圣经注释书

The title, Ecclesiastes 1:1, The words of Koheleth, son of David, king in Jerusalem, has been already explained in the Introduction. The verse, which does not admit of being properly halved, is rightly divided by “son of David” by the accent Zakef; for the apposition, “king in Jerusalem,” does not belong to “David,” but to “Koheleth.” In several similar cases, such as Ezekiel 1:3, the accentuation leaves the designation of the oppositional genitive undefined; in Genesis 10:21 it proceeds on an erroneous supposition; it is rightly defined in Amos 1:1, for example, as in the passage before us. That “king” is without the article, is explained from this, that it is determined by “in Jerusalem,” as elsewhere by “of Israel” (“Judah”). The expression (cf. 2 Kings 14:23) is singular.

return to '

The book begins artistically with an opening section of the nature of a preamble. The ground-tone of the whole book at once sounds in Ecclesiastes 1:2, which commences this section, “O vanity of vanities, saith Koheleth, O vanity of vanities! All is vain.” As at Isaiah 40:1 ( vid., l.c.) it is a question whether by “saith” is meant a future or a present utterance of God, so here and at Ecclesiastes 12:8 whether “saith” designates the expression of Koheleth as belonging to history or as presently given forth. The language admits both interpretations, as e.g., “saith,” with God as the subject, 2 Samuel 23:3, is meant historically, and in Isaiah 49:5 of the present time. We understand “saith” here, as e.g., Isaiah 36:4, “Thus saith ... the king of Assyria,” of something said now, not of something said previously, since it is those presently living to whom the Solomon redivivus, and through him the author of this book, preaches the vanity of all earthly things. The old translators take “vanity of vanities” in the nominative, as if it were the predicate; but the repetition of the expression shows that it is an exclamation = O vanitatem vanitatum . The abbreviated connecting form of הבל is here not punctuated הבל , after the form חדר ( חדר ) and the like, but הבל , after the manner of the Aram. ground-form עבד ; cf. Ewald, §32 b. Jerome read differently: In Hebraeo pro vanitate vanitatum ABAL ABALIM scriptum est, quod exceptis lxx interpretibus omnes similiter transtulerunt ἀτμὸς ἀτμἰδων sive ἀτμῶν . Hěvěl primarily signifies a breath, and still bears this meaning in post-bibl. Heb., e.g., Schabbath 119 b: “The world exists merely for the sake of the breath of school-children” (who are the hope of the future). Breath, as the contrast of that which is firm and enduring, is the figure of that which has no support, no continuance. Regarding the superlative expression, “Vanity of vanities,” vid., the Song of Solomon 1:1. “Vanity of vanities” is the non plus ultra of vanity, - vanity in the highest degree. The double exclamation is followed by a statement which shows it to be the result of experience. “All is vain” - the whole (of the things, namely, which present themselves to us here below for our consideration and use) is vanity.

return to '

With this verse commences the proof for this exclamation and statement: “What profit hath a man of all his labour which he laboureth in under the sun?!” An interrogative exclamation, which leads to the conclusion that never anything right, i.e., real, enduring, satisfying, comes of it. יתרון , profit, synon. with Mothar, Ecclesiastes 3:19, is peculiar to this book (= Aram. יוּתרן ). A primary form, יתרון , is unknown. The punctator Simson (Cod. 102a of the Leipzig University Lib.f. 5a) rightly blames those who use ויתּרון , in a liturgical hymn, of the Day of Atonement. The word signifies that which remains over, either, as here, clear gain, profit, or that which has the pre-eminence, i.e., superiority, precedence, or is the foremost. “Under the sun” is the designation of the earth peculiar to this book, - the world of men, which we are wont to call the sublunary world. שׁ has not the force of an accusative of manner, but of the obj. The author uses the expression, “Labour wherein I have laboured,” Ecclesiastes 2:19-20; Ecclesiastes 5:17, as Euripides, similarly, μοχθεῖν μόχθον . He now proceeds to justify the negative contained in the question, “What profit?”

return to '

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: and the earth remaineth for ev.” The meaning is not that the earth remains standing, and thus (Hitz.) approaches no limit (for what limit for it could be had in view?); it is by this very immoveable condition that it fulfils, according to the ancient notion, its destiny, Psalms 119:90. The author rather intends to say that in this sphere nothing remains permanent as the fixed point around which all circles; generations pass away, others appear, and the earth is only the firm territory, the standing scene, of this ceaseless change. In reality, both things may be said of the earth: that it stands for ever without losing its place in the universe, and that it does not stand for ever, for it will be changed and become something else. But the latter thought, which appertains to the history of redemption, Psalms 102:26., is remote from the Preacher; the stability of the earth appears to him only as the foil of the growth and decay everlastingly repeating themselves. Elster, in this fact, that the generations of men pass away, and that, on the contrary, the insensate earth under their feet remains, rightly sees something tragic, as Jerome had already done: Quid hac vanius vanitate, quam terram manere, quae hominum causa facta est, et hominem ipsum, terrae dominum, tam repente in pulverem dissolvi ? The sun supplies the author with another figure. This, which he thinks of in contrast with the earth, is to him a second example of ceaseless change with perpetual sameness. As the generations of men come and go, so also does the sun.

return to '

“And the sun ariseth, the sun goeth down, and it hasteth (back) to its place, there to rise again.” It rises and sets again, but its setting is not a coming to rest; for from its place of resting in the west it must rise again in the morning in the east, hastening to fulfil its course. Thus Hitzig rightly, for he takes “there to rise again” as a relative clause; the words may be thus translated, but strictly taken, both participles stand on the same level; שׁואף (panting, hastening) is like בּא in Ecclesiastes 1:4, the expression of the present, and זו that of the fut. instans: ibi ( rursus) oriturus; the accentuation also treats the two partic. as co-ordinate, for Tiphcha separates more than Tebir; but it is inappropriate that it gives to ואל־ם the greater disjunctive Zakef Quaton (with Kadma going before). Ewald adopts this sequence of the accents, for he explains: the sun goes down, and that to its own place, viz., hastening back to it just by its going down, where, panting, it again ascends. But that the sun goes down to the place of its ascending, is a distorted thought. If “to its place” belongs to “goeth,” then it can refer only to the place of the going down, as e.g., Benjamin el-Nahawendi (Neubauer, Aus der Petersb. Bibl. p. 108) explains: “and that to its place,” viz., the place of the going down appointed for it by the Creator, with reference to Psalms 104:19, “the sun knoweth his going down.” But the שׁם , which refers back to “its place,” opposes this interpretation; and the phrase שׁו cannot mean “panting, rising,” since שאף in itself does not signify to pant, but to snatch at, to long eagerly after anything, thus to strive, panting after it (cf. Job 7:2; Psalms 119:131), which accords with the words “to its place,” but not with the act of rising. And how unnatural to think of the rising sun, which gives the impression of renewed youth, as panting! No, the panting is said of the sun that has set, which, during the night, and thus without rest by day and night, must turn itself back again to the east (Psalms 19:7), there anew to commence its daily course. Thus also Rashi, the lxx, Syr., Targ., Jerome, Venet., and Luther. Instead of שׁו , Grätz would read שׁב אף , redit ( atque ) etiam ; but שׁו is as characteristic of the Preacher's manner of viewing the world as סובב וגו , Ecclesiastes 1:6, and ין , Ecclesiastes 1:8. Thus much regarding the sun. Many old interpreters, recently Grätz, and among translators certainly the lxx, refer also Ecclesiastes 1:6 to the sun. The Targ. paraphrases the whole verse of the state of the sun by day and night, and at the spring and autumn equinox, according to which Rashi translates הרוּח , la volonté ( du soleil). But along with the sun, the wind is also referred to as a third example of restless motion always renewing itself. The division of the verses is correct; Ecclesiastes 1:6 used of the sun would overload the figure, and the whole of Ecclesiastes 1:6 therefore refers to the wind.

return to '

“It goeth to the south, and turneth to the north; the wind goeth ever circling, and the wind returneth again on its circuits.” Thus designedly the verse is long-drawn and monotonous. It gives the impression of weariness. שׁב may be 3rd pret. with the force of an abstract present, but the relation is here different from that in 5 a, where the rising, setting, and returning stand together, and the two former lie backwards indeed against the latter; here, on the contrary, the circling motion and the return to a new beginning stand together on the same line; שׁב is thus a part., as the Syr. translates it. The participles represent continuance in motion. In Ecclesiastes 1:4 the subjects stand foremost, because the ever anew beginning motion belongs to the subject; in Ecclesiastes 1:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:6, on the contrary, the pred. stands foremost, and the subject in Ecclesiastes 1:6 is therefore placed thus far back, because the first two pred. were not sufficient, but required a third for their completion. That the wind goes from the south ( דּרום , R. דר , the region of the most intense light) to the north ( צפון , R. צפן , the region of darkness), is not so exclusively true of it as it is of the sun that it goes from the east to the west; this expression requires the generalization “circling, circling goes the wind,” i.e., turning in all directions here and there; for the repetition denotes that the circling movement exhausts all possibilities. The near defining part. which is subordinated to “goeth,” elsewhere is annexed by “and,” e.g., Jonah 1:11; cf. 2 Samuel 15:30; here סבב סובב , in the sense of סביב סביב , Ezekiel 37:2 (both times with Pasek between the words), precedes. סביבה is here the n. actionis of סבב . And “on its circuits” is not to be taken adverbially: it turns back on its circuits, i.e., it turns back on the same paths (Knobel and others), but על and שׁב are connected, as Proverbs 26:11; cf. Psalms 19:7: the wind returns back to its circling movements to begin them anew (Hitzig). “The wind” is repeated (cf. Ecclesiastes 2:10; Ecclesiastes 4:1) according to the figure Epanaphora or Palindrome ( vid., the Introd. to Isaiah, c. 40-66). To all regions of the heavens, to all directions of the compass, its movement is ceaseless, ever repeating itself anew; there is nothing permanent but the fluctuation, and nothing new but that the old always repeats itself. The examples are thoughtfully chosen and arranged. From the currents of air, the author now passes to streams of water.

return to '

“All rivers run into the sea, and the sea becomes not full; to the place whence the rivers came, thither they always return again.” Instead of nehhárim , nehhalim was preferred, because it is the more general name for flowing waters, brooks, and rivers; נחל (from נחל , cavare), אפיק (from אפק , continere), and (Arab.) wadin (from the root-idea of stretching, extending), all three denote the channel or bed, and then the water flowing in it. The sentence, “all rivers run into the sea,” is consistent with fact. Manifestly the author does not mean that they all immediately flow thither; and by “the sea” he does not mean this or that sea; nor does he think, as the Targ. explains, of the earth as a ring ( גּוּשׁפּנקא , Pers. angusht - bâne , properly “finger-guard”) surrounding the ocean: but the sea in general is meant, perhaps including also the ocean that is hidden. If we include this internal ocean, then the rivers which lose themselves in hollows, deserts, or inland lakes, which have no visible outlet, form no exception. But the expression refers first of all to the visible sea-basins, which gain no apparent increase by these masses of water being emptied into them: “the sea, it becomes not full;” איננּוּ (Mishn. אינו ) has the reflex. pron., as at Exodus 3:2; Leviticus 13:34, and elsewhere. If the sea became full, then there would be a real change; but this sea, which, as Aristophanes says ( Clouds, 1294f.), οὐδὲν γίγνεται ἐπιῤῥηεόντων τῶν ποταμῶν πλείων , represents also the eternal sameness. In Leviticus 13:7, Symm., Jer., Luther, and also Zöckler, translate שׁ in the sense of “from whence;” others, as Ginsburg, venture to take שׁם in the sense of משּׁם ; both interpretations are linguistically inadmissible.

Generally the author does not mean to say that the rivers return to their sources, since the sea replenishes the fountains, but that where they once flow, they always for ever flow without changing their course, viz., into the all-devouring sea (Elst.); for the water rising out of the sea in vapour, and collecting itself in rain-clouds, fills the course anew, and the rivers flow on anew, for the old repeats itself in the same direction to the same end. מקום is followed by what is a virtual genitive (Psalms 104:8); the accentuation rightly extends this only to הלכים ; for אשׁר , according to its relation, signifies in itself ubi, Genesis 39:20, and quo, Numbers 13:27; 1 Kings 12:2 (never unde). שׁם , however, has after verbs of motion, as e.g., Jeremiah 22:27 after שׁוב , and 1 Samuel 9:6 after הלך , frequently the sense of שׁמּה . And שׁוּב with ל and the infin. signifies to do something again, Hosea 11:9; Job 7:7, thus: to the place whither the rivers flow, thither they flow again, eo rursus eunt. The author here purposely uses only participles, because although there is constant change, yet that which renews itself is ever the same. He now proceeds, after this brief but comprehensive induction of particulars, to that which is general.

return to '

“All things are in activity; no man can utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, and the ear is not full with hearing.” All translators and interpreters who understand devarim here of words (lxx, Syr., and Targ.) go astray; for if the author meant to say that no words can describe this everlasting sameness with perpetual change, then he would have expressed himself otherwise than by “all words weary” (Ew., Elst., Hengst., and others); he ought at least to have said לריק יג . But also “all things are wearisome” (Knob., Hitz.), or “full of labour” (Zöck.), i.e., it is wearisome to relate them all, cannot be the meaning of the sentence; for יגע does not denote that which causes weariness, but that which suffers weariness (Deuteronomy 25:18; 2 Samuel 7:2); and to refer the affection, instead of to the narrator, to that which is to be narrated, would be even for a poet too affected a quid pro quo . Rosenmüller essentially correctly: omnes res fatigantur h. e. in perpetua versantur vicissitudine, qua fatigantur quasi . But יגעים is not appropriately rendered by fatigantur ; the word means, becoming wearied, or perfectly feeble, or also: wearying oneself (cf. Ecclesiastes 10:15; Ecclesiastes 12:12), working with a strain on one's strength, fatiguing oneself (cf. יגיע , that which is gained by labour, work). This is just what these four examples are meant to show, viz., that a restless activity reaching no visible conclusion and end, always beginning again anew, pervades the whole world-all things, he says, summarizing, are in labour, i.e., are restless, hastening on, giving the impression of fatigue.

Thus also in strict sequence of thought that which follows: this unrest in the outer world reflects itself in man, when he contemplates that which is done around him; human language cannot exhaust this coming and going, this growth and decay in constant circle, and the quodlibet is so great, that the eye cannot be satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing; to the unrest of things without corresponds the unrest of the mind, which through this course, in these ever repeated variations, always bringing back the old again to view, is kept in ceaseless activity. The object to dǎbbēr is the totality of things. No words can comprehend this, no sensible perception exhaust it. That which is properly aimed at here is not the unsatisfiedness of the eyes (Proverbs 27:20), and generally of the mind, thus not the ever-new attractive power which appertains to the eye and the ear of him who observes, but the force with which the restless activity which surrounds us lays hold of and communicates itself to us, so that we also find no rest and contentment. With שׂבע , to be satisfied, of the eye, there is appropriately interchanged נמלא , used of the funnel-shaped ear, to be filled, i.e., to be satisfied (as at Ecclesiastes 6:7). The min connected with this latter word is explained by Zöck. after Hitz., “away from hearing,” i.e., so that it may hear no more. This is not necessary. As saava' with its min may signify to be satisfied with anything, e.g., Ecclesiastes 6:3, Job 19:22; Psalms 104:13; cf. Kal, Isaiah 2:6, Pih. Jeremiah 51:34; Psalms 127:5. Thus mishshemoa' is understood by all the old translators ( e.g., Targ. מלּמשׁמע ), and thus also, perhaps, the author meant it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, and the ear is not filled (satisfied) with hearing; or yet more in accordance with the Heb. expression: there is not an eye, i.e., no eye is satisfied, etc., restlessly hastening, giving him who looks no rest, the world goes on in its circling course without revealing anything that is in reality new.

return to '