HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb. 28, 2005 The English word 'vanity' has several meanings. The two most important meanings are 'futility' and 'conceit'. Futility and conceit are two entirely different things, however. If we say that the President's ambitions of pacifying the Middle East are futile, we are saying that they are doomed to failure, and are making no commentary on the President's attitude. If we say that the President's ambitions of pacifying the Middle East are conceited, we are calling him an egotist, but are not offering any forecast of the outcome of his ambitions. Here are the two definitions of ´vanity' given by the Oxford English Dictionary, the supreme authority on the English language: 2. a. The quality of being vain or worthless; the futility or worthlessness of something. 3. a. The quality of being personally vain; high opinion of oneself; self-conceit and desire for admiration. It is this ambiguity that has caused many people to misunderstand the Book of Ecclesiastes. In the passage, "Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity," Ecclesiastes was not denouncing human conceit; he was merely lamenting the futility of the human condition. You don't have to take my word for it though. Here is a quotation from Dr. Christopher P. Benton, a Biblical scholar and Hebraist: "Ecclesiastes is simultaneously one of the most popular and one of the most misunderstood books of the Bible. Too often one hears its key verse, 'Vanity of vanities, all is vanity,' interpreted as simply an injunction against being a vain person. The common English translation of this verse (Ecclesiastes 1:2) comes directly from the Latin Vulgate, 'Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas.' However, the original Hebrew, 'Havel, havelim, hachol havel,' may be better translated as 'Futility of futilities, all is futile.' Consequently, Ecclesiastes 1:2 is more a broad statement about the meaninglessness of life and actions that are in vain rather than personal vanity." Incidentally, the traditional view that the Book of Ecclesiastes was written by King Solomon is rejected by the Jewish Encyclopedia on linguistic grounds. They place the time of its authorship somewhere between the Exile and 250 BC, much later than the supposed time of Solomon, who reigned about 1000 BC. I can agree with this, as I recall that upon reading Ecclesiastes in Hebrew, I immediately noticed that the word 'asher' (which/that) was reduced to a prefix 'she-', and that 'min asher' (after) was reduced to another prefix 'mishe-'. These innovations cannot be found in the Torah, as far as I know. It doesn't make any difference who wrote it though, as far as I'm concerned. It's better than most books of the Bible, in being much more down-to-earth and sensible, but still it's just the musings and speculations of one or more ordinary human beings. ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
