Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Ecclesiastes 1:16

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Ecclesiastes 1:16 - 1:16

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Ecclesiastes 1:16 - 1:16

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

“I have communed with mine own heart, saying: Lo, I have gained great and always greater wisdom above all who were before me over Jerusalem; and my heart hath seen wisdom and knowledge in fulness. And I gave my heart to know what was in wisdom and knowledge, madness and folly - I have perceived that this also is a grasping after the wind.” The evidence in which he bears witness to himself that striving after wisdom and knowledge brings with it no true satisfaction, reaches down to the close of Ecc 1:17; יָדַעְתִּי is the conclusion which is aimed at. The manner of expression is certainly so far involved, as he speaks of his heart to his heart what it had experienced, and to what he had purposely directed it. The אֲנִי leads us to think that a king speaks, for whom it is appropriate to write a capital I, or to multiply it into we; vid., regarding this “I,” more pleonastic than emphatic, subordinated to its verb.

It is a question whether עִם־לִבִּי, after the phrase (אֵת) עִם דִּבֶּר, is meant of speaking with any one, colloqui, or of the place of speaking, as in “thou shalt consider in thine heart,” Deu 8:5, it is used of the place of consciousness; cf. Job 15:9, (עִמָּדִי) עִמִּי היה = σύνοιδα ἐμαυτῷ, and what is said in my Psychol. p. 134, regarding συνείδησις, consciousness, and συμμαρτυρεῖν. בְּלִבִּי, interchanging with עִם־לִבִּי, Ecc 2:1, Ecc 2:15, commends the latter meaning: in my heart (lxx, Targ., Jerome, Luther); but the cogn. expressions, medabběrěth ǎl-libbah, 1Sa 1:13, and ledabbēr ěl-libbi, Gen 24:45, suggest as more natural the former rendering, viz., as of a dialogue, which is expressed by the Gr. Venet. (more distinctly than by Aquila, Symm., and Syr.): διείλεγμαι ἐγὼ ξὺν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου. Also לֵאמֹר, occurring only here in the Book of Koheleth, brings it near that the following oratio directa is directed to the heart, as it also directly assumes the form of an address, Ecc 2:1, after בלבי. The expression, הִגְ הך, “to make one's wisdom great,” i.e., “to gain great wisdom,” is without a parallel; for the words, הג תו, Isa 28:29, quoted by Hitzig, signify to show and attest truly useful (beneficial) knowledge in a noble way. The annexed וְהוֹ refers to the continued increase made to the great treasure already possessed (cf. Ecc 2:9 and 1Ki 10:7). The al connected therewith signifies, “above” (Gen 49:26) all those who were over Jerusalem before me. This is like the sarrâni âlik maḥrija, “the kings who were my predecessors,” which was frequently used by the Assyrian kings. The Targumist seeks to accommodate the words to the actual Solomon by thus distorting them: “above all the wise men who have been in Jerusalem before me,” as if the word in the text were בירושלם,

(Note: In F. the following note is added: “Several Codd. have, erroneously, birushalam instead of al-jerushalam.” Kennicott counts about 60 such Codd. It stands thus also in J; and at first it thus stood in H, but was afterwards corrected to al-yerushalam. Cf. Elias Levita's Masoreth hamasoreth, II 8, at the end.)

as it is indeed found in several Codd., and according to which also the lxx, Syr., Jerome, and the Venet. translate. Rather than think of the wise (הַכִּימַיָּא), we are led to think of all those who from of old stood at the head of the Israelitish community. But there must have been well-known great men with whom Solomon measures himself, and these could not be such dissimilarly great men as the Canaanitish kings to the time of Melchizedek; and since the Jebusites, even under Saul, were in possession of Zion, and Jerusalem was for the first time completely subdued by David (2Sa 5:7, cf. Jos 15:63), it is evident that only one predecessor of Solomon in the office of ruler over Jerusalem can be spoken of, and that here an anachronism lies before us, occasioned by the circumstance that the Salomo revivivus, who has behind him the long list of kings whom in truth he had before him, here speaks.

Regarding היה אשׁר, qu'il y uet, for היו אשׁר, qui furent, vid., at Ecc 1:10. The seeing here ascribed to the heart (here = νοῦς, Psychol. p. 249) is meant of intellectual observation and apprehension; for “all perception, whether it be mediated by the organs of sense or not (as prophetic observing and contemplating), comprehends all, from mental discernment down to suffering, which veils itself in unconsciousness, and the Scripture designates it as a seeing” (Psychol. 234); the Book of Koheleth also uses the word ראה of every kind of human experience, bodily or mental, Ecc 2:24; Ecc 5:17; Ecc 6:6; Ecc 9:9. It is commonly translated: “My heart saw much wisdom and knowledge” (thus e.g., Ewald); but that is contrary to the gram. structure of the sentence (Ew. §287c). The adject. harbēh

(Note: Regarding the form הרבֶה, which occurs once (Jer 42:2), vid., Ew. §240c.)

is always, and by Koheleth also, Ecc 2:7; Ecc 5:6, Ecc 5:16; Ecc 6:11; Ecc 9:18; Ecc 11:8; Ecc 12:9, Ecc 12:12, placed after its subst.; thus it is here adv., as at Ecc 5:19; Ecc 7:16. Rightly the Venet.: ἡ καρδία μου τεθέαται κατὰ πολὺ σοφίαν καί γνῶσιν Chokma signifies, properly, solidity, compactness; and then, like πυκνότης, mental ability, secular wisdom; and, generally, solid knowledge of the true and the right. Dǎǎth is connected with chokma here and at Isa 33:6, as at Rom 11:33, γνῶσις is with σοφία. Baumggarten-Crusius there remarks that σοφία refers to the general ordering of things, γνῶσις to the determination of individual things; and Harless, that σοφία is knowledge which proposes the right aim, and γνῶσις that which finds the right means thereto. In general, we may say that chokma is the fact of a powerful knowledge of the true and the right, and the property which arises out of this intellectual possession; but dǎǎth is knowledge penetrating into the depth of the essence of things, by which wisdom is acquired and in which wisdom establishes itself.

Ecc 1:17

By the consecutive modus וָאֶתְּנָה (aor. with ah, like Gen 32:6; Gen 41:11, and particularly in more modern writings; vid., p. 198, regarding the rare occurrence of the aorist form in the Book of Koheleth) he bears evidence to himself as to the end which, thus equipped with wisdom and knowledge, he gave his heart to attain unto (cf. 13a), i.e., toward which he directed the concentration of his intellectual strength. He wished to be clear regarding the real worth of wisdom and knowledge in their contrasts; he wished to become conscious of this, and to have joy in knowing what he had in wisdom and knowledge as distinguished from madness and folly. After the statement of the object lādǎǎth, stands vedaath, briefly for ולדעת. Ginsburg wishes to get rid of the words holēloth vesikluth, or at least would read in their stead תְּבוּניֹת וְשִׂכְלוּת (rendering them “intelligence and prudence”); Grätz, after the lxx παραβολὰς καὶ ἐπιστήμην, reads מְשַׁלוֹת ושׂכלות. But the text can remain as it is: the object of Koheleth is, on the one hand, to become acquainted with wisdom and knowledge; and, on the other, with their contraries, and to hold these opposite to each other in their operations and consequences. The lxx, Targ., Venet., and Luther err when they render sikluth here by ἐπιστήμη, etc. As sikluth, insight, intelligence, is in the Aram. written with the letter samek (instead of sin), so here, according to the Masora סכלות, madness is for once written with ס, being everywhere else in the book written with שׂ; the word is an ἐναντιόφωνον,

(Note: Vid., Th. M. Redslob's Die Arab. Wörter, u.s.w. (1873).)

and has, whether written in the one way or in the other, a verb, sakal (שׂכל, סכל), which signifies “to twist together,” as its root, and is referred partly to a complication and partly to a confusion of ideas. הֹלֵלוֹת, from הָלַל, in the sense of “to cry out,” “to rage,” always in this book terminates in ôth, and only at Ecc 10:13 in ûth; the termination ûth is that of the abstr. sing.; but ôth, as we think we have shown at Pro 1:20, is that of a fem. plur., meant intensively, like bogdoth, Zep 2:4; binoth, chokmoth, cf. bogdim, Pro 23:28; hhovlim, Zec 11:7, Zec 11:14; toqim, Pro 11:15 (Böttch. §700g E). Twice vesikluth presents what, speaking to his own heart, he bears testimony to before himself. By yādǎ'ti, which is connected with dibbarti (Ecc 1:16) in the same rank, he shows the facit. זֶה refers to the striving to become conscious of the superiority of secular wisdom and science to the love of pleasure and to ignorance. He perceived that this striving also was a grasping after the wind; with רְעוּת, 14b, is here interchanged רַעְיוֹן. He proves to himself that nothing showed itself to be real, i.e., firm and enduring, unimpeachable and imperishable. And why not?

Ecc 1:18

“For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” The German proverb: “Much wisdom causeth headache,” is compared, Ecc 12:12, but not here, where כַּעַס and מַכְאוֹב express not merely bodily suffering, but also mental grief. Spinoza hits one side of the matter in his Ethics, IV 17, where he remarks: “Veram boni et mali cognitionem saepe non satis valere ad cupiditates coercendas, quo facto homo imbecillitatem suam animadvertens cogitur exclamare: Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.” In every reference, not merely in that which is moral, there is connected with knowledge the shadow of a sorrowful consciousness, in spite of every effort to drive it away. The wise man gains an insight into the thousand-fold woes of the natural world, and of the world of human beings, and this reflects itself in him without his being able to change it; hence the more numerous the observed forms of evil, suffering, and discord, so much greater the sadness (כַּעַס, R. כס, cogn. הס, perstringere) and the heart-sorrow (מַכְאוֹב, crève-cour) which the inutility of knowledge occasions. The form of 18a is like Ecc 5:6, and that of 18b like e.g., Pro 18:22. We change the clause veyosiph daath into an antecedent, but in reality the two clauses stand together as the two members of a comparison: if one increaseth knowledge, he increaseth (at the same time) sorrow. “יוֹסִיף, Isa 29:14; Isa 38:5; Ecc 2:18,” says Ewald, §169a, “stands alone as a part. act., from the stem reverting from Hiph. to Kal with יִ instead of .” But this is not unparalleled; in הן יוֹסִיף the verb יוסף is fin., in the same manner as יִסַּד, Isa 28:16; תּוֹמִיךְ, Psa 16:5, is Hiph., in the sense of amplificas, from יָמַךְ; יָפִיחַ, Pro 6:19 (vid., l.c.), is an attribut. clause, qui efflat, used as an adj.; and, at least, we need to suppose in the passage before us the confusion that the ē of kātēl (from kātil, originally kātal), which is only long, has somehow passed over into î. Böttcher's remark to the contrary, “An impersonal fiens thus repeated is elsewhere altogether without a parallel,” is set aside by the proverb formed exactly thus: “He that breathes the love of truth says what is right,” Pro 12:17.