The ambiguity in almost all the pronouns and in the subjects of the verbs causes considerable interpretive difficulties. There are syntactical ambiguities as well, especially in vv. 1516. Also uncertain is how many youths enter into the events: one (the old king's immediate successor, "youth1"); two (the wise youth, "youth1", and his successor, "youth2"); or three (these two and a third, "youth3", called yn#h dlyh). I will argue for the third alternative, which, I believe, has not been proposed elsewhere, including in my earlier study.[4]
4:14. The subject of "came forth" is youth1, not the old king, for there would be no point in describing the king's past. This verse motivates the previous one by stating that the wisdom of youth1 enabled him to attain the throne from a position of great lowliness and incapacity.
"A poor man was born [#r dlwn]": Most commentators assume that #r is adverbial to dlwn and describes the situation into which youth1 was born ("was born poor"). This, however, makes no sense of Mg yk, whether it is construed as concessive ("although") or causal ("for also"). Nothing is added by saying that the poor youth who came out of prison was "born poor," and wtwklmb, whether meaning "in his kingdom" or "in his reign," adds nothing to the fact that youth1 was "born poor." (Of course he was born poor in the old king's kingdom. Otherwise his foreignness would be a factor. And it is impossible that he was born other than in the old king's reign, since he was younger.
I suggest that #r is a noun meaning "a poor man," referring to a new character, youth2. The adverb Mg indicates that the sentence comments on another reign ("in his reign too") in addition to the old king's, namely, the reign of youth1. So far there is a series of an old king, succeeded by a former prisoner (youth1), who is succeeded by another formerly poor man (youth2). (In fact, "in his reign too" implies that youth1 also was born poor.)
D. Rudman has offered a fresh proposal to the old crux.[5] He vocalizes Klem@ela "to the king" instead of MT's Klom;li "to rule" and translates v. 14 as "For out of prison he shall come [)cfy] to the king, even though born poor in his kingdom" (p. 57). Rudman interprets this to mean that this youth became the king's counselor, his companion or lieutenant (yn#), who then used his wisdom for the benefit of society. yn#h dlyh in v. 15 would thus be the same person as the youth of 13f. He enjoys the king's patronage but eventually falls from public favor.
Rudman's interpretation is an overreading of the story. For one thing, )cy indicates motion from the standpoint of the place of origin, not the goal. (That would be )b.) The phrase "go out to the king" says nothing about what happened when the youth arrived at the court. It does not in itself convey the idea that the youth became the king's protegé, and nothing else in the passage reinforces this notion.
4:15. yn#h dlyh, lit. "the second youth," is neither youth1 nor youth2, but their successor, youth3. The phrase does not mean "the lad, who was second," namely, the old king's successor (thus Gordis); yn# alone never has this sense. Nor is youth2 "second" in rank, the deputy, a "Stellvertreter" to the king (thus Hertzberg), since if he arose from prison merely to that end, the old king's folly would be irrelevant. On the contrary, choosing a wise viceroy would demonstrate wisdom on the king's part. yn# here means "next" (cf. Ex 2:13; Judg 20:24f.; thus Ellermeier p. 232, who, however, thinks of only two youths). This young man is "second" to the previously mentioned one (youth2) but third in the sequence.
"The next youth" (youth3) is not a specific person and does not yet exist from Qohelet's standpoint. He is whoever comes next in line. The switch to yiqtol in dm(y in v. 15 also indicates the introduction of another person in the story, since it implies that the arising "in his place" occurs after the events of v. 14. (Qohelet never uses yiqtol for simple past tense.[6]) The change in tense also suggests that Qohelet's temporal perspective is contemporaneous with the reign of youth2. From that perspective, the ascendancy of the next young man is yet to come.
The essence of this sentence is not "I saw X going with Y," but rather "I saw X with Y" (thus MT, which places the strong disjunctive at #m#h). The words #m#h txt Myklhmh are a relative clause modifying Myyxh (Ellermeier, 231f.). It is equivalent to #m#h y)wr (7:11). The prepositional phrase "with ..." is an adjunct to the main clause, not to the relative clause. In other words, the focus of Qohelet's seeing is not "the living" but rather the fact of their being with the next youth. Being "with" (M() someone indicates alliance and support (e.g., Gen 28:20; 26:3; 1 Kgs 8:57; cf. 2 Kgs 6:16; 9:32 [using the synonym t)]). The phrase "under the sun" emphasizes the universality of the phenomenon: everyone's loyalties attach themselves to whatever ruler comes along and are thus very erratic. The phrase also underscores the contrast between these people, who are alive (at the time to which the statement applies), and the previous rulers (youths1 and 2), who will by then be dead.
Qohelet "sees"-that is, foresees-that all the living would be on the side of whoever comes to power next. Though Qohelet is looking to the future, he calls the supplanter (youth3) a dly "youngster," to imply that the people's loyalty is so unreliable that they will flock after anyone, even a mere stripling.
4:16. The phrase Mhynpl hyh r#) lkl does not mean "to all who existed before them," for it is irrelevant how many people lived before the events of this anecdote. Rather it means, literally, "all those before whom he [youth3] was"; in other words, all those whose leader he was (thus the Targum, Ginsburg, Delitzsch, and Podechard). This clause refers to the same group as "all the living" (v. 15a). The subject of hyh is youth3.
"Would not take pleasure in him" (wb wxm#y )l): that is, in youth3. The phrase -b xm# is used of a king pleasing his subjects and being accepted by them (Judg 9:19). This sentence says that even youth3, though leader of limitless masses, would not be popular with later people, for everyone is soon forgotten. Hence, youth3 represents everyone who will come in the endless series of power-holders.
(13) A poor youth [y1] who is shrewd is better off even than an old king, if the latter is puerile and no longer has the sense to take precautions. (14) For it happened that one such youth [y1] went forth from prison to rule. Yet in his reign too a poor man [y2] was born.
(15) I saw that all the living who go about on earth would join the following of whichever young man would take over next [y3]. (16) All the people-all whom such a young man [y3] would lead, would be beyond number. But, by the same token, subsequent generations wouldn't care a whit about him [y3]. This situation is absurd and senseless.
Another anecdote, 9:13-15, makes much the
same point as 4:13-16. The protagonist in the former is a "poor
wise man" (Mkx Nksm #y));
in the present passage he is a "poor but wise youth"
(Mkxw Nksm
dly). In both, the poor man is smarter
than the king. In both cases the protagonist's wisdom "works" (for
wisdom is effective), but neither protagonist reaps the full rewards of
his wisdom and both are forgotten, and "no one remembered that
poor man" (9:15). The failure that Qohelet points to here (and throughout
the book) is not so much wisdom's efficacy (which is significant though
limited) but the way it is treated: people do not give it the attention
it deserves, and "in the days to come, both [wise and fool] are
soon forgotten!" (2:16a).
Another verse expressing a related thought
is 6:8, "What advantage has the wise man over the fool?[7]
What good is it for the poor man to know how to get along with the living?
dgn Klhl (in 6:8) is equivalent to
dgn Kl in Prov
14:7, where it means "go about with." dgn
in turn is nearly synonymous with ynpl,
so we can compare the phrase ynpl Klhth/Klh,
"go before," usually used of human loyalty to God. It is also used of a
leader visa vis the people (1 Sam 12:2 and Qoh 4:16), and of
a priest visa vis the king (1 Sam 2:35). Since these comparisons
show that dgn Klhl
is something one does with other people, Myyxh
in 6:8 probably means "the living" rather than "life." In 6:8, then, as
in the passage before us, Qohelet casts doubt on the value to a poor man
of a special form of wisdom: knowing how to lead, or just to get along
with, people. This is the wisdom possessed by the youths in 4:13-16.
In the anecdote, the old king's loss of power was the expected and appropriate result of folly. The subsequent transfers of power, however, have no such rationale. As Qohelet will remind us, "favor does not belong to the knowledgeable" (9:11). The first transfer of power demonstrates the power of wisdom, the second its frailty. It is the instability of accomplishment, rather than the loss of power as such, that Qohelet finds so disturbing.
Commentaries referenced ad loc.:
(3) Most: "the second youth." Back to Text
(4) M. V. Fox, Qohelet and his Contradictions (JSOTSup 71; Sheffield, 1987) 205-209. Back to Text
(5) Dominic Rudman, "A contextual reading of Ecclesiastes 4:13-16," JBL 116 (1996) 57-73. Back to Text
(6) B. Isaksson (Studies in the Language of Qohelet [Studia Semitica Upsaliensia, 10]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987: 130-33) ascribes the following functions to the yiqtol in Qohelet: generalized cursive aspect (expressing a universal truth or ongoing event or action), actuality or facticity, the gnomic present, future (or future-in-past), and modal nuances. Back to Text
(7) The construction mah l-X + indefinite participle is a Mishnaic-type locution meaning "why should X do Y?," a rhetorical question expressing surprise and usually disapproval; cf. Jon 1:6; m. Ker. 5:2; m. Middot 2:2; and Mekilta VII, 135ff. Back to Text