The Book of Ecclesiastes translated by m. G. Easton introduction

Exposition

“Ostendit omnia esse vanitati subjecta: in his quae propter homines facta sunt vanitas est mutabilitatis; in his quae ab hominibus facta sunt vanitas est curiositatis; in his quae in hominibus facta sunt vanitas mortalitatis.”

Hugo of St. Victor (†1140).
[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:1]]

Ecc. 1:1.

The title, 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 Eze. 1:3, the accentuation leaves the designation of the oppositional genitive undefined; in Gen. 10:21b it proceeds on an erroneous supposition; it is rightly defined in Am. 1:1b, 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. 2Ki. 14:23) is singular.

[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:2]]

PROLOGUE: THE EVERLASTING SAMENESS — 1:2-11

Ecc. 1:2.

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 v. 2, which commences this section, “O vanity of vanities, saith Koheleth, O vanity of vanities! All is vain.” As at Isa. 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 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, 2Sa. 23:3, is meant historically, and in Isa. 49:5 of the present time. We understand “saith” here, as e.g., Isa. 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 הֶבֶל is here not punctuatedהֲבַל , after the form חֲדַר (חֶדֶר) and the like, butהֲבל , after the manner of the Aram. ground-formעבד ; cf. Ewald, § 32b . Jerome read differently: In Hebraeo pro vanitate vanitatum ABAL ABALIM scriptum est, quod exceptis LXX interpretibus omnes similiter transtulerunt ἀτμὸς ἀτμίδων sive ἀτμῶν. HeÔveÔl primarily signifies a breath, and still bears this meaning in post-bibl. Heb., e.g., Schabbath 119b: “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 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.

[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:3]]

Ecc. 1:3.

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.יתְרוֹן , profit, synon. with Mothar, 3:19, is peculiar to this book (= Aram.יוּתְרָן ). A primary form,יתֳרוֹן , is unknown. The punctator Simson (Cod. 102a of the Leipzig University Lib.f. 5a) rightly blames those who useויִתֳרוֹן , 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,” 2:19, 20; 5:17, as Euripides, similarly, μοχθεῖν μόχθον. He now proceeds to justify the negative contained in the question, “What profit?”

[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:4]]

Ecc. 1:4.

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: and the earth remaineth for ever.” 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, Psa. 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, Psa. 102:26f., 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.

[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:5]]

Ecc. 1:5.

“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; שׁוֹאף (panting, hastening) is like בָּא in v. 4, the expression of the present, and זוֹי 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 ואֶל־מְי 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 Psa. 104:19, “the sun knoweth his going down.” But theשׁם , which refers back to “its place,” opposes this interpretation; and the phrase שׁוֹי 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; Psa. 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 (Psa. 19:7), there anew to commence its daily course. Thus also Rashi, the LXX, Syr., Targ., Jerome, Venet., and Luther. Instead ofשׁוֹי , Grätz would readשׁב אף , redit (atque) etiam; but שׁוֹי is as characteristic of the Preacher’s manner of viewing the world asסובב וגוי , 6b, andיני , 8 a . Thus much regarding the sun. Many old interpreters, recently Grätz, and among translators certainly the LXX, refer also 6a 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 translatesהָרוּחַ , 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; 6a used of the sun would overload the figure, and the whole of v. 6 therefore refers to the wind.
[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:6]]

Ecc. 1:6.

“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 5a, 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 v. 4 the subjects stand foremost, because the ever anew beginning motion belongs to the subject; in vv. 5 and 6, on the contrary, the pred. stands foremost, and the subject in v. 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 (דָּרוֹם, R.דר , the region of the most intense light) to the north (צָפוֹן, R.צָפַן , 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., Jon. 1:11; cf. 2Sa. 15:30; hereסוֹבב ׀ סֹבב , in the sense ofסָבִיב ׀ סָבִיב , Eze. 37:2 (both times with Pasek between the words), precedes. סְבִיבָה is here the n. actionis ofסבב . 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 Pro. 26:11; cf. Mal. 3:24; Psa. 19:7: the wind returns back to its circling movements to begin them anew (Hitzig). “The wind” is repeated (cf. 2:10; 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.

[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:7]]

Ecc. 1:7.

“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; נחַל (fromנחל , cavare), אָפְיק (fromאפק , 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 (גּוּשְׁפַנְקָא, Pers. angusht-baÑne, 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;” אינֶנּוּ (Mishn.אינוֹ ) has the reflex. pron., as at Ex. 3:2, Lev. 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 ἐπιῤῥεόντων τῶν ποταμῶν πλείῶν, represents also the eternal sameness. In v. 7b, Symm., Jer., Luther, and also Zöckler, translate שׁ in the sense of “from whence;” others, as Ginsburg, venture to take שׁם in the sense ofמִשָּׁם ; 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. מְקוֹם is followed by what is a virtual genitive (Psa. 104:8); the accentuation rightly extends this only toהֹלְכִים ; forאשׁר , according to its relation, signifies in itself ubi, Gen. 39:20, and quo, Num. 13:27; 1Ki. 12:2 (never unde).שׁם , however, has after verbs of motion, as e.g., Jer. 22:27 afterשׁוב , and 1Sa. 9:6 afterהלך , frequently the sense ofשׁמָּה . And שׁוּב with ל and the infin. signifies to do something again, Hos. 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.
[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:8]]

Ecc. 1:8.

“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 saidלרִיק יגי . 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 יגאַ does not denote that which causes weariness, but that which suffers weariness (Deu. 25:18; 2Sa. 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 יגעִים is not appropriately rendered by fatigantur; the word means, becoming wearied, or perfectly feeble, or also: wearying oneself (cf. 10:15; 12:12), working with a strain on one’s strength, fatiguing oneself (cf.יגִיאַ , 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 daÔbbeÝr 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 (Pro. 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. Withשׂבַע , to be satisfied, of the eye, there is appropriately interchangedנמְלָא , used of the funnel-shaped ear, to be filled, i.e., to be satisfied (as at 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 saÝvaÔÿ with its min may signify to be satisfied with anything, e.g., 6:3, Job. 19:22, Psa. 104:13; cf. Kal, Isa. 2:6, Pih. Jer. 51:34, Psa. 127:5. Thus mishshemoa’ is understood by all the old translators (e.g., Targ.מִלְּמִשְׁמַע ), 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.
[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:9]]

Ecc. 1:9.

“That which hath been is that which shall be, and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.” — The older form of the language uses only אשׁר instead ofמה־שּׁ , in the sense of id quod, and in the sense of quid-quid, כל אשׁר (Ecc. 6:10; 7:24); but maÔh is also used by it with the extinct force of an interrogative, in the sense of quodcunque, Job. 13:13, aliquid (quidquam), Gen. 39:8, Pro. 9:13; and mi or mi asher, in the sense of quisquis, Ex. 24:14; 32:33. In הוא שׁ (cf. Gen. 42:14) are combined the meanings id (est) quod and idem (est) quod; hu is often the expression of the equality of two things, Job. 3:19, or of self-sameness, Psa. 102:28. The double clause, quod fuit...quod factum est, comprehends that which is done in the world of nature and of men, — the natural and the historical. The bold clause, neque est quidquam novi sub sole, challenges contradiction; the author feels this, as the next verse shows.

[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:10]]

Ecc. 1:10.

“Is there anything whereof it may be said: See, this is new? — it was long ago through the ages (aeons) which have been before us.” The Semit. substantive verb ישׁ (Assyr. isu) has here the force of a hypothetical antecedent: supposing that there is a thing of which one might say, etc. Theזה , with Makkeph, belongs as subject, as at 7:27, 29 as object, to that which follows. כְּבָר (vid., List, p. 193) properly denotes length or greatness of time (asכִּבְרָה , length of way). The ל of לעֹי is that of measure: this “long ago” measured (Hitz.) after infinitely long periods of time.מִלְּי , ante nos, follows the usage ofמִלְּפָי , Isa. 41:26, andלפָי , Jud. 1:10, etc.; the past time is spoken of as that which was before, for it is thought of as the beginning of the succession of time (vid., Orelli, Synon. der Zeit u. Ewigkeit, p. 14f.). The singular הָיָה may also be viewed as pred. of a plur. inhumanus in order; but in connection, 2:7, 9 (Gesen. § 147, An. 2), it is more probable that it is taken as a neut. verb. That which newly appears has already been, but had been forgotten; for generations come and generations go, and the one forgets the other.

[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:11]]

Ecc. 1:11.

“There is no remembrance of ancestors; and also of the later ones who shall come into existence, there will be no remembrance for them with those who shall come into existence after them.” With זכָּרוֹן (with Kametz) there is alsoזכְרוֹן , the more common form by our author, in accordance with the usage of his age; Gesen., Elst., and others regard it here and at 2:16 as constr., and thus לרִאי as virtually object-gen. (Jerome, non est priorum memoria); but such refinements of the old syntaxis ornata are not to be expected in our author: he changes (according to the traditional punctuation) here the initial sound, as at 1:17 the final sound, to oth and uth. אין ל is the contrast ofהָיָה ל : to attribute to one, to become partaker of. The use of the expression, “for them,” gives emphasis to the statement. “With those who shall come after,” points from the generation that is future to a remoter future, cf. Gen. 33:2. The Kametz of the prep. is that of the recompens. art.; cf. Num. 2:31, where it denotes “the last” among the four hosts; for there הָאי is meant of the last in order, as here it is meant of the remotely future time.

[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 1:12]]