{"commentary":{"id":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","website":"https://worthy.bible/commentaries/keil-delitzsch-commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"bb5cc0f9cfe0a93b3c903bb6972c6bc8c4e9f2bd3be6c2a6d276737cf9c5edce","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":39,"totalNumberOfChapters":909,"totalNumberOfVerses":6516,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"ECC","commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Ecclesiastes","commonName":"Ecclesiastes","introduction":"The Book of Ecclesiastes\n\nIntroduction\n\nIf we look at the world without God, it appears what it is - a magnificent, graduated combination of diverse classes of beings, connected causes and effects, well-calculated means and ends. But thus contemplated, the world as a whole remains a mystery. If, with the atheist, we lay aside the idea of God, then, notwithstanding the law of causation, which is grounded in our mental nature, we abandon the question of the origin of the world. If, with the pantheist, we transfer the idea of God to the world itself, then the effect is made to be as one with the cause - not, however, without the conception of God, which is inalienable in man, reacting against it; for one cannot but distinguish between substance and its phenomena. The mysteries of the world which meet man as a moral being remain, under this view of the world, altogether without solution. For the moral order of the world presupposes an absolutely good Being, from whom it has proceeded, and who sustains it; it demands a Lawgiver and a Judge. Apart from the reference to this Being, the distinction between good and evil loses its depth and sharpness. Either there is no God, or all that is and happens is a moment in the being and life of God Himself, who is identical with the world: thus must the world-destructive power of sin remain unrecognised. The opinion as to the state of the world will, from a pantheistic point of view, rise to optimism; just as, on the other hand, from an atheistic point of view, it will sink to pessimism. The commanding power of goodness even the atheist may recognise by virtue of the inner law peculiar to man as a moral being, but the divine consecration is wanting to this goodness; and if human life is a journey from nothing to nothing, then this will be the best of all goodness: that man set himself free from the evil reality, and put his confidence in nothing. \"Him who views the world,\" says Buddhism, \"as a water-bubble, a phantom, the king of death does not terrify. What pleasure, what joy is in this world? Behold the changing form-it is undone by old age; the diseased body - it dissolves and corrupts! 'I have sons and treasures; here will I dwell in the season of the cold, and there in the time of the heat:' thus thinks the fool; and cares not for, and sees not, the hindrances thereto. Him who is concerned about sons and treasures - the man who has his heart so entangled - death tears away, as the torrent from the forest sweeps away the slumbering village.\" The view taken of the world, and the judgment formed regarding it, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, are wholly different. While in the Book of Esther faith in God remains so much in the background that there is nowhere in it express mention made of God, the name of God occurs in Ecclesiastes no fewer than thirty-seven times,\n\n(Note: האלהים, Ecc 2:24, Ecc 2:26; Ecc 3:11, Ecc 3:14 (twice), 15, 17, 18; Ecc 5:1, Ecc 5:5-6, Ecc 5:17-18 (Ecc 5:1, Ecc 5:2, Ecc 5:6-7, Ecc 5:18-19), 19 (20); Ecc 6:2 (twice); Ecc 7:13-14, Ecc 7:26, Ecc 7:29; Ecc 8:15, Ecc 8:17; Ecc 9:1, Ecc 9:7; Ecc 11:5, Ecc 11:9; Ecc 12:7, Ecc 12:13-14. אלהים, Ecc 3:10, Ecc 3:13; Ecc 5:3, Ecc 5:18; Ecc 7:18; Ecc 8:2, Ecc 8:13.)\n\nand that in such a way that the naming of Him is at the same time the confession of Him as the True God, the Exalted above the world, the Governor and the Ruler over all. And not only that: the book characterizes itself as a genuine product of the Israelitish Chokma by this, that, true to its motto, it places the command, \"Fear Thou God,\" Ecc 5:6, Ecc 5:7, Ecc 12:13, in the foremost rank as a fundamental moral duty; that it makes, Ecc 8:12, the happiness of man to be dependent thereon; that it makes, Ecc 7:18; Ecc 11:9; Ecc 12:14, his final destiny to be conditioned by his fearing God; and that it contemplates the world as one that was created by God very good, Ecc 3:11; Ecc 7:29, and as arranged, Ecc 3:14, and directed so that men should fear Him. These primary principles, to which the book again and again returns, are of special importance for a correct estimate of it.\n\nOf like decisive importance for the right estimate of the theistic, and at the same time also the pessimistic, view of the world presented by Koheleth is this, that he knows of no future life compensating for the troubles of the present life, and resolving its mystery. It is true that he says, Ecc 12:7, that the life-spirit of the man who dies returns to God who gave it, as the body returns to the dust of which it is formed; but the question asked in Ecc 3:21 shows that this preferring of the life-spirit of man to that of a beast was not, in his regard, raised above all doubt. And what does this return to God mean? By no means such a return unto God as amounts to the annihilation of the separate existence of the spirit of man; for, in the first place, there is the supposition of this separate existence running through the Bible; in the second place, נתנה, Ecc 12:7, does not point to an emanation; and in the third place, the idea of Hades prevailing in the consciousness of the ages before Christ, and which is also that of Koheleth, proves the contrary. Man exists also beyond the grave, but without the light and the force of thought and activity characterizing his present life, Ecc 9:5, Ecc 9:10. The future life is not better, but is worse than the present, a dense darkness enduring \"for ever,\" Ecc 9:6; Ecc 11:8; Ecc 12:5. It is true, indeed, that from the justice of God, and the experiences of the present life as standing in contradiction thereto, Ecc 8:14, the conclusion is drawn, Ecc 12:14; Ecc 11:9, that there is a last decisive judgment, bringing all to light; but this great thought, in which the interest of the book in the progress of religious knowledge comes to a climax, is as yet only an abstract postulate of faith, and not powerful enough to brighten the future; and therefore, also, not powerful enough to lift us above the miseries of the present.\n\nThat the author gives utterance to such thoughts of the future as Ecc 12:7 and Ecc 11:9; Ecc 12:14 - to which Wisd. 3:1 (\"The souls of the righteous are in God' hand, and no trouble moves them\") and Dan 12:2 (\"Many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt\") are related, as being their expansion, - warrants the supposition that he disputes as little as Job does in chap. 14 the reality of a better future; but only that the knowledge of such a future was not yet given to him. In general, for the first time in the N.T. era, the hope of a better future becomes a common portion of the church's creed, resting on the basis of faith in the history of redemption warranting it; and is advanced beyond the isolated prophetic gleams of light, the mere postulates of faith that were ventured upon, and the unconfirmed opinions, of the times preceding Christ. The N.T. Scripture shows how altogether different this world of sin and of change appears to be since a world of recompense and of glory has been revealed as its background; since the Lord has pronounced as blessed those who weep, and not those who laugh; and since, with the apostle (Rom 8:18), we may be convinced that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed to us. The goal of human life, with its labour and its sufferings, is now carried beyond the grave. That which is done under the sun appears only as a segment of the universal and everlasting operation, governed by the wisdom of God, the separate portions of which can only be understood in their connection with the whole. The estimate taken of this present world, apart from its connection with the future, must be one-sided. There are two worlds: the future is the solution of the mystery of the present.\n\nA N.T. believer would not be able to write such a book as that of Job, or even as that of Ecclesiastes, without sinning against revealed truth; without renouncing the better knowledge meanwhile made possible; without falling back to an O.T. standpoint. The author of the Book of Ecclesiastes is related to revealed religion in its O.T. manifestation, - he is a believer before the coming of Christ; but not such an one as all, or as most were, but of peculiar character and position. There are some natures that have a tendency to joyfulness, and others to sadness. The author of this book does not belong to the latter class; for if he did, the call to rejoice, Ecc 11:9, Ecc 8:15, etc., would not as it does pervade his book, as the χαίρετε, though in a deeper sense, pervades the Epistle to the Philippians. Neither does he belong to those superficial natures which see almost everything in a rosy light, which quickly and easily divest themselves of their own and of others' sorrows, and on which the stern earnestness of life can make no deep and lasting impressions. Nor is he a man of feeling, whom his own weakness makes a prophet of evil; not a predominatingly passive man, who, before he could fully know the world, withdrew from it, and now criticises it from his own retired corner in a careless, inattentive mood; but a man of action, with a penetrating understanding and a faculty of keen observation; a man of the world, who, from his own experience, knows the world on all its sides; a restless spirit, who has consumed himself in striving after that which truly satisfies. That this man, who was forced to confess that all science and art, all that table dainties, and the love of women, and riches, and honour yielded him, was at last but vanity and vexation of spirit, and who gained so deep an insight into the transitoriness and vanity of all earthly things, into the sorrows of this world of sin and death, and their perplexing mysteries, does not yet conclude by resigning himself to atheism, putting \"Nothing\" (Nirvna), or blind Fate, in the place of God, but firmly holds that the fear of God is the highest duty and the condition of all true prosperity, as it is the highest truth and the surest knowledge - that such is the case with him may well excite our astonishment; as well as this also, that he penetrates the known illusory character of earthly things in no overstrained manner, despising the world in itself, and also the gifts of God in it, but that he places his ultimatum as to the pure enjoyment of life within the limits of the fear of God, and extends it as widely as God permits. One might therefore call the Book of Koheleth, \"The Song of the Fear of God,\" rather than, as H. Heine does, \"The Song of Scepticism;\" for however great the sorrow of the world which is therein expressed, the religious conviction of the author remains in undiminished strength; and in the midst of all the disappointments in the present world, his faith in God, and in the rectitude of God, and in the victory of the good, stands firm as a rock, against which all the waves dash themselves into foam. \"This book,\" says another recent author,\n\n(Note: Hartmann's Das Lied vom Ewigen, St. Galle 1859, p. 12.)\n\n\"which contains almost as many contradictions as verses, may be regarded as the Breviary of the most modern materialism, and of extreme licentiousness.\" He who can thus speak has not read the book with intelligence. The appearance of materialism arises from this, that the author sees in the death of man an end similar to that of beasts; and that is certainly so far true, but it is not the whole truth. In the knowledge of the reverse side of the matter he does not come beyond the threshold, because His hand was not yet there - viz. the hand of the Arisen One - which could help him over it. And as for the supposed licentiousness, Ecc 9:7-9 shows, by way of example, how greatly the fear of God had guarded him from concluding his search into all earthly things with the disgust of a worn-out libertine.\n\nBut there are certainly self-contradictions in the Book of Ecclesiastes. They have a twofold ground. They are, on the one hand, the reflection of the self-contradicting facts which the author affirms. Thus, e.g., Ecc 3:11, he says that God has set eternity in the heart of man, but that man cannot find out from the beginning to the end the work which God maketh; Ecc 3:12-13, that the best thing in this world is for a man to enjoy life; but to be able to do this, is a gift of God; Ecc 8:12, Ecc 8:14, that it goes well with them that fear God, but ill with the godless. But there is also the contrary - which is just the ground-tone of the book, that everything has its But; only the fear of God, after all that appertains to the world is found to be as vanitas vanitatum, remains as the kernel without the shell, but the commandment of the fear of God as a categorical imperative, the knowledge that the fear of God is in itself the highest happiness, and fellowship with God the highest good, remain unexpressed; the fear of God is not combined with the love of God, as e.g., in Ps 73 it serves only for warning and not for comfort. On the other hand, the book also contains contradictions, which consists in contrasts which the author is not in a condition to explain and adjust. Thus, e.g., the question whether the spirit of a dying man, in contrast to that of a beast, takes its way upwards, Ecc 3:21, is proposed as one capable of a double answer; but Ecc 12:7 answers it directly in the affirmative; the author has good grounds for the affirmative, but yet no absolute proofs. And while he denies the light of consciousness and the energy of activity to those who have gone down to Hades, Ecc 9:10, he maintains that there is a final decisive judgment of a holy and righteous God of all human conduct, Ecc 11:9; Ecc 12:14, which, since there is frequently not a righteous requital given on earth, Ecc 8:14, and since generally the issue here does not bring to light, Ecc 9:2, the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, will take place in eternity; but it is difficult to comprehend how he has reconciled the possibility of such a final judgment with the shadowy nature of existence after death.\n\nThe Book of Koheleth is, on the one side, a proof of the power of revealed religion which has grounded faith in God, the One God, the All-wise Creator and Governor of the world, so deeply and firmly in the religious consciousness, that even the most dissonant and confused impressions of the present world are unable to shake it; and, on the other side, it is a proof of the inadequacy of revealed religion in its O.T. form, since the discontent and the grief which the monotony, the confusion, and the misery of this earth occasion, remain thus long without a counterbalance, till the facts of the history of redemption shall have disclosed and unveiled the heavens above the earth. In none of the O.T. books does the Old Covenant appear as it does in the Book of Koheleth, as \"that which decayeth and waxeth old, and is ready to vanish away\" (Heb 8:13). If the darkness of earth must be enlightened, then a New Covenant must be established; for heavenly love, which is at the same time heavenly wisdom, enters into human nature and overcomes sin, death, and Hades, and removes the turning-point of the existence of man from this to the future life. The finger of prophecy points to this new era. And Koheleth, from amid his heaps of ruins, shows how necessary it is that the heavens should now soon open above the earth.\n\nIt is a view of the world, dark, and only broken by scattered gleams of light, not disowning its sullenness even where it recommends the happy enjoyment of life, which runs through the book in a long series of dissonances, and gives to it a peculiar character. It is thus intentionally a homogeneous whole; but is it also divided into separate parts according to a plan? That we may be able to answer this question, we subject the contents of the book to a searching analysis, step by step, yet steadily keeping the whole in view. This will at the same time also serve as a preparation for the exposition of the book.\n\nHere below, all things under the sun are vanity. The labour of man effects nothing that is enduring, and all that is done is only a beginning and a vanishing away again, repeating itself in a never-ending circle: these are the thoughts of the book which stand as its motto, Ecc 1:2-11.\n\nKoheleth-Solomon, who had been king, then begins to set forth the vanity of all earthly things from his own experience. The striving after secular knowledge, Ecc 1:12., has proved to him unsatisfactory, as has also the striving after happiness in pleasure and in procuring the means of all imaginable gratifications, Ecc 2:1-11; wisdom is vanity, for the wise man falls under the stroke of death as well as the fool, and is forgotten, Ecc 2:12-17; the riches are vanity, for they become the inheritance, one knows not whether or a worthy or of an unworthy heir, Ecc 2:18-21; and, besides, pure enjoyment, like wisdom and knowledge, depends not merely on the will of man, but both are the gift of God, Ecc 2:22. Everything has its time appointed by God, but man is unable to survey either backwards or forwards the work of God, which fills eternity, notwithstanding the impulse to search into it which is implanted within him; his dependence in all things, even in pure enjoyment, must become to him a school in which to learn the fear of God, who maintains all things unchangeably, for forms the course of that which is done, Ecc 3:1-15. If he sees injustice prevailing in the place of justice, God's time for righteous interference has not yet come, Ecc 3:16-17. If God wishes to try men, they shall see that they are dependent like the beasts, and liable to death without any certain distinction from the beasts - there is nothing better than that this fleeting life should be enjoyed as well as may be, Ecc 3:18.\n\nKoheleth now further records the evils that are under the sun: oppression, in view of which death is better than life, and not to have been at all is better than both, Ecc 4:1-3; envy, Ecc 4:4; the restlessness of labour, from which only the fool sets himself free, Ecc 4:5-6; the aimless trouble and parsimony of him who stands alone, Ecc 4:7-12; the disappointment of the hopes placed on an upstart who has reached the throne, Ecc 4:13-16.\n\nUp to this point there is connection. There now follow rules, externally unconnected, for the relation of man to Him who is the Disposer of all things; regarding his frequenting the house of God, Ecc 5:1; prayer, Ecc 5:2; and praise, Ecc 5:3-6.\n\nThen a catalogue of vanities is set forth: the insatiable covetous plundering of the lowly by those who are above them in despotic states, whereat the author praises, Ecc 5:7-8, the patriarchal state based on agriculture; and the nothingness and uncertainty of riches, which do not make the rich happier than the labourer, Ecc 5:9-11; which sometimes are lost without any to inherit them, Ecc 5:12-14; and which their possessor, at all events, must leave behind him when he dies, Ecc 5:15-16. Riches have only a value when by means of them a purer enjoyment is realized as the gift of God, Ecc 5:17. For it happens that God gives to a man riches, but to a stranger the enjoyment thereof, Ecc 6:1-2. An untimely birth is better than a man who has an hundred children, a long life, and yet who has no enjoyment of life even to his death, Ecc 6:3-6. desire stretching on into the future is torment; only so much as a man truly enjoys has he of all his labour, Ecc 6:7-9; what man shall be is predestinated, all contendings against it are useless: the knowledge of that which is good for him, and of the future, is in the power of no man, Ecc 6:10.\n\nThere now follow, without a premeditated plan, rules for the practical conduct of life, loosely connecting themselves with the \"what is good,\" Ecc 6:12, by the catchword \"good:\" first six (probably originally seven) proverbs of two things each, whereof the one is better than the other, Ecc 7:1-9; then three with the same catch-word, but without comparison, Ecc 7:10-14.\n\nThis series of proverbs is connected as a whole, for their ultimatum is a counsel to joy regulated by the fear of God within the narrow limits of this life, constituted by God of good and bad days, and terminating in the darkness of death. But this joy is also itself limited, for the deep seriousness of the memento mori is mingled with it, and sorrow is declared to be morally better than laughter.\n\nWith Ecc 7:15, the I, speaking from personal experience, again comes into the foreground; but counsels and observations also here follow each other aphoristically, without any close connection with each other. Koheleth warns against an extreme tendency to the side of good as well as to that of evil: he who fears God knows how to avoid extremes, Ecc 7:15-18. Nothing affords a stronger protection than wisdom, for (?) with all his righteousness a man makes false steps, Ecc 7:19-20. Thou shalt not always listen, lest thou hear something about thyself, - also thou thyself hast often spoken harshly regarding others, Ecc 7:21-22. He has tried everything, but in his strivings after wisdom, and in his observation of the distinction between wisdom and folly, he has found nothing more dangerous than the snares of women; among a thousand men he found one man; but one woman such as she ought to be, he found not; he found in general that God made men upright, but that they have devised many kinds of by-ways, Ecc 7:23.\n\nAs the wise man considers women and men in general, wisdom teaches him obedience to the king to whom he has sworn fealty, and, under despotic oppression, patient waiting for the time of God's righteous interference, Ecc 8:1-9. In the time of despotic domination, it occurs that the godless are buried with honour, while the righteous are driven away and forgotten, Ecc 8:10. God's sentence is to be waited for, the more deliberately men give themselves to evil; God is just, but, in contradiction to His justice, it is with the righteous as with the wicked, and with the wicked as with the righteous, here on earth, Ecc 8:11-14. In view of these vanities, then, it is the most desirable thing for a man to eat and drink, and enjoy himself, for that abides with him of his labour during the day of his life God has given him, Ecc 8:15. Restless labour here leads to nothing; all the efforts of man to comprehend the government of God are in vain, Ecc 8:16. For on closer consideration, it appears that the righteous also, with all their actions, are ruled by God, and generally that in nothing, not even in his affections, is man his own master; and, which is the worst thing of all, because it impels men to a wicked, mad abuse of life, to the righteous and the unrighteous, death at last comes alike; it is also the will of God towards man that he should spend this transient life in cheerful enjoyment and in vigorous activity before it sinks down into the night of Hades, Ecc 9:1-10. The fruits of one's labour are not to be gained by force, even the best ability warrants it not, an incomprehensible fate finally frustrates all, Ecc 9:11-12.\n\nThere now follows, but in loose connection as to thought with the preceding, a section relating to wisdom and folly, and the discordances as to the estimate of both here below, along with diverse kinds of experiences and proverbs, Eccl 9:13-10:15. Only one proverb is out of harmony with the general theme, viz., Ecc 10:4, which commends resignation under the abullition of the wrath of the ruler. The following proverb, Ecc 10:5-6, returns to the theme, but connecting itself with the preceding; the relation of rulers and the ruled to each other is kept principally in view by Koheleth.\n\nWith a proverb relating to kings and princes, good and bad, a new departure is made. Riotous living leads to slothfulness; and in contrast to this (but not without the intervention of a warning not to curse the king) follow exhortations to provident, and, at the same time, bold, and all-attempting activity; for the future is God's, and not to be reckoned on, Eccl 10:16-11:6. The light is sweet; and life, however long it may last, in view of the uncertain dark future, is worthy of being enjoyed, Ecc 11:7-8. Thus Koheleth, at the end of this last series of proverbs, has again reached his Ceterum censeo; he formulates it, in an exhortation to a young man to enjoy his life - but without forgetting God, to whom he owes it, and to whom he has to render an account - before grey-haired old age and death overtake him, into a full-toned finale, 11:9-12:7. The last word of the book, Ecc 12:8, is parallel with the first (Ecc 1:1): \"O! vanity of vanities; All is vain!\"\n\nAn epilogue, from the same hand as the book seals its truth: it is written as from the very soul of Solomon; it issues from the same fountain of wisdom. The reader must not lose himself in reading many books, for the sum of all knowledge that is of value to man is comprehended in one sentence: \"Fear God, for He shall bring every work into judgment,\" Ecc 12:9.\n\nIf we look back on this compendious reproduction of the contents and of the course of thought of the book, there appears everywhere the same view of the world, along with the same ultimatum; and as a pictorial overture opens the book, a pictorial finale closes it. But a gradual development, a progressive demonstration, is wanting, and so far the grouping together of the parts is not fully carried out; the connection of the thoughts if more frequently determined by that which is external and accidental, and not unfrequently an incongruous element is introduced into the connected course of kindred matters. The Solomonic stamp impressed on chap. 1 and 2 begins afterwards to be effaced. The connection of the confessions that are made becomes aphoristic in chap. 3; and the proverbs that are introduced do not appropriately fall into their place. The grounds, occasions, and views which determine the author to place confessions and moral proverbs in such an order after one another, for the most part withdraw themselves from observation. All attempts to show, in the whole, not only oneness of spirit, but also a genetic progress, an all-embracing plan, and an organic connection, have hitherto failed, and must fail.\n\n(Note: \"Ajunt Hebraei, quum inter cetera scripta Salomonis, quae antiquata sunt nec in memoria duraverunt, et hic liber obliterandus videretur, et quod vanas assereret Dei creaturas et totum putaret esse pro nihilo, et potum et cibum et delicias transeuntes praeferret omnibus, ex hoc uno capitulo (Ecc 12:13) meruisse auctoritatem, ut in divinorum voluminum numero poneretur.\" - Jerome.)\n\nIn presenting this view of the spirit and plan of the Book of Koheleth, we have proceeded on the supposition that it is a post-exilian book, that it is one of the most recent of the books of the O.T. It is true, indeed, that tradition regards it as Solomonic. According to Bathra 15a, the Hezekiah-Collegium vid., Del. on Proverbs, p. 5] must have \"written\" - that is, collected into a written form - the Book of Isaiah, as also the Proverbs, the Song, and Koheleth. The Midrash regards it as Solomon's, and as written in the evening of his days; while the Song was written in his youth, and the Proverbs when he was in middle age (Jalkut, under Pro 1:1). If in Rosch haschana 21b it is said that Koheleth sought to be a second Moses, and to open the one of the fifty gates of knowledge which was unopened by Moses, but that this was denied to him, it is thereby assumed that he was the incomparable king, as Moses was the incomparable prophet. And Bloch, in his work on the origin and era of the Book of Koheleth (1872), is right in saying that all objections against the canonicity of the book leave the Solomonic authorship untouched. In the first Christian century, the Book of Koheleth was an antilegomenon. In the Introduction to the Song we have traced to their sources the two collections of legal authorities according to which the question of the canonicity of the Book of Koheleth is decided. The Synod of Jabne (Jamnia), about 90, decided the canonicity of the book against the school of Shammai. The reasons advanced by the latter against the canonicity are seen from Shabbath 30b, and Megilla 7a. From the former we learn that they regarded the words of the book, particularly Ecc 2:2 (where they must have read מהוּלּל, \"worthy to be praised\"), cf. Ecc 7:3, and Ecc 8:15, 22, as contradictory (cf. Proverbs, p. 31); and from the latter, that they hence did not recognise its inspiration. According to the Midrash Koheleth, under Ecc 11:9, they were stumbled also by the call to the enjoyment of pleasure, and to walk in the way of the desire of the heart, which appeared to stand in contradiction to the Tra (cf. Ecc 11:9 with Num 15:39), and to savour of heresy. But belief in the Solomonic authorship remained, notwithstanding, uninjured; and the admonitions to the fear of God, with reference to the future judgment, carried them over the tendency of these observations. Already, at the time of Herod the Great (Bathra 4a), and afterwards, in the time of R. Gamaliel (Shabbath 30b), the book was cited as Holy Scripture; and when, instead of the book, the author was named, the formula of citation mentioned the name of Solomon; or the book was treated as equally Solomonic with Proverbs and the Song (Erubin 21b).\n\nEven the doubtfulness of its contents could give rise to no manner of doubt as to the author. Down till the new era beginning with Christianity, and, in the main, even till the Reformation-century, no attention was paid to the inner and historico-literary marks which determine the time of the origin of a book. The Reformation first called into existence, along with the criticism of dogmatic traditions, at the same time also biblical criticism, which it raised to the place of an essential part of the science of Scripture. Luther, in his Tischreden (Table-Talk), is the first who explained the Preacher as one of the most recent books of the O.T.: he supposed that the book had not reached us in its completed form; that it was written by Sirach rather than by Solomon; and that it might be, \"as a Talmud, collected from many books, perhaps from the library of King Ptolemy Euergetes, in Egypt.\"\n\n(Note: Tischreden, ed. Frstemann-Bindseil, p. 400f. The expression here almost appears as if Luther had confounded Ecclesiastes (Koheleth) with Ecclesiasticus (Sirach). At a later period he maintained that the book contained a collection of Solomonic sayings, not executed, however, by Solomon himself.)\n\nThese are only passing utterances, which have no scientific value; among his contemporaries, and till the middle of the century following, they found no acceptance. Hugo Grotius (1644) is the first who, like Luther, rejects its Solomonic authorship, erroneously supposing, with him, that it is a collection of diverse sayings of the wise, περὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας; but on one point he excellently hits the nail on the head: Argumentum ejus rei habeo multa vocabula, quae non alibi quam in Daniele, Esdra et Chaldaeis interpretibus reperias. This observation is warranted. If the Book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language. But Bernstein (Quaestiones nonnullae Kohelethanae, 1854) is right in saying that the history of the Hebrew language and literature is certainly divided into two epochs by the Babylonish exile, and that the Book of Koheleth bears the stamp of the post-exilian form of the language.\n\nWords in Koheleth (Eccelsiastes)\n\nList of the Hapaxlegomena, and of the Words and Forms in the Book of Koheleth belonging to a more recent Period of the Language\n\nAviyonah, 12:5; cf. Ma'seroth 4:6, Berachoth 36a.\n\nAdam, opp. ishah, only at 7:28.\n\nIzzen, Pi., only 12:9; not Talm.\n\nאי, Ecc 10:16; אילו, Ecc 4:10, instead of the older אוי; cf. הי, Eze 2:10; like אי ל, Shemoth rabba, c. 46; אי ם, \"Alas, now bad!\" Targ. Jer 2; Lev 26:29; אי ע, \"Alas for the meek!\" Berachoth 6b; cf. Sanhedrin 11a.\n\nIllu, \"if,\" Ecc 6:6; Est 7:4, of אם (אין) and לוּ (לא, read לא, Eze 3:6); Targ. Deu 32:29 = Heb. לוּ, common in the Mishna, e.g., Maccoth i. 10.\n\nAsurim, only Ecc 7:26; cf. Jdg 15:14; Seder olam rabba, c. 25; cf. at Ecc 4:14.\n\nBaale asupoth, only Ecc 12:11; cf. Sanhedrin 12a, Jer. Sanhedrin x. 1.\n\nBihel, only Ecc 5:1; Ecc 7:9; as Hiph. Est 6:14; cf. the transitive use of the Pih. Est 2:9, like Targ. bahel (= ithbehel) and behilu, haste.\n\nBur, only Ecc 9:1; cf. the Talm. al buriv, altogether free from error and sin.\n\nBehuroth, only Ecc 11:9; Ecc 12:1; cf. Mibehurav, Num 11:28.\n\nBatel, Ecc 12:3; elsewhere only in the Chald. of Ezra; common in the Mishna, e.g., Aboth i. 5.\n\nBeth olam (","order":21,"numberOfChapters":12,"sha256":"b928013738abbef3cf31cbe0a9bafa8c77f93b7ca5dbef84242b4ac433bead41","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/ECC/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"ECC","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":12,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/ECC/12.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"ECC","chapter":12},"totalNumberOfVerses":181},"chapter":{"number":10,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["The second half of the foregoing double proverb introduces what now follows: \"Poisonous flies make to stink, make to ferment the oil of the preparer of ointment; heavier than wisdom, than honour, weighs a little folly.\" We do not need to change מות זבוּבי, on account of the foll. sing. of the pred., either into זבוגי ם (as possible by Hitz.) or זב ימוּתי (Luzz.); both are inadmissible, for the style of Koheleth is not adorned with archaisms such as Chirek compaginis; and also such an attrib. clause as זבוב ימות, a fly which dies,\" is for him too refined; but both are also unnecessary, for a plur. of the subj., in which the plurality of the individuals comes less into view than the oneness of their character, is frequently enough followed by the sing. of the pred., e.g., Gen 39:22; Joe 1:20; Isa 59:12, etc. It is a question, however, whether by זבובי מות, death-bringing, i.e., poisonous flies (lxx, Targ., Luther)\n(Note: The Targ. interprets, as the Talm. and Mid. do, deadly flies as a figure of the prava concupiscentia. Similarly Wangemann: a mind buried in the world.)\nor dead flies (Symm., Syr., Jerome) is meant. We decide in favour of the former; for (1) זבובי מות for זבוּבים מתים (Ecc 9:4; Isa 37:36), \"death-flies\" for \"dead flies,\" would be an affected poetic expression without analogy; while, on the contrary, \"death-flies\" for \"deadly flies\" is a genit. connection, such as מות כּלי instruments of death, i.e., deadly instruments and the like; Bttcher understands dung-flies; but the expression can scarcely extend to the designation of flies which are found on dead bodies. Meanwhile, it is very possible that by the expression זב ם, such flies are thought of as carry death from dead bodies to those that are living; the Assyr. syllabare show how closely the Semites distinguished manifold kinds of זבובים (Assyr. zumbi = zubbi). (2) In favour of \"dead flies,\" it has been remarked that that influence on the contents of a pot of ointment is effected not merely by poison-flies, but, generally, by flies that have fallen into it.\nBut since the oil mixed with perfumes may also be of the kind which, instead of being changed by a dead body, much rather embalms it; so it does not surprise us that the exciter of fermentation is thus drastically described by μυῖαι θανατοῦσαι (lxx); it happens, besides, also on this account, because \"a little folly\" corresponds as a contrasted figure to the little destructive carcase, - wisdom בע תּח (\"giveth life,\" Ecc 7:2), a little folly is thus like little deadly flies. The sequence of ideas יב יבּ (maketh the ointment stink) is natural. The corrupting body communicates its foul savour to the ointment, makes it boil up, i.e., puts it into a state of fermentation, in consequence of which it foams and raises up small blisters, אבעבועות (Rashi). To the asyndeton יב יבּ, there corresponds, in 1b, the asyndeton מח מ כּ; the Targ., Syr., and Jerome, \n(Note: The lxx entirely remodels Ecc 10:1: τίμιον κ.τ.λ (\"a little wisdom is more honour than the great glory of folly\"), i.e., יקר מעט חכמה סכלות רב (כבוד in the sense of \"great multitude\"). Van der Palm (1784) regards this as the original form of the text.)\nwho translate by \"and,\" are therefore not witnesses for the phrase וּמך, but the Venet. (καὶ τῆς δόχης) had this certainly before it; it is, in relation to the other, inferior in point of evidence.\n(Note: מכּבוד; thus in the Biblia rabb. 1525, 1615, Genoa 1618, Plantin 1582, Jablonski 1699, and also v. d. Hooght and Norzi. In the Ven. 1515, 1521, 1615, וּמכּבוד is found with the copulat. vav, a form which is adopted by Michaelis. Thus also the Concord. cites, and thus, originally, it stood in J., but has been corrected to מכּבוד. F., however, has מכּבוד, with the marginal remark: מכבוד כן קבלתי מני שמשון (Simson ha-Nakdam, to whom the writer of the Frankf. Cod. 1294 here refers for the reading מך, without the copul. vav, is often called by him his voucher). This is also the correct Masoretic reading; for if וּמך were to be read, then the word would be in the catalogue of words of which three begin with their initial letter, and a fourth has introduced a vav before it (Mas. fin. f. 26, Ochla veochla, Nr. 15).)\nIn general, it is evident that the point of comparison is the hurtfulness, widely extending itself, of a matter which in appearance is insignificant. Therefore the meaning of Ecc 10:1 cannot be that a little folly is more weighty than wisdom, than honour, viz., in the eyes of the blinded crowd (Zckl., Dchsel). This limitation the author ought to have expressed, for without it the sentence is an untruth. Jerome, following the Targ. and Midrash, explains: Pretiosa est super sapientiam et gloriam stultitia parva, understanding by wisdom and honour the self-elation therewith connected; besides, this thought, which Luther limits by the introduction of zuweilen [\"folly is sometimes better than wisdom, etc.\"], is in harmony neither with that which goes before nor with that which follows.\nLuzz., as already Aben Ezra, Grotius, Geiger, Hengst., and the more recent English expositors, transfer the verbs of Ecc 10:1 zeugmatically to Ecc 10:1: similiter pretiosum nomine sapientiae et gloriae virum foetidum facit stolidtias parva. But יביע forbids this transference, and, besides, מן יקר, \"honoured on account of,\" is an improbable expression; also מך יקר presents a tautology, which Luzz. seeks to remove by glossing מך, as the Targ. does, by ונכסים עושר מרוב. Already Rashi has rightly explained by taking יקר (Syr. jaḳîr, Arab. waḳur, waḳûr), in its primary meaning, as synon. of כּבד: more weighty, i.e., heavier and weighing more than wisdom, than honour, is a little folly; and he reminds us that a single foolish act can at once change into their contrary the wisdom and the honour of a man, destroying both, making it as if they had never been, cf. Co1 5:6. The sentence is true both in an intellectual and in a moral reference. Wisdom and honour are swept away by a little quantum of folly; it places both in the shade, it outweighs them in the scale; it stamps the man, notwithstanding the wisdom and dignity which otherwise belong to him, as a fool. The expressive רקח שׁמן is purposely used here; the dealer in ointments (pigmentarius) can now do nothing with the corrupted perfume, - thus the wisdom which a man possesses, the honour which he has hitherto enjoyed, avail him no longer; the proportionally small portion of folly which has become an ingredient in his personality gives him the character of a fool, and operates to his dishonour. Knobel construes rightly; but his explanation (also of Heiligst., Elst., Ginsb.): \"a little folly frequently shows itself more efficacious and fruitful than the wisdom of an honoured wise man,\" helps itself with a \"frequently\" inserted, and weakens מך to a subordinated idea, and is opposed to the figure, which requires a personality. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":2,"content":["A double proverb regarding wisdom and folly in their difference: \"The heart of a wise man is directed to his right hand, and the heart of the fool to his left. And also on the way where a fool goeth, there his heart faileth him, and he saith to all that he is a fool.\" Most interpreters translate: The heart of the wise man is at his right hand, i.e., it is in the right place. But this designation, meant figuratively and yet sounding anatomically, would be in bad taste \n(Note: Christ. Fried. Bauer (1732) explains as we do, and remarks, \"If we translate: the heart of the wise is at his right hand, but the heart of the fool at his left, it appears as if the heart of the prudent and of the foolish must have a different position in the human body, thus affording to the profane ground for mockery.\")\nin this distinguishing double form (vid., on the contrary, Ecc 2:14). The ל is that of direction; \n(Note: Accordingly, Ecc 10:2 has become a Jewish saying with reference to the study of a book (this thought of as Heb.): The wise always turn over the leaves backwards, repeating that which has been read; the fool forwards, superficially anticipating that which has not yet been read, and scarcely able to wait for the end.)\nand that which is situated to the right of a man is figuratively a designation of the right; and that to the left, a designation of the wrong. The designation proceeds from a different idea from that at Deu 5:32, etc.; that which lies to the right, as that lying at a man's right hand, is that to which his calling and duty point him; השׂ denotes, in the later Hebrew, \"to turn oneself to the wrong side.\" \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":3,"content":["This proverb forms, along with the preceding, a tetrastich, for it is divided into two parts by vav. The Kerı̂ has removed the art. in כש and שה, Ecc 6:10, as incompatible with the ש. The order of the words vegam-baderek keshehsachal holek is inverted for vegam keshehsachal baderek holek, cf. Ecc 3:13, and also rav shěyihyn, Ecc 6:3; so far as this signifies, \"supposing that they are many.\" Plainly the author intends to give prominence to \"on the way;\" and why, but because the fool, the inclination of whose heart, according to 2b, always goes to the left, is now placed in view as he presents himself in his public manner of life. Instead of לב־הוּא חסר we have here the verbal clause חסר לבּו, which is not, after Ecc 6:2, to be translated: corde suo caret (Herzf., Ginsb.), contrary to the suff. and also the order of the words, but, after Ecc 9:8 : cor ejus deficit, i.e., his understanding is at fault; for לב, here and at Ecc 10:2, is thus used in a double sense, as the Greek νοῦς and the Lat. mens can also be used: there it means pure, formal, intellectual soul-life; here, pregnantly (Psychol. p. 249), as at Ecc 7:7, cf. Hos 4:11, the understanding or the knowledge and will of what is right. The fool takes no step without showing that his understanding is not there, - that, so to speak, he does not take it along with him, but has left it at home. He even carries his folly about publicly, and prides himself in it as if it were wisdom: he says to all that he is a fool, se esse stultum (thus, correctly, most Jewish and Christian interpreters, e.g., Rashi and Rambach). The expression follows the scheme of Ps. 9:21: May the heathen know mortales se esse (vid., l.c.). Otherwise Luther, with Symm. and Jerome: \"he takes every man as a fool;\" but this thought has no support in the connection, and would undoubtedly be expressed by המּה סכלים. Still differently Knobel and Ewald: he says to all, \"it is foolish;\" Hitzig, on the contrary, justly remarks that סכל is not used of actions and things; this also is true of כּסיל, against himself, Ecc 5:2, where he translates qol kesil by \"foolish discourses.\" \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":4,"content":["This verse shows what is the wise conduct of a subject, and particularly of a servant, when the anger of the ruler breaks forth: \"If the ill-humour of the ruler rise up against thee, do not leave thy post; for patience leaves out great sins.\" Luther connects Ecc 10:4 and Ecc 10:3 by \"therefore;\" for by the potentate he understands such an one as, himself a fool, holds all who contradict him to be fools: then it is best to let his folly rage on. But the מושׁל is a different person from the סכל; and מק אל־תּנּח does not mean, \"let not yourself get into a passion,\" or, as he more accurately explains in the Annotationes: \"remain self-possessed\" (similarly Hitzig: lose not thy mental state of composure), but, in conformity with תלך ... אל, Ecc 8:3, \"forsake not the post (synon. מצּב and מעמד, Isa 22:19, cf. 23) which thou hast received.\" The person addressed is thus represented not merely as a subject, but officially as a subordinate officer: if the ruler's displeasure (רוּח, as at Jdg 8:3; Pro 29:11) rises up against him (עלה, as elsewhere; cf. אף, Psa 73:21; or חמה, Sa2 11:20), he ought not, in the consciousness that he does not merit his displeasure, hastily give up his situation which has been entrusted to him and renounce submission; for patience, gentleness (regarding מרפּא, vid., Pro 12:18) 'גּד ... 'ין.\nThis concluding clause of the verse is usually translated: \"It appeaseth (pacifieth) great sins\" (lxx καταπαύσει, Symm. παύσει). The phrase (חמה) אף הניח is not to be compared, for it signifies quieting by an exhausting outbreak; on the contrary, יניח in the passage before us must signify quieting, as the preventing of an outbreak (cf. Pro 15:1). It appears more correct to render הנּיח in both cases in the sense of ἐᾶν, missum facere: to leave great sins is = not to commit them, to give up the lust thereto; for hinniahh signifies to let go, to leave off, e.g., Jer 14:9; and to indulge, Est 3:8, here as at Ecc 7:18; Ecc 11:6, \"to keep the hands from something.\" The great sins cannot certainly be thought of as those of the ruler; for on his part only one comes into view, if indeed, according to the old legal conception, it could be called such, viz., cruel proceeding with reference to him who wilfully withdraws from him, and thus proves his opposition; much rather we are to think of the great sins into which he who is the object of the ruler's displeasure might fall, viz., treason (Ecc 8:2), insubordination, self-destruction, and at the same time, since he does not stand alone, or make common cause with others who are discontented, the drawing of others into inevitable ruin (Ecc 8:3). All these sins, into which he falls who answers wrath with wrath, patience avoids, and puts a check to them. The king's anger is perhaps justified; the admonition, however, would be otherwise expressed than by 'l-tnch mq', if it were not presupposed that it was not justified; and thus without meta'basis eis a'llo ge'nos an I-section follows the reflection regarding wise deportment as over against the king's displeasure, a section which describes from experience and from personal observation the world turned upside down in the state. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":5,"content":["\"There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, like an error which proceedeth from the ruler.\" The introduction by the virtual relative raithi is as at Ecc 5:12; Ecc 6:1. Knobel, Hengst., and others give to the כ of כּשׁ the meaning of \"according to,\" or \"in consequence of which,\" which harmonizes neither with ra'ah nor with raithi. Also Kleinert's translation: \"There is a misery - I have seen it under the sun - in respect of an error which proceedeth from the ruler,\" is untenable; for by this translation ra'ah is made the pred. while it is the subj. to ישׁ, and kishgagah the unfolding of this subject. Hitzig also remarks: \"as [wie ein] an error, instead of which we have: in respect to [um einen] an error;\" for he confounds things incongruous. Hitz., however, rightly recognises, as also Kleinert, the כ as Caph veritatis, which measures the concrete with the idea. Isa 13:6, compares the individual with the general which therein comes to view, Eze 26:10; Neh 7:2; cf. Sa2 9:8. Koheleth saw an evil under the sun; something which was like an error, appeared to him altogether like an error which proceedeth from the ruler. If we could translate שׁיּ by quod exiit, then כ would be the usual Caph similitudinis; but since it must be translated by quod exit, וגו כשׁ places the observed fact under a comprehensive generality: it had the nature of an error proceeding from the ruler. If this is correct, it is so much the less to be assumed that by השׁלּיט God is to be understood (Dan 5:21), as Jerome was taught by his Hebraeus: quod putent homines in hac inaequalitate rerum illum non juste et ut aequum est judicare. It is a governor in a state that is meant, by whom an error might easily be committed, and only too frequently is committed, in the promotion of degradation of persons. But since the world, with its wonderful division of high and low, appears like as it were an error proceeding from the Most High, there certainly falls a shadow on the providence of God Himself, the Governor of the world; but yet not so immediately that the subject of discourse is an \"error\" of God, which would be a saying more than irreverent. יּצא = יּצה is the metaplastic form for יּצאה or יּצאת (for which at Deu 28:57 incorrectly יּצת), not an error of transcription, as Olsh. supposes; vid., to the contrary. מלּפני (Symm. ἐξ ἔμπροστηεν) with יצא is the old usus loq. There now follows a sketch of the perverted world. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":6,"content":["\"Folly is set on great heights, and the rich must sit in lowliness. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes like servants walking on foot.\" The word הסּכל (with double seghol, Aram. סכלוּ) is used here instead of those in whom it is personified. Elsewhere a multiplicity of things great, such as עמּים, מים, and the like, is heightened by רבּים (cf. e.g., Psa 18:17); here \"great heights\" are such as are of a high, or the highest degree; rabbim, instead of harabbim, is more appos. than adject. (cf. Gen 43:14; Psa 68:28; Psa 143:10; Jer 2:21), in the sense of \"many\" (e.g., Ginsburg: \"in many high positions\") it mixes with the poetry of the description dull prose.\n(Note: Luzz. reads נתן: \"Folly brings many into high places.\" The order of the words, however, does not favour this.)\n'Ashirim also is peculiarly used: divites = nobiles (cf. שׁוע, Isa 32:5), those to whom their family inheritance gives a claim to a high station, who possess the means of training themselves for high offices, which they regard as places of honour, not as sources of gain. Regibus multis, Grotius here remarks, quoting from Sallust and Tacitus, suspecti qui excellunt sive sapientia sive nobilitate aut opibus. Hence it appears that the relation of slaves and princes to each other is suggested; hoc discrimen, says Justin, 41:3, of the Parthians, inter servos liberosque est quod servi pedibus, liberi nonnisi equis incedunt; this distinction is set aside, princes must walk 'al-haarěts, i.e., beregel (beraglēhěm), and in their stead (Jer 17:25) slaves sit high on horseback, and rule over them (the princes), - an offensive spectacle, Pro 19:10. The eunuch Bagoas, long all-powerful at the Persian Court, is an example of the evil consequences of this reversal of the natural relations of men. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":8,"content":["\"He that diggeth a pit may fall into it; whoso breaketh down walls, a serpent may sting him. Whoso pulleth out stones may do himself hurt therewith; he who cleaveth wood may endanger himself thereby.\" The futures are not the expression of that which will necessarily take place, for, thus rendered, these four statements would be contrary to experience; they are the expression of a possibility. The fut. יפּול is not here meant as predicting an event, as where the clause 8a is a figure of self-punishment arising from the destruction prepared for others, Pro 26:27. Sir. 27:26. גּוּמּץ is, Pro 26:27, the Targum word for שׁחת, ditch, from גּמץ = שׁוּח, depressum esse. גּדר (R. גד, to cut), something cutting off, something dividing, is a wall as a boundary and means of protection drawn round a garden, vineyard, or farm-court; גּדר פּרץ is the reverse of פּרץ גּדר, Isa 58:12. Serpents are accustomed to nestle in the crevices and holes of walls, as well as in the earth (from a city-wall is called חומה and חל); thus he who breaks into such a wall may expect that the serpent which is there will bite him (cf. Amo 5:19). To tear down stones, hissi'a, is synon. of hhatsav, to break stones, Isa 51:1; yet hhotsēv does not usually mean the stone-breaker, but the stone-cutter (stone-mason); hissi'a, from nasa', to tear out, does not also signify, Kg1 5:18, \"to transport,\" and here, along with wood-splitting, is certainly to be thought of as a breaking loose or separating in the quarry or shaft. Ne'etsav signifies elsewhere to be afflicted; here, where the reference is not to the internal but the external feeling: to suffer pain, or reflex.: to injure oneself painfully; the derivat. 'etsev signifies also severe labour; but to find this signification in the Niph. (\"he who has painful labour\") is contrary to the usu loq., and contrary to the meaning intended here, where generally actual injuries are in view. Accordingly בּם יסּכן, for which the Mishn. יסכּן בּעצמו, \"he brings himself into danger,\" would denote, to be placed in danger of life and limb, cf. Gittin 65b, Chullin 37a; and it is therefore not necessary, with Hitzig and others, to translate after the vulnerabitur of Jerome: \"He may wound himself thereby;\" there is not a denom. סכן, to cut, to wound, derived from סכּין (שׂכּין), an instrument for cutting, a knife.\n(Note: The Midrash understands the whole ethically, and illustrates it by the example of Rabsake we know now that the half-Assyr., half-Accad. word rabsak means a military chief], whom report makes a brother of Manasseh, and a renegade in the Assyrian service.)\nThe sum of these four clauses is certainly not merely that he who undertakes a dangerous matter exposes himself to danger; the author means to say, in this series of proverbs which treat of the distinction between wisdom and folly, that the wise man is everywhere conscious of his danger, and guards against it. These two verses (Ecc 10:8, Ecc 10:9) come under this definite point of view by the following proverb; wisdom has just this value in providing against the manifold dangers and difficulties which every undertaking brings along with it.\n(Note: Thus rightly Carl Lang in his Salom. Kunst im Psalter (Marburg 1874). He sees in Ecc 10:8-10 a beautiful heptastich. But as to its contents, Ecc 10:11 also belongs to this group.)\nThis is illustrated by a fifth example, and then it is declared with reference to all together. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["\"If the iron has become blunt, and he has not whetted the face, then he must give more strength to the effort; but wisdom has the superiority in setting right.\" This proverb of iron, i.e., iron instruments (בּרזל, from בּרז, to pierce, like the Arab. name for iron, hadîd, means essentially something pointed), is one of the most difficult in the Book of Koheleth, - linguistically the most difficult, because scarcely anywhere else are so many peculiar and unexampled forms of words to be found. The old translators afford no help for the understanding of it. The advocates of the hypothesis of a Dialogue have here a support in אם, which may be rendered interrogatively; but where would we find, syntactically as well as actually, the answer? Also, the explanations which understand חילים in the sense of war-troops, armies, which is certainly its nearest-lying meaning, bring out no appropriate thought; for the thought that even blunt iron, as far as it is not externally altogether spoiled (lo-phanim qilqal), or: although it has not a sharpened edge (Rashi, Rashbam), might be an equipment for an army, or gain the victory, would, although it were true, not fit the context; Ginsburg explains: If the axe be blunt, and he (who goes out against the tyrant) do not sharpen it beforehand (phanim, after Jerome, for lephanim, which is impossible, and besides leads to nothing, since lephanim means ehedem formerly, but not zuvor [prius], Ewald, 220a), he (the tyrant) only increases his army; on the contrary, wisdom hath the advantage by repairing the mischief (without the war being unequal); - but the \"ruler\" of the foregoing group has here long ago disappeared, and it is only a bold imagination which discovers in the hu of Ecc 10:10 the person addressed in Ecc 10:4, and represents him as a rebel, and augments him into a warlike force, but recklessly going forth with unwhetted swords. The correct meaning for the whole, in general at least, is found if, after the example of Abulwald and Kimchi, we interpret חילים גּבּר of the increasing of strength, the augmenting of the effort of strength, not, as Aben-Ezra, of conquering, outstripping, surpassing; גּבּר means to make strong, to strengthen, Zac 10:6, Zac 10:12; and חילים, as plur. of חיל, strength, is supported by גּבּורי חילים, Ch1 7:5, Ch1 7:7, Ch1 7:11, Ch1 7:40, the plur. of חיל גבור; the lxx renders by δυνάμεις δυναμώσει and he shall strengthen the forces, and the Peshito has חילי for δυνάμεις, Act 8:13; Act 19:11 (cf. Chald. Syr. אתחיּל, to strengthen oneself, to become strengthened). Thus understanding the words יג יח of intentio virium, and that not with reference to sharpening (Luth., Grotius), but to the splitting of wood, etc. (Geier, Desvoeux, Mendelss.), all modern interpreters, with the exception of a few who lose themselves on their own path, gain the thought, that in all undertakings wisdom hath the advantage in the devising of means subservient to an end. The diversities in the interpretation of details leave the essence of this thought untouched. Hitz., Bttch., Zckl., Lange, and others make the wood-splitter, or, in general, the labourer, the subject to קהה, referring והוא to the iron, and contrary to the accents, beginning the apodosis with qilqal: \"If he (one) has made the iron blunt, and it is without an edge, he swings it, and applies his strength.\"\nלא־פנים, \"without an edge\" (lo for belo), would be linguistically as correct as בּנים לא, \"without children,\" Ch1 2:30, Ch1 2:32; Ewald, 286b; and qilqal would have a meaning in some measure supported by Eze 21:26. But granting that qilqal, which there signifies \"to shake,\" may be used of the swinging of an axe (for which we may refer to the Aethiop. ḳualḳuala, ḳalḳala, of the swinging of a sword), yet קלקלו (אתו קלקל) could have been used, and, besides, פנים means, not like פי, the edge, but, as a somewhat wider idea, the front, face (Eze 21:21; cf. Assyr. pan ilippi, the forepart of a ship); \"it has no edge\" would have been expressed by (פּיפיּות) פּה לא והוא, or by מלטּשׁ איננו והוא (מוּחד, מורט). We therefore translate: if the iron has become blunt, hebes factum sit (for the Pih. of intransitives has frequently the meaning of an inchoative or desiderative stem, like מעת, to become little, decrescere, Ecc 12:3; כּהה, hebescere, caligare, Eze 21:12; Ewald, 120c), and he (who uses it) has not polished (whetted) the face of it, he will (must) increase the force. והוּא does not refer to the iron, but, since there was no reason to emphasize the sameness of the subject (as e.g., Ch2 32:30), to the labourer, and thus makes, as with the other explanation, the change of subject noticeable (as e.g., Ch2 26:1). The order of the words קל ... וה, et ille non faciem (ferri) exacuit, is as at Isa 53:9; cf. also the position of lo in Sa2 3:34; Num 16:29.\nקלקל, or pointed with Pattach instead of Tsere (cf. qarqar, Num 24:17) in bibl. usage, from the root-meaning levem esse, signifies to move with ease, i.e., quickness (as also in the Arab. and Aethiop.), to shake (according to which the lxx and Syr. render it by ταράσσειν, דּלח, to shake, and thereby to trouble, make muddy); in the Mishn. usage, to make light, little, to bring down, to destroy; here it means to make light = even and smooth (the contrast of rugged and notched), a meaning the possibility of which is warranted by נח קלל, Eze 1:7; Dan 10:6 (which is compared by Jewish lexicographers and interpreters), which is translated by all the old translators \"glittering brass,\" and which, more probably than Ewald's \"to steel\" (temper), is derived from the root qal, to burn, glow.\n(Note: Regarding the two roots, vid., Fried. Delitzsch's Indogerm.-Sem. Stud. p. 91f.)\nWith vahhaylim the apodosis begins; the style of Koheleth recognises this vav apod. in conditional clauses, Ecc 4:11, cf. Gen 43:9, Ruth. Ecc 3:13; Job 7:4; Mic 5:7, and is fond of the inverted order of the words for the sake of emphasis, 11:8, cf. Jer 37:10, and above, under Ecc 7:22.\nIn 10b there follows the common clause containing the application. Hitzig, Elster, and Zckl. incorrectly translate: \"and it is a profit wisely to handle wisdom;\" for instead of the inf. absol. הך, they unnecessarily read the inf. constr. הכשׁיר, and connect חכמה הכשׁיר, which is a phrase altogether unparalleled. Hichsir means to set in the right position (vid., above, kaser), and the sentence will thus mean: the advantage which the placing rightly of the means serviceable to an end affords, is wisdom - i.e., wisdom bears this advantage in itself, brings it with it, concretely: a wise man is he who reflects upon this advantage. It is certainly also possible that הכשׁ, after the manner of the Hiph. הצליח and השׂכיל, directly means \"to succeed,\" or causatively: \"to make to succeed.\" We might explain, as e.g., Knobel: the advantage of success, or of the causing of prosperity, is wisdom, i.e., it is that which secures this gain. But the meaning prevalent in post-bibl. Heb. of making fit, equipping, - a predisposition corresponding to a definite aim or result, - is much more conformable to the example from which the porisma is deduced. Buxtorf translates the Hiph. as a Mishnic word by aptare, rectificare. Tyler suggests along with \"right guidance\" the meaning \"pre-arrangement,\" which we prefer.\n(Note: Also the twofold Haggadic explanation, Taanith 8a, gives to hachshir the meaning of \"to set, priori, in the right place.\" Luther translated qilqal twice correctly, but further follows the impossible rendering of Jerome: multo labore exacuetur, et post industriam sequetur sapientia.) \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["The last proverb of this series presents for consideration the uselessness of him who comes too late. \"If a serpent bite without enchantment, the charmer is of no use.\" The Talm. interprets this אם, like that of Ecc 10:10, also as interrog.: Does the serpent bite without its being whispered to, i.e., without a providential determination impelling it thereto? Jer. Peah, i. 1. But לחשׁ, except at Isa 26:16, where whispering prayers are meant, signifies the whispering of formulas of charming; \"serpents are not to be charmed (tamed),\" לחששׁ, Jer 8:17. Rather for הלּ בּעל the meaning of slander is possible, which is given to it in the Haggada, Taanith 8a: All the beasts will one day all at once say to the serpent: the lion walks on the earth and eats, the wolf tears asunder and eats; but what enjoyment hast thou by thy bite? and it answers them: \"Also the slanderer (לבעל הלשׁון) has certainly no profit.\" Accordingly the Targ., Jerome, and Luther translate; but if אם is conditional, and the vav of veēn connects the protasis and the apodosis, then ba'al hallashon must denote a man of tongue, viz., of an enchanting tongue, and thus a charmer (lxx, Syr.). This name for the charmer, one of many, is not unintentional; the tongue is an instrument, as iron is, Ecc 10:10 : the latter must be sharp, if it would not make greater effort necessary; the former, if it is to gain its object, must be used at the right time. The serpent bites בּל לח, when it bites before it has been charmed (cf. belo yomo, Job 15:32); there are also serpents which bite without letting themselves be charmed; but here this is the point, that it anticipates the enchantment, and thus that the charmer comes too late, and can make no use of his tongue for the intended purpose, and therefore has no advantage from his act. There appropriately follow here proverbs of the use of the tongue on the part of a wise man, and its misuse on the part of a fool. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["\"The words of a wise man's mouth are grace; but the lips of a fool swallow him up.\" The words from a wise man's mouth are חן, graciousness, i.e., gracious in their contents, their form and manner of utterance, and thus also they gain favour, affection, approbation, for culture (education) produces favour, Pro 13:15, and its lips grace (pleasantness), which has so wide an influence that he can call a king his friend, Pro 22:11, although, according to Ecc 9:11, that does not always so happen as is to be expected. The lips of a fool, on the contrary, swallow him, i.e., lead him to destruction. The Pih. בּלּע, which at Pro 19:28 means to swallow down, and at Pro 21:20 to swallow = to consume in luxury, to spend dissolutely, has here the metaphorical meaning of to destroy, to take out of the way (for that which is swallowed up disappears). שׂפתות is parallel form to שׂפתי, like the Aram. ספות. The construction is, as at Pro 14:3, \"the lips of the wise תשׁם preserve them;\" the idea of unity, in the conception of the lips as an instrument of speech, prevails over the idea of plurality. The words of the wise are heart-winning, and those of the fool self-destructive. This is verified in the following verse. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["\"The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness; and the end of his mouth is mischievous madness.\" From folly (absurdity) the words which are heard from a fool's mouth rise to madness, which is compounded of presumption, wantonness, and frenzy, and which, in itself a symptom of mental and moral depravity, brings as its consequence destruction on himself (Pro 18:17). The adjective רעה is as in רע חלי, which interchanges with רעה חו Ecc 6:2; Ecc 5:12, etc. The end of his mouth, viz., of his speaking, is = the end of the words of his mouth, viz., the end which they at last reach. Instead of holeloth, there is here, with the adj. following, holeluth, with the usual ending of abstracta. The following proverb says how the words of the fool move between these two poles of folly and wicked madness: he speaks much, and as if he knew all things. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":14,"content":["\"And the fool maketh many words: while a man yet doth not know that which shall be; and what shall be when he is no more, who can show him that?\" The vav at the beginning of this verse corresponds to the Lat. accedit quod. That he who in Ecc 10:12 was named kesil is now named hassachal, arises from this, that meanwhile sichluth has been predicated of him. The relation of Ecc 10:14 to Ecc 10:14, Geier has rightly defined: Probatur absurditas multiloquii a communi ignorantia ac imbecillitate humana, quae tamen praecipue dominatur apud ignaros stultos. We miss before lo-yeda' an \"although\" (gam, Neh 6:1, or ki gam, Ecc 8:12); the clause is, after the manner of a clause denoting state or condition, subordinated to the principal clause, as at Psa 5:10 : \"an open grave is their throat יח לשׁ, although they smooth their tongue, i.e., speak flatteringly.\" The lxx, Syr., Symm., and Jerome seek to rectify the tautology id quod futurum est et quod futurum est (cf. on the other hand, Ecc 8:7), for they read יה ... מה שהיה. But the second quod futurum certainly preserves by מאץ its distinguishing nearer definition. Hitzig explains: \"What is done, and what after this (that is done) is done.\" Scarcely correctly: aharav of the parallel passage, Ecc 6:12, cf. Ecc 7:14; Ecc 9:3, requires for the suffix a personal reference, so that thus meaharav, as at Deu 29:21, means \"from his death and onwards.\" Thus, first, the knowledge of the future is denied to man; then the knowledge of what will be done after his death; and generally, of what will then be done. The fool, without any consciousness of human ignorance, acts as if he knew all, and utters about all and everything a multitude of words; for he uselessly fatigues himself with his ignorance, which remains far behind the knowledge that is possible for man. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["\"The labour of the foolish wearieth him who knoweth not how to go to the city.\" If we do not seek to explain: labour such as fools have wearies him (the fool), then we have here such a synallage numeri as at Isa 2:8; Hos 4:8, for from the plur. a transition is made to the distributive or individualizing sing. A greater anomaly is the treatment of the noun עמל as fem. (greater even than the same of the noun pithgam, Ecc 8:11, which admitted of attractional explanation, and, besides, in a foreign word was not strange). Kimchi, Michlol 10a, supposes that עמל is thought of in the sense of עמל יגיעת; impossible, for one does not use such an expression. Hitzig, and with him Hengst., sees the occasion for the synallage in the discordance of the masc. ייגּענּוּ; but without hesitation we use the expressions ייחל, Mic 5:6, ייסּ, Jos 6:26, and the like. 'Amal also cannot be here fem. unitatis (Bttch. 657. 4), for it denotes the wearisome striving of fools as a whole and individually. We have thus to suppose that the author has taken the liberty of using 'amal once as fem. (vid., on the contrary, Ecc 2:18, Ecc 2:20), as the poet, Pro 4:13, in the introduction of the Book of Proverbs uses musar once as fem., and as the similarly formed צבא is used in two genders. The fool kindles himself up and perplexes himself, as if he could enlighten the world and make it happy, - he who does not even know how to go to the city. Ewald remarks: \"Apparently proverbial, viz., to bribe the great lords in the city.\" For us who, notwithstanding Ecc 10:16, do not trouble ourselves any more with the tyrants of Ecc 10:4, such thoughts, which do violence to the connection, are unnecessary. Hitzig also, and with him Elst. and Zckl., thinks of the city as the residence of the rulers from whom oppression proceeds, but from whom also help against oppression is to be sought. All this is to be rejected. Not to know how to go to the city, is = not to be able to find the open public street, and, like the Syrians, Kg2 6:18., to be smitten with blindness. The way to the city is via notissima et tritissima. Rightly Grotius, like Aben Ezra: Multi quaestionibus arduis se faitgant, cum ne obvia quidem norint, quale est iter ad urbem. אל־עיר is vulgar for אל־העיר. In the Greek language also the word πόλις has a definite signification, and Athens is called ἄστυ, mostly without the art. But Stamboul, the name of which may seem as an illustration of the proverbial phrase, \"not to know how to go to the city,\" is = εἰς τὴν πόλιν. Grtz finds here an allusion to the Essenes, who avoided the city - habeat sibi! \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["\"Woe to thee, O land, whose king is a child, and whose princes sit at table in the early morning! Happy art thou, O land, whose king is a noble, and whose princes sit at table at the right time, in manly strength, and not in drunkenness!\" Regarding אי. Instead of שׁם ן, the older language would rather use the phrase מלכּו נער אשׁר; and instead of na'ar, we might correctly use, after Pro 30:22, 'ěvěd; but not as Grtz thinks, who from this verse deduces the reference of the book of Herod (the \"slave of the Hasmonean house,\" as the Talm. names him), in the same meaning. For na'ar, it is true, sometimes means - e.g., as Ziba's by-name (Sa2 19:18 [17]) - a servant, but never a slave as such, so that here, in the latter sense, it might be the contrast of בּן־חורים; it is to be understood after Isa 3:12; and Solomon, Bishop of Constance, understood this woe rightly, for he found it fulfilled at the time of the last German Karolingian Ludwig III.\n(Note: Cf. Bchmann's Feglgelte Worte, p. 178, 5th ed. (1868).)\nNa'ar is a very extensively applicable word in regard to the age of a person. King Solomon and the prophets Jeremiah and Zechariah show that na'ar may be used with reference to one in a high office; but here it is one of few years of age who is meant, who is incapable of ruling, and shows himself as childish in this, that he lets himself be led by bad guides in accordance with their pleasure. In 16b, the author perhaps thinks of the heads of the aristocracy who have the phantom-king in their power: intending to fatten themselves, they begin their feasting with the break of day. If we translate yochēēlu by \"they eat,\" 16b sounds as if to breakfast were a sin, - with us such an abbreviation of the thought so open to misconception would be a fault in style, but not so with a Hebrew.\n(Note: Vid., Gesch. d. jd. Poesie, p. 188.f.)\nאכל (for לחם אכל, Psa 14:4) is here eating for eating's sake, eating as its own object, eating which, in the morning, comes in the place of fresh activity in one's calling, consecrated by prayer. Instead of אשׁ, Ecc 10:17, there ought properly to have been אשׁריך; but (1) אשׁרי has this peculiarity, to be explained from its interjectional usage, that with the suff. added it remains in the form of the st. constr., for we say e.g., אשׁריך for אשׁריך; (2) the sing. form אשׁר, inflected אשׁרי, so substitutes itself that אשׁריך, or, more correctly, אשׁרך, and אשׁרהוּ, Pro 29:19, the latter for אשׁריו, are used (vid., under Sol 2:14).\nRegarding běn-hhorim, the root-word signifies to be white (vid., under Gen 40:16). A noble is called hhor, Isa 34:12; and one noble by birth, more closely, or also merely descriptively (Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 649), běn-hhorim, from his purer complexion, by which persons of rank were distinguished from the common people (Lam 4:7). In the passage before us, běn-hhorim is an ethical conception, as e.g., also generosus becomes such, for it connects with the idea of noble by birth that of noble in disposition, and the latter predominates (cf. Sol 7:2, nadiv): it is well with a land whose king is of noble mind, is a man of noble character, or, if we give to běn-hhorim the Mishnic meaning, is truly a free man (cf. Joh 8:36). Of princes after the pattern of such a king, the contrary of what is said 16b is true: they do not eat early in the morning, but ba'et, \"at the right time;\" everywhere else this is expressed by be'itto (Ecc 3:11); here the expression - corresponding to the Greek ἐν καιρῷ, the Lat. in tempore - is perhaps occasioned by the contrast baboqěr, \"in the morning.\" Eating at the right time is more closely characterized by bighvurah velo vashshethi. Jerome, whom Luther follows, translates: ad reficiendum et non ad luxuriam. Hitz., Ginsb., and Zckl., \"for strengthening\" (obtaining strength), not: \"for feasting;\" but that beth might introduce the object aimed at (after Hitz., proceeding from the beth of exchange), we have already considered under Ecc 2:4. The author, wishing to say this, ought to have written lshty wl' lgbwrh. Better, Hahn: \"in strength, but not in drunkenness,\" - as heroes, but not as drunkards (Isa 5:22). Ewald's \"in virtue, and not in debauchery,\" is also thus meant. But what is that: to eat in virtue, i.e., the dignity of a man? The author much rather represents them as eating in manly strength, i.e., as this requires it (cf. the plur. Psa 71:16 and Psa 90:10), only not bashti (\"in drunkenness - excess\"), so that eating and drinking become objects in themselves. Kleinert, well: as men, and not as gluttons. The Masora makes, under bashti,' the note לית, i.e., שׁתי has here a meaning which it has not elsewhere, it signifies drunkenness; elsewhere it means the weft of a web. The Targ. gives the word the meaning of weakness (חלּשׁוּת), after the Midrash, which explains it by בּתשׁישׁוּ (in weakness); Menahem b. Saruk takes along with it in this sense נשׁתה, Jer 51:30. The Talm. Shabbath 10a, however, explains it rightly by בּשׁתיּה שׁל־יין. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":18,"content":["Since, now, Ecc 10:19 has only to do with princes, the following proverb of the consequences of sloth receives a particular reference in the frame of this mirror for princes: \"Through being idle the roof falleth; and through laziness of the hands the house leaketh.\" Ewald, Redslob, Olsh., Hitz., and Frst, as already Aben Ezra, understand the dual עצל of the two idle hands, but a similar attribut. adject.-dual is not found in Heb.; on the contrary, ephraim, merathaim Jer 50:21, rish'athaim, and, in a certain measure, also riqmathaim, speak in favour of the intensification of the dual; 'atsaltaim is related to 'atslah, as Faulenzen being idle, living in idleness to Faulheit laziness, it means doubled, i.e., great, constant laziness (Gesen. H. Wrt., and Bttch. in the N. Aehrenl., under this passage). If 'atsaltaim were an attribut. designation of the hands, then shiphluth hadaim would be lowness, i.e., the hanging down of the hands languidly by the side; the former would agree better with the second than with the first passage. Regarding the difference between hammeqareh (the beams and joists of a house) and hamqareh (contignans), vid., note below.\n(Note: המּקרה, with mem Dageshed (Masora: לית דגש); in Psa 104:3, on the contrary, the mem has Raphe, for there it is particip. (Michlol 46a; Parchon's Lex. f. 3, col. 1).)\nSince exceeding laziness leaves alone everything that could support the house, the beams fall (ימּך, Niph. מכך), and the house drops, i.e., lets the rain through (ידלף, with o, in spite of the intrans. signification); cf. the Arab. proverb of the three things which make a house insufferable, under Pro 19:13. Also the community, whom the king and the nobles represent, is a בּית, as e.g., Israel is called the house of Jacob. If the rulers neglect their duty, abusing their high position in obeying their own lusts, then the kingdom (state) becomes as a dilapidated house, affording no longer any protection, and at last a machshelah, a ruined building, Isa 3:6. It becomes so by slothfulness, and the prodigal love of pleasure associated therewith. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":19,"content":["\"Meals they make into a pleasure, and wine cheereth the life, and money maketh everything serviceable.\" By עשׂים, wicked princes are without doubt thought of-but not immediately, since Ecc 10:16 is too remote to give the subject to Ecc 10:19. The subject which 'osim bears in itself (= 'osim hēm) might be syntactically definite, as e.g., Psa 33:5, אהב, He, Jahve, loves, thus: those princes, or, from Ecc 10:18 : such slothful men; but 'osim is better rendered, like e.g., omrim, Exo 5:16 (Ewald, 200a), and as in the Mishna we read קורין and the like with gramm. indefin. subj.: they make, but so that by it the slothful just designated, and those of a princely rank are meant (cf. a similar use of the inf. abs., as here of the part. in the historical style, Isa 22:13). Ginsburg's rendering is altogether at fault: \"They turn bread and wine which cheereth life into revelry.\" If עשׁה and לחם as its object stand together, the meaning is, \"to prepare a feast,\" Eze 4:15; cf. 'avad lehēm, Dan 5:1. Here, as there, 'osim lěhěm signifies coenam faciunt (parant). The ל of לשׂ is not the sign of the factitive obj. (as leēl, Isa 44:17), and thus not, as Hitz. supposes, the conditioning ל with which adv. conceptions are formed, - e.g., Lam 4:5, האך למע, where Jerome rightly translates, voluptuose (vid., E. Gerlach, l.c.), - but, which is most natural and is very appropriate, it is the ל of the aim or purpose: non ad debitam corporis refectionem, sed ad hera ludicra et stulta gaudia (Geier). שׂחוק is laughter, as that to which he utters the sentence (Ecc 2:2): Thou art mad. It is incorrect, moreover, to take lěhěm veyaim together, and to render yesammahh hayaim as an attribut. clause to yain: this epitheton ornans of wine would here be a most unsuitable weakening of the figure intended. It is only an apparent reason for this, that what Psa 104:15 says in praise of wine the author cannot here turn into a denunciatory reproach. Wine is certainly fitted to make glad the heart of a man; but here the subject of discourse is duty-forgetting idlers, to whom chiefly wine must be brought (Isa 5:12) to cheer their life (this sluggard-life spent in feasting and revelry). The fut. ישׂמּח is meant in the same modal sense as יגבּר, Ecc 10:10: wine must accomplish that for them. And they can feast and drink, for they have money, and money ־הכּל... יע. Luther hits the meaning: \"Money must procure everything for them;\" but the clause is too general; and better thus, after Jerome, the Zrich Bible: \"unto money are all things obedient.\" The old Jewish interpreters compare Hos 2:23., where ענה, with accus. petentis, signifies, \"to answer a request, to gratify a desire.\" But in the passage before us הכּל is not the obj. accus. of petentis, but petiti; for 'anah is connected with the accus. of that to which one answers as well as of that which one answers, e.g., Job 40:2, cf. Ecc 9:3. It is unnecessary, with Hitzig, to interpret יענה as Hiph.: Money makes all to hear (him who has the money), - makes it that nothing is refused to his wish. It is the Kal: Money answers to every demand, hears every wish, grants whatever one longs for, helps to all; as Menander says: \"Silver and gold, - these are, according to my opinion, the most useful gods; if these have a place in the house, wish what thou wilt (εὖξαι τί βούλει), all will be thine;\" and Horace, Epod. i. 6. 36 s.:\n\"Scilicet uxorem cum dote fidemque et amicos\nEt genus et formam regina pecunia donat.\"\nThe author has now described the king who is a misfortune and him who is a blessing to the land, and princes as they ought to be and as they ought not to be, but particularly luxurious idle courtiers; there is now a warning given which has for its motive not only prudence, but also, according to Ecc 8:2, religiousness. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["\"Curse not the king even in thy thought; and in thy bed-chamber curse not the rich; for the birds of the air carry away the sound, and the winged creature telleth the matter.\" In the Books of Daniel and Chronicles, מדּע, in the sense of γνῶσις, is a synon. of השׂכּל and חכמה; here it is rightly translated by the lxx by συνείδησις; it does not correspond with the moral-religious idea of conscience, but yet it touches it, for it designates the quiet, inner consciousness (Psychol. p. 134) which judges according to moral criteria: even (gam, as e.g., Deu 23:3) in the inner region of his thoughts \n(Note: Hengst., not finding the transition from scientia to conscientia natural, gives, after Hartmann, the meaning of \"study-chamber\" to the word מדּע; but neither the Heb. nor the Aram. has this meaning, although Psa 68:13 Targ. touches it.)\none must not curse the king (cf. Ecc 7:4.) nor the rich (which here, as at 6b, without distinction of the aristocracy of wealth and of birth, signifies those who are placed in a high princely position, and have wealth, the nervus rerum, at their disposal) in his bed-chamber, the innermost room of the house, where one thinks himself free from treachery, and thus may utter whatever he thinks without concealment (Kg2 6:12): for the birds of the air may carry forth or bring out (Lat. deferrent, whence delator) that which is rumoured, and the possessor of a pair of wings (cf. Pro 1:17), after the Chethı̂b (whose ה of the art. is unnecessarily erased by the Kerı̂, \n(Note: הכּן with unpointed He, because it is not read in the Kerı̂; similarly החנית (Sa1 26:22). Cf. Mas. fin. f. 22, and Ochla veochla, No. 166.)\nas at Ecc 3:6, Ecc 3:10): the possessor of wings (double-winged), shall further tell the matter. As to its meaning, it is the same as the proverb quoted by the Midrash: \"walls have ears.\" \n(Note: Vid., Tendlau's Sprichwrter, No. 861.)\nGeier thinks of the swallows which helped to the discovery of Bessus, the murderer of his father, and the cranes which betrayed the murderer of Ibycus, as comparisons approaching that which is here said. There would certainly be no hyperbole if the author thought of carrier-pigeons (Paxton, Kitto) in the service of espionage. But the reason for the warning is hyperbolical, like an hundred others in all languages:\n\"Aures fert paries, oculos nemus: ergo cavere\nDebet qui loquitur, ne possint verba nocere.\" \n"]}]},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/ECC/10.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"ECC","chapter":10},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/ECC/11.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"ECC","chapter":11},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/ECC/9.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"ECC","chapter":9},"numberOfVerses":17}