First we should note that even though the words
עולם עלם עלמה עלומים תעלומה
OLAM, ELEM, ALMAH, ALUMIYM, TA-ALUM-AH
share the root עלם ( related to the root אלם from which the
אלומה ALUMAH, 'pile, heap, sheaf' of Gen. 37:7) they have nothing
in common with 'hidden'. A Hebrew root can not have the meaning of
'hidden'. What will happen in the upcoming eternity is not a greater
mystery then where are my socks now.
As I vaguely recall we had Eccl. 3:11
את הכל עשה יפה בעתו גם את העלם נתן בלבם
מבלי אשר לא ימצא האדם את המעשה אשר עשה
האלהים מראש ועד-סוף
on the agenda here some time ago, and this is what was said then:
1. The world is created a perfect system.
2. God gave man the ability to understand (NATAN BE-LIB-AM) the laws
of nature and discover the divine undertaking (HA-OLAM).
3. The deed of God (HA-MA-ASEH) is so complex that man will never end
his quest of fathoming it.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:44 AM, Jerry Shepherd wrote:
Hi Colleagues,
In Michael Fox's commentary on Ecclesiastes, A Time to Tear Down
and a Time to Build Up, Fox argued that the word 'olam (world,
eternity) in Eccl 3:11 is a metathesized corruption of an original
'amal (toil). Fox gives a number of supporting arguments for his
contention (which is actually a revival of an earlier suggestion).
I won't list them all here, but one of his major points is that the
idea that God has put toil in men's hearts corresponds with one of
Qohelet's main points, that God has put a heavy burden ('inyan) on
men (1:13; 3:10), i.e., the burden of trying to figure out what
life means in light life's absurdity. He also does a very
intriguing comparison between the flow of thought in 3:9-11 and
8:17, concludes that both passages are saying basically the same
thing, and argues that the verb 'amal in 8:17 corresponds to his
suggested noun 'amal in 3:11. When I wrote my commentary on
Ecclesiates a few years ago, I noted Fox's theory, remarked on how
attractive it was, but opted for the traditional 'olam rather than
Fox's suggested 'amal, in light of the lack of any corroboration
from any other Hebrew manuscripts or versional evidence. I was
about 51-49 at that time in favor of the traditional "eternity."
However, several years later now, though I am usually very
reluctant to give much consideration to textual emendations, I find
myself closer to about 60-40 in favor of Fox's suggestion. I know
George is writing a commentary on Ecclesiates; perhaps he'll weigh
in on this. What do the rest of you think?
Blessings,
Jerry
Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
