F9H PAVIMENTS DE MESCLA BITUMINOSA

The three attestations of the primitive noun רוֹא in the book of Ecclesiastes all occur in the status determinatus. This is not uncommon – although רוֹא is usually indefinite in BH – but the fact that all three attestations in this book take the prefixed article bears closer examination.

׃ךְ ֶשׁ ֹֽח ַה־ן ִמ רוֹ ֖א ָה ןוֹ ֥ר ְתי ִֽכּ תוּ ֑ל ְכ ִסּ ַה־ן ִמ ה ֖ ָמ ְכ ָח ֽ ַל ןוֹ ֛ר ְתִי שׁ֥ ֵיּ ֶשׁ יִנ ָ֔א י ִתי ֣ ִא ָר ְו

And I myself saw that wisdom is better than folly, as light is better than darkness. [Eccl 2:13]

׃שׁ ֶמ ֽ ָשּׁ ַה־ת ֶא תוֹ ֥א ְר ִל ם ִי ֖ ַני ֵע ֽ ַל בוֹ ֥ט ְו רוֹ ֑א ָה קוֹ ֖ת ָמוּ

and it is pleasant for the eyes to see the sun. [Eccl 11:7]

׃ם ֶשֽׁ ָגּ ַה ר ֥ ַח ַא םי ֖ ִב ָע ֶה וּב ֥ ָשׁ ְו םי ֑ ִב ָכוֹכּ ַה ְו ַח ֖ ֵר ָיּ ַה ְו רוֹ ֔א ָה ְו ֙שׁ ֶמ ֶ֙שּׁ ַה ךְ ֤ ַשׁ ְח ֶת־א ֹֽל ר ֶ֨שׁ ֲא ד ַ֠ע

...as long as the sun and light are not darkened, nor the moon and stars, and the clouds return after the rain. [Eccl 12:2]

Based on the wider context of these attestations as well as the philosophical slant of the book as a whole, I argue that these instances all reflect the generic use of the status deter-

minatus (van der Merwe, Naudé & Kroeze1999:190), referring to light as a general sub- stance without any specific light source in view. Qoheleth grounds their evaluation of wis- dom and folly in the universal human experience of the physical phenomena of light and darkness: light is better than darkness; in the same way, wisdom is better than folly. The writer here appeals to an assumed presupposition on the part of the reader, that they consider light better than darkness.

In Eccl 11:7, one can make an argument for the temporal demonstrative use of the sta-

tus determinatus because of the noun occurring in parallel with "the sun," yielding the fol-

lowing translation: Sunrise is sweet, and it is good for the eyes to see the sun. This under- standing of the specific line of poetry coheres within itself but does not adhere to the

understanding of the surrounding context as a whole. Qoheleth is not seeking to make some point about the object of the sun; rather, the writer is appealing back to the earlier philosophi- cal assertion about light and darkness, offering the human emotional response to the sun as evidence for its validity. The writer then builds an additional assertion atop this foundational treatment of light and darkness, advising the reader to enjoy the pleasant days "of light" in one's youth, because as one grows old, the sorrowful days "of darkness" are coming (Eccl 11:9-12:7).

A generic sense of the status determinatus in Eccl 12:2 also fits the contextual flow of the argument. The author places the definite noun רוֹא ָה in a series describing the phenome- non of old age blindness. Qoheleth is affirming that in one's old age, one loses the ability to see light of any kind, including the sun, moon and stars. The order of the nouns seems puz- zling in this regard, because one would expect רוֹא ָה to come first in the series (even as I my- self did in the above sentence). I surmise that the normal convention of speaking in BH would, in fact, place the noun רוֹא ָה first, but that in the present case the poet moved the noun

שׁ ֶמ ֶשׁ ָה to the first position for phonaesthetic purposes, to preserve the unbroken rhythm of consecutive "sh" sounds on stressed syllables in the first line of the couplet.

Qoheleth's philosophical treatment of the metaphysical concept of wisdom and its correlation to the physical phenomenon of light (as a generic substance in and of itself) offers a significant window into the philosophy of light in the ancient Hebrew conceptual world. The text of Ecclesiastes presupposes the reader will attach certain emotional responses to the physical phenomena of light and darkness and directly appeals to those emotional responses in an attempt to persuade the reader of certain metaphysical assertions concerning wisdom and folly. These philosophical issues will be picked up later in the thesis, both in the discus- sion of the metaphorical projection of the concept of light in the ancient Hebrew conceptual world and the application of the Hebrew philosophy of light toward a specific theology of light.

ם֑ ֵכי ִר ְד ַא וּ ֖ע ְד ָי־א ֹֽל תוֹ ֥בי ִת ְנ ִבּ וּע ָ֔ד ָי א ֹ֣ל ֙ךְ ֶר ֶ֙ד ְבּ םי ֗ ִר ְו ִע י ֣ ִתּ ְכ ַלוֹה ְו ׃םי ֽ ִתּ ְב ַז ֲע א ֹ֥ל ְו ם ֖ ִתי ִשׂ ֲע םי ֔ ִר ָב ְדּ ַה ה ֶלּ ֵ֚א רוֹ ֔שׁי ִמ ְל ֙םי ִשּׁ ַק ֲע ֽ ַמוּ רוֹ ֗א ָל ם ֶ֜הי ֵנ ְפ ִל ךְ ָ֨שׁ ְח ַמ ֩םי ִשׂ ָא

And I will bring the blind by a way they do not know; in paths they do not know I will guide them;

I will turn the darkness before them to light, and the rough places to level ground: these are the things that I do, and I do not forsake them. [Isa 42:16]

Here the phenomenon of blindness is being conceptualized using the generic concepts of darkness and light; that is, a blind person has darkness in front of them, whereas a seeing person has light in front of them. The specific referent for the term רוֹא is not localized to any particular light source, only that YHWH will turn the blind people's darkness into light. The context seems to indicate that this language is not being used to describe literal blindness (v.19-20), but neither is it entirely certain what precisely is meant by "blindness" here. In my opinion, the best understanding of this passage is that idolatry is being conceptualized as blindness/darkness, and the worship of YHWH as sight/light. However, it is clear from the context and the use of the status determinatus of both ךְ ֶשֹׁח and רוֹא that these are being re- ferred to as generic phenomena; thus, the referent of רוֹא here is the generic physical sub- stance light, as in the Ecclesiastes texts.