An Exegetical Practice Session
What advantage does man have in all his work which he does under the sun? Ecclesiastes 1:3 NASB
What – Want to try a little exercise? Let’s see what it takes to exegetically analyze this single verse. We’ll take it a step at a time. We’ll attempt to build a model that can be used again and again as we approach Scripture. Ready?
Of course, we have to start with the original text. מַה-יִּתְרוֹן, לָאָדָם: בְּכָל-עֲמָלוֹ–שֶׁיַּעֲמֹל, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ. Oh, sorry, this copy and paste put the text in LEFT to RIGHT order, which is backwards, of course. As you can also see, it added punctuation (not just pointing). We will have to ignore these problems. Let’s start with the first word, יִּתְרוֹן – מַה. [Please remember that no matter what I do here, the words are automatically transposed in LEFT TO RIGHT order, so as you see this text, it is actually backwards. Sorry.] Actually, the first word is not the construction יִּתְרוֹן – מַה, but rather the interrogative ma. TWOT notes:
This frequently-occurring interrogative pronoun is most significant when associated with the word “name.” “What is your name?” is not a question which inquires after a person’s family or personal name; it endeavors to find what character or quality lies within or behind the person. To ask for simple identification, one would say in Hebrew, “Who (mî) are you?” [1]
Applied to our text, we recognize that Koheleth is not simply decrying the futility of toil. The use of ma suggests that he views futility as the character or quality that underlies what it means to be human in this world. The real issue of life is advantage, better translated as “profit,” that is, the results of living. “Why am I here? What is my purpose? Why do I matter? What’s it all about?”
This interrogative is in construction with the noun יִּתְרוֹן (yitron). “The wisdom school, especially Eccl, often employs this root in search of the real advantage or the true excellence in life. Prov emphasizes that abundance can be gained by toil and diligent effort (Prov 14:23; 21:5). But abundance must not become the goal of life, for after necessities have been met that which is left then becomes the inheritance of one’s family (Ps 17:14).”[2]
But Eccl probes deeper by continually asking what profit does one gain from his toil (Eccl 1:3; 3:9). The answer is nothing, especially if it is to accumulate goods which cannot be taken at death (Eccl 2:11; 5:15). Eccl here feels the full force of the curse on man’s work which makes it toil and he clearly sees that ultimate value can not reside in man’s labor or its results.[3]
Hartley’s conclusion reaches ahead to the end of the book, but at the moment this opening word doesn’t provide anything more than a rigorous analysis of observable reality. “What is the real result of all my effort?” Strip away the Pollyanna gloss and look at the facts. Life comes and goes. The end is the grave. There is no guarantee of anything else. Advantage? Profit? What’s really left behind? What is the real meaning of my existence? As the Greeks asked, “In a thousand years, who will even know that we were here?” If you haven’t asked these questions, you are in drift-mode, pretending that something matters but you don’t even know what it is. “Abandon hope all ye who enter here,” might be the warning about life rather than Dante’s inscription over the gates of Hell. Socrates pressed the same issue. “The unexamined life is not worth living.”[4]
We should notice the grammar. יִּתְרוֹן – מַה is an interrogative pronoun coupled with a singular, absolute noun. There is no verb here. The “does” in our translation is implied (and added) in order to produce an English sentence, but the Hebrew does not require it. Literally the Hebrew phrase reads, “What gain to the man [la-‘adam].” This is a universal question applicable to all men. It is as if we were walking the road of life and suddenly overcome with the futility of it all, throwing up your hands to heaven and shouting, “What gain?”
Now let’s pay more attention to yitron. We remember that the root yatar (remain over, leave, leave in excess, preserve, escape) is found in a critical story in the Torah. “Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak” (Genesis 32:24). Yatar suggests that Jacob was more than by himself. He was “left over,” that is, he had come to the place where the full meaning of his life to this point was being questioned. He confronted the thought, “What does it all mean?” when the man attacked him in the night. Koheleth pushes us to the edge of the Jabbok where all men must face the meaning of what they have accumulated in order to form an identity, all that they have made of themselves. And now the remainder, the “profit” of life stares them in the face and asks, “What was it all for?”
Next we could connect the occurrences of yatar and ma-yitron in the rest of the Tanakh in order to see the broader development of the idea. There are numerous verses to investigate. Then we would look into the cultural settings and the historical period of each of these occurrences, trying to connect the dots while formulating an Hebraic background to the expression. But by this time you see where we are going. Proceed.
Topical Index: exegesis, ma, yitron, yatar, Ecclesiastes 1:3, Genesis 32:24
[1] Kaiser, W. C. (1999). 1149 מָה. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
[2] Hartley, J. E. (1999). 936 יָתַר. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
[3] Ibid.
[4] but see Simon Longstaff, http://www.newphilosopher.com/articles/being-fully-human/
Oh, thank you, Skip! This is what you do best for me, that I do not know how to do for myself. Time for school!
If we go back to the Garden, we are told that our designated purpose was to steward all of creation. This is, by necessity, more than gardening because it requires us to be in connection with creation first. While gardening, as we know it today, helps to restore us to our original function (which is why I have so much fun doing it, I think), I still cannot enable or direct what I am fractured from to the extent that I am fractured from it. The Second Adam came to restore that essential fracture: no, He had to have done it as soon as that fracture occurred or else sin could not have had an existence (chance to re-choose) at all.
I have been meditating a lot on the statement “He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.” Someone had to have interposed a physical bridge in creation over the gap in it, for creation was only designed to run in connection with all else. Separated, it ceases to exist at all. That bruised Body has to be taking a real beating in all the places where I have not been restored to “peace” (connection) with all I am fractured from, because I still cannot exist without that connection, even if I THINK (choose) that I don’t need it. Salvation OF NECESSITY requires the repair of the entire cosmos, Paul is right, for it all had to have taken a hit when the designated stewards took a sin hike. I can’t help but think that it would have winked out a long time ago if there had not have been a temporary patch put over that crack until a real Steward got reinstated, albeit with a new capacity to handle that new cosmic reality; namely, death. Perhaps that mysterious Lamb slain before the foundations of the world had a whole lot to do with building in the capacity, from the get-go, for creation to continue to exist even if it fractured. Somebody has to be bridging the gap that sin makes. By grace, of course. Grace is taking a real pounding for me! Halleluah!
The ground (nature) was cursed when we fractured ourselves from it. That curse represented our essential fracture from our real design, which was that stewardship. Eking out a biological existence by means of toil with the soil is a far cry from the electrifying position of handling the reins of all the life on the planet. No wonder we are suffering! (Well, to be fair, the planet is, too, Witness its groaning today. I repent over and over for not being in a position to be doing for my home planet what it is crying for me to be doing.) Frustration all around. Solomon, we are told, discovered many of nature’s secrets, but it seems to me that he also had to have vividly realized how far we are from our true relationship with it. To the extent we know is the extent that we experience that frustration of our true purpose.
Here’s a shout out to all gardeners! Hip, hip hurray!
“My green thumb came [or ‘comes’] as a result of the mistakes I made [make] while learning to see things from the plant’s point of view.” -H. Fred Ale
Thanks, Laurita, for quickening this quote to me and adding its deeper meaning as we study. We planted a vineyard at our last house – over 200 vines – and tended them, and enjoyed their fruit, many years. That and an ever-improving vegetable garden brought so much depth to our understanding…
Thank you, Skip! Mah-yitron, מַה-יִּתְרוֹן, indeed!
…..and let’s not forget the hard working free range chickens who give us unto their toil.
Yes Sir, we want to make it so cut and dry, but it’s just not that simple. Add bias in there and it would seem overwhelming, but God……..as an aside, I find that living the truth we are given results in clarity and an awful lot of the frustrations dissolve, but frustration and difficulty are 2 different terms. 🙂
Just a note: The original Hebrew verse, as you posted it, displays properly on my computer. It may be because I have Hebrew fonts, etc., loaded for my studies. I confirmed with my BHS. The subsequest “Mah-yitron”s in Hebrew are flipped. This may be true for other readers as well.
Cool beans!!!!! Thank you Skip this is delightfully helpful.
I’m left with an increasing understanding and appreciation of the many challenges the Biblical translators have had to deal with over the years. I suspect that many of the mistakes and “mistranslations” were accidental rather than intentional.
I offer some food for thought to chew on. An NT and LXX Greek prof (who also knows Hebrew, German, Latin, Spanish) I’ve communicated with in the past wrote this today on his blog in advance of teaching an LXX course this semester:
What about sentences, such as the one in this post, which lack a verb altogether (Greek does the same, at times, as does English)? Does this mean this sentence lacks action, dynamicity? The shortest sentence in the Greek NT, John 11:35, is verb-subject (and many are formatted this way in the NT); however, technically, it doesn’t even need the subject, as person and number are encoded in Greek finite verbs (participles add gender as well), so the subject is implied by the context. It reads: edakrysen ho Iēsous = He [she/it] wept, [(the)] Jesus = Jesus wept.
I’ve never been persuaded of the strong dichotomy between “Hebrew thought” and “Greek thought”, especially because of the language and grammar differences. Cultural differences? Sure. But, that’s no different than any culture as compared to another.
Generally, I’ll state that most Christians have lost a part of the Hebrew heritage of Christianity. On this issue, this site here is absolutely correct; and, I have learned a few things for sure. However, in my opinion, there’s an over-correction and over-emphasis over against Christianity. And, that’s not to say that American “Christianity” by and large isn’t self-focused and way off track. It most certainly is.
My 1.5 centavos.
Good day Craig
Thank you for the afterthought.
This just emphasizes the reality that to appreciate God we need to accept ourselves as a unique creation. In doing this we need to find our reason or purpose for the universe and not what the God can do for me.
This may be the greatest struggle we have as humans, our lives revolve around our survival and our goals in life. Consider prayers and request, our concerns and needs. We pray for health, work, rain, a good harvest etc. Why this seems the right thing as it acknowledges both God and myself…
Let us revisit the Lord’s Prayer and the discussion that preceded it. Now ask are we truly walking humbly with our lord or are we walking selfish with the Lord.
Do not answer as everyone’s own faith will have a different response.
Which is a Greek view and which a Hebrew concept.
Know think he who has Jesus commandments has God and Jesus dwelling in them. Not he who has apostolic insight or Jewish way of living…
Now what did Jesus teach and what did those hearing the teachings record…
I am chewing one piece at a time, or rather one word or teaching. The problem we rush through numerous teachings without first understanding the concept laws versus way of living… Repetition versus act of compassion. Which is truly inspired by God for the now versus finding the how…
Confusing for me as well. The chewing is like a gum with endless taste varieties just when we get used to one flavour we taste a different one.
The secret there is but one Spirit but many Prophets test them against the teachings of Christ in flesh _ our own flesh not the individual who dwelled the earth 2000 years ago, for that was his exact instruction, do as I do. Take your cross up today and follow My example…
Your professor’s opinion is shared by other Christian theologians (cf. J. Barr) in criticism of Boman. His view that the difference between Greek and Hebrew has been overplayed may be correct, but see Whorf, et. al. on the connection between language and paradigm. Certainly God uses both languages, but that does not mean the authors didn’t have different views of the world. I would never argue that Greek is inherently “bad.” My argument is that the authors were saturated with Hebrew thought and therefore we need to do our best to understand their point of view from that perspective. Especially since Yeshua did not teach in Greek. In the end, this and other theological arguments boil down to PARADIGM considerations. You see it one way. I see it another. The “evidence” can be read by either view. So the “evidence” isn’t the issue. The issue is the paradigm. That is what we are trying to recover, the paradigm of the author who wrote at least 2000 years ago. Christianity, a religion that developed from the historical influences of the first century, does not share the paradigm of the authors who wrote the Tanakh or, in some cases, the authors who wrote in the first century. The Christian paradigm developed in an anti-Jewish environment and adopted anti-Jewish practices and explanations, as a considerable number of recognized scholars admit. If we are going to understand the perspective of the AUTHORS, we will need to filter out this later development. If, on the other hand, we simply wish to be Christian regardless of the authors original perspective, then there is no need to worry about what they actually thought. We can simply adopt what the Church teaches and we done with the effort.
Skip,
With all due respect, you cannot prove that Jesus did not teach in Greek! And your continued assertion in this vein does not make it so. No one knows for sure just which language Jesus spoke (Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek? all three?). There’s historical and Scriptural evidence He may well have spoken in Greek, as brought forth by Stanley Porter (“Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?” in Studies in the New Testament [New York: Peter Lang, 1996], pp 139-171) – who cites Hengel in this work toward his cause. For example the word-play in Matthew 16:18 is claimed to work only in Aramaic (or Hebrew?); yet Porter notes:
No matter which language Jesus actually spoke in, the NT came to us in Koine Greek. There are many Semitisms, but, again, these are translated to the Greek, by primarily Jewish authors, though superintended by the Holy Spirit – assuming we treat the NT as inspired.
Moreover, the very fact that there are some words and phrases in the NT transliterated from the Aramaic and Hebrew (less so) – which are most always explained in the Greek (see especially Messias in John 1:41; 4:25) – would point to Greek as the language Jesus typically conversed in. Quoting Porter again in a footnote:
Craig, I appreciate your tenacity to your beliefs, but at this point I believe you are being obstinate for the sake the battle. This latest post illustrates the issue Skip brought up in his previous response. That issue is simply this: the two of you are coming from two completely different paradigms. To continue to bring up “evidence” to validate your conclusions is completely pointless, at this point, because it is not the evidence that is in question, nor is it even the interpretation of the evidence that is the point of contention. The point of disagreement is the worldview that drives the interpretation of the evidence. Unless you are willing to discourse from the perspective of paradigms (which would mean you have to recognize and declare your worldview) then any further argument further proves your unwillingness to actually dialogue. Instead, it would indicate your sole purpose is to prove Skip wrong, thereby justifying your beliefs and giving validity to this “crusade” of yours. You have a lot to bring to the table and we can all learn from the discussions on this site. But if you show that you are not here to learn, and instead are here to “win” arguments…then I will simply stop “listening” to your voice. (I can’t speak for all of us, but I’m sure that is not a sentiment shared solely by me.)
Keith,
Everyone – and here I mean you – is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, of course. If you’ll read the closing remarks to my post @ December 29, 2016 12:05 am, you’ll see that I concede that Christianity has lost some of its ‘Jewishness’, and that I’d learned some things from this site. That said, I don’t think this is all a “paradigm” issue. Of course, none of us can escape all bias; however, to state that “Yeshua did not teach in Greek” is an argument that simply cannot be sustained, as no one can state this, its converse, or any other shade in between, with any definitude. Skip quotes from Hengel quite a bit to make points about history, yet Porter above, citing Hengel, illustrates the likelihood that Jesus knew Greek precisely because He lived in Galilee: “Regarding the influence of Greek in lower Galilee, evidence is increasing that it was the Palestinian area most heavily influenced by Greek language and culture” (pp 148-49). Moreover, Porter argues, Yeshua’s trade as a carpenter likely necessitated conversing in Greek (pp 150-51). And, why, we must ask, is the Pseudepigrapha, Jewish-themed apocalyptic texts, some written ca. second century BC, in Greek?
Furthermore, the consistent refrain that the Trinity doctrine is imposed upon the Bible through paradigm – presumably by those who just don’t know the historical background well enough – does not necessarily hold. That that position is merely opinion is supported by Hengel’s own belief in the Trinity. In other words, is it possible that one can actually interpret the NT (and OT) as Trinitarian without preemptively imposing that doctrine upon the text, as presumably Hengel, of the theologically liberal Tubingen school, does?
Another position espoused here, that Hebrew is a more actional, dynamic language than Greek, is too dichotomized, as I see it. As I wrote in my earlier comment on this thread, does the fact that this sentence used here in this very post, which lacks a verb, negate the view that Hebrew is actional, dynamic? Does the fact that many Greek sentences conform to verb-subject mediate that stance?
While it is probably impossible to escape all bias, to make the statement that any position – or at least one’s with respect to the Trinity, e.g. – is going to be colored by one’s worldview/paradigm is to declare all scholarship worthless. The argument becomes circular: the conclusion reached by said writer must have been reached because the author’s worldview was imposed upon the text preemptively. I’m a skeptic; but, I’m not that cynical.
You kinda missed my point. So, I’ll try again. The whole point of my response was to attempt to point out your seeming unwillingness to discuss your worldview and how it affects your interpretation of evidence. I’ve been a trinitarian for the overwhelmingly vast majority of my life, but none of my experiences with YHWH or Yeshua back that theology. It wasn’t until I was willing to admit that my worldview could be wrong that I began to discover interpretations that backed my experiences. (And I’m not talking about experiences with people, jobs, money, or things of that nature.)
So, in an attempt to be succinct, we understand you are a trinitarian supporter and believer. You also know Skip, and many on this blog, are not. We don’t have to agree on everything, but the powerful thing about the Internet is this: I don’t have to read, or respond, to something I disagree over. I can ask for clarification, make up my own mind about what I believe, and go about my day worshipping YHWH.
This is not an attempt to stop dialogue, or to bury my head in the sand. Many on this site welcome disagreement, and I am one of them, but talking past one another is a waste of time. If you are arguing evidence and interpretation when someone else is arguing paradigm (and vice versa), then nothing will be accomplished and the whole discussion becomes unfruitful.
Perhaps we’re missing each other’s points. I do look at different points of view in order to see if mine is colored in some way. Being a Christian only 17 years and beginning when I was nearly 40 years of age, I was initially quite taken aback by the thought that ‘Jesus is God’ – didn’t make any sense to me at all. I KNEW that God is one – and He is. Having searched it out, I accepted that Jesus is indeed God. But this led me on a continuous quest to challenge all my views, which is why I’ve been self-studying Koine Greek. I want to know, to the best of my abilities, what the text itself says in order to exegete it on my own, so that I don’t have to rely on an English translation.
That said, paradigm can color evidence/interpretation. But it doesn’t have to.
There shouldn’t be this dichotomy between “monotheism” and “Trinitarianism”, as if the two are polar opposites. They’re not. Trinitarianism is a form of monotheism; the terms are not mutually exclusive. Therein, from my perspective, is the problem here. It becomes an us vs. them thing, based on a straw man. If one views Trinitarianism as tritheistic (three gods), then, of course, it’s wholly at odds with monotheism. However, if Trinitarianism is seen from the perspective that its adherents view it as an outgrowth from monotheism via progressive revelation, the revelation from Scripture itself in the NT – as opposed to the stance that Trinitarians have anachronistically imposed the Trinity upon the text – then we have the basis for discussion. And that’s what I’ve been trying to accomplish.
To resurrect an imperfect analogy I’ve use here before: for millennia it was presumed and asserted that the earth was flat. Then it was discovered to be spherical. Were those who viewed the earth as flat wrong? Yes; however, they went by their interpretation of the empirical evidence, reaching a logical conclusion. Applying this to the doctrine of the Trinity, could it be that the Trinity was true all along, but that “God is one” was initially wrongly interpreted?
I do see where you are coming from, and that is actually closer to the line of thought I had about the trinity doctrine. But it is too close to Unitarianism for me to be comfortable with it. Plus, as I said, my experience doesn’t back that up. YHWH and Yeshua are not the same being. They don’t look the same, sound the same, or feel the same when they are revealed. But that is a bit difficult to explain with words.
To continue with your analogy, the only ones who truly thought the earth was flat (not talking about modern flat-earthers) where those who never experienced the ocean and lived there lives safely landlocked; attempting to describe something they heard about, but never encountered. No sailor ever believed the earth was flat. Also, no real sailor ever thought it was safer to sail along the shore. They all knew the deep was the safest place to sail.
I have a question for both of you.
Which one is a citizen of the Kingdom?
Trinitarian or non-trinitarian?
Doesn’t that depend on who you ask? I don’t think we were arguing about a “salvation” issue and if it seems that way, I do apologize. But, in answer to your question, I’m not sure trinitarianism or nontrinitarianism has anything to do with entrance into YHWH’s kingdom. Instead, it is the object of your worship and devotion that determines your residency. If you follow the teachings of Yeshua and make the Father, YHWH, the object of your worship and devotion, then it doesn’t really matter if you subscribe to the trinity doctrine or not. But that is my personal opinion. Chang disagrees with me and I’m sure there are those on this site who would disagree with me as well. And my opinion on this matter is not set in stone, so it may change.
I have two primary concerns about this topic. 1) In practice, the church overwhelmingly worships Yeshua; going so far as to ignore YHWH in their liturgy, song, and prayers. That, to be honest, terrifies me. 2) On both sides disagreement tends to lead to separation. I can disagree with someone, even on this topic, and still maintain relationship with them. If I believe I am right, how selfish is it to keep the truth from a friend solely because they disagree with me?
But ultimately this conversation is about experience and world view. So if this discussion is to continue (among the body), we have to be able to speak from that level of discourse.
Keith, Same for me re
“I have two primary concerns about this topic. 1) In practice, the church overwhelmingly worships Yeshua; going so far as to ignore YHWH in their liturgy, song, and prayers. That, to be honest, terrifies me.” Absolutely! Wouldn’t that be idolatry! hmmmmm.
Yes, to speak from experience/s and paradigm.
Shalom!
If i may, Pam, isn’t this question the same as the ‘which woman will go to heaven, the one that believes and adheres to the submission doctrine, or the one that doesn’t”
I promise you, there are MANY people who have paved my path to hell on this one.
The one who experiences the presence of the Father.
Wow Craig, you are old!! Older then then me!
Finally. someone older then me.
Nicely stated. ??
Well, these didn’t hold their place the way i thought they would, sorry.