7A, The sense of the passage has been given 
 on p. 145. A variety of translations have been assigned to 4/72, but 
 it is pretty evident that it is used in the sense of #0 act, to conduct 
 oneself, 2 meaning common in the language of the Mishna. See 
 
3265, The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii. 3, 4. 
 
 Glossary. LXX. καὶ καρδία μου ὡδήγησεν ἐν σοφίᾳ. Incorrectly Symm. 
 ἵνα τὴν καρδίαν μου μεταγάγω εἰς σοφίαν. 
 
 By folly in this verse the sensual pleasures are evidently intended 
 which are afterwards mentioned in detail. Nachtigal, and after him 
 Kaiser, maintained that idolatry was here meant by folly. But of 
 this there is no proof whatever. 
 
 ANIN WR IW, The expression is old Hebrew—Dedlitesch. WO TOS 
 What might be good. "YS is the interrogative which ? what? used 
 both in direct questions as 1 Kings xiii. 12, or in indirect, as here 
 and in chap. xi. 6. See Ewald, ὃ 326 a. * \WS8 means either ¢Aat 
 which they do, or, that which they should do. Perhaps the latter ren- 
 dering ought, with Delitzsch, to be preferred on account of the parallel 
 passages in chap. 11. 24; 111. 22; v. 4,5, 18. ‘ND’ BDD, “ During 
 the number of the days of their life.” 2D is in the accusative, 
 Ges.-Kautzsch, § 118, 2, Kalisch, § 86 7. So chap. v. 17; vi. 123 
 Job xv. 20. Knobel translates, “ during the few days of their life,” 
 as ‘O is used for “few,” “some” (Num. ix. 20; Job xvi. 23; Isa. 
 x. 19. But this idea is hardly suitable to the passage; and moreover 
 12D!) when so employed does not precede the noun in the construct 
 state as here, but either follows it in the genitive, or is used as a 
 predicate. 
 
 4. ‘D msn, See note on chap. i. 16. On the buildings of 
 Solomon see 1 Kings vii. ; ix. 15-22; 2 Chron. vili. 3-6. It is not 
 surprising that the writer, in making reference to the buildings of 
 Solomon erected to gratify his sensual tastes, should abstain from all 
 mention of the building of the temple. But, had the book been 
 an autobiography, some allusion would necessarily have been made 
 to that great fact in Solomon’s history. ‘The Targum introduces a 
 reference to it in its rendering of this passage. 
 
 Da is to be read not dottim but bdattim. It is often pointed 
 O’na, the daghesh after heavy metheg serving to distinguish the word 
 from O')2 part. of M3. See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 16, 2 ὦ, and the 
 other authorities quoted in my critical note in Zechariah and his 
 Prophecies, p. 594. 
 
 Mention is made of David’s vineyards in 1 Chron. xxvii. 27. A 
 vineyard belonging to Solomon is referred to in the Song of Songs 
 chap. vill. 11, and in such a manner as to suggest the idea that the 
 vineyard had been given up or sold. Whether this be a correct 
 interpretation of that passage or not, there is no ground, with Knobel, 
 
Ch. ii. 4-6.) Crztical and Grammatical Conun. 327 
 
 to accuse the writer as guilty here of exaggeration. David’s vine- 
 yards passed into the possession of Solomon, and there is little 
 doubt that Solomon added to their number. He was peculiarly 
 fond of gardens, as the references to them in the Song of Songs, 
 chap. vi. 2, and also in 1 Kings iv. 33, abundantly prove. 
 
 5. ©1132. See previous note. Gardens of herbs are spoken of 
 in Deut. xi. 10; 1 Kings xxi. 2; and the king’s garden, which was 
 undoubtedly a resort of pleasure, is frequently referred to in the 
 historical books (6.9. 2 Kings xxi. 18; xxv. 4; Neh. iii. 15; Jer. 
 LK. 4). 
 
 D2, which occurs only here and in Cant. iv. 13; Neh. ii. 8, was 
 introduced from the Persian into Greek by Xenophon in the form 
 παράδεισος. The Greek word is used several times by the LXX. as 
 the translation of }4 (Gen. ii. 8 ff; xiii. 10; Num. xxiv. 6, and of 7133, 
 Jer. 1. 30). The word is borrowed also not only by the Aram. but by 
 Arabic and Armenian. Whether it be derived from the Zend pairi- 
 daéza or from the Sanskrit paradéca is yet a matter of dispute. See 
 Friedr. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies ? pp. 95 ff. The plural in 
 the Mishna language is MIDIS. It is certain that it means a park 
 planted with trees. Observe here the simple perfect with }, where 
 one would have expected the imperf, with νὰν conversive. Ewald, 
 § 343 ¢ See note onchap.i.17. "5 2 YY. Zrees of all sorts of 
 fruit. Comp. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 111, 1, rem. 
 
 6. 133, a fool, tank, or pond, artificially constructed. Arab. 
 
 GS-c . . . 
 aS yj, plural, M372 (M1373 is the plural const. of 7373, abs. 71373) 
 
 possibly from the stem 713, 20 kneel, as if a place where the camels 
 kneel down to drink water; or from that stem in the sense of Ὁ 
 continue, because of the continuance of the water therein (see 
 Lane’s Arab. Lex.) ; or better as meaning 20 spread out, in the sense 
 of an extended surface of water, as Delitzsch explains the Arabic 
 lexicographers (see his Comm. tiber d. Genesis, 4te Ausg. p. 98). 
 “The king’s pool” is mentioned in Neh. ii. 14; and the 423 N273 
 (identified by the Vulg. and by the A.V. with the pool of Siloam, 
 but probably not identical with it), is spoken of in Neh. iii. 15 as 
 belonging to the king’s garden (on 29), Solomon’s pool 15 spoken 
 of by Josephus (Bell. Jud., lib. v. 4, § 2). There are three pools of 
 Solomon still in existence, near the ancient Etam. Comp. Joseph. 
 Antig., vill. 7, 3. The pools mentioned here were constructed “in 
 
328 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii. 6, 7- 
 
 order to water from them a forest of trees.” Of instead of {1}? 
 (the word for Zool is feminine), which latter in its turn, as Delitzsch 
 observes, is employed in the Mishna in place of O51). See Geiger, 
 Lehrb. ὦ, Mischn., § 13. Knobel, however, considers the pronoun to 
 refer to Ὁ 2. 
 
 VMS IW, a wood sprouting out trees, in place of sprouting out 
 with trees. Verbs which signify growth, flowing, swimming, etc., 
 instead of using prepositions, take after them nouns in the accusative 
 specifying the completion of the idea conveyed by the verb. See 
 Ewald, ὃ 281 4, Ges. Lehrg., p. 809, Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 138, 1, rem. 2, 
 iKalisch, § 102, 7. So Isa.v., 16 ΧΧΧΙ͂Ν 14 Prov xxiv. 30. 
 
 7. Ν᾽ ΤΩΡ, refers here evidently to procuring by purchase (comp. 
 Gen. xvii. 12), although Knobel conceives the idea to be more 
 general, and to include the home-born slaves. These are, however, 
 mentioned in the second clause. A distinction was generally made 
 between the slaves born in the house and those procured in any 
 other way. Home-born slaves are termed here, and in Gen. xv. 3, 
 n12733, more usually N!2 mp (Gen. “xiv. 145 XVI 23°27) alee 
 LXX. render both phrases οἰκογενεῖς, The servants and attendants 
 of Solomon are specially noted in 1 Kings iv. 27, 28, and in 1 Kings 
 x. 5, as having excited the astonishment of the Queen of Sheba. 
 Many who performed such service were Canaanites reduced to 
 slavery (1 Kings ix. 20, 21), so that there is no occasion to treat 
 the statement here, with Knobel, as “ free fiction.” 
 
 rr) nn for 21, See note on chap. i. το. 
 
 831 9P3 7372. The construct 737% would have been naturally 
 expected here (comp. Gen. xxvi. 14 ; xlvil. 17, 18 ; 2 Chron. xxxii. 29), 
 and such is the reading of several MSS. and editions. The correct 
 Masoretic text has, however, the absolute, as Delitzsch has pointed 
 out. He observes that must be regarded as in apposition, like 
 pyoew Ὁ ΠΣ, Exod, xxiv, 5; MVMIN PIN, 2 Kings xvi. 17, though the 
 nouns that follow here might be regarded as accusatives of closer 
 definition (Ewald, ὃ 281c, Ges.-Kautzsch, § 139, 2, rem., Kalisch, 
 § 86 47, herds consisting of oxen and sheep. Delitzsch regards 
 such a construction as too artificial for a book of so late a date. 
 Solomon seems to have been in possession of enormous flocks and 
 herds, as is proved by the sacrifices performed on the occasion ot 
 the consecration of the temple (1 Kings viii. 63), and from the 
 
Ch. ii. 7,81 Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 329 
 
 account given of the daily provision for his table (1 Kings iv. 22 ff). 
 The Israelitish kings were also often possessors of extensive flocks 
 (1 Chron. xxvii. 29-31). 
 
 The mention made in this verse of ‘all that were before me 
 in Jerusalem,” as also the same phrase in ver. 9, would naturally be 
 explained as referring to previous kings, if chap. i. 16 (or 1 Kings il. 
 13; xX. 23) be kept in view. But the phrase here may be under- 
 stood more generally. 
 
 8. "NDID, This verb is common to all the Shemitic languages, in- 
 clusive of Assyrian, and, though specially used in the later Hebrew, 
 cannot be regarded/as one peculiar to the later language. 
 
 mim Ἵ5 ΠΡ), Herzfeld seeks to explain the absence of the 
 
 article with D299 and its presence with 13°79 as owing to the fact 
 that, although kings changed, the districts of the empire or country 
 remained the same. Graetz arbitarily maintains that some word like 
 ‘311 (Dan. xi. 24) must have fallen out before N°, The use 
 or disuse of the article may here have no special significance, though 
 it is possible that in the phrase “of kings and of the countries,” 
 the former is used in a more partial, the second in a more general 
 sense. Hitzig and Zockler consider that its use with ‘127 has special 
 reference to the twelve districts into which Solomon divided the 
 land of Israel for the purpose of taxation (1 Kings iv. 7 ff). But the 
 “districts” referred to were evidently not exclusively those of the 
 land of Israel, nor is the word “2 used in 1 Kings iv., where these 
 divisions are spoken of. The Persian empire is stated in Esth. 1. 1 
 to have been divided into 127 such “districts” (113°). Owing to 
 the large extent of these districts the word appears to be employed in 
 the more general signification of ‘‘ lands,” “‘countries.” ΤΣ does 
 not occur in any book of a date earlier than the exile. It is very 
 frequently used in the Book of Esther, but occurs in Koheleth only 
 in one other place, chap. v. 7. 
 
 Johnston calls attention to the fact that the only other place 
 where ΠΟ occurs, in the sense of material wealth ‘or treasure, is in 
 τ Chron. xxix. 3; where David speaks of the treasure of gold and 
 silver available for the building of the temple. He considers this 
 fact “deeply significant” and as “one of the delicate and conclu- 
 sive evidences of the fact that the author of Ecclesiastes can have 
 been none other” than Solomon! See our remarks on p. 115. 
 
8307, - The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii. 8. 
 
 nye i’, The expression only occurs here, and has given rise 
 to a large number of conjectures. It is, however, tolerably clear 
 that women of various sorts are signified, who are referred to in the 
 preceding expression “the delights (4)2¥A, plur., 0°32¥A, only here 
 Ni3UM) of the sons of men.” A verb shadédu has been found in 
 Assyrian, and perhaps this explains the phrase, which probably means 
 “@ love and loves” (see Friedr. Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 145). The 
 word may be explained, with Miihlau and Volck, from 17%, fo be 
 
 strong, or from T=" (Olshausen, Lehrb. ὃ 83. 4) TW being, zg. 
 mY, comp. Arab. Pelee mistress, domina, the addition of the word 
 
 in the plural in one passage denoting abundance of such “ delights,” 
 
 like the Arab. expression Veale hey abundance of riches. The 
 ᾿ Das 
 
 reference to Isa. ill, 3, and to Ewald, ὃ 172 ὦ, does not bear upon 
 our passage, as there is no difference of gender here between the 
 words. Knobel considers zomen spoken of, but connects the 
 word less suitably with an Arab. root to shut up, as a designation of 
 the wives of an eastern monarch. Rosenmiiller connects it with 
 W, the breast, comparing the expression, 5!9292 O01, Judges v. 30. 
 The word was a puzzle to the ancient translators. Aquila rendering 
 κυλίκιον καὶ κυλίκια, and so Vulg. “scyphos et urceos.” Symm. 
 (known here only by Jerome’s transl.) “‘ mensurarum species et appo- 
 sitiones,” possibly connecting it with the Chald. "IY or SY, zo 
 pour out. The Targ. probably connected it with the same stem, 
 explaining it as “baths and bath-houses (having) channels which 
 poured forth (}!121) lukewarm water, and channels which poured 
 forth warm water.” The LXX. seem to have connected the word 
 with the same root, though they render differently οἰνοχόον καὶ 
 oivoxoas, male and female cup-bearers, reading, perhaps, the words 
 
 as participles NYT) ΠῚ (comp. 1 Kings x. 5; 2 Chron. ix. 4)- SO 
 0-10" Ὁ 00Y 0 
 Syr. ἰδλωρο |Zea~s. Others have assigned the word the meaning 
 
 of music (after the Arab. les, 40 sing). So Greec. Ven. σύστημα 
 καὶ συστήματα, harmony and harmonies. So Kimchi, Luther, Nach- 
 tigal. Rashi explains the phrase as Jcautiful carriages, litters, con- 
 necting it with the Talmudic", ax ark, or chest; and Bottcher, in 
 his Lxeg.-krit. Aehrenlese for 1849, connects it with the same, regard- 
 ing NII TI to be chest and chests used in the sense of abundance 
 of anything. See above. In his Weue Achrenlese, he connects it with 
 
Ch. ii. 8-10.) Ογχζεεαζ and Grammatical Comm. 331 
 
 the same word, but considers that the phrase means “falanguin and 
 palanguins.” Graetz takes nearly the same view, and refers to the 
 Talmud Babli, G7¢tin, 78 a, where it is said that the word was 
 understood in Palestine to mean chests, or sedan-chairs, but in 
 Babylon was considered to signify 1) TY, demons both male and 
 female ; the regular fem. plural is NW. See also the Midrash Shir- 
 ha-Shirim on chap. 11. 8. Delitzsch observes that this Hagadic 
 interpretation is at least on the right track, TY, @ demon, being con- 
 nected with the root 1° in the sense of 70 de strong. 
 
 Ewald suggests that MY is probably equivalent to Arab. hts, 
 
 power, strength, in the sense of a strong or high degree of any 
 quality, in which sense the Arabic word also occurs (see Lane’s 
 Arab. Lex.). So Hahn. The sentence would then mean: “and the 
 delights of the sons of men in great abundance.” In support of this 
 idea, Ewald observes that at the end of a long enumeration some 
 such phrase would be natural. We adhere, however, to the opinion 
 first mentioned. 
 
 g. ‘DIN ὙΠ), vid. ἢ. on chap. i. 16. 10 for Ὁ, vid. n. on chap. 
 i 16. % NY, remained with me, z.e.in spite of all my folly. The 
 verb occurs in this sense construed with 2 in Isaiah xlvii. 12, also 
 Jer. xlviii. 11. So Knobel, Delitzsch and others. Vulg. perseveravit 
 mecum. But Kaiser, Heinem., Herzfeld, Ewald, Graetz, prefer to 
 render “assisted me.” Herzfeld compares the Chanuka-prayer, 
 omy nya pap ΤΩΣ. and Graetz adds that in the Agada for the 
 Passover evening the expression occurs 499) sMAN2 MTIOMY NT, 
 Comp. Dan. ΧΙ. 1, where the verb is construed with ὃν, Herzfeld 
 argues that Solomon’s wisdom was superfluous while he directed his 
 efforts toward what was sensual, but not, however, his ability, which 
 assisted him in carrying out his plans. But the verse evidently recites 
 the carrying out of the design spoken of in verse 3, and hence the 
 former rendering is to be preferred. 
 
 ro, 579 in place of ᾿Π|2. Gesenius (Zehrgeb., p. 731) ascribes this 
 to an incorrectness of speech common in ordinary language, in 
 which masculine pronominal suffixes were not uncommonly used 
 with reference to feminines. So Gen. xxvi. 15; XXXi. 9; XXXil. 16; 
 Job i. 14; Prov. vi. 21. Herzfeld observes that the masc. was often 
 used where the distinction between the genders was not necessary for 
 the sense. Comp. chap. x. 9; xi. 8; xii. 1. See Kalisch, § 77, 2t. 
 
7.5 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii. 10, 11. 
 
 in Sap—onyo-n?, 7 kept back my heart from no joy. Comp. Num. 
 xiv. 11. Graetz would here alter the text and read, Nv "2593 in 
 
 place of Mv "25D, But the change is unnecessary, and is sup- 
 ported by no authority save the Professor’s “must.” Hahn and 
 others translate “after all my labour.” But { expresses here rather 
 the origin and cause of joy. 
 
 rx. Mwyd ndnyw, Vid. Ges,-Kautzsch, ὃ 45, 2, ὃ 142, 2, Kalisch 
 § 98, 5, comp. Gen. ii. 3. 
 
 3532 “ὁ N35). The more usual construction is “by 128 20 turn to, 
 7.6. in the direction of any person or thing. 3 735 here, as in Job 
 vi. 28, is a kind of constructio pregnans, to turn towards in order 
 to fix the attention upon something as an object of contemplation. 
 
 12. Mendelssohn’s translation is impossible, “I turned myself 
 from the contemplation of philosophy (wisdom) in unison with mad- 
 ness and folly,” so Preston’s translation; or, as Delitzsch translates 
 Mendelssohn’s Hebrew, ‘“‘I therefore gave up my attempt to desire 
 to combine wisdom with folly and madness.” Such a translation 
 would require MN NB, Moreover, the ellipsis of { cannot be 
 defended. Mendelssohn maintains a similar ellipsis at chap. vil. 29, 
 which is also impossible. Hitzig translates, “1 turned myself to 
 behold wisdom, and lo! it was madness and folly.” This would 
 require the insertion of avd Jo/ (4371) in Hebrew as well as in 
 English. The passages he appeals to do not justify the translation. 
 The two vavs are, as Delitzsch says, conjunctive and not correlative. 
 
 The second clause of the verse is best explained as we have done, 
 after Delitzsch, on p. 147: “For what is the man that is to come 
 after the king whom they made long ago?” Who can have greater 
 knowledge than Solomon, made king long ago amid the acclamations 
 of the people? The words are most suitably put into the mouth of 
 Solomon, who is represented as speaking of his wisdom as exceeding 
 that of all before him (chap. i. 16), and who had been promised 
 wisdom above all those who should come after him (1 Kings ii. 12). 
 The verse might well be cited as one of those which are inconsistent 
 with the traditional idea of the Solomonic authorship of the book. 
 On WS NS, see Kohler on Zech. xii. το, and the critical note in my 
 Bampton Lectures on Zechariah, p. 588. See also Ewald, ὃ 332 ὦ. 
 Koheleth, in verse 19, speaks of himself as not knowing whether his 
 successor would be a wise man or a fool; and hence it would have 
 
Ch. ii 12] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 3323 
 been inconsistent for him to have referred to his successor as a man 
 certain to follow a course of folly ; or, as some commentators explain 
 the text, as a man inheriting the throne but not the wisdom of his 
 sire. Ewald, Heiligstedt, and Elster regard the ΤΣ here as the 
 preposition, and translate, “ And 7 turned myself round to see wisdom 
 and folly and madness, namely, what the man would be [1.6. what 
 kind of a fool he would be] who should come after the king, compared 
 with him (Solomon) whom they have already made” king, ¢.e. com- 
 pared with his predecessor. But, as Delitzsch notes, there is no 
 proof of N& in this pregnant sense, at least in the Book of Koheleth, 
 which does not employ MN as a preposition. ‘There is perhaps less 
 objection to the transl. given by our A. V., Rosenmiiller, Knobel, 
 Hengstenberg, and Zockler, ‘‘for what can the man do that cometh 
 after the king? even that which hath already been done.” But any 
 reference to a successor to Solomon is foreign to the context of the 
 passage. According to that idea, there would be little or no con- 
 nexion between the two clauses of the verse. Hitzig would alter the 
 vocalization, reading 71¥Y (after Exod. xviii. 18) instead of I7bY, 
 On this alteration Delitzsch remarks, “that a writer of the age of 
 Koheleth would, instead of such an anomalous form, have used the 
 regular 1NWY, Moreover, INWY IDWS NN he will do, or act that 
 which long ago was his doing (mode of action), is not Hebrew; it 
 must at least be ny j2 39 inwv2, or at least invy.” The meaning 
 of the clause, according to Hitzig, would be, he shall act like a 
 fool, as he has been long doing. The verse, however, states simply 
 that Solornon gave himself up to contemplate the relative value of 
 wisdom on the one hand, and of madness and folly on the other, 
 knowing that he was qualified for this task by reason of that wisdom 
 with which he had been endowed far above his fellows. The expres- 
 sion ὙΠ presents no difficulty, for the writer of 1 Chron. (chap. 
 xxix. 22) had no hesitation in speaking of Solomon as made king by 
 the people. The ancient versions seem quite at sea as to the mean- 
 ing of the passage. The LXX translate ὅτι τίς ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐπελεύσεται 
 ὀπίσω τῆς βουλῆς, τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτήν ; and Symm. τί δὲ 6 ἄνθρωπος, 
 ἵνα παρακολουθήσῃ βουλῇ, both connecting Ἴροπ with the Chald. and 
 
 late Hebrew 120 (122), council. Aquila, correctly, ὃς εἰσελεύσεται ὀπίσω 
 τοῦ βασιλέως ; the Vulg. thinks of God as the Creator, “quid est, 
 inquam, homo, ut sequi possit regem Factorem suum?” — Similarly 
 
ἜΣ Lhe Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ἢ. 13-15. 
 
 (ce 0 Yi ¥o0 ae Oey ΧΟ a» A 
 ein, aed a Syt. aseD fai jlo Nady [fay a1) Vas 
 AeA) ὯΝ «2 for what is man that he should go after the king 
 
 in judgment, and then (afterwards) with his Maker? Strangely the 
 Targ. “‘For what use it is fora man to pray after the decree of the 
 king and after punishment? behold, it is already decided with respect 
 to him, and it has been done to him.” 
 
 m2. See on this form Konig, Lehrgeb., § 19, 2 ὦ, Stade, Lehro., 
 ὃ 173 ¢ Ewald § 182 4 According to the Masora 1’) occurs 
 twenty-four times, generally before % and ¥. In eight instances, as 
 Delitzsch observes, this form occurs before other letters; three of 
 these are found in Koheleth, in all of which 7! precedes the letter 
 nN, namely, chap. ii. 12, 22, and chap. vii. ro. 
 
 13. {ND for {93 which is the reading of some MSS. Good 
 MSS. read also }190'2 (see Delitzsch, Zextkrit. Bemerk.). On })1N see 
 Glossary and note on chap. i. 3. 
 
 14. See remarks on p. 148. Note the use of the participles as 
 denoting that which is habitual. On ΠΡ, see Glossary. On the 
 thought in the verse comp., John xi. 10, and Cicero, de Wat. Deorum, 
 11, 64, “totam licet animis tamquam oculis lustrare terram.” Zockler 
 takes the D4 in this verse ("IN D4) as adversative, yet 7 perceived.” 
 But, as Delitzsch notes, 54 in this sense should stand at the com- 
 
 mencement of the sentence. See Ewald, § 354 a. The ‘JS 0) is here 
 
 emphatic. 
 15. See note on chap. 1. 16. ‘38 D) is the accusative, in apposition 
 to the suffix in ‘37?! Vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 121, 3. It precedes 
 
 here for emphasis, comp. Gen. xxiv. 27; Ezek. xxxiii. 17. mei.) αν 
 asks after the object or design, 27) after the reasons for that object. 
 —Delitzsch, ὙΠ See Glossary. ‘1 TDW, That this also ἐς vanity, 
 namely, that there is no distinction often between the lot of the wise 
 man and the fool. The LXX. have attempted to give a different 
 turn to the latter clause of this verse. They connect 10’ 8 with the 
 words following, and render περισσὸν ἐλάλησα ἐν καρδίᾳ μου ὅτι καί ye 
 τοῦτο ματαιότης, διότι ὃ ἄφρων ἐκ περισσεύματος λαλεῖ, making the 
 verse that follows to be the expression of the fool’s thoughts. 
 The words διότι ὃ ἄφρων «.7.A. are an exegetical gloss not in the 
 Hebrew, devised apparently to get over the difficulty of the passage. 
 The Syr. similarly adds at the beginning of v. 16, = [lam, Ὅλο 
 Ato yd. The same turn is given to the passage in the Vulg. 
 
 a 
 
Ch. ii. 15-19.1 Crztzcal and Grammatical Comm. 335 
 
 (and in the comment. of Jerome), “locutusque cum mente mea 
 animadverti quod hoc quoque esset vanitas.” 
 
 16. See p. 148. Jt. Seen. on ch. i. 11. Koheleth is speaking 
 here of wise men in general, not of the few examples of persons whose 
 names have been immortalised in history. 733%. Long ago. See 
 Gloss. under 135. The writer transports himself in thought into the dis- 
 tant future. Comp. Aesch. 4Agam., 579. ‘27 0'F acc. of time. Son, 
 all, the whole of them, used of persons, as Ps. xiv. 3, or sp) in verse 
 r4. It might, possibly, refer to all of the events in the history of the 
 persons referred to. 'I3) 8, “how dieth the wise man as the fool !” 
 TS used sarcastically, as Isa. xiv. 4; Ezek. xxvi. 17. See p. 148. 
 DY is in both cases used as a particle of comparison, as in chap. vii. 11; 
 Job ix. 26; xxxvii. 18. Delitzsch compares 15), Ps. xlix. τα But 
 it might mean in the second clause, “ how dieth the wise man along 
 with (in company with) the fool?” Less suitable is the rendering, 
 “ How dieth the wise man? As the fool!” given in the English 
 translation of Zéckler, but not in the German original. 202 might, 
 as far as form goes, be explained as the perfect. But it is better 
 to regard it as the participle which is used to express that which 
 ordinarily happens in human experience. 
 
 τὴ: by 37 « evil to me,” zg. ‘V2 VY, similar to by a1 in Esth. iii. 
 g. This construction belongs to a late stage of the language. Comp. 
 pou 2°1n, dear to thee, Aboth 2, 10 (2, 14 in Taylor’s ed.). See 
 Ewald, § 217 ὦ, p. 566. Hitzig explains the expression as, Ζ2 was 
 evil upon me, 1.6. like a heavy weight resting on me. So LXX. 
 πονηρὸν ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ. 
 
 18. The author expresses himself in this verse in a manner in- 
 consistent with the theory of the Solomonic authorship. Solomon, as 
 Delitzsch has well observed, would not have spoken of his successor 
 in such an undefined and unsympathetic manner. 
 
 yxy DINd MIN, “ Because I will leave it to the man who shall be 
 after me.” The suffix 13> refers to the Sry of the previous sentence. 
 On the two forms of the hiphil of 13, and their various meanings, 
 see the Lexicon, and Ewald, § 114 ¢. 
 
 19. bow” vid. Glossary. 
 
 On the double interrogative vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 153, 2, rem. 
 
 20. ‘143 "2, Compare in verse 12 ‘Som5), The difference 
 between the two verbs, according to Delitzsch, is that 722 simply 
 
ΠΟΣῚ The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii. 20-24. 
 
 means to turn oneself round; and 12D, when used in that sense, means 
 
 to turn oneself round from one thing to another which might present 
 something new, worthy of special attention. On US’ see Glossary. 
 
 21. 14) npn rw, Ewald translates “whose toil is about wis- 
 dom and knowledge, etc.” But the writer is speaking about a work 
 the result of which could be handed down to another to inherit. 
 Hence this translation is unsuitable. On construction, see Ewald 
 § 309 6. On J) see Glossary. 
 
 22.9 MAM 3.“ For what is to be the result to the man, etc.?” 
 Lit. “ what ts becoming,” about to happen to? ‘The participle of ΠῚΠ 
 for 7'7 only occurs elsewhere in Neh. vi. 6, the participle of 7° only 
 once, Exod. ix. 2. On the pointing ΠῸ vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 37. 
 
 Nin’, The reading of the better MSS. is δ πο, like ὉΠ chap. 
 111. 18. See Delitzsch (¢extkrit. Bemerk.). In the latter case this 
 pointing occurs before makkeph, scarcely however, as Bottcher sup- 
 poses, from a desire to avoid the cacophony of τς (Ζελγό., § 263) ; but 
 more probably as Ewald thinks (§ 181 4) because the ¥ is regarded 
 as a separate word, and when used as the relative is pronounced as 
 short as possible. See also Kalisch, § xx. 2. 
 
 23. Abstract substantives are often similarly used as predicates. 
 Comp. chap. x. 12; Ps. v. 10; Isa. v. 12. The parallelism proves 
 that DY31 is the predicate. The Ἷ in DY3) has kametz, because, 
 according to Delitzsch, a monosyllabic word, or a word which has 
 the tone on the penult (such as a segholate noun), when it imme- 
 diately precedes a word with athnach, takes kametz in the syllable 
 petore the: tone: ‘See πεν: xvill, 54 Prov. σεν 2: Ἱππ τν τὴ 
 
 24. 12) 21 PX, ΔῚΘ PX must not be taken interrogatively, inas- 
 much as it implies a direct affirmation in the negative. The interro- 
 
 gative would require 240 Nom. Hence the Vulg. ‘‘ zonne melius est 
 comedere et bibere, etc.,” is incorrect. The translation of our A. V. 
 is with slight modifications that approved of by most scholars. But 
 it requires a slight alteration to be made in the received Hebrew text. 
 In place of Soxiys DIN. ‘OS we must read baxiyin DINI Ὁ pS, 
 As the text stands, it must be rendered, “27 zs not good among men 
 that one should eat and drink and that his soul should see good, etc.,” 
 which would be directly contrary to chap. iil. 12, 13; villi. 15. Some 
 have proposed with the Targ. and Syr. to insert 58 °3 before the 
 verb, after the analogy of the latter passage. But & ON 3 is scarcely 
 
Ch. ii. 24,25. Crztical and Grammatical Comm. 267 
 
 Hebrew. Itis better with Ewald, Hitzig and Delitzsch to insert 
 the simple Ὁ after the analogy of chap. iii. 22. DIN2 js not, 
 however, to be regarded with Hitzig (and our A.V. “for a man”) as 
 indicating the object or purpose, but more simply, with Delitzsch 
 (after the analogy of D3 21D }'8, chap. iii. 12, and that of DIN2 Dvn, 
 2 Sam. xxxiil. 3), as signifying “among men.” It is interesting, 
 observes the latter scholar, to see how the usages of the older and 
 the later language appear here side by side, without the former 
 passing altogether over into the latter. Thus, after boneyin, guam 
 ut edat, normal perfects follow, according to that peculiarity of the 
 old syntax which Ewald once very suitably termed the fading off of 
 the coloured into grey. 
 
 310 2 ΠΝ ANIA is the same as aD’, Ps. xlix. 19, and is the 
 causative of the phrase found in chap. iii. 13, or of that found 
 in chap. v. 173 vi. 6.—Deditzsch. Koheleth commends in this verse 
 as best for man, not a lazy life of pleasure (note especially the 
 significant addition ny2) but a life which duly combines work and 
 pleasure, a life in which a man eats and drinks and enjoys whatever 
 work it may be his lot to perform. This power, however, to enjoy 
 the ordinary pleasures of life, which are common to man, and to find 
 pleasure in his daily task is, the writer notes, a gift from the hand of 
 God. 
 
 25, ἸΣ YIN win’ D1, The traditional text has here ‘3. But 
 Ewald and Delitzsch are certainly right in reading, with the Syr. 
 and many MSS., 132. The sentence, ‘“‘ Who can eat and can enjoy 
 himself better than I?” would be a most lame conclusion here, and it 
 is highly questionable whether that meaning could be extracted from 
 the Hebrew phrase }2 ΚΠ, which means properly outside of, apart 
 Srom, except, without, equivalent to the Chald. }) 73. On the other 
 hand the thought, “ who can eat and who can enjoy himself without 
 Him?” i.e. God, is one which would naturally follow that of the 
 preceding verse. Man even in the commonest matters is absolutely 
 dependent on the will of a higher power. Hoelemann has lately 
 sought to interpret the passage as a penitential confession on the pait 
 of Solomon. We cannot coincide with his interpretation, and if 
 true it would not tell much in favour of the traditional theory as 
 to the authorship of the work. 
 
 The verb IN} is translated by the LXX. and Syr. by drink. But 
 
 the rendering cannot be justified. Ewald is inconsistent with him- 
 Z 
 
338° The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii. 28-iii. 4. 
 
 self. In his translation he gives “enjoy” (geniessen) as the interpre- 
 tation of the word, but in his notes he approves of the rendering of 
 the LXX. and Syr., connecting the Hebrew with the Arab. lua= 
 ges fo sip, or sup. But the verb in question does not appear in 
 
 Hebrew. WN, in the sense of Aasten, is tolerably frequent, and Dale 
 would translate here after the A.V. “zo can hasten (thereunto).” 
 But what is more to the point is that the verb YN (and WYN) occurs 
 in Chald. and in Talmudic, in the sense of to ¢hznk over, to reflect on, 
 to suffer (prop. to experience). See Levy’s Neuheb. W.B, The Rabb. 
 WIN is also used for sense, as CEYON WIN, 216 sense of taste, pl. DWN the 
 (five) senses. So Arab. ane pl. sles Aquila and Symm. 
 (according to Field) translate φείσεται, which reading has crept 
 into MSS. of the LXX. 
 
 26, dann DI, The reference in “this also is vanity” seems to 
 be to the collecting and heaping together of riches by the sinner just 
 mentioned. The author returns to the point touched on before. The 
 “this” can scarcely refer to the striving after enjoyment in, and through 
 means of, work (Deditzsch); because that striving, though spoken of in 
 verse 24, is too remote. The writer does not (as Knobel thinks) refer 
 to the arbitrary distribution of good from the hand of God, for such 
 cannot be described as “a striving after wind”; nor (as Bullock) 
 to the gifts of God to the righteous, as well as to “the travail of the 
 sinner”; for the gifts of God, though they may in some respects 
 come under the description of “vanity,” cannot be spoken of as “a 
 striving after wind,” 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 1. Time and season (NY) 121) are here contrasted. The former 
 designates rather the point of beginning, the latter the period 
 embraced by the event or matter spoken of. The former is the 
 more general appellation for time, the latter points out rather a 
 special season or portion of time. The LXX. expresses the first by 
 χρόνος, the second very suitably by καιρός. Καιροὶ καὶ χρόνοι is the 
 rendering of the LXX. and Theod. in Dan. 11. 21, S321] S272. The 
 words occur in the reverse order in Acts i. 7 ; 1 Thess. v. 1. Comp. 
 the use of the sing. in the LXX. transl. of Dan. vil. 12 (119) 2110}. 
 The Targ. uses in the present passage δὰ) 1}}) N23. There may pos- 
 
 ——- 
 
Ch. iii. 1,21 Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 339 
 
 sibly be a reference to this verse in Wisdom viii. 8, where the writer 
 says of wisdom that she foreseeth ἐκβάσεις καιρῶν καὶ χρόνων “ the 
 events of seasons and times.” The derivation of NY is a matter of 
 uncertainty, as it may be regarded either as a contraction of NW 
 from the stem 9) = 72}, or of ΠΡ, Ezra iv. 10, from a stem ΠΟΙ͂, 
 Talm. SFY, 
 
 Koheleth seems to return in this chapter to the thought expressed 
 in chap. 1., and points out that there are laws made by a higher 
 power than that of man which regulate human actions; which actions, 
 though in many cases the result of free agency, are, considered as a 
 whole, under the control and guidance of that God who is over all 
 and conditions all things. 
 
 On Y®N see Glossary. 
 
 2. 1955 ny would naturally signify @ ¢ime to bear, and, since the 
 verb is used not only of dearing or bringing forth, but also of be- 
 getting (Gen. iv. 18 and Ps. ii. 7), it might be translated generally “a 
 time to have children.” If this be so, the writer begins his catalogue 
 of the times and seasons of man with the season of full maturity, with 
 which he contrasts the season of death. Those, who at one time 
 give life to others, at another have themselves to yield to the law of 
 
 y, oy 
 death. So LXX. καιρὸς τοῦ τεκεῖν. Syr., obscurely, NJo\ boy 
 
 though most probably referring only to the mother. The Targ. also 
 takes the word in the active sense, but translates it, contrary to the 
 
 usage of the language, by πλοῦ, to kill, “There is a time to beget 
 sons and daughters, and a time to kill disobedient and blasphemous 
 children.” The active meaning of the verb is upheld by Knobel, 
 Hitzig, and others. Hitzig and Zockler argue in support of this opinion 
 that 72" denotes a conscious or intentional purpose ; but, as Delitzsch 
 
 justly remarks the bap « Jor everything,” which stands at the begin- 
 ning of the verse, comprehends both doing and suffering, and death 
 itself (apart from suicide, which is certainly not referred to) is not an 
 intentional act, but an event very frequently encountered in a state 
 of unconsciousness. The infinitive active is sometimes, though 
 rarely, used in a passive signification. So nay, Jer. xxv. 34. See 
 
 Ewald, ὃ 304.¢ Delitzch observes that ΠῚ, which is properly an in- 
 finitive active, is used in Hosea ix. 11, in the sense of dr¢h, and 
 that in Assyrian /:-7d-tu, li-i-tu, li-da-a-tu means “ offspring.” Hence 
 
340 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. iii. 2-4. 
 
 it is quite possible to render the clause with Ewald, Ginsburg, 
 Delitzsch, etc., “a time to be born,” and the contrast contained in 
 the other clause, “‘and a time to die,” is possibly more in favour of 
 this rendering, although no instance can be cited in which the inf. 
 active of this particular verb is used in a passive sense. 
 
 By the time to plant cnn nY) the season of planting or sowing 15 
 indicated, and the time of the harvest is not obscurely pointed out 
 under the expression, “a time to pull up that which is planted.” 
 The form MY only occurs here; the form 022, or 9122, occurs four 
 times, Isa. li. 16; Jer. i. 103; xviii. 9; xxxi. 28. 
 
 3. “ A time to kill” probably refers to the execution of individual 
 offenders and not to slaying in war, for the time of war is mentioned 
 afterwards in verse 8. Hahn has endeavoured to explain these 
 “times and seasons” spiritually. 5M in verse 1 is rendered by him 
 desire, and applied to the efforts of those who seek after righteousness. 
 Hence birth is interpreted of moral regeneration, and death of the 
 death of ‘the old man”; the planting of the previous verse is under- 
 stood spiritually in reference to the heart, and the uprooting to signify 
 the destruction of the plants of evil ; the killing similarly is explained 
 of the mortification of sin (Rom. vil. 4); the healing is supposed to 
 mean recovery from the sickness of sin, etc. This exposition, how- 
 ever, does violence to the obvious sense of the passage. Its complete 
 novelty is a proof of its want of any solid foundation on which to 
 rest. No other interpreters before Hahn have sought thus to explain 
 the passage, nor has he had (as far as we know) any followers in this 
 peculiar line of exposition. 
 
 The “times and the seasons” spoken of are those appointed for 
 human actions and human purposes ; such times are all arranged by, 
 and under the control of, God who is above. The Ruler of men, 
 the Most High has appointed death as the punishment for certain 
 offences. He has also imparted to man a knowledge of the art ' 
 of healing as well as of husbandry and agriculture. Compare 
 on the former, Exod. xvi. 26; Deut. xxxii. 39; Hosea vi. 1; Isa. 
 XXXVill. 21; and on the latter, Isa. xxviii. 23-29. For similar 
 expressions used metaphorically, see Ps. xliv. 3; Ixxx. 3, 4, 13, 14; 
 Jer. xxiv. 6. See our remarks on pp. 187 ff. 
 
 4. Compare on this verse, Luke vi. 21 ; John xvi. 20. 
 
 ,On mourning as appointed by God, see Zech. xii. 10, and Matt. 
 ix. £4, 15. Dancing was made use of on occasions of festivities, and 
 
Ch. iii, 4-7.) Critical and Grammatical Comm. 341 
 
 occasionally in religious festivals. On the manner and times of 
 dancing, see the Biblical Dictionaries. 
 
 5. 70 throw away stones (D348 δ }}Π) has probably reference to 
 the marring of fields and rendering of them unfit for agicultural 
 purposes by casting stones on them. The Israelites acted thus in the 
 land of Moab (2 Kings iii. 25), ‘and upon every good portion they 
 cast every one his stone” (1228 UN 1320), By the gathering 
 together of stones the author probably refers to their being collected 
 together with the intention of removing them from the fields. Com- 
 pare Isa. v. 2. Some have supposed that our Lord alludes to this 
 passage in Mark xiii. 2, but it is scarcely probable. Zéckler maintains 
 
 that “20 throw away stones” in this passage is equivalent to PP in 
 Isa. v. 2; lx. το, and has reference to the throwing of them away 
 from the fields. He has forgotten, however, that the exact phrase 
 occurs in the opposite meaning in 2 Kings. The expression “20 
 collect stones” might refer to the purposes of building; but the 
 connexion in which the expression here occurs is in favour of the 
 general interpretation. 
 
 P3N seems to be used here, as in Prov. v. 20, without any special 
 reference to women, but to mean any affectionate embraces of men by 
 men. Compare its use in Gen. xxix. 13; xlvili. ro. The thought 
 of the writer is that there is a time for the manifestation of friend- 
 ship and a time to refrain from all such manifestations. Compare 
 the arrangement made by Jonathan with David (1 Sam. xx. 19-22), 
 which, however, accidental circumstances permitted afterwards to be 
 modified (verses 37—41). 
 
 6. The seeking in this passage has reference to the search after 
 riches and honour, or after such things as are commonly sought by 
 men. That which is sought carefully is often lost again. 3% piel 
 is used generally in the sense of destroy, and so even in chap. vil. 7. 
 This is its older signification. In the signification of fo /ose it is 
 found only in this passage. Its use, however, in the latter signifi- 
 cation is very common in later Hebrew. See Levy, Veuheb. 
 W.B., 5... 
 
 7. ‘A time to rend and a time to sew.” In the former the reference 
 is to the rending of garments in token of sorrow (Gen. xxxvil. 29; 
 2 Sam. xiii. 3x). Knobel thinks there is an allusion in the passage 
 to the Jewish practice of sewing up the rent made in token of sor- 
 
342, The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iii. 7-11. 
 
 row, at the conclusion of the days of mourning. Herzfeld, however, 
 doubts whether the latter custom (not that of the vending of garments, 
 as Ginsburg supposes him to refer to) can be traced as far back as 
 the days of Koheleth. 
 
 With respect to the time for silence here spoken of, note the 
 silence of the Psalmist under deep sorrow (Ps. xxxix. 2, 9), the long- 
 protracted silence of Job and his friends (Job ii. 13), and that of the 
 servants of Hezekiah in 2 Kings xviii. 36. On times for boldly 
 speaking out, compare Isa. lviil. 1; Acts xviii. 9. Compare too 
 Prov. xxvl. 4, 5. 
 
 8. The time to hate and the time to love probably correspond 
 with the times of war and peace in the next clause. In time of war, 
 whatever secret love one may have towards the enemies with whom 
 he may contend in battle, must practically be laid aside. Is it 
 impossible that this verse formed the basis of the saying of ‘‘the men 
 of old” referred to by our Lord in Matt. v. 43? Compare also Luke 
 xiv. 26. 
 
 Renan has printed this catalogue of “times and seasons” (verses 
 2-8) as if it were a quotation made by the writer from some earlier 
 source. But there appears little in favour of that view. 
 
 Comp. Marc. Aurelius, xii. 23, tov δὲ καιρὸν καὶ tov ὅρον δίδωσιν ἣ 
 φύσις. 
 
 το. The 12»), or troublesome business, which God has given to man 
 is, that he must work under the conditions prescribed for him by 
 these “seasons and times,” which like other “times and seasons” 
 referred to by our Lord (Acts i. 7), are appointed by Divine authority 
 and power. Man is conditioned by this constant change of times 
 and circumstances which he cannot alter. The acts of man, like 
 those of nature, must be again and again repeated. As in nature 
 (chap. 1.) so in human affairs, all things seem to move in a circle. 
 From a higher standpoint there may be progress and a steady 
 advance towards some end which finite understanding cannot grasp, 
 though it is ever striving to do so. From the lower plain on which 
 the ordinary observer has to stand (however great minds may, by the 
 erection of some mighty pyramid of science, elevate themselves a 
 little), there often seems to be little or no progress, and sometimes 
 even progress in the wrong direction. 
 
 11. See remarks in chap. vii., pp. 188 and 194 ff. Hoelemann 
 considers the author to refer to the Divine statement in reference 
 
Ch. iii 1. Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 242. 
 to the creation recorded in Gen. i. 321. He thinks that the writer 
 Suggests the idea that the work of creation is still going forward, 
 and that ultimately (1NY2) even the sorrows of humanity will be 
 found among the things which are truly beautiful. As a suitable 
 parallel to the thought of Koheleth here, compare Milton’s Paradise 
 Lost, Book ii. 146-8 :— 
 “Sad cure! for who would lose 
 Though full of pain, this intellectual being, 
 These thoughts that wander through eternity.” 
 
 τς noun phi is rendered by the ancient translators (LXX. αἰών, 
 
 παν, Vulg., mundus) by the world,and so our A.V. The word 
 ἝΝ this meaning in later Hebrew, but it is nowhere found in such 
 a signification in the Biblical language. See note 1, p. 196, and our 
 
 comm. on chap. ix. 6. DPW occurs in five other passages in Kohe- 
 leth (nord, Caps i ἢ: ΠΡ ΙῸ; Π| ΤΠ xe 6; oy chap. xl. 5). 
 Gaab and Spohn take ney in the sense of understanding, and so 
 Hitzig reading Dey, Arab. ,le. No such word, however, exists in 
 
 either Bibl. Heb., nor have examples of it been found in Chald., 
 Syr., or Rabb. Heb. Graetz translates the word by ¢guorance (the 
 
 stem DY signifying to concea/). But neither is the word found else- 
 where in that sense. It is true that R. Achva bar Zira, as noted in 
 the Midrash Koheleth, referring to Exod. iil. 15 and to the meaning 
 of the stem, explains this passage of the concealment from men of the 
 true pronunciation of the &1)D27 OW, or the Sacred Name 117°. The 
 Targ., with a similar reference to the meaning of the stem, para- 
 phrases the passage, “and even the day of death He (God) concealed 
 from them in order that that which shall happen in the end might not 
 be known to man from the beginning.” But even this rendering 
 proves the Targumist to have taken the word in its ordinary signifi- 
 cation. Rab is said (Berach., 43 6) to have explained the passage 
 to mean that God permits every man to be pleased with his own 
 special work ; ¢.g. the tanner with tanning. 
 
 ND WH "5200, 43 is used as a conjunction in interrogative 
 sentences with 1 prefixed, and followed by ἰδὲ, in Exod. xiv. 11; 
 2 Kings 1. 3, 6, a «ἧς it because that there is (or that there was) not ?” 
 In this verse it is used as a preposition governing WX, in the sense 
 of “ without that not” (Gr. Ven. ἄνευ τοῦ ὅτι). 1D is a word of later 
 
344 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. iii. 11-14. 
 
 Hebrew, for which 2 and non are used in the earlier language. 
 See Glossary. 
 
 12. 02 319 }$ corresponds with ΝΒ AMPS, chap. 11. 24. The 
 suffix might, however, also refer to the things enumerated before by 
 the writer. Hoelemann regards the joy spoken of by the writer as 
 identical with that alluded to by the Apostle in Phil. iv. 4. Man 
 ought to “rejoice evermore,” in all states, in joy and sorrow, “‘to 
 lie passive in God’s hand,” and to submit to His will. But such an 
 idea is not in accordance with the sentiments elsewhere expressed 
 by the writer, and forms rather part of that grace brought unto man 
 by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 
 
 a1) TY in this verse has been regarded as equivalent to 210 787 
 in the first clause of the next verse, meaning fo enjoy good. So 
 Luther, Knobel, Hitzig, Ginsburg, Delitzsch, and others. But the 
 ancient versions (the LXX., Syr., Targ., and Vulg.) have understood 
 it of moral good, and this is the uniform meaning of the expression. 
 The analogy, therefore, of chap. ii. 24; iii. 22; v. 17; viii. 15 and 
 ix. 7 (in every one of which passages other expressions are made use 
 of), cannot blind us to the fact that here, where we would least have 
 expected it, though not as fully as might be desired, Koheleth speaks 
 of the necessity of morality as forming an essential part of man’s hap- 
 piness. The statement is a preparation for the conclusion arrived at 
 in the epilogue of the work (chap. xii.13, 14). This is the view of the 
 expression taken by Rosenmiiller, Elster, Vaihinger, Hengstenberg, 
 and Zockler. Comp. Ps. xxxiv. 14; xxxvii. 3, 27, etc. 
 
 13. D4). But also, adversative. Comp. chap. vi. 7; Neh. v. 8. 
 The construction of the passage is similar to that in chap. v. 18. 
 
 DINA Ἔ properly, 2.6 whole of mankind. The expression used 
 here and in chap. ν. 18; xii. 13, signifies “every man”; the article 
 in this case qualifying the genitive, and not, as is more usual, 
 the governing word. Comp. ΠῚ Π npn, a portion of the field, or in 
 the example cited by Delitzsch, Dyin neina, where the first word is 
 undetermined, while the second is definite of itself. 
 
 DANN 9D is here almost like a casus pendens, separated as it is from 
 its predicate by the ¥ which precedes it (228), 
 
 14. “Everything which God does (or “will do,” not, as Gins- 
 burg, “hath made”), it shall be for ever.” Koheleth refers not 
 to the work of creation, but to the arrangements of Divine Provi- 
 dence with reference to human actions mentioned in the previous 
 
Ch. iii. 14-17.] (γεξϊεαζ and Grammatical Comme. 345 
 
 part of the chapter. These exist for ever (pow), ζ.6. man cannot 
 alter them. Compare on the thought of the passage chap. i. 4; 
 Isa. xlvi. 10; Ps. xxxiii, 11. Ben Sira gives a good comment on 
 the passage when he says (Sir. xviii. 6), “It is not possible to take 
 from (οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλαττῶσαι οὐδὲ προσθεῖναι), nor to add to, and it is 
 not possible to track out the wondrous works of the Lord.” 
 
 ‘WWD, fecit ut, as Ezek. xxxvi. 27; ποιεῖν ἵνα, Apoc. xiii. 15; 
 EDD IN, So also chap. viii. 12, ff. Compare 1 Chron. xvi. 30 
 with Ps. xc. 9.—Delitzsch. By fear reverence is here signified. 
 
 Es. mynd WK, That which is to de, in the future, τὸ μέλλον. See 
 Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 132, 3, rem. 1. 
 
 ΠΤ) ΠΣ The article would have been expected here after NS. 
 But compare a>-ny, chap. vii. 7; Ewald, ὃ 277 Δ. “) means literally 
 that which has been driven away, the departed, the past; Vulg. 
 “Deus instaurat quod abiit.” God seeks the past, and brings it 
 again into being. He alone can bring that back which was once past 
 and gone. This explanation coincides with the previous part of the 
 verse. The expression, however, only occurs in this passage, and has 
 been variously explained. Hengstenberg, after the LXX. (ὃ Θεὸς 
 ζητήσει τὸν διωκόμενον), Aquila, Symm. (with slight variations), Syr. 
 and Targ., render “ God seeks the persecuted.” This idea does not 
 fall in with the context. The Gr. Ven. renders literally, ὃ Θεὸς ζητήσει 
 τὸ ἀπεληλαμένον. So most modern scholars. In Arabic a synonyme of a 
 
 word is technically called its —5 4) pe and the expression for syvony- 
 
 mous words is a τ pes etait In post-biblical Hebrew 0°73 
 signifies syonymes. 
 
 τό. ‘WON Dip, the place of judgment, 1.6. in the place where judg- 
 ment ought to be administered. It is, perhaps, best to regard Δ} 
 as the object after ‘M87, The accentuation is not against this view, 
 as may be seen from a reference to the accentuation in Gen. 1. 1. 
 Hitzig, Ginsburg, and others regard ‘ as an adverbial accusative of 
 place, equivalent to D'p122 (Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 118, 1 ; Ewald, ὃ 204 2), 
 “7 saw under the sun, in the place of righteousness, etc.” It is difficult 
 to harmonise the statements of this verse with the traditional view of 
 the authorship of the book by Solomon. 
 
 Ἐπ. /bne OY at the close of the verse is best referred to God, who 
 is spoken of in the preceding clause. Comp, Gen. xlix. 24. It 
 
3246. The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iii, 17, 18. 
 
 cannot well be regarded as an adverb of time, ¢/em, z.c. in the day of 
 judgment (as Vulg. and Targ.). The general sense of the passage is 
 in either case the same, for in both cases the writer is supposed to 
 refer to the future judgment. Ewald refers the adverb to past time, 
 “there is a time for everything, and (=and indeed) a judgment 
 for every work (done) there” in time past. Houbigant, Hitzig, and 
 others, propose to read OY perf. of DIY; the passage then signifying, 
 “a time for every purpose and for every work hath He (God) ap- 
 pointed.” But neither the MSS. nor the ancient Versions give any 
 countenance to this conjecture, all of them being in favour of the tra- 
 ditional reading. Herzfeld, followed by Fiirst and Vaihinger, leaving 
 the text as it is, has sought to explain DY as perfect of Di¥, in the 
 Talmudic sense of estimating, judging. But, as Delitzsch observes, 
 the verb in question is construed with the accusative, and not (as in 
 
 this passage) with 5 and by and, according to this idea, the thought 
 of Koheleth must be conceived as here broken in upon, although he 
 proceeds in the next verse further to develop and expand it. In 
 later Hebrew the construction with > is used indifferently alongside 
 
 of ON and ᾿ See Ewald, ὃ 217 2 
 
 18, 131. m3 by, “ According to the manner of the sons of men.” 
 Compare Ps. cx. 4; LXX., badly, περὶ λαλιᾶς υἱῶν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, and 
 so the Syriac. Johnston considers (Zveadise, p. 128) that the fact 
 
 that the expression 1035 by only occurs in Ps. cx., outside the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes, ‘‘ deserves notice in connexion with the question 
 of authorship.” 
 
 D129, Ln order to try them. 2 is the infinitive construct in a, 
 from the stem 7173, Similar examples are 71, Isa. xlv. 1, and J, 
 Jer. v. 26. An infinitive from V2 is found in chap. ix. 1. This is 
 the only instance in which an infinitive const. of this form is found 
 with suffixes. See Bottcher, Zehrd., § 987, 5 y; Konig, Lehrgd., 
 § 34, 2 and 6, pp. 339, 358; Ewald, § 255 ὦ, § 238 6; Ges- 
 Kautzsch, ὃ 67, rem. 3. The meaning prove, or try, given to 2 
 by the Vulg., Targ., Gesenius (in Zhes.) exflorare, is preferable to the 
 translation of the word by Rosenmiuller and Knobel as declarare, or 
 that assigned by Ginsburg, namely, Zo choose. Not much differently 
 
 the LXX. ὅτι διακρινεῖ αὐτοὺς ὃ Θεός. ὈΠΟΝΠ is to be regarded as 
 the subject after the infinitive according to Ges.-Kautzsch, § 133, 
 
Ch. iii. 18-20.] Crztical and Grammatical Comm. 347 
 
 2, 3, and rem. at the end. See also Ewald, § 309 a. Compare 
 aT WY ID (Ezr. ix. 8). 
 
 nix, And tn order that they may see. The LXX., Syr. and Vulg. 
 translate this as hiphil (ΠΝ) = nInyD9), which reading is approved 
 by Ginsburg ; the Masoretic reading is rightly preferred by Delitzsch. 
 
 “DY, Delitzsch notes that the Frankfort cod. reads Of, as 
 mentioned in Michlol, 216 @ 37 may be regarded as the copula, 
 Ges.-Kautzsch, §121, 2. Ewald regards the accumulation of pro- 
 nouns in this passage as a sort of ironical gradation, like Lat. 
 tpsissimt, ὃ 315 a. i] seems purposely introduced because of its 
 alliteration with 7292. This play upon words, remarks Delitzsch, 
 musically accompanying the thought, remains, even if 77 be con- 
 nected with the 27° immediately following, as in the Frankfort MS., 
 
 which exhibits the accentuation pad non manaonw, The pnd is 
 rightly explained by him to be the dative of relation, as in Gen. 
 xvii. 20 (RUDY), Ps. iii, 3, etc. 
 
 19. ™P occurs three times in this verse. In the first two cases 
 the LXX. have regarded it as the construct (7?) governing 
 the word following the genitive. It is better, however, with the 
 Masorites, the Targ., etc., to regard the word as the predicate in all 
 three cases. On the thought of the verse compare Ps. xlix. 13, 21, 
 and the words-of Solon to Croesus, πᾶν ἐστι ἄνθρωπος συμφορή 
 (Herod. i. 32). See our remarks on the allusion to this passage in 
 the Book of Wisdom, on p. 68 ff. Bottcher, De Jnferis, p. 246, 
 regards the expression as adverbial, in which case the similarity 
 between this passage and Wisdom ii. 2 is more close. But we prefer 
 to render it uniformly as the predicate. 
 
 The writer does not affirm, as Hitzig imagines, that men and 
 beasts are the results of mere “blind chance,” nor does he mean 
 simply to affirm that both are subjected to the same law of transitori- 
 ness (Elster, Zéckler), but rather that mankind, being conditioned by 
 circumstances over which there can be no control, are subject in 
 respect to their whole being, actions and sufferings, as far as mere 
 human observation can extend, to the law of chance, and are alike 
 destined to undergo the same fate, 2.4. death. 
 
 20. See our remarks on p. 44, and on pp. 191 ff. 
 
 av 237, δ᾽ is the participle active, corresponding to ἼΡΙΠ in 
 the first clause of the verse. 
 
5418. The Book of Koheleth. τΟμ. ϊ. a1-iv. τ. 
 
 21. See our remarks on p. 190 ff. The 7 in nya and in NYO 
 was not designed by the Masorites to represent the interrogative,— 
 the 3 in the first word being lengthened into 7 before the Y, as it is 
 lengthened in three cases before δὲ, Judges xil. 5; vi. 31; Num. xvi. 
 22. See Ges.-Kautzsch, § 100, 4, rem., and especially Stade, Zeh70., 
 § 175 a. Kalisch, however, cites this passage as an instance of the 
 interrogative, ὃ xx. 4a. Geiger (Urschrift, pp. 175, 176), instances 
 the pointing of this text, and that of Ps. xlix. 12, as intentional altera- 
 tions of the text for dogmatic purposes. In the latter passage the 
 LXX., Targ. and Syr. read 073), “their grave is their house for ever,” 
 in place of the Hebrew pointed text, “their inward thought (83) 
 is that their houses shall be for ever.” But see Delitzsch’s Comm. 
 on the Psalms on the latter passage. 
 
 22. ‘2 MIN, See note on ch. ii. 1, and on ΠΡ, Ges.-Kautzsch, 
 § 37. 
 
 CHAPTER Iv. 
 
 τ. MIN) YN AI), This is the second instance of the νὰν 
 consec. found in the book. Lit. 7 returned and saw, t.e., I saw 
 again. The same phrase occurs in verse 7. See on construction, 
 Ges.-Kautzsch, § 142, 3 a,rem.; Ewald, ὃ 285 ὦ; Kalisch, § 103, 2. 
 Comp. also ch, ix. τι. AND) ‘AD, 
 
 ow, In the first instance in which this word occurs in this 
 verse it signifies ofpresstons, and it is used in this sense in Job 
 xxxv. 9 and Amos 11. 9. It is properly the participle passive used 
 abstractively, the plural number denoting the many individual cases 
 which are combined in the one idea. See Bottcher, Zehrb., § 698. 
 It is construed here with the plural ὩΣ WS, but this need not 
 be regarded as strange, seeing, as Delitzsch notes, that even 0°17 is 
 construed (as in Ps, xxxi. 11; Ixxxvili. 4), with a plural predicate. 
 The LXX. and Syr. have in their translations noted correctly the 
 difference in meaning of the word in the two clauses of the verse. 
 But Ginsburg, after Symmachus (who translates in both places ‘yn 
 by τοὺς συκοφαντουμένους), with Herzfeld and others, renders the word 
 in both clauses alike by “che oppressed.’ WHence he is driven to 
 translate DVYINWN by those “who are suffering” (literally, “who 
 were made so”); but this latter rendering cannot be regarded as 
 correct. 
 
Ch. iv. 1-3.] Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 349 
 
 nyt. Used collectively. Rosenmiiller quotes Cicero, De 
 Fartit., vii. 17, “cito arescit lacryma presertim in malis alienis.” 
 
 A more suitable comparison is Isaiah xxv. 8, p53 ΤῊΣ ΠῚ, 
 imitated in Rev. xxi. 4. 
 
 The expression 7 ὈΠῸΝ ἽΝ) is somewhat peculiar. It is to 
 be connected with the preceding 733, The Vulgate, viewing the 
 clause as affected by the ἰδὲ in the preceding sentence, has rendered, 
 “nec posse resistere eorum violentie.” But the repetition here of the 
 thought previously expressed is more in accordance with the usage 
 of the writer. Comp. ch. i. 6; ii. 10; iii. 16. 5 is always used in 
 the signification of fower and not in that of violence. 
 
 2. ΞΟ. Knobel and others explain this form as the participle 
 piel shortened from 3%, after the analogy of the participle pual, 
 in which the © of the participle is sometimes dropped. See Ges.- 
 Kautzsch, § 52, rem. 6; Kalisch, § xliv. 1, 7. But Delitzsch maintains 
 that the of the participle piel is not dropped; the only example 
 being 12, Zeph. i. 14 but in that passage ef festinanter valde is the 
 same as et festinanter valde veniens, the adverb being virtually an 
 adjective. Herzfeld considers the form a verbal adj. like {8'2._ This 
 seems to be the view of Kimchi, who says (Afich/o/, 58 δ), “it is an 
 adjective instead of a participle.” The question is treated most fully 
 by Konig, Zehrged., ὃ 32, 5, p. 292. It is only the rareness of the 
 construction which has made scholars consider the form which occurs 
 here as the participle. But the form is unquestionably that of the inf. 
 absolute, which is used in continuing a narrative, the pronoun being 
 here added as the subject of the verb. Ewald (§ 351 c) quotes an 
 exact parallel, 810 41503), Esth. ix. 1. Compare also Prov. xvii. 12. 
 See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 131, 4, rem. 1; Olshausen (§ 249 4) would 
 correct the text to Nav", ΓΝ, vid. glossary, 5. 119. 
 
 On the subject of the verse, comp. ch. vil. 1; Job iii. 13 ff. See 
 our remarks on p. 150. Knobel cites as parallels, Herod. i. 31. 
 διέδειξέτε . . . ὃ Θεὸς, ὡς ἄμεινον εἴη ἀνθρώπῳ τεθνάναι μᾶλλον 7 
 ζώειν, and Menander, ζωῆς πονηρᾶς θάνατος αἱρετώτερος. 
 
 3. δ) ΜΘ ΠΝ The accusative here is governed by 3 in 
 the preceding verse. The LXX. (ὅστις οὔπω ἐγένετο), Syr., Gr. Ven. 
 regard it as the subject, NS being sometimes, though rarely, used 
 to give prominence to the subject of the sentence (see Bottcher, 
 Lehrb., § 516). But the former is the simpler explanation. 
 
250. The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iv. 3-5- 
 
 YT] has always the double kametz, except in Ps. liv. 7; Mic. 
 vil. 2. Delitesch. 
 
 Many classical parallels to the idea expressed in this verse could 
 be quoted. Thus Theognis, 425-428. 
 
 le Ν Ν a 2 ΄ δ 
 πάντων μὲν μὴ φῦναι ἐπιχθονίοισιν ἄριστον 
 “ / 
 pnd ἐσιδεῖν αὐγὰς ὀξέος ἠελίου" 
 ΠΣ a 4 
 φύντα δ᾽, ὅπως ὦκιστα πύλας “Atdao περῆσαι 
 
 Ν - Ν A 2 4 
 καὶ κεῖσθαι πολλὴν γῆν ἐπαμησάμενον. 
 
 Or Sophocles, Gd. Col, 1225-1228. 
 
 μὴ φῦναι τὸν ἅπαντα νικᾷ λόγον" το δ᾽, ἐπεὶ φανῇ 
 βῆναι κεῖθεν ὅθεν περ ἥκει, 
 
 Ἄς, ΄ ε , 
 πολὺ δεύτερον, ὡς τάχιστα. 
 
 So also Cicero, Zusc., 1. 48, where the sentiment is ascribed to 
 Silenus, “‘ Non nasci homini longe optimum esse; proximum autem 
 quam primum mori.” 
 
 4. 13, Vid. Glossary. 
 
 Koheleth does not deny that labour and toil effect something 
 for man, but he observes that the superior excellence of the work 
 performed arises in most cases from the envious desire on the part of 
 a man to surpass his fellows. Consequently he asserts that there is 
 in general no lasting good attained by the individual worker. Man, 
 however, is compelled to labour; for, although toil produces little 
 result, idleness proves the ruin of an individual. 83? is active in 
 meaning, and signifies envy, jealousy. Our A.V. departs, in its trans- 
 lation, widely from the sense of the original, “I considered all 
 travail, and every right work, that for this a man is envied of his 
 neighbour.” The ambiguity of the expression “right work” has 
 led to the passage being expounded by Bridges, Young, Bp. Words- 
 worth, and others, to mean that “for doing right multitudes have 
 been envied and persecuted.” But Koheleth does not refer in the 
 passage to moral rectitude, but to superiority in work or workmanship. 
 Gesenius, in Zhes., regards ΠΡ to mean an object of envy, and 
 so Vaihinger. The latter renders 1921, before his fellow, but ‘the 
 1 is evidently comparative, like | 8, Ps. xviii. 18, etc., emulatio 
 qua unus pre altero emtimere studet,”—Delitzsch. 
 
 5. “The fool foldeth his hands together,” in slothfulness and 
 
Ch.iv.5.]  Crztecal and Grammatical Comme. 351 
 
 sleep” (Prov. vi. 103; xxiv. 33), instead of working as he ought. 
 He destroys himself by his own laziness, “ eats his own flesh.” 
 Ginsburg has strangely interpreted the aphorism, “ The sluggard 
 foldeth his hands and yet eateth his meat,” as if he considered 
 Koheleth to contrast the enjoyment of the easy sluggard with 
 the toilsome labour of the envious. Ginsburg maintains that 
 Tago} boy, to eat meat, is frequently used in Scripture as indicative 
 of an ample and delicate repast.” In proof of this he refers to 
 Exod. xvi. 8 ; xxi. 28 ; Isa. xxii. 13; Ezek. xxxix.17. In all of these 
 passages, however, the eating of flesh is contrasted with the use of 
 other food, and in none of the examples cited is the phrase equi- 
 valent to ‘‘eating his meat” (or, “his food”), in the English sense 
 of that expression. Ginsburg has been incautiously followed by 
 Plumptre. It is true that the Hebrew phrase is not used in the 
 sense condemned by Plumptre, that is, of “‘pining away under the 
 corroding canker of envy and discontent,” as Gesenius suggested 
 
 in TZhes. (s.v. DON), comparing 1]. vi. 202, ὃν θυμὸν κατέδων, Plaut., 
 Trucul., 2, 7, 36, “quisnam illic homo est, qui ipsius se comest, 
 tristis oculis malis.” Gesenius says that such a person is called in 
 
 Arab. dod JST, but he has quoted no examples of this usage. 
 
 -- 
 
 Plumptre is justified in saying that we have no authority for this 
 in the language of the Old Test. But Gesenius stands almost 
 alone in such an interpretation. The other interpreters regard the 
 phrase as equivalent to “‘ destroys himself.” Instances of similar 
 Arab. phrases in the latter sense may be seen in Lane, Arad. Lex. 
 The phrase “ 20 eat men,” and ‘‘ fo eat the flesh of men,” is found in 
 Arabic in the sense of defamation of character. The meaning of 
 the expression in Koheleth is sufficiently explained by the Psalmist 
 when he speaks of his enemies as coming upon him “to eat up his 
 flesh ” (Ps. xxvil. 2), or by Micah who speaks of those who “ eat 
 the flesh of my people” (Micah 1. 3). Zechariah speaks of the 
 evil, or worthless shepherd (not “idol shepherd,” see my Bampton 
 Lectures, p. 346 ff), who devoured the flesh of the Jewish flock 
 (Zech. xi. 16), in contrast with the true Shepherd. This usage is 
 in direct accordance with the denunciation (Isaiah xlix. 26), “I will 
 feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh.” The simple 
 meaning of Koheleth is that the indolent by their indolence feed 
 upon their own flesh and destroy themselves. 
 
352° The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iv. 6. 
 
 6. There is no difficulty as to the translation of this passage. Its 
 meaning has, however, been strangely misconceived by some ex- 
 positors. Plumptre describes it as expressing the thought which 
 might be conceived “as rising in the mind of an ambitious statesman 
 or artist striving after fame, as he looks on the dolce far niente of a 
 lazzarone at Naples, half-naked, basking in the sun, and revelling in 
 the enjoyment of his water-melon. The one would at such a time 
 almost change place with the other, but that something after all 
 forbids.” Mendelssohn and others consider the passage to con- 
 tain a dialogue between the industrious man and the sluggard, the 
 fifth verse being the statement of the industrious, and the present verse 
 the reply of the lazy. Similarly Hitzig explains verse 5 as containing 
 an objection, to which verse 6 supplies the answer. Zockler coincides 
 in the main with Hitzig. The latter critic considers that the writer 
 is probably citing a proverb in verse, while Renan looks upon verse 5 
 altogether as a quotation.. Delitzsch calls attention to the fact that 
 nm] does not mean the rest of laziness, but rest in contrast with that 
 excessive occupation in business, that hunting after gain and honour, 
 which can never be satisfied, and which impels a man unceasingly 
 to strain every effort in order to overtop and outrival his fellows. 
 The rest which Koheleth commends is a quiet stillness (chap. ix. 11), 
 and a cessation from the toil which man imposes upon himself, and 
 which ultimately proves his destruction (Isa. xxx. 15). Thus the two 
 verses are not opposed to one another. In the former, the author 
 notes how the fool consumes by idleness his own vital powers ; 
 while in the latter he observes that a little real rest is better than all 
 the results achieved by that striving occasioned merely by the spirit 
 of rivalry and jealousy which permits a man to take no rest, and yet 
 ends in nothing. “ Better zs the full of a hand” (42, the flat open 
 hand), wth rest, than the full of two (bent) hands with toil and 
 striving after wind.” 05 occurs in Biblical Heb. only in the 
 
 dual; the singular }BM is not found in Hebrew, but occurs in Chal- 
 0 > G-cCc- 
 
 dee, 8257, Syr. lagax, Arab. dita, Assyr. huppunnu, the fist, the 
 
 closed-up hand. 103, bey, and mn ΤῊ, are all accusatives of respect. 
 
 13 
 See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 118, 3; Kalisch, § 86, 44; Ndr is a noun fol- 
 lowed in each of the two clauses by a genitive. 
 Knobel suitably compares the saying of Publius Syrus, “quam 
 felix vita, quee sine negotiis transigit !” 
 
Ch, ἵν. 8-τ1.1 Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 353 
 
 8. Ὁ }S1. P81 here has almost the meaning of without. De- 
 litzsch compares 15D }S\, Ps. civ. 25; cv. 34. 
 
 On MS}, for which, with the conjunctive accent, we would have 
 expected FN) (as in Prov. xvii. 17 with merca), compare Dy} with 
 kadma. as contrasted with D$) Hosea xi. 4. Delitzsch also compares 
 N83}, chap. 11. 7, with mahpach, and on the contrary, chap. ii. 23, 
 py) with pashta. 
 
 The correction in the K’ri of 12°Y into 3°? is occasioned by the 
 
 following verb (ya¥n-N?) being singular. When the reference is 
 made to things, not persons (the A/uralis inhumanus), the verb is 
 frequently used in the singular. Vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 146, 3; 
 Kalisch, § 77, 9. 
 
 ‘2 ‘-NS IND}, On the const. compare Ps. viii. 6. Renan sup- 
 poses that the author refers here to his own personal circumstances, 
 but no solid reason can be assigned for this opinion. 
 
 For classical parallels, comp. Juvenal, Saz¢., xiv. 139; Horat., Od., 
 ll. 13, 14. See our remarks on the passage at p. 206. 
 
 9. The article in ὩΣ ΠῚ refers to two persons such as are alluded 
 to in the previous verse, and the article in 7987 is used to denote 
 one individual like the person who is there more fully described. 
 
 10. ΒΝ, taken partitively, when one or the other. Knobel 
 compares the formula, sy WS FON (Gen. xi. 3; Judg. vi. 29, 
 etc.). 
 
 PNY, for 19 81, and woe to him! TN, woe to thee! chap. x. 16. 
 The Masora magna notes that there are five cases in which munach 
 and rebhia occur together on one word, namely, Gen. xlv. 5 ; Exod. 
 ΧΧΧΙΪ 31 ; Zech. vii. 14; Eccl. iv. 40; Dan. i. 7. Graetz, after the 
 
 Targ., would explain ΝΣ as the later Hebrew 098. The latter 
 occurs in this book in chap. vi. 6. The meaning would then be 
 “and when.” But the LXX., Syr., Vulg. are in favour of the tra- 
 ditional punctuation. TAN] in the clause TNSN YN}, is in appo- 
 sition to the suffix preceding, as in Ps. lxxxvi. 2 in a less appropriate 
 manner. It is not necessary to repeat the preposition in apposition. 
 See Gen. ii. 19; ix. 4. Exceptions sometimes occur, such as Ps. 
 XVili. 51; Ixxiv. 14.—Dedlitesch. 
 
 11. The passage evidently refers to the sleeping together of 
 two friends for mutual warmth and comfort in the winter season. 
 
 AA 
 
ν 
 
 354 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iv. 11-14. 
 
 Delitzsch notes that (in the Aboth of R. Nathan, chap. viii.) sleeping 
 
 with a person is regarded as a sign of friendship. pm> on) used 
 impersonally, ‘‘7# zs warm to them,” i.e. “ they are warm.” Comp. 
 Jobrii, 13; Isaiah xlix, 20. 
 
 12. 127M for IMDM, Job xv. 25. Compare, 157)! Hosea viii. 3. 
 See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 60, rem. 2. Konig, Lehrgeb., § 29, 2, Pp. 224. 
 Ewald, ὃ 249 4. The verb 4PM is probably used here in the sense 
 of Zo make an attack on. Others take it in sense of prevail against, 
 in the A.V., sé guispiam prevaluerit contra unum, regarding the 
 suffix as pleonastic, and 198" as the accusative. Graetz and many 
 expositors, after the Syr. and Targ., take INN as the subject 
 (Graetz reads, BEPN’); but it is better, with Knobel and Delitzsch, 
 to regard it as the object, as a permutative referring to the previous 
 suffix, as Exod. ii, 3, 72°0°N8 INIA, 
 
 13. There is no necessity to suppose that Koheleth had in view 
 any particular historical incident, such as that of Joseph in Egypt, 
 Saul and David, Jeroboam and Rehoboam. These and many other 
 parallels have been adduced by various commentators, but none of 
 them are quite satisfactory. Graetz refers the incident in this and 
 following verses to Herod and his son Alexander, whom the Jews 
 wished to have as king. But it is more probable, inasmuch as 
 similar instances are so common in history, that Koheleth speaks 
 here in general terms. 
 
 14. ODT 3) is no doubt for 8087 N39, which reading 15 
 found in some MSS. of Kennicott. Compare ®%217, 2 Chron. xxii. 5, 
 in place of DYD NT, found 2 Kings vill. 28. See Gesenius, Ζεχρι, 
 Ῥ. 377; Ewald, 8 734 Stade (Zehrvd., ὃ 112 4) regards this mode 
 of writing as phonetic for Ὡ ΟΠ, Delitzsch notes that the later 
 Hebrew is fond of the elision of §, as 9B = 18 AN, TAY = Indy, 
 In his Dichter des alt. Bundes, Ewald translates, aus dem Hause der 
 Niederen, “‘ owt of the house of the lower (classes),” explaining DDI 
 as “the cast-off,” after Isa. xlix. 21 (7)D) mp3). Hitzig takes the 
 word in the sense of /ugztives, referring to Judg. iv. 18, regarding 
 “the house of fugitives” as a description of Egypt when Jeroboam 
 fled from the vengeance of Solomon. Both explanations are highly 
 artificial and improbable. Equally strained is Hitzig’s later expo- 
 sition in the 14th vol. of Hilgenfeld’s Zectschrift fiir wissenschafil. 
 Theologie, where the youth is interpreted of David and the old and 
 
Ch. iv. 14, 15.] (γχέζεαζ and Grammatical Comm. 5 
 
 «ι 
 
 3 
 foolish king of Saul. Hitzig there explains ὩΣ ΘΠ N'3 as “ the house 
 of the escaped,” or estranged, as in Jer. ii. 21; xvii. 12. Hahn has 
 made a very ingenious but unsuccessful attempt to explain the whole 
 passage of Messiah’s lowly birth and universal sway. It would be 
 certainly strange that in a Messianic passage, after mention having 
 been made of His people as innumerable, there should follow a state- 
 ment such as “those that come after will not delight in him,” and 
 still stranger that the usual refrain, “for even this is vanity, etc.,” 
 should also follow such a prediction. 
 
 N¥! is to be regarded as a perfect, “he goes forth,” otherwise the 
 comparison would be lame. Graetz, however, takes it as future, “he 
 will 20 forth to reign,” referring to the hopes the author had, accord- 
 ing to Graetz’s theory, of Alexander’s succession to the throne of 
 Herod. 
 
 41D153. “When even in his kingdom he was born poor,” 1.6. 
 although he was originally born as a poor individual in the kingdom 
 of the old and foolish king, over which he now goes forth to rule as 
 
 king. It is highly probable that the suffix in ἸΠΉΣΡΌΞ refers to the 
 old king, inasmuch as the suffix in "ANA (verse 15) must refer to him. 
 
 The translation given by Ginsburg, ‘for a prisoner may go 
 from prison to a throne, whilst a king may become a beggar in his 
 own kingdom,” must be rejected, because to express such an idea 
 the imperfect would have been employed. It is very questionable 
 
 whether 391) can be taken with Herzfeld in the sense of the Greek 
 γίγνομαι, to become. No instances can be adduced in which it is 
 used in this.signification. 
 
 Renan regards this verse as a quotation, but this is unlikely, from 
 the close connexion in which it stands with the preceding verse. 
 
 15. The author describes that which usually takes place on such 
 occasions just as if he had actually beheld it himself. The language 
 employed is such as could only have been used by a person living 
 under one of the great world-monarchies. Hence the subjects of the 
 empire are spoken of as “‘all the living who walk under the sun.” 
 The intensive form ὈΞΡΠΡΠ (part. piel) is employed instead of the 
 participle kal, which latter is more usual. Compare p'90h, Is, xlii. 5. 
 Ewald considers that the expression ‘2% (te second) refers to the 
 title 72199 (the second), met with in Gen. xli. 43. But in that case 
 the instance adduced by the author would have to be regarded. 
 
256 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iv. 15, 16. 
 
 as distinct from that brought forward in verses 13, 14. The use of 
 
 the word πε shows, however, that the same person is referred to in 
 both places. The youth described as coming out of prison to reign 
 could not be described as “the second” person in the kingdom; not 
 at least in the sense in which that expression is used in the Book of 
 Genesis. Hitzig and Delitzsch are, therefore, correct in regarding 
 
 the “ young man” (72°) as termed ‘280 (¢he second), the king himself 
 being regarded as the γε. It is true, as Delitzsch writes, that there 
 is some incorrectness in the expression which has at least the 
 appearance of referring to two persons, each entitled to the appella- 
 tion of “youth.” This inaccuracy in diction, he notes, is similar 
 to that found in Matt. vill. 21, when by ἕτερος τῶν μαθητῶν is meant 
 “another person, and that one also one of His disciples,” or that in 
 Luke xxiil. 32, ἤγοντο δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι δύο κακοῦργοι σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι. 
 The translation of Ginsburg “the sociable youth” cannot be jus- 
 tified, and moreover partakes somewhat of the ludicrous. The 
 preposition OY denotes “dy the side of.” .Koheleth represents the 
 people as ranging themselves on the’side of the youth who has been 
 raised from low estate to royal dignity. Ewald regards the OY as 
 a kind of comparative, appealing to the use of OY in chap. ii. τό ; 
 vil. tz. On the impf. here in the sense of swccessurus erat, see 
 Ewald, ὃ 136d. 
 
 τό. See remarks on p. 86, ona "ΠΤΊΦΙΝ 50, Ewald maintains 
 that the reference of the writer is to “al those who preceded them,” 
 ze. the two kings just mentioned. Others, as Gesenius, Rosen- 
 miller, and Ginsburg, consider the young king to be the subject of 
 
 the verb ("7), and regard "E> 15 to convey the sense of 20 be over. 
 They translate the clause ‘‘ there is no end to all (the people) over 
 whom he ruled.” Similarly Delitzsch renders the last words, “az 
 whose head he was,” comparing the phrase ΠΏ ΞΟ S21 NYT NAT 13, 
 1 Sam. xviii, 16; so also 2 Chron. i. 10; Ps. Ixviii. 8, etc. 
 
 ὌΠ Ὁ), Also, 1.6. notwithstanding all the court paid to him by the 
 men of his day and generation—¢hose who come after, 1.6. the men 
 of a later generation shall not rejoice in him, for his memory shall 
 also perish, On 03) compare chap. vi. 7, and see Ewald, ὃ 354 a; 
 Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 155,25. Ὁ ΠΝ Π, Comp. chap. i. 11; Isa. xli. 4. 
 The events here related do not coincide exactly with any known 
 incidents of history. The attempts made to explain the passage 
 
Ch. iv. 16, 17.] Crztzcal and Grammatical Comm. 357 
 
 as referring to Saul and David, or to Solomon and Jeroboam, or to 
 Seleucus and Antiochus the Great, all break down when subjected 
 to close examination. Worst of all, perhaps, is the attempt of 
 Graetz to trace a reference to the history of the Herodean family. 
 Hahn considers the passage to be a prophecy of the Messiah, 
 who was born poor, and came forth from the prison to reign. He 
 consequently maintains that the expression in verse 15 refers 
 literally to all those who dwell on the earth. He regards the first 
 king mentioned in the passage as meant collectively of all the kings 
 of Israel, from David onwards, compared with whom Messiah is “ the 
 second,” inasmuch as he founds a second and an everlasting king- 
 dom. The 16th verse is then regarded as a description of the 
 hatred exhibited by the ungodly against the Messianic rule. But 
 the exposition is so manifestly forced, and so opposed to the whole 
 character of the work, that it is unnecessary to enter upon its 
 formal refutation. 
 
 17. It is almost a matter of indifference whether we follow the 
 reading of the written text pon (thy feet, plural) or that of the 
 
 Ki 5). (thy foot, sing.). Both are admissible, compare Ps. cxix. 59 
 and 105, the singular being more common. 
 
 By ὈΣΠΟΝΠ m3 the temple may possibly be meant (see note 2, 
 p- 115), though it is not unlikely the reference is here to the syna- 
 gogue, inasmuch as the writer speaks of “/stening to preaching, 
 which was no part of the temple cultus. The priests gave in- 
 struction to the people-on matters of religion (Lev. x. 11; Deut. 
 Xxxili, 10; Mal. ii..7), but they did not preach or teach at the public 
 temple services. The cantillation of the Psalms, and the reading of 
 lessons from the Law and probably also from the Prophets, no doubt 
 formed a portion of the temple service in the days of Koheleth. 
 But the passage seems to refer to the ordinary synagogue services 
 held everywhere throughout the land. The writer affirms that a 
 diligent listening to the teaching imparted in the synagogue is of 
 more real value than the “sacrifices” offered up in the temple by 
 ἐς fools.” 
 
 yow> ap, 'P is inf abs. kal, not piel, as Olshausen, ὃ 249 ὦ and 
 Ewald, § 240 ὦ, maintain. See Konig, ZeArged., p. 175. The infinitive 
 absolute may be used either as an object or subject. See Ewald, 
 § 240 a. Bottcher (Weue Achrenlese, No. 1649) disputes the latter 
 
358 The Book of Koheleth. (Chava 
 
 statement. He renders the clause, “‘¢ake heed to thy foot whenever 
 thou goest into Goa’s house, and of drawing near to hear more than 
 etc.” Delitzsch notes that in that case the words following should 
 rather have been Ma? DP'D23 ann. He regards the inf. absol. as 
 the subject of the sentence, ‘‘ avd to draw near to hear is (better) than 
 that the fools should give sacrifice.” The inf. abs. is used in a wide 
 manner in Koheleth. Comp. chap. iv. 2. Owing to the pan 
 following, 27? is not to be translated as an imperative. In the 
 latter case it would be necessary to insert 258 before NA", as is done 
 by the Syr. and Vulg. The latter combines two translations, “ et 
 appropinqua ut audias. Multo enim melior est obedientia quam 
 stultorum victim.” ODI MD is rendered by the LXX., ὑπὲρ 
 δόμα τῶν ἀφρόνων θυσία cov, and so, substantially, Aquila, Theod. 
 and Jerome, “donum enim insipientium sacrificium,” reading ΠΕ a 
 gift instead of NH, ἈΦ must not be translated “ obey,” as Gins- 
 burg and Zockler, and the Vulg. in its second rendering. When the 
 verb has that signification, words are added to show the sense in 
 which it is used, or such words can easily be supplied from the 
 context, as in 1 Sam. xv. 22. 
 
 In the last clause of the verse δ") mid Dy DS %D we may read, 
 after the analogy of chap. 111. 12, vill. 15, 1) yD Coss "51 DT ὮΝ ΟΣ, 
 So Renan, who considers the omission of the words in brackets was 
 caused by similarity of the ending of the D'Y 1)" immediately preceding, 
 in which case the meaning is “for they do not know except to do evil.” 
 The text as it stands is to be explained with Delitzsch, “they (the 
 fools) do not know (1.6. they are ignorant, comp. Ps. Ixxxil. 5 ; Isa. 
 lvi. 10), 22 order to do evil” =“ so that they do evil.” That is, their 
 ignorance leads them to do evil. This is preferred by Plumptre. 
 The translation in our A.V., “they consider not that they do evil,” is 
 substantially that of Elster, Dale, Zockler, Bullock. But, as Delitzsch 
 notes, this would require Y7 OMY (comp. Jer. xv. 15). The only 
 case he remarks which has been adduced to defend the explana- 
 tion of 9 mwyd as an accusative with inf., as if se facere malum, 
 is no Wwesmy SMV (¢ Kings xix. 4) which is not a parallel, for 
 aay) does not there signify se mori but wt moreretur. The transla- 
 tion of the Vulg. “gue nesciunt guid faciant mali” is still worse. 
 Herzfeld renders, ‘for they understand not to do evil,” which would 
 be the most natural translation of the words if they stood alone. 
 
Ch. iv. 17-v.2.] Crztical and Grammatical Comm. 359 
 
 But his explanation cannot be justified. For he explains “ they ” to 
 
 refer to the subject supposed to be implied in vivo, which he renders 
 to obey. Hence he assigns the meaning to the passage, “those who 
 obey commit no sin,” which has been adopted by Ginsburg, 
 
 The expression used here, “70 give @ sacrifice,” is peculiar, and 
 may possibly have some reference, as Delitzsch has suggested, to 
 the feasting connected with the offering up of sacrifices. Comp. 
 Proy. 1. 14. {02 is used in connection with sacrifice in Psalm li. 18. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 _1. The construction of bn3a with Ὅν may suitably be compared 
 (with Delitzsch) to the German and English construction to Αγ 
 upon wings, or to the phrase found in Ps. xv. 3. Ὁ Oy 539, a 
 slander with (lit. upon) his tongue. Delitzsch also compares the 
 post-Biblical term 72 bya MFT, the oval law. The writer warns 
 against rash and hasty vows, or professions made carelessly in prayer. 
 
 The piel 213 here is intensive, not causative; as Rosenmiiller and 
 
 Ginsburg regard it, rendering “do not hasten on thy mouth.” ὉΠ is 
 used with a reflexive accus. in 2 Chron. xxxv. 21. Compare with 
 this verse Matt. vi. 7-9. 
 
 On Ben Sira’s imitation of the saying, see on p. 42. In Berachoth, 
 68 a@, it is stated that Rab Huna said in the name of Rab, “ Let the 
 words of a man be always few (312) before the Holy One, blessed 
 be He! according as it is written,” and then follow the words of 
 Koheleth in this passage. DUD. See Glossary, s.v. 
 
 2. “A dream comes (83 is probably the participle indicating the 
 result of frequent experience) zz (as the consequence of) much 
 occupation (2.6. bustling about many things), and the voice of a fool in 
 consequence of many words.” It is difficult in English to render 273 
 alike in both sentences. A man who is very far from being a fool, 
 may through much speaking make himself appear for the time being 
 to be one. Comp. chap. x. 14. Symmachus renders 12) 302 by διὰ 
 
 πλῆθος ἀνομίας, reading |W. Hitzig and Ginsburg take D°D3 iP as 
 equivalent to ‘foolish talk,” but bps (as Delitzsch observes) is 
 always used of living fersons, never in reference to ¢hings. 
 
360 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. v. 3-5. 
 
 3. The language of this and the next two verses is closely akin 
 to that in Deut. xxili. 22-24. On Ben Sira’s imitation of it, see 
 Ρ. 43. 
 
 SAIYAN PS. “ There ἐς no pleasure (or delight) zz fools,” namely, 
 on the part of God. Compare 42 10) 729 3 in Isaiah Ixii. 4. The 
 idea is far from being “ trivial,” or from being a “ tame anticipation” 
 of the declaration in verse 5. The Lord first ceases to delight in a 
 man, and then after long forbearance, gives him over to destruction. 
 Compare, too, Psalm cxlvii. 10, 11. The translation of Herzfeld, 
 “keine Bereitwilligkeit ist in den Thoren,” and that of Ginsburg, 
 approved of by Plumptre, “fools have no fixed will,” are both 
 opposed to the usage of /'PN. 
 
 4. "ΟΝ διῶ, On the use of WN for 3 see Ewald, § 336 a. 
 Knobel refers to the prohibitions of the Talmud (in Tract. Vedarim) 
 against frequent vows, as sometimes leading men to commit perjury. 
 
 5. See p.18. Delitzsch correctly explains this verse in accordance 
 with the passage in Deut. xxiii. 22, 23 (A. V. 21, 22), upon which it is 
 manifestly based. The passage in Deut. contains a warning against 
 rash vows as likely to lead to serious transgression (NOM 42 ΠῚ ΠῚ), 
 But the remark there follows : “if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall 
 be no sin in thee,” SOM 72 mand, Similarly in this passage in 
 Koheleth the meaning is, “Zet not thy mouth cause thee (lit. thy flesh 
 71¥3, used for the whole personality) 20 siz,” ze. bring thee into 
 sin, and consequently into punishment. The passage in Job xxxi. 30, 
 is an exact parallel. The phrase 5 J with the inf. is there used in 
 the sense of Zo suffer, to permit, as in this passage and in Judges 1. 34, 
 WEI npya Np) ‘on Nom *ANI-ND|, “and 7 aid not suffer my mouth 
 (lit. 71} gums) to sin by cursing his life,” and thus seeking his death. 
 On the syncopated hiphil infinitive, vid. Ges-Kautzsch, § 53, rem. 7 ; 
 Kalisch, ὃ xlv. 2d. The idea is not that “the sensuality of man, 
 is simply excited by the sins of the tongue or the mouth” (Zock/er) ; 
 for, independently of the fact urged by Delitzsch that the formula 
 “* the flesh sins” is not in accordance with Old Test. ideas, a reference 
 here to such sins as Zockler alludes to is quite out of place in this 
 connexion. Thesin of one member of the body can bring ruin upon 
 the whole (comp. Matt. v. 24). The use of "3 is akin to that in 
 chap. 11. 3; ΧΙ. 10; Prov. xiv. 30. Gesenius, in Z/es., rightly refers to 
 Deut. xxiv. 4; Isa. xxix. 21, and to the present passage, as instances 
 
ΘΙ. ν. 51 Cyretical and Grammatical Comma. 361 
 
 in which 8D} is used in the sense of to make one guilty. Cheyne, 
 however, disputes the correctness of that rendering in Isaiah xxix. 
 
 There is little doubt that the priest is meant by the qo 
 (rendered in our A.V. “ ¢he angel”) in the second clause, and that 
 ‘Dn ΣΡ is equivalent to ᾿Π3Π Ὁ ΒΡ, Lev. xxvi. 8, 11, although 
 Mal. 11. 7 is the only other case in which the priest is so termed in 
 the Old Test, N97 in the passage might also signify the ruler 
 or Chief Rabbi of the synagogue. Zockler is right in maintain- 
 ing that ἄγγελος is used in Rev. i. 20; ii. 1 ff. in ‘‘ essentially the 
 same signification.” Tayler Lewis, indeed, maintains that the word 
 is to be taken in its usual meaning “as an angel of God, visible 
 or invisible, supposed sometimes to appear in terror, the avenging 
 angel, as 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, who came to punish Israel and their king 
 for his rash words. There may be an express reference here by 
 
 Solomon to his father’s fatal error; and the words YONA Os) may be 
 rendered very easily as a caution, ¢hat thou mayest not have to confess 
 thine error as David did (2 Sam. xxiv. 17). It must have made a 
 deep impression on the young mind of the Prince.” Τί is scarcely 
 necessary to point out that the writer of Koheleth cannot possibly 
 refer to any such supernatural appearances ; nor is the idea of the 
 Targumist possible, that the angel meant is ‘“‘ the avenging angel” in 
 the great day of judgment. Tayler Lewis further suggests as possible 
 that “the angel” might be “Gad, the messenger sent to David.” 
 Equally erroneous is the view of Ginsburg that it is ‘‘the angel pre- 
 siding over the altar.” The angel in the text must necessarily mean 
 some one connected with the temple or synagogue, to whom appli- 
 cation might be made for a release from the vow rashly made, on the 
 ground that it was a 723%, a sin of weakness. The only difficulty lies 
 in the fact that though, according to the Mosaic law, a husband could 
 in certain cases of his own authority dissolve the vow of his wife, or 
 a father that of his daughter (Num. xxx.), no mention is made of 
 a priest having any special power in such matters. ‘They had, how- 
 ever, a kind of oversight with regard to vows. See Lev. xxvi. 8, 12, 
 14, 18, 23. According to a passage in the Talmud, quoted by 
 Delitzsch (Bekhoroth, 36 6), a learned man (834), or even three lay- 
 men, could release froma vow. Hence we are disposed to regard the 
 word as meaning not only a priest, but any authorised teacher of 
 religion. Whether the author had in his mind the case of one who 
 
362 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. v. 5, 6. 
 
 ν 
 
 desired to be freed entirely from his rash vow, or of one willing to 
 offer up some lesser sacrifice in lieu of a larger, promised in a 
 moment of rashness, cannot be determined with any certainty. But 
 the excuse offered is certainly one contemplated by the author as 
 made at some public religious service to some person. officially 
 accredited by the Church, and looked upon as God’s representative, 
 and hence termed ‘07 “the messenger,” or “angel.” The writer 
 cannot refer to some invisible angel supposed to be present in 
 the temple. The LXX. explain the phrase as meaning “zz the 
 presence of God,” and so the Syr. and Arab., which coincides with our 
 explanation. Vulg., literally coram angelo, and Jerome 7” conspectu 
 
 angelt, Prophets were often called by the term NPD, as Isa. xliv. 
 20; Hag. 1 τ; Mal: ui. τ 
 
 By “thy voice,” in the close of the verse, is probably meant not 
 “thy idle talk” (Ginsburg), but “the voice of thy supplication,” or 
 prayer. 
 
 Graetz maintains that there is a reference in these verses to the 
 common superstition, that in case of evil dreams it was necessary to 
 offer up a sacrifice of some sort in order to avert the evil conse- 
 quences threatened. The custom referred to was prevalent among 
 the Greeks, but unknown, as Graetz admits, to the Jews in pre- 
 exilian times. The saying of Rab, which Graetz quotes from the 
 Talmud (Shabbath, 11a; Taanith, 12 6), that “ fasting is serviceable 
 to make evil dreams innocuous,” is also insufficient to prove that the 
 Greek custom of ἀποτροπιασμός Was common among the Jews of 
 later days, and it is fanciful to suppose that Koheleth in this passage 
 
 ridicules such folly. Graetz renders ban by “‘ estimate,” in allusion to 
 the law of Lev. xxvii., where, however, a different word is made use 
 of. But the verb in question is evidently used in this passage in the 
 far stronger sense of destroying, as in Isa. xill. 5; liv. 16, etc. Com- 
 pare mpan sadn, angels of destruction, a common name used in the 
 Talmud and Midrash for the organs of Divine justice. 
 
 Renan asserts, that when vows were solemnly made in the temple, 
 and any delay occurred as to their performance, the priests were 
 wont to send agents to claim the money due. He considers that 
 the verse refers to this practice. But he has given no authority for 
 
 such a statement. 
 6. The verse as it stands is somewhat obscure and rugged in its 
 
Chv.6]  Cvretecal and Grammatical Comm. 363 
 
 construction. It cannot well mean, as Symmachus, Vulg., Luther, 
 Ewald, “for in the multitude of dreams there are also vanities and 
 many words.” For the verse professes to assign a reason against rash 
 speaking and especially against rash vows, which so translated it would 
 not give. And why should the writer affirm that in dreams there are 
 “many words?” According to the Hebrew accentuation, the word 
 
 pan seems to be a genitive dependent on 293. So the Graec. Ven., 
 ἐν yap πλήθει ὀνείρων καὶ ματαιοτήτων καὶ λόγοι πολλοί, Hence 837) 
 1377 is to be regarded as the predicate. The same objections, 
 however, lie against this translation. Hitzig and Knobel supply 3 
 from the first clause before 0°27 in the second, thus rendering “for 
 in the multitude of dreams are also vanities, and in many words also.” 
 Knobel compares Exod. xvi. 6; Prov. xxiv. 27; Job xxxvi. 26. Not 
 very dissimilarly Rosenmiiller. As the text stands, this seems the 
 best rendering, although the supply of the 3 is somewhat harsh, and 
 the clause is uneven. Tayler Lewis renders, “ though (°3, notwith- 
 standing) in multitude of dreams,” or “though dreams abound, and 
 vanities and words innumerable, yet (3) fear thou God.” Such a 
 rendering is impossible. According to it there would be no verb at all 
 in the passage. For Tayler Lewis does not intend the clause to be 
 understood as if it was literally, “there are also vanities and words,” 
 etc. (which would be also questionable), but he distinctly denies that 
 the copulative 1-has here “an assertive force.” The LXX. render 
 literally ὅτι ἐν πλήθει ἐνυπνίων Kal ματαιοτήτων Kal λόγων πολλῶν, ὅτι 
 σὺ τὸν θεὸν φοβοῦ, leaving it to be inferred that some such word or 
 expression as zwhich are deceptive, or vain, is to be mentally supplied. 
 
 So the Syr. inserts after 129727) the word as, Herzfeld, 
 after the Arab. version, followed by Ginsburg and Bullock, would 
 supply after the opening 3 the pronoun 8", used for the substantive 
 verb. They render the clause as if it were 13) 302 8 °3, “for 27 ἧς 
 (or, it happens) ¢hrough the multitude of idle thoughts, and vanities, 
 and much talking.” Uerzfeld considers the reference to be to the 
 foolish speaking noticed in verse 2. Ginsburg seems to include also 
 “the wrath of God and the punishment consequent thereon,” spoken 
 of in the preceding verse. But this is harsh and unsuitable. Graetz 
 regards the text as corrupt, and would delete the first 3, thus making 
 the verse one with the preceding. Delitzsch considers that it is 
 probable that the text is dislocated, although the ancient versions 
 
264. The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. v. 6, 7. 
 
 seem to have had the existing text before them. He would arrange 
 the text as follows; DAM NII VIN Mw ΔῚΣ "5, 2.5, “for in the 
 multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities.” 
 This last is the rendering found in our Auth. Version. 
 
 7. See on p. 150. Graetz maintains that this verse is out of its 
 place, and belongs to another group than that in which it stands. 
 Like Hitzig, considering that the second clause refers to the authori- 
 ties of the land or empire, he regards that clause as ironical. He 
 further considers it impossible to view δι as the construct governing 
 PTS) DSWD as genitives expressing the object (signifying, voddery of 
 judgment and righteousness), though he does not state the ground 
 of his objection. If, as is probable, he objects on the ground that 
 such an expression is not found elsewhere, such an objection 15 
 not decisive, since δ.) (const. Dt, here and in Ezek. xviii. 18) only 
 occurs six times in the O.T., and ner only the same number. The 
 ancient versions have found no difficulty in the word, and it is 
 quite arbitrary to insert D'P as an accusative of place, “' 2η: the place 
 of,’ before the two united genitives, as Graetz has proposed, and as 
 is approved of by Renan. 
 
 On ¥5M and 3°, see Glossary. Rosenmiiller, Knobel, Ewald, 
 Elster, Zockler, etc., translate ὈΠῸΝ DNA), “there ts the High One 
 above them,” regarding “2 as the plural of majesty, after the analogy of 
 chap. xii. 1, or according to similar analogies in Prov. ix. 10 ; xxx. 3; 
 Dan. vii. 18, 22. The Targ. refers the first 323 to God, and some 
 English commentators have explained the text according to this view. 
 But Delitzsch correctly regards the second clause of the verse as 
 conclusive against this opinion, for ADT’ is simply “de not sur- 
 prised thereat” (LXX. μὴ θαυμάσῃς), and the verse evidently means, 
 as explained at p.150: Do not be surprised at the corruption and 
 baseness of the lower officials, inasmuch as the same corruption 
 prevails among those in far higher positions. Koheleth is not here 
 seeking to cheer up the sufferer by bidding him look higher ; he is 
 describing the evil state of affairs everywhere existing in the empire 
 in his own day. Hahn fancifully explains ΠῚ ΘΠ in this verse to 
 mean the kingdom of God; but Renan is not far wrong when 
 he observes that the feudal system in force at the time appeared to 
 Koheleth to be the principal cause of the wretched administration 
 of affairs glanced at in this verse. 
 
 ee 
 
Ch. v.8,9.] Critical and Grammatical Comme. 365 
 
 8. Graetz would insert before this verse the passage in chap. vii. 11, 
 12. But it is improbable that any such dislocation could have ever 
 taken place. The rendering of our A.V., “the profit of the earth is for 
 all; the king himself ts served by the field,” has this in its favour, that 
 it coincides with the Hebrew accentuation. It is substantially the 
 same as that given by R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam). Its difficulty 
 lies in the rendering of Spa for ail,as if it were bab S53 is best 
 explained as meaning “zz everything,” in all respects, i.g., always. 
 Comp. Gen. xxiv. 1 ; Ezra x. 17, which latter is incorrectly explained 
 in the A.V. The difference in this verse between the K’thibh and 
 ΚΎΪ is merely that the written text is 8’, and the K’ri reads 817 in 
 order to agree with ἢ ἼΠ), whichis masculine. The K’ri note does not 
 
 extend at all to Ze as the remarks of Hitzig and Zockler would lead 
 the reader to conceive. The first clause is best rendered, “and an 
 advantage of a land in all respects tt ts (to have) a king devoted to the 
 field,” or to agriculture. See Rosenmiiller, Dathe, Delitzsch. Other 
 translations of the latter clause are: (1) @ king honoured by the land, 
 z.e. by his subjects. See Gesenius, De Wette, Knobel, etc. But no 
 instance can be adduced of ΠῚ being so employed. Knobel com- 
 pares Ps. Ixxviii. 12 where ΠῚ stands in parallelism to ἡ"). (2) 
 Hahn, explaining this verse of the future heavenly king of Israel, 
 renders “a king will be honoured as wide as the field,” 1.6. over the 
 whole land. This translation is excessively forced, and in every 
 respect faulty. (3) Ewald, Heiligstedt, Elster, Zockler, translate 
 “a king made by the field,” “rex agro factus, terre preafectus, 1,6. in 
 omnibus injuriis, quibus terra premitur hoc ei est utilitati, quod rex ei 
 preeest, qui illas injurias comprimere et punire potest.” —ezligstedt, 
 But, as Hitzig urges, neither the expression 1 ney nor 107 Tay is 
 used for to make a king. (4) Hitzig regards 7322 as qualifying 71’, 
 and renders accordingly, “ a king to the tilled field. See UXX. βασιλεὺς 
 τοῦ ἀγροῦ εἰργασμένους It is a point in favour of this that the niphal 
 of 72Yin the other three places in which it occurs (Ezek, xxxvi. 
 9, 34; Deut. xxi. 4) is used in the sense of ‘‘ ¢¢//ed.” 
 
 9. Though the aphorism in this verse does not appear at first sight 
 naturally to follow the subject mentioned in the preceding verses, a 
 little closer examination shows that it is intimately connected with it. 
 The oppressions noticed in ver. 7 are such as were occasioned by 
 “the love of money.” But a king fond of agricultural pursuits would 
 
366° The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. v. 9, το. 
 
 be unlikely to be a man inordinately fond of gain. And the love of 
 riches, continues Koheleth, brings no satisfaction to the man who 
 abandons himself to the pursuit of them, he obtains no real 7812", 
 or return for his exertions, to be compared with the produce or fruit 
 afforded by the land (Josh. v. 12), or with that of the threshing floor 
 (Num. xviii. 30), which are enjoyed by the tiller of the soil. Ko- 
 heleth speaks of sz/ver not of gold, because 22 silver, is, as Delitzsch 
 observes, the specific word for coin. The construction 3 278 in the 
 second clause is worthy of note, as it is only found in this passage. 
 The 2 strengthens the idea, and is in accordance with the analogy of 
 2 YD, 2789, etc. Compare 2 18), 20 Zook upon with pleasure. {127 
 is used for a multitude of persons, and also, as here, for abundance 
 of wealth. So in Ps. xxxvii. 16; 1 Chron. xxix. 16. Hitzig, after 
 the LXX., with Spohn and others, translates this last clause inter- 
 rogatively “And who hath joy (or delight) in (that) abundance which 
 produces nothing?” But it is better with the Vulg. (gud amat divitias 
 fructum non capiat ex its), Syr., Targ., and most commentators to 
 
 regard MN813N N? as the simple predicate of the sentence viewed as a 
 statement of fact, “and he who loves wealth has no fruit,” or advan- 
 tage from it. On the use of 27% in the first clause along with 178 "Ὁ 
 in the second, see Ewald, § 331 4. Compare Horat., Zfisz., i. 2, 56, 
 τς Semper avarus eget,’ Ovid, asd, i. 211, 212. 
 
 “Creverunt et opes et opum furiosa cupido 
 Et, cum possideant plurima, plura petunt.” 
 
 to. NADA NIDA, when prosperity increases. ΤΊΣ inf. const. of 
 21 to be many, to increase. Comp. Prov. xxix. 2, 16. ‘S131 chose 
 that consume tt increase also, t.e. become many, or are many; probably 
 a reference, as Zockler supposes, to the numerous servants of a rich 
 household. Comp. Job i. 3; 1 Kings v. 2, ff. Ginsburg suitably 
 compares the anecdote narrated in Xenophon, Cyvof., viii. 3, 35-44. 
 There is no substantial difference between the reading of the 
 K’thibh (81) and that of the K’ri (118). Both nouns occur and 
 stand related to one another as M3¥, K’thibh, Ps. cxxv. 4, and mV, 
 which is found there in the K’ri, D'?¥2 is used here in a singular 
 signification, as in verse 12; chap. vii. 113 viii. 8; Exod. xx. 20]: 
 Isaiah i. 3, etc. Similar is the use of D'S in the plural as a singu- 
 lar. 
 
Ch. v. 11-13.] Crztical and Grammatical Comme. 367 
 
 11. The advantage of agricultural pursuits is here again touched 
 on. A¥T is the Ausbandman. Comp. Gen. iv. 2; Prov. xii. 11. 
 When work in general is referred to, Soy is the verb used. The 
 LXX. (not the Syr.), followed by the Arab., translate s/ave (122), a 
 reading which has been adopted by a few critics. The more general 
 word, however, suits the passage better, the free labourer as well as 
 
 the slave enjoys sleep as the result of toil. In the expression Ὁ yaya 
 in the next clause no reference is made to the overloaded stomachs 
 of the rich, as Jerome, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig and others have 
 supposed, led astray by the allusion to eating in the first clause. 
 For the overloading of the stomach would produce the same effect 
 in the case of the poor as in that of therich. “ Zhe abundance of 
 the rich” (comp. 92¥ in Prov. iii. 10 ; Gen. xli. 29), is rather the 
 abundance of their riches, which bring with them cares and anxieties 
 which prevent slumber. vind ΩΦ is a circumlocution for the 
 genitive. See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 115, 2; Kalisch, § 87, 14 @. 
 ‘Delitzsch notes that the nouns ΝΟ, 22 and "3 have no construct 
 state, and hence the necessity for this construction. }2¥ is the const. 
 of 3, But it may be noted that 0227 (Neh. ix. 15) shows that it 
 is quite possible to say for example }).287 227; compare also ΝΣ, 
 Ps. Ixix. 22; ONY, Ps. civ. rr. Ginsburg is mistaken in regard- 
 ing wind as a dative. Classical parallels for the thought in the 
 second clause may be found in Horat., Saz, i. 1, 70-79, Juvenal, Saz,, 
 X. 12, 13, or xiv. 304, “ misera est magni custodia census,” and the 
 maxim of Publius Syrus, “ avarum irritat, non satiat pecunia.” On 
 the former clause we may compare Hor., Od., ἯΙ]. 20-24, Virg., 
 Georg., ii. 467-474, or, with Plumptre, Shakespeare, Henry VI., act 
 lil. scene 5. 
 
 13. nein My, ὦ sore evil, ἼΩΝ is the feminine participle of nbn, to 
 be sick. Compare δ on, chap. vi. 2; nena ΓΞ, Jer. xiv. 17; Neh. 
 
 ili. 19. md DY, preserved by the owner. See Ewald, ὃ 295¢ Gins- 
 burg’s rendering “ hoarded up by the rich for the owner” 15 possible, 
 in accordance with the analogy of 1 Sam. x. 24, the only other 
 passage where the construction δον occurs. But the idea thus 
 introduced into the text is not natural, and, as similar constructions 
 occur, as has been pointed out by Ewald, it is rash with Ginsburg to 
 condemn on the authority of a single passage, as “ ungrammatical,” a 
 
268. The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. v. 13-15. 
 
 construction so obviously intended here, and one which has the sup- 
 port of thgablest critics, such as Knobel, Ewald, Hitzig, Heiligstedt, 
 
 and Delitzsch. On D%Y2 used in a singular signification, see note 
 on ver. 10. See our remarks on this passage on p. 149. 
 
 mn), The perfect is used in order to bring into prominence 
 a further aggravation of the hypothetical instance adduced by the 
 writer, ‘‘and should he have begotten a son, then (\) there is nothing 
 in his hand,” 1.6. wherewith to support the child. Others suppose 
 that the suffix 47s refers to the son, but this is not so good. On the 
 use of the perfect, Delitzsch compares the clause in Gen. xxxiil. 13, 
 waorbs in}. See also Driver, Heb. Tenses, § 149. 
 
 14. This verse is closely connected with the preceding, and does 
 not introduce a new subject, as Rosenmiiller supposes; the author 
 evidently refers to Jobi. 21. Comp. Sirach xl. 1, in which a reference 
 is made to this passage. Naw for S32 WS? 'Y3 TN TDN, 
 MON precedes the ΝΟ for emphasis in the sense of “anything,” guza- 
 quam. Compare the clause at the end of the preceding verse with 
 the phrase 1792 [S$ TDN) in Judges xiv. 6. Some expositors regard 
 the 3 in >HY2 as partitive, “taking nothing from his work.” So 
 Vulg., Ibn Ezra, Luther, our A.V., Ginsburg, etc. But it is better 
 with the Targ., Knobel, Ewald, and Delitzsch, to regard it as the 
 3 pretit, “ taking nothing by his work.” 
 
 "Pit, One of the few instances of the jussive (see Excursus, 
 No. 4) which occur in this book. Other instances occur in ch. x. ro 
 (734), and ch. xii. 4 (O1P%), see note 3 on p. 247. Hitzig would 
 read ον, kal instead of hiphil, on the authority of the LXX. ἵνα 
 πορευθῇ, Symm, ὃ συναπελεύσεται. But this reading would scarcely 
 signify (as Hitzig explains it) which would go with him, as a reward 
 for his trouble. A fitting parallel to the thought of the passage is 
 found in 1 Tim. vi. 7, compare also Propertius, ili. 35, 36,— 
 
 “ Haud ullas portabis opes Acherontis ad undas ; 
 Nudus ab inferna, stulte, vehere rate.” 
 
 me. mite Vids non Οἷς i, 2. 3. b>. Vid. glossary under &. 
 Delitzsch notes that the Cod. Heidenheim writes Y'3 as one word, 
 probably under the mistaken presupposition alluded to by Kimchi, 
 that it is a composite word compounded of the 3 of comparison and 
 
Ch. v. 15-17.1 Critical and Grammatical Comm. 369 
 
 may (which frequently occurs in Hebrew), and therefore ought to be 
 pointed NIgVPD. On YP see Gesenius’ Lexicon. 
 
 16. Instead of “eats in darkness,” bay qWwna, the LXX. and Vulg. 
 read baxyna (καὶ ἐν πένθει, atgue tristitia). This reading is approved 
 by Spohn, Heiligstedt, and Ewald. Bottcher proposes to read boyy, 
 
 Hitzig regards roa as the accusative of the object, ze. “22 
 eats (consumes) ad/ his days in darkness.” The passages, Job xxi. 13, 
 pnp) 2.23 12), or 382 O71) 12), Job xxxvi. 11, do not justify this 
 explanation. The expressions ¢o st¢ in darkness (Micah vii. 8), 
 and 29 walk in darkness (Isaiah ix. 2; 1. 10), coupled with such 
 phrases as “the bread of affliction and the water of affliction (τ Kings 
 xxii. 27), justify the retention of the reading of the text, which cor- 
 responds with the thought in Virg., Aev., ii. 92, “afflictus vitam in 
 tenebris luctuque trahebam.” Ginsburg gives some curiosities of 
 interpretation in his note on the passage. 
 
 DY3)1 in the Masoretic text is the verb. It cannot be taken (as 
 Tayler Lewis has done) as a noun with the pathach lengthened into 
 kametz. The tone being milra forbids this. The noun as a segholate 
 must be milel. Delitzsch observes that in the Cod. Heidenheim the 
 
 note is added to the word "Ὁ ‘A, te. “ twice milra,” the verb occur- 
 ring in the perfect here and in Ps. cxii. το. The perfect, according 
 to Hebrew syntax, suitably follows the imperfect in the previous 
 clause. But the conclusion of the sentence is thus somewhat abrupt. 
 The LXX. render the clause, καὶ θυμῷ πολλῷ καὶ ἀῤῥωστίᾳ καὶ χόλῳ. 
 Hence Hitzig would read: ἢΣ pena maw DY3). In this case the 
 copula would be regarded as uniting ‘all his days” in the former 
 sentence with (DY3) “ vexation” here. But this would be a strange 
 combination of ideas. Ewald, Burger, and Bottcher would also 
 point DYD as the noun, and read in the latter part simply Om. 
 Delitzsch, however, well remarks that in this case the reading o "Ὁ ΠῚ 
 would be necssary. Zdockler (who is here misinterpreted by his Eng- 
 lish translator), Delitzsch, and others preferably regard $2) "271 as 
 an exclamation, “azd of / (thereto must be added) Ais sickness and 
 anger!” Delitzsch compares similar exclamations in Isa. xxix. τό; 
 Jer. xlix. 16. See Ewald, ὃ 328 a. See before, p. 149. 
 
 17. The text as accentuated in the Hebrew presents a difficulty. 
 The word “ good” would naturally be construed with the verb “saw,” 
 
 BB 
 
370 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. v. 17-19. 
 
 “ Behold that which I saw to be good.” But the accent closes the 
 first sentence with rebhia. Hence ‘38 in pause is there 8. The 
 21 must then be connected with what follows. But 78) Ws 340 
 cannot be translated with the Targ., Syr., and the A.V., “‘z¢ zs good 
 and comely, etc.” Hence the assertion of Graetz that we have here 
 the Greek καλὸν καγαθόν is unproved. Better, as in the marg. of the 
 A.V. after the LXX., ἰδοὺ εἶδον ἐγὼ ἀγαθὸν 6 ἐστι καλὸν k.7.X., “ there 
 ts a good whith is comely,” ΟΥ̓“ beautiful.” Even in the latter case 
 we would have expected a distinctive accent at 75%, in place of 
 munach. Rosenmiiller follows the LXX. (so also Tayler Lewis) and 
 appeals with Kimchi to Hosea xii. 9, as a parallel, NON WE ἦν, 
 “a transgression which ts sin.” The parallel is, however, unsatis- 
 factory, inasmuch as that passage probably means “iniquity which 
 deserves punishment.” Hence it is safer, with Delitzsch and most 
 modern critics, to disregard here the accentuation, and regarding the 
 second W'S as referring back to the first, to translate “ Behold what 
 L have seen good, which ts beautiful (namely), etc. This passage 15 
 one of those relatively long verses in which no athnach is found. 
 The accentuation is somewhat peculiar. The suffix in DIY refers 
 to the subject of the preceding infinitives. See Ewald, § 294 ὁ, 2. 
 ‘Wa BDI, acc. of time, comp. chap. ii. 3. Knobel compares with 
 this verse Marc. Aurel. 11. 1, where that emperor says of himself 
 τεθεωρηκὼς THY φύσιν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ὅτι καλὸν κ.τ.λ. 
 
 18. The 54 with which the verse commences is to be regarded as 
 referring to each clause of the same. ®°D3). This word occurs in 
 Josh. xxii. 8, and, therefore, although generally used by later writers, 
 is not to be cited as one of the proofs of the composition of 
 Koheleth in pest-Solomonic times. 
 
 19. It is unnecessary, with Herzfeld whom Ginsburg has followed, 
 to suppose that the 7277 really belongs to “ΠΤ, and not to 73’: 
 For similar instances of attraction Ginsburg refers to chap. ii. 24 ; 11]. 
 21. The text, however, requires no transposition. Koheleth simply 
 affirms that the man, who enjoys the blessings spoken of in the 
 former verse as proceeding from the hand of God, does not, as a fact 
 of ordinary experience, “ much remember,” or think of, “the days of 
 his life;” although he knows full well (as stated in ver. 17) that they 
 are but few in number. The blessings which God bestows upon 
 man so occupy his attention that he does not often trouble himself 
 with the thought that all such enjoyments are fleeting. The second 
 
Ch. v. 19-vi.1.] (γείζεαξ and Grammatical Comm. 371 
 clause of the verse presents some difficulties, though the general 
 drift of the passage is tolerably clear. Ewald considers that the 
 hiphil is here used in the sense of the kal, and, appealing to Ps. Ixv. 
 6, for the construction of 3 73¥, translates, “ God grants to him the 
 Joy of his heart,” i.e. the joy of heart which man possesses is God's 
 gift. Similarly Heiligstedt. The passage in Ps. lxv. 6 cannot be 
 regarded as a proof of this, for 73¥ is construed there with a double 
 accusative, and the PJ$2 which follows in that passage is best ex- 
 plained as an adverbial designation of the mode and manner. LXX. 
 ὅτι ὃ θεὸς περισπᾷ αὐτὸν ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ καρδίας αὐτοῦ, “ God occupies him 
 in the joy of his heart.” So Vulg., ‘‘eo quod Deus occupat deliciis, 
 etc.” Similarly Vaihinger and Knobel. Others, as Koster, “ God 
 makes him sing in the joy of his heart.” But if it had been the, 
 author’s ‘intention to express this idea he would certainly have made 
 use of a less ambiguous verb. For 73) unites the significations of 
 being dowed down, and of replying and of singing. In the last signi- 
 fication it is identical with the Arab. ot: “God makes him sing” 
 
 would have been expressed by ὙΠ, Fiirst translates “ God wit- 
 nesses to the joy of his heart,’ but what is the meaning of that? 
 Ginsburg, desiring to uphold the causative sense of the hiphil, renders, 
 “ God causeth (him) to work for the enjoyment of his heart.” But, 
 as Delitzsch remarks, 2 ΠῚ) in Koheleth does not mean simply, Zo 
 busy oneself with a matter, but to weary oneself with it, so that the 
 hiphil does not express the desired meaning. It is on the whole 
 better to explain the phrase with Delitzsch, “God answers (corresponds 
 with) the joy of his heart,” i.e. as interpreted by Plumptre, “is felt 
 to approve it as harmonizing, in its calm evenness, with His own 
 blessedness.” 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 τ. Koheleth often introduces new experiences with δ᾽; either 
 followed by "8, as here and at chap. viii. 14, or without TWN, as 
 in chap. iv. 83 v..12.5‘x. 5. 
 
 ‘oy ὉΠ ΠΕ, The use of this phrase in chap. vill. 6 seems 
 decisive in favour of the translation, “ i ἐς great upon man,” that 
 is, lies heavy upon him. Compare chap. ii. 21. The phrase has 
 also been interpreted to mean, ἐξ is common among men. So the 
 Vulg. freguens apud homines, our A.V., and many commentators. 
 
272 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vi. 2, 3. 
 
 2. The phrase “riches and wealth and honour” is evidently 
 borrowed from the narrative concerning Solomon in 2 Chron. i. 11, 
 where the three words are found similarly united. This fact is 
 conclusive against the translation of 23 by abundance, given by 
 Herzfeld, Ginsburg, and others. Ginsburg asserts that the trans- 
 
 lation honour “is incompatible with the verb bord. inasmuch 
 as it would be preposterous to say, he cannot eat his honour ;” but 
 the same remark would be applicable to the other nouns 7zches 
 and wealth. To eat is used metaphorically in the sense of / 
 enjoy. 
 
 The Vulg., Targ., etc. render 121 132°S, there ts nothing wanting, 
 the suffix being treated as pleonastic (Gen. xxx. 33; ΧΧΧΙΧ. 9, are 
 quoted as instances of this usage, but incorrectly). The LXX. 
 render καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὑστερῶν τῇ ψυχῇ αὐτοῦ. The literal translation 
 is “and he lets not his soul want of all, εἰς. “2M is a verbal adjec- 
 tive. ward is the dat. commodi, for himself, a sense which WD} 
 with suffixes frequently has: 'Y52, myself, WWD, thyse/f. The [Ὁ is 
 best regarded as partitive, as in Gen. vi. 2. 132 W'S, @ stranger, one 
 of another family, and not the legal heir. There is no occasion to 
 take the word with Heiligstedt in the sense of ὦ foreigner. Δ bn, 
 
 compare npin MY), chap. v. 12. 
 
 Tote, 
 
 3. ΟΝ a man, used indefinitely for ove, any one, Ges.-Kautzsch, 
 § 124, 2, rem. 2; Kalisch, ὃ 82, 4. ND τον, The word 0°22 is 
 evidently understood. Comp. 1 Sam. li. 5; Gen. v. 3. Knobel, 
 however, thinks that the numeral is to be taken adverbially, appealing 
 to Gesenius, Lefrgeb., p. 703, but this would rather be expressed 
 by M8. Comp. chap. vill. 12. The expression a hundred is to be 
 regarded as a round number (Gen xxvi. 12; 2 Sam. xxiv. 3; Prov. 
 xvil. 10). Several of the kings of Israel and Judah had a large num- 
 ber of children. The number of Solomon’s sons is not given, but 
 Rehoboam had eighty-eight children (2 Chron. xi. 21) and Ahab 
 had at least seventy sons (2 Kings x. 1). Bernstein, Delitzsch and 
 Plumptre trace in the passage an allusion to Artaxerxes Mnemon 
 (B.C. 405-362) who had, according to Justin (x. 1), 115 sons by 
 various concubines besides the three begotten in lawful marriage. 
 His son and successor Artaxerxes Ochus, who reigned from B.c. 362 
 to 339, was murdered by Bagoas and had no funeral, his body being 
 thrown to the cats. 
 
Ch.vi3.]  Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 478 
 
 In the phrase 198 2) IY 2) the Ὁ is redundant, it is really 
 connected with the preceding 88; 27 can scarcely to be regarded 
 with Hitzig as the verb, but is the adjective taken adverbially. So 
 Heiligstedt, ‘‘et si multum est, quod fuerint, i.e. et si multi fuerint 
 dies annorum ejus.” The phraseology seems to be a reminiscence 
 of the 11°21 which recurs so often in Genesis v. Knobel and 
 Vaihinger take 21 in the sense of powerful, mighty, understanding 
 the phrase to be, “and great as he may be while his years last.” 
 Similarly the Targum. Ginsburg, however, renders correctly, “ yea, 
 numerous as may be the days of his years.” 
 
 The clause, “and also he has no grave,” or burial, has occasioned 
 difficulty to some commentators. Hitzig considers that it gives the 
 impression as if the writer asserted that if the rich miser received 
 a decent burial, his lot would be better than an untimely birth, a 
 statement opposed to the whole tenor of the context and of verse 6. 
 Hence he would strike out the clause. Others have sought to 
 interpret it metaphorically, or to explain the loss of the grave as 
 caused by the ultimate poverty which overtakes the rich man, 
 or on account of the meanness of his relatives or heirs, or their 
 hatred of him. Ginsburg has interpreted the passage, ‘‘even if 
 the grave did not wait for him,” that is, even supposing he had a 
 very long life. But the passage in Job xvii. 1 does not prove 
 that the clause is equivalent to shall not see death (Ps. 1xxxix. 49), 
 or shall not see the grave (Ps. xvi. 10; xlix. 10), the latter phrase 
 being very different from that in our passage. [20 means ¢he 
 grave or burial, "ΠῚ ΤΣ, the burial of an ass, is spoken of as 
 the most dishonourable, in Jer. xxii. 19. Hengstenberg is scarcely 
 correct in maintaining that the grave of an ass is the flaying ground, 
 and that allusion is here made to such a catastrophe as is spoken of 
 in’Ps. Ixxix. 3 or Jer. viii. 2; ix. 21, etc. It is possible that there 
 may be a historical allusion in the passage to the fate of Ochus 
 already noticed, but, whether this be or be not the case, it is certain 
 that the want of burial in the grave of one’s ancestors was looked 
 upon as a loss. Comp. 1 Kings xili. 22; Isaiah xiv. 18-20. Kleinert 
 gives a very different sense to the passage, maintaining that Koheleth 
 returns here to the thought expressed in the first clause, and that the 
 words ‘“‘and that he hath no burial” form the climax, thus meaning 
 that even if such a man were to require no grave, or in other words, 
 were immortal, his lot is not to be envied. 
 
374 The Look of Koheleth. [Ch. vi. 3-5. 
 
 ‘MON, Tsay. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 126, 3; Ewald, § 135 4; Kalisch, 
 § 93, 3. 
 
 4. The contrast here between the perfect and imperfect tenses 
 ought to be preserved in translation. Compare the reference here 
 to the untimely birth, with that in Job iii. 16; Ps. lvii. ὃ. There is 
 no necessity to interpret “ame” here of memory. ‘The lifeless 
 foetus receives no name, but always, as Delitzsch observes, remains a 
 nameless thing, and is forgotten as if it had never been. ‘The trans- 
 lation @ mist, an exhalation, given by Gesenius and others here for 
 231, and assigned also as the rendering of that word in chap. viii. 
 14; xl. 8, cannot be justified. bana seems here to be used of 
 human existence which the writer repeatedly declares is in itself, 
 “ vanity,” ‘‘ nothingness.” 
 
 5. ΠῚ m2 nm, Lit. she rest that is (belongs) fo this (one) (the 
 untimely abortion) zs more than this other, ze. the rich man. 
 Compare on 7} — ΠῚ chap. 111. 19. MM) is a segholate noun from the 
 stem 93. The LXX. has striven to preserve the construction of the 
 Heb., καὶ οὐκ ἔγνω ἀναπαύσεις τούτῳ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον. But Symmachus 
 has translated the clause, καὶ οὐκ ἐπειράθη διαφορᾶς ἐτέρου πράγ- 
 ματος πρὸς ἕτερον, Vulg. negue cognovit distantiam bont et mali. 
 Delitzsch has explained the rendering of Symmachus as arising from 
 the common Talmudic construction of 113, gudet, mild (an adjective 
 
 from the same stem), with ὃ in the sense of ‘ detter than.” The 
 first example of this cited in Levy’s Weuheb. und Chald. W.B., 
 from “rub. 13 ὦ, has a direct bearing on the passage before us. For 
 two years and a half there was a controversy between the school 
 of Shammai and that of Hillel: ‘‘ the one (party) said ( DIN 1° M3) 
 it was better for man that he had not been created than (in the 
 condition) that he was created; and the other said, it was better 
 
 for man (DIN? Ὁ M3) that he was created rather than not to have 
 been created. Their votes were counted, and they decided (133 
 
 γγ22}}, that it was better for man uNy 1? M3) if he had not been 
 created, rather than to have been created ; but, inasmuch as he had 
 been created, he ought to lead a blameless life.” The reader will 
 observe how much further the Jewish theologians were disposed to 
 go in this point than even Koheleth with all his pessimism. The 
 expression of the writer, remarks Delitzsch, cannot stand the test 
 of exact thought. Koheleth is not, however, to be looked upon 
 
Ch, vi. 5-7.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 375 
 
 in the light of a calm logical debater, and he nowhere lays claim to 
 being such. But reflections such are here indulged in are common 
 to man, however defective they may appear when weighed in the 
 balances of pure reason. ὶ 
 
 6. ὌΝ vid. Glossary. ODS, vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 120, 5. Κα- 
 lisch, § 91, 7. Ibn Ezra regards O'OyD DY ON to mean a thousand 
 years multiplied by a thousand, ze. a million. © Delitzsch notes that 
 the Targ. explains 0.02", in Isa. xxx. 26, as signifying 343 =7x 7x7, 
 “the light of the sun shall in future shine three hundred and forty- 
 three times more brightly.” He remarks that Ibn Ezra is possibly 
 right, for why should the author not have written 73¥ DYBDN ? There 
 is no other instance in Biblical Hebrew of O°2Y8 used after a 
 numeral, so that the requisite data are wanting to enable one to 
 arrive at any definite conclusion on the matter. 
 
 Ἢ ΝΟ 3101, The reference of the writer is not to moral or spiri- 
 tual good, but to the enjoyment of life referred to in verse 3. The 
 Targum, however, refers the passage to higher things, rendering 
 ‘‘and if the days of the life of the man were two thousand years, 
 and he did not study the Law, and did not perform judgment and 
 righteousness by means of the oath of the Word of the Lord, in the 
 day of his death his soul will descend to Gehenna, to the place where 
 all sinners are going.” 
 
 Compare on the last clause of the verse the Horatian expression, 
 “omnes eodem cogimur” (Carm., il. 3, 25), and Ovid, Metam., x. 33, 
 
 **Tendimus huc omnes, sedem properamus ad unam.” 
 
 7 17D is rendered by some ‘‘2” proportion to him,” “ according to 
 
 his measure.” Comp. ‘DP in Exod. xii. 4; Gen. xlvii. 12. But this 
 rendering does not suit the context. ‘‘Aor his mouth” is equivalent to 
 for his enjoyment. Zockler maintains that mouth and soul are here 
 contrasted as representatives—the former of the purely sensual enjoy- 
 ments, the latter of deeper, spiritual joys. But, as Delitzsch notes, 
 W>I (soul) and 1B (mouth) are so little thought of as contrasted with 
 one another that in Prov. xvi. 26 the phrase “zs mouth” in one 
 sentence corresponds to “ his soul” (A.V. himself) in the other. So 
 also Isaiah v. 14; xxix. 8. Delitzsch observes also that the expres- 
 sion ΠΡ WD), “ the excellent soul” is used (in Chullin, iv. 7) of a 
 good appetite, 2.6. an appetite which is not fastidious. 
 
476 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vi. 7, 8. 
 
 The expression ΝΟΌΣ ΝΟ is used here figuratively of the soul just 
 as it is in chap. 1. 8 used of the ear. 
 
 8. H. G. Bernstein (Quest, p. 21) and Ginsburg consider that the 
 1) in the first clause is to be supplied before 51)", in which case 
 the second clause would mean “ what advantage has the poor man 
 over him who knoweth to walk before the living?” Bernstein, in 
 support of this construction, refers to Zech. xiv. 10; 2 Chron. xv. 9; 
 Hab. ii. 8,17; Ps. xvii. 9, etc., but the passages appealed to are not 
 strictly parallel. Ginsburg explains the clause “him who knoweth to 
 walk before the living,” as meaning one who leads a public life, a 
 chief, a magnate, but such an expression is unparalleled elsewhere. 
 We have no authority from the usage of the book to explain, with 
 the Targum, “the living” to mean ‘‘the righteous in paradise.” 
 Nor can we adopt such forced explanations as that of Graetz who 
 makes ἋΣ the foor man to be an ascetic, one who afflicts his soul 
 (WH) ΠΩ}, Isa. lviii. 3), and regards 732 as used in an adversative 
 sense, rendering the latter clause “‘ to walk against life,” or to act 
 differently from the ordinary course of life. 5°" must, as else- 
 where in this book, be rendered ¢he “iving, and the sentence 
 ὉΠ ΠΗ 13 Aone vii) must be construed together, notwithstanding the 
 zakeph katon on the first and the tiphcha on the second word. 
 Delitzsch cites Gen. vii. 4 as an instance in which the same conse- 
 cution of accents does not interfere with their close grammatical con- 
 
 nexion. ‘The form ΡΠ for the inf. const., which occurs here and in 
 
 the next verse in place of the more common n32, is found in five 
 other passages, Num. xxii. 13, 14, 16; Exod. ili. 19, and Job xxxiy. 
 23. The LXX., Vulg. and Syr. all regard ΘΠ as used in the sense 
 of /ife, and seem, as Ginsburg has noted, to have been influenced 
 by the mystical explanation of the passage to the life beyond the 
 grave. But their rendering in detail is not easy of interpretation. 
 The LXX. render, ὅτι περισσεία τῷ σοφῷ ὑπὲρ τὸν ἄφρονα, διότι ὃ 
 πένης οἷδε πορευθῆναι κατέναντι τῆς ζωῆς. Vulg. ‘quid habet amplius 
 sapiens a stulto? et quid pauper, nisi ut pergat illuc, ubi est vita?” 
 Ewald translates, ‘what advantage hath the wise man over the fool, 
 the intelligent sufferer that he walks before the living?” This trans- 
 lation would be scarcely intelligible without the interpretation of 
 its author, who paraphrases it as follows: the wise understanding 
 sufferer, or pious man, has in this an advantage which makes life 
 
Ch. vi. 8, 9.1] (γεεα and Grammatical Comm. 377 
 
 (“walking before the living”) endurable to him, that he does not 
 permit strong desire so destructive (to peace) to rule over him, but 
 is contented to enjoy life in quiet contemplation. But the idea of 
 the passage seems to be, the desire of man is insatiable, he is never 
 really satisfied ; the wise man, however, seeks to keep his desires 
 within bounds, and to keep them to himself, but the fool utters all 
 his mind (Prov. xxix. 11). Even the poor man who knows how 
 to conduct himself in life, and understands the right art of living, 
 though he keeps his secret to himself, feels within himself the 
 stirrings of that longing, which is destined never to be satisfied on 
 earth below. 
 
 9. By YANN, the sight of the eyes, may be understood the things 
 which are seen by the eyes, the enjoyment of what we can see with 
 the eyes, the good and the beautiful. Or the sight of the eyes may 
 be explained of that which is present as contrasted with that which is 
 often desired after. So Elster, Zockler. The wandering to and fro 
 of the soul may even be explained (with Zockler) as the seeking after 
 high things (Luke xii. 29; Rom. xii. 16) which is characteristic of the 
 man discontented with his present lot. Luther has not unsuitably 
 rendered the idea as equivalent to, ‘zt zs better to enjoy the good that 
 zs present, than speculate about some other,” like the dog in the fable 
 who snapped at the reflection of the meat in the water, and lost the 
 piece he had in his mouth. Delitzsch objects to the explanation of 
 war bn, as an equivalent to the rioting of desire, gvassatio, 1.6. 
 impetus anime appetentis, the ὁρμὴ τῆς ψυχῆς (of Marc. Aurelius, i. 
 16), as it explained by Knobel, Heiligstedt, and Ginsburg. For he 
 observes that 7271 means grassart only with certain subjects, such as 
 fire, pestilence, etc., and in certain forms, as jon) for 72%, to which 
 Epa Ξ' n2? does not belong ; but it means rather evratzo, the going out 
 
 abroad, roving in the distance (comp. 720, a traveller) the ῥεμβασμὸς 
 ἐπιθυμίας of Wisdomiv. 12. The attempt, however, to draw a distinc- 
 tion in meaning between the various forms in use of the verb 20 is 
 somewhat too subtle. Graetz strangely renders “ detter the feeding of 
 the eyes (present enjoyment) ¢han consumption of the body” by ascetic 
 practices. But this is certainly not the sense of the writer. Renan, 
 however, follows Graetz, rendering “ mieux vaut vivre ἃ sa guise que 
 de s’exténuer,” and proceeds to explain the MD) (even ¢his) which 
 follows “by rendering, “400 much virtue is also a vanity.” But the 
 
378 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vi. 9, 10. 
 
 section is descriptive rather of the insatiableness of desire than “the 
 vanity of virtuous efforts.” Moreover Koheleth nowhere regards 
 asceticism as a virtue. Knobel compares Marc. Aur., iv. 26, τὸ δ᾽ 
 ὅλον, βραχὺς 6 βίος" Kepdavréov τὸ παρὸν σὺν εὐλογιστίᾳ καὶ δικῇ" νῆφε 
 ἀνειμένος, also Horat., Zpzsz., 1. 18, 96--99. 
 
 1o. According to Hahn and others, Koheleth here returns partially 
 to the thought expressed in chap. i. that there is nothing really new 
 under the sun. Hahn, comparing Gen. viii. 21, considers the author 
 to refer to the evil which has taken place since the fall of man. A 
 reference, however, to the fall of man would be here strangely out 
 of place. Tayler Lewis imagines an allusion to be made to the 
 name of Adam as derived from the earth, 178 (Gen. ii. 7), names 
 having been given of old to things to denote their real nature. 
 Koheleth seems rather to point to the fact that man cannot alter the 
 conditions under which he is placed by the predetermination of God, 
 and to urge that he would act wisely in submitting himself to the will 
 of his Maker. Jt is not so much the weakness or mortality of man 
 which is referred to, as that man is a being placed under conditions 
 both as to time and place (comp. Acts xvii. 26). The phrase 0 Sp 
 may have a reference to Gen. li. 19. As to the niphal participle 
 "2, Bullock has well compared the expression in Acts xv. 18, 
 γνωστὰ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνός ἐστι τῷ Θεῷ πάντα τὰ ἔργα airov.! ‘As MD after YT 
 denotes guid, so WS after Y7’ may mean guod=that which (comp. 
 Dan. viii. 19, although there is no need of a proof), and zd guod 
 homo est will express that which a man is—it is impossible to translate 
 the 819 without expressing a definite idea of time—namely that the 
 whole existence of a man, whether of this or that person, at all 
 times and on all sides, is previously known.”—Delitssch. The 
 thought of Koheleth is very similar to that in Isaiah xlv. 9; Rom. 
 ix. 20 ff. Indeed the Apostle seems almost as much to refer to this 
 passage in Koheleth as to that in Isaiah. The Midrash Shemoth 
 § xl. considers the calling of Bezaleel to make the tabernacle and its 
 furniture (Exod. xxxi. 1, 2) an illustration of this saying of Koheleth. 
 
 The K’ri has PAY, omitting the article, which occurs in the 
 
 1 That reading of the passage in Acts, however, is not considered the most 
 correct one. Westcott and Hort, with Alford and others before them, read λέγει 
 Κύριος ταῦτα ποιῶν γνωστὰ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος, and this is the reading which has been 
 adopted in the new Revised Version, ‘‘saith the Lord, who maketh these things 
 known from the beginning of the world.” 
 
Ch. vi. το, 11.) Crztical and Grammatical Comm. 379 
 
 K’'thibh, PANY. That the reading of the latter ought to be thus 
 pointed, and not with Herzfeld, PNY, the hiphil of PA viewed as 
 a denominative verb from ἢ} (vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 53, 2), is plain 
 from the passages in chap. x. 3, 20, as also Lam. v. 18, where similar 
 marginal corrections occur in which the article is omitted. Had we 
 not the analogy of these passages to guide us as to the sense 
 in which the written text was understood, the opinion of Herzfeld 
 would be defensible. For, though the hiphil of 4PM does not occur 
 in Bibl. Hebrew, it is found, as Delitzsch notices, in the Talmud, 
 and the aphel is in use in the Targum. 
 
 11. The contention alluded to in the former verse is here further 
 explained as one carried on by words, for we must not, as many com- 
 mentators have done, render 9°27 in this passage by ¢/Azngs, thereby 
 obscuring the whole significance of the verse. The ancient versions 
 (LXX., Vulg., Syr.) have rightly seen this. The Targum alone in- 
 terprets the noun to mean /Azngs. Elster and Delitzsch with great 
 probability consider that the reference of the author is to the school- 
 learning of the Jews which was then coming into notice. According 
 to Josephus the problem of man’s freedom and the decrees of God 
 formed a subject of dispute between the Pharisees on the one hand 
 and the Sadducees on the other, the former maintaining an intimate 
 connexion between the Divine decrees (faze, or εἱμαρμένη), and the 
 acts of man; the Sadducees denying that there was any such thing 
 as fate at all (Σαδδουκαῖοι δὲ τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην ἀναιροῦσιν). The 
 Pharisees, however, did not maintain that all human actions were 
 the subject of the Divine decrees (οἱ μὲν οὖν Φαρισαῖοί τινα καὶ οὐ 
 πάντα τὴς εἱμαρμένης εἶναι λέγουσιν ἔργον, τινὰ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς ὑπάρχειν, 
 συμβαίνειν τε καὶ οὐ γίνεσθαι), but in contradistinction to the Essenes 
 (who believed that all things were predestined) they seemed to have 
 maintained that in matters of morality men were free. See Joseph., 
 Antig., xili. 5, 9; xviii. 1, 3, 4; Bell. Jud., ii. 8,14. According to 
 Delitzsch, the Talmud gives us no insight into this controversy 
 among the Jewish theologians, save that in Berachoth, 33 ὁ, the re- 
 markable saying of Rabbi Chanina is preserved, ΚΠ Θ᾽ "13 bon 
 pnw NNW, “ Allis through the hand of Heaven except the fear of 
 Heaven,” 2.6. absolute freedom has been given to man to choose 
 his own course with respect to matters of religion and morality. See 
 also Adoth, iii. 24 (iii. 15). On these latter points man is fettered 
 by no Divine decrees impelling him to any special course of action. 
 
286: The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. vi. 11-vii. 1. 
 
 St. Paul, as Delitzsch notes, has taken his stand on the same side 
 (Rom. ix.), and the author of the Book of Koheleth could have 
 countersigned the statements of the Apostle as his own, inasmuch 
 as the exhortation to “fear God” (chap. xil. 13) is “the stone 
 and star” (Kern und Stern), the pith and marrow, of his pessimistic 
 book. 
 
 12. Man knows not what is good for him in this life. What he 
 does in the present will bear fruit after he has passed away; and yet 
 who can point out with certainty to an individual the line of action he 
 should adopt in all cases, seeing that man does not know the secrets 
 of the future? YI"), who knows? is a strong negative. Comp. 
 chap. iii. 21. Π Δ᾽ 7BD9, Acc. of time, vid. chap ii, 35. 1937, 
 Comp. chap. vii. 15; ix. 9. μὴ), The phrase 0%) TY means to 
 spend time, like ποιεῖν χρόνον, Acts xv. 33. Comp. James iv. 13, and 
 Prov. xiii. 33 (LXX.). The clause here is to be considered as 
 relative. 32 means as the shadow passes, so chap. vill. 13; Job 
 xiv. 2, not, as Delitzsch remarks, dhe fo a shadow (although the days 
 of a man’s life are elsewhere likened to a shadow, as in Ps. cxliv. 4, 
 etc.), for the latter construction does not suit the verb (Tt) here 
 employed. The Hebrew phrase, though corresponding with the 
 Greek, and with the Latin facere dies (Cicero, Seneca, etc.), must not 
 be regarded, with Zirkel and Graetz, as a Greecism (De/ifzsch). 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 1. The writer, having virtually asserted in the last verse of the 
 previous section that it is impossible to tell what is “ good” (110) 
 in life (a truth which, in the sense in which the assertion is made, 
 cannot seriously be called in question), now proceeds to point out 
 that, however impossible it may be to know with certainty the 
 best course for an individual to pursue, there are certain things 
 connected with human affairs which may safely be pronounced 
 *‘ good,” and even “ better than” other things. 
 
 The first clause of verse 1 is not to be rendered with the Midrash, 
 A.V. and Luther, “a good name is better than precious (lit. good) 
 ointment.” For the order of the words and the analogy of the 
 proverbs which follow (verses 2, 3, 5, 8) show that the first 33 (good) 
 is the predicate. So Vulg. ‘“‘melius est nomen quam unguentum 
 bonum,” and the Targum. OY is occasionally used without a qualify- 
 
Ch. vii. 1-3.] Ογεζιεας and Grammatical Comm. 381 
 
 ing adjective in the sense of a good name, renown. So Prov. xxii. 1; 
 Gen. vi. 4; comp. with the latter Job. xxx. 8. See remarks on p. 
 151. The paronomasia between DY and }?)¥ is intentional; so also in 
 Cant. i. 3. rats OY, «the day of his” Ζ.6. one’s “ birth.” Compare 
 on the suffix chap. vill. 16. See remarks on the verse on p. 151 and 
 Pts o, 
 
 2. Π), The of the article is correctly pointed with pathach 
 before. The Masora magna notes three exceptions, Gen. vi. 19 ; 
 Isaiah ill. 22; xvii. 8. See Baer and Delitzsch, crit. ed. of the 
 Heb. text of Isaiah (Lepizig, 1872), on chap. iii. 22. 125 5x 1), 20 lay 
 it to Ais heart, corresponds to apy py, 2 Sam. xiii. 33; πον ον, 
 eae ἘΠῚ 25°s 303 Ὁ, 2 Sam. xxi. 12. The Vulg. paraphrases the 
 clause “et vivens cogitat guid futurum sit ;” LXX., literally but 
 strongly, ὁ ζῶν δώσει ἀγαθὸν eis καρδίαν aitod. The Talmud (Bera- 
 choth, 6 6) quotes a saying of Rab Papa, “the advantage of (i.e. 
 which accrues from a visit to) the house of mourning is silence,” 
 namely, a solemn stillness, which Dukes (Rad). Blumentlese, p. 87) 
 considers to be a comment on this verse. 
 
 Delitzsch remarks on this passage that the Talmudists have split 
 their heads in the endeavour to harmonise this saying with the 
 ultimatum of Koheleth (chap. 11. 24), “there is nothing better than 
 to eat and to drink.” But the solution is easy. Koheleth’s ulti- 
 matum does not speak unconditionally of the enjoyment of life, but 
 of the enjoyment of life coupled with the fear of God. See remarks 
 on p. 232. When man contemplates the fact of death, two things 
 present themselves to him; (1) that he should make use of his 
 brief life, and (2) that he should use it in contemplation of his end, 
 and, therefore, like one who has to give account of himself to God. 
 Comp? Ps/xc.'F2! 
 
 3. DY in contrast to PINY evidently means sorrow, which pro- 
 duces the outward impression of me/ancholy. On the expression 
 O°35 YO compare ΘΝ) 0°98 in Gen. xl. 7; see also Neh. ii. 2. The 
 Vulg. takes DY in the sense of ager, and translates, ‘“ melior est 
 ira risu, quia per tristitiam vultus corrigitur animus delinquentis,” 
 “anger 15 better than laughter ; because by the sadness of the coun- 
 tenance the mind of the offender ts corrected” (Douay Version). But 
 this is certainly not the sense of the passage, though, possibly, de- 
 rived from the Targum, which explains the azger and daughter here 
 
2G. The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vii. 3-6. 
 
 of God; God’s anger against the righteous resulting in their purifi- 
 cation, and His laughter at the wicked being a token of impending 
 ruin (Ps, xxxvil. 13). The purifying and sanctifying power of grief, 
 especially in contemplation of the grave, seems, however, to be the 
 real point which the writer has here in view. 
 
 4. Delitzsch observes that the reason why zakeph katon is used 
 to divide this verse in place of athnach is that none of the words 
 which follow bas are trisyllabic. Compare on the contrary, verse 7. 
 
 5. The reproof of a wise man naturally refers to such warnings 
 as are naturally uttered in the house of mourning concerning the 
 duties of the living. For the song of fools with which it is here 
 contrasted is not to be understood with the Vulg. to signify the 
 flattery of fools (s¢u/torum adulatio), but the boisterous song of the 
 reveller in ‘the house of mirth” spoken of in the previous verse. 
 In place of viv, which would have been naturally expected in the 
 
 second part of the verse, the phrase YY YN is employed, because 
 the ‘“‘hearing” in the two cases is thought of as connected with 
 two different individuals.—Deditzsch. The expression, the hearing of 
 rebuke, like many other similar phrases, is borrowed from the Book 
 of Proverbs (Prov. xiii. 1, 8), but Johnston has erred widely in regard- 
 ing such borrowed expressions as evidences of unity of authorship. 
 6. We have endeavoured in our translation to preserve the play 
 of words which occurs in the first clause in the Hebrew, Ὁ ΘΠ ὮΝ 
 D2 nA, It has also been preserved in the German rendering of 
 Vaihinger, Knobel, Delitzsch by rendering JVesse/n, Kessel ; Ewald has 
 knistern, kichern. Ut must be borne in mind, however, that Ὁ Ὁ 
 properly means ‘horus; it is used in the sense of a ¢horn-hedge in 
 Hosea ii. ὃ, A.V. ii. 6. The stalks of dry thorns, or even nettles, 
 make a crackling noise and produce a bright flame. Symmachus 
 strangely renders, διὰ yap φωνῶν ἀπαιδεύτων ἐν δεσμωτηρίῳ γίνεταί τις. 
 Knobel considers that he probably read Don instead of 851, 
 On this rendering, Field, in his edit. of Orig. Hex., writes: “ Nobil. 
 affert: Schol. διὰ yap φωνῶν ἀπ. (non τῶν ἀπ. ut Montef. post 
 Drusium edidit) x. τ᾿ é Contenderimus scholium esse hujus aut 
 preecedentis versus, nisi diserte affirmarit Hieron. : ‘Symmachus pro 
 eo quod nos posuimus, Quia sicut vox spinarum sub olla, stc risus 
 stulti, . . . ait: Per vocem enim imperitorum vinculis quispiam 
 colligatur. Etiam sic vix credibile est, Symmachum Hebrea tam 
 
Ch. vii. 6,7.) Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 383 
 
 clara adeo perverse interpretatum esse, preesertim cum juxta Syrum 
 nostrum idem interpres posteriorem clausulam sic verterit: οὕτως 
 καὶ γέλως τῶν ἀπαιδεύτων. In contrariam partem Schleusnerus 
 monet, vocem 1D in lingua Chald. et Syr. de vinculis et carcere adhi- 
 beri.” See Buxtorf, Zex. Chald εἰ Talm., 5. ν. 87D. 
 
 7. The *D at the commencement of the verse would be most 
 naturally explained as introducing a reason for the aphorism imme- 
 diately preceding. But the verses have no real connexion with one 
 another. Ginsburg would connect the “for” with the first clause of 
 verse 5, but this seems to be strained. The same view, however, has 
 been taken by Tayler Lewis, who considers P¥Y to mean annoyance 
 or perverseness, appealing to Ps. ixxiii. 8, and to Isaiah lix. 13, but 
 these proofs cannot be viewed as satisfactory. Ewald proposed 
 formerly to read "WY riches in place of PYYy oppression. But this he 
 maintains in his last edition to be unnecessary, for a gift or a bribe 
 would be given to the wise in order to induce him to participate in 
 unlawful oppression. Ewald there renders PYY by zujustice. The idea, 
 which Zockler here introduces, of the wise man being drawn from the 
 path of probity in consequence of the evil examples of the ungodly 
 (introduced in order to connect the verse with the preceding), does not 
 explain the passage. There is no connexion between the boisterous 
 song of the foolish reveller, and the subject of this aphorism. Plumptre 
 thinks the “latent connexion ” is that “ the ‘song’ and ‘laughter’ of 
 fools, ze. evil-doers, like those of Prov. i, 10-18, and Wisd. ii. 1-20, 
 leads to selfish luxury, and therefore to all forms of unjust gain. The 
 mirth of fools, 2.6. of the godless, is vanity, for it issues in oppression 
 and bribery.” This explanation does not satisfy us. Renan quietly 
 omits the “for” in his translation. With the exception of the words 
 “this also is vanity” in verse 6, he regards the first eight verses of 
 this chapter to be proverbs quoted by Koheleth from various sources, 
 each more or less distinct from one another, but all tending to show 
 ‘the vanity of the philosophy which proclaims that all is vanity.” 
 There is much to be said in favour of. Delitzsch’s idea that there is 
 a gap in the text between verses 6‘and 7, and that verse 7 forms the 
 second half of a tetrastich, the former half of which has been lost, 
 but which probably began with 21D, like the verses preceding. The 
 missing words he considers probably conveyed some such thought 
 as that in Prov. xvi. 8, “ Better is a little with righteousness than 
 much produce without right; for oppression maketh the wise man 
 
384 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vii. 7. 
 
 mad, and a gift (bribe) destroys the heart.’ Inasmuch, however, as 
 no trace of such a hiatus is found in the ancient versions (albeit 
 that fact is by no means decisive in such a question), we incline 
 with the older expositors to connect the verse with what follows 
 instead of with that which precedes. The translation of ἡ. by 
 “surely,” given in our A.V., cannot be sustained, for 3 in that sense 
 must be connected with a preceding clause. It may, however, be 
 rendered ‘‘because,” inasmuch as a sentence which expresses the 
 cause is sometimes placed first, as in Gen. iil. 14, 17. The sense of 
 the passage would then be: ‘‘oppression maketh (even) the wise 
 man mad, drives him to do foolish acts through indignation against 
 the oppressor (compare the use of the part. poal in Ps. cil. 9), and 
 a gift (a bribe given to pervert judgment) ruins the heart” ze. of 
 the wise, ze. utterly breaks down his spirit under the sense of in- 
 
 justice. Comp. 7090 2? 74), Jer. iv. 9. The Psalmist speaks of a 
 smitten and a wounded heart (Ps. cli. 4, cix. 22), and Nabal’s heart 
 “died” within him (1 Sam. xxv. 37), when he heard the news which 
 Abigail communicated. So the spirit is said, in Prov. xv. 13, to be 
 broken by reason of sorrow of heart ; and in numerous passages the 
 heart is spoken of as melted by reason of grief or terror. 
 
 Modern critics have generally supposed the verse to speak of the 
 wise man becoming perverted by stooping to oppression for the sake 
 of gain, and thus ultimately becoming a fool by yielding to his 
 passions. The text is regarded as an echo of Exod. xxii. 8; 
 Deut. xvi. 19. In order to illustrate the expression of destroying 
 the heart, Delitzsch refers to Hosea iv. 11, where it is said that 
 ‘“‘whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart,” or, even 
 more appropriately, to the expression used in Bereshith Rabba, § 56, 
 
 42 NTN SID RAD, “ Ave! age! thou hast destroyed thy heart,” 
 z.e. lost thy understanding. The LXX., Vulg. and Targ. all under- 
 stand the writer to speak, not of a change in the wise man’s charac- 
 ter, but of some attack made upon the wise man himself. The 
 LXX. and Vulg. render P“Y by συκοφαντία, calumnia ; compare 
 their rendering of chap. iv. 1. The Targ. explains the passage of 
 an attack made by robbers. The Syr., however, supports the opinion 
 of the later critics, |Q\\ [dato fora De facaad; ἃ λῸ 
 Ἰδὥσιασο. On the want of agreement in gender between 738) and 
 ΓΤ see Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 147 @ ; Ewald, ὃ 316 a; Kalisch, § 77, 15. 
 
Ch. vii. 8-11.) Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 385 
 
 8. This proverb seems to stand in close connexion with the pre- 
 ceding. The end of a matter is often better than its beginning, and 
 even out of evil good sometimes arises. For Koheleth adds, better 
 is he who is forbearing in spirit (comp. OBS FS, Exod. xxxiv. 6) 
 than hewho who ts haughty of spirit. Both TS and 733 are adjec- 
 tives in the construct state. On the form 433, on account of the 
 guttural, vid. Ewald, ὃ 213 2; Kalisch, ὃ xxvii. τ, Bottcher thinks 
 that it comes from a form "33, Lehrd., ὃ 378, 4. The English trans- 
 lation of Delitzsch here utterly misrepresents that scholar’s opinion. 
 Hitzig regards FS as a noun and 33 as the inf. const. This is pos- 
 sible, but unnecessary. The man who can quietly endure oppression 
 is sure to come off best in the end (comp. Matt. v. 38-41). At the 
 same time the proverb can be taken also in the general sense assigned 
 to it in p. 151, though the former appears to us to be its primary 
 sense in the connexion in which the aphorism here occurs. If it be 
 thus expounded, it stands in intimate connexion with the aphorism 
 which immediately follows. Ginsburg renders 127 by veproof, trans- 
 lating “ the end of a reproof is better than its beginning.” But the 
 examples he cites for that meaning (Prov. iv. 4, 20; 2 Sam. xvii. 6; 
 t Kings i. 7) are certainly no proofs of such a signification. 
 
 g. In times of oppression a wise man ought to learn to keep down 
 his anger; and much more should he thus act in times when he is 
 assailed by lesser provocations. On 7° comp. Job xix. 27. Diy2? 
 infinitive, compare Heb chap. v. II. 
 
 1o. Every age has its peculiar difficulties, and a man inclined to 
 take a dark view of things will always be able to compare unfavour- 
 ably ‘the present with the past. But a readiness to make com- 
 parisons of that kind is no sign of the possession of real wisdom. 
 There is light as well as darkness to be seen in every age. The 
 young men that shouted for joy at the rebuilding of the temple 
 acted more wisely than the old men who wept with a loud voice 
 (Ezra 111. 12, 13). Compare on the thought, Horat., De Arte Poet., 
 173, 174: 
 
 “ Difficilis, querulus, laudator temporis acti 
 Se puero, censor castigatorque minorum,” 
 
 11. This aphorism has been differently understood by expositors. 
 It is generally translated “zwésdom is as good as an inheritance.” So 
 Knobel, Ginsburg, Tyler, Zockler, etc. But in that case one would 
 
 we Gk 
 
386 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. vii. 11-14. 
 
 have expected the writer to have expressed himself rather in the 
 terms of Prov. vill. 11. The real sense of the passage is the most 
 natural one, and that which is assigned to it by the LXX., Vulg., 
 Targ., etc., ‘‘ wisdom ts good along with an inheritance.” The saying 
 corresponds with that of Menander, μακάριος ὅστις οὐσίαν καὶ νοῦν 
 ἔχει: χρῆται yap οὗτος εἰς ἃ δεῖ ταύτῃ καλῶς. It is no objection to this 
 view that Koheleth in other passages declares all to be vanity. He 
 speaks here of that which is useful while men are alive and behold 
 the light of the sun. The proverb, as Delitzsch observes, is formed 
 exactly on the lines of that in Aboth, ii. 2, “$8 TY OY ain Tb ΠΕ) 
 beautiful is the study of the Law combined with worldly occupation. In 
 the second clause of the verse, 10 is to be rendered as a noun signi- 
 fying advantage. See Glossary,s.v. Herzfeld, Hitzig and Hengsten- 
 berg, however, translate that clause ‘‘amd even better” is the possession 
 of wisdom “for those who behold the sun.” The former exposition 
 best harmonizes with the verse which follows. 
 
 12. Some commentators regard the particle in bya as the 3 essentie ; 
 but Delitzsch preferably considers by3 like 5¥3 of Jonah iv. 5, and 
 translates, 27 the shadow 1s wisdom, in the shadow is money.” ‘That is, 
 he who possesses wisdom finds himself in a shadow, shielded from 
 many dangers, and similarly the man who has possession of money. 
 Compare Ps: "xci. 1; ΟΥ̓ΧῚ ἢ; Isa. xxx. 2, 3) xxx. 2 > ΚΥΣῚΝ eG eetCs 
 
 13. See remarks on p. 145. Comp. chap. i. 15. 8, see, is 
 here used almost in the signification of consider. Hitzig takes 3 in 
 the sense of ¢hat, and so extracts the sense ‘that no one can 
 straighten,” etc. So also Ginsburg. But this can scarcely be the 
 meaning of 3, which is simply “for who can,” etc. The idea of 
 the verse is, submit yourself to the arrangements of Divine provi- 
 dence, for it is impossible for you to alter them. The LXX. and 
 Vulg. gave a false turn to the passage, under the impression, which 
 is shared by the Targ., that Koheleth is speaking of physical defects 
 of the body, but the passage has a far deeper significance. LXX. 
 has ὅτι τίς δυνήσεται κοσμῆσαι dv ἂν 6 Θεὸς διαστρέψῃ αὐτόν ; Vulg. 
 “quod nemo posstt corrigere quem ille despexerit.” 
 
 14. Compare on this verse Sirach. xiv. 14. 2102 ΠῚ, be in good 
 spirits (comp. Ps. xxv. 13), #g. chap. ix. 7, aip-aa, 1 Kings viii. 
 66. ‘31018. This second clause is best understood with Gins- 
 burg, Zockler and Delitzsch, “consider that even God hath made this 
 
Ch. vii. 14-16.) Crztzcal and Grammatical Comm. 387 
 (2.4. the day of evil) as well as that,” the day of good. So Job ii. 10, 
 “What, shall we receive good at the hands of God, and shall we 
 not receive evil?” 
 
 The final clause, “ ‘hat man may find nothing after him,” is easy to 
 translate, but not so easy to explain. Zdéckler, with others, considers 
 the meaning to be that man does not know that which lies before 
 him. But "}58 is used always with reference to that which happens 
 after this present life (chap. iii. 22; vi. 22; Job xxi. 21). Hitzig 
 explains the text to mean that God designs man after his death to 
 be done with all things, hence He puts upon him evil in the period 
 of his life, and permits it to alternate with good, instead of punishing 
 him after death. This idea is opposed, however, to the teaching of 
 Koheleth respecting a future judgment. Delitzsch explains the verse 
 to mean that God causes man to have experience of both good and 
 evil here in order that he may pass through the whole school of life ; 
 and that when he departs therefrom, there may be no experience 
 outstanding which he has not encountered. The writer seems to us 
 even to go further, and to assert that God has so mixed up this pre- 
 sent life with good and evil that man cannot find out by his own 
 powers, or by all his meditations on the present state, what the lot 
 of mankind will be in a future state of existence. The secrets of the 
 state after death lie utterly beyond the ken of mortal man. The 
 contemplation of the present life with its mixture of good and evil 
 affords no clue whatever to the future. 
 
 15. barns, Zéckler explains this as “ everything possible,” every- 
 thing that can come under consideration. Luther, Vaihinger, etc., 
 better “a// sorts of things.” The “all” is no doubt afterwards spoken 
 of as falling under two heads; but this fact does justify the trans- 
 lation ‘‘both,” given by Preston and Ginsburg. “ Zhe days of my 
 vanity.” Compare chap. vi. 12. Some have interpreted this as a 
 penitential expression on the part of Solomon. But it is unnecessary 
 to comment on such an interpretation. The 3 in }P7¥3 and ina 
 is to be translated with Herzfeld, Delitzsch, etc., as equivalent to zx, 
 1.6. 2” spite of. Delitzsch pertinently adduces 33 92373, Deut. i. 32. 
 The translation ‘‘¢hrough,” “ by means of,” defended by Hitzig, does 
 not harmonize with what follows. 4S’) is used both with and 
 without the following 0%}. So chap. vili. 12, with verse 13. 
 
 16. By 1371 ΡΝ, Zoo just, according to Heiligstedt, is meant too 
 sharp and bitter in passing judgment on others. Koheleth, how- 
 
388 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vii. 16. 
 
 ever, probably had in view the tendency to asceticism prevalent in 
 his day, which drove men to deny themselves all pleasures through 
 fear of sin. There is always danger of exaggeration in matters of 
 religion. DEANNON), On the form of imperf. hithp. vid. Ges.- 
 Kautzsch, § 54, rem. 1. Do not show thyself too wise. Compare 
 Exod. i. το. On this signification of the hithpael, compare PI4N3 
 to show oneself strong, 2 Sam. x. 123; ἮΙ ΓΙ, to show oneself angry, 
 
 Deut! 1. 37 ; Spann, to act subiilly, Ps. cv. 25. Some would render 
 “ affect not to be wise,” but this translation is not in accordance with 
 the’ general usage of the hithpael (although the conjugation has 
 that signification in Prov. xiii. 7), and does not suit here. The trans- 
 lation clement, merciful, assigned here to P18 by the Targ., the 
 - Midrash Koheleth, and other Jewish authorities, is unwarranted. 
 Even in Dan. iv. 24 ΠΡῚΝ is not ἐλεημοσύνη. OWA: The form 
 has two anomalies, (1) the assimilation of the final 1 in the DA of the 
 hithpoel (Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 54, 2; Kalisch, ὃ xlvi. 8 ὁ), and (2) the 
 hithpoel is the only reflexive form of the finite verb which preserves 
 the tzere in pause. Comp. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 54, rem. 1. The infini- 
 tive hithpael has tzere in pause, as 2 Chron. xx. 6; Isa. xxvill. 20; 
 Ix.21 5 ΙΧ]. 3; 50 also the participle, Isa. xxx. 22; Job. xvaeo. 388 
 Konig, Zefrg., p. 350; Stade, Lehrb., § τοῦ ad; Bottcher, Lehro., 
 δ 1030. Hitzig, followed by Ginsburg, renders, “ thou wilt only 
 make thyself to be forsaken.” But this is scarcely the meaning. Nor 
 is the LXX. rendering, μήποτε ἐκπλαγῇς, or that of the Vulg. we οὖ- 
 stupescas, at all suitable. 
 
 There is no necessity to regard this with Plumptre, as “a distinct 
 reproduction of one of the current maxims of Greek thought, μηδὲν 
 aydy (ne guid nimis, ‘nothing in excess”), of Theognis, 402, and of 
 Chilon (Dzog. Laert., I. i. ὃ 41). The thought is similar, but far 
 from being identical. Nor is there a reference, as Zockler imagines, 
 to the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees, already, 
 perhaps, beginning to develope themselves. ‘The contrast in this 
 and the next verse between P73 and YY was not, as Delitzsch 
 points out, one of the differences between those parties; the over- 
 straining of the Pharisees referred to the ceremonial and not to the 
 moral law. One may compare the well-known aphorism, sasmum 
 jus summa injuria; or the Aristotelian doctrine, that virtue lies in the 
 middle mean, μεσότης δὲ δύο κακιῶν, τῆς μὲν καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν, τῆς δὲ κατ᾽ 
 
Ch. vii. 16-18.) Crztical and Grammatical Comm. 389 
 ἔλλειψιν (Lthic. Nicom., ii. 6), which is repeated by Ovid, Metam., 
 il. 137, ‘‘medium tenuere beati, medio tutissimus ibis”; and by 
 Horace, “virtus est medium vitiorum utrinque reductum ” (202, 
 i. 18, 9). 
 
 17. According to Zockler, Koheleth does not here commend 
 a certain moderation in wickedness as allowable, but, recognising 
 the fact that all men are more or less sinful by nature (verses 20-22), 
 he warns his readers against malicious wickedness.’ Delitzsch, in 
 allusion to the original meaning of the verb, regards the aphorism 
 to mean, while avoiding a narrow rigorism do not be too lax. This 
 is, indeed, the sense of the passage; but the difficulty of thus trans- 
 lating the passage lies in the fact that there is no instance in which 
 the verb is used in such a signification. Plumptre imagines that 
 “the difficulty vanishes, if we will but admit that the writer might 
 have learnt the art of a playful irony from his Greek teachers.” It 
 was not, however, necessary to have recourse to Greek teachers to 
 learn irony. Herzfeld translates, ‘‘de not too unrighteous,” and ex- 
 plains it as a caution not to lose oneself too much in worldly affairs. 
 Herzfeld does not, however, go the length of Ibn Ezra, who affirms 
 “that zwicked here means to be engaged in worldly matters.” See 
 Ginsburg. While it is clear from other passages that Koheleth does 
 not wink at any indulgence in “little sins,” as they are termed, it 
 can scarcely be questioned that he is in the text before us warning 
 men against excess in wickedness, and that he was led into this 
 mode of expression by the aphoristic form in which the former verse 
 was cast. One might be tempted to compare the warning of St. 
 James, to “ put off all filthiness and περισσείαν xaxias” (chap. 1. 21), 
 which certainly was never meant to convey the idea that κακία in 
 any sense or shape was to be willingly retained. Proverbial expres-' 
 sions are not to be measured too exactly. Compare the remarks on 
 Ρ. 205. The man is a “fool” who permits himself by ungodly ex- 
 cesses to be swallowed up in the waves of sensuality, which drown 
 many before their time. If it be borne in mind that Koheleth speaks 
 in this verse from the practical standpoint of a “ man of the world,” 
 in the good sense of that term, there is no need to be astonished 
 at his warning, or to be offended at the terms in which it is set forth, 
 
 18. “It is good that thou shouldest lay hold on this” course, 
 namely the plan of pursuing with moderation the paths of righteous- 
 ness and wisdom, “and also that thou shouldest not withdraw from 
 
390 ° The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vii. 18, 19. 
 
 the other” course, namely, that of avoiding all those excesses which 
 prove ruinous to many. Compare 1 Pet. iv. 4. Very differently 
 Kleinert, who refers the ΠῚ and ΠῚ to what follows, the first “ this” 
 referring to “he that fears God escapes all;” the second to the 
 clause, ‘‘ wisdom gives more strength to a wise man,” etc. But such 
 long and involved sentences are not characteristic of our writer. 
 The last clause of the verse has been explained, ‘‘ he that fears God 
 shall come out of them all,” that is, will escape “all the perplexities of 
 this life” (Zyler, Bullock) caused by over-rigorism on the one hand 
 and over-laxity on the other. Zéckler similarly supposes the writer 
 to allude to the evil consequences of a hypocritical righteousness, 
 and of a defiant immorality. The construction of δὲ δ᾽ here with the 
 accusative has been often compared to that in Gen. xliv. 4; Exod. 
 ix. 29, 32, etc. But the comparison, as Ginsburg has noted, is 
 ‘“‘inapposite,” for the sense of the phrase is not identical. The 
 translation of Hitzig, though adopted by Ginsburg’ (“ τὴ make his 
 way with both”), introduces an expression unexampled in Biblical 
 literature. Delitzsch explains the verb in the final clause after the 
 usage of the Mishna, in which δὲν often occurs in the meaning of 
 Julfilling one’s duty. Lig. WAND RNY, he fulfilled his duty, 111. 
 went out of (escaped) the hands of his duty, by a performance 
 thereof; or also elliptically MANS, he fulfils thereby his duty, 
 MA NIV INN, he does not thereby fulfil his duty. See Levy, Meuheb. 
 und Chald. Worterbuch, s.v. 88°. Hence the passage means, “ he 
 that fears God fulfils them all,” 2.6. the duties previously mentioned, 
 and avoids the extremes on both sides. Compare our Lord’s 
 remarks in Matt. xxiii. 23. The truly pious man Keeps “the golden 
 mean.” 
 
 The LXX. translate somewhat freely, but there is no reason to 
 suppose that they had a different reading. The Vulg. erroneously 
 supposes the writer to.speak of the duty of supporting the upright 
 man and not deserting him, “‘ bonum est te sustentare justum, sed et 
 ab illo ne subtrahas manum tuam.” 
 
 19. MY is either transitive, as Ps. Ixviii. 29, fo strengthen, or here 
 
 followed by 2 better rendered intransitively, proves itself strong. 
 
 bY is akin to the Assyrian §a-lat, which is used both in the sense of 
 a stadtholder and a commander, See Schrader, Keilinschriften und 
 das A.T., 1st edit., p. 370. [The 2nd edition of this important 
 
Ch. vii. 19-22.] Critical and Grammatical Comm. 391 
 work is now announced as ready.] There is probably an allusion 
 here to some political or other arrangements of the time with 
 which we are imperfectly acquainted. ‘Tyler remarks that ten means 
 a full number, ‘comp. Gen, xxxi. 7; Job xix. 2. In the Mishna 
 ( Megitlah, i. 3) a great city is defined as one in which there are ten 
 men of leisure. ‘len men were required for the formation of a 
 synagogue.” 
 
 20. There is a reference here to the words used in the prayer of 
 Solomon, 1 Kings vill. 46. 2) PS OWS is for DIN PX 13, for the 
 sake of emphasis. ‘The connexion between this verse and its con- 
 text has given rise to much difference of opinion. See remarks on 
 p. 147. It is unnatural to consider that the writer speaks of wisdom 
 as protecting against the justice of God by teaching man his sinful- 
 ness even in his best estate. Hitzig and Delitzsch seem to have 
 caught the true sense of the passage in supposing the thought of the 
 writer to be, that man is fallible, and the wisest at times comuit 
 mistakes, but their wisdom enables them to get the better of their 
 mistakes and protects them against the evil consequences which 
 happen in such cases to the unwise. ‘This exposition not only con- 
 nects the passage with what precedes, but also with that which fol- 
 lows. or the wise man who is conscious of having made mistakes 
 himself, and of having been guilty of transgression, will act kindly 
 and leniently to~ his fellows, and not make them offenders for a 
 word. Comp. Isa. xxix. 21. See Delitzsch on the latter passage, 
 which Cheyne would, however, expound differently. 
 
 21. Do not pay attention (lit. g7ve not thy heart; see note on chap. 
 i. 13) to evil reports about other persons, which people in general 
 (not only the zzgodly, which nominative the LXX., Targ., Syr., here 
 supply before the indeterminate verb 127, vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 137, 
 3) rashly circulate without examining at all into their truth or false 
 hood. ‘There is no necessity with some commentators to restrict 
 the application of the passage by mentally supplying ‘‘ about thy- 
 self.” Compare on this passage, Marc, Aurel., Lib. vi. 20. =dpn. 
 This is no Grecism, vid. Ewald, § 284 ὁ. 
 
 22. D1°D, The Dis to be connected with 12. Delitzsch com- 
 pares on its position here, Hosea vi, 11; Zech ix. 11 (see crit, 
 comm, at end of my Bampton Lectures, γ). 571), and even Job ii. το, 
 may ὦ ΜΕ, Accusative of time, not the accusative of the object, 
 
302 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. vii 22-24. 
 
 ν 
 
 On the inversion of the clause for emphasis, see Ewald, § 336 ὁ. 
 Compare ver. 20; chap ili. 13; v. 18. 73> yt, Compare 1 Kings 
 1. 44. Johnston (Zyeatise, p. 109) considers the fact that this phrase 
 is only found in that passage and in Prov. xiv. ro (and in Koh. viii. 5) 
 to be an argument in favour of the Solomonic authorship, but see p. 87. 
 
 ANDI, Delitzsch observes in his critical notes on the text that 
 the FAN should, according to the Masora, on account of the half 
 pause, have the accent on the penult, and not on the last syllable, 
 AS, as in the ordinary text. The K’ri gives the full form, 778. 
 
 The LXX. has here ὅτι πλειστάκις πονηρεύσεταί σε (Knobel con- 
 jectures that they read Y1) instead of YT, or the imperf. of 2), καὶ 
 καθόδους πολλὰς κακώσει καρδίαν cov. Montfaucon observes (see 
 Field’s Hexap/a) that in this passage two versions are combined, the 
 first being that of the LXX., the latter that of Aquila, who con- 
 stantly renders OY by κάθοδος. He observes that many of Aquila’s 
 renderings have been foisted into the text of the LXX. See our 
 remarks on pp. 51, 52. 
 
 23. ΠΌΞΠΝΣ ‘NDS. This is the only instance in the book where 
 the cohortative occurs. It expresses here strong resolve, ‘ 7 sazd, 
 wise will 7 become.” It must not be rendered “7 have become wise,” 
 or, what is equivalent, by sapio, as Rosenmiiller, who explains it, 
 “jam mihi persuadebam me ad fastigium sapientiz adscendisse.” 
 Symm. well renders: ὑπέλαβον σοφὸς γενέσθαι. Koheleth determined 
 to increase his natural wisdom, and to unravel the perplexities of 
 this life, but he found the attempt vain. Ginsburg considers the 
 two verbs are subordinated in accordance with the principle ex- 
 plained in Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 142, 3 ¢ But this can scarcely be 
 regarded as an instance of that construction. Ginsburg’s rendering, 
 «7 wished to be wiser,” is weak. 
 
 24. See our remarks on p. 202. Delitzsch rightly regards MOY" 
 as expressing an idea in itself, “that which was,” or “ that which 
 exists,” chap. 1. 9; lll. 15 3 vl. 10; in the former signification forming 
 a contrast to MBL, “that which will be,” chap... vill y= ἘΠ τῇ 
 (comp. ill. 22); in the latter, the opposite to that which does not 
 exist, because it has yet to come into being. So Hengstenberg 
 explains it “ that which has being,” wisdom being τῶν ὄντων γνῶσις 
 awevons, Wisd. vil. 17. The ancient versions have misunderstood 
 the author’s meaning. The translation of Rosenmiiller, de Wette, 
 Knobel, and others, “zat ts far and deep” does not so suit or 
 
Ch. vii. 24-26.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 393 
 
 harmonise with the order of the Hebrew. Nor does the view of 
 Zockler commend itself to our judgment, namely, that the author 
 here refers to wisdom, “far is it what she is,” ze. the real innermost 
 essence of wisdom is far from human comprehension. Comp. Job 
 xxvill. 12 ff.; Sirach xxiv. 38, 39; Baruch iii. 15 ff. On the repeti- 
 tion of the adjective to express the superlative degree, see Kalisch, 
 δ 75, 8; Ges.-Kautzsch, § 119, 2, rem. 
 
 25. ‘MAD, See chap. ii. 20. ΟῚ is not to be connected with the 
 preceding *38, as the majority of interpreters have done. The word 
 caused difficulty to the ancient interpreters. Hence arcse the read- 
 ing found in many MSS., "203, which seems to have been that of 
 the Targ., Symm., as quoted by Jerome (sevsu meo), and Vulg. anzmo 
 meo. The A.V. and Luther have freely rendered, “and 7 applied my 
 heart,” as if there was no copula before the Δ, The Heb. accen- 
 tuation also connects ‘38 with °22, and disconnects the latter from 
 
 nyt?, But such an expression is without a parallel. Ibn Ezra, 
 Herzfeld, Moses Stuart and Delitzsch connect the 5) with the 
 following word, “and my heart (my longing) was to know.” 7159, 
 See n. on chap. 1. 13. 1307, See Glossary. In the phrase nyt 
 
 3 yw, the first accusative is that of the object, and the second is 
 the predicate, “ 20 know wickedness to be folly.” See Ewald, ὃ 284 ὁ. 
 
 Ginsburg incorrectly regards mipoin MiP3DF to mean, ¢hat folly which 
 és madness. 
 
 26. ‘IS N31. See ἢ. on chap. 1. 5, p. 309. On the form, see Ges.- 
 Kautzsch, § 75, 21 @; Konig, p. 611; Kalisch, § Ixvi. 21. Comp. 
 chap. viii. 12. The fmding of a wife is spoken of as a treasure in 
 Proy. xvili. 22. Hence, as Delitzsch mentions in his Comm. on 
 Proverbs, it was a custom in Palestine to ask concerning the bride- 
 groom, NSD IN NSD, ze. has he found (S¥!) a treasure, as in Prov. 
 xviii. 22, or has he found a snare (®¥1%9), as in Koh. vili. 26? See 
 Talmud Babli, Jebamoth, 63 6; Berachoth,8 a. NVI. The ad- 
 jective referring to “‘ the woman ” afterwards spoken of is masculine, 
 because it precedes, vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 147 ὦ. On the phrase 
 DNS NT WS, Hitzig observes that 8] is the copula between the 
 subj. and pred., which for the sake of contrast precedes the predicate 
 and gives emphasis to it. It must not be regarded with Ginsburg as 
 a nominative, nor is 1’8 to be viewed as a conjunction. Si ἽΝ, 
 
394 - The Book of Koheleth. ται. vii. 26-viii. τ. 
 
 or 87] WYN, as Delitzsch observes, is never used as the representative 
 of the subject previously named and taken up again by a suffix 
 pronoun referring back thereto. DIDS, eters, chains, so in Judg. 
 xv. 14. ‘The singular 7)D8 occurs in Jer. xxxviil. 15. See remarks 
 on this passage on p. 202. Comp. Ben Sira, Heb. fragm. 4 in 
 
 Delitzsch’s Gesch. d. γώ. Poesie, p. 204, ΠΣ 7257 12. 
 27. ΠῚ 78, Comp. verses 14, 29. nonpa WS. So the text 
 
 ought to be read with the LXX. and Syr., instead of nom YON, 
 The Targ. supports the ordinary reading. The Vulg. déx7t LEeclesi- 
 astes cannot be cited for either. See on the name Koheleth, the 
 prelim, note, pp. 279 ff. DelitzSch well observes that Ginsburg vainly 
 contends in favour of the Masoretic text, that personified wisdom 
 might be as well represented as a feminine as masculine; but 
 especially here, where the female sex is spoken of in disparaging 
 terms, the designation of wisdom as feminine would be peculiarly 
 unsuitable. Delitzsch also notes that similar errors of transcription 
 are found 2 Sam. v. 2; Job xxxviii. 12. In the two latter cases the 
 error is corrected in the K’rli, and acknowledged by the punctuators. 
 
 28. See remarks on p. 203. ‘“‘What my soul hath sought,” not is 
 seeking, which would require the participle. Delitzsch, in his textual 
 remarks, observes on mwa, that all the piel forms of &P2 ought Ma- 
 soretically to have the P marked with raphe, with the exception of 
 the imperative 173. Comp. Luzzatto, Gramm., ὃ 417; Konig, 
 Lehrg., p. 188. The consecution of the accents in the clause, 
 MNS AOND ‘’N DN is the same as in Gen. i. 9, except that gereshayim 
 is used instead of geresh on DIN. For the reason of the latter see 
 Davidson’s Heb. Ac., ὃ 12, 3, and ὃ 11, 2. 
 
 29. 2 ΠῚ AN 720) The order of the words is here inverted. 
 is the accus. governed by and 739 (see Glossary) qualifies it. 
 
 CHAPTER? ὙΠῈ 
 
 1, BDINNI, Who ts as the wise man? Not identical with 
 the expression 939) who is wise, Hosea xiv. 10; Ps. cvii. 45, 
 but “who ἐς like the wise man?” Comp. Exod. xv. 11, 73123 "9 
 uho ts like thee? On the absence of the usual syncope of the article 
 after 2, see Ges.-Kautzsch, § 35, rem. 2; Kalisch, ὃ xxi. 5; Ewald, 
 ὃ 244 a. This omission of the syncope occurs chiefly in the later 
 
Ch. viii.) Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 395 
 
 books. The accent under "2 in the beginning of the verse is yethibh, 
 prepositive and disjunctive, hence the daghesh in 3. YT" "), 
 Knobel and others consider the 3 is here understood, but this is 
 unnecessary. 2770¥5. On 5 866 Glossary. This is translated by 
 Hitzig and many others, “‘ ¢he interpretation of the proverb,” namely, 
 of that which follows. The absence of the article is, however, a 
 decided objection to this. 737 ought to be rendered indefinitely, 
 and is better understood in the sense of ¢hzng, as in chap. i. 8; 
 vil. 8. The ancient versions render it here zord, but inasmuch “ as 
 the explanation, or interpretation WB = ,..5) refers to the actual 
 
 substance of that which is spoken, word and ¢hing in this case coin- 
 cide” (Delitzsch). 
 
 Wisdom enlightens the face, because the light that is within 
 makes itself partially visible without (comp. Ps. xix. 9 ; οχίχ. 130). 
 D2 YY, from the comparison of the similar phrases in Deut. xxviil. 
 50; Dan. viii. 23; Prov. vii. 13, seems to signify flerceness, impu- 
 dence, coarseness of countenance, or, of the expression of face. Delitzsch 
 refers in illustration of the idea to the Talmud, Shaddbath, 30 ὁ, and 
 Taanith, 76. In the latter it is said ἢ DIS $3 δ} 3772: ΠῚ ϑιξ 
 PMY? Ἴ ὉΠ) 27 II Yen WN IT TON yen ἸΠΥΎΡΟ any DD Muy 19 
 pew δος nea opm ὍΝ (32) NOW) ID WT TONY ININRW/? IND WE 
 (82%). That is, “ Rabbah bar Rab Huna says, with respect to every 
 man who has 0°33 NYY (cmpudence of expression) it is lawful to call 
 him wicked, for it is written (Prov. xxi. 29) ‘a wicked man hardens 
 [makes impudent] ἀὴρ face.’ Rab Nahman bar Isaac says, it is lawful 
 to hate him, for it is written ‘and the coarseness [impudence] of Ais 
 face ts changed,’ Read not [in his case] 82 (changed), but S23” 
 (hated).” This passage of the Talmud proves that the present 
 reading of our text is the original. The gloss, however, of Rab 
 Nahman explains the rendering of the LXX., καὶ ἀναιδὴς (reading 
 Winstead of Y) προσώπῳ αὐτοῦ μισηθήσεται, which is followed by the 
 Syriac. Dale explains the Heb. verb after the LXX. But the 
 Masoretic note is correct, ‘7 DIPOl'N, “8 zs in place of 1.” Similar 
 
 cases occur in”? verbs. See Ges.-Kautzsch, § 75, rem. 22; Kalisch, 
 δ Ixvii. 20 ; Ewald, ὃ 142 ¢.; Konig, p. 532. It is unnecessary to read 
 the piel, with Zirkel and Hitzig. The proverb of Ben Sira, based 
 on this saying of Koheleth and alluded to p. 41, has the piel in 
 
 the original Hebrew, which has been in this case preserved, Θὰ 2? 
 
3906 . The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. viii. 1-3. 
 
 wp pa ab PRE MW, “the heart of man changes his countenance 
 as well to good as to evil.” See Delitzsch, Gesch. der jiid. Poesie, 
 p. 205; Dukes, abd. Blumentlese, p. 78. Ewald’s translation of this 
 passage in Koheleth, namely, ‘the brightness of his countenance is 
 doubled,” must, independently of other considerations, be rejected, 
 
 on account of the passages cited which show the real meaning of 
 VIE ty, 
 
 2. The *28 standing alone at the commencement of the verse is 
 peculiarly strange. The simplest method of explaining it is to 
 suppose that "M28 is omitted. If the omission be not regarded 
 as an ancient blunder of some copyist, the ellipsis is without a 
 parallel elsewhere. The omission of. ne in Isa. v. 9 (compare 
 
 chap. xxil. 14), or of “iN? in Jer. xx. ro, are not really similar. 
 Kleinert notes that Ewald compares 1 Chron. xxviii. 2, which is 
 scarcely parallel. In his Déchter d. alt. Bundes, 2te Ausg., Ewald 
 renders, “‘ /ch: den Mund des Konigs beachte.” Kleinert himself 
 renders the "38, my judgment is”; Dale gives, ‘As for me, a royal 
 word observe.” Neither translation is defensible. The LXX., Syr. 
 and Targ. solve the difficulty by simply omitting the 38; the LXX. 
 and Syr. preserving the order of the Heb. words, στόμα βασιλέως 
 φύλαξον ; but in such a command the verb would have been placed 
 first. Fidelity even towards heathen monarchs was commanded by 
 the prophets of Israel, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13; Ezek. xvii. 15. See our 
 remarks on p. 222. The mention made by Josephus (Az#iz., xii. 1) 
 of the fact that Ptolemy Lagus required the Jews in Egypt to take 
 an oath of allegiance to him does not imply that such an oath had 
 not previously been exacted by other kings. R. Levi, in the Midrash 
 Koheleth, refers the passage to God (followed in this particular by 
 Hengstenberg and others), and explains it as TOWN ‘38. Similarly 
 Luther, though rightly considering an earthly sovereign to be spoken 
 of (Ich halte das Wort des Konigs), after the Vulg., ego os regis 
 observe. The Vulg. may have read the word as the participle (19%), 
 which Hitzig views as the correct reading. But the traditional 
 reading of the word as the imperative is to be preferred, because 
 Koheleth nowhere adduces his own conduct as an example for 
 others to follow. 
 
 3. On the construction son 9 Sman BN, see Ges.-Kautzsch, § 142, 
 34; Kalisch, ὃ 103, 2 ; Ewald, § 285 4. Koheleth seeks in this place 
 
Ch. viii. 3-5.] Ογεέζεα and Grammatical Comm. 397 
 
 to dissuade his readers from casting off their allegiance to the king, 
 or taking part with the enemies of the monarch under any hasty 
 impulse whatever. So Rosenmiiller, Knobel and Delitzsch explain 
 
 the passage. On this sense of ‘359 yn, compare Gen. xxxvi. 6, or 
 Hosea xi. 2, “¢hey [the prophets] called them, but they [the people] 
 went away from them (ὉΠ 252 1397), they sacrificed to Baalim, and 
 burned incense to graven images.” Heiligstedt is not justified (on the 
 slender induction of particulars which is possible in this case) in 
 
 maintaining that the niphal of 2713 cannot be used in the same sense 
 as the piel. The explanation given by Zockler and others, namely, 
 that the clause warns against a timid withdrawal from the royal 
 presence when the king is unfavourably disposed, does not, in our 
 Opinion, suit the passage. ‘The advice of Koheleth is similar to that 
 in chap. x. 4. »Ὲὴ 3 is best explained like verse 5, as “an evil 
 thing,” not, as several expositors have maintained, “ az evil word.” 
 2 TY, as is proved by comparison of the phrases in Ps. i. 1; 2 Kings 
 xxiii. 3; Ps. evi. 23, and Jer. xxiii. 18, might well be used of entering 
 into a wicked conspiracy against the monarch. The Targum on 
 this verse supposes that the king referred to is God above, and so 
 Hengstenberg, Hahn, Dale. But this is opposed to the context, as 
 is also the idea that Koheleth refers here to cases like that of Cain, 
 who fled from the presence of the Lord (Gen. iv. 16), or Jonah 
 (i. 3, etc.). Hitzig’s translation “do not hesitate at a bad command 
 (to obey the king),” is contrary to the use of the phrase. He 
 maintains that the writer intentionally adopts a “‘servility ” of tone 
 when speaking of the king, and refers to him in language used 
 by other writers in reference to God (see n. on next verse). But 
 the “servility ” of tone exists only in the imagination of the critic. 
 
 4. The author is speaking of a monarch who possesses absolute 
 power. It is no real argument against this view of the text that 
 the same phrase which occurs in the second clause of the verse 
 is applied to God in Job ix. 12; Isa. xlv. 9. Comp. Dan. iv. 32; 
 Wisd. xii. 12. ΝΞ, as Delitzsch observes, is used here in the 
 beginning of the verse to introduce a reason for the remark made at 
 the close of the preceding; like ‘#3, chap. ii. 16, compare Gen. xxxix. 
 9, 23; Greek, ἐν ᾧ and ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. rode, see Glossary. The use of this 
 word as an adjective is very peculiar. 
 
 5. The commandment alluded to is that of the king mentioned in 
 
ν 
 
 398 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. viii. 5-7. 
 verse 2, not the Law of God, which some commentators wrongly 
 consider to be referred to. When Koheleth says that the man who 
 obeys the king’s command “will experience no evil thing,” or that 
 no harm will come to him, he is, of course, speaking generally (like 
 St. Paul in Rom. xiii. 1-5), and not contemplating the case of 
 kings requiring obedience to decrees contrary to the Divine laws, 
 such as those of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. ili.) or Darius (Dan. vi.). 
 The YI in both clauses of the verse ought to be translated uni- 
 formly, not as a future in one clause, and a present in the other, 
 
 or vice versa. dan 30 might be either a wése heart, or the heart of a 
 wise man. ‘The connexion of this verse with verse 1 is in favour of 
 the latter rendering. The writer in the last clause does not assert 
 that the wise man will wait patiently for a change in the royal 
 dynasty (he might, in many cases, have to wait long enough 1), but 
 that such a person will wait patiently (Lam. ii. 26) for the time and 
 the season (chap. lil. 1, 11, 17) of judgment, which God hath put 
 in His own power. OB?21 NY is regarded by the LXX. as an hen- 
 diadys, καιρὸν κρίσεως, time of judgment. 
 
 6. Four of the sentences in verses 6 and 7 begin with 3. This 
 opens the door for a variety of interpretations ; because 3 is sus- 
 ceptible of different renderings. It is perhaps better, with Delitzsch, 
 to regard the four *}s alike as members of a single chain of proofs. 
 The sense of this and the following verse is: The heart of the wise 
 will know the time and judgment and will keep quiet, for (1) there 
 is a time and a judgment appointed by God in which the wicked 
 ruler will be duly punished. Comp. chap. ili. 17 ; (2) the wickedness 
 of man is heavy upon him (man), and will entail its own punish- 
 ment; (3) No man knows the future, or that which will take place, 
 and, therefore, no despot is able absolutely to guard himself 
 against the stroke of vengeance; for (4) who can tell him how the 
 vengeance will be brought about; he may look in this direction 
 and in that for the longed-for information, but in vain (comp. Isaiah 
 xlvil. 13 ff.); one thing, however, is certain, that whilst the wicked 
 ‘are drowned in their carousing they shall be consumed like stubble 
 fully dry” (Nahum i. ro). 
 
 The LXX. and Theod. have ὅτι γνῶσις τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὴ ἐπ᾽ 
 αὐτόν, reading NY instead of NY), which, however, affords no sense. 
 
 7. The paraphrase of the Vulg., though not verbally correct, 
 
Ch. viii. 7, 8.1] Crztzcal and Grammatical Comm. 399 
 expresses the sense of the passage, “‘ guia ignorat preterita, et futura 
 nullo scire potest nuntio.” See note on the previous verse. 
 
 8. Koheleth has in the previous verses given four distinct proofs 
 that the heart of a wise man knoweth time and judgment. He now 
 proceeds to point out that there are four things known to be impossi- 
 bilities which conduct to the same conclusion. (1) There is no man 
 who has power over the wind to check it in its course or to restrain 
 its violence. Judgments are often likened to the wind (Isa. xli. 16 ; 
 lvil. 12; Jer. iv. 11-13; xxi. 22), and the Divine judgments can be 
 as little kept back (153°) as the mighty wind be prevented from 
 bursting forth. (2) There is no one who has power over the day 
 of death, or is able to avert the arrival of that “king of terrors ” 
 (Job xviii. 14); the pestilence walketh forth in darkness, and the 
 sickness wasteth at noon-day (Ps. xci. 6). (3) There was no dis- 
 charge granted from the ranks in time of war under the rigorous law 
 of Persia, and the Divine law of requital cuts off with equal certainty 
 all hope of escape from the guilty transgressor; and lastly, (4) 
 wickedness will not deliver its master. When the hour of Divine 
 vengeance strikes, the sinner shall receive the meet reward of his 
 actions. ‘The wages of sin is death” (Rom. vi. 23). 
 
 The word ΠῚ in the first clause has generally been explained by 
 the commentators, with the Targ. and Vulg., to mean the spirit of 
 man. Delitzsch’s argument against this interpretation is not satis- 
 factory, namely, that man has the power to put an end to his own 
 life at any time by suicide. For the passage, as generally explained, 
 only asserts the inability of man to deliver himself from death. He 
 may shorten but he cannot protract his days. But, on the other 
 hand, Mendelssohn appears to be right in considering that Koheleth 
 has in view something similar to the three causes of death referred 
 to by David in 1 Sam. xxvi. 10; death by the wind, or storm, which 
 brings with it the plague (1354? 710), compare 533, the festilence), or 
 death in the ordinary course of nature, and death in battle. The 
 three clauses of Koheleth are not properly speaking parallel (hence 
 Ginsburg’s objection on this score is invalid). The fourth clause may 
 be regarded as a general statement including the others. The wind is 
 not only one of God’s grandest creations (Amos iv. 13), but one of 
 his special instruments of power (Nahum i, 3) ; and power over the 
 wind is one of the things kept in God’s hand and not conceded to 
 man (Prov. xxx. 4). 
 
400° The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. viii. 8-10. 
 
 The LXX., Vulg., and Syr. take foo as an abstract noun for 
 power. So Ginsburg and others; but, as Delitzsch notes, indy is 
 rather to be regarded here as the concrete “Ἢ γη 67," (as in Dan. 11]. 
 2 ff. and above in verse 4, and everywhere in the Talmud and Mid- 
 rash) in contrast with the abstract oy, which is formed after the 
 
 analogy of 1738, 1377, ΠΏ, NB, 1272. On NNW vid. Glossary. 
 Graetz would read WY riches, instead of YW, wickedness. The pro- 
 posed alteration does not suit the passage so well as the received 
 text, to which the ancient versions bear witness. Renan adopts 
 Graetz’s conjecture in his translation, though he does not specially 
 notice the alteration of the text in his Appendix. YOYA is plural, 
 but might refer to the despotic king. Compare chap. v. 10, 12; 
 ΜΠ 12; Prov. lik 27. 
 
 9. This verse does not, as Renan imagines, begin a new section. 
 Koheleth refers by mt-23"N® to that which was mentioned before. 
 ΤΣ is the inf. abs. which is used either adverbially, Ges.-Kautzsch, 
 § 131, 2; Kalisch, § 97, 5, or for the same tense of the finite verb 
 which precedes (z¢. here the perfect), Kalisch, ὃ 97, 3; Ges.- 
 Kautzsch, ὃ 131, 4; Ewald, ὃ 351 ¢. On the special phrase see 
 note on chap. i. 13. ny, Accusative of time, as Jer. li. 33. So 
 Ewald, Graetz, Delitzsch, Renan, etc. Delitzsch compares Ps. iv. 8, 
 and notes that the relative of WN NY is like WN ΟΡ, chap. i. 7 ; 
 xi. 3. Many commentators (with the A.V.) erroneously regard NY 
 as commencing a new sentence, “there is atime, etc.” 12 νυν, The 
 suffix is referred by Symm. (εἰς κακὸν αὐτοῦ), the Vulg., the A. V., 
 Grotius, Herzfeld, etc., to the ruler spoken of before, but the LXX., 
 Theod. (rod κακῶσαι αὐτόν), Syr., Targ., and most modern commen- 
 tators refer it correctly to the second noun. See our translation. 
 
 το. This verse is beset with difficulties, and a full survey of the 
 various opinions of scholars in ancient and modern times would 
 occupy more space than is here available. The phrase WY7}2 WY is 
 rendered by most modern critics “ ¢hose who acted right,” 1.6. the 
 righteous, who are supposed to be contrasted with the ungodly men- 
 tioned in the opening of the verse. This translation can be justi- 
 fied by an appeal to 2 Kings vii. 9, where the phrase occurs, 1nd 
 Dy MIN, “we are not acting rightly.” Comp. Gen. xlii. 11. But 
 most of the ancient versions regard 13 in the second part of the 
 verse as identical with 13. in the beginning, in the phrase 133 (Symm. 
 
Ch. viii. 10.] Cvetzcal and Grammatical Comme. 441: 
 
 indeed, renders, ὡς δίκαια πράξαντες). In that case the ΣΝ 13 ἽΝ 
 must be rendered, “who did (or, acted) thus.” The accentuation of 
 the verse seems to show that the punctuators took the same view. 
 The main difficulty in the way of regarding the writer as contrasting 
 the fate of the wicked with that of the godly is, that we must in that 
 case explain the 183} “and they went in,” or “ entered” (with Hitzig, 
 Ewald, and Delitzsch, etc.), as an elliptical expression for “ they 
 entered tnto rest,” in reference to Isaiah lvii. 2. But the ellipsis is 
 harsh, To explain further, with Ewald and Heiligstedt, the verb 
 following, 4950) (as piel used for the hiphil), as an impersonal 3rd 
 person, “they cast them (the righteous) away,” is doing violence to 
 the passage. Ewald explains “the holy place” as “the holy burying- 
 place ;”. but, as Delitzsch observes, no such name for a cemetery can 
 be discovered amongst the numerous designations in use among the 
 Jews. See Hamburger, Real-Encyc. fiir Bibel und Talmud, Abtheil. 
 I., 5. v. Grab, Delitzsch explains that phrase of the going forth of 
 the righteous, probably to a foreign country (compare Amos vil. 17). 
 He rightly explains the W172 DIP, Aoly place, either as meaning 
 Jerusalem, termed in the second part of Isaiah, Nehemiah, Daniel, 
 and St. Matthew (xxvii. 53), the holy city (VJP37'Y), or the holy 
 ground of the temple of God, the τόπος ἅγιος (Matt. xxiv. 15), as 
 Aquila and Symm. translate the phrase. We explain with Knobel 
 the coming (183) and going (1053) after the analogy of chap. 1." 4; 
 though we do not agree in other points with his exposition. We 
 cannot coincide with Ginsburg in explaining the 182 as. referring 
 to the coming back of the wicked in the persons of their children ; 
 ‘these wicked ones are perpetuated by their children when they 
 die.” Our explanation of the verse is, “ And in such a way (}??, 
 under such circumstances) have I seen wicked men buried [possibly 
 with the accompaniments of pomp and show ; comp. chap. vi. 3], 
 and they came (into being), and from the place of the holy (trom 
 Jerusalem) ‘hey went away [one generation coming, and. another 
 going, in constant succession], and they are forgotten | with the greater 
 part of their oppressive actions] 2 the very city where they so acted ; 
 even this is vanity,” namely, that despite of all their wickedness, there 
 is no difference often made between the dealings of Providence with 
 such tyrants and his dealings with other men. (See Job xxi.; Ps. 
 Ixxiii.) “The wise man,” however, knows that “God shall judge 
 
 DD 
 
402 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. viii. 10-12. 
 
 the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time THERE (with the 
 Most High) for every purpose and every work ” (chap. iii. 17). In 
 spite of all appearances to the contrary, “there is a time and a 
 judgment.” The LXX., Aq., Symm., Theod., and Vulg. read 
 iNav, from NY, “and they were praised,’ which is the reading 
 of several Heb. MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi. The 
 reading harmonises well with our reference of the entire verse to the 
 ungodly oppressors. On the change of construction in the beginning 
 of the verse from the participle to the perfect see Ges.-Kautzsch, 
 § 134, 2, rem. 2; Ewald, ὃ 3504. Delitzsch notices that the punc- 
 tuation 382) instead of 983) is used because the distinctive rebhia 
 takes the fuller form. Comp. Isaiah xlv. 20 with Job xvii. το. 
 
 τι. WR. Because, as in chap. iv. 3; vi.12. 0302, So pointed, 
 according to Delitzsch, in good MSS. and in the older editions, as 
 also in Esth. i. 20; Dan. iii. 16. The 5 has no daghesh, because of 
 the ΠΡῸΣ preceding. See on 03ND inGlossary. Delitzsch notes that 
 the long @ of 0308, as Esth. 1. 20 shows, is unchangeable., The 
 word is here in the construct. The zakeph is no objection to this, 
 for the accents are often used only for the purpose of cantillation, 
 and in Esth. i. 4 a similar instance occurs of a zakeph between a 
 construct state and the governed genitive. The governing word 
 indeed has rightly a distinctive accent when the genitive governed 
 which is connected with it consists of several members. Under 
 such circumstances pashta occurs in Isa. x. 12. See for instructive 
 examples Isa. xxvii. 1-4. But 4Y70 ΠΟ might be regarded as an 
 accusative of respect. The ΠΕΣ which precedes 032 is the fem. of 
 the participle niphal, and not the 3rd pers. sing. perf., which could 
 not be construed with }*§. 03N5, which is masc. in the only other 
 place in which it occurs in Hebrew (namely, in Esth. i. 20, as also in 
 Chald.) is here to be regarded as feminine. Hitzig would read the 
 masc. participle ΠΣ, But, as Delitzsch observes, the foreign word 
 
 c-c 
 
 DINB, like the Arab. (yey 55 paradise, is of both genders (see 
 Ewald, ὃ 174 5). LXX. ἀπὸ τῶν ποιούντων τὸ πονηρόν, Vulg. contra 
 malos, reading "0 Py, 702, properly a noun signifying haste, 
 is here taken as an adverb, as Num. xvil. 11; Judg. ix. 54. 
 
 12. The WS with which the verse commences is to be rendered, 
 with Hitzig and Delitzsch, decause. The LXX. badly ὃς ἥμαρτεν. 
 Ewald, followed by Heiligstedt, Zockler, and others, adopts the view 
 
Ch. viii.12-14.] Cvzfzcal and Grammatical Comm. 403 
 
 of the Vulg., which has attamen, “ although,” and so our A. V. See 
 -Ewald, § 362 ὁ. Though 8 could thus be rendered in an ante- 
 cedent sentence (Lev. iv. 22 ; Deut. xvili. 22), the imperfect ought to 
 follow, and not the participle as here. SDM. On form see chap. 
 vii. 26 and the references there. Hitzig suggests that the punctuation 
 with seghol is on account of the following guttural. The Y} following 
 MY ought to have kametz according tothe Masora. MNS, a hundred 
 times, ONDYB being understood. Compare MM, Job xl. 5. It is not, 
 as Delitzsch notes, to be translated with Hengstenberg, an Aundred- 
 Jold, which would require DYN’) ; or, as Ginsburg, after the Targ., a 
 hundred years, which would be rather O89, σα, mY, But see Ges.- 
 Kautzsch, § 120, 1 rem. ; Kalisch, ὃ 90, 6. The LXX. (ἀπὸ τότε), 
 instead of NSD seem to have read tN. Aquila, Symm., and Theod. 
 seem to have read it ΠΏ, as they render it by ἀπέθανεν. “JN. sup- 
 ply 5°’. See ἢ. on chap. vii. 15. Mendelssohn would supply ΒΝ, 
 and refer the clause to God. So Vulg. ef per patientiam (scil. 2261) 
 sustentatur. This is also the sense of the transl. of Symm. and 
 Theod., μακροθυμίας γενομένης aitd. But this is wrong, as appears 
 by the verse following, and by chap. vil. 15. ἢ Jor tt, or for himself, 
 the dat. ethicus. Our view of the whole verse coincides in the main 
 with that of Delitzsch, and will be seen from our translation. 
 Appearances, Koheleth saw clearly enough, were against him, yet 
 his faith was strong even under all such difficulties, and through it 
 he was victorious. Comp. 1 John v. 4; and, on the last clause 
 of the verse, see Jer. v. 22. 
 
 13. The A.V. follows correctly the division of the verse given by 
 the accentuators. So Ewald, Delitzsch, etc. The Vulg. renders the 
 clause, “sed guasi umbra transeant gui non timent faciem Domini.” 
 This precative rendering is incorrect. But the division of the verse, — 
 by putting the stop in the middle at 0°, given by the Vulg., has 
 been followed by Hitzig, Zéckler,and others. Hitzig asks, Is then 
 the shadow therefore 02!"7¥?, because it does not 0%’ 7S’? They 
 render the second clause less suitably, “He is as a shadow who 
 feareth not before God.” Man is often compared to the shadow 
 that fleeth away, which is the idea of this passage. Comp. chap. 
 vi. 12; Ps. cxliv. 4; Wisd. ii. 5. The LXX., led astray perhaps by 
 
 the use of SY in chap. vii. 12, render od μακρυνεῖ ἡμέρας ἐν σκιᾷ. 
 
 14. On ON WD see Glossary, s.v. 52), 
 
404 The Book of Koheleth. τς(χ. viii. 15-ix.1. 
 
 15. Compare chap. il. 24; iil. 12, 22; v.17. On πὴ vid. Glos- 
 sary. Delitzsch observes either 1219 S111 begins a new sentence, 
 and the imperfect is then to be rendered imperatively, “Jet this ac- 
 company him”; or it is to be connected with the previous infinitives, 
 and the imperfect is to be translated as a subjunctive, as in our ren- 
 dering. The Greek versions regard it as an indicative, and so many 
 modern critics, as Ewald, Ginsburg, Zockler, ‘and this will cling to 
 him,” etc., or “this will follow him.” 
 
 16. On Dae 159 and on }'3¥ see n. on chap. i. 13. This verse 
 with that which follows forms one long period, which the Masorites 
 have rightly divided. 12¥ is governed by the act. part. 87 at the 
 close of the verse. On the expression to see sleep, compare, with 
 Rosenmiiller, Terent., Heausont., Act. ili. Sc. i. 82 ‘“somnum hercle 
 ego hac nocte oculis non vidi meis.” Rosenmiiller also refers to the 
 expression of Cicero (Zfist. ad divers., vil. 30), “ fuit mirifica vigil- 
 antia, qui toto suo consulatu somnum non vidit,” but it must be 
 noted that Cicero there uses the language of fact not of metaphor. 
 C. Caninius Rebilus was made consul for only a portion of a day 
 by Julius Czesar (B.c. 45); Cesar himself and Antonius entered 
 into office the very next day. Compare, also, on the expression in 
 Koheleth, Ps. cxxxii. 4; Prov. vi. 4; Gen. xxxi. 40. 
 
 τη. WN v3, Ewald proposes here to read "Ws 593, “for all 
 that,” maintaining that the present reading of the text is meaning- 
 less. See his Lehrd., § 362 5. Ewald is partly supported by the 
 rendering of the LXX. ὅσα ἄν, Vulg. εὐ guanto plus. Similarly Syr. 
 But, as Hitzig and Delitzsch remark, the alteration is unnecessary. 
 The latter observes that WS ow is Hebrew exactly equivalent to 
 the Aram. 7 ΟΝ, as in Onk., Gen. vi. 3, ΝΞ. P87 5073, because that 
 they are flesh ; and further that Rashi and Kimchi (JZich/ol, 47 ὁ) have 
 rightly explained it by ¥ ὩΣ ΤΩΣ and Y3Y2, Compare with the 
 contents of these verses the exclamation of the Apostle, Rom. xi. 33. 
 
 CHAP TERVIX. 
 
 τ. 929 98 NN, See ἢ. on chap. i. 13. “WAP inf const. of M3 
 after the analogy of verbs 1». vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, §67, rem. 3, 
 Kalisch, §1xil. 12. Knobel and others take the inf. with 5 as used 
 here, like the inf. absol. for the finite verb. But see Ges.-Kautzsch, 
 
Ch. ἰκ. 11 Ογεοαξ and Grammatical Comm. 405 
 
 § 132, 3, rem. 1; Ewald, § 237 ¢ D'S must be understood before 
 133, as in chap. lii. 15, 797 before nivnd, It is a mistake to sup- 
 
 pose that the inf. const. with δ is used in place of the finite verb. 
 Delitzsch, in his comm. on Habakkuk, i. 17, observes that the inf. 
 with ? is used in three significations : niyo Mi} may mean (1) es¢ 
 Jacturus, “he is about to do,” (2) est faciendum, “it is to be done,” 
 and (3) est faciendo, “he is in the position of doing.” See this 
 construction well explained in Driver’s Hebrew Tenses, 2nd edit., 
 Append. v. pp. 300, 301. 2 has the meaning of sifting, testing, 
 thoroughly examining into, not that of digging through (which 
 Plumptre assigns to it), but of separating and dividing one thing 
 from another, and thus thoroughly understanding each. See Miihlau 
 and Volck’s Ges. Lex. The LXX. have translated the phrase as if 
 they had read 18 1251, καὶ καρδία μου σύμπαν εἶδε τοῦτο (on the 
 σύμπαν see note on p. 51). 50 5071. ἢν uaSo. On DAY vid. 
 Glossary, s.v. 7132. See remarks on p. 189, where we have explained 
 the passage as meaning that no man knows what will be the objects 
 of his love or hatred in life. Man fixes his love or hatred on 
 persons or things, not according to his own self-determination, but 
 according to the circumstances under which he comes into relation 
 with them, which, rightly or wrongly, draw forth his love or hatred. 
 Man is no automaton, but a being tested by circumstances, which 
 cause him either to manifest his character to others, or reveal himself 
 to himself. In the expression “ αὐ lies before them” the emphasis is 
 to be put on the word “ai.” The meaning is not that men are 
 deprived of all freedom whatever, but that events of all kinds lie 
 before them, and God arranges that which shall happen to them. 
 But the moral and religious condition of man is not thought of here 
 by the writer. See our note on chap. vi. 11. Others have explained 
 the text to mean that men do not know whether they will be the 
 objects of the Divine love or hatred. But, as Delitzsch notes, the 
 expressions “love” and ‘“‘hatred” are too general for this. More- 
 over the translation does not suit the general drift of the passage. 
 This, however, substantially is the sense given by the Vulg. ‘et 
 tamen nescit homo utrum amore an odio dignus sit.” 
 
 Knobel compares Marc. Aurelius, xii. 11. ἡλίκην ἐξουσίαν ἔχει 
 ἄνθρωπος μὴ ποιεῖν ἄλλο, ἢ ὅπερ μέλλει ὁ θεὸς ἐπαινεῖν καὶ δέχεσθαι πᾶν, 
 
 “ » 
 ὃ ἂν νέμῃ αὐτῷ ὃ θεός. 
 
406 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ix. 2, 3. 
 
 2. The first clause of this verse in the LXX., and the first word in 
 Syr., Aq., Symm. is connected with the preceding. The Syr., Aq., 
 
 Symm. in place of 537 have read here 227 (Syr. loa, Aq. ματαιότης, 
 Symm. ἄδηλα). The reading of the present text of the LXX.,, 
 ματαίοτης ἐν τοῖς πᾶσι, seems to be compounded of Aquila and the 
 original LXX. (compare note on chap. il. 25; vii. 22). The Vulg. 
 rendering has similarly incorporated the ἄδηλα of Symm. at the end of 
 the clause: ‘ sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta.” The 533 at 
 the commencement of the verse is to be regarded as neuter, che whole, 
 everything which happens, referring to the Ὁ5Π in the previous verse ; 
 the 23 in 932 on the other hand refers to persons, asin chap. x. 3, “all 
 (ts) like that which (ts, or happens) to all.’ There is no difference, 
 speaking generally, in the circumstances in which men are placed; 
 all are on the whole treated alike. Men are here classified into five 
 pairs of different individuals, each contrasted with the other (comp. 
 Tsaiah xxiv. 2), the righteous and the wicked, the clean and the un- 
 clean (both ceremonially and morally, comp. Hos. v. 5 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 
 25), the man who brings sacrifices and he who does not, the good man 
 and the sinner, the profane swearer (see Exod. xx. 7; Matt. v. 34 ff) 
 and he who keeps aloof from such profanity, reverencing the solemn 
 oath (Isa. lxv. 16). The construction is, however, varied in each 
 of the last two couplets. The participle ("72%) follows here the ac- 
 cusative which it governs, as in Isa. xxii. 2; Nah. iil. 1. Delitzsch 
 compares with 87} ΠΡ Σ᾽ the expression of the Mishna SOT N71). 
 
 3. 202 97 nt, Knobel, Ginsburg and others, after the Vulg. hoc 
 est pessimum inter alia, regard this as a kind of superlative. See 
 Ewald, § 313 ¢; Kalisch ὃ 89, 6,7. But the article would in such 
 a case naturally have been used, as in Cant. 1. 8; Josh. xiv. 15; 
 Judg. vi. 15; although perhaps not absolutely necessary, Obad. 2; 
 Lam. i. 1; though it may be questioned whether in the latter pas- 
 sages the superlative sense is intended. In our passage the super- 
 lative meaning is unnecessary, and, indeed one might almost say, 
 opposed to chap. vill. 11. The word ND, as Delitzsch observes, 
 might be an adj., for this adjective is often construed with an ac- 
 cusative, Deut. vi. 11; xxxill. 23 ; xxxiv. 9; and is only once (Jer. 
 vi. 11) construed with a genitive. [The English translation of 
 Delitzsch’s Comm. on Eccl. here, as in several other places, expresses 
 a sense exactly opposed to the meaning of the German original.] 
 
 Sls 
 
Ch. ix. 3.]  Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 407 
 
 But, as Delitzsch remarks, inasmuch as it is nota s¢afe but an act 
 which is here spoken of, it is better to regard NO as a verb, as in 
 
 chap. vill. 11. ΤΥ), Οἱ this noun see ἢ. chap. i. 17. Ac- 
 cording to the Heb. accentuation found in five MSS. collated by 
 Michaelis, and in two of the best MSS. noticed by Delitzsch (which 
 have ΡῈ with kadma instead of ¥7 with geresh), the ‘7 would be 
 regarded as a genitive combined with the previous word. So Vulg. 
 and Symm. as quoted by Jerome. But the LXX., Syr., Aq. and 
 Targ. are correct in viewing it as commencing a new sentence. 
 ὙΠ may be explained with Hitzig, Ewald, etc., after Jer. li. 46, 
 afterwards (Vulg. post hec), the suffix being taken in a neuter sense ; 
 but, inasmuch as the expression is used in chap. ili. 22; vi. 12 ; Vil. 
 14, to refer to man, it is perhaps better to take it also here, site 
 Delitzsch, in the same sense, “after him,” i.e. after man’s life is 
 ended. The plural suffix in 093 is no objection to this, as there 
 is the same mixture of singular and plural in verse 1, in chap. ill. 12, 
 etc. The long-suffering of God with sinners leads them too often 
 to indulge in sin almost without restraint during their lives, and 
 then they go away to the dead. (See p. 189.) Renan maintains that 
 such passages as this prove the writer to have had no faith whatever 
 in a state of existence after death. According to his idea, Koheleth 
 conceived the Divine Being as so great as not to be troubled, unless 
 in case of gross wickedness, with man’s actions. The notion of man’s 
 immortality was in his view one of the greatest follies, and, so far 
 from being a pious dogma, was an offence against God and common 
 sense. The common people believed in vefaim, ghosts, and appa- 
 ritions, who could sometimes be evoked by sorcery, but Koheleth here 
 laughs at all such folly. Renan regards chap. xii. 7 as teaching only 
 the separation of soul and body, not the continued existence of the 
 former. He has seen clearly enough that the denial of a future 
 state is almost equivalent to a denial of the justice of God, for the 
 righteous are not always rewarded or the wicked punished in this 
 world. But Koheleth, according to him, stopped short of drawing 
 any such conclusions. As a practical man, his “religion,” such as it 
 was, did not lead him to seek a solution of such difficulties. Renan’s 
 conception of Koheleth’s opinions we hold to be distinctly opposed 
 by that writer’s statements in chap. iii. and in chap. viii. τα ff., as well 
 as in other places. See our remarks on pp. 192-195 and on pp. 
 197-200. 
 
408° The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ix. 4. 
 
 4. The attempts to extract a suitable meaning from the reading 
 of the K’thib 143) are utterly vain. Rosenmiiller and others render 
 “nam quits (est) gui eligatur, ut scilicet non ad mortuos abeat, ze. 
 nemo excipitur.” And so Ginsburg, “for who is excepted?” attach- 
 ing the words to the end of the preceding verse. It is true that if 
 the word be read ‘D2? (or 13! as Hengstenberg), it will mean, 
 “who 1s chosen out,” but the idea of being excepted by no means 
 naturally follows from this. Scarcely better is the rendering of Elster 
 (reading 1033), “for who is he that can choose, t.e. to whom does the 
 choice. stand open?” The K’ri reading has 13M, by transposition 
 of the two middle letters of the word, and this is upheld by the 
 LXX. τίς ὃς κοινωνεῖ πρὸς πάντας τοὺς ζῶντας ; and the Syr. More 
 freely Symm. τίς γὰρ εἰς ἀεὶ διατελέσει ζῶν, rendered by Jerome, guzs 
 enim potest in sempiternum perseverare vivens? Still further from the 
 original words, though evidently still based on the reading of the K’ri, 
 is the rendering of the Vulg. zemo est gui semper vivat. The K’ri is 
 mentioned and explained in the Jer. Talmud (Berachoth, 13 a, col. 2): 
 ‘Rabbi Johanan said, For why is it that 123M (03M) is read instead 
 of ἽΠ3", except that all the living have hope (}}704), for a man has 
 expectation (PN) as long as he is alive, but when he is dead his 
 expectation perishes. For what foundation is there in the death of a 
 wicked man, for his expectation perishes.” See Strack, Proleg. Crit. 
 in V.T. Heb., p. 82. The accentuation of the verse, which cuts off 
 73n° from what follows by the great distinctive accent zakeph katon, 
 has been regarded by Rosenmiiller as in favour of the reading of the 
 K’thibh. But Delitzsch points out that the accentuation does not 
 really refer ‘to the textual reading, but proceeds from some such 
 explanation (however contrary it may be to the context) as the 
 following : he who will be received into communion with God has to 
 hope for the full life on the other side of the grave. So the Targ. 
 “for who. ts the man who associates NADDS 1) himself with all the 
 words of the Law, and has hope to obtain the life of the world to 
 come?” The interrogative W'S", guis est gui, acquires from that 
 signification the force of a relative guzsguis (quicunque), and may be 
 taken in the same way as here (compare the single "3 chap. v. 9), in 
 both senses in Exod. xxxii. 33; 2 Sam. xx. 11; the latter of these 
 two passages is in the form of its apodosis similar to that before us. 
 The sense of the passage seems to be, he who ἐς soined to all the 
 living, t.e. to all living beings of whatever kind they may be, by 
 
Ch. ix. 4-7.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 409 
 
 being himself a partaker of the grace of life, Aas hope, for a living dog 
 
 is better than a dead lion. The Ὁ is used before 392 for the sake of 
 emphasis. See Ewald, ὃ 310 4; 1 Chron. iii. 2; vii. 1; 2 Chron. vil. 
 21; Isa. xxxii.1. Rosenmiiller, Herzfeld, and Graetz prefer to regard 
 
 5 as used in its usual signification, like Symm. κυνὶ ζῶντι βέλτιόν 
 ἐστιν ἢ λέοντι τεθνηκότι. But in that case, as Delitzsch observes, the 
 Hebrew should have been N97 ANNA yo Ὑ) 2 Ἢ 255, The dog was 
 made use of by the Hebrews as an emblem of reproach (1 Sam. xvii. 
 43; 2 Sam. iil. 8; ix. 8; xvi. 9), while the lion was regarded as an 
 emblem of greatness and power (Isa. xxxi. 4), as being the hero 
 among beasts (Prov. xxx. 30). Koheleth in other places speaks of 
 death as preferable to life (chap. iv. 2, 3; vii. 1), when taking a view 
 of the sorrows which so often fall to the lot of humanity ; here from 
 another standpoint he regards life as preferable to death, because it 
 affords opportunities of enjoyment. 
 
 5. See remarks on pp. 197 ff. 2)8—DIX, comp. chap. v. 13. 
 Knobel calls attention to the paronomasia between 73 and 0731. 
 As to the difficulty which has often been raised as to such expressions 
 being used by a writer who had any belief in a future state, see pp. 
 199 ff. 
 
 6. The expressions, 920%, ¢heir Jove, etc., need not, with Knobel 
 and Ginsburg, be explained of the affections themselves which men 
 have while they live; nor with Luther as if Koheleth affirmed that 
 one does not love or hate or envy the dead any more ; nor simply 
 that they have no more objects to love or to hate, for such senti- 
 ments have ceased for them, because as O°N5 they are destitute 
 of all affections and interests. So Rosenmiiller, Zockler, Delitzsch, 
 comp. Isa. xxxviii. 18. See the paraphrase of this passage given in 
 our remarks on pp. 197 ff. 
 
 The rendering of the Vulg. in the second clause, mec habent partem 
 in hoc seculo, is erroneous. It is, however, followed by Luther, who 
 translates pbiy here by wordd, and is also found in the Targ. In- 
 dependently of other considerations (see note on chap. ill, 1x) the 
 Hebrew would require to be 730 pPiy2. 
 
 7. It is vain to try to evade the real meaning of the passage 
 by explaining it with Hengstenberg, as containing the voice of the 
 spirit in opposition to the voice of the flesh. But at the same time 
 Koheleth does not here set forth the doctrines of Epicurus, as many 
 
410 " The δοοξ of Koheleth. [Ch. ix. 7-9. 
 
 commentators affirm. Inasmuch as he had no bright hopes to com- 
 municate with respect to the future state, Koheleth simply urges 
 upon his readers the practical wisdom of seeking to enjoy cheerfully 
 the present (see remarks on p. 201), and to have no scruples what- 
 ever in so doing, provided they remembered in all things to “ fear 
 God and keep His commandments,” for God has long ago permitted 
 such enjoyments, and designed in His good Providence such 
 pleasures for man on earth as the rightful use of food and wine. 
 So rightly Ibn Ezra, Hitzig, Delitzsch, etc. ἽΝ. may be taken 
 with Hitzig as a singular (comp. 1 Sam. xix. 4), but it may equally 
 well be translated as plural. The works referred to are the eating 
 and drinking just mentioned. No reference whatever is here made 
 to moral conduct, as some commentators suppose. ‘The writer is 
 addressing men as men. God has graciously given man certain 
 capacities of enjoyment of which he may lawfully make use, without 
 torturing himself with self-imposed scruples. 133 already, long ago, 
 is emphasized by being accentuated with the zakeph katon. Com- 
 pare on the thought, chap. il. 24; tii. 12, 13; 225 v. 17° (AV. w: 
 18) ; vill. 15. 
 
 8. White garments used to be worn in times of joy, after days of 
 sorrow were over (2 Sam. xii. 20; xix. 24; comp. Rev. 111. 4, 5 ; vii. 
 9). Fragrant oil was also used on such occasions (Ps. xxiii. 5 ; xlv. 
 8; Prov. xxvii. 9; Isa. lxi. 3). Knobel and Ginsburg give many 
 references to Greek and Roman writers. The Talmud and Midrash 
 explain the directions here to refer to a pure and holy life. In 
 Shabb., 114 a, in the course of explanations about the things belong- 
 ing to baths, the anecdote is narrated that R. Jannai said to his sons, 
 “Dury me not in white robes, nor yet in black robes; not in white 
 robes, because I may not be of the righteous, and (then) I shall be 
 as a bridegroom among the mourners, nor in black, because I may 
 be of the righteous, and I shall be as a mourner among the bride- 
 grooms ; but (bury me) in robes scented with fine oil (pan dix p32, 
 in vestibus olcarits), which come from the district of the sea,” 2.6, 
 from lands beyond the sea. 
 
 g. See p. 206. On ON 78 see n. on chap. ii. 1. The article is 
 intentionally omitted both before 0° and MWS (comp. Ps. xxxiv. 13), 
 for the writer is speaking generally. He recognises, however, the 
 fact distinctly, that in ordinary cases for man’s happiness a “ help- 
 meet” is needed. The advice of Koheleth is similar to, and based 
 
Ch. ix.9, 10.] Crztical and Grammatical Comm. 411 
 
 on, that in Prov. v. 18, 19; xviii. 22. His condemnation of women 
 in chap. vii. 23, is in like manner founded on Prov. ii. 18. See 
 remarks on p, 202. Ginsburg is certainly wrong in maintaining that 
 not a wéfe, but “a favourite woman” is here recommended, and 
 consequently that the writer does not refer at all to the married state. 
 The majority of critics, including all the best, differ from him on this 
 point. Plumptre observes that “we should say naturally, ‘live with 
 a wife whom you love.’” The latter scholar must be regarded as 
 mistaken in the view, propounded in his Introduction, p. 73, that the 
 sayings of the writer of the Book of Wisdom (chap. iii. 14; iv. 1) 
 were levelled against the possible misunderstanding of this passage 
 of Koheleth. The relative in the clause 7?"}n) 78Y may either refer 
 to the zzfe mentioned in the previous sentence (as Michaelis, 
 Rosenmuller, Heinem. and others explain it), in which case Gen. 
 il. 22 was probably in the author’s mind; or to ¢he days of thy life, 
 as the LXX., Vulg., Knobel, etc., which is more in accordance with 
 
 chap. v.17. The LXX., Syr., Targ., omit the second ypan Ὁ" PER 
 which, ‘however, are expressed by the Vulg. and the Arab. The 
 reading of the text is most probably correct, though the repetition 
 of the phrase is regarded by some critics as heavy, but by others as 
 being emphatic, and by Tayler Lewis as ‘‘a most exquisite pathos 
 in view of the transitoriness and poverty of life!” The Oriental 
 
 MSS. read, in the end of the verse, Pen 81713, a like difference as 
 Delitzsch notes in his Zextkrit. Bemerk. as in Nah. ii. 12. It would 
 be quite possible here to interpret that reading as referring to the 
 wife previously spoken of. The analogy of chap. 111. 22; v. 17 
 (A.V. v. 12), and even chap. vil. 2, however, is decisive against that 
 interpretation. Geiger (Urschrift, pp. 236 ff) considers this variety 
 of reading in passages not belonging to the Pentateuch as a proof 
 that the form 817 was formerly used for the feminine in other books 
 as well as the Pentateuch, in which books less care was taken to 
 preserve the original forms. He calls attention to the fact that 
 the Babylonian and Oriental MSS. have in many places 8177 where 
 the Western MSS. read 81, 
 
 ro. See remarks on p. 231. Jy N¥ON, Comp. Lev. xii. 8; 
 Judg. ix. 33; 1 Sam. x. 75 xxv. 8. According to the accentuation, 
 the 7922 belongs to that which precedes. It is not exactly ἼΠ5 593, 
 as in Gen. χχχί. 6, though it is not essentially ditferent. The “all” 
 
15: The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ix. 10, 11. 
 
 has accidentally crept into our quotation of the passage on p. 231. 
 W233 is scarcely to be rendered with Ginsburg after Rashi, “ zw/dlst 
 thou art able.” Koheleth, so far from recommending an easy in- 
 difference, prescribes for man honest, earnest labour in his calling, 
 combined with such enjoyments as God’s providence spreads before 
 him. The punctuation NY}, instead of NYT), is, as Delitzsch has 
 noted, because of the conjunctive accent. The rule may thus be 
 stated: In the case of two words connected together by the copula, 
 if the second word be accented on the penult, and is marked with a 
 disjunctive, lis pointed}. Soin chap. i. 16; Isa. xxxiii. 6 ; Proy. xxii. 
 20. The two apparent exceptions referred to by Delitzsch are Ps. 
 Ixv. 9 and Koh. ii. 26. In the former, 232) with a conjunctive is for 
 ay} (rebhia mugrash), comp. Baer, Accentuations-system, cap. xvill. 1 
 (in Delitzsch’s Comm. tiber die Psalmen, vol. 11. p. 503, Leipzig, 1860). 
 Therefore the } is correct. In the latter (Koh. 11. 26) NYT) has indeed 
 a disjunctive (tiphcha), but a third word is connected with the two 
 preceding. Hence that, too, is no exception. See also note on 
 chap. 11. 23. 
 
 11. The expression 787) "Δ corresponds to the simple ‘AI 
 MSW, which occurs in chap. iv. 1. Comp. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 142, 3, 
 with § 121,4. Perhaps there is a slight difference between the 
 two constructions, the second expressing more definitely the notion 
 of two distinct actions. Compare the same construction in chap. 
 vill. 9. The construction in chap. ix. 1 15 scarcely ad rem. By the 
 use of this phrase the writer connects the observations that follow 
 with his own personal experiences previously commented on. 
 The last occurrence of ‘1°81, which precedes that in the text, is 
 in chap. viii. 17. The use of 712, the abstract masc. found here 
 only, instead of 1$, the fem. noun used in older Hebrew, may 
 be an indication of a late date, vid. Bottcher, ZeArd., § 628, 3 ὦ 
 Neither word necessarily means ‘“‘a@ race,” 2.6. a formal game of that 
 kind. The latter is used in the more general signification even in 
 post-Biblical Hebrew. Hence Plumptre’s notion, that the author 
 might be referring to the Greek games introduced into Palestine in 
 the Grecian period, is quite out of place. A far better parallel is 
 found in the race between Ahimaaz and Cushi, narrated in 2 Sam. 
 xviii. 27. The phrase at the end of the verse, 14) 9351 NY, is rendered 
 in the A.V., “time and chance happeneth to them all.’ But the nv 
 refers back to the ‘‘times and seasons” appointed by God (chap. 
 
Ch. ix.11,12.] (γχίτϊεα and Grammatical Comm. 413 
 ii.) for every human purpose, in consequence of which the swift 
 do not always out-run the slow, nor heroes always win the battle, 
 nor human wisdom and knowledge always prove successful. 23 
 only occurs twice in Scripture, in this place and in 1 Kings v. 18 
 (A.V. v. 4), and does not convey the same idea as the English word 
 chance, but may be used of a stroke (YB, to strike), accident, or inci- 
 
 ταυτὸ 
 
 dent, caused by a higher power. Both Ps. iii. and xci. are termed in 
 Shebuoth, 15 ὦ, O'YIB by YW, a song against accidents, or against the 
 attacks of evil spirits. Koheleth does not here mention God, be- 
 cause he makes use of the language of an ordinary observer, and not 
 distinctly that of a man of faith. The sentiments of a man of the 
 latter stamp are found in r Sam. xvii. 47; Ps. xx. 8 [A.V. ver. 7]; 
 
 xxxill. τό. The pathach under pypanb must here be regarded as 
 that of the article, as is proved by the fact that all the other nouns 
 with which the word is connected in the verse have the article. 
 Compare also chap. ix. 1; Exod. xxxvi. 4; Estheri. 13. Delitzsch 
 observes that, as the idea of mental superiority is here expressed 
 by three distinct terms, so in Isa. xi. 2, among the gifts of the 
 spirit 13H, 13°3 and YT follow one another. The imperf. 7}? is 
 masc. agreeing with 25: NY is occasionally masculine, as Cant. 
 li, 12; Ezek. xxx. 3. See Bottcher, Zehrd., § 648. 
 
 12. The particle 3 is marked with a distinctive accent to note 
 . that it is not to be connected with the following 53; comp. chap. 
 vill. 12, The 3 governs the whole sentence, while the 03, as 
 Delitzsch notes, is to be referred to the FI7NS. The latter ex- 
 pression has been explained by Knobel, etc., as the proper time for 
 working, by Ginsburg as the “me of misfortune; but the context 
 shows that the rendering of Jerome, mescit homo finem suum, approved 
 by most critics, is correct, and that the writer refers to the day of 
 death. Death comes generally in an unexpected moment. Men look 
 for it as little as the fishes when they are caught in the net, or the 
 birds when taken in the trap. The sudden and unexpected approach 
 of death is elsewhere depicted by the writer under other figures, see 
 Ρ. 274. In one of Rabbi Akiba’s remarkable sayings, preserved in 
 Aboth, iii. 25 (Taylor’s edit., or Adoth, ili. 16, in that of Strack, see 
 note on p. 245), reference is made to this passage as follows: 
 ‘Everything is given on pledge, and a net (7})¥!)) is spread over 
 all living” (comp. Isa, xxv. 7); 2.6. man has no permanent posses- 
 
414 ° The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ix. 12-14. 
 
 sion on earth, he is already enclosed in a net, and must give account 
 for the debts which he owes to heaven. Instead of the reading 
 NON with t dageshed, the word ought, with the best MSS. and 
 older editions, to be marked with raphe. O°? is for DP, the 
 participial being rejected, and the vowel of the first radical pro- 
 longed to compensate for the omission of daghesh, Bottcher, ὃ 296 B; 
 924, I0, 997, 2 €; Ewald, § 169 @; Konig, p. 408; Kalisch, 
 § xliv. 1, 5; Ges.-Kautzsch, § 52, rem. 6; Stade, § 220. Stade 
 suggests that it is possible in this case that the Ὁ of the preceding 
 Did may have been intended to do duty also for the ® of the parti- 
 ciple following. See his LeAré., § 23 ὦ, rem. 
 
 13. The example cited by Koheleth in this and the following 
 verses is given to show that however beneficial wisdom may be, it 
 does not in all cases secure advantages for its possessor. On Πὶ see 
 note on chap. il. 2. Hitzig would read Πὶ, and place a great dis- 
 tinctive there, “ also this have I seen: wisdom, etc.” So the Gr. Ven. 
 But there is no necessity to depart from the Hebrew accentuation. 
 The passage, indeed, ought not to be rendered with Ginsburg and 
 others, “even this wisdom have I seen,” for the order of the words 
 points to something different from the usual concord of the demon- 
 strative and substantive. Jerome has observed the peculiarity of 
 the order of the words in his rendering, Zane guogue sub sole vidi 
 sapientiam ; but, as Delitzsch remarks, the phrase here is equivalent 
 to, “also in this have I seen wisdom,” the demonstrative pronoun 
 (4°03) being, as in chap. v. 15 (comp. also chap. ν. 18), put in the 
 same gender as the 795M, inasmuch as it is related to it as its pre- 
 dicate. So the LXX. καί ye τοῦτο εἶδον σοφίαν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον. On 
 the construction ON npn compare Esth. x. 3, where Mordecai is 
 called pin? δ. corresponding to Θ 2 ῺΞ δ᾽} Exod, ΧΙ: 2, yor 
 m pp 3-2 Kings νὶ ἃ: LXX. Καὶ μεγάλη. ἐστὶ πρὸς μὲ Symm. 
 better καὶ μεγάλη δοκεῖ μοι. 
 
 14. See p. 148. The historical fact present to the mind of Ko- 
 heleth, which formed the basis of the incident here adduced, was the 
 deliverance of Abel-Beth-Maacha through the wisdom of “a wise 
 woman” (2 Sam, xx. 15-22). Compare the historical allusions made 
 to events fresh in the memory of the Jewish people in our Lord’s 
 parable of the pounds, as recorded in Luke xix. 12 ff. (note especially 
 verses 14 and 27), which, ‘slightly transformed, form part of the 
 
Ch. ix.14-15.] (γζΖΖιεαζ and Grammatical Comm. 415 
 
 parable itself. The name of the “wise woman” who delivered the 
 city Abel from the horrors of war had been forgotten when the 
 2nd Book of Samuel was written. This instance of popular in- 
 gratitude to a benefactress seems to have formed the real basis of 
 Koheleth’s parable. He has substituted “a poor man” in place 
 of “a wise woman,” because the anecdote corresponds better thus 
 with the sentiment of verse 11, which it was intended to illustrate. 
 By the use of the expression, bina 1, “‘ creat king,’ the writer 
 depicts the incident as having occurred in his own days All 
 attempts have utterly failed to make out that the writer is literally 
 narrating some historical fact, which perhaps occurred at the siege of 
 Dora by Antiochus the Great, as Hitzig asserts without any evidence; 
 or to Themistocles’ treatment by the Athenians, as Ewald more 
 hesitatingly puts forward. It may, of course, possibly refer to some 
 event which is not recorded in history, but well known to the public 
 for whom Koheleth primarily wrote (Graefz). It is certainly wrong 
 to treat it as an allegory, with the Midrash, and after its example 
 many Christian interpreters, as Hengstenberg. There is not the 
 slightest difficulty in regarding it as a parable founded on fact, but 
 modified by the writer in order that the story might suit better the 
 special object which he had in view. See remarks on verse 18. 
 
 On the structure of the sentence, Delitzsch aptly compares Ps. civ. 
 2s. He adduces the literal translation of the Vulg. cizvitas parva et 
 pauct in ea viri, venit contra eam rex magnus, observing that the former 
 (civitas parva) is the subject and the latter (pauci im ea virt) the pre- 
 dicate, the object (the city) stands out rigid as a statue, and then 
 follows the recital of that which happened to it. On the meaning 
 of δὰ N12, comp. Gen. xxxii. 9. In place of O13, two MSS. of 
 De Rossi read 0°38) walls, fortifications, which Déderlein and some 
 other critics prefer. But that reading is, as Delitzsch notes, a mere 
 error of transcription. For the plural of W¥9 is NM¥, feminine, 
 not masculine as here. The LXX. render here χάρακας, palisades, 
 Symm. ἀποτείχισμα, Vulg. munitiones per gyrum. o's}, more often 
 used in the sense of mefs, as in chap. vii. 26, means here zntrench- 
 ments, so called from being the places in which the army of the 
 besiegers lie in wait to seize (1)¥) the besieged as their prey. NSD 
 is used in the sense of stronghold in Isaiah xxix. 7. See also Ezek. 
 xix Ὁ: 
 
416 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. ix. 18-17. 
 
 15. δὲν), The verb here is regarded by many expositors as 
 impersonal, “and one found,” 1.4. “ and there was found.” But this 
 is unnecessary. The natural subject of the verb is the ‘great 
 king ” spoken of in the verse before. S¥') is used not of the king 
 having discovered the poor wise man after searching for him, but 
 in the sense of having come .across him contrary to all expectation. 
 Comp. the use of the same verb in Deut. xxiv. 1; Ps. cxvi. 3. O30 
 is used as an adjective qualifying the person spoken of before, 
 }2D W'S. Hence the pashta on the word preceding. Delitzsch 
 compares 2 Chron. ii. 13. We might express the force of the dis- 
 junctive by rendering, “a 2007 man, (but) wise.” In place of 
 δ ΡΟΝ, the perfect with simple νὰν, the older language would 
 have written ΡΟΝ, the impf. with νὰν conv. See n. on chap. i. 13. 
 
 On the form 099 with pathach, vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 52, rem. 1; 
 Kalisch, ὃ xliv. 1; Konig, ὃ 23, 2, p. 187. Delitzsch observes that 
 
 instead of N? DIS the older language would have preferred xd WN, 
 but perhaps the writer wished here to avoid the repetition of the 
 YS; although he uses also ἢ" δὲ ΟΝ instead of Τὴ δὲ &8, chap. vii. 20, 
 where no such reason can be assigned. 
 
 16. The participles are made use of in this verse to express a 
 fact commonly true in human experience. Plumptre suitably com- 
 pares Juvenal, Saz, i. 74, ““probitas laudatur et alget.” The Vulgate 
 introduces at the beginning of Wisdom vi. 1 a heading, which has 
 crept there into the text, partly borrowed from this passage and 
 partly from Prov. xvi. 32, ‘‘ melior est sapientia quam vires, et vir pru- 
 dens guam fortis.” See Grimm and Deane’s notes. 
 
 17. There is no discrepancy whatever between this verse and the 
 preceding. If the multitude will not listen to the voice of the wise, 
 there will always be found some persons among them who will listen 
 and learn wisdom. The comparative is expressed in this verse, as in 
 chap. iv. 17, by the simple}. Some explain the clause to mean, 
 “ qwords of the wise heard in quiet.” So Vulg. verba sapientium audi- 
 untur in stlentio. Others preferably explain the clause to mean, 
 “words of the wise, (uttered) in quiet, are heard.” ‘The latter corre- 
 sponds more strictly to the contrasted clause, “ the shout of a ruler 
 among the fools,’ as also to the Hebrew accentuation, which places a 
 disjunctive (tiphcha) on N23. By the latter clause is clearly meant 
 
 (as the parallel cases D782 Seid 2 Sam. xxiii. 3, and MPMaa 3), 
 
 vows, 
 
Ch, ix. 17—x.1.] Crztzcal and Grammatical Comm. 417 
 
 Proy. xxx. 30, abundantly prove), that the ruler spoken of is him- 
 self a fool of the first class. Compare in illustration of the verse, 
 the contrast presented in Isa, xlii. 2 ; Matt. xii. το, and on the quiet 
 Grour text, [πὰ xxx. 15. 
 
 18. The moral drawn in this verse is evidently the conclusion 
 which Koheleth desired his parable to. impress upon the mind of his 
 hearers. Hence it is evident that. ‘the poor wise man” was not 
 supposed to have displayed his wisdom by inventing weapons of war, 
 like Archimedes. The weapons of war were all on the other side, 
 and they were turned back by the wise man’s wisdom. There was 
 “one sinner” who sought to destroy “much good,” and who exer- 
 cised a powerful influence for evil, which was only overcome by the 
 wisdom of his antagonist. All these incidents are strikingly illustrated 
 in the story of Abel-Beth-Maacha, on the occasion of the wicked 
 and causeless rebellion of Sheba the son of Bichri (2 Sam. xx.), who 
 sought to break up again the union re-established between the tribes, 
 which had been severed by the rebellion of Absalom. Hence we 
 adhere to the view already stated, that Koheleth’s illustration is a 
 parable founded on that fact. QIN is here pointed after the analogy 
 of 7” verbs, and this form is, according to the Masora, the correct 
 form throughout this book (with the exception of chap. vii. 26); 
 
 even in chap. ll. 26, where the ordinary text has xin) with zere. 
 See Excursus No. 4, § 1. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 1. The aphorism with which this chapter commences has reference 
 to that with which the last closes. Just as “one sinner destroys 
 much good,” a little folly may utterly mar the influence of a wise man. 
 ny) ‘353? may mean either dead flies or poisonous flies. ‘The former 
 is the rendering of the Vulg., Syr., Arab., Symm., Rosenmiiller, 
 ‘Ginsburg, and others, and has been adopted by our A.V, The 
 latter rendering is that of the LXX., the Targ., Gesenius, Knobel, 
 Delitzsch, etc. The latter is to be preferred, being more in accord- 
 ance with the other compound expressions into which ΠῚ enters, as 
 ΠῚ b> deadly weapons, Ps. vii. 14; ΠῚ ban, the snares of death, 
 Ps. xviii. 5. In favour of the former it has been maintained that 
 dead flies, whether poisonous or not, would have an equally delete- 
 
 EE 
 
418. The Book of Koheleth. ἘΠ wena 
 
 rious effect upon a pot of ointment. In the East, flies of all sorts 
 corrupt and destroy the ointment or food they settle on, even 
 if they do not themselves become entangled therein, and perish. 
 The writer might, therefore, term such in disgust “ fotsonous fites,” 
 whether they were of a really poisonous character or not. Had 
 he, however, meant merely dead flies, he would have chosen the 
 more simple expression DN) 0°2131. As to the singular verb & 82}, 
 Delitzsch observes that in cases in which the idea of the plurality of 
 the individuals is subordinate to that of unity of kind the singular 
 is often made use of; as in Gen. xlix. 22; Joel 1. 20; Isa. lix. 12. 
 See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 146, 4; Ewald, § 319 a. There is, therefore, 
 no occasion to read with Hitzig "3)3], the singular with the archaic 
 termination ’-, which does not harmonise with the time in which the 
 writer lived, or even, with Luzzatto whom Graetz follows, M9} 331. 
 Ewald, however, considers the singular reading more correct, and 
 expresses it in his translation, as does Renan. The translation given 
 by Ginsburg of ‘131 Y°B1 USD, “maketh sweet ointment stinkingly to 
 ferment” is strange English; although it is quite true that the first 
 verb may be regarded as used adverbially to qualify the second. Vid. 
 Ges.-Kautzsch, § 142, 3 δι; Kalisch, § 103, 1, 2. The LXX., Targ., 
 Symm., Syr. and Vulg. do not express the 2", but the omission 15 
 caused simply by the difficulty of translating such an expression. 
 Ginsburg’s “sweet ointment” is similarly a free rendering of the “ oil 
 of the perfumer.” 27 properly means, 20 pound, to crush, specially 
 spices ; hence 429 is a preparer of sweet smelling oil, as is evident 
 from the context here and in Exod. xx. 33. We have rendered it 
 by perfumer. The verbal asyndeton }'’ 83" in the first clause 
 corresponds with the nominal asyndeton 71331 193n!) in the second. 
 Some MSS. and editions insert in the second clause the copula 
 between the nouns; but the true Masoretic reading omits it, as 
 Delitzsch points out in his Zextkritik. Bemerk. The Vulg., Syr., and 
 Targ. express the avd, but, after the liberties of translation taken by 
 them in the former clause, they cannot be safely adduced as evidence 
 in this, case of such a reading. The adjective 7?’ is taken in its 
 original meaning of Heavy, weighty ; and, inasmuch as it precedes the 
 subject, is in the masculine, instead of agreeing in gender with its 
 subject ΓΞ at the end of the sentence. The thought of the passage 
 is akin to that in 1 Cor. v. 6, with this exception, that while Koheleth 
 speaks of an individual, the Apostle speaks of a community of 
 
Ch. x.1-3.] Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 419 
 
 persons. ‘The idea is that a little folly cast into the scale on the 
 other side overweighs a great deal gf wisdom. The ancient trans- 
 lators curiously misunderstood the clause as stating that in some way 
 or other folly was better than wisdom. 
 
 2. This verse does not mean, as often expounded, that the heart 
 of the wise is in its right place, while that of the fool is in the wrong 
 side ; nor is it to be explained with Rosenmiiller, Ginsburg, Bullock, 
 etc., as meaning that the mind of the wise man is at his right hand, 
 ready to help and protect him, while that of the fool is out of its proper 
 place. Nor can we discover in this passage, as Plumptre imagines, 
 ‘another trace of the Greek influence which pervades the book,” as 
 if the writer referred to right and left respectively as the lucky or un- 
 lucky quarter. The preposition made use of (>) indicates direction, 
 and the meaning of the saying is, as Knobel, Delitzsch, and others 
 explain it, the heart of the wise leads him always to the right or the 
 proper side, while the heart of the fool leads him to the left, ze in 
 the wrong direction. Delitzsch mentions in a note that the verse 15 
 jocosely applied among the Jews to the study of a book (of course 
 written in the Hebrew language, and consequently read from right to 
 left, and not from left to right): “ Zhe heart of the wise man ts towards 
 the right” of the book, that is, he turns the leaves over backwards, 
 and reads over again what he has already read ; “ the heart of the fool 
 ts towards the left,” or the end of the book. The fool turns the 
 leaves forwards, endeavouring superficially to anticipate that which 
 he has not read, having scarcely patience to wait for the end of the 
 work. 5 
 
 3. The K’ri considers the occurrence of the 7 of the article after Y 
 to be incorrect, and directs it to be omitted as redundant. It is not, 
 however, clear but that the 7 was purposely inserted by the writer to 
 avoid the cacophony of the two sibilants coming together. But see 
 on chap. vi. το. The writer in this verse speaks more fully of the 
 progress of the fool in the wrong direction whither his foolish heart 
 inclines him to go. In order to emphasise the path of error, the clause 
 is inverted, and 7713 is placed before Sapyia, The writer, as Hitzig 
 justly remarks, does not describe the fool on a journey, but the fool 
 in the common path of life. If he were only to keep at home, his 
 folly would remain undetected, but he must needs go out of doors, 
 and then he is sure in some way or other to proclaim himself a fool. 
 Comp. Prov. xvii. 28. ap-10n deficient in heart, or understanding, is 
 
420 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. x. 3, 4. 
 
 a phrase which occurs eleven times, and always in the Book of Pro- 
 verbs, where it is applied to a fool, as Prov. Vl. 32; vil. 7, etc.; and so 
 Herzfeld and Ginsburg explain this passage in Koheleth. But the 
 order of the words and the suffix is, according to Delitzsch, against 
 this view, and hence we must render, not “ ἦδ lacks his heart,’ but 
 “hts heart (his understanding) faz/s him.” On the various significa- 
 tions in which the word heart (22) occurs in Scripture, see De- 
 litzsch’s Biblical Psychology, chap. iv. ὃ 12, on the ‘heart and head.” 
 The clause 819 59D ἵν WN) signifies “and he says to every one that 
 he himself ts a fool” (se esse stultum). The expression is, as Delitzsch 
 notes, similar to that in Ps, ix. 21, “that the heathen may know, 
 MD LAIN, that they are (mere) mez.” But the Vulg. renders omnes 
 stultos esitmat, and Symm., as known here from Jerome’s transl., 
 suspicatur de omnibus quia stulti sunt. Koster, Knobel and Ewald 
 render S10 ple) by “‘zt zs foolish,” to which Hitzig rightly objects that 
 bap is not used of actions or things. 
 
 4. This verse commences a new section. [ΠῚ is used here in the 
 sense of anger, as in Judg. viil. 8; Isa. xxv. 4 ; Prov. xxix. 11 ; Zech. 
 vi. 8. See my Lampton Lectures on Zechariah, p. 139. WP, thy 
 place, post, or position. The use of O37 in this signification is 
 peculiar, but the translation is justified by the analogy of 23! and 
 T2LID, both used in a similar sense in Isa. xxii. 19. Compare the 
 use of Dip!) in the closely related passage in verse 23 of that chap- 
 ter. So Herzfeld, Delitzsch, etc. But Knobel, Hitzig and others 
 render, ‘‘do not lose thy self-possession ;” there are, however, no analo- 
 gies to justify that translation. Others suppose the author refers to 
 actual locality. Comp. 1 Sam. xix. 10; xx. 25, 27. S812, which 
 appears also in the form 187, Jer. viii. 15, is generally used in the 
 sense of Aea/ing, and this is the sense in which the word is taken 
 by the LXX., Vulg., Syr. and Targ. Such a meaning, although 
 defended by Dale, is not suitable here. Symmachus renders here ὅτι 
 σωφροσύνη παύσει ἁμαρτήματα πολλά. The word is used in Prov. xiv. 
 30; xv. 4, in the sense of m/dness, calmness. So Herzfeld, Zockler, 
 Delitzsch. Zockler is unintentionally misrepresented in the English 
 edition of his comm. as if he gave the rendering yze/ding, which is in 
 the A.V. Graetz, connecting 8512 with} 1°57, renders it by /azdness, 
 making the passage to mean that the indolence which abandons 
 a post too readily gives rise to suspicion on the part of the king 
 
 } 
 
Ch.x. 4.61] Cretical and Grammatical Comma. 421 
 
 that great offences have been really committed by the individual 
 who acts in such a manner. Renan seems also to adopt this view. 
 Herzfeld is correct in considering that the “great sins” or 
 “offences” spoken of in the passage are not those of the monarch, 
 for an Oriental would not thus express himself, but rather the “sins ” 
 or “blunders” of the subject who has fallen, justly or unjustly, 
 under royal displeasure. In some aspects the advice is similar to 
 that in Prov. xv. 1. Comp. the language of James v. 20. 
 
 5. After being led to allude to the mistakes which draw forth 
 anger on the part of the ruler, and can often be pacified by calm- 
 ness on the side of the subject—for the proper demeanour of a sub- 
 ject frequently leads a monarch to pass over even serious offences 
 —Koheleth now proceeds to notice blunders on the other side. He 
 approaches this subject with evident caution. The simplest render- 
 ing of the passage before us appears the best, “" ¢here is an evil that 
 I have seen under the sun, like an oversight which proceeds from the 
 ruler.” ‘This verse of Koheleth is referred to in Kethuboth, 23 a, 
 on which passage compare the very important remarks of Biesenthal 
 on quotations from the Scriptures in the Talmud, in his Zyostschre?- 
 ben des Apostels Paulus an die Hebrier, p. 57. The prep. in 732¥2 
 is not to be rendered with Knobel, and others, “zz consequence of.” 
 The writer only touches lightly on the point. He does not affirm 
 in the previous verse that the anger of a king is always to be justified, 
 though he drops a suggestion as to how the royal anger may be 
 pacified, even in cases where the subject is to be blamed. So here 
 he does not assert that the mistakes noticed are really due to the 
 monarch, but merely says that there are cases in which they appear 
 to come from that quarter. Ginsburg’s rendering of 440 by ομί- 
 rage is far too strong. &¥' for MN¥', part. fem. of δ δ᾽ after the 
 
 analogy of verbs nace vid. Ges., Zehrgeb., p. 418; Ges.-Kautzsch, 
 
 § 75, rem. 21 c; Ewald, ὃ 189 7; Kalisch, § Ixvi. 1 7. brown, 
 See Glossary. This does not refer to God, as several Jewish com- 
 mentators and Hengstenberg suppose, but to an earthly monarch. 
 
 6. bapn is here abstract from concrete, personified and impersonated 
 
 folly. The LXX., Aq., Symm., Syr., Vulg., Targ. either read 530m, 
 the fool, or have given that translation as expressing the real sense 
 of the passage. Graetz maintains that there is no contrast between 
 
 the 2D and Ὁ, and, therefore, proposes to amend the text by 
 
to 
 
 42 The Book of Kohkeleth, [Ch. x. 6-8. 
 rendering Sawn, the man of low degree, which arbitrary alteration has 
 been endorsed by Renan. 2°37 Ὁ 123, Not “7x many heights,” 
 but ‘22 great heights,” the 0°30 stands as it were in a sort of ap- 
 position, and hence has not the article, vid. Kalisch, § Ixxxiil. 15 ¢; 
 Ges.-Kautzsch, § 111, 2 6. Δ, rich, is used in the sense of 
 nobles. Comp. the similar use of θὲ in Isa. xxxii. 5. 
 
 7. Riding on horses was a mark of the nobility, Jer. xvi. 25; 
 2 Chron. xxv. 28; Esth. vi. 8, 9. Compare on the thought here, 
 Prov. xix. το. Justin says of the Parthians, ‘ equis omni tempore 
 vectantur. . . . Hoc denique discrimen inter servos liberosque 
 est, quod servi pedibus, liberi non nisi equis incedunt” (Lib. xli. 3). 
 Graetz sees in this verse a vivid picture of the days of Herod the 
 Great. 
 
 8. It is impossible within our limits to attempt to give a sketch of 
 the opinions of scholars of various times on the connexion between 
 these verses and the foregoing. The verses, on the consideration of 
 which we are now entering, seem specially to recommend prudence 
 by pointing out the dangers which beset even the most necessary 
 
 actions. On }'))4, which only occurs here, see Glossary. DIB? might 
 here indicate the future, and express a necessary consequence, as in 
 Prov. xxvi. 27, in which case the first clause of the aphorism would 
 be identical in sense with the maxim there set forth ; but it may also 
 be taken, with Delitzsch, as intimating a result that is merely possible, 
 which is more in accordance with the aphorisms to be found in the 
 immediate context. The second clause tends to show that Koheleth 
 does not refer to the case of one who plots the ruin of another but 
 falls himself into the pit he has made. For the wall mentioned in 
 the second clause is not a neighbour’s landmark, or a fence through 
 which one breaks to steal his neighbour’s fruit, but some old wall or 
 fence which requires for some cause to be renewed, in the crannies 
 and nooks of which, however, serpents have been wont to make their 
 nests, so that the man who breaks it down incurs the danger of 
 being bitten, and ought, therefore, to go cautiously about the work. 
 It is quite beyond the object of the writer to allude under these 
 similitudes to the dangers encountered in all attempts to subvert 
 the structure of a despotic government, which Ginsburg considers to 
 be the drift of the passage. The moral intended to be enforced is 
 rather, be cautious and circumspect, and make due provision in 
 
Ch. x. 8-10] Ογζέζεαζ and Grammatical Comm. 423 
 
 all cases in order to guard against dangers which may naturally be 
 anticipated. 
 
 9. These aphorisms are to the same effect. DIN YD is one 
 who removes stones, after the analogy of 2 Kings iv. 4; or one who 
 breaks or cuts stones, after that of 1 Kings v. 31. The latter is most 
 likely the real meaning. O72 38%, may be hurt by them, alludes 
 probably to the accidents which happen to stonecutters. Hence we 
 are inclined to regard O°$Y YP3 as signifying the woodman or forester, 
 he who splits or cuts down trees. ὮΝ might mean pieces of wood 
 used for firewood, Lev. i. 7; iv. 12, but it can also mean /vees, as in 
 chap. 11. 6. It seems more probable that the writer has in view the 
 dangers of accidents happening to the woodcutter such as mentioned 
 in Deut. xix. 5, rather than the lesser dangers experienced in chopping 
 firewood.  {2D°, shall be endangered. See Glossary. The LXX. 
 rightly, κινδυνεύσει ἐν αὐτοῖς. Less correctly the Vulg. vudnerabitur. 
 
 to. This, linguistically speaking, is confessedly the most difficult 
 passage in the Book of Koheleth. 19? is an intransitive piel, and 
 means ¢o be blunt, as is evident from the use of the cognate verbs in 
 Chald. and Syr. It occurs in kal in reference to the teeth, in Jer. 
 XXxi. 29, 30; Ezek. xviii. 2, in the three places in the same form, 
 and is rendered by our A.V. by “ set on an edge.” The former transl. 
 is, however, more correct, though, according to our manner of 
 speaking, less appropriate. 0°J3, which properly means the fac, 
 countenance, has been explained as evidently used here in the 
 signification of edge. This idea is elsewhere expressed by 8, the 
 mouth, then edge, in the oft-used expression, 18 “ ¢he mouth (or 
 edge) of thé sword.” The plural Θ᾽ is likewise used in the sense of 
 edge, τ Sam, xiii. 21, as is also a second plural form, ΓΞ, Prov. v. 4. 
 Compare N¥*5"8, Isa. xli. 15. In spite of Graetz’s objection, 0°28 Nb 
 without an edge, would be a phrase, as Hitzig observes, formed exactly 
 on the model of 0°23 ND, without children, t Chron. ii. 30, 32; Ewald, 
 § 286 g. Ewald, in the latest edition of his Dichter d. alt. B., has 
 adopted the translation “zthout a point,” in place of his former 
 idea, followed by Ginsburg and others, that 0°38 is for ΣΡ, and 
 means beforehand. ‘The latter translation is from the Vulg. e¢ ve¢usum 
 fuerit ferrum, et hoc non ut prius; but, as Delitzsch maintains, such a 
 rendering is impossible and leads to nothing, inasmuch as ppd 
 
 means formerly, but not before that, like ΠῚ BP), Neh. xii. 4. See 
 
424. The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. x. 10. 
 
 Ewald, § 220 a. Delitzsch considers that 0°28 is used in a wider 
 signification than merely the edge, and that it is rather employed here 
 in the sense of the face of the iron. Viewing 77? as a piel in an in- 
 choative sense (see Ewald, § 120 4), and the 817 as referring to the 
 labourer rather than to the iron, he connects the NO with bpp (which 
 is fully justified by 2 Sam. iii. 34; Num. xvi. 29), and brings out the 
 meaning of the first clause, “7 the cron has become blunt, and he has 
 not whetted the face thereof, etc.” beep, which also occurs in Ezek. 
 
 xxi. 26, is the pilpel of bbe with pattach instead of tzere on account 
 of the P, vid. Bottcher, Zei7b., § 1021 8. The kal means 20 de lighi, 
 the pilpel 20 sharpen, moving lightly and swiftly up and down (vid. 
 Miuhlau and Volck’s edit. of Ges. Zex.), hence the LXX. ἐτάραξε, 
 and Syr. uA;, which renderings, however, afford no sense, though 
 they are evidence in favour of the correctness of the Masoretic text. 
 Graetz tries conjecturally to amend the text in the first clause, and 
 brings out, “when he has made the tron blunt, then he pitches it into 
 the face, and increases wounds,” while he abandons the second clause 
 as hopeless. We must not render 733! pom with Ginsburg by “ e 
 shall only increase the army,” following the LXX. καὶ δυνάμεις δυνα- 
 μώσει, if that obscure rendering does not look quite another way. 
 Such a translation requires the interpolation of a considerable exposi- 
 tion in order to render it intelligible. Delitzsch, after Abulwalid and 
 Kimchi, preferably interprets the phrase of the putting to of more 
 strength, the increasing of effort. 134 means 20 strengthen, Zech. 
 x. 6, 12, and the rendering of pn, plural of ben by strength, is 
 supported by pn "33, mighty heroes, 1 Chron. vii. 5, 7, 11, 40. 
 Hence this second clause may well mean “ then (1) he must put forth 
 efforts of strength.” 
 
 The word ὙΠ in the concluding sentence of the verse is the 
 infinitive absolute hiphil of 3, It stands here in the genitive 
 governed by 1177’, with which it is connected by the accentuation, 
 and is treated as a hiphil noun. The absolute is used instead of 
 the construct ; for in the latter case 7237 would be governed by 
 it as an object, whereas it is the predicate of the sentence. Hence 
 the disjunctive accent upon V3, = Hitzig would alter the punctu- 
 ation and read Ὑ 31, the inf. const. governing 725M in the accusative. 
 He regards the predicate of the sentence to be 1920 1W27. So 
 also Elster and Zockler. The clause would then be rendered, “ 7¢ zs 
 
Ch. x. το, τ1.1] Cretecal and Granimatical Comm. 425 
 a profit wisely to handle wisdom.”  Delitzsch considers such a com- 
 bination as absolutely impossible.  °t/31, see Glossary, s.v., means 
 “to set in the right position,” “to pre-arrange;” and the sentence, 
 according to Delitzsch, means, ¢he advantage of pre-arranging rightly, 
 or of putting to rights, ts wisdom, that is, wisdom brings with it this 
 advantage, that it teaches a man to arrange everything rightly before- 
 hand, and a wise man acts accordingly in this way. It would be 
 possible to explain 727 (like the hiphil M987 and 53} Π) causa- 
 tively, makes to succeed. So Knobel, the advantage of success (or of 
 obtaining prosperity) is wisdom, i.e. wisdom is that which secures this 
 gain. But, as Delitzsch argues, the meaning of making jit or equip- 
 ping, which is common in post-Biblical Hebrew, is more suitable to 
 the example from which the writer deduces this corollary. 
 
 11. The translation of our A.V., “surely the serpent will bite 
 without enchantment, and a babbler ts no better,” imcorrectly renders 
 the 08. That particle is conditional, ‘if the serpent will bite without 
 
 enchantment. won YA in itself might well be a designation of a 
 babbler, as Munster and others of the older expositors explained it. 
 But this does not harmonise with the former clause, nor with the con- 
 text in which the aphorism occurs. The interpretation of the LXX. 
 and the Syr. is, therefore, to be preferred, who regard the smake- 
 charmer as here termed the Jord of the tongue (LXX., ἐπάδων, Syr. 
 lea). This designation of the snake-charmer, which is only one 
 of many, is not given, as Delitzsch observes, without a reason, for 
 the tongue is an instrument, like the iron of ver. 10. There is no 
 
 occasion whatever to suppose that the LXX. and Syr. read vind ya : 
 they simply interpreted the Hebrew expression. The phrase in our 
 text has been interpreted by the Vulg. of the secret calumniator or 
 slanderer, ‘‘st mordeat serpens in silentio, nthil eo minus habet qui 
 
 occulte detrahit. The Targ. renders similarly a@ slanderer (D2 734 
 P¥RP). Delitzsch refers in illustration of this rendering to the fable 
 in Zaantth, 8 a, “In the future all the animals will gather together, 
 and go to the serpent and say, ‘The lion treads down (his prey) on 
 the ground and devours it, the wolf tears it and devours it, but what 
 advantage hast thou for thy poison?’ And the serpent shall say to 
 them, [quoting the words of this text] ‘the slanderer also has no 
 profit.” The fable is given at fuller length from the Zamchuma in 
 
 Dukes’ Rabbin. Blumenlese, p. 201. By the serpent biting vine ΠΣ 
 
426 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. x. 11-14. 
 
 is meant its biting before the charmer has time to make use of his 
 
 skill in charming (compare 121° ND}, Job. xv. 32, defore his time has 
 come). For there are serpents which will not hearken to the voice 
 or tongue of the charmer (Ps. lvili. 5.). Hence, when the passage is 
 examined more closely, one sees that the passage in Sirach (xii. 10) 
 alluded to on p. 41, though at first it appears to have no connexion 
 with this passage in Koheleth, is really based on it, namely, tis ἐλεήσει 
 ἐπαοιδὸν ὀφιόδηκτον καὶ πάντας τοὺς προσάγοντας θηρίοις ; the point of 
 the aphorism of Koheleth is, no skill or wisdom is of any avail if 
 made use of too late. ‘It is too late to lock the stable-door when 
 the steed is stolen.” 
 
 12. The lips of a wise man bring favour to him, as well as preserve 
 him (Prov. xiv. 3), but the lips of a fool swallow him up, ze. lead to 
 his ruin. 4, abstract used for emphasis, comp. chap. ii. 22. MANSY, 
 This plural construct form (the absol. NiNSY does not occur) is con- 
 sidered by Knobel and Bottcher (Zefrd., § 684, 8) to be later Hebrew 
 in place of the older dual construct ‘ND, but the statement is based 
 on arbitrary assumption. On nina’ from πεν, compare Πρ, ninw, 
 and Nix, NiNX, in which words also the plural ΠῚ is attached to the 
 fem. ending. On the sing. verb. Ὁ ΔΓ, comp. chap. iv. 18. The 
 suffix. refers to the fool, and not to jf; as Schmidt and Umbreit 
 explain it. 
 
 13. The fool begins with talking folly, and ends with mischievous 
 madness. His words injure himself and others. Compare Prov. 
 XV, 2; Σ- 8, 21; xvi 7. The expression: used) in the) next verse 
 suggests the idea that the writer may be referring to that vain 
 discussion about matters too high for man’s understanding which 
 was a Striking characteristic of his day. See p. 189, and ἢ. on chap. 
 VL. II, p. 379. 
 
 14. The and at the beginning of the verse has almost the force 
 
 of moreover. The word used for the fool (2257) has reference to his . 
 
 To a 
 
 confusion of thought. He is termed before 2.53 in reference to 
 his s¢upzdity and dulness of comprehension. His words were de- 
 clared in the previous verse to have their beginning in m>9p, hence 
 he is himself characterised as a 22D, Tayler Lewis, after Rashi, con- 
 siders the “ words” of which the fool is full, to refer to those boasting 
 assertions with regard to the future which are condemned by St. 
 James in ch. iv. 23, and to which our Lord alludes in Luke xii. 20. 
 
Ch. χ. 1.,15.1 Crztzcal and Grammatical Comm. 427 
 
 These are certainly comprised under the general expression, which 
 includes far more than merely “endless loquacity.” The language 
 used by St. James is probably founded on the expression in the 
 
 verse following. One would have expected 03 before the YIN, 
 but the clause, as Delitzsch notices, signifies here the state or con- 
 dition, and is directly subordinated to the principal clause after the 
 analogy of Ps. v.10. In the expressions that follow, WS) MMeTND 
 WAN ΠῚ, there is a kind of tautology, which is best explained, after 
 Delitzsch, by considering the ΠΡ Π to be more distinctly defined 
 by the words following. That clause proves that the writer is refer- 
 ring to what may occur after the individual’s death. Comp. chap. 
 vi. 12; vil. 14. Hitzig explains the word as meaning, “ man does not 
 know what will happen,’ what consequences his words may have 
 in the immediate future, “ ἀγα what may happen after that,” 1.6. the 
 more remote consequences, that is, he knows not whether his ex- 
 pressions may damage him nowor hereafter. But the sense in which 
 the writer elsewhere employs 108 is against this view. Ginsburg 
 explains ΠΤ ΠΩ to refer to the future in this life, and the second 
 clause to the future after death. In this point he is supported by 
 the Targ. and Ibn Ezra. The ancient versions either have sought 
 to paraphrase the passage loosely, and thus remove the tautology ; 
 or have read the perfect (7)7) instead of the imperfect of the 
 Masoretic text (7°); the LXX. translating τί τὸ γενόμενον καὶ τί 
 τὸ ἐσόμενον, Vulg., guid ante se fuerit, et quid post se futurum stt. 
 Similarly the Syr., Symm. and Arab. The Targ. alone keeps to the 
 Heb. text, although it is unlikely that the other translators had any 
 other reading actually before them. 
 
 15, 1303.n oan Spy. Though boy is masculine, it is here 
 construed with a feminine verb. The idea of Kimchi, that ¥ is 
 thought of in the sense of boy ny, is rightly viewed by Delitzsch 
 
 to be impossible. Bottcher considers that boy is regarded (Lehré., 
 § 657, 4), as a noun of unity, which is scarcely possible here ; 
 or (Neue Achrenlese, No. 1659), that it expresses the collective 
 sense, “all kinds of toil, even the slightest.” Hitzig maintains that 
 the writer treated the word as fem. to avoid the cacophony of the 
 double yod, which, in other cases when vav conversive precedes, is 
 often avoided by dropping one of the yods. Comp. Neh.i.4; Lam. iii. 
 33, and the K’ri in 2 Chron. xxxii. 30. But forms with double yod, 
 
428 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. x. 15. 
 
 as Delitzsch remarks, are used elsewhere without hesitation, as Sn 
 (Mic. v. 6), 1378" (Josh. vi. 26). A similar instance, perhaps, is 14 
 which is treated as a fem. in Prov. iv. 13; possibly, according to 
 Bottcher, because the writer there thoroughly identified the 74, or 
 znstruction treated of, with wzésdom or 1920. (Meue Achrenlese, No. 
 1279). Delitzsch refers to the fact that the similarly formed noun 
 
 82¥ is also of two genders. If p'DIN POY be understood to mean 
 “the toil of the fools,” the singular suffix after 191° must be re- 
 garded as a case in which the plural passes over into the distributive 
 or individualising singular. Delitzsch compares Isa. ii. 8; Hos. iv. 8. 
 On the other hand, the clause may be explained, with Herzfeld and 
 others, as ‘‘ fools’-work,” or toil such as fools have, and the singular 
 
 noun may be used in reference to the fool (23D) mentioned in verse 
 14. Or, it may be explained “fools’-work (vain philosophizing, see 
 n. On verses 13, 14) wearies the man who does not know how to find 
 the way to the city.” For pYo'DIn SY would then express a single 
 idea, and therefore be feminine, and there would be no synallage ot 
 number. 
 
 Many interpretations have been proposed for the last clause. It is 
 unnecessary to do more than to allude to the attempts to explain the 
 word 1° from the Arabic, as signifying @ crowd or a caravan. VP is 
 the city, and not to know the way to the city is not to know the 
 very simplest matter. The fool is smitten with a judicial blindness, 
 like that poured on the Syrians at Dothan, 2 Kings vi. 18-20. 
 Many perplex themselves with difficult matters, who have no com- 
 prehension of even the simplest things. ‘‘Isaiah’s description of the 
 road to the restored Jerusalem as being such that ‘ wayfaring men, 
 though fools, shall not err therein’ (Isaiah xxxv. 8) supplies,” writes 
 Plumptre, “an interesting parallel.” Ewald thinks that the writer 
 is complaining of bad government, “a government in which the 
 toil of fools, ze the wretched heathen ruler, wearies the poor 
 countryman who does not know how to go to the city.” He regards 
 the saying as a proverbial expression, signifying that the peasant 
 does not understand how to bribe the great lords in the city (chap. 
 vii. 19), where men rule who are unworthy, riotous, indolent, and 
 sell everything for gold. This is, however, certainly not the meaning 
 of the writer; nor is it necessary to interpret the passage with Hitzig, 
 Elster and Zockler, of going to the city as the seat of the rulers and 
 officers from whence oppression indeed proceeds, but where redress 
 
=< 
 
 Ch. x. 15-17.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 429 
 
 also may be obtained. Graetz’s idea that the writer refers to the 
 peculiarities of the Essenes, who were wont to avoid cities, “living 
 by themselves ” (Joseph., Av/tig., xviii. 1, 5), is not too farfetched to 
 prevent its being endorsed by Renan. aby is for wyny, and 
 sounds, as Delitzsch remarks, vulgar; πόλις is used in Greek as de- 
 finite in itself and Athens is generally termed ἄστυ without the article. 
 The very name of Stambil (Constantinople), however, adds that 
 scholar, signifying as it does εἰς τὴν πόλιν, may serve as an illustration 
 
 of the proverbial saying, ‘‘ xo¢t to know how to go ΟΝ» 
 
 16. See remarks on pp. 218, 219. On‘, see Glossary. “Instead 
 of Wi aDoDy the older language would have rather said ἼΣΩΣ Ww? Wa” 
 (Delitzsch). Note the relative used in the genitive in reference to 
 the second person both here and in the following verse. See Ges., 
 Lehrg., Ὁ. 745. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 123, 1, rem. 1; Kalisch, ὃ 80, 1; 
 Konig, p. 136. The analogy of Prov. xxx. 22, would have per- 
 mitted the use of 72 here in place of 2; but, as Delitzsch notes, 
 not by any means in the sense in which Graetz expounds it, 
 namely, as a reference to Herod as “the slave of the house of the 
 Hasmoneans.” For, though Ziba who was a servant was also called 
 Wd) (2 Sam. xix. 18, A. V. 17), the noun WJ does not mean a slave 
 
 as such, but is identical with the bbivn of Isaiah 111. 12. Renan has 
 in his translation here also followed Graetz. By the eating (208 
 
 Bathe Bnd DDK, Ps. xiv. 4) is evidently meant banqueting such as is 
 alluded to by Isaiah (chap. v. 14). 
 
 17. See remarks on p. 220. WS is only found in the construct 
 plural; the plural being used contrary to general rule not only 
 before the heavy but also before the light suffixes. Thus we find 
 alike ἽΝ and 02°. The form ἢ ΝΣ which here occurs might 
 possibly be regarded as an incorrect mode of writing 72¥8, in which 
 case it might be viewed as an example of the occurrence of the 
 singular. If viewed as plural it must stand for 7772/8. One instance 
 of the singular may be 1718, Prov. xix. 18, unless that be regarded 
 as defective for 10S. The form WS occurs in Prov. xiv. 21 ; 
 xvi. 20. Bottcher (Zehrd., § 699), regards it as a plural of exten- 
 sion (in thought) ; Delitzsch explains the employment of the plural 
 as having arisen from the use of the word as a kind of exclamation. 
 It properly means fulness of happiness ; when used as an exclamation 
 it signifies, O Ais happiness / like Aram, "3, Map, Nw, ὉΠ 
 
430 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. x. 17-19. 
 
 might be used metaphorically, see Ges. Zex., s. v. 13. We prefer to 
 take it literally. ΡΞ, at the right time, elsewhere expressed by 
 inva (chap. iii. rr), here equivalent to the Gr. ἐν καιρῷ, lit. 2 tem- 
 pore, perhaps caused by the contrast with "222 —Delitzsch. 17232 
 Δ ΝΟῚ is not to be rendered “ Jor strength and not for feasting” —as 
 3 does not denote the object (see note on chap. 11. 24)—but rather 
 with Delitzsch, 2% manly strength, i.e. as the strength of a man requires 
 (comp. the plural ΠῚ 323, Ps. Ixxi. 16, to indicate fulness of strength, 
 or fulness of measure, as in Ps. xc. ro), and not only *NW32, in such a 
 manner that the feast has drinking for its main object. So Kleinert, 
 “as men and not as drunkards.” mwa, From On’, which is akin 
 to N'Y, to set, fo place, comes ‘NW, the warp, used frequently in Lev. 
 xiii. ; from NY to drink, comes ‘NY, drinking, carouse, only found 
 in this place, though the fem. 7*NY occurs in Esth. i. 8. The LXX. 
 have here καὶ οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσονται, the translators either confounding 
 nwa with nY3, or having in mind the known consequences of 
 drunkenness. The Targ. renders nwona, in weakness, neglect, and 
 similarly the Midrash Ἰ Ὁ ΓΒ. 
 
 18. Note remarks on p. 221. D'riosY. The dual is most pro- 
 bably zz¢ensive, so that the word means great indolence, and does not 
 refer (as Ewald and others explain it) to the zwo idle hands. See 
 Bottcher, Zehrb., § 687, and specially his ewe Achrenlese, No. 1660, 
 in wnich he criticises the view advocated by Ewald and Hitzig. 
 See also Kalisch,§ 85,4. 1. On the difference between 72 and 
 9, the former being used in a literal signification, the latter in a 
 metaphorical, see Bottcher, ὃ 1147. 72120, with the daghesh in the 
 ,is the noun, che beam-work. Hence the remark of the Masora 
 here #39 πὸ; on the contrary 720 in Ps. civ. 3 (Masora, 757 N?) 
 is the participle. See Delitzsch, Zextkrit. Bemerk. 
 
 19. See p. 221. OY, indet. third pers. pl. like D8 Exod. v. 16, 
 referring, no doubt indirectly (not directly) to the persons spoken of 
 in the preceding verses. pinw>, The > denotes the object, for 
 laughter, for the purpose of merriment. Jt can scarcely be regarded 
 as an adverbial clause, as’ Hitzig views it, after Lam. iv. 5; nor is 
 the clause to be rendered, with Ginsburg, “ ¢hey turn bread and wine, 
 
 which cheereth life, into revelry.” DN? WY is Zo make a Jeast, or prepare 
 a meal, as Ezek. iv. 15 and in Chald. 27 pn ἼΞΙ Dan. v. 1. Comps 
 ond box, Gen. xxxi. 54; Exod. xviii. 12, and ἐσθίειν dprov, Matt. 
 
Ch. κ᾿ 19,291 Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 431 
 
 xv. 2, also TALI MY, Gen. xxi. 8. The clause ‘N'Y })" is not to be 
 regarded as a relative, but as a co-ordinate clause. So rightly the 
 Hebrew accentuation. i122) might be regarded either as the imperf. 
 kal, or as the imperf. hiphil. _Hitzig prefers the latter, explaining it, 
 money “ makes all hear” him that hath it, 2.2. ‘‘ provides everything” 
 for him. It is, however, better to take it with Delitzsch as the kal, 
 
 and 52n7NN as the accus. of that sought for, “‘ money grants all,” 
 answers every wish. Vulg. pecunie obediunt omnia. Symm. ἀργύριον 
 δὲ εὐχρηστήσει εἰς ἅπαντα. The LXX. give a wide paraphrase of the 
 verse, εἰς γέλωτα ποιοῦσιν ἄρτον, Kal οἶνον καὶ ἔλαιον Tod εὐφρανθῆναι 
 ζῶντας, καὶ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ταπεινώσει ἐπακούσεται τὰ πάντα. The Syr. 
 has also, ‘‘ dread and wine and oil are made for gladness, that they may 
 gladden the living.” Both versions express “ oil” which is not in the 
 Heb., and take ὉΠ as an adjective. But the Syr., as Janichs notes, 
 read the passive part. while the LXX. read DY with the Heb. 
 Classical parallels abound, such as Horat., #zst., 1. 6, 36, 37, or 
 the passage from Menander, quoted by Clericus, “‘dut 7 supposed 
 that the gods which were useful to us were silver and gold only ; for 
 having once established them in the house (εὖξαι τι βούλει, πάντα σοι 
 γενήσεται), pray for what you wish, all will be thine.” 
 
 20. See remarks on pp. 222, 223, and the story of Ben Buta given 
 on p. 20. On 2, see Glossary. On 53 comp. Deut. xxiii. 3. bya 
 p°D33n, The Krri erases the article as unnecessary. So in verse 3, 
 chap. vi. to, and in 1 Sam. xxvi. 22. This expression for a dird 
 is found also in Prov.i. 17. ‘4. So according to the Masora ; 
 it belongs to the few-jussive forms to be found in the book. In his 
 note on p. 432 in connexion with the critical remarks on the text, 
 Delitzsch asks why did the punctuators, notwithstanding the pre- 
 sence of the ἡ, point the 7°)’ as jussive (subjunctive)? He remarks, 
 when we consider more closely such questions, the punctuation ap- 
 pears one of the greatest problems of literary history. The jussive 
 may here give a sort of climax to the passage. May not the reading 
 1°3) be regarded as K’thibh, and the punctuation δ᾽ be considered 
 as a case of anunnoticed K’ri? Comp. D°AY, DW for NY, 2. See 
 Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 97, 2, and note 1 on p. 258. 
 
 Parallels cited by Knobel and others are Juvenal, Sa¢., ix. 102 ff.; 
 Publius Syrus: Nullum locum sine teste esse putaveris. Plumptre 
 compares on the reference to the birds, Aristophanes, Aves, 50, 575 ; 
 as also Anacreon’s ode to a p'geon. 
 
432 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. xi. 1-3. 
 
 CHAPTER ΧΙ 
 
 τ. This passage has been sufficiently treated in pp. 223-227. It 
 
 is not necessary with our interpretation to explain nev in the sense of 
 cast away, it can equally well be taken in the sense of send, or send 
 forth. The word cannot mean to scatter seed. Hitzig, who disputes 
 the correctness of referring the passage to beneficence, urges against 
 the latter view the fact that 83 does not mean Ὁ find again ; but, 
 as Kleinert observes, when one finds that which one has cast away, 
 the idea of finding again lies in the very circumstance itself. Hence 
 the signification of the verb is no conclusive argument against the 
 ordinary interpretation. 
 
 2. See remarks on pp. 225-228. Delitzsch would explain the 
 phrase mya pon 101 divide the portion into seven, etc. after the 
 
 analogy of Gen. xvil. 20, 1) rab YnN23. He considers the p?N to 
 be the portion which the person addressed has in his possession. 
 
 3. See on pp. 190, 229, 230. In Abodah Zarah, 31 a, this verse 
 is explained by R. Johanan to mean where there is a distinguished 
 teacher one always find traces of his teaching. See also the German 
 transl. of that treatise by Dr. F. C. Ewald, p. 222. 0°20 ought, as 
 Delitzsch notes, to have the accent merca which occurs gin the best 
 MSS., and not mahpach, as in the ordinary editions of the Hebrew 
 Bible. Michaelis reads merca, though the majority of his MSS. have 
 the other accentuation. The accentuators rightly connect 01 with 
 the conditional clause. The older language would, according to 
 Delitzsch, in this case have preferred the use of the perfect in both 
 clauses (Ewald, § 355 4) to indicate that, as often as the one fact 
 occurs, the other invariably follows. See Driver’s Heb. Tenses, § 12. 
 
 In the second clause the protasis as it lies before us consists in 
 itself of two related parts (compare the two 08}, Amos ix. 3), “and 
 if a tree falls on the south stde, and (or) of wt fall on the north side,” 
 i.e. whether it falls on the one side or the other. The athnach, 
 which would have more correctly been placed at 1P, marks off in 
 a more emphatic manner the protasis from the apodosis ; Sy) oN) 
 unquestionably begins a new sentence, but there was a necessity for 
 a distinctive of high power to be placed upon the })}®¥3.— Delttzsch. 
 
 Dip! acc. of place, followed by ™, as in chap. i. 7; compare Esth. 
 iv. 3; viii. 17, where 1% follows. The O% is not here to be con- 
 
Ch. xi. 3-51 Cretzcal and Grammatical Comm. 433 
 
 nected with the relative & which precedes, but, as the accents 
 indicate, with the S17) following. So also in chap. i. 7. S17? is 
 the jussive from 1, imperf. 1}? (though this form actually does 
 not occur), jussive 17), the νὰν receiving its kindred vowel, even as 
 yod under the same circumstances is pointed with chirik (7!). The 
 δὲ at the end is only an orthographic addition, found in Arabic in 
 certain cases (Wright’s Arad. Gramm., vol. i. § 7, rem. a). See on 
 this usage in Hebrew, Ges.-Kautzsch, § 23, 3, rem. 3, and § 32, rem. 
 6. The form in this particular case, which is variously explained by 
 grammarians, is most satisfactorily treated by Konig, Zefrg., p. 597. 
 The participle of the verb 119 occurs in chap. 11. 22, see note there. 
 Delitzsch does not regard S17" in this place as jussive, but notes 
 that S17. thus written approaches near to the Mishnaic inflexion of ᾿ 
 the imperf. of 111, whose singular is δ Π᾽, and plural 47°. Hence 
 certain Jewish expositors regard the form here as plural. The con- 
 text, however, requires the singular. Ewald (8 192 ὁ) regards the 
 form as Aramaic, 130 always being there used for 77, and the 1 
 passing over into δὲ (ὃ 142 ¢), the formation being after the analogy 
 of a YY verb, like ΝΞ, 
 
 Aa See ἢ: 230. 
 
 5. See remarks on p. 231. nN see Glossary. In his Zext 
 kritisch. Bemerk. Delitzsch calls attention to the following facts, viz. : 
 that ΠΡΟΣ has the daghesh in the 3, while on the contrary in Deut. 
 xxil. 9 and Amos ii. 13, the ποθ has the 9 with raphe. Dunash, 
 in his work Sefer Teshuboth, written against Saadia (edited by 
 Schroder, 1866), p.-35, maintains that the cause of the daghesh lies 
 in the pausal accent. Delitzsch suggests that the probable cause is 
 the same as noted in chap. x. 18 on 79}!93. With daghesh the word 
 is the substantive, not the participle. Observe the nice distinction 
 between the use of the participial 27)’ 72°8 in the protasis, and the 
 
 use of the imperfect ¥1)) N> in the apodosis, as when we say, if thou 
 dost not know that, consequently thou wilt also not know this.— 
 Delitesch. Comp. Ps. cxxxix. 15. See on this subject the remarks 
 in Wisdom vii. 1 ff, and the observations of Marcus Aurelius, 
 χ. 20. ταῦτα οὖν Ta ev τοιαύτῃ ἐγκαλύψει γενόμενα. A remarkable 
 parallel to this passage occurs in the New Test. in John iii., where 
 in verses 3 and 6 the necessity of a new birth is insisted on, and 
 in verse 8 the expression is made use of, “the wind bloweth where it 
 
 For 
 
434 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. xi. 5-9. 
 
 listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence 
 it cometh or whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the 
 Spirit.” 
 
 6. See remarks on p. 231. On 131 00/3" ΠῚ ‘SN, see Ewald, § 361. 
 . On W5 see Glossary; and on 7hN3, see also the Glossary under that 
 heading. 573’ refers to the ΠῚ and 7} immediately preceding, which 
 are regarded as neuters. Comp. chap. vii. 18; on the other hand Πὶ 
 and are treated as masculine in chap. vi. 5. 
 
 7. See p. 232. There are many parallels to be found in the 
 classic writers. Thus Theognis, 569, λείψω δ᾽ ἐρατὸν φάος ἠελίοιο. 
 Euripides, Jphig. tn Aulid., 1218, 1220, ἡδὺ yap τὸ φῶς λεύσσειν. 
 The Masora in 1 Sam. xvi. 7 and here, according to Delitzsch, has 
 DI'Y2, while in Gen. 11. 6 and Prov. x. 26 it reads ΣῚΡ. Comp. 
 Kimchi’s A/ichlol, 53°. 
 
 8. See remarks on p. 233. (O83. Knobel and others trans- 
 late ‘> here by yea, appealing to Hosea x. 5; Job vi. 21, etc. 
 Heiligstedt renders zo. But the ordinary meaning of guza, “for,” 
 assigned by Rosenmiiller and Delitzsch, is more suitable. The *2 and 
 DS are to be taken apart 707, 74,” asin Exod. viii. 17. The > in 
 the second part of the verse is, as Delitzsch notes, the explicative 
 guod ; comp. chap. 11. 24; iv. 4, 8,17, etc. Compare Horat., Carm., 
 Lib. I. iv. 16, 17; xi. 7, 8. xay-Sp, all that which is coming, Ζ.6. m 
 the future. Delitzsch compares Sanhedrin, 27 a, sandy {82 from 
 the present and to the future, for which the expression sad ὌΠ} 
 occurs elsewhere. 
 
 9. See remarks on pp. 234 ff. MIN only occurs here and in 
 chap. ΧΙ]. 1. It is a later form of the earlier ὩΣ ΠΞ found in Num. 
 xi. 28. So nis}, Jer. xxxii. 30 instead of the common OY). 
 
 40727, See notes on p. 235. N22. So the Kethibh has the 
 word in the plural, which is found in Cant. ii. 14. Gesenius regards 
 such plurals as poetic, Lehrgeb., p. 665. The K’ri prefers the 
 singular. ‘The former refers rather to the multiplicity of objects 
 seen, the latter comprehends all in a single point of view. Many 
 MSS. have the K’ri reading. The ancient versions ought not to be 
 adduced as evidence in favour of that reading. D532. See re- 
 marks on p. 235, and footnote 3, and on p. 236. Hoelemann 
 observes that this verse is the original of one of the most popular 
 of the student songs of Germany, the “‘Gaudeamus igitur,” the early 
 
Ch. xi. 9-xii.1.] Cre¢ecal and Grammatical Comm. 435 
 
 form of which was that of a penitential song of two stanzas. See Du 
 Meril, Poésies latines du moyen dge (1847); Schwetschke, Zur 
 Geschichte des Gaudeamus igitur (Halle, 1877). The first and. third 
 stanzas are :— 
 
 “Gaudeamus igitur, juvenes dum sumus ; 
 Post exactam juventutem, post molestam senectutem, 
 Nos habebit humus.” 
 
 “Vita nostra brevis est, brevi finietur, 
 Venit mors velociter, rapit nos atrociter, 
 Nemini parcetur,” 
 
 ro, ΟΞ WDM. See remarks on p. 237 and footnote. 4) 73M), 
 see p. 238. The sentence of Publius Syrus, quoted by Knobel, is a 
 suitable parallel to the sentiment in the first part of this verse, 
 namely, ‘“‘tristitiam, si potes, cave ne admiseris.”. MVNA, This 
 word only occurs here. It is, as Delitzsch observes, not to be con- 
 nected with WY, che dawn, with most expositors, comparing WY Ps, 
 Cx. 3, as in that case it would be identical with the preceding n3703, 
 and be tautological, but with the adj. ὙΠῸ’ d/ack, denoting the time 
 of black hair (Targ. rightly, WY nD4N8 "DH, the days of black hair), 
 in contrast with the days when the hair is grey or white. Hence we 
 render “manhood.” ~ See Glossary. The LXX. render ὅτι ἡ νεότης 
 καὶ ἡ ἄνοια ματαιότης, thus translating ΘΠ by ἡ ἄνοια, which.is followed 
 by the Syriac. Janichs considers that the LXX. so translated the 
 word because they derived it from the root ny, to be black, under- 
 standing it metaphorically to refer to the mind of youth as enwrapped 
 in darkness. Johnston seeks (7Z7eatise, p. 128) to draw an inference 
 in favour of the Solomonic authorship from the occurrence of mip) 
 and MW) in Ps. cx., and that of mys and MIN’ in this passage. 
 But this is verily a grasping at straws. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 r, PNW, On the plural and its significance see pp. 238 and 239, 
 and footnotes on both pages. A critic has privately suggested to me 
 that the clause might be rendered “ resmember those shaping thee,” and 
 thus be synonymous with “Δὰν parents.” But such an interpretation 
 is simply impossible. 13 is never used of parev/s, but is always used 
 
436 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. xii. 1-5. 
 
 of a Divine creation. The singular J813 “ ¢hy Creator,” occurs with 
 reference to God in Isaiah xliii. 1, and 823 in the usual participial 
 sense elsewhere in Amos iy. 13, and twice in Isaiah xlv. 7, always in 
 reference to God. The use of the plural here causes no difficulty 
 whatever, see footnote on p. 238. 
 
 2. See remarks on pp. 239-245, and footnotes, also pp. 249, 253, 
 255-272. 
 
 3. See remarks on pp. 243 ff. and footnotes, also pp. 253, 256, 
 202, 272. 
 
 4. See remarks on pp. 245-251 and footnotes, pp. 254, 256, 
 262, 273. The expression on ‘07 byp BWA is there sufficiently 
 
 explained. See on Day the note on p. 247. Some interpreters have 
 ventured to assign to the verb the signification of “ standing,” in the 
 sense of ceasing; appealing to the use of the expression, ΘΙ 412, 
 used of d/indness. But the cases are not parallel. Hence Schmidt 
 and Schelling’s translation, ‘‘¢ie sound of the mill stands (ceases) at 
 the voice of the cock,” or at cockcrowing, and, what is still worse (inas- 
 much as the verb is masculine and the noun for mzd/ is feminine), 
 the translation, “che mill itself ceases,” are to be rejected. dip”. 
 Delitzsch notes (in his Zextkritisch. Bemerk.) that this reading, which 
 is the reading which accords with the directions of the Masora, is 
 found in the Frankf. Cod. and the Cod. Heidenheim. The MSS. 
 in general have 55P", contrary to the Masora. Seen. 3 on p. 247. 
 It might be possible to regard Dip’ as an imp. indicative in o (vid 
 Ges.-Kautzsch, § 72, rem. 2), but the existence of an impf. in a, 
 alongside of an imperf. in z, in the same verb would be anomalous. 
 5. See remarks on pp. 251 ff., 254-5, 256, 257-266, 273-4, and 
 footnotes. The noun O°ANNN is explained as a plural of intensity 
 by Bottcher, § 762. The plural signification of such words is not, 
 
 while the kindred nouns midbeb, all kinds of baskets, pYPAdA, palm- 
 branches, DWPYP, scales, etc., all preserve the plural sense. 
 
 woby mas, See remarks on p. 201. Delitzsch notes that the 
 grave, according to Diodorus Siculus (i. 51), was also called 
 by the Egyptians ‘‘an eternal house”: τοὺς δὲ τῶν τετελευτηκότων 
 τάφους ἀϊδίους οἴκους προσαγορεύουσιν. Knobel observes that ‘ domus 
 eterna” is found in Latin inscriptions (/nscript. ap. Gruter, pp. 790, 
 5; 903, 6; 913. The Targ. Jonathan (on Isaiah xlii. 11) terms the 
 
Ch, xii. 5-8.1 Cretzcal and Grammatical Comm. 437 
 
 tombs of the dead, finndy a2, “their eternal houses. So Tobit 
 (ili, 6) styles the grave τὸν αἰώνιον τόπον. Delitzsch cites the ex- 
 
 pressions, Sanhedrin, 19 a, ΥΥΠῚ ΤῸ ma she cemetery (eternal house) 
 of Husal; phy na ‘Nl, 2771 one eternal house, or cemetery ; phy ΓΔ 13 : 
 within the cemetery ; nd ma ys, “at the door of the cemetery,” Vay- 
 
 yikra rabb., c. xii. See other cases in Glossary under D9 03, These 
 facts prove the truth of the statement on p. 201. The Syriac trans- 
 lator did not, however, like the expression, and accordingly substituted 
 for it σιν daa, “ the house of his toil,” comp. Job iii. 17. There 
 is no reason to suppose that the translator had a different reading 
 before him, but it is worth noticing that a critic of authority has 
 suggested to us that the true reading of chap. ili. 11, may have been 
 Spyn-ns instead of DeYITNN, The suggestion does not, however, 
 commend itself to our judgment. 
 
 6. See remarks on pp. 266-8, especially the footnotes there, and 
 on p. 274. There is no difficulty whatever in the derivation of the 
 verbal forms ΤΠ in the second clause, and 72 in the fourth clause 
 from }'S4, although they are forms properly belonging to a verb 1’. 
 For it is a well-known fact that verbs YY and YY frequently borrow 
 forms from one another. 
 
 7. See remarks on pp. 192, 268, 269. 5.0), Jussive, connected 
 with the N? WWW of the preceding verse. The contrast in 
 meaning between the jussive, which is used in a subjunctive signifi- 
 cation, and the imperf. indicative in the second clause, which speaks 
 the language of fact, has been preserved in our translation. In the 
 Missing Fragment of the Latin Transl. of the Fourth Book of Ezra, 
 edited by R. L. Bensly (Cambridge, 1875), there is a remarkable 
 reference to this passage in verse 78: ‘‘nam de morte sermo est : 
 quando profectus fuerit terminus sententiz ab Altissimo ut homo 
 moriatur, recedente inspiratione de corpore ut dimittatur iterum ad 
 eum qui dedit adorare gloriam Altissimi primum.” Justin Martyr 
 seems to refer to this passage of Koheleth in his Déal. cum Tryph., 
 cap. vi. where he says, ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τὸ ζωτικὸν πνεῦμα Kal οὐκ ἔστιν 
 ἡ ψυχὴ ἔτι, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὴ ὅθεν ἐλήφθη ἐκεῖσε χωρεῖ πάλιν. 
 
 8. It is a matter of considerable doubt whether this verse ought 
 to be regarded as the conclusion of the book itself, or as the begin- 
 ning of the epilogue. ‘There is much to be urged in favour of the 
 former view. We, however, incline to the latter ; inasmuch as the 
 
438 | The Book of Koheleth, [Ch. xii. 8. 
 
 repetition here of the words with which the book opens appears 
 to be a reflection naturally suggested by the stanza with which the 
 previous section closes, rather than designed to be the close of that 
 -section itself. The “amd,” with which verse 9 opens, is thus more 
 naturally explained. Delitzsch, however, maintains the opposite 
 view, and his opinion is probably that of the majority of expositors. 
 
 The abruptness with which the epilogue is introduced, and its 
 didactic character, have led many critics to maintain that it is an 
 addition by a later hand than that of the author of the book. 
 So Doderlein, Schmidt, Bertholdt, Umbreit and Knobel, as well 
 as Krochmal, Fiirst, Graetz, and Renan, who belong to a different 
 category. Knobel assigns the foHowing arguments in defence of 
 this opinion: (1) The entire addition is superfluous, and, in the 
 case of a book like Koheleth, absolutely objectless. (2) Koheleth 
 speaks of himself in this appendix in the third person, while in the 
 book he always speaks of himself in the first person. But note chap. 
 i. 1, 2... This is the more peculiar, since the author, in the epilogue 
 (verse 12), assumes the character of a teacher addressing his hearer 
 as “my son.” (3) The writer of the epilogue regards piety and the 
 fear of God as the great objects of the teaching of the wise. For, 
 although Knobel admits that the fear of God is recommended in 
 the former part of the book, he maintains that such is not the main 
 object for which the work was written. We need not discuss this 
 subject here, as it has been treated sufficiently in the earlier part of 
 our work. (4) Knobel maintains that the teaching of the epilogue 
 on the question of a future judgment does not accord with the doc- 
 trine of the book. But see our remarks on pp. 235, 236. (5) He 
 argues further that the complaint ‘of making many books there ts no 
 end” scarcely comes with propriety from a writer who probably lived 
 in the Persian era. Hence the epilogue, according to Knobel, is to 
 be viewed as the work of a later hand. 
 
 In favour of the epilogue having been composed by the author 
 of the work, Delitzsch justly urges the fact that the Hebrew in 
 which it is written is indeed akin to the language of the Mishna, 
 but decidedly of an earlier type. The phrases used in it are com- 
 mented on, sentence by sentence, in the Talmud, as points in the 
 explanation of which there was considerable uncertainty. Delitzsch 
 moreover adduces the following expressions which occur in the 
 epilogue and in the book itself. In verse 13 the words 8}! DONT 
 
Ch. xii. 8, 9.] Critzcal and Grammatical Comm. 439 
 
 are repeated from chap. v. 6; while the phrase pisibp ΠῚ is formed on 
 the same model as DIN N17 WS YBNI in chap. vi. το. W', which is 
 found twice in the epilogue (in verses 9 and 12), occurs no less than 
 five times in other parts of the book (chap. 11. 15 ; vi. 8, 11; vii. 11, 
 
 16), and only twice in any other part of Scripture (1 Sam. xv. 15 ; 
 Esth. vi. 6). The phrase MSDS Syn in verse τὰ is akin to the phrases 
 
 pwn. Spa in chap. x. 11, and O°5J5 bys, chap. x. 20. In verses 9, 
 10, ΣΙ, after two ideas connected together with the copula, a third 
 idea follows, attached dovvdérws; and the same peculiarity of con- 
 struction is found in chap. i. 7; vi. 5. The unconnected beginning 
 nonp wa (verse ro), is also like 38 N34, chap. 1. 16, εἰς. 
 
 Other peculiarities might be adduced (and the force of what has 
 been already mentioned will be understood more fully when the 
 passage is examined clause by clause), but these are strong argu- 
 ments in favour of the unity of authorship of the book and the 
 epilogue, which has never been called in question until comparatively 
 modern times. Such peculiarities could scarcely be invented. 
 
 9. ἢ). Hitzig observes that this phrase is identical with that in 
 verse 12, save that here it is followed by the indirect narrative, and 
 in verse 12 by the direct. See Glossary. 1M’ is properly a participle. 
 Ewald and Hitzig render it as an adjective (iibrig ist), “ and over and 
 above (this) there is to say,” etc. Gesenius, Knobel, Delitzsch, and 
 others regard it with equal propriety as taken adverbially in combina- 
 tion with the ¥ which follows. The punctuators have put a great 
 distinctive, zakeph gadhol, on the word in order to sever the con- 
 nection with the ¥% Hence we have in our translation rendered 
 “and moreover (note), that,” etc. LXX. καὶ περισσὸν ὅτι. =Symm., 
 (καὶ) ὑπερβάλλον. 
 
 The question arising out of this verse is, who is Koheleth? Ac- 
 cording to our view, “Koheleth,” used here without the article, is 
 contrasted with “the Koheleth” of the preceding verse, which has the 
 article (see pp. 100 ff.). Comp. ch.vii. 27. There would be nothing 
 new in a writer of a later date informing his readers that Koheleth 
 was a wise man, if Solomon were the person referred to, and no fresh in- 
 formation is imparted by the remark that Solomon taught the people 
 knowledge. Both statements would be evident truisms, conveying no 
 additional facts of any kind to the reader. The statements of the 
 verse, too, are peculiarly unsuitable, if supposed to come from the pen 
 
440 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. xii. 9. 
 
 of Solomon himself. Nor do they impart much information if sup- 
 posed to intimate that “the Koheleth,” who is represented in the 
 book before us as “ἃ wise man,” is the same person who composed 
 the comprehensive people’s book, the Proverbs. The expressions 
 appear to us too indefinite to be regarded as a reference to that 
 book. Moreover, every reader of the Book of Koheleth, in which 
 Solomon is unquestionably adduced throughout as the speaker, 
 would certainly be acquainted with the fact that the authorship of 
 the Book of Proverbs was also ascribed to that king. If this be all 
 which the words convey, they may indeed be characterised, with 
 Knobel, as “superfluous” and. ‘ objectless.” Explained, however, 
 in the sense assigned to them on p. ror, the words are neither 
 “superfluous” nor “‘ objectless.” If the author of the book took any 
 share himself in the final redaction of the Book of Proverbs by “the 
 men of Hezekiah” (see pp. 4, 5), and was led, as a result of such 
 work, to apply himself to make a further collection of ‘‘ wise sayings,” 
 the words in question would have far more significance than is ordin- 
 arily assigned to them. We cannot, however, go so far as to assert 
 anything as a fact for which no evidence can be adduced. All 
 traces of the author’s activity outside the limits of the book before 
 us have unfortunately been obliterated by the hand of time, but 
 we nevertheless abide by the interpretation of the verse presented 
 on p. tor. Johnston, in his Zvea¢ise, calls attention to the fact that 
 PM occurs in Prov. xxv. 2, among the first of the proverbs copied 
 out by “‘the men of Hezekiah,” and to the coincidence that in Prov. 
 Xxll. 20, 21 ‘NANI occurs, corresponding with 21N3 in Koheleth, 
 and Nt¥ 8 corresponding also with NOX 37, 
 
 pymns ‘sb ty, Οἱ “199 for 12?, see Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 52, 2, 
 rem. 1. Kalisch, § xliv. 1; Bottcher, Zehrd.,. § 1021 y; comp. 
 vbr, chap. ix. 15. LXX. ὅτι ἐδίδαξε γνῶσιν σὺν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, which 
 reading ΘΝ for DYN Graetz prefers. Aquila and Symm. have λαόν. 
 Field notices that two MSS. (Codd. 23, 253) have in the text καὶ 
 ἐδίδασκε γνῶσιν σὺν tov λαόν, which shows the manner in which 
 Aquila’s readings crept into the LXX. It was, as is known, the 
 habit of Aquila to translate NS when used as a mark of the accusa- 
 tive by σύν with an accusative following, according to a hermeneutic 
 rule of the Talmud. Comp. Derenbourg, Zssai sur ? Hist. et la Geog. 
 de la Palestine d’apres les Talmudes et les autres sources Rabbinigques 
 (Paris, 1867), p. 397. Graetz, Gesch.; ἵν. p. 437. Seen. om eli. ix. 
 
Ch. xii. 9-11.] Crz¢zcal and Grammatical Comme. 441 
 
 TPA TS, LXX. καὶ οὖς ἐξιχνιάσεται κόσμιον παραβολῶν, which 
 gives little sense, but probably ought to be read, as Prof. Delitzsch 
 has suggested to me, κόσμον παραβολῶν = DWP PPA, They must 
 
 2 0 
 also have read {!8. The Syr. translates }I®:by Ζ 3 
 καὶ ἠνωτίσατο, καὶ ἠρεύνησε, Kal κατασκεύασε παροιμίας. See the Glos- 
 sary on }8. On the construction, “9 {PN IPM, see above. On IPN, 
 
 , he heard. Aquila, 
 
 see the Glossary, and on 1270 DUD, the note on chap. 1. 16, p. 320. 
 ro. See remarks on p. ror. ‘P&P3. Comp. 38 37, chap. 
 1. 16. YEN, pleasant words, scarcely “words of comfort,” 
 (Ginsburg), comp. /2NI28, Isaiah liv. 12. LXX. λόγους θελήματος, 
 Aq. λόγους χρείας, in the sense of wseful words.  2)Π5),  Hitzig 
 would prefer to read 2593}, inf. absol., which would be quite possible, 
 but unnecessary. LXX. καὶ γεγραμμένον εὐθύτητος, reading 2303). 
 Ξ ΓΞ can scarcely with Ginsburg be translated by the finite verb, 
 “zerote down,” for being the passive participle it cannot be made to 
 govern NOX 37 as its object. Aquila, the Vulg. and the Syriac, 
 which thus translate, probably read 2103}, if not 303}, 33N3 is the 
 participle taken in the neuter sense, that which was written, VW 
 being the accusative of manner. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 118, 3; Kalisch, 
 § 86, 4. Ο the asyndeton in this verse see note on v. 8, p. 439. 
 11. See remarks on pp. τοῦ ff. M327732. The LXX., Δα. 
 Theod., translate ὡς τὰ βούκεντρα, Gr. Ven., ὥσπερ βουπλῆγες. The 
 word, notes Delitzsch, is one of the three names for goads mentioned 
 in the Jerusalem Gemara (Sanhedrin, x. 1), J207 from 377, c, 93, 29 
 sharpen, to point ; 1950, from 3195, to teach, to exercise in; and Ὁ, 
 from YT, 85» to hold back, repellere. He calls attention to the fact 
 
 that the > is ὦ, or more precisely the full vowel, like Swedish ἃ ; not 
 6, as Gesenius, Ewald and Hitzig have erroneously regarded it, for 
 the so-called light metheg, which under certain circumstances can 
 be changed into an accent (munach, merca, etc.), and kametz- 
 chatuph mutually exclude one another. See Baer’s Metheg-Setsung, 
 § 18 and § 27 end, in Merx’s Archiv. See also Ges.-Kautzsch, § 9, 
 rem. 2. Kautzsch observes that this fact is confirmed by the Baby- 
 lonian punctuation, as well as by the original Jewish grammarians, 
 though not on rational grounds. See Kimchi’s 777 οὶ, ed. Firth, 
 153 4and 182 ὁ. In his Zextkritik. Bem., Delitzsch notes that the 
 
 kametz is great kametz (v1 “0? opposed to ON jp), and can, 
 
442 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. xii. 11. 
 
 therefore, have the accent munach in place of metheg. Gesenius 
 (in Zhes.), Hitzig, Heiligstedt and others explain the word as mean- 
 ing pricks, the words of the wise being so termed because they pene- 
 trate deep into the memory and hearts of men. But, as Delitzsch 
 observes, for pricks, aculei, the Hebrews used 0°$1P, while the 113277 
 were goads used for driving onwards, therefore s¢zmu/z, as the Vulg. 
 renders. He calls attention to the paronomasia between "137 and 
 M3397, On NDP and DY) see Glossary. On the MIBDN ‘72, 
 see remarks on pp. 102 ff. and notes. Heiligstedt explains the term 
 as “lords of collections,” 1.6. sayings which are collected, or collected 
 sentences. Kimchi, Grotius, Michaelis, Schmidt, and others interpret 
 the phrase as collectors of sentences. Not very dissimilarly Tyler, 
 “ editors of collections,’ learned men who collect together proverbs 
 as ears of corn, gathering up the sayings of the sages before them. 
 Graetz (see p. 98) proposes to read D130] NISDS Oya, explaining it, 
 the members of the Sanhedrin have handed them down from one 
 Shepherd. In the former clause he.would also read 5°Y)PN in place 
 of DY), 
 
 Kleinert renders the passage, “‘ words of the wise are as spikes 
 (Spiesse) and as nails driven in as protectors of the treasure- 
 chambers, placed by one Shepherd.” He explains the N5E8 to be 
 equivalent to the O°DDN of 1 Chron. xxvi. 15, 17; Neh. xii. 25, 
 
 meaning s¢orehouses ; and the MDDS by3 to be the keepers, or protec- 
 tors of those treasure chambers of the temple. He calls attention to 
 the fact that the doors of the temple were provided with OD! 
 (9909, 2 Chron. iii. g; ig. 72% in this passage), wails. He 
 considers Koheleth to compare his proverbs to such nails as guard- 
 ing the sacred storehouses ; the meaning being that no person with- 
 out a commission from heaven should touch or add to the sacred 
 collection of proverbs. The writer, according to him, closes his 
 book with a warning like that in Rev. xxii. 18, 19. Kleinert thinks 
 that the incorrect explanation of this verse gave rise to the tradition 
 regarding ‘‘ the fence,” or 4%) which the Jews of later time strove to 
 erect round the Law (see p. 10 and p. 464). The translation and 
 explanation are ingenious, but withal too recondite. As to the 
 “assemblies” which other learned men have dreamed of here, we 
 read nowhere else about them; and the word N15D8, as the cognate 
 BYDDN (1 Chron. xxvi. 15, 17; Neh. xii. 25) shows, is used of codl/ec- 
 
Ch. xii.11,12.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 443 
 
 tions of things, not of persons. See Bottcher, Lehrd., § 719, 8, vol. i. 
 p. 518. 
 00 x) yo 
 
 The Syriac rendering, |Aaam] Gs is explained by Dean R. Payne 
 Smith in his Zhes. Syr., as “‘ gui ad limina sedent, sc. i. consessu sa- 
 pientum.” The Greek translators have all incorrectly regarded bya 
 as a preposition (and so throughout this book, comp. the LXX. ren- 
 dering of chap. v. 12; vil. 123 viii. 8), παρὰ τῶν συνθεμάτων ; Aq., 
 παρὰ τῶν συνταγμάτων ; Symm., παρὰ τῶν συναχθέντων. The Gr. Ven. 
 better, δεσπόται ξυναγμάτων. 
 
 TNS ΠΡ NI. Hitzig reads MY YA), comparing for the con- 
 struction Isaiah li. 12. He understands the whole clause to be, 
 “and like driven-in nails the collected (proverbs), which are presented 
 united asa pasture,” a very extraordinary statement, signifying that 
 the united proverbs afford a pasture in which one may feed. But 
 the traditional punctuation, 798 199, is supported by the LXX., 
 ἐδόθησαν ἐκ ποιμένος ἑνός, the Vulg. and Syr.; and, moreover, Hitzig’s 
 conjecture destroys the very point of the passage, which is to show 
 that the collection of proverbs by Koheleth, as well as the earlier 
 collection by Solomon, is to be traced up to the same Divine origin. 
 See p. 104, 
 
 12. See remarks on p. ros. On 1" see note on verse 8. Hitzig 
 translates the clause, “and for the rest, by these, my son, be in- 
 structed,” ze. by these sayings of Koheleth (verse ro), not by the 
 
 sayings of the wise spoken of in verse 11, hence 9/1, not nes, But, 
 as Delitzsch notes, 2912 does not mean 20 Je instructed, but is used in 
 the sense of 20 be admonished, to be warned, and 13, though it might be 
 connected with a niphal, as in Gen. ix. 11 ; Isa. xxvill. 7, yet after mi 
 is naturally to be connected with it, and with the verb following 
 (comp. Esth. vi. 6, Sofa vii. 7, comp. Ps. xix. 12). The OND 
 is probably what zs more than these things, which have already been 
 mentioned. See note on p. 105 and p. 469. Buxtorf, in his work, De 
 Abbreviaturis Hebraicis, p. 226, notes that the saying common among 
 the Rabbins, TN 72379 IN OND MATA WAT 323, “ my son, attend 
 to the words of the scribes more than to the words of the Law,” is 
 founded upon this text. 
 
 The second part of the verse is rightly subdivided by the Hebrew 
 accentuation into two clauses, “of making many books there 1s n0 
 end, and much study isa weariness of flesh.” The statements are 
 
444 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. xii. 12, 13. 
 
 commented on at p. 105. They are well summed up in the words 
 of C. A. Bode (1777), quoted by Delitzsch, Jolygraphiea nullus est 
 jinis, et polymathia corpus delassat, and are well rendered by the 
 LXX., Aquila, and Symm., τοῦ ποιῆσαι βιβλία πολλὰ οὐκ ἔστι περασμός, 
 καὶ μελέτη πολλὴ κόπωσις σαρκός. It is highiy probable that in an age 
 of mental unrest like that in which Koheleth lived there were writers 
 who ventured to handle the problems touched on in his work in a 
 different spirit from his own, and that the writer may have here had 
 such in view. It is unlikely that there is any reference whatever, as 
 Zirkel supposes, to the philosophical works of the heathen. It is quite 
 possible that the writer may have had in his mind the numerous works 
 of Solomon alluded to in 1 Kings v. 12, 13. Tayler Lewis’s idea, 
 defended at length in his Appendix to Zéckler’s Introd. pp. 31 ff, 
 that OD 5D is here used in the sense of chapters or sections of the pre- 
 ceding books, and that the clause means “of making many chapters, 
 sections, cantos, or books, there is no end,” is utterly unsupported by the 
 usage of the word, and was plainly invented to answer Zockler’s 
 argument in favour of the late date of the book drawn from this 
 allusion to a numerous literature; an argument however, to which 
 only a very subordinate weight is to be allowed on account of the 
 very scanty information we possess on the subject. Hitzig would 
 render the sentence, “of making books without end is a weariness 
 of the flesh.” But Delitzsch remarks that ‘‘ the zomen actionts [10 
 const. | nivY with its object is the subject of the sentence, of which 
 it is said, 72 P'S, 22 2s wzthout end; the assertion of Hitzig that it (in 
 this case) should be }‘? ap !S is not justified, because }2}S is a 
 virtual adjective, exdless, as bw PS, Deut. xxxil. 4, etc., and as such 
 is the predicate of the substantival sentence.” On and, which is 
 not to be rendered, with Luther and Herzfeld, by preaching, see 
 Glossary. 
 
 13. The initial letter in this verse is printed in the Hebrew text 
 large, ΠῚ, probably in order to draw attention to the importance of 
 the passage. ἢ is used here in the sense of the fiza/ word, the 
 sum of the words of Koheleth ; LXX., τὸ τέλος λόγου, τὸ πᾶν ἄκουε; 
 Vulg., jinem loquendi pariter omnes audiamus, and so the Gr. Ven. 
 But 230 for ἌΣ as Delitzsch observes, is contrary to the Hebrew 
 
 style, and moreover in the whole book 037 is used generally of 
 things, not of persons. Hitzig renders: “ Jet us hear the end of the 
 
Ch. xii. 131 Ογιεξίεαζ and Grammatical Comm. 445 
 
 whole book,’ which is possible, but would probably have been other- 
 wise expressed ; Ewald translates (ZeArd., § 291 4), “ the last word 
 of all” is. yw) is regarded by Ewald, ὃ 168 4, as a participle in 
 the sense of audiendum ; but YW) as participle is only auditum, that 
 which is, or has been heard, and can have the sense of audiendum 
 only when that sense suits the context in which it occurs; that is, 
 in cases where the participle can be rendered as well auditum as 
 audiendum, which is not the casein this passage. Comp. Lat. in- 
 victus = zavinczble, yo’ may be here regarded as the pausal form 
 of the perfect, in which case the literal rendering would be “ the end 
 of the matter, all is heard,” or, as Hoelemann, “ enough, all is heard, 
 since, etc.,” for what is contained in the book is the essence of all 
 knowledge, and is summed up in the two following doctrines. It is, 
 however, better to take the word, with Delitzsch, as the participle, 
 and render it as on p. 105. ‘The Syr. translate after the LXX. the 
 ΟΣ by the imperative rendering, “‘ the sum of the matter in its end is, 
 Hear everything!” After “fear God and keep His commandments,” 
 the Syr. adds at the end of the verse, ‘‘for this [namely, ‘keep His 
 
 commandments’] is that which is given by the one Artificer [Ze. 
 n y 
 
 2 Ἢ 90 ο a 7 
 
 Maker] to every man,” PES ee) a Jasco] Yo? aay ἃ δὲς, 
 Ginsburg notes that the YOu Don corresponds exactly with M303 ἘΠ 
 chap. ii. 16. On the circumstantial clause here comp. chap. x. 11; 
 Deut. xxi. 1; see Ewald, § 341 4 “After Ow2 297 737 AID, the 
 athnach stands where we would put a colon, the mediating /occe est 
 is omitted, as in chap. vil. 12.”—Deditasch. 
 
 pixn 52 nt°2, Hitzig explains this sentence as if a negative 
 clause were omitted, “avd not them only, but this ought every man to 
 do.” It scarcely means, as Ewald, Herzfeld, after the Vulg. hoc est 
 enim omnis homo, for “this ἐς the whole man,” that is, the end of man’s 
 earthly existence. Similarly LXX., ὅτι τοῦτο πᾶς ὃ ἄνθρωπος ; and 
 Symm., πᾶς 6 ἄνθρωπος ; and the anonymous transl. mentioned in 
 Field’s Hexapla, τοῦτο yap ὅλος ὃ ἄνθρωπος. So Dale and Bullock, 
 after our A. V., “this is the whole duty of man.” Tyler explains the 
 clause after the formula of the Mishna bon ΠῚ, “this zs the general 
 rule,” or “this is the universal law.” These and other interpreta- 
 tions are all open to the objection urged by Delitzsch, “that 
 
 pin 53 never signifies the whole man or the whole (all) of man. 
 
. 
 
 446 The Book of Koheleth, [Ch. xii. 13, 14. 
 
 It means either al] men (πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, ot πάντες ἄνθρωποι, ot 
 ἄνθρωποι πάντες), as Chap. vil. 2, DINT-bD YD NIT ; or it is equivalent 
 to DIN"23, every man (πᾶς ἄνθρωπος), as chap. ill. 13; v. 18 (LXX. 
 etc., chap. vii. 2, τοῦτο τέλος παντὸς ἀνθρώπου), and it is more than 
 improbable that the more common expression should have been 
 used here in a meaning unéxampled elsewhere.” ‘The clause means 
 literally “¢hzs is every man,” and has been explained “ ¢hzs zs of 
 every man,” 1.6. the duty of every man. Zirkel (p. 50) explains it as 
 a Greecism like τοῦτο παντός ἀνθρώπου (ἔστι χρῆμα). Others supply 
 a verb from the preceding clause. Hitzig supplies 1¥) after the 
 analogy of Deut. xx. 19; and Ginsburg 1%. Similarly Bottcher 
 (Coll. Heb., p. 176), who regards the predicate omitted here as per- 
 fectly intelligible from the connexion of the words. Delitzsch con- 
 siders the construction as most easily explained from the habit in 
 the Shemitic languages of subject and predicate being often simply 
 united together without any connecting link, it being left to the 
 hearer or reader himself to supply the relation between the two. 
 Thus, Ps. cx. 3, 123) WY, “ Zhy people (are) freewill offerings,” i.e. 
 offer themselves willingly ; Ps. cix. 4, npan 18), “and 7 (am) prayer,” 
 i.é. give myself entirely to prayer. So Koh. ili. 19, ‘the children of 
 men are a chance.” So here, “this is every man,” i.e. this is every 
 man’s duty. In Berachoth, 6 ὁ, the question is asked, “what is the 
 meaning of DUNN bo ΠῚΡ R. Eleazar said, ‘the Holy One said, 
 blessed be He! the whole world would not have been created except 
 on account of this (ΠῚ beawa νον)» R. Abba bar Kahana said, that 
 ‘this word is of equal importance as the whole world.’ R. Shimeon 
 bar Azzai said (some say, R. Shimeon ben Zoma), ‘the whole world 
 would not have been created, save for this command to be given.’” 
 
 14. See pp. 105, 106, also p. 236. The article is omitted here 
 with O5%2, while it is expressed in chap. xi. 9, but the “judgment ” 
 referred to is determined by the description which is annexed, and, 
 therefore, does not require the article. 
 
 pbys-bo by Comp. κρίνει ὃ Θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ κιτιλ. Rom. 1]. 16, καὶ 
 φωτίσει τὰ κρυπτὰ κιτιλ. I Cor. iv. 5. The Syriac adds after pbya 
 the gloss jl et 7.6. “and mantfest,” API, The 5Y should not be 
 ignored in translation. It has a special significance here. ‘The 
 athnach, as Delitzsch observes, stands correctly on poy), as that word 
 
Ch. xii. 41  Cretecal and Grammatical Comma. 447 
 
 is not closely connected with what follows; the 7 ON) 2)0-DN 
 
 belongs to the mwyo-53 which precedes, which is accentuated with 
 zakeph katon to emphasize its importance. 
 
 The Book of Koheleth is one of the books referred to in the 
 Masoretic mnemonic PPN’. The books so noted are Isaiah, indicated 
 by the ’, the Minor Prophets by the ἢ (00°, ¢he Twelve), the double 
 P denoting severally Koheleth and Lamentations ()3'P). In read- 
 ing these books in the synagogue, in order to avoid the harsh expres- 
 sions with which they close, the verse preceding the last is required 
 to be repeated by the reader at the end. 
 
ela keene, 
 
 Excursus I.—The Talmud and the Old Testament Canon, with special 
 reference to the Hagiographa, 
 
 Excursus IJ.—On the Talmudic statement that “the Holy Scriptures 
 defile the hands.” 
 
 Excursus III.—‘‘ The Men of the Great Synagogue.” 
 
 Excursus IV.—Grammatical peculiarities of the Book of Koheleth, and 
 Glossary. 
 
 449 GG 
 
πε ΜΚ ΘΙΤΠΘ I. 
 THE TALMUD AND THE. OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 
 
 THE principal passage of the Talmud which speaks of the Canon 
 is as follows. The difficulties experienced with respect to the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes will be found noticed in ὃ 3. 
 
 δι. THE TRADITION AS TO THE CANON :— 
 
 The great passage generally appealed to as giving the opinion 
 of the Synagogue with respect to the Canon occurs in Baba Bathra, 
 14 ὁ and 15a. In order that it may be better understood we have 
 thrown it into paragraphs with explanatory remarks, noting, after the 
 example of Strack,! the questions and objections it contains. 
 
 “ Our Rabbis have handed down (VN 1.6. $3213) that the order 
 of the Prophets (B'S33 by }VD) zs Joshua, and Judges, Samuel and 
 Kings, Jeremiah and- Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve {Minor Pro- 
 phets]. 
 
 “| Question.| Hosea is the first [of the Minor Prophets], because 
 it is written, Zhe beginning of the word of the Lord to Hosea 
 [Hosea ii. 1].. And how [did he speak first] to Hosea? Rabbi 
 Johanan ® says that he was the first of four prophets who prophesied 
 at the same time, and these were, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and 
 Micah. Should then Hosea stand first [ze before Jeremiah, or 
 
 1 See his article on the Kanon des Alten Testaments, in Herzog-Plitt, Real- 
 Encyklopadie f. protest. Theologie und Kirche. 2te Aufl. Band vii. (1880). 
 
 2 Jeremiah occupies this place because his work contains many chapters which 
 are a continuation of the history contained in the Second Book of the Kings. 
 Considerable variation prevails as to the order in which the books of the greater 
 prophets follow one another in Hebrew MSS. See Strack, pp. 433, 441. It 
 may be well here to note that the Baraitha itself (" Π), i.e. the text of the old 
 tradition, is given above in italics in order to distinguish it from the observations 
 made thereon by the later Talmudists. 
 
 3 That is R. Johanan ben Nappacha. Strack notes that he was brother-in-law 
 of the Resh Lakish. 
 
 451 
 
452 WExCUuy Sus 1, ὦ τὸ 
 
 before Isaiah as the first of the four contemporaneous prophets] at 
 the commencement (8W72 yornd A274 ) ? [ RepZy.] Forasmuch as 
 his prophecy was written (02) 937 923 MN8133 2°ND7;"") along with 
 Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and that Haggai, Zechariah and 
 Malachi are the end of the prophets, it was reckoned along with them 
 QnA πὸ wn). [Odjection.| But it might have been written by 
 itself (πὸ mans), and (have been placed) at the beginning [2.e. 
 before Jeremiah]? [efZy.] Because it is so small it might be lost 
 (D399 WITT TN). [ Question.] Then Isaiah (lived) before Jeremiah 
 and Ezekiel, (therefore) Isaiah stands first at the beginning (before 
 both)? [efZy.] Forasmuch as (the Book of) Kings ends with de- 
 struction, and all Jeremiah is about destruction, and the beginning 
 of Ezekiel is about destruction, and its close about consolation, and 
 all Isaiah is about consolation, we join destruction to destruction, 
 and consolation to consolation [ze. the Book of Isaiah is for this 
 reason placed according to the Jewish order immediately after the 
 Books of the Kings]. 
 
 “The order of the Kethubim {the Hagiographa] zs: Ruth! and the 
 Look of the Psalms, and Job, and Proverbs, Koheleth, the Song of 
 Songs, and Lamentations, Daniel, and the Roll of Esther, Esra, and 
 the Chronicles. 
 
 ‘‘{ Question.| And if any one says Job was in the days of Moses, 
 therefore Job should be first at the commencement (of the Hagio- 
 grapha)? [eply.] It [the book of Job] begins with misfortune, we 
 do not (thus) begin [a division of the Scriptures]. [Odzection.] Ruth 
 even (tells of) misfortune [to wit, famine and exile, the death of 
 Elimelech and his sons]. [ZeZy.] It is misfortune which has a 
 happy end (AS m2 MNT MND 81). For Rabbi Johanan says, 
 Wherefore was her name called Ruth? Because David descended 
 from her who refreshed [ΠῚ Σ᾽, lit. caused him to drink] the Holy 
 One, blessed be He! with songs and praises.” 
 
 “{ Question.| And who wrote them [z.e. the various books of Holy 
 Scripture]? [Δ δ». Moses wrote his book and the section concerning 
 Balaam [containing, as Rashi notes, “his prophecy and his parables, 
 
 1 It is placed thus at the beginning because it closes with the genealogy of 
 David, the author of the majority of the Psalms. 
 
 2 This derivation of NV from Heb. NY), Chald. and Syriac ‘Y), is ingenious, 
 but, of course, not the real etymology of the word. 
 
δι. The Talmud and the Old Testament Canon. 453 
 
 although they are not necessary parts of Moses and his Law, and the 
 series of his doings”]. Joshua wrote his book and the eight verses of 
 the Law [Deut. xxxiv. 5-12]. Samuel wrote his book, and Judges, and 
 Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms with the assistance of [or, in 
 
 the place of, *°Y, ze. °T by 1 ten elders, with the help of Adam the 
 first [part of Ps. cxxxix. is ascribed to him, especially vv. 15, 16, 17], 
 with the help of Melchizedek [ Ps. cx.], and with the help of Abraham 3 
 [Ps. lxxxix.], Moses [Ps. xc.], Heman [ Ps. Ixxxviii.], Jeduthun [Pss. 
 Xxxix., Ixii., Ixxvii.], Asaph [Pss. 1. lxxili.-Ixxxiii.], and the three 
 sons of Korah [Pss. xlii-xlix., Ixxxiv., Ixxxv., Ixxxvil, Ixxxviil.]. 
 Jeremiah wrote his book, and the Books of Kings and Lamentations. 
 Hezekiah and his college wrote (2 2 pwd) 125 INY'D) APN) Isaiah, 
 Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Koheleth. The Men of the Great 
 Synagogue wrote (#}9°D 373) 14n3 ποὺ ΤΠ nbs WIN) Ezekiel and 
 the Twelve (Minor Prophets), Daniel, and the Roll of Esther. Ezra 
 
 1 Ethan the Ezrahite COIS), the author of Ps. Ixxxix., is identified (Bada 
 Bathra, 15 a) with Abraham, on the supposition that Abraham is referred to in 
 Isaiah xli. 2, ‘‘ who hath raised up the righteous man from the east (Π}}5)." 
 
 2 Strack and other scholars render 7° by **qwith the help of,” and the phrase is often 
 
 used in that signification. But it is also used in the sense of ‘‘27 the room of,” and so 
 Bloch explains the phrase in this place in his Stadien zur Gesch. der Sammlung der 
 altheb. Lit. pp. 126 f. He quotes Shekalim, i. 6, 7, 1 Sv yy Sy nes a Sy Sowa 
 yap V5 jp 7 by Tay, ‘‘he who pays the temple-shekel on behalf of a 
 woman, for a poor person, for a servant, for one under age, is free from the 
 exchange” charged on such occasions, So in Aegilla, 24 a, YAN JOP 717 ON1 
 vy by PTAW ID VIN, and if he ἐς young, his father or his teacher shall do τέ in his 
 stead.” Wence Bloch explains the passage above to mean that David wrote the 
 Psalms in question for the ten elders whose names are found mentioned in their 
 titles, 2.6. he put these Psalms in their mouths, and wrote, as it were, from the 
 several standpoints which those older patriarchs might have been supposed to have 
 severally occupied. If this be the meaning of the passage, it shows that the 
 Talmud recognised such literary devices as perfectly lawful and in no way incon- 
 sistent with Divine inspiration. 
 
 = pwr is the mnemonic word (j!5"D) for the books whose names follow: ἡ for 
 Tsaiah, 2 for own Proverbs, Δ for DYVWIN WY the Song of Songs, and P for 
 Koheleth. 
 
 4 The mnemonic 373p or 313) is very peculiar, as the letters of which it is 
 composed are not the initials as in the former case, but are in most cases medials. 
 Strack and others explain it thus, P for Sst), Ezekiel, ἃ ἴον WY DW, the 
 Twelve (Minor Prophets), 1 for Daniel (the only zuitia/ letter used in the mne- 
 monic) and ἃ for NDS N31, the Roll of Esther. 
 
484 Egoursus  ὁ 
 
 wrote his book and the Genealogies (59%) of the Book of Chronicles 
 down to himself.!_ This is a proof in favour of Rab; for Rab Jehudah 
 said on the authority of Rab, that Ezra did not go up from Babylon 
 until he had written out his genealogy, and then he went up. And 
 who completed it [the Book of Ezra]? Nehemiah ben Hachaliah. 
 Mar [supposed by some to have been the author of this Baraitha, or 
 supplementary addition to the Mishna] says, Joshua wrote his book, 
 and eight verses of the Law. The tradition is, as one might say, that 
 Joshua wrote the eight verses of the Law from, and Moses the servant 
 of the Lord died there |Deut. xxxiv. 5]. . . . And Joshua wrote 
 his book ; and the writing, and Joshua the son of Nun the servant of 
 the Lord died [Joshua xxiv. 29 ff.], Eleazar finished it. And the 
 writing, and Eleazar the son of Aaron died [705. xxiv. 33], Phinehas 
 finished. Samuel wrote his book. And the writing avd Samuel died 
 [τ Sam. xxv. 1 ff], Gad the seer finished and Nathan the prophet. 
 
 This passage in the Talmud (as may be seen from its perusal zz 
 extenso) does not profess to impart information respecting the manner 
 in which the Old Testament canon was formed. It does, however, 
 contain a list of all the books regarded as canonical, and proposes 
 to give information as to the mode in which they assumed their 
 present shape and appearance. But it is taken for granted that 
 throughout the books referred to are books saz generis, books of 
 authority, whether handed down originally in writing, or committed 
 to the memory of faithful disciples, and thus transmitted to posterity 
 long prior to the time when the prophecies alluded to were written 
 in a book and arranged in the order in which they now appear in 
 the Jewish Scriptures. 
 
 It is clear, as Strack observes, that the sense of the passage above 
 entirely depends upon the signification assigned to the word 243, 
 to write, which in one form or other occurs so frequently within its 
 compass.” Herzfeld has strangely endeavoured to show that it is 
 used here in five distinct significations, but his views on this point 
 have rightly been rejected by scholars. It is also putting violence 
 on the word to regard it, without some qualifying statement in the 
 
 15 ἽΝ. Rashi explains the clause to mean ‘‘as far as his (Ezra’s) own gene- 
 
 alogy. But R. Chananel says that 15 here stands for 154, the first word of 
 2 Chron. xxi. 2, which verse Ezra had prefixed to his own genealogy. See Levy, 
 Neuheb. u. Chald. W.B., 5. ν. ANS. 
 
 2 See his article on the Canon, p. 418. 
 
§ 1. Zhe Talmud and the Old Testament Canon. 455 
 
 context, as signifying to write in, or to introduce into the canon.! 
 Strack rightly maintains that Rashi in his Comm. on the passage in 
 Baba Bathra, has given the correct interpretation of the word. A 
 summary of Rashi’s comments as given in Buxtorf’s Zzderias, p. 91, 
 will be found in pp. 5,6. But it may be well to give here a full 
 translation of his remarks. They are also cited in Strack’s article. 
 “The college of Hezekiah wrote the Book of Isaiah, for Isaiah 
 was put to death by Manasseh, but the prophets wrote their 
 books first before [z.e. not until immediately before] their death 
 anya sab xd ED Dans ONIN ὉΠ NY) | The Men of the 
 Great Synagogue, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Zerubbabel, Morde- 
 cai, and their comrades, wrote the Book of Ezekiel. I know not 
 any other reason why Ezekiel himself did not write it [his book], 
 except that his prophecy was not designed to be written outside (of 
 Palestine). They wrote therefore his prophecies after they went to 
 the [Holy] Land. And so with the Book of Daniel who lived in 
 exile, and with the Roll of Esther. The Twelve Prophets, because 
 their prophecies were short, did not write them, (that is) each prophet 
 (did not write) his own book. When Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi 
 
 went up (from Babylon), and saw (npendy wap mw iw) that 
 
 1 The word seems, however, to be used in that signification in Megi//. 7 a, where we 
 
 read: ΠΥ and ΟΠ ἼΠΟΝ ond Andy [in place of "19, Levy, Newhed. 
 W-.B., 5. v. gives from a MS. the reading 18D2] 36 snan> son vd indy 
 [Levy reads 15, omitting Spo] NPD 1 ἸΝΥῸΦ sy oar xd why ον 
 mwa) IND ANDw AD NN AND ADDI pdt NXt sands ANIA sans 
 mbyo3 ans ΤῸ BDA ὯΝ 223 ANDY 7D It ΠῚ, “Esther sent to them, 
 ‘to the learned men [the Scribes], write [copy] me for the generations (to come),”’ 
 or, according to Levy’s reading, ‘‘ write me in the book,”’ z.e. receive me (my book) 
 into the Canon. ‘‘ They sent to her, Have I not written for thee three (D'U*2W— 
 pointed as pryhbyi, Proy. xxii. 20—is here interpreted owirbyi, threefold] 
 but not four [which Levy explains in reference to the three divisions of the Canon, 
 viz. Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa, to which no fourth part could be 
 added]; until that they discovered [as authority] for it [or, for her, according to 
 Levy’s reading] a passage written in the Law, ‘ wrd/e this as a remembrance in the 
 book {Exod. xvii. 17],’ ‘ write this’ (MNT) that which is written here and in the 
 Second Law [Deut. xxv. 19]; ‘as a remembrance’ (})13%), that which is written 
 in the Prophets [1 Sam. xv. 2 ff.}; ‘2 @ do0k’ (15D3), that which is written in 
 the Roll [Levy reads SNDS nbina, in the Roll of Esther|;” the latter referring 
 to the fact that the destruction of Haman the Agagite, 7.6. an Amalekite, is 
 recorded in the Book of Esther. But even in this passage it is the context alone 
 which gives the peculiar significance to the verb ‘‘ fo write.” 
 
456 FEL cursis Ve Sn. 
 
 the Holy Spirit was departed [from Israel], and that they were 
 the last prophets, then they rose up and wrote their prophecies [ze. 
 those of the Minor Prophets], and they united together the short 
 prophecies, and they made a large book (151°S) OF*NiS837 ANS 
 D172 BD DINWY) DEY mp M122), that they [the books of the lesser 
 prophets] might not perish because of their small size.” 
 
 The sense of the passage in the Talmud evidently is, that the 
 college of Hezekiah first wrote out and edited for popular use, copies 
 of the Books of Isaiah, the Proverbs, the Song of Songs and 
 Koheleth. In the case of the Book of Proverbs, there was added 
 in the edition thus issued, a number of additional aphorisms, which 
 either had not been written down previously, though preserved 
 by having been committed to memory, or actually found by these 
 early editors existing in separate manuscripts. These proverbs were 
 added to the original book drawn up by Solomon (Prov. xxv. 1). 
 A similar work was performed at a later period by the Men of the 
 Great Synagogue for the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel, and ot 
 the Minor Prophets, as well as for the Book of Esther ; the contents 
 of these several books having been in former times, committed to 
 memory by disciples interested in the preservation of these sacred 
 relics of antiquity. The preservation in this manner of important 
 works need occasion no surprise, since we know that the body of 
 tradition, comprehended under the name of the Mishna (“‘ the Second 
 Teaching”) was actually in existence, and taught orally to Jewish 
 scholars, long prior to the time when it was committed to writing 
 by ΒΕ. Jehudah the Holy ; and moreover that the Mishna itself only 
 comprehended the heads of the various subjects treated of more fully 
 in the Gemara (or, “ Perfection”), which, though committed to writing 
 several centuries later than the earlier portion of the Talmud, yet 
 contains within its compass material which dates as far back (if not 
 further) as many ordinances found in the earlier collection. Neither 
 the Mishna nor Gemara would have been committed to manuscript, 
 had not the circumstances of the era imperatively demanded the 
 adoption of such a course, which had been long opposed by the 
 Jewish scholars (see p. 482). 
 
 Bloch calls attention to the fact that the Baraitha already quoted 
 from Baba Bathra was not observed by the strictest Talmudists. 
 The order of the Scriptures followed in most Hebrew MSS. is not 
 that laid down in this part of the Talmud, though it is found in a few 
 
§ 1. Zhe Talmud and the Old Testament Canon. 4.57 
 
 MSS. See Strack, p. 441. For this and other reasons, Bloch main- 
 tains in his Stwdzen (pp. το ff.), that this Baraitha was only the private 
 opinion of some individual teacher, the directions in which, not being 
 backed up by sufficient authority, were not regarded as binding. 
 
 The Tosafoth (a commentary on the Talmud) on Baba Bathra, 
 15 a, says: ‘‘ Hezekiah and his college wrote Isaiah: because Heze- 
 kiah caused them to busy themselves with the Law, the matter was 
 called after his name. But he [Hezekiah] did not write it (the Book 
 of Isaiah) himself, because he died before Isaiah, since Manasseh, 
 his successor, killed Isaiah.” The words are: 1303 ἸΠΜ) ΟῚ ΠΡῚΠ 
 x2 sim Sas ow Sy sadn spa mina proyd ond ona mpm vad myer 
 
 : tmp ΛΠ IND JA ΠΟ myer DTP nd Nv ind 
 
 Fiirst, in his work (Der Kanon des alt. Test. nach den Ueberilie- 
 Jerungen in Talmud und Midrasch), maintains that the Hezekiah 
 mentioned in Bada Bathra as having written or edited the Books of 
 Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Koheleth, was Hananya ben- 
 Hiskiya ben-Garon, or (if the name be transcribed after the fashion 
 of the English Bible), Hananiah the son ot Hezekiah the son of 
 Garon, who lived in the time of Hillel and Shammai, in the century 
 before Christ. The Talmud (S/add. 13 4), says that “ Hananya ben 
 Hiskiya ben Garon and his college” (ΠῚ A*Ptn 13 133N) wrote 
 the Megillath Taanith, or the Chronicles of the Fasts, in which the 
 later festivals are pointed out on which fasting was forbidden. The 
 authority of Hananya on questions connected with the interpretation 
 of scripture was held in high repute.!_ He is said to have been visited 
 in his old age by Hiilel and Shammai and their disciples in the upper 
 chamber of his house, where with his assistance eighteen enactments 
 forbidding all intercourse with the Gentiles were drawn up. This story 
 contains an anachronism (see p. 457). But as Hananya is said to 
 have, after much study, harmonised the contradictions supposed to 
 exist between the Book of Ezekiel and the Pentateuch,? and mention 
 is made of his “College,” Fiirst maintains that that body is to be 
 identified with “‘ Hezekiah and his college.” Fiirst’s ideas on this 
 
 1 On Hananya ben Hiskiya, see Bacher’s interesting articles on Die Aggada der 
 Tannaiten, in Graetz’s ii a Siir Gesch. u. Wissenschaft des Fudenthums, 
 for March, 1882, p. 118. 
 
 2 The asserted contradictions are enumerated in Menachoth, 45a, where the 
 remark is made that Elijah will explain them when he comes. They consist 
 
 chiefly in differences between the various measures mentioned in connexion with 
 the offerings spoken of in Ezekiel xlvi., and those commanded in the Law of Moses. 
 
458 EZUTSUSIN” VN, 
 
 point have been generally rejected by scholars. ‘The use of the 
 phrase 1N¥'D), and of the name “Hezekiah” in both cases, 15 a 
 slender foundation on which to erect such a superstructure. The 
 word Ὁ denotes @ society of any kind, whether it be a body of 
 learned men, or of youths under instruction, or even of soldiers. 
 The proper names moreover are far from identical. According to 
 the ordinary reading of the Talmud (.Shadd. 13 6), the teacher referred 
 to was Hananya, whose father’s name was Hezekiah. But, accord- 
 ing to Graetz (Gesch, der Juden, vol. iii. pp. 494-502), his proper 
 name was Eleazar, his father’s name being Hananya and his grand- 
 father’s Hezekiah. 
 
 The Jewish synod, in which the eighteen enactments were passed 
 forbidding all intercourse with the Gentiles, was an assembly in 
 which the doctors of the law belonging to the school of Shammai 
 were more numerous than those belonging to that of Hillel, and in 
 which the decision of the majority was finally accepted at the point 
 of the sword! The Synod met in the stormy days which preceded 
 the final rebellion of the Jews against the Roman power in the days 
 of Trajan. The Megillath Taanith, of which Hananya ben Hiskiya 
 ben Garon was the author, was, according to Graetz, directly con- 
 nected with that insurrection. An attempt was made about the 
 same time to strike out of the Canon certain books which seemed 
 to contradict passages in the Law of Moses, and the Book of 
 Ezekiel was retained in the Canon mainly through the strenuous 
 exertions of Hananya, Shammaite though he was. In consequence, 
 however, of the efforts of the national party, a ban was placed, 
 probably not for the first time, upon the study of apocryphal writings 
 and of Greek learning in general, which had up to that time been 
 cultivated by many Jews. 3 
 
 § 2. THe THREEFOLD DivIsION OF THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES.—The 
 triple division of the Jewish Scriptures is mentioned by Josephus 
 in his work Against Apion (Lib. i. § 8.), written about A.D. 100. 
 
 1 See Jerusalem Talmud, Shadédath, i. 6; also Talmud Babli, Shabbath, 13 δ. 
 
 ? Dr. Μ. Joél, in his Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des zweiten 
 christl. Fahrhunderts (1. Der Talmud und die griechische Sprache), maintains that 
 the opposition to Greek learning and to the Greek translation of the Scriptures, 
 dates really from the time of the great rebellion against Trajan. It is highly 
 probable that the hatred against the Greek language existed at a much earlier 
 
 period, but that it was revived in the era referred to, when the Romans stepped 
 into the position of the Greeks as oppressors of the Jewish nation. See n. on p. 38. 
 
§ 2. The Threefold Division of the Scriptures. 459 
 
 He speaks there of the Jewish canon, not as a canon recently agreed 
 upon, but one recognised as authoritative for centuries. “ For 
 we have not myriads of books, differing with and opposing one 
 another, but twenty-two books only, containing the history of all 
 past time, which are justly believed to be divine (τὰ δικαίως θεῖα 
 πεπιστευμένα), and of these five are those of Moses, which contain 
 the laws and the tradition concerning the generation of men (καὶ τὴν 
 τῆς ἀνθρωπογονίας παράδοσιν) down to his own death. This period of 
 time embraces nearly three thousand years. But, from the death 
 of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the king of the Persians after 
 Xerxes, the prophets who came after Moses wrote the events which 
 occurred in their time in thirteen books ; but the four remaining 
 books contain hymns to God (ὕμνους εἰς τὸν Θεόν), and precepts of 
 life for men (καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου). But, from the time 
 of Artaxerxes down to our own time, all events have indeed been 
 written ; but they (the books) are not deemed worthy of the same 
 credit as those before them, because there was not the exact suc- 
 cession of the prophets (τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν). 
 
 The number 22, here assigned to the Sacred Books, is generally sup- 
 posed to have been chosen by Josephus as being that of the letters of 
 the Hebrew alphabet (as suggested by Jerome in his Prolog. galeatus). 
 Strack, however, considers Josephus simply to have followed in this 
 particular the Alexandrian manner of reckoning. The thirteen 
 books are counted up in the following way—(r1) Joshua, (2) Judges 
 and Ruth, (3) τ and 2 Samuel, (4) 1 and 2 Kings, (5) Job, (6) 
 Isaiah, (7) Jeremiah, and the Lamentations, (8) Ezekiel, (9) The 
 Twelve Minor Prophets, (10) Daniel, (11) Ezra and Nehemiah, (12) 
 τ and 2 Chronicles, (13) Esther. The four books of hymns and 
 ethics are the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles.! 
 
 1 The ordinary arrangement of the books in the Hebrew canon is in three great 
 divisions ; I. ‘‘ The Law,” called also, ‘‘ the five-fifths of the Law,” namely, 
 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. II. The Prophets—(a) the 
 earlier Prophets : Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings (reckoned alto- 
 gether as forming four books), (4) the later Prophets : Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 
 Twelve, z.c. the Twelve Minor Prophets (all the later Prophets being thus regarded 
 as comprising four books). III. The Hagiographa (or Holy Writings), or Kethti- 
 bim (the Writings), consisting of (a) the Poetical Books : Psalms, Proverbs and Job, 
 (5) the five Megilloth or ‘‘ Rolls,” to wit, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, 
 Koheleth, Esther, and (c) the three books. which have no common name, Daniel, 
 
 Ezra and Nehemiah (the two latter being counted as one), and 1 and 2 Chronicles, 
 reckoned also as one book, thus making in all twenty-four books. 
 
460 POCUI SUS Aa 2. 
 
 The statement of Josephus agrees substantially with what Jerome 
 says in his preface to the Book of Kings, which preface is commonly 
 known as the Prologus galeatus. Jerome sought to discover a 
 reference to the twenty-two Hebrew letters in the twenty-two books 
 of the Old Testament, and saw also a connexion between the fact 
 that in the Hebrew Alphabet five letters have a double form, the 
 second exclusively employed at the end of a word (1, 0, |, ἢ, 7,) and 
 the fact that in the Old Testament there are five books which are 
 double, namely, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chron., 
 r and 2 Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), and lastly, Jeremiah with his 
 Lamentations. The order of the several books mentioned here 
 by Jerome as that adopted by the Jews of his time, is somewhat 
 peculiar. First, the “‘Thorath” or the five Books of Moses. Next 
 the Prophets, comprehending Joshua, Judges and Ruth (as one 
 Book), τ and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
 the Twelve Prophets. Thirdly, the Hagiographa, namely, Job, 
 Psalms, the three books ascribed to Solomon, viz. Proverbs, Eccle- 
 siastes (Accoeleth), and the Song of Songs, Daniel, 1 and 2 Chroni- 
 cles, Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), Esther, which is the last in his 
 arrangement, thus making in all 22. He notes, however, that some 
 reckon Ruth and the Lamentations among the Hagiographa, and 
 thus make 24 books, corresponding to the four and twenty elders 
 of the Book of the Revelation. Jerome further observes that the 
 double books were often (a flerisgue) counted separately,! thus 
 making the number of books, 27, as is now generally done. In 
 his Preface to the Book of Daniel he seems to prefer reckoning 
 the books as 24 ; namely, 5 in the Law, 8 in the Prophets, and τι in 
 the Hagiographa. 
 
 Inasmuch as Graetz maintains that the Canon of the Old Testa- 
 ment was not finally settled until the Synod of Jamnia (A.D. go), he 
 is forced to question the conclusions usually drawn from the state- 
 ments of Josephus. According to Graetz’s contention, the Book of 
 Job could not have formed one of the historical books referred to 
 by Josephus. He denies that Ruth and Lamentations were reckoned 
 parts of Judges and Jeremiah. He would regard Ruth as one of the 
 historical books alluded to by Josephus, and transfer Job to the 
 third division, as one of the books which contained “ hymns to God 
 
 1 But in this latter point Jerome is incorrect. See Strack, pp. 437-8. 
 
§ 2. Lhe Threefold Division of the Scriptures. 461 
 
 and precepts of life.” Inasmuch as Graetz maintains that the Canticles 
 cannot be included under such a description, he regards that book 
 to have been excluded from the canon of Josephus. He has his 
 doubts whether Koheleth was included therein or not, inasmuch as 
 the four books described by Josephus might be Job, Psalms, Proverbs, 
 and Lamentations, or Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Graetz’s opinions on this point have not met with the approval 
 of the critics. The testimony of Jerome shows that in his day the 
 Books of Ruth and Lamentations were regarded by some as forming 
 part respectively of the Books of Judges and Jeremiah. It must 
 be borne in mind that, in counting the books as 22, Jerome followed 
 the authority of the LXX. There is nothing strange in the idea 
 that Josephus should have regarded the Book of Job as historical, 
 though, as he nowhere directly refers to that book, we cannot be 
 certain as to his ideas regarding it. The Book of Job is cited by 
 Philo as one of the saered books. The main object which Josephus 
 had in view in his work Against Apion, was to point out the his- 
 torical faithfulness of the Jewish records, and this naturally led him 
 to speak of the historical and prophetical books as one class. They 
 are alluded to, moreover, only in general terms in one simple sen- 
 tence, ‘‘the prophets after Moses wrote down what was done in their 
 day, in thirteen books;” and the critic who ventures to deny that 
 such a description does not suit the Book of Job as well as the 
 volume of the Twelve Minor Prophets is not deficient in hardiness. 
 
 The evidence of Josephus is decisive in favour of the view that 
 the canon of the Old Testament had been closed long previous to 
 his time. For, in the clauses which immediately follow the pas- 
 sage already quoted, Josephus remarks: “but it is evident, indeed, 
 how we believe in our own Scriptures. For, although so long 
 a period has already elapsed, no one has dared to add or to take 
 away anything from them, or to change them. But it is implanted in 
 all Jews directly from their very birth to esteem these books as 
 oracles of God (Θεοῦ δόγματα), and to abide by them, and if neces- 
 sary, even to die for them.” And Josephus contrasts the manner 
 in which the Greeks regarded their literature with the reverence 
 exhibited by the Jews towards the Sacred Writings. 
 
 Although modern criticism has made it impossible to endorse in 
 all their details the statements of Josephus on this subject, yet it 
 may safely be maintained that he would not have ventured to use 
 
462 πον το ΟΝ 2. 
 
 such language had the Canon of the Old Testament been only 
 finally settled at the Synod of Jamnia (A.D. go). 
 
 The only real argument which Graetz adduces in support of his 
 view is that the Palestinian canon of the Prophets consisted only of 
 eight books. In defence of this assertion he adduces the statement 
 in Baba Bathra, 13 ὦ, that “ Boethos ben Zonin had the eight 
 Prophets in one volume.” ! These eight prophets Graetz recounts 
 as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 
 Twelve Minor Prophets. The argument seems to be a fetztio 
 principit, for it is impossible to prove that both Ruth and Lamenta- 
 tions were not included in the volume as part and parcel of Judges 
 and Jeremiah, which the statements of Josephus, Melito, Origen and 
 Jerome seem to show was an ordinary custom. The number 6207, 
 on which Graetz lays such great weight proves nothing, as the same 
 enumeration of “eight books of the Prophets,” is found in Origen 
 and Jerome. 
 
 Following up the hint thrown out by de Wette, that in the ex- 
 pression contained in Dan. ix. 2, “I understood by the books” 
 (O° D2 N32), reference is made to a collection of the prophetic 
 writings in one volume, Graetz draws an important argument in 
 favour of his peculiar views from the fact that in the old Talmudic 
 writings the prophetic books, as distinguished from the Law, were 
 called ODED (Zhe Writings), which name was only used to denote 
 the books used publicly as lessons in the synagogue, and therefore 
 excluded the Hagiographa, which, with the exception of the Book 
 of Esther, were not thus used. 
 
 But Delitzsch has well pointed out that in Baba Bathra, i. 6, all 
 the canonical books, without exception, are designated by the appel- 
 lation ΡΠ sans, “ Holy Scriptures,” and also that in Afegilla, i. ὃ ; 
 111. 1, and Shadbbath, 115 ὦ, all the sacred books, with the exception 
 of the Thorah, are spoken of under the term DED, “216 books.” In 
 Shabbath 115 a, a distinction is made between the Holy Scriptures 
 (ΡΠ %3N3) in which they read and those in which they do not read 
 (JI PUP PRY P31 172 pw 2), that is, as Rashi expounds the clause, 
 
 1 YON 5 by ‘SD PPIAITID DN) πο y) Viney poy ja ΘῈ 23 πὸ 
 that is, TTY 12 ahs sae) by TMND. The Boethus (Dina, Bonds) mentioned 
 here was, according to Miiller (Soferzm, p. 44), not the founder of one of the sects 
 of the Sadducees (see p. 131), spoken of in the Adoth R. Nathan, chap. v., but a 
 well-known teacher of the Law, who lived in the time of R. Jehudah the First. 
 
§ 2. The Threefold Division of the Scriptures. 463 
 
 between the books out of which the haphtaroth, or lessons for public 
 service, are read, and the books from which no haphtarah, or lesson, 
 is selected! 
 
 The triple division of the Jewish Scriptures was distinctly referred 
 to by our Lord under the name of “the Law of Moses, and the 
 Prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke xxiv. 44). But it must be noted 
 that it is by no means certain that all the books of the third division 
 in general are included under the heading ‘‘ Psalms.” It is quite 
 possible that our Lord referred only to the Book of the Psalms as 
 being the most important book of that division, and the one in which 
 the most numerous Messianic prophecies are found. See the important 
 observations of Strack on the New Testament evidence in favour of 
 the Canon, on p. 427 of his article. In the New Testament the 
 Jewish Scriptures as a whole are usually spoken of as “the Law and 
 the Prophets,” or as ‘“‘ Moses and the Prophets,” even in cases in 
 which quotations are made from the Book of the Psalms, which was 
 included in the third division or Hagiographa (Matt. v. 17 ; vii. 12; 
 KL 133 xxii. 40; Luke xvi. 16, 29, 31; John i. 45; Acts xii. ΣῈ; 
 39, 40; XXiv. 14; xxviii. 23; Rom. iii. 21). All the books of the 
 Old Testament are also sometimes spoken of under the title of “‘ the 
 Law” (John x. 34; xii. 34; xv. 25; 1 Cor. xiv. 21), although the 
 Mosaic writings are in general specially referred to under that name. 
 
 A like usage may be observed in the Talmud. Though the 
 Pentateuch is specially designated as the Thorah, or “ Law,” the 
 Holy Scriptures in general are sometimes alluded to under that 
 appellation. Thus, in Jebamoth, 7 ὁ; Pesachim, 92 a, the Books of 
 Chronicles are spoken of as Thorah, and so with regard to the Book 
 of Proverbs in Adoda Zarah, 58 6, while the expression 10330 ΠῚ Π, 
 the Written Law, is commonly used of all the Old Test. writings. 
 Bloch has (Studien, p. 7) also given further instances. 
 
 The writers of the Old Test. Scriptures are generally designated 
 in the New Test. as “prophets” (Luke xxiv. 25; Acts xill. 27; 
 
 1 Dr. Joel Miiller in his A/asechet Soferim, der Talmudische Tractat der Schreiber 
 (Leipzig, 1878), pp. 41 ff., has pointed out that the Mishna often designates the 
 Nebiim [the Prophets] and the Kethubim [the third division or Hagiographa] 
 by the one and the same expression, and observes that, while the old Tanaites 
 according to the Mishna (Yadaim, iii. 5), designate all the Scriptures by the 
 expressions WIP 33, Holy Scriptures, and also DAN, the Baraitha and 
 Tosefta (R. Hashana, ii.) speak of the collection of the Prophets and Hagiographa 
 as strictly separated from one another. 
 
464 ΠῊ ἢ ον ἘΠῚ 1808. 
 
 Rom. 1. 2; xvi. 26; Heb. i. 1), and in the Old Testament, Ezra 
 (chap. ix. 10 ff.), quotes the directions of the Pentateuch as the 
 commands of ‘the prophets.” One may compare with this usage 
 the passages cited by Bloch from the Targums and Midrashim 
 (Studien, p. 12) in which the writers of the Hagiographa are similarly 
 designated, and their sayings ascribed to Divine inspiration. 
 
 The testimony of Ben Sira to the Jewish canon has been already 
 discussed briefly on pp. 40 ΠῚ For a satisfactory discussion of the 
 various modes of enumeration of the books of the Old Testament as 
 forming 22, 24, and 27 books, we must refer to Strack’s able article 
 on the Canon, in which the statements of the Talmud, as well as the 
 testimonies of Philo, Melito, and Origen (which must here be passed 
 over) will be found duly discussed. The student will find these 
 also noticed in Bleek’s £inleitung, as well in the second and third 
 editions edited by Kamphausen, as in the fourth by Wellhausen. 
 We can here only briefly refer to the evidence of the 2nd Book of 
 Maccabees (chap. li. 2, 3, 13, 14), which, though regarded by Geiger 
 and Graetz as worthless, is, in spite of the legendary matter with 
 which it is connected, of great importance on account of the testi- 
 mony borne to the Jewish canon, and the mention there made of 
 the collecting together of the Sacred Writings in the days of Nehe- 
 miah, and in the early days of the Maccabees. The writer men- 
 tions the Law or Pentateuch in verses 2 and 3, and the other two 
 divisions of the Old Testament Scriptures in verses 13 and 14. The 
 latter are spoken of as “the (writings concerning) the kings and 
 prophets (τὰ περὶ τῶν βασιλέων καὶ προφητῶν)," the former probably 
 denoting the books of the writers styled by the Jews “the former 
 prophets,” and the latter the books of ‘‘the later prophets,” the two 
 ordinary sub-divisions of the writings known as “the prophets.” 
 The third division of the Jewish Scriptures is alluded to by the writer 
 of 2nd Macc. as ‘‘the (writings) of David (καὶ τὰ τοῦ Aavid),” so called 
 (as, perhaps, in Luke xxiv. 44) from the first book in that division. 
 The epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts (καὶ ἐπιστολὰς 
 βασιλέων περὶ ἀναθεμάτων) which were deposited in the library of 
 Nehemiah, were probably the decrees of the Persian monarchs hay- 
 ing reference to the restitution of the Temple service in Jerusalem.? 
 
 1 See on the points connected with the Talmud and Ben Sira, p. 467. 
 2 See the observations of Pusey on this head, in his Daniel the Prophet, pp. 
 305, fi. 
 
§ 3. Zhe Aboth of R. Nathan. 465 
 
 Nor is the testimony of the Fourth Book of Ezra (Second 
 Esdras) without its value, as that book was probably composed by 
 a Hellenistic Jew of Palestine at the close of the first century after 
 Christ. It bears witness in favour of the 24 books of the Jewish 
 canon in the curious passage in chap. xiv. 44-48. The correct 
 reading in verse 44 is “‘nonaginta quatuor,” znety-four in place 
 of the common reading ‘‘ducenti quatuor,” ¢wo hundred and four, 
 found in the A.V. translation. The “seventy” writings which were 
 to be preserved and delivered only to the wise men of the Jewish 
 people, added to the twenty-four canonical books which were to be 
 published, in order that all, worthy or unworthy, might read them, 
 make up together the ‘‘ninety-four” books spoken of in the vision.1 
 
 §3. THe ΑΒΟΤΗ ΟΕ ΚΕ. NarHan.—We must here quote the passage 
 from the Aboth of R. Nathan alluded to on p. τι. This tract in the 
 Talmud follows the Treatise Aboth, and is a kind of commentary 
 on it, interspersed with numerous legends and interesting anecdotes. 
 In its exposition of the second saying of the Men of the Great 
 Synagogue (see p. 10), “be deliberate in judgment,” it says: ‘‘In 
 what way is a man taught that he should be deliberate in judgment? 
 That every one who is deliberate in judgment is quiet in judgment 
 PIA Awd pI PNT bw), as it is written, ‘even these are proverbs 
 of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out’ 
 [ Prov. xxv. 1], and not only because they copied them out (PNY), 
 
 but because they were deliberate (ΘΠ NPN) in doing so. 
 Abba Shaul says, not because they were deliberate, but because they 
 interpreted them (1/1°5t’).2 At first there were persons who said that 
 the Proverbs and the Song of Songs and Koheleth were apocryphal 
 (ΟΠ D134), because they [the books] spake parables [homely proverbs], 
 and were not of the Kethubim [the Hagiographa]; and some stood 
 up and declared them apocryphal (ANS 1134) 17291), until the Men 
 of the Great Synagogue came and interpreted them ; as it is written, 
 
 1 See Fritzsche, 170γὲ Apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Grace (Leipzig, 1871), and 
 Strack’s article on the Canon, pp. 414 ff. On a reference made inthe missing 
 fragment of the 4th Book of Esdras, discovered by R. L. Bensly of Cambridge, 
 see our crit. comm. on chap. xii. 7. 
 
 2 In interpreting \P’NYN to mean ‘‘ they were deliberate,” the verb is regarded 
 as the causative of PNY ¢o de old. The men of Hezekiah are regarded as having 
 acted according to the Horatian precept, ‘‘nonumque prematur in annum” (47s 
 Poet., 388). Abba Shaul takes the verb in its more usual meaning of fo copy out, 
 or do translate and explain. 
 
 H H 
 
466 Excursus 1. § 3. 
 
 ‘and I beheld among the simple ones, etc.’ [here follows Proverbs vii. 
 7-20, with the omission of verse 8, the homely plain-spoken lan- 
 guage of which gave offence, see p. 11]; and it is written in the 
 Song of Songs, ‘ Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field, ete.’ 
 [here follows Cant. vii. 11-13, which passage also gave offence, and 
 then immediately after]; and it is written in Koheleth, ‘ Rejozce, 
 young man in thy youth, etc.” |Koh. xi. 9, see remark on p. 12, and 
 then follows]; and it is written in the Song of Songs, ‘7 am my 
 beloved’s, and his destre is toward me’ [Cant. vii. το]. All which is a 
 proof [7] that it was not that they [the Men of the Great Syna- 
 gogue] were deliberate only, but that they interpreted.” 
 
 This passage is very different-as it appears in the edition of the 
 Aboth of R. Nathan, edited by Salomon Taussig.! It there runs as 
 follows: ‘They said three things, be deliberate in judgment, that 
 
 they should persevere and produce when suitable ὧν ἸΟΨΊΠΟΥ AWN? 
 IBIS), and thus they found with the men of Hezekiah as it was 
 written, ‘even these are the proverbs of Solomon’ [Prov. xxv. 1]. 
 What is the doctrine taught in ‘even these?’ Is it not that they were 
 deliberate in judgment ? ‘ Which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah 
 copied out. But why is it so said? Because, I say, the Proverbs, 
 and the Song of Songs, and Koheleth were apocryphal (177 O°N34) 
 until that they were among the Kethubim (8°31N32 jn’ WY). In the 
 Proverbs why does he say, ‘ she is loud and stubborn’ { Prov. vil. 11]? 
 In the Song of Songs, [why] ‘a bundle of myrrh ts my well-beloved 
 unto me’ |Cant. 1.13]? In Koheleth, [why] ‘ Rejoice young man in 
 thy youth’? Another explanation of ‘ which they copied out, is not 
 that they copied out, but that they zu¢erpreted or expounded.” 
 
 It is worthy of note here that Bloch (Studien, pp. 130 fi.) explains 
 the ‘‘three things,” or “three words,” ascribed to the Men of the 
 Great Synagogue, differently than generally interpreted. According 
 to him the first saying, “‘ be deliberate in judgment,” refers to the estab- 
 lishment of tribunals for the promotion of justice and righteousness ; 
 the second, “aise up many disciples,” to the setting up of schools of 
 sacred learning; while the third, “ make a fence to the Thorah,” or 
 
 1 λον mi. L Theil, enthaltend Aboth di Nathan in einer von der gedruckten 
 abweichenden Recension, Seder Tannaim το Ammoraim und Varianten zu Pirke 
 Aboth. Aus Handschriften der Konigl. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek zu Miinchen 
 herausgegeben und erlautert von Salomon Taussig aus Miinchen (Miinchen, 1872, 
 K. Hofbuchdruckerei, E. Huber). 
 
§ 4. Zhe Talmud and the Book of Ben Siva. 467 
 
 Law, he regards as a direction to take care above all things to 
 secure the correctness of the sacred text in general. He maintains 
 that the expression, “Law,” is used in this passage not of, the 
 Pentateuch as distinct from the other portions of the Sacred Writings, 
 but of all the Holy Writings (see p. 463). In this particular, Bloch 
 has adopted the view of Krochmal and Hartmann.! That 471M can 
 be taken in the sense of ΠῚ, and that reference is made to such 
 ordinances as those of the late Rabbins, may be questionable, 
 especially if we regard the “three words” as actually those of the 
 Men of the Great Synagogue. According to Bloch’s explanation 
 the sentences are full of deep significance. The latter clause need 
 not be interpreted with Krochmal as referring to the settlement of 
 the Masoretic text, but may refer to the sending forth of correct 
 copies of the Sacred Writings, and even to the establishment of a 
 fixed canon of Holy Scripture. 
 
 § 4. THE Book ΟΕ BEN S1ra.—The passages on which Graetz and 
 others have maintained that the Book of Ben Sira formed at one 
 time a portion of the canon have been given in note 2, on p. 48. 
 But it is necessary here to observe that there were two distinct 
 classes of ‘‘extraneous books,” or of books outside the canon, which 
 were severally regarded with very different feelings. 
 
 The most important passage which speaks of these books is that 
 in the Jerusalem Talmud, Sazhedrin, x., alluded to on p. 47. The 
 Mishna of that chapter says (27 a), “ All Israel has a portion in the 
 world to come. But these persons have no portion in the world to 
 come, namely, he who. says there is no resurrection of the dead in 
 the Thorah, or that the Thorah is not from heaven, or (he who is) 
 an Epicurean. Rabbi Akiba says, he also who reads in the extrane- 
 ous books, and he who mutters over a wound, and says [as a charm], 
 ‘Iwill put none of these diseases upon thee which I have brought upon 
 the Egyptians ; for [am the Lord that healeth thee’ |Exod. xv. 26].* 
 Abba Shaul says, and he who pronounces the Name [17°] according 
 
 1 A. Th. Hartmann, Dze enge Verbindung des Alten Testament mit dem Neuen. 
 Hamburg, 1831, pp. 130 ff. 
 
 2 It is interesting to note that this passage alludes to the cures performed by 
 early Christians. St. James once desired to cure a sick Jew, but was not per- 
 mitted to do so. See Jer. Talmud, Adodah Zarah, ii. fol. 40 6. See the trans- 
 lation of the passage in F. C. Ewald's Abodah Sarah (Niirnberg, 1868), p. 198, 
 
 and Smith’s Dict. of Bible, under article “ Yames.” On R. Akiba’s position, 
 see Graetz, Gesch. der Fud., iv. p. 108. 
 
ν 
 
 468 ΠΥ 2 7), 775. 1 ἃ ἡ. 
 
 to its letters.” In the explanation of part of this given in chap. x. 
 28 a, “Rabbi Akiba says, even he who reads in the extraneous 
 books,! as for instance the books of Ben Sira (Ὁ J3 5D j193), and 
 
 the books of Ben Laanah (raw 13 5D), but the books of Haméram 
 
 (ΟΠ ED DIN), and all the books which were written from that 
 time and onwards, we may read in them as one reads in a letter.” 
 
 Inasmuch as there was only one book of Ben Sira, Graetz, Joel, 
 and other Jewish scholars would read here and in the Talmud Babli, 
 Tosephta Yadaim, cap. li. (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 683), the singular 
 78D in place of the plural "5D.2 Graetz proposes considerable 
 transpositions in this passage, reading DDN MED, “ the books of the 
 heretics,” in place of “ the books of Ben Sira” in the first clause ; and 
 then inserting the clause 81D 13 5D bay, “but the book of Ben Sira,” 
 before “ the books of Ben Laanah ;” and for “the books of Haméram” 
 (see p. 470) reading DON MDD, and translating “the day-books.” 
 But Dr. M. Joel maintains that the correct reading in place of “ she 
 books of Ben γα," which may have been introduced from Yadaim 
 11., is “the books of Ben Satda” (SVODj3 5D), ie. the Christian 
 books. 
 
 According to the Zosephta Yadaim, the Book of Ben Sira, though 
 held in high favour, stood on the border line which separated the 
 canonical from the non-canonical, or extraneous books.4 The Jews 
 were permitted to read it and other non-inspired books cursorily, 
 just as one might read an ordinary letter froma friend. But such 
 books were not to be studied too much. The command of the Law 
 was that the Divine Word was to be the constant subject of study 
 (Deut. vi. 6 ff.) ; David meditated therein day and night (Ps. 1. 2; 
 comp. Jer. xxxill. 25). There was, therefore, no time to waste in 
 the minute examination of other writings. Heretical books were to 
 
 1 Joel observes (Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte, Der Talmud und die griechische 
 Sprache. p. 70, note) that the Gemara instead of the extraneous books, has here 
 D PITT MDD, ‘the books of the Sadducees,’ but the correct reading is certainly 
 DID MAD, ‘‘ the books of the heretics.” 
 
 * See note 1 on p. 49. 
 
 3 Satda, or Sateda, Soteda, STUD, δ ΠΟ, is the name given in the Talmud 
 to the Virgin Mary, and contains a reflection on the Virgin as an apostate or a 
 woman unfaithful to her husband. The passages in which the Blessed Virgin is 
 thus spoken of, and the Lord Jesus is called Sox of Soteda, or worse, Son of Pandera, 
 his supposed father, are among the saddest found in the Talmuds. 
 
 * See note on p. 48, and also Strack’s article on the canon, pp. 430, 431. 
 
§ 5. Zhe Talmud and the Book of Koheleth. 469 
 
 be altogether avoided ; other extraneous writings, even when unob- 
 jectionable, or of value, were to be but lightly regarded in comparison 
 with the Holy Scriptures. In the passage immediately following 
 that cited from the Jerusalem Talmud, reference is made to Koh. 
 ΧΙ. 12, in order to prove that such books might be used indeed 
 for study but not for the weariness of the flesh. The Midrash 
 Koheleth, possibly reflecting the greater strictness of a later age, 
 says, ‘ Every one who brings into the middle of his house more than 
 the 24 books [of the Canon] brings confusion (79 in Koh. xii. 12 
 is here interpreted ‘1'17!) into his house, as for example the Book 
 
 of Ben Sira and the Book of Ben Tiglah, for much study (7377 372) 
 is a weariness of the flesh, and those books are intended for medita- 
 
 tion (19) nin?) but not for weariness of the flesh,” or intense study. 
 It is not necessary to do more than call attention to the parono- 
 masia in these passages both in Talmud and Midrash. 
 
 5. THE Book or KonHeELETH.—The length to which our Excursus 
 has extended forbids us here to quote the passages in full which 
 bear on the Book of Koheleth, some of which have been alluded to 
 in our work. But we must here add from Bloch’s interesting treatise 
 on the Ursprung und Entstehungszett des Buches Kohelet, p. 144, a 
 list of the following passages of the Talmud in which sayings of 
 Koheleth are quoted as authoritative Scripture by ancient teachers of 
 the Law,—Berach. 16 ὦ, Shabb. 30 b, 151 ὁ, Pesach. 53 ὦ, Chagg. 
 15 ὦ, Jebamoth 21 a, Kethub. 72 ὁ, Kid. 30 a, 33 ὦ, 40 a, Nedarim 
 15 a, Menach. 110 a, Sebach. 115 6, Sanhed. 101 a, Baba Bathra 
 14 a, Sheb. 39 ὦ, Abodah Zarah 27 ὁ, Jerus. Berach vii. 2 ff., Tosefta 
 Berach cap. 2. Bloch calls attention to the fact that the book was ' 
 cited by Hillel and Simeon ben Shatach, which is a conclusive proof 
 that the hypothesis of Graetz as to its origin in Herodean days is 
 purely imaginary. 
 
Bee ἘΠ ΘΙ ΘΝ: 
 ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES DEFILING THE HANDS. 
 
 THE question is asked in Shabdath 14 a, why the Holy Scriptures are 
 included among those things to which uncleanness is imputed accord- 
 ing to the Rabbinical regulations (1713)? The answer given there 
 is, in order to prevent the Holy Scriptures being kept along with the 
 heave-offerings, a practice which had arisen from the notion that all 
 holy things ought to be kept in the same place, and which had led 
 to injury being done to the Scriptures. The uncleanness referred to 
 is that of the second degree, that is, the Holy Scriptures are not sup- 
 posed to render anything unclean for ordinary use, but to render it 
 unfit to be given as an offering to the priests. 
 
 This regulation was made while the temple was still standing, as — 
 
 is evident from the reference made to the Terumah or the heave- 
 offering. It was one of the regulations of the School of Shammai, 
 and was universally acknowledged by the Pharisees. The Sadducees, 
 however, seem to have turned it into ridicule. 
 
 Thus in Yadaim iv. 6 we read: ‘The Sadducees say, ‘we object 
 against you, Pharisees, that you say the Holy Scriptures make the 
 _hands unclean, but the books of Haméram [heretical writings] do not 
 make the hands unclean.’ Rabbi Jochanan ben Zaccai said, ‘and 
 have we nothing else against the Pharisees but this alone, for behold 
 they say the bones of an ass are clean, but the bones of Jochanan 
 the high priest are unclean?’ They [the Sadducees] said to him, 
 ‘According to their estimation (1.4. value, worth) so is their un- 
 cleanness, in order that a man may nct make the bones of his father 
 and mother into spoons. He said to them, even so the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, according to their estimation [z.e. the value in which they are 
 held] is their uncleanness ; the writings of Haméram which are not 
 esteemed, they do not make the hands unclean.” 
 
 The phrase translated here ‘‘ the writings of Haméram™” is usually 
 read in the Talmud 8997 5D, But the reading is doubtful; another 
 
 470 
 
On the Holy Scriptures defiling the hands. 471 
 
 reading is with an D, “the books of Haméras,” which latter has 
 sometimes been incorrectly emended into D2", Gr. Ὅμηρος or 
 Tomer. Graetz, in his Koheleth, defends the second reading, 
 which he explains as being the Gr. ἡμερήσια βιβλία, day-books. Dr. 
 J. Levy, in his Mewheb. und Chald. W.B. (under articles D127, and 
 D1), maintains that the correct reading is 09) 5D, and that 
 Merom (ΟἿ or 07") was the name of a heretical writer whose 
 writings are not now extant, but who composed works similar to 
 those of Ben La‘anah (Aw? 121) and Ben Sira. If, however, the 
 reading ΘΠ “6D be correct, the cannot be regarded as the 
 article, but must be viewed as an integral part of the proper name. 
 
 Delitzsch calls attention to the fact that the same maxim is spoken 
 of in Nidda 55 a, where it is made the subject of the following jest : 
 “The skin of an ass is clean, but the skin of a man has been declared 
 by the wise as unclean, in order that no one may use the skin of his 
 father or mother for the saddle of an ass.” 
 
 The controversy in the Jewish schools concerned three books of 
 Scripture, namely, the Song of Songs, Koheleth, and in some aspects 
 the Book of Esther. The question in dispute was, not whether these 
 books should be received for the first time*into the Canon of 
 Scripture, but whether, having been admitted into the Canon at a 
 earlier date, they had been properly so admitted, and whether there 
 was not sufficient proof from internal evidence to justify their ex- 
 clusion from that Canon. 
 
 Delitzsch observes that the principal places of the Talmud which 
 speak of this controversy are as follows: Yadaim 111. 5,—‘‘ All Holy 
 Scriptures (YIP "273 zal or, according to the preferable reading 
 
 wp 35 53) defile the hands [or render them unclean]. The Song 
 of Songs, and Koheleth defile the hands. Rabbi Jehudah says the 
 Song of Songs defiles the hands, but as to Koheleth there is a dis- 
 pute (pion Γ ΠΡ... Rabbi Jose says, Koheleth does not defile the 
 hands, and as to the Song of Songs there is a dispute. Rabbi 
 Simeon says Koheleth is one of the lax points of the school of Sham- 
 mai (1.4. one of the points on which that School is more lax than that 
 of Hillel) and of the rigid points of the School of Hillel. Rabbi 
 
 1 mv, means wormzwood, but who Ben La‘anah was, or what was the nature 
 
 of the work, termed elsewhere the Book of Ben Tiglah (nban 3 5D) is un- 
 known. Some suppose them to have been works of an apocalyptic character. 
 
472 Excursus Il. 
 
 Simeon ben ‘Azzai says, I received by tradition from the mouth of 
 the seventy-two elders in the day when they inducted Rabbi Eliezer 
 ben ‘Azariah into the seat of patriarch, that the Song of Songs and 
 Koheleth defile the hands. Rabbi “Akiba said, Mercy and peace 
 (Brow Dn)! no man of Israel disputed concerning the Song of Songs 
 that it did not defile the hands, for the whole world is not equal 
 to the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all 
 of the Kethubim (8 31Π3Π 22, the Hagiographa) are holy, but the 
 Song of Songs is holy of holies :} and if they have disputed, they 
 have not disputed except with regard to Koheleth. Rabbi Jochanan 
 the son of Joshua, the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi ‘Akiba, said, 
 According to the words of Ben ‘Azzai thus they disputed, and thus 
 they decided,” z.e. they disputed with regard to the two books, the 
 Song of Songs and Koheleth, and ultimately decided that both the 
 books defiled the hands, or in other words were worthy to be re- 
 tained in the sacred Canon. 
 
 The same controversy is alluded to in Ldzyoth, v. 3 (9 4), in the 
 following terms, which throw some light upon the previous quota- 
 tions: ‘ Rabbi Ishmael said three opinions were of the lax points 
 of the school of Shammai, and of the rigid points of the school of 
 Hillel; (vz.) Koheleth does not defile the hands according to the 
 opinions of the school of Shammai, while those of the school of 
 Hillel say it defiles the hands. What then was the sin which their 
 commandments made? The school of Shammai pronounced 
 (them) clean and the school of Hillel pronounced them defiled. 
 Coriander seed the school of Shammai pronounced clean and the 
 school of Hillel pronounced unclean, and so with respect to tithes.” 
 
 The final decision arrived at on this special controversy between 
 the two schools as regards the Books of Koheleth and the Song of 
 Songs, was, therefore, according to the account of Ben “Azzai, that the 
 validity of the rule DY NS PROOD WIP 3,3 23 was acknowledged 
 to include these books as well as the other books of the Hagio- 
 grapha. 
 
 Another important passage in the Talmud referring to this con- 
 troversy is that in AZegid/a, 7 a. 
 
 1 See A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 398. R. Akiba 
 also says (in Zosephta Sanhed. c. 12), ‘‘he who sings the Song of Songs at a 
 drinking festival, and so makes_it an ordinary song, has no part in the world to 
 come,” 
 
On the Holy Scriptures defiling the hands. 473 
 
 “Rabbi Jehudah [the editor of the Mishna] said, says Samuel [ben 
 Manasseh, his contemporary] that Esther does not defile the hands.’ 
 Did Samuel intend to say that Esther was not spoken in the Holy 
 Ghost (T7283 YTDpANMA)? Βαϊ Samuel says, yes, Esther was 
 spoken in the Holy Ghost. It was spoken [thus] to be read [in the 
 public services on the feast of Purim], and it was not spoken that it 
 should be written down (Ὁ MINI N21), Rabbi Me’ir says that 
 Koheleth does not defile the hands, and that the dispute is about 
 Koheleth. Rabbi Simeon says that Koheleth is one of the lax 
 points of the school of Shammai, and one of the rigid points of 
 the school of Hillel, but that Ruth, and the Song of Songs, and 
 Esther defile the hands. But he [Samuel] says (the same) as Rabbi 
 Joshua has taught [namely, with regard to the public reading of 
 Esther]. R. Simeon ben Manasseh says : Koheleth does not defile 
 ‘the hands, because its wisdom is that of Solomon [ée. it was only 
 such wisdom as belonged to Solomon as a man, not as an inspired 
 writer]. They said to him [ze. to R. Simeon, in answer to this objec- 
 tion], Is this (Koheleth) the only book which he (Solomon) spoke ? 
 And is it not already said [τ Kings iv. 12] ‘and he spoke 3,000 
 proverbs,’ and he [Solomon] says ‘add not to his [God’s] words’ 
 [ Prov. xxx. 6]. Wherein lies then the proof? for if you would say 
 right, he spoke much; had he wished it would have been written 
 down, even much; had he wished it would not have been written 
 down [hence it is argued it is incorrect to regard Koheleth as merely 
 an accidentally written monument of Solomon’s human wisdom, for 
 that idea is refuted by the verse quoted], come, hear! ‘add not to 
 his words’ [by which saying Solomon was considered to have ex- 
 plained his own proverbs as Divine words written by inspiration of 
 the Holy Ghost]. Rabbi Eliezer taught, saying, Esther was spoken 
 in the Holy Ghost, because it is said, ‘and the matter was made 
 known to Mordecai [Esther ii. 22] εἰς. ἢ 
 
 In what follows an attempt is made to prove that Esther must 
 have been written under Divine inspiration, on the ground that that 
 work not only relates known events, but also secret matters, which 
 could not have been known except by means of a knowledge higher 
 than human. Delitzsch observes that the nature of the controversy 
 respecting the Book of Esther was wholly different from that with 
 
 1 On this expression see Levy, Mewheb. W.B., s. v. SID. 
 
474 χολῆς Vi. 
 
 respect to the Song of Songs and Koheleth. With regard to the 
 Book of Esther, no doubt was entertained as to its inspiration, 
 though Rabbi Samuel maintained that the Book of Esther did not 
 defile the hands, on the supposition that that work was intended not 
 to be read in private, but to be listened to when recited in the public 
 services on the feast of Purim. 
 
 The foregoing is in great part the working up of an article by 
 Prof. Franz Delitzsch on the subject, entitled “Talmudische 
 Studien,” published in the Zectschrift fiir lutherische Theol. τι. Kirche, 
 herausgeg. von Dr. A. G. Rudelbach u. Dr. H. E. F. Guericke, r5ter 
 Jahrgang, 1854. Leipzig: Dorffling u. Franke. The extracts from 
 the Talmud, are, however, given above at somewhat greater length, 
 together with a few additional observations. 
 
meen US ΤΙ. 
 THE MEN OF THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 “THe Men of the Great Synagogue” form an important link in the 
 history of the Canon of the Old Testament. They are, as we have 
 seen (pp. 453 ff.), mentioned in the tradition of the Talmud which 
 treats of the order and arrangement of the Sacred Books,—and also 
 as (p. 465) having taken an important part in removing the difficulties 
 connected with the Books of the Proverbs, Canticles, and Koheleth. 
 The principal works on the question of the Men of the Great 
 Synagogue, in addition to those specially referred to in this Excursus, 
 are as follows: Joh. Eberh. Rau, Dvratribe de Synagoga Magna, 
 Utrecht, 1727; C. Aurivillius, Déssertationes (ed. by J. D. Michaelis), 
 Gétting. und Leipzig, 1799, pp. 139-160 ; Ant. Theod. Hartmann, 
 Die Verbindung des Alten Test. mit dem Neuen, Hamburg, 1831, pp 
 120-166; C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Excurs. I. 
 According to tradition, the “ great Synagogue,” or “Council,” was 
 convened by Ezra, after the return from Babylon, for the purpose of 
 arranging the affairs connected with the Jewish Church and people. 
 Among the first members were Ezra and Zerubbabel, Joshua the 
 High Priest, Nehemiah, Mordecai (Ezra ii. 2; Neh. vil. 7), with 
 the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Elias Levita! main- 
 tained that the period during which “the Men of the Great Syna- 
 gogue” presided over the Jewish Church and the nation, did not 
 last more than forty years. This statement of Levita seems to 
 have been based on the opinion held by many of the Jews, that 
 Simon the Just, mentioned in the Treatise Aboth as among the last 
 of “the Men of the Great Synagogue” (pp. 9 ff.), was high priest in 
 the days of Alexander the Great. Hence, ignorant of the long 
 period which intervened between the time of Ezra and Alexander, 
 they imagined that the visit of the latter monarch to Jerusalem took 
 1 See his Massoreth ha-Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, pp- 108 ff. (London: Long- 
 
 mans, 1867). 
 475 
 
474 Lxcursus III. 
 
 place forty years after the erection of the Second Temple (see 
 Buxtorfs Ziderias, p. 92). Later scholars have, however, pointed 
 out that the Great Synagogue, if its existence be regarded as an 
 historical fact, must have lasted at least two hundred years. 
 
 “The Men of the Great Synagogue,” according to the Jewish tra- 
 dition, performed many important services for the Jewish Church and 
 nation. To them is ascribed the closing of the Old Testament canon 
 and the settlement of the text handed down to us by the Jewish 
 Church. The statements of Elias Levita on these points were, for a 
 long time, accepted by scholars of all shades of opinion, Jewish, 
 Roman Catholic, and Protestant, as indisputable facts of history. 
 But the rise of the critical school has subjected all such statements 
 to a rigid examination, and the whole story of “‘the Men of the 
 Great Synagogue,” and their work, was declared fabulous by some 
 scholars in the last century, such as Franz Buddzeus and J. D. 
 Michaelis, as well as by later critics, such as de Wette and Bleek. 
 Budde of Halle attached peculiar importance to the fact that no 
 mention of such a body is made in the apocryphal Books of Ezra, 
 or in the works of Josephus. But little weight is to be assigned 
 to the silence of Josephus, as such a point scarcely comes within 
 the scope of his history. Prof. Kuenen, of Leyden, notes that 
 “the Great Synagogue” is not alluded to in 1 Macc., though the 
 writer speaks of a great assembly (συναγωγὴ μεγάλη) of the priests 
 and people and rulers of the nation and the elders of the land 
 (1 Macc. xiv. 28)—which, however, was a very different assembly 
 from that spoken of in the Talmud. Nor do any other books of 
 the Old Test. Apocrypha refer to the Great Synagogue of which the 
 Talmud speaks. It may be well to observe that the Hebrew 
 expression rendered in 1 Macc. by the Greek συναγωγή would be, as 
 Kuenen observes, ΠῚ), or bap, and not ND33, which latter is the term 
 used in the expression, “the Great Synagogue.” The word συναγωγή, 
 which occurs frequently in the LXX. in the meaning of a collection or 
 gathering of any kind, does not occur there in the sense it afterwards 
 assumes in the New Test. It is used in the signification of “ con- 
 gregation ” in Sirach i. 30; iv. 7. 
 
 Kuenen’s views have been endorsed by Prof. W. Robertson 
 Smith,’ who maintains that “the whole idea that there ever was a 
 body called the Great Synagogue holding rule in the Jewish nation is 
 
 * See the notes on p. 6. 
 
The Men of the Great Synagogue. 477 
 
 pure fiction,” and that the legend can be traced back to the account 
 in the Book of Nehemiah of the great assembly there recorded as 
 being been convened in Jerusalem, Kuenen’s theory is based to a 
 considerable extent on the articles of Nachman Krochmal, in the 
 Hebrew journal, Kerem Chemed (see note 2 on p. 82). The Great 
 
 Synagogue (meyan nD32) according to Kuenen is to be identified 
 
 with the great assembly (7473 nea) convoked by Nehemiah with 
 the object of suppressing the usury under which the poorer Jews 
 groaned (Neh. v. 7), or with the greater convocation convened by 
 Ezra in order to induce the Jews to put away the strange wives 
 (Ezra x. 7 ff.), or with that general assembly of the returned exiles of 
 Israel mentioned in Neh. ix. and x., at which a solemn covenant 
 was signed. In both the latter cases, however, no expression similar 
 to “the great synagogue” occurs in the narratives of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah. The solemn supplication and covenant recorded in 
 Neh. ix. 5-38 are indeed frequently referred to as having been drawn 
 up by “the Men of the Great Synagogue.” Kuenen cites a passage 
 from the Midrash Tanchuma [fol. 19 a, on Exod. i. 1, p. 162 of the 
 Stettin ed.] where it is said that “the Men of the Great Synagogue 
 came and said let them praise [comp. Neh. xi. 17] the name of 
 Thy glory which is exalted above all blessing and praise.” In this 
 quotation the reference to Neh. ix. 5 is unmistakably clear. The 
 words of Neh. ix. 6 are ascribed in the Midrash Bereshith to “the 
 Men of the Great Synagogue,” and treated as an explanation of 
 Gen. i. 17. “The Men of the Great Synagogue” are similarly said 
 (Bereshith Rabba, § \xxxviii. on chap. xxxil. 27, 28) to have called 
 the patriarch by the name of Abram instead of Abraham, where 
 reference is made to Neh. ix. 7. The expression used in the prayer 
 in Neh. ix. 18, “they wrought great provocations,” is said to have 
 been an interpretation of Exod. xxxii. 8 by “ the Men of the Great 
 Synagogue” (Shemoth Rabba, § xli. on Exod. xxxi. 18). Similarly 
 the words made use of in Deut. x. 17, “the great God, mighty and 
 terrible,” which recur again only in Neh. ix. 32, are said three times 
 in the Babylonian Talmud, and twice in the Jerusalem Talmud, to 
 have been formulas of prayer adopted by “the Men of the Great 
 Synagogue.”! So also in the Midrash Shemoth, § li. (on Exod. 
 
 ‘ Talm. Babli, Berach. 33 6, Megilla 25 a, Yoma 69 ὁ, and in the Jerus. 
 Talm. Berach. vii. 4, Megillai. 5. 
 
478 Fxcursus 111. 
 
 XXxxvili. 21), the confession of Nehemiah (chap. i. 7) is quoted as 
 that of ‘‘the Men of the Great Synagogue.” 
 
 All that is clearly proved by these quotations is that Ezra, Nehe- 
 miah, and their colleagues, were reckoned among the number of 
 those belonging to the body thus designated. ‘This, however, is part 
 and parcel of the tradition itself. But the passages do not. prove 
 more than this, which is admitted on all sides. 
 
 The Great Synagogue is sometimes said to have consisted of 120 
 members, at other times of 85 only. In JZegil/a, 17 ὦ, and the 
 Jerusalem Berachoth, ii. 4, the former number is mentioned ; while 
 the latter number is that given in the Jerus. AZegi//a, i. 5, and in the 
 Midrash on Ruth (§ 3, on chap..ii. 4; the number 84 occurs in 
 the Warsaw edit.). Kuenen points out that these numbers also have 
 been derived from the records preserved in Neh. vili.-x. Eighty-four 
 names of persons are mentioned in Neh. x. 2-28, as having sealed 
 or subscribed their names to the solemn covenant there spoken of. 
 The number 120 is made up by adding together the το heads 
 of the houses of the fathers, Ezra 11. 2—59, with the 15 additional 
 names mentioned in Ezra vii. 1-14, plus Haggai, Zechariah, and 
 Ezra, the latter being identified with Malachi by many of the Jews. 
 Or to the number 84 in Neh. x. 2—28, add the 33 names of the com- 
 panions of Ezra and the Levites given in Neh. viii. 4, 7, and ix. 4, 5, 
 who with the three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, men- 
 tioned in Ezra v. 1, make up 120.1 
 
 Dr. M. Heidenheim has treated this matter very fully in his article 
 on the Origin of the Seventy Elders.2, We need not here discuss the 
 mode in which Heidenheim explains the repetition of certain names 
 in the lists given in the Book of Ezra, inasmuch as our object here is 
 merely to point out the source from whence the Talmudists derived 
 the special numbers, and not the historical correctness of that tradi- 
 tion. The numbers mentioned in connexion with ‘the Men of the 
 
 1 These numbers vary slightly. Instead of 84 as in the Hebrew in Neh. x., 
 83 names occur in the LXX. The number of the names in Neh. viii. and ix. is 
 sometimes reckoned at 35, and at other times at 34. In Neh. x. Io it has been 
 supposed that the repetition of the copula (Y1W%}) renders it probable that a 
 name has there fallen out, or by others that the name of Ezra isto be added. See 
 also Herzfeld, Gesch. αἰ. Volkes Israel, vol. ii. p. 381. 
 
 ? See his essay, “ Ueber die Entstehung der 70 Aeltesten und Rechtfertigung 
 meiner Ansicht iiber die Synagoga Magna,” in his Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift, 
 Band ii. Gotha, 1875. 
 
 eI —“‘;73 
 
The Men of the Great Synagogue. 479 
 
 Great Synagogue ” may be admitted to be fictitious without the whole 
 story of the existence of the body, which included all the leading 
 teachers of the Law from Ezra to Simon the Just, being relegated to 
 the realms of fable. The assembly spoken of in the Books of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah was convened not for the purpose of making new 
 laws, but simply to revive the practice of the ancient laws of Moses. 
 “The Men of the Great Synagogue” are, on the other hand, said in 
 the Talmud to have enacted laws relative to matters both of religious 
 worship and of ordinary life (Semhedrin, fol. 104 ὁ). Kuenen, of 
 course, would maintain that the latter statement is but a legendary 
 amplification of the former history. | 
 
 In maintaining the Great Synagogue and the Great Convocation 
 to be identical, and in arguing that the statements of the Talmud 
 and Midrash as to the former are simply legendary accretions to the 
 latter story, Kuenen and Robertson Smith attach considerable im- 
 portance to a passage in the Midrash on Ruth, which contains an 
 exposition of the clause, “and behold Boaz came from Bethlehem” 
 (Ruth ii. 4). The Midrash says: “Three things they decided in the 
 lower court of judgment, and they agreed with them in the upper 
 court of judgment ; and these were: τ. to salute in the Name (of the 
 Lorp); 2. (to receive) the Megillath (or the Book of) Esther ; and 3. 
 (to reinstitute) tithes.” The authority on which these decisions were 
 arrived at is then set forth. It is only necessary here to notice the 
 third. ‘“Tithes. On what authority? Rabbi Berachiah in the name 
 of R. Krizpa (says) : they made known the sin (in the matter) of heave- 
 offerings and tithes. Shimon bar-Abba in the name of R. Jochanan 
 says: when they [Ezra and his colleagues] made it known they [the 
 people] were dismissed [Neh. viii, 8-13], and they declared them- 
 selves guilty by their lamentations [Neh. ix. 1, 2]. What did the 
 Men of the Great Synagogue do? ‘They wrote a book [containing 
 the solemn covenant with God], and they spread it out in the court 
 (of the temple), and in the morning they stood up, and found it 
 sealed. This is that which is written, ‘and for all this we make a 
 
 sure covenant, and write it, and upon the sealed document’ [D\NNA by, 
 in the sing. Neh. x. 1, A.V. ix. 38]. One verse says, ‘and upon the 
 sealed document’ [sing. Neh. x. 1], and another verse is ‘and upon the 
 sealed documents’ [plural, D)NNn oy, verse 2]. Why is it only 
 pynnn oy) [in the first passage]? This is the upper house of judg- 
 
ν 
 
 480 Fixcursus III, 
 
 ment [which agreed to the covenant]. And why O° ΠΠΠ oY) [plural 
 in the second]? This is the lower house of judgment ?” 
 
 We have quoted this passage at greater length than given in the 
 essay of Kuenen or in the work of Robertson Smith,! and have 
 inserted a few explanatory remarks, in order that its import may be 
 the better understood. But all that can be proved thereby is that 
 Ezra and his colleagues, being according to the tradition the first 
 members of the Great Synagogue, are referred to under the designa- 
 tion of “the Men of the Great Synagogue.” There is nothing what- 
 ever unnatural in this fact, which, as already noticed, has never been 
 called in question. But, though the acts of Ezra, Nehemiah, and their 
 co-workers in the restoration of the Jewish Church and polity are often 
 cited as acts of “the Men of the Great Synagogue,’ many other 
 works are referred to as those of the Men of the Great Synagogue 
 which must have been executed in the period previous to the Grecian 
 conquest, and could not have been performed by Ezra and his col- 
 leagues. 
 
 It has always been regarded as a fact that the formation of the 
 body known in later times by the name of “the Men of the Great 
 Synagogue” is recorded in Ezra x. 16, “The chief,” or “heads of 
 the fathers,” in that passage and in Neh. xii. 22, are identical with 
 the “rulers” or “princes of the people,” spoken of in Neh. xi. 1. 
 The prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi are sometimes classed 
 among “the Men of the Great Synagogue,” and other “ prophets” 
 are said to have belonged to that body; whereas at other times (as in 
 Aboth, i. 1) “the Men of the Great Synagogue” are spoken of as 
 having received the Scriptures from the prophets, in which latter 
 case, of course, the later members of the body, such as Simon the 
 Just, are referred to (see p. 486). 
 
 The commission granted by Artaxerxes empowered Ezra to appoint 
 magistrates and judges to judge in the districts of Judeea (Ezra vii. 
 25). According to Talmud Babli (Sanhedrin, 104), the Men of 
 the Great Synagogue appointed both instructors of the young and 
 judges of the people. The statement corresponds well with Bloch’s 
 interpretation of Adoth i. 1 (see p. 466). The judges of that day 
 had not merely to administer the law, but, under the circumstances 
 of the times, in many cases virtually to enact the law. Hence it was 
 a correct instinct on the part of the early Jewish teachers to ascribe 
 
 1 See notes on p. 6. 
 
The Men of the Great Synagogue. 481 
 
 the latter work not merely to Ezra and the men of his day, but io 
 “the Men of the Great Synagogue,” including under that term not 
 only the contemporaries of Ezra, but those also who succeeded them 
 in office and authority, 
 
 The Jews of that period were not left without regular government ; 
 and the “heads of the people,” or “the Men of the Great Syna- 
 gogue,” in that and the succeeding ages must have exercised a mixed 
 civil and ecclesiastical authority. It is highly probable, as Bloch 
 argues, that they definitely appointed the three daily services or 
 times of prayer, in accordance with the pious habits of the Psalmist 
 (Ps. lv. 18) and the practice of Daniel (Dan. vi. 17),—a practice no 
 doubt derived from earlier antiquity. The tradition that traces back 
 to the same period the settlement or re-institution of set forms of 
 prayer, is not to be regarded as unhistorical, although it is impossible 
 exactly to point out the liturgy of that day. The form of prayer, 
 however, comprehended in all probability the “ Hear, O Israel” 
 (0 Ὁ νῸΨ Deut. vi. 4-9) and the Decalogue (Berachoth, 124). 
 The opening of the first treatise of the Talmud, namely, Berachoth, 
 treats of the time when the former prayer ought to be used. Bloch 
 (Studien, p. 114) notices that the “ eulogies” which precede and 
 follow the reading of this prayer, and which comprehend some of 
 ‘the finest pearls of the Jewish liturgy,” as well as those used at the 
 opening and close of the services of the Sabbath and holy days, 
 are distinctly ascribed to ‘“‘the Men of the Great Synagogue” (Bera- 
 choth, 33a; Pesach. 117 a; Megilla, 17 6). Those, he remarks, 
 who doubt this fact can never have read the prayers in question. 
 “‘ Not only their brevity, and purity of language, but even their con- 
 tents, and many of their peculiar expressions, if one only has the 
 ancient readings before him, point back to the Persian period.” 
 
 To adduce the proofs cited in support of this statement would 
 require a more lengthened discussion than we can here afford. The 
 blessing used by the priests when they changed the watches in the 
 ‘Temple, namely, ‘‘ He whose Name dwells in this house cause love 
 and brotherhood and peace and friendship to abide between you,” 
 must have been composed at a time long prior to the destruction of 
 the Temple. The magnificent eulogy of Simon the high priest, the 
 last of “the Men of the Great Synagogue” (see p. 36), in Sirach ]., 
 makes use of expressions which prove that the liturgical service of 
 the Jewish Church was at that early period fully established in all its 
 
 ΤῚΣ 
 
482 hacarsus AVI. 
 
 grandeur and beauty. ‘This corresponds with the statements made 
 in the Talmud, with respect to at least a portion of the work per- 
 formed by “the Men of the Great Synagogue.” To them also is 
 ascribed in the Talmud (Jfegil/., 17 6), the composition of the eighteen 
 benedictions still in use in the ordinary Morning Prayer of the 
 Jews. It is highly probable, as Krochmal, Bloch and others think, 
 that the selection of the Psalms for liturgical purposes belongs to 
 the same period.! Bloch calls attention to the fact that Graetz in- 
 terprets the warning of Ben Sira (Sirach vii. 14) as directed against 
 an attempt made in his day to alter the ancient forms of prayer, 
 which were distinguished not only for their purity of diction, but also 
 for their brevity. 
 
 The Men of the Great Synagogue, according to Berach., 33 ὦ, 
 ordained for Israel forms of blessing and prayer, of consecration and 
 of benediction at the conclusion of the Sabbath and holy days 
 (moram mw miban ny303). They are likewise said to have 
 prohibited the unnecessary heaping up of epithets in addressing the 
 Almighty in prayer (Berach., 33 6; comp. Pesachim, 117 a). In 
 the latter place reference is made to the special epithets employed 
 in Neh. ix. 32. It is quite in accordance with Jewish usage that 
 advantage should be taken of such an opportunity to cite in support 
 of this prohibition an incident recorded in the Sacred Writings, and 
 it is hypercriticism to regard the reference there made as another 
 proof of the identity of the Great Synagogue with the Great gee 
 mentioned in the Book of Nehemiah. 
 
 Many things undoubtedly are ascribed to Ezra and “the Men of 
 the Great Synagogue,” which were the work of scholars of a far later 
 era. Such are, for instance, the marginal readings (the K’ri) ascribed 
 to that early period even by Elias Levita ; also ‘‘ the corrections of the 
 scribes” (the OD }ipn) attributed to the Great Synagogue by the 
 Midrash Tanchuma (fol. 26 a).? The vocalization and accentuation 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures Elias Levita saw clearly enough was the 
 work of scholars in the early centuries of the Christian era. But 
 the adoption of the square Aramaic alphabet in place of the ancient 
 alphabet, which was akin to the Phcenician and which in a more 
 
 1 J. 5. Bloch (Studien, p. 115) refers also to Pesachim, 111 a, 136a3; Berach., 
 33a; Succa, 386; and Sofa, 30 ὁ. 
 
 2 See on the latter, Strack’s Proleg. Crit. in Vet. Test. Heb., p. 87 ; Geiger, 
 Urschrift, pp. 309 ff. ; and my Bampton Lectures on Zechariah, p. 541. 
 
The Men of the Great Synagogue. 483 
 
 embellished shape is preserved in the Samaritan, must have been the 
 work of scholars several centuries before the Christian era. The 
 ancient character still kept its place on the coins of the Maccabean 
 period, and may have been employed in ordinary writing, but the use 
 of the new alphabet in the copies of the Sacred Scriptures was pro- 
 bably much earlier. Such changes are not introduced all at once, 
 and meet generally with considerable opposition. Bloch has called 
 attention to the fact that in later days the square alphabet was 
 regarded as the more ancient, and that the assertion was made that 
 the really older alphabet with its unsightly forms was a Divine 
 punishment from which Israel was delivered in the days of Ezra. 
 The directions that the Law should be written in the Assyrian 
 character (Zebachim, 62 a), and the prohibition to use for that pur- 
 pose the older alphabet, called contemptuously the “Y9, must have 
 been promulgated in a very early era. The most honourable title 
 given to Ezra in his book, besides that of “priest,” was that he 
 was “a ready scribe in the Law of Moses” (Ezra vii. 6), or, as he 
 was styled by Artaxerxes, “‘a scribe of the Law of the God of heaven” 
 (ch. vii. 21), and one of the most important works of the members 
 of the Great Synagogue must (even if no tradition could be adduced 
 on the point) have been the copying out of the Sacred Writings 
 from the few copies in the hands of the people, and multiplying 
 the same throughout the land. The scribes would naturally begin 
 with the books of the Law itself, and afterwards issue the other 
 sacred writings. According to Baba Bathra, 14 (see p. 453), they 
 “wrote Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets, Daniel, and Esther,” which 
 may mean either that they committed these books for the first time 
 to writing, or that they first copied them out for general circulation. 
 A considerable number, if not all in later times, of the members 
 of the Great Synagogue must have been “scribes.” We are not 
 inclined to agree with Bloch’s idea that they concerned them- 
 selves with compiling the prayers and inscriptions intended for the 
 door-posts and for phylacteries. Yet there may be some historical 
 basis for the curious statement in Fesach., 50 ὁ (although it savours 
 indeed of the legendary), given on the authority of R. Joshua ben 
 Levi, that the Men of the Great Synagogue ordained twenty-four 
 fasts, PX Pwyn Sodxw neyny xdy nino. pan DBD ’aM3 by 
 19213, “on account of those who wrote books, prayers and Mezuzoth 
 (inscriptions for the door-posts) in order that they might not grow 
 
ν 
 
 484 ᾿ Eixcursus {ΠῚ 
 
 rich, for if they were to grow rich they would not have written.” 
 The first beginnings at least of a Jewish Lectionary were settled in 
 their day (Aegilla, 31 b ; Jer. Megil/a, i. 1), and they certainly insti- 
 tuted the Feast of Purim, and arranged the Book of Psalms as the 
 Hymn-Book of the Jewish Church. The beginning of a system of 
 schools for the young is naturally ascribed to them (Sanhedrin, 
 104 ὁ). It is an interesting fact, whether historically correct or 
 not, that Baba Bathra, 21 b, 22 a, ascribes to Ezra a peculiar di- 
 rection, that no one should attempt to prevent a teacher of children 
 from opening a school in any district on the plea that other schools 
 were in existence, inasmuch as 20 ΠΕ Π DAI NNIP, “ the emula- 
 tion of scribes increases wisdom.” 
 
 If it be enquired why did not the Great Synagogue, if its members 
 were so active and their work so important, leave behind them some 
 distinct record of their actions? the answer is easy. The fact is, 
 as Bloch has pointed out (Studien, p. 120) that it was strictly for- 
 bidden to commit to writing religious laws and ordinances not 
 contained in the Scriptures. All such laws and ordinances were 
 taught by word of mouth. We have before referred to the fact (see 
 p. 456) that even in later days it was long before such a scruple was 
 overcome. The Talmud itself, with its voluminous directions and 
 interpretations, was only by degrees committed to writing. How 
 keenly the teachers of an earlier period felt on this question appears 
 from the saying, 77)1N |Nwd mon ΖΓ, “he who writes down the 
 ordinances ts like one who burns the Law.” The result of all this is 
 patent. Not one of the great Rabbis, from the days of Simon the 
 Just till long after the period of Hillel and Shammai, left behind 
 him any written memorials of his learning. Their teaching was oral, 
 and their decisions on the most difficult matters were intrusted only 
 to the memory of faithful disciples. Very many of their precious 
 sayings, which passed for ages from mouth to mouth, are treasured 
 up in the treatises of the Talmud. But though they did not actu- 
 ally write books, and though some of the traditions concerning them 
 may be legendary, no one has yet been found hardy enough to main- 
 tain that the account of their words and actions contained in the 
 Talmuds and Midrashim is in the main to be regarded as fabulous. 
 We consider it almost equally rash and uncritical to question the 
 existence and authority exercised by ‘the Men of the Great Syna- 
 gogue.” 
 
The Men of the Great Synagogue. 485 
 
 Closely connected with this question is that concerning the institu 
 tion of the Sanhedrin, discussed also by Kuenen in an earlier article.! 
 Dr. David Hoffmann, Docent in the Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin, 
 has in a recent essay, in which he reviews the theory put forward 
 by the Dutch Professor,? ably pointed out that the existence of a 
 Supreme court of justice in Israel prior to the Babylonish captivity 
 is placed beyond doubt by the statements of Deut. xvii. 8 ff. and 
 2 Chron. xix., and moreover, that, according to the Jewish tradition 
 (noticed in Josephus and the Talmud), a body exercising similar 
 authority was in active existence from the time of Moses down to 
 the final overthrow of the Jewish polity by the Romans, and even 
 long after that event. 
 
 According to Kuenen, the Jewish Council known commonly under 
 the Hebraized name of the Sanhedrin (συνέδριον) did not exist prior 
 to the Greek period (B.c. 330), and was first known by the name of 
 the Gerusia (γερουσία) or Senate. His arguments appear to be mainly 
 drawn from the supposed silence of Ezra and Nehemiah on the 
 point, and from the fact that Josephus does not mention such a body 
 when describing the reception of Alexander the Great (Av/zg., xi. 
 8, 5), while he makes mention of ‘‘Senate” when narrating the 
 reception of Antiochus III., which occurred about a century after- 
 wards (Aztig., xii. 3, 3). It must not be forgotten, however, that 
 Josephus speaks of the high priest as having been accompanied on 
 the former occasion by the priests and the multitude of the citizens 
 (μετὰ τῶν ἱερέων καὶ τοῦ πολιτικοῦ πλήθους). In opposition to the 
 idea expressed by Jost, Graetz and others, Kuenen maintains that 
 the statements of the New Test. and Josephus, which speak of the 
 Sanhedrin as an aristocratic body, do not harmonize with those of 
 the Talmud, according to which the Sanhedrin was composed mainly 
 of Doctors of the Law, admitted to that body solely on account of 
 their learning, and presided over by two distinguished Doctors of the 
 Law, the President of the body being styled Nasi, or “ Prince,” and 
 the Vice-President, Ab-Beth-Din, “ Father of the House of Judgment.” 
 
 Hoffmann maintains that there is no real contradiction between 
 
 1 Over de Samenstelling van het Sanhedrin in the Verslagen en Mededeelingen 
 der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afdeeling Letterkunde x. : 
 
 Amsterdam: 1866. . 
 2 Der oberste Gerichtshof in der Stadt des Heiligthums in the Yahres-Bericht des 
 
 Rabbiner-Seminars fiir das orthodoxe Fudenthum pro 5638 (1877-1878). Berlin. 
 
486 Fxcursus 11]. 
 
 the statements of the Greek and the Talmudic authorities referred to. 
 The fact of noble birth had, indeed, considerable influence in pro- 
 curing admission to the Sanhedrin, and this point is not gainsaid in 
 the Talmud. But an acquaintance with the laws and ordinances 
 such as was required by the terms of Ezra’s commission (Ezra vii. 
 25, 26), and is alluded to in the Book of Sirach (chap. xliv. 4 ff, 
 XXXVill. 24 to xxxix. 11), was primarily required. Hoffmann points 
 out at considerable length that the historical character of the 
 Talmudic accounts respecting the Nasi and the Ab-Beth-Din ought 
 not reasonably to be doubted. These officials of the body are often 
 referred to as “the pairs” (M1311), They seem indeed to have been 
 first appointed about B.c. 170, for the chiefs of the Sanhedrin, from 
 Jose ben Jo‘ezer and Jose ben Jochanan to Hillel and Shammai 
 (B.C. 170-30) are known by that appellation. These “ Pairs” are 
 said in Peah, ii. 6, to have been the link immediately following 
 “the prophets” in the chain of tradition, which statement Kuenen 
 adduces in order to strengthen his argument as to the legendary 
 character of ‘‘the Men of the Great Synagogue.” But, under the 
 designation ‘ prophets,” in Pea, ii. 6, “the Men of the Great 
 Synagogue” (mentioned in Aéofh, i. 1 as the link which followed 
 “the prophets ”) seem to have been included.! For the succession 
 of “the prophets” had not ceased when “ the Great Synagogue ” was 
 organized; but, on the contrary, prophets were among the most 
 conspicuous members of that body in the earlier period of its 
 existence. The decisions of the Sanhedrin during the time of “ the 
 pairs” are, according to Hoffmann, referred to as ordinances made 
 by “the pairs” themselves. 
 
 Hoffmann further argues that even in the Books of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah mention is made of a senate at Jerusalem under various 
 names (Ezra x. 8 ;vi. 7, 14; Neh. x. 1; xi.1, etc!). The governing 
 body was then composed of priests and Levites under the headship 
 of the High Priest, and of Israelitish laymen under the headship ot 
 the Prince of the House of Judah. “The elders of the House of 
 Israel” were all probably ‘ scribes” skilled in the Law like Ezra 
 himself (Ezra vii. 25). Such a body would naturally be renewed 
 from time to time, and the name of ‘‘the Great Synagogue” was 
 
 1 The Adoth of R. Nathan, 69 a, speaks of the Men of the Great Synagogue 
 as having derived the tradition from Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. 
 
The Men of the Great Synagogue. 487 
 
 given to it in later days, not only on account of the important work 
 it performed in the re-constitution and preservation of the Jewish 
 Church and State in troublous times, but also because its members 
 were originally more numerous than those of the Sanhedrin of a later 
 period, or even of the council of elders which occupied its place in 
 earlier and happier days.!_ Though we cannot narrate the history of 
 the disruption of the Great Synagogue, it is highly probable that after 
 the death of Simon the Just it was shattered by internal dissensions, 
 caused by the disposition of many men of position at that time to 
 yield to heathen customs which were then widely introduced into 
 Jewish national life owing to the intercourse with the Greeks. If the 
 eighteen Greek Psalms known as the Psalter of Solomon, the original 
 language of which was in all probability Hebrew, could be satisfac- 
 torily shown to belong to the Maccabean period, or to have been 
 composed shortly after that date, the fourth Psalm of that remark- 
 able collection, which speaks of the unholy and impure sinner ἐν 
 συνεδρίῳ (1) 3, or Dyan 11), would well describe the character of 
 the men whose conduct broke up the early council, or of those who, 
 notwithstanding their ungodliness and sensuality, were during the 
 troubles of that day able to obtain seats in the later body. “The 
 Great Synagogue” was broken up some years previous to the heroic 
 struggles of the Maccabees ; and after that era the governing body 
 of the Jewish Church was reorganised by Hyrkanus and termed the 
 Sanhedrin, 
 
 1 Dr. M. Heidenheim, in his interesting article before alluded to, has pointed 
 out that the reason why this council originally consisted of seventy elders was, that 
 the families and the ‘‘ captains” or “‘ princes ” of the tribes given in Num. 1. 5 ff., 
 and in Num. xxvi. 7 ff., were exactly seventy. For Reuben 5, for Simeon 7, for 
 Gad 8, for Judah 6, for Issachar 5, for Zebulon 4, for Manasseh 9, for Ephraim 5, 
 for Benjamin 8, for Dan 2, for Asher 6, for Naphtali 5. Total 70. The reasons 
 why the numbers allotted to the several tribes varied so curiously can only be a 
 matter of pure conjecture. 
 
BXGURS US IV. 
 
 GLOSSARY OF WORDS AND FORMS PECULIAR TO THE 
 BOOK OF KOHELETA. 
 
 § 1. GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES OF THE BOOK. 
 
 Tue following grammatical peculiarities in the Book of Koheleth 
 are specially worthy of notice as belonging mainly to the modern 
 period of the Hebrew language. 
 
 Verbs nr”, which occasionally in all periods of the language inter- 
 change forms with verbs nied (see Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 75, rem. 20-22), 
 are in the Mishna regularly inflected as verbs nm”, See Geiger, 
 Lehrb. zur Sprache der Mishna, p. 46. Compare in Koheleth δ ν᾽ 
 fem. part. for 783‘, or ΠΝ, chap. x. 5; ΝΘ for N¥19, chap. vil. 
 26; SOM and NOI, chap. viil. 12; ix. 18, and also according to the 
 Masora in chap. 1x. 2; 11. 26, though in these two latter passages the 
 regular form 89! occurs in the common text, which according to 
 the Masora ought only to appear in chap.vii.26. The form δὲ δ᾽ for 
 m3’) occurs in chap. viii. τ. 
 
 Attention has also been called by Delitzsch and others to the fact 
 that the use of the moods in Koheleth is more restricted. The 
 cohortative only occurs once, in chap. vil. 23; the jussive, which is 
 used in prohibitive clauses, such as chap. vil. 16, 17, 183; x. 4, 
 occurs elsewhere only in chap.:v. 14; x. 20, and xii. 7. Other cases 
 have been cited by some scholars, namely S17? chap. xi. 3, and 7S?! 
 chap. xii. 5, but see our crit. comm. on these passages. The disuse 
 of the imperfect with vav conversive is still more significant, see 
 notes on chap. 1. 13, p. 317, chap. 1.17, p. 320. That construction 
 occurs only in three cases, chap. 1.17; iv. 1, 7, notwithstanding the fre- 
 quent use of the perfect with simple vav. Note also the way in which 
 the inf. absolute is employed in chap. iv. 2, 17. See pp. 349, 358. 
 
 The personal pronouns are used after the verb where no contrast 
 or emphasis can have been designed, thus, ‘38 follows the verb in 
 
 the first person in chap. 1.165 11. 1, 11, 12; 13,45, 19. ΞΟ {πη 
 488 
 
Grammatical Pecularities. 489 
 
 18; iv. 1, 4,7; V. 173 vii. 255 viii, 15; and S17 in chap. ix. 15. 
 Delitzsch notices that the same peculiarity occurs in Hosea, but in 
 that case the personal pronoun precedes the verb, as for example, 
 Hosea viii. 13; xii. 11. So also in Ps. xxxix. 11; Ixxxii. 6, etc. In 
 one case "δὲ in the nominative is preceded by ®4 for emphasis, see 
 note on chap. ii. 14. In chap. ii, 15 ‘38 D4 is the accusative, see 
 our note. 
 
 The frequent use of the participle in the book, and the employ- 
 ment of the personal pronouns after the participle to indicate the 
 subject, is a noteworthy characteristic of the book. So also is the 
 use of verbal adjectives with the pronouns. See note on chap. 1. 5. 
 
 So likewise the mode in which the demonstrative ΠῚ is employed is 
 similar to the Mishna, and the fact that the feminine used in the 
 book is 7%, Mishnaic 1%. See note on chap. il. 2. The employment 
 of #9 in chap i. 9 is a sign of a late period ; and the use of ΠῸ is 
 peculiar. See note on chap. il. 12. 
 
 As marks ‘of peculiarity of style the frequent employment of δ" 
 may be noted (chap. i. 10; 11. 13, 21 ; IVA SteVe τι Vil τα εἰσ 
 the common use of the personal pronouns in place of the substantive 
 verb, as in chap. i. 5, 7, 10; iil. 18; v. 18, etc., and the more constant 
 use of particles such as 83, 3, 3, WWE, WN, etc. The frequency with 
 which these occur is significant of the late period of the writer, 
 though they are by no means exclusively found in the later Hebrew. 
 We do not adduce here the expressions necessitated by the subject 
 matter of the book itself, as to do so would be a fetitio principn. 
 
 Other instances will be found given in the commentary, all point- 
 ing towards the conclusion arrived at by the critical school, namely,’ 
 that the work was composed at a period far later than that of 
 Solomon. 
 
 The Glossary which follows is, with the exception of the words 
 and clauses within brackets and the references to our commentary, 
 a translation of Delitzsch’s “ List of Hapaxlegomena and of words 
 and forms in the Book of Koheleth indicative of a later period of the 
 language.” I had originally intended, to give a glossary only based 
 on that of Delitzsch, but on consideration I have considered it better 
 simply to translate Delitzsch’s list, which is only partially and very im- 
 perfectly given in the English translation of his work (see n. 2 on 
 p-119). But I have included in it many remarks which in the original 
 German are not to be found in the Glossary but in the work itself. 
 
490 FEixcursus \V. 
 
 § 2. GLossary OF WorpsS AND Forms. 
 [738. See note on chap. iii. 6.] 
 
 mv, caper, or caperberry, the flower-buds ot the caper plant, 
 only chap. xi. 5. See notes pp. 263, 264. Compare Ma'seroth, 
 iv. 6; Berachoth, 36 a, where a distinction is made between 
 ΓΔ ΣΝ the caperberries, and }'D SP the husks of the fruit of the 
 
 caper. [Note the allusion to the caper (APY) on p. 23.] 
 DIN, man, opposed to NWS, only chap. vii. 28. 
 
 Ins. Zo weigh, only in chap. xi 9. Not used in this sense in 
 Talmudic [Buxtorf notes that the pual {I8 is used in the sense 
 of ¢rutinart, probari apud arithmeticos : [2 ΠῚ 11) 8), probabitur 
 hec species. The writers alluded to by Buxtorf are those of the 
 middle ages, but their usage is unimportant in considering the 
 significance of the term in earlier Rabbinic]. 
 
 8, Wo! chap. v. τό. ry, woe to him / chap. iv. 10, see crit. comm. 
 instead of the older '8- Comp. "Π Ezek. ii. 10, as pn ΝΣ 
 Shemoth Rabba, § 46. "2 ND °S, Ah, how evil/ Targ. Jer. on 
 Lev. xxvi. 29. DYDY ON, Ah, heaven! Rosh ha-shana, 19 a: ViPS, 
 Alas! the meek one! LBerachoth, 6 ὦ, or compare VIP "7, San- 
 hedrin, 11 a. 
 
 PN, if, chap. vi. 6, Esth. vil. 4; compounded of DN (1) 8) and (xd 
 read Nx? Ezek. ii. 6), Targ. Deut. xxxii. 29 = Heb. 19, common 
 
 in the Mishna, eg:, Maccoth, i. το, P7303 3 boy, if we had 
 been in the Sanhedrin. 
 
 DYNDN, see note on chap. vii. 26. 
 
 MIBDN, in the phrase ΓΞ bya [see p. 98 note, p. 99, pp. 102, 103] 
 only in chap. xi, 11, as in Sanhedrin, 12 a, of those assembled 
 together to arrange the calendar. See Jer. Sanhedrin, x. 28 a, 
 [quoted in note 1, p. 103]. In his crit. remarks on the text 
 Delitzsch notes as follows: MBDX has daghesh in the 5. like 
 DYBDN, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15; ‘BONS, Neh. xii. 15. Menahem 
 ben-Saruk in his Lexicon, under #8, states this distinctly ; the 
 Masora, on the contrary, affixes the note mo [ze. not elsewhere], 
 to all the three forms. The sing. is ΠΝ, like Ni728, from 
 Ta, 
 
Glossary of Words and Forms. 491 
 
 bna, to hasten, in this sense found only in chap. v. 1; vii. 9, so hiphil 
 Esther vi. 14; compare the transitive use of the piel, Esth, ii. 9, 
 like Targ, 903 (= 573ns) and 1°73, haste. 
 
 "3, 20 search out, only chap. ix. 1; compare the Talmudic 13 by 
 pure, thoroughly free from faults and failures. 
 
 Min3, the period of youth, only chap. xi. 9; xii, 1; comp. yy", 
 Num. xi. 28. 
 
 03, 40 cease, to be inactive, chap. xii. 3, elsewhere only in the Chaldee 
 of the Book of Ezra, common in the Mishna, e.g. Adoth, 1. 5, 
 MN 212 bya, ceasing from the study of the Law [see note, 
 p- 245]. LXX. chap. xil. 3, ἤργησαν = depyot ἐγενήθησαν. 
 
 poy M2, the eternal house (comp. Ezek. xxvi. 20), 2.6. the grave, chap. 
 
 xii. 5 [see p. 201] as Zosefta Berachoth, iii, ody naa WoaDA 
 
 JNA MINN, he who delivers the farewell address at a cemetery 
 
 does not close with the blessing. [Compare the phrase ΠΞΌΝΣ 
 
 nwxn ΠΟ} od in the first line of the Aden inscription (A.D. 
 
 718) in Plate xxix. of Zhe Oriental Series of Facsimiles of An- 
 
 cient MSS., edited for the Paleeographical Society by Prof. Wm. 
 
 Wright, noticed also by M. A. Levy, Zeitschrift der Dell G. 
 
 xxi. pp. 156-160.] Comp. poy ma, Targ. Isaiah xiv. 18; xlii. 
 
 11 [see crit. comm. on chap xii. 5, pp. 436, 431] 
 
 then, thus, chap. viii. 10; Esth. iv. 16, elsewhere only in the 
 
 Targum, as Isaiah xvi. 5, ‘TOD 33 jPN? Gaenbvt ΜΓ 123, then 
 
 will the Messiah of Israel erect his throne in goodness. 
 
 wen bya, one who has a peculiar tongue by which he can charm 
 serpents, chap. x. I1, comp. wa bya, a corpulent person, 
 Berachoth, 13 6; 33 bya one who is manly, Bechoroth, vi. 5 5 bya 
 Doin, a man with a fine nose, i.e. holding his head (nose) high, 
 Taanith, 19 a. 
 
 133, 20 strain, to apply one’s strength to a thing, only in chap. Χ. 10 ; 
 in other passages it means 70 make strong. 
 
 Y213, 212, only in chap. x. 8 [In use both in Chald., Syr. and Arab. 
 6 G = 
 
 : }- 
 
 ΤΠ, see under vi. 
 
 AYN, what will be, 1.6. what is the result, chap. ii, 22, as in the Mishna, 
 e.g. Shabbath, vi. 6; Erubin, i. 10 ; Jebamoth, xv. 2; of that which 
 actually occurs, what happens according to one’s experience, 
 what usually happens. ‘ 
 
 133 
 
 τ} 
 
492 Fixcursus ἹΝ. 
 
 mivbin and mipdin, Jolly, only found in Koheleth, see note on chap. 
 ΤΠ 
 
 31, see note on chap. i. 11. 
 
 ΤΟΣ, time, chap. 111. 1; Neh. ii. 6; Esth. ix. 27, 31, elsewhere only in 
 Biblical Chaldee; along with 72, ὥρα, the usual word in the 
 Mishna for καιρός and χρόνος. See note on chap. iii. 1. 
 
 nbin, fem. part. kal of nbn, chap. v. 12, 15, the niphal participle is 
 used in dsa.xyil..115 Jer. x. 16 ;-Nah. Π|. τὸ; ΣΙ Τὴ 
 
 ΠῚ [a son of nobles, chap. x. 17, see p. 220], one free born (liber, 
 opposed to 12Y, a s/ave), the usual word in the Talmud [})N *32, 
 Tree persons, Baba kam., 14 6], used of the owners of possessions, 
 like predium liberum, edes libere in Roman law [ὙΠ 23. 825), 
 Jarms free of mortgages, Baba kam., τ4 ὁ. Compare 1, free- 
 dom, upon the coins struck during the revolt against the 
 Romans. 
 
 WO YIN, outside of, except, only in chap. ii. 25 (Chald. [Ὁ 3, Syr. 
 
 «Ὁ ἐπι ), common in the Mishna, ¢.g. “772ἰΔοΐλ, ii. 3, Sun yn 
 DIN, outside (the steps of) the porch, W3P2 WD YIN, except the 
 gate of Nikanor. 
 
 WAN, Zo enjoy, chap. ii. 25. See note there. Generally used in Talm., 
 and Syr. of painful experiences, comp. Job xx. 2. 
 
 pon, strength, chap. x. 10 [see note there]. It means everywhere 
 else, also in Aram. (82), xn)"N), armies, except in ‘Isaiah 
 Xxx. 3, where it signifies ofes, riches. 
 
 DN, @ loss, deficit, see note on chap. i. 15, p. 319. 
 
 V0, desire, matter, business, thing, chap. iii. 1, 173 v. 73 vill 6. 
 Comp. Isa. lvili. 3, 12. The original unweakened signification 
 is to be found in chap. v. 3; xii. 1,10. The weakening of the 
 original meaning, delight, pleasure, may have already begun early. 
 In the Book of Koheleth it has already proceeded as far as in 
 the language of the Mishna, eg. Aezz‘a, iv. 6, ΠῚ YBN M53, 
 how much does this cost ? or Berachoth, 5 a, yan> YE 3 DIS, 
 a man sells a thing to his fellow. 
 
 fawn, reckoning, account, sing. chap. vii. 26) (25) IX TOs Welle 
 grounded knowledge based upon careful reckoning up of 
 matters ; "3 Π }N3 is the Mishnaic for the N. T., λόγον ἀποδιδόναι. 
 Plural ΓΤ, machinations, “ devices,’ chap. vii. 29, used also 
 
Glossary of Words and Forms. 493 
 
 in 2 Chron. xxvi. 15, but in the sense of machine bellice 
 [Gesenius compares the later Latin zugenia, “ engines,’ from 
 which ingénieur, “engineer”]; but in Shaddath, 150 a, how- 
 ever, there occurs the expression similar to that in the Book of 
 Koheleth, namely, nawa yavnb ame myn ov maw, one may 
 make on the Sabbath calculations about a.good work, }\AWN ΚΣ 
 is the general Mishnaic expression for ca/cu/ation, reckoning. 
 [The word is not to be explained with Grotius in chap. vil. 29, 
 as meaning “ rationes ac causas multas cur a primeva ἰδία sim- 
 plicitate deflecterent.”| 
 
 D‘AONN, errors, only chap. xii. 5. See note there. 
 
 AND, mill, chap. xii. 4, comp. }iND, Lam. y. 13, a word foreign to the 
 language of the Mishna, but corresponding even with the old 
 Ὁ ΠῚ, as the vulgar Arabic eat. and ogee used in place 
 the older '&) [See Eli Smith in Delitzsch’s Jiidisch-arabische 
 Poesien aus vormuhammedanischer Zeit (1874), Ρ- 49]. 
 
 WN’ Piel, Ὁ give up (one’s heart) fo despair, only chap. ii. 20 [The 
 niphal occurs in several other passages]. The older language 
 uses the niphal in the sense of 20 give up hope; the Talmudic 
 uses the niphal and also a hithpael vino) (Kedim, xxvi. 8), and 
 also the piel US, AZesi‘a, 21 4, from which it is apparent that 
 
 ary 
 
 WN! (chap. ii. 20) is not to be regarded as a causative (like the 
 Arabic), but as a simple transitive after which 139 is to be sup- 
 plied. In place of vind, Delitzsch observes that vinyd with 
 pathach: should be read as in the Biblia Rabb., the Mas. parva 
 according to MS., and in the St. Petersburg MS. [So also several 
 of the MSS. collated by Michaelis.] 
 
 MYM, weariness, only chap. xil. 12. 
 
 ni", as participial adjective, what remains, the rest (comp. 1 Sam. xv. 
 15) =advantage, profit, chap. vi, I1; vil. 11, or Preference, pre- 
 eminence, chap. vi. 8. As an adverb, more (comp. Esth. vi. 6), 
 exceedingly, too, chap. ii. 15; vil. 16: “YIN, and moreover that, 
 chap. xil. 9 ; TBI IM, and moreover more than that, chap. xii. 
 12. In Talmudic Hebrew 77 [in fem. 1] is used in the 
 signification of superfluous (Kiddushin, 24 6), and is common 
 [followed by 1] as an adverb in the signification of more or 
 more than, e.g. Chullin, 57 6. 
 
494 Fixcursus IV. 
 
 ΠΡ", beautiful, of that which is good and right, chap. lil. τα; v. 17, 
 
 as in Jerus. Pesachim, ix. 1 (Babl. Pesachim, 99 a): “beautiful,” 
 r “ becoming (75") is silence to the wise, how much more to 
 
 the fools !” 
 
 [88° See note on chap. vii. 18.] 
 
 ἡ ΠΝ, preference, advantage, chap. 11. 13 (twice); vii. 12 eee Ini, 
 chap. ili. 19), more often, of real profit, chap. i. 3; il. τα; iL. 9; 
 Vv. 153; x. το, pre-eminence and advantage, chap. ν. : ; peculiar 
 to the Book οἵ Koheleth, and borrowed in Rabbinic from it. 
 [See note on chap. i. 3.] 
 
 IMS}, together, alike, yas ΧΙ 6. Isa, lxve25 ; Chron., Ezra,’ Neh. 
 
 Chald. 8743, Syr. ipso, frequent in the language of the Mishna, 
 as TNND Tym ΠΝῚ ὙἼΠΠ ΠΝ MSW, he who sees the room below and 
 the garret together, t.e. squints with one eye, Bekhoroth, vil. 4. 
 Similarly NAN, eg. Kilayim,i.9. It is also common in the 
 later language. So, in the last of “the eighteen benedictions,”. 
 IND 99993 IN W303, dless us, our Father, all of us together ! 
 
 33, size, length, as adverb, long ago, chap. 1. 10; 11. 12, 16; iii. 15; 
 Iv. 23 vi. 103 1x, 6,7; so generally in the Mishna, as ‘N71 0330 
 
 bono, L he long ago perceived, Erubin, iv. 2. In Aram. more 
 frequent in the meaning of derhaps than in that of formerly. 
 W2, to be good, prosperous, chap. xi. 6 ; Esth. viii. 5; in the language 
 of the Mishna the common word for that which is ritually suit- 
 able, or legally admissible. The hiphil verbal noun 730, 
 setting-right, occurs only in chap. x. 10, In the Mishna it is 
 - the usual word for the avrangement according to the written 
 directions, e.g. of the firstfruits, of the tabernacle, of the festal 
 nosegay, in the heading of the Treatise ἢ of the making 
 liable to uncleanness. Compare Menachoth 48 ὁ, 137 2) PS 
 mvsanay WAN 3 Δ κῶν, Ζ.6., one draws no conclusion with 
 regard to a thing which is not set right according to the rule 
 from a thing which is set right according to the rule. W237 is 
 generally pronounced 1¥3i}, but 127 is more correct. 
 13, success, superiority, chap. ii. 21 ; iv. 4; advantage, chap. ν. 10. 
 Only found in Koheleth. 
 32? [common in other books of Scripture, either with suffixes, or when 
 used with reference to a preceding noun, as Exod. xxvi. 9], used 
 
Glossary of Words and Forms. 495 
 
 absolutely in the sense of omy in chap. vii. 29. Similarly, but 
 not exactly alike is 158. xxvi. 13. 
 3, study [not preaching as Luther and Herzfeld], only found chap. 
 
 xil. 12, not Talmudic, from 32, Arab. ow to gape, to long for, 
 
 Syr. Loud, vapor, from breathing out, exha/are. Connected in 
 meaning }1°33 (7137}) [See note on chap. xii. 12]. 
 
 N}?, 20 accompany (elsewhere in kal in sense of fo lend or borrow), 
 chap. vili. 15. The verb is used similarly in the Mishna, in 
 piel or hiphil, e.g. to accompany a guest, to accompany a traveller, 
 to accompany a corpse to the tomb, whence the saying, nid 
 md», “he who accompanies a dead body, to him will one also 
 give the same honour,” KXethuboth, 72 a. So the noun an, 
 company, O'N21 m9, the conducting of the dead to the tomb. 
 
 2°72, see note on chap. ii. 8. 
 
 Μη, knowledge, consciousness, συνείδησις, chap. x. 20, and elsewhere, 
 only in the Chronicles and in the Book of Daniel; Targum 
 ΜΈ). See note on chap. x. 20. . 
 
 msdn, pregnant, chap. xi. 5 only, as in the Mishna, eg. /Jebamoth, 
 XV. I, Ndi nny’, “she was already pregnant on her departure.” 
 [So in Lat. plena, “ plena patris thalamis excedit,” Ovid, Afetam., 
 x. 469. Soin Greek, πληροῦν yuvaixa. | 
 
 N22, messenger (angel) of priests, chap. v. 5 [see note there], comp. 
 Mal. ii. 7, in the sense of the later DY mow (ΠῚ mow, 
 Kiddush, 23 6), delegate of God. Plural everywhere Dm oy (not 
 pon 2v), ~ See Delitzsch, Die Dzéscussion der Amtsfrage in 
 Mischna und Gemara in the Lutherische Zeitschrift, 1854, pp. 
 446-9. 
 
 1202, poor, brought down, only chap. iv. 13 ; ix. 15, 16, compare, 
 however, ΠΟ, poverty, Deut. vill. 9, and 130, zmpoverished, 
 Isa, xl. 20. . 
 
 ΓΟ, nails, chap. xii. 11 [see note], ἐ.4., MWD, Jer. x. 4, comp. 
 
 “Isa. xli. 7; 1 Chron. xxii. 3; 2 Chron. iii. 9. The word is 
 written with δ᾽ in Koheleth, from which the Talmud takes 
 occasion to interpret NMMYD, nails, in Jer. Sanhedrin, x. 1, as 
 ΠΥ, ordinances. 
 
 DY, few, chap. v. 1, a plural which occurs elsewhere only in Ps. 
 cix. & ἢ 
 
496 Fixcursus IV. 
 
 MP2, hap, accident (from MP, 20 meet, happen), is guidguid alicui 
 accidtt (in the later philosophical terminology the accédéens ; Gr. 
 Ven. συμβεβηκός), in Koheleth, as the context shows, that which 
 finally puts an end to life, the final event of death. More 
 frequently used in Koheleth than in any other book. See 
 especially chap. ili. 19, and note there. 
 
 Y0, zvace, only in chap. ix. 11. See note there. 
 
 Ww, to draw, to attract, chap. ii. 3 [see note there]. Compare the 
 expression OTN We, to entice the heart, Chagiga, 14 a, Sifri, 
 135 ὁ, ed. Friedmann. 
 
 nndwin, discharge, chap. viii. 8, different from Ps. Ixxviii. 49. 
 
 ¥33. Hiphil construed with ON, to strike against any one, to happen, 
 chap. viii. 14, like Esth. ix. 26. Aram. ? NON, δι. Targ. Jerus. 
 Exod. xxxill. 13. 
 
 393, 20 conduct oneself, to act, as in the language of the Mishna, eg. 
 Aboda zara, ill. 4, MON DW 12. ITY DN, one against whom one 
 behaves as against a God, also 54 ὦ, ἼΡΥΠῚ ΠῚ) 137393 o>, the 
 world acts and proceeds according to its usual course. Comp. 
 Targ. Koh. x. 4, 2 O22? 492 D0, leave not thy good post 
 where thou wert accustomed to stand, 
 
 nM, vest, chap. vi. 5, rare [see note], as in the usual ΠῚ M3, Assyr. 
 nuh libbi. Sometimes a synonyme of 21D, as 8123 κὸν 10 ΠῚ), zt 
 were better for him not to be born, Jer. Berachoth, i. 2. This m3 
 is common in place of Koheleth’s a5 nm, 
 
 Ὁ), Zo fix, to drive into, chap. xi. 11 (for which Isa. xxi. 23 has Yh, 
 Mishnaic 94), Jer. Sawhedrin, x. 1), as Dan. Xi. 45. 
 
 Sap, Hithpael, fo drag oneself, only chap. xii. 5 [see p. 260]. 
 
 FAD, end, chap. iii. 11; vil. 2; xll. 13; Joel 1. 20; 2 Chron. xx. 16, 
 the later word which afterwards drove out of use the older 
 nO8, which also occurs in Koheleth chap. vil. 8; x. 13. So 
 in the first Mishna, Berachoth, i. 1, NNN DWNT HID TW, unto 
 the end of the first night watch. It does not always correspond 
 with NINN, for J27 NAN could not be used for 137 41D, chap. 
 xii. 13 (compare the expression common in the Palestinian 
 Talmud, DN NON. | ITD ND, shat ἐς not all 
 but also”), which has the sense of summa summarum (Mishnaic 
 synon. “2 ὃν 005), 
 
Glossary of Words and Forms. 497 
 
 22D, fool, chap. ii. 19; vil. 17; x. 3 (bis), 14; Jer. iv. 22; v. 21; in 
 the Book of Koheleth it is a synonym of the more frequently 
 used D°DB, for which it is the word in the Targums. 
 
 Sap, Jolly, only found chap. x. 6. 
 
 M230, folly, chap. i. 47, with δ᾽ [see note there], ii. 3, 12, 13 ; vii. 25 ; 
 x. I, 13 (synon. ΤΥ Ὁ, Prov: 1x. 13). 
 
 135, Niphal, zo de endangered, chap. x. 9. [The verb has this meaning 
 only here, in Chald. it is frequent in Pael, Aphel, and Ithpa.] 
 Compare Berachoth, i. 3, "28Y2 °NI3D, 2 brought myself into 
 danger, whence ᾿Ξ, in danger, dangerously wl, ΞΘ and 239, 
 danger. The Ithpael, ᾿Ξ ΘΝ, found in the Targ. and Talmud, 
 corresponds to the Niphal. 
 
 Av, deed, work, only in chap. ix. τ, like the Syr. ae Jewish Aram. 
 ἼΔΙ» (72). 
 
 TY (contracted from {7"TW), yer, with ND, not yet, chap. iv. 3. 
 
 ΠΣ, or according to another reading 7372 (from ΠΡ ΠΤ), yet, chap. 
 iv. 2. Mishnaic 151), eg. Medarim, xi. το, TWIN PW, she zs 
 yet a girl, similar to, and of the same meaning as, the Syr. 
 
 ¥ 
 \ad,, which also means with the negative xondum, like the 
 
 Mishnaic 9 ΚΣ, 
 
 ΓΝ, Hithpael, zo dow oneself, only chap. xii. 3. 
 
 WW, to stand still, to remain, chap. ii. 9 ; vill. 3, as Jer. xlviii. 11; 
 Ess ΟἿ “5: 
 
 nv, see under Ὁ 
 
 MY, see crit. comm. on chap. v. 19; Χ. 19. 
 
 1222, zoil, business, only in the Book of Koheleth. See note on chap. 
 i. 13, p. 317. This is one of the most common words of the 
 post-biblical Hebrew, primarily used of the subject of business, 
 as PIP INNA PPIY, employed with this matter, Kiddushin, 6 a 
 also Aram. ¢hey came to speak, sarap NYO, from one matter 
 to another, Baba Bathra, 114 0. 
 
 DInp SY only chap. x. 18. See note there. 
 
 τ τ; 
 nev with pnp, to give a feast, chap. x. 19, as Dan. v. 1, 02 732, N.T. 
 ποιεῖν δεῖπνον, Mark vi. 21. In Ezek, iv. 15, pnp ney is used 
 of the preparing of food. In chap. vi. 12 the verb is used 
 like ποιεῖν (= διάγειν) χρόνον, Acts xv. 33. Followed by ΔΙῸ it 
 K K 
 
498 Exxcursus IV. 
 
 means not only 20 do good, chap. vii. 20, but also 20 enjoy good, 
 to pass an agreeable life, chap. iii. 12 [but see our note on that 
 passage]. 
 
 [Y3B, see note on chap. ix. 11. r.] 
 
 DIB (Cant. iv. 13; Neh. ii. 8), plural, chap, 11. 5, O°PT2, parks, 
 gardens of trees, as Mezi‘a, 103 a, ‘DD [see note on chap. 
 1156}: 
 
 WB, interpretation, explicatio, chap. viii. 1, elsewhere only in the 
 Chaldee portions of the Book of Daniel, an Aramaism for the 
 older }}7N8 and 72”, for which the Targum has WA and ΚΒ, 
 Talmud. TWD, the disentanglement or making up of a matter a 
 strife. 
 
 bain (03N8), a Hebraized Persian word occurring in the Books of 
 Ezra and Daniel, but elsewhere only in Koh. viii. 11 [see note 
 there] and in Esth. i. 20, message, saying, decision ; used in the 
 Targums, in which the Decalogue is called 1228 i mwvy, and 
 in Syriac, but not naturalised in Talmudic. 
 
 2P>P, Pilpel, derived from the adjective bop (smooth, shining, of brass), 
 which occurs in Ezek. i. 7; Dan. x. 6, fo sharpen ; only found 
 in this sense in chap. x. 10; used in Ezek. xxi. 26 in the sense 
 of zo shake [see note on chap. x. 10]. 
 
 Mis, seezng, only chap. v. το, K’vi for which the text has NS [see 
 note there], which may be read M$}, NS) (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 
 17) or also M8; the last two forms are naturalized in the 
 language of the Mishna, and have there peculiar meanings 
 arising out of the idea of seeing, e.g. God in His sanctuary, or 
 seeing with one’s own eyes, which is the meaning of the root. 
 
 1, Niphal participle 4772, only in chap. iii. 15 [see note]. 
 
 niva, See note on chap. i. 14. 
 
 }'Y1, used in the Chaldee parts of Daniel and in the ety yy 
 and }!¥7. See note on chap. i. 14. 
 
 w This form of the relative is by no means a later form, as is shown 
 by the Babyl.-Assyrian sa, the Phoenician YS [which is not to be 
 regarded as a shortened form of WS, see Schroder, PAdnizische 
 Sprache, § 65], but a relative (originally a demonstrative) belong- 
 ing to the oldest period of the language, which in the Mishna 
 has entirely supplanted the WN of the older written Hebrew 
 language. It is already used in the Book of Koheleth in the 
 
Glossary of Words and Formis. 499 
 
 same way as in the Mishna, but in such a way that it stands in 
 the same line as WY, and disputes its supremacy. © according 
 to Herzfeld occurs 68 times; WS, 89 times ; comp. for example 
 chap. 1. 13 ff. ; vill. 14 ; x. 14, where both are used promiscuously. 
 The use of WN as a relative pronoun and a relative conjunction 
 in Koheleth is not different from the manner in which it is used 
 in the older literature: ND WNW in the sense of Jefore that, 
 chap. xil. 1, 2, 6, Mishnaic Now TY, is only a natural application 
 of the root-meaning, watil that not (2 Sam. xvil. 13; I Kings 
 Xvil. 17); so that it is only a matter of accident that further 
 proofs cannot be cited for NY) WY ban, without that not (nisi 
 guod non)=so tndeed that not, chap. iil. 11 (comp. ‘D3, without 
 that= so indeed that, Dan. xi. 18), for which Nov 7252) is used in 
 ‘ the Mishna, ἐς. Zrudin, i. 10. How far, however, the use of 
 δ᾽ has extended itself the following list will show, from which 
 all cases of & standing alone as a relative, or as a relative 
 conjunction, have been excluded. 
 123Y3, long ago, chap. ii. 16. 
 ἽΝ bya, because that, eo guod, chap. viii. 17 (comp. Jon. 1. 
 7, 8, 12), corresponding to the Talmudic Ἢ boa, 
 v bb, all which, chap. ii. 7, 9; αἰ what, chap. xi. 8 (sEyrdD, 
 everything future). 
 vy may-23, in all respects as, chap. v. 15, corresponding to 
 the Chaldee 7 bapros, Dan. li. 40, etc. 
 wD, as, chap. v. 14 (3 3, as he came), chap. xii. 7 (MYR, 
 as he has been), and when, guum, chap. 1x. 12 5 X. 3. 
 wend, that which, chap. i. 9 [See note there] ; ili. 15; vi. 
 
 10): Vill 2 ; Vill. ἢ; ΣΧ; 14. Ὁ ΠΡΌ, chap. iii. 22. 
 wD, than that, chap. v. 4 (WIAW, than that thou shouldest 
 vow). 
 
 bys ΤῚΣ by, in order that not, chap. vii. 14 (comp. chap. 
 iil, 18 ; viii. 2). 
 DIY, that also, chap. ii. 15 ; vill. 14. 
 maw and ni3¥, only chap. ii. 8 [see note]. 
 nin, youth, only in chap. xi. το [see note]. 
 na’, Hithpael, fo de forgotten, only chap. vili. 10, the common word 
 in Talmudic, e.g. Sanhedrin, 13 0. 
 
500 Exxcursus IV. 
 
 πῖον, 566 mi>3p, 
 
 pby to have power, to rule, chap. ii. 19; vill. 9 ; elsewhere only in 
 the books of Nehemiah and Esther (comp. Bechoroth, vii. 6, 
 etc.); Hiphil, Zo give power, chap. v. 18; vi. 2; elsewhere only 
 PSvexix. 127. Ἴ 
 
 obey, powerful, a ruler [Assyr. siltannu, ‘a ruler ;” Arab. obi] 
 chap. viii. 4, 8 [see notes there], nowhere else in Old Test. 
 Hebrew, but in the Mishna, eg. A7zddushin, 111. 6. yoy TAT, 
 now, LI will speak for thee to the pretor. 
 
 prow, followed by 3, having power over, only in chap. vill. 8 (comp. 
 Ezek. xvi. 30), on the contrary in chap. vil. 19 ; x. 5, as in Gen. 
 xlii. 6, in the political sense, @ rw/er [see ἢ. on chap. vii. 19]. 
 
 Ov, Hithpoel in a peculiar sense, see note on chap. vii. τό. 
 
 may, sinking-down, chap. x. 18, elsewhere only in Targ. Jer. xlix. 24. 
 
 ‘nv, drinking, only chap. x. 17 [see note]. 
 
 vpwn OA, chap. i. 3 [see note there, p. 307] corresponding with 
 the Greek tf’ ἡλίῳ or ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον. 
 
 "PH, only in chap. vi. το, not found elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew, 
 but it occurs in Chaldee, in the Targums and Talmud. 
 
 IPA, 20 be straight, to straighten, chap. i. 15 [see note there, p. 318]. 
 Piel, to make straight, to arrange, chap Vil. 12 ; ΧΙ]. 9, a word 
 common in the Mishna, both in Piel and Hiphil, zo arrange 
 (e.g. Gittin, iv. 2), as well as its derivatives PPA and 3°98; 
 the latter noun is used also in sense of welfare (Gitiin, iv. 6), 
 ordinances (Shabbath, 30 a). For the former compare the 
 phrase B51 ΡΠ, the ordinance of the scribes, see Ὁ. 48. 
 
INDEX OR TEXTS. 
 
 ILLUSTRATED AND NOT MERELY REFERRED TO 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 GENESIS. 
 . PAGE 
 1. 31 : : ᾿ : - 243 
 ὙΠ ΤΑ. 17 : 1 é : 384. 
 eae LO! 0 - : Ξ A 25 
 Ais he Je eee A : 5: 94.252 
 Vous : ; a 5 ὃ 373 
 3 G,ab-% Οἷς - - Ὁ 47 
 SS AHE WG) : : - ὃ 225 
 ΣΙ Aig) 5 . : Ξ S55 
 xlix. 24): ὃ 4 : Ὁ 345 
 EXODUS. 
 Tg OP ae 5 : : ἢ 93 
 σεν: 20..,..: ‘ : Ὰ 4 
 xxiii. 8. é 2 : ; 384 
 ΣΎΕΣ, 2 Ἦν» A ΝΣ 278 
 LEVITICUS. 
 xxvi. 8, 12, ff. : Ὁ 3 361 
 NUMBERS. 
 1: 2 : : : 487 
 Xs τό... - : . 98, 103 
 Ἐν 320. . . . . : 234 
 ΟΣ ας : c : : : 361 
 xxxii. 10 : : : : 199 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 XV 10. ᾿ 3 : - ; 284 
 SKIS) ΠΣ ; ἃ ; : 423 
 xxiii. 22-24 . : Ἂ : 360 
 
 501 
 
 Xvil. 47 . 
 Xx. 19-22 
 MK Ons 
 
 XVili. 27 . 
 sabe 26 - 
 XX. 15-22 
 
 xill. 22 
 
 iii, 25 
 
 JUDGEs. 
 
 I SAMUEL. 
 
 2 SAMUEL. 
 
 1 KINGS. 
 
 2 KINGS. 
 
 341 
 
502 Index of Texts. 
 
 1 CHRONICLES. PAGE 
 
 : é PAGE xv. I . . . « PA 421 
 xvi. : : : ν ‘ BS | Cina a : ; ‘ ; 234 
 ΧΧΙΝ, ΖΦ. Ε . δ . 333 Sete Ds Ξ i ς : 46 
 2 CHRONICLES. ΑΕ ἡ ree Mame tol στ 
 
 VIE 12 Ὁ 4 : ς : 4 xvi. δ. ἕ ᾿ ἥ Ἷ 383 
 Pree Ve : : ἵ Ξ 416 
 
 EzRa. xviii. 22. 2. : iene 393 
 
 ii. 2-59 . i 4 : : 478, 1χ. 27. ; ἔς : : 241 
 Alt, 12} 15. : ἵ : 285.) χε ο΄. : ; : : 395 
 v. 1 aM aa G8 1) Ἐπί 1 | ee et nae . ΤΕ 
 Viii. I-14 : : : : ap han. 0 ls : : : : 103 
 ΣΟ ne ἢ : : : 480 | xxy.I . : ‘ . 4, 440, 456 
 NEHEMIAH. Bayi 4, 5 ; 205 
 
 π ΟΝ ΤΠ Δ τ τὸς 
 HpT4 τττος ττι, Sey ἀσπῖς ἀτι; coma : ew ς 377 
 11. 15. : : : 9 ” xxx. 6 ἢ Ξ : - : 473 
 
 rails Xxxi. 14 . . . δ . 225 
 ΧΙ ὉΔΌΝ. 1χ So] 479 
 ΧΕ 228. ὦ. τὸ δ ὦ “18 ΘΟΝΟ ΟΕ SONGS. 
 ; ESTHER. ΤΥ 24: ᾿ : : “260 
 1.1 , - - . . 329 | vi. 2 : 5 : . : 327 
 Jos. Vil, IO ‘ : : .11, 465 
 τ SG : Ἢ : 151, 158 Ae als ; Ἶ i Ὧν Ἵ 
 ix. 3 ; 5 : ; j 203 Vill. ΓΕ. Η : A : 3 
 χ. 18, 19 ; : : 151, 158 
 np 21; 22 : 6 ; : 233 τ 
 SV 7g ἢ: : : : ΠΩΣ Κα. Ὑ2.. ; 3 : 219 
 xviii. 11 : : : : 252 ἡ ν.: 11 : ; : of 
 XK 23—2/7) οι: : : 3 ΤΟ ἢν ΧΗ 10, 11 ΄΄- : : é 241 
 Teh Fp Ἐς : ᾿ : : 255 [ πὶν. 18:29. . 5 : : 373 
 XXXi. 30 : : - 360) 11 xxive72) - é : : ‘ 406 
 XXXill. 23 : ; ν Ξ 202. ΣΕ, ὦ : - Ξ ° 413 
 KK : : : : 248 
 ᾿ rsa: Me He let : : 391 
 aaa Aa . - . . 351 XXX, 15 Ἶ Ν ᾿ : 252, 416 
 Xk Ὁ. : : : 2 167 roby, Ἶ Ἔ Ε ς 375 
 PETG yl BP ce) 1, ee Ae 
 xlix, 12. : : : : 319 | Reis, oun ΐ : : ν 378 
 λει go 35 Pt ies ESTAR el ° a ul τς ρῶς 
 J ae a a A τ 7 lg oy Ph ee) SZ 
 Ixxii. 16 ; μ : : 24 
 Ἰχχιῖῖ τς : Ξ : . 65 JEREMIAH. 
 νῦν. - . : : II 
 ps ὁ : sats i : : : : 65 
 PROVERBS. xx. 14-18 : . . 151, 158 
 τ Ose : : : 3 202) || xxii. τὸς : : : β 373 
 Vii. 7, 10-20 . . : = PI, 200 sexx. ὃς : - : . 23 
 
 Vile αὐ ν, ᾿ - : : 406 ZO Ome 3 Ἶ é 423 
 
Index of Texts. 
 
 EZEKIEL. JOEL. 
 ᾿- PAGE PAGE 
 xvii. πες : - ‘ 2320, 11.2. τὸ - Ἢ : ᾿ > 241 
 XVill. 2. 3 : ἃ ᾿ 2 
 ΚΟ J : , : ee MICAH. 
 xxxii. 7,8 . y F : 241 Wis 3). - - : A 351 
 DANIEL. HABAKKUK. 
 πο es μὸν 3 309 
 ZEC : 
 Pee ECHARIAH 
 ; 1,4 5 
 iv. 6 : : ᾿ , ξ 18 | iv. 2 267 
 Sapo. : Ε 2 384 | xi. 16 351 
 xi. 2 : ; : Ἶ . 397 
 ΠΟ es ey 3!“ γ18 MALACHI. 
 “0 -: : : ; Ξ 379 | 1.7 361 
 APOCRYPHA. 
 2 Espras (4th Ezra). αὶ 10) : : ‘ 2 426 
 vii. 78 (missing fragment) : 437 sve a 5 i ᾿ : i ye 
 iv. Pe 8 5 ἥ ν ᾿ 6 ΧΙΙ, . ᾿ » . . 
 ere 45 be 26... : . ‘ ‘ 45 
 ToBIT. xviii. 6 . : ; : ; 345 
 iil. 6 : : = 2 . 201 »» 23. . 5 . - 43 
 1x8 Τα: ‘ ᾿ : : 42 
 WIsboM. oe, Ob y) : δ : : ἐπ 
 τς" ὉΠ || Seek 28: 20 - ᾿ : A ᾿ς 
 2: 68; 447 πεν 230 τῷ το ἢ 45 
 ” 3) 4, 5 68 XXVil. 26 . . F ‘ ” 
 e610 - BR ayn 9: ὲ 5 : . 47 
 a 2 55 | xxxili. 13-15 - ᾿ : : 45 
 », 12-20 59, 75 | xxxiv. 7- : : : : 46 
 Ti, 25,3 71 | xxxvill. I-15 - ‘ ᾿ . 4,50 
 ihe 1s oe 27/7, ΣΎ: Ε : : : 44 
 14. τὸ 71 1.1-4 . Γ 5: ἃ , 37 
 9, 17-20 Fb | Ras 1 Στ oc Ξ : : ᾿ 26 
 Wyble Υ tithe 452... 27 : : : 32 
 ΡΤ . 61 ‘ 
 viii. 7 55 1 MACCABEES. 
 7m 339 | xiv. 28 . : : 3 : 476 
 EccLEsIAsTICcus (Sirach). 
 2 MACCABEES. 
 Prologue at 39 Sp 99. 
 ees δ 44 ii, 3, 13, 14 464 
 vi. 6 203 ᾿ 
 ἜΝ . 43, 482 3 MACCABEES. 
 eas ὃ 46 | ii. 1-24 . = 36 
 
504 
 
 ν. 24 
 
 ” 38-41 
 » 43 . 
 ΜῈ ἢ, itty « 
 ν᾽» 23 
 
 »» 34 
 Vili. 21 
 ΧΙ. 19 
 XVili. 21 - 
 Teh, 21, Ba 
 χαῖν, τς 
 XXVll. 53 
 MG Dn 
 
 ἘΠ. 23 
 xil. 16-21 
 »» 29 
 » 32 
 XXIV. 44 . 
 
 iii. 6-8 . 
 9? 6 
 ἫΝ ὃ 
 xl. 10 
 XVil. 15 . 
 
 sD setts 
 39 27 
 Vv. 7. 
 V1. 23 
 vill. 21 
 a0, 2 
 39 28 
 
 Index of Texts. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 ACTS. 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 1 CORINTHIANS. 
 
 2 CORINTHIANS. 
 
 GALATIANS. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 1 TIMOTHY. 
 
 2 TIMOTHY. 
 
 21852225 
 
 229 
 231 
 
 74 
 
 179 
 344 
 
 177 
 178 
 325 
 149 
 
 104 
 
᾿ς ἦν 
 ᾽53 
 
 il. 15 
 xii. 14 
 
 tl By 
 »» 19 
 »» 21 
 Ἢ]. 2 
 
 lv. 23 
 v. 14, 15 
 
 29 
 
 20 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 
 JAMES. 
 
 Index of Texts. 
 
 PAGE 
 200 
 74 
 
 197 
 176 
 
 104 
 49 
 389 
 42 
 426 
 4, 49 
 421 
 
 2 PETER. 
 
 I JOHN. 
 
 REVELATION. 
 
GENERAL 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ** The purely grammatical notes have not in general been indexed, nor have 
 the names of Jewish scholars mentioned only in the extracts from the Talmud and 
 Midrash been included in this Index. Works often referred to are noted “" passim.”’ 
 
 Ab-Beth-Din, the, 485. 
 
 Abel-beth-Maacha, deliverance of, 414, 
 417. 
 
 Abbott, 35. 
 
 Aboth (Massecheth), 3, 5, 10, 19, 21, 
 47, 239, 245, 335, 379, 386, 413; 
 475, 480, 486. 
 
 Aboth of R. Nathan, 11, 14, 465 ff., 
 489. 
 
 ZEsop’s fables, 204. 
 
 Zéschylus, 335. 
 
 Age, the weak voice of old, 248. 
 
 Agriculture, advantage of, 364. 
 
 Akiba, Rabbi, on the Apocryphal 
 Books, 467, 468 ; on Song of Songs, 
 472; remarkable saying on ‘‘the 
 net spread over man,” 413. 
 
 Almond tree in blossom, 257 ff. 
 
 Alphabet, ancient Hebrew, 483. 
 
 Anacreon, 431. 
 
 Anger, reproof of, 237. 
 
 Annals, blank in Jewish, 7. 
 
 Antilegomena of Old and New Testa- 
 ment, 6. 
 
 Apocryphal Books, see under £xtrane- 
 ous, Ben Siva, Wisdom. 
 
 Aquila, traces of, in the present text of 
 the LXX., 51, 52, 338, 392, 406, 440. 
 
 Aristeas, 33. 
 
 Aristophanes, 310, 431. 
 
 Aristotle, 213, 388, 389. 
 
 Asher, Dr. David, Arthur Schopen- 
 hauer, 160. 
 
 Athbash alphabet, 127. 
 
 Atheism, Renan on, 167; avowed by 
 modern Pessimists, 151; results of, 
 166. 
 
 Avicebron, see bz Gabirol. 
 
 Aurelius, Marcus, 315, 316, 342, 370, 
 
 377, 378, 391, 433. 
 Aurivillius, Déssert, 405, 475- 
 
 Bacher, 457. 
 
 Bacon, Lord, 195, 230. 
 
 Baer, Accent.-system, 
 Setzung, 441. 
 
 Bagoas, 220, 372. 
 
 Baraitha explained, 451, 454. 
 
 Bauer, Ch. F., xiv. passim. 
 
 Beal, Prof. Samuel, on Nirvana, 174. 
 
 Ben Bita, story of, 19 ff. 
 
 Ben Laanah, the Books of, 468, 471. 
 
 Ben Satda, the Books of, 468. 
 
 Ben Sira, a Palestinian Jew, 48 ; author 
 of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, 31 ; 
 designations of that book, 31 ; trans- 
 lated from a Hebrew original, 32 ; 
 fragments extant in Heb. and Chal- 
 dee, 32 ; its use of the LXX. transl., 
 33, 38 ; indications of its date, 34- 
 38; reference to the Canon, 39 ; use 
 of the Book of Koheleth, 31, 41 ; his 
 
 412; Aletheg- 
 
General Index. 
 
 additions to old proverbs, 46, 48 ; 
 references to his work in the Talmud, 
 etc., 46, 47, 468 ; referred to some- 
 times as canonical, 47 ; explanation 
 of this fact, 48; allusions to, in the 
 New Testament, 4, 48, 49 ; reference 
 to physicians, 4 ; the Talmud on the 
 Book of, 467 ff. 
 
 Ben Tiglah, Book of, 469, 471. 
 
 Beneficence, exhortations to, 226; ad- 
 vantages of, 228. 
 
 Bensly, R. L., AUtssing Fragment of 
 LV. Ezra, 437, 465. 
 
 Bernard, St., Sermones de diversis, 230. 
 
 Bernstein, H. G., Questiones, xiv., 
 passim, 376. 
 
 Bhagavad-Gita, 162. 
 
 Biesenthal, J. H., Zvostschrethen des 
 Apostels Paulus an die Hebraer, 38, 
 421. 
 
 Bird, rising up at the voice of a, 247. 
 
 Bissell, Comm. on Apocrypha, 33, 34, 
 37, 44, 56. 
 
 Bleek, Friedr., Zinlettungin Alt. Test., 
 464. 
 
 Bloch, J. S., Studien zur Gesch. d. 
 Sammlung der alt-heb. Lit., 10, 25, 
 453, 457, 463, 466, 480, 482, 484; 
 Ursprung u. Entstehungszeit d. Ko- 
 helet, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 87, 92, 
 94, 99, 469. 
 
 Bode, C. A., 444. 
 
 Boethus ben Zonin, 462. 
 
 Boethus, founder of a sect of Sadducees, 
 131, 462. 
 
 Borrowing days, 271. 
 
 Bottcher, Fried., xiv., xviii., passim ; 
 Collectanea Hebr., 446. 
 
 Bread cast upon the waters, 223 ff. 
 
 Brecher, Gideon, Das transcend. Magte 
 u. mag. Hetlarten in Talmud, 4. 
 
 Bridges, Rev. C., Zxfos. of Eccl., xiii., 
 223, 229, 230, passim. 
 
 Bronze tablets at Lyons, the, 111, 112. 
 
 Buddzus, 476. 
 
 Buddhism, similarity of, to Pessimism, 
 158, 172, 182; superior to Pessim- 
 ism as a moral system, 173; its 
 doctrine of Nirvana, 162, 173, 174, 
 
 ‘ 
 
 597 
 
 182 ; selfish in its views, 175 ; practi- 
 cal failure of, 182; its four cardinal 
 tenets, 182. 
 
 Bullock, Rev. W. T., Comm. on Eccl., 
 xlv., passim. 
 
 Bunyan, John, Grace Abounding, 48. 
 
 Butler, Bishop, Analogy of Religion, 
 177, 230. 
 
 Burial, want of, a punishment, 373. 
 
 Buxtorf, J., Lex. Chald. and Talm., 
 passim; Zzderias, 5, 6, 455, 476; 
 Florilegium Heb., 205; De Abbrev. 
 Ffeb., 443. 
 
 Byron, 152. 
 
 Caspari, Ὁ. P., Der Syrisch.-Ephraim. 
 Krieg, 112. 
 
 Cassell, Dr. Paulus, 281. 
 
 Catullus, 309. 
 
 Cemeteries, name of ‘‘ eternal house” 
 given to Jewish, 201, 437, 491. 
 
 Cheerfulness, commended in youth, 
 234, 237 ; and early piety, 238. 
 
 Cheyne, Rev. T. K., Prophecies of 
 Isaiah, 248, 391. 
 
 Children, the early death of, 18. 
 
 Chilon, 388. 
 
 Chiyya, story of Rabbi, 198. 
 
 Christianity, the pessimism of, 177; 
 its optimistic side, 178; a religion 
 suited for man, 179: charged with 
 selfishness, 176; unselfishness of, 180. 
 
 Cicero, 68, 118, 334, 349, 350, 404. 
 
 City, going to the, 428. 
 
 Claudius, speech of the Emperor, 111. 
 
 Clericus, 431. 
 
 Cohen, David (Kahana), Heb. Comm. 
 on Koheleth, 23. 
 
 “¢ Corrections of the Scribes,”’ the, 8. 
 
 Cox, Samuel, D.D., Zhe Quest of the 
 Chief Good, xiv., 143, 144, 229. 
 
 Cranes of Ibycus, 223. 
 
 Creation of man, Jewish opinions con- 
 
 cerning, 374. 
 
 Dahne, iidisch.-Alexandr. Religions- 
 Philosophie, 63. 
 
 Dale, Rev. T. P., Comm. on Eccles., 
 xiv., passim. 
 
508 
 
 Davidson, Rey. Prof. A. B., Wdrew 
 Accentuation, 394. 
 
 Davidson, Rev. Dr. Samuel, /ztroduc- 
 tion to Old Test., 14, 49, passim. 
 
 Davids, Rhys, see under RAys-Davids. 
 
 “‘TDays of the old woman,” the, 271. 
 
 Deane, W. J., Zhe Book of Wisdom, 
 56, 58, 68, 74. 
 
 Death, man thinks little about, 370; 
 cause of, 399 ; unexpected, 413; a 
 winged Pegasus, 240; the days of, 
 271 ; Eccles. xii. supposed to be a 
 dirge of, 239; the night of, and the 
 terrors of the grave, 253 ; net spread 
 over all people, 413. 
 
 Delitzsch, Prof. Franz, Comm. on 
 Koheleth, xv. passim; mistakes of 
 the English transl. of that comm., 119, 
 385, 406, 489; Gesch. der siidisch. 
 Poesie, 32, 47, 394, 396 5 das 
 Salomonisch. Spruchbuch, 4, 583 
 Comm. on Isaiah, 391; Comm. on 
 Habb. 405 ; Rohling’s Talmudjude be- 
 leuchtet, 64.3; Handschriftlich. Funde, 
 222; Fesus und Hillel, 24; Hebrew 
 Transl. of New Test., 222; Comm. 
 on Psalms, 412; Comm. on Genesis, 
 327; Bibl. Psychology, 319, 320, 
 420; Talmud. Studien, 474; Fiidisch.- 
 Arab, Poesien, 493; Amtsfrage in 
 Mischna und Gemara, 495. 
 
 Delitzsch, Prof. Friedr., Wo lag das 
 Paradies ? 128, 255, 327, 330. 
 
 Derenbourg, Joseph, Motes détachées sur 
 P Ecclésiaste, 190 ; Essai sur? Histoire 
 et la Geogr. de la Palestine, 440. 
 
 Diez, Denkwiirdigheiten von Asien, 227. 
 
 Dillmann, Prof. Dr., Gramm. der 
 Aethiop. Spr., 281. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, 435. 
 
 Diogenes Laertius, 388. 
 
 Dods, Dr. Marcus, AZohammed, Buddha 
 and Christ, 173. 
 
 Doederlein, 438, passim. 
 
 Doors shut towards the street, 245. 
 
 Dove’s law of the winds, 310. 
 
 Dreams, 362, 363. 
 
 Driver, Prof. 5. R., Hebrew Tenses, 
 xvlll., passim. 
 
 Epilogue, 
 
 General Index. 
 
 Dukes, Leopold, Rabédinische Blumen- 
 lest, 4, 32, 44, 50, 204, 205, 219, 
 381, 396, 425. 
 
 Du Meril, Poestes Latines, 435. 
 
 Dunash, Sefer Teshuboth, 433. 
 
 Ecclesiastes, see under Koheleth. 
 
 Ecclesiasticus, the Book of, see under 
 Ben Sira. : 
 
 Eichhorn, 34, 89. 
 
 Eleazar, Rabbi, on the death of chil- 
 dren, 18. 
 
 Elster, xv., passim. 
 
 the, of Koheleth, 97; 
 opinions of Krochmal and Fiirst, 97 ; 
 of Graetz, 98; Bloch’s modification 
 of Krochmal’s view, 99; view of 
 Renan, 100; three points of, 100; 
 disavowal of Solomonic authorship, 
 102; views of Ewald and Delitzsch, 
 102; affirms the inspiration of the 
 Sacred Writings, 104; gives a warn- 
 ing how to learn, 105 ; speaks of a 
 future judgment, 106; arguments, 
 pro and con, as to its authorship, 438. 
 
 Essen, von, Ludwig, xv., passim. 
 
 Essenes, the, 379. 
 
 Esther, reception of, into the Canon, 
 17, 455, 471, 473- 
 
 Eternal house, see under Cemeteries. 
 
 Eternity, the idea of, implanted in 
 man’s heart, 194. 
 
 Euergetes, two monarchs of that name, 
 34: 35: 
 
 Euripides, 434. 
 
 Evil days, Koheleth’s description of 
 the, 240; seven stanzas of Koheleth 
 on the, 242. 
 
 Ewald, F.C. Adodah Sarah, 432, 467. 
 
 Ewald, Prof. H., Dichter des alt. 
 Bundes, xv., passim; Auxusfihrl. 
 Lehrb. der Heb. Spr., xviii., passim 3 
 Gramm. Crit. Arab., 307; Gesch. 
 des Volkes Israels, 5, 76. 
 
 Extraneous Books, the, 467, 468, 469. 
 
 Ezekiel and the Pentateuch, 457, 458. 
 
 Face, The Talmud on the expression of 
 the, 394. 
 
General Index. 
 
 Farrar, Rev. F. W., Life of Christ, 24. 
 
 Fence round the Law, 10, 442, 466. 
 
 Field’s edition of Origen’s Hexapla, 
 xvii., passim. 
 
 Flint, Prof., Avztz- Theistic theories, 175. 
 
 Fools, song of, 382; the fool abroad 
 and at home, 419. 
 
 Forgery, unjust charge of, brought 
 against the Book of Koheleth, 111 ; 
 the Book of Wisdom not guilty of, 
 61; forgeries of later Jewish writers, 
 62. 
 
 Frankel, Vorstudien zu der LXX., 38. 
 
 Freedom of man, 339; controversy 
 concerning, 379, see under Predes- 
 tination. 
 
 Fritzsche, Handb. z. Apokryph. d. a. T. 
 (on the Book of Jesus the Son of 
 Sirach), 31, 33, 34, 35,37, 44; Lzdri 
 Afpoc. Vet. Test., 465. 
 
 Fiirst, Prof. Julius, Concord., passim ; 
 Heb, und Chald. Worterbuch, passim ; 
 Gesch. der Bibl. Lit., 5; Kanon des 
 Alt. Test., xv., passim. 
 
 Future beyond man, the, 387. 
 
 Gabirol, see under /é2 Gadirol. 
 
 Gamaliel I., his advice to the Sanhe- 
 drin, 22; supposed dialogue with 
 St. Paul, 23, 24. 
 
 Gamaliel II., 15. 
 
 ‘*Gaudeamus igitur,” the, 435. 
 
 Geier, Martin, 224, passim. 
 
 Geiger, Dr. Abr., Urschrift der Bibel, 
 239, 348, 411, 464, 472, 482; Fi- 
 dische Zeitschrift, 264; Lehrb. d. 
 Mischnah, 280, 328, 488. 
 
 Gemara explained, 456. 
 
 Gesenius, W., Hed. Gram., edited by 
 Kautzsch, xvii., passim; Lehrged., 
 xviii., passim ; “ed. τε. Chald, Wor- 
 terbuch, ed. by Miihlau u. Volck, 
 passim ; 7hes. Heb. et Chald., passim. 
 
 Ginsburg, Dr. C., ast. and Crit. 
 Comm. on Eccl. ,xv., passim ; Levita’s 
 Massoreth ha-Massoreth, 9, 96, 247, 
 475: 
 
 Given, Dr., Zruth of Scripture, etc., 
 XVey 92, 120: 
 
 509 
 
 Goethe, Westéstlich. Divan, 226. 
 
 Grecus Venetus, edited by Prof. O. v. 
 Gebhardt, 320, passim. 
 
 Graetz, Prof. H., Xoheleth erlaiitert, 
 xv., passim ; Jonatsschrift, 457, etc. ; 
 Geschichte der Fuden, 440, 458, 467, 
 482, 485. 
 
 Grammar, peculiarities of, in Book of 
 Koheleth, 121, 488. 
 
 Grimm, Handb. 2. ὦ. Apokryphen d. 
 alt, Test. (on Book of Wisdom), 55, 
 56, 58, 59, 63. 
 
 Grotius, in Crztict Sacri, xiv., passim ; 
 denial of the Solomonic authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes, 81. 
 
 Gruteri, Zzscriptiones Antiqua, 111, 436. 
 
 Gwinner, W., Schopenhauer’s Leben, 
 153, 160, 166, 173. 
 
 Hades, 193, 198. 
 
 Hagiographa, 40, 452, see Aethudbin. 
 
 Hahn, H. A., Comm. on £ccl., xv., 
 passim ; explanation of Eccl. chap. 
 xli., 253-255. 
 
 Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie fiir Bibel 
 u. Talmud, 401. 
 
 Hameram or Hameras, Book of, 470, 
 471. 
 
 Hananya ben Hiskiya, 457. 
 
 Hands defiled by the Holy Scriptures, 
 16 ff., 470 ff. 
 
 Haphtarah explained, 463. 
 
 Hardy, Spence, Legends and Theories 
 of the Buddhists, 173. 
 
 vy. Hartmann, Eduard, Philosophie des 
 Unbewussten, X., 152, 155, 156 ff, 
 159, 169, 170, 174, 151, 211, 212; 
 Phenom, des sittl. Bewusstseins, 155, 
 161 ff., 207, 209, 210; Gesch. und 
 Begriindung des Pessimismus, 153 ; 
 on women, 207; polygamy and 
 monogamy, 212; three stages of il- 
 lusion, 159; see under Pessimism. 
 
 Hartmann, Anton. Theod., Verbindung 
 des alt. Test. mit dem Neuen, 467, 475. 
 
 Hasidim, the, 132. 
 
 Haym, 152. 
 
 Hegel, 154, 155. 
 
510 
 
 Heidenheim, Dr. M., articles in Deutsche 
 Vierteljahrsschrift, 478; on the 
 seventy princes in Book of Numbers, 
 487. 
 
 ΕΙΠΕ, "192; 137: 152: 
 
 Heinemann, 411. 
 
 Hengstenberg, E. W., on £eclesiastes, 
 xv., passim. 
 
 Herder, 152. 
 
 Herod the Great’s interview with Ben 
 Buta, 19, 20. 
 
 Herodian theory of Prof. Graetz, 19. 
 
 Herodotus, 151, 347, 349. 
 
 Herzfeld, Dr. L., Coheleth, xv., pas- 
 sim ; Gesch. d. Volkes Israei, το, 478. 
 
 Hezekiah, his religious reforms, 3 ; his 
 college of scribes, 4, 453, 455 ff., 
 465 ff. 
 
 Hilgenfeld’s Zeztschrift, 354- 
 
 Hillel and Shammai, contest between 
 the schools of, on Icclesiastes, 14, 
 15, 19, 471 ff. 
 
 Hitzig, Prof. Dr. F., on Eccles., xv., 
 passim. 
 
 Hoelemann, Prof. Dr., xv., 281, 322, 
 337, 342, 344, 435: 445. 
 
 Hoey, Dr. Wm., Transl. of Oldenberg’s 
 work on Buddhism, 182, 183, 184; 
 note on Buddhism, 183, 184. 
 
 Hoffmann, Dr. David, Der oberste 
 Gerichtshof, 485 ff. 
 
 Holy Scriptures defiling the hands, 16. 
 
 Holtzmann, Dze apokryph. Biicher in 
 Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, 10. 
 
 Homer, 471. 
 
 Horace, 265, 324, 352, 366, 367, 375, 
 378, 385, 388, 431, 434, 465. 
 
 Hume, 152. 
 
 Hyrcanus, 37, 487. 
 
 Ibn Ezra, passim. 
 
 Ibn Gabirol, 160. 
 
 Ibycus, the cranes of, 223. 
 
 Illusion, v. Hartmann’s three stages of, 
 
 159. 
 
 Tahaveh, Name, not used in Koheleth, 
 90, concealment of pronunciation of, 
 
 343, 467. 
 
 General Index. 
 
 Jahn, Zinlettung, 124. 
 
 Jamnia, First Synod of, 14, 460; Second 
 Synod of, 15, 17, 18, 458. 
 
 Janichs, Vers. Syr., xv-, 431, 435- 
 
 Jerome, 306, 308, 309, 317, 335, 358, 
 passim ; on the books of Old Test., 
 459 ff. 
 
 Jewish division of Book of Koheleth, 
 282; threefold division of the Scrip- 
 tures, 458 ff. 
 
 Jewish race and religion, 
 hauer’s hatred of, 160. 
 Joel, D., Aberglaube τε. die Stellung des 
 
 Fudenthuns, 4. 
 
 Joel, Dr. M., Bliche in die Religions- 
 geschichte, 458, 468. 
 
 Johnston, Rev. David, TZyeatise on 
 Authorship of Ecclesiastes, xv., passim. 
 
 Josephus, 7, 8, 19, 37, 327, 379, 396, 
 429, 485 ; Against Apion, 458 ff., 461. 
 
 Joshua, Rabbi, on the early death of 
 children, 18. 
 
 Jost, 481. 
 
 Jouy, on women, 214. 
 
 Judgments, the Divine, 399. 
 
 Justin Martyr, 315, 437. 
 
 Justinus, de Hist. Philipp. etc., 372, 422. 
 
 Juvenal, 353, 367, 416, 431. 
 
 Schopen- 
 
 Kabus, anecdote from the, 227. 
 
 Kahana, David, Heb. Comm. on Eccl., 
 25. 
 
 Kaiser, Koheleth das Collect. d. David- 
 ischen Kontige, Xv. passim. 
 
 Kalisch, Dr. M. M., Heb. Grammar, 
 xvili., passim ; Path and Goal, 154, 
 156, 160, 162, 173, 175, 181. 
 
 Keri or K’ri explained, 482. 
 
 Kethubim explained, 452, 459, 463. 
 
 Khayyam, Omar, 168. 
 
 Kimchi, R. David, Ach/ol, ed. Fiirth, 
 24, 258, 347, 349, 368, 404, 424, 427, 
 434, 441. 
 
 Kings, Koheleth on the duty of sub- 
 
 mission to, 218, 398; the oath of 
 allegiance, 396; importance of noble 
 birth in, 220; evil of a child king, 
 219 ff. ; ruin caused by revelry of 
 kings and nobles, 221; subjects not 
 
General Index. 
 
 to cast off allegiance, 222, 397 ; obe- 
 dience enjoined towards, 398; pa- 
 tience to be exercised in case of an 
 evil monarch, 398; curse not the 
 king, 223. 
 
 Kirby and Spence’s Entomology, 170. 
 
 Kleinert, Prof. Paul, on Lcclesiastes, 
 xvi., passim. 
 
 Knauer, 152. 
 
 Knobel, Aug., Comm. tiber Koheleth, 
 xvi., passim. 
 
 Koehler, Prof. Dr. Aug., Machexilisch. 
 Propheten, 332. . 
 
 Koenig, Prof. F. E. Lehrg. des Heb. 
 Sprache, xviii., passim. 
 
 Koeppen, 182. 
 
 Koheleth, Book of, early difficulties 
 felt regarding, 12; admitted into 
 Canon previous to the time of Hillel 
 and Shammai, 15; its canonicity, 
 18 ; quoted as canonical at interview 
 between Herod and Ben Bita, 19 ; 
 by Gamaliel, 22 ff.; prior to Herodian 
 era, 24, 469; alleged contradictions 
 in, 12; Book of, claimed by Pes- 
 simists, 158; Pessimism of, 141; 
 name of, a title of Solomon, 82; 
 its meaning, 84 ff. ; note on, 279 ff. ; 
 Koheleth and the Koheleth, 101, 
 439; the Talmud on the Book of, 
 469. 
 
 Krochmal, Nachman, More Nedboche 
 ha-zeman, 8, 82, 97, 99, 467 ; Articles 
 in Kerem Chemed, 477. 
 
 Kuenen, Prof., of Leyden, on the Men 
 of the Great Synagogue, 6 ff., 476 ff. ; 
 on the Jewish Sanhedrin, 485. 
 
 de Lagarde, xvii., 127. 
 
 Lane’s Arabic English Lexicon, 263, 
 271, 327, 331, 351. 
 
 Lassalle, Ardetterlesebuch, 165. 
 
 Laws of Nature, uniformity of the, 
 229. 
 
 Leathes, Prof. Stanley, 114. 
 
 Leibnitz, 152. 
 
 Lepsius, Konigsbuch der alt. Aegypter, 
 
 35: 
 Leusden, 21. 
 
 511 
 
 Levita, Elias, see under Ginsburg. 
 
 Levy, Dr. J., Neuheb. u. Chald. Wor- 
 terbuch, passim ; Chald. Worterbuch, 
 passim, 
 
 Levy, M.A., Article in Zeitschrift der 
 D.M.G. 491. 
 
 Lewis, Prof. Tayler, xvi. passim. 
 
 Lightfoot, 97. 
 
 Literary freedom used by inspired 
 writers, 110 ff., 453. 
 
 Liturgy, Jewish, 481, 482. 
 
 Locust, various explanations of the, 
 260 ff. 
 
 Long, Rev. James, LZastern Proverbs 
 and Emblems, 211. 
 
 Longfellow, 91. 
 
 Louis XIV. of France, story of, 92. 
 
 Lowth, Bishop, Hebrew Poetry, 226. 
 
 Lucretius, 192, 269, 312. 
 
 Luthardt, Prof., Aloderne 
 schauungen, 166, 179. 
 
 Luther, Martin, 72d/e Talk, 80, 81; on 
 Lcclesiastes, xv. passim; on women, 
 214. ἢ 
 
 Luzzatto, 121, 394, 418. 
 
 LXX. (the) version of the Book of 
 Koheleth, 49 ff.; traces of the in- 
 fluence of Aquila on the present text, 
 50, 51, 52, 338, 392, 406, 440; 
 Origen a witness for a LXX. transl. 
 of Koheleth, 50; viewed sometimes 
 as a blessing and sometimes as a 
 misfortune, 38, 458 ; probably re- 
 ceived sanction of Sanhedrin, 33; 
 the seventy translators, 33. 
 
 Lyons, the bronze tablets at, 111) 112. 
 
 Weltan- 
 
 Mailander, 161. 
 
 Maimonides, 17, 127. 
 
 Malismus or Miserabilismus, 152. 
 Malthusian theory, 160. 
 
 “Mammon of unrighteousness,” 228. 
 Manilius, 315. 
 
 Marriage, see under Women, Polygamy. 
 Mary, the Blessed Virgin, 468. 
 
 “‘ Masters of Collections,” 103. 
 Megillath Taanith, 458. 
 
 Meliorism, 172. 
 
 Melito, 464. 
 
5Ὶ 2 
 
 **Men of the Great Synagogue,” see 
 under Syagogue. 
 
 **Men of Hezekiah,’’ see under Heze- 
 kiah. 
 
 Menander, 349, 386, 431. 
 
 Mendelssohn, see under Prestoz. 
 
 Menzel, W., Maturkunde, 310. 
 
 Merchants recommended to engage in 
 foreign enterprises, 224. 
 
 Messianic age, curious views concerning 
 the, 23, 24; passages of Ecclesiastes 
 supposed to be Messianic, 136, 357, 
 365. 
 
 Michaelis, J. D., 224, 236, 442, 476, 
 493- 
 
 Midrash, on Solomon’s fall, legend of 
 the, 123 ; sayings of, 81 ff. ; Midrash 
 Rabba, xix., passim. 
 
 Mill ceasing, sound of the, 241, 
 
 Milton, 343. 
 
 Mishna explained, 456. 
 
 Missions, results of Christian, 180. 
 
 Mnemonics, Masoretic, 447, 453, 282; 
 Renan’s suggestion as to, 127. 
 
 Monogamy, see under Polygamy. 
 
 Montfaucon, Orig. Hexapla, 392. 
 
 Mormonism praised by Schopenhauer, 
 212. 
 
 Mourners, hired, 265. 
 
 Mozley, Prof., Sermons Parochial and 
 Occasional, 145. 
 
 Miihlau and Volck, Gesenius’ Heb. und 
 Chald. Worterbuch, passim. 
 
 Miiller, J., Jasechet Sopherim, 38, 
 
 462, 463. 
 
 Nachtigal, 239, passim. 
 
 Name, the Sacred, concealment of, 
 343; not used in the Book of Ko- 
 heleth, 90. 
 
 Nasi, the, 485. 
 
 Nathan, the Aboth of Rabbi, see under 
 Aboth. 
 
 Nestle, E., Vet. Zest. Greci Codd., etc., 
 XVil., 51, 235+ 
 
 Net spread over all living, 413. 
 
 Nirvana, 173, 175, 182 ff. 
 
 Noack, Ursprung des Christenthums, 
 
 58, 59. 
 
 General Index. 
 
 Officials, corruption of, 150, 364. 
 
 Ointment, 418. 
 
 Oldenburg, Prof. Hermann, Bzddha, 
 sein Leben, etc., 182. 
 
 Olshausen, Justus, Lehrd. der Heb. 
 Sprache, Xvili., passim. 
 
 **One of a thousand,” 203. 
 
 Onias, 36, 37, 38. 
 
 Origen, a witness to the existence of a 
 LXX. transl. of Ecclesiastes, 50; 
 importance of this in relation to the 
 theory of Graetz, 51, 52; Hexapla, 
 see under Feld, Montfaucon. 
 
 Ovid, 309, 366, 375, 389. 
 
 ‘< Pairs,” the, 486. 
 
 Palestinian winter, the, 270. 
 
 Pandera, Son of, 468. 
 
 Paradise, the word, 327. 
 
 Paul, St., supposed discussion with 
 Gamaliel, 22, 25 ; advice to Timothy, 
 325. 
 
 Perowne, Dean, Comm. on the Psalms, 
 113; articles oz Ecclesiastes, xvi., 
 passim. 
 
 Persian districts, 329. 
 
 Pessimism of the Book of Koheleth, 
 141 ; doctrines opposed to modern 
 Pessimism, 164; Pessimism before 
 Schopenhauer, 153 ; of Schopenhauer 
 and von Hartmann, 152 ff.; Sully 
 on unreasoned, 153; results of, 
 according to Venetianer, 159; con- 
 ducts to asceticism and suicide, I61 ; 
 attempt of ‘Taubert to deny this fact, 
 162 ff. ; the Socialistic movement, 
 and, 165 ; rapid progress of, x., 171 ; 
 modern science and, 171 ; points of 
 truth in, 171 ; resemblance to Bud- 
 dhism, 172; inferiority to Buddhism 
 as a moral system, 173; Christianity 
 and, 177; selfishness of, 181. 
 
 Pessimist philosophers, inconsistencies 
 of, 166. 
 
 Pharisees on freedom and the Divine 
 decrees, the, 379; and Sadducees, 
 388, 470. 
 
 Philo, 7, 56, 461, 464. 
 
General Index. 513 
 
 Pisistratus of Israelitish literature, the, 
 4. 
 
 Plato, dialogues of, 118 ; parable of the 
 charioteer, 324. 
 
 Plautus, 351. 
 
 Plinii Zpzstole, 105; Nat. Hist., 265. 
 
 Plumptre, Dean, Comm. on Ecclesiastes, 
 xvi., passim ; articles on the writings 
 of Apollos, 58; attack on Jewish 
 expositors, 81; ideal biography of 
 Koheleth, 133 ff. ; curious interpre- 
 tation of ‘‘the grasshopper,” 261. 
 
 Pluralis inhumanus, 353. 
 
 Plutarch, 263. 
 
 Polygamy and monogamy, 170, 212. 
 
 Porphyrius, 35. 
 
 Prayer on Day of Atonement, 319; 
 Jewish forms of, 477, 481 ; unneces- 
 sary epithets not to be used in address- 
 ing God, 482. 
 
 Predestination and man’s freedom, 339, 
 378, 379. 
 
 Prejevalsky’s Mongolia, 181. 
 
 Preston, Theodore, Jendelssohn’s 
 Comm on Ecclesiastes, transl., etc., 
 xvi., passim. 
 
 Propertius, 368. 
 
 Prophecy, literal interpretations of, 24. 
 
 Prophets, former and later, 459, 464. 
 
 Proverbs, principle on which they are 
 framed, 205; relating to women, 
 204 ff. 
 
 Psalter of Solomon, 487. 
 
 Ptolemy I., Soter, 37; Ptolemy II., 
 Philadelphus, 33; Ptolemy III, 
 Euergetes I., 34; Ptolemy IV., Philo- 
 pator, 36 ; Ptolemy VI., Philometor, 
 35; Ptolemy VII., Euergetes II., 
 or Physcon, 34, 35. 
 
 Publius Syrus, 352, 367, 431, 435- 
 
 Purim, Feast of, 473, 474, 484. 
 
 Pusey, Dr., Daniel the Prophet, 32, 34, 
 
 35, 38, 119. 
 
 Quarles, Hieroglyphics of the Life of 
 Man, 178. 
 
 Rab, 343, 359. 
 Rabbinowicz, 24. 
 
 Ὁ] 
 
 Rashi, 5, 127, 188, 196, passim. 
 
 Rau, Diatribe de Synag. Magna, 475. 
 
 Rawlinson, Prof. George, Ancient 
 Monarchies, 150. 
 
 Rebilus, C. Caninius, 404 
 
 Remedies, Book of, 4. 
 
 Renan, Ernest, on name Koheleth, 84; 
 on the Epilogue, 99; his new work 
 on Ecclesiastes (/’£cclésiaste), and 
 its author, xvi., passim ; 125 ff. ; 
 former opinion as to the date of 
 Ecclesiastes, 117 ; on atheism, 167 ; 
 maintains that Ecclesiastes is no- 
 where obscene, 265 ; Le Cantigue, 
 116; Histoire des Langues Sémi- 
 tiques, 117 ; 7 Antechrist, 117. 
 
 Revue de Deux Mondes, 132 
 
 Rhys-Davids, Buddhism, 173, 174; 
 article in Contemporary Review, 175. 
 
 Robertson Smith, Prof. W., Old Test. 
 in the Jewish Church, vii., 6, 18 ; on 
 “the Men of the Great Synagogue,’’ 
 5, 476 ff. ; on the Book of Ecclesi- 
 astes, 18. 
 
 Rosenmiiller, Scholia, xvi., passim. 
 
 Row, Rev. C. A., Zhe Fesus τὰ the 
 Evangelists, 176. 
 
 Sadducees, see under Pharisees. 
 
 Sallust, 112. 
 
 Samuel, Rabbi, on Zsther, 17, 473. 
 
 Sanhedrin, institution of the, 485. 
 
 Schafer, B., Mewe Untersuchungen tiber 
 das Buch Koheleth, xvi. 
 
 Schelling, 154, 436. 
 
 Schleusner, 68, 383. 
 
 Schmidt, Prof. Oscar, Die Grundlagen 
 der Philosophie des Unbewussten, 171. 
 
 Schmidt, 239, 436, 438, 442. 
 
 Schnurrer, Chronik der Seuchen, 173. 
 
 Schools, see Syragogue. 
 
 Schopenhauer, Arthur, on Koheleth, 
 142, 151; natural temperament of 
 1533 principles of his philosophy, 
 155 ff.; abuse of the Jews, 160; 
 iepoininends asceticism, 161 ; strange 
 views of, 162; Welt als Wille und 
 Vorstellung, 155, 158, 160, 161, 166, 
 
 4 Oa ν᾿ 
 
514 
 
 167, 169, 170, 172, 178; Parergaund 
 Laralipomena, 166, 169; Leben, by 
 
 , Gwinner (see under Gwinner); life 
 of, 166; a misanthrope, 166; his 
 pride, 160; inclination towards Bud- 
 dhism, anecdote of, 173; on women, 
 207; on polygamy and monogamy, 
 170, 212; explanation of the passion 
 of love, 168; apology for sodomy, 
 170. 
 
 Schrader, Ketlinschriften und das Alt. 
 Test., 390. 
 
 Schréder, Phenizische Sprache, 498. 
 
 Schiirer, Veutest. Zeitgeschichte, 37. 
 
 Scriptures, threefold division of the 
 Jewish, 39, 40. 
 
 Seasons, Hebrew mode of speaking of 
 the, 242. 
 
 Seidlitz, Carl von, Schopenhauer vom 
 medicin. Standpunkte, 153. 
 
 Seneca, 314, 323. 
 
 Serpents, dangers from, 422; fable 
 about, 425. 
 
 Seven stanzas of Koheleth, the, 272. 
 
 Severus, dying words of the Emperor 
 Septimius, 92. 
 
 Shakespeare, 68, 248, 367. 
 
 Sheol, its various meanings, 193, see 
 ffades. 
 
 Silence, 342. 
 
 Silenus, 350, 381. 
 
 Simon the Just, 9, 10, 36, 475; two 
 high priests of that name, 36, 37. 
 
 Sirach, see under Zen Stra. 
 
 Skopzecs, the, 161. 
 
 Smith, Eli, 493. 
 
 Smith, Dean R. Payne, Syr. Thes., 443. 
 
 Smith, W., Dict. of Greek and Roman 
 Biography, 223; Dict. of Bible, 467, 
 see under Plumptre, Westcott. 
 
 Smith, Prof. W. Robertson, see under 
 Robertson Smith. 
 
 Snake charmer, 425. 
 
 Socialistic movement, the, 165. 
 
 Solomon, buildings of, 326; vineyards 
 and gardens of, 327; pools of, 327 ; 
 attendants, 328 ; flocks, zd. ; legends 
 of Targum and Talmud, 81, 91; a 
 preacher, 85; Koheleth, a name of, 
 
 General Index. 
 
 82; early doubts as to his author- 
 ship of Koheleth, 80 ff. ; arguments 
 for and against the traditional view, 
 81-124; no penitential confession 
 of, in the Book of Koheleth, 124 ; 
 Apocryphal Psalter of, 487. 
 
 Song of Songs defiling the hands, 471 ff. 
 
 Sophists, the three German, 154. 
 
 Sophocles, 164, 350. 
 
 Spohler, 369, etc. 
 
 Spohn, 343, 369, passim. 
 
 Stade, B., Lehrb. der Heb. Gramm., 
 XVili., passim. 
 
 Stambul, 429. 
 
 Stanley, Dean, Jewzsh Church, 35. 
 
 Stern, J., Die Frau im Talmud, 205. 
 
 Storm theory of Umbreit, the, 249. 
 
 Strack, Prof. H. L., article on Aid/e/, 
 24; Linleitung in diekanon. Biicher, 
 xvi; Kanon des alt. Test., 12, 41, 48, 
 127, 51 [ἢ Ver aides (Cres Od Yo Me, 
 408, 482; edition of Adoth, 21, 245, 
 413. 
 
 Suicide, Pessimism conducts to, 161 ff. ; 
 prevalence of, 163; see under 
 Taubert. 
 
 Sully, James, Pessimism, a History and 
 a Criticism, 143, 152, 153, 156, 166. 
 
 Sun, movements of the, 21. 
 
 Sweetness of life, 232. 
 
 Swift, Dean, practice of bemoaning 
 day of his birth, 158. 
 
 Synagogue, Men of the Great, suc- 
 ceeded the Men of Hezekiah, 5; 
 work with respect to Canon, 5; 
 doubts thrown by Kuenen and 
 Robertson Smith on the tradition 
 concerning, 6; 476 ff.; arguments in 
 favour of its historical truth, 8, 478 
 ff. ; solved difficulties with regard to 
 Book of Ecclesiastes, 11, 13, 465; 
 their words, 466 ; work as to liturgy, 
 481 ; appointed schools, 466, 480, 
 484; adoption of a new alphabet, 
 483 ; lectionary, 484; why no writ- 
 ten record of their actions, 484. 
 
 Synagogue services, 357, 481. 
 
 Synonymes, Arabic and post Biblical 
 words for, 345. 
 
General Index. 
 
 Taanith, the Megillath, 458. 
 
 Tacitus, III. 
 
 Talmud, the, tradition as to the suc- 
 cession of the Sacred Writings, 3; 
 451, 480, 486 ; composed of Mishna 
 and Gemara, 456 ; testimony regard- 
 ing the Men of the Great Synagogue, 
 453, 456; and the Old Test. Canon, 
 451 ff. ; the tradition in Baba Bathra, 
 451; onthe Sanhedrin, 486 ; legends 
 concerning Solomon, 91; not com- 
 mitted at first to writing, 456, 482 ; 
 see under Bex Sira, Ben Bita, Syna- 
 gorue. 
 
 Taubert, Der Pessimismus und seine 
 Gegner, 152, 158, 163, 164, 165, 
 167; on the Book of Koheleth, 164 ; 
 on suicide, 163; on the everlasting 
 torture of the wicked, 179. 
 
 Taylor, Dr. C., Sayings of the Fewish 
 Fathers, 9, 10, 22, 239, 245, 413, 475; 
 Dirge of Koheleth, xvi., 244, 250, 251, 
 252, 262, 263, 267, 268. 
 
 Temple services, 357. 
 
 Tennyson, 273. 
 
 Terence, 404. 
 
 Theognis, 350, 388, 434. 
 
 Thomson, Land and the Book, 259. 
 
 Thorah explained, 463. 
 
 Tosafoth, the, 457. 
 
 Tripartite nature of man, 238. 
 
 Tyler, Thos., Comm. on Lcclestastes, 
 xvi., passim. 
 
 Umbreit, on Zcclesiastes, xvii. 3; storm 
 theory of Eccl. xii., 249, 252. 
 Unconscious Absolute, 155. 
 Unconscious Will, 156; see under 
 Schopenhauer, v. Hartmann, 
 Unreasoned Pessimism, 152. 
 
 Vaihinger, J. G., on Lcclesiastes, xvii., 
 passim, 
 
 Venetianer, M., Schopenhauer als 
 Scholastiker, 142, 150, 159, 170, 212. 
 
 Vineyards, 326. 
 
 Virgil, 224, 309, 314, 367, 369. 
 
 Volck, see under AZiih/au. 
 
 Voltaire, Précis del Ecclésiaste en vers, 
 227. 
 
 515 
 Vows, 360, 361. 
 
 Ward, Samuel, Life of Faith in Death, 
 240. 
 
 Wardlaw, R., xiv., xvii. 
 
 Wedel, 241. 
 
 Westcott, Prof., article on Zcclesiasticus, 
 34; Westcott and Hort’s Greek Test., 
 222, 376. 
 
 de Wette, 462, 476. 
 
 Wetzstein, Consul J. G., 270, 271. 
 
 White, Henry, Massacre of St. Bartholo- 
 mew, 219. 
 
 White and black garments, 410. 
 
 Will to live, 158, see under Schofen- 
 hauer ; will and representation, 155 ; 
 will and desire, 157. 
 
 Wilson, Andrew, Abode of Snow, 182. 
 
 Wine, use of, 325. 
 
 Winer, 313, De utriusque Sirach. atate, 
 34; Bibl. Realworterbuch, 35. 
 
 Winzer, Comm. de Koh. chap. xi. xii, 
 Xvil., passim. 
 
 Wisdom, the Book of, leaning towards 
 Greek philosophy, 35; composed 
 before time of Philo, 56; probably 
 in reign of Physcon, 57; viewed as 
 inspired, by some of the Fathers, 57 ; 
 not the production of a Christian Jew, 
 58; views of Noack and Plumptre, 
 58, 59; written under name of Solo- 
 mon, 60; strange denial of this by 
 Rev. D. Johnston, 60 ; its author not 
 guilty of imposture, 61; his object 
 in assuming the mask of Soiomon, 61 ; 
 favourable conception of character of 
 Solomon, 64; opposed to the free- 
 thinkers of Alexandria, 67 ; value of, 
 72, 73; allusions to its phraseology 
 in the New Test., 74; a preparative 
 for Christ, 76. 
 
 Witsius, 241. 
 
 Women, Koheleth’s description of evil, 
 202 ; degradation of, under Fersian 
 rule, 202 ; a treasure or a snare, 393; 
 Koheleth no hater of, 206; proverbs 
 relating to, 204 ff. ; women’s rights, 
 207 ; low views of, held by Pessimists, 
 207; one-sided evidence on, 208 ; 
 
πιό 
 
 Schopenhauer on women’s intellec- 
 tual powers, 208 ; on their morality, 
 207 ff. ; von Hartmann on the want 
 of rectitude in, 209; education of, 
 210; v. Hartmann on the advantage 
 of society of, 211; Venetianer’s 
 critique of Schopenhauer’s views 
 of, 212; Pessimists on polygamy 
 and monogamy, 170, 212; degra- 
 dation of, an outcome of Atheism, 
 213; woman, a help-meet for man, 
 214. 
 
 Woodcutters, liable to dangers, 423. 
 
 Wordsworth, Bishop, xvii., passim, 237, 
 238. 
 
 Wright, C. H. H., Bampton Lectures 
 on Zechariah, 8, 222, 267, 326, 332, 
 351, 391, 420, 482. 
 
 Wright, Prof. William, Arabic Gram- 
 
 General Index. 
 
 mar, 250, 264, 279, 281, 320, 4333 
 Facsimiles of Ancient MSS, 490. 
 
 Wright, Prof. E. Perceval, Animal 
 Life, 261. 
 
 Wiinsche, Dr. Aug., Die Vorstellungen 
 vom Lustande nach dem Tode nach 
 Afpokrypha, 73; Bibliotheca Rabbinica, 
 xix., 206. 
 
 Xenophon, 366. 
 
 Young, Rev. Loyal, Comm. on Eccle- 
 stastes, xvil., 142. 
 
 Zirkel, G., Untersuchungen tiber den 
 Prediger, 1X., Xvii., passim. 
 
 Zockler, Prof. Otto, Der Prediger, xvii., 
 passim. 
 
 Zuckermandel, 49, 468. 
 
 Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London. 
 
THEOLOGICAL AND OTHER WORKS 
 
 BY 
 
 ΕΗ oie. WRIGHT, D:D... PH.D: 
 
 CRITICAL COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT. 
 
 Zechariah and his Prophecies considered in relation to Modern 
 Criticism, with a Grammatical and Critical Commentary and New 
 Translation. (The Bampton Lectures for 1878.) London: Hodder & 
 Stoughton. 1879. Second Edition. Price 14s. 
 
 ““No one acquainted with Dr. Wright’s earlier publications will need to be told that 
 the Hebrew scholarship of this volume is of a high order. The admirable grammatical 
 commentary at the end constitutes, as some will think, the chief ornament of the book.”— 
 Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., late Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer, Balliol College, Oxford, in the 
 Academy. 
 
 ““ΤῊς writer is a learned man, who has not lightly undertaken his task, and who has com- 
 pleted it with the most conscientious assiduity. Those who wish to be convinced of this must 
 _ necessarily consult the critical and grammatical commentary, which bears witness on every page 
 
 of great accuracy and extensive reading.”—Prof Dr. A. Kuenen, of the University of Leyden, 
 in the Theologisch Tijdschrift.—{ Translated.) 
 
 “Ich gebe Ihnen villig recht dazu, dass Zacharia cap. 9 & sqq. nachexilisch sind ; ich habe 
 die Aussicht der 5. g- historisch-kritischen Schule stets fiir absurd gehalten. Ihre Belesenheit in 
 der deutschen theologischen Literatur ist erstaunlich.”—Prof Dr. Wellhausen, Univ. of 
 Greifswald, now in Halle. 
 
 “ Aus der deutschen Fachliteratur kaum eine Broschiire oder Abhandlung der Zeitschriften 
 von nur einigem Werthe sich hat entgehen lassen. . . [Der kritische und grammatische 
 Commentar] viel schatzbares Material enthalt, und den Beweis giebt, dass der Verf. ernstlich 
 bemiiht gewesen ist, seiner Arbeit eine solide sprachliche Grundlage zu sichern. . . Dieser 
 Anhang ist reich an belehrenden Einzelheiten.”—Prof Dr. C. Siegfried, Univ. of Fena, in the 
 Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen. 
 
 “Der Commentar von Wright iiber denselben Propheten verrath eingehende Gelehrsamkeit 
 und massvolles Urtheil ; in kritischer Beziehung steht der Verf. auf dem Boden des strengsten 
 Conservativismus.”—Prof. Dr. E. Kautssch, in Wissenschaftl. Jahresbericht iber die Morgen- 
 ldindischen Studien (D.M.G.) im Fahre 1879. 
 
 “We are not prepared to endorse all the conclusions at which the learned author has 
 arrived, but we are bound to testify to the candour and impartiality, as well as to the learning and 
 ability displayed in them. As a sample of honest and accurate criticism, of wide and varied 
 information, of reverent and sober treatment of the divine oracles, this volume may take its stand 
 amongst the best specimens of modern Biblical investigation.”—The Right Rev. W. Pakenham 
 Walsh, D.D., Bishop of Ossory, in the Churchman’s Shilling Magazine. 
 
“ One of the most important contributions to the study of Scripture which has appeared in 
 England for many years. . . . Mr. Wright is well able to hold his own against any of the 
 German critics. His book shows wide and accurate reading in Biblical criticism. He is evidently 
 aman of sound and independent judgment. He never substitutes vituperation for argument, 
 or evades for one moment the difficulties he undertakes to meet. . . . After reading his book 
 through with great care, we have scarcely found a word to which a Catholic need object.”—Rev. 
 WE. Addis, in the Dublin Review [Roman Catholic]. 
 
 “‘Characterised by sound scholarship, wide erudition, and sober judgment—qualities very 
 necessary in handling the apocalyptic and eschatalogical visions of Zechariah. It is indispensable 
 to the student of this obscure and difficult Prophet.”—Rev. Samuel Cox, D.D., in The 
 Expositor. 
 
 “The Bampton Lecturer for 1878 has produced an elaborate and learned commentary on 
 Zechariah. There is no doubt as to his candour and erudition.” — Westminster Review. 
 
 ““By far the most instructive, critical, and most scholarly commentary yet published by any 
 English commentator on the subject.” —Euglish Churchman. 
 
 “Ὅτ, Wright has produced a very valuable and exhaustive monograph. He has furnished 
 us with such an abundance of sound philological criticism in his noble and scholarly book, that 
 we heartily recommend it to all earnest students of Holy Scripture.”—Zcclesiastical Gazette 
 (England). 
 
 “Tt is incomparably the best commentary hitherto published by an English author on 
 Zechariah. It is the fruit of great industry and sound scholarship, of wide erudition combined 
 with sober judgment.” —British Quarterly Review. 
 
 “γε congratulate the disestablished Church of Ireland in possessing so learned, so sober, 
 and so acute a scholar.” Yohn Budi. 
 
 “15 scholarship is of a high order, the.ability manifested is most conspicuous ; the research 
 is so thorough that nothing of importance seems to have escaped the author, and the tone and 
 temper shown throughout are such as is rarely seen in the heated atmosphere of theological 
 warfare.” —Daily Review. 
 
 “Tt is on the whole scholarly, reasonable, strong. It will quicken and guide exegetical 
 study. It will teach men to look with boldness and composure on questions Of criticism ; it sets 
 an example of respect and Christian charity towards epponents, and on all these points claims 
 grateful acknowledgment from Biblical scholars.” Presbyterian Review (New York). 
 
 The Book of Genesis in Hebrew, with a critically-revised Text, 
 Various Readings, and Grammatical and Critical Notes. London and 
 Edinburgh : Williams & Norgate. 1859. Price 5s. 
 
 ‘“This work bears satisfactory evidence of most commendable diligence and accurate scholar- 
 
 ship. It supplies a defect much felt in our English exegetical literature, and will prove a very 
 useful manual, even to advanced scholars.” —Ewglish Churchman. 
 
 “No one can fail to admit that this work is a most valuable contribution to a department of 
 literature in which the English have not excelled, Its eminently scholarly character is sure to 
 recommend it.”—Clerical Fournal. 
 
 ““ We consider the book highly creditable to the learning and the judgment of the editor, and 
 we think he has conferred a great benefit on Hebrew students by its publication,”—Literary 
 Churchman 
 
 The Book of Ruth in Hebrew, with a critically-revised Text, 
 
 Various Readings, including a new collation of twenty-eight Hebrew MSS. 
 
 (most of them not previously collated), and a Grammatical and Critical 
 
 Commentary, to which is appended the Chaldee Targum, with various 
 
 Readings, and a Chaldee Glossary. London: Williams & Norgate. 
 Leipzig: L. Denicke. 1864. Price 75. 6d. 
 
 “The work is full and complete. It is highly creditable to the learning, talents, and 
 
 philological attainments of Mr. Wright. . . . Mr. Wright has given the Targum, with various 
 readings, and an excellent Glossary to it, which will introduce the student to an acquaintance 
 
with Chaldee. The Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Hebrew text is thorough and 
 clear, omitting nothing that can throw light on the construction and meaning of the words. F 
 The editor has executed his design in a manner that deserves the thanks of every student of 
 Hebrew ; and we trust that he will seen the reward of his labour in the use of his volume by 
 junior classes in the Universities. Professors could not do better than make it a text book. It is 
 admirably fitted for that purpose.” —A theneum. 
 
 **Beide Werke (Genesis und Ruth) sind die Friichte eines eisernen Fleisses und riihmliche 
 Proben einer auf der Héhe der Wissenschaft stehenden Sprachkenntniss.”—Prof Dr. Franz 
 Delitzsch, University of Leipzig. 
 
 “Mr. Wright’s works on Genesis and Ruth display not only exact and extensive scholarship, 
 but an independence and soundness of judgment eminently calculated to advance Biblieal re- 
 searches, and prove the author’s thorough competence for the philological, historical, and critica 
 treatment of the Scriptures.”.—Dr. M. M, Kalisch, London. . 
 
 **Proben von ausgedehnter und griindlicher Kenntniss nicht nur des Hebridischen sondern 
 auch der verwandten Sprachen und von kritischer Genauigkeit in Behandlung des Textes der 
 heiligen Schrift."—Prvof Dr. H. L. Fleischer, University of Leipzig. 
 
 “In diesen beiden Schriften zeigt sich der Verfasser als ein sehr griindlicher Kenner der 
 hebradischen Sprache und der andern semitischen Sprachen, und als ein Gelehrter der sich durch 
 seine Akribie, Gewissenhaftigkeit, Griindlichkeit und volle Vertrautheit mit dem kritisch-exege- 
 tischen Apparat, und der neuen exeget. Literatur besonders auszeichnet.—Pref Dr. Chwolson, 
 University of St. Petersburg. 
 
 “1 have already expressed my high opinion of your work on Genesis, but your recent edition 
 of Ruth ought to go even more decidedly in your favour. It isa work of pure Hebrew scholar- 
 ship, in which exact knowledge, critical acumen, and diligent research have been brought to bear 
 upon the text of Ruth, and in which all those niceties which the commentator may pass over with 
 alight hand have been carefully treated."—The Very Rev. R. Payne Smith, D.D., Dean of 
 Canterbury, late Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford. 
 
 «Tt displays an estimable knowledge of Hebrew and the Oriental languages, a punctilious ac- 
 curacy in grammatical and critical matters, and an uncommon acquaintance with the literature of 
 the subject, the German included.” —7%e late Prof. Dr. Hermann Hupfeld, University of Halle. 
 
 “ Durch diese Arbeiten [upon Gexesis and Rzth] hat er nicht nur seine Gelehrsamkeit und 
 wissenschaftliche Genauigkeit documentirt, sondern auch mit vielem Geschick die dem Stand- 
 punkte des Hebrew Student angemessene Methode befolgt.”—Zhe late Prof. Dr. Rodiger 
 University of Berlin. 
 
 The Book of Koheleth, commonly called Ecclesiastes, considered 
 in relation to Modern Criticism and to the Doctrines of Modern Pessimism, 
 with a Critical and Grammatical Commentary and a Revised Translation. 
 (The Donnellan Lectures for 1880-1.) London: Hodder and Stoughton. 
 1883. Price 12s. 
 
 “ΤΟ fiihle mich gedraingt Ihnen einmal in einem besonderen Schreiben auszusprechen, dass 
 die Lektiire Ihres so gelehrten und von so griindlicher Kenntnis auch der deutschen Literatur 
 zeugenden Buches mir von grossem Interesse ist, und dass dasselbe nach meiner Ueberzeugung 
 bald einen geachteten Platz unter den Koheleth behandelnden Schriften einnehmen wird. Beson- 
 ders gelungen erscheinen mir Ihre Eréterungen iiber den Unterschied des modernen und des 
 biblischen Pessimismus.”—Prof. Dr. H. L. Strack, Univ. of Berlin. 
 
 “ Bei mancher Differenz in Einzelheiten bin ich lebhaft erfreut hinsichtlich der Hauptprob- 
 eme betreffend Gesammtauffassung, zeitliche Lage, ethischen Standpunct des Buches die 
 Resultate Ihrer Studien so vielfach mit den meinigen convergirend zu finden. . . . Es hat mich 
 iiberrascht und mit aufrichtiger Anerkennung erfiillt bei einem durch Ort und Sprache den 
 Bewegungen der wissenschaftlichen Theologie in Deutschland so fern geriickten Gelehrten durch- 
 gangig so deutliche Specimina einer eingehenden Beschaftigung und genauen Bekanntschaft mit 
 denselben zu finden; eine so gerechte Wiirdigung ihrer Erwerbungen, cine so wissenschaftlich 
 gehaltene Ablehnung ihrer Irrthiimer.”—Pvo/essor Dr. Paul Kleinert, Univ. of Berlin. 
 
MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. 
 
 A Grammar of the Modern Irish Language, designed for the use 
 of the Classes in the University of Dublin. Second edition, revised and 
 enlarged. London: Williams & Norgate. Dublin: Hodges, Foster & 
 Figgis. 1860. 
 
 The Fatherhood of God, and its relation to the Person and Work 
 of Christ, and the Operations of the Holy Spirit. Edinburgh: T. & T. 
 Clark. London: Hamilton, Adams & Co. 1867. Price 55. 
 
 “Ας a writer, the author is most vigorous, and as an interpreter of Scripture he is exceedingly 
 cautious lest he should hang a false inference on any special text.”—Record, 
 
 “Α very clear and readable treatise. . . . Wecannot but respect the reverent, judicious, 
 and broad spirit in which his distinctive views are put forth.”—Bibliotheca Sacra (Boston, U.S.A.). 
 
 **Plus conciliante que pelémique. M. Wright, qui s’est déja fait connaitre par les travaux 
 d’érudition appartient dans l’Eglise anglicane au parti évangelique. . . . Sa tractation se 
 recommande par un mérite qui lui est propre, la grande clarté exegétique qu’il met dans la dis- 
 cussion des points controversés.”—Bulletin Theologigue (Paris.) 
 
 Memoir of John Lovering Cooke, formerly Gunner in the Royal 
 Artillery, and late Lay Agent of the British Sailors’ Institute, Boulogne ; 
 with a Sketch of the Indian Mutiny of 1857-8, up to the final capture of 
 Lucknow. London: James Nisbet & Co., 21, Berners Street. Second 
 Edition, with Illustrations, 1878. Price 35. 
 
 “This little book should be read by mothers and fathers whose sons have ‘gone for soldiers.’ 
 It will show them what a private soldier can do for the honour and glory of God.”—Suzday at 
 Home (Article, May, 1874, p. 312). 
 
 ““His memoir is interestingly written ; and while no one can read his book without pleasure 
 and advantage, it is especially suitable for barrack club-rooms, and for places where soldiers or 
 sailors congregate.” —London Quarterly Review. 
 
 Dublin University Reform and the Divinity School—Four 
 Pamphlets, with a General Preface and Appendix. Dublin: Hodges, 
 Foster δὲ Figgis. 1879. Cloth. Price 2s. 
 
 The Divinity School and the Divinity Degrees of the University 
 of Dublin. Dublin: Hodges, Foster ἃ Figgis. 1880. Price 6d. 
 
 WORKS IN PREPARATION. 
 
 The Book of Daniel, with a Commentary, Critical, Exegetical, 
 and Homiletical, forming a volume of ‘‘The Pulpit Commentary.” 
 C. Kegan Paul & Co. London. 
 
 The Megillath Antiochos, a Jewish Apocryphon; with the Chaldee 
 Text in both the Western and Babylonian punctuation, together with 
 
 P Hebrew and Arabic translations. Edited from MSS., with Various 
 Readings, an English translation, and Critical notes. 
 
Β51475.4 .W94 
 
 The book of Koheleth, commonly called 
 
 rinceto 
 
 wu 
 
 LT 
 
 SS σ τ τ 
 
 ἐξ τς οἷς τι" poe 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 ¢ ὧν 
 pa) 
 0) 
 
 settee. pete 
 Be 
 
 i + i 
 ᾿ 
 
 Demco, Inc. 38-293 
 
 | 
 
 al Seminary—Speer Lib 
 
 ry 
 
 12 00051 7674 
 
 . 
 
᾿ Ἄν ἢ 
 ‘ 
 Ai 
 
 we t Fi 
 De Ν᾽ Ti § ὶ Ὶ 
 παν an 
 va a. He DA ἷ 
 rps Sere > 
 ioral) 
 
 ve ry 
 3 Ῥ ARs ἐς 4 
 tals te eT 
 fy 1 ᾿ γι Υ “ 
 
 " ᾿ 
 ANON 7 εὐ" 
 rs | 
 
Reb δον 
 
 SONA PIES Leeland εχ WN EN ες 
 
 Sat tame 
 whet tare Re oO fee 
 
 ΑΚ ΚΥΜ ie acetals 
 πιδατντοσροον απ αεου nee Oe ysasy ποσὶ 
 Siti Ἂν τὰ ται i ae ta nt σῆμα aaa ana 
 Sirus erie τα πάκυτωπωξ πα HTS Um EMR U τὴ, 
 WEN’ RN SHH PHA ANN 
 
 MEAS 
 Cait ettats 
 
 Pe eh MEN 
 
 SE asta ah on os oa elena iat folate 
 
 Pirate Lee i ah πον 
 Ahi NTS Suny - 
 ἊΣ Sad pa Cin ce hk Pal ee ca te 
 
 γα φτ-γ ae ae