Ecc 12:9 | KD | STEP | In an unexpected manner there now follows a postscript. Since the book closes with the epiphonema xii. 8 as having reached the intended goal, the supposition that what follows xii. 8 is from another hand is more natural than the contrary. Of the question of genuineness there cannot be here properly anything said, for only that which is not what it professes to be and ought to be, is spurious ; the postscript is certainly according to tradition an integral part of the Book of Koheleth (Bullock), but not as an original organic formal part of it, and still less does it expressly bear self-evidence of this. At the least, those who regard Solomon as the author of the book ought to contend against the recognition in xii. 9 ff. of an appendix by a later hand. Hahn, however, regards the same Solomon who speaks in ver. 8 as continuing to speak in ver. 9, for he interprets אָמַ֥ר, which, however, only means inquit, as perf., looking back to the completed book, and regards this retrospect as continued in ver. 9 ff., without being hindered by the interchange of the I and of the following historical he, which is contained in “saith Koheleth.” Dale even ventures the assertion, that the Book of Koheleth could have closed with the unsatisfying pure negative, ver. 8, as little as the Gospel of Mark with “and they were afraid” (Mc. 16:8). As if ver. 13 f. expressed postulates not already contained in the book itself ! The epilogue has certainly manifestly the object of recommending the author of the book, Koheleth-Solomon, and of sealing the contents of the book. If Solomon himself were the author, the epilogue would stand in the same relation to the book as Joh 21:24 f. to the fourth Gospel, of the Johannean origin of which a voice from the apostolic church there bears witness. It is a serious anachronism when modern interpreters of Scripture occupy the standpoint of the old, who take the name of the man after whom the book is entitled, without more ado, as the name of its author from first to last. To what childish puerilities a bigotry so uncritical descends is seen in the case of Christ. Fried. Bauer (1732). In this section, vers. 9-12, he says Solomon turns especially to his son Rehoboam, and delivers to him this Solennel-discourse or sermon as an instruction for his future life. He recommends it [the sermon] at once on account of the author, ver. 9, and of its contents, ver. 10, which accord, ver. 11, with his other writings, and from which altogether Rehoboam could find sufficient information, so that to write to him several books would be unnecessary. After this apostrophe to his son the preacher turns round to the entire auditorio, and addresses them in הַכֹּ֣ל נִשְׁמָ֑ע. But we are all permitted to hear what is the final aim and intention of this sermon : Fear thou God, and keep His commandments ; for such ought every man to be, etc. A rationalism not less fruitful in wonderful conceits appeared over against this dreamy irrationalism. Döderlein (1784) says of Koheleth : “As it appears, so the author feigned, that this was a lecture or treatise which Solomon delivered before his literary academy for this academy I am inclined to understand under the name ‘Koheleth.’” The epilogue appears to him as an appendage by another hand. Such is the opinion also of J. E. Ch. Schmidt (1794), Bertholdt (in his Einleit. 1812- ff.), Umbreit (1818, 20), and Knobel (1836), who maintain that this appendage is aimless, in form as in doctrine, out of harmony with the book, revealing by the “endless book-making” a more recent time, and thus is an addition by a later author. This negative critical result Grätz (1871) has sought, following Krochmal (in his More nebuche hazeman, 1851, 54), to raise to a positive result. Vers. 9-11 are to him as an apology of the Book of Koheleth, and vers. 12-14 as a clause defining the collection of the Hagiographa, which is completed by the reception into it of the Book of Koheleth; and this bipartite epilogue as an addition belonging to the period of the Synod of Jabneh, about a.d. 90 (vid. above, p. 189). If, nevertheless, we regard this epilogue as a postscript by the author of the book himself, we have not only Herzfeld on our side, who has given his verdict against all Knobel’s arguments, but also Hitzig, who (Hilgenfeld's Zeitsch. 1872, p. 566) has rejected Grätz’ Herod-hypothesis, as well as also his introduction of the epilogue into the history of the canon, or, as Geiger (Jüd. Zeitsch. 1872, p. 123) has expressed himself, has dealt with it according to its merit. Also in Bloch’s monograph on the Book of Koheleth (1872) there are many striking arguments against placing the authorship of the book in the Herod-Mishn. period, although the view of this critic, that the book contains notes of Solomon's with interpolations, and an epilogue by the collector, who sought to soften the impression of the gloomy pessimism of these notes, is neither cold nor hot. We have already (p. 206) shown that the epilogue is written quite in the same style as the book itself; its language is like that of the chronicler ; it approaches the idiom of the Mishna, but, with reference to it, is yet somewhat older. That the first part of the epilogue, vers. 9-11, serves an important end, is also proved (p. 206), — it establishes the book as a production of the Chokma, which had Solomon as its pattern; and the second part, vers. 12-14, bears on it the stamp of this Chokma, for it places all the teaching of the book under the double watchword : “Fear God,” and “There is a judgment” ( , ; cf. Eccl. 5:6, 11:9). In the book, Koheleth-Solomon speaks, whose mask the author puts on ; here, he speaks, letting the mask fall off, of Koheleth. That in his time (the Persian) too much was done in the way of making books, we may well believe. In addition to authors by profession, there have always been amateurs ; the habit of much writing is old, although in the course of time it has always assumed greater dimensions. A complaint in reference to this sounds strange, at least from the mouth of an author who has contented himself with leaving to posterity a work so small, though important. We nowhere encounter any necessity for regarding the author of the book and of the epilogue as different persons. The spirit and tone of the book and of the epilogue are one. The epilogue seals only the distinction between the pessimism of the book and the modern pessimism, which is without God and without a future. In connection with , where Koheleth has spoken his last word, the author, who has introduced him as speaking thereto, continues: “And, moreover, because Koheleth was wise he taught the people knowledge; he applied and searched out and formed may proverbs.” The postscript begins with “and” because it is connected with the concluding words of the book - only externally, however; nothing is more unwarrantable than to make the beginning of the postscript on account of the vav . The lxx translate καὶ περισσὸν (Venet. περιττὸν) ὃτι; as Hitz.: “it remains (to be said) that Koheleth was a wise man,” etc.; and Dale may be right, that ויתר is in this sense as subj., pointed with Zakeph gadhol (cf. ; , and the obj. thus pointed, ). But that Koheleth was “a wise man” is nothing remaining to be said, for as such he certainly speaks in the whole book from beginning to end; the עוד, unconnected, following, shows that this his property is presupposed as needing no further testimony. But untenable also is the translation: So much the greater Koheleth was as a wise man so much the more, etc. (Heinem., Südfeld); עוד does not signify eo magis ; the Heb. language has a different way of expressing such an intensification: כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול ממנו, i.e. , the higher the position is which one assumes, so much the greater are the temptations to which he is exposed. Rightly, Luther: “This same preacher was not only wise, but,” etc. ויתר signifies, , “and an advance (benefit, gain);” here שׁ ויתר, “and something going beyond this, that,” etc. - thought of as accus.-adv.: “going beyond this, that = moreover, because” (Gesen., Knobel, Vaih., Ginsb., Grätz); vid . Thus 'od is in order, which introduces that which goes beyond the property and position of a “wise man” as such. That which goes beyond does not consist in this, that he taught the people knowledge, for that is just the meaning of the name Koheleth ; the statement which 'od introduces is contained in the concluding member of the compound sentence; the after-word begins with this, that it designates the Koheleth who appears in the more esoteric book before us as חכם, as the very same person who also composed the comprehensive people’s book, the Mishle . He has taught the people knowledge; for he has placed, i.e. , formed “ stellen ,” to place, as “ Schriftsteller ” = author; modern Heb. מחבּר; Arab. muṣannif), many proverbs, as the fruit of nature reflection and diligent research. The obj. meshalim harbēh belongs only to tiqqēn, which ἀσυνδέτως (according to the style of the epilogue and of the book, as is shown above) follows the two preparative mental efforts, whose resultat it was. Rightly, as to the syntax, Zöckler, and, as to the matter, Hitzig: “Apparently the author has here not 1Ki 5:12, but the canonical Book of Proverbs in his eye.” The language is peculiar. Not only is תּקּן exclusively peculiar to the Book of Koheleth, but also אזן, perpendere (cf. Assyr. uzunu, reflection), to consider, and the Pih . חקּר. Regarding the position of harbeh,

‏ Ecclesiastes 12:9

(C.) THE EPILOGUE. XII. 9-14.

In an unexpected manner there now follows a postscript. Since the book closes with the epiphonema xii. 8 as having reached the intended goal, the supposition that what follows xii. 8 is from another hand is more natural than the contrary. Of the question of genuineness there cannot be here properly anything said, for only that which is not what it professes to be and ought to be, is spurious ; the postscript is certainly according to tradition an integral part of the Book of Koheleth (Bullock), but not as an original organic formal part of it, and still less does it expressly bear self-evidence of this. At the least, those who regard Solomon as the author of the book ought to contend against the recognition in xii. 9 ff. of an appendix by a later hand. Hahn, however, regards the same Solomon who speaks in ver. 8 as continuing to speak in ver. 9, for he interprets אָמַ֥ר, which, however, only means inquit, as perf., looking back to the completed book, and regards this retrospect as continued in ver. 9 ff., without being hindered by the interchange of the I and of the following historical he, which is contained in “saith Koheleth.” Dale even ventures the assertion, that the Book of Koheleth could have closed with the unsatisfying pure negative, ver. 8, as little as the Gospel of Mark with “and they were afraid” (Mc. 16:8). As if ver. 13 f. expressed postulates not already contained in the book itself ! The epilogue has certainly manifestly the object of recommending the author of the book, Koheleth-Solomon, and of sealing the contents of the book. If Solomon himself were the author, the epilogue would stand in the same relation to the book as Joh 21:24 f. to the fourth Gospel, of the Johannean origin of which a voice from the apostolic church there bears witness. ^{▼▼Hoelemann, in Abth. II. of his Bibel-Studien (1860), draws a parallel between these two epilogues; he regards them as original formal parts of the Solomonic Koheleth and of the Johannean Gospel, and seeks to prove that they stand in more than external and accidental relation to the two works respectively.}

It is a serious anachronism when modern interpreters of Scripture occupy the standpoint of the old, who take the name of the man after whom the book is entitled, without more ado, as the name of its author from first to last. ^{▼▼Thus John Miller, in his Commentary on the Proverbs (New York, 1872), regards Solomon as the author of the entire Book of Proverbs and also of Ecclesiastes. His interpretation of Scripture proceeds on the fundamental principle, in itself commendable, that the Scripture never expresses trivialities (“each text must be a brilliant”) ; but it is not to be forgotten that the 0. T., in relation to the high school of the New, is in reality a trivium, and that the depth of the words of Scripture is not everywhere the same, but varies according to the author and the times.} To what childish puerilities a bigotry so uncritical descends is seen in the case of Christ. Fried. Bauer (1732). In this section, vers. 9-12, he says Solomon turns especially to his son Rehoboam, and delivers to him this Solennel-discourse or sermon as an instruction for his future life. He recommends it [the sermon] at once on account of the author, ver. 9, and of its contents, ver. 10, which accord, ver. 11, with his other writings, and from which altogether Rehoboam could find sufficient information, so that to write to him several books would be unnecessary. After this apostrophe to his son the preacher turns round to the entire auditorio, and addresses them in הַכֹּ֣ל נִשְׁמָ֑ע. But we are all permitted to hear what is the final aim and intention of this sermon : Fear thou God, and keep His commandments ; for such ought every man to be, etc.

A rationalism not less fruitful in wonderful conceits appeared over against this dreamy irrationalism. Döderlein (1784) says of Koheleth : “As it appears, so the author feigned, that this was a lecture or treatise which Solomon delivered before his literary academy for this academy I am inclined to understand under the name ‘Koheleth.’” The epilogue appears to him as an appendage by another hand. Such is the opinion also of J. E. Ch. Schmidt (1794), Bertholdt (in his Einleit. 1812- ff.), Umbreit (1818, 20), and Knobel (1836), who maintain that this appendage is aimless, in form as in doctrine, out of harmony with the book, revealing by the “endless book-making” a more recent time, and thus is an addition by a later author. This negative critical result Grätz (1871) has sought, following Krochmal (in his More nebuche hazeman, 1851, 54), to raise to a positive result. Vers. 9-11 are to him as an apology of the Book of Koheleth, and vers. 12-14 as a clause defining the collection of the Hagiographa, which is completed by the reception into it of the Book of Koheleth; and this bipartite epilogue as an addition belonging to the period of the Synod of Jabneh, about a.d. 90 (vid. above, p. 189). If, nevertheless, we regard this epilogue as a postscript by the author of the book himself, we have not only Herzfeld on our side, who has given his verdict against all Knobel’s arguments, but also Hitzig, who (Hilgenfeld's Zeitsch. 1872, p. 566) has rejected Grätz’ Herod-hypothesis, as well as also his introduction of the epilogue into the history of the canon, or, as Geiger (Jüd. Zeitsch. 1872, p. 123) has expressed himself, has dealt with it according to its merit. Also in Bloch’s monograph on the Book of Koheleth (1872) there are many striking arguments against placing the authorship of the book in the Herod-Mishn. period, although the view of this critic, that the book contains notes of Solomon's with interpolations, and an epilogue by the collector, who sought to soften the impression of the gloomy pessimism of these notes, is neither cold nor hot.

We have already (p. 206) shown that the epilogue is written quite in the same style as the book itself; its language is like that of the chronicler ; it approaches the idiom of the Mishna, but, with reference to it, is yet somewhat older. That the first part of the epilogue, vers. 9-11, serves an important end, is also proved (p. 206), — it establishes the book as a production of the Chokma, which had Solomon as its pattern; and the second part, vers. 12-14, bears on it the stamp of this Chokma, for it places all the teaching of the book under the double watchword : “Fear God,” and “There is a judgment” (Job 28:28, 19: 29 ; cf. Eccl. 5:6, 11:9). In the book, Koheleth-Solomon speaks, whose mask the author puts on ; here, he speaks, letting the mask fall off, of Koheleth. That in his time (the Persian) too much was done in the way of making books, we may well believe. In addition to authors by profession, there have always been amateurs ; the habit of much writing is old, although in the course of time it has always assumed greater dimensions. A complaint in reference to this sounds strange, at least from the mouth of an author who has contented himself with leaving to posterity a work so small, though important. We nowhere encounter any necessity for regarding the author of the book and of the epilogue as different persons. The spirit and tone of the book and of the epilogue are one. The epilogue seals only the distinction between the pessimism of the book and the modern pessimism, which is without God and without a future.

Ecc 12:9 In connection with Ecc 12:8, where Koheleth has spoken his last word, the author, who has introduced him as speaking thereto, continues: “And, moreover, because Koheleth was wise he taught the people knowledge; he applied and searched out and formed may proverbs.” The postscript begins with “and” because it is connected with the concluding words of the book - only externally, however; nothing is more unwarrantable than to make Ecc 12:8 the beginning of the postscript on account of the vav. The lxx translate καὶ περισσὸν (Venet. περιττὸν) ὃτι; as Hitz.: “it remains (to be said) that Koheleth was a wise man,” etc.; and Dale may be right, that ויתר is in this sense as subj., pointed with Zakeph gadhol (cf. Gen 16:16; Gen 20:4, and the obj. thus pointed, Exo 23:3). But that Koheleth was “a wise man” is nothing remaining to be said, for as such he certainly speaks in the whole book from beginning to end; the עוד, unconnected, following, shows that this his property is presupposed as needing no further testimony. But untenable also is the translation: So much the greater Koheleth was as a wise man so much the more, etc. (Heinem., Südfeld); עוד does not signify eo magis; the Heb. language has a different way of expressing such an intensification: כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול ממנו, i.e., the higher the position is which one assumes, so much the greater are the temptations to which he is exposed. Rightly, Luther: “This same preacher was not only wise, but,” etc. ויתר signifies, Ecc 7:11, “and an advance (benefit, gain);” here שׁ ויתר, “and something going beyond this, that,” etc. - thought of as accus.-adv.: “going beyond this, that = moreover, because” (Gesen., Knobel, Vaih., Ginsb., Grätz); vid. Thus 'od is in order, which introduces that which goes beyond the property and position of a “wise man” as such. That which goes beyond does not consist in this, that he taught the people knowledge, for that is just the meaning of the name Koheleth; the statement which 'od introduces is contained in the concluding member of the compound sentence; the after-word begins with this, that it designates the Koheleth who appears in the more esoteric book before us as חכם, as the very same person who also composed the comprehensive people’s book, the Mishle. He has taught the people knowledge; for he has placed, i.e., formed “stellen,” to place, as “Schriftsteller” = author; modern Heb. מחבּר; Arab. muṣannif), ^{▼▼Cogn. in the meaning “verfassen” = to compose, is יסד; vid., Zunz' Aufs.: “To compose and to translate,” expressed in Heb. in Deut. Morg. Zeitsch. xxv. p. 435ff.} many proverbs, as the fruit of nature reflection and diligent research. The obj. meshalim harbēh belongs only to tiqqēn, which ἀσυνδέτως (according to the style of the epilogue and of the book, as is shown above) follows the two preparative mental efforts, whose resultat it was. Rightly, as to the syntax, Zöckler, and, as to the matter, Hitzig: “Apparently the author has here not 1Ki 5:12, but the canonical Book of Proverbs in his eye.” The language is peculiar. Not only is תּקּן exclusively peculiar to the Book of Koheleth, but also אזן, perpendere (cf. Assyr. uzunu, reflection), to consider, and the Pih. חקּר. Regarding the position of harbeh, ^{▼▼Harbeh běchěh, Ezr 10:1, which signifies “making much weeping,” makes not exception in favour of the scribe. Cf. hatsne'a lecheth, Mic 6:8; haphlē vaphělě, Isa 29:14.}