Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>]

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

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

 

_______________________________________________

b-hebrew mailing list

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew