Глава 2

1–11. The vanity of worldly joy. 12–17. The fate of the wise and the fool is the same. 18–23. Vanity of work. 24–26. Food is a gift from God. Eccl.2:1. I said in my heart: “Let me test you with joy, and enjoy good things”; but even this is vanity! Convinced that knowledge of the truth increases internal dissatisfaction and deprives a person of peace and everyday joys, Ecclesiastes decides to look at life with careless eyes, surrender to fun with all carelessness, and seek happiness not in spiritual, but in sensual pleasures. Slav. “See in Blaze” means: experience pleasure. Eccl.2:2. About laughter I said: “stupidity!”, and about fun: “What does it do?” But this attempt also ended in failure. Careless gaiety, amusing itself with essentially insignificant and vulgar things, is nothing more than stupidity and cannot give anything positive for human happiness. Laughter and fun are represented here in the image of the persons to whom Ecclesiastes addresses his speech. It should be translated: “I said to laughter: stupidity! and fun: what it does.” Slav. - “I say to laughter: a sin, and to joy: what are you doing.” Eccl.2:3. I decided in my heart to delight my body with wine and, while my heart was guided by wisdom, to adhere to foolishness, until I saw what was good for the sons of men, what they should do under heaven in the few days of their lives. Ecclesiastes gave himself over to sensual pleasures (in particular, drinking wine) not according to the natural attraction of his heart, but with a critical purpose, as a researcher, philosopher; Deciding to stick to stupidity, that is, careless and frivolous fun, he did not cease to be guided by wisdom, to philosophically weigh how much happiness he experienced really was. Eccl.2:4. I undertook great things: I built myself houses, I planted vineyards for myself, "Houses", that is, Solomon's own dwellings, but not the church built by him. The vineyards of Solomon are mentioned only in the Song of Songs (Eccl. 8.11). Eccl.2:5. built himself gardens and groves and planted all kinds of fruitful trees in them; The existence of royal gardens in Jerusalem is spoken of in 2 Kings 21:18, 26, 25:4; Jer 39.4, 52.7; Nehemiah 3.15. Eccl.2:6. made himself reservoirs to irrigate groves of trees from them; The royal reservoir is mentioned in Neh 2.14 (cf. Is 22.11). Only the book of Ecclesiastes says that this reservoir was built by Solomon. Jewish tradition also assigns it to Solomon. Currently, on the road from Jerusalem to Hebron, at a distance of 2 1/2 hours, there are the so-called Solomon's Pools. According to Josephus, water from Solomon's ponds was carried to Jerusalem for the needs of the church and the entire city. This testimony deserves complete confidence, since these ponds are higher than the Haram square, on which Solomon's temple stood, by approximately 130 feet, and since the remains of aqueducts connecting Solomon's ponds with Jerusalem are still preserved. Eccl.2:7. I acquired servants and maidservants, and I had household members; I also had more large and small livestock than all those who were in Jerusalem before me; “Household members,” that is, those born of slaves in the master’s house. Eccl.2:8. collected for himself silver and gold and jewelry from kings and regions; He brought in singers and singers and the delights of the sons of men - various musical instruments. Receiving gifts from kings is spoken of in 1 Kings 4.21, 10.15. Regions refer to the 12 districts into which Solomon divided his entire country (1 Kings 4.7 etc.). “The delights of the sons of men are various musical instruments.” The Hebrew word is shiddah and plural. shiddoth is translated differently. LXX, Vulgate, Jerome (in interpretation) and Slavic translation, derived from Chald. scheda, translated “cup-bearers and cup-bearers.” Others, like the Russian translation, deriving the word from an Arabic root, translate: “various musical instruments.” Still others, deriving from sсhadad - to dominate, translate: “mistress and mistresses.” Some, finally, deriving from Arab. sсhadid (completeness) or Heb. sсhadah (to flow), translated: “the fullness and abundance of the pleasures of the sons of men,” i.e., many wives and concubines. The word schidah is found only in Ecclesiastes. Therefore, its value cannot be determined with certainty. However, it seems that preference should be given to the last two understandings, since, in the words of Michaelis, “it is almost incredible that Solomon could forget about women in the story of his sensual pleasures.” As can be seen from 1 Kings 11.3, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Eccl.2:9. And I became great and rich more than all those who were in Jerusalem before me; and my wisdom remained with me. “And my wisdom remained with me.” Ecclesiastes did not forget about the ultimate goal of his experiments - to explore the essence of true happiness and, at the same time, the meaning of human life (v. 3). Eccl.2:10. Whatever my eyes desired, I did not refuse them, I did not forbid my heart any joy, because my heart rejoiced in all my labors, and this was my share from all my labors. The joys and amusements of Ecclesiastes were not the amusements of a lazy and inactive man. They were a rest and a reward for hard work and, apparently, should have given him complete moral satisfaction. Eccl.2:11. And I looked back at all my works that my hands had done, and at the labor that I labored in doing them: and behold, everything is vanity and vexation of spirit, and there is no benefit from them under the sun! The hope of Ecclesiastes did not come true. The joys of work did not satisfy his desire for happiness. He saw that there is no complete happiness (Ithron) on earth. Eccl.2:12. And I turned to look at wisdom and madness and stupidity: for what can a person do after a king beyond what has already been done? The experience of Ecclesiastes gave him full opportunity to make a comparative assessment of wisdom and folly from the point of view of happiness. Gifted with wisdom more than others and having experienced everything that stupidity is content with, he could know better than others the difference between wisdom and stupidity. After him, no one could add anything to his conclusions. This is how the second half of verse 12 should be understood. The words: “for what is the man who will come after the king” (exact translation), many exegetes understand in connection with Eccl. 2:18–19, where Ecclesiastes’ doubt is expressed as to what kind of successor he will be, wise or foolish, and translate this way: “for what kind of man will be who will come after the king, compared with the one who was made (king) long ago.” But, in this case, the second half of the verse would not at all explain the first, that is, it would not be clear why Ecclesiastes considered himself an authority on the issue of wisdom and stupidity. The Russian translation of Art. 12, although not literal, nevertheless correctly conveys the idea of ​​the original. The Slavic translation: “For whoever follows the advice of the council, create great things in him,” like the LXX, does not make sense due to the corruption of the text. Instead of τῆς βουλης one should read τοῦ βασιλέως, instead of “council” - “king”. Eccl.2:13. And I saw that the advantage of wisdom over stupidity is the same as the advantage of light over darkness: Ecclesiastes does not deny the enormous superiority of wisdom over stupidity, like light over darkness. Eccl.2:14. a wise man's eyes are in his head, but a fool walks in darkness; but I learned that one fate befalls them all. But by illuminating everything that remains in darkness for a fool, wisdom cannot change the natural order of things. She is as powerless in front of him as stupidity. The irreducible power of the natural world order over wisdom is especially revealed in the fact that both the wise and the foolish are equally subject to death. Eccl.2:15. And I said in my heart: “And the same fate will befall me as a fool: why have I become very wise?” And I said in my heart that this too is vanity; If death reigns equally over the wise and the foolish, leaving both to live in Sheol, devoid of reflection, knowledge and wisdom (Eccl. 9.10), then the value of wisdom is insignificant. She cannot give a person happiness. Eccl.2:16. because the wise will not be remembered forever, nor will the fool; in the days to come everything will be forgotten, and alas! the wise man dies equally with the foolish man. The wise cannot console himself with so-called historical immortality. Over time, he, like the fool, will be forgotten. Death is equally hard for the wise and for the foolish. (Eccl. 2:17.) And I hated life, because the works that were done under the sun became disgusting to me; for all is vanity and vexation of spirit! The fact of death, which reigns equally over the wise and the foolish, so struck the consciousness and moral sense of Ecclesiastes that life lost its value, its meaning in his eyes, and became for him an object of hatred and disgust. It does not matter whether Ecclesiastes actually experienced such a state or came to this conclusion theoretically, through observation and reflection; There is no doubt that a person who seeks complete happiness within the boundaries of earthly existence, setting ideals for himself within the limits of empirical facts, inevitably comes to complete disappointment and, ultimately, to extreme pessimism. The empirical, sensual worldview is not able to accommodate the eternal ideals of humanity and, therefore, gives rise to a feeling of insignificance, the purposelessness of existence. All these ideals are inexorably destroyed by the mere fact of death. Eccl.2:18. And I hated all my labor with which I worked under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me. Eccl.2:19. And who knows: will he be wise or foolish? And he will dispose of all my labor, with which I labored and with which I showed myself wise under the sun. And this is vanity! To some extent, a person could be reconciled with the thought of death by the certainty that what he has created will not die, but will serve as the foundation on which subsequent generations will build a solid edifice of human happiness. But a person does not have this confidence either, since he does not know what his heir and successor will be like, whether he will continue or destroy his work. Eccl.2:20. And I turned to inspire my heart to renounce all the labor that I have labored under the sun, This circumstance takes away all value and all meaning from work. Ecclesiastes renounces work and any hope of finding satisfaction in it. Eccl.2:21. because another person works wisely, with knowledge and success, and must give everything to the person who did not work, as if a part of him. And this is vanity and great evil! The mere fact that the fruit of the labors of one is enjoyed by another, who did not take any part in them, is a blatant injustice, the greatest evil. ( Eccl. 2:22 .) For what will a man gain from all his labor and the care of his heart, because he toils under the sun? ( Eccl. 2:23 .) For all his days are sorrows, and his labors are trouble; even at night his heart does not know peace. And this is vanity! For the worker himself, labor does not provide anything truly valuable. His constant companions are sorrow and anxiety. Eccl.2:24. It is not in man’s power to eat and drink and to delight his soul from his labor. I saw that this too was from the hand of God; Eccl.2:25. for who can eat and who can enjoy without Him? Eccl.2:26. For to the man who is good before Him, He gives wisdom and knowledge and joy; and gives the sinner the trouble of collecting and hoarding, so that later he can give it to the good before the face of God. And this is vanity and languor of spirit! The result of labor is so insignificant that it cannot completely provide a person with even the most basic benefits. Ecclesiastes was convinced from life experience that even such blessings as eating and drinking depend on Divine Providence, which takes them away from the foolish and gives them to the wise. This order of things, which introduces a new beginning between human activity and its result, makes human happiness on earth even more fragile, unstable, increasing the vanity of earthly goods. “It is not in man’s power to eat and drink.” The Russian translation of this place is not accurate. The literal translation of the Hebrew text should be: “there is no happiness (tob) for a man to eat or drink.” LXX gave this meaning to this place: “there is no happiness for the man who eats and drinks.” However, such a meaning would be in conflict with many places in the book of Ecclesiastes, especially Eccl 3.1, 22, 8.15, where the idea is directly expressed that there is nothing better (tob) than to eat and drink. The Vulgate translates it in the form of a question: “Isn’t it better for a person to eat and drink.” But the word tob does not appear in this combination in the book. Most likely, this place, by analogy with parallel places (Eccl 3.1, 22, 8.15), should be understood as follows: “there is nothing better (or happiness) than to eat and drink” (i.e. add the particle מ). This is how some Greek codes, Syriac translation, Targum, Jerome read it in their interpretation (nisi). "Who Can Enjoy Without Him". According to the current Hebrew text, instead of “without Him,” it should be translated: “without me” (mimeni), that is, more than me, like me. This is how the Vulgate, Luther, and some exegetes translate it. But, firstly, the expression “without me” cannot yet be understood in the sense: “like me,” and secondly, the thought expressed in this way would stand outside of any connection with the preceding and subsequent verses, which speak of the dependence of material goods on God. Instead of the current mimeni, one should read mimenu, as the LXX, Syriac and other translators read. You might be interested in: