Under the Sun Life and Reality in the

Book of Kohelet Das Alte Testament im

Dialog An Outline of an Old Testament
Dialogue Shamai Gelander
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/under-the-sun-life-and-reality-in-the-book-of-kohelet-d
as-alte-testament-im-dialog-an-outline-of-an-old-testament-dialogue-shamai-gelander
/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Under the Sun Life and Reality in the Book of Kohelet

Das Alte Testament im Dialog An Outline of an Old
Testament Dialogue Shamai Gelander

https://ebookmeta.com/product/under-the-sun-life-and-reality-in-
the-book-of-kohelet-das-alte-testament-im-dialog-an-outline-of-
an-old-testament-dialogue-shamai-gelander/

The Religious Experience in the Book of Psalms Das Alte

Testament im Dialog An Outline of an Old Testament
Dialogue Shamai Gelander

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-religious-experience-in-the-
book-of-psalms-das-alte-testament-im-dialog-an-outline-of-an-old-
testament-dialogue-shamai-gelander/

Ruth Bridges and Boundaries Das Alte Testament im

Dialog An Outline of an Old Testament Dialogue Jonathan
Grossman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/ruth-bridges-and-boundaries-das-
alte-testament-im-dialog-an-outline-of-an-old-testament-dialogue-
jonathan-grossman/

The Old Testament in the New An Introduction 2nd

Edition Steve Moyise

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-old-testament-in-the-new-an-
introduction-2nd-edition-steve-moyise/
The Book of Hosea New International Commentary on the
Old Testament NICOT Dearman J Andrew

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-book-of-hosea-new-
international-commentary-on-the-old-testament-nicot-dearman-j-
andrew/

The living world of the Old Testament 4th Edition

Bernhard W. Anderson

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-living-world-of-the-old-
testament-4th-edition-bernhard-w-anderson/

The Song of Songs Tyndale Old Testament Commentary 19

1st Edition Iain M Duguid

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-song-of-songs-tyndale-old-
testament-commentary-19-1st-edition-iain-m-duguid/

Christ in the Old Testament Free Grace Broadcaster

Issue 259 1st Edition Various

https://ebookmeta.com/product/christ-in-the-old-testament-free-
grace-broadcaster-issue-259-1st-edition-various/

An Analysis of N T Wright s The New Testament and the

People of God 1st Edition Benjamin Laird

https://ebookmeta.com/product/an-analysis-of-n-t-wright-s-the-
new-testament-and-the-people-of-god-1st-edition-benjamin-laird/
 Shamai Gelander

Under the Sun

Life and Reality
in the Book of Kohelet

DAS ALTE TESTAMENT IM DIALOG

an outline of an old testament dialogue
Vol. 12

Peter Lang
This book presents the Book of Ecclesiastes as a single coherent work,
whose ideas are consistent and collectively form a comprehensive world-
view. Moreover, in contrast to the prevailing view in the research litera-
ture – it presents the Book of Ecclesiastes as a work with an essentially
positive outlook: Kohelet’s fault-finding is aimed not at the world itself,
or how it functions, but at the people who persist in missing out on the
present, on what it has to offer, and of the ability to enjoy all that exists
and is available. Contrasting with these are Koheleth’s positive perscrip-
tions to make the most of the present. To my mind, his remonstrations
are meant to «clear the way» for his positive recommendations – to clear
the path, as it were, of the obstacles to accepting reality. These two as-
pects, the negative and the positive, come together in this investigation
into Koheleth’s belief, which is founded on an acceptance of all that
God has created.

Shamai Gelander (*1931) is a graduate of the Hebrew University and the

University of Tel Aviv and holds a PhD in biblical studies. He served as a senior
lecturer of biblical studies at the Haifa University and of jewish studies at the
University of Tel Aviv. He was a visiting professor in Oxford and served as chair-
man of the department of biblical studies and as academic director (rector) of
the college «Oranim».
 Under the Sun
Life and Reality
in the Book of Kohelet
DA S A LT E T E S TA M E N T I M D I A L O G
an outline of an old testament dialogue

Band / Vol. 12

Herausgegeben von / edited by

Michael Fieger & Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes

PETER LANG
Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • New York • Oxford • Wien
 Shamai Gelander

Under the Sun

Life and Reality
in the Book of Kohelet

PETER LANG
Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • New York • Oxford • Wien
Bibliographic information published by die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet
at ‹http://dnb.d-nb.de›.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this book

is available from The British Library, Great Britain

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017958904

Translation by J. Orr-Stav.

Umschlaggestaltung: Thomas Jaberg, Peter Lang AG

Umschlagabbildung: © Lichtbildwerk, Olaf Gloeckler, Atelier Platen, Friedberg

ISSN 1662-1689
ISBN 978-3-0343-3122-7 (Print)
E-ISBN 978-3-0343-3123-4 (ePDF)
E-ISBN 978-3-0343-3124-1 (ePub)
E-ISBN 978-3-0343-3125-8 (Mobi)
This publication has been peer reviewed.

© Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2018

Wabernstrasse 40, CH-3007 Bern, Switzerland
info@peterlang.com, www.peterlang.com

All rights reserved.

All parts of this publication are protected by copyright.
Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the
permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution.
This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming,
and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems.
Table of contents

Introduction................................................................................................ 7

Chapter 1: Escaping from reality............................................................. 29

Escape to the future.............................................................................. 30
On the attempts at insuring against future mishaps..................... 33
On the acquisition of skills, traits, and excellence....................... 41
Against distinction and in praise of the average.................................. 47
The relative nature of values................................................................ 52
Absolute justice versus existing world order....................................... 59
Other aspects of coming to terms with realities
and limitations.............................................................................. 64
Escaping to the past............................................................................. 66
Interim summary.................................................................................. 67

Chapter 2: The positive aspect................................................................. 71

Eat and drink: Between despair and faith............................................ 71
Cast Thy Bread..................................................................................... 79
Between determinism and free will..................................................... 81
Concluding observations...................................................................... 90

Chapter 3:Koheleth and his beliefs.......................................................... 97

On justice and injustice........................................................................ 98
Koheleth and his God......................................................................... 104
Interim summary ............................................................................... 111

Chapter 4: The opening verses and coda................................................ 115

Opening verses (Eccles. 1)................................................................. 115
Coda (12:1–8) ................................................................................... 121

5
Conclusion............................................................................................. 133
Epilogue: The structure of the Book of Ecclesiastes........................ 137

Bibliography........................................................................................... 143
Abbreviations: Translations, magazines, series and files.................. 148

6
Introduction

The main purpose of this study is to present the Book of Koheleth

(Ecclesiastes) as a work whose diverse elements merge to form a coherent
worldview regarding a person’s lifestyle, reality and beliefs. Fundamentally,
we shall see that Koheleth’s approach is governed by a set of ideas that
might be thought of as a general notion of what constitutes a “righteous
life”—in the name of which he castigates anything that he perceives to be an
obstacle—namely, whatever he perceives to be a hallmark of a “misguided
life.” His criticisms and condemnation are primarily intended to serve the
“right way,” and to pave the way toward it. Thus, these two aspects—the
negative and the positive—join to form a comprehensive picture, rather
than a mere compilation of aphorisms that reflect a bleak outlook on life,
or a compendium of occasionally contradictory statements. Observing his
critical arguments in conjunction with his positive recommendations also
allows us to understand Koheleth’s faith and his attitude to his God as
a unified ideology. Moreover, the addition of the negative and positive
clarifies the ideological meanings of the first and final chapters of the
Book of Ecclesiastes, as they are revealed to provide a poetic framework
for the ideological messages in the book as a whole.
Koheleth’s declaration that “a living dog is better than a dead lion”
(9:4) is, I believe an extreme statement that might be viewed as the
essence, or starting point, of his outlook. It means that any form of life,
however humble, is preferable to any death—however honorable or noble.
In other words, life is a supreme goal above all others and not a means to
achieving other aims. This outlook runs counter to any faith that demands
a person to be willing to dedicate—or indeed, sacrifice—themselves for
its sake. It runs counter to the biblical belief—at least as exemplified in
the stories of Abraham onwards—that one should not only abandon one’s
past and go wherever God instructs one to go, but to follow the ways of
the Lord throughout one’s life (Gen. 17:1), and even be willing to sacrifice
one’s nearest and dearest to Him. Koheleth’s radical view on this topic has
various ramifications, some consequential, and some leading up to and
supporting it.

7
 The traditional criticism of Koheleth probably springs from
reservations about his rejectionist attitude. However, modern-day criticism
of him is based primarily on the apparent absence of method in his writings,
ideologically as well as structurally.
One dominant approach in the research literature sees the Book of
Ecclesiastes as primarily a compilation of maxims, rather like the Book of
Proverbs. Koheleth appears to inherit the traditional wisdom that preceded
him, but then sets out to refute it based on his personal experience.1 This
suggests that the Book of Ecclesiastes is not a systematic doctrine, and its
various maxims do not add up to a consistent and coherent philosophy.2 It
would also appear that it does not spring from a comprehensive worldview,
but rather from a variety of critical approaches that he acquired over the
years, in contrast to prevailing views. Moreover, since it is a compilation,
it also includes various contradictory adages:3 it is customary to see the
passages where Koheleth hails the positive aspects of life and the wonders
of nature as problematic and exceptional, since the predominant mood
in the Book of Ecclesiastes is pessimistic and gloomy,4 or he presents
certain maxims in an ironic light.5 Some commentators go as far as to
attribute these apparent contradictions and deviations to the authors of
later addenda, most of whom appear to have sought to temper some of
Koheleth’s more extreme views.6

1 See the representation of this approach in A. Rofé, Mavo Lesifrut HaMikra

[Introduction to Biblical Literature], Jerusalem 2007, pp 408–411.
2 Thus, Rofé, for example, who presents verses 7:1–6 as a series of well-known
proverbs, that Koheleth quotes. See the survey by R.B.Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
(Anchor Bible), Garden City, New York 1965 pp. 194–201.
3 According to Rofé, based on verses 4:9–12, which are at odds with Koheleth’s views.
See also Y. Klein, who lists a series of internal contradictions: “Mavo lesefer Kohelet,”
[Introduction to the Book of Ecclesiastes] in Megilot, Olam Hatanakh [Scrolls: The
World of the Hebrew Bible], Tel-Aviv 1996, pp. 162–166 (in Hebrew).
4 See, in particular, R.N. Whybray, “Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy,” JSOT 7:87 (1982)
pp. 87–98; Idem, “Ecclesiastes 1/5–7 and the Wonders of Nature,” JSOT 13:105
(1988) pp. 105–112; G.S Ogden, “Qoheleth XI 7 – XII 8: Qoheleth’s Summons to
Enjoyment and Reflection,” VT 34.1 (1984) PP. 27–38.
5 Thus, for example, I. J. J. Spangenberg, “Irony in the Book of Qohelet,” JSOT 21:57
(1996) pp. 57–69.
6 See Seow’s survey of approaches in: C.L. Seow, Ecclesiastes (Anchor Bible),
New York 1997, pp. 36–47. Of particular note is the approach to Bickel’s extreme
notion that the text as we know it today came about because its editors or compilers
found it in the form of a collection of loose pages which they were unable to restore

8
 Conversely, some scholars have sought to find in the Book of
Ecclesiastes a measure of coherence.7 Some have proposed that it has
a single unified structure, while others have suggested that to a literary
or artistic structure in certain passengers or parts of the book. Wright’s
commentary, I believe, is a clear example of the former category:8 while
others believe that Ecclesiastes, like the Book of Proverbs, is nothing
but a disparate collection of sayings,9 and others detect an underlying
consonance and even evolutionary threads within the book,10 Wright
focuses exclusively on its structure, irrespective of any ideological unity.
In his comprehensive review of structural analyses by others, he finds
that the overwhelming majority tend to sum up or label a sequence of
ideas with a succinct heading, and as such risk adopting a subjective view.
For this reason, he says, he prefers a structural analysis that focuses on
the morphological features rather than the ideological content, to ensure
“Objective methodology.”11 To that end, he presents the entire book as
being based on a symmetrical and concentric structure. For example, he
finds a key pattern in chapters 9 and 10, which he labels Man Does Not
Know, and a similar pattern surrounding the phrases “who can” or “shall
not find” in chapters 7 and eight.

to their original order, and thus its current ordering is arbitrary. See: G. Bickel, Der
Prädiger über das Wert des Daseins, Insbruck 1884.
7 Seow (ibid.) does not see the author’s contradictory views a sign of a lack of unity. In
his opinion, “wisdom” may accommodate conflicting notions, and similarly Koheleth
should not be regarded as either a pessimist or an optimist, because the world itself is
full of contrasts.
8 See: E. D. Wright, “The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth,”
CBQ 30 (1968) pp. 313–334.
9 Delitzsch is a clear example of this approach, whereby any attempt to discern a
coherent order in the Book of Ecclesiastes must inevitably involving a coercion of the
subject matter. See: F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes,
(trans. M. G. Eaton) Edinburgh 1891.
10 See Wright’s reference to: Hitzig; Ginsberg; Bea; Genung; Zögler; Ginsburg; Vauvari;
Buzy; Podechard; Lamparter; Pantrel; Weber; Miller, in Delitzsch, Commentary on
the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.
11 See, in particular, two studies in the New Stylists tradition: O. Loretz, Qohelet
und der alte Orient, Freiburg 1964, which does not see any method in the book’s
structure, and G. Castellino, “Qohelet and His Wisdom,” CBQ 30 (1968) pp. 15–28,
who discerns two parts in the book, based mainly on the distinction between the
passages written in first person, and those in imperative form. The first (1:1–4:16)
is primarily a negative appraisal of life, and the second (4:17–12:12) adopts a more
positive attitude.

9
 However, closer examination raises casts doubts on this interpretation:
the pattern Man Does Not Know appears in chapters 9 and 10 only three
times in contexts that match Wright’s description (9:10, 12; 10:15), but also
appears in other contexts (e.g. 11:2, 5, 6). Similarly, the phrases who can
and shall not find also appear in chapters 7 and 8 only three times (7:13,
14; 7:28–29). Although these expressions might be seen as an ideological
essence of their wider context—in that they center on man’s limited ability
to foresee the expected in a bid to control his future—these chapters
contain not only rejectionist statements but also positive and prescriptive
statements such as 7:1–5, 13. Hence, classifying patterns simply by
ideological themes also suffers from the same problem that Wright found
in his predecessors’ interpretations: while there is no disputing that eight
passages in the book end with the words “Vanity and vexation of spirit,”
it is doubtful that each one of these passages is also a discrete literary
unit in its own right. Generally, defining any given unit by its opening or
concluding verse is too simplistic: it might equally suit another unit, or
involve a certain constraint. Thus, for example, Wright labels the first part
of the book, after the opening, under the heading Koheleth’s Examination
of Life: this is too generic, as it might equally apply to other parts of the
book, since pronouncements about the meaning of life may be found
throughout, as I shall demonstrate in the course of this inquiry. His heading
for the second half of this first part (6:10–11:6)—Koheleth’s Conclusions
on Various Issues—is also questionable, since throughout the book, many
of the declarations that appear in the form of declarative statements are
in fact conclusions that he has drawn from his own experience. The same
is true, for example, for the labeling of one of the secondary sections
under the heading I Should Leave it Unto the Man that Shall Be After Me
(2:18–26). In my view, Koheleth’s negative attitude to the suggestion that
a person must dedicate their life to the future is evident in the book in
his rejectionist declarations as much as in his declarative statements and
in his prescriptive advice (e.g., 11:1–6). Therefore, although Wright does
much to contribute to our understanding of the links between the central
ideas in Ecclesiastes, his attempts to find the key to Koheleth’s ideology by
detecting a schematic structure do not work well.
Wright’s approach to the issue of structure is even more extreme when
he reverts to numerology. For example, he notes that the Hebrew word ‫הבל‬
hevel (“vanity”), has a value of 37 in gematria, and appears 37 times in
the book, while the word ‫ דברי‬divrei (“words of ”) has a gematrial value of

10 
216—like the number of the verses in the book, etc. As Seow rightly points
out, numerology is a poor basis for deciding structure, since the counting
is inconsistent (Wright concatenates certain verses and combinations
with different ideological meanings, resulting in an arbitrary count)—and
besides, in ancient times the verses were not numbered.12 However, Seow
also does not believe that Ecclesiastes is merely a random collection of
sayings. Like Beckhaus, he proposes a fairly symmetrical structure of
two halves of roughly equivalent size (the dividing point being 6:16): the
first half, from 1:2–6:9—with two subsections that he labels Everything is
Fleeting and Meaningless and Morality Means Dealing with Everything
that is in Doubt)—and the second (headed Everything is Elusive) from
6:10–12:8. The former is made up of two subsections—one headed
Everything is Fleeting and Meaningless, which in turn subdivides into
Introduction (1:2–11); Nothing Lasts for Long (1:12–26); Everything is in
God’s hands (3:1–22); and Relative “Good” is Not Really Good (4:1–16)—
and the other Morality Means Dealing with Everything that is in Doubt,
which consists of The author’s Attitude to God (5:1–7), and Pleasure, Not
Greed (5:8–6:9). The second half—Everything is Elusive—is subdivided
into No One Knows What is Good (6:10–7:14); The Elusiveness of Justice
and Wisdom (7:15–29); The world as an Arbitrary Entity (8:7). The section
Morality Means Dealing with Everything that is in Doubt contains the
sections Carpe Diem (9:1–10); The World is Full of Risks (9:11–10:15);
Living with Risks (10:16–11:16); and Summary (11:7–12:8).
In my view, this division, too, is somewhat willful, since quite a few
passages in the book could fall under the same headings, and the definitions
themselves are a matter of debate. Thus, for example, the notion of making
the most of the present and of the world around oneself, appears several
times in various guises throughout the book. The schematic division into
a pessimistic half and an optimistic one also does not hold up to scrutiny,
as we shall see later.
Sheppard adopts a more measured approach.13 In his view, the
continuity in the Book of Ecclesiastes is compelling than in the Book of
Proverbs, and its coda (especially 12:13–14) offers a religious ideology
that is identical to that of Ben Sira.

12 Seow (ibid., pp. 43–47).

13 See: G.T. Sheppard, “The Epilogue to Qoheleth as Theological Commentary,” CBQ
39 (1997) pp. 182–189. See also his review of researchers who attribute the Book of
Ecclesiastes to two, three, or even eight different authors.

11
 Other scholars avoid trying to find a coherent structure in the book
or, indeed, demonstrating a consistent ideological philosophy. Instead they
are content to present certain passages as having a poetic structure—by
which they mean not only those that are clearly of a poetic nature (such as
3:1–8),14 but also many passages of a seemingly more prosaic character,
such as 4:13–16; 5:9–6:9, etc. While a morphological analysis undoubtedly
helps to clarify the understanding of the passages in their own right, the
distinction between the various literary forms reinforces the impression
that the book is essentially a collection of texts that differ from each other
in terms of their ideas, as well, and as such it is difficult to see the Book of
Ecclesiastes as representing a unified and consistent worldview.15
However, even those who claim that the book has a uniform structure,
and therefore that Koheleth’s ideology is fundamentally consistent, agree
that a number of statements are “anomalous” inasmuch as they are at odds

14 See: J. Blenkinsop, “Ecclesiastes 3.1–15: Another Interpretation,” JSOT 66 (1995)

pp. 55–64. D. Rudman, “A Contextual Reading of Ecclesiastes 4: 13–16,” JBL 116/1
(1997) pp. 57–73. D.C. Fredericks “Chiasm and Parallel Structure in Qoheleth 5:9–
6:9,” JBL 108.1 (1989) pp. 17–35. G.S. Ogden, “Qoheleth IX 1–16,” VT 32.2 (1982)
pp. 158–169. Idem: “Qoheleth IX 17 – X 20: Variations on the Theme of Wisdom’s
Strenght and Vulnerability,” VT 30.1 (1980) pp. 27–37. Idem: Qoheleth XI 1–6,”
VT 33.2 (1983) pp. 222–230. J.F.A. Sanger, “The Ruined HouseEcclesiastes 12: A
Reconstruction of the Original Parable,” JBL 94/1 (1975) pp. 519–531. G.S. Ogden,
“Qoheleth XI 7 – XII 8: Qoheleth’s Summons to Enjoyment and Reflection,” VT 34.1
(1984) pp. 27–38. A. Fisher, “Beobachtungen zur Komposition von Kohelet 1,3–3,
15” ZAW 103, 1 (1991) pp. 72–86. C.L. Seow, “Qohelet’s Eschatological Poem,” JBL
118/2 (1999) pp. 209–234.
15 Conversely, see: See however: T. Porti, “Leshe’elat hasidur veha’arikhah beQohelet:
Hapitgam keḥuliyah meqashert,” [On the question of the ordering and editing of
Ecclesiastes: The proverb as a link], Beit Mikra 52b, 2012, pp 52–71. However,
that focuses on the question of the unity of the two literary units (9:13–3l; 10:8–15)
while I present various sayings and proverbs that are stated as conclusions from the
assertions that the author makes, or from his own experience, which together provide
a uniformity of ideas. See also an attempt to introduce the principle of the sequence
in the first verses as the first observational sequence: N. Cohen, “‘Venatati et libi’:
Mivneh vemashma’ut beretzef hahitbonenut harishon besefer Qohelet (1:12–2:26),”
[“And I gave my heart”: Structure and meaning in the first observational sequence
in the Book of Ecclesiastes], Beit Mikra 58b, 2013, pp 47–82.In my view, not only
are many statements in the book are underscored as conclusions drawn from his
own experience (as I make clear in the course of this book), but that the key to the
principle of the sequence is left in many cases to the discretion and understanding of
the reader.

12 
with Koheleth’s precepts and tone of speech. The prevailing view is to
see these verses as the author’s attempts to “moderate” or to offer a more
balanced view that might otherwise tend to be somewhat extreme. Among
the most prominent of these are:
Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labor (4:9) Keep
thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to
give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with
thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is
in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. For a dream cometh
through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words.
When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in
fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than
that thou shouldest vow and not pay (5:1–5)

and:

A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of
one’ birth (7:1)

and:

Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days (11:1)

When read at face value, one dictum (4:9) talks in praise of friendship,
while another recommends strict religious observation and honoring
commitments (4:17–5:4), another (7:1) praises personal virtues and
integrity over material accomplishments, and yet a fourth—as we shall see
later—recommends relinquishing one’s daily routine (bread) to the hands
of the flow of time (water).
To my mind, whilst the wisdom literature and the prophetic literature
(such as Isaiah 1: 11[12], and Amos) do feature poetic prose and passages
of true poetry side by side—a change of form does not necessarily entail
a change in ideological message. In the Hebrew Bible there are many
literary works that treat their subjects differently from what is customary in
contemporary philosophical literature. Rather than subjecting a particular
subject to exhaustive scrutiny then moving on to another topic, the literary
unit in biblical literature often examines several topics in sequence,
occasionally in different forms or styles, and entrusts the reader to elicit
what they have in common. Different aspects are presented of the same
topics or in different guises in other literary units within the same book—

13
or the reader may find a similar composition of the same topics in another
literary unit—and through the common denominator of the topics in one
unit, the full import of the ideological message may be appreciated. This
method of presentation becomes apparent as one engages in a detailed
examination of the topics in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Although it is
difficult to define precisely what constitutes a “literary unit,” in most cases
it is a chapter, in others a chapter may encompass more than one unit, and
in still others a given topic may spill over from one chapter to the next.
The link between the topics is often associative, and the boundaries of a
literary unit may exist only subjectively in the reader’s own mind. Thus,
the reader may find each unit to be a mosaic of topics, that collectively
present a particular idea, and spring from the same approach. This, in
effect, is the nature of a poetic structure. As in lyrical poetry, here, too, the
ideological continuum is not formed by a logical construction or through
narrative development, but rather by means of the common denominator
of a set of images or declarations. No particular topic is fully explored
in any given message or context—but rather, it appears continually in
different ways within the ideological mosaic, in a different context on
each occasion. For example, Koheleth’s negative attitude to notion of a
“life’s work” or dedicating one’s life to building the future, is evident in his
negative declaration such as 2:18–19—
Yea, I hated all my labor which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it
unto the man that shall be after me.

And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule
over all my labor wherein I have labored, and wherein I have shewed myself wise
under the sun. This is also vanity.

and in a declarative statement such as 11:2–3:

Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be
upon the earth.

If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree
fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there
it shall be.

Obviously, these two pronouncements are not identical, and they appear
in different contexts: the former in relation to the issue of “memory,”
(i.e., the futility of trying to elude oblivion and extinction), and the latter

14 
concerning one’s inability to shield oneself from unexpected hardships.
However, the general message may lie in what they have in common—
namely, that these are different aspects of “missing out on the present and
on life”: by investing efforts in something that is beyond one’s control, one
loses what life and the present have to offer. It follows that one may also
be able to see, as Wright has observed, that in Koheleth’s words there is no
distinction between the descriptions of his own personal experience and
his theoretical logical arguments, because they are intertwined. On the
contrary, as we shall see in the course of our inquiry, in the most important
issues, such as justice and injustice, Koheleth repeatedly reiterates, in
various ways, how his personal experience has figured in his conclusions.
When viewed in this way, I believe that one might overcome one of
the two main difficulties in presenting Koheleth’s worldview—namely,
that if indeed the book is representative of a general outlook on a range
of well-defined topics, why is it not presented methodically according to
those topics, instead of as a collection of statements that appear to jump
haphazardly from one issue to another.
The second difficulty is greater and more serious—i.e., the trap
implicit in the desire to present a range of subjects as a consistent theory.
The risk is that certain verses or passages might be interpreted by forcing
them to fit the commentator’s particular interpretation, even when they are
not necessarily understood as such in a straightforward reading. These are
the expressions, maxims and passages whose meaning is not unequivocal,
and whose relationship to their context is problematic. If we find that
certain maxims are indeed at odds with the consistent worldview that I
am trying to present, then I shall have to admit that the general picture has
certain gaps, and that the ensemble is not always consistent. However, if
that turns out to be the case, we will at least know that we have benefited
from a renewed examination of the Book of Ecclesiastes.
I believe that the Book of Ecclesiastes should be viewed as a
composition whose various parts and components combine to form a
comprehensive worldview—in the sense of a theory of the essence of what
the author believes is a “righteous life.” Admittedly, in most of the book
Koheleth rails against misguided views, in statements cast in denunciatory
terms—such as declaring certain lifestyles as a “sore travail,” a “sore
evil,” or as “vanity” (a term whose meaning we shall explore at greater
length later on). However, this rejection is not, in my view, merely a
random collection. The phenomena that Koheleth is rejecting concern a

15
range of issues, or a mosaic, that collectively provide a certain portrayal of
a “misguided life,” and this criticism is clearly governed by what the author
believes to be the “correct” lifestyle.16 This is even more apparent in the
passages where Koheleth has words of praise. Both the denunciation and
the approbation spring, therefore, from a uniform and consistent starting
point: Koheleth, who is confident in his knowledge of how to make the
most of life, decries the various ways in which people allow the good
life to slip out of their hands, by squandering the present and pursuing
paths that diminishes their ability to appreciate all that is good in the world
and its present constitution. His criticisms throughout the book are aimed
at different forms of “escapism” or “missing out,” as I shall attempt to
demonstrate further below.
One should also note that, since Koheleth deplores the various ways in
which people tend to “avoid” the present in pursuit of misguided lifestyles,
his pronouncements such as “Therefore I hated life; because the work that
is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me” (2:17) are not aimed at life
in general but at a particular action or series of actions that he speaks of
in that context—namely, at one of the misguided lifestyles. The same is
true of the statement later on in the same verse: “—for all is vanity and
vexation of spirit.” In the course of our inquiry we will find that the word
“all” here refers only to the issues detailed in that particular context. It
seems to me that one of the reasons why Koheleth is thought to have a
fundamentally pessimistic and negative outlook is because it is thought
that these declarations are about life in general, rather than about specific
issues that he addresses in that particular context.17
Like other “wisdom literature”works in the Hebrew Bible, Koheleth
presents his ideas in a style founded on a figurative speech18—with a clear

16 See, on the other hand, S. Barton, “Kohelet,” JBQ 26,3 (1998) pp. 168–176, who
believes that the optimistic parts of Ecclesiastes, like certain Psalms (e.g. 5, 85),
reflect the transition from despair to hope, which is part of the dynamics in the mind
of someone whose faith is stronger after venting his disappointments, such Pss. 5, 85.
See also Gelander, The Religious Experience in the Book of Psalms (2013), especially
pp 33–65.
17 See, for example, H. Shapiro, Qohelet: Hafilosof hamiqrai [Kohelet: The Biblical
Philosopher], Or-Yehuda 2011 p. 33, 39, where he compares the attitude of
Ecclesiastes that of Schopenhauer. See also p. 39.
18 In this book, I tend to use the term “figurative language” to denote the use of words
not in their lexical sense, but in generally associative ways that may be explained by
context, or by the parallelism.

16 
preference for metaphor over terminology—unlike other types of biblical
literature (especially the literature of law and cultic terminology).19
Nonetheless, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, too, there are also a considerable
number of expressions where the author uses a kind of terminology—as
I shall detail below: some of these appear within a parallelism, some are
accompanied by an explanation, and some appear on their own. What they
all have in common in terms of their appearance is that in each case the
author uses them to clarify his attitude toward a particular characteristic
phenomenon in human behavior, efforts, or events. This suggests that
they constitute a type of terminology, which contributes to outlining the
overall worldview in the book. Accordingly, I shall attempt to examine
the meaning of these expressions before moving on to detail the various
topics that Koheleth deals with. The following is therefore a preliminary
investigation, which I shall revisit in accordance with each of the relevant
topics:

1. Vanity versus profit:20 I believe these two expressions should be

viewed as opposing notions that frame Koheleth’s worldview.21
Viewing them in this way may bring us closer to an accurate
understanding of their meaning. Generally, whatever Koheleth
regards as negative or misguided, and therefore fleeting, with no
sustained existence or firm grip on life, he dubs “vanity” or “vanity of
vanities” (including the expression “the days of his vain life”—e.g.,
in 6:12). Conversely, what he regards as true, faithful and enduring or
capable of withstanding the ravages of time, is referred to by words
of the Hebrew root y-t-r in its various forms—e.g., yitron (“profit”),
motar (“preeminence”), and yoter (“hath more”). Fundamentally, the
starting point of Koheleth’s ideology is rejection. Although ultimately
his aim is to project a positive attitude toward the world or toward the
righteous life, he primarily censures whatever appears to him to be

19 See, for example, J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, Berkeley-Los

Angeles-London 1970.
20 See detailed review of the commentaries by: D. Ingram. Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes,
New York – London 2006 and especially there at 129–191. His conclusion is that the
term yitron is ambiguous: he translates it as being related to “excess” or “surplus,” but
in most cases he interprets it as “advantage.” See also the review of the interpretations
of verse 8:1: Pinker, “The Advantage of a Country in Ecclesiastes 5: 8,” JBQ 35/4
(2009), pp. 211–222, where he recommends interpreting yitron to mean “advantage.”
21 So, too, thinks D. B. Miller (see note 24 below).

17
 distorted and mistaken. In other words, although his criticism is meant
to deliver a positive message about the righteous life, he focuses his
efforts on highlighting the obstacles and distortions that stand in the
way, and therefore his criticism outweighs his positive prescriptions.
Thus, in most of the passages where the expression vanity appears,
the term profit also appears, but in a negative form22—e.g. “the profit
of the earth is for all” (5:9).23 Similarly, the word vanity in its various
guises24 appears twice as much, if not more, than the word profit.25
Most commentators, including the translators, have tended to address
the word vanity without reference to its opposite—even when they
discuss their juxtaposition.26 At this juncture, I will make do with the

22 The Hebrew word used here—yitron—appears only in Ecclesiastes. Kadri interprets

it as “benefit” or “advantage.” See Z. Kardi, Milon Ha’ivrit Hamikrait [Dictionary of
Biblical Hebrew], Ramat-Gan 2006, p. 483. But see also my discussion of the term
below, and note 25 below.
23 Cf. Shin C. L. Seow, “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet,” JBL 115/4
(1996) pp. 643–666, who tends to interpret the expression in accordance with its
Greek meaning of “advantage” or “surplus” (Òφελος).
24 1:2 (x 5), 14 (with parallelism: “and vexation of spirit”); 2:1, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21
(with parallelism: and a great evil), 23, 26; 3:19; 4:4, 7, 8 (with parallelism: “a sore
travail”), 16; 5:9; 6:9, 12; 7:6; 8:10, 14 (x 2); 9:9 (in the expression: “all the days of
thy vanity” x 2); 11:10; 12:8 (“vanity of vanities,” as in 1:2).
25 2:11, 13 (x 2); 3:9, 19 (motar); 5:8, 15; 6:8 (yoter), 12; 10:11.
26 See, in particular: V. Fox, “The Meaning of Hebel for Qohelet,” JBL 105/3 (1986)
pp. 409–427, with a discussion of the different interpretations. Fox himself prefers to
interpret the word hebel as “absurd”—but in a subsequent commentary he believes
Kohelet used it in various senses, including “vain, empty, useless” (as in Proverbs
21:6). For my part—as will become apparent from our examination—that the word
does have a consistent sense throughout, and the notion that it means “useless” is a
due to the subjective view that anything that does not endure is useless and worthless.
See Klein, “Mavo lesefer Kohelet,” p 170. (Accordingly, Fox also interprets yitron
as “benefit, priority,” while I interpret it as “enduring”). Conversely, see a review of
various approaches in: D. B. Miller, “Qohelet’s use of h’bl” JBL 117/3 (1998) pp. 437–
454. Miller himself argues that despite differences in contexts, such as “fleeting,”
“ephemeral,” “vapor” (which in its metaphorical sense encompasses “foulness,”
“transience,” etc.), the expression must have a consistent meaning: he prefers the
notion of “insubstantiability,” but he also thinks that Kohelet uses the expression in its
metaphorical sense, which includes the experiences of human experience. For more
on the metaphorical meaning of the expression, see: D. Fredericks & K. A. Farmser,
“Who Knows what is Good?,” Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, Grand Rapids 1991, and
once again, S. Bakon, “Kohelet,” JBQ 26,3 (1998) pp. 168–176—who interprets
hevel as “vanity” and yitron as “advantage.”

18 
 explanations I offered above, and attempt to bolster and focus my
claims in the course of my more detailed examination of Koheleth’s
objects of criticism.
2. Happen (Hebrew root: q-r-h). Although the conventional
understanding of this word is “occur”—in the sense of an unexpected
or unplanned event—its context in many places in the Hebrew Bible
suggest that it has an opposite meaning of an intentional circumstance
that comes about at God’s instigation. Thus, for example, the words
of Abrahams slave “O Lord God of my master Abraham, I pray thee,
send me good speed this day” (in Hebrew, haqreh-na lefanai—
Gen. 24:12), or Jacob’s words to his father “Because the Lord thy
God brought it to me” (Gen. 27:20—in Hebrew, ki hiqrah adonai
eloheikha lefanai); and of course “and her hap was to light on a
part of the field belonging unto Boaz” (Ruth 2:3—in Hebrew, vayiqer
miqreh), etc. In my view, this is meaning of the root q-r-h in the Book
of Ecclesiastes as well—which is in line with Koheleth’s arguments
about how events are preordained by God.27 The appearance of this
word in association with expressions such as “happeneth to them all”
(“but time and chance happeneth to them all”—9:11)28 is, I believe,
further evidence of this.29
27 For this reason, I do not agree with commentaries that understand the word as
synonymous with death. See: A. Kislev, “Qohelet vehitmodeduto im hamavet le’or
hatfisot bamiqra uvesifrut hamizraḥ haqadum,” [Kohelet and his grappling with death
in light of biblical worldviews and the literature of the ancient East], Beit Mikra 52b,
2012, pp 28–51. This issue will be discussed below, especially in chapter 4, which
deals with the framework of the Book of Ecclesiastes.
28 See J. Blenkinsopp, “Ecclesiastes 3.1–15: Another Interpretation,” JSOT 66 (1995)
pp. 55–64. He tends to interpret “A time to…” as “The right timing”—i.e., as the
interface between human actions and chance occurrences brought on by a combination
of reasons that we call “fate.” We will revisit this issue in our discussion of 1:1–15.
29 Cf. G.S. Ogden, “Qoheleth IX 1–16,” VT 32.2 (1982) pp. 158–169. Although Ogden
points out that ‫“( תע‬A time”) and ‫“( הרקמ‬happenstance”) are used as equivalent terms
(as in 3:17–18), in 9:11 he believes it is actually used to denote the suddenness of
death, which may befall a person irrespective of how swift or strong they are (as in
9:11–12)—in other words, physical prowess are no guarantee of success. However, in
my opinion, Koheleth is not concerned with physical strength, but with intellectual
aptitude, since elsewhere he points out that wisdom also bestows no particular
advantage. In one instance, he rejects the pursuit of excellence in one particular
field. This issue will be discussed in detail below. Seow (in “Qohelet’s Eschatological
Poem”.—see note 14 above), also attributes this to a series of phrases that reflect its
Greek sense of “chance” (Τύχη).

19
3. King (Hebrew: m-l-k). This word, in its various guises, appears eleven
times throughout the book.30 In most instances its meaning appears
to be no different from its common and conventional meaning of a
monarch or supreme ruler. But on one or perhaps two occasions, it
is used in an apparently metaphorical sense. Since in both these two
places the context is somewhat obscure, an alternative interpretation
might possibly resolve the difficulty if we apply the metaphorical
meaning to the other instances in the book as well. One is at 5:8—“the
profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field”31—
and the other is 8:2 (“I counsel thee to keep the king’s commandment,
and that in regard of the oath of God”). In the former instance—
regardless of whether we interpret the word profit as I proposed
above, or as “exceptional virtue” or “prerogative”—the second half
of the verse (“the king himself is served by the field”) compels us to
understand it in a non-literal manner—for it is hard to see control over
a cultivated field is what grants the king his absolute prerogative. In
this regard, I prefer to interpret the word field in the wider sense of
“estate”—i.e. the totality of person’s assets—be it material property
or his vocation or field of expertise. If so, the statement means that a
person’s “profit,” or advantage—namely, one’s only enduring, constant
and immutable property—is that which one has absolute control
over—i.e., making the most of one’s possessions. (As opposed to
investing one’s resources, including one’s initiative, in vague prospects
or in something beyond one’s control—which is something that
Koheleth repeatedly repudiates.)32 The word king therefore denotes
the absolute, the perfect, the ultimate. This is borne out by the words
in 2:12 also support this understanding: “for what can the man do that

30 1:12; 2:12; 4:13,14 (“to reign,” “in his kingdom”); 5:5, 8:2, 4; 10:16, 17 (“when thy
king”), 20. With regard to 4:13–16, see Rudman, who suggests that “to reign” in this
case might mean “to advise,” and—like Ogden—believes that it may hint at Joseph.
See D. Rudman, “A Contextual Reading of Ecclesiastes 4: 13–16,” JBL 116/1 (1997)
pp. 57–73, and the review of approaches there.
31 See Pinker’s detailed review of the interpretation of this verse in Pinker, “The
Advantage of a Country in Ecclesiastes”—and our examination of this verse below,
especially in chapter 2.
32 See Pinker’s interpretation, which narrows the meaning to the virtues (advantages) of
good governance, and his review of other commentaries, in Pinker, “The Advantage
of a Country in Ecclesiastes,” 211–222. See also Fisher, “Beobachtungen zur
Komposition von Kohelet 1,3–3,15.”

20 
 cometh after the king? even that which hath been already done”—
i.e. anyone lesser than the king cannot but repeat what has already
been done. In other places, too, this word may assume this broader
meaning if we understand it as a metaphor: if indeed the word king
denotes someone perfect or someone of supreme accomplishment,
that may be the intention in chapter 1, too, where Koheleth introduces
himself. He who says of himself “I have grown and added wisdom
over all that was before me over Jerusalem” (1:16) and goes on to list
all his material accomplishments (2:5–10), makes clear through such
a detailed description that this is the meaning of king in the rhetorical
question “for what can the man do that cometh after the king?” The
introduction of himself as King of Israel in Jerusalem (1:12) does
not necessarily mean that he is literally the king, but rather that he
surpasses everyone else in his accomplishments.33 While his self-
proclamation as Koheleth son of King David in Jerusalem (1:1) is
problematic, as many have suggested, it is possible that “son of David”
means that he is one of the distant descendants of the House of David.34
However, in the metaphorical sense his grim warning “Woe to thee,
O land, when thy king is a child” versus “Blessed art thou, O land,
when thy king is the son of nobles” (10:16–17). A literal reading of the
passage does not, it seems, warrant such a belligerent pronouncement
by the author—since anyone with a modicum of sense understands
the dire consequences of the land being led by ruler lacking any
accomplishment or experience, and conversely the advantage of the

33 In the research literature there have been various efforts to detect clues of the author’s
condition or life story. See Kislev, “Qohelet vehitmodeduto” (note 27), who infers
from Koheleth’s proclamations about the impossibility of bequeathing anything to the
next generation (e.g. 2:18, 4:8) and from his avoidance of the expression “My son,”
that the author lived alone and had no son. However, see also my reading of these
statements.
34 See Klausner’s detailed story, which identifies Koheleth with Horkanus Ben Tuvia,
in Klausner, Historiah shel Habayit Hasheni, vol. II, Jerusalem 1964 4 pp 124–156.
Conversely, see Ogden, who detects hints of Koheleth’s personal-historical situation
in the descriptions in 4:13–16, and who ultimately assumes that the allusion is
not necessarily to any single person, but rather to certain figures in the Israelite
tradition (Abraham, David, Joseph), as a rhetorical device to underscore Koheleth’s
understanding of the meaning of “good”—namely, that young members of past
generations do not get the appreciation they deserve. G. S. Ogden, “Allusion in
Qoheleth IV 13–16?,” VT 30/3 (1980), pp. 309–315.

21
 country whose ruler is very competent.35 For this reason, I prefer to
understand the word land in this case in the same sense as earth in 5:9
(“the profit of the earth is for all”)—i.e. as total command and control
of a particular domain. The “Woe to thee, O land” verse is therefore
a general reference to anything that is under-utilized, or a domain
over which one does not have full control. Koheleth’s discussion of
this issue ties in with his general disapproval of missing out on the
present and against a misguided views of life and of world order.
This issue will be expanded upon and substantiated in the following
chapters. For now, it is worth noting that the obscure verse “I to keep
the king’s commandment” (8:2—in Hebrew, ani pi melekh shmor)
might be understood in a similar fashion. (The main difficulty lies
in the attribution of “I” to the latter part of the verse: some believe
that it is meant to be followed by a colon—as if to say, I say to thee.
Some believe that the final word should be eshmor (“I shall keep”).36
While the meaning of the verse becomes more apparent in verse 4:
“and who may say unto him, What doest thou?”—namely that not
only must one obey the king and do all as he commands, but that
this advice is self-evident. In other words, the emphasis appears to
be to keep the king’s commandment in the sense of meek obedience.
Hence, in 5:2: “Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart
be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and
thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.” In my view, these
two verses share the same ideological message—namely, that when
faced with absolute perfection, one must avoid taking any stance, but
rather allow the various manifestations of perfection to be taken in
and influence oneself.37 In one verse, this perfection is embodied in
the term king, while in the other it is manifested in the word God.
Judging by the contexts, the difference between them appears to be
that king represents earthly perfection (“the king himself is served
by the field”), while God represents the supreme perfection of the
entire universe (“for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth”)—and
that in the face of this perfection, man is better off recognizing his

35 See an identical use of the word in Isaiah 3:4: “And I will give children to be their
princes, and babes shall rule over them.”
36 In the Septuagint and KJV: “I say” or “I counsel,” or “I:” Cf. NAS.
37 This may also be the meaning of the expression “be more ready to hear” (5:1)—i.e.,
it is better to receive and accept anything that happens, than to take an active position.

22 
 limitations.38 As we shall see, in Koheleth’s view, taking a position
or identifying with only one particular aspect, or devoting oneself
entirely to a single aspect of life, prevents one from being connected
with all of life, and leads one to miss out on the present and to
gain a misguided view of the world. That said, he is not necessarily
recommending one to be total passive, since he says “therefore let thy
words be few,” and “keep the king’s commandment.”39
4. Under the sun—the same is true of this expression. Ostensibly, it
means “on earth”—i.e., everywhere. But that sense is conveyed by the
author in expressions such as under the sky (2:3) and on earth (8:14–
16, and cf 12:7).40 It is possible, however, that its metaphorical sense
will underscore my interpretation of the two previous expressions,
thereby clarifying Koheleth’s intentions even further. I believe that
Koheleth uses the words the sun in the theoretical sense as well as
in the literal sense of a celestial object. I am not suggesting that his
references to its philosophical sense of the sun as the very foundation
on which all other truth rests, as Plato surmised—that would place
Koheleth’s religious outlook in an entirely different light, which has
no justification or basis in other parts of the book. However, I do
believe that, as the source of all light and energy, the sun for Koheleth

38 Cf Miller’s view, who while discussing the concept of God in Ecclesiastes, also
examines the meaning of generic terms such as “wisdom” and “folly.” H. P. Müller,
“Wie sprach Qohälät von Gott?” VT 18/4 (1968) pp 507–521; and de Jong, who
examines the question of identification of God in Ecclesiastes with God of the
forefathers in the Hebrew Bible in general, in S. de Jong, “God in the Book of
Qohelet: A Reappraisal of Qohelet’s Place in Old Testament Theology,” VT 47.2
(1997) pp. 154–167. We will examine this issue separately in the course of our
inquiry.
39 In my opinion, these ideas are very similar to the notion that following an
encounter with a revelatory experience, a person often tries to make the new vision
his own personal possession and to control it. This is manifested in his adoption
of the opinion that he defines what he has discovered. However, in the absence of
appropriate language at his disposal, his language allows him only to compare the
new to something old and familiar—hence expressions such as “For it is like…” In so
doing, he is applying the old and familiar to the new—in a manner akin to chewing
the cud. For more on this topic: see P. Haezrahi, Hape’ilut hamitbonenet: Iyyunim
Be’estetiqah [The Observational Activity: Studies in Esthetics], Jerusalem, 1965—
especially pp 33–71 (in Hebrew).
40 Conversely, see Bakon, “Kohelet,” who interprets “under the sun” as “certainties”—
i.e., things that can be observed and verified by experience.

23
 represents the ultimate and perfect source in Creation. If so, the
expression under the sun denotes anything that falls short of it, or
anything of lesser validity. This, then, presents us with two opposing
sets of expressions: expressions that represent all that is whole and
absolute (the sky, the sun), to whom man directs his efforts, versus
expressions that represent all that is limited and relative (“the earth,”
“under the sun,” “under the sky”), which define the limits of man’s
ability.41
5. The same is true of the word labor. It appears many times in the
Book of Ecclesiastes (twenty times, to be exact—twelve of them as a
verb).42 From their respective contexts it is clear that the author is not
using the word in its general conventional sense of work or hard labor,
but rather in the sense of efforts made to secure an advantage (yitron),
or memory (zikaron), as explained above. Koheleth’s arguments that
in a person’s efforts to overcome the limitations of their ability or the
constraints of time, space, the laws of nature, or fate—they lose one’s
sight of the present, with all that it has to offer. In this regard, then,
the word labor may be interpreted to mean both labor and its fruits—
similar to its use in Psalms 128:2—“For thou shalt eat the labor of
thine hands.”43
6. Be merry is another expression that is not used in its general and
conventional sense.44 From its contexts, its meaning appears to refer
to full use of one’s resources and a sense of full experience of all that
the present has to offer (see, for example, 4:16).45 We shall return to
and expand upon the various meanings of this expression in chapter 2.

41 See: 1:3, 9, 13, 14; 2:11, 17, 18, 19, 22; 3:1, 16; 4:3, 7, 15; 5:12, 17; 10:2, 12; 8:9, 15,
17; 9:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 10:5.
42 See: 1:3, 19, 20, 21; 2:10, 18, 22, 24; 3:9, 13; 4:4, 8, 9, 16; 5:14, 15, 17; 6:7, 8:17 (on
occasion, twice in the same verse).
43 Cf. Blenkinsopp, “Ecclesiastes 3.1–15: Another Interpretation,” 61 (see above note
14), who believes that labor is not limited to earning a living or accumulating wealth,
but also pertains to the search for the meaning of human activity—as in the list in
3:1–9.
44 See 2:10, 26; 3:12, 22; 5:16, 18, 19; 7:4; 8:15; 9:7; 10:19; 11:8, 9.
45 This interpretation may be strengthened by the fact that “be merry” does not feature
in the list of things which there is “A time for”—namely, being merry is not bound by
any hard and fast rules, or advance planning. However, cf. Z. Jura, “Ulesimhah mah
zo osah” [“And of mirth, What doeth it?”], Beit Mikra (2001) pp. 353–370.

24 
Besides these terms and expressions, there are others—such as “a time”
and “do evil,” which we shall decipher below by examining their respective
contexts.
From all the above, it appears that in the Book of Ecclesiastes we
must distinguish between the dominant tone and the purpose and aim of
what is said. In the prophetic literature, for example, while we find that
the predominant tone is one of chastisement, the prophet is primarily a
man of vision. His ultimate objective is the “End of Days,” but the path to
achieving it is riddled with difficulties and mishaps, and his denunciations
are aimed mainly at these obstacles that prevent the vision from being
realized. The reprimand is therefore a means and not an end in itself. The
same is true of Koheleth.46 Although the phenomena that he castigates
outweigh his acclamations of positive aspects both in number and in their
intensity of expression, the objects of his rebukes, in their various guises,
are merely the opposite of the desired goal. His primary purpose might be
defined as a true and righteous connection to life and to everything that the
present has to offer (see in particular: “For to him that is joined to all the
living there is hope”—9:4). In most instances, the correct ways to make
such a connection are signaled by the Hebrew root y-t-r (advantage), in
its various forms. Unlike his repeated positive presecriptions, Koheleth’s
negative pronouncements appear in a wide range of forms, but always
alluding to the same theme—i.e. these are the various ways in which man
shies away from the world and all that exists, is available and present.
These include the natural traits and skills that one has been blessed with,
which all too often one does not appreciate, leading one to waste one’s life
and to miss out on all that is good and beautiful in it, as created by God.
These various forms of abdication, as we have noted, are marked by the
repeated use of the word vanity. Each of the chapters Part I of our inquiry
is devoted to one aspect of these forms of escapism. In Part II, I examine
Koheleth’s “positive” counsels.
Needless to say, between his remonstrations against the various
misguided approaches that people have to life, and his advocacy of the
positive aspects that they overlook, Koheleth’s outlook appears to be an
unorthodox one. To my mind, this mainly pertains to three issues that

46 Cf. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 196–197. However, he is of the opinion that

Koheleth’s counsel to enjoy life is a kind of “default” option—even though Scott
rules out that any Greek influences are at play here—including the hedonistic views
of an agnostic.

25
might be seen as cornerstones of the biblical worldview. One is the issue
of correlation between man and nature. In various parts of the biblical
literature, the prevailing view is that justice is a law of nature—that is,
nature is where justice takes place. According to this view, nature was
created to suit the needs of all creatures, and it rewards man for his
behavior. Historically, nature serves those who have been liberated from
slavery to liberty, and at the cosmological level, too, the Creator’s world
is said to be one where there is no room for evil.47 Koheleth, however,
takes a different approach, which is based on the dividing lines between
the laws of nature and the bounds of human understanding. The second
issue, which is largely interlinked with the first, concerns the prevailing
perception of reward in the Hebrew Bible. In statements such as “there
is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked
man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness” (7:15), Koheleth reiterates
that absolute values are the preserve of God, and lie beyond man’s reach.
The third issue in which Koheleth’s position is at odds with that of the
Hebrew Bible—particularly in Genesis 1:11—is in his very fundamental
view of the value of life. There are other instances in the Hebrew Bible,
especially in Genesis 1:11, where life is perceived as a preeminent and
sacred value, a supreme aim above all others—as exemplified, for example,
by the freedom of choice. However, for the most part—especially from
Genesis 12 onwards—life is perceived as only a means, rather than as
an end in itself. As the tenets of the monotheistic faith took shape, the
notion emerged that the righteous man is he who is willing to sacrifice his
life for a particular goal, and that goal is the supreme value. This concept
is taken to its most extreme expression in the Binding of Isaac, but is
apparent in Abraham’s story from the outset, when he is required to uproot
himself from his home and his past and go wherever God tells him to. In
contrast, as we noted at the beginning of this introduction, for Koheleth “a
living dog is better than dead lion” (9:4)—that is to say, any form of life,
however humble, is preferable to death, however honorable and noble. In
this, Koheleth rejects the notion of sacrifice, and underlines the value of
life as a supreme value and aim in its own right, rather than as a means. I

47 For a detailed examination of the issues of the correlation between nature and justice,
see S. Gelander: “Hatzedek vesidrei habri’ah,” [Justice and World Order], Beit
Mikra 97 (1984), pp 158–179. See also Gelander, Religious Experience in Psalms,
chapter 3.

26 
shall return and discuss this threefold deviation when we examine each of
Koheleth’s statements in turn.
It should be noted that my inquiry is not based on a line-by-line
reading of the chapters in their order as in the Book of Ecclesiastes, but
mainly on their key ideas, and in reverse order—that is, the assertions in
Chapter 1 assume their full meaning only in the light of the statements in
the following chapters, while the description in Chapter 12 represents a
kind of closing of the circle of intent. Accordingly, I discuss the opening
and conclusion of the Book of Ecclesiastes only in chapter 4 of this book.
Conversely, since Koheleth’s philosophy focuses mainly on decrying
people’s misguided lifestyles, I devote chapter 1 of this book to what appears
to Koheleth as the various ways in which people “abdicate” from life, or
miss out on it. In chapter 2, I review Koheleth’s various prescriptions for a
well-lived life—i.e., his advice on how to engage with reality and what the
present has to offer. Since both his remonstrations and his prescriptions are
presented as a poetic mosaic, we will often have to resort to paraphrasing
to present the conjectured meaning or significance of certain passages.
However, this is to be expected, if it facilitates the quest for the common
ideological denominator, given that Koheleth himself often repeats certain
key ideas in more than one way (as is often the case in poetry). In addition,
since Koheleth’s poetic structure and style does not lend itself to a neat
schematic division into topics, certain statements or declarations suit
more than one category, and therefore certain verses will fall under more
than one heading. Moreover, in these instances the two aspects will be
complementary in terms of their world outlook and ideological message.
Chapter 3 of this book is about Koheleth’s beliefs—namely, his views
about God and man. A clear presentation of this will be possible in the light
of our inquiry in the two previous chapters: if we bear in mind that Koheleth
had a certain vision in mind in both his criticisms and his prescriptions,
the faith underpinning his ideology may become more apparent. Chapter
4, as noted earlier, examines the opening and conclusion of the Book of
Ecclesiastes words as a kind of prologue and coda, respectively, which
highlight the issues of contending with oblivion by aiming to attain a
“righteous life.” The full meaning of the opening passages of Ecclesiastes
and its conclusion will become apparent on completion of our inquiry.
In keeping with its title, this book seeks to explore the ideological
dimension of the Book of Ecclesiastes, rather than offer a comprehensive
study of it. Specific issues such as where and when it was written, the

27
identity of the author and his distinctive language, are not discussed here.
While those questions undoubtedly have a bearing upon the central ideas
in the Book of Ecclesiastes, I shall be discussing them solely in the context
of their appearance and in terms of what they have in common, leaving
their thorough examination to references the research of other scholars,
while noting the highlights of their arguments in passing.

28 
1. Escaping from reality

Koheleth’s harsh criticism encompasses a wide range of assertions—but in

reality, they share a single ideological common denominator, in that they
repeatedly highlight the various ways in which people flee from what is
readily accessible and from the present. His critique is therefore a highly
focused one. It is not a litany of accusations against the world as a whole
and the way its functions or against man’s insignificance and failings, but
rather a focused critique of the mistaken ways in which man conducts his
life. Koheleth believes that all a person’s efforts, methods of operation,
aspirations, desires, and understandings, are used in a manner that makes
him overlook all that is readily accessible and present, causing him to miss
out on the extraordinary quality and virtues of the world. Man’s limitations
and discontent are therefore not predetermined, but rather stem from how he
conducts his life—much of which dissipated in efforts in the wrong direction.
Instead of using the resources that he has and his natural abilities, and instead
of harnessing the existing and appreciating what is close at hand, he wastes
his life in various ways that might be summed up as forms of escapism.
In this part of the inquiry, I intend to discuss the various ways in
which this escapism is manifested. First and foremost of these is the
escape to the future, in its various guises—such as devoting oneself to
one’s “life’s work,” with the intention of bequeathing it to one’s successors,
and amassing assets to insure oneself against possible mishaps. However,
escapism also includes efforts to develop traits that one is not naturally
endowed with, and pursuing goals well beyond one’s skills and ability. It is
also evident in the pursuit of perfection and of absolute values. Such quests
also involve sacrifices, and Koheleth categorically rejects the notion that
one should sacrifice one’s life for certain values or lofty goals.1
In the book’s poetic opening,2 Koheleth poses the rhetorical question
“What profit hath a man of all his labor, which he taketh under the sun?”

1 See discussion below about the phrase “is better than...”—especially 9:4: “for a living
dog is better than a dead lion.”
2 The content and views presented at the start and end of the book are discussed in
detail in chapter 4, “The opening verses and coda,” which deals with the book’s
framework.

29
(1:3)—from which we understand that all his labor is intended to achieve
a certain “profit.” As we discussed above, in the Introduction chapter, the
word profit (in Hebrew, yitron) should be understood as “an enduring
advantage.” A man‘s labor is therefore aimed at avoiding oblivion—yet
oblivion cannot be avoided, of all his labor,3 and everything is fleeting.
Hence, Koheleth’s declaration “and I hated life,” or “and I hated all my
labor” (2:17, 18) is not a reference to life and labor in general, as Scott
has suggested,4 but rather a lifestyle in which man does not savor all that is
present, available, and serendipitous, and invests all his efforts in various
forms of escape. In chapter 4, we shall examine the substance and outlook
of the book’s opening and conclusion in our discussion about the book’s
general structure; meanwhile, this chapter is devoted to examining the
various forms of escapism.

Escape to the future

Yea, I hated all my labor which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it
unto the man that shall be after me [2:18–19]

Whether it is the labor itself, or the fruits of one’s labor, this passage is
about a man who instead of enjoying his actual labor or its fruits, devotes
all his efforts to that which comes after—that is, to his successors and
heirs. It is a reference, therefore, to the common phenomenon of wanting
to overcome oblivion and disappearance by establishing continuity
between generations through inheritance.5 Koheleth rejects this notion, on
the grounds that there is no knowing whether the intended heir has the
requisite qualities and skills, and therefore one cannot know how he will

3 The word of in this case is in the sense of “despite.”

4 Scott (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 204) argues that Koheleth sees life as a whole as
pointless, and that his negative warnings and attitude toward values stem from his
fundamentally pessimistic outlook on life.
5 See Kislev’s review (Kislev, “Qohelet vehitmodeduto,” and notes 42, 54 there) on
various writings that express the notion of a person’s descendants carrying on their
life’s work, as a means of dealing with the notion of death, and about commentators
that link Ecclesiastes 4:8 with 2:18–19, and cf. my interpretations of these verses
above.

30 
manage the legacy that he has inherited. Such escapism to the future must
therefore be rejected:6 since there is no knowing what will happen to the
fruits of one’s labor after the death, it follows that one’s work is for naught.
In essence, all a man’s life’s work is fleeting, and therefore he has wasted
his life.7
This sentiment is repeated in other statements in the same vein:
There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men
A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honor, so that he wanteth nothing
for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a
stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.8

As in the previous passage, the issue is a person who does not benefit from
all that he is fortunate to have received. However, here the discussion is not
only about his labor or about the fruits of his labor (riches and assets), but
about his status (honor), as well—nor is it about his efforts, as in Chapter
2:11 (“Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and
on the labor that I had labored to do: and, behold, all was vanity and
vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun”)—but rather that
which God has given him. These two statements are very similar in style
and wording, which supports my proposed interpretation of the phrase
“under the sun.” The meaning of the Hebrew root sh-l-t (yashlitenu) in
these contexts also refers to full utilization of all that is readily accessible
and provided—but here, too the giving and the taking are in the hands of

6 Many commentators understand this as though Koheleth were stating a fact, that
after a person’s death his estate is handed over to someone who did not work for it.
See in particular: H. Gese, “The Crisis of Wisdom in Kohelet,” J. L. Crenshaw (ed.),
Theodicy in the Old Testament, Philadelphia 1963 pp. 142–143.
7 It is worth bearing in mind the common biblical notion that heritage is itself a
foundation of faith: the stories of the Patriarchs indicate that the handing down of
faith in God was a condition for maintaining the divine promise. Accordingly, Jacob’s
great advantage over Esau was that Jacob appreciated the significance of the birthright.
Thus, Koheleth’s declaration against the labor involved in bequeathing one’s life’s
work is a challenge to the prevailing view. See also S. Gelander, “Hahavtaḥot la’avot”
[The promises to the Forefathers] and “Hama’avaq al habkhorah” [The struggle over
the birthright,], Sefer Bereshit [The Book of Genesis], vol. II, Tel-Aviv, 2009 pp
43–54; 231–236 (in Hebrew).
8 Malul notes that stranger in this case means anyone who is not a member of the
family. See M. Malul, Knowledge, Control and Sex, Tel Aviv-Jaffa 2002, p. 457 note
123—and his references there to various biblical sources.

31
God.9 The message, then, as in the previous statement, is that man cannot
ensure his future, so he must make the most of the present and of what
comes his way, since—as Koheleth repeatedly emphasizes—“This also I
saw, that it was from the hand of God.” (2:24).10 He then elaborates: “If a
man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his
years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have
no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he (6:3). This verse
highlights birth and death as the significant brackets of a person’s life,
but in amplified form: “an hundred” stands for innumerable descendants,
while the lack of burial denotes a degradation of the deceased.11 The
meaning of the statement is therefore that the man who fails to be satisfied
with his lot is doomed to have his blessings become a curse. Once again,
then, the conclusion is that one must not labor for the future, but enjoy the
present.
This message is repeated and reasoned later in the chapter: “For who
knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which
he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him
under the sun?” (6:12). Fleeing to the future means that one’s life is turned
into a mere passing shadow, inasmuch as he is no longer in control of it.
It is notable that here, as in other contexts like it, Koheleth refers to life as
“the days of my vanity”—a phrase that underscores of the temporary and
fleeting nature of the present. A similar theme appears earlier, in another
context—“for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?” (3:22).
In other words, since there is no possibility of predicting the future, “there
is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that
is his portion” (ibid.)—in other words, the best course is to be happy while
doing things.12

9 This issue—of the relationship between man and God, and between a person’s
situation and their fate—is discussed at greater length below, in Chapter 3.
10 The meaning of “to eat and to drink” is explored further below, especially in
chapter 2.
11 See: N. Shupak, “Funeral and burial customs in the story of Joseph,” Beit Mikra, 55:1
(9), pp. 84–93. See also: C.B. Hays, “Re-excavating Shebna’s tomb: a new reading
of Isa. 22, 15–19 in its ancient Near Eastern context,” ZAW 122,4 (2010): 558–575;
and J. L. Wright, “King and eunuch: Isaiah 56: 1–8 in light of honorific royal burial
practices: JBL 131,1 (2012): 99–119.
12 It should be noted that Koheleth generally refrains from espousing absolute values.
His arguments predominantly involve presenting only relative values, such as “…
is better than….” This makes this verse all the more significant, inasmuch as“there

32 
On the attempts at insuring against future mishaps

Koheleth’s criticism of the phenomenon of fleeing from the present has

ramifications for other, closely related issues. To my mind, his reiteration
that man cannot insure himself against future harm does not spring
necessarily from the fact that he is totally subject to the vagaries of fate,
as many commentators have suggested,13 but is also related to Koheleth’s
warnings about fleeing from the present. All efforts to insure oneself
against possible harm in future are misconceived—not because one’s fate
is necessarily preordained, but because while doing so, one allows the
present to slip away. His remonstrations against such “insurance” efforts
are therefore related to, and complement, his exhortations not to flee to
the future:
There is a sore evil14 which I have seen under the sun—namely, riches kept for the
owners thereof to their hurt. But those riches perish by evil travail:15 and he begetteth
a son, and there is nothing in his hand. (5:13–14)16

This pronouncement is very closely related to those previously cited (2:18–

19; 6:1–3)—however, this time the emphasis is different. The previous
statements were about the futility of striving to accomplish a true “life’s
work,” and the impossibility of bequeathing it—in essence, about the person
who strives to experience the future instead of the present. Here, on the other
hand, the statement is more specific. Although here, too, the issue is about

is nothing better .…” is an absolute value. This topic is discussed at greater length
below, and in chapter 2.
13 See Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes: 198, 204–205 et passim; H.P. Müller, “Wie sprach
Qohälät von Gott?,” VT 18, 4 (1968): 507–521—especially his interpretation of “that
which is past” (in Hebrew, nirdaf). See also G. S. Ogden, “Qoheleth IX 1–16,” VT
32.2 (1982), pp. 158–169.
14 See the explanation in D. B. Miller, “Qohelet’s Symbolic Use of hebel, JBL 117/3
(1998): 437–454, which distinguishes between vanity and evil, and argues that their
juxtaposition refers to the labor that brings no satisfaction, such as 6:7–12.
15 In my view, the expression “by evil travail” is a generic one, denoting any sort of
mishap. In other words, any assets that one puts aside for a time of need are in danger
of being lost, and therefore cannot provide any security.
16 See N. Lohfink, “Kohelet und die Banken: zur Übersetzung von Kohelet V 12–16,”
VT 39.4 (1989): 488–495, where he compares it with 2:18–22, and argues that what
they have in common is the worthlessness of wealth in the face of death. To my mind,
because Koheleth’s emphasis is on the failure to make the most of the present, “loss”
or missed opportunities must be distinguished from death.

33
inheritance and the next generation, the reference is to “But those riches
perish by evil travail,” we find that the focus has now shifted—namely, that
taking steps to “insure” against possible afflictions is pointless. The similarity
of these themes underscores how we should avoid overly-schematic divisions
of the book. There is no doubt that all sorts of statements might be included
under the same heading—but precisely for that reason I see it necessary to
highlight the different forms in which missing out on the present may take,
and which Koheleth seeks to denounce, and accordingly I have divided these
forms of escapism into separate categories. Besides his general disapproval
of sacrificing one’s present for the future, Koheleth suggests that this may
assume various guises, one of which is attempts to protect oneself from
oblivion and other occasional mishaps.
“Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and
on the labor that I had labored to do: and, behold, all was vanity and
vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun” (2:11). From
the context, it is clear that this is not a generic or arbitrary assertion, but
rather a conclusion drawn from his rich experience. In the previous verses,
Koheleth details at length a list of ways in which means and actions may
be accrued, whose purpose was “till I might see what was that good for the
sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their
life” (2:3). In light of my earlier interpretation of the expression “under
the sun,”17 the reference here is to a single, particular course that a person
might take or devote their lives to, and the word good in this instance
refers to the absolute good.18 In other words, since he had been blessed
with all possibilities and means at his disposal, he tried to see if there was
a single, ultimate course that he might take that might ensure that he is
remembered in posterity. He then proceeds to list the various things that he
has done to this end (2:1, which marks the beginning of the attempt with
mirth),19 representing all possible courses of action (including others that
are not mentioned). From these various and diverse attempts, he reached

17 See the Introduction chapter above, and note 40 there.

18 See N. Lohfink, Qohelet (Die neue echter Bibel 1) Wǖrzburg, 1950 p. 51; I.J.J.
Spangenberg, “Irony in the Book of Qohelet,” JSOT 21: 57 (1996): 57–69; D.
Rudman “A Contextual Reading of Ecclesiastes 4: 13–16,” JBL 116/1 (1997): 57–73;
N. Lohfink, Qohelet: A Continental Commentary, Minneapolis 2003.
19 Judging by the context, and in line with most interpretations and translations, I prefer
to interpret the Hebrew original for “I will try thee,” anaskhah, as anaskha, from
the root n-s-h——although it is also possible that it derives from the root n-s-kh,
meaning “pampering” or “luxury,” as suggested in the JPS.

34 
the conclusion that no single path confers an “advantage”—i.e. guarantee
against oblivion: “and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit,
and there was no profit under the sun” (2:11). This is followed later by a
rhetorical question that also explains why he resorted to “behold wisdom,
and madness, and folly”—and reached the conclusion: “for what can the
man do that cometh after the king? even that which hath been already
done” (2:12). The “king,” as we noted earlier, is a metonymic allusion to a
paragon or champion, whom no one, in his time or later, can hope to equal
in terms of perfection and uniqueness, and therefore there is no reason for
him to be remembered, or for anything to remain of his actions. The paths
and qualities that he tried to hold onto (“wisdom, and madness, and folly”)
were not enough to save him from oblivion and secure him immortality,
because he could never reach the level of perfection represented by the
proverbial “king.” Thus, sticking to any one path only squanders all the
options provided by the present, and limiting oneself to a single field of
endeavor is only a form of escapism from the present and available.
This conclusion also leads us to the irony, in a wording that is somewhat
deceptive: “Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth
darkness” (2:13).20 Ostensibly, this statement is at odds with Koheleth’s
arguments elsewhere, since even in this chapter we read “I sought in mine
heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom;
and to lay hold on folly” (2:3), and his conclusion that, like other paths
and virtues, none of these provide any advantage. Many commentators have
suggested that Koheleth here acknowledges the advantage of wisdom over
folly,21 but to my mind, if the advantage of wisdom over folly is like the
advantage of light over darkness, then wisdom has no advantage at all, since
the superiority of light over darkness is merely a convention—especially
if we understand the word advantage (yitron) not as “preference,” but as
“persistence,” or permanence—as I explained earlier. After all, light and
dark succeed each other, and neither one vanquishes the other. The cyclical
nature in the changes of light and dark are in line with Koheleth’s words in
the opening verses, which point to the regular nature in the natural cycle as
a permanent fixture—unlike man, who leaves no trace after his death (1:11).

20 See Malul, Knowledge, Control and Sex, 117, on the conventional use of wisdom as a
parallel to light—but in pointing to this convention, Malul appears to be missing the
irony in this verse.
21 See Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 216; H. Fish, Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical
Poetics and Interpretation, Indianapolis 1988 pp. 158–178.

35
And indeed, the irony of these words is apparent later: “The wise man’s eyes
are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived
also22 that one event happeneth to them all” (2:14). The Hebrew word in
this case (miqreh) does not refer to death, since the fact that “as the one
dieth, so dieth the other”(3:19) is no advantage, and self-evident—too self-
evident to rank as a conclusion from Koheleth’s rich and diverse experience,
as he detailed in the previous verses. It is better to interpret it as I proposed
in the Introduction—i.e., as something that God had planned in advance.23
Wisdom and folly are presented here a merism,24 or spectrum of qualities,
and Koheleth’s assertion is that no single trait or skill can safeguard a person
from oblivion and extinction. This is underscored later when he repeats and
expands his rhetorical question: “Then said I in my heart, as it happeneth to
the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise?” (2:15)
in other words, acquiring wisdom does not in fact afford any advantage. The
reason: “For there is no remembrance of the wise more than25 of the fool for
ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And
how dieth the wise man? As the fool.” (2:16).26

22 There are instances in the Hebrew Bible where the Hebrew word gam (usually,
“also”) does not indicate the addition of a secondary thing, but a word of emphasis—
in the sense of “Yea,” or “indeed,” or “in fact.” This is usually reflected in traditional
translations. See, for example, “and he loved also Rachel more than Leah”
(Gen. 29:30) or “Yea, I know that thou didst this” (Gen. 20:6) and—in my opinion—
Job 10:10 “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive
evil?”
23 We explore Koheleth’s attitude toward God and His dominion over the world in
greater detail in chapter 3.
24 In rhetoric, a merism is the combination of two contrasting words, in reference to an
entirety—e.g., man and boy; hither and thither.
25 In Hebrew, the word than is im, which normally means “with,” but in this case is in
the sense of “like” (cf. Gen. 18:23; Psalms 106:6 and 143:7, and elsewhere). The
word how here is used as a lament-like exclamation (cf. II Sam. 1:19).
26 In this spirit, we might also interpret verse 10:2: “A wise man’s understanding is at
his right hand; but a fool’s understanding at his left.” But the distinction between
right and left is not necessarily a distinction between strength and weakness (as Fox
suggests, in M. Fox, in Encyclopedia Olam HaTanakh: Megilot, Tel-Aviv 1996,
p. 202 [in Hebrew]). It may also be a gentle jibe against the prevailing view in
ancient times about the vaunted advantages of intelligence and its comparison to
light versus dark, when in truth the test of any human attribute—be it a wise man or
a fool—is the degree to which it suits the circumstances. See also Malul, Knowledge,
Control and Sex, 320, note 25, who cites M. Douglas and V. W. Turner, who argue
that the parallelism of right versus left was common in many countries, including

36 
 The same is true about his conclusion in the matter of “riches kept for
the owners thereof to their hurt” (5:12). Since this wealth is lost “by evil
travail,” he extends his conclusion: “that in all points as he came, so shall he
go: and what profit hath he that hath labored for the wind? / All his days also
he eateth in darkness, and he hath much sorrow and wrath with his sickness”
(5:16–17). Here, then, he explicitly states that by attempting to accrue wealth,
assets, or other means in a bid to insure oneself from future mishaps, one
is prevented from enjoying the present. By devoting oneself to something
transient and ephemeral, one deprives oneself of enjoyment of the present.
The presentation of the wise man and the fool as opposite ends of the
same spectrum is reiterated in other expressions, such as “All things come
alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good
and to the clean, and to the unclean” (9:2). The rest of the verse confirms
that these are not only acquired traits, but also contrasting behavior and
lifestyles: [...] to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as
is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an
oath [...] that there is one event unto all” (9:2–3). In other words, there is
no prescribed method of controlling the future and shielding oneself from
mishap.
This same notion, albeit without any reasoning or justification, also
features elsewhere, in brief statements, and in a wide range of contexts—
e.g., “For he knoweth not that which shall be” (8:7), and—
Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be
upon the earth / If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth:
and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree
falleth, there it shall be” (11:2–3)

All these statements rule out the possibility of foreseeing the future
and guarding against misfortune. However, there are occasions where
Koheleth’s prescription points to a broader outlook, and the essence of
his belief. For example, “In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day
of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to
the end that man should find nothing after him” (7:14). This appears after
a series of maxims in the format “is better than...,” that present various
situations as comparative virtues—such as, “A good name is better than
precious ointment,” or “Sorrow is better than laughter”). These statements
in ceremonial classes. This also suggests the possibility that Koheleth is making an
ironic allusion to a conventional view and traditional expression.

37
are founded on the notion that there is no such thing as a perfect and
absolute virtue—only relative preferences. However, the full verse may
indicate that the advice to enjoy from what is readily accessible and to
accept it as it is should not necessarily be understood as merely a kind of
default option, or as a compromise due to human limitations.27
In his declaration, “God also hath set the one over against the other”
(7:14), we learn that the absolute and infinite, which encompasses the
extreme boundaries, is in the hands of God. We shall discuss this idea at
greater length in chapter 3, when we examine Koheleth’s belief. However,
here, too it is worth noting that Koheleth repeatedly states, in various
ways, that “This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God” (2:24,
and similarly, 3:13). In other words, God is perceived not as a ruler who
arbitrarily determines man’s fate,28 but as someone who gives man options
to choose from. In this respect, Koheleth’s words appear to be closer in
spirit to Job’s argument“What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God,
and shall we not receive evil?” (Job, 2:10). (In the following verse—“to
the end that man should find nothing after him” [Eccles. 7:14], I proposed
that the words should find be understood as “to understand,” or even “to
succeed,” as in 9:10; and the expression after him—as in after the king
[2:12]—in the sense of “here” = “after God”.)29 In other words, man with
his limited faculties cannot perceive the full extent of God’s actions in
their absolute entirety. The common denominator in “God also hath set
the one over against the other” is in what is ready to hand, or present. The
present, therefore, is in the hands of man—but he fritters it away in his
various attempts to flee to the future or even to the past (see 7:10).
Koheleth’s exhortation to make the most of life is founded on a
certain positive approach. We find a similar recommendation elsewhere:
“Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might—for there is no
work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou

27 Conversely, see Fuchs, Olam HaTanakh: Megilot, 192–193, who sees this passage as
“the golden mean.”
28 See Müller, “Wie sprach Qohälät von Gott?”—but conversely S. de Jong in “God in the
Book of Qohelet,” who argues that there is a logical discrepancy between Koheleth’s
pronouncements about divine determinism and his rejections of the conventional
view of the theory of reward. However, Seow also tends to detect a deterministic
outlook in many of Koheleth’s expressions, and of the divine preordainment—see
Seow, Ecclesiastes, 47–60.
29 And not “in the future,” or “after death,” as many commentators have suggested—
unlike 6:12 (cf. Fuchs, Olam HaTanakh: Megilot—see note 21 above).

38 
goest (9:10). However, here the recommendation is substantiated. The
first half states that man may, or is even duty-bound, to do all that he can
under any given circumstances (an idea echoed in other verses, such as
“also he hath set the world in their heart” [3:11]—i.e., the world is man’s
oyster, and entirely in his hands).30 But the second half puts forward a
reasoning that renounces the notion that there is anything after death. The
expression “for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom”
is a figurative allusion to initiative and planning. This is apparent from the
words “no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom.” Notably, work
in this case also assumes another meaning from the first half of the verse
(“Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might”)—namely,
that one must not to take upon oneself to do something that is beyond
one’s capabilities, or the results of which one cannot foresee nor control.
Therefore, the word grave in the second half of the verse is presented not
only in its general sense, as a void,31 but also in the sense of everything
that is totally beyond one’s control. Hence, the oblivion that lies after death
does not spring from a pessimistic suggestion to abandon all hope, but
rather a caution not to indulge in illusions: “He that observeth the wind
shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap” (11:4), and
“By much slothfulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of the
hands the house droppeth through” (10:18). Action, and making the most
of the resources to hand, is the correct way to avoid the flight from, and
loss of, reality. Similarly, in “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth
upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?”
(3:21), where oblivion is not even presented as a certainty, but as a doubt.
The same is true of the declaration “For the living know that they shall die:
but the dead know not any thing” (9:5). These various pronouncements

30 Although many commentators interpret this verse in the negative sense—i.e., that
God has prevented man from understanding the meaning of his actions, I prefer Yehiel
Hillel Altschuler’s view, based on his interpretation of 3:1–11, that this is a reference
to man’s free will—i.e., that God placed the world in people’s heart (=minds) so that
they may understand it. This, despite the fact that free choice the source of man’s sin.
See also below, and the discussion in chapter 2 on the issue of determinism.
31 This is the view in the Book of Job—although there, too, the grave (in Hebrew, sheol,
i.e. the underworld) is perceived, like death, to be a state of non-existence. See Job
3:13–19, 7:9, 26:6, etc. Cf. Malul, Knowledge, Control and Sex, 261, note 17, who
believes that sheol is perceived here, as in the ancient Eastern myths, as the land of
the dead, which is ruled by the darkness. In 3:21, as well, Malul believes (ibid., 241,
note 247) that sheol does not mean a state of total non-existence.

39
assume meaning later, in verse 10, linked together by the positive advice
“Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart;
for God now accepteth thy works” (9:7). This recommendation will be
examined later in chapter 2.
Koheleth’s essentially positive appeal for maximum action belies the
common belief that his philosophy is founded on a submission to fate.32 A
person who suggests that control of one’s life and success are contingent
upon initiative and action is clearly not someone who bemoans the absolute
control of Fate over one’s life. Thus, his many and varied statements about
how everything is preordained are in fact indicative of the positive aspects
of Creation and world order (“He hath made every thing beautiful in his
time”—3:11), and that man’s failings stem from his continual efforts to
grapple with what is beyond his reach, i.e. from his flight from the present
and what is available.33
Koheleth’s essentially positive approach to quotidian life is discussed
at greater length below, in chapter 2. For now, let us focus on Koheleth’s
negative attitude toward man’s attempts to insure himself against
possible mishaps. This phenomenon, as previously noted, has various
manifestations. One is the attempt to achieve an advantage over others,
either by causing others to fail, or by sabotaging their property. This, I
believe, is the meaning behind verse 10:8—“He that diggeth a pit shall fall
into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him”—should

32 See Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 193, 198; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 58.

33 This, contrary to the repeated claims of commentators who believe that Koheleth
contends that man’s failings and limitations are due to Fate’s arbitrary control of his
life. See G. S. Ogden, “Qoheleth IX 17 – X 20: Variations on the Theme of Wisdom’s
Strength and Vulnerability,” VT 30.1 (1980): 27–37; Scott, ibid., 205, 212; Seow ibid.
pp. 56–58.

40 
be understood, rather than as an affirmation of the reward doctrine.34, 35
The notion of measure for measure—according to which the evil man is
punished for his evil ways in the same manner in which he has acted—runs
counter to Koheleth’s outlook. Indeed, he repeatedly asserts the opposite
on various occasions—for example, “All things have I seen in the days of
my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there
is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness” (7:15, 10:7, and
elsewhere). Therefore, in light of the context of verse 10:8, what Koheleth
appears to be saying is that danger exists everywhere—as explicitly stated
in verse 10:9 “Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt therewith; and he
that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby”—and in fact, anyone
who sets about undermining others or trying to safeguard themselves from
danger will in fact experience that very danger. In modern parlance, if you
fling mud at others, you will get muddy.

On the acquisition of skills, traits, and excellence

On this issue Koheleth’s criticism appears to ramp up a notch, and is aimed

at a deeper level—that of a person’s inner being. Previously, we saw how
Koheleth decries fleeing from the present, with particular focus on the
lengths that people go to ensure their future by passing on their “life’s
work,” or by amassing wealth. However, the main efforts of someone
seeking to avoid loss or oblivion on not necessarily at the material
level, but at the spiritual one. Fleeing from oblivion means avoiding

34 The Hebrew word for pit in this case is gumatz—apparently of Aramaic provenance.
This verse appears, therefore, to differ from Proverbs 26:27—else Koheleth would
be contradicting himself. See: M. Zer Kavod, “Hastirot beSefer Kohelet” [The
Contradictions in the Book of Ecclesiastes], Sefer Braslavi, Jerusalem, 1970,
pp 173–189; M.W. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, Sheffield (1989); and J.
Blenkinsopp, “Ecclesiastes 3. 1–15, Another Interpretation,” JSOT 66 (1995): 55–64,
who argues that this passage is not characteristic of Koheleth. He interprets 3:2–8 as
though it said that everything, as it were, is up to us: the choice of the right time (a
time to die in this case meaning a time to retire), and the proper circumstances for
doing things. But this would contradict other statements of his, especially 3:10–11
and 16–18. Therefore, Blenkinsopp suggests that 3:2–8 and 3:9–22 be regarded as
two separate passages in the book, with conflicting messages.
35 The expression shall fall (in Hebrew, yippol) is likely used here in the sense of “shall
go down”—as in Gen. 24:64, or Gen. 14:10.

41
anonymity, and it is commonly thought that one way to achieve this is
through distinction and excellence. In keeping with his notion that values
are relative, Koheleth declares that “A good name is better than precious
ointment” (7:1). A straightforward reading of this verse is that a person’s
good name is preferable to luxuries and pampering. But this would be at
odds with Koheleth’s outlook, for two reasons: (a) he repeatedly urges us,
in various ways, to enjoy everything that we have, including preferring
any material or tangible achievement over aspirations (e.g., 4:6, 6:9);
(b) he repeatedly rules out the notion of a person devoting themselves
to achieving a particular virtue, or acquiring a “good name.” For this
reason, I believe that it is better to see the two parts of verse 7:1 in their
metaphorical sense: the word name representing the ends of the journey,
the achievement of a goal, where one’s character and distinction are well
known— while precious ointment represents anointing, i.e. the dedication
of a person to a given role, when they are just setting out. At the start of
the journey, a person is driven by their hopes and dreams, while at the end
of it, they are conscious of their abilities and limitations, and of reality
itself.36
We shall return to this verse later, in another context, when we discuss
the link between its beginning and its end. For now, we should note that, if
this is the case, this statement is closer to those where Koheleth deplores
efforts to overcome loss and oblivion by devoting oneself to false hopes
and dreams, or to achieving distinction and excellence. On this matter,
we find that Koheleth offers unequivocal statements, such as “Be not
righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou
destroy thyself?37 / Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why
shouldest thou die before thy time? (7:16–17). The words “thou die” here
do not appear to be a reference to death as punishment—since Koheleth
does not believe in the theory of divine reward and punishment, nor
does he believe that evil people suffer the consequences of their actions.
After all, elsewhere he argues that “there is a just man that perisheth in
his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in
his wickedness” (7:15). But since he also argues that “But it shall not

36 The full meaning of this verse is discussed below, and in Chapter 2.

37 In this context, the Hebrew for be thou foolish (teshomem) means “bring destruction
upon oneself ” (see M. Z. Kadri, Milon HaIvrit HaMiqra’it [Dictionary of Biblical
Hebrew], Bar-Ilan 2006, p. 1114. In modern Hebrew, its meaning is more “be
frustrated.”

42 
be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days” (8:13), he
clearly believes that while positive traits do not inure oneself from harm,
negative traits do have the effect of shortening a person’s life. The words
[shouldest] thou die correspond, therefore, to be thou foolish—and if so,
the true meaning of the statement is that zealous adherence to a positive
path (righteousness, wisdom) is like zealous adherence to a negative
one (wicked, fool), inasmuch as neither offers any significant advantage
when one follows to the exclusion of all others. On the contrary: absolute
adherence to any single path to the exclusion of its antithesis only confines
a person’s life (hence, in my view, the expression “shouldest thou die before
thy time”). The word et (“time”) in this context appears to be the same as
in the poetic passage of 3:1–9, which begins with the statement, “To every
thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”38
Moreover, suitability is not only a function of time, but of the framework
as a whole—i.e. to space and every aspect of being and action:39 for every
option there is also the opposite option.
This idea is expressed in various ways, such as “God also hath set the
one over against the other” (7:14), or “It is good that thou shouldest take
hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand” (7:18). It follows
that the perfection in God’s Creation is beyond the comprehension or the
reach of man: “Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find
out the work that is done under the sun” (8:17).40 The expressions “under
the heaven” or “under the sun” refer to the earthbound domains that man’s
life is restricted, and since he is incapable to taking in the whole of a given

38 Cf. Blenkinsopp, “Ecclesiastes 3. 1–15,” 55–64, who believes that verses 3:2–8 and
9–22 contradict each other, and their ideas, and language, are uncharacteristic of
Koheleth, as they suggest that it is up to man to decide when is the appropriate time
to do things that lie within his capability—an idea that runs counter to the ideas
in 3:10–11, 16–18. Ultimately, he accepts that 3:2–8 may be in fact be a passage
that Koheleth is quoting from elsewhere, such as the philosophy of a Jewish scholar
of the Stoic school, while his contribution is merely the heading (3:1) and his
interpretation in vss. 9–22. For more on the possible influence of early Stoicism on
Koheleth’s thought, see E. Bickermam, Four Strange Books in the Bible, New York
1967, pp. 141–149; A. Braun, Kohelet und die frühelenistische Popularphilosophie,
(BZAW) 130, Berlin 1973; J.G. Gammie, “Stoicism and Anti-stoicism in Qoheleth,”
Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985): 169–187.
39 Malul (Knowledge, Control and Sex, 430, 432), like Jenni, suggests that the word
time (et) means an appropriate time for a given activity. See the discussion about
these verses below, and Chapter 2.
40 See also my interpretation of 3:11, above.

43
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 new Russian year is changed from the first of
September to the first of January.

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

1703 Peter begins the building of St. Petersburg.

1706 The Cossacks of the Don revolt.
1707 The secret marriage of Peter with Catherine takes
place.
1709 Mazeppa, hetman of the Little-Russian Cossacks,
revolts. Battle of Pultowa.
1710 Turkey declares war against Russia.
1711 The old supreme council of boyars (douma) is replaced
by the senate, into which merit and service might obtain
admission independently of noble origin. By the terms of
the Treaty of the Pruth Peter surrenders to the Turks his
artillery, gives back Azov, and undertakes to rase
Taganrog.
1714 The Russians gain over the Swedes the important
naval victory of Åland or Hankül. Peter becomes master
of Finland.
1717 Peter makes a second tour through Europe. A general
police, modelled on that of France, is instituted.
1718 Peter’s eldest son, Alexis, is executed. The old prikaz
is replaced by colleges for foreign affairs, finance,
justice, and commerce.
1719 The Russians ravage Sweden almost up to the gates
of Stockholm.
1720 The Russians renew their devastation of Sweden,
notwithstanding the presence of an English fleet.
1721 Treaty of Nystad with Sweden: Peter is left master of
Livonia, Esthonia, Ingria, and the districts of Viborg and
 Kexholm in Finland. Peter promulgates an ukase
(afterwards abrogated by Paul) that the sovereign has
the right of naming his successor. The Patriarchate is
abolished and its income united to the public revenue. In
its place the holy synod is established for the supreme
direction of church affairs.
1722 The tchin is established: whoever enters the service of
that state becomes a gentleman. The exporting of
merchandise through Archangel is prohibited in favor of
St. Petersburg.
1722-24 War with Persia. The provinces of Ghilan,
Mazandaran, and Astrabad (Astarabath) are annexed to
Russia.
1725 Death of Peter. He is succeeded by his second wife,
Catherine.
1726-27 The St. Petersburg Academy of Science founded.
1727 Death of Catherine. She is succeeded by Peter II, son
of Alexis. Menshikov, who was the real ruler of Russia
under Catherine, is banished to Siberia.
1730 Death of Peter II. Anna, daughter of Ivan, the brother
of Peter the Great, is chosen his successor after
submitting to the terms dictated by the great nobles—
terms intended to convert the government into an
oligarchy.
1733-35 War of the Polish Succession: Russia intervenes on
behalf of the elector of Saxony, Augustine III, and
defeats the French attempt to replace Stanislaus
Leszczynski on the throne of Poland.
1735 Russia surrenders her Persian possessions in return
for extensive trading privileges to Russian merchants.
1735-39 War with Turkey, in conjunction with Austria. The
Russians conquer Otchakov at the mouth of the Dnieper
and the important fortress of Khotin on the same river.
 But at the peace of Belgrade, hastily concluded by the
Austrians, they retain only Azov.
1740 Death of Anna. Ivan VI, her grand-nephew, succeeds
her, with Biron, duke of Courland, as regent during his
minority.
1741 A coup d’état, led by Field-marshal Münich deposed
Biron and raises Princess Anna, mother of Ivan, to the
regency. But Münich is the real ruler. A palace revolution
deposes Ivan, sends Münich to Siberia, and raises to
the throne Elizabeth, a daughter of Peter the Great by
Catherine. Sweden, urged on by France, declares war.
The Swedes are defeated at Vilmanstrand.
1742 Seventeen thousand Swedes surrender at Helsingfors.
The Armenian churches in both capitals are suppressed
by order of the holy synod.
1743 Treaty of Åbo with Sweden; Russia acquires the
southern part of Finland as far as the river Kymmene.
1753 The custom-houses of the interior, as well as many toll
duties, are suppressed.
1755 The first Russian university is founded at Moscow.
1756 The first Russian public theatre is established at St.
Petersburg. Three years later another theatre is
established at Moscow.
1757 The Russians under Apraxin defeat at Jägerndorf the
Prussians under Lewald.
1758 The Russians under Fermor are defeated by Frederick
the Great at Zorndorf. The Academy of Fine Arts is
established at St. Petersburg.
1759 Saltikov defeats Frederick at Kunersdorf.
1760 The Russians plunder Berlin.
1762 Death of Elizabeth. She is succeeded by her nephew,
Peter III, son of her sister Anna. He makes peace with
 Frederick, restores to him east Prussia, which was
entirely in the hands of the Russians, and orders his
army to aid Frederick against the Austrians. Peter
issues an ukase freeing the nobility from the obligation
of entering upon some state employment; is
assassinated and is succeeded by his wife, Catherine.
Catherine recalls the Russian armies from Prussia.
1764 Assassination of Prince Ivan. Resumption of the
ecclesiastical lands with their one million serfs by the
state.
1766-68 A great sobor is convened, first at Moscow and then
at St. Petersburg, for the compilation of a new code. It
fails of its object.
1767 An ukaze forbids serfs to bring complaints against their
masters, who were authorised to send them at will to
Siberia or to force them into the army.
1767-74 War with Turkey.
1768 Massacre of Jews at Uman, in the Government of Kiev,
under the leadership of the Cossack Gonta.
1769 The Russians under Galitzin take Khotin.
1770 Rumiantzev is victorious over the Tatars on the banks
of the Larga and over the grand vizir at Kagul. Three
hundred thousand Kalmucks, with their wives and
children, their cattle and their tents, flee from Russia to
China.
1771 Conquest of the Crimea by Dolgoruki. Annihilation of
the Turkish fleet at Tchesme.
1772 The Congress of Fokshani fails to bring about peace
and the war is renewed. First division of Poland. Russia
acquires White Russia, including Polotsk, Vitebsk,
Orsha, Mohilev, Mstislavl, Gomel.
1773-74 Pugatchev’s revolt.
1774 Peace of Kutchuk-Kainardji: the sultan acknowledges
the independence of the Tatars of the Crimea, the Bug
and the Kuban, and cedes to Russia Azov on the Don,
Kinburn at the mouth of the Dnieper, and all the fortified
places of the Crimea.
1775 The Zaparog military republic of the Cossacks is
dissolved. The empire is reorganized. Instead of fifteen
provinces there are created fifty governments
subdivided into districts.
1783 Formal annexation of the Crimea and the country of
the Kuban.
1787-92 Second war with Turkey in conjunction with Austria.
1788-89 War with Sweden. The Peace of Varela restores the
status quo ante bellum.
1788 The storming of Otchakov by Potemkin, accompanied
by an indiscriminate massacre.
1789 Suvarov wins the battles of Fokshani and Rimnik.
Potemkin takes Bender.
1790 Suvarov takes Ismail. The Austrians sign the Peace of
Sistova, but the Russians continue the war. Repnin
defeats the grand vizir at Matchin.
1792 Treaty of Jassy. The Russians retain only Otchakov
and the seaboard between the Bug and the Dniester.
1793 Second division of Poland. Russia obtains an
enormous extension of territory in Lithuania and absorbs
the rest of Volhinia, Podolia, and Ukraine.
1794 Kosciuszko is defeated by Fersen at Maciejowice and
Suvarov storms Praga, a suburb of Warsaw.
1795 Third division of Poland. Russia obtains the rest of
Lithuania, besides other territories which at one time
had been Russian, while Poland proper is divided
between Austria and Prussia. The former power also
 obtains Galicia or Red Russia. Courland is annexed by
Russia. Its last duke, Peter Biron, voluntarily renounces
it in return for a yearly revenue.
1796 Death of Catherine. Accession of her son Paul.
1798 Paul promulgates the line of succession according to
primogeniture, with precedence in the male line. Russia
joins the second coalition against France, with England,
Austria, Naples and Turkey.
1799 Suvarov defeats Moreau on the Adda, Macdonald on
the Trebbia, and Joubert at Novi. Korsakov is defeated
by Massena at Zurich, and Suvarov is forced to make
his memorable retreat across the Alps.
1800 Reconciliation with France, chiefly owing to the English
occupation of Malta.

THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

1801 Assassination of Paul. His son Alexander succeeds

him. The new emperor concludes treaties of peace with
England, France, and Spain. Georgia, or Grusia, is
formally annexed, and a war with Persia follows in
consequence.
1802 Eight ministries are established in place of the colleges
founded by Peter the Great.
1804 The Persians are defeated at Etchmiadzin.
1805 Alexander joins the third coalition with Austria and
England. Battle of Austerlitz.
1806 Conquest of the Persian province of Shirvan, and the
taking of Derbent.
1806 War with Turkey. Alexander joins fourth coalition, of
which Prussia is also a member. Battles of Pultusk and
Golymin.
1807 Battles of Eylau and Friedland. Peace of Tilsit. Russia
acquires Bielostok, a part of Prussian Poland.
1808 War with Sweden. Finland is overrun by a Russian
army.
1809 By the Treaty of Fredrikshamn Sweden surrenders
Finland. The Finns are allowed complete autonomy, the
czar being its grand duke. War with Turkey. The
Russians are defeated at Silistria.
1810 The Russians are victorious over the Turks at Batyen
on the Danube.
1811 The Russians are victorious at Rustchuk. Twenty
thousand Turks surrender at Giurgevo.
1812 By the Treaty of Bukharest Russia acquires Bessarabia
and a large part of Moldavia, with the fortresses of
Khotin and Bender. The Pruth becomes its boundary.
The district of Viborg, which was acquired from Sweden
in 1744, is added to Finland. Count Speranski, leader of
the liberal party, is dismissed. Later he was exiled to
Peru. Invasion of Russia by Napoleon. Battles of
Smolensk and Borodino. Firing of Moscow. Napoleon
orders a retreat (October 18). Battle of Malojaroslavetz
compels Napoleon to retreat by his old route. The
Beresina crossed (November 26th-29th).
1813 By the Treaty of Kalish Alexander engages not to lay
down his arms until Prussia had recovered all its lost
territories. The Russians and Prussians are defeated at
Lützen and Bautzen. The allies are repulsed before
Dresden. Battle of Leipsic. Peace of Gulistan with
Persia. Russia obtains Baku and the western shore of
the Caspian.
1814 The Russians invade France together with the allies. At
the congress of Vienna Alexander insists on the creation
of a kingdom of Poland under his rule.
1815 By the Treaty of Vienna Alexander obtains all of
Poland, except Galicia, Cracow, and Posen. Conclusion
of the Holy Alliance.
1816 Abolition of serfdom in Esthonia.
1817 Abolition of serfdom in Courland.
1818 Abolition of serfdom in Livonia. In all Baltic provinces
the emancipated peasants receive no portion of the
land, which remains in possession of the nobles. A
constitution and separate administration are granted to
the Polish kingdom.
1819 Establishment of military colonies in the border
provinces of the north, west and south.
1825 Death of Alexander. His brother Nicholas I succeeds
him. Revolt of the Dekabrists.
1826 War with Persia.
1827 War with Turkey. The Turkish fleet is destroyed at
Navarino by the combined fleets of England, France,
and Russia.
1828 Peace of Turkmanchai. Persia cedes the provinces of
Erivan and Nakhitchevan, pays a war indemnity, and
grants important trading privileges. The Russians invade
the Danubian principalities and take Varna. Paskievitch
takes Kars.
1829 Diebitsch defeats the Turks at Kluvetchi, takes Silistria,
crosses the Balkans, and takes Adrianople. Peace of
Adrianople. Russia gets control of the mouths of the
Danube, of a portion of Armenia including Erzerum, and
receives a war indemnity.
1830 The new code, a complete collection of the laws of the
Russian Empire, is promulgated. Polish insurrection.
The Russians are compelled to evacuate the country.
1831 Paskievitch takes Warsaw. The building of new Roman
Catholic churches in Poland is prohibited.
1832 Poland is incorporated with Russia. The constitution
granted by Alexander is annulled, and Poland is divided
into five governments.
1833 By the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi Russia obtains
additional rights to meddle in the internal affairs of
Turkey.
1839 A Russian expedition to the khanate of Khiva is
compelled to return.
1849 A Russian army is sent into Hungary. Capitulation of
Görgei at Villagos.
1853 The Crimean War. The Russians occupy the Danubian
principalities. Destruction of the Turkish fleet at Sinope.
1854 France and England join Turkey. Battle of the Alma.
Siege of Sebastopol. Fall of Bomarsund.
1855 Sardinia joins the allies. Battles of Balaklava,
Inkerman, and Tchernaia. Fall of Sebastopol.
Bombardment of Sveaborg. The Russians take Kars.
Nicholas I dies. His son Alexander II succeeds him.
1856 Treaty of Paris. Russia relinquishes the mouths of the
Danube and a portion of Bessarabia, restores Kars,
gives up the protectorate over the Oriental Christians
and the Danubian principalities, and agrees to have no
war vessels in the Black Sea.
1858 General Muraviev signs the treaty of Aigun with the
Chinese, by which Russia acquires the entire left bank
of the Amur.
1859 Capture of Schamyl.
1861 Emancipation of the serfs.
1863 Polish insurrection.
1864 Final pacification of the Caucasus. Reforms in judicial
administration. Institution of representative assemblies
(zemstvos) for governments and districts. By ukase,
Polish peasants are given in fee-simple the lands which
they had cultivated as tenants-at-will.
1865 Tashkend taken from the emir of Bokhara; organisation
of the province of Turkestan.
1866 Karakozov fires at the emperor at St. Petersburg.
1867 Governor-generalship of Turkestan created. Sale of
Alaska to the United States. A Slavophil congress is
held at Moscow. The prince of Mingrelia relinquishes his
sovereign rights for one million rubles. Russian is
substituted for German as the official language of
Livonia, Esthonia, and Courland. Peasants are given the
ownership of the lands which they occupied as tenants.
1868 Samarkand taken from Bokhara.
1870 Khiva is stormed by General Kauffman.
1871 The Pontus Conference, held at London, abolishes
paragraph 11 of the Paris treaty delimiting Russian
fortifications and naval forces on the Black Sea.
1873 The right bank of the Amu Daria (Jaxartes) is annexed
and the rest of Khiva becomes a vassal state.
1874 Universal compulsory military service is introduced.
The vice-royalty of Poland is abolished, and its
administrative fusion with Russia becomes complete.
1875 Russia cedes to Japan the Kurile islands. Japan gives
up its claims to the southern part of Sakhalin.
1876 The khanate of Khokand is absorbed and transformed
into the province of Ferghana.
1877 War with Turkey. The Russian advance is beaten back
in Europe and in Asia. The Shipka pass alone remains
in Russian hands. Three defeats before Plevna, which is
 besieged and forced to capitulate with 40,000 men. Kars
is taken.
1878 The Russians cross the Balkans. The Shipka army is
captured, Adrianople taken, the last Turkish army is
almost annihilated, and the Russians reach the Sea of
Marmora. Treaty of San Stefano: Treaty of Berlin.
Assassination of General Trepov at St. Petersburg, and
acquittal of Vera Zassulitch. Assassination of General
Mezentsev, chief of gendarmerie.
1879 Soloviov fires six shots at the emperor. An attempt is
made to wreck the train by which the czar was travelling
from Moscow to St. Petersburg.
1880 An attempt is made to blow up the Winter Palace.
Loris-Melikov is placed at the head of a commission with
dictatorial powers.
1881 Assassination of the emperor. The Tekke-Turkomans
are subjected by Skobelev. Anti-Jewish riots in southern
Russia.
1882 The “May laws” of Ignatiev issued against the Jews.
Agrarian disturbances in the Baltic provinces give the
government a welcome pretext for additional measures
of russification.
1883 Alexander III is crowned at Moscow.
1884 The Turkomans of the Merv oasis make submission to
Russia. The emperors of Russia, Germany and Austria
meet at Skierniewice, where they form the Three
Emperors’ League for the term of three years.
1885 The Afghans are defeated by General Komarov at
Penjdeh. The Trans-Caspian railway is begun.
1886 Contrary to Article 59 of the Treaty of Berlin, Batum is
transformed into a fortified naval port.
1887 A convention between England and Russia is signed
for the delimitation of the Russo-Afghan frontier. The
 Russian advance in the direction of Herat is stopped.
1888 An army officer named Timoviev makes an attempt on
the czar’s life. The Trans-Caspian railway is completed.
Samarkand is linked with the Caspian. The imperial train
is derailed at Borki. The czar and his family escape
injury.
1890 Three commissions are appointed to prepare plans for
assimilating the Finnish postal, monetary, and fiscal
systems with those of the empire.
1891 A French squadron under Admiral Gervais visits
Kronstadt. A succession of famines begins. An ukase is
issued directing the construction of a railway line which
should connect the European system with the Pacific
coast. Work is commenced on seven sections
simultaneously.
1893 A Russian squadron under Admiral Avelan visits
Toulon.
1894 A military convention, arranged by the military
authorities of Russia and France, is ratified. Death of
Alexander III and accession of Nicholas II.
1895 An Anglo-Russian convention is signed settling the
disputes as to the Pamirs. Russia, in conjunction with
Germany and France, forces Japan to revise the terms
of the Treaty of Shimonoseki by giving up the Liao-tung
peninsula. Russia obtains the right to carry the Siberian
railway across Chinese territory from Stretensk to
Vladivostok, thus avoiding a long detour, besides getting
control of North Manchuria.
1896 Coronation of the czar at Moscow. Catastrophe on the
Khodinski plain. The emperor visits Germany, Austria,
England, and France.
1897 President Faure makes an official visit to St.
Petersburg, and the term “alliance” is for the first time
 used in the complimentary speeches. Specie payment is
established.
1898 Russia leases Port Arthur and Talienwan, and obtains
leave to carry a branch of the Trans-Siberian line
through Manchuria to the sea. An imperial decree
declares that the powers of the Finnish diet are to be
limited to matters of strictly local, not imperial, concern.
General Bobrikov is appointed Governor-general of
Finland.
1899 During the Boxer uprising the Chinese authorities in
Manchuria declare war against Russia. The Russian
authorities retaliate with the massacre of
Blagovestchensk. Russia assumes the civil and military
administration of Manchuria. Peace Conference held at
the Hague.
1900 The Bank of Persian Loans is founded by the Russian
government.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

1901 The state monopoly in the manufacture and sale of

spirits is extended to the whole empire.
1903 Vice-Admiral Alexiev appointed as first Russian viceroy
of the Far East.
1904 Outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war.
 THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE

showing the Accessions since Peter the

Great
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
HISTORIANS' HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN TWENTY-FIVE
VOLUMES, VOLUME 17 ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information