Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/2456

 the whole being of a man, whether of this one or that one, at all times and on all sides, is previously known; cf. to this pregnant substantival sentence, Ecc 12:13. Against this formation of his nature and of his fate by a higher hand, man cannot utter a word. The thought in 10b is the same as that at Isa 45:9; Rom 9:20. The Chethı̂b שׁהתּקּיף is not inadmissible, for the stronger than man is מנּהּ ... מרי. Also התקיף might in any case be read: with one who overcomes him, has and manifests the ascendency over him. There is indeed no Hiph. הת .hpiH  found in the language of the Bible (Herzf. and Fürst compare הג, Psa 12:5); but in the Targ., אתקף is common; and in the school-language of the Talm., הת is used of the raising of weighty objections, e.g., Kamma 71a. The verb, however, especially in the perf., is in the passage before us less appropriate. In לא־יוּכל lie together the ideas of physical (cf. Gen 43:32; Deu 12:17; Deu 16:5, etc.) and moral inability.

Verse 11
Ecc 6:11 “For there are many words which increase vanity: What cometh forth therefrom for man?” The dispute (objection), דּין, takes place in words; דּברים here will thus not mean “things” (Hengst., Ginsb., Zöckl., Bullock, etc.), but “words.” As that wrestling or contending against God's decision and providence is vain and worthless, nothing else remains for man but to be submissive, and to acknowledge his limitation by the fear of God; thus there are also many words which only increase yet more the multitude of vanities already existing in this world, for, because they are resultless, they bring no advantage for man. Rightly, Elster finds herein a hint pointing to the influence of the learning of the Jewish schools already existing in Koheleth’s time. We know from Josephus that the problem of human freedom and of God's absoluteness was a point of controversy between opposing parties: the Sadducees so emphasized human freedom, that they not only excluded (Antt. xiii. 5. 9; Bell. ii. 8. 14) all divine predetermination, but also co-operation; the Pharisees, on the contrary supposed an interconnection between divine predetermination (εἱμαρμένη) and human freedom (Antt. xiii. 5. 9, xviii. 1. 3; Bell. ii. 8. 14). The Talm. affords us a glance at this controversy; but the statement in the Talm. (in Berachoth 33a, and elsewhere), which conditions all by the power of God manifesting itself in history, but defends the freedom of the religious-moral self-determination of man, may be regarded as a Pharisaic maxim. In Rom 9, Paul places himself on