Ecc 4:15 | KD | STEP | “I saw all the living which walk under the sun on the side of the youth, the second who shall enter upon the place of the former: no end of all the people, all those at whose head he stands.” The author, by the expression “I saw,” places himself back in the time of the change of government. If we suppose that he represents this to himself in a lively manner, then the words are to be translated: of the second who shall be his successor; but if we suppose that he seeks to express from the standpoint of the past that which, lying farther back in the past, was now for the first time future, then the future represents the time to come in the past, as at 2Ki 3:27; ; (Hitz.): of the second who should enter on his place (עמד, to step to, to step forth, of the new king, ; Dan 11:2.; cf. קוּם, 1Ki 8:20). The designation of the crowd which, as the pregnant עם expresses, gathered by the side of the young successor to the old king, by “all the living, those walking under the sun (המה, perhaps intentionally the pathetic word for הלכים, ),),” would remain a hyperbole, even although the throne of the Asiatic world-ruler had been intended; still the expression, so absolute in its universality, would in that case be more natural ( vid ., the conjectural reference to Cyrus and Astygates). השּׁני, Ewald refers to the successor to the king, the second after the king, and translates: “to the second man who should reign in his stead;” but the second man in this sense has certainly never been the child of fortune; one must then think of Joseph, who, however, remains the second man. Hitzig rightly: “The youth is the second שׁני, not אחר, in contrast to the king, who, as his predecessor, is the first.” “Yet,” he continues, “הילד should be the appos. and השׁני the principal word,” i.e. , instead of: with the second youth, was to be expected: with the second, the youth. It is true, we may either translate: with the second youth, or: with the second, the youth - the form of expression has in its something incorrect, for it has the appearance as if it treated of two youths. But similar are the expressions, , ἓτερος κ.τ.λ., “another, and that, too, one of His disciples;” and , ἤγοντο κ.τ.λ All the world ranks itself by the side (thus we may also express it) of the second youthful king, so that he comes to stand at the head of an endless multitude. The lxx, Jerome, and the Venet. render incorrectly the all (the multitude) as the subject of the relative clause, which Luther, after the Syr., corrects by reading לפניו for לפניהם: of the people that went for him there was no end. Rightly the Targ.: at whose head (= בּרישׁיהון) he had the direction, לפני, as with יצא ובא, ; ; , etc. All the world congregates about him, follows his leadership; but his history thus splendidly begun, viewed backwards, is a history of hopes falsified. “And yet they who come after do not rejoice in him: for that also is vain, and a grasping after the wind.” For all that, and in spite of that ( gam has here this meaning, as at ; ; ; Ewald, §354 a ), posterity (הא, as at ; cf. ) has no joy in this king, - the hopes which his contemporaries placed in the young king, who had seized the throne and conquered their hearts, afterwards proved to be delusions; and also this history, at first so beautiful, and afterwards so hateful, contributed finally to the confirmation of the truth, that all under the sun is vain. As to the historical reminiscence from the time of the Ptolemies, in conformity with which Hitzig (in his Comm .) thinks this figure is constructed; Grätz here, as always, rocks himself in Herodian dreams. In his Comm ., Hitz. guesses first of Jeroboam, along with Rehoboam the שׁני ילד, who rebelled against King Solomon, who in his old age had become foolish. In an essay, “Zur Exeg. u. Kritik des B. Koheleth,” in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. XIV 566ff., Saul, on the contrary, appears to him to be the old and foolish king, and David the poor wise youth who rose to the throne, and took possession of the whole kingdom, but in his latter days experienced desertion and adversities; for those who came after (the younger men) had no delight in him, but rebelled against him. But in relation to Saul, who came from the plough to be king, David, who was called from being a shepherd, is not נולד רשׁ; and to Jewish history this Saul, whose nobler self is darkened by melancholy, but again brightens forth, and who to his death maintained the dignity of a king of Israel, never at any time appears as וכסיל ... מלך. Moreover, by both combinations of that which is related with the הסורים בּית (for which הסּ is written) of the history of the old Israelitish kings, a meaning contrary to the usage of the language must be extracted. It is true that סוּר, as the so-called particip. perfecti , may mean “gone aside (to a distance),” ; ; and we may, at any rate, by סורים, think on that poor rabble which at first gathered around David, , regarded as outcasts from honourable society. But בית will not accord therewith. That David came forth from the house (home) of the estranged or separated, is and remains historically an awkward expression, linguistically obscure, and not in accordance with the style of Koheleth. In order to avoid this incongruity, Böttcher regards Antiochus the Great as the original of the ילד. He was the second son of his father, who died 225. When a hopeful youth of fifteen years of age, he was recalled to the throne from a voluntary banishment into Farther Asia, very soon gained against his old cousin and rival Achaeus, who was supported by Egypt, a large party, and remained for several years esteemed as a prince and captain; he disappointed, however, at a later time, the confidence which was reposed in him. But granting that the voluntary exile of Antiochus might be designated as האס בית, he was yet not a poor man, born poor, but was the son of King Seleucus Callincus; and his older relative and rival Achaeus wished indeed to become king, but never attained unto it. Hence השׁני is not the youth as second son of his father, but as second on the throne, in relation to the dethroned king reckoned as the first. Thus, far from making it probable that the Book of Koheleth originated in the time of the Diadochs, this combination of Böttcher’s also stands on a feeble foundation, and falls in ruins when assailed. The section Eccl 1:12-4:16, to which we have prefixed the superscription, “Koheleth’s Experiences and their Results,” has now reached its termination, and here for the first time we meet with a characteristic peculiarity in the composition of the book: the narrative sections, in which Koheleth, on the ground of his own experiences and observations, registers the vanities of earthly life, terminate in series of proverbs in which the I of the preacher retires behind the objectivity of the exhortations, rules, and principles obtained from experience, here recorded. The first of these series of proverbs which here follows is the briefest, but also the most complete in internal connection.

‏ Ecclesiastes 4:15

Ecc 4:15-16 “I saw all the living which walk under the sun on the side of the youth, the second who shall enter upon the place of the former: no end of all the people, all those at whose head he stands.” The author, by the expression “I saw,” places himself back in the time of the change of government. If we suppose that he represents this to himself in a lively manner, then the words are to be translated: of the second who shall be his successor; but if we suppose that he seeks to express from the standpoint of the past that which, lying farther back in the past, was now for the first time future, then the future represents the time to come in the past, as at 2Ki 3:27; Psa 78:6; Job 15:28 (Hitz.): of the second who should enter on his place (עמד, to step to, to step forth, of the new king, Dan 8:23; Dan 11:2.; cf. קוּם, 1Ki 8:20). The designation of the crowd which, as the pregnant עם expresses, gathered by the side of the young successor to the old king, by “all the living, those walking under the sun (המה, perhaps intentionally the pathetic word for הלכים, Isa 42; 5),),” would remain a hyperbole, even although the throne of the Asiatic world-ruler had been intended; still the expression, so absolute in its universality, would in that case be more natural (vid., the conjectural reference to Cyrus and Astygates). השּׁני, Ewald refers to the successor to the king, the second after the king, and translates: “to the second man who should reign in his stead;” but the second man in this sense has certainly never been the child of fortune; one must then think of Joseph, who, however, remains the second man. Hitzig rightly: “The youth is the second שׁני, not אחר, in contrast to the king, who, as his predecessor, is the first.” “Yet,” he continues, “הילד should be the appos. and השׁני the principal word,” i.e., instead of: with the second youth, was to be expected: with the second, the youth. It is true, we may either translate: with the second youth, or: with the second, the youth - the form of expression has in its something incorrect, for it has the appearance as if it treated of two youths. But similar are the expressions, Mat 8:21, ἓτερος κ.τ.λ., “another, and that, too, one of His disciples;” and Luk 23:32, ἤγοντο κ.τ.λ All the world ranks itself by the side (thus we may also express it) of the second youthful king, so that he comes to stand at the head of an endless multitude. The lxx, Jerome, and the Venet. render incorrectly the all (the multitude) as the subject of the relative clause, which Luther, after the Syr., corrects by reading לפניו for לפניהם: of the people that went for him there was no end. Rightly the Targ.: at whose head (= בּרישׁיהון) he had the direction, לפני, as with יצא ובא, 1Sa 18:16; 2Ch 1:10; Psa 68:8, etc. All the world congregates about him, follows his leadership; but his history thus splendidly begun, viewed backwards, is a history of hopes falsified. “And yet they who come after do not rejoice in him: for that also is vain, and a grasping after the wind.” For all that, and in spite of that (gam has here this meaning, as at Ecc 6:7; Jer 6:15; Psa 129:2; Ewald, §354 a), posterity (הא, as at Ecc 1:11; cf. Isa 41:4) has no joy in this king, - the hopes which his contemporaries placed in the young king, who had seized the throne and conquered their hearts, afterwards proved to be delusions; and also this history, at first so beautiful, and afterwards so hateful, contributed finally to the confirmation of the truth, that all under the sun is vain. As to the historical reminiscence from the time of the Ptolemies, in conformity with which Hitzig (in his Comm.) thinks this figure is constructed; Grätz here, as always, rocks himself in Herodian dreams. In his Comm., Hitz. guesses first of Jeroboam, along with Rehoboam the שׁני ילד, who rebelled against King Solomon, who in his old age had become foolish. In an essay, “Zur Exeg. u. Kritik des B. Koheleth,” in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. XIV 566ff., Saul, on the contrary, appears to him to be the old and foolish king, and David the poor wise youth who rose to the throne, and took possession of the whole kingdom, but in his latter days experienced desertion and adversities; for those who came after (the younger men) had no delight in him, but rebelled against him. But in relation to Saul, who came from the plough to be king, David, who was called from being a shepherd, is not נולד רשׁ; and to Jewish history this Saul, whose nobler self is darkened by melancholy, but again brightens forth, and who to his death maintained the dignity of a king of Israel, never at any time appears as וכסיל ... מלך. Moreover, by both combinations of that which is related with the הסורים בּית (for which הסּ is written) of the history of the old Israelitish kings, a meaning contrary to the usage of the language must be extracted. It is true that סוּר, as the so-called particip. perfecti, may mean “gone aside (to a distance),” Isa 49:21; Jer 17:13; and we may, at any rate, by סורים, think on that poor rabble which at first gathered around David, 1Sa 22:2, regarded as outcasts from honourable society. But בית will not accord therewith. That David came forth from the house (home) of the estranged or separated, is and remains historically an awkward expression, linguistically obscure, and not in accordance with the style of Koheleth. In order to avoid this incongruity, Böttcher regards Antiochus the Great as the original of the ילד. He was the second son of his father, who died 225. When a hopeful youth of fifteen years of age, he was recalled to the throne from a voluntary banishment into Farther Asia, very soon gained against his old cousin and rival Achaeus, who was supported by Egypt, a large party, and remained for several years esteemed as a prince and captain; he disappointed, however, at a later time, the confidence which was reposed in him. But granting that the voluntary exile of Antiochus might be designated as האס בית, he was yet not a poor man, born poor, but was the son of King Seleucus Callincus; and his older relative and rival Achaeus wished indeed to become king, but never attained unto it. Hence השׁני is not the youth as second son of his father, but as second on the throne, in relation to the dethroned king reckoned as the first. Thus, far from making it probable that the Book of Koheleth originated in the time of the Diadochs, this combination of Böttcher’s also stands on a feeble foundation, and falls in ruins when assailed.

The section Eccl 1:12-4:16, to which we have prefixed the superscription, “Koheleth’s Experiences and their Results,” has now reached its termination, and here for the first time we meet with a characteristic peculiarity in the composition of the book: the narrative sections, in which Koheleth, on the ground of his own experiences and observations, registers the vanities of earthly life, terminate in series of proverbs in which the I of the preacher retires behind the objectivity of the exhortations, rules, and principles obtained from experience, here recorded. The first of these series of proverbs which here follows is the briefest, but also the most complete in internal connection.