The Words of the Wise Are like Goads: Engaging Qohelet in the 21st Century 9781575066929

Citation preview

The Words of the Wise Are like Goads

The Words of the Wise Are like Goads Engaging Qohelet in the 21st Century

edited by

Mark J. Boda, Tremper Longman III, and Cristian G. Rata

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2013

Copyright © 2013 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The words of the wise are like goads : engaging Qohelet in the 21st century / edited by Mark J. Boda, Tremper Longman III, and Cristian G. Rata.   pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-265-5 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  Bible. O.T. Ecclesiastes—Criticism, interpretation, etc.  I.  Boda, Mark J.  II.  Longman, Tremper.  III.  Rata, Cristian G., editor of compilation. BS1475.52.W67 2013 223′.806—dc23 2012045746 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48-1984.© ♾

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  vii

Part 1 Early History of Interpretation Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading: Before 1500 c.e. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3 Eric S. Christianson Qohelet and the Rabbis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37 Ruth Sandberg Ecclesiastes and the Reformers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55 Al Wolters Sweet and Lawful Delights: Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes . . . . .  69 Cristian G. Rata

Part 2 History, Form, and Rhetoric Determining the Historical Context of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  89 Tremper Longman III The Book of Qohelet “Has the Smell of the Tomb about It”: Mortality in Qohelet and Hellenistic Skepticism . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Leo G. Perdue Qohelet and Royal Autobiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Martin A. Shields Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 David J. H. Beldman The Poetry of Qohelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 John F. Hobbins

Part 3 Key Concepts and Passages Epistemology in Ecclesiastes: Remembering What It Means to Be Human . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Ryan P. O’Dowd

v

vi

Contents

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example . . . . . . . 219 Doug Ingram The Meaning of   ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet: An Intertextual Suggestion . . . . . . . . 241 Russell L. Meek Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Mark J. Boda

Part 4 Language and Grammar The Grammar of ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Robert Holmstedt The Verb in Qohelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 John Cook “Aramaisms” in Qohelet: Methodological Problems in Identification and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 Eva Mroczek

Part 5 Interpreting Qohelet The Theology of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 Craig G. Bartholomew Ecclesiastes and the Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Stephen G. Dempster Fresh Perspectives on Ecclesiastes: “Qohelet for Today” . . . . . . . . . . . 401 Iain Provan Preaching Qohelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 Daniel C. Fredericks Solomon’s Sexual Wisdom: Qohelet and the Song of Songs in the Postmodern Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 Peter J. Leithart Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 Indexes    Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491    Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499    Index of Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513

Preface “Meaningless, meaningless, everything is meaningless.” The word “meaningless” (‫ ) ֶהבֶל‬appears more than 40 times in the book of Ecclesiastes and raises the question why a book that appears to deny meaning or purpose is included in the Bible. Many questions of interpretation as well as relevance surround the book of Ecclesiastes, including indeed the proper translation and understanding of the word ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. Even so, its enigmatic character as well as its apparent concern with the meaning of life has intrigued readers since the time when it was first composed. If, after all, the book does examine the question of the meaning of life, what could be more important? The present volume explores the book on many different levels: linguistic, text-critical, theological, historical, and literary. The contributors, chosen from many of the leading and up-and-coming experts on the book, present both the state of the field and their own assessment of the varied interpretive issues of Ecclesiastes. The editors embarked on this project because there is nothing quite like this collection of essays available. Certainly, these topics are treated in the introduction to commentaries and in various monographs, but no one volume contains extensive discussions of all these facets for the study of the book. It should be helpful not only to scholars but also to all who want to study this book seriously. The first section of this volume deals with the history of interpretation. Eric Christianson focuses on what he calls “premodern” readings (before 1500 c.e.), taking into consideration both Jewish and Christian interpreters. Two important premises are found in this period: the Solomonic authorship of the book and the reading of the book as a “refutation of the vanity of the world.” Despite the influential role of Jerome in the history of premodern interpretation, there is early evidence for diversity, a diversity that is also found in the understanding of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. Ruth Sandberg in her contribution concentrates on the rabbinic attitudes toward Qohelet. The rabbis did not debate the canonical status of this book, but they debated its divine inspiration. Her analysis focuses on Qohelet Rabbah and the modes of interpretation found there, but she also engages with medieval commentators and discusses the uses of the book in Jewish liturgy. Al Wolters picks up where Christianson leaves off and engages with the Reformers. Although Qohelet drew little attention from the leaders of the vii

viii

Preface

Protestant Reformation, there are commentaries by Luther, Melanchthon, and Johannes Brenz. Luther engages the Hebrew text of Qohelet, and his commentary “constitutes a dramatic break” when compared with the “premodern” works. Cristian Rata focuses on Puritan intepretatations of Qohelet. He engages two well-known Puritan interpreters (Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole) but focuses on the less famous John Cotton, John Trapp, and Edward Reynolds. Contrary to some unfortunate depictions of the character and mood of the Puritans, they interpreted Qohelet in a way that demonstrates that they understood this book as encouraging the enjoyment of the good things of life, as long as the enjoyment occurred in an atmosphere of reverence before God and with moderation. The second section of this volume deals with issues of history, form, and rhetoric. Tremper Longman III investigates the historical setting of Qohelet by looking at the time of composition, authorship, language, socioeconomic background, and the thought world of the book. He finds compelling evidence to place the book in the postexilic period, in a Greek setting. However, like all wisdom books, its message comes through, regardless of our knowledge of the correct historical context. For Leo Perdue, Qohelet is part of a wisdom tradition that opposes the conventional wisdom of Second Temple Judaism and appears to have been written in Jerusalem by a teacher from the Ptolemaic period of the third century b.c.e. Perdue engages Qohelet in the context of Hellenistic skepticism, dealing with the problems of death and afterlife, and concludes that the book fits the pessimistic mood of that period. Martin Shields analyzes Qohelet in the context of other ancient royal autobiographies and supports the view that the “royal Qohelet” is found throughout the book. This form is used ironically to emphasize the senselessness of all achievement and the limitations of wisdom. The clear parallels with royal autobiographies as found in Northwest Semitic royal inscriptions suggest for him a date in the first part of the first millennium b.c.e. David Beldman reconsiders the notion of the structure of Qohelet by reviewing previous proposals, presenting some key points for navigating the book, and then offering his own proposal by looking at both the frame and the framed. John Hobbins analyzes the poetry of Qohelet by beginning with ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, its master metaphor. Further, he focuses on the identification of verse in Qohelet by first reviewing previous proposals and then presenting his own proposal based on inductive analysis. The essay ends with some worked examples (1:2–11, 3:1–9, and 11:9–12:8) and a brief discussion of poetry and philosophy.

Preface

ix

The third section of this volume focuses on key concepts and passages. Ryan O’Dowd addresses epistemology in Qohelet by beginning with a critical review of previous epistemological studies. More specifically, he explores Qohelet’s epistemology as it relates to his sense of what it means to be a creature made in the image of God. Qohelet’s final speeches must be taken into consideration for a full understanding of its message and for present hope. Doug Ingram reminds us again why Qohelet is so difficult to read and understand. For rhetorical reasons, Qohelet chooses to be ambiguous; thus the book’s ambiguity is part of its design, as is evidenced by the fundamentally diverse interpretations available. Ingram demonstrates this point in his analysis of 7:23 to 8:1, one of the most controversial and difficult passages of the book. Russell Meek reanalyzes the key word ‫ ֶהבֶל‬by suggesting that it is an intertextual reference to the Abel of Gen 4. In the process, he reviews the history of interpretation of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬and outlines the intertextual method employed. He concludes that Qohelet picks up on the inconsistencies of Abel’s life and uses ‫ ֶהבֶל‬as a thematic word to describe the “Abelness” of all things. The function of the epilogue of Qohelet (12:9–14) has dominated much of the discussion in recent years. Mark Boda summarizes the past debate and reevaluates the evidence regarding the relationship between the voice of Qohelet and the Epilogist(s). He demonstrates that the Epilogist does not reject Qohelet’s teaching, but neither does he merely echo Qohelet’s testimony. The fourth section of the volume focuses on the language and grammar of Qohelet. Previous investigations of the distribution of -‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet have not succeeded in identifying a plausible explanation for the presence of either of these words (or, prefix in one case) in Qohelet. Robert Holmstedt thus reviews past proposals and investigates their grammar anew. He concludes that the best explanation for the use of both function words in Qohelet is diachronic. John Cook focuses on describing the tense-aspect-mood (TAM) system in Qohelet. His approach is to examine the various conjugations and their interrelationships in Qohelet in light of the TAM patterns found throughout the Hebrew Bible, noting consistencies and divergences. This provides the basis for drawing conclusions regarding the place of the TAM in Qohelet within the development of the ancient Hebrew verbal system. Eva Mroczek reviews the problem of “Aramaisms” in Qohelet by applying the suggestions of Avi Hurvitz from his 1968 programmatic article on the chronological significance of Aramaisms in Biblical Hebrew. 1 In the process, 1. A. Hurvitz, “The Chronological Significance of Aramaisms in Biblical Hebrew,” IEJ 18 (1968) 234–40.

x

Preface

she looks at the latest scholarship that takes linguistic categories and methodology into account and then discusses and assesses selected “Aramaisms.” She concludes that the appearance of Aramaisms cannot be used conclusively to date the book. The last section of this volume engages with practical issues of interpretation. For Craig Bartholomew, Qohelet is a rich reservoir of theology. In his article, he explores the message of Qohelet in the context of the canon as a whole and relates its theology to contemporary theology while working from a Trinitarian hermeneutic. Qohelet is an example of the contextualization of biblical faith; he rightly exposes the illusion of human autonomy and its inability to provide an adequate foundation for life. Given the disputed content of Qohelet and its divine inspiration, Stephen Dempster revisits its canonicity. In the process, he pays attention to early Jewish disputes, the council of Jabneh, reception in early Christendom, the difference between Jewish and Christian canonical sequences, and the book’s connection with Christ. Just as the end of Qohelet calls its readers to “fear the Lord,” Christians are called “to follow Jesus, no matter what.” Because the world in which Qohelet was speaking was not entirely dissimilar from our own world, Iain Provan seeks to show that Qohelet is still relevant “today.” The world (especially in the West) today is a place where there is much “toiling after gain,” where oppression and injustice are certainly present, a world that can be characterized by spiritual emptiness and world-weariness. In this context, Qohelet is relevant, and his relevance is firmly tied to what the book meant “back then.” Because Qohelet wrote words of truth, it remains our duty “today” to “fear God and keep his commandments” (Eccl 12:13). Few have the courage to preach on Qohelet, and even fewer write about it. Daniel Fredericks tackles this difficult subject after a brief critical evaluation of two recent publications on this subject. 2 He does not provide a particular methodology for preaching Qohelet. Rather, he suggests relevant themes for any congregation that wants to grow in obedient wisdom to God’s Word and highlights what should be included in solid preaching on Qohelet. When speaking on Qohelet, a preacher should emulate Qohelet’s realism and take into consideration innate human limitations (we are mammals, we do not know everything, we cannot control everything, and so on), call individuals to higher levels of wisdom, and engage with injustice and other themes in a way that is brutally honest and relevant. He also provides a helpful outline for expository preaching. 2. S. Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010); and P. G. Ryken, Ecclesiastes: Why Everything Matters (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010).

Preface

xi

In the last essay, Peter Leithart uses the Solomon of both Qohelet and Song of Songs to engage postmodernity. Although postmodernity remains a vague term, it is about three concerns: justice, death, and sex. By exploring how Solomon treats these, we will be able to gain a better grasp of what Qohelet might teach us in our postmodern situation. Might there be hope in a world above the sun? Might there be a place that is not under the dominion of death? Might there be a Word that speaks a word better than the words of ‫? ֶהבֶל‬ As hopefully the reader can see, the volume is designed to provide exposure to a variety of readers who seek to engage Qohelet in fresh ways in the twentyfirst century—from historians of interpretation to biblical exegetes to linguists to theological students. There are many whom we want to thank for their assistance in bringing this volume to press. First of all, we are grateful to the scholars who contributed new research and wise reflections on this volume. Second, we are thankful to Jim Eisenbraun, whose positive response to our proposal made possible this publication and to Beverly McCoy, our editor at Eisenbrauns, whose careful eyes were essential to the quality of this final version of the volume. Third, we are indebted to Russell Meek for his invaluable help in the editing process, as he transformed raw files into the Eisenbrauns house style and produced the ancient source index for the volume. With this, we invite the audience to read the essays in this volume with the hope that, although one’s body may grow weary, one’s mind will be invigorated by these new perspectives on Ecclesiastes.

Note to the Reader In this volume, some contributors use the word Ecclesiastes to refer to the book of the Bible, whereas they use Qohelet (or some: the Preacher) to refer to the stated author of the book. Some contributors, on the other hand, use Qohelet to refer to both the book and the individual. The index of Scripture references places all entries to the book under Qohelet. For abbreviations and acronyms used in this volume, please refer to The Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (ed. P. H. Alexander et al.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999) ch. 8 (“Abbreviations,” pp. 68–152) and appendixes F–H (pp. 176–263).

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading: Before 1500 c.e. Eric S. Christianson Chester, U.K.

Reading Strategies and Lines of Influence In this essay, I seek to delineate with a rather broad brush some of the contours of the early reading history of Ecclesiastes, a book that has clearly enchanted its readers in every century of its existence. This survey is not exhaustive, of course, but I hope that it provides some insight into the themes and questions that preoccupied readers in the period prior to 1500 c.e. There are, to be sure, salient features of Ecclesiastes’ reception in a given historical period. However, organizing the material along lines of historical periodization alone has proven too simple. Thus, I am employing a combination of periodic and thematic organization. I am fully aware of the difficulties in any kind of hermeneutical categorization, particularly that of historic “periods,” and the boundaries I suggest should be regarded as fluid. 1 Indeed, some interpretive paradigms survive quite well the seismic dominance of subsequent shifts. Euan Cameron’s description, then, of the ideological flux of the European Renaissance is applicable here: “The old frameworks were not discarded overnight. Some of the new ideas seemed just as fanciful and obscure as the medieval lore which they challenged. The old schemes proved quite elastic, and even exponents of the new science felt more secure if they clung to some of the earlier assumptions.” 2 Author’s note: Readers are encouraged to explore this history of reading further in my volume from which this essay is an extract with slight revision (Ecclesiastes through the Centuries [Oxford: Blackwell, 2004] 22–40, 89–94, 98–106; reprinted with permission and thanks), noting particularly its extensive annotated bibliography. Note also that, in this essay, I refer to the book as Ecclesiastes and the stated author as Qohelet. 1.  Compare with M. Sæbø’s (Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages [until 1300], part 2: The Middle Ages [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000] 19–27) discussion of the problems posed by the term Middle Ages. 2. E. Cameron, Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) xxiii.

3

4

Eric S. Christianson

The consignment of “premodern” to “before 1500” reflects European shifts of thinking as construed in the broadly conceived tags of “modernity” that continue to enjoy currency. Even though readings in this period are defined almost entirely by Jewish and Christian approaches, I have not sought to separate their treatment along these lines (this more easily enables developmental comparisons). Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions exhibit patterns, at least in part (due mainly to shared ideological commitments and the dominance of methods set out by influential figures and schools—though even then, pattern is a strong word), but this is far less the case in the multitude of other readings, especially those of poetry and fiction. From almost precisely 1500, the relatively clear lines of Jewish and Christian readings explode into more complex discourses, increasingly as art for art’s sake and increasingly political.

Premodern Reading: Before 1500 Two prominent features of Ecclesiastes interpretation in the premodern period are worth noting here. The first is the working premise that Solomon authored the book. The second is the programmatic reading of Ecclesiastes as a refutation of the vanity of the world. The first of these is pretty well exclusively Christian in provenance, while the second spans both Christian and Jewish traditions. Although there were exceptions, both features slowly faded from the interpretive horizon during the early modern period. At the same time that a host of changes were being rung in hermeneutics, pseudonymity of some sort gradually became an immovable fact of Ecclesiastes interpretation. And although the “vanity-of-theworld” reading proved more durable in the modern period, as a programmatic and exclusive reading it too began to fade into obscurity during the early modern period. Ecclesiastes, for whatever reason, did not engage the imaginations of the inhabitants of Qumran in the way that, say, the prophetic literature did. 3 After Qumran, the earliest interpretive traditions are probably preserved in the Mishnah, midrashim, and even the Talmudim. Marc Hirshman, in a study of remarkable insight, compares four early Christian commentaries with Midrash Qohelet (itself a compilation of earlier sources that Hirshman dates to ca. 600), in the hopes of understanding the exegetical method and putative audiences of both traditions. 4 Regarding the midrash, Hirshman identifies “five facets of its aggadic exegesis”: (1) Solomonic exegesis, which (creatively!) relates verses to the biographical ma3.  For what little is to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see F. García Martínez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 1: 1Q1–4Q273 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997) 289–90; and my book A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup 280; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 151 n. 77. 4. M. Hirshman, “The Greek Fathers and the Aggada on Ecclesiastes: Formats of Exegesis in Late Antiquity,” HUCA 59 (1958) 137.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

5

terial on Solomon in Kings and Chronicles; (2) identification, a close relative of allegory and typology, in which verses are related to “a specific individual, event or object drawn either from the Bible or from the midrash’s contemporary surroundings”; (3) anecdotes, usually revolving around rabbinic sages and illustrating “moral or theological points”; (4) mashal, “generally translated ‘parable,’” and defined by D. Stern as “allusive narratives told for an ulterior purpose”; (5) cataloging, especially prevalent in this midrash and concerned to “collect and topically order diverse bits of information” in the form of lists and catalogs. 5 Ecclesiastes only gradually took hold in the early Christian literature as well, and there is little sign of it, for example, in the Apostolic Fathers’ writings (e.g., Ignatius, Polycarp, et al.). Perhaps it took time to relate Qohelet to Christianity, but in the course of the third century, the first substantial writing becomes available. 6 When Christians broke ground on Ecclesiastes, the result calls to mind Ginsburg’s caustic summary of this developing discourse as “the monotony of patristic exposition.” 7 This assessment is fairly easily formed on the evidence of the relentless tendency to relegate Qohelet’s reflections to the perceived truths of Christian liturgy and doctrine. One of the earliest examples would become typical, from the Commentary on the Beginning of Ecclesiastes of Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 200– ca. 265), a student of Origen. On Qohelet’s endorsement of eating and drinking in 2:24–25, he comments, And surely mere material meats and drinks are not the soul’s good. For the flesh, when luxuriously nurtured, wars against the soul, and rises in revolt against the spirit. And how should not intemperate eatings and drinkings also be contrary to God? He speaks, therefore, of things mystical. For no one shall partake of the spiritual table, but one who is called by Him, and has listened to the wisdom which says, “Take and eat.” 8

However, diversity is not too difficult to find, and Ginsburg’s assessment does not do justice to some of the scholars. In the third and fourth centuries, we might begin to recognize in the work of Origen, Didymus the Blind, Gregory Thaumaturgos, 5.  Ibid., 155–64. 6.  See below, although J. R. Wright, ed. (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon [Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament 9; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005] xxiv) points to the work of Melito of Sardis of the late second century, “of which little is known.” 7.  C. D. Ginsburg, Coheleth (Commonly Called the Book of Ecclesiastes) (repr., New York: Ktav, 1970) 105; here said to highlight the “relief ” of the superior commentary of Olympiodorus, ca. 510. 8.  A. C. Coxe, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius (ANF 6; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978) 114. Compare with the same reading in Augustine, City of God 17.20; the rabbis did not like the sentiment either and suggested that all “the references to eating and drinking in this Book signify Torah and good deeds” (Midr. Qoh. 2.24.1).

6

Eric S. Christianson

Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Jerome the beginnings of more lengthy, influential, and insightful readings. While Origen’s commentary on Ecclesiastes is no longer extant, the other four offer the most substantial examples of early Christian interpretation of Ecclesiastes. Gregory Thaumaturgos’s Paraphrase (ca. 245) is the “earliest systematic Christian treatment of Ecclesiastes which has come down to us.” 9 As a student of Origen, in whose footsteps Gregory Thaumaturgos envisioned his own work, he offered in his paraphrase some insight into Origen’s lost commentary on Ecclesiastes. The paraphrase may have been born of a need to address the perceived strangeness and inadequacy of the Septuagint, the only access to Ecclesiastes for Greek readers. 10 As such, Gregory’s Paraphrase is written for the benefit of the church, with a vision of its “unison with the general Christian tradition.” 11 Gregory refreshingly offers his own distinct interpretive voice, not always adapting, for example, the allegorical method that Origen’s influence would imply. Didymus the Blind (ca. 313–98) is another interpreter on whom Origen exercised particular influence. Like Thaumaturgos’s, Didymus’s commentary is complete (barring the last verses of ch. 12) and systematic, particularly regarding methodology. 12 Two other nuanced and perceptive patristic voices can be heard in this period. Gregory of Nyssa’s eight homilies on Eccl 1:1–3:13 (ca. 380) were also composed for the benefit of the church. Here, Ecclesiastes looks “exclusively to the conduct of the Church,” for it “gives instruction in those things by which one would achieve the life of virtue.” 13 Consistently, Gregory is at pains to relate the words of the Ecclesiast to a well-ordered Christian life. Gregory sometimes uses the text of Ecclesiastes as a springboard for other subjects, notably in his extraordinary attack on slavery (the opening paragraphs of homily 4). Both Gregories pursue their task with originality and flair, and witness to the interpretive demands made by Ecclesiastes on the earliest readers. 14 Around the same time, we might note the unusually literal approach of Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350–428), who was distinctly at odds with the already dominant allegorists. In his study of Theodore’s Ecclesiastes commentary, John Jarick explores Theodore’s condemnation by the Second Council of Constantinople in the sixth century (partly for denying the canonical status of some biblical books, including Ecclesiastes—an accusation Jarick argues 9. J. Jarick, Gregory Thaumaturgos’ Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes (SBLSCS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 3. 10.  Ibid., 5. 11.  Ibid., 315. 12.  See M. Diego Sánchez, “El ‘Comentario al Ecclesiastés’ de Didimo Alejandrino,” Teresianum 41 (1990) 231–42. 13.  Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on Ecclesiastes (ed. S. G. Hall; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993) 34. 14. Note Gregory of Nyssa’s comment on the stamina required to wrestle with Qohelet, quoted in my book Ecclesiastes through the Centuries, 1.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

7

was misguided) and the Syriac version of his commentary, which was discovered in Damascus in the twentieth century. 15 More influential than these commentators combined, however, was Jerome, whose commentary on Ecclesiastes (388/89) has received a good deal of critical attention. 16 It was designed, he tells us in his preface, with a purpose: I remember just five years ago when I was still at Rome and studying virtuous Blesilla’s book of Ecclesiastes that I taught her to think lightly of her generation and to esteem futile everything that she saw in the world. I remember too being asked by her to examine individually all the difficult passages in a short treatise so that she might be able to understand what she was reading without me always being present. Accordingly, since she was taken from us by her sudden death while I was still doing the preparation for my work . . . I then ceased from my work, silenced by the terrible grief of such a misfortune. Now though, situated in Bethlehem, clearly a more holy city, I can fulfil that promise to the memory of Blesilla and to you [that is, his Roman disciples, a widow named Paula and her daughter Eustochium], and remind you briefly that I have used no authority in this work, but have rather translated directly from the Hebrew itself and have adapted it to the traditional language of the Septuagint in those passages which do not differ greatly from the Hebrew. Occasionally I have taken account of the Greek versions, those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion so that I do not deter the reader’s enthusiasm with too much novelty. I have also not pursued those streams of conjecture, which lack a factual basis, for I do not believe this to be sensible. 17

Jerome describes here the thorough and unusually consultative approach that he employs throughout the commentary. J. N. D. Kelly admires Jerome’s skill in edification and the brilliance of his style: On every page we come across . . . breath-taking transformations of the plain meaning of the Preacher’s musings, all set out in colourful and rhythmic prose. . . . For the modern student, intent on discovering what Ecclesiastes is really about, Jerome’s brilliant exegetical essay is worse than useless. But judged by the standards of his age, when Christian men took it for granted that the true sense of the Old Testament was the spiritual one lurking beneath the surface which 15. J. Jarick, “Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honor of John Rogerson (ed. M. D. Carroll R.; JSOTSup 200; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) 306–307. 16.  Most recently and comprehensively in M. Hirshman (“The Midrash on Ecclesiastes and Jerome’s Commentary,” in A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation [ed. M. Hirshman; New York: State University of New York Press, 1996] 95–108) and M. Kraus (“Christians, Jews, and Pagans in Dialogue: Jerome on Ecclesiastes 12:1–7,” HUCA 70–71 [1999– 2000] 183–231). 17.  Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes (trans. R. M. Lane; unpublished, 2000). Below, I use “ad loc.” instead of page numbers, since the translation by Robin MacGregor Lane (who has kindly permitted me to use it) is unpublished.

8

Eric S. Christianson pointed forward to Christ and his Church, it was a tour de force of edification and illumination. 18

Kelly presumes a fairly limited horizon of expectation in his “modern student” (can this really be “worse” than “useless”?). Jerome offers us in his comments, as Kelly admits, access to contemporary rabbinic exegesis. It is also fascinating to encounter Jerome’s often detailed comments on the Hebrew and comparison with the Greek versions. Angelo Penna is impressed enough to call the commentary a “milestone” for its use of Hebrew and rabbinic tradition, literal exegesis, and sympathetic citation of classical authors such as Cicero, Horace, and Virgil. 19 Also noteworthy is Jerome’s frequent procedure of dealing first with the literal interpretation of a verse and only then moving on to the spiritual. And in his thoroughness, he is, by any contemporary standard, unusually respectful of the reader. Thus, for example, about the catalog of times in Eccl 3, Jerome comments, The Hebrews understand all that he has written about the contradiction of times . . . as concerning Israel. Because it is not necessary to go through each verse in turn here, commenting on how they are to be interpreted and what they mean, I will list them briefly, leaving a more detailed study to the reader’s discretion. 20

There is no doubting the outstanding and lasting influence of Jerome’s commentary, which is well captured by Murphy, who finds in it “fairly liberal interpretation . . . erudite philology, command of the ancient Greek versions, lessons from his Jewish tutor, Bar Aqiba, etc.” 21 His translation of Ecclesiastes for the Vulgate (which reportedly, along with Proverbs and Song of Songs, took all of three days to complete!) itself wielded its influence through, among other things, its reading of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬as “vanitas.” Indeed, Jerome’s preface (above), “since it became one of the standard prefaces to the book in medieval Bibles, was probably the most widely read exegetical help on Ecclesiastes in the middle ages.” 22 A particularly influential mode of reading Ecclesiastes is first fully developed by Pope Gregory the Great in book 4 of his Dialogues (ca.  593). Here Gregory engages in a discussion with his deacon, Peter, on the question of the immortality 18.  J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975) 151–52. Compare with pp. 144–52, where other aspects of the commentary are discussed; and with Ginsburg (Coheleth, 101–3), who is even less charitable. 19. A. Penna, Principi e crattere dell’exegesi di San Gerolamo (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1950) 41. 20.  Jerome, Commentary, ad loc. 21.  R. E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC 23a; Dallas: Word, 1992) li. Hirshman and Kraus share Murphy’s enthusiasm. 22. E. Eliason, Vanitas Vanitatum: “Piers Plowman,” Ecclesiastes, and Contempt of the World (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 1989) 41 n. 5.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

9

of the soul. Gregory describes what is really behind the seeming contradictions of the book called Ecclesiastes: [W]hen there are many people holding opinions of various kinds, they are brought into harmony by the reasoning of the speaker. This book, then, is called “the preacher” because in it Solomon makes the feelings of the disorganized people his own in order to search into and give expression to the thoughts that come to their untutored minds. . . . For the sentiments he expresses in his search are as varied as the individuals he impersonates. . . . Therefore we find that some statements of this book are introduced as inquiries, while others are meant to give satisfaction by their logic. . . . It is clear . . . that one statement is introduced through his impersonation of the weak, while the other is added from the dictates of reason. 23

This sort of approach allows Gregory to “solve” troublesome passages. So, for example, Solomon “writes, ‘Rejoice, O young man, while you are young.’ While a little later he adds, ‘The dawn of youth is fleeting’ [Eccl 11:9–10]. In criticizing what he has just recommended, he indicates clearly that the former pronouncement proceeded from carnal desires, while the latter was based on a true judgment.” 24 Gregory works similar magic with other troublesome texts, such as 3:18–20 (the most developed example), 5:18, 25 and 12:13. Although this was not the first reading strategy to cope with Ecclesiastes’ more unorthodox passages by proposing a fragmented discourse (Gregory Thaumaturgos anticipated it in his notion that the advice of the wicked is corrected by Solomon), it was a strategy that influenced a host of commentators who followed. As Eliason comments, Gregory treats only a minuscule portion of the text of Ecclesiastes, but because he chooses a few of the most provocative cruces in the book and offers a powerful and attractive method for interpreting them, the influence of his work is out of proportion to its brevity. Alcuin [730–804] . . . , the glossa ordinaria [ca. 1100] (Eccl. 1.1), and Hugh of St. Cher [ca. 1230–35] . . . incorporate this section of Gregory’s work into their commentaries in something close to its entirety. Throughout the Middle Ages, readers of Ecclesiastes label some opinions expressed there as deliberate falsehoods and choose to endorse the more orthodox opinions which follow such passages. 26 23.  Gregory the Great, Saint Gregory the Great: Dialogues (trans. O. J. Zimmerman; Fathers of the Church 39; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1959) 193. 24.  Ibid., 194. 25.  All references to ch. 5 in this essay follow the versification of English translations, which is one verse ahead of the Masoretic Text (in which the English 5:1 is 4:17). 26.  Eliason, Vanitas Vanitatum: “Piers Plowman,” 70.

10

Eric S. Christianson

The lasting influence of Gregory’s reading can be discerned in recent work, notably, by Anthony Perry. 27 At the end of the exchange in the Dialogues, the deacon Peter humbly accepts Pope Gregory’s views, exposing a more subtle strategy: I am happy that I was ignorant on this point and proposed the question, for it provided an excellent opportunity for me to gain a thorough understanding. And now I beg you to bear patiently with me if I, too, like Ecclesiastes, impersonate the weak and continue the inquiry in their name in order to help them more directly. 28

In other words, here, Gregory has used the dialogical approach to legitimate the same procedure in his Dialogues, in which others may represent “the minds of the infirm” and Gregory the truly wise. The Talmud’s use of Ecclesiastes (as with its use of the rest of the Hebrew Bible) usually focuses on practical application, often in support of the most banal observation. For example, with regard to Eccl 5:5, the Talmud at several points suggests that paying what one vows (and also not vowing at all; see b. Ned. 9a; b. Menaḥ. 81a; b. Ḥul. 2a; cf. b. Ketub. 72a; b. Šabb. 32b) 29 is to be preferred to vowing and not paying, which supports a pattern of authoritative praxis that tells us little about either the text or the community who read this way. Other readings are more informative in this regard. Qohelet’s activity as described in the epilogue is taken by the Talmud as both preservative and restrictive, and classical rabbinic commentary on the passage is rich and nuanced. Another area in which the Talmud does not disappoint is in its own personal interpretive voice, the imitable charm with which it woos its readers. Partly this is accomplished through its nonspecificity, in that by not historicizing its illustrative exegesis, it creates a space in which we can stand alongside the rabbis. Of course, the same qualities apply to the midrashim. For Qohelet, the patient of spirit are better than the proud in spirit (7:8b), which Midrash Qohelet illustrates with a delightful story: A Persian came to Rab and said to him, “Teach me the Torah.” He [consented and, pointing to the first letter of the alphabet] . . . , told him, “Say aleph.” The man remarked, “Who says that this is aleph? There may be others who say that it is not!” “Say beth,” to which he remarked, “Who says that this is beth?” Rab rebuked him and drove him out in anger. He went to Samuel and said to him, “Teach me the Torah.” He told him, “Say aleph.” The man remarked, “Who says that this is aleph?” “Say beth,” to which he remarked, “Who said this is beth?” The teacher took hold of his ear and the man exclaimed, “My ear! my ear!” Samuel asked him, “Who said that this is your ear?” He answered, “Everybody knows 27.  T. A. Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993). 28.  Gregory the Great, Dialogues, 196. 29.  References and quotations are from Isidore Epstein, ed. (Soncino edition).

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

11

that this is my ear,” and the teacher retorted, “In the same way everybody knows that this is aleph and that is beth.” Immediately the Persian was silenced and accepted the instruction. Hence . . . better is the forbearance which Samuel displayed with the Persian than the impatience which Rab showed towards him, for otherwise the Persian might have returned to his heathenism. 30

The reading shows not just a response to Qohelet’s proverb, but an immersion in its language and logic, helping readers to internalize Qohelet’s words in their entirety. As in various midrashim and Talmudim, Targum Qohelet (ca. 600) represents a relegation of Qohelet’s specific observations to tradition (namely, to the biographical life of Solomon) and to the study of Torah. As such, as Flesher argues, this targum programmatically redefines wisdom (Qohelet’s but also, in a representative sense, rabbinic wisdom). 31 Indeed, the targumists were deeply uncomfortable with Qohelet’s many ambiguities: [T]he targum has transformed Qohelet’s natural wisdom into learning based on torah. . . . The document that should be the prime container of wisdom thought has been hollowed out and replaced by a post-talmudic rabbinism. . . . The Qohelet Targum, which as a translation replaced the Hebrew Qohelet for the vast majority of Jews who did not know Hebrew, is no longer the cogent and relentless perpetuator of ideas dangerous to the rabbinic perspective, but the purveyor of a compelling statement of the rabbinic world view. 32

Targum Qohelet represents one of the least adventurous readings of Ecclesiastes and, like so many premodern readings, a resistance to releasing the full force of his skeptical wisdom. Jewish tradition has had a distinct way of articulating Ecclesiastes with Jewish life. The unusual grouping of Ecclesiastes with the other Megillot scrolls (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, and Esther) has given it a long history of liturgical significance. Like the other scrolls, Ecclesiastes is read at a festival, in this case the Festival of Sukkot (Tabernacles). The practice seems to have been well in place by at least the eleventh century and probably earlier. 33 The Megillot grouping is unusual in that, while the other books have a relatively clear relationship to the festival at which they are read (for example, Ruth at Shavuot [Harvest], Lamentations commemorating the destruction of the Temple on the ninth of Ab), the case of Ecclesiastes lacks such clarity. Although the Talmud hints at some rationale for 30.  Midr. Qoh. 7.8.1; quotation from Harry Freedman, ed., Midrash Rabbah (Soncino edition). 31.  P. V. M. Flesher, “The Wisdom of the Sages: Rabbinic Rewriting of Qohelet” (conference paper, SBL Annual Meeting, 1990). 32. Ibid. 33.  M. V. Fox, Ecclesiastes (JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004) xv.

12

Eric S. Christianson

the choice (see, for example, b. Ḥag. 17a, which relates Eccl 3:1 to the appropriate keeping of the season, the eighth day of Tabernacles), the other four festivals had a logical textual partner, and Qohelet was left standing at the ball, as it were, until Sukkot reluctantly agreed to dance. 34 It may well be that Ecclesiastes reflects the transient, fragile, and joyful moods of Sukkot, which remembers the time in the wilderness of rootless wandering, unstable habitation (in “booths,” sukkôt; compare with Lev 23:33–37), and the hope of a promised land. 35 Ginsburg surmises that “numerous commentaries, which are now lost, have been written on this book in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries.” 36 A particularly intriguing extant example comes from the Karaite movement: 37 the commentary of Yephet ben ʿAli (written ca. 990). Yephet, the first Jew to write commentaries on the entire Bible, demonstrates a penchant for grammatical observations and an awareness of alternative interpretations. 38 Richard Bland, in his translation and study of Yephet’s commentary, argues that the key to understanding Yephet’s approach to Ecclesiastes is his interpretation of 1:3, which was that only a person’s “performance of the precepts of God and his good works will benefit him in his hereafter. From this Yephet concludes that one should enjoy the blessings that God has bestowed upon him in this life.” 39 In this, suggests Bland, Yephet was “in full accord with Saadia [Gaon, the leading opponent of the Karaites].” 40 Bland continues in his assessment of the commentary proper: His commentary on Ecclesiastes . . . does leave much to be desired from the standpoint of modern critical methods, but as a popular commentary, one written to make the Book of Ecclesiastes an effective influence in the lives of his less literate co-religionists, it is outstanding. In this work which combines the best in the thinking of Yephet’s predecessors with his own views, there is a unity and coherence which a mere eclectic could not hope to attain. 41 34.  See P. S. Knobel (The Targum of Qohelet [The Aramaic Bible 15; Edinburgh: T.  &  T. Clark, 1991] 4–5), who does not quite put it in these terms. 35.  See the discussion in Fox (Ecclesiastes, xv) and A. J. Rosenberg (The Five Megilloth, vol. 2: Lamentations, Ecclesiastes [New York: Judaica, 1992] ix–xi). Compare with J. Jarick (“The Bible’s ‘Festival Scrolls’ among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After [ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans; JSPSup 26; Roehampton Institute London Paper 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997] 170–82), who suggests a thematic correspondence of the liturgy with the season of autumn at which it is read. 36.  Ginsburg, Coheleth, 56. 37.  For Hans Küng (The Religious Situation of Our Time [London: SCM, 1992] 170–74), a “Jewish reformation.” 38. D. Frank, “Karaite Exegesis,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300), part 2: The Middle Ages (ed. M. Sæbø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 122. 39.  Yephet ben ʿAli, The Arabic Commentary of Yephet ben ʿAli on the Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapters 1–6 (trans. with introduction and commentary by R. M. Bland, Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1969) v–vi. 40.  Ibid., vi. 41.  Ibid., vii.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

13

While very traditional in approach, the commentary is peppered with some remarkable and prescient insights. So, for example, on 1:12, Yephet observes that Qohelet “began with I Qohelet because he intends to relate from his own experience everything to which he refers in what follows. . . . It was likely that it was he who first called himself Qohelet, the editor [nwdm, a term he uses several times] following his example.” 42 These are views that sit at ease among a host of modern studies. It is worth noting, too, that Yephet’s insight is made all the more remarkable by the fact that, according to Flesher, classical rabbinic exegesis was ill at ease with Qohelet’s emphasis on experiential epistemology. 43 The main themes of Qohelet interpretation, while modified, changed remarkably little throughout the Middle Ages. The book, however, seemed to hold a powerful sway over many. Eliason captures the appeal well: The modern reader is likely to be taken with the skeptical flavor of the book, and to feel a certain intellectual kinship with the un-biblical character of its thought. But the medieval reader could also feel an intellectual kinship with the book. No less than the modern reader he could find in the words of the Preacher a doctrine which fit his presuppositions, a project which was made easier by the fact that he read a text which had been translated by scholars who shared his neo-platonized understanding of the Old and New Testaments. 44

This appeal is evidenced in the immense popularity of Ecclesiastes among the Christian exegetes of the period, as has been so forcefully brought to light by the seminal work of Beryl Smalley. What Smalley finds to define thirteenth-century works on Ecclesiastes is that the “ethical content, the observation on politics and on natural science to be found in the sapiential books do not stir the commentator’s curiosity; he ignores the invitation to speculate.” 45 At the same time, many writers were bringing the sapiential books to the fore in doctrinal dispute. “In the twelfth century the Pauline Epistles had been the chief focus for doctrinal discussion. The sapiential books did not displace them; but they became second in the scale of importance, in so far as doctrine was attached to lectures on Scripture.” 46 Among the key medieval commentators whom Smalley identifies, Hugh of St.  Victor, who was at the Abbey of St. Victor in Paris ca. 1118 until his death in 1141, worked against the contemporary grain, privileging the literal sense of 42.  Ibid., 166–67. Compare with Jerome (Commentary, ad loc.), who comes close to this: “[H]ere he returns to the subject of himself, and reveals who he was, and how he knew and experienced all things.” 43.  Flesher, “Wisdom.” 44.  Eliason, Vanitas Vanitatum, 39. 45. B. Smalley, “Some Thirteenth-Century Commentaries on the Sapiential Books,” part 1, Dominican Studies 2 (1949) 323. 46.  Ibid., 325. Compare with her comments on William of Tournai and Bonaventure; idem, “Some Thirteenth-Century Commentaries on the Sapiential Books,” part 2, Dominican Studies 3 (1950) 75.

14

Eric S. Christianson

Scripture. His 19 homilies on Eccl 1:1–4:8 “originated in collations or conferences, preached to the brothers.” 47 In the prologue to his homilies, Hugh made his approach clear: And so, in this work, I do not think that one should toil much after tropologies or mystical allegorical senses through the whole course of the argument, especially as the author himself aims less at improving, or at relating mysteries, than at moving the human heart to scorn worldly things by obviously true reasons and plain persuasion. I do not deny that many mysteries are included in the argument, especially in the latter part. As he proceeds, the author always, with increase of contemplation, rises above the visible ever more and more. But it is one thing to consider the writer’s intention and his argument as a whole, another to think that certain of his obiter dicta [incidental speech], which have a mystical sense and must be understood spiritually, should not be passed over. 48

A good example of his impressive attention to the style of Ecclesiastes is his explanation of the rhetorical change that occurs at the beginning of ch. 3, the catalog of times: “The words of a man are diverse, because the heart of a man is not one. . . . Therefore Solomon, in disputing about vanity, changes the ideas in his speech frequently, so that he might show his attitude to be changed through love of vanity.” 49 According to Smalley, “the Homilies became a classic. Teachers quoted and borrowed from them extensively.” 50 Indeed, their impact was felt far and wide, beyond monastic settings, as is evident in their influence on the narrative poem of Guillame de Machaut, Jugement dou roy de Navarre (1349). 51 Around the same time as Hugh, several key Jewish exegetes were flourishing in France and Spain. Perhaps most notable among these in the case of Qohelet is the commentary of the celebrated French exegete and Talmud scholar Rashbam (ca.  1080–ca.  1160), grandson of Rashi. Rashbam’s commentary is a lucid and coherent treatment that is rightly credited for being the first to identify the presence of an edited frame in Ecclesiastes. Sara Japhet and Robert Salters draw attention to the commentary’s “well-structured, premeditated composition, the writing of which is guided by a literary insight into the book of Qoheleth.” 52 Like Hugh, Rashbam distinguished himself from the interpretive tradition to which he 47.  Idem, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (2nd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1952) 98. Compare with S. Holm-Nielsen, “The Book of Ecclesiastes and the Interpretation of It in Jewish and Christian Theology,” ASTI 10 (1976) 86–88. 48.  Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 100. 49.  Eliason, Vanitas Vanitatum, 73 n. 64. 50.  Smalley, “Some Thirteenth-Century Commentaries,” part 1, 320. Compare with H. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale: Les Quatre sens de l’écriture (Paris: Aubier, 1960) 434–35. 51.  See M. J. Ehrhart, “Machaut’s Jugement dou roy de Navarre and the Book of Ecclesiastes,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 81 (1980) 318–25. 52.  Rashbam, The Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir Rashbam on Qoheleth (ed. and trans. S. Japhet and R. Salters; Jerusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill, 1985) 42.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

15

belonged. The principle applied with “absolute consistency” throughout his commentary is to arrive at a literal meaning. “A word, a phrase, a verse—when found in a given context—can have one and only one interpretation. Thus the practice which is so common in Jewish exegetical tradition, including medieval commentators, of suggesting several possibilities for interpreting a given text, is completely absent from Rashbam’s works.” 53 Another outstanding Jewish work of this period was composed by Samuel ibn Tibbon, sometime between 1198/99 and 1221. James Robinson describes its scope and immense influence: [The commentary] was one of the first major works of philosophical exegesis written in Hebrew and it exercised considerable influence in southern France, Italy, and Spain. It is a massive work [approx. 280 pp. ‘in modern typeface’], comprehensive in scope, and shows why Samuel gained distinction not only as a translator but also as a philosopher and exegete. 54

The commentary begins with the ancient device of prooenium (prologue), in which Tibbon systematically explicates such questions as “Solomon’s” use of a pseudonym, the book’s title, the book’s rhetorical division, and the book’s method of inquiry. The last item Tibbon takes to be the procedure of Qohelet to relate “one thing to another,” which is embodied in the word qhl: “Qohelet signifies the bringing together of two premises in order to generate a conclusion, i.e., it is a word that means syllogism. . . . [Tibbon] is clearly thinking of the Greek term for syllogism, which has the primary sense of bringing together.” 55 Like Tibbon, Italian theologian Bonaventure composed a commentary (1253– 57) that resonated spectacularly well with its audience. Jeremy Holmes highlights the stimulating context in which Bonaventure found himself: The thirteenth century was an exciting time to be an exegete. Biblical studies were moving from the monasteries to the schools, the works of Aristotle were being introduced into Europe, and the new mendicant religious orders were leading the way in a gospel-driven intellectual revolution; these converging forces were accompanied by an explosion of theoretical and technical innovations. 56 53.  Ibid., 61–62. 54. J. Robinson, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Philosopher’s Prooenium,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (3 vols.; ed. I. Twersky; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001) 3.83. Compare with J. Kugel (“Some Medieval and Renaissance Hebrew Writings on the Poetry of the Bible,” in ibid., 1.70), who notes that it is Tibbon’s commentary that contained “one of the most influential” discussions of biblical poetry in the medieval period. 55. J. Robinson, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary,” 86, 87. 56. J. Holmes, “Bonaventure on Ecclesiastes,” St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, 2003, http://www.salvationhistory.com.

16

Eric S. Christianson

Smalley suggests that Bonaventure’s work “illustrates how a single postill [commentary] could become a classic. I have seen a large number of postills on Ecclesiastes of the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries: all quote Bonaventure and all quote him anonymously.” 57 For whatever reason, it seems that Bonaventure marked out Ecclesiastes for special attention. 58 In perhaps the most developed mode of the reading, he follows the approach made so popular by Gregory the Great in his Dialogues, of postulating different voices in the book, such as the (repentant) fool, or that of an Epicurean. In Bonaventure’s words, [T]o understand what [Ecclesiastes] says, attention must be paid to two things, namely, the reason for speaking and the style of speaking. Further, he uses two styles of speaking, for he says some things plainly, others ironically. . . . Ecclesiastes says some things to approve them. . . . He says some things to report what he has done. . . . Likewise, he says some things to report what he has thought. . . . He often uses this style in the book as if to report his temptations. Hence this book is a kind of meditation by Solomon. Just as a person moves from one meditation to another depending on diverse circumstances, as when someone thinks that this is good, and afterwards begins another line of thought. This is how Solomon speaks in this book. 59

The contribution of Bonaventure’s literal approach was longstanding and farreaching and managed to tackle the problems posed by Qohelet in a more direct fashion than its predecessors. 60 Indeed, Bonaventure’s commentary “was a brilliant summary of traditional teaching, yet also utilized the most recent developments in exegetical techniques.” 61 Monti notes that some “indication of its wide diffusion may be gathered from the forty-two extant manuscripts spread throughout Europe which contain this postill.” 62 His commentary became the standard, displacing the commentaries of Jerome, Hugh of St. Victor, and Hugh of St. Cher and likely served as a significant aid to preachers and spiritual directors of the day. 63 The interest in Ecclesiastes by Bonaventure and many other medieval Christian writers was kindled in part by surrounding philosophical enquiries, as Karlfried Froehlich explains:

57.  Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 274. 58.  Holmes, “Bonaventure.” 59.  Commenting on Eccl 5:17. Bonaventure, Works of St. Bonaventure: Commentary on Ecclesiastes (trans. and notes by C. Murray and R. J. Karris; Works 7; Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 2005) 233–34. 60.  Compare with Smalley, The Study of the Bible, 298. 61. D. Monti, Bonaventure’s Interpretation of Scripture in His Exegetical Works (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1979) 84. 62.  Ibid., 83. 63.  Bonaventure, Works, 7.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

17

A real shift in the exegetical treatment of the “Books of Solomon” . . . occurred with the reception of the libri naturales into the arts curriculum in the first decades of the thirteenth century which stirred theologians and exegetes to a new interest in the scientific aspects of biblical teaching. The interpretation of Ecclesiastes, which was concerned with the “nature of the things of this world,” was bound to reflect this trend. . . . The new interest in the sapiential literature was easy to understand. Its content was closer than that of other biblical books to the secular sciences being explored at that time. The questions which the literal sense of the Solomonic books raised often paralleled the philosophical material taught in the arts faculties. . . . Thus, the thirteenth century interpretation of Ecclesiastes did not discard the older exegetical tradition. It enriched it by making room for the discussion of a wider range of issues. 64

Intriguingly, this rich articulation between Ecclesiastes and concurrent questions of science and philosophy (that is, the pursuit of knowledge broadly conceived) would recur with particular urgency and scope in the Renaissance period, constituting one of the most momentous themes of Ecclesiastes’ reception history. There are, however, other sorts of readings in this period to consider, readings not limited to strictly religious contexts. From as early as the Old English poem The Wanderer (from the “Exeter Book,” ca. 975), Ecclesiastes appears to have influenced literary works in terms of theme and structure. Paul De Lacy suggests that the difficult structure and thematic disparity of The Wanderer is best accounted for by Ecclesiastes’ being a “primary influence” on the poet, and hence it shares some of its key features. 65 So, for example, The Wanderer also reflects on the transitory nature of existence, the futility of human endeavor, and it expresses “a strong declaration of the hopelessness engendered by mutability.” 66 Indeed, the mournful reflections on wisdom recall Qohelet’s concerns: And so to grow wise / one must spend / a few winters in this world. . . . The sage gets / how ghastly it will be / when all the world’s estate / is standing in ruin. 67 And toward its end appear bleak reflections on destiny that also mirror Qohelet’s thought: All is suffering / in this earthly realm. / Things wend to the worse / in this world under the heavens. / Here fortune is not given. / Here friend 64.  Froelich, “Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament in the High Middle Ages,” 530–31. 65. P. De Lacy, “Thematic and Structural Affinities: The Wanderer and Ecclesiastes,” Neophilologus 82 (1998) 125. 66.  Ibid., 131. 67. T. Romano, The Wanderer, 1998, http://www.aimsdata.com/tim/anhaga/edition.htm.

18

Eric S. Christianson is not given. / Here man is not given. / Here maid is not given. / All this earthly abode / ends in emptiness. 68

The similarities lead De Lacy to conclude that the poet “knew about” aspects of the philosophy, imagery, and structure of Hebrew wisdom, especially Ecclesiastes. Qohelet-like reflections on human transience and death are also reflected in a poem by Bishop Patrick, “To a Friend on the Frailty of Life” (ad amicum de caduca vita, ca. 1079), which begins, The painter, alas!, shall die sooner than the painted page,   Unless fire devour it or heavy water drown it: And this skin which I have scored with my own hand for a short while,   Ah me!, shall outlast my brief life. He goes on to suggest themes more directly from Ecclesiastes: As one man dies another, doomed to death, is born:   So are man’s birth and end ever with us. . . . The present wipes out the past, and the future the present:   Who once was mighty, lo! that he lived is unknown. . . . Now in time of weeping he laughs: in time of laughter   Soon he may weep and grieve that he has not grieved before. We all know these truths, but few of us dread them in our hearts,   For the heart of man is harder than rock. 69 Themes of this sort on the brevity of life and its fickle workings, which articulate so naturally with Ecclesiastes, are picked up again in the Vernon manuscript, a collection of anonymous Middle English “mortality lyrics” of the fourteenth century (ca. 1325–50). These also provide a counterpoint to the more controlled readings of the abbeys. In contrast to the more orthodox theological exegesis of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the mortality lyrics interpret Ecclesiastes with little concern for theological palatability. As Matsuda puts it, the “poems on death and transience not only borrow directly from Ecclesiastes but depend on it to provide them with the dignified and personalized generalizations on death and transience, expressed with the lyrical grandeur and the simplicity of images characteristic of the Sapiential Books.” 70 68.  Ibid. 69.  Patrick, The Writings of Bishop Patrick, 1074–1084 (ed. A. Gwynn; Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1955) 79, 81. Translated anonymously in 1585. 70. T. Matsuda, “Death and Transience in the Vernon Refrain Series,” English Studies 70/3 (1989) 193.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

19

Two poems in particular, “For Each Man Ought Himself to Know” and “And Some Time Think on Easter Day,” engage with Ecclesiastesan themes and ideas, while “This World Fares as a Fantasy” (“This World Passes like a Dream”) draws its language more directly from Qohelet: The passage of the sun, we may well know   Arises in the East and goes down West; the rivers run into the sea,   and [the sea] is never increased; winds rush here and there   . . . This world passes like a dream. 71 One of the poem’s dominant themes is the illusory nature of the world. “This world is false, fickle and frail,” laments the poet. 72 Sitwell traces the lyrics’ concerns to mid-fourteenth-century conflict about the question of God’s foreknowledge. 73 Matsuda discusses the particularly distinct interpretive approach to Ecclesiastes found in the lyrics: Ecclesiastes . . . proved challenging to medieval commentators for the somewhat unorthodox eschatological assumptions it maintained, especially because it appeared to lack the perspective which extends beyond death and remains sometimes ostensibly indifferent to the fate of the afterlife. Unlike late medieval commentaries on Ecclesiastes, the Vernon series makes little attempt to alter such problematic points, but rather adopts, whether consciously or not, similar indifference towards the afterlife. One may say that the Vernon series owes its non-homiletic quality basically to the fact that it regards, like Ecclesiastes, death and salvation primarily as problems of this world. 74

Not only did Ecclesiastes provide these poets with a framework for reflecting on the darker themes of human existence, but they even anticipate modern approaches in their recognition of and emphasis on the “self-examining” aspects of Ecclesiastes. 75 71. C. Brown and G. V. Smithers, Religious Lyrics of the XIVth Century (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952) 160–61. My translation. 72.  Ibid., 162; further, see the commentary below on Eccl 8:17. 73. G. Sitwell, “A Fourteenth-Century English Poem on Ecclesiastes,” Dominican Studies 3 (1950) 290. 74.  Matsuda, “Death and Transience,” 193–94; compare with the similar assessment in Sitwell, “A Fourteenth-Century English Poem,” 288. 75.  Matsuda, “Death and Transience,” 199; compare with W. P. Brown, “Character Reconstructed: Ecclesiastes,” in Character in Crisis (ed. W. P. Brown; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996) 120–50; and my book A Time to Tell, 173–215.

20

Eric S. Christianson

Other discourses of the period distinguish themselves from the more common examination of Ecclesiastes’ relevance to points of doctrine, even by adopting and transforming the approach typified by the abbeys. The tripartite program of reading the books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs) originated with Origen and was developed by various medieval exegetes. In these schemes, Ecclesiastes inhabited a middle, transitional stage of moral or spiritual development. As Eliason puts it, In Origen’s view of the process of education, Ecclesiastes holds a mediating position between the most basic religious instruction—good conduct—and the most sublime religious achievements—the mystical contemplation of divine things. Or, in other words, Ecclesiastes pertains to those whose religious instruction is already significantly under way, but who have yet to attain the highest goals of that instruction. It is the next to last stop in the project of learning to love. Jerome, faithful to Origen, expands these ideas in his commentary . . . and from this source they pass into the works of Alcuin . . . , glossa ordinaria (Eccl. 1.1), Hugh of St. Victor . . . and Honorius of Autun. 76

It was a structure of this sort that, according to Rebecca Beal, exercised a substantial influence on Dante in his composition of La commedia (composed between 1308 and 1321) as well as Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde (ca. 1385). So, with La commedia, the formal organization of the [medieval Solomonic corpus] into three books arranged in a “necessary” order and identified as “three songs” corresponds exactly to Dante’s organization of the Commedia into the three cantiche of Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. Solomon’s composition reflects the triplex status hominis [developed in Hugh of St. Cher’s Ecclesiastes commentary] (man at the three levels of his spiritual ascent). . . . Against the background of the three states Dante sets his pilgrimage, an allegorical presentation of the soul’s progress to perfect wisdom. 77

In the application of this approach, Dante may have been influenced directly by the popular postills of Hugh of St. Victor (between 1118 and 1141) and Bonaventure (1253–57) in particular. But for Beal, “[C]orrespondences between the libri Salomonis and the Commedia go beyond the external or even formal parallels. The Biblical tradition provides a literary vehicle which Dante appropriates and adapts to his own similar subject, the journey of the soul to God.” 78 Beal detects a more direct and complex engagement with Eccl 12 in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. 76.  Eliason, Vanitatus Vanitatum, 49. 77. R. Beal, The Medieval Tradition of the Libri Salomonis in Dante’s Comedia and Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde (Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1982) 107. 78.  Ibid., 108. Beal goes on to develop in detail the ways in which Dante’s “allegory and narrative progression” mirror the medieval approach to the Solomonic corpus.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

21

It is perhaps sadly fitting to close this section on premodern readings with an example wracked with premodern superstition. Qohelet’s words made a very brief appearance in one of the most malignant and destructive texts of Western culture (and one which exercised enormous influence). The Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches), published by two Dominicans (Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Institoris) with the blessing of Pope Innocent VIII in successive editions between 1430 and 1505, became “an immediate best-seller . . . second only to the Bible [and] . . . remained ‘the’ text which any detractor of the witchcraze must confute.” 79 Under the heading “Concerning Witches who copulate with Devils” and addressing the question “Why it is that Women are chiefly addicted to Evil Superstitions?” the Malleus suggests that [i]t is this which is lamented in Ecclesiastes vii, and which the Church even now laments on account of the great multitude of witches. And I have found a woman . . . [the whole of Eccl 7:26 is cited]. More bitter than death, that is, than the devil. . . . More bitter than death, again, because that is natural and destroys only the body; but the sin which arose from woman destroys the soul . . . [and again, because] bodily death is an open and terrible enemy, but woman is a wheedling and secret enemy. 80

The Malleus goes on to develop the idea of the female anatomy as “snares and nets,” referring to the actual practice of “binding” men through witchcraft. 81 Qohelet’s primary metaphors, then, offer a way of “expositing” the dangers of witches. It is certainly the case that, as Brian Noonan has shown, Qohelet’s words are not a favorite source for the Malleus (this is Qohelet’s only appearance), and indeed Proverbs and Job appear far more frequently, but this particular use of the text is highly developed and sustained (more so, for example, than other biblical texts in this section). 82 While such a use of the text is hardly evidence in itself of any inherent misogyny, it does lay bare the power of Qohelet’s emotive language, which seemingly lies in wait to be “exploited” for suppression. 79. C. Fontaine, “‘Many Devices’ (Qoheleth 7.23–8.1): Qoheleth, Misogyny and the Malleus Maleficarum,” in Wisdom and Psalms: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) (ed. A. Brenner and C. Fontaine; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998) 161–62. 80. J. Sprenger and H. Institoris, Malleus Maleficarum (ed. and trans. M. Summers; Suffolk: Rodker, 1928) 47. 81.  An oddly similar though inverted idea in relation to this text is found in The Zohar, ca. 1290: “From women come all kinds of divination and sorcery. . . . And were it not for the fact that their ‘hands are bound’ [7:26], in that they are prevented by heaven, women would be continually murdering and killing the world’s inhabitants.” F. Lachoower and I. Tishby, eds., The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts (trans. D. Goldstein; 3 vols; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) 3.1358. 82. B. Noonan, “Wisdom Literature among the Witchmongers,” in Wisdom and Psalms: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) (ed. A. Brenner and C. Fontaine; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 169–74.

22

Eric S. Christianson

The Life and Death of Solomon, the Author: Alive and Well in Premodernity (before 1500) Of course, the first verse of ch. 1 provides the “raw materials” for the premise of Solomonic authorship. It is notable, however, that even Qohelet’s first interpreters, the Septuagint translators, who had opportunity to mask the authorial ambiguity to a non-Hebrew-reading public, resisted a clear ascription to Solomon by rendering the first verse as “The words of Ecclesiastes” (‘rēmata ’Ekklēsiastou) and not “of Solomon.” 83 This may be understood in part as being due to an early strand of rabbinic tradition that was reluctant to acknowledge the inspiration of Solomon in the composition of Ecclesiastes (and, at the time, the Song of Songs). 84 It is widely held that Ecclesiastes was received into the Jewish canon due mainly to its association with Solomon. 85 Debate about the book in general was abundant, with Ecclesiastes and Esther most frequently coming under the erratic microscope of the rabbis. The real issues of these discussions are, however, not always easy to determine. 86 Rather obliquely, discussions gave great weight to a book’s ability to “defile the hands” 87 or to a book’s inspirational status in general (for example, b. Yad. 2:14; see below). Take, for example, the following: “All the holy writings defile the hands. The Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Ecclesiastes. R. Jose says: Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs.” 88 B. Meg. 7a is similar: “as learned Rabbi Shimon ben Mennasiah states: Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands since it is the wisdom of Solomon.” Ultimately, defilement of the hands was probably about the degree of ritual effect that a book could muster, and may even have been a roundabout measure to keep scrolls from being stored with sacred food, thus leading to mice and rats. 89 As Leiman suggests, discussions traditionally ascribed to the Council of Jamnia (ca. 100 c.e.) report that Ecclesiastes was in danger of being gnz (“stored away”) because it fostered heretical ideas. But the reported debate probably served 83.  On the tenor and style of the Septuagint’s rendering of Ecclesiastes, see M. V. Fox (“Qohelet,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation [ed. J. H. Hayes; 2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999] 2.349). 84. D. Halperin, “The Book of Remedies, the Canonization of the Solomonic Writings, and the Riddle of Pseudo-Eusebius,” JQR 72 (1982) 277. 85.  For example, Holm-Nielsen, “The Book of Ecclesiastes,” 55; R. B. Salters, “Qoheleth and the Canon,” ExpTim 86 (1974–75) 340–42; R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes (NCB; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989) 3. Some of what follows on Solomonic authorship is adapted from my book A Time to Tell, 148–54, 165–71. 86.  See ibid., 148–49. 87.  See S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden, CT: Archon, 1976) 104–20. 88.  B. Yad. 3:5. See also b. Yad. 2:14; b. ʿEd. 5:3; b. Meg. 7a; Midr. Lev. 28:1. 89.  M. J. Broyde, “Defilement of the Hands, Canonization of the Bible, and the Special Status of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs,” Judaism 44/1 (1995) 66.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

23

to confirm its canonical status early on, since only problematic canonical books were at risk of being “stored away.” 90 In this respect, the Solomonic connection faded to the background. In none of the discussions at Jamnia was Solomonic authorship even mentioned, and in the end, no books discussed at Jamnia were withdrawn from canonical use anyway. 91 Contrary to several studies, Ecclesiastes was spared gnz but not because of any association with Solomon. 92 In an infamous dispute about Ecclesiastes between the Shammaites and the school of Hillel, Solomonic authorship was not mentioned. 93 Indeed, reference to Solomon may not have been effectual anyway, as the early third-century c.e. tradition of R. Simeon ben Menasya suggests: The Song of songs defiles the hands, because it was spoken through Divine inspiration; Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, because it is [only] Solomon’s wisdom. They replied: Did he write this alone? Scripture says, “He spoke three thousand parables, and his songs were a thousand and five” (1 Kgs. 5:12), and “Do not add to [God’s] words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30:6). 94

Compare Jerome, who in his commentary (388/89), steeped in rabbinic tradition, states regarding Eccl 12:13–14 that [t]he Hebrews say that although [Ecclesiastes] used to be among other writings of Solomon in the past, they have not persisted in memory; and this book seems as if it ought to have been omitted [oblitterandus], because it asserts that all God’s creations are vain and that he thinks everything is done for nothing, and he prefers food and drink and transient pleasures to all things; thus he takes his authority from this one title [Solomon?], so it is now included in the number of divine books, because he argues well and lists many things . . . and he said that his speeches are the easiest to hear, and to understand. 95

In other words, what really matters about this extraordinary little scroll is that, Solomon or no, it is “argued well,” and the words bring pleasure to the ear. The significance of Solomon as author was to grow almost grotesquely out of proportion before it returned to this meager size again. Often debates focused on some of the acknowledged contradictions of the book (even the “defiling of hands” debate may have had this problem at its center). Midr. Qoh. 11:9 records what was perhaps the most serious of the debates on Ecclesiastes: 90.  Leiman, Canonization, 79–80, 86, 104–9. 91.  See R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985) 276–77. 92. See my book A Time to Tell, 150 n. 75. 93.  See above; b. Yad. 3:5; b. ʿEd. 5:3. 94.  B. Yad. 2:14, with variations; b. Meg. 7a. Halperin, “The Book of Remedies,” 277. 95.  Jerome, Commentary, ad loc.

24

Eric S. Christianson The Sages sought to suppress the Book of Koheleth because they discovered therein words which tend toward heresy. They declared, “This is the wisdom of Solomon that he said, ‘Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth!’” (Eccl. 11:9). Now Moses said, that ye go not about after your own heart (Num. 15:39). . . . Is restraint to be abolished? Is there no judgement and no Judge? But since he continued, “But know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgement,” they exclaimed, “Well has Solomon spoken.”

The first tractate of the Mishnah states the case in general terms. R. Tanhum of Nave says, “O Solomon, where is your wisdom, where is your intelligence? Not only do your words contradict the words of your father, David, they even contradict themselves.” 96 Many of the ancient readers were concerned with content and did not seem to be bothered with the much-asked modern question, Why is Ecclesiastes in the canon? 97 And traditionally, the question Why Solomon? has been answered with the question Who else but Solomon could have spoken with such vehement denunciation on the vanity of riches, wealth, and even human existence? As R. Eleazar is reputed to have noted so aptly, “[B]ut for Solomon . . . I might have said that this man who had never owned two farthings in his life makes light of the wealth of the world and declares, ‘Vanity of vanities.’” 98 Such a view is articulated in the Christian tradition as well. For example, Bonaventure in the introduction to his commentary (1253–57) notes that a poor person with no possessions would not be believed about despising riches since that person has no experience and therefore knows nothing. So the author of this book had to be a person with experience of all these things, that is, a person who was powerful, rich, voluptuous, and curious or wise. We have not read or heard of anyone who so excelled in all these as Solomon. 99

The most substantial biblical narrative about the eventual dispersal of Solomon’s kingdom (1 Kgs 11:9–40) is sparse, even ambiguous, and this particular ambiguity may have been the impetus for a number of legends about Solomon. 100 In the books attributed to him (including Ecclesiastes), early Jewish tradition sometimes made attempts to understand the particular circumstances of Solomon’s writing. The most fascinating example is a narrative about Solomon and the demon Asmodai. According to Ginzberg’s rendering of the legend, which is known in the Talmudim and probably predates them, when Solomon gained too many wives for himself and desired too many horses and too much gold, the book of Deuteronomy (that 96.  B. Šabb. 3. 97. See my book (A Time to Tell, 153–54) for an overview of some modern attempts at answering it. 98.  Midr. Qoh. 3.11.1; compare with Midr. Deut. 1:5. 99.  Bonaventure, Works, 76. 100.  Holm-Nielsen, “The Book of Ecclesiastes,” 71.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

25

is, the Law) stepped before the Lord and requested that Solomon be chastised in the form of dethronement. 101 While Solomon was dethroned, the demon Asmodai assumed his likeness and took his place. During that time, Solomon experienced the life of a beggar and consequently returned to his throne in Jerusalem a repentant king. 102 In Targum Qohelet, Asmodai was sent because Solomon became too proud. During his dethronement, Solomon traveled the world weeping and saying, “I am Qoheleth, who was previously named Solomon,” and it was then that he wrote Ecclesiastes: When King Solomon of Israel was sitting on his royal throne, his heart became very proud because of his wealth, and he transgressed the decree of the Memra [that is, the “word,” a rabbinic device to “soften anthropomorphism”] of the Lord; he gathered many horses, chariots, and cavalry; he collected much silver and gold; he married among foreign peoples. Immediately the anger of the Lord grew strong against him. Therefore, He sent Ashmedai king of the demons, against him who drove him from his royal throne and took his signet ring from his hand so that he would wander and go into exile in the world to chastise him. He went about in all the districts and towns of the Land of Israel. He wept, pleaded, and said, “I am Qohelet, who was previously named Solomon. I was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” 103

Targum Qohelet drives home the notion that Solomon not only wrote Ecclesiastes but did so by the Holy Spirit: When Solomon king of Israel saw through the holy spirit that the kingdom of Rehoboam his son would be divided with Jeroboam the son of Nebat and that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed and the people of the household of Israel would go into exile, he said to himself, “Vanity of vanities . . . of everything for which I and David my father laboured.” 104

Here we are told to read Ecclesiastes as an exposition of the vanity that is the loss of Solomon’s kingdom. The targum continues (1:13), “And I set my mind to seek instruction from the Lord at the time when he revealed himself to me at Gibeon” (compare with Eccl 1:13; 1 Kgs 3:5–9). This link with Solomon is subtle. It is not to support a particular rabbinic argument or (as far as one can tell) to correct some previous misunderstanding of Eccl 1:13 but, rather, to underscore the presence of Solomon as the primary narrator/author of these words, a perspective maintained throughout the targum (see, for example, 3:12, 4:15, 7:27, 9:7). 101.  See P. S. Knobel, ed. and trans., The Targum of Qohelet (The Aramaic Bible 15; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) 22–23. 102.  See L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968) 5.165. Compare with Midr. Num. 11:3; Midr. Song 3.7.5. 103.  Knobel, Targum, 22. 104.  Tg. Qoh. 1.1–2.4.

26

Eric S. Christianson

Among the Christians, it was Origen who began the tradition of a “Solomonic corpus,” which included Ecclesiastes and provided a scheme of reading that corresponded to spiritual development. From the paraphrase on Ecclesiastes by Gregory Thaumaturgos (ca. 245) onward, the Solomonic context becomes more significant than the formulaic “Solomon said. . . .” As Gregory’s paraphrase begins, we are left in little doubt about the importance of Solomonic authorship: “Solomon (the son of the king and prophet David), a king more honoured and a prophet wiser than anyone else, speaks to the whole assembly of God (1.1).” 105 John Jarick discusses the influence of Solomon throughout the work: This presumption of Solomonic authorship gives rise to certain motifs in Gregory’s interpretation. One idea referred to throughout . . . is that Solomon lost and subsequently regained wisdom—he had received wisdom from God but had afterwards rejected it. . . . And since Gregory sees Solomon as being . . . a prophet, a number of statements are treated as speaking in a somewhat visionary way of the cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil. . . . [T]his apocalyptic motif reaches its climax in an ingenious paraphrase of the final chapter’s “Allegory of Old Age” as a prophecy of the end of the world. 106

And Gregory Thaumaturgos was not alone in finding Solomon’s presence worthy of note. In his homilies on Ecclesiastes (ca. 380), Gregory of Nyssa makes frequent reference to the importance of Solomon’s experience, such as the following: [T]he condemnation of the attitude to life based on enjoyment and emotion comes from the mouth of Solomon, in order to make its rejection convincing to us; for he had absolute freedom to practise a life aimed at pleasure and enjoyment, and utterly repudiates all that seems to be sought after by mankind. 107

Augustine also found it relevant that the figure of Solomon, “the wisest king of Israel, who reigned in Jerusalem, thus commences the book called Ecclesiastes, which the Jews number among their canonical Scriptures: ‘Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes.’” 108 More importantly, however, he rejected Origen’s interpretation of Eccl 1:9–10 (that it suggested the cyclical nature of all things until they returned to their original state): “At all events, far be it from any true believer to suppose that by these words of Solomon those cycles are meant.” 109 It may be that the appeal to Solomon here was an attempt to clinch the argument. Chrysostom (ca. 370) has unusually high praise for the “words of Solomon: in Ecclesiastes when he says, in the flow of another topic of discussion altogether, 105.  Jarick, Gregory Thaumaturgos’ Paraphrase, 7. 106.  Ibid., 314–15. 107.  Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies 59; compare with 62. 108.  Augustine, City of God, 20:3. 109.  Ibid., 12:13 (italics mine); compare with Origen, de Principiis 3.5.3.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

27

‘[Solomon] who enjoyed much security . . . that very sentiment of Solomon . . . so marvellous and pregnant with divine wisdom—“Vanity of vanities.”’” 110 Jerome, following Origen, grouped Ecclesiastes with Proverbs and the Song of Songs, each representing successive stages of Christian growth. He often used the “fact” that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes to make sense of certain texts. Following the rabbis, when Qohelet laments the bequeathal of the reward from his toil to a fool (2:18– 19), the fool becomes Solomon’s son. These examples reflect a secure standing in the early church of both the status of the book (Solomon’s words are safe) and the notion of Solomonic authorship in general. This standing is, on the whole, only assumed and not really exploited, which is most evident where allegorical interpretation held sway. With allegory, the character of Solomon eventually became lost among other concerns. Indeed, while midrashic interpreters showed concern for “earthly” matters (for example, expositing the history of Israel), it was more the habit of the early Christians, with their “Jesus is the Ecclesiast” approach, to allegorize to the extent that a Solomonic framework was rendered unnecessary. 111 For example, Gregory of Nyssa identified the “Ecclesiast” with the true king of Israel, Jesus. 112 Jewish readers, too, often regarded Solomon’s authorship as inconsequential. In Midrash Qohelet, for example, authorship generally is unimportant since the more pressing concern is to create a forum for rabbinic discussion on a vast array of topics. The Solomonic context is retained only faintly.

Vanitas Vanitatum [Solomon] speakes roundly, that if they read no more, but sleepe all the Sermon after: yet the first sentence shall strike a sting into their heartes, and leaue a sounde behinde to woken them when they are gone, as manie (you know) remember this sentence, which remember no sentence in all this booke beside. Who hath not heard Vanitie of vanities, &tc. Though fewe haue conceiued it? 113

Ecclesiastes is a densely thematic text. The word ‫( ֶהבֶל‬which appears some 38 times and which signifies, at the least, a deficit situation—its translation will be discussed below) is easily the most prominent of its themes and significantly brackets the book by its appearance in Eccl 1:2 and 12:8. Indeed, the recurrence of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬can be somewhat overbearing, as Minos Devine wryly recognized: “If you can realise 110. J. Chrysostom, Concerning the Statues (NPNF 9; New York: Christian Literature, 1889) 439–40. 111.  Hirshman, “The Greek Fathers,” 155–57; referring to John 1:49. 112.  Yet another way in which “Qohelet as Solomon” impacted Christian tradition was through the ars praedicandi, early medieval manuals of preaching that extolled Solomon as the ideal preacher on “contempt of the world” (see Eliason, Vanitas Vanitatum, 42). 113. H. Smith, “The Triall of Vanitie,” in The Sermons of Master Henrie Smith, Gathered into One Volume (London: Irwin, 1592) 832.

28

Eric S. Christianson

what a trial it is to be told forty times that ‘all is vanity,’ you may be disposed to exercise some restraint in the repetition of any one idea, however interesting it may be to yourself.” 114 Many readers have subsequently been polarized in their responses, favoring joy or ‫( ֶהבֶל‬usually the latter) as the defining theme. There is no other word more firmly connected to Qohelet’s experience than ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. It is used to judge the experience of Qohelet’s narrated (younger) life as a whole, and it is Qohelet’s experience that defines ‫ ֶהבֶל‬for readers. Qohelet observes the following to be ‫ ֶהבֶל‬in relation to his experience: all that he observes (1:14); the test that he made of wisdom and folly (2:1); all the deeds he had done (2:11, 17); his fate in comparison with the fool (2:14–15); the fate of his inheritance (2:18–19, 21; cf. 2:26; 4:7–8); the days of his life (7:15); and of course, everything (1:2, 3:19, 9:1, 12:8). All that he does is colored by ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, and there is no better way to encapsulate his story, as the frame narrator recognized in 1:2 and 12:8. As such, ‫ ֶהבֶל‬is more than just a key word. The potential range of meaning is phenomenal. Michael Fox captures the way in which ‫ ֶהבֶל‬renders the multifaceted nature of experience: “[W]hat is fleeting may be precious, what is frustrating may be no illusion, what is futile may endure forever.” 115 As Douglas Miller has shown, ‫ ֶהבֶל‬functions as symbol for all of Qohelet’s narrated experience under the sun. 116 Qohelet’s earliest readers recognized this centrality of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬to his thought. Indeed, for many, ‫ ֶהבֶל‬everywhere crushes Qohelet’s lesser themes under its grievous weight. For legion premodern readers, it provided a way of seeing the world—its trappings a counterfeit jewel, the embodiment of what is worthless and deceptive. For yet other readers, ‫ ֶהבֶל‬has given hope, a base counterpoint that makes death shine more brightly, and joy a tangible possibility. As is evident in the overview that follows, some readers’ view of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬has reflected their whole approach to the book. The difficulty in translating ‫ ֶהבֶל‬has long been recognized. There have been some provocative proposals. Frank Crüsemann suggests that Qohelet’s “summation, ‘all is vanity’ or emptiness, a stirring of the air . . . is really not so different from our modern ‘everything is shit.’” 117 F. C. Burkitt offers “bubble,” and hence arrives at a charming, if innocuous, version of 1:2: “Bubble of bubbles! All things are a Bubble! What is the use of all Man’s toil and trouble?” 118 Miller helpfully 114.  J. M. Devine, Ecclesiastes, or The Confessions of an Adventurous Soul (London: Macmillan, 1916) 14. 115.  M. V. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOTSup 71; Sheffield: Almond, 1989) 36. 116.  D. B. Miller, Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes: The Place of Hebel in Qohelet’s Work (Academia Biblica 2; Atlanta: Society of Bibilical Literature, 2002). 117. F. Crüsemann, “The Unchangeable World: The ‘Crisis of Wisdom’ in Koheleth,” in God of the Lowly: Socio-historical Interpretations of the Bible (ed. W. Schottroff and W. Stegemann; New York: Orbis, 1979) 57. Compare with E. Tamez (When the Horizons Close: Rereading Ecclesiastes [New York: Orbis, 2000] 3, 155–56), who separately arrives at the same conclusion. 118.  F. C. Burkitt, Ecclesiastes: Rendered into English Verse by F. Crawford Burkitt (London: Macmillan, 1936) 9. “Buble” was a favorite choice of the Elizabethan paraphrasts and commentators.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

29

delineates the way in which ‫ ֶהבֶל‬has forced translators to take three distinctive approaches: abstract (a single, abstract meaning, such as “incongruous” or “absurd”), multiple senses (use of multiple terms, depending on context), and a single metaphor (a “live, single metaphor” that has multiple referents). 119 There is at least some consensus on the remarkably broad referentiality of the word, its ability to hold Qohelet’s ideas in tension. It is indicative of the vagaries of translating ‫ ֶהבֶל‬that in every age interpreters have consistently and explicitly resorted to simile and metaphor to render its inherent complexity. Take, for example, the following from Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 380), who reflects here on ‫ ֶהבֶל‬in the form of the Greek Bible’s rendering, ματαιοτης: No substantial object is simultaneously indicated when the term “futility” [ματαιοτης] is used, but it is a kind of idle and empty sound, expressed by syllables in the form of a word, striking the ear at random without meaning, the sort of word people make up for a joke, but which means nothing. . . . Another sense of “futility” is the pointlessness of things done earnestly to no purpose, like the sandcastles children build, and shooting arrows at stars, and chasing the winds, and racing against one’s own shadow and trying to step on its head. . . . “Futility” is either a meaningless word or an unprofitable activity, or an unrealized plan, or unsuccessful effort, or in general what serves no useful purpose at all. 120

Not only did Gregory note the symbolic meaning that was later developed by Miller (one of Miller’s key tenets is that, in Gregory’s words, ‫ ֶהבֶל‬refers to no “substantial object,” and its referentiality is radically open), but where ‫ ֶהבֶל‬appears to refer to things with no reason or “point,” Gregory developed this with a series of striking images (sandcastles and flung arrows—which, suitably, could in turn cause injury). Karaite commentator Yephet ben ʿAli, ca. 990, also recognized the appropriateness of metaphor to unpack ‫ ֶהבֶל‬: “It is generally held that [‫ ] ֶהבֶל‬is an appellation for a ray of sunlight in which something like dust becomes visible. You stretch out your hand and grasp at it, but there is nothing in your hand.” 121 Ramban (1135–1204) offered a comparable notion: ‫“ ֶהבֶל‬is a noticeable mist, like breath turned to vapor on a cold day, or the polluted, stagnant air trapped at the bottom of a pit. One can see the vapor, feel the heavy air, but both have no substance and swiftly disappear.” 122 119.  D. B. Miller, Symbol and Rhetoric, 2–14. 120.  Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies, 35. He goes on to develop the sand aspect of the metaphor at length on p. 41. 121.  ʿAli, Arabic Commentary, 146. 122. M. Zlotowitz, Koheles: Ecclesiastes—A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources (2nd ed.; Artscroll Tanach Series; New York: Mesorah, 1994) xxxvii–xxxviii.

30

Eric S. Christianson

Despising the World through Vanitas (before 1500) By far the most influential rendering of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬in all of the book’s reading contexts has been “vanity.” Origen’s no-longer-extant commentary was probably the first to exposit the theme. It was in the prologue to his Song of Songs commentary that he articulated a program of reading: Therefore if a person completes the first subject by freeing his habits from faults and keeping the commandments—which is indicated by Proverbs—and if after this, when the vanity of the world has been discovered and the weakness of its perishable things seen clearly [in Ecclesiastes], he comes to the point of renouncing the world and everything in the world, then he will come quite suitably also to contemplate and to long for the things that are unseen and are eternal. 123

As Origen comments in de Principiis, “Solomon appears to characterize the whole of corporeal nature as a kind of burden which enfeebles the vigour of the soul in the following language: ‘Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher; all is vanity. . . .’ To this vanity, then, is the creature subject . . . subjected to vanity not willingly.” 124 But it was Jerome, on whom Origen had a substantial influence, who pursued the theme programmatically and saw, as Eliason puts it, “the goal of contempt of the world . . . as an independent good.” 125 Jerome’s framework for understanding the book was in his articulation of its main theme: of vanity as representative of what is to be despised of the world— contemptus mundi. As well as in the introductory words of his preface concerning “virtuous Blesilla’s book of Ecclesiastes”—that he “taught her to think lightly of her generation and to esteem futile everything that she saw in the world”—Jerome makes his own theme clear in his commentary on Qohelet’s first words: Vanity of vanities [vanitas vanitatum] said Ecclesiastes, Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. If all things that God made are truly good then how can all things be considered vanity, and not only vanity, but even vanity of vanities? . . . [H]eaven, earth, the seas and all things that are contained within its compass can be said to be good in themselves, but compared to God they are nothing. And if I look at the candle in a lamp and am content with its light, then afterwards when the sun has risen I cannot discern anymore what was once bright; I will also see the light of the stars by the light of the setting sun, so in looking at the world and the multitudinous varieties of nature I am amazed at the greatness of the world, but I also remember that all things will pass away and the world will grow old, and 123.  Eliason, Vanitas Vanitatum, 49. 124.  Origen, de Principiis 1.4.5., in Tertullian Part Fourth, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen—Parts First and Second (ANF 4; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974) 264. Compare with Contra Celsus 7.50 and the Romans citation below. 125.  Eliason, Vanitas Vanitatum, 51.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

31

that only God is that which has always been. On account of this realisation I am compelled to say, not once but twice: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. . . . All things are and will be vain, until we find that which is complete and perfect. 126

Here Jerome shows his nuanced development of the vanitas theme. It is echoed in a later letter (ca. 394) to Pammachius: “But if all things are good, as being the handiwork of a good Creator, how comes it that all things are vanity? If the earth is vanity, are the heavens vanity too?—and the angels, the thrones, the dominations, the powers, and the rest of the virtues? No.” 127 This qualified approach to vanitas, which ironically mirrors Luther’s reasons for rejecting Jerome’s reading, is found in numerous Christian commentators, such as Augustine (City of God 20:3), John Chrysostom (Homilies on Ephesians 12), and the later commentary of Gregory of Agrigentum (ca. 600), who “agrees with Ecclesiastes that all is vanity, but says that nothing can be totally useless, since God made everything. Gregory even says that the ideal person is one who has experienced reality and still chosen the good.” 128 It also appears, with little modification, in the Glossa ordinaria (ca. 1100), Rupert of Deutz (ca. 1110), and Hugh of St. Cher (ca. 1230–35). 129 Hugh of St. Victor (fl. ca. 1118–41), in discussing the idea that omnia is vanitas, marks out his own approach: If everything is vanity, then he himself who says this is vanity. And how can what vanity says concerning vanity not be worthless? Because if it is true that what he says is worthless, he ought not to be heeded, but rather rejected. . . . What lives in the flesh is worthless. What lives in God is not worthless, but is true, since it comes from truth. 130

While most Christian commentators undertake this qualified approach to vanitas, others can hate the world through Qohelet’s eyes without condition. So the Arab monastic and theologian John of Damascus (ca. 650–750), in his immensely popular “romance,” Barlaam and Joseph, called for the renunciation of the “corruptible and perishable” world: [A]ll things are vanity and vexation of spirit, and many are the things that they bring in a moment, for they are slighter than dreams and a shadow, or the breeze 126.  Jerome, Commentary, ad loc. 127. Idem, St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works (trans. W. H. Fremantle; A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 6; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954) 73. 128.  G. H. Ettlinger, “The Form and Method of the Commentary on Ecclesiastes by Gregory of Agrigentum,” in Papers of the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies: Oxford 1983 (ed. E.A. Livingstone; SP 19; Leuven: Peeters, 1985) 320. 129. See Eliason, Vanitas Vanitatum, 51–53. 130.  Ibid., 53 nn. 30, 31.

32

Eric S. Christianson that blows in the air. Small and short lived is their charm, that is after all no charm, but illusion and deception of the wickedness of the world; which world we have been taught to love not at all but rather to hate with all our heart. 131

Now we are closer to the kind of reading that Luther would eventually target in his readings. The most nuanced form of this qualified approach to vanitas is found in Bonaventure’s commentary (1253–57). Bonaventure exemplified a distinct exegetical style from his peers, and his handling of the contemptus mundi reading (by then well established) is a sterling example. In his introduction, Bonaventure deals explicitly with the purpose ( finis) of Ecclesiastes and replies to the objection that contempt of the world is by necessity contempt of its Creator. His elegant reading is worth citing at length:   First, about the purpose. For it is said that the purpose of the book is contempt of the world. . . .   But against this: . . . . [T]o despise a work reflects back on the worker. So the person who despises the world, despises God. . . . Likewise . . . something directed towards its goal [that is, creation directed toward God] should not be despised, but rather accepted and loved. Therefore, this world, with all that is in it, is to be loved.   I reply: It should be said . . . that this world is like a ring given by the bridegroom to the soul itself. Now the bride can love the ring given her by her husband in two ways, namely with a chaste or an adulterous love. The love is chaste when she loves the ring as a memento of her husband and on account of her love for her husband. The love is adulterous when the ring is loved more than the husband, and the husband cannot regard such love as good. . . . Contempt for a ring by treating it as a poor and ugly gift reflects on the husband, but contempt of a ring by regarding it as almost nothing compared to the love of a husband, gives glory to the husband. . . . It is of such contempt that we are speaking, and so the matter is clear. 132

Like Donne later, in Bonaventure’s hands the contemptus reading is transformed. He further develops his reading by noting that, while truth exists “in itself,” vanity can exist “only by reason of the truth.” That is, “the person who knows true principles also knows false principles.” 133 Vanity, then, can only be understood in relation to its antithesis, an idea that will, centuries later, be articulated so lucidly by Michael Fox. 134 131.  John of Damascus, Barlaam and Joseph 12.109–10; in J. R. Wright, ed., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 203. 132.  Bonaventure, Works, 77–79; compare with Smalley’s (“Some Thirteenth-Century Commentaries on the Sapiential Books,” 44–45) discussion. 133.  Bonaventure, Works, 83. 134.  Fox, Qohelet.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

33

The contrast of the most convincing appearance of Qohelet in the NT to Jerome’s programmatic reading is worth noting here: “The creation was subjected to futility [ματαιοτης], not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope.” 135 This text appears repeatedly in premodern Christian commentaries on Ecclesiastes, all of which equate its vanity to that of Qohelet. Jerome himself played a key role in the history of Christian monasticism, 136 and his approach to Ecclesiastes would remain hugely influential until at least the age of reform. Early Christian writers by and large followed the broad contours of the reading with little variation. So for Augustine, vanity represents the world itself, for the Church prays “that it may be brought out of prison, that is from this world, from under the sun, where all is vanity.” 137 Indeed, in the abbeys of medieval Europe, the reading of Jerome was inescapable. Eric Eliason, in his magnificent survey of medieval vanitas readings, summarizes the remarkable level of agreement among commentators regarding the contemptus mundi theme: [T]here was very little disagreement concerning what Solomon taught in Ecclesiastes. His subject was contempt of the world. The opening of Ecclesiastes, with its universal judgment of “vanity” on everything, and its descriptions of the world in constant but unproductive change suggested to medieval readers very good reasons for withholding one’s trust in the temporalia which made up the world. As a result, the major enterprise in commenting on Ecclesiastes in the Middle Ages was the effort to distinguish between those things which last and those things which don’t. 138

For all its popularity, however, one finds significant departures from Jerome. 139 Jewish authors had their own take on the vanitas reading. German R. Lipman Mühlhausen, for example, began his polemical work against Christianity (ca. 1399) as follows: Vanity of vanities. . . . Forbid it that such a thought should ever enter into the heart that the works of the blessed God in the creation of the world are vanity! for he has created all things for his glory. . . . The meaning is, that all the labour wherewith one labours to acquire and enjoy the things which are under the sun is utterly vain and profitless. 140

135.  Rom 8:20; see J. R. Wright (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, xxiii) for other brief NT parallels. 136.  Hirshman, “Midrash,” 97. 137. St. Augustine, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, by St Augustine (ed. P. Schaff; NPNF 8; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956) 651. 138.  Eliason, Vanitas Vanitatum, 51. 139.  Compare with Hirshman, “The Greek Fathers,” 139. 140.  Quoted in Ginsburg, Coheleth, 64.

34

Eric S. Christianson

This seems to have the Christian contemptus reading in its sights (compare Luther’s rejection of the reading on similar grounds). Earlier Jewish readings seem entirely unaware of Jerome’s approach and relate ‫ ֶהבֶל‬particularly to death (and in a sense thereby anticipate seventeenth-century vanitas still-life painting). So the Talmud notes that “[n]o less than seven halts and sittings are to be arranged for the dead, corresponding to Vanity of Vanities, saith Koheleth; vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” 141 That is, the mourners were to halt, sit, and stand again to provide opportunity to comfort mourners, and the significance of “seven” is to do with the number of times ‫ ֶהבֶל‬appears in 1:2 (three in the singular and two in the plural, each of which count as two). Commenting on a popular talmudic passage (“When R. Johanan finished the book of Job, he said, ‘The end of the human being is to die, the end of the beast is the slaughter; thus all are doomed to die. . . .’”), 142 Turkish preacher Elijah ha-Kohen of Izmir (ca. 1645–1729) noted that it would have been more appropriate for him to say this at the end of the Book of Ecclesiastes, for Kohelet, who reigned in realms above and below [b. Sanh. 20b], still considered everything vanity, as he said: Vanity of vanities . . . all is vanity (Eccles 1.2). There it would be pertinent to say that the end of the human being is to die, remembering that even Solomon ultimately died, despite his glorious stature. 143

On the whole, Jerome’s vanitas reading would be adapted, transformed, and resisted in various measures through the centuries but, until relatively recently at least, always reckoned with. 144 Even in the political realm, Qohelet’s theme may have had its place. In his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon suggested that Gelimer, the defeated Vandal king, in March of 534, processed in a dignified retreat from Numidia, to which he had fled: A long train of the noblest Vandals reluctantly exposed their lofty stature and manly countenance. Gelimer slowly advanced: he was clad in a purple robe, and still maintained the majesty of a king. Not a tear escaped from his eyes, not a sigh was heard; but his pride or piety derived some secret consolation from the words of Solomon, which he repeatedly pronounced, Vanity! Vanity! All is vanity! 145

141.  B. B. Bat. 100b. 142.  B. Ber. 17a. 143. Elijah ha-Kohen of Izmir, “Restoring the Soul: Eulogy for Jacob Hagiz,” 1674. Quoted in M. Saperstein, ed., Jewish Preaching, 1200–1800: An Anthology (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989) 304. 144.  It can still occasionally be found, although not necessarily in Jerome’s terms; for example, see Zlotowitz, Koheles, xxxvii. 145. E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (ed. with intro. J. B. Bury; 7 vols; London: Methuen, 1909) 4.314.

Ecclesiastes in Premodern Reading

35

The contemptus mundi reading had been popularized in the Middle Ages by a proliferation of De Contemptu Mundi works, none so popular, however, as Pope Innocent III’s De Contemptu Mundi sive de Miseria Condicionis Humane (1195). Early on, Ecclesiastes rears its apropos head in order to establish the broad theme: There is nothing without labor under the sun, there is nothing without defect under the moon, there is nothing without vanity in time. For time is the period of motion of mutable things. “Vanity of vanities, says Ecclesiastes, and all is vanity.” O how various are the endeavors of men, how diverse are their efforts! Yet there is one end and the same consequence for all: “labor and vexation of spirit.” 146

In a similar vein, another widely disseminated work fostered the contemptus mundi reading in the centuries to come. Thomas à Kempis’s Imitation of Christ (ca. 1440) pronounces the theme as an overture: “Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity,” except to love God and serve Him alone. And this is supreme wisdom—to despise the world, and draw daily nearer the kingdom of heaven. It is vanity to solicit honours, or to raise oneself to high station. It is vanity to be a slave to bodily desires, and to crave for things which bring certain retribution. It is vanity to wish for long life, if you care little for a good life. It is vanity to give thought only to this present life, and to care nothing for the life to come. It is vanity to love things that so swiftly pass away, and not to hasten onwards to that place where everlasting joy abides. Keep constantly in mind the saying, “The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing” [Eccl 1:8]. Strive to withdraw your heart from the love of visible things, and direct your affections to things invisible. For those who follow only their natural inclinations defile their conscience, and lose the grace of God. 147

Poets often approached the theme as well, although many would take little liberty with its conception. In the third and final stanza of William Dunbar’s (ca.  1460–ca.  1530) “Of the World’s Vanitie” (ca.  1500?), the world reflects the instability of vanitas: Heir nocht abydis [Here nought remains], heir standis nothing stabill. This fals warld ay flittis [always wavers] to and fro: Now day up bricht, now nycht als blak as sabill [sable], Now eb, now flude, now freynd, now cruell fo, Now glaid, now said, now weill, now into wo, 146.  Innocent III, Lotario dei Segni (Pope Innocent III): De Miseria Condicionis Humane (ed. and trans. R. E. Lewis; Chaucer Library; Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1978) 108. 147.  T. à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (trans. and intro. L. Sherley-Price; London: Penguin, 1976) 27–28.

36

Eric S. Christianson Now cled in gold, dissolvit now in as [clothed now in ash]. So dois this warld transitorie go: Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas. 148

By the time of reform, this way of understanding ‫ ֶהבֶל‬/vanitas, as embodying the world’s mutability, and indeed Qohelet’s program as a whole was indelibly established. 148. W. Dunbar, William Dunbar: The Complete Works (ed. J. Conlee; Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University Press, 2004) poem 11.

Qohelet and the Rabbis Ruth Sandberg Gratz College

Rabbinic Attitudes toward Qohelet Considering the problematic nature of Qohelet’s teachings, the ancient rabbinic attitude toward Qohelet is surprisingly receptive. This does not mean that the rabbis were not troubled by parts of the book, but in general, rabbinic tradition is relatively open to the book, and the book of Qohelet is even included in the yearly Jewish liturgical cycle. As Marc Hirshman has shown, there is no evidence that the book was viewed as heretical in the tannaitic period; in fact, Rabbi Ishmael in particular appears to have accepted the book wholeheartedly as having full canonical status and viewed it as “part of mainstream Torah,” going so far as to rely on Qohelet as a source for deriving halakic rulings. 1 In spite of the receptivity to Qohelet, there are tannaitic debates about the status of the book. Since most scholars today presume that the Hebrew canon was closed by the second century b.c.e., 2 long before the rabbinic period, the rabbis did accept the book’s canonical status. To be considered part of the sacred canon, a book had to be viewed as an authoritative guide for Jewish tradition, considered eternally binding, and a source of ongoing study for the community. 3 Qohelet was viewed as fitting these categories for canonization. However to be viewed as divinely inspired, a book had to originate in either direct or indirect inspiration from God, and not from the author’s own thoughts. Therefore, it was possible for a book to be considered canonical but not divinely inspired. This was the case with Qohelet. While the rabbis do not question the canonical status of Qohelet, they do debate whether or not the book is divinely inspired or is simply the author’s own personal thoughts. The Talmud defines a book that is divinely inspired as one that “makes the hands impure.” 4 There has been some debate among modern scholars 1. M. Hirshman, “Qohelet’s Reception and Interpretation in Early Rabbinic Literature,” in Studies in Ancient Midrash (ed. J. Kugel; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001) 87–99, 95. 2. S. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden, CT: Archon, 1976) 119–24. 3.  Ibid., 15. 4.  All translations of rabbinic sources are mine unless otherwise noted. English quotations from the Hebrew Bible are from the jps translation of 1985.

37

38

Ruth Sandberg

over whether this phrase, “makes the hands impure,” refers to a book’s having canonical status or refers only to a book’s status as being divinely inspired, but most scholars now see the debate as restricted to the question of divine inspiration. 5 The strange phrase “makes the hands impure” comes from b. Šabb. 14a–b. The sages were concerned with the practice of storing the priestly ‫ ְתרּומָה‬offerings in the ark with the Torah scrolls. By doing this, rats and mice would eat the ‫ְתרּומָה‬ and then nibble on the sacred scrolls. To keep the ‫ ְתרּומָה‬away from the scrolls and prevent future damage to the parchment, the rabbis made an ironic decree that the holy scrolls cause ritual impurity to the hands: [T]hus, a person could not directly touch sacred scrolls and then sacred food. Secondly, they decreed that if one touched a sacred scroll and then touched sacred food, that food became ritually unclean (and could not be eaten). Finally, they decreed that when one touched sacred food it defiled one’s hands, thus preventing one from first touching food and then touching sacred scrolls. The effect of these decrees were to prevent one from storing food and scrolls together or to go immediately from one to another without first washing the hands. 6

The rabbis’ efforts at ancient pest control resulted in a counterintuitive ruling, in which the holy Torah and other sacred books which are divinely inspired ironically “make the hands impure,” while books that are not divinely inspired “do not make the hands impure.” M. ʿEd. 5:3 is the earliest source for the debate over Qohelet’ status as divinely inspired: “Qohelet does not make the hands impure [that is, is not divinely inspired], according to the teaching of the school of Shammai; but the school of Hillel says: It does make the hands impure [is divinely inspired].” According to the school of Shammai, Qohelet may be canonical, but it is not divinely inspired, while the school of Hillel states that it is both canonical and divinely inspired. Thus, both schools cited in m. ʿEduyyot are viewed as accepting the book’s canonical status and disagreeing only over the question of its divine inspiration. 7 T. Yad. 2.3 contains a similar discussion: “Rabbi Shimon ben Menasyah says: The Song of Songs makes the hands impure, because it was said by the holy spirit. Qohelet does not make the hands impure, because it is only the wisdom of Solomon himself.” Rabbi Shimon grants the Song of Songs status as divinely inspired, in spite of its graphic erotic content. However, the more troubling teachings of 5. M. Broyde, “Defilement of the Hands, Canonization of the Bible, and the Special Status of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs,” Judaism 44 (1995) 65. 6.  Ibid., 66. 7. S. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 103, 115. See also M. Broyde (“Defilement of the Hands,” 73), who suggests that Qohelet as well as Esther and the Song of Songs have a unique status that differentiates them from the rest of the biblical canon, because these three books do not contain the Tetragrammaton.

Qohelet and the Rabbis

39

Qohelet seem to give Shimon pause; the wise King Solomon may have been the author of the book, but he wrote it without the benefit of biblical prophecy. Unlike their tannaitic counterparts, the later amoraic rabbis were concerned that the text could easily be misunderstood as containing heretical teachings. For instance, Qohelet Rabbah on 1:3 notes: “The sages wanted to withdraw the book of Qohelet because they found in it words which incline toward heresy. They said: Behold, all the wisdom of Solomon which he comes to teach is ‘What profit has a man in all his labor?’ Is it possible that this is true even for labor in the Torah?” Taken at its face value, Qoh 1:3 could be understood as implying that even laboring in the Torah has no benefit, and this would undermine the entire rabbinic world view. The midrash immediately adds: “They reconsidered and said: He did not say ‘in all labor,” but ‘in all his labor.’ In one’s own worldly labor one should not labor, but one should toil in the labor of the Torah.” By carefully analyzing the language of the verse, a conclusion is reached which eliminates any misreading: Qohelet is railing against worldly labor but not the labor of the Torah. There is a rabbinic presupposition that the community must be guided by rabbinic interpretation in reading texts such as Qohelet; otherwise, the reader could be led astray. As ʾAbot de Rabbi Nathan (version A, ch. 1) notes, the danger of misreading scriptural texts is not limited to Qohelet: In Prov 7:7 it is said . . . , “Come, let us fill ourselves with love until morning, let us surround ourselves with love, for my husband is not at home. . . .” And in Song 7:11 it is written: “Come, my beloved, let us go out to the field . . . there I will give you my love.” And in Qoh 11:9 it is written: “Walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes. . . .” This proves that the religious authorities . . . had to interpret the text properly.

This rather self-serving point of view argues that the rabbinic interpretations of Scripture are indispensable to the community, for without them, texts such as Proverbs and Song of Songs could be misread as advocating adulterous relations, and Qohelet could be misconstrued as teaching that one should follow the desires of the heart and eye, a direct contradiction to Num 15:39. B. Šabb. 30b also combats this misreading of Qohelet: Moses said: “Do not follow after your own heart and your own eyes,” while Solomon said: “Walk in the ways of your heart, and in the sight of your eyes!” Is restraint to be abandoned? Is there no judgment and no Judge? However, when Solomon said (Qoh 11:9): “But know that for all these things God will bring you to judgment,” the sages declared: Solomon has spoken well.

Without this rabbinic guidance, the reader might not realize that Qohelet is actually warning us not to follow our hearts and eyes, for we will have to face God’s judgment for doing so.

40

Ruth Sandberg

Qohelet’s teachings also appeared to some amoraic authorities to be inconsistent and self-contradictory, traits that negate the possibility of divine inspiration. B. Šabb. 30b states: How are its words self-contradictory? It is written (Qoh 7:3): “Anger is better than laughter,” but it is written (Qoh 2:2): “I said of laughter, it is to be praised.” It is written (Qoh 8:15): “Then I praised joy,” but it is written (Qoh 2:2): “And of joy, what good is it?” There is no problem here. “Anger is better than laughter” means that better is the anger which the Holy One, blessed be he, shows the righteous in this world than the laughter which the Holy One, blessed be he, laughs with the wicked in this world. “I said of laughter, it is to be praised” refers to the laughter which the Holy One, blessed be he, laughs with the righteous in the world to come. “Then I praised joy” refers to the joy of fulfilling a commandment. “And of joy, what good is it” refers to (secular) joy not from a commandment.

With the benefit of this rabbinic explanation, the reader now understands that Qohelet is referring to two different types of divine laughter, in the presence of the righteous and the wicked, and that the word “joy” has both a sacred and a profane meaning in Qohelet. The amoraic rabbis were also sensitive to the significance of the epilogue to the book of Qohelet, and they relied on it to help overcome the book’s inherent contradictions. B. Šabb. 30b states: The sages wished to withdraw the book of Qohelet, because its words are selfcontradictory; yet why did they not withdraw it? Because at its beginning are words of Torah, and at its end are words of Torah. At its beginning are words of Torah, as it is said (Qoh 1:3): “What profit does a man have of all his labor in which he labors under the sun?” And the school of Rabbi Yannai explained: Under the physical sun he has none, but he does have a profit (from the Torah, which existed) before the sun. At its end are words of Torah, as it is said (Qoh 12:13): “The end of the matter is: Fear God, and keep his commandments.”

While the ancient rabbis obviously do not see the work of a later editor in Qohelet, they view these opening and closing verses as “sufficient to neutralize the book’s internal contradictions.” 8 Katherine Dell understands this desire to eliminate contradictions in Qohelet as part of an effort to make the book harmonize with the Torah. According to Dell, the rabbinic effort to view the book as supporting the study and practice of Torah gave Qohelet an acceptability that she believes is the main reason the book was canonized. 9 As these texts show, the rabbis are willing to accept Qohelet as canonical and ultimately find nothing objectionable in the book to prevent it from being read or 8.  M. V. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 19. 9.  K. J. Dell, “Ecclesiastes as Wisdom: Consulting Early Interpreters,” VT 44 (1994) 318.

Qohelet and the Rabbis

41

studied. In fact, the rabbis view Qohelet as containing important religious teachings. However, because some of Qohelet’s teachings are couched in ways that can obscure their true meaning and can lead to misunderstanding the text as heretical or contradictory, the rabbis insist that the book be understood through their particular lens; as the authoritative sages, they alone serve as the arbiters of its meaning to the larger public.

The Solomonic Authorship of Qohelet Another aspect that may have helped to make the book of Qohelet acceptable is the ancient belief in its Solomonic authorship; the reputation of Solomon as the wisest of rulers may have been a deciding factor in granting the book legitimacy. The notion that Solomon was the author of the book was not difficult to assert, since the opening words identify the author as “the son of David, king in Jerusalem.” Many scholars believe that Solomonic authorship was essential to Qohelet’s status as canonical. For instance, Michael Fox notes: “The belief that Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes made its acceptance as Scripture possible.” 10 Katherine Dell echoes this sentiment and asserts that the persona of Solomon “provided the book with the necessary aura of sanctity and antiquity for inclusion in Scripture.” 11 Qohelet Rabbah focuses in particular on the author as Solomon. For instance, the opening words of Qohelet, which identify the author as the “son of David, king in Jerusalem,” are taken in Qohelet Rabbah to refer to Solomon: “In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream at night. God said: Ask, what shall I give you?” (1 Kgs 3:5) Solomon thought: If I ask for silver, gold, and precious pearls, He will give them to me. But I will ask for wisdom, and everything else will be included. Thus it is written: “Give your servant an understanding mind” (1 Kgs 3:9). . . . Immediately (upon receiving the gift of wisdom), “Solomon went to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and offered up burnt offerings and peace offerings, and made a feast for all his servants” (1 Kgs 3:15). . . . Immediately the holy spirit rested upon him, and he composed these three books: Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Qohelet. Thus it is said: “The words of Qohelet, son of David.” . . .Why was he called Qohelet? Because his words were spoken in public (haqhel), as it is said: “Then Solomon assembled (yaqhel) the elders of Israel” (1 Kgs 8:1).

By connecting the writing of Qohelet with Solomon’s gift of wisdom from God in 1 Kings, this text argues that divine inspiration did guide Solomon in the composition of his work, which includes Proverbs and the Song of Songs as well as 10.  M. V. Fox, Ecclesiastes (JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004) xv. 11.  Dell, “Ecclesiastes as Wisdom,” 303.

42

Ruth Sandberg

Qohelet. In this midrash, the teachings of Qohelet are more acceptable if they come from Solomon, one of the wisest men who ever lived, but only because God granted him this wisdom. The midrash proves that the name Qohelet refers to Solomon, by showing that the Hebrew root of the name, ‫קהל‬, means “to gather” or “assemble” and is symbolic of Solomon’s assembling the elders of Israel together in 1 Kgs 8:1. Qohelet Rabbah also connects the description of Qohelet’s vast wealth with that of Solomon in 1 Kings: “I multiplied my possessions”—that is what is written, “And the king made a great throne of ivory” (1 Kgs 10:18). “I built myself houses”—that is what is written, “And at the end of twenty years, in which Solomon had built the two houses, the house of the Lord and the king’s house” (1 Kgs 9:10). . . . I further amassed silver and gold”—that is what is written, “And the king made silver to be as plentiful in Jerusalem as stones” (1 Kgs 10:27).

This midrash confirms that Qohelet’s acquisitions are matched by a comparable description in the historical narrative of 1 Kings, further strengthening the contention that the author is Solomon. As stated in Qohelet Rabbah above, rabbinic tradition also accepts Solomon as the author of Proverbs and the Song of Songs. However, unlike the more obscure connection to Solomon in the book of Qohelet, the book of Proverbs proclaims Solomon to be the author in its opening words: “The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel”; so too does the Songs of Songs: “The Song of Songs by Solomon.” The only rabbinic debate regarding these three books is the order in which Solomon composed them. Some authorities follow the order in which they appear in the Bible: Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Qohelet. Others list the order as Proverbs, Qohelet, and Song of Songs. 12 A third view sees the compositional order as the Song of Songs, Proverbs, and then Qohelet, and adds the following explanation: “When a man is young, he writes songs; when he is mature, he writes proverbs; when he is elderly, he writes about life’s futility.” 13 It has been argued that Solomonic authorship actually worked against Qohelet’s canonicity. Whatever the book’s merits, it was not due to the author’s worthiness. In fact, “Solomon’s dubious credentials” had to be overlooked in the canonization process. 14 One opinion goes so far as to say that the ancient rabbis used the Solomonic authorship as an indirect way of denigrating Qohelet: “[W]hile Jewish 12.  This point of view is paralleled in Origen, who sees Proverbs as first teaching basic good conduct, followed by Qohelet, which instructs those who have already attained some religious learning, followed by Song of Songs, which is for those who have the highest ability to contemplate the divine. See E. Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007) 38, reproduced in this volume on p. 20. 13.  Song Rab. 1:10. 14.  Hirshman, “Qohelet’s Reception and Interpretation,” 88.

Qohelet and the Rabbis

43

tradition regards him as the wisest man who ever lived, the Bible makes it very clear that in his final years Solomon became a bit of a fool, and an arrogant one at that. Thus, in attributing Ecclesiastes to Solomon’s last years, perhaps the rabbis were delivering a ‘hidden,’ if ironic, assessment of their true feelings about the value of this work.” 15 Based on the fact that Qoh 1:12 states in the past tense, “I Qohelet was king over Israel in Jerusalem,” the rabbis conclude that at some point during his reign, Solomon lost his throne. According to the Talmud, Solomon captured Ashmedai, the prince of the demons, to help in the building of the Temple. Ashmedai then usurped the throne through a trick, forcing Solomon to go begging throughout Jerusalem, suffering for years until he was able to persuade the Sanhedrin that he was the true king. 16 There are rabbinic opinions that Solomon grew too arrogant, and losing his throne may be an expression of the punishment he deserved for his haughtiness. 17 There is even a talmudic opinion that Solomon is among those who do not deserve a place in the world to come. 18 Rabbinic sources also echo the scathing criticism of Solomon’s idolatry in 1 Kgs 11, which is seen as the primary factor leading to the divided kingdom. Commenting on 1 Kgs 11:4, “In his old age, his wives turned away Solomon’s heart after other gods,” a midrash states: “It would have been better for Solomon to clean out sewers than to have had this verse applied to him.” 19 These sources demonstrate that rabbinic tradition does not contain universal admiration for Solomon and does not hide or gloss over the biblical critique of the king. Nevertheless, whatever may have been the rabbinic attitude toward Solomon, he remains the undisputed author of Qohelet in ancient rabbinic sources.

Modes of Interpretation in Qohelet Rabbah Midrash Qohelet Rabbah is the most significant source for classical rabbinic interpretations of the book of Qohelet. Although there is scholarly consensus that the work reached its final form in the eighth century c.e., 20 it has been shown that much of the material in Qohelet Rabbah comes from earlier sources, and most of the rabbis quoted in it are either Palestinian tannaim or amoraim. Qohelet Rabbah is an exegetical midrash, using a verse-by-verse format of interpretation that covers almost every verse of the text. 15. J. Telushkin, Jewish Literacy (New York: Morrow, 1991) 107. 16.  B. Giṭ. 68b. 17.  See, for instance, b. Roš Haš. 21b, where Solomon is criticized for thinking that his wisdom exempts him from needing witnesses in adjudicating. 18.  B. Sanh. 104b. 19.  Exod. Rab. 6:1. 20.  See M. Hirshman, A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996) 107.

44

Ruth Sandberg

Many scholars assume that the allegorical or symbolic mode of interpretation is the primary way in which the rabbinic tradition dealt with the problematic verses in Qohelet. Rather than accepting the literal meaning of objectionable passages, rabbinic midrash found a way to reinterpret the textual meaning through the use of allegory. For instance, Marc Hirshman states that Qohelet “could only be incorporated into the canon by radical interpretation. This could be accomplished either by allegorization, by contextualization, or by other standard midrashic strategies.” 21 Katherine Dell makes a similar statement: [T]his radical book was toned down in the process of canonization. The usual argument put forward by scholars is that two factors secured for the book entry to the canon, a book which should, because of its sentiments, never have been there. The first factor is the misinterpretation of the book’s sentiments by those who canonized it. One view is that this involved misinterpretations of the whole book. 22

It has also been noted that this radical reinterpretation is used in the targum on Qohelet: “There is a virtually unanimous ‘conspiracy of tradition’ to pervert the message of Qohelet, involving the most blatant violence to the spirit and sense of the book . . . the Aramaic version of Qohelet is part of a literary tradition; the Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition of censorship, suppression and polemic directed against the very text it purported to translate.” 23 Another scholar agrees with this assessment: “The targum has transformed Qohelet’s natural wisdom into learning based on torah. . . . The document that should be the prime container of wisdom thought has been hollowed out and replaced by a post-talmudic rabbinism.” 24 A similar form of reinterpretation takes place among early Christian authorities, in which there is a “relentless tendency to relegate Qoheleth’s reflections to the perceived truths of Christian liturgy and doctrine.” 25 While it is true that this allegorical method appears often in Qohelet Rabbah, it is my contention that there are other modes of interpretation found within this midrash that refute the notion that the rabbis used only allegorical reinterpretation for all of Qohelet’s problematic teachings. I have suggested in a previous work that there are four distinct modes of interpretation in Qohelet Rabbah. 26 While these four modes are also found in other midrashic works and are not unique to Qohelet Rabbah, they are particularly dom21.  Idem, “Qohelet’s Reception and Interpretation,” 98. 22.  Dell, “Ecclesiastes as Wisdom,” 302. 23. E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of Qohelet (New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1981) 67–71. 24.  Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries, 29. 25.  Ibid., 25. 26. R. Sandberg, Rabbinic Views of Qohelet (Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1999) 28–35.

Qohelet and the Rabbis

45

inant in Qohelet Rabbah’s interpretations. The first three modes of interpretation all involve ways in which the midrash to varying degrees ignores or rejects the ‫ ּפֶׁשַ ת‬meaning of the text, what modern biblical scholars call the plain, or literal, meaning of Qohelet. The first two modes are the most extreme examples of “reinterpretation,” in which the midrashic understanding bears little or no resemblance to the literal understanding of Qohelet, as discussed above. The third mode is a transitional one, containing some of the reinterpretive elements of the first two modes, while accepting in part the literal sense of the text. The fourth mode accepts both the literal meaning of the text and its context without reservation and without resorting to the first three “reinterpretive” methods. These four modes of interpretation reveal that the ancient rabbis allowed for a surprisingly wide variety of approaches to Qohelet, some “covering up” potentially problematic verses with reinterpretations far from the ‫“( ּפֶׁשַ ת‬plain, literal”) meaning and others accepting even the most dangerous verses in their literal context. The first mode reinterprets the literal meaning of Qohelet by reading the text as symbolism. In this mode, the language of the text is viewed as symbolic of another subject or image, or as an allegory. Just as the unseemly behavior of the gods in Homer had to be reinterpreted as allegory or symbolic of some abstract truth, so too did the rabbis seek to redefine what appeared on the surface in Qohelet to be a potentially offensive comment. 27 For example, Qoh 2:24 states, “There is nothing worthwhile for a man but to eat and drink and afford himself enjoyment with his means.” From the classical rabbinic perspective, it would be objectionable if the text literally meant that the only worthwhile human activities are the physical pleasures of eating and drinking. Therefore, Qohelet Rabbah reinterprets the text to fit better with a rabbinic viewpoint: “All the references to eating and drinking in this book signify Torah and good deeds.” 28 The rabbis are instructing us that we should not read the text as it literally stands but that “eating” and “drinking” are meant to symbolize the enduring merit of Torah study and good deeds. It is highly unlikely that the original intention of this verse was to instruct us in the worthiness of Torah study and pious behavior, but the ancient rabbis wielded the authority to interpret the text in any manner that they felt benefited the Jewish community. In the second mode of interpretation, the rabbis attach an added meaning to the literal text. This involves adding what is not said or what is only implied in the text and making these additional words an integral part of the text. This method 27.  According to J. Kugel, the symbolic or allegorical interpretation of Scripture found in rabbinic literature is borrowed from the study of Homer and other classical Greek texts. See J. Kugel, Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 81. 28.  It is interesting to note that Dionysius of Alexandria has a very similar interpretation and states “How should not intemperate eatings and drinkings also be contrary to God? He speaks, therefore, of things mystical.” See Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries, 25.

46

Ruth Sandberg

views the written words of Qohelet as containing a more pertinent teaching hidden inside the text itself. Once again, this mode implies that the community needs the expertise of the rabbis to reveal the meanings embedded in the text. David Weiss Halivni refers to this type of interpretive mode as “textual implication,” which he describes as “exegetical activity . . . centered around expositing the full range of the supposed implicit meaning of the text, sometimes through extra phrases, words or even letters . . . adding to the text.” 29 James Kugel calls this method of interpretation “narrative expansion,” in which “other words or actions not specified in the text actually accompanied what is specified.” 30 For example, Qoh 1:14 states that “all is futile and pursuit of wind.” From a rabbinic perspective, this statement could be misunderstood as negating all that is good and meaningful in creation and in humanity’s relationship with the divine. Therefore, Qohelet Rabbah then adds a phrase to the verse: “‘All is futile and pursuit of wind’—except repentance and good deeds.” The rabbis see this additional comment as an integral part of the biblical verse and want the reader of this verse to see this addition as the true message of the text. The third mode is transitional, because it partially accepts the literal meaning of Qohelet while limiting its generalizations to specific applications. For instance, when Qohelet makes statements that generalize about the meaninglessness of existence or the futility of human effort or the unfairness of death, this mode is often used as a way of limiting the scope of these generalizations. Halivni describes an equivalent interpretive approach in halakhic exegesis: [T]he talmudic sages also engaged in interpreting out, a mode of interpretation opposite to adding to. Interpreting out limits a text, whose embrace seems to be general, to a few specific instances. Sometimes it was limited to one instance only. The standard Aramaic formula for this process is hakha bemai askinan, ‘we are dealing here with a case of . . . ,’ meaning that case only. The rest is interpreted out. 31

For example, Qohelet’s opening statement is a generalization: “Utter futility. All is futile” (or: “Vapor of vapors. All is vapor”). The ancient rabbis cannot accept this generalization that all is futile (or vapor), because it would contradict the divine pronouncement in Gen 1:31 that the entire creation is “very good.” On the other hand, Qohelet Rabbah does acknowledge that there is some truth to this statement but only as it applies to the fleeting nature of human existence in this world: 29.  D. W. Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 33–34. 30. J. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: Har­ per Collins, 1990) 4. 31.  Halivni, Peshat and Derash, 37.

Qohelet and the Rabbis

47

“Vapor of vapors! said Qohelet. Vapor of vapors! All is vapor” (Qoh 1:2). . . . David said something but did not specify 32 its meaning, and Solomon his son did specify it. Solomon said something but did not specify its meaning, and David his father did specify it. David said: “Humanity is like a vapor” (Ps 144:4). What kind of vapor? If it is like oven vapor, there is substance to it. If it is like steam from a stove, there is substance to it. Solomon his son came and specified it, as it is written: “Humanity is vapor (made only) of vapors, said Qohelet.” Samuel ben Nahman taught in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥah: Like a person who puts seven pots on top of each other; the vapor on the top has no substance.

Contrary to the view of some scholars that Qohelet Rabbah merely “re­interprets” all of the difficult passages in the text, this transitional mode partially accepts the literal meaning of the verse but limits its scope. This mode of limiting generalizations to specific situations permits a partial accommodation of Qohelet’s problematic thinking. The fourth mode of interpretation accepts the literal context of the text as it stands. In this interpretive mode, the rabbis choose to read problematic verses from Qohelet without trying to reinterpret their meaning. This type of interpretation comes close to that of later medieval Bible exegesis and its striving for the ‫ ּפֶׁשַ ת‬or literal understanding of the text. One would expect the rabbis to smooth away some of the difficult teachings of Qohelet through one of the other modes of interpretation, in order to make them conform to more acceptable tenets of rabbinic theology, but a surprising number of rabbis in Qohelet Rabbah are willing to let the text’s controversial statements speak for themselves. For example, Qoh 1:18 states: “For as wisdom grows, vexation grows. To increase learning is to increase heartache.” The attainment of Torah wisdom and learning is viewed by the rabbis as one of the highest ideals of Jewish life, and therefore one would expect the rabbis to refute this statement by reinterpreting this verse to show the value and rewards of study. Instead, we find the following statement: “For as wisdom grows, vexation grows.” All the time that a man increases wisdom he increases vexation, and all the time that he increases learning he increases sufferings. Solomon said: By increasing wisdom I have increased vexation, and by increasing learning I have increased sufferings.

It is most unusual to find ancient rabbis who acknowledge that wisdom often brings vexation and suffering; in most instances, the rabbis glorify the pursuit of wisdom and the joy of attaining wisdom. While the choice could have been made to use 32.  On the translation of prš as “specify,” see M. Hirshman, Midrash Qohelet Rabbah (Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 1983) 1.12.

48

Ruth Sandberg

another mode of interpretation and simply “reinterpret” this pessimistic teaching, Qohelet Rabbah instead reinforces the melancholic observation of the text. Marc Hirshman has also studied Qohelet Rabbah intensively, and his interest has focused on what he believes to be the overall purpose of the work. He sees five major aspects to Qohelet Rabbah: its focus on Solomon and his life; its use of allegory and typology; its frequent mention of anecdotes, revolving mostly around rabbinic sages; its use of the ‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫מ‬, or parable; and its pronounced use of lists and catalogs. 33 Hirshman has concluded that Qohelet Rabbah is essentially an anthological encyclopedia, “whose main role is not to expound the verses or words of the book.” 34 Hirshman notes that, in Roman education, classics such as Homer or Virgil were used as a basis for studying other subjects, such as geometry or geography, and he suggests that Qohelet Rabbah served a similar encyclopedic purpose in Jewish study. 35

The Medieval Rabbinic Attitude toward Qohelet There are obviously many differences between the classical and medieval periods of Jewish history. During the classical period, rabbinic Judaism developed primarily in Palestine under the dominance of pagan and then Christian Rome, and in Babylonia under the dominance of the Parthian and Sassanian empires; in the medieval period, Jewish life developed primarily in Europe under the dominance of the Catholic Church and Islam. Since it is well beyond the scope of this essay to review the many historical differences between these two periods, I focus only on major differences between classical midrash and medieval Bible exegesis. In contrast to classical rabbinic midrash, which often ventures far from the literal context of Scripture, medieval rabbinic exegesis is concerned primarily with the ‫ּפֶׁשַ ת‬, the “plain” or “literal” meaning of the text. Classical rabbinic midrash was often more concerned about the homiletical or didactic teaching to be derived from the text and less about interpreting the literal words of Scripture. Influenced by its exposure to philosophy, science, and philology, medieval rabbinic exegesis often utilizes these new disciplines in its understanding of the biblical text, something that is not characteristic of classical rabbinic midrash. The impact of philology and linguistics in particular is far-reaching: The Spanish linguists of the tenth and eleventh centuries introduced a new dimension to Torah scholarship. . . . The linguists were the first to focus primarily on precise word translation and the delineation of grammatical structure in the biblical text. Their works influenced subsequent Spanish commentators such as Ibn Ezra and served as the foundation for the Ashkenazic peshat movement, 33.  Idem, “The Greek Fathers and the Aggada on Ecclesiastes,” HUCA 59 (1988) 155–64. 34. Idem, A Rivalry of Genius, 107. 35.  Ibid., 108.

Qohelet and the Rabbis

49

which was to develop later in Northern Europe. The legacy of the linguists—the insistence that biblical exegesis remain faithful to the rules of the Hebrew language—left an indelible mark on generations of subsequent Bible commentary. 36

The best example of the medieval ‫“( ּפֶׁשַ ת‬literal”) interpretation of Qohelet is that of the twelfth-century commentator Rashbam (Rabbi Samuel ben Meir, grandson of the famous Rashi). 37 While medieval rabbinic exegesis in general focuses on the ‫“( ּפֶׁשַ ת‬literal”) meaning of Scripture, it often presents more than one possible interpretation of the text. In contrast to this practice, Rashbam is committed to following the principle “that a text has only one, single meaning. . . . Thus the practice which is so common in Jewish exegetical tradition, including medieval commentators, of suggesting several possibilities for interpreting a given text, is completely absent from Rashbam’s works.” 38 Rashbam stands in stark contrast to classical midrash, which permitted or even encouraged multiple interpretations to any given verse. Where the ancient rabbis might choose to reinterpret the literal reading of Qohelet’s problematic verses, Rashbam does not hesitate to present what he sees as the original context of the text. As we saw above, the rabbis could not accept the literal meaning of Qoh 2:24, which states, “There is nothing worthwhile for a man but to eat and drink and afford himself enjoyment with his means.” From the classical rabbinic perspective, it would be objectionable if the text literally meant that the only worthwhile human activities are the physical pleasures of eating and drinking. Therefore, Qohelet Rabbah reinterprets the text to fit better with a rabbinic viewpoint: “All the references to eating and drinking in this book signify Torah and good deeds.” In contrast, Rashbam’s commentary presents what he considers to be the author’s literal intentions in this verse: “There is nothing good in the affairs of man except that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment from the earnings of his money for which he troubled himself.” Rashbam does not attempt to reinterpret or allegorize what Qohelet is saying; he strives to present what he thinks is Qohelet’s original intention. In this case, Rashbam sees Qohelet as teaching that we should spend our hard-earned money on food, drink, and other physical pleasures of this world—far from the emphasis on the Torah and good deeds of Qohelet Rabbah. When Qoh 2:16 states that “the wise man, just like the fool, is not remembered forever,” Qohelet Rabbah cannot accept the notion that Torah wisdom makes no 36. Y. Kolatch, Masters of the Word: Traditional Jewish Bible Commentary from the First through Tenth Centuries (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2006) 325. 37.  There is debate over the authenticity of Rashbam’s commentary to Qohelet. I am following the opinion of Sara Japhet, who has made a strong argument in favor of the text’s authenticity. See S. Japhet, The Commentary of Rashbam to Qoheleth (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985) 19–33. All translations of Rashbam that appear in this essay are from Sara Japhet’s book. 38.  Ibid., 61–62.

50

Ruth Sandberg

difference in a person’s life, and, by using the third interpretive mode of limiting a generalization to a specific, restricts the application of the verse: “The remembrance of the wise is not like the fool; everything about him [that is, the fool] will be forgotten forever.” Qohelet Rabbah insists that the wise man and the fool do not share the same fate; it is only the fool who will be utterly forgotten. In contrast, Rashbam reinforces what he sees as the ‫“( ּפֶׁשַ ת‬literal interpretation”) of the verse: “For neither one nor the other is remembered, for in time to come everything will have been forgotten. . . . This is a great waste, that the wise man should die with the fool.” Rashbam interprets Qohelet as saying that there is absolutely no difference between the wise and the fool; both die and are forgotten. Rashbam does add an evaluative comment that the loss of the wise man is a “great waste” but that it does not alter the reality of his oblivion. One of the most important contributions of Rashbam to the interpretation of Qohelet is his acknowledgment that the book went through an editing process. In fact, Rashbam is “rightly credited with being the first to identify the presence of an edited framework in Ecclesiastes.” 39 In commenting on Qoh 1:1–2, Rashbam states: “These two verses, ‘the words of Qohelet,’ and ‘vanity of vanities’ were not said by Qohelet but by the person who edited the words as they stand.” Rashbam is sensitive to the fact that the first two verses of the book refer to Qohelet in the third person. This leads him to conclude that they must have been added by an editor, for elsewhere the author refers to himself in the first person. Similarly, Rashbam interprets the epilogue as the words of an editor in his comment on Qoh 12:8: “‘Vanity of vanities’—now the book is completed. Those who edited it speak from now on.” Again, Rashbam notes that the last six verses refer to Qohelet in the third person, showing the same sign of editorial addition as seen in the first two verses of the book. Rashbam’s willingness to acknowledge that a book of Scripture experienced an editing process is quite bold and foreshadows modern biblical scholarship by many centuries. As has been noted, while the effort to find the ‫“( ּפֶׁשַ ת‬literal”) meaning of Scripture characterizes medieval rabbinic exegesis, it certainly does not result in uniformity of interpretation. Mariano Gomez Aranda has studied the commentary on Qohelet by the twelfth-century Spanish Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra and has demonstrated its many differences in comparison with Rashbam’s commentary. 40 For one thing, Rashbam is more representative of the Northern French school of exegesis, while Ibn Ezra represents the Spanish school. In the Northern French school of Rashbam, there is a heavier reliance on the early rabbinic exegesis found in the Talmud and midrash, and the homiletical method of interpretation is used often to derive moral lessons from Scripture. In contrast, the Spanish school of Ibn Ezra relies more on philology, linguistics, astrology, science, and philosophy 39.  Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries, 33. 40.  M. G. Aranda, “Ibn Ezra and Rashbam on Qohelet: Two Perspectives in Contrast,” HS 46 (2005) 235–57.

Qohelet and the Rabbis

51

to inform the meaning of Scripture, all of which are missing in Rashbam’s commentary. In addition, Aranda sees the two commentators as having very different motivations: Rashbam wants to explain the biblical text according to its literal meaning, tries to deduce moral lessons from it, and disregards any other considerations of a scientific or philosophical character. Ibn Ezra wants to prove that the scientific and philosophical ideas of his time are in accord with the literal meaning of the Bible. 41

Aranda discusses many examples from Ibn Ezra’s commentary that show that the Bible and science are harmonious and that science and the Bible can illuminate the mutual truth that both contain. For instance, Qoh 1:9 states, “Only that shall happen which has happened, only that occur which has occurred; there is nothing new beneath the sun.” Qohelet Rabbah cannot accept the notion that the world is caught in an endless loop of repetition with no progression forward, so it allegorically reinterprets the verse: “Only that shall happen which has happened.” In the future time the generations will gather before the Holy One, blessed be he, and will say before him: Lord of the universe, who shall sing a song before you first? He will say to them: In the past only the generation of Moses sang a song before me, and now that generation shall sing a song before me.

Now the verse refers to the privilege of singing a song of rejoicing before God at the end of time; the same generation that sang the song at the Sea in Exodus 15 will once again be the first to sing before God in the world to come. In contrast to the midrash, Rashbam’s comment on Qoh 1:9 is an almost verbatim restating of the original text: “Whatever has already happened shall happen again in the future; for there is nothing new under the sun.” In contrast to both the midrash and Rashbam, Ibn Ezra uses Qohelet to lay out his understanding of human activity from a scientific perspective: “Nothing done by a created being can endure, because no created being can create any substance which is a root [that is, an element, which is eternal], or annihilate it completely.” 42 Aranda explains Ibn Ezra’s thinking: “Created material beings can only transform material substances, not create ex nihilo; they can change the way the elements are combined but cannot create anything really new. . . . Qohelet’s statement . . . is a scientific verity.” 43 Furthermore, Ibn Ezra makes a connection between the heavenly and earthly realms: 41.  Idem, “The Meaning of Qohelet according to Ibn Ezra’s Scientific Explanations,” Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2006) 6.344. 42.  Ibid., 6.344, 370–99. 43.  Ibid.

52

Ruth Sandberg “What has been” refers to the spheres and their hosts. . . . “What has been done is what will be done” refers to the genera which are preserved, like the human species, the equine species, and every animal and vegetable species, the generation of which depends on the motions of the heavenly bodies. . . . In this way it is seen that upper and lower worlds persist in the same manner and “there is nothing new.”

For Ibn Ezra, Qohelet becomes the vehicle by which we learn a rule of natural science, at least as it was understood in the medieval world, that the earthly realm is controlled by and affected by the “spheres” of the heavenly realm. He accepted astrology as a science, and Aranda points out that Ibn Ezra interprets Qoh 1:15, “what is crooked cannot be made straight,” as a “reference to the influence of stars. According to him, it means that human beings who are born under a negative influence of stars have no power to avoid it; it is a natural law that is impossible to escape.” 44 However, Ibn Ezra’s religious beliefs do provide him with a way to break away from the natural influence of the stars. One must pursue wisdom, and only through wisdom can one elevate the soul above astrological influences: “Only because the human soul was created from a place above the stars can a human being through his knowledge, reduce the pernicious sway of the stars.” 45 Ibn Ezra believes that the soul is created in the heavenly realm and is thus not under the influence of the stars. He therefore sees Qohelet as advocating the pursuit of wisdom only for the perfection of the soul, by which astrological forces can be overcome. Although he is primarily a scientifically minded exegete, Ibn Ezra still brings his religious beliefs into his interpretations. His belief about the immortal human soul ironically brings him closer to the midrashic interpretation of Qohelet than to the interpretation of Rashbam. For instance, Qoh 3:21 states: “Who knows if a man’s lifebreath does rise upward and if a beast’s breath does sink down into the earth?” The midrash chooses to use an allegorical reinterpretation to demonstrate that this verse is actually a declarative statement, contrasting the different fates that await the righteous and the wicked: “Both the souls of the righteous and the souls of the wicked ascend above; but the souls of the righteous are in the heavenly treasury, while the souls of the wicked are rejected and scattered about on earth.” In this midrash, Qohelet’s potential skepticism is removed and, instead, he is seen as supporting the rabbinic belief that only the souls of the righteous are rewarded with a heavenly existence. Unlike the midrash, Rashbam retains the skepticism of the verse: “Therefore I say that both have the same spirit, because who knows that the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes downwards. This is why I say that they have the same spirit and that everything is futile, for what advantage has man over beast?” 44.  Ibid., 6.360. 45.  Ibid., 6.361.

Qohelet and the Rabbis

53

When we turn to Ibn Ezra, we see that his belief in the special nature of the human soul influences his interpretation of Qoh 3:21 and prevents him from reading it as Rashbam does. Ibn Ezra retains the verse as a question, but he eliminates its skepticism: “Who knows (that is, few people know) that the human spirit is the one that goes upward and the spirit of animals is the one that goes downward?” In other words, very few people are aware of the truth that humans and animals are different and that only the human spirit goes to the heavenly realm. 46 In spite of the large historical gap between the ancient and medieval periods, similar religious beliefs can influence both classical midrash and medieval rabbinic exegesis.

Qohelet in Jewish Liturgy The liturgical practice of reading the book of Qohelet on the Festival of Sukkot does not appear until the eleventh century. It is customary today to read Qohelet on the Sabbath that falls during Sukkot, or on the eighth day of Sukkot (known as Shemini Atzeret) if it occurs on the Sabbath. There is no certainty regarding the reason that Qohelet is read on Sukkot. Michael Fox has suggested several possibilities: since other scrolls are read on festivals that correspond to their content, such as the book of Ruth on Shavuot or Lamentations on Tisha B’Av, Qohelet may have been chosen for Sukkot for its corresponding themes: “These are that Koheleth recommends rejoicing, which is the mood of Sukkot; that he declares the transience of human life, which is well symbolized by a temporary booth; and that autumn is the season evocative of mortality.” 47 Deuteronomy 16:14 commands the Israelites to “rejoice” (‫ׂשמ ְַח ָּת‬ ָ ‫)ו‬ ְ on the Festival of Sukkot, and this corresponds well to Qohelet’s urging of “enjoyment” (‫)ׂש ְמחָה‬ ִ which appears throughout the book. On the other hand, the more somber message of Qohelet may be intended to parallel the autumnal season symbolic of the impending death of winter. Ethan Dor-Shav suggests that the word ‫ ֶהבֶל‬in Qohelet is best understood as expressing the “fleeting” quality of life, rather than “vanity.” 48 He sees Qohelet as going through three distinct stages, in which his attitude toward the ‫ ֶהבֶל‬quality of life changes. In the last four chapters of the book, ‫ ֶהבֶל‬loses its negative connotation and is actually associated with ‫ׂש ְמחָה‬. ִ The very transient and fleeting nature of life results in “exuberant affirmations of life, and the joy and wisdom it can bring. Kohelet has now learned, and seeks to teach, the deeper lesson of hebel: Transience as inspiration.” 49 Dor-Shav believes that Qohelet’s final message is a very positive one: “[T]rue wisdom is the one thing that is not dependent on transient circumstances.” Perhaps Dor-Shav’s point of view is the ultimate reason that Qohelet is 46.  Ibid., 6.368. 47.  Fox, Ecclesiastes, xv. 48. E. Dor-Shav, “Ecclesiastes, Fleeting and Timeless: Part II,” JBQ 37 (2009) 17. 49.  Ibid.

54

Ruth Sandberg

read during the fall harvest time of Sukkot. In spite of our fleeting existence, the wisdom we gain in our short lives can grant us a true sense of immortality.

Conclusion In spite of the ancient rabbinic debates over the inspired status of Qohelet, the book was fully accepted into the biblical canon. In order to prevent its ambiguous teachings from being misunderstood, the ancient rabbis insinuated their particular reading of the text as the only legitimate interpretation. While many rabbis looked to the Solomonic authorship of Qohelet as an essential legitimizing feature, others may have seen an allusion to the fallen, dethroned, and disillusioned elderly Solomon in Qohelet’s words. Qohelet Rabbah expresses the full gamut of rabbinic attitudes toward the book, from the allegorical interpretive mode that rejects the offensive literal meaning to the complete acceptance of Qohelet’s words as they stand. Whether intended as an encyclopedic anthology or as a rabbinic guide to the proper understanding of the text, Qohelet Rabbah is a testament to the openness of the ancient rabbis in facing head on a scriptural book full of theological challenges. New ways of understanding Qohelet continued into the medieval period, when the ‫“( ּפֶׁשַ ת‬literal”) method took hold and created fresh and original ways of interpreting the book. Rashbam remained rooted in the belief that each verse of Qohelet must have one, definitive meaning and showed amazing foresight in seeing the hand of an editor at work in the text. Ibn Ezra interpreted Qohelet as a support for the truth of science, while at the same time using the book to promulgate his own religious beliefs. Qohelet’s place within Jewish life became secured in the later liturgical practice of reading the book on Sukkot. This yearly ritual keeps the message of Qohelet alive and challenges each generation of readers to grapple with its meaning. As in the narrative in which Jacob wrestles with the angel, the encounter with Qohelet is a transforming and sacred struggle.

Ecclesiastes and the Reformers Al Wolters Redeemer University College The book of Ecclesiastes is unusual among books of the Bible in having attracted little attention from the leaders of the Protestant Reformation. Whereas the sixteenth century, when compared with the Middle Ages, generally marks a dramatic increase in new commentaries on books of the Bible, this is not the case with Ecclesiastes. In fact, in this case there appears to be a diminution in the number of new commentaries as we move from medieval times to the age of the Reformation. According to Stegmüller’s Repertorium biblicum, there were no fewer than 80 different medieval commentaries on Ecclesiastes, and this number applies to the Latin tradition alone. 1 By contrast, there were only a handful of commentaries on Ecclesiastes in the sixteenth century, and only three by leaders of the Reformation. Most of the Protestant Reformers, including Calvin, Beza, Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Oecolampadius, and Capito, never wrote commentaries on this enigmatic book, although their works on other biblical books were voluminous. 2 The reasons for this relative neglect are not difficult to guess. The great biblical themes that were dear to the hearts of the Reformers, such as sovereign election and justification by faith, are conspicuous by their absence in this enigmatic book, which seems to preach instead that all is vanity. The three Reformers who did write commentaries on Ecclesiastes were Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and Johannes Brenz. However, in a way, these 1.  As cited in R. Berndt, S.J., “Skizze zur Auslegungsgeschichte der Bücher Proverbia und Ecclesiastes in der abendländischen Kirche,” Sacris erudiri 34 (1994) 5–32, esp. p. 9 n. 14. The reference is to vol. 9 of F. Stegmüller, Repertorium biblicum medii aevi (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1977). 2.  Beza’s paraphrase of Ecclesiastes (see below) cannot be called a commentary. A commentary on Ecclesiastes has been ascribed to Bucer, but it has never been found, and it is possible that the commentary in question was actually written by Martin Borrhaus. See R. Rosin, Reformers, the Preacher, and Skepticism: Luther, Brenz, Melanchthon, and Ecclesiastes (Veröffent­ lichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, Abteilung Abendländische Religions­ geschichte 171; Mainz: von Zabern, 1997) 114; and I. Backus, ed., Bibliotheca Dissidentium: Répertoire des non-conformistes religieux des seizième et dix-septième siècles, vol. 2: Martin Borr­ haus (Cellarius) (Baden-Baden: Koerner, 1981) 43; see also pp. 15, 16, 69–70, 88.

55

56

Al Wolters

three names can be essentially reduced to one—namely, Luther—since Melanchthon and Brenz were both close associates of Luther and in all essentials followed the new interpretation of Ecclesiastes put forward by the great German Reformer. To highlight the newness of Luther’s work, I find it instructive to look first at another booklet on Ecclesiastes that was published in 1520 by Oecolampadius, the future Reformer of Basel. It was his translation of the paraphrase of Ecclesiastes done by the third-century Greek church father Gregory Thaumaturgus, a translation that Oecolampadius had made while still a preacher in Augsburg and that he published shortly after becoming a monk in the nearby Brigittine monastery of Altomünster. 3 Oecolampadius was a gifted humanist who was closely associated with Erasmus (to whom he sent a copy of his new translation 4) and was at that time already beginning to sympathize with the evangelical cause espoused by Luther. For our purposes what is particularly significant is what the future Reformer writes about Ecclesiastes in his dedicatory letter to Philip von der Pfalz, the bishop of Freisingen, who was also the head of the monastery Oecolampadius had just joined. He writes as follows: Now what shall I say about the use of this little book? Can anything be more worthwhile or fruitful for a man than the contempt of earthly things and the desire for heavenly things? . . . In a few words it teaches that riches, patronage, family connections, pleasure, glory—even if these things happen to be most pleasant to us and of greatest importance—are all vain and insubstantial, since they are under God, and were therefore made such by the Creator in order that we might strive to search for more solid things. . . . To me (to speak honestly) this was certainly helpful, so that whatever things are under the sun (Christ), did not have the same appeal in my eyes as before. . . . Finally, the thing that is most important is that [Gregory] never departed from Solomon’s purpose. For he calls us away from the follies of the world and its unprofitable cares, urges us on to godly deeds, leads us through to the things that are truly good, and from time to time reminds us of the future judgment. 5 3. G. Thaumaturgus, In Ecclesiastem Solomonis Metaphrasis Divi Gregorii Neocaesariensis Episcopi, interprete Oecolampadio (Augsburg: Grimm & Vuirsung, 1520). This book is very rare but is available on the Web site of the Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, http://dfg-viewer.de/show/?set%5Bmets%5D=http%3A%2F%2Fmdz10​ .bib-bv.de%2F~db%2Fmets%2Fbsb00039357_mets.xml. 4. See Erasmus’s letter to Oecolampadius of Nov. 11, 1520, no. 1158 in The Correspondence of Erasmus, vol. 8: Letters 1122 to 1251, 1520 to 1521 (ed. J. M. Estes; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988) 83–84, 376–77. 5.  I am indebted to Prof. Riemer Faber of the University of Waterloo for help with the Latin of this passage. De usu autem libelli quid inquam? An aliquid homini potest dignius fructuosiusve contingere rerum terrenarum contemptu, & coelestium desiderio? . . . Paucis enim docet, opes, clientelas, affinitates, voluptatem, gloriam, atque haec si foelicissime contingant, & in summa, vana esse omnia quum sub deo ideoque talia, a conditore facta,

Ecclesiastes and the Reformers

57

In these comments, Oecolampadius reveals that he still stands completely in the tradition of patristic and medieval interpretation of Ecclesiastes, which was dominated by the theme of contemptus mundi, “contempt for the world”—that is, the depreciation of earthly things in comparison with heavenly things. 6 Ever since Jerome, whose commentary on Ecclesiastes had dominated subsequent Christian reflection on the book in the West, this theme had also been associated with a call to and idealization of the monastic life. 7 It is very striking that the future Reformer Oecolampadius, having recently entered a monastery (though he was to leave it again within two years), should echo this thought by stating baldly that all earthly things are not only vana but “were made such by the Creator in order that we might strive for more solid things.” It is with the long and powerful tradition of interpretation represented by these words of Oecolampadius that Luther’s commentary constitutes a dramatic break. It constitutes a break both in philological and in theological terms. First, Luther engages the Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes in a way that had not been done in the Christian tradition for the millennium that separated him from Jerome. He then took the contemptus mundi theme and turned it on its head with the result that he now read the book to be affirming rather than denying the positive value of the ordinary affairs of created human life, especially in state and family, and thus as constituting a warning against rather than a recommendation for a monastic withdrawal from such earthly affairs. Luther’s engagement with the text of Ecclesiastes has been thoroughly documented in an excellent study by Eberhard Wölfel. 8 Luther was first compelled to wrestle with the Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes when he was preparing for the volume comprising Job through Song of Solomon in his new German translation of the Bible. This was the “third part” of the first edition of this translation, published in 1524. The first draft of his initial translation, written in Luther’s own hand, survived until 1945, and was meticulously transcribed in the first volume of the ut ad solidiora inquirenda niteremur . . . Mihi certe, ut germane fatear, id contulit, ne eandem gratiam apud me haberent, quam pridem, quaecumque sub sole sunt Christo . . . Denique quod ad rem maximopere attinet, a scopo Solomonis non aberrat. Avocat enim a stulticiis mundi, & inutilibus curis, hortatur ad pia opera, transmittit ad vera bona subinde futuri iudicij memoriam inculcat” (see ibid., on the 5th, 6th, and 7th pp. of the unpaginated dedicatory epistle). 6.  On this tradition, see E. Kallas, Ecclesiastes: Traditum et Fides Evangelica: The Ecclesiastes Commentaries of Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and Johannes Brenz Considered within the History of Interpretation (Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1979) 45–171. 7. See Jerome’s Praefatio to his commentary, in S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Commentarius in Ecclesiasten (ed. M. Adriaen; CCSL 72; Brepols: Turnholt, 1959) 249. 8. E. Wölfel, Luther und die Skepsis: Eine Studie zur Kohelet-Exegese (Forschungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Protestantismus 10. Reihe, 12; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958). See also Rosin, Reformers, the Preacher, and Skepticism, ch. 3; and Kallas, Ecclesiastes: Traditum et Fides, chaps. 4–5.

58

Al Wolters

Weimarer Ausgabe, Deutsche Bibel (WADB) of Luther’s works. 9 The original had indicated by means of red ink the revisions that Luther made after consulting with his co-workers Aurogallus and Melanchthon. As with the rest of Luther’s translation of the Bible, he continued to revise its wording until the edition of 1545, which appeared a year before his death in 1546. In many places, his translation shows evidence of a fresh wrestling with the Hebrew text and therefore frequently diverges from the Vulgate. Luther lectured on Ecclesiastes in the year 1526, from July 30 to November  7. 10 Although he had planned to prepare these lectures for publication, he never actually did so. Instead, his lectures were published six years later, with Luther’s authorization, by a group of anonymous friends, who based their work on students’ lecture notes. The resulting publication was the Annotationes in Ecclesiasten (1532). 11 In addition to this work, we also have the lecture notes taken by Luther’s student Georg Rörer, which were discovered in 1893. 12 Both witnesses to Luther’s lectures on Ecclesiastes, the published Annotationes of 1532 and Rörer’s notes, have been published alongside each other in the Weimarer Ausgabe. 13 They are written in Latin, with numerous German phrases interspersed. Although the two versions differ in many details, the scholarly consensus is that together they represent a reliable account of Luther’s lectures. 14 An English translation of the printed version was published by Jaroslav Pelikan in 1972. 15 Luther was very critical of the exegetical tradition that preceded him in the interpretation of Ecclesiastes. His criticism was directed initially to the traditional understanding of Eccl 9:1, “Man does not know whether he deserves love or hate,” which was understood of a person’s relationship to God and thus undermined the Protestant teaching regarding the assurance of faith. But his criticism was much broader. No less noxious for a proper understanding of this book has been the influence of many of the saintly and illustrious theologians in the church, who thought that in 9.  WADB 1. The autograph draft translation of Ecclesiastes is found on pp. 615–31. Unfortunately, the originals of Luther’s draft translation were destroyed in World War II. The works of Luther are quoted according to the standard Weimar edition: D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe (121 vols.; Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–2009), abbreviated WA for Weimarer Ausgabe. The 15 volumes of Die Deutsche Bibel and the 6 volumes of Tischreden have their own volume numbers and are abbreviated WADB and WATR, respectively. 10. See Wölfel, Luther und die Skepsis, 258–60. 11. M. Luther, Ecclesiastes Solomonis, cum Annotationibus Doc. Mart Luth (Vuittembergae, 1532). See WA 20, 2–3; Wölfel, Luther und die Skepsis, 259–260; Rosin, Reformers, The Preacher, and Skepticism, 105. 12.  WA 20, 1–2; Wölfel, Luther und die Skepsis, 259. 13.  WA 20, 9–203. 14.  Wölfel, Luther und die Skepsis, 260. 15.  See “Notes on Ecclesiastes,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 15: Notes on Ecclesiastes, Lectures on the Song of Solomon, Treatise on the Last Words of David (ed. J. Pelikan and H. C. Oswald; Saint Louis, MO: Concordia, 1972) 3–187.

Ecclesiastes and the Reformers

59

this book Solomon was teaching what they call “the contempt of the world,” that is, the contempt of things that have been created and established by God. Among these is St. Jerome, who by writing a commentary on this book urged Blesilla to accept the monastic life. From this source there arose and spread over the entire church, like a flood, that theology of the religious orders or monasteries. It was taught that to be a Christian meant to forsake the household [oeconomia], the political order [politia], even the episcopal (or, rather, the apostolic) office, to flee to the desert, to isolate oneself from human society, to live in stillness and silence; for it was impossible to serve God in the world. As though Solomon were calling “vanity” the very marriage, political office, and office of the ministry of the Word which he praises here in such a wonderful way and calls gifts of God! 16

Luther is here clearly criticizing the long tradition of Christian asceticism and otherworldliness, which he associates with the history of monasticism and which he considers to be in conflict with the acknowledgment of the goodness of creation. It should be noted that he has a broad conception of creation; it includes not only physical things but also cultural phenomena and societal institutions. Therefore it is foolish and wicked when many preachers inveigh against glory, power, social position, wealth, gold, fame, beauty, or women, thus openly condemning a creation of God. Government, or power, is a divine ordinance. Gold is good, and riches are conferred by God. A woman is a good thing, made to be a helper for man (cf. Gen. 2:18). For God has made all things to be good and to be useful for some human purpose. 17

The key to Luther’s interpretation of Ecclesiastes is his understanding of the pivotal term “vanity” (Hebrew ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, Latin vanitas). He takes his cue from the way “vanity” is used by the Apostle Paul: “The creatures are indeed subjected to vanity, as Paul declares in Rom 8:20, but they themselves are good things.” 18 Thus vanity does not refer to the mutability or metaphysical insufficiency of the world and its affairs but to the result of sin, which perverts the world and its affairs. Here are some representative quotations: What is being condemned in this book, therefore, is not the creatures but the depraved affection and desire [pravus affectus et cupiditas] of us men, who are not content with the creatures of God that we have, and with their use. . . 19 [Solomon] would be contradicting himself completely if he were to condemn these things themselves rather than the abuse of these things, which comes solely from the affections [affectibus]. 20 16. Ibid., 15.4. 17.  Ibid., 8. 18.  Ibid., 14. 19.  Ibid., 8. 20.  Ibid., 8–9.

60

Al Wolters Therefore we should not follow the imaginations of the interpreters who suppose that the knowledge of nature, the study of astronomy or of all philosophy, is being condemned here and who teach that such things are to be despised as vain and useless speculations. 21 Vanity of vanities, that is, the greatest and highest vanity of all, total and utter vanity. All of this he says not about things themselves but about the human heart, which abuses things to its own disadvantage. 22

Closely related to Luther’s understanding of “vanity” in Ecclesiastes is his interpretation of the key phrase “under the sun,” which he also takes in a religious, not a physical or cosmological sense. It is essentially synonymous with the realm of vanity. He calls this entire realm of vanity existence under the sun, a unique phrase that we do not read elsewhere in Scripture. In this way, he seeks to exclude the works of God, which God Himself either works in us or has commanded us to work; these are above the sun and beyond the efforts of men. 23

Consequently, not everything in our earthly world is “under the sun” but only whatever manifests the sinful fallenness of the world. The works of God—those that he does himself and those that he commands people to do—are not “under the sun,” even though they are part of the earthly world on which the physical sun rises. 24 As a consequence, Luther equates whatever is religiously “under the sun” with “the world” in its negative sense in the New Testament. [H]e is speaking about things “under the sun,” what in the New Testament and in common usage is called “in the world.” For this book distinguishes the life of godliness from the life of the world, or life “under the sun.” 25

In another place, he equates that which is under the sun with “nature” as opposed to “grace.” Speaking of the way that Eccl 7:28 speaks in negative terms about women, he writes the following: Once more he is speaking about the female sex as it is outside the state of grace, in the state of nature, and “under the sun” (ut est extra gratiam in natura et sub sole). 26 21.  Ibid., 9. 22.  Ibid., 16. 23.  Ibid., 14. 24.  It is a mistake to equate “under the sun” in Luther with the “physical” or “material”; W. J. Wright, Martin Luther’s Understanding of the Two Kingdoms: A Response to the Challenge of Skepticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010) 150. 25.  LW, 15.58. 26.  Ibid., 132.

Ecclesiastes and the Reformers

61

It is crucial to understand Luther on this point, because it means that the negative statements in Ecclesiastes about life “under the sun” do not refer to earthly or mundane things in general but only to their sinful distortions. A consequence of Luther’s reinterpretation of the key categories “vanity” and “under the sun” is that he takes Ecclesiastes to be affirming constructive engagement in ordinary “secular” life rather than an ascetic withdrawal from it. More specifically, he understands Solomon, as the royal author of Ecclesiastes, to be giving concrete instruction for life in politia and oeconomia. As he puts it in his preface to the book, after rejecting the traditional withdrawal-from-the-world reading of it: “It would . . . be more correct to call this Book of Ecclesiastes the Politics or the Economics of Solomon.” 27 However, we need to be clear about what Luther means by what is here somewhat misleadingly translated as “Politics” [Politica] and “Economics” [Oeconomica]. In his understanding, the social order comprises three “estates”: the church (ecclesia), the body politic (politia), and the household or family (oeconomia). 28 The latter is a much broader category for Luther than the name might suggest to us. As Bayer puts it, “Oeconomia encompasses for Luther everything we today, in our economically differentiated situation, place into three different categories: marriage and family, business, and education and academic study.” 29 Given this tripartite understanding of human society, when Luther emphasizes that Ecclesiastes is about “politics” and “economics,” he is really saying that the book is about societal concerns outside the institutional church, concerns that he otherwise (in line with a long patristic and medieval tradition) calls “temporal.” 30 Space does not permit an extensive discussion of the “political” wisdom that Luther derives from the book of Ecclesiastes. A telling example of his advice for governing in both the politia and the oeconomia is the following extract from his commentary on Eccl 7:16–17: You will be “overwise” and “righteous overmuch” if in your administration either of public or of private affairs you have good laws but insist on them to be observed in such a way that there is not one iota of transgression. For this is what it means that “the highest law brings the deepest injustice” [summum ius, summa iniuria]. A prudent public official [magistratus] or head of a household [paterfamilias] ought to make a distinction between the goodness of the law and the obedience of his subordinates. It is better to bear with and to endure a moderate amount of rebellion than to let the entire state perish. This is what usually happens to the rigid enforcers of laws. Therefore laws should be insisted upon as 27.  Ibid., 5. 28.  See the helpful analysis in O. Bayer, Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation (trans. T. H. Trapp; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008) 120–53. 29.  Ibid., 142. 30.  This point is misunderstood in W. J. Wright’s discussion of Luther’s commentary on Ecclesiastes; see his Luther’s Understanding, 149–52.

62

Al Wolters far as the situation allows, but no further. This is also what physicians do. They do not diagnose and cure diseases only on the basis of books or of what is prescribed but are often forced to make adjustments in keeping with the state of the body. Thus also the minds of men are influenced in the most diverse possible ways, so that it is often necessary to modify the laws themselves. This calls for extremely wise men, of whom there are few in the world. Therefore all those who are chosen as heads of households [oeconomi] or as public officials [magistratus] should be men like David, Abraham, Solomon, and Joshua, if they were available, men who could administer [uti] the laws properly. For this is how important it is to administer the state well. 31

In this connection, Luther often states that a wise ruler will overlook or turn a blind eye to (dissimulare) infractions of the law. 32 He quotes with approval the saying of the Emperor Frederick III: “He who does not know how to turn a blind eye does not know how to rule,” to which he adds the comment, “He who does not know how to turn a blind eye does not know how to live.” 33 In many ways, Luther saw Frederick the Wise, the Elector of Saxony, as incorporating the kind of Christian political ruler which Solomon had in mind. 34 In his commentary he repeatedly refers to the recently deceased Frederick, on one occasion calling him “the author of our peace.” 35 Before leaving our discussion of Luther, a word needs to be said about his view of the authorship of Ecclesiastes. On the one hand, it is clear from our discussion so far that Luther assumes, in continuity with the long Jewish and Christian tradition before him, that Solomon was the author. In fact the title of his commentary speaks of Ecclesiastes Salomonis. On the other hand, it is also clear that Luther did not conceive of this authorship in a straightforward way, and that on at least one occasion he threw out the suggestion that Solomon was not its author at all. That he considered Solomon’s authorship to be a qualified one is evident from the following statement: In my opinion, the title Ecclesiastes, or Preacher, should be applied to the name of the book itself rather than to that of the author, so that you understand that these are words that Solomon spoke publicly in some address to his princes and others. . . . Therefore I think that these words were spoken by Solomon in some assembly of his retinue, perhaps after dinner to some great and prominent men 31.  LW, 15.122–123. 32.  Ibid., 123, 124, 126. 33.  Ibid., 83. The English translation by Pelikan here mistakenly translates dissimulare as “dissimulate.” The same mistake is made twice on p. 84. 34.  See W. Maurer, “Der Kursächsische Salomo: Zu Luthers Vorlesungen über Kohelet (1526) und über das Hohelied (1530/31),” in Antwort aus der Geschichte: Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum geschichtlichen Bild der Kirche—Walter Dress zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. W. Sommer; Berlin: Christlicher Zeitschriftenverlag, 1969) 99–116. 35.  LW, 15.139.

Ecclesiastes and the Reformers

63

who were present. . . . Then he poured this out to those who were present, as usually happens, and afterwards what he said was put down and assembled by the leaders of the community or of the church. . . . In the same way it could happen that one of us would discourse about human affairs while seated at table and others would take it down. 36

In the last sentence, Luther is clearly alluding to his own practice of holding forth at table and to the Tischreden (Table Talk) that were published as a result. He thought the Song of Solomon might have come about in the same way and that this was the reason why both books lacked a coherent structure. As he puts it in his 1524 preface to the German translation of Ecclesiastes: That is also why no order has been preserved in these books, but one thing is mixed up with another, as they [the compilers] did not hear everything from him [Solomon] at one time or all at once, as is necessarily the case with books of this kind. 37

It is in Luther’s Tischreden that we also find a place where he appears to deny the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. Although Christianson has recently questioned the existence of this passage, it can undoubtedly be found among Luther’s writings. 38 It reads as follows: About Solomon’s book the Preacher, called Ecclesiastes (on which the Doctor [that is, Luther] has lectured and which he has put out in print), he says, “This book should be more complete, it is too fragmentary; it has neither boots nor spurs, it only rides on stocking feet, 39 the way I did when I was still in the monastery. I do not believe,” he said, “that Solomon was condemned, but this was written in order to frighten kings, princes, and rulers. Thus he did not himself write the book, the Preacher, but it was composed at the time of the Maccabees, by Sirach. However, it is a very good book, and pleasant, because it contains much excellent teaching about how a household should be run. Furthermore, it is like a Talmud, drawn together out of many books, perhaps out of the library of King Ptolemy Euergetes in Egypt.” 40 36.  Ibid., 12. 37.  My translation from WADB 10.2.104: “Daher auch keyne ordenung ynn disen büchern gehallten ist, Sondern eyns yns ander gemengt, wie sie es nicht alles zu eyner zeyt, noch auff eyn mal von yhm gehört haben, wie solcher bücher art seyn mus.” 38.  E. S. Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007) 95. 39.  “To ride on stocking feet” apparently means to be without power. See the note on this passage in WA Tischreden 1.630. 40.  My translation from WA Tischreden 1.207. The German reads as follows: Vom Buch Salomonis, dem Prediger, Ecclesiastes genannt (das der Doctor gelesen, und durch den Druck hat lassen ausgehen), saget er: ‘Dies Buch sollt völliger seyn, ihm ist zu viel abgebrochen, es hat weder Stiefel noch Sporn, es reitet nur in Socken, gleichwie ich, da ich noch im Kloster war. Ich glaube nicht,’ sprach er, ‘das Salomon

64

Al Wolters

This quotation from Luther is dated in the spring of 1533, a year after his commentary on Ecclesiastes was published. It is an isolated statement, and the opinion expressed in it is not reflected in his later writings on Ecclesiastes. As late as 1545, in the last edition of his German Bible, Luther continues to speak of Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes, both in his “Preface to the Books of Solomon” and in his marginal notes on Ecclesiastes. 41 Nor is this surprising, since so much of Luther’s interpretation of Ecclesiastes depends on his view that it was written by a king in Israel who was wise in political matters. 42 Consequently, although it is true, strictly speaking, that Luther was probably the first person to question the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, his doubts on this score appear to have been incidental and momentary and are not consistent with his settled opinion on the matter as expressed in his published commentary and numerous other public statements made throughout his life. Nor did this incidental opinion have any effect on his two close associates Melanchthon and Brenz, who both assume without question that Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes. Although Luther was the pioneer of this new Protestant interpretation of Ecclesiastes, he was not the first to publish a commentary defending it. This distinction goes to his friend and follower Johannes Brenz, who published his own commentary on Ecclesiastes (in German) under the title Der Prediger Salomo in 1528. 43 Although Luther had wanted to prepare his own lectures for publication before this time, he had been prevented by the press of other work from doing so. In the meantime, his close associate Brenz, who presumably had access to student notes of Luther’s 1526 lectures, published his own version of the new interpretation. 44 Luther agreed to write a preface for it. In this preface, he pays very verdammt sey; sondern dies ist geschrieben, Könige, Fürsten und Herrn zu schrecken. So hat er selbst das Buch, den Prediger, nicht geschrieben, sondern ist zur Zeit der Maccabäer von Sirach gemacht. Es ist aber ein sehr gut Buch und angenehm, darum, dass es viel feiner Lehre hat, wie man sich im Hausregiment halten soll. Dazu ists wie ein Talmud aus vielen Büchern zusammen gezogen, vielleicht aus der Librerey des Königes Ptolemäi Euergetis in Egypten. 41.  WADB 10.2.9–10. See, for example, the marginal note on Eccl 4:15 (WADB 10.2, p. 117). The same conclusion emerges from Wölfel (Luther und die Skepsis, 254–57), where we find a survey of Luther’s pronouncements on Ecclesiastes from approximately 1523 until his death. 42.  This point is stressed by Wölfel (Luther und die Skepsis, 108–11). 43.  This has been reprinted in a facsimile edition: J. Brenz, Der Prediger Salomo. FaksimileNeudruck der ersten Ausgabe Hagenau 1528. Mit einer Einleitung von Martin Brecht: Glaube und Skepsis. Die erste evangelische Auslegung des Predigers Salomos von Johannes Brenz (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1970). 44. On Brenz’s commentary, see M. Brecht, Die frühe Theologie des Johannes Brenz (BHT; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1966) 172–79; idem, “Einleitung” and “Glaube und Skepsis,” v–xxvii; Kallas, Ecclesiastes: Traditum et Fides, 187–93; Rosin, Reformers, the Preacher, and Skepticism, 151–214. Rosin (p. 172) claims that Brenz’s commentary was written in 1526, but without providing evidence.

Ecclesiastes and the Reformers

65

handsome tribute to Brenz, saying that, although he (Luther) had wanted badly to publish his own commentary, he was content to give precedence to Brenz’s, since the latter was very gifted as an exegete. 45 As he said elsewhere about Brenz, “There is no one among all the theologians of our time who explains and treats the Holy Scripture as simply and clearly as Brenz.” 46 Brenz certainly had at least an equal regard for Luther. As Martin Brecht notes at the end of his discussion of Brenz’s commentary on Ecclesiastes, here as elsewhere it is true that “in his theology Brenz owes an extensive and essential debt to Luther.” 47 Although Brenz’s commentary is an independent work and differs from Luther’s at many points, the fundamental framework is the same, in regard to both his overall evangelical theology and the basic hermeneutical approach that he takes to Ecclesiastes. We see his dependence on Luther at every turn, beginning with the fact that he takes as his biblical text the German translation of Ecclesiastes that Luther had published in 1524, just four years earlier. We also see it in his understanding of the key category “vanity.” Consider the following quotation: In short, all creatures, namely riches, honor, power, joy, pleasure, health, and other things are very good, and gifts of God. But because man is so very corrupt and ruined because of sin, they are to him a vain and empty thing, and can give him no satisfaction. 48

Like Luther, he polemicizes against monasticism and a world-flight mentality. 49 Like Luther, he pays considerable attention to political duties, both the duties of individuals who rule and the duties of those who are ruled. 50 Like Luther, he emphasizes that the liberal arts, including philosophy, are not to be abandoned as inherently secular but received as gifts of God that need to be cultivated in reliance on Scripture. 51 As Brecht puts it, “As with all the other gifts of creation, so with respect to reason and philosophy as well, everything depends on proper use.” 52 45. See Luther’s Epistel, which prefaces Brenz, Prediger. 46.  My translation of the quotation in Brecht, “Einleitung,” v: “Es gibt keinen unter allen Theologen unserer Zeit, der die Heilige Schrift so einfältig und deutlich erklärt und abhandelt wie Brenz.” 47. Idem, Die frühe Theologie, 179: “Brenz ist in seiner Theologie weitgehend und im we­ sentlichen Luther verpflichtet.” 48.  Brenz, Prediger, 6–7: “Kürtzlich / alle creaturen / reichtum / eer / gewalt / freud / wollust / gesundtheit / und andere / seyen seer gut / unnd Gottis gabenn. Aber dweyl der mensch durch die sünd so gar verderbt und verwüst ist / so seyen sie yhm ein eyttel bloss ding / mögen yhm kein genügde seyn /.” The translations from Brenz are my own. 49.  Ibid., 73–75, 166. 50.  Ibid., 78, 143. 51.  Ibid., 8–9. 52.  Brecht, “Glaube und Skepsis,” xxiv: “Wie bei allen andern Gaben der Schöpfung, so entscheidet sich auch hinsichtlich der Vernunft und der Philosophie alles am rechten Gebrauch.”

66

Al Wolters

Finally, we need to say a few words about Melanchthon’s brief commentary on Ecclesiastes, which was published in Latin in 1550. 53 It is shorter than both Luther’s and Brenz’s commentaries and consists of only 32 pages (64 columns) in the Corpus Reformatorum edition. As we have seen, Melanchthon had been closely associated with Luther in the translation of Ecclesiastes for the latter’s German Bible. In fact, the delay in the publication of Luther’s commentary on the book was partly due to his waiting for Melanchthon’s revised Latin translation of Ecclesiastes. 54 There can be little doubt that Melanchthon was thoroughly familiar with Luther’s new interpretation of the book from the outset. Oddly enough, unlike Brenz, he nowhere mentions Luther in his commentary. Given their close association, it comes as no surprise that on all essential points Melanchthon’s commentary agrees with Luther’s. 55 Their agreement is immediately evident in his exposition of “vanity of vanities” in Eccl 1:2: First of all, you must understand that it is not being said that things are bad, but the statement in Genesis must be firmly borne in mind: “God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good,” that is, they were put in place by his wisdom and goodness, in conformity with his wisdom, pleasing to him, and created for uses that are pleasing to him and that preserve their nature. It is necessary that we remember well this interpretation at the outset. Genesis speaks of things that are created and that remain in their order, but Solomon is speaking of human affairs. And he says expressly, “under the sun,” in order to indicate that by the designation “vanity” he is not including God, the word of God, or any service agencies that are ruled by the word of God. For these also, when they retain their order, are good things. But here the reference is to the perversion of the order, that is, to the things and affairs that are related to the human heart, which mixes in disturbances of the order. 56 53. P. Melanchthon, Enarratio brevis concionum libri Salomonis cuius titulus est Ec­clesias­ tes, in Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae Supersunt Omnia, vol. 14 (ed. C. G. Bretschneider; Halle: Schwetschke, 1847) cols. 88–150, in the Corpus Reformatorum series. 54.  Wölfel, Luther und die Skepsis, 259 n. 138. 55. On Melanchthon’s commentary, see Kallas, Ecclesiastes: Traditum et Fides, 183–87; Rosin, Reformers, the Preacher, and Skepticism, 215–284; idem, “Melanchthon and ‘The Preacher’: A Theology of Life,” Concordia Journal 23 (1997) 295–308. 56.  My translation of Melanchthon, Enarratio, 101: Primum scias non hoc dici, res esse malas, sed sententia in Genesi firmissime retinenda est: Vidit Deus omnia quae fecerat, et erant valde bona, id est, ordinata ipsius sapientia et bonitate, congruentia ad ipsius sapientiam, placentia ipsi, et condita ad usus placentes ipsi et conservantes naturam. Hanc interpretationem bene meminisse initio oportet. Et Genes. loquitur de rebus conditis et manentibus in suo ordine, sed Salomon loquitur de negociis humanis. Ac diserte inquit, sub Sole, ut significet se non comprehendere vanitatis appellatione Deum, verbum Dei et ministeria quaecumque, quae regunter verbo Dei. Nam haec quoque cum suum ordinem retinent, sunt res bonae. Sed hic de ordinis depravatione dicitur, id est, loquitur de rebus et negociis collatis ad cor humanum, quod miscet conturbationes ordinis.

Ecclesiastes and the Reformers

67

It is significant that the commentary is dedicated to one Joachim Möller, a young man who had recently become a member of the city council of Hamburg. In effect, Melanchthon was sending him his commentary as advice on how to fulfill his political responsibilities as a city councillor. 57 This highlights the fact that Me­ lanchthon also thought of Ecclesiastes as a book that gave divine guidance for the practical affairs of the politia of human society. Much of the overall tenor of Melanchthon’s commentary can be summarized in the words of Kallas: Like Luther, Melanchthon immediately focuses upon the issue of civic responsibility and takes issue with his monastic counterparts for whom Ecclesiastes is believed to lend biblical support for a cloistered or withdrawn style of existence. According to Melanchthon, Solomon, the author of the text, in no way obliges his readers to spurn created things or, more importantly, to shirk their proper social responsibilities. That the monks spurn the institution of marriage and disengage themselves from the governance of the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of society with the belief that the author of Ecclesiastes commends such action, is considered by Melanchthon an altogether skewed understanding of the text. 58

I said at the beginning of this essay that the only Reformers to write a commentary on Ecclesiastes were the three I have discussed. However, it should be mentioned that one other Reformer wrote a paraphrase of Ecclesiastes that does reveal something of his interpretation of the book. The Reformer in question is Theodore Beza, and the paraphrase is entitled Ecclesiastes sive Concionator: Paraphrasis concionis a Salomone de summo bono habitae, which was published in 1589 together with his expository essay on Job. 59 As the title makes clear, Beza understood the book to be Solomon’s “sermon on the highest good.” In many ways, although Beza avoids the phrase contemptus mundi, his paraphrase seems to be a return to the patristic and medieval reading of the book, stressing the mutability of the world “under the sun,” in contrast to the only fixed and sure thing that humans can know—namely, the fear of the Lord. Oddly enough, I have been able to detect no sign of Beza’s acquaintance or interaction with the works on Ecclesiastes by Luther, Brenz, or Melanchthon. In seeking to evaluate the contribution of the Reformers to the interpretation of Ecclesiastes, a good deal will depend on one’s own understanding of the biblical book. If we take the view that Ecclesiastes conveys an essentially skeptical message, offset by an orthodox epilogue that is religiously at odds with this message, 57. See Rosin, Reformers, the Preacher, and Skepticism, 228. 58.  Kallas, Ecclesiastes: Fides et Traditum, 184–85. 59. T. Beza, Iobus, Theodori Bezae partim commentariis partim paraphrasi illustratus. Cui etiam additus est Ecclesiastes, Solomonis concio de summo bono, ab eodem Th. B. paraphrasticè explicata (London: University of Cambridge Press, 1589), http://eebo.chadwyck.com.

68

Al Wolters

then our judgment of the Reformers’ interpretation (essentially that of Luther) will be severely negative. Thus Graham White goes so far as to speak of “Luther’s exegetical rape of Ecclesiastes.” 60 Wölfel, too, although he uses less inflammatory language, takes Luther to have misunderstood the biblical book at a fundamental level. 61 In his view, Luther’s achievement is, not to have understood Ecclesiastes, but to have given a creative theological solution to the problem it raises. 62 On the other hand, if we follow the interpreters who take the epilogue and the socalled carpe diem passages in Ecclesiastes to provide the hermeneutical key to the book as a whole, we are likely to have a much more favorable assessment of the new interpretation of Ecclesiastes put forward by Luther and his followers. In any case, in my view, Luther is to be commended for his break with the patristic and medieval contemptus mundi tradition of interpretation and for his espousal of an attitude of vigorous Christian engagement with society and culture outside the institutional church. 60. G. White, “Luther on Ecclesiastes and the Limits of Human Ability,” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 29 (1987) 181. 61.  Wölfel, Luther und die Skepsis, 114–17. “Seine Deutung muss von hierher als eine Missdeutung betrachtet werden” (p. 116). 62.  Ibid., 117–18.

Sweet and Lawful Delights: Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes Cristian G. Rata Torch Trinity Graduate University In this essay, I explore and present some relevant teachings from Ecclesiastes as seen through the eyes of five Puritan writers. 1 My interest in this topic began when I read a passage from Duane Garrett’s commentary on Ecclesiastes in the New American Commentary series. 2 According to Garrett, the book of Ecclesiastes was “evangelistic” for both the Reformers and the Puritans. Thus, it was written “to show the futility of the world against eternity.” 3 To support this view, Garrett referred to the following “Reformers 4 and Puritans”: Whitaker, Pemble, Cocceius, Matthew Poole, and Matthew Henry. 5 His view may be true, but he does not 1.  Puritan and Puritanism are disputed terms. For an acceptable working definition of Puritanism and for important sources for begining to learn more about the Puritans, see J. R. Beeke and R. J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2006) xv–xxiv. The Puritans had a high regard for Scripture and sought to apply its teachings in all areas of life; as theologians, they were passionately committed to a Trinitarian theology. They believed in the significance of the Church, and focused on personal conversion. The Puritans excelled at preaching the gospel (in a simple and earnest manner), calling sinners to faith in Christ and seeking genuine communion with God. The Puritan era is usually assumed to have begun in the 1560s and lasted until the end of the seventeenth century (in England) and the 1730s in North America. See J. Coffey and P. C. H. Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 6–10. Note that, in this essay, I refer to the book as Ecclesiastes and the stated author as Qohelet. 2.  D. A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NAC 14; Nashville: Broadman, 1993). 3. Ibid., 271. According to Garrett, this is the general view of conservative Christians. 4.  On the Reformers’ interpretation of Ecclesiastes, see the excellent article by A. Wolters in this volume. Most of the Protestant Reformers, including Calvin, Beza, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Bucer did not write a commentary on Ecclesiastes. Only three of the leaders of the Reformation wrote on this enigmatic book: Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and Johannes Brenz. Theodore Beza wrote a paraphrase of Ecclesiastes. 5.  Garrett, Proverbs, 271. Garrett does not provide full names for the first three writers. I assume that he is referring to William Whitaker (1548–95), William Pemble (1591–1623), and Johannes Cocceius (1603–69). For more information on the first two writers, see Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans. Cocceius lived during the Puritan era, but he was a Dutch theologian born in Bremen. He had a detailed knowledge of Hebrew (which he taught at Franecker and Leiden), but he is not usually grouped with the Puritans. I was unable to determine whether

69

70

Cristian G. Rata

provide a reference to support his assertion. However, I began to wonder whether other Puritans who wrote on Ecclesiastes had similar interpretations of this highly controversial book. 6 Further research on this topic revealed that not very many Puritans wrote on Ecclesiastes, and the works of the individuals who wrote on the book are not easily accessed. However, after further inquiry, 7 I have been able to find three major Puritan works on Ecclesiastes, works that are less known and less accessible than the works of Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole. 8 These three works were authored by John Cotton, John Trapp, and Edward Reynolds, and in this essay I examine some of their contributions to the interpretation of Ecclesiastes. Although my interest in their work began with a quest for “evangelistic” (Puritan) interpretations of Ecclesiastes, it soon extended to an analysis of their general approach to exposition and also to the theme of obedience. Since the most dominant term in the whole book is ‫( ֶהבֶל‬traditionally translated “vanity”), the Puritan understanding of this term Cocceius wrote on Ecclesiastes. His work is not discussed in this essay. On Cocceius, see W. Klassen (“Cocceius, Johannes,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation [ed. J. H. Hayes; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999] 202). Pemble was a “gifted Hebrew scholar” whose commentary on Ecclesiastes was entitled Solomon’s Recantation and Repentance (1627). See Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 466. Pemble’s work does not seem to warrant inclusion in this analysis. Note the relevant observation by C. H. Spurgeon (Commenting and Commentaries [Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2008] 160): “This ‘Recantation’ is a minor production. The style is scholastic, with arrangements of the subjects that render it hard to read. We confess we are disappointed with it.” I have not been able to find any work on Ecclesiastes by William Whitaker. 6.  I also wondered whether Garrett’s statement about the Reformers and the Puritans was correct. See Wolters’s essay in this volume for a considerably different analysis of the Reformers. 7.  The information on the Puritans and their writings came mainly from Beeke and Pederson (Meet the Puritans) and B. Brook (The Lives of the Puritans [3 vols.; Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1996]). 8.  Both Matthew Henry (1662–1714) and Matthew Poole (1624–79) are well-known Puritan writers and very accessible. See Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 323–33, 485–87. For Poole, see also the recent contribution of T. Harley (Matthew Poole: His Life, His Times, His Contributions along with His Argument against the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church [Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.com, 2011]). Their commentaries are available here: http://www​.ccel.org/ olb/tolbss/components/commentaries/com-ofc.html (accessed April 15, 2011). Their writings are also taken into consideration in this essay, but emphasis is placed on the less-accessible works of Cotton, Trapp, and Reynolds. For this essay, I consulted Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (vol. 3; Iowa Falls, IA: Word Bible, 1935); and Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (vol. 2; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985). Note that both Henry and Poole knew Hebrew and used it in their commentaries, especially Poole in his commentary on Ecclesiastes (see, for example, his comments on 1:1, 4, 6, 15; 2:7, 13, 21; etc.). However, some of his comments are questionable, and there is no in-depth explanation or grammatical engagement. Henry seems to be more knowledgeable about Hebrew, and he frequently engages with the Greek as well. Occasionally he also refers to the Aramaic targum (the “Chaldee-paraphrase”). See his comments on Eccl 2:24–26. Matthew Poole’s work on Ecclesiastes was first published as part of Annotations upon the Holy Bible in 1683–85 (cf. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 486), while Henry’s commentary on Job through Song of Songs was published in 1710.

Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

71

must be analyzed for a proper evaluation of their work. I also consider it essential to an understanding of their interpretation of Ecclesiastes to find out what they thought about the purpose of the book and to present their understanding of the “enjoy life” passages. 9 This essay begins with a brief introduction to Cotton, Reynolds, and Trapp and continues with an examination of their works, especially as they relate to the issues of inspiration, evangelistic use, and obedience. The issue of inspiration and authorship is important and is discussed first because it sets the tone and foundation for an evaluation of their works.

Who Were These Writers? First, it should be noted that these Puritans were almost contemporary, and their lives overlapped to a great degree. John Cotton was the oldest of them (1584– 1652) and is best remembered as “the patriarch of New England.” 10 He was converted through the ministry of Richard Sibbes and earned a Masters degree in 1606 from Emmanuel College at Cambridge. Beeke and Pederson think that his work on Ecclesiastes is “packed with good homiletical insights,” 11 and Spurgeon writes: “Ecclesiastes is not a book to be expounded verse by verse; but Cotton does it as well as anyone.” 12 Indeed, Cotton expounds this book verse by verse; there is no introduction to the book or to any of the chapters. It is clear from his work that Cotton was very knowledgeable about the Scriptures (as most of the Puritan writers were) and was familiar with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. 13 9.  I am referring to the well-known passages that encourage readers to seek enjoyment in eating, drinking, and sometimes love: 2:24–26; 3:12–13; 5:18–20; 7:14; 8:15; 9:7–9. For the sake of space, I will concentrate my analysis on the text that I consider to be the most representative (9:7–9) of this call to enjoyment. One reason for looking at this theme is to engage with the much-quoted and well-known caricature of the Puritans: “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” This quotation is attributed to H. L. Mencken. See L. Ryken, Wordly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986) 1–3. Ryken does a good job of debunking this myth, but his engagement with the Puritan interpretations of biblical texts that call for joy and happiness is minimal. It would have been especially appropriate in this context to engage with the Puritan interpretations of the “enjoy life” passages mentioned above. 10.  Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 153. It should be noted, however, that Rey­ nolds’s commentary was published earlier (1626) than Trapp’s (1650) or Cotton’s (1654). Matthew Poole’s work was published between 1683 and 1685, and Matthew Henry’s commentary appeared in 1710. 11.  Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 161. 12.  Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries, 160. 13.  According to Brook (Lives of the Puritans, 3.159–160), Cotton “was a man of great literary acquirements, and so well acquainted with the Hebrew, that he could converse in it with great ease. . . . He was deeply skilled in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.” He refers occasionally to Hebrew words throughout his work. See J. Cotton, Brief Exposition with Practical Observations upon the

72

Cristian G. Rata

Edward Reynolds (1599–1676) 14 was born only 15 years after Cotton (and died 24 years after Cotton) and was known as the bishop of Norwich (his position at the time of his death). He was educated at Oxford and Cambridge (M.A. and D.D.), and it is clear that he was well versed in the classical languages and even in Hebrew. He was a Presbyterian by conviction and was well known as a voice of moderation. He was regarded by his contemporaries as a man of good judgment, a gifted preacher, a scholar of considerable talent, and a clear writer (he authored more than 30 books). Daniel Neal said that “[h]e was reckoned one of the most eloquent pulpit men of his age, and a good old Puritan.” 15 I find the writing of his commentary very helpful, especially for the significant introductions, both to the whole book and to each individual chapter. John Trapp (1602–69) 16 was born only two years after Reynolds, but he died seven years before Reynolds died. He studied at Oxford, and the evidence shows that he could read Latin, Hebrew, and Greek. I find most impressive his command of the classics and the abundance of illustrations that he offers to “spice” his exposition. For example, in his exposition of Eccl 2:18, he gives four useful and colorful illustrations to support his point. 17 Spurgeon mentions Trapp as a writer that preachers should use for “spicing” up sermons. “He excels . . . in using colorful paraphrases, captivating illustrations, and his pithy style makes him very quotable.” 18 For example, in Eccl 9:9, 19 the portion is the wife: “And a very good one too, if she proves good. As if otherwise, Aristotle saith right, he that is unhappy in a wife, has lost the one half at least of his happiness here on earth.” 20 On 5:2, he comments: “In speaking to God, saith one, one’s best eloquence is our silence.” 21 According to one of his students (the son-in-law of William Shakespeare), Trapp was “second to none for his piety and learning.” 22 And his friend Thomas Book of Ecclesiastes (London: Ralph Smith, 1654) 3, 8, 122, 125, 126, 247, 249, 265, 268, etc. In my opinion, based on his work on Ecclesiastes, his knowledge (or at least his use) of Hebrew is overstated by Brook. 14.  My information for this author is primarily taken from Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 496–500. 15.  As quoted in ibid., 498. There is no reference given for the quotation. 16.  See ibid., 586–88. 17. J. Trapp, Commentarie upon the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (London: Bellamie, 1650) 22–23. In most cases, when quoting the Puritans, I try to follow the meaning of their original writings closely. Although I try to use their punctuation and capitalization practices, I do occasionally modernize their spelling. 18.  Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 588. 19.  “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun” (esv). Italics mine. 20.  Trapp, Commentarie, 126. 21.  Ibid., 52. 22.  Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 586.

Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

73

Dugard described Trapp as “one of the Age’s greatest little men” because “he was small in stature yet great in godliness and writing.” 23

On the Question of Authorship and Authority All three of these Puritan writers, together with Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole, believed that Solomon wrote the whole book of Ecclesiastes. 24 Poole states clearly in his introduction that the author was Solomon, “as is manifest both from the common consent of Jewish and Christian writers, and from the express words of the first verse.” 25 The reason that Solomon did not prefix his name to this book is discussed by Reynolds. He explains it as being due to the sincerity of Solomon, who “chose to be known rather by the name of a penitent convert, than of a peaceable prince.” 26 He also makes the connection with the prodigal son, who said to his father: “I am no more worthy to be called your son,” and points out that, “in Scripture, men have taken new names suitable to a new condition.” 27 More specifically, this condition is that of a repentant sinner who came back into the bosom of the Church. 28 23.  Ibid., 587–88. 24.  Note that the authorship of the epilogue of the book is not questioned; in fact, it does not even come up. Acceptance of Solomonic authorship is found in the earliest fully extant Christian work on Ecclesiastes: the paraphrase of Gregory Thaumaturgos (“wonder-worker”) from the middle of the third century c.e. Thaumaturgos was a student of Origen (ca. 185–254 c.e.). The first Christian commentaries on Ecclesiastes were written by Hippolytus of Rome and Origen, but their works have survived in only a few fragments. See J. Jarick, Gregory Thaumaturgos’ Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 3. Gregory begins his paraphrase with a clear endorsement of Solomonic authorship: “Solomon (the son of the king and prophet David), a king more honoured and a prophet wiser than anyone else, speaks to the whole assembly of God” (ibid., 7). 25.  Poole, A Commentary, 278. 26. E. Reynolds, The Works of Edward Reynolds, vol. 4: A Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1998) 39. But note the slight uncertainty in his introduction: “The author of this book, both by style, and by the title of it, appeareth to have been Solomon” (p.  33; italics mine). The earliest Christian writer to have expressed doubts about Solomonic authorship seems to have been Didymus the Blind (ca. 313–398 c.e.), a student of Origen of Alexandria. He makes the following surprising statement: “Either the real author is Solomon, or some [other] wise men have written it. Maybe we should opt for the latter so that nobody may say that the speaker talks about himself.” See J. R. Wright, ed., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 9; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005) 192. 27.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 39. Today the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is denied by most scholars, including many conservatives. Note the comments of C. Bartholomew (Ecclesiastes [Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker, 2009] 52) in one of the most recent evangelical commentaries on Ecclesiastes: “On all accounts the language of Ecclesiastes confirms that it is not Solomonic.” For a recent defense of Solomonic authorship, see D. Gnanaraj, The Language of Qoheleth: An Evaluation of the Major Scholarly Studies from 1987–2004 (Th.M. diss., Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology, 2009). 28.  For a similar understanding, see also Poole, A Commentary, 278; Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 979; etc.

74

Cristian G. Rata

For the Puritans, this book contains the wisdom of Solomon (the wisest person there was), and the book is described as a penitential sermon. 29 Reynolds describes the book in the following way: “Now here Solomon doth, by solemn and serious repentance, return into the bosom of the congregation, from which, by his idolatry, he had departed.” 30 He is also seen by Reynolds as a “penitent convert,” and he points out that the Lord can make the fall of his servants beneficial to the Church. In this case, the fall of Solomon made possible the writing of “this excellent book.” Even the saints may fall (for example, Peter), but God can use their repentance “to do some more notable and eminent service to the church.” 31 Additionally, despite Ecclesiastes’ controversial status and apparent “heretical message,” the Puritans believed that Ecclesiastes was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Four of the writers (Reynolds, Cotton, Trapp, and Poole) 32 identify the shepherd in 12:11 33 as Christ, and the “words of truth” spoken by Solomon are understood as “proceeding from the Spirit of truth.” 34 Thus, Solomon was a wise man (none was like him) who was “immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost.” 35 Matthew Poole is especially encouraged by this concept in 12:11: And this clause seems to be added partly as the reason of that admirable harmony and agreement which is amongst all the men of God in all ages and places, because they are taught by one Master, and guided by the same hand; and partly to oblige us to the greater attention and reverence to all their doctrines and counsels, which we are to receive as the word of God, and not of men only. 36 29.  Trapp, Commentarie, 2. See also Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 36. 30.  Ibid., 38. 31.  Ibid., 40–41. 32.  Poole (A Commentary, 307) sees the shepherd as being either God or Jesus Christ. Matthew Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 1051) is the only one who identifies only God as the Shepherd. 33.  “The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd” (esv). For a recent discussion of this verse, see C. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 366–69. Like Matthew Henry and others, he sees the shepherd as God. 34.  Cotton, Brief Exposition, 266. 35.  Ibid., 265. Note also Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 254: “Hereby then is noted, the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, delivered by inspiration unto the penmen thereof for the use of the church; the spirit of Christ being in those that wrote them.” 36.  Poole, A Commentary, 307. In this context, it is relevant to mention the attitude toward Ecclesiastes of Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350–428 c.e.). He was anathematized posthumously (at the Council of Constantinople in the middle of the sixth century) because he allegedly did not regard Ecclesiastes as inspired. However, the evidence from his writings (a sizable part of his commentary in Syriac was found in Damascus in the twentieth century) indicates that he saw the book as being inspired. In his view, Ecclesiastes arose from the spiritual gift of wisdom received from God, since Solomon was granted the gift of wisdom and not the gift of prophecy (Poole relied on 1 Corinthians 12 to make his argument). It seems that, for the Council of Constantinople, this was not enough, because they insisted on attributing the book to “prophetic grace.” See J. Jarick, “Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” in The Bible

Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

75

On the Evangelistic Use of the Book Ecclesiastes was indeed used with an evangelistic interpretation in Puritan writings. 37 This interpretation appears most explicitly at the beginning of John Cotton’s commentary, v. 1 of which points out the relevance of Ecclesiastes for Cotton’s country—at a time when many were ready to leave the gospel “for outward things; which are here lively and clearly demonstrated to be vanity, yea, Vanity of Vanities.” 38 To the possible objection “But were not something of Christ more proper for a Minister of the Gospel to handle?” he gives the following evangelistic answer: “The way to stir us to seek after Christ, is to behold (and be convinced of) the vanity of all things here below.” 39 The whole book is understood by Cotton as a “commentary upon the state of corruption” (Rom 8:20) and as a “fit Introduction to Christ in the Canticles” (where one finds the sweetness of the love of Christ). 40 John Trapp is not as explicit in his use of the book “evangelistically” (though he does believe that Solomon proved the vanity of “humane things”), but there are clear sections in his work where the text is interpreted to show the superiority of the new covenant (dispensation) and sections that call the reader to Christ. Commenting on Eccl 1:10, he exhorts: 41 in Human Society: Essays in Honor of John Rogerson (ed. M. D. Caroll R., D. J. A. Clines, and P. Davies; JSOTSup 200; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 307–8. Interestingly enough, the “prophetic inspiration” of Ecclesiastes is found in Puritan writings. Henry says that Solomon spoke not only with the authority of a king but also with “that of a prophet, a preacher; he spoke in God’s name, and was divinely inspired to say it” (Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 982). Cotton (Brief Exposition, 4) also specifically calls Solomon a prophet, since the Scripture was penned “by no other but Prophets and Apostles, 2 Pet. 1.19, 20, 21. Eph. 2.20.” The prophetic nature of the book was also supported by Thaumaturgos (Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes). 37.  Note that “evangelistic interpretations” are also found in more recent works. Thus, M. Eaton (Ecclesiastes [TOTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983] 47), even though he recognizes that the Preacher “does not lead us all the way to the Messianic faith” and that “his work is not full-orbed evangelism,” points out that the book can function as the opening of an “evangelistic message” that can lead to faith “along the pathway of conviction and of need.” Peter Kreeft, a Catholic theologian, uses Ecclesiastes to introduce both God and Christ. In the modern age, “[W]e must begin where our patient is; we must begin with Ecclesiastes.” Modern humans must see clearly that, “without a faith that means trust and hope and love, without a love affair with God, life is a vanity of vanities. . . . The world’s purest gold is dung without Christ. . . . There is a ‘philosopher’s stone’ that transmutes all things into gold. Its name is Christ” (see P. Kreeft, Three Philosophies of Life: Ecclesiastes—Life as Vanity, Job—Life as Suffering, Song of Songs—Life as Love [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989] 27). 38.  Cotton, Brief Exposition, 1. 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid. 41.  “Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? It has been already in the ages before us” (Eccl 1:10, nasb); see Trapp, Commentarie, 9.

76

Cristian G. Rata Get spiritual eyes rather to behold the beauty of the New creature, (all other things are but nine days of wonderment). . . . Yea get this natural itch after novelties killed [kild] by the practice of mortification: and get into Christ that thou may be a new creature! So shall thou have a new name upon thee, a new spirit within thee . . . new wages, new work, . . . a new commandment, . . . a new Covenant . . . a new way to heaven. And a new Mansion in heaven. . . .

Reynolds also recognizes the book as “setting forth the utter insufficiency of all things under the sun to make a man blessed, and the extreme vanity which is in them.” He learns negatively that “happiness is not to be found in anything under the sun,” and positively (affirmatively) that this happiness “is to be found only in God and His service.” All things are vain when put in balance with God and heavenly things. 42 While commenting on ch. 5, he recognizes that the supreme remedy to the problem of vanity is “the worship of God.” 43 And in his conclusion, while commenting on 12:13, 44 he states: “This, necessarily takes us in the doctrine of faith in Christ, because without him we can do nothing. By faith in him the heart is purified to fear and love God; and by that fear and love, it is inclined to obey his commandments.” 45

The Purpose of the Book Contrary to much popular belief, 46 the Puritans, like most people, were concerned to find happiness, and they recognized that the book of Ecclesiastes is able to help in this quest. Solomon was inquiring after “true happiness,” 47 and his book was understood as a “Sapientiall Sermon of the Soveraigne good, and how to attain it.” 48 Poole states that the design and business of the book was “to describe man’s true happiness, and the way leading to it.” 49 This design is captured well in the 42.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 41–42. 43.  Ibid., 112. 44.  “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (esv). 45.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 256. Note also the comments of Matthew Henry on the first verses of the book: “If Solomon find all to be vanity, then the kingdom of the Messiah must come, in which we shall inherit substance” (Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 982). In my opinion, Matthew Poole was the most literal interpreter, and he interpreted Christ into Ecclesiastes the least often. Note that Theodore of Mopsuetia was one of the most literal interpreters of the Antiochene school (see Jarick, “Theodore of Mopsuestia,” 307–9). 46.  See n. 9 above. 47.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 33. 48.  Trapp, Commentarie, 1. 49.  Poole, A Commentary, 278. Cotton (Brief Exposition, 2) similarly believes that Solomon fully opens to us the “chiefe good of the sons of men, which the morall Philosophers amongst the Heathen sought after, but found not.”

Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

77

opening verses of the book (1:2–3), and to describe the Puritan understanding of Ecclesiastes it is crucial to analyze their understanding of the key terms “vanity” and “under the sun.” The Puritans readily agreed with Solomon that “all is vanity,” and the superlative and repetitive expression in v. 2 (“Vanity of vanities . . . all is vanity”) was correctly seen as crucial to the tone and interpretation of the book. The things of this world, 50 “the chiefe things which men seek for in this life,” 51 are vain because they cannot satisfy the soul and make one happy, they are corporal and temporal (transitory), and there is curse upon them because of the fall. 52 On the one hand, the created things are “all good and excellent” because they are the works of God, but they are “comparatively vain, when put in the balance with God and heavenly things.” 53 In their interpretation of the recurring phrase “under the sun,” the Puritans like the church fathers and the rabbis before them limited the “all.” Thus, not all things are vain—only the things that are earthly and all the “labour a man taketh (whether of mind or body) about the creatures.” 54 They are vain when they are put in the balance with God and heavenly things, and service for God, especially, is excluded from the grasp of vanity. But anything that a man cannot take beyond the grave is perishing, cannot be profitable, and must be compared to the things of eternal value and duration. Following this understanding of these key verses and terms, it is no wonder that the Puritan understanding of the purpose of the book was stated by Cotton in the following way: “The summe of this discourse standeth upon these two points: 1. That the chiefe good of the sonnes of men is not to be found in all the creatures under the Sun, nor in men’s labours and waies about them. For they are all vanity and vexation of Spirit. 2. That it is to be found in the feare of God and keeping his Commandments, Chap. 12, v. 13.” 55 Matthew Henry (and Poole in a very similar manner) summarizes the book with more eloquence and clarity: [Solomon] 1.  Shows the vanity of those things in which men commonly look for happiness, as human learning and policy, sensual delight, honour and power, riches and great possessions. And then, 2.  He prescribes remedies against the vexation of spirit that attends them. Though we cannot cure them of their vanity, we may prevent the trouble they give us, by sitting loose to them, enjoying 50.  Cotton (ibid., 1) calls them “outward things; which are here lively and clearly demonstrated to be vanity, yea, vanity of vanities.” And Matthew Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 981) explains further what “all” represents: “the all of this world, all worldly employments and enjoyments, and all that is in the world (1 John ii.16).” 51.  Cotton, Brief Exposition, 6. 52.  See ibid., 6–7; and Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 37–38. 53.  Ibid., italics mine. Note the similar recent interpretation of P. G. Ryken, Ecclesiastes: Why Everything Matters (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010). 54.  Cotton, Brief Exposition, 12. See also Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 43. 55.  Cotton, Brief Exposition, 2.

78

Cristian G. Rata them comfortably, in every event, especially by remembering God in the days of our youth, and continuing in his fear and service all our days, with an eye to the judgment to come. 56

The “only effectual remedy,” 57 however, for all the vanities described in Ecclesiastes is found in the worship of God. 58 Reynolds eloquently agrees, and he is worth quoting in full: This [the worship of God] is the supreme remedy of all the other vanities, and may seem here to be subjoined (so also it is in the end of the book) to that purpose, to shew, that though neither knowledge, nor pleasures, nor honours, nor crowns, can make them happy; though it is beyond the sphere and activity of any creature to administer complete tranquility to the heart of a man; yet even in this life a man may be happy by worshipping of God and communion with him.

It is clear from these samples that the Puritans were closely following earlier interpreters of Ecclesiastes because they worked with the premise that Solomon was the author of the book, and they read it as a refutation of the vanity of the (fallen) world “under the sun.” 59 The “earthly things” are vain because they are not lasting and cannot satisfy the human soul, and the only remedy for vanity is in the service/worship and fear of the Lord.

The Puritans and Joy Contrary to popular belief, the Puritans loved life 60 and were genuinely interested in happiness and a life of joy. To prove this point, I concentrate primarily on the Puritan interpretation of the classic passage Eccl 9:7–9, 61 but I also take other 56.  Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 980. Reynolds (Ecclesiastes, 35) sees the following excellent means for the “healing and abating” of vanity: “contentation of heart in the sweet and free enjoyment of all outward blessings, with thanksgiving, and in the fear of God.” 57.  Poole, A Commentary, 288. These references are all related to the beginning of Eccl 5. 58.  Note that N. Lohfink (Qoheleth [CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003] 8, 74–75) considers Eccl 4:17–5:6 (which he calls “religious critique”) to be “the center of a palistrophic structure that also informs the text as a whole” and the call to fear God as central to Qohelet’s thought. 59.  For the “premodern” (before 1500) reading of Ecclesiastes, see E. S. Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007) 23–40, and his contribution to the present volume. 60.  See n. 9 above. In Reynolds’ interpretation (Ecclesiastes, 73–74) of 1:17 (“I hated life”), although life “is too mean a thing to bring contentment to the soul of man,” it is called “the greatest outward blessing which human nature is capable of.” And “it is a great fault out of passion, murmuring, outward troubles, nay out of a largeness of heart, as here Solomon doth, to dis­esteem and wax so great a blessing” (italics mine). 61.  “Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry [lit., good] heart, for God has already approved what you do. Let your garments be always white. Let not oil be lacking

Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

79

relevant passages into consideration. 62 Thus, while the Puritans agreed with Solomon that laughter is madness (Eccl 2:2) and does not accomplish anything worthwhile for the soul, they approved of laughter in moderation 63 and were different from the Anabaptists in Calvin’s time, who considered laughter to be “unlawful.” 64 In this context, Reynolds speaks of “true joy,” which is “a severe and serious thing” and “keeps the heart always in a staid and fixed condition.” 65 The first key passage for this topic is Eccl 2:24–26, where we have the first clear call by Solomon to a life of enjoyment: “There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment [lit., make his soul see good] in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God. For who can eat and who can have enjoyment without him? 66 For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy.” While Matthew Henry mentions the Targum paraphrase 67 of the passage in passing, he is also ready to accept the literal meaning of the passage. Thus, one should allow himself a sober cheerful use of them . . . to have meat and drink of them for himself, his family, his friends, and so delight his senses and make his soul enjoy good, all the good that is to be had out of them. . . . But observe, He would not have us to give up our business, and take our ease, that we may eat and drink; no, we must enjoy good in our labour; we must use these things, not to excuse us from, but to make us diligent and cheerful in, our worldly business. 68

In all of these things, God must be acknowledged because the good things were created by God and are also “the gifts of his providential bounty to us. And then they are truly pleasant to us when we take them from the hand of God as Father.” 69 on your head. Enjoy [lit., see] life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life at which you toil under the sun” (esv). 62.  See n. 9 above. 63. See Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 59: “By laughter, he meaneth excess of joy, and merriment . . . ,” the kind that displaces reason and is like the “crackling of thorns” (Eccl 7:6). Poole (A Commentary, 281) agrees that Solomon speaks of “excessive mirth, which discovers itself by immoderate laughter, and other outward gestures.” Matthew Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 987–88) speaks of “[i]nnocent mirth, sober, seasonably, and moderately used” as being good and as helping “to soften the toils and chagrins of human life.” However, “when it is excessive and immoderate, it is foolish and fruitless.” 64. So Trapp, Commentarie, 15. 65.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 59. Cotton (Brief Exposition, 35) sees in this passage Solomon’s attempt to “reprove the vanity and madness of Epicurean gallants.” 66.  The Puritans followed the kjv translation of this sentence: “For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?” 67.  Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 994: “The Chaldee-paraphrase says, A man should make his soul to enjoy good by keeping the commandments of God and walking in the ways that are right before him, and (v. 25) by studying the words of the law, and being in care about the day of the great judgment that is to come.” 68. Ibid. 69.  Ibid.

80

Cristian G. Rata

Reynolds has a similar interpretation and assigns great significance to this passage (2:24–26) when he states that in these verses “is contained that which is the whole sum and subject of this book.” For him, the verses show where the only good which a man can attain unto in his labour about worldly things, doth consist, and the happiness of this present life, which is, to get the heart seasoned with fear of God, and to be good in his sight, or approved of him; and then in the assurance and joy of his favour, to make sense of all outward good things with quiet contentment, with freedom, cheerfulness, and delight, which is a special blessing the Lord gives unto his own servants. The apostle puts all this into two words, godliness and contentment (1 Tim. vi. 6). 70

The combination of enjoyment with contentment and right conduct is found in most of these Puritan writers. 71 And the same is true about the importance of God’s participation (God gives, etc.), for true joy is possible in a fallen world only because of God. Cotton makes this point most eloquently: “Since the fall, the good which God put into the creature (Gen. 1.31) is accursed to us for our sin, so that now labour and sorrow, is all our portion from the Creature, Gen. 17.19. Goodness residing chiefly in God, is to be found in the creature only by participation, and that at his pleasure, Matth. 19.17.” 72 As a consequence of this, believers are called to “to exhort and to look up unto God for the finding of the good in all the means we use: and to acknowledge him in the attaining of it. . . . We thank God for our good cheere.” 73 Thus, it is clear that the Puritans approve of Qohelet’s call to enjoyment, but their tendency is to urge moderation and to have piety as the principal boundary. This is especially noticeable in their interpretation of Eccl 9:7–9, a text that is considered by Cotton to be inspired: “Solomon here speaketh not in the person of an Epicure, but in the name of the holy Ghost.” 74 Reynolds sets the tone for moderation: “He speaketh not (as some conceive) of sensual, epicurean, and brutish excess; but of honest, decent, and cheerful enjoyment of blessings, with thankfulness, and in the fear of God.” 75 It is actually pleasing to God when a person who fears and obeys him enjoys his lot in “an honest, cheerful, decent, and liberal manner.” 76 70.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 80. 71.  Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 994), especially, quotes the same verse from the Apostle Paul: “Godliness with contentment, is great gain; and those only have true joy that are good in God’s sight, and that have it from him and in him.” 72.  Cotton, Brief Exposition, 53. 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid., 201. This is not an Epicurean because Epicureans do not speak as religiously as Qoheleth, they do not see life as vanity and as a journey to the grave, and because the call to love involves wives. Both Reynolds (Ecclesiastes, 191) and Poole (A Commentary, 299) accept the verses as coming from Qoheleth and not from an Epicurean. 75.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 191. 76.  Ibid., 192.

Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

81

But there is a “principal boundary of our outward pleasures and delights,” and that is to keep ourselves within such rules of piety and moderation, 77 as that our ways are pleasing to God. And this shows us the true way to find sweetness in the creature, and to feel joy in the fruition thereof; namely, when our persons and ways are pleasing unto God: for piety does not exclude, but only moderate earthly delights, and so moderate them; that though they may not be so excessive as the luxurious and sensual pleasures of the epicures, yet they are far more pure, sweet, and satisfactory, as having no guilt, no gall, no curse, nor inward sorrow and terrors attending them. 78

Commenting on 9:8b (“and let thy head lack no ointment”), Reynolds vividly outlines both the joy and the delight that he approves but also the necessary restrictions: [W]e should lead our lives with as much freshness, cheerfulness, and sweet delight, in the liberal use of the good blessings 79 of God, as the quality of our degree, the decency of our condition, and the rules of religious wisdom, and the fear of God do allow us; not sordidly or forwardly denying ourselves the benefit of those good things, which the bounty of God hath bestowed upon us. 80

Matthew Henry warns that we should not place our happiness in any of these or set our hearts on them. However, they were given to us by God, so “we must make as comfortable a use of as we can afford, under the limitations of sobriety and wisdom, and not forgetting the poor.” 81 The main boundary to the call to love in 9:9 (“enjoy life with the wife whom you love”)—a boundary that is recognized and accepted by all these Puritan writers—is that the woman to be loved is one’s wife. This is understandable because all of them work with a text in which the Hebrew ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬is translated “wife” 82 and because it is in harmony with the rest of Scripture. Again, Reynolds explains this most eloquently, “Therefore, he speaketh not in the person of an epicure, to whom stolen waters are sweet . . . but of a lawful and chaste love (as Prov. 5:15–19). . . . There is a special freshness of delight in the liberty of love, which is allowed in this 77.  Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 1033) speaks about a “sober and moderate” use of the comforts of life. 78.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 192. Note also Trapp (Commentarie, 123), who speaks of a cheerfulness of mind that proceeds from a good conscience. 79.  Cotton (Brief Exposition, 200) lists the following five blessings that come from God and that we should enjoy: meat or bread, wine, garments, ointments, and the “wife beloved.” 80.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 193 (italics mine). 81.  Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 1033 (italics mine). 82.  Notice the kjv: “Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity.”

82

Cristian G. Rata

relation, though still within the bounds of honour and sobriety.” Trapp, J. nicely specifies that one’s love for one’s wife should not be simply Christian love but also conjugal love, “which indeed will make marriage a merry-age, sweeten all crosses, season all comforts. Shee is to be called the wife of a mans bosome, because she should be loved as well as the heart in his bosome.” 83 Matthew Henry agrees with this call but extends it even further: “Live joyfully with her, and be most cheerful when thou art with her. Take pleasure in thy family, thy vine and thy olive plants.” 84 Reynolds’s interpretation of 9:10 (“Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might”) is also relevant to this topic because he reiterates very well both his approval of the call to enjoyment and the necessary boundaries: Though this [verse] be applicable unto all duties of piety and charity, yet the scope of the place aims principally at the enjoyment of the comforts and commodities of present life, which we are cheerfully, while they are put in our hands, to enjoy. . . . Here also we may observe what manner of delights he alloweth them, namely, such as arise from honest labours, and are guided and moderated by art, knowledge, and wisdom. Our delights must not be sensual, but rational and industrious. 85

The call to moderation is repeated by some of the Puritans based on their understanding of the important phrase “life of thy vanity” and the fact that these activities are not possible anymore after death (9:10). Thus for Poole, Qoheleth mentions “the life of your vanity” (as in 6:12) “to moderate men’s affections even towards lawful pleasures, and to mind them of their duty and interest in making sure of a better life, and more solid comforts.” 86 Other reasons for restraint are well presented by Reynolds in the daring and controversial call in 11:9 (“Rejoice, young man, in your youth”): “Since all that cometh, is vanity, as well youth as age . . . he therefore persuaded those who are more subjected to be transported with the pleasures of life, to remember death and judgment, and thereby restrain their inordinate desires.” 87

83.  Trapp, Commentarie, 125. For Trapp, Isaac was the most loving husband in the Bible, and he seems the least concerned with restrictions in the call to enjoyment (as long as the enjoyment is with “a good conscience”). 84.  Henry, Henry’s Commentary, 1033. 85.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 195. 86.  Poole, A Commentary, 299. 87.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 234. Note that, while most Puritans seem to be willing to take this verse at face value, the tendency is strong to interpret the first part of the verse as an “ironical concession” by Qoheleth. The “removal of sorrow” from the heart is interpreted by Poole as “sensual and disorderly lusts” that will bring “intolerable and eternal sorrows” (see Poole, A Commentary, 304). Matthew Henry (Henry’s Commentary, 1045) tells us that this passage is “commonly understood” as irony.

Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

83

The Puritans on Obedience in Ecclesiastes As expected and noted already above, the Puritan interpreters recognize the importance of the fear of God and of obedience, as it is found in the conclusion, Eccl 12:13. However, they also find the call to obedience in a few other, unexpected places. Thus, in John Trapp’s interpretation of Eccl 5:1, 88 he makes the following observation: “[W]hen we come to God’s House, we should come with the best preparation we can make; we should also be there with the first, and stay till the last . . . and be ready to hear, as those good souls. 89. . . Neither must we heed only the hearing of the ear, but with the obedience of the heart and life (for so the Original word here signifies).” 90 In this same context (commenting on 5:1), Cotton points out the importance of a “sincere desire and purpose of heart, to attend and obey the whole counsel of God when coming before God to worship” (he also mentions Acts 10:33). 91 Trapp’s eloquent plea for obedience while commenting on 12:13 is worth quoting in full. Here, we also find a fine example of his quotable style: Bear an awfull respect to the Divine Majesty, a reverentiall fear: and from this principle obey God in every part and point of duty: doe this and live. Doe it in an Evangelicall way I mean: for we can do it no otherwise. Wish well to exact obedience, as David does, Psal. 119:4–5. Oh, that I could keep thy commandments accurately: and woe’s me that I cannot. And then bee doing as thou canst, for affection without indeavour, is like Rachel, beautifull but barren. 92

Also, referring to a famous preacher from “the Kingdom” who noticed that Ecclesiastes begins with “all is vanity” and ends with “fear God and keep his commandments,” Trapp comments: Now if this sentence were knit to this, which Solomon keeps to the end as the haven of rest after the turmoiles of vanity, it is like that which Christ said to Martha, Thou art troubled with many things, but one thing is necessary. That which troubles us, Solomon calls vanity: that which is necessary he calls the fear of God. 88.  “Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil” (esv). This follows the Hebrew text more closely. Poole (A Commentary, 283) explains the hastening as referring to procuring and enjoying the comforts of this life. 89. Here Trapp (Commentarie, 51) quotes Acts 10:33: “[Y]ou are here to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord” (esv). 90.  Ibid. To support his point, showing that he knows Hebrew, he refers to Gen 3:17 (incorrectly cited by him as Gen 3:18): “Because thou hast heard, that is obeyed, the voice of thy wife . . . hearing diligently without distraction, and doing readily without sciscitation [inquiring].” 91.  Cotton, Brief Exposition, 92. 92.  Trapp, Commentarie, 169–70.

84

Cristian G. Rata From that to this, should bee every man’s pilgrimage in this world. We begin at vanity, and never know perfectly that wee are vain, till we come to fear God and obey his commandments. 93

Additional Teachings There are many other insights found in the works of these Puritans that may be relevant to both scholars and ministers. These may be worth considering, especially by students who share their view of the Bible and are involved in preaching and other church ministries. One of these insights has to do with sermon preparation, and the teachers are again John Trapp and John Cotton commenting on 12:9–10. 94 This passage is understood as reproving ministers’ failure to study for or prepare sermons, or failing to teach ministers to imitate Solomon in sermon preparation. Thus, one should read and listen to sacred Scripture diligently and ponder it carefully. Trapp exhorts: “By diligent scrutiny and hard study: beating his brains as the soul beats the fish to get the fish with great vehemency . . . the Preachers should always meditate in their hearts upon the sacred Scriptures.” 95 Commenting on “the preacher sought,” Trapp observes: “He sought and sought, by paines and prayer. He knew the rule. . . . To have prayed well is to have studied well. By prayer and tears St. John gat the book opened, Rev. 5.4. Luther got much of his insight into God’s matters, by the same means.” 96 There is a certain eloquence and concern for the arrangement of words in the book of Ecclesiastes (we find here delightful words arranged with great care), and these Puritans concluded that the preacher of the Word would do well to follow this example. Trapp goes on to give numerous examples from the Bible and church history of preachers who seem to have followed this advice: “Appollo that eloquent preacher . . . such were many of the Greek and Latine fathers.” 97 Furthermore, the Puritans entreated ministers to understand their role as planters, who also exhort diligent reading and hearing of the Scripture, even Solomon’s books. 98 Thus one should follow in the steps of Solomon and preach words “void of all insincerity and falsehood . . . to rouse up mens drowsie and drossie spirits: to drive them . . . out of the nest of carnall security: to awaken them out of the snare of the Devil.” 99 93.  Ibid., 170 (italics original). 94.  “Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth” (esv). 95.  Trapp, Commentarie, 166. 96. Ibid. 97.  Ibid., 167. He mentions here Ambrose, and later Phillip Melanchthon and Calvin, “famous for the purity of his style and the holinesse of his matter.” 98.  Cotton, Brief Exposition, 267. 99.  Trapp, Commentarie, 167. He notes here the relevant examples of Peter, Stephen, John the Baptist, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Puritan Interpretations of Ecclesiastes

85

Most useful for scholars and intellectuals may be the Puritan exhortations on Eccl 12:12. 100 This verse is understood by Reynolds as an “argument to enforce the exhortation, from the fruitlessness and vanity of other studies.” 101 Thus, the minister of God should concentrate especially on the Bible, and this “is to be chiefly studied.” 102 The vanity of other studies is explained very eloquently by Reynolds, and it is again worth quoting: 103 First, there is no end in writing them; one refutes what another wrote; another vindicates what his adversary disliked. If happiness were to be sought in human writings; the volumes are so infinite, the opinions so endless and various, that it would be impossible for any man to find it out of them. . . . Therefore, let these words so few, and yet so full, be thy counselors. He that will not be admonished by these, shall never be satisfied with any others. He that refuses the wheat, will be but choked with the chaff. Well may we say unto this one shepherd, as Peter did, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John vi. 68) These only are the writings that make us wise unto salvation and do furnish us thoroughly unto good works.

John Trapp tackles this verse from a different angle and exposes the vanity and covetousness of the authors who sought to be published in what he calls a “scribbling age.” In his own words: Ambition and covetousness sets many Authours awork in this scribbling age . . . presses are greatly oppressed: and every fool will bee medling, that he may bee a fool in Print. . . . Many are sick of my very disease, saith Erasmus, that though they can do nothing worthy of the publick, yet they must be publishing: hence the world so abounds with Bookes, even to satiety and surfeit. 104

Even though John Trapp quotes other classical authors far more than Reynolds and Cotton (he seems the most versed in classical literature), he decries the discovery of authors who “will find one day to their sorrow, that are better read in Sir Philip than in St. Peter, in Monsiers Balzac’s letters, then [sic] St. Paul’s Epistles.” That is why the Bible should be “chiefly studied,” it should be read until we fall asleep, and “salute the leaves with a kiss, as Hierome exhorted some good women of his time. All other Bookes, in comparison of this, we are to account as waste paper.” 105 100.  “My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh” (esv). 101.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 255. 102.  Trapp, Commentarie, 169. 103.  Reynolds, Ecclesiastes, 255. 104.  Trapp, Commentarie, 169. 105.  Trapp is commenting here on 12:12 (“much study is weariness of the flesh,” esv). Jerome calls this labor carnis. See Trapp, Commentarie, 169.

86

Cristian G. Rata

The Puritans still inspire many in their ministry, and the forceful and vivid exhortations and instructions mentioned above are some of the reasons for this. Of course, the Puritans were not perfect; they made mistakes and had their shortcomings. Nevertheless, one can find in the writings of these interpreters a firm conviction that things under the sun are extremely vain when compared with God and heavenly things. Contrary to unfortunate depictions of the character and mood of the Puritans, their interpretation of Ecclesiastes demonstrates that they understood this book as encouraging the enjoyment of the good things of life, as long as one retains an atmosphere of reverence for God and moderation. The Puritans remain as (imperfect) examples of true biblical theologians. Like many of the church fathers, they were servants who were extremely well versed in Scripture, and this made it possible for them to do real biblical theology, a theology that looked back to what preceded and forward to the revelation of Christ in the New Testament. With the light and discernment that they had, they “sought to find words of delight, and uprightly wrote words of truth.” These were words that goaded/ stirred many from their lethargy and also words that helped others to cling closer to their Master. As they spoke in the past to their congregations, they continue to speak to many today. They continue to speak today (though dead) because, in that “scribbling age,” they did not seek to be published out of vain ambition; instead, they wrote because they had something to say and because they had a deep concern for the Church.

Determining the Historical Context of Ecclesiastes Tremper Longman III Westmont College

The words of Qohelet, son of David, king in Jerusalem. (Eccl 1:1) 1

Thus, the narrator introduces the main speaker of the book of Ecclesiastes. We encounter this type of superscription in wisdom books (Prov 1:1, Song 1:1) as well as prophetic books (for example, Jer 1:1–3). They raise the question of the historical location of the book they introduce. Who is Qohelet and with what time period is he associated? When was the book written? Answering questions of this sort as well as we can improves our understanding of the book in its original context. Accordingly, this essay explores the historical background of Ecclesiastes. When was the book written, and what is the historical background of its content? To answer, I address the features of the book that have factored into the discussion. I also assess the various conclusions that scholars have reached in the light of these considerations. Then finally, I set forth my own understanding of the matter. But first, I discuss the relationship between the historical background of the content of the book and the date of its writing.

Historical Background When addressing the historical background of a book, we are really dealing with two separate but perhaps related issues. First, there is the historical context of the contents of a book, and second, there is the time period of the book’s composition. For example, the contents of the book of Judges are set in the time period between the death of Joshua and the rise of the monarchy. We cannot easily provide a date for the former, since the time of Joshua’s death is contingent on the time of the Conquest and Exodus before it. For those who put stock in the Bible’s depiction of 1. All translations of the book of Ecclesiastes are from my commentary, Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998). Note that, in this essay, I refer to the book as Ecclesiastes and the stated author as Qohelet.

89

90

Tremper Longman III

the Exodus and Conquest as a real event, the date is debated, typically considered to fall between the fifteenth and the thirteenth centuries b.c.e. 2 Most scholars feel on surer footing dating the rise of the monarchy to sometime in the middle of the eleventh century b.c.e. Thus, the plot of the book of Judges is situated in the time period between the death of Joshua and the rise of the monarchy (roughly the last quarter or third of the second millennium b.c.e.). Few scholars, if any, however, would place the writing of the canonical book of Judges during or at the end of that time. The book is possibly based on oral or even written records from that time, but the book itself is thought to be largely the product of the early monarchic period, more specifically, the time of David, since it functions well as an apologetic for the rise of the monarchy and, particularly, a king from Judah. 3 Furthermore, we might want to talk about an even later final redaction of the book, no earlier than the Exile mentioned in Judg 18:30. 4 While the details of the analysis of Judges above could surely be refined or even disputed, no doubt attends the view that the time period of the contents of a book are not necessarily the same as the time period of the book’s writing. We will bear this in mind as we examine the historical background of Ecclesiastes.

Qohelet and Solomon We begin, not with the question of who wrote the book or when it was written, but with the question of the time period of the contents of the book. The superscription (1:1) cited at the beginning of the chapter as well as the beginning of what we identify as the autobiographical section of the book (1:12, “I, Qohelet, have been king over Israel in Judah”) identify the main speaker (in 1:12–12:7) as a person given the name Qohelet. Who is Qohelet? The name Qohelet only occurs in the Bible in the book of Ecclesiastes and, indeed, in a rather circuitous manner, gives rise to the name of the book. Translated, Qohelet means “Assembler,” the feminine participle (often used for professional designations) of the rather common verb ‫קהָל‬. ָ Traditionally, the name is rendered differently as “the Preacher” (kjv, nkjv, esv), going back to the Greek OT (εκκλεσιαστης) via the Vulgate; or, in more-contemporary English translations, “the Teacher” (see niv, nrsv, nlt). Both “Preacher” and “Teacher” are translations based on the supposed audience that Qohelet assembled and then addressed with the words found in the body of the book. Qohelet, however, is clearly a nickname or pseudonym and not a proper name, thus raising the question of the identity of the person. A telling clue of Qohelet’s 2.  See the discussion in I. Provan, V. P. Long, and T. Longman, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003) 131–32. 3.  See T. Longman and R. B. Dillard, Introduction to the Old Testament (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006) 135–38. 4.  Perhaps as part of a Deuteronomic redaction that included Joshua through Kings.

Determining the Historical Context of Ecclesiastes

91

identity comes in 1:1, 12, where he is said to be “king (over Jerusalem) in Israel” and a “son of David.” For most scholars, Solomon (reigned 965–928 b.c.e.) is the likely identity of the figure who goes by the name Qohelet in the book. 5 Accordingly, the identification of Qohelet with Solomon traditionally has led to the view that the book is about Solomon and written by Solomon. Gregory Thaumaturgos (213–270 c.e.) wrote an early paraphrase of the book, translating 1:1, “Solomon (the son of the king and prophet David), a king more honoured and a prophet wiser than anyone else, speaks to the whole assembly of God.” 6 The Jewish targum contains in its expansionist rendition of 1:12, “I am Qohelet, whose name was formerly called Solomon, who was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” 7 While a historical identification between Qohelet and Solomon is rare today, it may still be found. 8 However, good reasons exist to reject the idea that Qohelet was Solomon. Indeed, the book itself, while encouraging an association between Qohelet and Solomon, discourages a reader from identifying Qohelet and Solomon. In 1:16a, for instance, Qohelet states, “I have surpassed in wisdom everyone who ruled in Jerusalem before me.” These words do not fit easily in the mouth of the historical Solomon. After all, he was only the second Israelite king to rule in Jerusalem, while this statement presupposes a plurality of kings. 9 Next, we note a number of passages where a distance exists between Qohelet and Solomon the king. Eccl 4:1–3 states that no one can help the oppressed, which seems odd coming from an oppressor such as King Solomon, and even if he was not an oppressor himself, as king he could have taken measures to ameliorate the situation of the oppressed. The same may be said of 5:7–8[Eng. 5:8–9], where the king is specifically named as part of the problem, though Qohelet is resigned to the damage done by the king. The same distance between Qohelet and the king may be seen in Eccl 10:20 as well. 10 5.  However, see J. Shepherd, “Ecclesiastes,” in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition (ed. T. Longman and D. E. Garland; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008) 6.256–58, who suggests that Qohelet is another son of David, Hezekiah. 6. J. Jarick, Gregory Thaumaturgos’ Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). 7. E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of Qohelet (New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1978) 28. 8.  D. A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Nashville: Broadman, 1993) 254–66. Fredericks (D. C. Fredericks and D. J. Estes, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010] 31–36) is coy in his assertion of Solomonic authorship. He presents numerous arguments that it can be preexilic. He also points out that the book fits in perfectly with the time of Solomon and then concludes that either Solomon wrote it or a later pseudonymous author brilliantly recreated the time period. 9.  While some would suggest that his reference includes the Jebusite kings that preceded David, I find this improbable. 10.  Contra Y. V. Koh, Royal Autobiography in the Book of Qoheleth (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), who argues that the royal association continues throughout.

92

Tremper Longman III

Finally, if Qohelet were Solomon, why is there a need for the pseudonym? Why not simply use the name Solomon? The mere use of a pseudonym suggests that Qohelet is not to be identified with Solomon. A more subtle strategy is at work here. All of these factors indicate that the book does not intend to identify Solomon with Qohelet. This said, there is little doubt but that there is an intentional association between Qohelet and Solomon. Why? In the first part of Qohelet’s speech, his main point is that “everything is meaningless” (for example, 2:23, 26; 3:19; 4:4, 16, etc.). To demonstrate his thesis, he speaks of his attempt to find meaning in various areas, including wealth, work, pleasure, status, power, and wisdom. If Qohelet were an ordinary mortal, or even an extraordinary wise man, then his inability to find meaning in these areas could be the result of not having enough wealth, work, pleasure, status, power, or wisdom. However, in biblical tradition, Solomon possessed all of these in abundance. The implicit message (perhaps explicit in 2:12b, “For what can anyone who comes after the king do but that which has already been done?”) is that, if Solomon could not find meaning in these areas, then no one else can either. This, I suggest, is the reason for the connection between Solomon and Qohelet. The association is driven not by an actual historical occasion but to make a theological point. If Qohelet is not Solomon, then who is he? This is, in the final analysis, impossible to determine and, I argue, not important to know. He could be a wise man who takes on the persona of Solomon in order to make his point, based on the fact that Solomon, who had it all, did end up as an apostate and destroyed the unity of the kingdom. Or perhaps Qohelet is a literary creation and not an actual person. The message of the book is not affected by the identity of Qohelet. In the final analysis, if Qohelet is not Solomon, we are not able precisely to date the historical time period of the contents of the book. What about the date of the book’s composition?

Time of Composition Traditionally, Qohelet has been identified as Solomon who then is considered the author of the book. We have already disputed the identification of Qohelet and Solomon, but the traditional view ignores another important feature of the book that must be taken into account in a discussion of the historical background of the book, though it will not lead to a dating. That feature is that Qohelet’s words (1:12– 12:7) have been framed by the comments of a second unnamed wise man who, in the epilogue introduces Qohelet and his thought (1:1–11) and then evaluates it in the epilogue (12:8–14), on behalf of his son (mentioned in 12:12). In other words, Qohelet’s words are presented as a topic of evaluation as a father teaches his son in good wisdom fashion. 11 The nature of the lesson is a subject to be discussed 11.  The wisdom dynamic of a father teaching a son is well known in Proverbs and also in many other ancient Near Eastern wisdom instructions. See my article on “Proverbs,” in

Determining the Historical Context of Ecclesiastes

93

elsewhere. 12 The implication for the dating of the book is that the final form of the book is to be associated with the time of the frame narrator and not with Qohelet. Of course, the book does not reveal the frame narrator’s time period any more than it does Qohelet’s once the historical connection with Solomon is denied. Thus, other factors enter into the discussion for scholars who search for Ecclesiastes’ time period. These include language, the cultural and/or socioeconomic background, and the thought world of the book.

Language Language as Indicator of Date The language of Ecclesiastes is peculiar in comparison with other books of the Hebrew Bible on the level of words, grammar, and syntax. The language of the book is discussed in detail elsewhere in the present volume. 13 Of interest to this essay is the use of the features of the language to argue for a date of the book’s composition, and typically for a late date for the book. A late date seems obvious to many, as is typified by Franz Delitzsch’s famous statement, “[I]f the book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language.” 14 The language of the book ultimately leads him to conclude that the book is “a product of the post-exilian period, and, at the earliest, of the time of Ezra–Nehemiah.” 15 Indeed, that the language of the book points to a late date is virtually the consensus at the beginning of the twenty-first century. For many years, scholars have pointed to the relationship between (1) the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes and (2) Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew, which are both considered indicators of Late Hebrew. 16 C. F. Whitley, for instance, devoted a book-length study to the relationship between Ecclesiastes’ language and Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew and concluded that the book must be a product of the second century b.c.e., even daring a more precise dating to 152–145 b.c.e. 17 Some have felt that the Aramaic influence on

Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (ed. J. H. Walton; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009) 464–503. 12. See my Ecclesiastes, 29–40. 13.  See, for instance, J. Cook, “The Verb in Qoheleth” (in the present volume, p. 341), who concludes that the evidence he examines points to the fact that the book is late, though he does not specify how late. See also R. Holmstedt’s contribution to the present volume. 14. F. Delitzsch, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (trans. M. G. Eaton; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975 [1872]) 190. 15.  Ibid., 197. 16.  The presence of Persian loanwords (‫[ ּפ ְַרדֵ ס‬2:5] and ‫[ ִּפ ְתגָם‬8:11) have also played a role in this discussion. More controversial is whether there are any Greek loanwords in the book. 17.  C. F. Whitley, Koheleth: His Language and Thought (BZAW 148; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979).

94

Tremper Longman III

Ecclesiastes is so profound that what we have today is simply a translation from an Aramaic original, 18 though this radical view is not held today. 19 A short list of features that point to a late date for the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes includes the following, according to Schoors: nouns, which like Aramaic end in ‫ֹות‬-, the frequent use of ‫ׁש‬ ֶ rather than ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬for the relative pronoun, as well as the common occurrence of composite conjunctions. 20 In the mid-1980s, Fredericks made a valiant attempt to argue that the language does not need to be dated to the postexilic period. 21 He examined each individual word and grammatical feature used to argue that the language was late, and he tried to show earlier examples and/or suggest that the peculiarity had some other explanation (for instance, the use of vernacular rather than literary Hebrew). Fredericks did raise some interesting questions about the use of language for dating. However, he has not convinced other scholars who deal with the same topic. Schoors, for instance, has stated that the cumulative evidence, particularly linguistic features such as “the exclusive use of ʿny, the feminine demonstrative zoh, and the frequent occurrence of w-, overrides Fredericks’s individual treatment of these and other phenomena.” 22 In another more recent attempt to date the book according to linguistic criteria, Seow argues for a date sometime between 450 and 350 b.c.e. 23 He, like many predecessors, notes Aramaisms in the text. He admits that some Aramaic influence on Hebrew is preexilic but that the extent of Aramaic influence on the Hebrew of 18.  Notably F. Zimmermann, “The Aramaic Provenance of Qohelet,” JQR 36 (1945–46) 17–45; idem, “The Question of Hebrew in Qohelet,” JQR 40 (1949–50) 79–102; idem, The Inner World of Qohelet (New York: Ktav, 1973); and idem, Biblical Books Translated from the Aramaic (New York: Ktav, 1975). See also C. C. Torrey, “The Question of the Original Language of Qoheleth,” JQR 39 (1948–49) 151–60; and H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Koheleth (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1952). 19.  See the early critique by R. Gordis, “The Original Language of Qoheleth,” JQR 37 (1946–47) 67–84; idem, “The Translation Theory of Qohelet Re-examined,” JQR 40 (1949–50) 103–16. 20. A. Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, part 1 (Leuven: Peeters, 1992). 21.  D. C. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988). 22.  Schoors, The Preacher Sought, 14. 23. C.-L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 38. See his earlier “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qoheleth,” JBL 115 (1996) 643–66; and more recently, idem, “The Social World of Ecclesiastes,” in Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World (ed. L. G. Perdue; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008) 189–217. Seow (Ecclesiastes, 16) also makes the point that the lack of grecisms indicates that the book is best set in the Persian period. S. Burkes (Death in Qoheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999] 104) counters by saying that the fact that Daniel has no grecisms indicates that a book from the Hellenistic period does not need to have Greek-related words. Of course, Burkes’s argument depends on the assumption of a Greek date for Daniel. See Longman and Dillard, Introduction, 373–81.

Determining the Historical Context of Ecclesiastes

95

Ecclesiastes points to a postexilic date. Seow’s unique contribution comes when he states that certain terms in the book have a meaning that is exclusive to the Persian period, particularly the mid-fifth to mid-fourth centuries. He cites as evidence ‫ֶסרֹון‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬deficit”), ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬account”), and ‫ָסים‬ ִ ‫“( ְנכ‬assets”), which “all occur as economic terms in Egyptian Aramaic texts from the fifth century. These terms are not attested in Aramaic or Hebrew prior to the Persian period.” 24 On the other side of his chronological divide, Seow cites the evidence of ‫ ׁשלט‬and its derivatives in the book of Ecclesiastes. He notes D. M. Gropp’s work as demonstrating that ‫ ׁשלט‬in this sense does not appear after the Persian period. 25 Seow thus feels confident in asserting that the linguistic evidence points to the Persian period. In making this argument, he most directly contests views that place the book later in the Hellenistic period. 26

Assessment Our knowledge of the development of the Hebrew language is not complete. We do not know, for instance, a great deal about dialects 27 or the use of the vernacular. 28 In principle, furthermore, we do not know whether a book was linguistically updated between the time it was written and the time that it achieved its form as we know it in the Masoretic Tradition. This said, the position that the preponderance of evidence from the language points to a late period must be judged correct. The language makes it extremely likely that the book was written during the postexilic period. Questions may be raised, however, about attempts to date the book to a more precise time within the postexilic period. Returning to Seow’s attempt to date the book to 450–350 b.c.e. (and thus the Persian rather than a Greek period), we can question whether his linguistic argument is successful. In the first place, we might debate whether ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ ח‬has the meaning “account” in Eccl 7:25, 27; 9:10. Can it not mean the “sum of things” (nrsv) or the “scheme of things” (niv)? Furthermore, even if the word with the meaning “account” is not attested in Hebrew and Aramaic earlier than the Persian period, this is an argument from silence. 29 It is 24.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 13. 25.  D. M. Gropp, “The Origin and Development of the Aramaic šalliṭ Clause,” JNES 52 (1993) 31–6. 26.  Attesting the point made above that the bulk of scholars today are convinced that Ecclesiastes is a late book, the only question being how late. 27.  For what we do know, see the classic work by W. R. Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria– Palestine, 1000–586 b.c.e. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004). 28.  The view also of C. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009) 51. 29. D. Rudman (Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001] 15) points out that “[e]vidence exists for the sustained use of šlṭ in its technical/legal/ economic sense well into the Christian era.” See also the essay by Mroczek in the present volume.

96

Tremper Longman III

notable that, in Ugaritic, the cognate ḥṯbn is found with the meaning “account.” 30 Similar questions could be raised about ‫ָסים‬ ִ ‫ ְנכ‬, which has an Akkadian cognate or perhaps even a Sumerian. 31 And ‫ֶסרֹון‬ ְ ‫ח‬, a hapax noun form in the Hebrew Bible, does not clearly have the narrow economic meaning of “deficit,” which Seow attributes to it, 32 but is related to a common Hebrew verb, which makes it a dubious indicator of the date of the language of the book. Thus, it is not at all clear that ‫ׁשלט‬ has the narrowly defined economic meaning attributed to it by Seow. 33 My point in raising these issues is not to argue for an alternative date, either earlier or later, but simply to question whether the language of the book can prove to be a reliable guide to the date of the book. True, Seow does not depend simply on the linguistic evidence for his dating, and we will treat his other considerations below.

Socioeconomic Background Besides language, the book’s contents have also been examined to determine the socioeconomic or cultural background to the book. If Ecclesiastes reflects the conditions of a particular era, then this information would provide a strong argument for a specific dating. Because of the language argument, the recent debate has centered on the postexilic period: first, whether the book is dated to the Persian or the Greek period, and then, whether it might be dated more specifically within one of these periods. In this section, I present the evidence offered by various scholars and then offer an assessment. I begin by considering the features of the book that have been the focus of discussion. In the first place, Ecclesiastes seems to reflect a period of relative calm, at least in regard to external enemies. The book lacks indications of anxiety concerning warfare, perhaps supposing it was written in a time of relative peace. However, there are also indications of internal tensions, particularly the division between the rich and the poor. The time of Qohelet appears to be a time of stark social stratification, when the rich are oppressing the poor (4:1; 5:8–9, 12). Justice seems to be lacking in the land (3:16). Consonant with the idea of growing wealth as well as a period of peace, commercial trade is presented as thriving at this time (11:1–2). Business seems to be booming (2:4–11; 4:7–8; 5:10–11). Finally, Ecclesiastes appears to reflect a time after coinage has been introduced into Palestine (5:10, 7:12, 10:19). Granting these features, the question becomes what period of time best reflects these conditions? Not surprisingly, scholars diverge in their assessment. 30.  J. E. Hartley, “hsb,” NIDOTTE 2.304. 31.  W. R. Domeris, “nekasim,” NIDOTTE 3.107. 32.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 122–23. 33.  Note D. Rudman (“A Note on the Dating of Ecclesiastes,” CBQ 61 [1999] 47–52), who points out that the economic use of šlṭ continues into the Greek period.

Determining the Historical Context of Ecclesiastes

97

Kugel and Seow argue that these conditions pertain to the Persian period, 34 and they back it up with textual references (including 4:11; 5:5, 7, 16; 7:11) that indicate relative stability, social and economic hierarchy, and extensive trade. Seow puts emphasis on the fact that the Persian period was the time when coinage was introduced into Palestine, “The Achaemenid government instituted a highly efficient system of taxation throughout the empire, according to which imperial taxes were to be paid in precious metal.” 35 Thus, Seow concludes that the socioeconomic features of the book of Ecclesiastes support the conclusion that he already reached by his linguistic argument. He also argues that a number of passages are best understood against the background of the Persian system of doling out property grants. This, he believes, contributes to the bifurcation into the oppressive rich and the exploited poor, which he thinks is behind a passage such as Eccl 5:7–8[ET 8–9]: If you see oppression of the poor and deprivation of justice and righteousness in the province, do not be surprised concerning the situation. For one official watches out for another, and there are officials over them. The profit of the land is taken by all; even the king benefits from the field.

Other scholars, however, look at the same features and conclude that the book originates in the Hellenistic period. In terms of coinage, perhaps Seow’s and Kugel’s strongest argument, Rudman points out that, “if Qohelet’s work can be said to reflect a thoroughly monetarized environment (5:9[ET 10]; 7:12; 10:19), then that environment would better fit the Hellenistic period.” 36 My assessment of this argument is given in the next section. Besides coinage, the other three most significant features highlighted by scholars to date the book according to its socioeconomic background are (1) relative stability, (2)  increased trade, and (3) heightened socioeconomic hierarchy. Scholars who use socioeconomic factors as a tool to date the book, however, come to no consensus and even contradict each other. For instance, Burkes considers the second half of the third century b.c.e. and concludes that this period is not a proper fit because Palestine was buffeted by the struggles between the Ptolemies and Seleucids at the time. 37 She thus settles on the first half of the third century b.c.e. for the setting and composition of the book. On the other hand, Perdue argues that it is precisely the last quarter of the third century b.c.e. because this 34. For Seow, this means a time between 450 and 350 b.c.e. (see Ecclesiastes, 21). Kugel (“Qohelet and Money,” CBQ 51 [1989] 32–49) essentially agrees but ultimately prefers a date in the fifth rather than the early fourth century b.c.e. He believes that this period conforms to the book’s depiction of “a Jerusalem of established institutions and potential corrupt officials (5:7), as well as one of fairly sophisticated financial deals” (pp. 46–47). 35. Ibid. 36.  Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes, 18. 37.  Burkes, Death in Qohelet, 39.

98

Tremper Longman III

period, especially the time of the reign of Ptolemy IV (221–204 b.c.e.), “corresponds to the teacher’s criticism of an unjust, hierarchical government (5:7[ET 8]) and the period of diminishing influence of the Ptolemaic presence in the eastern Mediterranean world.” 38

Assessment Of course, the presumption behind using the socioeconomic context as a tool to determine the date of the composition of the book is that literary compositions reflect the conditions of the time in which they were written. However, this presumption should not be taken for granted. For instance, there are books that are purposefully archaizing, since the action is intentionally set in an earlier period of time. The book of Job is probably an example of this. Though the composition of the book is almost certainly to be dated relatively late in the OT time period, the action of Job is set in an early time, and the socioeconomic conditions often reflect the situation of the period of the narrative action, not the time of the book’s writing. 39 To choose just one example, the description of Job’s wealth in terms of size of herds and flocks is an attempt to give the book a prepatriarchal feel, even though the book was written long after the time of the patriarchs. 40 Turning to Ecclesiastes, the same is certainly the case. After all, at least in the first couple chapters, the book is using the literary conceit that Qohelet the king is Solomon. If the book is taken at face value, the mere assumption that a king is still on the throne in Jerusalem places the book in a period long before the postexilic period when it was almost certainly written. Of the features that are used to argue for a specific postexilic date for the book—namely, relative stability, increased trade, social stratification, and the awareness of coinage—all but the last one well describes the Solomonic period. This observation leads to a measure of hesitation over using these features to date the period when the book was written. Perhaps the author is reflecting the conditions of the time of Solomon in order to further his intention of associating, though not identifying, Qohelet with Solomon. But even if one grants that these socioeconomic features reflect the time of the composition of the book and not its narrative setting, they are too vague to allow a precise dating. In a word, many periods of time are noted for relative stability, increased trade, and economic stratification. This could describe conditions in either the Persian or the Hellenistic period. Coinage holds the most promise for helping us to provide a historical setting for the book, but even this is not precise. 38. L. Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008) 221. See also Perdue’s contribution to the present volume. 39. For my thoughts on the date and authorship of Job, see Job (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012). 40.  Seow himself makes an analogous argument concerning the orthography of the book of Job in “Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job,” JBL 130 (2011) 63–85.

Determining the Historical Context of Ecclesiastes

99

It certainly confirms that the book comes from a late period (no earlier than the Persian period, when coins are first introduced), but this observation does not allow us to determine if the book is from the Persian period or the Hellenistic period, as Rudman’s statement quoted above indicates.

Thought World Specialists on Ecclesiastes have availed themselves of a third tool in the attempt to discover the original historical setting of the book—namely, the thought world of Qohelet. Do Qohelet’s reflections on life “under the sun” bear similarity to the ideas of other thinkers, outside Israel, in a way that might allow us to determine when the book was written? Today, the majority of scholars working on the book would point to similarities with Greek philosophy, 41 though they differ over the exact type of philosophy. Two examples are instructive here, the views of Perdue and Rudman. Perdue confidently relates Qohelet’s ideas to Hellenistic and Egyptian skeptical philosophy of the third century b.c.e. He highlights the similarity of ideas on death found in Qohelet’s speech, where his emphasis is that death renders life meaningless, and in grave autobiographies found in Greece and in Ptolemaic Egypt. 42 He believes that the book was written by a teacher, perhaps in a private school, in the third century b.c.e. This teacher was influenced by the Hellenistic skeptical tradition, which put him at odds with the traditional wisdom of post­ exilic Judaism. Rudman takes a different tack to achieve the same general conclusion of a relationship between Qohelet and Greek philosophy, though he differs on the exact connection. In particular, he examines Qohelet’s idea of determinism and finds that it is very similar to the thought of Stoic philosophers such as Cleanthes, which would suggest a date between 250 and 225 b.c.e. 43 To support this viewpoint even more, he draws a connection between the Greek concept of λογος (specifically, the way that it is used by Heraclitus and early Stoic thinkers) and Qohelet’s use of the term ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ח‬. As he puts it, “[T]he use of the concept of logos . . . is analogous to the way in which Qoheleth uses the term ḥešbôn, for this too is a ‘rationale’, apparently coextensive with ‘the work that is done under the sun’ or ‘the work of God’, but also the means by which Qoheleth seeks to make sense of the universe around him.” 44 41.  This view did not spring up in the past ten years, however. For earlier advocates of a connection with Greek philosophy, see H. Ranston (Ecclesiastes and the Early Greek Wisdom Literature [London: Epworth, 1925]) and R. Braun (Koheleth und die fruhhellenistische Popular­ philosophie [BZAW 130; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973]). Burkes (Death in Qoheleth, 91) says a Greek connection goes back to van der Palm and Zirkel in the eighteenth century. 42.  Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus, 200–203; see also his essay in the present volume. 43.  Rudman develops this idea, which was originally proposed in an article by J. Gammie (“Stoicism and Anti-Stoicism in Qoheleth,” HAR 9 [1985] 169–80). 44.  Rudman, Determinism, 192–93.

100

Tremper Longman III

Assessment Is the sort of comparative-thought method employed by Perdue and Rudman any more convincing than we have observed language and socioeconomic connections to be? There are reasons to be hesitant. First, it is possible to find connections between Qohelet’s ideas and other extrabiblical texts from earlier and different places. For example, for many years commentaries have cited the ale-wife’s speech in the Epic of Gilgamesh as articulating a similar skepticism about life and death as Qohelet: Gilgamesh, whither rovest thou? The life thou pursuest thou shalt not find. When the gods created mankind they set aside, Life in their own hands retaining. Thou, Gilgamesh, let full be thy belly, Make thou merry by day and by night. Of each day make thou a feast of rejoicing, Day and night dance thou and play! Let thy garments be sparkling fresh, Thy head be washed; bathe thou in water. Pay heed to the little one that holds on to thy hand, Let thy spouse delight in thy bosom! For this is the task of [mankind]! (tablet X) 45 Although this version of Gilgamesh is known from the time of the seventh century b.c.e., since it was found in the Assyrian King Assurbanipal’s library, there are even earlier texts that express skeptical ideas similar to those of Qohelet. For instance, the pessimistic literature of Egypt, represented by the Harper’s Songs and the Dispute of a Man with His Ba, have often been noted as having ideas similar to the ideas in Ecclesiastes. 46 My intention here is not to argue on this basis for an earlier date for Ecclesiastes but, rather, to point out that using similar ideas to situate the book are not as clear-cut as one might think at first. Many of these ideas are found in other places and other times. This said, I must admit that the similarities are more detailed and more extensive between Qohelet and Greek philosophy and Egyptian tomb inscriptions. In addition, it is notable that scholars who do discover specific Greek influences on Qohelet differ among themselves. Some see connections with Stoic phi45.  E. A. Speiser, trans., “Akkadian Myths and Epics,” in ANET (ed. A. B. Pritchard; 3rd ed.; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969) 90. 46.  K. L. Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005) 74–75, 81–82.

Determining the Historical Context of Ecclesiastes

101

losophy, others with Hellenistic skeptical literature, still others with Epicurean ideas. Perhaps Qohelet’s persona, assuming that he is a literary caricature rather than an actual historical person, was written in such a way as to incarnate various and sundry Greek philosophical ideas. But since, as we have seen, at least some of these ideas are not restricted to Greek philosophy or the Hellenistic period, we should be wary about associating Qohelet with specific Greek ideas. Before I leave this subject and press on to a conclusion, allow me to interact with one very specific connection drawn between Qohelet and Greek philosophy, in order to demonstrate some of the problems inherent in this method of study. At first reading, Rudman’s argument that the Greek idea of λογος (specifically, as mentioned above with regard to Heraclitus and the early Stoics) is similar to Qohelet’s concept of ḥešbôn seems quite persuasive, and there is indeed a possibility, perhaps even a strong possibility that he is correct. Even so, there are reasons to stop short of a confident and full-throated endorsement of the connection. In the first place, we should note that, while the Greek philosophical idea of λογος is much discussed and used in the relevant primary literature, the same is not true of ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ח‬, which only appears four times in the book (7:25, 27, 29 [here in the form ‫;]חּׁשַ בֹון‬ ִ 9:10). Thus, it is difficult to get a full and clear sense of the nuance with which Qohelet uses the word. The danger is in reading the word in light of the Greek concept of λογος and then finding a parallel between the two. In the second place, it is not at all clear that ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ ח‬has the same meaning or the same central place in Qohelet’s thinking that it bears in Stoic philosophy. According to Rudman, λογος “has the idea of an ‘account’ or ‘rationale’ which defines the nature of existence, but which also serves as its controlling mechanism,” and he believes that this sense is found in ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ ח‬in Eccl 7:25, 27, and 29 and 9:10. Ecclesiastes 7:25 and 9:10 raise the question of the centrality of this idea to Qohelet beyond its being found in these few contexts (in comparison with the centrality of λογος to Stoic philosophy) since ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ ח‬does not stand alone but appears alongside “wisdom” (‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫)ח‬, and in 9:10 it is embedded in a longer list that includes “action” (‫ֲׂשה‬ ֶ ‫) ַמע‬, “knowledge” (‫ )דַ עַת‬and “wisdom” (‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫)ח‬. Further, in this list, the idea of “account” or “rationale” in the sense defined by Rudman appears odd, but the meaning “thought” fits the context better. The ‫ ִחּׁשַ בֹון‬form of the word that appears in 7:29, furthermore, cannot bear the meaning proposed by Rudman. What would it mean to “search out many λογος”? In the context, the word appears to have the idea of a perverted thought, which suggests a translation such as “schemes.” Then finally, even granting that there is a similarity between λογος and ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ח‬, does this mean that there was a Stoic influence on Qohelet? Perhaps, but not necessarily. Rudman argues that the connection is too precise to be a mere parallel thought. I question the precision of the connection and now would like to counter the impression that Greek λογος is the only comparable idea from the ancient world. Specifically, the λογος idea and (perhaps) the word ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ ח‬both bear a resemblance to the Egyptian idea of maʾat. Indeed, it is common to speak of

102

Tremper Longman III

the relationship between maʾat and ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫ ח‬in Proverbs, and ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ ח‬is in the family of terms related to the more all-encompassing Hebrew idea of “wisdom” (‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫)ח‬. Thus, there does not seem to be an exclusive connection between λογος and ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ‫ח‬ (or ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫ ח‬for that matter) that would require an awareness of Stoic philosophy on Qohelet’s part. 47

Conclusion Where does this leave us in determining the historical setting of Ecclesiastes? We have examined three sorts of arguments (comparative language, socioeconomic context, and philosophical ideas). What seems clear and compelling is that the book is postexilic. Attempts by some to determine a more specific setting in either the Persian period or the Greek period, or even a specific quarter century of the Greek period have not been as successful. Although full confidence has not been achieved, the preponderance of evidence does suggest, at least to me, that the setting is Greek. One wonders, on the other hand, how much is lost by not determining the precise time of the book’s setting. Or to state the opposite, how much would be gained if we were able to situate the book at its precise moment of composition? Perhaps we would gain a bit of concreteness in our understanding of Qohelet, but the message of the book comes through regardless. We may not be able to name exactly which influences led Qohelet to a crisis of thought and faith, but his confusion is manifest as he observes (1) the difficulty of life, (2) the impossibility of discovering its purpose in the light of death and injustice, (3) his inability to determine the right time for himself, and (4) the importance of enjoying life as one can (carpe diem). Perhaps this confusion does arise from the influence of Greek skepticism on his biblical faith, but we cannot be sure. His life crisis, however, is easy for many to relate to, even today. In other words, there is a kind of timeless relevance to the book of Ecclesiastes because similar ideas to Qohelet’s are found in every age and not just ancient Greece (or even earlier Egyptian or Babylonian). Thus, the search for certainty and the debate over the exact time period of Ecclesiastes will continue. Fortunately, however, Ecclesiastes, like most wisdom books, 48 does not depend on knowledge of its original setting to communicate its message. As W. P. Brown rightly observes (in my opinion), “Qohelet’s struggle is mythic in the sense that it resonates with each generation.” 49 47.  Or on the part of the author who created the literary character. 48.  The exact dates for the final form (and component parts) of Proverbs and Job are also highly debated and equally unimportant for understanding their message and significance. 49.  W. P. Brown, Ecclesiastes (Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000) 11.

The Book of Qohelet “Has the Smell of the Tomb about It”: Mortality in Qohelet and Hellenistic Skepticism Leo G. Perdue Brite Divinity School

The Historical and Cultural Setting The book of Qohelet appears to be part of a wisdom tradition that opposes the conventional wisdom of Second Temple Judaism. It appears to have been written in Jerusalem, perhaps in a private school, by a teacher who lived and taught during the Ptolemaic period of the third century, b.c.e. Its tone sounds much like the skepticism of moral instructions emanating from Judaism in the postexilic period, or the Skeptics of the Middle and New Academy in Athens. In the Hebrew canon, Job’s assault on retributive justice, Habakkuk’s questioning of divine justice due to the use of the wicked Babylonians to punish the divinity’s people, and the Psalms of Imprecation (for example, Pss 13 and 94) are examples of a growing skepticism during the Second Temple period about prevailing theological teachings. The origins of the New Academy 1 are traced to Pyrrho of Elis (ca. 365–272 b.c.e.), who traveled with Alexander during his military campaigns and received Athenian citizenship for his brilliant teaching. 2 His principle of ακαταλεψια connotes the ability not to assent to doctrines regarding the truth of things, since every affirmation may be contradicted with equal argument and attestation. Thus, the proper course for a wise person is to remain in a state of intellectual suspense. As a result, the only attitude that may be reasonably affirmed is αταραχια, “freedom from worry,” which leads to peace of mind. The wise man should withdraw Author’s note: The quotation in the title of this essay is taken from H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946) 258. 1.  See R. J. Hankinson, The Sceptics (London: Routledge, 1995); and A. A. Long, and D. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 2.  Although none of his writings have survived, Timon of Phlius, Pyrrho’s best-known student, is thought to have preserved Pyrrho’s teachings, which were recorded and interpreted by Sextus Empiricus (Outlines of Pyrrhonism [trans. R. G. Bury; LCL 273; London: Heinemann, 1933]).

103

104

Leo G. Perdue

into himself to avoid the emotional turmoil occasioned by the futility of attempting to find something that is unquestionably true. 3

Hellenization Alexander the Great’s conquest of western Asia and Egypt ended indigenous rule among the kingdoms and empires of the east. This military invasion and domination of these areas introduced Hellenism into an Eastern world and emphasized the superiority of Greek language and culture. The resulting hybridity, as Bhabha calls the engagement and intermixing of cultures, produced a continuing process of adaptation and change, not only in the ancient civilizations of Egypt and western Asia, but also in the Greek world itself. 4 While Hellenization—that is, cultural infusion, change, and adaptation— led to the merging of local indigenous cultures with the cultures of the Greek West, this process of adaptation did not result in the elimination of the non-Greek world’s cultures and languages. However, because Hellenization involved an intellectual and artistic culture that was thought by the Greeks to be superior to others, the aristocratic and intellectual leaders of Egypt and western Asia emulated many of the cultural standards and intellectual teachings produced by the Greeks and rejected or at least modified their own indigenous ideas. This was coupled with Greek xenophobia that the Hellenes (or Western émigrés in the East) who came seeking wealth and status developed with regard to the “inferior” civilizations where they took up residence. Certainly Hellenes, whether soldiers rewarded for their valor with land in the new world or Greeks seeking to exploit the new treasures that awaited them in the East, often had lacked the wealth and status at home that they were seeking in new locales. Even some intellectual leaders of the local indigenous populations saw the superiority of the achievements of the Western empire builder Alexander and his successors in the Greek kingdoms that emerged. Thus, Alexander’s conquest brought not only the rule of a new empire but also a new cultural mood of despair and doubt with regard to the assumptions of the intellectual conservatives/conformists and indigenous aristocracies of this larger world.

Greek Philosophy, the Gymnasia, and Qohelet The schools (Jewish Hellenistic) in Judah would have been the center for the shaping of Hellenistic Judaism among the individuals who were still residing in 3.  S. H. Svavarsson, “Pyrrho’s Undecidable Nature,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 27 (2004) 249–95. 4. For Bhabha, cultures are mixtures and not separate entities. There is not a single culture that is able to remain unaffected by engagement with other civilizations. Changes that occur require adaptation of thinking and activity that become newly institutionalized. This means that one of the cultural mixtures was the philosophical school of Skepticism that engaged with and adapted to Eastern moral teachings represented by the works of sages such as Qohelet (H. K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture [2nd ed.; Routledge Classics; London: Routledge, 2004]).

Mortality in Qohelet and Hellenistic Skepticism

105

Jerusalem and its environs. Some of these appropriated elements of the gymnasia, although there is no evidence that any appeared in a fully developed status. It does seem that Greek tutors may have been present in the house of the high priest as early as the third century (Simon II). This would help explain why Jason, a son of Simon II, was a leading Hellenizer who, as high priest (175–172 b.c.e.) sought to build a gymnasium near the temple that would have allowed the priests convenient access and resulted in Jerusalem’s becoming a Greek polis (to be named Antioch). The Zeno papyri demonstrate beyond any doubt that Greek was well known among the aristocracy and military of the Jews of Judah as early as 250 b.c.e. In many locales in the Near East, Greek had become the language of culture, political institutions, and commerce. Thus, in the world of Qohelet, Hellenism and indigenous cultures shaped a new intellectual and religious center among not only the elite but even the local classes of farmers, shop-keepers, artisans, laborers, and commercial traders of Judah. This evidence of the infiltration of Hellenistic culture is reflected in the use of Greek on the grave inscriptions of Jewish burials from the Hellenistic period.

Hellenistic Skepticism and Qohelet To understand Qohelet is to enter into the cultural world that included skeptical literature produced by thinkers who came to be known, not only in the Hellenistic Jewish colonies of the eastern Mediterranean regions, but also in Judah itself. The intellectual tradition of Skepticism coming from the writings of scholars and thinkers who belonged to or at least came under the influence of the Middle and New Academy began in a substantial way with Pyrrho of Elis (ca. 365–272 b.c.e.), who lived at approximately the same time as Epicurus. In addition, Egyptian sages from the end of the Persian Empire and the early generations of Ptolemaic rule that blended Egyptian religion and tradition with Greek culture also betrayed a high degree of doubt at times about traditional religious and other ideological beliefs. Although it is difficult to prove conclusively that Qohelet was educated in Greek philosophical and cultural traditions or, for that matter, even knew the Greek language well, he probably would have encountered Egyptian and Hellenistic Skepticism, which existed in the climate of third-century Jerusalem in its commercial, political, and intellectual exchanges. Due to the expansion of wellmaintained and guarded roads and sea lanes by the Greeks, travel to other cultural regions was becoming commonplace, especially for government officials and the well-to-do. Thus the opportunities for cultural exchange were enormous.

Hellenistic Skepticism Two scholarchs of the Academy (Middle and New), which flourished throughout much of the Hellenistic period from 269 to the death of Philo of Arrissa in 83 b.c.e., were Arcesilaus, σχολάρχης, that is, the first head of the Middle Academy (ca. 316/5–241/0 b.c.e.); and Carneades, a scholarch of the New Academy

106

Leo G. Perdue

(214/13–129/28 b.c.e.). 5 The Academy during the Hellenistic period emphasized the philosophy of Skepticism and contended with the Stoics, especially over the matter of whether truth could be known. Arcesilaus left no known writings, and our understanding of his views must be derived from the analysis of opponents who referred to him. From them, we can determine plausibly that Arcesilaus’s best-known arguments and the only ones that survive in any detail are his criticisms of Stoic epistemology. 6 It seems that he contended that, while truth existed, it could not be known (ακαταλεψια). 7 In opposing Zeno and the Stoics, he argued that it is rational to suspend assent universally (universal εποχη). 8 It is likely that he argued that nothing can be known by perception or reason, and hence any method of argument would lead to the denial of all assent. For Arcesilaus (it is likely that he taught that), morally speaking, life was to be lived in moderation, following the principles of practical wisdom. One of the heads of the New Academy was Carneades, beginning ca. 155 b.c.e. Stoics taught that sense perception, which was stimulated by an experience of something, was to be defined logically and accurately, thus providing the basis for affirmations that are reasonably true. Skeptics of course denied this foundational basis. Instead, they taught what was known as ακαταλεψια—that is, the idea that absolute knowledge or truth was impossible to obtain, for there was no criterion for establishing what was unquestionably true. Thus, the only reasonable conclusion was the suspension of judgment, or εποχη about any and all affirmations. According to Cicero, Carneades engaged in a methodological criticism of all doctrines. 9 He espoused the important notion of the “plausible” (πιθανον), a theory that held that a proposition could be affirmed but still be contested. Even so, the “plausible” was not a certain guide to what was true. Convincing arguments could be made against any conclusion. Thus, Carneades adhered to the fundamental Hellenistic rejection of assertion based on “mere” opinion. Nevertheless, his student, Clitomachus, later asserted that moral doctrines may used to provide guidance in life, even though they cannot be anything other than unproven opinions. 10

5.  For studies about Arcesilaus, see A. A. Long and D. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers; J. M. Cooper, “Arcesilaus: Socratic and Sceptic,” in Knowledge, Nature, and the Good (ed. J. M. Cooper; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004) 81–103. 6.  Sextus, Against the Logicians 1.150–9; cf. Sextus and Robert Gregg Bury, Sextus Empiricus II: Against the Logicians (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1933); Cicero, Acad. 2 passim, esp. 2.66–67, 2.76–77; cf. Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and H. Rackham, Cicero XIX: De natura deorum; Academica (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1933). 7.  The expression akatalêpsia means that absolute knowledge or the truth can be known. 8.  The term εποχη is the suspension of judgment, since nothing can be known to be true through reason or empiricism. 9.  Cicero, Acad. 2.99, 110; see also 40–42, 59, and 67. 10.  Cicero, Acad. 2.16, 103–4.

Mortality in Qohelet and Hellenistic Skepticism

107

Skepticism in Qohelet Despair is the prevailing mood that colors the content and the conclusions of Qohelet’s search for “the good in human living.” Unlike the poets who composed the book of Proverbs, Qohelet came to express severe doubts about several of traditional wisdom’s affirmations: retributive justice, the understanding of knowledge as disclosed through the Torah and the tradition of the ancestors, and claimed knowledge of the future expressed in the seers’ apocalyptic visions. Unable to claim a revealed knowledge of “the God” who is hidden in the heavens and far removed from the earth where humans dwell, Qohelet sets out on an empirical and rational quest to determine “what is good to humanity in living” (‫מה טוב לאדם‬ ‫בחיים‬, Qoh 6:12). Thus his search is an ethical search that seeks to affirm not a list of virtues but the nature and direction of human behavior and accomplishments. As he pursues a variety of experiences that he hopes will provide him the knowledge of the “good” in human existence, he divests himself of any theological or preconceived convictions. This includes not only his own particular views but the views of conventional wisdom, including especially the doctrine of retribution. Through his experiences, he discredits the relationship between deeds and consequences, since there is contrary evidence to the idea that the good are rewarded and the wicked are punished. He even delves into the topic of the moral character of retribution by recognizing that there is no causal nexus between deed and consequence. The same fate awaits the wise and the fool, the just and the unjust.

Uncertainty of Truth and Knowledge God, cosmology, human society, and the individual moral life cannot be known or ascertained. Order, understood as righteousness and justice, does not permeate reality, as earlier, conventional sages argued. Social structure, which should reflect the order of the cosmos, is oppressive (Qoh 5:8). Qohelet denies that human behavior has any affect on the external world or the internal reality of private experience. His views of the hidden God result in the dismissal of the sapiential teaching of providence and election. Qohelet’s commitment to the empirical method of analysis and result, followed by the general conclusion of an undeterred, exacting, rational mind yields no incontrovertible evidence. The metaphor that emerges from his varied experiences of human behavior is that of ‫“( הבל‬breath”)—not so much vanity as futility, and this is the case with the effort to obtain certain knowledge and truth. This is the one affirmation that Qohelet could make, and he denied that other knowledge could be obtained or proven. This places him in agreement with the Skeptics during the Hellenistic period.

Qohelet and Death Qohelet’s skepticism penetrates his understanding of death. For this unidentified sage, the same fate awaits the wise and the fool, the just and the unjust (Qoh

108

Leo G. Perdue

2:14). And in parroting Job, Qohelet remarks that one ends life just as one began (“naked”), without any possession or gift remaining. Nothing remains for one despite all of his/her toil, once he/she enters into the land of the dead (5:15–17). Death is inescapable, regardless of how hard one might try to retain the life-giving “breath” (‫ רוח‬and ‫)הבל‬. In the tomb, there is no knowledge of what occurs on the earth (9:5–6). There is no hint in Qohelet of an afterlife of any type. The tomb is the place of one’s final abode (“eternal home,” 12:5), where existence and knowledge no longer continue. At death, the body returns to the earth, and the life-giving spirit reverts to the God who gave it. The one experience that the sage affirms is joy, a word that is used seven times in strategic literary locations in the rhetorical structure of the volume. 11 Thus, Qohelet admonishes his students to enjoy life when it is possible to do so, for countless are the days of darkness (11:8).

Qohelet’s Literary Form: Testament (Autobiography) In addition to the prevailing Skepticism of third-century b.c.e. Greek and Hellenistic philosophy that may have affected Qohelet’s own view of life and death, the Jewish text of Qohelet contains numerous comparisons with Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Roman grave biographies and epitaphs. The author’s choice of literary form fit well with the prevailing skepticism, even pessimism, of these epitaphs in the Hellenistic and early Roman worlds. Qohelet’s literary form approximates the form of testamentary literature in Israel and Judaism, including the last words of a patriarch to his children (for example, Genesis 49 and The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). 12 In this literature, the dying patriarch provides an instruction that also may be revelatory regarding the future of the individuals around him on his death bed. Although it avoids this notion of pronouncing the future, the book of Qohelet is similar to the autobiographies of the dead found on some Egyptian tombs that describe the life of the person buried in the grave. Epitaphs of the deceased are also found in Greco-Roman cemeteries. Several common elements are shared by these autobiographical tomb instructions, Jewish testaments, and the book of Qohelet: the firstperson voice of the teacher (living or dead); the listing of the teacher’s achievements during his lifetime (Qoh 2:1–11); and the counsel offered to visitors to the tomb, descendants, or students with regard to numerous moral and customary 11. 2:24–26; 3:12–13, 22; 5:17–19; 8:15; 9:7–10; 11:7–10. 12.  See M. Küchler, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen. Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens (OBO 26; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 319–547; E. von Nordheim, Die Lehre der Alten: Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum Hellenistisch-Romischen Zeit (ALGHJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1980); and J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (ABRL; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983).

Mortality in Qohelet and Hellenistic Skepticism

109

matters and were generally held together by a single theme (loyalty, patience, etc.). The implied narrator of the book of Qohelet is identified as Qohelet (“the one who assembles,” probably a teacher), a king over Israel in Jerusalem (1:12), and a son of David (1:1). In this literary fiction, one occasionally hears a second voice, that of a later redactor (see especially 11:9d and 12:9–14). Although not explicitly named Solomon, the implication is that the narrator is this (deceased) king, who in Jewish tradition was the patron of wisdom and considered to be the wisest man in the East (compare with 1 Kgs 3–10). The voice of a later redactor was a conventional sage adding his warnings of judgment and offering his counsel to “fear God and keep his commandments” and toning down a few of the radical statements of the narrator (see 11:9b, which warns of divine judgment for human deeds).

Qohelet and Egyptian Grave Instructions In terms of their formal characteristics, Egyptian tomb autobiographies consisted of three elements: an autobiographical narrative, sayings concerning morality, and instructions and exhortations. The audience consisted of visitors to the tomb, who would have included family members and others who knew the deceased, as well as strangers. The narrative usually contained the titles and accomplishments of the grave occupant, while the sayings were those that guided the deceased through life and thus were offered to visitors to observe. The character of the deceased often included: intelligence, wisdom, piety and faithful fulfillment of cultic obligations to the patron deity, avoidance of evil, loyalty to rulers, and being responsible to the family and other members of Egyptian society, especially the poor. Rewards for the virtuous life included health, possessions, longevity, children, a proper burial required for the future life, and the promise of life in the next world. Important to note for comparison with Qohelet is the emphasis placed on joy, satisfaction with life, and the comfort brought by contentment. At times visitors were admonished to reflect on their own mortality. Finally, they were exhorted to offer grave gifts and sacrifices, both actual and magical through mortuary pronouncements, in memory of the occupant of the tomb. The intent of these autobiographies was to show that the deceased had lived in accordance with the principles of maʿat (“order, truth”), to make a strong case for admission into the afterlife, and to encourage continued offerings to sustain the deceased in the next world.

Qohelet and Greco-Roman Grave Inscriptions It was especially during the Greco-Roman period, a time when Skepticism was one of the prevailing moods in Greek philosophical circles, that despair and pessimism were a part of the disposition evoked by non-Jewish and Christian grave inscriptions in the later Hellenistic and Roman periods. 13 Greek and Roman 13. I. Peres, Griechische Grabinschriften und neutestament­liche Eschatologie (WUNT 157; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003).

110

Leo G. Perdue

epitaphs do not follow a particular formal pattern, although there are a narrator, the voice of the deceased, and the audience consisting of visitors to the tomb. Of particular note is the common reference to the tyranny of the gods, thus debunking the teaching of retributive justice, since divine caprice and inequitable—even destructive—providence are attributed to the deities of the various pantheons. Of course, fate, which becomes entrenched in activities and experiences of human beings, is determined by the Moira or by the Olympian gods themselves. Fate is considered so powerful and inescapable that even the gods cannot avoid its outcome. 14 This mood appears to intensify during times of political instability occasioned by war and economic duress. Periods of pessimism also reflect a somber view of the afterlife, which is either denied or is considered a time of sorrow, weakness, and a shadowy existence. In place of the promise of the afterlife, the achievement of virtue and honor, the remembrance of the living, and the experiences of joy while living are held in high esteem. “Fate” or “portion” (‫ )חלק‬in Qohelet reflects this Greek concept, except that in Qohelet it is “the God” who determines one’s fate, which is considered to be inescapable (2:14, 9:10). Thus, death is the divinely allotted destiny given to all, regardless of moral character or the level of wisdom attained (9:2–3). Even as the beasts die, so death comes to all humanity (3:17–22). However, the one positive fate of men is to enjoy life with the women they love (9:9), human labor, participation in the symposium (“eating and drinking”), and the heightened sensations of youth.

Qohelet and Jewish Epitaphs in the Greco-Roman Period Jewish grave inscriptions varied in content during the Hellenistic and Roman period. 15 While the common pattern of the voice of the departed speaking to the visitors to the tomb and some of the details of the life of the deceased, including virtues, continues, the content varies from despair and an omission of hope in the afterlife to that of the anticipation of participation in the world to come either 14.  The Delphic Oracle told Lydian inquirers that “no one, not even the god, can escape his appointed fate” (J. E. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations, with a Catalogue of Responses [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978]; idem, The Oracle: The Lost Secrets and Hidden Messages of Ancient Delphi [New York: Penguin, 2006]). In Homer, Fate (moira) is an impersonal power and compares with the determination of the Olympian gods. After Homer, the Fates are personified as three very old women who spin the threads of human destiny. Their names are Klotho (Spinner), Lachesis (Apportioner of Lots), and Atropos (Inflexible—that is, one who cannot be turned). 15.  J. W. van Henten and P. van der Horst, eds., Ancient Jewish Epitaphs (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Also see P. W. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 bce–700 ce) (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991); idem, “Das Neue Testament und die jüdische Grabinschriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit,” BZ 35 (1992) 161–78; and W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt with an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Mortality in Qohelet and Hellenistic Skepticism

111

through the immortality of the soul or, more commonly, resurrection. Some of the Jewish epitaphs filled with a mournful despair include the following:

Greek Epitaph of a Jewish Woman of Leontopolis This deceased woman hails “From the land of Onias” in Egypt of the first century. 16 What ensues is a dialogue between a “speaking stele” (tombstone) and the deceased in the grave. The speaking stele: “Who are you who lie in the dark tomb? Tell me your country and birth.” “Arsinoe, daughter of Aline and Theodosios. The famous land of Onias reared me.” “How old were you when you slipped down the dark slope of Lathe?” “At twenty I went to the sad place of the dead.” “Were you married?” “I was.” “Did you leave him a child?” “Childless I went to the house of Hades.” “May earth, the guardian of the dead, be light on you.” “And for you, stranger, may she bear fruitful crops.” In the 16th year, Payni 21.

The Death of a Child: A Jewish Grave Inscription from Leontopolis Leontopolis is located in the central part of the Nile Delta region. During the rule of Ptolemy VI Philometor (180–145 b.c.e.), a temple modeled after the temple in Jerusalem was founded by Onias IV, who was the exiled Jewish high priest. This Jewish colony continued to grow with the influx of refugees seeking to escape the persecution by the Seleucids in Judah. Although it was a dynamic and growing city for three centuries, it slowly began to decline as a result of the closing of the temple during the Great Revolt. 17 The following Jewish epitaph, which has both the deceased and an unidentified narrator at the end, engaged in a mournful lament. Written in metrical Greek, it reads: Look on my tombstone, passerby, weep as you gaze; beat five times with your hands for a five year old. For early and without marriage I lie in the tomb. 16. J.-B. Frey, ed., Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum (2 vols.; Rome: Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana, 1936–52); and V. A. Tcherikover, ed., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957–64). For this inscription, see CIJ/CPJ 1530. 17.  J. S. Holladay, Jr., “Yahudiyya, Tell el-,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt III (ed. D. B. Redford Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001) 527–29.

112

Leo G. Perdue My parents suffer likewise for the son that pleased them. My friends miss their companion and playfellow. But my body lies in the place of the pious. Weeping say: “Untimely gone, much lamented, best of all, who was always known for all kinds of virtue.” 18

Death as a Marriage to Hades: An Epitaph from Leontopolis One metrical inscription on an epitaph at Leontopolis speaks of death as a marriage to Hades or as a type of marriage replacing the joyous one experienced in life. In this epitaph, the deceased, a young woman, speaks to the visitor to her tomb: Weep for me, stranger, a maiden ripe for marriage, who formerly shone in a great house. For, decked in fair bridal garments, untimely have received this hateful tomb as my bridal chamber. For when a noise of revelers already at my doors told that I was leaving my father’s house, like roses in a garden nurtured by fresh rain, suddenly Hades came and snatched me away. 19

Future Hope and Jewish Epitaphs at Beth-shearim Beth-shearim, built in the first century b.c.e., is a Jewish town and necropolis located near Haifa. On the 20 catacombs found there, which date largely from the second to the fourth centuries c.e., numerous epitaphs have been discovered that reflect the view of death of the villagers. The following epitaph, which addresses the visitor, the friend of the mother of the deceased, and the mother reads: This tomb contains the dwindling remains of Karteria, preserving forever the illustrious memory of a noble woman. Zenobia brought her here for burial, fulfilling thus her mother’s request. For you, most blessed of women, your offspring, whom you bore from your gentle womb, your pious daughter —for she always does actions praiseworthy in the eyes of mortals— 18.  CPJ 3.158. Van der Horst also reproduces the Greek text (Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 46 n. 267). 19. See CPJ 3.156. Van der Horst (Ancient Jewish Epitaphs) notes that of the fifteen Greek metrical epitaphs found on Jewish tombstones, twelve are from Leontopolis in Egypt (see 1451, 1489, 1490, 1508–1513, 1522, 1530, and 1530A).

Mortality in Qohelet and Hellenistic Skepticism

113

built this monument, so that even after the end of life’s term both of you may enjoy again new and indestructible riches. 20

Death as Sleep and the Transition to the Afterlife in Jewish Epitaphs Greco-Roman Jewish epitaphs tend to depict death as “sleep.” The formula “May his/her/their/your sleep be in peace” is an admonition to the deceased that is commonly found. While it is possible to understand this formula as implicitly eschatological, it is more likely expressive of the hope of the survivors that the beloved’s death may be undisturbed (see the common OT phrase: “gathered to the ancestors”; for example, Gen 15:15, 25:8, 35:29, 37:35, 49:3; and 2 Kgs 22:20). Death is also depicted as sleep in the Hebrew Bible: for example, Ps 13:3. The wish for undisturbed rest in Jewish epitaphs would be no more than the hope that the tomb will not be violated. In later Judaism, after the time of Qohelet, however, there are a number of epitaphs, found especially in Beth-shearim and Leontopolis, that suggest that in death there is rest with the righteous and faithful ancestors who have gone before; thus, eternal life or some sort of resurrection from the dead may be envisioned.

Pagan Grave Inscriptions Pagan grave inscriptions in Greece, the Hellenistic Greek world, and imperial Rome often express a deep-seated pessimism about death and the grave. There are mixed views about this topic in later Jewish epitaphs of the Hellenistic and early Roman period, with some in agreement and others who dispute this pessimistic attitude. The Greek and Hellenistic communities prior to the writings of the NT produced numerous grave inscriptions that pertain to death and the future life. There are approximately 50,000 Greek tomb inscriptions and 2,000 Jewish, coupled with 400,000 Latin Christian inscriptions. Peres has identified some 400 that deal positively with a place of blessing beyond the grave, including those that mention the Isles of the Blessed, Elysium, the netherworld, Olympus, and heaven. 21 About 300 express a general hope of some sort in a life after death. These date between 300 b.c.e and 200 c.e. and are found in Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Italy, and also the cities bordering the Bosporus Strait. Some also appeared in Hungary and Libya, where Greek colonies and cities were in existence. In Greece, as well as its colonies and the cultures influenced by Hellenism, there was the common view that a human returned to the earth or underworld at death (not unlike Job’s remark of coming forth naked from the mother’s womb 20.  Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, 153. 21.  Peres, Griechische Grabinschriften, 5.

114

Leo G. Perdue

[that is, the earth] and returning there at death [Job 1:21]). Life lasted but a fleeting moment, and its life-giving breath could not be retained. These views were reflected in Greek and many Jewish epitaphs of the third century b.c.e. and following. Sometimes this return to the beginning was reflected in the Jewish notion of the underworld, the place to which one’s ‫“( נֶפֶׁש‬soul”) journeyed at death. Thus, the ancient Greeks believed in the reality of death, which was to be accepted as inevitable. Whether one was pained at the loss of life or sought to hold onto it, it was fated to come to its end, and there was no possibility of escape to a future world. For all joy and hope he had covered in the earth, while at home the grieving mother wails, and brings even the nightingale to silence with her laments. 22 Nevertheless, there was also a yearning for immortality or some sort of life after death. It is not often reflected in the Greek and Roman literature of the period, however. This includes Jewish literature written prior to the emergence of fullblown apocalypticism—a development that Qohelet holds in disdain. He denies that anyone can know whether the human spirit ascended to the heavens, while the spirit of beasts descends into the darkness of the underworld (Qoh 3:20–21).

The Lack of Hope in an Afterlife The reality of death pressed hard on the Greek human spirit, and while humans yearned to escape its icy grip, there was little hope in classical Greece for any escape. Thus, there was an intense pessimism that is reflected in most of the literature and the early epitaphs. The great majority of the tomb inscriptions see death in explicit terms as the negation of life, for the tomb is the final destination of one’s journey. In the tomb, there is no continuing memory of what has transpired or will occur on the earth. In some of the inscriptions, there is an even more fearful dimension of death as the reaching out of the gods of the underworld to pull one within its dank regions. The same image is found in regard to fate that grasps the unwilling mortals and brings them into the underworld. Thus many of the inscriptions read simply: “No one is immortal.” A variant is “No one on the earth is immortal.”

A Roman Inscription An inscription attributed to a Hermes of Rome (second to third century c.e.) reads: ουκ ημην, γενόμην. ημην, ουκ ειμιv. τοσαυτα. ει δε . . . τις α[λλο ερενει, ψευvσεται. ουκ ε]σομαι. 22.  Ibid., 25.

Mortality in Qohelet and Hellenistic Skepticism

115

I was not, then I became; I was, and now am not. That is it. If another asserts something different, he is lying. I shall not exist again. 23 Peres suggests that this and similar epitaphs represent the views of life of especially some of the elite who resided in the great cities. They were inspired by the cultural life in the theater and the desire to enjoy life. The emphasis on enjoyment of life and pessimism deriving from the finality of the tomb are common themes in the Greek grave inscriptions. For example: “Enjoy all the good things in this time so long as you experience desire.” This fully reflects the view of Qohelet. A similar epitaph denies that there is in Hades a ferryman, Charon, Aiachos (a judge of the Underworld), or Kerberos (gatekeeper of Hades). One inscription from the third–fourth century b.c.e. additionally indicates: [W]e all who are dead beneath in the grave are only ashes and bones and nothing more. 24 Occasionally one finds a questioning pessimism regarding the possibility of life after death—a view expressed by Euripides, frag. 638: [W]ho knows whether life is only death, or [whether] what we name death, below is known as life. 25 Finally, fate or fortune, at times personified as gods, plays an important role in Greek grave inscriptions. The term μοιρα means in essence “portion,” “part,” or “allotment,” comparable to the Hebrew ‫ חלק‬which is found in Qohelet. In Hellenistic Greek understanding, one often finds the idea that the “lot” of humans was to participate in life, enjoy if possible the fortunes of existence, and accept its end in death. These constitute the destiny of human beings. Thus one very simple grave inscription dating to the end of the second century b.c.e. reads: Fate has determined for Philo a bitter end. 26

23.  Peres, Griechische Grabinschriften, 27. 24.  Peres quotes another inscription from Rome in the second to third century c.e. that speaks of the material aspects of life: “Take care as long as you live. . . . and live as you desire. For there is no igniting of fire and no alluring repast. . . . No one who is dead awakens from the tomb to a new life” (Griechische Grabinschriften, 28–29). Another inscription (p. 29) notes that, from all that the deceased has accumulated during life, the only possession that has followed him into death is the tomb. 25.  Peres, Griechische Grabinschriften, 33. 26.  An epitaph from Samos in the second century b.c.e.

116

Leo G. Perdue

Conclusion It is clear that Qohelet’s skeptical view of death was the common view of the grave autobiographies of Ptolemaic Egypt and Greek epitaphs from throughout the ancient Greek and early Roman worlds. While it is impossible to know whether Qohelet had read any of these mournful inscriptions, it is evident that his understanding was shared by many in the Greco-Roman cultures with which Judah came into contact. By contrast, the notion that there was either resurrection from the dead or immortality was an infrequent expression in the epigraphy and literature of his period. Qohelet himself remained skeptical about any future existence of life’s breath. Death was the final victor in the human struggle to survive. As for the general tone of this Jewish text, it holds in common important features of Greek philosophical Skepticism during the Hellenistic period. This skepticism, coupled with the evidence of pagan and Jewish epitaphs, demonstrates that the Jewish Testament, Qohelet, was written during a period when pessimism was a common mood in literature, philosophy, and epitaphs. “All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.”

Qohelet and Royal Autobiography Martin A. Shields University of Sydney The past few decades has seen an increasing awareness of the importance of the royal autobiographical nature of Ecclesiastes. Even relatively recently, Roland Murphy could write that The designation of the proper literary genre of the book of Ecclesiastes still escapes us. Some commentators have spoken of a “royal testament.” The fiction of the wise king Qohelet is unmistakable in 1:12–2:11, but the purpose and teachings of the book does [sic] not fit the genre of royal testament in the Egyptian writings, such as the Instructions of Merikare and Amenemhet, with which it is supposed to compare. The adoption of Solomonic authorship (1:1, 12) is simply due to the tradition about Solomon as wise. 1

If Murphy was correct and Ecclesiastes’ genre does escape us, this may present a serious obstacle to understanding the book. The identification of literary genre plays an important role in the reader’s derivation of meaning from the text. If the text is readily identifiable as corresponding to a genre known by the reader, and if this identification is made in accord with the author’s designs, then the manner in which the text corresponds—or in some cases fails to correspond—to the genre invariably affects the reader’s interpretation of the text. In English literature, for example, an author who chooses to begin a text with the words “once upon a time . . .” immediately establishes a specific set of expectations in the informed reader’s mind regarding the nature of the tale that is about to unfold. Fortunately, Murphy’s assessment now appears somewhat inadequate. Broadly considered, Qohelet’s opening words (in Eccl 1:12) signal to the informed reader an association with a wide array of ancient literature purporting to present autobiographical information from royal figures. 2 In particular, first-person Author’s note:  I shall adopt the common convention of using Ecclesiastes to refer to the book and Qohelet to refer to the character whose words are recorded throughout the book. 1.  R. E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (FOTL 13; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981) 129. Murphy reaffirmed this point of view as recently as 1992; see his Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992) xxxi, 2. 2.  Studies suggest that readers can generally infer literary genre from relatively small portions of text (compare with M. Hayward, “Genre Recognition of History and Fiction,” Poetics 22

117

118

Martin A. Shields

identification by name, often with reference to genealogical lineage, and the explicit claim to reign over a specified region can be found in numerous texts from the ancient Near East, both in literary works of instruction and in monumental inscriptions. 3 Compare, for example, the following: I am Qohelet. I have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. (Eccl 1:12) I am Sargon the great king, king of Agade. 4 I am Mesha, the son of Kemosh[-yatti], the king of Moab, the Dibonite. 5 I am Yeḥawmilk, king of Byblos/Gubal . . . 6 I am Zakkur, king of Hamath and Luʿash. 7 I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon,   king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters. 8

These inscriptions and texts invariably relate some autobiographical information, usually verging on propagandistic exaltation of the deeds of the kings in question. In light of the common use of this introductory declaration, ancient readers of Qohelet’s words, unsurprisingly, would have made a connection with these royal texts. That Ecclesiastes stands in company with these other texts is now widely accepted, albeit with various caveats that serve to divide opinion over issues such as the question of how enduring this particular literary genre was that Qohelet adopted and whether it is appropriate to refine the genre classification further and thus perhaps to delineate more precisely what Qohelet’s purpose was in adopting it. [1994] 409–21). Effective communication relies, in part, on readers’ identifying the literary genre and, in most cases, doing so quickly and reliably (see T. Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes [NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998] 16–17). The distinctive nature of this royal selfidentification thus appears to be explicit notification of the genre of what is to follow. 3. Introductory identifications of this sort are attested in Hittite, Akkadian, Moabite, Phoenician, and Aramaic texts—not to mention Hebrew in the instance of Qohelet. 4.  “The Birth Legend of Sargon of Akkad”; see W. W. Hallo, The Context of Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 1.461 (henceforth COS). 5.  From “The Inscription of King Mesha,” COS 1.137. 6.  From Phoenician, “The Inscription of King Yehawmilk,” COS 2.151. 7.  From Old Aramaic, “Inscription of Zakkur,” COS 2.155. 8.  From the “Cyrus Cylinder,” lines 20–22a, COS 2.315. Seow offers a number of similar parallels, although he focuses more broadly on the first-person identification (that is, “I am Qohelet”) alone as signaling the connection. See C.-L. Seow, “Qohelet’s Autobiography,” in Qohelet’s Autobiography (ed. A. Beck; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995) 279. It ought to be noted that this is not a comprehensive list. The Adad-guppi Autobiography also begins with this formula (see T. Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991] 225), along with a number of other texts.

Qohelet and Royal Autobiography

119

Royal Autobiography in the Ancient World Although the definition of autobiography is not trivial, for the purposes of this study an autobiography is a text in which the author retrospectively relates select events and experiences from his or her own life from the perspective of the author’s present. 9 Labeling any ancient text autobiography is somewhat controversial. Modern literary theorists frequently dispute the applicability of this designation to any premodern text, arguing that the individualistic perspective necessary to modern autobiography arose only during the enlightenment, and hence the requisite cultural, linguistic, and social presuppositions were not present in the ancient world. 10 This view, however, is neither unanimously endorsed nor without serious problems. 11 It imposes rather narrow cultural strictures on the classification, the parameters of which otherwise encompass a broader range of texts than is often allowed without the perceived psychoanalysis required to identify the implied author’s individualized world view. 12 9.  Compare with my “Autobiography,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings (ed. T. Longman III and P. Enns; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) 27–31. Retrospectivity distinguishes an autobiography from a diary; selectivity implies a degree of authorial interpretation of the events related, and thus the resultant text invariably presents events from a particular perspective. Broader definitions of autobiography current in some modern discussions (see D. Nathan Phinney, “Life Writing in Ezekiel and First Zechariah,” in Tradition in Transition [ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd; London: T. & T. Clark, 2008] 83–86) are too inclusive of diverse literary forms to function helpfully in identifying a literary genre for Ecclesiastes. In spite of some claims, perhaps the most significant difference between modern and ancient autobiographies lies in the rather limited scope of the ancient works. Qohelet’s autobiography records what appears to be a very limited portion of his life. 10.  See, for example, G. Misch (A History of Autobiography in Antiquity [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950] 1.19), who writes: [I]n all this abundance of material there is an infinite poverty of individual character. In all these documents we scarcely ever find any personal touch. They conform to one settled pattern. Their large measure of uniformity marks them as the product of established usages and of traditional forms of self-presentation. Thus, before the growth of a sense of individuality, we meet with a stereotyped or, so to speak, collective sort of autobiography. These examples are the earliest we have, and they extend back into the second and third millennia b.c.e.. 11.  See J. Sturrock, The Language of Autobiography: Studies in the First Person Singular (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 286; Longman, Ecclesiastes, 17–18. 12.  Assessing the individualistic perspective of characters in texts based on the text’s content alone is particularly difficult. The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, presents a hero whose primary concern becomes his own mortality, an awareness of which outstrips any notion that he will achieve continued existence in his community or with his people following his death. So also, Qohelet’s own attitudes toward death reveal a far more personalized and individualistic concern than some scholars feel comfortable about attributing to ancient authors. See E. S. Christianson (A Time To Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes [JSOTSup 280; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

120

Martin A. Shields

Scholars have identified a number of texts from the ancient Near East that, like Ecclesiastes, contain didactic material in connection with autobiographical reflections. Ecclesiastes bears striking parallels to aspects of these texts. Consequently, it is inappropriate to ignore them, even though we cannot simply treat Qohelet’s words as a Hebrew equivalent to them. A review of these texts highlights the nature and value of these parallels in understanding Ecclesiastes’ genre and purpose.

West-Semitic Royal Autobiographies A number of royal autobiographical texts (usually in the form of monumental inscriptions) have been found in the Syria–Palestine region as well as some surrounding areas. 13 The texts typically begin with a formulaic royal selfidentification closely resembling Qohelet’s own introduction in Eccl 1:12. 14 These texts date from around the ninth century to the fifth century b.c.e. and share a strong formal similarity to one another, even though they represent an array of differing functions, as Koh notes: Although there are some observable variations in style and form, a commonality of language is nevertheless identifiable in their formulaic expressions and the stereotypical hyperbole and rhetoric used, all of which hint at a common underlying royal ideology. 15

The texts uniformly incorporate the royal self-identification, a res gestae (a list of the achievements of the king’s reign) that usually serves a propagandistic function and often specifically focuses on battles and military conquests, and some comparison with predecessors and contemporaries. Aside from the overt political and military themes, these features find close parallels with Qohelet’s words, yet there are also important differences—in particular, the West Semitic works lack Ecclesiastes’ focus on wisdom, rarely referring to the wisdom of the king. The absence of wisdom motifs in these texts, however, is not a serious obstacle to associating Ecclesiastes with this genre. These royal inscriptions served a proPress, 1998] 34–36), who notes that “[t]here is perhaps no other book in the Hebrew Bible that has such relentless individualism.” 13.  Examples include the inscriptions of Mesha, Zakkur, and Yeḥawmilk cited above, as well as others attributed to Panamuwa (COS 2.156). For discussion and some other close parallels, see Y. Koh, Royal Autobiography in the Book of Qoheleth (BZAW 369; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006) 73–90. 14.  See the sample of royal self-identifications listed above. The parallel has been widely noted: see G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (trans. J. D. Martin; London: SCM, 1972) 56–58; B. Isaksson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on the Verbal System (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 10; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987) 50 n. 55; M. V. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOTSup 71; Sheffield: Almond, 1989) 174; Seow, “Qohelet’s Autobiography”; Koh, Royal Autobiography, 74–76. 15.  Ibid., 74.

Qohelet and Royal Autobiography

121

pagandistic function by extolling the great deeds of the ruler, and the most visible of these deeds was typically military triumph. It appears likely that a necessary prerequisite to the construction of a monument was a degree of power attained by the king, power typically wrought through political and military means. Hence, Ecclesiastes’ emphasis on wisdom in place of military conquest is also not particularly surprising. While many kings’ reigns were characterized by their political and military achievements, Qohelet’s Solomonic associations with wisdom were substituted for military might by Ecclesiastes’ author as the most prominent characteristic of his reign.

Mesopotamian Literature Many texts from Mesopotamia can be described as royal autobiographies in the broad sense that they claim to have been authored by a king and they retrospectively report events from the life of that king. As with many texts from the ancient world, precise classification is difficult because they are poorly preserved. Nonetheless, important parallels exist and have implications for reading Ecclesiastes. The Assyrian Royal Inscriptions share a parallel structure with Qohelet’s words: a royal self-identification closely matching Eccl 1:12, an account of the king’s great achievements (typically architectural and military in nature), a record of the great wealth of the king (corresponding to Eccl 2:8, although the Assyrian inscriptions often tie this wealth to the spoils of war, an association that is absent in Ecclesiastes), and some comparison with predecessors. As with the West Semitic texts, the Assyrian materials lack any specific focus on wisdom, although the reason for this outlined above could equally apply to these texts. 16 Koh concludes: [I]t appears that in the ancient Semitic world of literary compositions, the lives and experience of famous royal personalities provided the inspiration for many literary-didactic works, created to teach and entertain. . . . the Hebrew work reflects the form of a royal pseudo-autobiography. 17

Longman identifies a genre that he designates “fictional autobiography” and discusses three texts formally similar to Ecclesiastes that he labels “fictional 16.  Examples of relevant Assyrian Royal Inscriptions include the building inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. For a more complete discussion of the parallels, see Koh, Royal Autobiography, 90–106. Koh concludes that Ecclesiastes is not generically aligned with the West Semitic and Assyrian (Sargonid) royal inscriptions, although some parallels remain useful (p. 104). In order to reach this sort of conclusion, however, one must consider the relative weight assigned by ancient readers to the various features in the text that marked the genre. The prominence, position, and similarity of the self-identifications at the beginning of the texts suggests that they functioned to align the texts with this genre in the mind of the audience. If this is the case, the presence of this marker in a text may have been sufficient for the audience to understand and react to it as belonging to the genre called royal autobiography. 17.  Ibid., 123.

122

Martin A. Shields

autobiographies with a didactic ending”: The Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin, The Adad-guppi Autobiography, and The Sin of Sargon (A Sennacherib Autobiography). 18 Longman cites only these three examples of this subgenre, a small enough number that one might question whether its distinction from other forms of fictional autobiography would have been appreciated by the audience. Moreover, only one of the three texts preserves the royal self-identification formula. Although more granular distinctions may be proposed, it is not clear whether these distinctions would have been apprehended by the audience as defining formal categories that served to shape their reading of the texts. If the audience failed to appreciate the formal distinction as representative of genre divisions, then the differences identified serve not so much to define distinct subgenres as to demonstrate the variety of options open to authors working within a set genre. Thus, it is appropriate to consider Akkadian royal autobiographies (pseudonymous or not) more broadly as exemplars of a literary genre. There are substantial parallels between the Akkadian autobiographical texts identified by Longman and others and Qohelet’s autobiography. The Cuthean Legend exudes a pessimistic tone somewhat reminiscent of Qohelet’s own tone, including examples of self-deliberation common in Ecclesiastes: 19 When the following year arrived, I sent 120,000 troops into their midst; not one returned alive. When the second year arrived, I sent 90,000 troops into their midst; not one returned alive. When the third year arrived, I sent 60,700 troops into their midst; not one returned alive. I was bewildered, confused, consumed, worried, exhausted. Speaking to myself, thus I said: “What is left of my reign? I am a king who produces no well-being for his land and a shepherd who brings no well-being for his troops. Indeed let me set it down for all time and let me publish my ⸢record⸣.” 20

B. Lewis identifies nine characteristic features derived from an analysis of all Akkadian pseudoautobiographies, of which eight are found in Ecclesiastes. 21 However, this apparent correlation somewhat exaggerates the affinity of Ecclesiastes with these texts because a number of elements within Lewis’s list are interrelated. 22 Nonetheless, this correlation is suggestive of intentional adoption of the form by Ecclesiastes, and the fact that the parallels encompass more than merely 18.  Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, 97–129. Longman provides translations of these texts. Koh is somewhat critical of Longman’s study (see Koh, Royal Autobiography, 106–23). 19.  That is, where Qohelet remarks, “I said to myself ” (Eccl 2:1, 15; 3:17, 18). 20.  Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, 229–30. 21. B. Lewis, The Sargon Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero Who Was Exposed at Birth (ASORDS 4; Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980) 96; compare with Koh, Royal Autobiography, 121. 22.  So, for example, features (1) and (6) overlap, as do (7) and (8).

Qohelet and Royal Autobiography

123

the opening two chapters of Ecclesiastes suggests that the modern tendency to believe that the royal element was discarded after the second chapter may be more the result of modern sensibilities than a deliberate stylistic choice of the author (see below, pp. 133–134).

Egyptian Literature A number of scholars claim that Ecclesiastes adopts the form of Egyptian Royal Testaments, and indeed there are a number of striking parallels. 23 There are a number of royal autobiographical texts from Egypt that include didactic mate­ rial. 24 Examples include the Instruction for Merikare, an instruction expressed as the words of an old king to his successor. 25 As with many of these ancient texts, difficulties arise from its fragmentary nature; for one thing, the opening section is not preserved, and so it is not possible to determine whether the “I am X” formula appears as a genre marker in this Egyptian text. The text itself appears to consist of, initially, sets of advice to the new king, followed later by autobiographical details; thus, the work focuses primarily on the old king’s accomplishments and instructions to his successor to preserve these accomplishments and persevere with the same goals. Merikare offers little if anything that can be perceived of as being critical of kingship. Another Egyptian royal autobiographical text is the Instruction of Amenemhet. In this case, however, the opening portion of the text has been preserved, yet any formal parallels to Ecclesiastes and other Near Eastern autobiographies are absent—indeed, Miriam Lichtheim argues that the theme of the text is regicide, suggesting that even the thematic parallels are superficial. 26 While the Egyptian materials fail to include any self-identification corresponding to what is found in Eccl 1:12, they do generally begin with a title that includes the term “instruction” (sbꜢyt) together with details of the identity of the author—features that probably served as genre markers for the original audiences of these texts. 27 23.  See, for example, J. L. Crenshaw, “The Wisdom Literature,” in The Wisdom Literature (ed. D. A. Knight, G. M. Tucker; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 377; L. G. Perdue, Wisdom Literature: A Theological History (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007) 161–216. Scholars have been aware of these texts for some time, and in spite of the thematic parallels, they have not been widely accepted as formal parallels to Ecclesiastes (see Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxxi, 2; Koh, Royal Autobiography, 129–30). 24.  J. L. Crenshaw (Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998] 128) observes that “the pharaohs or viziers collected their insights for the benefit of aspiring young rulers, whom they hoped to steer successfully along paths of wisdom. Such advice appeared in autobiographical form, constituting a king’s legacy for his successors.” 25.  The successor’s name is Merikare, but the name of the old king who is speaking the words of instruction has not been fully preserved. See COS 1.61–66. 26.  See ibid., 1.66. 27.  Koh notes that the introductions to the Egyptian instructions do resemble the opening words of the book of Ecclesiastes (that is, Eccl 1:1), although there are significant differences that prohibit aligning the forms too closely. See Koh, Royal Autobiography, 129–30.

124

Martin A. Shields

Michael Fox has noted that a number of Egyptian wisdom texts do include a frame narrative somewhat reminiscent of Ecclesiastes’ own frame. 28 However, it is also important to note the substantial differences between the Egyptian frames and that found in Ecclesiastes. Where frames do appear in the Egyptian material, they begin with exhortations to obey the subsequently related instructions—Ecclesiastes begins with no such exhortation. Furthermore, the Egyptian instructions fail to reflect a consistent literary form, so any formal parallels between Ecclesiastes and a specific example of the Egyptian genre do not encompass the other Egyptian works. Hence, it is unlikely that the author of Ecclesiastes modeled his own work on the formal characteristics of the Egyptian texts, since no clearly defined format can be discerned. 29 However, while no close formal equivalent exists, there are some general thematic parallels between the royal autobiographical texts from Egypt and Ecclesiastes. For example, the works purport to convey advice from a royal figure, they relate autobiographical events, and they contain aphoristic wisdom sayings. The content of the advice also covers common ground: a call to enjoy life and an attribution of causality to God or the gods. Leo Perdue argues that the royal voice persists throughout Ecclesiastes and self-consciously adopts the form of an Egyptian royal testament that attacks both God and the monarchy. 30 Perdue builds on this association in order to bolster his case for a Hellenistic background to Ecclesiastes, yet the association is problematic. Although there are some thematic parallels, the Egyptian works are formally quite distinct from Ecclesiastes; in particular, they lack the opening royal self-identification that Ecclesiastes shares with an array of Akkadian, Phoenician, Moabite, Hittite, and other royal autobiographical texts. As Kenton Sparks notes, “The private nature of the tomb autobiographies distinguishes them from the autobiographical texts of Asia, where the subjects were usually kings.” 31 This distinction also becomes apparent in comparisons with Greek literature (see pp.  125–126). Consequently, although this opening royal self-identification distinction cannot rule out the possibility of Egyptian influence in the composition of Ecclesiastes, it does exclude the theory that Ecclesiastes was not influenced by forms common in Semitic texts. 28.  M. V. Fox, “Frame-Narrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet,” HUCA 48 (1977) 91. It is noteworthy that not all Egyptian instructions include a prologue (or a frame). 29. J. Baines, “Myth and Literature,” in Myth and Literature (ed. A. Loprieno; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 361–78; Koh, Royal Autobiography, 126, 134. 30.  Perdue, Wisdom Literature, 180–81. For further critical discussion, see Koh, Royal Autobiography, 16. 31.  K. L. Sparks, Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005) 386. On Egyptian material, see M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: A Study and an Anthology (OBO 84; Frieburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988).

Qohelet and Royal Autobiography

125

Greek Literature Although autobiographical literature existed in ancient Greece, royal auto­ biographies were not the norm. 32 Hence it is likely that, if Qohelet reflects Hellenistic influence in his themes, he does not do so in the form he has chosen for expressing the thoughts. 33 Any apparent disjunction between thought and form raised regarding theories of a Greek background to the work, however, is resolved if it is placed against an ancient Near Eastern background. The numerous parallels known from both Mesopotamia and Egypt to ideas present in Ecclesiastes together with the formal parallels—most strongly to West Semitic and Mesopotamian materials but also to Egyptian—work together to diminish any necessity to claim direct Greek influence on the work. Leo Perdue sees Ecclesiastes’ composition as taking place in Hellenized Jerusalem, allowing the influence of Greek thought to mix with the adoption of an Egyptian literary form—a confluence that was enabled by Ptolemaic rule. 34 There are a number of difficulties with Perdue’s assertions, but of most relevance to the topic at hand is the opacity of the formal links between Ecclesiastes and the Egyptian literature, links that more clearly point to West Semitic and Mesopotamian antecedents. 35 In the end, however, little work has been done to investigate 32.  Misch points to Isocrates’ Antidosis (ca. 354 b.c.e.) as being perhaps the earliest exemplar of autobiography in Classical Greek, although he also points to an autobiographical letter attributed to Plato (although the veracity of this attribution has been questioned). See Misch, A History of Autobiography in Antiquity, 96. Momigliano adduces evidence that the earliest Greek autobiographical writing appeared around 500 b.c.e.; see A. Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (rev. ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993) 17. For most scholars who argue Greek influence, this presents ample time for some formal influence to accompany the supposed thematic influence discerned in Qohelet’s ideas. (Momigliano is critical of Misch, whom he feels was far too liberal in the variety of materials he accepted as autobiographical; see ibid., 18.) As for royal autobiographies, Momigliano indicates that there are some (although he describes them as “memoirs”), such as those of Pyrrhus and Aratus. The nature of government in Greece also introduces a distinction that sets the Hellenistic material apart from royal autobiographies in the ancient Near East. See ibid., 89. Perdue also points to some of these texts, in Wisdom Literature, 383 n. 85. 33. R. Braun (Kohelet und die frühhellenistische Popularphilosophie [BZAW 130; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973] 165) has suggested that Qohelet adopts the form of Greek diatribe. Aside from the fact that this has no relation to royal autobiography, there are other difficulties with Braun’s identification that render it improbable. See C. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009) 63–64. 34.  Perdue, Wisdom Literature, 176–80; see also Perdue’s essay in this volume. 35.  Other objections include the observation that many of the thematic links to Greek thought are paralleled by links to earlier ideas already present in the ancient Near East and that linguistic dating is inherently uncertain (see I. Young, “Biblical Texts Cannot Be Dated Linguistically,” HS 46 [2005] 341–51).

126

Martin A. Shields

whether the autobiographical features of Ecclesiastes have any formal parallels to Greek literature, but the indications are that they do not. 36

Summary Scholars tend to identify a genre based on comparing a set of similar texts; the genre then becomes the measure for other texts. Although this approach is certainly valid, it becomes easy to overlook the variations among all the texts that are members of the genre when one is highlighting the differences between the established genre and a new text that is now being measured against that genre. Although it is often noted that there are differences between Ecclesiastes and royal autobiographies, it is also true that there are differences between every exemplar of the genre. Furthermore, while classification of texts into literary genres may prove helpful for scholarly analysis of these texts, it is not always clear that the classifications correspond to identifications that were made by either the readers or the author. In light of the diversity evident in the various exemplars of royal autobiography from the ancient Near East, together with the existence of both similarities and differences between Ecclesiastes and other royal autobiographies, I consider it probable that readers were more likely to identify the general formal and thematic connections than to see specific connections between Ecclesiastes and one of the more narrowly defined subgenres of royal autobiography that modern scholars may promote. Consequently, the readily identifiable and distinctive elements in the text are perhaps the most compelling connections that readers employed when inferring meaning based on generic connections. In particular, for Ecclesiastes, the royal self-identification of Eccl 1:12 fulfills this function, bearing a distinctive and striking parallel to the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions as well as other Akkadian royal autobiographies. This being said, it is noteworthy that the author enveloped this royal autobiographical genre within a frame narrative, essentially adapting the existing genre’s form to produce a variation in order to achieve his desired end. 37 The addition of the frame introduced a tension into the work, for the autobiographical association with Solomon, Israel’s wisest king, itself lent authority to the words of Qohelet. Yet the anonymous frame narrator speaks with the authority inherent in his status as narrator—a form of literary omniscience. The implications of this novel turn on the royal autobiographical genre will be discussed further below (pp. 131–133). 36.  Ultimately it is impossible to rule out mixed influence, such as saying that some of Qohelet’s ideas were influenced by Greek thought while the form he adopted reflected Semitic royal autobiography. If his audience were aware of both, then the two could feasibly have been combined. Alternatively, Qohelet may have sought to introduce Hellenistic ideas to an audience through a familiar form. 37. See Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 74.

Qohelet and Royal Autobiography

127

Ecclesiastes as Royal Autobiography The analysis above demonstrates significant parallels between ancient Near Eastern literary forms that broadly fit the label royal autobiography and the words of Qohelet. Nonetheless, many scholars have raised significant caveats regarding the validity of this comparison, primarily highlighting the apparent disappearance of the royal voice after the second chapter. For example, Bartholomew writes, [A]fter chap. 3 the Solomonic fiction fades, and in line with this is Qohelet’s observation of oppression and his critique of the abuse of power (see 4:1–3; 5:8–9; 10:5–7, 16–20), whereas if he were Solomon, he would be in the perfect position to establish justice and rule appropriately. 38

One prominent view has been that the author of Ecclesiastes maintains a royal guise only in the first two chapters, in particular 1:12–2:26, 39 although some scholars further restrict this to 1:12–2:11. 40 Whybray observes that “it is impossible to be certain at what point the ‘I’ of Solomon gives place to the ‘I’ of Qoheleth himself.” 41 Similarly, Otto Kaiser writes: Most of [i 3–iii 15] is taken up by the “royal fiction,” the fictional nature of which is clear: only i 12–ii 11 suggests that the speaker is royal, and the idea exerts no further influence on the text after iii 1. Indeed the viewpoint in iv 13ff., vii 19, viii 2ff. and x 16ff. is clearly that of a subject, not a ruler. 42

However, the passages that Kaiser identifies as reflecting the viewpoint of a subject, not a ruler, are not as decisive in discrediting the consistency of Qohelet’s royal voice as some claim. 38.  Ibid., 47. 39.  D. G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987) 56. Others include G. A. Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908) 76; W. Zimmerli, Das Buch des Predigers Salomo (ATD 16/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 129; A. Lauha, Kohelet (BKAT 19; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978) 42–43; R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes (NCB; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989) 46; A. Fischer, “Beobachtungen zur Komposition von Kohelet 1,3–3,15,” ZAW 103 (1991) 72–83. 40.  See R. Gordis (Koheleth, the Man and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes [3rd ed.; New York: Shocken, 1968] 278), although he does admit that there are occasional allusions to royalty outside this (for example, 7:20); compare with C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 98. Fox and Murphy are more open to the idea that royal themes appear beyond the opening section. See also Seow, “Qohelet’s Autobiography.” 41.  Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 46. 42. O. Kaiser, “Qoheleth,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton (ed. J. Day, R. P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 83–93, esp. pp. 84–85.

128

Martin A. Shields

Few scholars have allowed for any significant persistence in the royal fiction beyond the second chapter, although some have allowed that there are occasional relapses, such as Hertzberg and Gemser, who saw in Qohelet’s reference to 1,000 women (Eccl 7:28) an allusion to Solomon’s harem (compare with 1 Kgs 11:3). 43 Gordis notes that Eccl 7:20 uses language that is strongly reminiscent of Solomon’s prayer of dedication of the Temple in 1 Kgs 8:46. 44 Beentjes has also argued that the vocabulary of Eccl 8:2–5 is reminiscent of 1 Kgs 2:43–44[ET 42–43]. 45 By way of contrast, Koh, Perdue, and Christianson offer quite different interpretations of Ecclesiastes that underline the persistence of the royal voice throughout the work. 46 Scholars who claim that the royal persona is dropped after the second chapter appeal to a number of aspects of the text. First, the description of Qohelet as ‫חכם‬ (“sage”) in the epilogue rather than using an unambiguous royal epithet is said to count against the persistence of the royal persona. In the case of Qohelet, however, this is not a decisive argument since the most notable characteristic of Solomon (with whom Qohelet identifies) is his wisdom. Given that the work is essentially a wisdom text, this is the aspect that is highlighted in the epilogue. The most common argument against the persistence of the royal voice throughout Qohelet’s words, however, is the supposed change in Qohelet’s perspective from that of a ruler to a subject after ch. 2. This observation is built on the identification of supposedly “anti-royal” passages, including Eccl 3:16–17; 4:1, 13–16; 5:7–8[ET 8–9]; 8:1–5; 10:5–7, 16–17, 20. These passages generally reflect on either corrupt or ineffective rulers or else decry situations that the king—particularly a king of Solomon’s stature—ought to be able to remedy. 47 There are, however, some considerations that call the value of this argument into question. First of all, even a king such as Solomon was limited in what he could achieve. Dissent and discord cannot be eradicated; powerful and wise rulers may still pronounce warnings against certain types of government even if there is no immediate threat. 43. H. Hertzberg, Der Prediger (KAT 17; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963) 158; compare also Barton, Ecclesiastes, 147. 44. R. Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World (New York: Schocken, 1951) 278. 45. P. Beentjes, “‘Who Is like the Wise?’ Some Notes on Qohelet 8,1–15,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (ed. A. Schoors; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998) 303–15, 306 n. 19. 46.  Koh, Royal Autobiography, 25–71; L. G. Perdue, Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 202; Christianson, A Time To Tell. 47.  For vassal kings, of course, a complaint about the inability to remedy circumstances would remain eminently appropriate, and, if Ecclesiastes is dated late, then the status of the monarchy during its composition may realistically have reflected such a situation. Indeed, von Soden notes a warning about overestimating the power of most monarchs in the ANE when he notes that “[e]ven when monarchs succeeded to the throne by legitimate means, they seldom enjoyed the absolute power which scholars often readily ascribe to the Oriental monarchies” (see W. von Soden, The Ancient Orient: An Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Near East [trans. Donald G. Schley; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994] 63).

Qohelet and Royal Autobiography

129

In addition, other genres of biblical literature are often self-critical. The prophetic works include antiprophetic comments (usually directed against false prophets). The mitigating factor to this argument is that the criticism of the prophets is not self-deprecating but is directed at other exponents of prophecy. However, when a king makes disparaging comments about the monarchy, he is first and foremost criticizing himself. As a sage, Qohelet is somewhat disparaging of wisdom and thus, self-critical (see Eccl 1:18; 2:15, 21; 7:16; 8:17), yet his status as sage is not called into question—if anything, it is enhanced. Furthermore, the nature of wisdom is such that, although wisdom sayings were apparently collected by the relatively small class of literate members of society, sources for wisdom varied widely. The true sage would not reject the validity of a wisdom saying based merely on his subjective assessment but would judge it on the veracity of the insight it contained. The depiction of Qohelet, particularly in the epilogue, highlights his preference for speaking true words regardless of whether they appeared difficult or uncomfortable—or even “anti-royal.” 48 The presence of supposedly anti-royal sayings also fits well with the notion that the royal autobiography form was exploited by Qohelet in order to bolster his argument that even the most powerful cannot control fate (Eccl 1:3–11; 2:11–23; see below, pp  132–133)—indeed, the anti-royal sayings facilitate the inversion. Finally, other examples of royal autobiographies from the ancient Near East preserve details that are not entirely positive and hence may be considered “antiroyal,” at least to some extent. Biblical literature attributed to kings is somewhat limited, but the Bible does contain a few passages that are of interest. Much of Proverbs is attributed to Solomon and contains some relevant aphorisms. Interspersed among the clearly promonarchic sayings (for example, Prov 14:35; 16:10, 13, 14, 15; 19:12; 20:2, 8, 26, 28; etc.) are a few sayings that allow for the possibility of an unjust or unwise ruler (for example, Prov 16:12; 28:15; 29:12, 26). Proverbs 31:3, although not attributed to Solomon, is nonetheless attributed to one King Lemuel and thus bears some royal imprimatur, but it also presents a warning to rulers. 49 Outside ancient Israel, there are examples of royal autobiographical texts that also contain material that, at least superficially, seems not to fit well with a supposed royal author. One example is the Cuthean Legend (cited above), which includes rather despondent reflections by the king on the inadequacy of various elements of his own reign.

48. See my book The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 54–69. 49.  The other main source attributed to royalty in the Hebrew Bible is to be found in the psalms attributed to David. These present little that is critical of kingship and tend to focus on Yhwh as the divine king of the people rather than on the human institution of kingship.

130

Martin A. Shields

Qohelet’s Implementation of the Genre Although no individual exemplar of any literary genre corresponds perfectly to the form, the author of Ecclesiastes appears to have been relatively free in his adoption and adaptation of various aspects of different royal autobiographical genres from the ancient Near East, integrating them with themes and ideas present in various wisdom texts. 50 Qohelet’s use of royal self-identification in Eccl 1:12 aligns his work most closely with West Semitic royal inscriptions and with an array of Akkadian pseudoautobiographies. However, those texts do not include a frame narrative parallel to Ecclesiastes’, a fact that suggests that the author has adapted the form by embedding it within a frame because it affords him additional flexibility (see the discussion below). Another indication of the author’s variation from the genre lies in the fact that he has not created a truly pseudonymous work, since no one is explicitly identified as the author. It is most likely that the term ‫ קהלת‬is a title rather than a name, and despite the strong inferences as to his identity as Solomon, the connection is never made explicit. 51

The Purposes and Implications of Qohelet’s Royal Autobiography The connections between Ecclesiastes and ancient Near Eastern royal auto­ biographies outlined above are reasonably well established, even if the details are not always unanimously endorsed. Consequently, it is useful to delineate the manner in which these parallels—together with the phenomenon of royal autobiography itself—control the manner in which the text operates on a reader who is familiar with them.

Authorized Instruction Autobiographical instruction or advice explicitly bases its conclusions in the experiences and circumstances of the author’s past. This ties the authority of the words to the authority that the audience ascribes to the implied author—if the implied author is reputable, the words share in this integrity; if disreputable, the words are suspect. Ascribing observations to a renowned royal figure invests them with an added degree of authority. Royal sanction, in general, carried substantial weight, which probably accounts for the number of ancient texts that were pseudonymously ascribed to royal figures. For Ecclesiastes, the association with Solomon, whose reputation as a sage was unmatched, serves as a potent authorization 50.  The focus here is on royal autobiography, but virtually all commentators note an array of ancient Near Eastern and Hellenistic texts that preserve themes paralleled in Qohelet. 51.  See B. K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004) 35, for discussion of the significance of this point.

Qohelet and Royal Autobiography

131

of the wisdom teachings it contains—an authorization necessitated to some extent by the disturbing nature of some of Qohelet’s findings. 52 Crenshaw notes that this function of the royal autobiography has long been recognized: “As ancient rabbis surmised, the fiction of Solomonic authorship seems to be an effort to reinforce the weight of the claim that life had no real advantage over death.” 53 The question whether pseudonymous texts inherit any authority from their authorial ascription is, however, somewhat more complex. D. G. Meade argues that pseudonymity would have had little bearing on the acceptance of the text. 54 Nonetheless, recognition of deliberate deception regarding the authorship of a text might have undermined claims to authority inherent in the association, and hence it is particularly noteworthy that Qohelet makes no explicit claim to be Solomon—Qohelet appropriates Solomonic authority without resorting to outright deception. 55

Authorial Distantiation Another point that cannot be overlooked is that the first-person account in conjunction with the frame narrative serves to distance Qohelet from both the reader and the narrator of the text. Qohelet’s words are presented as authoritative reflections of the greatest sage. The use of the autobiographical form allows the reader to distance himself or herself from Qohelet’s words in a way that would not be feasible were the same ideas presented in wisdom’s traditional aphoristic form. 56 The introduction of observations with “I have observed” (or the like; see, for example, Eccl 3:10–11) ties the observation to the experience of the speaker. Christianson highlights the difference between the narrator’s voice and the firstperson voice, noting that “[w]e would hear not the disillusioned observer speaking 52.  Note that a number of scholars suggest that links to Solomon are not entirely positive. See G. E. Mendenhall, “The Shady Side of Wisdom: The Date and Purpose of Genesis 3,” in The Shady Side of Wisdom: The Date and Purpose of Genesis 3 (ed. R. D. Heim, H. N. Bream, and C. A. Moore; Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974) 324–25; M. Noth, “Die Bewährung voc Salomos ‘Göttlicher Weisheit’,” in Die Bewährung von Salomos ‘Göttlicher Weisheit’ (ed. M. Noth and D. W. Thomas; Leiden: Brill, 1955) 225–37; R. B. Y. Scott, “Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel,” in Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel (ed. J. L. Crenshaw; New York: Ktav, 1976) 262–79. The way that the readers/audience apprehended Solomon had a bearing on their inclination toward Qohelet’s words, so, if the people viewed Solomon negatively, this would color their view of Solomon’s words. 53.  Crenshaw, “The Wisdom Literature,” 377. The weight of authority lent to the words of Qohelet by their association with Solomon was probably necessary to overcome any understandable reluctance to hear the book’s controversial conclusions. See B. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM, 1979) 584. 54. See Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon, 72. 55.  Note some possible corollaries to the text’s failure to make Solomonic authorship explicit: (1) the misassociation of Qohelet with Solomon is not harmful to the purpose of the text; and (2) the misassociation of Qohelet with Solomon is not necessary to the purpose of the text. 56. See Fox, “Frame-Narrative,” 95–96, 101; Christianson, A Time To Tell, 58.

132

Martin A. Shields

in fiery and critically unsure tones, but more likely the disembodied and sure voice of the wisdom tradition, shaped inevitably from the context of a body of maxims instead of through the ‘I’ of a fascinating thinker.” 57 Furthermore, the frame narrative allows the narrator to distance himself from Qohelet’s words without fully endorsing them. Any tension between the authoritative Qohelet qua Solomon versus the authoritative narrator of the frame could be overlooked if the two voices exist in perfect harmony. However, many readers have recognized—particularly in the epilogue—a note of discord. The epilogist’s affirmation of the fear of God and obedience to his commands is, in particular, difficult to derive from Qohelet’s own observations. 58 Hence it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is at least some discord between the voices in the book. 59 In this contest, the narrator trumps the autobiographical voice. 60

Genre Inversion Qohelet’s adoption of the royal autobiographical form would have established certain expectations in the minds of his readers. However, his apparent adherence to the form served to heighten the ultimate irony, as explained by Seow: Qohelet’s imitation of [Royal Autobiography] is poignant in its irony. In the end the text makes the point that none of the deeds—even the royal deeds that are assiduously preserved in memorials—really matters. For human beings, even kings, there is no immortality of any sort. At first blush, the autobiography paints a picture of enormous success. But the mention of the king’s deeds, and especially the superiority of his deeds to those of his predecessors, leads to a surprising conclusion, one that is quite contrary to the purpose of royal texts. The legendary acts, wealth, and wisdom of Solomon turned out not to have abiding significance after all. The genre of a royal inscription is utilized to make the point about the ephemerality of wisdom and human accomplishments. 61 57.  Ibid., 38. 58.  Nonetheless, the epilogist clearly endorses Qohelet and his wisdom and affirms his conclusions about the limitations of wisdom. The path to reconciliation lies in the epilogist’s offer to move beyond Qohelet’s intellectual impasse by finding answers in the realm of the fear of God rather than in speculative wisdom. See my End of Wisdom, 54–109. 59.  A more complex analysis of the interplay between various voices in the work can be found in J. L. Koosed, (Per)Mutations of Qohelet: Reading the Body in the Book (London: T. & T. Clark, 2006). 60. See Christianson’s discussion of the relationship of the frame narrator to the autobiographical inner story (A Time To Tell, 56–60). 61.  Seow, “Qohelet’s Autobiography,” 284; idem, Ecclesiastes, 48; see also R. N. Whybray, “Qoheleth as a Theologian,” in Qoheleth in the Context of Wisdom (ed. A. Schoors; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998) 261; N. Kamano, “Character and Cosmology: Rhetoric of Qoh 1,3–3,9,” in Qoheleth in the Context of Wisdom (ed. A. Schoors; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998) 419–24; Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon, 57; also Perdue (Wisdom and Creation, 220), who writes that “the royal voice of Solomon makes itself heard in new and startling fashion. . . .

Qohelet and Royal Autobiography

133

West Semitic royal inscriptions, for example, typically recount the king’s achievements, detailing economic prosperity, social order, and major building projects. For example, Mesha recounts his own building projects: I have built Karchoh, the wall of the woods and the wall of the citadel, and I have built its gates, and I have built its towers, and I have built the house of the king, and I have made the double reser[voir for the spr]ing(?) in the innermost part   of the city. Now, there was no cistern in the innermost part of the city, in Karchoh, and I said to all the people: “Make, each one of you, a cistern in his house.” And I cut out the moat(?) for Karchoh by means of prisoners from Israel. 62

Qohelet similarly recounts his own epic building projects (Eccl 2:4–6), yet the differences are revealing. Qohelet’s achievements are explicitly and emphatically a part of his investigation into the value of life (Eccl 1:3; 2:1); however, in West Semitic royal inscriptions the works are never said to amount to nothing (contrast Eccl 2:11) and are often said to be created in the service of the people or the king’s god. It is thus clear that Ecclesiastes employs the form not for the purpose of selfaggrandizement but in order to emphasize the senselessness of all achievement. Qohelet similarly inverts expected outcomes throughout the book by repeatedly concluding that he could not make sense of the world in spite of his great wisdom.

Literary Unity Although many scholars have argued that the royal-fiction genre terminates by the end of the second chapter of Ecclesiastes, the various ancient Near Eastern formal parallels—especially the fictional Akkadian autobiographies—suggest that this analysis results more from an anachronistic imposition of modern expectations on the text than any designed characteristic of the ancient text itself. The pattern in Ecclesiastes in which the first-person references diminish as the work unfolds while second-person exhortations increase correlates well with other didactic autobiographies in which the advice is grounded in the author’s experiences. As it stands, Qohelet’s royal identity is firmly established in the opening chapters and, without explicit notice to the contrary in the subsequent material, there is little reason for the reader not to infer that the royal Qohelet continues to speak as The greatest patron of the sages and wisest of all the Israelite and Jewish kings engages in a rather stunning critique of royal rule, undermining the theological basis for the legitimation of the monarchy.” 62.  COS 2.138.

134

Martin A. Shields

the first-person voice in the remainder of the work. This has the effect of integrating the entire work, as Christianson has noted: The autobiographical form lends stable integrity to a narrative, for autobiography is concerned with the self of the narrator, and the narrator ‘I’ is the great adhesive quality of such a narrative. Such a strategy of discourse (on the subject of one’s own experience) serves to free the narrator to touch on innumerable subjects, all of which are bound by the constant narrative presence of the autobiographer. 63

Interpretive Constraint Ecclesiastes has attracted numerous diverse interpretations throughout history. In some respects, this is not surprising, since the book has been described— with some justification—as “the strangest book in the Bible.” 64 Recognition of Ecclesiastes’ adoption of some of the characteristics of royal autobiographies does, however, provide means by which certain interpretations may be assessed to be unlikely. One example is the interpretation of T. A. Perry, who proposes a dialogue between two voices throughout the book. 65 Aside from other difficulties with his reading, 66 it is difficult to reconcile this analysis of the book with its close affinities to the genres associated with royal autobiography in the ancient Near East. Furthermore, as noted above, the adoption of a literary form closely associated with West Semitic and Mesopotamian sources does raise questions for scholars who claim significant Hellenistic influence in the work. Although this influence cannot be ruled out, the clear adoption of a non-Hellenistic design for the work indicates that the author was not confined to Greek ideas, nor did he expect his audience to be constrained by them. In light of the fact that most of the ideas associated with Greek thought were present throughout the ancient world, claiming a Hellenistic background for Ecclesiastes’ thinking is largely unwarranted.

Dating Ecclesiastes The two major aspects of Ecclesiastes most often employed to date the work are the nature of the Hebrew and the presence in Ecclesiastes of ideas that were more prominent during the latter half of the first millennium than the first half. Consideration of these has prompted many scholars to posit a date for Ecclesiastes in the final centuries of the first millennium b.c.e. However, it has been shown that linguistic arguments for dating Ecclesiastes late are not as compelling as many believe them to be, 67 and the existence of numerous thematic parallels to Qohelet’s 63.  Christianson, A Time To Tell, 36. 64.  R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (AB 18; New York: Doubleday, 1965) 191. 65.  T. A. Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993). 66. See my End of Wisdom, 4. 67. See Young, “Biblical Texts Cannot Be Dated Linguistically,” 341–51.

Qohelet and Royal Autobiography

135

thought throughout the ancient Near East mitigate the necessity of a late date on these grounds. If the identification of Qohelet’s words with royal autobiography is valid, it presents an additional piece of data for dating the text. The inscriptions and other texts that represent the best parallels from the West Semitic region date to the first half of the first millennium b.c.e. For the parallel to have been meaningfully identified by Qohelet’s audience as royal autobiography, a date sometime in this period is appropriate.

Miscellaneous Exegetical Implications Recognizing the links between Ecclesiastes and royal autobiographies has an impact on various exegetical problems. Perhaps most obvious is the reading of the perfective verb form in Eccl 1:12. Traditionally, this has been interpreted as indicating that Qohelet was claiming to have reigned over Israel in the past while no longer reigning at the time of writing. 68 Seow and others have argued that the perfective, particularly in the case of stative verbs, need not refer to a purely past event or action. 69 Taken in isolation, however, the syntax is ambiguous—Qohelet does elsewhere use perfective forms of ‫ היה‬with purely past reference (for example, Eccl 1:9–11, 2:7–10, etc). However, the perfective form of the verb “to be” appears in some of the self-identifications of other examples of the genre from the ancient Near East with clear reference to the present and ongoing reign of the royal author. In light of these parallels, the case for reading the verb in Eccl 1:12 as representing “a reality that began in the past but continues into the present” is substantially strengthened. 70 Taken together with Koh’s observation that Eccl 2:18 implies that Qohelet did not know who his successor would be, the case for reading Eccl 1:12 as reflecting a present state becomes compelling. 71

68.  This interpretation has a very long history, and the difficulties it raises when one tries to reconcile it with the account of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kings prompted early Jewish tradition to postulate a complex tale in which Solomon was replaced as king for a time by the king of demons. For details, see E. S. Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentary; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007) 91–92. See also D. B. Miller, “What the Preacher Forgot: The Rhetoric of Ecclesiastes,” CBQ 62 (2000) 215–35, esp. pp. 216–17 n. 5. He appeals to L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 4: From Joshua to Esther (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1913) 168–76; and E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of Qohelet (New York: Hermon, 1978). Ginzberg’s work is available online, http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/LegendsOfTheJews/loj406.htm. 69.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 119; A. Schoors, “The Verb hāyâ in Qoheleth,” in Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw (ed. D. Penchansky and P. L. Redditt; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000) 229–38; Isaksson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth, 50. 70.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 119. See Koh, Royal Autobiography, 76–78. 71.  Ibid., 78.

136

Martin A. Shields

Conclusion The author of Ecclesiastes self-consciously adopted and adapted the form of royal autobiography represented in Northwest Semitic royal inscriptions, although the influence of other forms of royal autobiographical texts is also apparent. This form was amalgamated with a wisdom form because in Solomon both sage and king were likewise amalgamated. The result was a text that purports to establish the grandeur of the king but ultimately uses this grandeur to serve the didactic purpose of asserting that life—even the life of the wisest and most powerful king—is ultimately devoid of any sense discernible to Qohelet. Wisdom’s greatest exponent proclaims the limitations of wisdom.

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes David J. H. Beldman Redeemer University College If Qohelet were alive to survey the amount of energy that commentators have expended trying to discover the underlying structure of his thought, one could imagine him saying, with a knowing smile, “This too is ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, a striving after the wind.” 1 While there have been many attempts to discern the structure of Ecclesiastes, what Bishop Robert Lowth wrote in the late eighteenth century is just as true today: “Scarcely any two commentators have agreed concerning the plan of the work, and the accurate division of it into parts or sections.” 2 Is there really anything more to write about the structure of Ecclesiastes than what scholars have already written? Given the literary turn that has taken place in biblical studies and the recent explosion of new readings of Ecclesiastes, it does seem an appropriate time to reconsider the structure of Ecclesiastes. To that end, this essay consists of three main parts. The first briefly surveys and categorizes the way that commentators have conceived of the structure of Ecclesiastes. The second part offers key points for navigating the book. The third part of this essay takes as its starting point the fact that all narratives have a beginning, a middle, and an end and analyzes the most important sections of Ecclesiastes based on these categories. 3

Overview of Attempts to Discern the Structure of Ecclesiastes It is quite difficult to separate the issue of the structure of Ecclesiastes from the issues of its integrity and interpretation. The tension within the book is a characteristic that commentators ancient and contemporary have recognized and that bears on a discussion of its structure. 4 In many ways, the history of the 1.  Note that, in this essay, I refer to the book as Ecclesiastes and the stated author as Qohelet. 2. R. Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews (4th ed.; trans. G. Gregory; London: Thomas Kegg, 1839) 271. 3.  See p. 147 below for a case for reading Ecclesiastes as narrative. 4.  R. E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992) xlix.

137

138

David J. H. Beldman

interpretation of Ecclesiastes is similar to that of other biblical books. 5 Until the modern era, interpreters accepted these texts in faith as Scripture and, although not ignorant of some of the difficulties, read them in such a way that they might speak to readers for their edification. During the modern period, commentators felt free to deal with textual “problems” without “being encumbered” by religious dogma or faith commitments. 6 The tendency was to understand contradictions, repetition, and inconsistencies in terms of redactional layers and sources. With the literary turn in biblical studies, scholars focused on the literary technique, style, and rhetoric of OT texts. The new wave of studies preferred to understand inconsistencies, repetition, and the like in terms of literary art. Before the literary turn was fully appropriated, however, the postmodern turn began, bringing with it a plurality of readings and reading strategies. Ecclesiastes has followed this general trend, and it is helpful to have this framework in mind as one considers various proposals for the structure of Ecclesiastes.

The Structure Is Too Convoluted to Be Derived from a Single Author A. G. Wright, Murphy, and Salyer provide very helpful surveys of the way that commentators and scholars have conceived of the structure of Ecclesiastes. 7 On the one extreme are scholars who hold that Ecclesiastes is a compilation of sayings, not unlike the book of Proverbs. 8 The theory that dominated Ecclesias5.  The survey that follows is an intentional simplification of a complex history of interpretation; however, if one acknowledges that the following pages present the picture in broad brushstrokes, it can provide a helpful framework for situating the discussion of the structure of Ecclesiastes. Many good overviews of the history of the interpretation of Ecclesiastes exist. For example, see R. E. Murphy, “Qohelet Interpreted: The Bearing of the Past on the Present,” VT 32 (1982) 331–37; C. G. Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory (AnBib 139; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998) 31–206; E. S. Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), especially Christianson’s very helpful bibliography on reception histories of Ecclesiastes (pp. 275–81). 6.  In the case of the book of Ecclesiastes, historical-critical analysis of the book did not get underway significantly until the nineteenth century. See M. V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 18; Bartholomew, Reading, 42. 7.  A. G. Wright, “Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth,” CBQ 30 (1968) 314–20; Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxxii–xli; G. D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup 327; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 143–64. For a thoughtful overview, see G. Ogden, Qoheleth (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 11–13. 8.  Salyer, Vain, 145. In this group, Salyer includes Ginsberg, Fohrer, Ellermeier, and Galling. Ironically, a growing number of recent scholars have argued that even the aphorisms in the book of Proverbs show evidence of being carefully and deliberately arranged. See R. C. Van Leeuwen, Context and Meaning in Proverbs 25–27 (SBLDS 96; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); K. M. Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1–22:16 (BZAW 273; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001). An extreme and fanciful view in this

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

139

tes studies at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century proposed that the book is made up of various sources and redactional layers. The pioneer of this source-critical approach was Siegfried, who posited no less than nine hands involved in the arrangement of the book, 9 although subsequent source-oriented approaches have been more moderate. 10 The basic premise of these approaches is that Ecclesiastes is too disorderly to discern any kind of meaningful structure or progression of thought. The words of F. Delitzsch typify this view: “All attempts to show, in the whole, not only oneness of spirit, but also a genetic progress, an all-embracing plan, and an organic connection, have hitherto failed, and must fail.” 11 This view is no longer dominant, however, and in the second half of the twentieth century, most commentators accept the basic unity of the book, though many still regard the epilogue as secondary.

Order Is Based on Units Defined by Content, Vocabulary, Formulas, and So On Murphy observes that, even among individuals who accept the basic integrity of Ecclesiastes, no generally accepted outline has emerged, and in fact, to find widespread agreement on even the broadest units is rare. 12 Again, it is worth bearing in mind that the way commentators have conceived of the structure is bound up with their basic understanding of the book. The countless structural outlines generally fall into one of the following basic types. First, many see proof for the integrity of Ecclesiastes as being based on a logical or conceptual analysis and/or the progression of thought or themes throughout the book. 13 Lohfink is a good example of this type. regard was forwarded by Bickell, who theorized that an original, bounded version of Ecclesiastes, written on separate fascicles, came apart and was rearranged incorrectly. The resulting disarray prompted later insertions in order to make sense of the book. Thus, according to Bickell, the present book of Ecclesiastes is authentic but wrongly ordered, and the best we can do is rearrange the book so as to reflect the original form and structure; G. Bickell, Der Prediger über den Wert des Daseins: Wiederherstellung des bisher zerstückelten Texts, Übersetzung und Erklärung (Innsbruck: Wagner’sche Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1884) 1–45, cited in Ogden, Qoheleth, 11; C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 43. 9. C. Siegfried, Prediger und Hoheslied (HKAT 2/3.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898), cited in T. Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998) 11 n. 27. 10.  The best-known advocates of this approach are Laue, McNeile, Podechard, and Barton; see Bartholomew, Reading, 42–45. For a more extensive list, see A. G. Wright, “Riddle,” 314 n. 3. 11. F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (trans. M. G. Easton; Clark’s Foreign Theological Library 4.53; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1885) 188. 12.  Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxxv. 13. For a comprehensive survey of proposed outlines of this sort, see A. G. Wright, “Riddle,” 315–17. Ellermeier and Murphy have updated Wright’s list: F. Ellermeier, Qohelet, vol. 1/1: Untersuchungen zum Buche Qohelet (Herzberg: Jungfer, 1967) 129–41; Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxxv–xxxix.

140

David J. H. Beldman

For Lohfink, the structure of Ecclesiastes deliberately appeals to both Greek philosophical thinking and Semitic sensibilities. Thus, on the one hand Ecclesiastes adheres to the form of a philosophical diatribe, commonly employed by the Greek Cynics: 14 1:2–11 Opening (theses, questions, underlying cosmology) 1:12–3:15 Narrative introduction to the primarily anthropological central thesis 3:16–6:10 Deepening through many glimpses of social experience 6:11–9:6 Refutatio of contrary positions, especially of older wisdom 9:7–12:8 Applicatio through concrete proposals about human behavior

On the other hand, “there is also retained the art of chiastically structured previews, and especially the principle of symmetric ordering of the textual materials, inherited from Semitic rhetorical practice and its care for balance.” 15 This, according to Lohfink, bears itself out in the following outline: 1:2–3 Frame 1:4–11 Cosmology (poem) 1:12–3:15 Anthropology 3:16–4:16 Social critique I 4:17–5:6 Religious critique 5:7–6:10 Social critique II 6:11–9:6 Deconstruction 9:7–12:8 Ethic (concludes with poem) 12:8 Frame

Lohfink, therefore, regards “an almost playfully worked out interweaving of diatribe and palistrophe. It reveals a supreme art in the use of literary form, and also a settled refusal, amid total openness to Greek, to give up one’s own heritage.” 16 Thus, the structure that Lohfink discerns is logical and is a result of careful crafting. Second, several scholars have attempted to discern the structure of Ecclesiastes by taking clues from repeated phrases and vocabulary. 17 Proponents of this 14.  Compare with L. Schwienhorst-Schöberger, who also conceives of the structure according to Greek catagories, in “Kohelet: Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung,” in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie (ed. L.  Schwienhorst-Schöberger; BZAW 254; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997) 20–24, cited in Krüger, Qoheleth, 8. 15. N. Lohfink, Qoheleth (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 8. 16. Ibid. 17.  For example, G. Castellino, “Qohelet and His Wisdom,” CBQ 30 (1968) 15–28; A. G. Wright, “Riddle,” 313–34; idem, “The Riddle of the Sphinx Revisited: Numerical Patterns in the Book of Qoheleth,” CBQ 42 (1980) 38–51; idem, “Additional Numerical Patterns in Qoheleth,” CBQ 45 (1983) 32–43; S. G. Brown, “The Structure of Ecclesiastes,” Evangelical Review of Theology 14/3 (1990) 195–208; F. Rousseau, “Structure de Qohelet 1:4–11 et Plan du Livre,” VT 31

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

141

approach lament the subjectivity of most structural outlines of Ecclesiastes and urge for more objective criteria for establishing the structure of the book. 18 A. G. Wright’s New Critical method in “The Riddle of the Sphinx” is a preeminent example of this approach. 19 Apart from the introductory material (1:1–11), the concluding poem (11:7–12:8) and the epilogue (12:9–14), Wright perceives two major sections that are based upon patterns of repetition: 1. Qohelet’s Investigations of Life (1:12–6:9) 2. Qohelet’s Conclusions (6:10–11:6) Each of these broad sections is made up of smaller units that are marked by the use of repeated phrases. In the first major section, the phrase “‫ ֶהבֶל‬and a striving after wind” delineates the end of a unit. The second major section contains two subsections, the first of which (7:1–8:17) is marked out by the repetition of “not find out/ who can find out” and the second (9:1–11:6) by “do not know/no knowledge.” 20 Rousseau offers another proposal along similar lines. He considers the call to joy in 2:24–26; 3:12–13; 3:22; 5:17–19; 8:15; 9:7–10 to be pervasive and to play a significant role in Ecclesiastes. 21 Structurally, the joy refrain marks off the end of each section, thus delineating seven major sections (apart from the prologue and epilogue). 22 These sections are structured chiastically. According to Rousseau, the structure of Ecclesiastes is a complex web of interrelated units. Both Wright and Rousseau give due attention to the role that repeated phrases play in the book’s structure, though each outline is quite distinct from the other. (1981) 200–217; R. N. Whybray, “Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy,” JSOT 23 (1982) 87–98. For some, not only repetition but also the concentration and placement of repeated refrains and key words are significant. 18.  See A. G. Wright, “Riddle,” 318. Wright, for example, refers to his own approach as an “objective approach.” Fox’s evaluation demonstrates that Wright’s “objective approach” is not free of subjectivity; see Fox, Time, 148–49. 19. A. G. Wright, “Riddle,” 313–34. 20. For Wright’s complete outline, see ibid., 325–26. 21.  Rousseau, “Structure,” 212–13. 22.  He offers the following outline (ibid., 213): 1. Confession du roi Salomon (Confession of King Solomon, 1:12–2:26) 2. Le sage ignore le dessein de Dieu en général (The Wise Man Does Not Know God’s Plan in General, 3:1–13) 3. Le sage ignore ce qui arrivera après la mort (The Wise Man Does Not Know What Will Happen after Death, 3:14–22) 4. Déceptions diverses et exhortations (Various Disappointments and Exhortations, 4:1–5:19) 5. Déceptions diverses et exhortations (Various Disappointments and Exhortations, 6:1–8:15) 6. La faiblesse du sage (The Weakness of the Wise Man, 8:16–9:10) 7. Déceptions et exhortations (Disappointments and Exhortations, 9:11–11:10)

142

David J. H. Beldman

Finally, T. Walton has recently proposed a novel approach to the structure of Ecclesiastes. He regards the shift in OT studies away from questions of origin and sources toward synchronic analysis to be a positive development; however, he maintains that literary and rhetorical approaches tend to avoid consideration of the conventions of the linguistic system. In other words, these methods “emphasize a text’s artistic design at the expense of its linguistic structure.” 23 Thus, for Walton, Attributing rhetorical or discourse functions to features that were required by the language system is problematic and can mislead the exegete in his attempt to uncover the text’s structure and meaning. Before such decisions can be made we need to be fully acquainted with the grammatical, syntactic and lexical features of the text. Only once these have been identified and their effect on the text’s structure has been determined is one able to make decisions with confidence at the discourse level of the text. 24

Walton’s text-linguistic approach aims to discover a linguistic structure (and hierarchy) for Ecclesiastes, based on syntactic coordination/subordination and grammatical, text-syntactic, and lexical features. 25 His computer-assisted, textlinguistic approach yields the following major divisions: 1. 1:1–2:26 2. 3:1–7:24 3. 7:25–10:15 4. 10:16–12:7 5. 12:8–12:14 Potentially even more important, however, are the clause hierarchies that Walton perceives and that operate within these major sections/divisions. 26 The approaches to the structure of Ecclesiastes surveyed in this part of the essay agree that the book holds together and that the right method or approach will yield a logical, coherent structure. Moreover, the approaches that look to repeated phrases or vocabulary (A. G. Wright, Rousseau, et al.) or text-linguistic features (Walton) disdain the subjectivity of previous methods and perceive a greater degree of objectivity in their own proposals. 27 23.  T. L. Walton, Experimenting with Qohelet: A Text-Linguistic Approach to Reading Qohelet as Discourse (Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradities Supplement 5; Maastricht: Shaker, 2006) 6. 24. Ibid. 25.  Ibid., 11–12. Dialoguing with other approaches to Ecclesiastes is a second objective of Walton (p. 13). 26.  See ibid., ch. 5, which presents a detailed hierarchy of clauses, complete with detailed charts and diagrams. 27.  However, the claim of methodological objectivity is questionable. Crenshaw holds that A. G. Wright is too subjective in his choice of formulaic expressions and that he presses a legiti-

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

143

A good many recent commentators maintain that the search for the sort of structure that, for example, Lohfink and Wright discern is indeed destined to fail because it demands a structure that is simply foreign to the book. Fox’s primary criticism of Wright identifies precisely what is at stake in the discussions about the structure of Ecclesiastes: “[T]he proposed structure has no more effect on the interpretation than a ghost in the attic. A literary or rhetorical structure should not merely ‘be there’; it must do something. It should guide readers in recognizing and remembering the author’s train of thought, even if there is no unanimity on the precise disposition of the material.” 28 Seow expresses a similar sentiment regarding attempts to discern the structure of Ecclesiastes: “The difficulty in most cases . . . is that one must find the right labels to place on each literary unit and, if the labels are appropriately suggestive, then one may speak of a structure.” 29 The problem is that either the proposed structure is too broad and vague to do justice to the material, or it is so detailed that it is virtually useless heuristically. 30

The Structure of the Book Is Not Strictly Logical or Linear Increasingly, scholars affirm the integrity of Ecclesiastes but maintain that the search for a logical structure is futile because in most cases it demands patterns of thinking that are foreign to the book and its purposes. For example, Salyer holds that the tendency to read Ecclesiastes according to Western categories has “greatly hindered the book’s reception.” 31 Salyer groups Lauha, Loretz, Perry, Breton, Caneday, and Viviano among writers who have identified and criticized the anachronistic tendency to impose a Western, logical structure on the book. 32 Similarly, Ellul notes, “Rational, scientific order did not preoccupy traditional mate intuition too far; see Crenshaw, “Ecclesiastes, Book of,” ABD 2.273. The crux of Fox’s four criticisms of Wright’s approach is that Wright is too subjective in his analysis of the data and forces the data into his paradigm (see Fox, Time, 148–49). Similarly, S. D. Weeks’s chief criticism of Walton’s work is that at times it rests on certain assumptions regarding usage and sense that in the end become self-reinforcing; see S. D. Weeks, “Review of T. L. Walton, Experimenting with Qohelet: A Text-Linguistic Approach to Reading Qohelet as Discourse,” JSOT 31/5 (2007) 166. 28.  Fox, Time, 149. Compare with Krüger, who criticizes attempts by A. G. Wright, Lohfink, and Schwienhorst-Schöberger to discern a clear structure on the grounds that the way they characterize the units does not match the content and function of the units. For this reason, he maintains that “[t]he question of the overall structure of Qoheleth is of limited relevance for its interpretation. In any case, a relatively self-contained small unit is to be interpreted both for itself and in the larger context” (T. Krüger, Qoheleth: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004] 8). 29.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 43. 30.  Compare with Crenshaw, “Ecclesiastes,” 274. 31.  Salyer, Vain, 148. 32. O. Loretz, Qohelet und der alte Orient: Untersuchungen zu Stil und theologischer Thematik des Buches Qohelet (Freiburg: Herder, 1964) 209–12; S. Breton, “Qoheleth Studies,” BTB 3 (1973) 25; A. Lauha, Kohelet (BKAT 19; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978) 5–6; P. Viviano, “The Book of Ecclesiastes: A Literary Approach,” TBT 22 (1984) 80; A. B. Caneday, “Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” Grace Theological Journal 7 (1986) 33; T.  A.

144

David J. H. Beldman

thinkers and prophets. . . . Qohelet follows no logical, coherent plan, nor does he treat a different question in each part.” 33 It is debatable whether the problem is that the proposed structures are Western or rational per se; however, Salyer, Ellul, and others are certainly justified in raising doubts about the foreignness of the imposed categories in the case of Ecclesiastes. Fox does not deny the coherence of the book but compares the composition to Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. Wittgenstein’s influential book moves from one subject to the next, treats some subjects in more detail than others, and takes sudden detours for no apparent reason. Qohelet’s investigation, according to Fox, lacks surface structure not because of the author’s incapability but because of the nature of Qohelet’s journey. Bartholomew associates the structure of the book with Qohelet’s psychological experience: The journey into and through despair is anything but linear, and as is typical in such experiences, moments of great insight are often followed by lapses back into the old struggles so that the journey is far more of a spiral than a straight line. . . . Thus the structure of Ecclesiastes is literary and organic, as befits Qohelet’s experience, rather than logical in a scientific sense. 34

Fox and Bartholomew, like Salyer and others, see logical, linear structures as foreign to the book; however, they account for the lack of clear structure by appealing to the nature and purpose of the book (and especially Qohelet’s quest). These understandings of the structure of Ecclesiastes, in my opinion, better account for the nature of the literature and the way that readers experience it.

Navigating Ecclesiastes Making sense of the structure of Ecclesiastes is intricately interconnected with one’s interpretation of the book. The following guidelines are foundational, in my opinion, for navigating the book of Ecclesiastes and its structure.

Discerning the Structure of Ecclesiastes Begins by Taking the Frame Narrative Seriously Fox has done groundbreaking work by discerning the various voices in the book and providing examples of first-person narrative framed within a thirdperson retrospective narrative from ancient (particularly Egyptian), biblical, and Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes—Translation and Commentary (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993) 43. 33. J. Ellul, The Reason for Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990) 34. 34. C. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009) 83.

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

145

modern literature. 35 Fox’s work reinvigorates the hermeneutical importance of the frame narrative for the interpretation of Ecclesiastes. This is not to say that understanding the frame narrative and its relationship to the first-person narrative is straightforward. Indeed, the major commentators who have appropriated Fox’s insights regarding the frame narrative disagree fundamentally on some of the basic issues. 36 Nevertheless, consideration of the book’s structure must take seriously the vital importance of the frame. Further, identifying the frame narrative alerts one to the fact that the major challenge regarding the structure of Ecclesiastes has to do with the first-person narrative section of the book (1:12–12:7). 37 Granted, the first-person narrative is the bulk of the book, but the identification of the frame narrative indicates that the focal point of the problem of structure is largely limited to the section that Qohelet narrates. 38 This alerts us to the fact that the problem of structure is not merely “Why is it so difficult to discover order in the book?” but, perhaps more fundamentally, “Why is it so difficult to discover order in Qohelet’s discourse?”

Discerning the Structure of Ecclesiastes Requires Contending with the Contradictions One of the most difficult aspects of Ecclesiastes is the presence of many contradictory statements and sentiments. For example, is it better to be alive (9:4) or dead (4:2, 3; 6:3)? Is wisdom something to be valued and sought after (2:13; 6:11, 12) or not (2:15–16)? Is righteousness better than wickedness (6:16–17)? Moreover, scholars have noted the tension between the repeated hebel conclusions and the expressions of joy. 39 The history of the interpretation of Ecclesiastes reveals that generally interpreters have dealt with this tension by giving priority to the expressions of joy while suppressing the hebel conclusions, or vice versa. Commentators have gone about this in various ways. 40 The classical method was to 35.  M. V. Fox, “Frame Narrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet,” HUCA 48 (1977) 83–106. 36.  Longman, Ecclesiastes; E. S. Christianson, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup 280; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); M. A. Shields, The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006); Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes. 37.  I explain on p.  151 below why I think the poem of 1:4–11 belongs to the opening frame. 38. See Longman’s important work comparing Ecclesiastes to Akkadian fictional autobiographies; T. Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991). 39.  Some call the latter the carpe diem passages (for example, Longman, Ecclesiastes; Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes; W. P. Brown, Ecclesiastes [Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 2000]), though I hesitate to adopt this moniker because it can evoke a kind of hedonism that is not necessarily implied. See Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 80 n. 335. 40.  Fox, Time, 14–26.

146

David J. H. Beldman

harmonize the discord, and this often meant explaining away anything that did not comport with a commentator’s preconceived understanding of the book. In the heyday of source criticism, it was customary to deal with the contradictions by identifying multiple authors. 41 Typically, this involved identifying material that the troubled editors/glossators had added to bring the original (unconventional) ideas of Qohelet into conformity with traditional orthodoxy. Yet another way that scholars dealt with the contradictions was by identifying quotations or dialogue within Qohelet’s discourse. 42 Of course, none of these techniques is completely without foundation, and any reading of Ecclesiastes draws on them appropriately (for example, at certain points Qohelet clearly refers to traditional wisdom sayings, sometimes for the purpose of challenging them). However, these approaches tend to be subjective and, in the end, dampen the contrast between dimensions of Qohelet’s thought. The result is that commentators are polarized regarding the interpretation of the book. 43 Commentators differ about whether Ecclesiastes is the quintessence of piety or the quintessence of skepticism, as having a message of joy or a message of despair, as being optimistic or pessimistic, as univocal or multivocal, as utopian or cynical, and the list of polarities goes on. 44 The approach to the structure of Ecclesiastes adopted here is to resist the tendency to excise or marginalize one sort of passage over the other. Again, the problem of contradictions does not primarily pertain to contradictions in Ecclesiastes (the book) but in Qohelet (a character in the book of Ecclesiastes). 45 Is it possible to make sense of Qohelet’s contradictions?

Discerning the Structure of Ecclesiastes Requires Taking Seriously the Psychological Dimension of Qohelet’s Struggle The psychological dimension of Qohelet’s struggle is related to the presence of contradictions and thus, to the structure of the book. 46 Of course, psycholog41.  Exemplars of this approach are A. H. McNeile, An Introduction to Ecclesiastes with Notes and Appendices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904); G. A. Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (ICC; New York: Scribner, 1908); E. Podechard, L’Ecclésiaste (Paris: Gabalda, 1912); and especially Siegfried, Prediger. 42.  For example Levy, Gordis, Whybray, and Michel; for details, see Fox, Time, 20. This also appears to be a method used throughout the history of interpretation; see K. J. Dell, “Ecclesiastes as Wisdom: Consulting Early Interpreters,” VT 44 (1994) 301–29. 43.  Ingram has collated a list that poignantly demonstrates the polarity. See D.  Ingram, Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 431; London: T. & T. Clark, 2006) 44–49. 44. Ibid. 45.  Admittedly, some tension emerges out of the frame narrator’s evaluation and summation of Qohelet in Eccl 12:9–14. 46.  Fox rejects an approach that understands the contradictions in terms of a fragmented psyche, though his refutation of this approach is much less substantial than his handling of other approaches; M. V. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOTSup 71; Sheffield: Almond, 1989)

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

147

ical readings have the potential to be quite speculative and subjective, and Zimmermann’s psychoanalytic reading is an extreme example. 47 In this regard, the struggles of Qohelet and Job bear comparison. Job’s reflections emerge out of a context of intense personal suffering. Job’s initial response to his calamity is one of praise and trust (1:21; 2:10), and though he eventually returns to this place of trust, he takes a long, circuitous detour through uncertainty and despair. To expect Job to be completely consistent in response to the intense existential suffering he experiences would be ridiculous. Unlike Job, Qohelet’s struggle is intellectual, and yet one has the sense that Qohelet experiences something akin to the turmoil that Job suffers as he tries to make sense of what he knows about God, humanity, and the world and what he experiences in reality. Indeed, some of Qohelet’s expressions of despair seem to echo Job’s statements (Eccl 4:3, 5:15, 6:3). Just as we do not expect Job to be completely consistent in the context of intense existential suffering, so we should not expect Qohelet to be entirely consistent in the context of his intellectual turmoil. Furthermore, commentators have recently acknowledged the pervasiveness of Qohelet’s self or “ego” on the pages of the book. 48 For example, Fox notes, “The book’s cohesiveness inheres above all in the constant presence of a single brooding consciousness which provides a framework of perception. Everything seen and taught in the body of the book is filtered through this one consciousness.” 49 Indeed, in no other OT book is the sense of first-person narrative so overwhelming. In my opinion, Fox is right about the pervading presence of a single consciousness, but I would immediately qualify this by suggesting that the single consciousness is fractured. Qohelet’s quest for meaning takes place at the intersection of Hebraic and Greek thinking/teaching. 50 His traditional Israelite world view pulls him in the direction of affirming the sovereignty of God over time and creation and accepting life, labor, and created reality as a divine gift. On the other hand, 26. He associates this approach with Galling, but for a more recent articulation of this approach see Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 82–83 and, especially, pp. 377–82. 47. F. Zimmermann, The Inner World of Qohelet (New York: Ktav, 1973). Compare with P.  Marcus, “The Wisdom of Ecclesiastes and Its Meaning for Psychoanalysis,” Psychoanalytic Review 87 (2000) 227–50; Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 377–82; P. B. Helsel, “Enjoyment and Its Discontents: Ecclesiastes in Dialogue with Freud on the Stewardship of Joy,” Journal of Religion and Health 49 (2010) 105–16. 48. See Christianson, Time, 173–215; H. Fisch, Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988) 158–78; M. E. Mills, Reading Ecclesiastes: A Literary and Cultural Exegesis (Burlington: Ashgate, 2003) 77–104; Salyer, Vain; Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 377–82. 49.  Fox, Qohelet, 159. 50.  I do not argue for a particular date for the composition of Ecclesiastes but will take my stand with the growing consensus that Ecclesiastes is a rather late composition. I do not try, as some scholars have tried, to place Qohelet within a certain Greek philosophical school (e.g., Stoic, Skeptic, or Epicurean), but the evidence seems to suggest that Qohelet had encountered some Greek teaching.

148

David J. H. Beldman

his encounter with Greek thinking and especially his autonomous epistemology, which is based on observation and experience, drive Qohelet again and again to the hebel conclusion. 51 Thus, psychologically Qohelet’s commitment to what he knows to be true from his Israelite instruction and what he experiences based on his Greek-influenced epistemology create an “unbearable tension” in his psyche. 52 Hermeneutically, this tension, which is not fully disclosed but only hinted at along the way, opens up gaps in the reading of Ecclesiastes. 53 Gaps in literature engage readers in the dynamic reading process and demand to be filled, and in the case of Ecclesiastes we are not without clues as to how to negotiate the gaps. Suffice it to note here that the contradictions that make discovering the structure of Ecclesiastes so difficult are bound up with the division within Qohelet himself. As Bartholomew notes, It is the nature of Qohelet’s journey that . . . he moves from subject to subject and that he often doubles back on himself, picking up earlier themes. This fits the excruciating nature of his experience as he seeks to put the pieces of his world together, a world that has disintegrated in his hands. 54

Related to this connection between Qohelet’s psyche and the structure of his discourse is a gradual shift from the predominating first-person narration to a dense second-person narration. Christianson has collated and graphed the occurrences of first- and second-person narration in Qohelet’s discourse, and the fact that the narrating “I” dominates the beginning of the book and then gives way to the second person is apparent. 55 This seems to cohere with Bartholomew’s Kierke­ gaardian/Jungian psychological reading of Qohelet. 56

Discerning the Structure of Ecclesiastes Requires Attending to the Overall Narrative Quality of Qohelet’s Account of Himself Attention to the psychological dimension of Qohelet alerts one to another vital aspect of the structure of Ecclesiastes—namely, the concept of Qohelet’s quest 51.  I am indebted to Bartholomew for this reading of Qohelet (see especially Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 93–95). 52.  This term comes from M. W. Goheen and C. G. Bartholomew (Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008] 134), who leverage L. Newbigin. 53.  Bartholomew, leveraging the work of Sternberg, was the first to develop seriously the idea of gaps that emerge as a result of the contradictory juxtaposition of the hebel conclusions and the expressions of joy (Bartholomew, Reading, 238–54). However, independently of Bartholomew and based more on the work of Iser, Salyer speaks of “blanks” or “gaps” in Ecclesiastes that function along the same lines as Bartholomew’s gaps (Salyer, Vain, 146–47). 54.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 82–83. 55.  Christianson, Time, 224. The shift to second-person narration, according to Christianson, is indicated by pronominal suffixes, imperative verb forms, and indirect speech. 56.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 377–82.

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

149

or journey. While the nature of Qohelet’s struggle precludes a straightforward, logical structure to his discourse, this is not to say that there is no movement forward from beginning to end. Fox’s work on the frame narrative of Ecclesiastes takes seriously the narrative quality of the book, and this has initiated a trend in the study of Ecclesiastes toward regarding the language of Qohelet as typical of a “quest” or “journey.” 57 In A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes, Christianson deliberately approaches Ecclesiastes as narrative and maintains, “Qoheleth is embarked on a quest. His is the act of seeking or pursuing a goal, an object of intrinsic but immaterial value. That act touches every corner of Qoheleth’s narrative, and its intensity causes readers to recognize in Qoheleth a sincere commitment.” 58 To say that Qohelet’s journey involves “movement” is to use physical and/ or spatial language, and someone may object that in fact Qohelet’s quest is abstract and intellectual, not literal. However, Christianson identifies the prevalence of verbs that relate (though perhaps figuratively at times) to physical movement throughout Qohelet’s narrative and contribute to the sense of journey. 59 Furthermore, through the twists and turns and doubling back, one can discern an overall progression from the introduction of Qohelet’s quest (1:12–18) and the moment he embarks on it (2:1) toward reorientation in 11:7–12:7. Again, this is not to say that by the end of his quest Qohelet has found a satisfactory answer to all of the enigmas of life; many of the paradoxes of reality remain. However, “Remembering your Creator” is not a simple calling to mind (as is, for example, remembering where I placed the car keys). Rather, it amounts to a significant reorientation so that the proper starting point for understanding the enigmas of life becomes the knowledge and fear of God, not Qohelet’s own intellectual or epistemological ability. 60

Summary Discerning the ebb and flow of Ecclesiastes is no easy task but, at the very least, one should account for (1) the frame narrative, (2) the contradictions in Qohelet’s reflections, (3) the psychological dimension, and (4) the narrative shape of Qohelet’s quest. In the following section, I sketch out what I see as the most important structural elements of the book. By this point, the question has no doubt surfaced in the reader’s mind: What approach to the structure of Ecclesiastes is adequate to account for the complexity of the material? Evidently, the many and 57.  Fox, “Frame,” 83–106. For example, Longman, Ecclesiastes; Christianson, Time; Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes. 58.  Christianson, Time, 216. 59.  For example, ‫“( הלך‬go, walk”), ‫“( בוא‬come in, arrive”), ‫“( רעות‬pursue, chase”), ‫“( שוב‬return”), ‫סביב‬/‫“( סבב‬encompass, surround”), ‫“( יצא‬go out, flee”), ‫“( תור‬explore, reconnoiter”), etc. (ibid., 221–27). On the importance of the opening poem on the circular nature of reality, see M. Carasik, “Qohelet’s Twists and Turns,” JSOT 28 (2003) 192–209. Interestingly, Pete Seeger titled his popular song based on Eccl 3:1–8: Turn! Turn! Turn! 60.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 353–58.

150

David J. H. Beldman

varied attempts to provide a structural outline suggest that to take another route of this sort will most likely lead to a dead end. Instead, in the structural analysis that follows, I take seriously what Aristotle identified in his Poetics as the most basic building blocks of narrative: the beginning, the middle, and the end. 61 Because Ecclesiastes consists of a first-person narrative embedded within a third-person frame, one needs to consider not only the beginning, middle, and end of the book (i.e., the frame) but also the beginning, middle, and end of Qohelet’s narrative.

Structure of Ecclesiastes The Frame A frame narrative “is a text in which an external narrator narrates an inner story at its beginning and end, thereby framing (highlighting, privileging, delimiting, etc.) the story that it narrates.” 62 As I mentioned above, Fox’s work on the frame narrative is most significant for the study of Ecclesiastes in general and the structure of Ecclesiastes in particular, and many subsequent commentators have built on his groundbreaking work. The identification of the frame narrative came about by taking seriously the third-person narration, which is most clearly discernible in the epilogue (12:9–14) but is evident at other points in the book as well (for example, the phrase “says Qohelet” 63 in Eccl 1:2, 7:27, and 12:8 exposes the voice of a third-person narrator). In other words, the majority of the book is made up of words spoken by Qohelet in the first person, and other parts of the book (most clearly the epilogue) consist of words spoken about Qohelet in the third person. For reasons that will become evident, the framework of Ecclesiastes comprises three parts: (1) the opening frame (1:1–11); (2) the center of the frame (7:27); and (3) the closing frame (12:8–14).

The Opening Frame (Eccl 1:1–11) Ecclesiastes 1:1–11 constitutes the opening frame and consists of the superscription or title (1:1), the motto (1:2), the guiding or programmatic question (1:3), and a poem about the circularity of reality (1:3–11). In the first three verses, the narrator provides the essential information required at this point in the book (Qohelet will provide a more complete introduction of himself and his quest in 61.  Aristotle (Poetics 7) identified these in a discussion of the plot structure of tragedy. J. S. Wright also works with refrains but emphasizes the importance of the beginning and end in Ecclesiastes: “If you pick up a book and want to find the author’s viewpoint, where do you turn? The preface is usually helpful—sometimes it saves you reading the book! The conclusion also in a well-written book generally sums up the point that the author has been trying to put over” (J. S. Wright, “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” EvQ 18 [1946] 22). 62.  Christianson, Time, 57. 63.  There are slight variations in the Hebrew in each case, but the fact that this is the voice of the narrator remains.

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

151

1:12–18). The poem in 1:3–11 is, in my opinion, part of the opening frame, is spoken by the narrator, and is significant for a number of reasons. 64 First, it seems to anticipate, before Qohelet himself begins to narrate, the sorts of twists and turns that readers can expect to encounter as they follow Qohelet in his quest. Second, it highlights the cyclical view of reality that Qohelet perceives and that causes him so much frustration. Third, the poem conforms to a chiastic structure, centering on human observation of the repetitiveness of reality and history, but, in anticipation of Qohelet’s own eventual insight, the poem suggests that observation alone cannot satisfy. 65 This is most significant because it focuses the issue, already here in the framework, on (the limits of) human perception and epistemology. 66

The Center of the Frame (Eccl 7:27) Again, the identification of the frame in Ecclesiastes came as a result of scholars’ taking seriously the third-person references to Qohelet. However, apart from noting the presence of the third-person voice in Eccl 7:27 and using it as proof for the existence of the frame narrator, very few commentators have considered the significance of the emergence of the narrator’s voice in 7:27. 67 If Ecclesiastes is 64.  I am aware that not all agree that the poem is part of the prologue, and indeed there is an advantage to seeing 1:1–2 and 12:8–14 as the frame, since the refrain in 1:2 and 12:8 creates a tidy inclusio, circumscribing the words of Qohelet. I do not think much is at stake one way or the other. Nevertheless, I am inclined to see the poem of 1:4–11 as part of the frame narrator’s introduction, because it does give the impression of prefacing, especially given the fact that Qohelet does not introduce himself until 1:12. Longman’s comparison of Ecclesiastes with Akkadian fictional autobiography reveals significant similarities. Based on this study, Longman maintains that 1:1–11 constitues the prologue, which precedes the autobiographical 1st-person speech (1:12–12:7) and the epilogue (12:8–14; Longman, Fictional Akkadian, 120–23). On Eccl 1:1–11 as constituting the prologue/frame narrative, see idem, Ecclesiastes, 58–59; M. V. Fox, Ecclesiastes (JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004) 7; Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 109–12. 65. See Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 110–12: A.  generations come and go, but the earth remains fixed (v. 4)   B.  the repetitive circularity of nature (vv. 5–6)    C.  as the sea is never full, so neither the eye nor ear are ever satisfied, so      that everything is wearisome (vv. 7–8)   B′.  there is nothing new under the sun A′.  there is no remembrance of people (v. 11) For Bartholomew, “[T]he poem evokes the horns of the dilemma on which Qohelet will find himself painfully perched; he problematizes the instruction of wisdom but cannot find resolution through observation” (p. 112). 66.  Of course, this is somewhat circular because it assumes that a key element of Qohelet’s journey is the problem of human perception and epistemology, but the fact that perception is at the center of the poem suggests that it is a key issue of the poem. 67.  For example, according to Fox and Longman, the importance of this third-person reference is apparently that it proves beyond a doubt the existence of a third-person narrator. See Fox, “Frame,” 83–91; idem, Qohelet, 311–12; idem, Time, 365; Longman, Ecclesiastes, 7–8, 205. However, compare with Seow (Ecclesiastes, 272–73), who writes regarding the third-person

152

David J. H. Beldman

deliberately crafted literature. and if the voice of the frame narrator is significant, why does the narrator pick this particular moment to interject? What is the significance of this “momentary intrusion”? 68 Christianson is most helpful regarding the third-person reference in 7:27. He observes that 7:27 is part of the frame and suggests that, structurally, 7:27 is akin to a partition in the center of a window frame. He notes, as have others, that the intrusion of the narrative occurs in the context of a particularly noteworthy passage (7:23–29). The significance of Eccl 7:23–29 will receive attention below (pp.  137–137); suffice it to say that Christianson is right that “The frame narrator’s insertion here supplements the overall strategy of ‘setting aside,’ marking its importance for Qoheleth’s narrative.” 69 The voice of the narrator at this point, taken together with other textual clues, indicates that this particular point in Qohelet’s quest is of utmost importance; it is the centre or middle point of the book.

The Closing Frame (Eccl 12:8–14) 70 The closing frame consists of the following: 1. A restatement of the motto (12:8) 2. A commendation of Qohelet as a sage (12:9–10) 3. A warning about wisdom teaching in general, including Qohelet’s wisdom (12:11–12) 71 4. A final summary of the book (12:13–14) The refrain in 12:8 and the similar phrase in 1:2 make up a literary inclusio, contributing to a sort of inner border of the frame. 72 The epilogue begins in 12:9 and references, “Neither in 1:2 nor 12:8 can the words attributed to Qohelet be taken lightly, for they are clearly central for the book. We must not, therefore, regard the viewpoint expressed in this passage as incidental. . . . On the contrary, it may be that the editor is deliberately invoking the authority of the author, calling attention to this passage as the main point of his message.” So also Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 265: “Verse 27 is unusual in that it is the only place apart from 1:1–2 and 12:8–14 in which we hear the voice of the narrator in the words ‘says Qohelet.’ This reminds us that the words of Qohelet are cast in a third-person framework, and also that this is a highly significant point of reflection in Qohelet’s journey.” For A. D. Spears, the interjection of the narrator in 7:27 mark this moment as “profoundly and incomparably important” (Spears, The Theological Hermeneutics of Homiletical Application and Ecclesiastes 7:23–29 [Ph.D. diss., University of Liverpool, 2006] 174). Lohfink notes that the third-person voice appears here in one of the book’s more difficult passages (Lohfink, Qoheleth, 3). Compare with Salyer, Vain, 344–46. 68.  Christianson, Time, 93–95. 69.  Ibid., 95. See also Spears, Theological Hermeneutics, 173–74. 70.  For a detailed treatment of the epilogue, see M. Boda’s essay in this volume. 71.  Ogden observes that vv. 9 and 12 both begin with ‫“( ויתר‬additionally”) and regards this as a structural feature dividing the epilogue into (1) Qohelet and his contribution and (2) advice regarding how to aspire to wisdom (Ogden, Qoheleth, 208). 72.  The conception of an inner border comes from Christianson, Time, 92–95. The use of an inclusio is of course a significant structural technique, but the precise function of this inclusio

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

153

is the frame narrator’s final summation and evaluation of Qohelet. Structurally, the closing frame (or epilogue) plays a significant role in the overall interpretation of the book. However, in the last 150 years, prejudices in modern biblical scholarship have prevented scholars from taking this voice seriously. 73 More recently, the rise of canonical and literary approaches have resurrected the epilogue from a place at the margins to a place of prominence. 74 However, taking seriously the epilogue and its hermeneutical function as part of the frame raises several complex issues. Indeed, comparing the opinions of Fox, Longman, Christianson, and Bartholomew, all of whom take seriously the reality and function of the frame narrative composition, indicates what is at stake. First, does the epilogue affirm or oppose Qohelet, and if the former what exactly does it affirm? A plain reading suggests that the epilogue commends Qohelet; Fox’s and Longman’s readings to the contrary require creative translation and interpretive work. Christianson agrees that Qohelet and the frame narrator disagree at the level of ideology. 75 The frame narrator grudgingly presents the radical views of Qohelet (who operates in the same wisdom tradition), but he himself prefers a more moderate approach to wisdom. Bartholomew, however, sees the epilogue as affirming not only the telos (“Remember your creator”) but also the process of Qohelet’s quest for meaning, without affirming every detail along the way. Second, which voice in the book is authoritative? Fox and Christianson argue that neither voice is authoritative and that it is up to the reader to decide. 76 Ironically, there is a similarity here with historical-critical readings. Both see polyphonic voices in the book, although, whereas historical criticism silences one voice (that is, marginalizing the epilogue), Fox and Christianson embrace the diversity. 77 The is difficult to discern. A number of complex issues emerge: Does 12:8 end Qohelet’s speech, or is it part of the frame? What does hebel mean here and in the context of the book? Does the hebel expression in 12:8 represent Qohelet’s final conclusion? Why is the expression in 12:8 a shorter form than the expression in 1:2? I am convinced by scholars who see hebel as not necessarily a negative expression (e.g., meaningless, absurd, vanity, etc.) but as more open (enigma, mystery, etc.). Further, the interjection of the frame narrator’s voice in the middle of the refrain suggests that it is part of the frame. Fox’s paraphrase of ‫( אמר‬namely, Qohelet “used to say”) in this verse is most intriguing because it gives a sense of Qohelet’s journey (Fox, M. V., Qohelet, 347; see also Lohfink, Qoheleth, 34). 73. See Fox, “Frame,” 83–84; Bartholomew, Reading, 96. 74.  For canonical readings of the epilogue, see B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM, 1979) 584–86; G. H. Wilson, “‘The Words of the Wise’: The Intent and Significance of Qohelet 12:9–14,” JBL 103 (1984) 175–92; G. T. Sheppard, “The Epilogue to Qoheleth as Theological Commentary,” CBQ 139 (1977) 182–89; Shields, End of Wisdom. 75.  In fact, Christianson thinks that the frame narrator repeatedly misrepresents Qohelet, so careful readers should mistrust the frame narrator (Christianson, Time, 105). 76. However, Christianson prefers Qohelet because he feels that the frame narrator mis­ understands and misrepresents Qohelet on almost every point and that there are good reasons for readers to be suspicious of the frame narrator. 77.  Given that Fox and Christianson focus particularly on the literary dimension of Ecclesiastes, their opinion on this question is peculiar. The issue of authoritative voice is complex, but

154

David J. H. Beldman

position of Longman and Bartholomew that the judgment of the frame narrator is authoritative is much more plausible. Commentators who see the frame narrator as commending Qohelet without flattening Qohelet’s message to one of consistent orthodoxy seem to do justice to the thrust of the text. 78 For Ogden, the epilogist unequivocally praises Qohelet as a sage and indicates that the process of wisdom does not avoid the complexities of real life but is often the product of the painful crucible of life. 79 Similarly, Bartholomew identifies an affinity between the frame narrator’s affirmation of Qohelet at the end of Ecclesiastes with God’s affirmation of Job in Job 42:7. To summarize, the basic framework, as indicated by the voice of the narrator, consists of the following: Opening Frame (1:1–11) Superscription (1:1) Motto (1:2) Guiding Question (1:3) Poem on the Circularity of Reality (1:4–11) Momentary Intrusion (7:27 in the context of 7:23–29) Closing Frame (12:8–14) Restatement of Motto (12:8)   Commendation of Qohelet (12:9–10)   Warning about Wisdom (12:11–12)   A Final Summary (12:13–14)

Qohelet’s Journey The frame provides the clearest and most elemental units of the book, but it also reveals the most basic steps in Qohelet’s winding journey. Qohelet’s journey, immediately following the opening frame (1:1–11), begins with Qohelet’s description of his quest and methodology (1:12–18). The intrusion of the narrator in 7:27, among other things, marks the middle point of the journey, in which Qohelet reflects honestly on his quest and method until this point (7:23–29). Finally, the scholars working on the poetics of biblical narrative seem generally to agree that the narrator is reliable. Furthermore, in literature, frames generally function to interpret the material within the frame. Finally, I wager that it would be difficult to find literature from the ancient Near East in which two (or more) opposing viewpoints are combined with the intention that the implied reader ought to choose one over the other. Of course, contradictory juxtaposition is a characteristic of biblical narrative, but the intention is to cause the reader to grapple with the juxtaposition and work out a way to fill the gap, as opposed to discarding one statement or viewpoint in favor of the other (e.g., Prov 26:4, 5). 78.  See especially Ogden, Qoheleth, 207–14. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 359–73. 79.  Ogden, Qoheleth, 210.

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

155

poem on rejoicing and remembering (11:7–12:7) that immediately precedes the epilogue constitutes the final step of Qohelet’s journey.

Qohelet’s Description of His Quest and Methodology (Eccl 1:12–18) In Eccl 1:12–18, Qohelet becomes the dominant figure on the stage and provides his audience with all the essential introductory details. This passage presents the speaker (Qohelet), his station (king over Israel), his traits (wealthy, wise, powerful), the nature of his quest (to explore everything that is done under the sun), his method of exploration (“wisdom,” in this context used ironically and meaning an autonomous epistemology), and a preview of his conclusion (all is hebel and striving after wind). 80 These verses contain so much of significance, but perhaps most vital of all is the rift between what Qohelet identifies as his method (“to seek and explore by wisdom”) and the actual method he does employ. A growing consensus among scholars is that there was some Greek influence on Qohelet’s epistemology. Although Fox’s view that Qohelet’s epistemology is empirical has rightly received criticism as being too restrictive, he correctly identifies that it is autonomous and based on human observation and experience. 81 Moreover, this sort of autonomous epistemology is foreign to the ancient Near East and especially to the epistemology of biblical wisdom (for example, Proverbs), which takes as its starting point the fear of the Lord. 82 Thus, it is vital to recognize the irony: although Qohelet insists here and elsewhere that his search for meaning is guided by wisdom, in reality he employs a method that begins with himself and is based on his experience and his observation. As long as Qohelet’s own experience remains the standard of meaning, he seems destined to despair because all around him is paradox and mystery (hence, the hebel conclusions). Immediately following this section in which Qohelet indicates his quest and method, he embarks on his journey, testing the advantage and worth of various activities. In spite of the fact that he finds various aspects of human life to be hebel, he periodically professes the inherent goodness of labor, eating and drinking, and wealth and possessions (2:24–26; 3:12–15; 3:22; 5:18–20). Each of these expressions of joy, with the exception of the last, appears to come at the end of a section 80.  Fox, Ecclesiastes, 7. 81. Idem, Qohelet, 85–89. For a critique of Fox’s view, see J. L. Crenshaw, “Qoheleth’s Understanding of Intellectual Inquiry,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (ed. A. Schoors; BETL; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998) 212–13. See also Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 58. 82.  This also is debated, of course. In the last two hundred years it has been customary in OT Studies to view OT wisdom as early and “secular” and not integrated into the sphere of Israelite religion until late. Suffice it to say that this way of reading is based on particular assumptions regarding the development of religion in Israel that are not as widely accepted as they once were. Fox has done groundbreaking work in arguing that, although human experience does come into play in wisdom, it is not “a fundamental methodological principle” (Fox, Qohelet, 90). Idem, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” HUCA 58 (1987) 137–55. See also Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 84–93.

156

David J. H. Beldman

and/or at a point where Qohelet has found himself at a frustrating dead end. The call to joy in 5:18–20 seems unique in this regard, especially in the context leading up to the midpoint of the book (7:23–29). Prior to 5:18–20, Qohelet observes that (1) wealth and possessions cannot satisfy those who are consumed by them (5:8–12), and (2) wealth and possessions are fleeting (5:13–17). Then, following the statement about enjoying food, drink, labor, wealth, and possession in 5:18– 20, Qohelet observes that sometimes God gives possessions but not the ability to enjoy them (6:1–7). This causes Qohelet to despair of ever finding what is good for humanity (6:8–12). Because he is convinced that he is unable to discover what is good, he resorts to discerning degrees of goodness, and a series of “better-than” sayings follows. This comes to a shocking climax when he advocates an extreme form of moderation: “Do not be very righteous, nor be excessively wise; why destroy yourself? Do not be very wicked, and do not be a fool; why die before your time?” (7:16–17). This statement is scandalous and borders on blasphemy. 83 Perhaps the sober reality of the end to which his ruminations have brought him causes Qohelet to reevaluate his journey and methodology in 7:23–29. Until this point, Qohelet has emerged from the twists and turns of his journey to affirm joy. When we reach the expression of joy in 5:18–20, we might assume that it follows the pattern already set. However, his further reflection on wealth and possession leaves him (and his audience) so completely disoriented that he cannot even advocate righteousness and wisdom unequivocally! All of this leads to a startling and honest revelation in 7:23–29.

Qohelet’s Honest Appraisal of His Quest (Eccl 7:23–29) Opinions are divided about whether 7:23 or 7:25 begins the new section, but regardless of where the section begins, something significant is happening at the end of ch. 7. 84 This passage is rife with ambiguity. However, we should not overlook at least two vital characteristics of this passage: (1) several key features of the passage, apart from the content, set the passage apart as particularly noteworthy; and (2) the implied author goes to great lengths to connect 7:23–29 to the begin83.  The scandal of Qohelet’s statements in 5:16–17 have caused some to suggest that Qohelet is warning against false pretense. See Longman’s refutation of this view (Ecclesiastes, 195–96). 84.  See the discussion in Walton, Experimenting, 83–85. Walton is convinced that the accumulation of evidence suggests that a major shift is taking place at the discourse level in 7:25. He admits that scholars who focus on different lexical repetitions (for example, ‫ חכמה‬and ‫)מצא‬ see more continuity between 7:23–24 and 7:25–29 (though ‫מצא‬, which appears in v. 24, is a key word even in Walton’s analysis). My own opinion is that Qohelet’s assessment of his quest in this passage includes vv. 23 and 24 but, even if Walton is right that 7:25 constitutes the beginning of a major new section, it seems he does not fully appreciate the organic structure of Qohelet’s journey (though at points he states that discourse continuity is maintained across sections; pp. 58–59, 85–87). Compare with Krüger, who supposes that the lines between units seem to be deliberately unclear (Krüger, Qohelet, 8). I have tried to show how the ebb and flow of Qohelet’s reflection leading up to 7:23 may have prompted his honest confession in 7:23–29.

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

157

ning of Qohelet’s quest in 1:12–18. Attention to detail on the linguistic level, such as Walton provides (verbal forms and clauses, reintroduction and introduction of key words, etc.), including the third-person interjection by the narrator in 7:27, shows that something significant is taking place at this juncture. Moreover, Walton and others have noted how “the text seems to go to great effort through the use of clause type, syntactic patterns, and participant sets to connect this phase of the investigation with the initial phase introduced in 1:13 and 17.” 85 The implied author seems to put to use every rhetorical and syntactical technique at his fingertips in order to connect this passage to the initiation of Qohelet’s quest in 1:12–18 and to set it in relief and make it “inevitably memorable.” 86 What is so significant about Qohelet’s reflections in 7:23–29? 87 In this passage, Qohelet exposes the bankruptcy of his methodology. Arguably, the “all this” (‫ )כל־זה‬in 7:23 not only refers to Qohelet’s conclusions in ch. 7 but includes everything in Qohelet’s journey thus far (2:1–7:22). 88 An important dynamic of finding/not finding runs through this passage. Verses 23–25 explicitly introduce the paradox that already existed in Qohelet’s description of his quest and method in 1:12–18—namely, that the very thing that Qohelet maintains is guiding his quest (that is, “wisdom”) is far beyond his grasp! The startling summary of his quest so far is, as Spears paraphrases, “[T]he ‘wise man’ who has journeyed with ‘wisdom’ in his search for ‘wisdom’ cannot grasp wisdom.” 89 What did Qohelet find? Verse 26 indicates that his search for wisdom led him straight into the arms of Lady Folly. Not all commentators agree that the identity of the woman of 7:26 is the personification of folly in Proverbs (2:16–19, 5:3–6, 6:24–26, 7:5–27, 9:3–18), 90 but as Spears’s analysis of the issue shows, “[T]he identity of this woman is only ambiguous when it is read apart from its wisdom context, out of its immediate cotext, or with a developmentalism that issues forth in a ‘crisis of wisdom’ view.” 91 So in the context of Qohelet’s appraisal of his journey thus far, Qohelet admits 85.  Walton, Experimenting, 86. 86.  Christianson, Time, 95. 87.  For a superb, nuanced reading of 7:23–29, see Spears, Theological Hermeneutics, 133– 95. Spears maintains that this passage calls for a linear reading that allows the meaning of the text to emerge as it unfolds. 88.  See ibid., 133–36; Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 264. 89.  Spears, Theological Hermeneutics, 177. 90.  Four basic opinions regarding the identity of the woman are (1) women in general, (2) a certain kind of woman (adulteress, seductress, etc.), (3) a specific woman (for example, his wife), (4) a personification of Folly; see ibid., 160; Walton, Experimenting, 92. 91.  Spears, Theological Hermeneutics, 163. On the point about developmentalism, see n. 82 in this chapter. The tradition of seeing a personification of folly here apparently goes back as far as some of the ancient versions (LXX, Coptic version, and Syro-Hexaplar); Seow, Ecclesiastes, 261. The list of modern scholars that hold to this view, or are at least favorable to it, includes Friedländer, Crenshaw, Farmer, Murphy, Perry, Seow, Fontaine, Brown, Tamez, McKen­zie, Spears, Walton, and Bartholomew. For full bibliographic details, see Spears, Theological Hermeneutics, 160; Walton, Experimenting, 92.

158

David J. H. Beldman

that he deliberately determined to find wisdom, and yet he again and again found himself in the grip of Folly. 92 Furthermore, by admitting that she ensnares sinners but not the godly, Qohelet identifies himself as a sinner whom she has ensnared. 93 Qohelet’s next lines create a heightened sense of suspense as the reader anticipates what it is that Qohelet has discovered (again, the references to his method and quest are noteworthy). Verse 28 has generated a good deal of controversy. Scholars who see Qohelet’s latent misogyny coming through here misunderstand the dynamics of the passage. The context of 7:23–29 determines that the contrast is not between male and female 94 but between finding and not finding. Furthermore, in this context the object of finding/not finding is wisdom and/or folly. As Spears notes, “[T]he entire pericope has been driven by the explosive admission that he does not possess wisdom, and every verse of the pericope, with the significant exception of v. 26, has explicitly reiterated Qoheleth’s desire and/or his failure to ‘find’ wisdom.” 95 Qohelet seems to be saying that in his comprehensive search he was able to find one (wise?) person, but the woman who was the sole object of his search he found unobtainable. Thus, reading v. 28 in the context of 7:23–29 and in the light of Proverbs suggests that the identity of the woman of 7:28 is none other than Woman Wisdom. 96 In other words, although Qohelet conducted his search for meaning by means of “wisdom,” wisdom eluded him (v. 23); so he tried to search out wisdom and folly (vv. 24–25), resulting in his becoming ensnared by Lady Folly (v. 25); his search turned up many things, but the one thing that remained out of his reach was the discovery of wisdom—that is, Woman Wisdom. 92.  The use of the participial form of ‫“( מצא‬find”) indicates continuative action; Walton, Experimenting, 60. 93.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 274: “Examination of Qohelet’s epistemology and comparison of this with that of other wisdom literature exposes the ironic use of ‘by wisdom’ in Ecclesiastes. What one expected to be wisdom rooted in the fear of Yahweh turns out to be a quest for certain knowledge resulting from logical analysis of personal experience and observation. When Qohelet says ‘by wisdom,’ the reader instinctively fills it with a positive content, but ironically ‘wisdom’ comes to mean its opposite, namely folly! It is here in ch. 7 that the irony of Qohelet’s epistemology comes clearly into view. ‘By wisdom’ he could not find wisdom! Instead what he found was Dame Folly, whose embrace he discovered to be more bitter than death. Qohelet himself is the sinner who has been seized by Dame Folly.” 94.  The word used for ‘man’ is ‫אדם‬, the generic term for “a person” or “a human,” whereas the contrasted word (‫ )אשה‬is specific: “a woman” or “a wife.” Thus, the latter is not in contrast with but a subset of the former. See Spears, Theological Hermeneutics, 180; Fox, Qohelet, 242–43. 95.  Spears, Theological Hermeneutics, 181. 96.  For the best argument of this view, see ibid., 176–83. See also T. Krüger, “‘Frau Weisheit’ in Koh 7:26,” Bib 73 (1992) 398, cited in Spears, Theological Hermeneutics, 181; Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 267–77. Significantly, already in the thirteenth century, Hugo of St. Cher made a connection between this woman and the woman of Prov 31:10–31; A. M. Wolters, The Song of the Valiant Woman: Studies in the Interpretation of Proverbs 31:10–31 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001) 93, cited in Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 267.

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

159

Qohelet begins v. 28 with a promise of revealing what it is he has found, but again the suspense is heighted when he emphasizes what he has not found (that is, Woman Wisdom). Verse 29, with its heightened syntax, finally delivers: “See! This alone I have found: God has made humanity straight, but they have sought out many schemes.” This is not merely a general statement about the schemes of humans but more specifically a statement about the nature of Qohelet’s own scheming. Qohelet’s discovery, mediated through irony, word plays, and puns amounts to an undermining of his own search and methodology: “Qohelet has found that his own search for wisdom ‘by wisdom’ is merely his own particular version of humanity’s scheming, which distorts God’s creation of humankind as straight.” 97 In other words, Qohelet honestly admits the bankruptcy of his autonomous method, which relies on human machination apart from the fear of the Lord.

The End of Qohelet’s Journey (Eccl 11:7–12:7) It is difficult to try to summarize the material in 8:1–11:6 or understand how it flows logically out of Qohelet’s self-reflection in 7:23–29. However, a subtle shift does seem to take place, a shift that Christianson characterizes as moving from quest to expression. He notes, Most of the texts that directly express the quest occur in the first seven chapters. In the latter part of the book, however, Qoheleth speaks less of the story of his youth and more of his “present” concern. He addresses the reader with a certainty that betrays his style of questioning . . . that certainty has mostly to do with the fact that he admits his failures and his inability to know—he is certain he is ignorant. In fact he is adamant about his ignorance. For he understood that he failed to understand wisdom and folly. . . . That hard-won ignorance forms the basis of his strategy in the latter half of the book: the imparting of advice to the addressee. 98

The latter half of the book does seem to be tempered with an epistemological humility that is not clearly apparent before 7:23–29. This is not to say that his quest is over; he still struggles to find the right approach to the enigmas of life, which is evident in the fact that the enigmas are still juxtaposed with the joy passages (8:15; 9:7–10). Murphy holds that the poem of 11:7–12:7 is appropriately situated, bringing together the common threads of joy and death. 99 Perhaps more accurately, the two terms ‫“( ׂשמח‬rejoice”) and ‫“( זכר‬remember”) provide the structural and thematic

97.  Bartholomew, ibid., 269. See also Spears, Theological Hermeneutics, 187. 98.  Christianson, Time, 243. 99.  Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 114.

160

David J. H. Beldman

framework for the poem. 100 By the time we reach 11:7, we have come to expect the expressions of joy to come at the end (for example, 2:24–26, 3:12–15, etc.) or perhaps in the middle (for example, 5:18–20; cf. 9:7–10) of a certain line of Qohelet’s thought. However, in 11:7–12:7 the expression of joy initiates the passage. 101 Rather than awkwardly fitting the good, joy-inducing gifts of God within the context of life’s enigmas, in 11:7–12:7 Qohelet puts the experience of hebel within the context of the experience of lifelong joy. 102 For example, notice how Qohelet sets “the days of darkness” in v. 8 in the context of the sweetness of light and the pleasure of the sun in v. 7. Perhaps even more significant is the way that the phrase “remember your creator” provides the structure for 12:1–7. 103 In this subsection, Qohelet opens with a reference to God as Creator and closes with a reference to God as the source and goal of the very spirit of a person. 104 This represents a significant reorientation for Qohelet. Up to this point, he has attempted (not very successfully) to hold in tension what he observes by means of his autonomous epistemology and what he has received from his Israelite upbringing and background (for example, life is a good gift from God). In 12:1–7, the call to remember one’s Creator “in all its richness, subverts Qohelet’s autonomous epistemology and provides a new starting point for wrestling with the very real issues of his journey explored.” 105

Conclusion In this essay, I consider several attempts to discern the structure of Ecclesiastes, noting that some are more helpful than others. My approach attempts to avoid two extremes. On the one hand, I avoid imposing an outline that fails to do justice to the intricate texture of the book. On the other hand, I avoid the opposite extreme, that Ecclesiastes is too variegated to hold together at all. Clues from the frame narrator indicate that the book does have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and using this as a grid for the structure of the book highlights the importance of epistemology in Qohelet’s quest. Qohelet begins by describing his quest and method, and a discerning reader picks up on the incongruity between what 100.  For a structural outline based on key phrases and vocabulary, see G. S. Ogden, “Qoheleth 11:7–12:8: Qoheleth’s Summons to Enjoyment and Reflection,” VT 34 (1984) 29–30. 101.  This assumes that 11:7–12:7 is a distinct unit, which in Murphy’s view finds a broad consensus (Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 114). Although there is some debate about this, the controversy seems to be whether 11:7–8 belong to this or the previous passage. Even if one takes 11:9 (also, at least initially, an expression of joy) as the beginning of the passage, the fact that the passage starts on a note of joy remains. 102.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 353–54: “[F]or the first time in the carpe diem passages the enigma of life is set in the context of joy (and remembrance) rather than the other way around.” 103.  The phrase is actually present in 12:1 and elliptically in vv. 2 and 6. 104. See Ogden, “Qoheleth 11:7–12:8,” 33. 105.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 358. See pp. 356–58 for the full theological and philosophical significance of remembrance.

Framed! Structure in Ecclesiastes

161

he calls “wisdom” and the method that he employs in reality. Midway, Qohelet makes explicit the bankruptcy of his method (that is, his method was not wise at all but led him into the arms of Lady Folly), and although he rightly fingers the problem, he does not have a clear solution. At the end of his journey, Qohelet finds the proper starting point, namely, one that is oriented by God as the creator and sustainer of all of life. This does not solve all of the riddles of life (for example, injustice, suffering, or death) but does provide the proper orientation for navigating the enigmas. The voice of the narrator, especially in Eccl 1:2, 7:27, and 12:8–14 helped to identify the structure of the beginning, middle, and end of Qohelet’s journey. The frame narrative, then, provides the key to understanding not only the structure but the interpretation of the book.

The Poetry of Qohelet John F. Hobbins University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh ‫ָאמַר ק ֶֹהלֶת‬ ‫הַּכֹל ָהבֶל׃‬

‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫הבֵל‬ ֲ 1:2 ‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫הבֵל‬ ֲ

A perfect crock, said Qohelet. A perfect crock— the whole thing’s a crock. Metaphors do what all language does: they stand for things. They qualify extra and intratextual realities. Since it is not unusual for a poem to pirouette from metaphor to metaphor and kick up a semantic spray along the way, metaphor and poetry are terms that associate. Metaphor and philosophical argument, on the other hand, are terms that dissociate. Although Plato was careful to ban poets from his Republic, he did not do away with root metaphors in his philosophy. Ernesto Grassi and, more recently, Donald Phillip Verene have noted that it is the practice of philosophy beginning with the Pre-Socratics, Plato, and Aristotle to deploy metaphors, draw a narrative from them, and buttress the narrative with argument. 1 It is not surprising then that Qohelet—a sustained philosophical argument, in terms of genre—is dominated by a master metaphor, to be discussed in this essay. It is also not surprising that, as I argue here, Qohelet contains passages of verse. In Qohelet, ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, “air,” 2 is a master metaphor that stands for things that are devoid of sense. The summary judgment of Qoh 1:2 and 12:8, ‫הַּכֹל ָהבֶל‬, “it’s all air,” Author’s note: I thank the editors of this volume and Vincent DeCaen for feedback on a draft of this essay. Errors and shortcomings of the final product are mine alone. All translations from Hebrew and Aramaic are my own. 1.  E. Grassi, Rhetoric and Philosophy: The Humanist Tradition (trans. J. M. Krois and A. Azodi; Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2001); D. P. Verene, The History of Philosophy: A Reader’s Guide (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2008) 92–99. 2.  “Air” is not a typical gloss for ‫ ֶהבֶל‬or its synonym‫רּוח י‬. ַ The sense of both is typically disambiguated via more-specific terms in translation, depending on context: for example, “wind,” “breath,” and “vapor.” As a translation of‫רּוח י‬, ַ “air” appears once and only once in kjv English, in Job 41:8[ET 41:16]; and the rsv and niv, for example, follow suit. The use of four terms (wind,

163

164

John F. Hobbins

implies something like “life stinks,” albeit without an obvious allusion to foulness. “Crock,” a term of informal discourse, is an example of a multivalent metaphor in English of approximately the same semantic range as ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, albeit with a diverse range of connotations. 3 The word ‫ ֶהבֶל‬in Qohelet, like “crock” in informal American discourse, conjures up a sham. Once it is observed that something is ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, it does not take long for everything to seem ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. 4 The “Qohelet” who speaks in the book—I will refer to him as Q, or “the Philosopher”—phrases it this way: ‫ַּׁשמֶש‬ ָ ‫ׁשּנַעֲׂשּו ּתַ חַת ה‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשים‬ ִ ‫יתי אֶת־ּכָל־ ַה ַּמע‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ‫ר‬ ‫רּוח י‬ ַ ‫ּורעּות‬ ְ ‫ְו ִהּנֵה הַּכֹל ֶהבֶל‬ ‫ֶסרֹון לֹא־יּוכַל ְל ִהּמָנֹות‬ ְ ‫ְוח‬ ‫עּוָת לֹא־יּוכַל ִל ְתק ֹן‬ ֻ ‫ְמ‬

1:14 1:15

I saw the totality of things that occur under the sun: the totality is crock, preoccupation with which is crock; what is crooked cannot be made straight, what is lacking is beyond counting. If it did not go against a fundamental principle of “close translation,” one might render ‫ ֶהבֶל‬as an abstraction. But an abstraction, however rarified, cannot cover as many bases as a multivalent metaphor. In his meditation on senescence and death, Q advises enjoyment of the pleasures of youth as long as possible. He adds:

breath, vapor, and air) is an artifact of English. “Air” is the common denominator of “wind,” “breath,” and “vapor.” “Air” stands at the semantic core of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬and‫רּוח י‬, ַ not the the usual glosses. 3.  As I see it, Qohelet labels things ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, “air,” or‫רּוח י‬ ַ ‫ רַ ְעיֹון‬/‫רּוח י‬ ַ ‫רעּות‬,ְ “preoccupation of the consistency of air” or “preoccupation with air” in order to express disappointment and frustration with premises, consequences, and end results of endeavors, experiences, and life in general. The words ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, “(hot) air,” and‫רּוח י‬, ַ “air,” are container metaphors that remand to (missing) contents. They stand for something that should be there but is not. Under Q’s microscope, hard work, wisdom, and self-denial are not sufficiently rewarded virtues; upstanding behavior and life in general lack a satisfying moral teleology. The judgment that x is not what it should be is the common denominator of instances in which Q says that x is ‫ ֶהבֶל‬and/or‫י‬ ַ‫ רַ ְעיֹון רּוח‬/‫רּוח י‬ ַ ‫רעּות‬:ְ 1:2–3, 14–15, 17; 2:1–2, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26; 3:19; 4:4, 6, 16; 5:6, 9; 6:1–2, 4, 9b–10, 11, 12; 7:6, 15; 8:10d–13, 14; 9:1–2 [emended], 9; 11:8, 10; 12:8. Judgments that are ‫ ֶהבֶל‬communicate the perception that a lack compromises an entire space. The closest thing to the point of Q’s “it’s all ‫ ” ֶהבֶל‬in the taxonomy of The Metaphors We Live By (G. Lakoff and M. Johnson; Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980), is a LIFE IS A CONTAINER example: “Life is empty for him.” Though the evidence is slim for the view that ‫ ֶהבֶל‬references “foulness” per se, Douglas Miller’s thesis that Q’s ‫ ֶהבֶל‬judgments amount to saying that “the thing stinks” is solid enough (D. B. Miller, Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes: The Place of Hebel in Qohelet’s Work [Academia Biblica 2; Leiden: Brill / Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002]). 4.  “Crock” is a container metaphor that remands to contents, similar to “cup” in “Are you able to drink the cup I am about to drink?” “Crock” is efficacious precisely because it remands to the point of not remanding: it takes on a life of its own. For example, here is a typical exchange: “Jeff said, ‘Matt, did you just say X?’ Matt replied that yes, he did. With that, Jeff said, ‘That is a crock. I want to dissociate myself from that completely.’”

The Poetry of Qohelet

165

‫ָל־ׁשּבָא ָהבֶל‬ ֶ ‫ִהיּו ּכ‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְך ִּכי־ה ְַרּבֵה י‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ְוִיזְּכֹר אֶת־ ְימֵי הַח‬11:8b But let him call to mind the days of darkness: they are many; all that comes is crock. It is not ephemerality, an illusion, or absurdity that is coming. What is coming is crock; specifically, decrepitude, days of darkness (these are touched on again in 12:2). Life is a crock, according to Q, and he speaks from the point of view of a crock, a man who has seen better days. 5 The word ‫ ֶהבֶל‬is an umbrella-like metaphor in Qohelet. In the Hebrew of all periods, its denotative meaning is “air”; in some examples, “hot air.” The instances in biblical Hebrew in which the term is literal bear this out: Isa 57:13, ‫א־רּוח יִּקַ ח־ ָהבֶל‬ ַ ‫ִּׂש‬ ָ ‫ואֶת־ ֻּכּלָם י‬,ְ “all of them, wind will bear away, a puff of air take away”; “puff of air” is also the denotative sense in Pss 62:10; 144:4; cf. Prov 21:6, ‫ִּדף‬ ָ‫ ֶהבֶל נ‬, “driven-about air”; Job 27:12, ‫ ָלּמָה־ּזֶה ֶהבֶל ֶּת ְהּבָלּו‬, “Why then are you letting out hot air?” The following expressions in Rabbinic Hebrew point in the same direction: ‫הבל של תנור‬, “the hot air of the stove”; ‫הבל מרחץ‬, “the air of the bathhouse”; in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: ‫הוה קלי לן מהבלא‬, “we would have been roasted by the hot air”; ‫הבלא דאגמא‬, “marsh air [methane]”; ‫פתחו פומייכו ואפיקו‬ ‫הבאלא‬, “[in the bathhouse] open your mouths and expel hot air”; ‫קא סליק לה‬ ‫הבאלא‬, “hot air rises.” Quality-neutral denotative uses, for example, ‫הבל תינוקות‬ “the breath of children,” also occur. The word ‫ הבל‬appears to have had a denotative sense in more than one language that remained stable over time. 6 An active metaphor in some loci, such as 6:11, ‫ָרים ה ְַרּבֵה מ ְַר ִּבים ָהבֶל‬ ִ‫ּדב‬,ְ “a surfeit of words producing a surfeit of hot air,” ‫ ֶהבֶל‬is inactive in others, such as 7:6b–7, ‫ַּתנָה‬ ָ ‫ׁשק יְהֹולֵל ָחכָם ִוי ַעּוֶה אֶת־לֵב מ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וגַם־זֶה ֶהבֶל ִּכי הָע‬,ְ “this too is x, that corruption turns a wise man into a fool, and makes the heart stray with a gift” (‫ויעוה‬ with 4QQoha). In the latter case, ‫ ֶהבֶל‬has taken on a life of its own. It stands for 5. Crock1, as in “that story is a crock”; crock2, as in “the boy grimed with crock and dirt from the hair of his head to the sole of his foot”; crock3, as in “[L]ike nearly every poor crock out there I owe you [a famous doctor] a peculiar debt of gratitude.” Kraecke [= kraak] in Middle Dutch was used of a broken-down horse. 6.  Students of Biblical Hebrew err insofar as they study the language of Qohelet in light of usage in antecedent literature with the help of tools such as BDB, HALOT, and DCH; but not in light of usage in later literature with the help of tools such as (the woefully outdated but still unsurpassed) M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006); M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 3; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002); idem, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009). Given the language’s “anticipatory” linguistic profile, it stands to reason that the closest analogue to a particular idiom in Qohelet has a better chance of turning up in literature that postdates rather than predates it.

166

John F. Hobbins

something empty, devoid of sense, but without activating, as far as we know, the specific contours of its lexical meaning. The word ‫ ֶהבֶל‬is a hyponym of ‫רּוח‬ ַ “breath,” “wind.” The two words are used correlatively in 1:14b, ‫רּוח‬ ַ ‫ּורעּות‬ ְ ‫הַּכֹל ֶהבֶל‬, “the totality is crock, preoccupation with which is crock,” and 6:9b–10, ‫נֹודע‬ ָ ‫ׁשמֹו ְו‬ ְ ‫ִקרָא‬ ְ ‫ַה־ּׁש ָהיָה ְּכבָר נ‬ ֶ ‫ּורעּות רּוחַ ׃ מ‬ ְ ‫ּגַם־זֶה ֶהבֶל‬ ‫ׁשּתַ ִּקיף ִמּמֶּנּו‬ ֶ ‫ָדין ִעם‬ ִ ‫ָדם ְולֹא־יּוכַל ל‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר־הּוא א‬ ֶ ‫“ א‬This too is a crock, preoccupation with which is crock: whatever is, is fore-designated and known; of which is man, and he cannot contend with Him who is stronger than he.” 7 The words ‫ ֶהבֶל‬and ‫רּוח‬ ַ are live metaphors in 1:14 and 6:9, but one cannot translate literally, with “(hot) air” or the like, and obtain a similar effect. The best one can do is translate with an equivalent metaphor, which crock is, perhaps better than any other available. Even if Qohelet did not contain extended passages of verse, the author of its contents, on the basis of the illustrated use of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬and ‫רּוח‬, ַ might still be termed a poet. To jolting effect, the Philosopher deploys ‫רּוח‬ ַ ‫ ְרעּות‬+ ‫ ֶהבֶל‬as a master metaphor by which he deplores situations, realities, and endeavors that he finds wanting. ‫י‬

‫י‬

‫י‬

‫י‬

‫י‬

The Identification of Verse in Qohelet The question remains: Was the Philosopher a composer of verse? If so, what part of Qohelet is verse, and what part prose? How is one to decide? It has become commonplace for parts of Qohelet to be formatted as verse and parts as prose in editions of the Hebrew and translations. Scholars shy away from discussing the criteria, formal or informal, behind their decisions. Global discussions are rare; case-by-case discussions, rarer still. Opinions differ widely on the question of what part of Qohelet is verse and what part is prose. In part 1 of this essay, I survey proposals to date. In part 2, I test proposals against representative descriptions of the regularities of ancient Hebrew verse. In part 3, I offer worked examples: Qoh 1:2–11, 3:1–9, and 11:9–12:8.

Part 1: Proposals to Date Proposal 1: Qohelet Is Prose except for 3:2–8 Except for 3:2–8, the reb (1989) treats all of Qohelet as prose. So did the neb (1970), of which the reb is a revision. With the exception of 3:2–8, the reb divides 7. On ‫ ֶהבֶל‬and‫רּוח י‬ ַ ‫ רַ ְעיֹון‬/‫רּוח י‬ ַ ‫ ְרעּות‬in Qohelet, the literature is voluminous; see in particular M. V. Fox, “The Meaning of hebel for Qohelet,” JBL 105 (1986) 409–27; idem, “Hebel and Reʿut Ruaḥ,” A Time to Tear Down and A Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 27–50; T. Krüger, Kohelet (Prediger) (BKAT 19; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000) 101–4; D. B. Miller, Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes. Fox glosses hebel as “absurd” wherever possible; Krüger, as “nichtig und flüchtig.” Miller argues for the connotation of “foul.” According to Fox (p. 45), ‫ ְרעּות‬and ‫ רַ ְעיֹון‬in Qohelet mean what they mean in Aramaic and Rabbinic Hebrew, “desire” and “thought,” respectively. “Preoccupation” is a gloss that works for both.

The Poetry of Qohelet

167

the contents of the book into prose paragraphs of widely ranging length: 1 to 11 Masoretic pesuqim. Correct or not, the reb’s distinction between poetry and prose and its sub­ division of said prose into prose paragraphs cannot be said to have a basis in tradition. Apart from rare cases such as Exod 15:1b–18 and Deut 32:1–43, poetry and prose are not distinguished in the manuscript tradition of ancient Hebrew literature, early (Qumran) or late (Masoretic). It will be helpful at this point to clarify a number of fundamentals. The distinctive layout of Qoh 3:2–8 in the Masoretic tradition points to the possibility that it is poetry; it may also be a list, such as Josh 12:9–24. The lack of a similar layout elsewhere in Qohelet is of no help in deciding whether content is poetry or prose. If the reb’s decision to treat Qohelet as prose outside 3:2–8 was based on the observation that Qohelet otherwise lacks a similar layout in tradition, the decision is a non sequitur. The underlying text of Qohelet is one thing. The pre-Masoretic text would have consisted of nothing more than packets of consonants distinguished from each other by spaces between them, with words disambiguated in part by a conservative use of matres lectionis (vowel letters). Half-lines and lines of verse would have been unmarked (with the possible exception of 3:2–8). Phrase, clause, sentence, and paragraph levels would also have been unmarked (with the possible exception of a setumah or petuḥah after 1:11 and 3:1, as found in the later Masoretic tradition [ML, ML34, and MY]). The Masoretic reading tradition superimposed on the pre–Masoretic Text is another thing. The MT disambiguates on all of the above levels—always, however, in terms of a recitative prosody designed to aid in chanting Qohelet as Scripture on a par with, for example, Ruth, Song of Songs, Lamentations, and Esther. The poetry and prose of three books of the Bible—Psalms, Job, and Proverbs— are marked up and subdivided into musical tropes according to one set of permutations; the poetry and prose of the remaining books, according to another. The Masoretic Text includes notation of macrodivisions of text known as sedarim and parashiyyot. The sedarim markers serve to start and stop the recitation of chunks of texts of varying and sometimes massive length—far more than a paragraph according to English prose style; often far more than a biblical chapter. Chunks so defined are not necessarily identical to macrodivisions of the underlying text: textexternal factors play a role in the delimitation of sedarim. The parashiyyot mark select beginnings and endings in the text but are few and far between. It is a gross oversimplification to refer to them as paragraph markers. 8 8. Sebastian Brock’s comparative study of “paragraph” divisions in Syriac, Greek, and Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah points to the existence of a tradition of macrounit delimitation, the origins of which date back before the current era (“Text Divisions in the Syriac Translations of Isaiah,” in Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman [ed. A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg; JSOTSup 333; The Hebrew Bible and Its Versions 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001] 200–221). The pioneering researcher in the field, Josef M. Oesch,

168

John F. Hobbins

The traditional division into pesuqim (Masoretic “verses”) reflects a division of the text for the purpose of musical recitation, the systemization of which may not have occurred before 500 c.e. The pesuqim superimpose articulated “prosodic sentences” on prose and verse alike that do not help, except indirectly, in distinguishing poetry from prose and isolating units therein. 9 noted an 80% agreement between 1QIsaa and the MT in this respect (Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen su einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testaments (OBO 27; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). Emanuel Tov’s discussion of the subdivision of poetic units into versets and/or lines in manuscripts from the Judean Desert is another necessary point of departure (“Special Layout of Poetical Units in the Texts from the Judean Desert,” in Give Ear to My Words: Psalms and Other Poetry in and around the Bible—Essays in Honour of Professor N. A. van Uchelen [ed. J. Dyk; Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1996] 115–28). E. J. Revell’s studies of pausal forms, spacing patterns, and accent systems in ancient manuscripts suggest that a syntactic parse of biblical texts was stabilized in the reading tradition as early as the Second Temple Period, though mss of that epoch bear witness to this parse in a limited fashion (“The Oldest Evidence for the Hebrew Accent System,” BJRL 54 [1971–72] 214–22; “Biblical Punctuation and Chant in the Second Temple Period,” JSJ 7 [1976] 181–98; “Pausal Forms in Biblical Hebrew: Their Function, Origin, and Significance,” JSS 25 [1980] 165–79). But Revell points out that the Masoretic accents are not meant to represent poetic structure. The degree to which the accents delimit half-lines and lines is “an accidental side-effect of the close relation between linguistic units (semantic or syntactic) and poetical cola” (“Five Theses on the Masoretic Accents Formulated by Paul Sanders for a Planned Discussion at the SBL Groningen Meeting, 2004: A Response,” 2, www.pericope.net). Marjo Korpel and collaborators offer rigorous studies of the use of delimitation markers in ancient manuscripts. Korpel is founder of the Pericope project (www.pericope.net). For an intro�duction, see idem, “Introduction to the Series Pericope,” in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (ed. M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch; Pericope 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000) 1–50; for applications, idem, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pericope 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001); and M. C. A. Korpel and J. C. de Moor, The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40–55 (OtSt 41; Leiden: Brill, 1998). 9.  W. S. LaSor (“An Approach to Hebrew Poetry through the Masoretic Accents,” in Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University (1909–1979) [ed. A. I. Katsh and L. Nemoy; Philadelphia: Dropsie University Press, 1979] 327–53), P. Sanders (“Ancient Colon Delimitations: 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18,” in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship [ed. M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch; Pericope 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000] 277–311; idem, “The Colometric Layout of Psalms 1 to 14 in the Aleppo Codex,” in Studies in Scriptural Unit Division [ed. M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch; Pericope 3; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002] 226–57; idem, “Pausal Forms and the Delimitation of Cola in Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature [ed. M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch; Pericope 4; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003] 264–78), R. de Hoop (“The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of a Recent Approach, Part I,” JNSL 26/1 [2000] 47–73; idem, “The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of a Recent Approach, Part II,” JNSL 26/2 [2001] 65–100; idem, “Lamentations: The Qinah-Metre Questioned,” in Delimitation Criticism, 80–104; idem, “‘Trichotomy’ in Masoretic Accentuation in Comparison with the Delimitation of Units in the Versions: With Special Attention to the Introduction to Direct Speech,” in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature, 33–47), T. Renz (Colometry and Accentuation in Hebrew Prophetic Poetry [Kleine Un-

The Poetry of Qohelet

169

All translations of the Hebrew Bible follow the Masoretic division into pesuqim. Within each pasuq or verse there is, however, a degree of mismatch between a translation’s subdivisions and syntax and the use of disjunctive accents in the MT to track the same. Regardless, the facts are these: authors of ancient Hebrew literature, whether they wrote in poetry or prose, did not think or compose in pesuqim or in the internal subdivisions thereof that the tradition of recitation in the MT preserves. On the contrary, delimitation of content by the Masoretes and by spaces, paragraphing, capitalization, punctuation, and lineation in BHS (1975), HET (The Hebrew-English Tanakh, 1999), BHQ (2004), and translations old and new reflect layer upon layer of tradition and case-by-case decision-making on the part of ancient and modern editors and authors. The superimposed delimitations need not be ignored, but caveats are in order. The various delimitations are constructs of disparate origins. They must be understood on their own terms and in light of their own purposes. They are not components of the text per se: none of the subdivisions beyond the division into words can safely be assumed to go back to the first copies of the text. The superimposed divisions are not always congenial to the underlying text. This said, according to ML, ML34, and MY, a parashiyya or section begins at Qoh 3:2—not, say, at 3:1. Another section begins at 3:9, in the sense that the special formatting that 3:2–8 is accorded comes to an end. The reb subdivides by way of blank spacing and indentation accordingly, as does the njb—but not, for example, the nrsv and nab. I argue below that the Masoretic tradition gets things right from a prosodic point of view. Qohelet 3:2–8 qualifies as poetry insofar as its content conforms to the regularities that verse instantiates elsewhere in ancient Hebrew literature. In the case of Qoh 3:1 and 3:9, the evidence is equivocal. tersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 4; Waltrop: Spenner,

2003]), and V. DeCaen (“Theme and Variation in Psalm 111: Phrase and Foot in GenerativeMetrical Perspective,” JSS 54 [2009] 81–109) attempt to establish poetic colometry on the basis of disjunctive accents and/or other traditional delimitation markers. But as Revell pointed out (see n. 8), the attempt to infer details of the prosody of ancient Hebrew verse from the prosodic contours of the tradition of textual chant is misguided. The building blocks of the Tiberian prosodic parse include the following, neither of which is in one-to-one correspondence with the building blocks of the underlying verse: (1) Segments of text associated with neumes (domains of primary “stress”). They range in length from a monomoraic syllable in Ps 71:15 to a 6-syllable complex in Ps 71:14. The 1-to-6 range on the phonological level is too wide to be considered a plausible candidate for a counting unit in conventional verse. (2) Segments of text delimitated by major disjunctives. The text between an ʿoleh weyored and an atnach amounts to a single quadrisyllabic word in Ps 3:6, a syntactic whole. In Ps 104:1, the same accents delimit an equivalent syntactic whole, 4 words, 10 syllables in length. In Ps 27:4, ʿoleh weyored and atnach delimit a 6word syntactic unit, 11 syllables in length. Given the 4-to-11 range on the phonological plane, in contrast to the consistent mapping on the syntactic plane (a clause in each case), the assumption that disjunctives mark out equivalent prosodic units as opposed to syntactic units is unreasonable on its face.

170

John F. Hobbins

The reb is not the only recent translation to treat a small portion of Qohelet as verse. The zb (Zürcher Bibel, 2007) lineates in the following instances alone: 1:2, 4–11; 3:1–9; and 12:1–8. The nasb (1995 [1960]): 1:2–11; 3:2–8; and 7:1–14. The nlt (1996): 3:1–8 and 11:3. The nlt (2007): 1:15, 18; 3:1–8; 4:5–6; 7:1–14; 8:1; 9:17–10:4; 10:8–11:4. This brings us to another family of proposals, which I refer to as proposal 2.

Proposal 2: A Number of Passages and Isolated Proverbs in Qohelet Are Verse—The Rest Is Prose Since Robert Lowth’s “Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews” (1753), versed translation of Isaiah, and Isaiah commentary (1778), scholars have been on the hunt with varying degrees of enthusiasm for poetry in the corpus of ancient Hebrew literature. This is not the place to offer a history of research. 10 The results of the hunt with respect to Qohelet find expression in editions of the Hebrew, translations, and commentaries. The most common proposal, with variations in detail, involves the identification of a number of passages in verse and a number of isolated versed proverbs. The extended passages and 1- and 2-liners are regarded as insets within a prose frame. Heinrich Ewald, one of the great Hebraists of the nineteenth century, treated the bulk of Qohelet as prose but scanned a few passages as verse. The verse he identified consists of bipartite or tripartite units, with the first part of the units occupying a line on the printed page; the second part, indented, occupying the following printed line; the third part, if any, is formatted the same way. Ewald identified four extended verse passages in Qohelet: 11

10. R. Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum: Praelectiones academicae Oxonii habitae, subjicitur Metricae Harianae brevis confutatio et oratio Crewiana (Oxford: Clarendon, 1753); repr. with introd. by D. Reibel as Robert Lowth [1710–1787]: The Major Works (London: Routledge/ Thoemmes, 1995); idem, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews: From the Latin of the Late Robert Lowth, by G. Gregory (London: Johnson, 1787); repr. in Robert Lowth: The Major Works; idem, Isaiah: A New Translation with a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes (London: Dodsley, 1778); repr. in Robert Lowth: The Major Works. According to a note by Lowth on his Lecture XXIV, A. V. Desvoeux opined that “the greater part of [Qohelet] was written in prose, but that it contains many scraps of poetry, introduced as occasion served,” an opinion to which Lowth notes his assent. Lowth cites Desvoeux, “Tent. Phil. & Crit. in Eccles. lib. ii., cap. 1,” in Gregory’s translation. That is the Latinized title of a volume by Antoine Vinchon Desvoeux (d. 1792), who published between 1735 and 1760; Eng. title: A Philosophical and Critical Essay on Ecclesiastes (London: Hawkins, 1760), although I have not been able to consult Desvoeux’s work. It would be interesting to know what parts of Qohelet he took to be “scraps of poetry” and whether he knew of Lowth’s Praelectiones published in 1753 and thought of the possibility of poetry in Qohelet on that basis. 11. H. Ewald, “Qohelet,” in Die Dichter des alten Bundes, Zweiter Theil: Die Salomonischen Schriften (ed. by H. Ewald; 2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1867) 289–329.

The Poetry of Qohelet

171

(1) 1:4–8 (6 units; 5 bipartite, 1 tripartite [1:6]); (2) 3:1–9 (9 units; bipartite except for 3:9, treated as a monostich); (3) 9:17–10:2 (4 bipartite units); and (4) 10:6–13 (8 units, 7 bipartite, 1 tripartite [10:10]).

He also identified 29 isolate bipartite and tripartite units and pairs of units, most of which, from the point of view of genre, are aphorisms with parallels in structure and content to aphorisms in the book of Proverbs: 1:2, 15, 18; 2:2, 11b, 14b; 3:15, 19 (2 bipartite), 20; 4:5–6; 5:2, 6, 9, 14 (2 bipartite); 6:4–5; 7:7, 12, 19, 29; 8:1b, 5; 9:4; 10:18, 20b; 11:4, 10 (tripartite); 12:2 (tripartite), 6 (long bipartite), 8. The sum total: 59. A list of passages that Robert Gordis lined in his edition of the Hebrew of Qohelet: 12 (1) 1:2–9 (10 lines, 8 bipartite, 2 tripartite); (2) 3:2–8 (14 bipartite lines); (3) 8:8 (2 lines, 1 partite and 1 tripartite); (4) 9:7–9 (5 lines, 4 bipartite and 1 tripartite); (5) 11:7–12:8 (21 lines, 14 bipartite and 7 tripartite).

Gordis regarded the following to be lines of verse integrated into prose: 1:18; 2:13, 14a; 4:5, 6, 12; 5:2; 7:1ff., 19; 8:1; 9:17, 18; 10:2, 8, 18, 19, 20; 11:4. Finally, he classified 8:6 and 9:8 as “rhythmic prose.” 13 Total lines of verse in Qohelet according to Gordis: 73. The cumulative count of Ewald’s and Gordis’s identifications: about 100 lines of verse. By “lines,” I mean the bipartite and tripartite units that stand out as such in Ewald’s translation and are printed as bipartite and tripartite lines by Gordis. The following passages are lineated by Michael Fox: 14 (1) 1:4–9 (9 lines, 7 bipartite and 2 tripartite); (2) 1:15 (1 bipartite line); (3) 1:18 (1 bipartite line); (4) 2:13 (1 bipartite line); (5) 2:14a (1 bipartite line); (6) 3:1–8 (15 bipartite lines); (7) 4:9–12 (4 lines, 2 bipartite and 2 tripartite); (8) 4:17–5:6 (about 12 lines [standard lineation procedures not observed]); (9) 7:1–12 + 19 (ca. 14 lines [standard lineation procedure not observed]); (10) 7:15–20 (5 lines, 3 bipartite and 2 tripartite); (11) 8:1b (1 bipartite line); (12) 9:11 (3 lines, 2 bipartite and 1 tripartite); (13) 9:17–10:3 (5 bipartite lines); (14) 10:16–20 (4 lines, 3  bipartite and 1 tripartite); (15) 11:7–10 (7 lines, 6 bipartite and 1 tripartite); (16) 12:1–7 (12 lines, 9 bipartite and 3 tripartite).

In Fox’s estimation, there are approximately 95 lines of verse in Qohelet. This tops Ewald’s and Gordis’s individual totals. Thomas Krüger lineates fewer passages of Qohelet, for a total of 57 lines: 15 12. R. Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World (New York: Schocken, 1968). 13.  Ibid., 387 nn. 28 and 29. 14.  Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up. 15.  Krüger, Kohelet.

172

John F. Hobbins (1) 1:2 (1 bipartite line); (2) 1:4–11 (12 lines, 9 bipartite and 3 tripartite); (3) 1:15 (1  bipartite line); (4) 1:18 (1 bipartite line); (5) 2:2 (1 bipartite line); (6) 2:14a (1 bipartite line); (7) 3:2–8 (7 bipartite lines); (8) 4:13 (1 tripartite line); (9) 5:9–11 (3 lines, 2 bipartite and 1 tripartite); (10) 6:7–9 (3 lines, 2 bipartite and 1 tripartite); (11) 11:1–12:7 (26 lines, 19 bipartite and 7 bipartite; a few stray monostichs).

The cumulative total of identified lines in Ewald (1837), Gordis (1951), Fox (1999), and Krüger (2000) is in the 120–40 range. None of the four authors discusses the criteria behind their identifications. If texts formatted as verse in the njpsv (1982), niv (1984), njb (1985), nrsv (1989), nab (1991), and bg (La Bibbia di Gerusalemme, 2008) are added to the mix, the cumulative list is long: (1)  1:2–11 (15 lines, 14 bipartite and 1 tripartite); (2) 1:14b (1 bipartite line); (3)  1:15 (1 bipartite line); (4) 1:18 (1 bipartite line); (5) 2:2 (1 bipartite line); (6) 2:10–16 (12 bipartite lines; 15a and 16b prose); (7) 3:1–8 (15 bipartite lines); (8)  3:15–17 (4 lines, 3 bipartite and 1 tripartite; 3 bipartite with prose frame); (9) 3:20 (1 tripartite line); (10) 4:1b–3 (6 bipartite lines); (11) 4:5–6 (2 lines, 1 bipartite and 1 tripartite); (12) 4:9–12 (4 lines, 2 bipartite and 2 tripartite); (13) 4:13 (1 tripartite line); (14) 4:17–5:6 (12–16 lines, lineation unclear); (15)  5:9–16 (11  lines; 9 bipartite and 2 tripartite); (16) 6:4 (1 bipartite line); (17)  6:7–13 (8  lines; 7 bipartite and 1 tripartite); (18) 7:1–8:8 (46 lines; minimal prose frame; 39  bipartite and 7 tripartite); (19) 9:2 (3 lines; 2 bipartite and 1  tripartite); (20) 9:4–12 (15 lines; 12 bipartite and 3 tripartite); (21) 9:16–12:8 (55 lines; 44 bipartite and 11 tripartite); (22) 12:13–14 (3 lines: 2 bipartite and 1 tripartite).

The line count in parentheses is sometimes one among several alternative analyses. The cumulative list encompasses a large part of the text of Qohelet, over 200 lines. Proposal 2, it turns out, fades into proposal 3.

Proposal 3: Qohelet Is Verse with a Wee Bit of Prose Thrown In BHQ (2004) divides almost all of Qohelet into bipartite lines. Tripartite lines are also occasionally demarcated. Scattered lines consisting of a single unit of approximately the same length as a single part of bipartite lines occur at haphazard intervals within a matrix of bipartite lines. BHQ identifies about 270 bipartite lines. It formats the following as prose: 1:1, 12–13, 16–17; 2:3, 13, 18–26; 3:10–14, 18–19; 3:22–4:1a, 4; 5:7–8; 5:17–6:2; 8:15–17; 9:3, 14–15. Comparison of BHS (1975) with BHQ (2004) reveals differences in detail but not in substance. On this construal of Qohelet, the bulk of the text consists of bipartite and occasionally tripartite lines. It is hard to know what to do with the monopartite lines. Outside Qohelet, bipartite and tripartite lines alone, with few exceptions, are thought of as verse. The monopartite lines may be thought of as prose insets in a poetic context.

The Poetry of Qohelet

173

The tob (Traduction oecuménique de la Bible, 1977) formats Qoh 1:1 and 2:25–26 alone as prose. The text is otherwise lineated. Bipartite and tripartite lines do not always stand out. The tob construes virtually all of Qohelet as being divisible into monopartite, bipartite, and tripartite lines.

Provisional Conclusion What part of the text of Qohelet is verse? What part is prose? Methodological controls are in order. Identifications should not be accepted unless they conform to a parameterized text model of ancient Hebrew verse developed on the basis of a study of universally accepted examples of ancient Hebrew poetry.

Part 2: Parameterized Models of Ancient Hebrew Verse A text model of ancient Hebrew verse is of questionable value if it cannot sort out examples of poetry from examples of prose. That raises the question with which this essay began, on a wider scale. What part of ancient Hebrew literature is verse, and what part is prose? In the following, I examine the degree to which three text models of ancient Hebrew verse shed light on the matter, in general, and with respect to Qohelet, specifically: (1) the Kampen model; (2) O’Connor’s model; and (3) the model that I propose.

The Kampen Model 16 In a programmatic essay on the art of versification in ancient Israel and Ugarit, Johannes de Moor allows for verses with as many as 3 equivalent stichs, each of which contains 1–5 stress-bearing words. 17 In a later programmatic essay, Marjo Korpel and Johannes de Moor set out a text model of ancient Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry with even greater flexibility. Lines (called verses) ranging from 1 to 9 stichs (referred to as cola) are posited. The number of stress-bearing words (referred to as feet) within a colon, once again, range from 1 to 5. 18 The Kampen model is so broadly gauged that it cannot distinguish between (1) the prose of Genesis, Ruth, and Lev 19–26; and (2) the poetry of Proverbs, Job, and Isa 40–55. To be sure, Korpel and de Moor’s volume on Isa 40–55 and Korpel’s 16.  So-called because its proponents are connected with the Kampen School of Theology in the Netherlands. 17.  J. C. de Moor, “The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel I: The Rhythmical Structure,” in Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau; Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1978) 130. 18.  M. C. A. Korpel and J. C. de Moor, “Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry,” UF 18 (1986) 173–212 (repr. in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry [ed. W. van der Meer and J. C. de Moor; JSOTSup 74; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988] 1–61).

174

John F. Hobbins

volume on Ruth are methodologically rigorous and rich in acute observations. 19 Korpel comes to a logical conclusion in her studies of Ruth and Lev 26:3–45. Congruent with the text model she co-developed, she scans Ruth and Lev 26:3–45 according to the same principles with which she and de Moor scanned Isa 40–55. 20 But is the “colometry” of Lev 26 indistinguishable from that of Isa 40–55? Do Ruth 2:1–10 and 1 Sam 2:1–10, for example, conform to the same set of prosodic regularities? That all of these texts pass muster with the “Kampen model” proves little. Korpel recognizes that her colometric analysis of Ruth says nothing about whether Ruth is poetry or prose. 21 Language in general conforms to prosodic patterns. It might be said that the Kampen model captures the prosodic patterns of ancient Hebrew prose as well as the more constrained prosodic patterns of ancient Hebrew poetry. Poetry the world over is distinguished from prose in that poetry conforms, line by line, to a conventional subset of the prosodic patterns found in prose. Nonetheless, it is sometimes asserted that ancient Hebrew verse is bereft of prosodic regularities that distinguish it from ancient Hebrew prose, in which case it would be unique among the world’s poetries. The assertion is most easily interpreted as a counsel of despair. For a critique of the “ancient Hebrew verse is unmetrical” position, see the appendix at the conclusion of this essay. If the Kampen model is applied to Qoh 2:4–7, the results are as follows. The passage is lineated in BHS, tob, and BHQ. BHQ divides it into 7 monopartite and 2 bipartite lines with monopartite lines ranging in length from 2 to 7 words and 6 to 12 syllables. Monopartite lines are allowed in the Kampen model but rarely crop up in practice. Adjusted in this sense, Qoh 2:4–7 divides into “cola” according to the Kampen model along the following lines: Stressed Feet 2:3:3 4:4 4:5

No. of Syllables 4:5:6 9:8 8:10

3:3 8:6 (3:3):4 12:12

Colon Colon ‫ָמים‬ ִ ‫ָּתים נָט ְַע ִּתי ִלי ְּכר‬ ִ ‫ִיתי ִלי ּב‬ ִ ‫ָּבנ‬ ‫ְונָט ְַע ִּתי ָבהֶם עֵץ‬ ‫ֶרי‬ ִ‫ּכָל־ּפ‬ ‫ַׁשקֹות ֵמהֶם יַעַר‬ ְ ‫ְלה‬ ‫צֹומ ֵַח ע ִֵצים‬ ‫ּובנֵי־ ַביִת ָהיָה ִלי‬ ְ ‫ׁשהָיּו ְל ָפנַי‬ ֶ ‫ִמּכֹל‬ ‫ה ְַרּבֵה ָהיָה ִלי‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם‬ ָ ‫ִּב‬

Colon Qoh ‫ֲׂשי‬ ָ ‫ ִה ְגּדַ ְל ִּתי ַמע‬2:4 ‫יתי ִלי ּגַּנֹות ּופ ְַרּדֵ ִסים‬ ִ ‫ָׂש‬ ִ ‫ ע‬2:5 ‫יתי ִלי ְּברֵכֹות ָמיִם‬ ִ ‫ָׂש‬ ִ ‫ ע‬2:6 ‫ּוׁשפָחֹות‬ ְ ‫ָדים‬ ִ ‫ִיתי עֲב‬ ִ ‫ ָקנ‬2:7 ‫ָקר וָצֹאן‬ ָ ‫ַם[־]מ ְקנֶה ב‬ ִ ‫ּג‬

19.  Korpel and de Moor, Isaiah 40–55; Korpel, Ruth. 20.  On Lev 26:3–45, see idem, “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code,” in Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (ed. J. C. de Moor and W. G. E. Watson; AOAT 42; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993) 123–50. 21.  Korpel, Ruth, 33, 40, 42.

The Poetry of Qohelet

175

Compare Qoh 1:7–8, which has been treated as poetry by a majority of Hebraists since Ewald: Stressed No. of Feet Syllables 3:3 9:7 3:3 8:6 3:3 7:8 3:3 6:8

‫י‬

Colon ‫ְו ַהּיָם אֵינֶּנּו ָמלֵא‬ ‫ׁש ִבים ָל ָלכֶת‬ ָ ‫ׁשם[־]הֵם‬ ָ ֹ ‫לא־יּוכַל אִיׁש ְלדַ ּבֵר‬ ֹ ‫ְול‬ ‫ּׁשמ ֹ ַע‬ ְ ‫א⟨־⟩ת ָּמלֵא אֹזֶן ִמ‬ ִ

Colon ‫ָלים ה ְֹל ִכים אֶל־ ַהּיָם‬ ִ ‫ ּכָל־ ַה ְּנח‬1:7 ‫ָלים ה ְֹל ִכים‬ ִ ‫ׁש ַה ְּנח‬ ֶ ‫ֶל־מקֹום‬ ְ ‫א‬ ‫ָרים ְיג ִֵעים‬ ִ‫ ּכָל־ה ְַּדב‬1:8 ‫א־ת ְׂשּבַע ַעיִן ִל ְראּות‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬

The numbers in the far left-hand column count stress-bearing feet (the assumption being that the stress-bearing foot is the minimal counting unit; see further below). Stress-retention and -deletion rules that would have been in play in ancient Hebrew verse remain in the realm of hypothesis; the rules that the Masoretes followed are sensitive to the collocation of words within subdivisions of a given pasuq; the ancient poets, it may safely be assumed, did not compose in pesuqim; pesuqim vary too much in length (as short as 4- and as long as 13-stress units in the Psalms) to be counted as units on a par with each other. The rare occasions in which I delete stress where the MT does not are marked by brackets around the added maqqeph. Where I otherwise add a primary stress, pointed brackets surround the deleted maqqeph. The numbers in the second column from the left refer to the number of syllables: the definition of the syllable and rules of crasis and other types of elision remain in the realm of hypothesis. I count syllables much as Freedman and Fokkelman do, but I focus on aggregates, not averages. 22 However, I do not count word-final, 22. Cv1(C)Cv2Cv3(C), where v2 is a shewa, is treated as bisyllabic (unless the shewa stands under a C with a strong dagesh). Segholates are monosyllabic. Unaccented syllables at the close of stress-bearing feet are not counted. Syllable-counting in recent times began with F. M. Cross Jr. and D. N. Freedman (Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry [2nd ed.; Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997] 5–8, 129). They affirmed the approach of Ley and Sievers based on the counting of stresses, even as they revived an approach based on syllable counting. Freedman applied the syllable-counting method to a wide variety of poetic texts. The list of relevant studies is long and need not be reproduced here. Cross adopted a notation designating long and short cola that, in his own words, “leaves open the question” whether the “rhythm” of Hebrew verse was accentual or syllabicquantitative (“The Prosody of Lamentations 1 and the Psalm of Jonah,” in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998] 102). But that is not the case. In some of his essays, a long colon is one that contains 3 stresses maximum; a short colon, 2. In others, a long colon is a colon with an aggregate syllable count and/or word count superior to that of the short colon with which it is paired. Other syllable counters: R. C. Culley (Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms [Near and Middle East Series 4; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967; idem, “Metrical Analysis of Classical Hebrew Poetry,” in Essays on the Ancient Semitic World [ed. J. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970] 12–28), D. K. Stuart (Studies in Early Hebrew Meter [HSM 13; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976]), A. H. Bartelt (The Book around

176

John F. Hobbins

post-tonic syllables. If they were counted, the syllable counts I offer would be modestly higher. The stress-bearing units and syllable counts point to subtle but significant differences between the passages. The rhythmic balance of Qoh 1:7–8, a feature of Hebrew poetry that Korpel and de Moor emphasize but do not parameterize except in the broadest of terms, contrasts with the rhythmic balance of 2:4–7. Cola in 2:4–7 range from 5 to 12 syllables versus the tighter 6 to 9 in 1:7–8; 2–5 stressbearing units per colon in 2:4–7 versus the tighter 3–4 in 1:7–8 (with destressed ‫ הֵם‬in 1:7). Nonetheless, Qoh 2:4–7, no less than 1:7–8, conforms to the Kampen model. Even so, when the last line of 2:7 is trisected as above, all semblance of rhythmic, semantic, and syntactic balance among its parts and in relation to the preceding line collapses. On the text model that I outline below, Qoh 2:4–7 is not verse. Some of its putative “half-lines” are too long, with 4–5 stress-bearing words, not 2–3 or 3–4. The cola of 2:5–6 might be bisected, with enjambment in each case, but the cola of 2:7b resist bisection. As prose, 2:4–7 looks like this: ‫יתי ִלי ּגַּנֹות ּופ ְַרּדֵ ִסים ְונָט ְַע ִּתי‬ ִ ‫ָׂש‬ ִ ‫ָמים ע‬ ִ ‫ָּתים נָט ְַע ִּתי ִלי ְּכר‬ ִ ‫ִיתי ִלי ּב‬ ִ ‫ֲׂשי ָּבנ‬ ָ ‫ִה ְגּדַ ְל ִּתי ַמע‬ ‫ִיתי‬ ִ ‫ַׁשקֹות ֵמהֶם יַעַר צֹומ ֵַח ע ִֵצים׃ ָקנ‬ ְ ‫יתי ִלי ְּברֵכֹות ָמיִם ְלה‬ ִ ‫ָׂש‬ ִ ‫ֶרי ע‬ ִ‫ָבהֶם עֵץ ּכָל־ּפ‬ Immanuel: Style and Structure in Isaiah 2–12 [Biblical and Judaic Studies from UCSD 4; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996]), P. R. Raabe (Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 24D; New York: Doubleday, 1996]), D. M. Howard Jr. (The Structure of Psalms 93–100 [Biblical and Judaic Studies from UCSD 5; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997]), J. P. Fokkelman (see, for example, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis, I: Ex. 15, Deut. 32, and Job 3; idem, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis, II: 85 Psalms and Job 4–14; idem, III: The Remaining 65 Psalms; idem, IV: Job 15–42 [4 vols.; SSN 37, 41, 43, 47; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998–2004]), and V. DeCaen (“Theme and Variation”). Freedman and his school reason in terms of syllable-count averages. See D. Noel Freedman, “Acrostics and Metrics in Hebrew Poetry,” Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980) 76 (61⁄2–9 syllables per colon/stich/half-line on average); A. H. Bartelt, The Book around Immanuel, 247 (8-syllable norm for a half-line). J. P. Fokkelman (Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide [trans. I. Smit; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001] 47–48) counts 7–9 syllables per half-line on average, with 8 indicated as “the central norm figure of prosody.” In his SSN volumes, he identifies poems with averages of exactly 7, 8, or 9 syllables per half-line, with not a syllable to spare. For syllablecount averages to be more than a by-product of overall regularity, one must assume that poets reworked their poems until calculations demonstrated that a normative syllable-count average had been achieved. This is not a likely scenario. Nevertheless, to judge from Eusebius of Caesarea, according to whom “it is said” that Deut 32 and Ps 119 “are composed in what the Greeks call heroic meter,” that is, “hexameters consisting of sixteen syllables” (Praep. ev. 11.5), the practice of counting the syllables of ancient Hebrew verse is at least as old as the comparative study of Greek and Hebrew poetry.

The Poetry of Qohelet

177

‫ׁשהָיּו‬ ֶ ‫ָקר וָצֹאן ה ְַרּבֵה ָהיָה ִלי ִמּכֹל‬ ָ ‫ּובנֵי־ ַביִת ָהיָה ִלי ּגַם ִמ ְקנֶה ב‬ ְ ‫ּוׁשפָחֹות‬ ְ ‫ָדים‬ ִ ‫עֲב‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם‬ ָ ‫ְל ָפנַי ִּב‬ I made my projects grand; I built myself houses, planted myself vineyards, made myself gardens and orchards and planted them with fruit trees of all kinds. I made myself pools of water from which to water a wood growing with trees. I got male and female slaves, and homeborn slaves were mine. More herds and flocks were mine, too, than all those who preceded me in Jerusalem. Qohelet 2:4–7 possesses a powerful rhetorical structure that is dependent on the repeated use of semantic, syntactic, and morphological parallelisms. Nonetheless, 2:4–7 lacks the prosodic parallelisms that are characteristic of verse. On the Kampen model, not only the book of Ruth and Lev 26:3–45 scan “colometrically.” So does Qohelet. But this does not mean that Qohelet entire is verse.

O’Connor’s Syntactic Constraints M. O’Connor’s Hebrew Verse Structure is an innovative study of great importance. 23 At what O’Connor calls the line level (= stich, half-line, or colon in alternative terminologies), he develops an alternative to more-familiar systems of meter in the form of a system of syntactic constraints. The “unit” in O’Connor’s system of syntactic constraints, what he refers to as a lexical word along with particles dependent on it, 24 is a syntactic unit, not a prosodic unit. This leads O’Connor to treat polysyllabic compound prepositions and the like as dependencies of lexical words, not as self-standing units, as one might do at the prosodic level. 25 The constraints of most interest here are: 2. A line [= colon or half-line] contains 1–4 [clause] constituents. 3. A line contains 2–5 units. 4. A constituent contains 1–4 units. 26

23. M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980; rev. ed., 1997, includes “The Contours of Biblical Hebrew Verse: An Afterword to Hebrew Verse Structure” [pp. 631–61]). 24.  Ibid., 68. 25.  The problems inherent in O’Connor’s original constraint 3, from the prosodic point of view, led William L. Holladay to suggest that compound and triconsonantal prepositions be treated as prosodic units in O’Connor’s syntactic system (“Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (I): Which Words ‘Count’?” JBL 118 [1999] 28). But this is a category mistake, avoided by O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 298–99. 26.  For a complete list of constraints, see ibid., 86–87, 317–18.

178

John F. Hobbins

Constraints 2–4 are widely gauged. Unless the constraints are tightened up (I note elsewhere that parameters of 1 to 3 in the above rules are defensible), 27 in practice, they are unable to distinguish verse from prose. Qohelet 6:3–6 may exemplify this problem. BHQ divides the passage into 5 monopartite and 5 bipartite lines with monopartite lines ranging in length from 2 to 7 words and 6 to 12 syllables. Monopartite lines are contemplated in O’Connor’s model but rarely show up in practice. Adjusted in this sense, Qoh 6:3–6 scans as follows in conformity to O’Connor’s constraints: Stressed No. of Feet Syllables 3:3 6:7 4:3 9:10 4:4 9:7 (2:2):3 (4:5):8 (2:2):3 (5:4):5 4:3 8:6 4:2 9:4

Colon Colon Qoh ‫ִחיֶה‬ ְ ‫ׁשנִים רַ ּבֹות י‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ ‫ם־יֹוליד ִאיׁש ֵמאָה‬ ִ ‫ ִא‬6:3 ‫א־ת ְׂשּבַע ִמן־הַּטֹובָה‬ ִ ֹ ‫ְונ ְַפׁשֹו ל‬ ‫ׁשנָיו‬ ָ ‫ִהיּו ְימֵי‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ְורַ ב‬ ‫ָאמ ְַר ִּתי טֹוב ִמּמֶּנּו ַהּנָפֶל‬ ‫ְתה ּלֹו‬ ָ ‫ַם⟨־⟩קבּורָה לֹא־ ָהי‬ ְ ‫ְוג‬ ְ ְ ְ ‫ׁשמֹו ְיכֻּסֶה‬ ְ ‫שך‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ׁשך יֵלֵך ּובַח‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ ִּכי־ ַב ֶהבֶל ּבָא   ּובַח‬6:4 ‫ָדע נַחַת ָלזֶה ִמּזֶה‬ ָ ‫א־ראָה ְ ולֹא י‬ ָ ֹ ‫ַם־ׁשמֶׁש ל‬ ֶ ‫ ּג‬6:5 ֹ ‫ׁשנִים ַּפעֲ ַמיִם ְוטֹובָה לא ָראָה‬ ָ ‫ ְו ִאּלּו ָחיָה ֶאלֶף‬6:6 ‫הֲלֹא אֶל־מָקֹום ֶאחָד‬ ‫הַּכֹל הֹול ְֵך‬

Chunked according to syntactic units, as above, the passage does not stand outside O’Connor’s syntactic constraints for verse. As far as his constraints are concerned, the passage is verse. But the prosody of the passage and the spotty use of parallelism tell another story. On my text model (details below), a half-line (= a line in O’Connor’s terminology) with 5 stress-bearing units, as in the first half-line of 6:6, is suspect. So is a 4-unit half-line not analyzable prosodically as 2:2; thus, the last half-line of 6:3 is suspect. Qohelet 6:4–5 alone, 2 out of 7 posited lines, exhibit a high concentration of semantic, syntactic, and morphological parallelisms. In O’Connor’s description of Hebrew verse, this is not important: contra the consensus since Lowth, in O’Connor’s description the trope of parallelism is not treated as a diagnostic feature of verse. 28 27.  J. F. Hobbins, “Regularities in Ancient Hebrew Verse: A New Descriptive Model,” ZAW 119 (2007) 582. 28.  O’Connor’s description of what he calls the tropes of repetition, coloration, matching, and gapping clarifies and obscures at the same time (Hebrew Verse Structure, 361–407). By no longer singling out parallelism as the chief hallmark of Hebrew verse, his approach regresses vis-à-vis the classic description. Ongoing research attending to semantic, syntactic, morphological, and sonic parallelisms confirms that parallelism deserves pride of place in a description of ancient Hebrew poetry. For an overview, see A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008); idem, “Parallelism” ABD 5.155–62; earlier, G. B. Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry: Considered with Special Reference to the Criticism and Interpretation of the Old Testament (repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002) 37–83, 87–120, passim; D. Pardee,

The Poetry of Qohelet

179

Finally, the division of Qoh 6:3 into 3 bipartite lines is artificial, if the cogency of the following sentence-level analysis is granted: the structure is an asymmetrical (3:1):2 at the clause level, with a 4-clause protasis in which the last clause contrasts with the first 3; followed by an apodosis made up of a 1-word quotation formula and a 3-word quotation. The 3:1 ratios suggest prose. Qohelet 6:4–5 on the other hand is best understood as a poetic inset, according to the following pattern: ‫א־ת ְׂשּבַע ִמן־‬ ִ ֹ ‫ׁשנָיו ְונ ְַפׁשֹו ל‬ ָ ‫ִהיּו ְימֵי‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ִחיֶה ְורַ ב‬ ְ ‫ׁשנִים רַ ּבֹות י‬ ָ ‫ם־יֹוליד ִאיׁש ֵמאָה ְו‬ ִ ‫ִא‬ ‫ְתה ּלֹו ָאמ ְַר ִּתי טֹוב ִמּמֶּנּו ַהּנָפֶל׃‬ ָ ‫ַם־קבּורָה לֹא־ ָהי‬ ְ ‫הַּטֹובָה ְוג‬ (2:2):3 9:8 ‫ׁשמֹו ְיכֻּסֶה׃‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְך‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ּובַח‬ ‫ׁש ְך יֵל ְֵך‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ִּכי־ ַב ֶהבֶל ּבָא ּובַח‬ (2:2):3 9:5 ‫נַחַת ָלזֶה ִמּזֶה׃‬ ‫ָדע‬ ָ ‫א־ראָה ְולֹא י‬ ָ ֹ ‫ַם־ׁשמֶׁש ל‬ ֶ ‫ּג‬ ְ ‫ׁשנִים ַּפעֲ ַמיִם ְוטֹובָה לֹא ָראָה הֲלֹא אֶל־מָקֹום ֶאחָד הַּכֹל הֹולֵך׃‬ ָ ‫ְו ִאּלּו ָחיָה ֶאלֶף‬

6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6

Were a man to have a hundred children and live many years, however great his age might be, but his appetite was not satisfied with the goodness thereof, though it lack a proper burial I say: A stillborn child is better off than he, for into crock hea came, into darkness he will go, and with darkness his name will be covered. The self-same sun he did not see and did not know; repose was more itsb than his. And if he were to live a thousand years twice over, and not see the goodness thereof! Is it not so, to one and the same place all go? a.  The man who found no pleasure in life. b.  The unborn child’s.

On this reading, no matter how long you live and how many children you have, if you don’t enjoy life (“see” and “know the sun”), it would be better if you had never lived at all (“come into crock”). Qohelet 6:4–5, as is true of other poetic insets in Qohelet, depends on its prose context not only semantically but syntactically.

Regularities of Ancient Hebrew Verse: An Alternative Model It is a commonplace to point out that parallelism is the chief hallmark of ancient Hebrew poetry. A dense web of prosodic, semantic, syntactic, morphological, and phonological features parallel each other across the building blocks of ancient Hebrew verse (half-lines, lines, and strophes in my terminology). 29 Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut ( ʿnt I and Proverbs 2) (VTSup 39; Leiden: Brill, 1988); overview in ibid., “Appendix I: Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry—Parallelism,” 168–92, and “Appendix II: Types and Distributions in Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry,” 193–201; W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (repr. with corrections and supplementary bibliog.: London: T. & T. Clark, 2005) 114–59, 457–58; §6 in the concluding unnumbered pages, and in the final “Supplementary Bibliography.” 29. For an introduction to the subject of parallelism, see Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism.

180

John F. Hobbins

Semantic, syntactic, and morphological parallelisms are, however, found in all texts—prose narrative, prose instruction, and poetry alike. The salient difference: prosodic parallelisms are obligatory in poetry. In ancient Hebrew verse, a line of defined phonological length and cadence is unfailingly followed by another until a poem’s conclusion. 30 According to the working hypothesis I adopt based on inductive analysis, ancient Hebrew verse instantiates a strong-stress meter in which the foot is the domain of strong stress. In the writing practices of many languages, including Masoretic Hebrew, an orthographic word may be composed of a lexical word to which a short-function word attaches suprasegmentally, the whole of which is dominated by a single main stress. Words without word stress are known as proclitics and enclitics. A prosodic word in ancient Hebrew is most often single-footed but, less often, double-footed. The foot is iambic—of uneven duration, with final prominence—and composed of up to 2 pretonic, 1 tonic, and 1 posttonic syllables. For example, ‫ ְר ָפ ֵ֯אנִי‬and ‫ ְּתי ְַּס֯רֵ נִי‬are analyzed as having a total of 4 syllables: 2 pre­tonic, 1 tonic, and 1 posttonic; ‫אֹו ְיבֵי֯הֶם‬, with elision, a total of 3; ‫א ְֹי֯בֶי ָה‬, with elision again, 3; ‫ְ֯בים‬ ִ ‫ל֯אֹי‬, ְ however, has 4 syllables and 2 feet. This is not the place to go into the details of foot identification; nor, for the purposes of this article, do I double-foot long prosodic words; I am hardly the first to describe ancient Hebrew poetry in terms of strong-stress regularities on all its fundamental components. 31 30.  Not unlike ancient Hebrew verse, verse in Shor, Uzbek, and other Turkic languages as well as Khanty, Mordvin-Moksha, and other Uralic languages is characterized by lines that vary in length but within consistent limits and that exhibit a high density of semantic and syntactic parallelism. See V. M. Zhirmunsky, “Rhythmico-Syntactic Parallelism as the Basis of Old Turkic Folk Epic Verse,” Selected Writing: Linguistics, Poetics (Moscow: Progress, 1985) 320–62; W. Steinitz, Der Parallelismus in der finnisch-karelischen Volksdichtung (Folklore Fellows Communication 115; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1934) 4–14; idem, Ostjakologische Arbeiten (ed. G. Sauer and R. Steinitz; 4 vols.; Janua linguarum Series practica 254–57; The Haag: Mouton, 1975–89). Early Japanese, early Slavic, early Spanish, and Old Latin poetries likewise exhibit constrained variation in terms of the number of comparable units that make up a line or a colon. For a first orientation, see the relevant articles in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (3rd ed.; ed. A. Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). 31.  Primary stress analysis of ancient Hebrew verse was pioneered by Julius Ley. One often reads of the “Ley-Sievers method”; it is Sievers, not only Ley, to whom we are indebted. In Sievers’s work, the minimal counting unit is the foot; the parameters of the unit are defined in terms of an iambic-anapestic rhythm (E. Sievers, Metrische Studien I: Studien zur hebräischen Metrik. Untersuchungen—Textproben [ASAW 21/1–2; Leipzig: Teubner, 1901] 144 et passim). Ley on his part conceived of the bipartite line as the fundamental building block of ancient Hebrew poetry and identified the tripartite line (dreigliedrige Langverse) as a rare variation thereof (J. Ley, Leitfaden der Metrik der hebräischen Poesie [Halle: Waisenhauses, 1887] 8–17). During the last 50 years, a number of commentators have applied a stress-counting method to a large corpus of texts. Examples include L. Alonso Schökel, Estudios de poética hebrea (Barcelona: Juan Flors, 1963) 165–88 (Isa 1–21), 188–89 (Isa 43–44), 451–87 (Isa 24–27), 489–523 (Isa 28–30); H. Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12 (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); idem, Isaiah 13–27

The Poetry of Qohelet

181

According to my hypothesis, ancient Hebrew verse is confined within a system of “twos and threes.” Two, 3, or (2+2) feet make up a “half-line”; 2–3 halflines, a poetic “line”; and 2–3 lines, a “strophe.” Strophes combine to form “stanzas,” stanzas “sections,” and so on; the rule of twos and threes is to a large extent still operative on the levels of stanza and above. I refer to these patterns as the general rule. As already noted, a half-line consists of 2, 3, or 2:2 stress-bearing feet. (2:2):3, 3:(2:2), 3:3, and 3:2 lines are commonplace. Additionally, (2:2):(2:2) lines are found in conjunction with (2:2):3 and 3:3 lines but not with 3:2, 2:3, and 2:2 lines. Tripartite lines in which each part is the length of a usual half-line—that is, lines with “three halves”—are not infrequent in ancient Hebrew verse. Charles Hartman put it well: “Verse is language in lines.” 32 Albert Willem de Groot stated it even better: “Continuous correspondence of successive segments, called ‘lines,’ is the only constant feature which distinguishes verse from prose.” 33 The inevitable question, with respect to ancient Hebrew verse no less than any other corpus of verse, is: what length and caesura regularities govern the shape of Hebrew verse’s lines? My text model attempts to answer this question. In strong-stress meter, it is important to distinguish between meter and rhythm. Viktor Zhirmunsky explains:   Pure tonic verse is based on a count of the stressed syllables; the number of unstressed syllables is a variable quantity. . . . When attention is focused on the stressed syllables, groups of unstressed syllables—even though they contain varying numbers of syllables—may be perceived as equivalent to each other.   Of course, the number of unstressed syllables between stresses is of essential importance in shaping the rhythm of individual lines or of the poem as a whole: since, however, such syllables form no part of the compositional structure, they belong to the area of rhythm, not meter. 34

The general rule describes the parameters of ancient Hebrew verse in terms of strong stresses. When phonological length is parameterized, three discrete systems of constraint within the framework of the general rule are identifiable across the corpus of ancient Hebrew poetry. 35 (CC, 1997); idem, Isaiah 28–39 (CC, 2002); and L. C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 Revised (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002). 32.  C. O. Hartman, Free Verse: An Essay on Prosody (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980) 11; cited by W. T. W. Cloete, Versification and Syntax in Jeremiah 2–25: Syntactical Constraints in Hebrew Colometry (SBLDS 117; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 5. 33.  A. W. de Groot, “The Description of a Poem,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27–31, 1962 (ed. H. G. Lunt; The Hague: Mouton, 1964) 299; cited by Cloete, Versification, 5. 34.  V. M. Zhirmunsky, Introduction to Metrics: The Theory of Verse (trans. and ed. C. E. Brown; The Hague: Mouton, 1966) 171; cited by Cloete, Versification, 9. 35.  For an overview, see “Varieties of Ancient Hebrew Verse,” in Hobbins, “Regularities,” 578–79. However, I now regard the foot, not the prosodic word as the basic building block of ancient Hebrew verse.

182

John F. Hobbins

In common meter (includes most extant ancient Hebrew verse), the length of half-lines and lines, with post-stress syllables at the close of half-lines not counted, is constrained as follows: a well-formed half-line contains no more than 10 syllables (absent the constraint, given the fact that feet in Hebrew range up to 4 syllables in length, it would contain up to 15); a bipartite line, no less than 6 but no more than 18 syllables; a tripartite line, up to but no more than 24 syllables. Examples are: Isa 1:2–20, 40:1–11; Zeph 1–3. Qinah meter is more severely constrained. The “a” half-line in a bipartite line normally contains 5–8 syllables, and the “b” half-line has 3–7 syllables; in a tripartite line, each half-line contains 3–5 syllables. Lines contain 9–14 syllables. Qinah poetry is dominated by lines with a shorter or syncopated second half, with halves being defined as the text on either side of the major caesura (in a tripartite line, the “c” half-line constitutes the second half). Occasionally, halves are equal in length; very rarely, the second half is slightly longer than the first. Examples of verse with qinah meter are: Lam 1–4, Jonah 2:3–10. Mashal meter is dominated by lines in which half-lines are approximately equal in length; “approximately equal” is defined as ±3 syllables. Half-lines of 4–8 syllables dominate, with 10 syllables nonetheless representing, as in common meter, the outer limit. Examples are: Prov 1:10–33, 2:1–22, 8:1–21; Pss 111–12. The above model is tight and holds potential for distinguishing poetry from prose in a putatively mixed text such as Qohelet. I have already offered examples of cases in which the model I propose is helpful to determine whether a given text is poetry or prose. Qohelet 1:7–8 proved amenable to scansion in terms of the general rule. On the basis of the same rule, 2:4–7 proved to be non-verse. Qohelet 6:3–6 turned out to consist of a prose frame (6:3, 6) with a verse inset (6:4–5). Another example is Qoh 1:16–18: ‫ֲׁשר־ ָהיָה‬ ֶ ‫ָכמָה עַל ּכָל־א‬ ְ ‫אנִי ִהּנֵה ִה ְגּדַ ְל ִּתי ְוהֹוס ְַפ ִּתי ח‬ ֲ ‫ם־ל ִּבי לֵאמֹר‬ ִ ‫אנִי ִע‬ ֲ ‫ִּדּב ְַר ִּתי‬ ‫ָכמָה ְודַ עַת‬ ְ ‫ֶּתנָה ִל ִּבי לָדַ עַת ח‬ ְ ‫ָדעַת ָוא‬ ָ ‫ָכמָה ו‬ ְ ‫ְרּוׁש ִָלם ְו ִל ִּבי ָראָה ה ְַרּבֵה ח‬ ָ ‫ְל ָפנַי עַל־י‬ ‫רּוח‬ ַ ‫ׁשּגַם־זֶה הּוא רַ ְעיֹון‬ ֶ ‫הֹולֵלֹות ְו ִׂש ְכלּות יָדַ ְע ִּתי‬ 3:(2:2) 7:8 ‫יֹוסיף מ ְַכאֹוב‬ ִ ‫יֹוסיף ּדַ עַת‬ ִ ‫ְו‬ ‫ָכמָה רָב־ ָּכעַס‬ ְ ‫י[־]ּברֹב ח‬ ְ ‫ִּכ‬ ‫י‬

I spoke with my heart: “Think about it. I amassed and added to wisdom above that of everyone who preceded me in charge of Jerusalem. My heart apprehended a great amount of wisdom and knowledge. I applied my heart to understand wisdom and knowledge.” It was madness and folly, I understood, because such [the pursuit of knowledge] is also a crock of a preoccupation, for with much wisdom, much irritation; whoever increases knowledge increases pain.

The Poetry of Qohelet

183

On this reading, 1:16–17 is a narrative unit capped off by a proverb (1:18) of which the narrative is an illustration. (So also, for example, is 1:12–14, 15.) The word ‫ִּכי‬ at the onset of 1:18 stands precisely at the boundary separating the prose frame from the verse inset. To be sure, it is possible to break 1:16–17 into bite-sized units, but the clauses in 1:16–17 do not form clusters of 2–3 stress-bearing feet or otherwise subdivide into lines and part-lines of approximately equal length. Verse 18 exhibits a consistent texture of prosodic, semantic, syntactic, morphological, and phonological parallelisms. Verses 16–17 do not. Qohelet 1:16–17 is formatted as prose by BHQ and most versions. Nonetheless, 1:16–17 can be set out colometrically; Korpel so arranged the entire book of Ruth. It may be broken into “lines” on O’Connor’s definition, not one of which would stand outside the constraints that he offers. Based on my model, 1:16–17, given its prosody, cannot be verse. My proposed model does not solve all of the problems of identification. Qohelet 2:1–2 may illustrate. BHQ parses it as consisting of 3 bipartite and 2 monopartite lines: 2:1 begins and ends with a monopartite line, which might be thought of as intermingled prose. Many translations format both verses as prose. The njpsv parses 2:1 as prose and 2:2 as poetry: ‫ּוראֵה ְבטֹוב ְו ִהּנֵה גַם־הּוא ָהבֶל‬ ְ ‫אנ ְַּסכָה ְב ִׂש ְמחָה‬ ֲ ‫אנִי ְּב ִל ִּבי ְלכָה־ּנָא‬ ֲ ‫ָאמ ְַר ִּתי‬ 3:3 7:7 ‫ׂשה‬ ָֹ ‫ּול ִׂש ְמחָה מַה־ּזֹה ע‬ ְ ‫ִל ְׂשחֹוק ָאמ ְַר ִּתי ְמהֹולָל‬

2:1 2:2

I said in my heart: “Up! I will have you experience pleasure and see a great time.” But really, it was just another crock. Of amusement I said, “Madness!”; of mirth, “What does that accomplish?” On the other hand, nothing prevents the isolation of part of 2:1 as a poetic line. 3:2 9:4

‫ּוראֵה ְבטֹוב‬ ְ

Up! I will have you experience pleasure

‫אנ ְַּסכָה ְב ִׂש ְמחָה‬ ֲ ‫ְלכָה־ּנָא‬ and see a great time.

Without consistently doing so over an entire stretch, Classical Hebrew direct discourse embedded in a narrative prose frame occasionally approaches verse in terms of prosody and frequency of parallelisms across its parts. This “one-line” example is a case in point.

Part 3: Worked Examples In this part, I set out and discuss extended examples of verse in Qohelet. Passages 1:2–11, 3:1–9, and 11:9–12:8 as construed below conform to the general rule of the model described above.

184

John F. Hobbins

Space does not permit a discussion of all examples of verse in Qohelet. Here is a list of texts in Qohelet that conform to the regularities of Hebrew verse instantiated in Job, Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Songs, Lamentations, and verse in the prophetic literature. (1) 1:2–11 (15 lines); (2) 1:15 (1 line); (3) 1:18 (1 line); (4) 2:1 (1 line); (5) 2:2 (1  line); (6) 2:11b (2 lines); (7) 2:14a (1 line); (8) 3:1–9 (16 lines); (9) 3:16b (2 lines); (10) 3:20 (2 lines); (11) 4:1b (2 lines); (12) 4:5–6 (2 lines with a trailer at the end of the second line); (13) 4:13 (2 lines); (14) 4:17–5:6 (18 lines, with 5:3b and 6b understood as rhetorically truncated lines consisting of a half-line only); (15) 6:4–5 (2 lines); (16) 7:1–2a, 3–6a, 7–9, 11–12 (13 lines, interspersed prose); (17) 8:1b (1 line); (18) 9:17–10:2 (4 lines); (19) 10:18–20 (4 lines); (20) 11:1–2a (2 lines); (21) 11:4 (1 line); (22) 11:6a ( 1 line); (23) 11:7 (1 line); (24) 11:9–12:8 (21 lines)—a total of 121 lines.

Integrated aphorisms (hereafter IAs) scattered throughout the book and pithy conclusions (hereafter PCs) that Qohelet occasionally presents conform to “mashal” meter: 1:15 (PC); 1:18 (PC = IA); 2:2 (PC); 2:14a (IA); 3:16b (PC = IA); 3:20 (PC); 4:1b (PC); 4:5–6 (redacted IA couplet); 4:13 (IA); 9:17–10:2 (IA); 10:18–20 (IA); 11:1–2a (IA); 11:4 (IA); 11:6a (IA); 11:7 (IA). The rare occasions on which I delete stress but on which the MT does not are marked by square brackets ([  ]) around the added maqqeph. A circlet stands over word-internal syllables that receive a primary stress. Where I otherwise add a primary stress, pointed brackets (⟨ ⟩) surround the deleted maqqeph.

(2:2):(2:2) (2:2):3 (2:2):2 (2:2):2 (2:2):2 (2:2):3 3:3 3:3 2:3 3:(2:2) 3:(2:2)  :(2:2) 3:3 3:3

10:8 10:7 6:8 9:7 9:6 8:9 9:7 9:6 7:7 6:8 8:10  :8 6:6 8:7

Qoheleth 1:2–11 ֹ ‫ָלים  הַּכל ָהבֶל‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫הבֵל‬ ֲ ‫ַק ֶֹהלֶת‬ ּ ‫ָלים   ָאמַר ה‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫הבֵל‬ ֲ 1:2 ‫ַּׁש ָמיִם‬ ָ ‫ׁשּיַעֲמֹל ּתַ חַת ה‬ ֶ ‫ ּבכָל⟨־⟩ ָעמָל‬ ְ ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ִתרֹון ָלא‬ ְ ‫ מַה־ּי‬1:3 ‫ְו ָה ָארֶץ ְלעֹולָם עֹמָדֶת׃‬ ‫ ּדֹור הֹל ְֵך ְ ודֹור ּבָא‬1:4 ‫ֶל־מקֹומֹו ׁשֹואֵף‬ ְ ‫ְוא‬ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש ּובָא ה‬ ֶ ‫רֵח ה‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ְוז‬1:5 ְ ‫ֶל־ּדרֹום ְוסֹובֵב אֶל־צָפֹון‬ ָ ‫הּוא[־]ׁשם׃  הֹולֵך א‬ ָ ‫זֹורֵח‬ ַ 1:6 ‫ָרּוח‬ ַ ‫ׁשב[־]ה‬ ָ ‫ַל־ס ִביב ָֹתיו‬ ְ ‫ְוע‬ ‫ָרּוח‬ ַ ‫סֹובֵב סֹבֵב הֹול ְֵך ה‬ ‫ְו ַהּיָם אֵינֶּנּו ָמלֵא‬ ‫ָלים ה ְֹל ִכים אֶל־ ַהּיָם‬ ִ ‫ ּכָל־ ַה ְּנח‬1:7 ‫ׁש ִבים ָל ָלכֶת‬ ָ ‫ׁשם[־]הֵם‬ ָ ‫ָלים ה ְֹל ִכים‬ ִ ‫ׁש ַה ְּנח‬ ֶ ‫ֶל־מקֹום‬ ְ ‫א‬ ֹ ‫לא־יּוכַל ִאיׁש ְלדַ ּבֵר‬ ‫ָרים ְיג ִֵעים‬ ִ‫ ּכָל־ה ְַּדב‬1:8 ֹ ‫ְול‬ ‫ּׁשמ ֹ ַע‬ ְ ‫א⟨־⟩ת ָּמלֵא  אֹזֶן ִמ‬ ִ ‫א־ת ְׂשּבַע ַעיִן ִל ְראֹות‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬ ‫ָׂשה‬ ֶ ‫ׁשּיֵע‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה  הּוא‬ ָ ‫ַה⟨־⟩ׁשּנַע‬ ֶ ‫ּומ‬ ‫ִהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ַה־ּׁש ָהיָה הּוא‬ ֶ ‫ מ‬1:9 ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ָדׁש ּתַ חַת ה‬ ָ ‫ְואֵין ּכָל־ח‬ ‫ָדׁש הּוא‬ ָ ‫ְראֵה־זֶה ח‬ ‫ׁשּיֹאמַר‬ ֶ ‫ י ֵׁש ָּדבָר‬1:10 ‫ֲׁשר ָהיָה ִמ ְּל ָפנֵנּו‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ָמים‬ ִ ‫ְּכבָר ָהיָה ְלעֹל‬ ‫י‬

‫י‬

The Poetry of Qohelet 3:3 3:3

7:9 8:8

‫ִהיּו‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ְוגַם ָל ַאחֲרֹנִים‬ ‫ִהיּו ָל ַאחֲרֹנָה‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ִעם‬

185 ‫ָראׁשֹנִים‬ ִ‫ִכרֹון ל‬ ְ ‫ אֵין ז‬1:11 ‫ִהיֶה ָלהֶם ִזּכָרֹון‬ ְ ‫לֹא־י‬

Summary: 1 + 14 lines (treating 1:2 as a one-line motto of the entire book). I scan Qoh 1:9 as a tripartite line. A perfect crock, said the Philosopher,

A perfect crock—it’s all a crock.

What accrues to man for all the trouble A generation comes, a generation goes, The sun comes out, the sun goes in, It comes out thence, goes to the south, Round and round the wind goes, All rivers go into the sea, The place the rivers go, All the weary specifics the eye is not satisfied by seeing, What happened is what will happen. Nothing new happens under the sun. Something of which one might say, it already happened in ages There is no memory of earlier things There will be no memory of them

he troubles with under heaven? the earth stands forever. it pants back to its place. and rounds to the north. on its rounds the wind returns. and the sea is never full. there they go again. that are beyond specification the ear not full from hearing. What occurred is what will occur. “Look, this is new!”: that happened before us. or of future things to come. among those to come in the future.

The sense in which ‫ ֶהבֶל‬in Qohelet works like “crock” in informal American discourse receives attention at the beginning of this essay. Against the apparent Vorlage of the Old Greek, 1:2 in the MT has ‫ ק ֶֹהלֶת‬without the article. Arguably, the MT assimilates to 1:1 and elsewhere. The set of denotative and connotative meanings that ‫ הַק ֹּ ֶהלֶת‬was meant to conjure up is unknown to us. Two denotative meanings often discussed—an assemblyman and a convener of an assembly—do not in any case relate to Q as presented in Qohelet. In German, there is a long tradition of rendering ‫ַק ֶֹהלֶת‬ ּ ‫ ה‬der Prediger, “the Preacher.” Not unlike “the Teacher” (nrsv) and “the Speaker” (reb), “the Preacher” moves in the direction of specifying what Q does within the world of the text. I render “the Philosopher” in an attempt to describe by means of a title what Q was at the intersection of the world of the text and the text’s historical milieu—according to the hypothesis that I consider the least problematic: Jerusalem of the late Persian or early Hellenistic period. Qohelet is a reasonable facsimile of a philosopher in the Greek sense of the term, adjusting for embedment within Second Temple Judaism. 36 36.  For a similar conclusion, see M. V. Fox, “Wisdom in Qoheleth,” in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie (ed. L. G. Perdue, B. B. Scott, and W. J. Wiseman; Louisville:

186

John F. Hobbins

Against the presumed parent text of Aquila and the Syriac, the MT and other ancient witnesses at 1:3 add a third-person-singular suffix (a clarifying expansion) to ‫“( עמל‬toil”). Against the presumed parent text of the Syriac, 1:3 MT and other ancient witnesses read, in lieu of ‫השמים‬, ‫השמש‬. Arguably, the MT and other ancient witnesses assimilate to the usual. The MT reads: 3:3

11:6

‫ַשמֶש‬ ּׁ ָ ‫ש ּי ַעֲמֹל תַ ּחַת ה‬ ֶׁ

‫ָדם ְבּכָל־עֲמָלֹו‬ ָ ‫מַה־ִי ְּתרֹון ָלא‬

What accrues to man for all his trouble he troubles with under the sun? Complete text-critical data and a thorough discussion are provided in BHQ, the preferred readings of which are identical to the readings adopted here. 37 A salient result is the reconstruction of a prosodic and semantic subunit, 1:3–4, that was previously obscured. The rsv = esv = nrsv, niv = tniv, and bg treat all of 1:2–11 as verse. Nonetheless, the run-on structures of 1:3, 9b, 10b with enjambment across the parts have been reason enough for many scholars to consider 1:3 and 1:10–11 prose. But this judgment overlooks the ubiquity of the phenomenon of enjambment in ancient Hebrew verse. 38 It overlooks verses such as the following: (2:2):3 (2:2):2 3:3 3:3

10:7 11:6 8:9 8:7

‫ַּׁש ָמיִם‬ ָ ‫ׁשּיַעֲמֹל ּתַ חַת ה‬ ֶ ‫ֵמעֲצֵי ה ְַּלבָנֹון‬ ‫ָמים‬ ִ ‫ְצ ִע ִירים ִמ ֶּמּנִי ְלי‬ ‫ָׁשית ִעם־ּכ ְַלבֵי צֹאנִי‬ ִ‫ל‬

‫ָדם ְּבכָל⟨־⟩ ָעמָל‬ ָ ‫ִתרֹון ָלא‬ ְ ‫מַה־ּי‬ ְ ‫ָׂשה[־]לֹו ַה ֶּמל‬ ‫ׁשלֹמֹה‬ ְ ‫ֶך‬ ָ ‫א ִַּפ ְריֹון ע‬ ‫ׂשחֲקּו ָעלַי‬ ָ ‫ְוע ַָּתה‬ ‫ֲבֹותם‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר⟨־⟩ ָמא ְַס ִּתי א‬ ֶ‫א‬

Qoh 1:3 Song 3:9 Job 30:1

Qohelet 1:3 and 1:10–11 instantiate precisely the prosodic parallelisms that the general rule requires of ancient Hebrew verse. The strong-stress meter of the half-lines and lines according fits the usual configurations of verse; so does: the function of 1:3 as the paradigmatic exemplification of 1:2; the (2:2):3 rhythm of 1:3 that runs through 1:4–5; the pairing of lines into couplets and the couplets into a couplet of couplets in 1:10–11; the cadence of 1:10–11 that echoes the cadence of 1:7–8; the simple, unadorned vocabulary of 1:3 and 1:10–11, as of 1:4–9; the studied repetition of vocabulary in 1:3 and 1:10–11 as in 1:4–9 (1:8b is the lone exception and is characterized, not by lexical repetition, but a1b1c1/a2b2c2 synonymous Westminster John Knox, 1993) 123; seconded by J. J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 14–15. 37.  Y. A. P. Goldman, “Qoheleth,” in Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 18: General Introduction and Megilloth (ed. A. Schenker et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004) *64–*65. 38. See O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 409; F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “The Enjambing Line in Lamentations: A Taxonomy (Part 1),” ZAW 113 (2001) 219–39; idem, “The Effects of Enjambment in Lamentations (Part 2),” ZAW 113 (2001) 371.

The Poetry of Qohelet

187

parallelisms)—all of these things militate in favor of construing 1:3 and 1:10–11 as verse of the same sort as 1:4–9, the prose style of the whole notwithstanding. The 1:4–9 passage, not just 1:3 and 1:10–11, is redolent of prose, though it conforms to the regularities of verse. Text 1:2–11 is not a typical poem, but it has a consistent texture and conforms to the general rule. Half-lines fall within a constrained range of cadence and length: 3–4 feet; 6–10 syllables, ±3 syllables across adjoining half-lines, as in mashal verse. Verse 1:2 could be understood as a couplet; 1:9a–b could be understood as short lines; 1:9c could be bisected. However, 2:2 lines of the sort found in Exod 15 are out of place here, given the surrounding long lines. In my judgment, 1:2 is best understood as a poetic motto of the entire book rather than the first line of the composition that follows; at the same time, it serves as a fitting introduction to the poem.

3:3 2:2 2:3 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:2 3:3 2:3 2:2 2:2

6:7 3:4 3:6 3:4 3:4 3:4 3:4 7:7 3:7 4:5 3:5

2:2 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:3

3:4 3:5 3:4 4:4 6:5

Qohelet 3:1–9 ‫ַּׁש ָמיִם‬ ָ ‫ְלכָל־ ֵחפֶץ ּתַ חַת ה‬ ‫ְועֵת לָמּות‬ ‫ְועֵת ַלעֲקֹור נָטּו ַע‬ ‫ְועֵת ִל ְרּפֹוא‬ ‫ְועֵת ִל ְבנֹות‬ ‫ְועֵת ִל ְׂשחֹוק‬ ‫ְועֵת ְרקֹוד‬ ‫א ָבנִים‬ ֲ ‫ְועֵת ְּכנֹוס‬ ‫ְועֵת ִל ְרחֹק ֵמ ַחּבֵק‬ ‫ְועֵת ְל ַאּבֵד‬ ְ‫ַׁש ִליך‬ ְ ‫ְועֵת ְלה‬ ‫ְועֵת ִל ְתּפֹור‬ ‫ְועֵת ְלדַ ּבֵר‬ ‫ְועֵת ִל ְׂשנֹא‬ ‫ׁשלֹום׃‬ ָ ‫ְועֵת‬ ‫ֲׁשר הּוא ָעמֵל‬ ֶ ‫ַּבא‬

‫לַּכֹל ְזמָן ְועֵת‬ ‫עֵת ָללֶדֶת‬ ‫עֵת ָל ַטעַת‬ ‫עֵת ַלהֲרֹוג‬ ‫עֵת ִל ְפרֹוץ‬ ‫עֵת ִל ְבּכֹות‬ ‫עֵת ְספֹוד‬ ְ ‫ַׁש ִל‬ ‫א ָבנִים‬ ֲ ‫יך‬ ְ ‫עֵת ְלה‬ ‫עֵת ַלחֲבֹוק‬ ‫עֵת ְל ַבּקֵׁש‬ ‫ׁשמֹור‬ ְ ‫עֵת ִל‬

3:1 3:2

‫עֵת ִל ְקרֹו ַע‬ ‫עֵת ַלחֲׁשֹות‬ ‫עֵת ֶלאֱהֹב‬ ‫עֵת ִמ ְל ָחמָה‬ ‫ָעֹוׂשה‬ ֶ ‫ִתרֹון ה‬ ְ ‫מַה־ּי‬

3:7

3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6

3:8 3:9

Summary: 1 + 14 + 1 lines. The opening and closing one-liners stand apart from the body of the composition. Neither is close to the body of the text in terms of syntax or the prosodic average. Verses 3:1 and 3:9 nonetheless introduce and conclude the composition on the semantic plane. 39 39. T. Linafelt and F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp argue persuasively for understanding 3:1 as verse and place the caesura in 3:1 after what translates literally as “For everything, a season and a time”

188

John F. Hobbins Qohelet 3:1–9 For everything a time and season, for every endeavor under heaven. A time to be born, a time to die; a time to plant, a time to uproot what was planted. A time to kill, a time to heal; a time to rip apart, a time to build. A time to cry, a time to laugh; a time for mourning, a time for dancing. A time to cast stones, a time of gathering stones; a time to embrace, a time to shun embrace. A time to seek, a time to abandon; a time to keep, a time to throw away. A time to tear, a time to mend; a time to hush, a time to speak. A time to love, a time to hate; a time for war, a time for peace. What does the doer get for the trouble he takes?

3:(2:2) 8:11 3:2 3:3 3:3 2:2 2:2 2:2 (2:2):3 (2:2):2 2:2 (2:2):3 3:3

8:5 6:9 7:8 5:5 5:6 6:5 9:5 10:9 6:3 9:8 8:9

3:3

8:6

Qohelet 11:9–12:8 ָ‫דּותיך‬ ⟩‫ ּבימֵי⟨־‬ ִ ָ‫יבךָ ִל ְּבך‬ ְ ‫יט‬ ִ ‫ִו‬ ֶ ‫ְׂשמַח ּבָחּור ְּבי ְַל‬ ָ‫ְבחּור ֶֹתיך‬ ָ‫ּובמ ְַראֵי עֵינֶיך‬ ָ‫ְו ַהּל ְֵך ְּבדַ ְרכֵי ִל ְּבך‬ ְ ָ ‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫ְביאֲך ָהאֱל ִֹהים ּב ִַּמ‬ ִ‫י‬ ‫ְו ָדע ִּכי[־]עַל⟨־⟩ּכָל־ ֵאּלֶה‬ ָ‫ׂשרֶך‬ ָ‫ְו ָהסֵר ַּכעַס ִמ ִּלּבֶך‬ ָ ‫ְו ַהעֲבֵר ָרעָה ִמ ְּב‬ ‫ְוהַּׁשַ חֲרּות ָהבֶל‬ ⟨  ַ‫ִּכי־ ַהּי ְַלדּות ⟨רּוח‬ ָ‫ִּבימֵי ְּבחּור ֶֹתיך‬ ָ‫ֶת־ּבֹוראֶיך‬ ְ ‫ּוזְכֹר א‬ ֹ ֹ ‫ָרעָה‬ ָ ‫ְימֵי ה‬ ‫ֲׁשר לא־יָבאּו‬ ֶ ‫עַד[־]א‬ ‫ֵין־לי ָבהֶם ֵחפֶץ‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ּתֹאמַר א‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ׁשנִים‬ ָ ‫ְו ִה ִּגיעּו‬ ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש ְוהָאֹור ְו ַהּיָרֵ ַח ְוהַּכֹוכ‬ ֶ ‫א־ת ְחׁשַ ְך ה‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ֲׁשר ל‬ ֶ ‫עַד[־]א‬ ‫ָׁשם‬ ֶ ‫ַאחַר ַהּג‬ ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ׁשבּו ֶהע‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ ‫ׁש ֹ ְמרֵי ַה ַּביִת ְו ִה ְתע ְַּותּו ַא ְנׁשֵי ֶה ָחיִל‬ ‫ׁשּיָזֻעּו‬ ֶ ‫ּבַּיֹום‬ ‫ארֻּבֹות‬ ֲ ‫ָׁשכּו הָרֹאֹות ָּב‬ ְ ‫ְוח‬ ]‫ָטלּו הַּטֹחֲנֹות ִּכי[־‬ ְ ‫ּוב‬ ‫ִמעֵטּו‬ ‫חנָה‬ ֲ ַ‫ׁשפַל קֹול הַּט‬ ְ ‫ִּב‬ ‫ְו ֻסּגְרּו ְדלָתַ יִם ּבַּׁשּוק‬

11:9

11:10

‫י‬

12:1

12:2 12:3

12:4

(“Poetic Line Structure in Qoheleth 3:1,” VT 60 [2010] 254–58). Their article came to my attention after I came to the same conclusion, presented here; I thank the authors for bringing the article to my notice. Linafelt and Dobbs-Allsopp do not treat 3:9 as verse. However, poetic “lines” [= half-lines] consisting of a simplex preposition + nominal are adequately attested in the corpus of ancient Hebrew verse; in addition to Ps 23:5, which the authors cite (p. 253), compare with the last line of Lam 1:3, the first bicola in Lam 1:6, and Lam 3:46. The suggestion, then, that a syntactic constraint was operative that disallowed half-lines of stand-alone nominals seems farfetched.

The Poetry of Qohelet 3:3 2:2 2:2:2 (2:2):3 (2:2):3 3:3 2:2 2:2 (2:2):2

8:8 ‫ַּׁשיר‬ ִ ‫ָל־ּבנֹות ה‬ ְ ‫ְויִּׁשַ חּו ּכ‬ ְ ‫ְוח ְַתח ִַּתים ּבֶַּדר‬ 6:6 ‫ֶך‬ 6:7:7 ‫ֲבּיֹונָה‬ ִ ‫ַּׁשקֵד ְו ִת ְפרַ ⟨ח⟩ ָהא‬ ָ ‫ְויָנֵאץ ה‬ 9:8 ‫ָבבּו בָּׁשּוק הַּס ְֹפ ִדים‬ ְ ‫אֶל־ּבֵית עֹולָמֹו ְוס‬ 9:8 ‫ְו ָתרֻץ ּגֻּלַת ַהּזָהָב‬ ‫ֶחבֶל ַה ֶּכסֶף‬ ֹ 9:8 ‫ְונָרץ ַהּג ְַלּגַל אֶל־הַּבֹור‬ 6:7 ‫ׁש ָהיָה‬ ֶ ‫עַל־ ָה ָארֶץ ְּכ‬ 5:9 ‫ְתנָּה‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר נ‬ ֶ ‫אֶל־ ָהאֱל ִֹהים א‬ (5:5):3 ‫ָאמַר הַּקֹו ֶהלֶת הַּכֹל ָהבֶל‬

189

‫ה‬

‫ְויָקּום ְלקֹול ה ִַּצּפֹור‬ ‫ַם[־]מּגָב ֹ ַּה יִרָאּו‬ ִ ‫ּג‬ ‫ִסּתַ ּבֵל ֶה ָחגָב‬ ְ ‫ְוי‬ ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ִּכי־הֹל ְֵך ָהא‬ ‫ֲׁשר לֹא־יִ⟨נָּ⟩תֵ ק‬ ֶ ‫עַד[־]א‬ ‫ַּבּוע‬ ַ ‫ּׁשבֶר ּכַד עַל־ ַהּמ‬ ָ ‫ְו ִת‬ ‫ְויָׁשֹב ֶה ָעפָר‬ ‫ָרּוח ָּתׁשּוב‬ ַ ‫ְוה‬ ‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫הבֵל‬ ֲ    

12:5

12:6 12:7 12:8

Summary: 22 lines (21 + 1). Verse 11:7 rather than 11:9 is sometimes taken to be the onset of a unit that goes through 11:10. Common themes notwithstanding, it is better to consider 11:7–8 as the conclusion of 11:1–8; note the conjunction with which 11:7 begins. Furthermore, 11:1–6 without 7–8 ends on an uncharacteristically upbeat note. At the same time, it is better to consider 11:9 the onset of a new unit that stretches into ch. 12; note the vocative “young man” in 11:9. An introductory vocative is a typical feature of a unit onset. Verse 12:8 concludes not only the frame narrator’s report of Q’s words but also, and in particular, the poem that begins in 11:9. The word ‫ ֶהבֶל‬is the salient summary judgment of 11:1–8 and 11:9–12:8 (11:8, 10; 12:8). I assume that  ַ‫ רּוח‬dropped out of 11:10 via graphic similarity with the preceding ‫דּות‬. Like other commentators in the past, I assume that, in 12:5, a letter adjacent to an almost identical letter was omitted; 12:6 has an element of minor confusion. Q calls youth a crock (11:10). After all, if life is a crock, so is the best part of it. For Q, the time of one’s prime is an evil because it ends with God bringing judgment in the form of senescence and death. The range of uses to which ‫ ִּכי‬is put in ancient Hebrew is wide, and its force in a specific context is not always clear. A concessive as opposed to a causal ‫( ִּכי‬in Italian, benché or sicché rather than perché) seems likely in 11:10 and 12:5. The syntax of the whole is continuous. “Rejoice,” “rid,” and “and remember” are followed by “before they come,” “before the sun grows dark,” “on the day house servants tremble,” and “before the silver cord snaps.” The verse of 12:7 is characterized by a limping rhythm, with short half-lines followed by long. The rhythm conspires with the semantics in making the Philosopher’s argument come once again to a jarring conclusion. Qohelet 11:9a is an unusually full line with, against the standard of my text model, 1 or 2 syllables in excess. It nonetheless seems best to consider it a slight outlier to the general rule, of the kind one encounters in poetries around the world. Qohelet 11:9–12:7 in general stands out for having unusually full lines and a prose texture; so also 1:3–11. ‫יי‬

190

John F. Hobbins

The verse of Qohelet is distinctive. It hews to the conventions of verse even as the verse develops a sustained argument. The fit is not always perfect. On the other hand, the insets of verse at the macro level (1:2 and 12:8, a frame; 1:3–11; 3:1–9; 11:9–12:7) and the micro level (for example, 1:18 following 1:16–17; 2:2 after 2:1; 6:4–5 in the context of 6:3 and 6:6; these examples are discussed above) break up the monotony of the prose around it. The integrated aphorisms, on the same level of register, allow the Philosopher to play off of and push back at conventional knowledge in the same blow. Here is 11:9–12:8 in translation. Rejoice, young man, in your youth, let your heart cheer you in the days of your prime; walk in the paths of your heart, in the sights your eyes see, and know that for all these things God will bring you to judgment. Rid your heart of irritation, keep trouble away from your body, though youth ⟨is empty⟩, black hair a crock. And remember your Creator in the days of your prime —before they come, days of trouble, before years approach of which you say, “I have no pleasure in them”; —before the sun and light grow dark, and the moon and the stars,   and clouds return; after the rain —on the day house servants tremble, and powerful men writhe, grinders cease because they are few, onlookers through windows grow dark, doors in the street close, and the sound of the mill becomes low: let one startle at the sound of a bird, let all the songstresses grovel, the Highest, too, let them fear, and terrors along the way; let the almond tree the squill become the caper-berry blossom, blossom, laden, though a man goes to his eternal home, and mourners wander the streets. —before it snaps, the silver cord, the golden goblet runs out, the pitcher breaks at the spring, and the bowl is smashed in the well, and the dust returns to the ground as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. A perfect crock, said the Philosopher, it’s all a crock.

Poetry and Philosophy “A good poem,” said Dylan Thomas, “helps to change the shape and significance of the universe, helps to extend everyone’s knowledge of himself and the world around him.” 40 This would be reason enough for a philosopher to express 40. D. Thomas, “On Poetry,” in Quite Early One Morning (New York: New Directions, 1954) 192–93.

The Poetry of Qohelet

191

his or her vision of life in poetry. If the analysis and identifications of this essay are sound, the frame-narrator of the book of Qohelet sees fit to (1) have a master metaphor dominate the argument; (2) integrate versed aphorisms in narrative argumentative frames; and (3) begin, insert into, and wrap up the whole with poems. Plato’s disdain for poets is paradigmatic of the philosophical mind-set, but it is the bad theology that poets are known for, not poetry as such, that irks the philosopher. As Charles Griswold points out, Plato’s dialogues “sparkle with imagery, simile, allegory, and snatches of meter and rhyme.” 41 The Philosopher of the book of Qohelet is more uninhibited than Plato’s ideal philosopher. The poetry of the book of Qohelet, far from being a concession to irrational methods of knowing, is one of the book’s most compelling features.

Appendix: The “Ancient-Hebrew-Verse-Is-Unmetrical” Position The individuals who have voiced the most trenchant doubts about the possibility that ancient Hebrew verse instantiates metrical structures include Michael O’Connor, James Kugel, Dennis Pardee, and Donald R. Vance. 42 To be sure, O’Connor and Pardee sometimes express their doubts less apodictically. For example, O’Connor states the following: “[A] minority view holds that there is a strictly recoverable metrical component to the poetry of the Heb. Bible (for example Eduard Sievers), but it is more generally assumed that there is an unrecoverable or opaque metrical element in the verse.” 43 Perhaps, then, the “unrecoverable or opaque metrical element in the verse” will one day be recovered to the satisfaction of the guild. The objections of Vance are a function of the standard that he uses to define metricality. The prosodic regularities of ancient Hebrew verse are comparable with “the inconsistent alternation of shorter with longer lines” typical of early Japanese poetry; the “irregularly stressed meters” of a swath of Scottish Gaelic poetry; the “lines of variable length” of medieval Spanish poetry; the “imparisyllabic lines” in older Western Slavic and Russian poetry; the flexibly balanced dicola and tricola of early Latin ritual formulas; the half-lines ranging in length from 5 to 7 syllables 41. C. Griswold, “Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. E. N. Zalta), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/plato-rhetoric/. 42.  O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 55–68, 146–52; D. Pardee, “Ugaritic and Hebrew Metrics,” in Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic (ed. G. D. Young; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981) 113–30; J. L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981; repr. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 71–75, 298–99; D. R. Vance, The Question of Meter in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (Studies in Bible and Early Christianity 46; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2001). 43.  M. P. O’Connor, “Parallelism,” in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. A. Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993) 878.

192

John F. Hobbins

of the Saturnine verse-form; and the lines of variable length characteristic of folk verse in a number of Turkic and Uralic languages. 44 Vance for his part demonstrates the obvious: the prosodic regularities of ancient Hebrew verse are not comparable to the regularities of the sonnet in Italian, French, or English. The “Ancient-Hebrew-Verse-Is-Metrical” position is on the rebound. In a recent monograph, Klaus Seybold argues at length for the appropriateness of the concept of meter relative to ancient Hebrew verse. 45 Seybold makes primary stress counts and a study of accentual rhythms standard features of his analysis, but he also counts syllables and consonants. He views syllables and consonants as complementary indexes of the measured nature of ancient Hebrew verse but also notes the difficulties and limitations of the syllable, consonant, and mora counting methods. 46 44.  Quotations are from the relevant articles in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, ibid. 45. K. Seybold, Poetik der Psalmen (Poetologische Studien zum Alten Testament 1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003) 102–59. 46.  Ibid., 125–26.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes: Remembering What It Means to Be Human Ryan P. O’Dowd Cornell University If I do not know who I am, no love is possible; man and woman seek one another without ever meeting; work becomes dull; society cannot be built; there is no hope anywhere. 1

This essay addresses epistemology in Ecclesiastes: How does the book speak to the way we acquire knowledge? And how do we know that our knowledge is true and reliable? Interpreters of Ecclesiastes have asked these questions for centuries, even if only indirectly, yet Michael Fox’s work almost 30 years ago made epistemology in Ecclesiastes a discipline of its own. 2 His creative and prolific contributions have been joined by many others in the intervening years. At the same time, epistemology in Ecclesiastes is tied to the search for the meaning of human life on earth. Seow observes that Qohelet’s problem is not primarily cosmological, “what is the world like?” but anthropological, “what does it mean to be human?” 3 In this light, it is significant that food, toil, memory, and joy all play a powerful role in Ecclesiastes, particularly because they represent the anthropological dimension of Qohelet’s search for wisdom and knowledge. In what follows, I explore Qohelet’s epistemology as it relates to his sense of what it means to be human: “What does it mean to be a creature made in the image of God?” and “How do I, as a creature, go about knowing and understanding the complex and mysterious world in which I live?” I divide this essay into three sections, beginning with a review of modern accounts of Qohelet’s epistemology, in which I suggest several places where greater attention is required to answer anthropological questions. Second, I argue that Author’s note: My thanks to the editors of this volume and to Cornell colleagues Calum Carmichael and Hugh Gaugh for their careful reading and helpful insights on this essay. Note that, in this essay, I refer to the book as Ecclesiastes and the stated author as Qohelet. 1.  A Biéler, The Social Humanism of Calvin (trans. P. T. Fuhrmann; foreword by W. A. Visser’t Hooft; Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1964) 9. 2.  See M. V. Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” HUCA 58 (1987) 137–55. 3.   C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 102.

195

196

Ryan P. O’Dowd

“searching,” “knowing,” and “getting wisdom,” while clearly epistemological activities, all emerge out of the larger question of what it means to be human—for ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( א‬humanity”) to “eat,” “drink,” “toil,” and find “advantage . . . under the sun.” In this second section, I argue that the Pentateuch and Jewish wisdom literature represent the most fruitful sounding board for Qohelet’s questions. Third, I suggest that Qohelet has drawn on these OT traditions, in the final discourse in particular (11:7–12:8), in order to end his message with positive reflections on remembrance, work, food, and joy: if there is any way out of the futile experience of life, it will be here in the concrete rituals of human existence.

A Critical Overview of Epistemological Studies in Ecclesiastes I set my heart to seek and explore by wisdom all which is done under the heavens. It is an evil task which God has given to the sons of ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬to be afflicted with. (Eccl 1:13) I said with my heart, 4 “Come now, and I will have you experience joy; look upon goodness.” See, this also is ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. (2:1) 5

One can legitimately summarize Qohelet’s epistemology using five dominant features, the first three of which can been seen in Eccl 1:13 and 2:1: (1) Qohelet’s wisdom is dominated by observation, (2) this observation is uniquely individualistic, and (3) his heart is the major instrument (or partner) 6 in this observation. Two other major features are: (4) Qohelet’s many rational (a priori) conclusions (for example, 3:1–15, 5:1–20), and (5) his tendency to report his observations in the form of contradictions (for example, 2:12–26). From these features, it is easy to understand how the general consensus has come to describe Qohelet’s epistemology as experiential—possibly arising from contact with Greek philosophy. But the consensus goes little further than this. There is, in fact, an enormous breadth of Ecclesiastes scholarship that makes very little of epistemology, focusing more on cultural, literary, or redaction criticism. 4.  In my own translation of these two verses, I rely on insights from R. D. Holmstedt (“‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫ו ִל ִּבי‬:ְ The Syntactic Encoding of the Collaborative Nature of Qohelet’s Experiment,” JHS 9 [2009] 16, http://www.jhsonline.org), who argues syntactically that the heart is portrayed as an external observer with Qohelet. I take this issue up again in n. 19. 5.   I will say more about my translations throughout this essay. For now, I take ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬to mean “humans” or “humanity”; ‫ לֵב‬as “the center of the human identity and the place of cognition, faith, love, illumination, etc.”; ‫ נֶפֶׁש‬as “the human self in its totality”; and ‫ ֶהבֶל‬as a metaphorical and even symbolic word for “vapor” or “mist” as applied to human understanding. It does not mean “vanity.” See D. B. Miller, “Qohelet’s Symbolic Use of ‫הבל‬,” JBL 117 (1998) 437–54. 6.  See n. 19 below, where I again refer to Holmstedt’s syntactic analysis of Qohelet’s words.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

197

Others, such as Michael Fox and James Crenshaw, have been prolific contributors to the questions surrounding Qohelet’s epistemology. Both scholars attest to a conspicuous gap between Qohelet’s experiential way of knowing and the wisdom and idealism evident in Proverbs and Deuteronomic law. According to Fox, Qohelet tests the assumptions of traditional wisdom in the face of a more honest realism: life is full of contradictions, absurdities, and enigmas. What Qohelet laments is not that “things are not enduring or valuable” in themselves but the “refractory, paradoxical, cussed quality of reality.” 7 Although Fox loosely labels this way of assessing reality as empirical, he recognizes that it is far from the systematic and consistent empiricism of modern philosophy. 8 It is, rather, an experiential way of knowing distinguished mostly by its highly subjective and introspective reporting: “I said to myself within my heart.” 9 While Crenshaw quibbles with Fox over his use of empirical to describe Qohelet, Crenshaw’s own articulation of Qohelet’s epistemology has little discernible difference to the casual reviewer. One notable uniqueness is the way he distinguishes clearly between the two primary methods that Qohelet uses in knowing: empiricism (“I saw” and “I tested”) and rationalism (“I know”). 10 Yet another distinctive aspect of Crenshaw’s work is the strong opposition that he sees between Qohelet and the two epilogists. Qohelet’s message is that “life has no meaning.” 11 To this, the first epilogist (12:9–11) writes nothing more than an epitaph, but the second (12:12–14) rejects Qohelet’s message outright and directs the audience back to the message of traditional wisdom. 12 By way of comparison, Crenshaw makes more of the old-versus-new-wisdom conflict in Qohelet and thus justifies a strong antithesis between Qohelet and the second epilogist, whereas Fox has more to say about the inconsistency between reality and human experience of reality recognized both by Qohelet and the frame narrator. Despite the two scholars’ many strengths, neither provides the sort of analysis that helps us to read Qohelet’s epistemology in the light of the anthropological questions he raises. C. L. Seow seeks to give adequate attention to both the epistemological tensions in Ecclesiastes and the OT background of the book. He often notes Qohelet’s epistemology in order to acknowledge its pervasiveness throughout the book but also to assure us that Qohelet “stood in the wisdom tradition” in order to critique 7.   M. V. Fox, “The Inner Structure of Qohelet’s Thought,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (ed. A. Schoors; Leuven: Leuven University, 1998) 227. 8.   Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” 141. 9.   Ibid., 148. 10.    J. L. Crenshaw, “Qoheleth’s Understanding of Intellectual Inquiry,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (ed. A. Schoors; Leuven: Leuven University, 1998) 212–13. 11.   Idem, Ecclesiastes (OTL; London: SCM, 1988) 25. 12.   Ibid., 48.

198

Ryan P. O’Dowd

the tradition at its weak points. 13 In saying this, Seow rightly acknowledges that Proverbs does not present wisdom as a simple venture, which is an all-too-common caricature. However, Seow also believes that the concerns of Qohelet’s audience arose from a range of “social and economic” issues that traditional wisdom in all its variety was unable to answer. Seow’s work is thus extremely helpful for the way it connects Qohelet’s advice about wisdom to the social/anthropological problems that humans encounter in the world that God created. He does not, however, go far enough in explaining how Qohelet’s complicated epistemology can be read theologically, particularly against the backdrop of the Pentateuch and the wisdom literature (which he cites often). I pursue these lacunae in the next section. Following a more recent trend that developed in Ecclesiastes interpretation, Christianson, who deals less with the social and cultural background, focuses more on a literary, psychological, and existential study of the book. He notes, for example, the way Qohelet almost exclusively uses his ‫“( לֵב‬heart”) as his instrument of observation. The appearance of ‫ לֵב‬41× comparatively dwarfs the 7 references to ‫“( נֶפֶׁש‬the self ”), which is used only in passages of wandering, futility, and dissatisfaction (2:24, 4:8, 7:28, 6:1–9); 14 one watches while the other suffers. 15 Christianson’s study proves to be extremely fruitful for epistemological and anthropological interpretation. I do not, however, agree with him that ‫ נֶפֶׁש‬should be differentiated from the human body or the “self.” 16 As Christianson himself points out, in Genesis the human self is a living ‫ נֶפֶׁש‬of dust (Gen 2:7). A human is a ‫“( נֶפֶׁש‬soul”) and does not have a ‫ נֶפֶׁש‬per se. It is this ‫“( נֶפֶׁש‬self ”) that is challenged, pulled apart, and questioned in Qohelet, and Christianson astutely recognizes the irony of a divided self in Qohelet’s language that points to a deeper inner struggle. Most significant is Qohelet’s use of ‫“( לֵב‬heart”) which, as Fox notes, appears 12× in 1:12–2:26, which is a frequency 13.8× greater than the frequency of its use in the rest of the book. 17 The most conspicuous use seems to be in 1:13, where Qohelet applies his heart to “search and explore all things by wisdom.” Wisdom takes on a strangely instrumental and exhaustive role here, as Fox explains: “His heart, for its part, ‘sees’ wisdom (1:16), conducts itself in wisdom (2:3), and receives pleasure.” 18 By contrast, Proverbs directs the student to “watch over your heart with all wisdom” (4:23) and to “trust in Yahweh with all your heart and, on 13.   Seow, Ecclesiastes, 69. 14.   E. S. Christianson, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 193–202. 15.  The word  ‫“( רוח‬spirit”) is also used just over twenty×, half of the time referring to the “self ” and the rest to the “wind.” Though I do not have space to address these references in this essay, I do believe they contribute further to the argument made below. 16.   Christianson, Time, 202. 17.    M. V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1999) 78. 18.   Idem, Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOTSup 71; Sheffield: Almond, 1989) 87.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

199

your own understanding, do not lean” (3:5). It is the fool who expresses his own heart (18:2) and trusts in his own heart (28:26). The law also directs the heart to unconditional love of Yahweh (Deut 6:5). Here the heart is not just an instrument of observation but a seat of desire and worship. Qohelet’s heart and his wisdom, by contrast, are used in such an instrumental way and with such jarring repetition that the reader must conclude that he has rejected or somehow gotten off track from proverbial wisdom. 19 However, this way of self-reflective, unconstrained argument also functions, as Christianson argues, to draw readers into their own reflection as they struggle to understand the world of experience. The strongest form of the internal struggle that Christianson identifies is in Eccl 1:12–2:26, where we find an overwhelming distribution of first-person nouns, verbs, and suffixes: “I gave,” “I saw,” “I made,” “I said” and “me,” “myself,” “my heart.” Almost 80% of the words in this section are in this first-person form—the highest frequency in the OT by far. The second-highest incidence is in Eccl 8, at 40%. 20 The statistics are staggering, but to what end? Fox answers, “In effect he mentions his heart so frequently in 1:12–2:26 because he is reflecting on the process of perception and discovery, and the heart has a central role in this process. He is not only exploring but also observing himself explore. He is his own field of investigation.” 21 And he is not just watching himself explore but watching himself as an agent of desire and being in the world. Fisch points out the irony of a sage watching himself in this way: We may say that here we have a fundamental irony or aporia: even as the philosopher contemplates himself as the passive object of a universal process, his active contemplation of this process in the language of philosophy detaches him from the process, affirms his freedom and independence as a subject. We are in fact somewhere near the very ground and origin of all irony. 22

Fisch’s point has significant implications for understanding why epistemology is heightened in Ecclesiastes. For one, Fisch—like Fox and Christianson—is suggesting that Qohelet is intentional and strategic as he makes contradictory observations about his experience of the world. Second, this awareness and its creative irony demand that the reader make a more careful assessment of the contradictions 19.  Holmstedt (“Syntactic Encoding,” 13, 15) makes a convincing argument that Qohelet’s sophisticated use of “heart” in the context of postverbal pronouns leads not to an internal conversation within Qohelet but to the heart as a “full-fledged character” that serves as “his experiment partner” in Qohelet’s search. Nevertheless, Holmstedt needs to say more about the extreme irony and absurdity of such a search in light of the more common understanding of the “heart” in the OT—in the Torah and Proverbs, in particular. 20.   See Christianson, Time, 242–54. 21.   Fox, Contradictions, 87. 22.   H. Fisch, Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988) 169.

200

Ryan P. O’Dowd

in the book without dismissing them as just two unrelated methodologies or, even more, just as evidence of two ancient schools of wisdom at war. These two points situate us at the rhetorical heart of Qohelet’s epistemology, which I argue is not just a warning against an overly empiricist epistemology, as many conclude. Notice, for example, the way that both Crenshaw and Fox clearly state that the dominant epistemological metaphor in Proverbs is “hearing” and in Ecclesiastes is “seeing.” 23 Many others cite this same difference and, while I grant it at the lexical level, the difference is much more nuanced at the level of pragmatics. The verb ‫ָראָה‬ (“to see”) is indeed used a halting 43× in Qohelet, a rate 10× greater than in Proverbs. But in most cases the use is figurative of experience (2:1), living (6:5, 7:11), laziness (11:4), and rational thought (2:3) or else is a rhetorical appeal to reason (7:13, 27). The following use of the verb is particularly enlightening: There is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and to find himself (‫) ָראָה‬ well in his labor. This also I see (‫)ראָה‬ ָ is from the hand of God. (2:24)

Qohelet here utters one of his seven calls to joy (carpe diem; 2:24–26; 3:10–15, 16–22; 5:17–19[18–20]; 8:10–15; 9:7–10; 11:7–12:7), each of which is juxtaposed with his contradictory conclusion that all is ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. What he sees (experiences) resulting in ‫( ֶהבֶל‬2:23) is opposed to what he sees (knows) from God. In neither sense is “seeing” literal, nor as I will argue below, do I think Qohelet is only making a flat comparison between his experience and what he already knows, though comparison is certainly part of what he is doing. The significant difference lies deeper, in Qohelet’s spiritual orientation and in the way that this orientation influences his interpretation of his experience. Epistemological studies in the Gospels help demonstrate this point. 24 In the middle of Mark, there are a number of scenes that alternate between the disciples’ true confessions and disbelief and Jesus’ healing of two blind men. In the first healing (8:22–26), Jesus rubs spit on the blind man’s eyes, resulting in only a partial healing: he saw “men walking around as trees” (8:24). Jesus again touches his eyes and the man regains full sight. The healing, besides communicating Jesus’ divine power, also makes an epistemological point about rational assent and true faith. Peter, who had confessed Jesus as the Messiah (8:29), had also immediately rebuked Jesus for suggesting that he (Jesus) would have to suffer and die (8:32). Peter saw like a half-healed blind man: Jesus as Messiah but not Jesus as the suffering Lamb of God. The second healing (10:46–52) repeats the same lesson where, during a dispute between the disciples about their rank in the kingdom, Jesus heals Bartimaeus. As the disciples jockey for position, only the blind Bartimaeaus can see that Jesus is the true Son of David (10:47), reminding them yet again that true 23.   Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 28; Fox, “Epistemology,” 152. 24.   See for example J. Marcus, “Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology,” JBL 103 (1984) 557–74.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

201

“seeing,” especially in the face of an enigma, is a trusting, submissive, faith-ful way of knowing. Matthew makes the same point with Jesus’ warnings about an “eye that is healthy” and an “eye that is full of darkness” (6:22–23); it is not a question of whether one looks but how one looks. Qohelet’s use of sight, and epistemology in general, it seems to me, have not been allowed their share in this deeper theology and anthropology of human faith. Neither the Gospels nor Ecclesiastes makes its epistemological lessons explicit; both reside within a carefully crafted piece of literature. And in this way, both books are like Proverbs and Job in that their lessons on epistemology are more about our religious and moral commitments—what we believe about God and the world—than about an experiment in the “objective methods” that we use to know things. Augustine gets at this point in his Confessions when he says: “So I was seeking the origin of evil, but seeking in an evil way, and failing to see the evil inherent in my search itself.” 25 Following this line of thought, Bartholomew suggests that Qohelet’s autonomous approach to knowledge is the critical insight in resolving the contradictions between Qohelet’s ‫ ֶהבֶל‬judgments and his calls to joy. 26 Qohelet’s tension between two ways of knowing points to the larger issue of two competing teleologies—two ultimate ways of understanding the relationship between the divine and the human.

A Theological Perspective on Human Knowledge and Human Identity “‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫ ֶהבֶל‬,” says Qohelet. “‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, all is ‫ ֶהבֶל‬.” (Eccl 1:2)

This explosive punch at the beginning of Ecclesiastes is as powerfully alluring as it is deeply troubling. Concluding that “all is ‫( ” ֶהבֶל‬1:2) a remarkable five times right at the beginning of the book grabs the reader’s attention. What, for example, does Qohelet mean by “all things,” and what exactly does it mean to be ‫ ? ֶהבֶל‬These implied questions set the trajectory for the rest of the book while their unavoidable ambiguity maximally heightens the reading of the next verse: What advantage (‫ִתרֹון‬ ְ ‫ )י‬is there for ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬in all his toil which he toils under the sun? (Eccl 1:2–3)

Ogden rightly calls this search for the ‫ִתרֹון‬ ְ ‫“( י‬advantage, gain”) the “programmatic” question in the book (1:3, 2:22, 3:9, 5:16[ET 17], 6:11). 27 In effect, Qohelet is 25.   Augustine, The Confessions (ed. M. Boulding; Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1997) 7.5. 26.    C. G. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009) 55–59. 27.   G. Ogden, Qoheleth (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987) 14.

202

Ryan P. O’Dowd

asking: in a world where everything is so utterly ambiguous, what positive end, good, or purpose is there for us in life? 28 By now, it should be clear that Qohelet’s problems with human purpose and hope are intricately connected to his deep desire and desperate search for it; his anthropological dilemma has resulted from epistemological uncertainty and vice versa. In fact, the weighty anthropological question leads Seow to privilege anthropology in his interpretation of Ecclesiastes above questions about cosmology and epistemology, which in turn leads Bartholomew to warn against losing sight of the major significance of epistemology. 29 These three issues, of course, are inseparable. Qohelet’s strong preference for using ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( א‬man”) at a rate four times greater than ‫“( ִאיׁש‬man”) cannot be casually dismissed. He uses the term to identify both himself in particular and humanity in general. Seow is one of only a few who appreciate the gravity of ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬in Ecclesiastes. Aside from minor Hebrew particles, the word ‫“( טֹוב‬good”) occurs the most in the book (51×) followed by ‫“( ָראָה‬see,” 47×), and then ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫( א‬43×). 30 This is the first of several strong signs of the anthropological question in Ecclesiastes, but it is also a possible indication that the book is echoing the theology and anthropology of Gen 1–3. Just consider the fact that, of the 44 uses of ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬in Genesis, 20 of them (half!) are in chs. 2–3. Charles Forman’s claim that Qohelet wrote with a copy of Gen 1–11 in hand led Crenshaw to respond skeptically that this “surely exaggerates things.” 31 It is likely that the author(s) of Ecclesiastes called on a deep arsenal of literary works when he was writing—Akkadian, Egyptian, Greek, or, perhaps, all three. Studies by Longman, Fox, Perdue, and Seow argue the merits of these sources at length, making it fairly certain that the book used a combination of framenarrative techniques and fictional royal autobiography. 32 But what the author(s) might have had available to him/them and the context into which the author(s) wrote are two different things. It seems to me just as, if not more significant to address whether the collection of the Torah was used and, more importantly, how this sheds light on a theological reading of the book. In his review of a possible Greek and Egyptian origin or influence—what he calls “dubious waters”—Jacques Ellul concludes that Ecclesiastes “is above all 28.   M. V. Fox (Ecclesiastes [JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004] xviii) says of ‫“( ָעמָל‬toil”): “The word is so broad that life’s experiences in general can be called ‘toil.’ . . . Taking pleasure in one’s ʿamal (3:12) is equivalent to taking pleasure in one’s life (3:13).” 29.   Seow, Ecclesiastes, 102; Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 106. 30.   Seow, Ecclesiastes, 67. It is striking to me that ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬does not show up in Fox’s list of key words (Ecclesiastes, xvii–xxi). 31.  C. C. Forman, “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” JSS 5 (1960) 256–63; Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 38. 32. See my “Frame Narrative,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings (ed. D. Reid, T. Longman, and P. Enns; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) 241–45; and T. Longman, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991).

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

203

a Jewish book.” 33 Whoever wrote and edited it, a large and consistent tradition agreed to group the collection of sayings as a whole and place it in the canon among the writings. This puts it squarely in the context of Jewish cultural literature and in the annual reading cycle for the Feast of Booths. The feast gradually became associated with a range of theological and historical events, but a few stand out: the move from the Tabernacle (booth) to Solomon’s Temple, a celebration of the Torah, and a celebration of Yahweh’s kingship. Ecclesiastes serves all of these purposes well with Solomon’s presence in the background and the struggle to understand and affirm God’s rule. Furthermore, the first 11 chapters parallel the “fragility and precariousness” of life in human shelters (“under the sun”), while the epilogue’s exhortation to fear God and keep his Torah (12:13–14) parallel the eighth day of the feast—Simḥat Torah (“joy in the Torah”). 34 Ellul thus has a good case in arguing that Ecclesiastes “must be understood in the light of the Torah,” 35 even if other sources were used in its production. Krüger, too, recognizes that, although the Torah may not have been recognized in the “canonical” sense when Ecclesiastes was written, it would have been “commonly read and relevant” as a “‘classical’ work.” 36 The Pentateuch, along with the wisdom literature in Proverbs, Job, and Sirach should, therefore, be instrumental in tuning our ears to find meaningful theological engagement with human life in creation, which is at the center of Qohelet’s quest. Another major clue to Qohelet’s theology is his use of the word hebel in his response to his experiences. The word occurs 38× in the book, and I have left it transliterated to preserve its metaphorical and its symbolic quality of vapor, clouds, and mist. In his study of the word in Ecclesiastes, Seow makes no reference to Genesis, though he does connect ‫ ֶהבֶל‬specifically to “human existence and human experience of earthly realities.” 37 Perhaps no text makes a more powerful statement of the difficult plight of “human existence” in the created order than Gen 3–11. The word ‫ ֶהבֶל‬is, in my opinion, not just grammatically tied to Abel’s name in Genesis but theologically connected to the two worlds of chaos and death in the two books. Bartholomew says, [I]t is possible that Qohelet’s use of hebel has Abel and Cain in mind. Abel’s unjust and meaningless murder is just the kind of datum that Qohelet wrestles with. The 33.   J. Ellul, Reason for Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes (trans. J. M. Hanks; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990) 12–16. 34.   Ibid., 42–46. A weakness in Ellul’s reconstruction is that the celebration of Simḥat Torah at the end of the Feast of Booths developed well after the writing of Ecclesiastes. We do have evidence of prophetic and legal readings at the end of the feast that developed much earlier, but it is still another matter to place this association in the mind of the original author. 35.   Ibid., 22. 36. T. Krüger, Qoheleth: A Commentary (trans. O. C. Dean Jr.; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 25. 37.   Seow, Ecclesiastes, 102.

204

Ryan P. O’Dowd ambiguity in Eve’s naming of Cain may also be helpful in our overall interpretation of Ecclesiastes. As in Gen. 2–3, what sets the world adrift is the human desire for autonomy and to play God, rather than embracing one’s creatureliness. 38

Another theological connection to Genesis is Qohelet’s repetition of the phrase “under the sun,” a startling 29×. 39 Characteristic of Qohelet’s powerfully suggestive vocabulary, this phrase imagines not just life on earth but, as R. Murphy describes it, the “troubled life of humanity in this world.” 40 Admittedly, the word ‫ׁשמֶׁש‬ ֶ (“sun”) does not occur in Genesis until ch. 15, yet it is certainly clear that human nature in Genesis is defined by its life within and its dependence on the God-given lights of sun, moon, and stars in Gen 1 (compare Pss 19:4–6 and 104:21–23). But, whereas God commanded ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( א‬humanity”) to go into the creation and subdue everything on the face of the earth (Gen 1:28), Qohelet finds that all labors under the sun—on earth—achieve only despair and ‫( ֶהבֶל‬Eccl 2:19–20). Something has gone wrong with the Creator’s plan for labor and thus for humanity as a whole. These themes come together in the book’s first poem (1:4–11) which despairs about the perplexing nature of human existence and human understanding. The poem focuses on the ephemerality of the creation, a fitting parallel to the enigmatic nature of human life under the sun. This poem is followed by Qohelet’s first full speech in 1:12–2:7, where vv. 12–13 provide a bridge between the two larger sections of ch. 1. The first link between these sections is Qohelet’s identity. We learn that Qohelet has been “king over Israel in Jerusalem,” but Solomon is never named, even though he is the most natural persona behind the preacher (see 1  Kgs 3–11). The narrator’s identification of “the son of David” in 1:1 and Qohelet’s claim to be greater than anyone before him in Jerusalem (2:9) points us in this direction as well: in 1 Kgs 3:12, Solomon appears to be even greater than Moses! The glaring omission of his name in Ecclesiastes, however, is no doubt a mark of literary craft—a “semi-pseudonym” that keeps Solomon’s authority in the background while protecting Qohelet from losing his identity to Solomon. 41 The ambiguity, furthermore, reinforces the enigmatic sayings in 1:13–18 and the poem about ephemerality in the creation (1:4–11). 42 The second piece of the bridge between these two sections is v. 13: 38.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 115. See also the essay by R. Meek in the present volume. 39.   R. N. Whybray (Ecclesiastes [NCB; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989] 37–38) argues that this is a common ANE way of speaking about life “in this world.” The same is true of Qohelet’s expression “under the heavens” (1:13; 2:3; 3:1), a phrase that does appear throughout the OT. 40.   R. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992) 7. 41. See Christianson, Time, 128–72. To my knowledge, this is the most extensive study of the Solomonic guise in Ecclesiastes. 42.    Compare with N. Lohfink (Qoheleth [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003] 1–2, 43–62), who ties the speech about “cosmology” in 1:4–11 to the speech about anthropology in 1:12–3:15.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

205

I gave my heart to search and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the sun. It is an evil task that God has given to the sons of ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( א‬humanity”) to be afflicted with.

The first rhetorical question in v. 3 puzzled about the ‫ִתרֹון‬ ְ ‫“( י‬advantage”) of humanity in this world. Verse 13 now extends this question of human purpose to the epistemological problem of the human search for an answer; like the ephemeral connections between toil and advantage and the ambiguous identity of the author, so is the search for intellectual understanding of this life. Wisdom, Qohelet concludes, is just one more fruitless task under the sun (1:13–18). Qohelet’s problem is an anthropological-epistemological quagmire: the insecurity of ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( א‬humanity”) in a complex world tends to obscure the success of his knowing, and this problem with understanding creates greater insecurity with human identity. The lament at the end of the poem in 1:4–11 summarizes both of the problems that Qohelet has with knowledge and human meaning: “T]here is no remembrance for the first ones, nor for those who come after them will they be remembered by those who follow them” (v.  11). 43 The cyclical, seemingly meaningless observations in the preceding verses (vv. 4–10) have left Qohelet to conclude that there is nothing new (v. 8), that everything is wearisome (v. 10), and that nothing is remembered (v. 11). Krüger rightly connects this point in v. 11 back to v. 3: Verse 11 provides a first answer to the “gain” question in v. 3: in view of the transitoriness of the individual person, his or her “gain” possibilities “under the sun” are . . . limited. If, moreover, the world as a whole is also transitory, which v. 11 leaves open as a conceptual possibility (cf. 1:2), this would reduce human possibilities of “gain” all the more. 44

The connection that Krüger makes between human knowledge and human existence leads to two additional insights. First, it is the observation or experience of the creation that confirms the sense of humanity’s own anthropological transience. And second, something about our human condition and the condition of our world impinge upon the epistemology of remembering—our ability to honor the past and live with hope in the direction of the future. This verse, I suggest, is absolutely central to the book’s development and resolution. Nevertheless, scholars rarely give much attention to remembrance or history in Ecclesiastes, even though the problem of no lasting memory in the book’s first poem (1:11) signals the recognition of a major crisis in the wisdom tradition. 43.   My translation. Some take the second half as a future observation: “[T]here will be no remembrance of the ones who will come after.” This has little bearing on the interpretation here because the failure to remember is what is in focus. 44.    Krüger, Qoheleth, 53.

206

Ryan P. O’Dowd

The problem of a memorial arises again in Qohelet’s comparison of the fool/folly and the wise/wisdom in 2:12–17. Seow perceptively notes the contrast in this passage between traditional wisdom in Proverbs and Qohelet’s ironic conclusions. In Proverbs, wisdom is aligned with life and a long life, while folly is aligned with the way of death—often at a young age (Prov 2:21; 3:2, 16; 4:10; 9:11; 13:14; and 15:24). In Ecclesiastes, however, Qohelet is unable to confirm any difference between the wise and the fool: “the same fate falls on them both” (2:14); “the fool and the wise both die” (2:16). 45 Here, in the poem’s conclusion, Qohelet’s skepticism clearly contradicts the confidence in the book of Proverbs: The memory of the righteous is a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot. (Prov 10:7)

For the remembrance of the wise, like the fool, will not last forever. For in the days to come, all will be forgotten; oh how the wise will die like the fool. (Eccl 2:16)

Qohelet’s immediate point is that the rewards of being a wise person fail to prove true in daily experience. But in the larger context of Qohelet’s sayings, a cyclical and trapped view of history emerges, making memory difficult (5:19; 9:5, 15; 11:8; 12:1) and forgetting, the unavoidable fate (2:16; 8:10; 9:5). Theologically, these passages stand alongside Qohelet’s struggle with knowing the future (3:11, 22; 6:12; 7:14) and, thus, with the problem of history as a whole. Ricoeur’s philosophical study of history, memory, and forgetting reinforces the evidence that failure to remember is powerful: “[W]e have no other resource, concerning our reference to the past, except memory itself,” and forgetting is “an attack on the reliability of memory. An attack, a weakness, a lacuna.” 46 In Eccl 1:4, Qohelet speaks to the loss of “transgenerational memory”—human groundedness in the coming and going of generations. Ricoeur says that transgenerational memory contributes to a widening of the circle of close relations by opening it in the direction of a past, which, even while belonging to those of our elders who are still living, places us in communication with the experiences of a generation other than our own. . . . This expression signals the transition between an interpersonal bond in the form of “us” and an anonymous relation. The bond of filiation which serves both as a breach and a suture testifies to this. It is at once a carnal tie anchored in biology, the result of sexual production and the constant replacement of the dead by the living, and a social bond highly codified by the system of kinship proper to which we belong. 47 45.   See Seow, Ecclesiastes, 154. 46.    P. Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting (trans. K. Blamey and D. Pellauer; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004) 21, 413. 47.   Ibid., 394–95.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

207

Indeed, Qohelet protests his hatred of a generational system that passes on the results of its labor with no hope of memory: “[W]ho knows if he will be a wise man or a fool?” (2:19). Ricoeur here illumines the way that memory is tied to what it means to be human: to recognize ourselves, other people, and our home and the results of our work—to be a part of a world with a tradition and a history. Ricoeur’s study eventually turns to the “singularity of the Jewish experience . . . [which is] eminently charged with history.” 48 At the heart of Torah, the Shemaʿ commands Jews to remember God’s revelation above all else: “The sealing of the canon, ratified by the public reading in the synagogue of the narratives of the Pentateuch and the passages taken each week from the prophets, have given the biblical corpus, completed by the Talmud and the Midrash, the authority of Holy Scripture.” 49 The Hebrew Torah, poetry, and biblical history thus furnished the festival and synagogue practices with a sense of national identity, orienting them generation after generation in patterns of knowing and desiring God and his presence above all else. And, in this way of thinking about memory and history, Israel was unique. In his study of Jewish memory, Yerushalmi says: It was ancient Israel that first assigned a decisive significance to history and thus forged a new world-view whose essential premises were eventually appropriated by Christianity and Islam as well. “The heavens,” in the words of the psalmist, might still “declare the glory of the Lord,” but it was human history that revealed his will and purpose. This novel perception was not the result of philosophical speculation, but of the peculiar nature of Israelite faith. It emerged out of an intuitive and revolutionary understanding of God, and was refined through profoundly felt historical experiences. 50

But something has happened to the Israelite faith in Qohelet’s time. Ricoeur’s suggestion that the sages have “distance[d] themselves from any attention to a sense of history still immanent in the narratives and rites of the biblical epoch” 51 will not stand against Qohelet’s protests; Qohelet (a.k.a. the historical King Solomon) is transfixed, even paralyzed by the epistemological problem of history, its circularity, its seeming unreliability, and its loss of meaning. Though we lack any clear historical reflections in the other wisdom books, the fact that “the fear of Yahweh” stands as the signal entry point and motto for all the wisdom books places wisdom within this developing history rather than against it, not to mention the fact that Torah and wisdom are so naturally and intricately joined in the intertestamental

48.   Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 398. Ricoeur’s analysis follows Y. H. Yerushalmi’s Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996). 49.   Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 399. 50.   Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 8. 51.   Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 399–400.

208

Ryan P. O’Dowd

books of Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and Baruch. 52 Rather than distancing himself from history, Qohelet embodies a national lament at the loss of memory in a time of horrendous upheaval, leading him to call wisdom and history both into question. As I show below, Qohelet leaves behind a complex web of problems, but along with a few other clues, the problem of memory and its resolution in chs.  11–12 provide the possibility for resolving the hebel that confronts human ways of knowing.

From ‫ ֶהבֶל‬to Remembrance and Joy In search of clues about resolving the question of futility, Ecclesiastes leads us out of this sense of placeless wandering and horror. I argue that there are at least three prominent signs to the path to epistemological resolution: the rhetorical pull of the second-person poetry, the gaps of the ‫ ֶהבֶל‬-joy contradictions, and the turn from the loss to the recovery of memory. (1) One cannot overemphasize the sophistication of poetry and narrative technique in Ecclesiastes that are used to express its despair; it has no match in the rest of the OT. Christianson’s study of narrative strategy in Ecclesiastes points to the rhetorical pull in the book that sits beneath the despair and contradictions at the surface. In the early chapters, Qohelet is busy searching and reporting on what he knows from the past. The first four chapters are, in fact, a highly subjective collection of sayings that contain no second-person (“you”) narration at all. 53 Above, I alluded to the overwhelming sense of an autonomous epistemology looking for answers without reference to God or others. But by ch.  5, as Qohelet begins to move to considerations in the present, he issues invitations to the reader to evaluate along with him: 54 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong. (5:1[ET 4:17])

This second-person pattern is new in the narrative, and it comes at us with increasing force. Almost 40% of the narration in ch. 5 is in this second-person form. It increases to 60% in ch. 11, where the first-person narration disappears for good. In this way, the book moves from “I” to “us” to “you.” But who is Qohelet addressing? The question perhaps seems too simple. Christianson, however, suggests that “you” is more than just a narratee but is a carefully crafted, “‘ideal’, implied reader”; 55 use of “you” is a device that gives the story a unique rhetorical appeal: 52.   Compare Job 28:28; Prov 1:7; 2:5; 9:10; Eccl 12:13. 53.   The following statistics are taken from Christianson, Time, 242–54. 54.  Lohfink (Qoheleth, 8, 72) argues that this change in voice along with the content of religious reflections point to the structural, even chiastic center of the book as a whole. 55.   Christianson, Time, 245.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

209

“Any reader can . . . take the place of this implied reader and, as it were, befriend the lonely Qohelet.” 56 Thus, although the book lacks the fully developed plot of a traditional narrative, one is nevertheless left with a sense of direction: Qohelet is gradually drawing his audience into his journey. (2) But is this journey of vapor and mist as unavoidable as Qohelet seems to suggest? One cannot be sure, which makes the need to know the way forward increasingly urgent. The first clue to the way through this journey is, as noted by many, that the hebel conclusions throughout the book have been carefully juxtaposed with Qohelet’s five statements of joy. There is nothing better for ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( א‬man”) than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? To the one who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, a chasing after the wind. (2:24–26)

The question of what to make of these contradictions has plagued readers of every age. Gordis believes that the conclusion “this too is ‫( ” ֶהבֶל‬2:26) makes it clear that “this goal of pleasure represents for Koheleth resignation to the inevitable.” 57 Whybray and Ogden, meanwhile, argue that the joy statements are the answer to the hebel passages and, in a way, I believe they are. Longman, however, is right to argue that the context is not so easily settled. 58 Bartholomew offers a nuanced analysis of the ‫ ֶהבֶל‬passages as leading to eventual resolution but not in a simple or predictable way. He suggests that the ‫ ֶהבֶל‬and joy statements have been juxtaposed in a contrary way without resolution to create a gap that the reader must fill. 59 Which conclusion is right? Is life meaninglessm or is it full of blessings from God’s hand that bring joy? This gap allows readers to hypothesize with Qohelet in his search for an answer to the meaning of life. It also fits well with the detailed narrative account proposed by Christianson above. The contrast, moreover, is not merely between the two opposites—joy and ‫— ֶהבֶל‬but between Qohelet’s two ways of regarding the world: what comes from human toil and what comes from God’s hand. Whybray says of 2:24: The sudden reintroduction of God into the discussion at the end of a protracted passage (1:14–2:23) which was wholly concerned with man’s efforts to shape his own destiny and the futility which results from these is crucial for the understanding of the whole of this section of the book. . . . This God-given pleasure is to be accepted thankfully; the same applies to wisdom and knowledge. It is 56.   Ibid. 57.   R. Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World (London: Aronson, 1995) 228. 58.    T. Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998) 110. 59.   Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 150–53.

210

Ryan P. O’Dowd man’s determination to secure these things for himself which leads to a sense of futility. 60

By saying this about ch. 2, however, Whybray fills the gap too soon; he is no doubt influenced by the more measured tone in the book’s concluding chapters. Nevertheless, he is rightly sensitive to the strong tensions at the gap between human striving and human satisfaction with the gifts of God. These three concrete gifts—food, drink, and toil (3:12–13, 22; 5:17–19[18– 20]; 7:14–15; 8:15; 9:7–10; 11:7–10)—stand in contrast to the cloudy ‫ ֶהבֶל‬and point to the possibility of hope in the midst of despair. Krüger, for example, sees that the affirmation of these three gifts is ultimately the answer to the question in 2:3, which has remained unanswered: “I wanted to see what was worthwhile for people to do under heaven during the few days of their lives.” 61 The fact that Qohelet describes these as gifts “from the hand of God” not only supports Whybray’s claim that there is a contrast here to the products of human striving in Eccl 2:1–23; it also resonates with the major themes of God’s blessing in the Torah—the land flowing with milk and honey. This parallel is not surprising; creation and the created order provide the background to ancient wisdom literature. Ecclesiastes adopts this same language regarding the ways of the earth (1:4–7), the Creator (12:1), and the nature of human toil in the cosmos. Genesis thus proves to be an obvious foundation for Israelite wisdom, for it also uses food and toil as the primary symbols of human nature and human calling. Food and toil are also the source and context of human rebellion against this call. A comparison of Genesis and Ecclesiastes thus once again provides critical insight into Qohelet’s problem with wisdom. In Gen 1–3, humans are made for a range of activities that we loosely call “work”: ruling, multiplying, keeping, and bearing fruit (Gen 1:26–28). Genesis provides images of both restraint and organization on the one hand and the opening up of creation’s potential on the other. Together, these responsibilities are deemed by God to be “very good” (1:31). By contrast, Qohelet is intellectually and existentially paralyzed by the problem with work and labor, citing it directly or indirectly over 100×. 62 The ‫ ֶהבֶל‬refrains are his primary way of demonstrating his frustration with the experience of work: Then I considered all that my hands had done (‫ ) ַמעֲׂשַ י‬and the toil (‫ ) ָעמָל‬I had toiled (‫ ) ָעמ ְַל ִּתי‬to do (‫) ַלעֲׂשֹות‬: all was ‫ ֶהבֶל‬and striving after the wind; there was no advantage under the sun. (Eccl 2:11)

60.   Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 62–3. Compare with Krüger, Qoheleth, 71–72. 61.   See Krüger, Qoheleth, 1. 62.  Specifically: “work” or “things done” (‫ ) ַמעֲׂשֵ ה‬43× and from the same root, “accomplishments” (‫ ) ַמעֲׂשֹות‬19×; “toil” or “labor” (‫ ) ָעמָל‬35×; and “occupation,” “task” (‫)ע ְניָן‬ ִ 8×.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

211

True to the contradictory spirit of the book, Qohelet encourages joy in labor (2:24, etc.) while hating his own work (2:17–18). Furthermore, just as the vision for work in Gen 1–2 applies to care for the whole creation, Qohelet’s struggle is not tied to one sort of task. He builds houses, plants, gardens, trades, and more, but all without satisfaction—his desire and his knowledge go unfulfilled (Eccl 2:3). Perhaps most significant here is that Qohelet deeply laments this as a work of wisdom—that is, to “seek out and explore all things that are done under the heavens,” for it is “an evil task that God has given to the sons of man (‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ )א‬to be afflicted with” (1:13b). The human gain or advantage (‫ִתרֹון‬ ְ ‫ )י‬is a problem of the human vocation—both to realize it and to understand it. Linked to work is Qohelet’s obsession with food. In her study of the Lord’s Table, Feeley-Harnick says, “The evidence suggests that food had long been one of the most important languages in which Jews expressed the relationship among human beings and God. . . . Food seems to have been regarded as the most accessible, the best way of introducing ordinary mortals to the ineffable wisdom of God.” 63 And food leads not only to God’s wisdom but to God’s covenant relationship with Israel as well, in both its provision and its limitations (Gen 9:3–4, Deut 14:1–21). 64 Food is, therefore, not just physical nourishment but a ritual, memorial, psychological, emotional, and religious part of being human. A comparison of the attitudes toward food in Genesis and Ecclesiastes sharpens our perspective on Qohelet’s rhetoric and reveals the way through life in the fog toward greater clarity. To begin, the gift of food is obviously tied to the gift of labor. Humans were given the responsibility of ruling and keeping the garden (1:26–28; 2:15) and eating the plants that grew there (1:28). Psalm 104:14–15 alludes to the historic “fundamental trinity” of food (bread, wine, and oil) 65 along with labor as the symbolic gifts of God to humanity. However, the work of God’s image-bearers is, as has often been noted, strikingly like divine work. Calvin says that a human is “like a lieutenant of God in governing the world.” 66 As Biéler explains of Calvin’s theology, the human vocation creates a great problem: Man is free only when he is a servant of God. Man enjoys authentic freedom only if he participates in the liberty of God. And he participates in God’s freedom only by remaining subject to God. Outside this liberty received in subjection through love without constraint, there is nothing but slavery and self-annihilation. 67 63.   G. Feeley-Harnik, The Lord’s Table: The Meaning of Food in Early Judaism and Christianity (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1994) 165–66. 64.    See E. F. Davis, Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 96–97. 65.   M. Toussaint-Samat, A History of Food (trans. A. Bell Chichester; Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell, 2009) 183. 66.   A. Biéler, The Social Humanism of Calvin (trans. P. T. Fuhrmann; Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1964) 14. 67.   Ibid.

212

Ryan P. O’Dowd

Work thus somehow marks the unbreachable distance between God and humans. But so does food. Leon Kass rightly observes that food reminds humans that they are vulnerable, needy, and dependent on God. 68 From the beginning, humans have been driven to resent this dependency, envy their Creator, and turn to self-annihilation. Genesis 3 is the locus classicus of the human-divine struggle around the symbolic food and work of the garden. The verb “to eat” (‫ )אכל‬occurs a resounding 17× in Gen 3 alone! While it only occurs 14× in all of Ecclesiastes, it appears at the critical junctures of the ‫ ֶהבֶל‬/joy statements—the places where Qohelet’s wisdom seems least capable of satisfying his desire and search for meaning. His problem is strikingly the same as that of Adam and Eve in Gen 3:6–7:   And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and a delight to the eyes and that the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom (‫ַׂש ִּכיל‬ ְ ‫)לה‬, ְ then she took from its fruit and she ate, and she gave it also to her husband who was with her.   And he ate.   Then their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked.   So they sewed fig leaves and made coverings for themselves.

Eve’s desire is both intellectual (wisdom) and experiential (fruit that is pleasing to the eyes and the palate). The decision to take and eat is more than just an expression of doubt but a resentful rejection of the dependency and limits that God has knit into the human race. “Seeing the tree,” Eve is driven by an autonomous desire to consume and control the creation in the place of the Creator God. The fact that the trees that she and Adam are permitted to eat are already “pleasing to the eye and good for food” (Gen 2:9) reveals the immensity of the human desire to have what has been forbidden and withheld—a desire that compromised their very humanity. Kass explains: Though the tree of knowledge of good and bad is only metaphorically a tree— knowledge does not grow on trees—the image suggests an explicit connection between human autonomy and human omnivorousness, by representing the limit on the former in the form of the limit on the latter. These tempting but dangerous prospects—of autonomy, choice, independence, and the aspiration to full self-command, and of emancipated and open-ended desire—lay always at the center of human life; for to reason is to choose, and to choose for oneself (even to choose to obey) is not-to-obey, neither God nor instinct nor anything else. The rational animal is, in principle, the autonomous and hence disobedient animal. 69

68.   L. R. Kass, The Hungry Soul: Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) 206. 69.   Ibid., 208–9.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

213

The move from Genesis to the Passover to Israel’s cultic sacrifices and dietary prescriptions to the Last Supper and the Lord’s Table continuously reviews the interwoven strands of food, work, desire, morality, and redemption in the Bible. 70 Qohelet also draws on the evocative symbolism of food and work in order to arouse contemplation on the meaning of human nature and human knowledge. Genesis 3 is the most natural sounding board for hearing the epistemic-anthropological struggle in Qohelet’s message. Genesis 3:17, 19b  To Adam he said, Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat . . . cursed shall be the ground because of you. In painful toil, you shall eat from it all the days of your life.   For you were taken from dust, and to dust you shall return.

Ecclesiastes 2:11   Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had toiled to do; all was ‫ ֶהבֶל‬and striving after the wind; there was no advantage under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 3:18, 19b, 20   I said to myself within my heart concern­ing the sons of ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( א‬man”), God tests them to show that they are but Genesis 1:26b beasts . . . there is no advantage for ‫ָדם‬ ָ‫א‬   . . . let them rule over the fish of the sea (“man”) over the beasts; therefore, all is and the birds of the air over the beasts and ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. over all the earth and over all the creeping   All go to the same place. All are from things that creep about on the earth. dust, and all will return to dust.

In this context, it seems clear that Qohelet’s problem is not just with food or work in general but with what food and work represent in Adam’s wake: toil, envy, desire, hatred, and death. Humans are like the beasts in the exercise of their freedom, appetite, memory, dreams, community, spiritedness, lust, and affection. 71 But as image-bearers, humans are also uniquely responsible for the creation and therefore uniquely rational, religious, and moral animals. Kass explains the distinction: Animal life’s inherent possibilities for both need and independence, for mutuality and separation, for engagement and detachment, for commonality and distinctiveness, for harmony and opposition, and for the readily sharable and the intensely private all reach new heights in humankind, thanks to our heightened powers of mind and self-consciousness. . . . human self-consciousness makes manifest and efficacious the tacit ethical dimension of animal life. 72

The irony in Qohelet’s rhetoric only serves to reinforce this point: no animal would think it was “merely human” much less be in control of self-reflective linguistic 70. See Feeley-Harnik, The Lord’s Table. 71.   See Kass, The Hungry Soul, 62. 72.   Ibid., 77.

214

Ryan P. O’Dowd

expression. To think of ourselves as beasts is to assume and reinforce the very distinction between us and to call into question the wisdom of the Creator himself, just as happened in the garden. Clearly then, the elevated moral and rational consciousness is also what makes life a vapor for us. In his striving to understand the meaning of “all things” (1:13) in the world “by wisdom,” Qohelet comes only to ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. When Calvin described the human fallen from primordial perfection, he described him as the “man of profane humanism.” “This man,” he says, “has no hope whatever of reaching anything. In spite of his marvelous gifts which still witness in him to the majesty of the work of God, everything that the man of today undertakes is devoted to death and ends in death.” 73 But in other ways, it is also unlike Qohelet. In the narrator’s opinion in the epilogue, Qohelet is still a sage who “taught the people knowledge, sought out and arranged many proverbs” (12:9). He also “sought out words of delight and wrote words in accordance with truth” (12:10). Lohfink’s translation, I think, rightly connects 12:10 back to the rest of the book: “Qohelet sought to find interesting sayings, and these true sayings are here painstakingly recorded.” 74 I cannot begin to address the possibility that the narrator may then proceed to criticize and distance himself from Qohelet (v. 11). If my argument above is correct, the distancing is too simple to answer the more complex options that Qohelet has left before his audience. In other words, as we are shocked by the utter despair in Qohelet’s complaints, we are simultaneously compelled to give serious attention to the memorable, symbolic language that he leaves beside them. Ambiguity remains in tension with joyfully accepting food and work as a gift from the hand of God. This, as is seen in the book’s last two chapters, is the way to live a meaningful life, despite the unavoidable problems of epistemological uncertainty. (3) I began this third and final section of the essay with Qohelet’s epistemological problem of remembrance—specifically, that the absence of historical origins, tradition, a sense of home and family stories, and the resulting loss of future progeny and hope cut the heart out of what it means to be human in this world. Since that point, I have argued that alongside Qohelet’s protests and expressions of despair he has welcomed us into his journey both with his move from first-person analysis to second-person dialogue and with his strategic guidance through the powerful symbols of food and toil. Along the way, I argued that food and toil are symbolic not only of Qohelet’s struggle to understand human experience but also of the path that leads us to resolve the epistemological dilemmas that emerge from life in a fallen world. However, the hope of resolution in this book—of which many if not most scholars remain in doubt—remains faint and subdued until the final two chapters, 73.   Biéler, The Social Humanism of Calvin, 16. 74.  Lohfink, Qoheleth, 34.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

215

where the themes of memory and remembrance are taken up again in a new light. These final two speeches in 11:1–6 and 11:7–12:8 settle the reader into a long reflective appeal that is delivered almost entirely in second-person narrative. 75 Here, it seems clear, Qohelet intends to take us through his journey and reshape our perspective on life. This said, the closing speeches combine positive wisdom with a lament over grief and old age, depriving us of the clarity and simplicity for which we long. But Job deprives us of this too, and certainly everyone would agree that simplicity would only be a disappointing end, too much like the banal cinematics of Hollywood today. Stories, like life, should be more realistic. Thus, in the midst of the brutal reality of Qohelet’s final speeches, we are struck with distinct changes in voice, vocabulary, and form that must be heeded if the book is to be read in a balanced way. Above, I noted the move to an almost pastoral second-person narrative that issues forth sayings that are typical of traditional wisdom. Fox says that Qohelet is now “settling for a wisdom that can operate within the narrow confines of human comprehension.” 76 The shifts from the language of experience and observation in chs. 9–10 have surely given way to something new here. The most important shift is Qohelet’s call to joy and remembrance in 11:7– 12:8. The waw-prefix at the beginning of v. 7 confirms the beginning of a new section. The thematic shift comes in the description of the sun as “sweet” (‫)מָתֹוק‬. Prior to this point, things done “under the sun” proved only to be ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. But here, where light is able to illumine again, Qohelet uses two jussive verbs to exhort the reader to “remember” and “rejoice,” (v. 8) followed by a string of imperatives 77 in the next two verses (vv. 9–10) about how this should be done. Rejoice, young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Follow the ways of your heart and the desire of your eyes, and know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment. Banish vexation from your heart, and put away pain from your body; for youth and the dawn of life are ‫ ֶהבֶל‬.

Quite significantly, the heart (‫ )לֵב‬here is no longer an instrument of examining and unsatisfied desire, as was true of Qohelet’s epistemology in the body of the book, but instead is tied to enjoying the gifts of God. Crenshaw takes this as positive advice to enjoy the God-given gifts of youth, which are sadly unattainable in the end. 78 Longman, meanwhile, sees it as a call to indulge in the face of a 75.   Of course, it is possible to assign these speeches to a glossator or epilogist, but doing so seems to me to be driven by a skepticism that must be forced violently against the natural, literary grain of the text. 76.   Fox, Ecclesiastes, 73. 77.   See Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 182. 78.   Ibid., 184.

216

Ryan P. O’Dowd

“meaningless” life but know that God will judge you for it. 79 To be sure, Qohelet has not abandoned his warnings that life is full of doubt and unanswered questions, coming only to death and the likelihood of much suffering. As Fox and others note, however, Qohelet’s tone and language have changed from the previous ‫ ֶהבֶל‬refrains 80 to a call to memory again. What was pessimistically put into question in the first four chapters—memory, tradition, and the hope of the future—now has its first positive answer in a call back to memory in 12:1–7. Verses 1 and 7 thematically enclose this last bit of advice: Remember your creator in the days of your youth before days of trouble come and the years draw near and you say, “There is no pleasure in them.” Then the dust will return to the earth from where it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

Commentators generally agree that Qohelet is advising joy in youth because of the days that will come in old age, yet many also extend this literal reading to a metaphorical or cosmic level where youth represents a foundation or root of our whole humanity and its culture. Seeing it this way, Qohelet has taken us on an ambitious journey to see, know, experience, and understand everything. Not only this, he has done it alone. But the human heart, he now says, which has been at the center of our desire and capacity to know, can also be disciplined to orient itself at a foundational level to a relationship with its origins. Ellul summarizes this move in Qohelet’s final words:   You may consider yourself autonomous, but you are incapable of knowing what should be done, incapable of knowing what wisdom is. You are a creature.   For this reason we must remember the Creator in our youth, and in the youth of each thing: situations, societies, associations, cultures, political relations, and churches! 81

Though the future remains unknown, there is hope in the present that arises from the discipline of remembering the Creator: daily taking joy in his gifts of food and work. In Ps 90, this same message of daily wisdom emerges from the difficulties and brevity of life. This is not a “Chicken Soup for the Soul” admonition to think positively. Life will have its full share of hell and chaos. But in youth’s joy in the creation, and in the memory of the Creator even in old age, one can find the gifts of God to ground desperate and wandering hearts. Food and toil—the most basic gifts of God that remind us of our humanity and his covenant promises—are the source of our joy and of our remembering in this way.

371.

79.   Longman, Ecclesiastes, 260. 80.   Fox, Ecclesiastes, 74–75. See also Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 345; and Seow, Ecclesiastes, 81.   Ellul, Reason for Being, 281, 283.

Epistemology in Ecclesiastes

217

This sort of turn to memory admittedly offers only limited satisfaction. As in Job, the problems of mystery, suffering, injustice, and fruitless toil remain. What Qohelet longs for deep down remains behind the vale. As Calvin says, humanity’s lost sense of its identity can only be found looking face to face with the incarnate One (1 John 3:2). 82 In this gaze, transformed by the power of the Spirit, humans gain the mind of Christ for which they long (1 Cor 2:16). 82.  Biéler, The Social Humanism of Calvin, 15.

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example Doug Ingram Nottingham for rhetorical reasons the narrator chooses to ambiguate where he could elucidate —Meir Sternberg 1

Although the immediate context of Sternberg’s quotation (a study of “the Rape of Dinah” in Gen 34) is different from my use of it here, the point that he makes is precisely what I want to say about the narrator of Qohelet’s words: 2 he could have communicated in a much more lucid way but, for rhetorical reasons, chose not to do so. I contend that often in Ecclesiastes “the reader could easily be spared the hesitation between [different interpretations],” 3 but the book is presented in a way that requires the reader’s involvement (to a greater extent than usual) to generate “meaning” because of the indeterminacies of the text. That is, the book of Ecclesiastes is fundamentally ambiguous by design. 4 Of course, it is possible if not likely that ambiguities exist for readers today that might not have seemed ambiguous to the earliest readers. My argument is that ambiguity is so ubiquitous in Ecclesiastes and so significantly affects the key words and themes that it is “beyond reasonable doubt” that ambiguity is part of its design. However, readers today may 1. M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Literary Biblical Series; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987) 455. 2.  I use Ecclesiastes to refer to the book and Qohelet to refer to the main character within that book. There are important differences between “Qohelet” (whose words constitute most of the book), “the narrator” (who tells readers about Qohelet at the start and end of the book, inserts “says Qohelet” in 7:27, and otherwise relays to the readers Qohelet words), and “the author” (about whom we know nothing apart from what is revealed in the book itself—so we would be better to refer to “the implied author”). 3.  Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 455. 4.  This is the thesis of my book, D. Ingram, Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes (LHBOTS 431; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006). See also D. Ingram, Ecclesiastes: A Peculiarly Postmodern Piece (Grove Biblical Series 34; Cambridge: Grove, 2004).

219

220

Doug Ingram

be pragmatic and accept that it is now ambiguous, whether it was designed to be or not, and may as well be considered ambiguous unless someone convincingly demonstrates that it is otherwise. A perusal of commentaries throughout the ages right up to the present demonstrates clearly that Ecclesiastes is and long has been subject to fundamentally diverse interpretations. In this day of postmodern scholarly self-disclosure, I will tell the reader something about myself that may be relevant to what I write about Ecclesiastes. I teach Old Testament at a theological college. I have little doubt that my role as teacher affects the way I read Ecclesiastes; I also have little doubt that my engagement with Ecclesiastes affects the way I teach. I interpret Ecclesiastes as the work of a teacher, 5 designed to prompt his students to think deeply about life and faith and to probe carefully (if not mercilessly) the traditions that have been handed on to them. Part of the way that Ecclesiastes facilitates learning is by using the tool of ambiguity. It is my contention that the purpose of the ambiguity in Ecclesiastes is to encourage readers to think for themselves as they seek to work out what the text means. In this essay, I focus on Eccl 7:23–8:1 in order to illustrate this ambiguity.

Varied Interpretations of Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 The 7:23–8:1 passage has been interpreted in very diverse ways throughout the ages. Fontaine gives a sampling of interpretations going as far back as the Babylonian Talmud, commenting that [n]owhere does it become more clear that “time and chance” (9:11) affect the interpretations given a passage, even though the text translated has not changed its original words. Clearly the “plain sense” of our passage . . . is to be found in the eye of its beholder! 6

The diversity continues right up to the most recent works on this passage. Koosed is one of a number of scholars who argue that the passage is misogynistic. She writes, “Qohelet 7:26–28 is a misogynist passage in the Hebrew Bible. There have been other negative portrayals of women in the Hebrew Bible, especially of women in the Wisdom traditions. However, this is the only statement that categorically condemns all women.” 7 Shepherd thinks that “it is impossible to clear 5.  Hence the translation of ‫ קֹו ֶהלֶת‬as “teacher” may be appropriate, though “teacher” loses some of the enigmatic character of the name (or is it title?) Qohelet (or “the qohelet”). This is particularly relevant to our consideration of “says Qohelet” in 7:27. 6.  C. R. Fontaine, “‘Many Devices’ (Qoheleth 7.23–8.1): Qoheleth, Misogyny and the Malleus Maleficarum,” in Wisdom and Psalms: The Feminist Companion to the Bible (ed. A. Brenner and C. Fontaine; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 153. 7.  J. L. Koosed, (Per)Mutations of Qohelet: Reading the Body in the Book (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 429; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006) 77–78. Koosed later acknowledges that “[t]he passage is not as simple and stable as I have portrayed it. The feminist

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example

221

Qohelet of all misogynist charges,” and Qohelet’s conclusion is “that women are the problem.” 8 Shields regards v.  26 as “speaking of a group or category of real women,” and to be “in keeping with other passages within the Wisdom Literature in which women are disparaged.” 9 By contrast, Ogden states that “[t]o posit, as is usual, that Qoheleth took a negative attitude to women, is absolutely unjustified”; rather, the woman described “is a figure for premature death.” 10 Rudman understands the passage as deterministic rather than misogynistic, because the woman described is “representative of an inescapable divine force.” 11 Schoors views the “misogynist” sayings as quotations that Qohelet contests. 12 Fredericks asserts that “centering comments on gender wars and accusations of misogyny only trivializes the profound nature of Qoheleth’s observation and rich allusion to the ‘wisdom’ theme of the Wisdom and Folly in Prov. 1–9.” 13 Frydrych argues that “Qoheleth ‘flirts’ with both women, first with Wisdom, but finds her outside of his reach, deep and distant. Failing to befriend Wisdom, Qoheleth turns to Folly, but finds her to be a deadly snare, and any attempt to follow her an act of sheer madness.” 14 Bartholomew also sees allusions here to Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly, but for him, “Verses 23–29 are an important crux for understanding Qohelet’s epistemology and Ecclesiastes as a whole.” 15 He concludes that this passage “demonstrates that starting with an autonomous epistemology is not wisdom but folly and will lead one not to truth but right into the arms of Dame Folly.” 16 Lohfink also understands this passage to be about epistemology; he argues that vv. 23–25a present the problem that will be treated throughout 7:23–8:1a: whether inductive knowledge, based on experience and observation, might possibly be set reader that I have employed mirrors the one-dimensional woman of the text. She suppresses other readings in order to argue her one point. She also invests the text with an androcentric and misogynist core, and then reads from there” (p. 82). 8.  J. E. Shepherd, “Ecclesiastes,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. T. Longman III and D. E. Garland; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008) 325. 9.  M. A. Shields, The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 185. 10.  G. S. Ogden, Qoheleth (2nd ed.; Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Phoenix, 2007) 130–33. 11. D. Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup 316; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 106. 12. A. Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part II: Vocabulary (OLA 143; Leuven: Peeters, 2004) 172–75. 13.  D. C. Fredericks and D. J. Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (Apollos Old Testament Commentary 16; Nottingham: Apollos / Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010) 185. 14. T. Frydrych, Living under the Sun: Examination of Proverbs and Qoheleth (VTSup 90; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 158. 15.  C. G. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009) 269. 16.  Ibid., 275.

222

Doug Ingram up differently and prove more successful than the traditional wisdom inheritance, based on learning proverbs. On the basis of a concrete test case, the advantage of an inductive approach is shown (vv. 27–28), and yet at the same time it becomes clear that humans will abuse it (v. 29). 17

Like Bartholomew and Lohfink, Salyer interprets this passage in relation to epistemology, but he does view the passage as misogynistic, seeing this as a way of lampooning “a strictly empirical approach to knowledge.” 18 He argues, “By having his narrator refer to women in such a negative manner . . . the implied author strongly suggests that this is the sort of unreliable conclusions which will result from a radically self-centered epistemology.” 19 Krüger thinks this passage may refer to Wisdom and Folly, but for him the possible identification is the other way around from the scholars mentioned earlier, and it thus becomes a sharp critique of the wisdom tradition. Krüger identifies the woman in v.  26 with Wisdom, arguing that “The process of acquiring knowledge and education is ‘erotically’ intensified; those who devote themselves to ‘wisdom’ are ‘conquered’ and ‘caught’ by her as by a seductive woman. The real compulsions of the educational process (‘yoke,’ ‘fetters,’ ‘cords,’ etc.) thus appear in a more pleasing light.” However, “this ‘wisdom’ concept is already critically called into question in v. 26,” 20 and if the woman in v. 26 is identified in this way (and the question is his), v. 28b can also be read as a further step in the ideology-critical deconstruction of this concept: the image of “the woman wisdom” is not only frightening and amoral (v. 26) and lacks any basis in reality (vv. 27–28a). It also veils the actual conditions of the professional educational establishment: in seeking after “wisdom” (v.  25), namely, one finds an elite circle (“one in a thousand”!) of “wise” men, but not a single woman (v. 28b). 21

Krüger finds “ironically critical ‘play’ with misogynistic statements” here and offers other possible interpretations, without indicating which he finds most convincing. In fact, he argues that “[w]e must accept that the text is intentionally ambiguous and is supposed to challenge its readers to work through the various possibilities of interpretation.” 22 A few years ago, Murphy wrote that “[t]he style of the entire passage is peculiarly redundant and complex, even for Qoheleth, and the sense remains obscure. 17. N. Lohfink, Qoheleth (CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 100. 18.  G. D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup 327; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 346. 19. Ibid. 20. T. Krüger, Qoheleth: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 147. 21.  Ibid., 148. 22.  Ibid., 145.

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example

223

No matter what solution is adopted, Qoheleth is expressing himself in a very labored manner.” 23 He concludes, “Obviously the final word on this text has not been written. Thus far, it refuses to yield its secret.” 24 This continues to hold true, but my argument is that it will never “yield its secret,” because there is no secret to yield. More recently, Fredericks wrote, “We cannot read this passage plainly; it is anything but plain!” 25 I aim to show that the passage is opaque by design; it is, as Krüger argues, “intentionally ambiguous” precisely for the purpose of engaging readers in determining what it might mean and how this meaning might relate to their life and faith in an ambiguous world. I demonstrate the ways in which this passage is ambiguous and otherwise challenging for the reader.

Establishing the Boundaries of the Passage Fontaine states that there is “no denying that the text bristles with grammatical difficulties and/or ambiguities which render the search for its ‘plain sense’ almost as difficult as Qoheleth’s search for deep Wisdom.” 26 The first difficulty is in establishing the boundaries of the passage. Commentators disagree on both its starting point (usually 7:23 or 7:25, but Gordis argues for a beginning at 7:26 27) and its end point (7:29, 8:1a, or 8:1b). The words ‫“( ּכָל־זֹה‬all this”), with which 7:23 begins, could refer back to what precedes (the immediately preceding or farther back, perhaps even including everything that Qohelet has said to this point), to what is in vv. 23–24, or forward to include all of this passage. Or it may be that vv. 23–24 serve as a link between the previous discussion and what follows. The final words of v. 24, ‫ִמ ָצאֶּנּו‬ ְ ‫“( ִמי י‬who can find it?”), introduce the important theme of “finding,” and the rhetorical question (as it is usually understood) that begins with ‫“( ִמי‬who?”) links nicely with similar questions in 8:1a. The two words related to the root ‫חכם‬, ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫“( ַּבח‬by wisdom”) and ‫ֶח ָּכמָה‬ ְ ‫“( א‬I will be wise”), are then regarded by some as the key theme words of the passage, forming an inclusio with the words ‫“( ְּכ ֶה ָחכָם‬like the wise man”) and ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ָכמַת א‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬one’s wisdom”) in 8:1. This may indicate that “wisdom” is the overriding theme of the passage, as indeed some scholars argue. However, it is not clear that this is so: “finding” (root ‫ )מצא‬and “seeking” (root ‫ )בקׁש‬are obvious candidates for the key themes of vv. 26–29, and there is no explicit reference to wisdom in these verses. Moreover, the words with which v. 25 commences, ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫ַּבֹותי‬ ִ ‫“( ס‬I turned”) would be appropriate at the beginning of a new section. 23. R. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992) 77. 24.  Ibid., 78. 25.  Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, 186. For a much more nuanced discussion of the “instability” of the text, see Koosed, (Per)Mutations of Qohelet, 82–87. 26.  Fontaine, “Many Devices,” 143. 27. R. Gordis, Koheleth, the Man and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes (3rd ed.; New York: Schocken, 1968) 178–79, 282.

224

Doug Ingram

Ecclesiastes 8:1a is usually seen to consist of two rhetorical questions, which effectively state that no one is truly wise or “knows the interpretation of a thing” or word. This is regarded by many scholars as an appropriate conclusion to the preceding verses. However, the argument is much less convincing if 7:23–24 is not considered the introduction to the passage. Moreover, many scholars think that the second half of 8:1 contradicts the first half of the verse and therefore should be attached to the following verses—in which case, 8:1b may describe how a wise person should appear before the king. The use of the word ‫“( ָּפנָיו‬his face”) twice in 8:1b and again in 8:3 supports this argument, as does the use of the imperfect verbs ‫“( ָּת ִאיר‬shine”) and ‫ׁשּנֶא‬ ֻ ‫“( ְי‬change”?), because 8:1–8 is marked by a total absence of perfect verbs (although there are many in the verses on either side) and by an abundance of imperfect verbs. Ecclesiastes 8:1–8 also contains no first-person verbs or suffixes (which again appear in the verses on either side; the only first-person term in the passage is the pronoun ‫אנִי‬ ֲ in 8:2, which seems quite anomalous). On the other hand, the two halves of 8:1 need not contradict, and the foregoing observations may indicate that 8:1–8 should be read as a section quite separate from the preceding verses, a section of “instruction” rather than the “observations” that precede and follow it. Moreover, the verb “to know” (root ‫)ידע‬ is a key feature of 8:1–8 and, indeed, of ch. 8 as a whole; the (rhetorical?) question in 8:1a, beginning with‫ּומי יֹודֵ עַ ו‬ ִ (“who knows?”), fits particularly well with ‫לֹא י ֵדַ ע‬ (“does not know”) in 8:5, and‫“( אֵינֶּנּו יֹודֵ עַ ו‬no one knows”) in 8:7. Ecclesiastes 8:1–8 is also characterized by a string of questions using the interrogative ‫“( ִמי‬who?”), of which 8:1a is an important part (see also vv. 4, 7). It is not, therefore, a straightforward matter determining where the boundaries of the passage lie, and the choices made in this respect will have an impact on what the passage is understood to mean and how it is seen to work.

Ecclesiastes 7:23 I noted above that the opening words of this verse, ‫“( ּכָל־זֹה‬all this”), could refer backward, forward, or to vv. 23–24 only. On the other two occasions when the demonstrative pronoun occurs, it is in the phrase ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫“( ְראֵה־זֶה ָמצ‬see this I have found”) and is masculine. It is not clear why “this” should be feminine in v. 23, though it may be due to the proximity of the feminine noun ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬wisdom”). 28 “All this” appears another three times in Ecclesiastes (8:9 and twice in 9:1): on each occasion, the demonstrative pronoun is masculine, and again on each occasion, it is unclear precisely what is being referred to, whether it is what goes before or what comes after. 28.  The masculine form occurs 37× and the feminine just 6×. Of these, two have feminine antecedents (2:2; 9:13). The others, as here, seem to refer to the situation being described rather than some specific thing. The masculine form is also used in this way, so that there is no obvious reason for the use of the feminine here.

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example

225

The phrase ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫“( ַּבח‬by wisdom”) is definite, so strictly speaking it should be glossed “by the wisdom.” It is not clear why it is definite, but it appears again in 1:13 and 2:3, in both of which Qohelet is involved in a search (using the same verb ‫ ּתּור‬that is used in 7:24) involving “wisdom.” What is more problematic is the tension between this assertion that he “tested all this by wisdom” and the next line, which states, “I said, ‘I will be wise,’ 29 but it was far from me.” This tension can also be felt in the possible contrast between the two halves of 8:1, where the questions in the first half are usually understood to be rhetorical: Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? Wisdom makes one’s face shine, and the hardness of one’s countenance is changed.

The statement in v. 23b also seems to contradict a number of verses elsewhere in Ecclesiastes where Qohelet parades his great wisdom (1:16; 2:3, 9, 15). The usual solution offered is that the wisdom Qohelet seeks at this point is of a different order from the wisdom he claims for himself elsewhere in the book, a kind of overarching wisdom that explains everything. 30 This may be a satisfactory explanation, but it is not what the text says here. The reader is simply faced with the apparent contradiction of the wise man who is unable to attain wisdom. As with “all this,” the contradiction creates a gap that the reader is required to fill in order to make sense of the verse. Another question arises over why the pronoun ‫“( ִהיא‬it”) is feminine. It may be because it is implicitly feminine “wisdom” that is far from him (though it is the verb “to be wise” that immediately precedes), or it may be that the feminine pronoun relates back to the feminine demonstrative “this,” and it is “all this” that is described as being “far from me.” This would result in a reading of v. 23 along the lines of “I tested all this by wisdom; I said, ‘I am determined to be wise,’ but all this still eluded me.”

Ecclesiastes 7:24 The adjectives ‫“( רָחֹוק‬far off ”) and the emphatically repeated ‫“( עָמֹק‬deep”), are usually seen as describing the horizontal and vertical aspects of ‫ַה־ּׁש ָהיָה‬ ֶ ‫“( מ‬that which is”), indicating its extensive and unfathomable nature. This is probably 29.  This is the only place where the Qal cohortative form of the verb ‫ חכם‬appears in the Hebrew Bible. It may indicate a determined effort to become wise (see, for example, the niv, “I said, ‘I am determined to be wise’”). However, the cohortative is only used on one other occasion in Ecclesiastes, in the difficult word ‫אנ ְַּסכָה‬ ֲ in 2:1 (probably; the word is not a specifically cohortative form), and in both instances, the precise meaning is uncertain and adds to the ambiguity of the passages. The only other cohortative of ‫ חכם‬in the Hebrew Bible is a plural Hithpael in Exod 1:10, “Come, let us deal shrewdly [‫ִתח ְַּכמָה‬ ְ ‫ ]נ‬with them, or they will increase.” 30.  J. A. Loader, Ecclesiastes: A Practical Commentary (Text and Interpretation; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 91.

226

Doug Ingram

correct. The difficulty, though, is in determining exactly what ‫ַה־ּׁש ָהיָה‬ ֶ ‫ מ‬represents. The phrase occurs three times elsewhere (1:9; 3:15; 6:10), and in each instance the general sense is that there is not now, nor will there be in the future, anything new under the sun. This is a different sense from what is conveyed in 7:24, which is much more in keeping with a thread of verses which address human inability to know what will be in the future, ‫ִהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ַה־ּׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ מ‬rather than ‫ַה־ּׁש ָהיָה‬ ֶ ‫( מ‬3:22; 6:12; 8:7; 10:14; 11:2). The different use to which the phrase ‫ַה־ּׁש ָהיָה‬ ֶ ‫ מ‬is put in 7:24 might lend support to Frydrych’s argument that “The reference to wisdom continues in v. 24, where we should follow the versions and read ‫ּשׁ ָהיָה‬ ֶ ‫מ‬, ִ from that which is, instead of the MT ‫ַה־ּשׁ ָהיָה‬ ֶ ‫מ‬.” 31 This would mean that the wisdom which Qohelet sought in v. 23 is described not just as “far from me” (in v. 23), but “far from that which is” and “very deep”; it is wisdom that is unfathomable, rather than “that which is.” This would give readings of vv. 23–24 along the lines of: 1) “I tested all this by wisdom; I said, ‘I am determined to be wise,’ but wisdom remains far from me. It is far from that which is and very deep; who can find it?” or 2) “I tested all this by wisdom; I said, ‘I am determined to be wise,’ but wisdom was far from me. That which is is far away and very deep; who can figure it out?” The first requires the emendation that Frydrych suggests. The second reads the Hebrew as it stands, but juxtaposes two verses which do not obviously relate to each other, and leaves readers to fill in the gap. The final issues in this verse focus on the question, ‫ִמ ָצאֶּנּו‬ ְ ‫( ִמי י‬literally, “who can find it?”). There are two ambiguities here. The first is whether this is a rhetorical question, demanding the answer “no-one,” as most commentators presume, or whether it is a genuine question? In light of the use of questions with ‫“( ִמי‬who”) elsewhere in Ecclesiastes, 32 the former seems more likely, but the point is that the author could have elucidated by writing “no-one will find it,” but chooses to ambiguate by asking a question which might or might not be rhetorical. The second issue concerns the antecedent of the pronominal suffix, “it,” “who can find it?” There are two options here depending on how the rest of vv. 23–24 is read: 1) “wisdom” implicit in the second half of v. 23 and therefore the antecedent of “it” in that verse; or 2) “that which is” at the start of v. 24. If Ecclesiastes could be depended on for grammatical accuracy, the first would be excluded, because ‫“( ִהיא‬it”) in v. 23 is feminine, while the pronominal suffix in v. 24 is masculine. The sense of “find” would be different in the second case, something along the lines of “comprehend,” which is a sense the verb has elsewhere in Ecclesiastes, though probably not in this passage.

31.  Frydrych, Living under the Sun, 157. The emendation is supported by the Septuagint, Peshiṭta, and Vulgate. 32.  Ecclesiastes 2:19, 25 (2×); 3:21, 22; 4:8; 5:9[10]; 6:12 (2×); 7:13; 8:1 (2×), 4, 7; 9:4; 10:14.

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example

227

Ecclesiastes 7:25 Lohfink states that “[v]erse 25 is a repetition of 1:17, extending and clarifying it,” 33 and the verse certainly extends the earlier one (though clarification is quite another matter): 1:17aα: And I applied my mind to know wisdom 7:25a: I turned my mind to know and to search out and to seek wisdom    and the sum of things 1:17aβ: and to know madness and folly 7:25b: and to know that wickedness is folly, and foolishness is madness The similarities between 1:17 and 7:25 are clearer in Hebrew: 1:17aα: ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫ ח‬ ‫ ל ִּבי לָדַ עַת‬ ִ ‫ֶּתנָה‬ ְ ‫ָוא‬ 7:25a: ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ָכמָה ְ וח‬ ְ ‫אנִי ְו ִל ִּבי לָדַ עַת ְ ולָתּור ּו ַבּקֵׁש ח‬ ֲ ‫ַּבֹותי‬ ִ ‫ס‬  34 1:17aβ: ‫ ודַ עַת‬ ְ ‫הֹולֵלֹות ְו ִׂש ְכלּות‬ 7:25b: ‫ְולָדַ עַת רֶׁשַ ע ֶּכסֶל ְוה ִַּס ְכלּות הֹולֵלֹות‬

However, there are a few anomalies that complicate interpretation of the verse. First, the use of ‫“( ְו ִל ִּבי‬and my mind”) seems anomalous. The clause literally reads, “I turned and my mind,” which seems decidedly awkward. 35 Ecclesiastes often uses ‫“( ִל ִּבי‬my heart”) with first-person verbs but never in this way. A number of verses use a construction similar to the construction in 1:17, ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫ֶּתנָה ִל ִּבי לָדַ עַת ח‬ ְ ‫“( ָוא‬I gave my mind to know”), 36 and this has led some scholars (following the textual apparatus in BHS, some MT manuscripts, and some of the Versions) to supply the verb ‫“( נתן‬to give”) here: “I turned and gave my mind to know. . . .” 37 Another common usage of ‫ ִל ִּבי‬in Ecclesiastes is with the preposition ‫“( ְּב‬in”), as in 2:1, ‫אנִי ְב ִל ִּבי‬ ֲ ‫“( ָאמ ְַר ִתי‬I said in my mind,” which probably means “I said to myself ”), 38 33.  Lohfink, Qoheleth, 101. 34.  Wĕśiklût here is usually seen as an error and read as wĕsiklût (with a samek instead of the śin), as in 2:12 and 7:25. 35.  Holmstedt (“‫אנִי ְו ִל ִּבי‬ ֲ : The Syntactic Encoding of the Collaborative Nature of Qohelet’s Experiment,” JHS 9 [2009] 13–14, http://www.jhsonline.org) unconvincingly argues that 7:25 (along with 2:20) is the “interpretive key” that reveals that “Qohelet treats his ‫ לֵב‬as an external conversation partner.” The use of ‫ ִל ִּבי‬in Ecclesiastes is not consistent enough to sustain Holmstedt’s argument for “the collaborative nature of Qohelet’s experiment” (nor, indeed, is the use of ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ). 36.  See 1:13; 8:9, 16; 9:1. Verse 2:10 uses a similar grammatical construction. 37. T. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998) 201–2. 38.  See also Eccl 2:3, 15; 3:17, 18.

228

Doug Ingram

and this has led some scholars to emend the waw, ‫“( ְו ִל ִּבי‬and my mind”), to a bet, ‫“( ְּב ִל ִּבי‬in my mind”). 39 Sometimes ‫ ִל ִּבי‬is the direct object of a verb other than ‫“( נתן‬to give”). This happens in the only other place where ‫ַּבֹותי‬ ִ ‫ ס‬is used, in 2:20: ‫ֶת־ל ִּבי‬ ִ ‫אנִי ְליַאֵׁש א‬ ֲ ‫ַּבֹותי‬ ִ ‫“( ְוס‬I turned my heart to despair”). However, the conjunction ‫“( ְו‬and”) makes the construction different in 7:25. On other occasions, ‫ ִל ִּבי‬is the subject of the verb, as in the pertinent (though ambiguous) phrase in 2:3, ‫ְו ִל ִּבי נֹהֵג‬ ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫ ַּבח‬, “my mind guiding in wisdom”; grammatically, this gloss seems to make most sense here, even though it means that the verb has two subjects: “I” and “my mind.” 40 Alternatives employed by scholars are to consider the ‫ ְו‬an emphatic or an explicative, both of which are grammatically possible but awkward. 41 The options seem to be either (1) to emend the text to provide a smoother reading; or (2) to find a way of explaining an awkward text as it stands, either by seeing the ‫ ְו‬as emphatic or as explicative, or by understanding the verb as having two subjects. The rest of Eccl 7:25 falls into two equal parts joined by the conjunction ‫ְו‬ (“and”): each begins with the same word, ‫“( לַדַ עַת‬to know”), contains the same number of words, and even has the same number of letters in Hebrew: ‫לדעת ולתור ובקשׁ חכמה והשׁבון‬ ‫לדעת רשׁע כסל והסכלות הוללות‬ The first half focuses on wisdom, and the second on folly, so this could be viewed as an example of carefully balanced antithetic parallelism of a type found often in Proverbs and occasionally elsewhere in Ecclesiastes. 42 Despite initial appearances, however, the two lines do not balance well, because the first line emphasizes the rigor of the search by using three infinitive-construct verbs 43 for “searching,” then two nouns associated with “wisdom”; while the second line emphasizes folly, using only one verb and then a string of four nouns associated with “folly.” Precise translation of the two nouns in the first part, ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬wisdom”) and ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬conclusion”), is complicated by the observation that they may or may not function as a hendiadys, something along the lines of “a conclusive kind of wisdom,” which may specify the particular kind of wisdom that Qohelet is seek39.  G. A. Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912) 148. A number of manuscripts of the MT and the Symmachus, targum, and Vulgate Versions support this reading. 40.  J. L. Crenshaw (Ecclesiastes: A Commentary [OTL; London: SCM, 1988] 145) argues that “[t]he extra subject may be a virtual personification of the heart which occurs also in 2:1, where Qohelet talks to his heart (Ginsburg).” 41.  For emphatic, see Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, 181. For explicative, see C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 206. 42.  Ecclesiastes 7:4; 10:2, and 12 are examples. 43.  However, unlike the other two infinitives, ‫“( ּו ַבּקֵׁש‬to search”) does not take a preposition.

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example

229

ing so diligently. The word ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬conclusion”) is picked up again at the end of v. 27, where it appears on its own, and by the slightly different word, ‫ּׁשבֹנֹות‬ ְ ‫ִח‬ (“schemes”), at the end of v. 29. The four nouns in the second part are often regarded as corrupt and requiring emendation. 44 The main difficulty is the prefixed conjunction ‫“( ְו‬and”) and definite article ‫“( ַה‬the”) on the third noun, ‫“( ְוה ִַּס ְכלּות‬and the folly”), although none of the other nouns has either. This makes it very difficult to work out the relationship between the nouns. The matter is further complicated by the presence of a word that is apparently synonymous with ‫“( ִס ְכלּות‬folly”)—‫( ֶּכסֶל‬also “folly”)—which appears only here in Ecclesiastes (and rarely elsewhere). Moreover, in the other two places where the words ‫“( ִס ְכלּות‬folly”) and ‫“( הֹולֵלֹות‬foolishness”) appear together in Ecclesiastes (1:17 and 2:12), they appear the other way round and are joined by the conjunction “and”—‫ הֹולֵלֹות ְו ִס ְכלּות‬rather than ‫—וה ִַּס ְכלּות הֹולֵלֹות‬which ְ would allow them to be read as a hendiadys, something like “a mad folly,” a meaning that might fit well in 7:25. Various possibilities for translation are offered by commentators, including: “to know evil, folly, and foolishness [and] madness” (reading a list of individual items) 45 “to know the evil of folly, and the foolishness of madness” (two pairs of nouns in construct relationship) 46 “to know that evil is folly, and foolishness is madness” (two sets of double accusatives) 47

However, no reading is wholly satisfactory, and the reader must determine how the nouns relate or work out a suitable emendation to fill the interpretive gap.

Ecclesiastes 7:26 Whybray comments about “the woman” in 7:26 that “[t]he unexpected introduction of this reference to woman into the discussion has perplexed commentators from very early times.” 48 Qohelet’s diligent search for wisdom and folly has just been described when, suddenly, readers are introduced to ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ה ִַא‬ (“the woman”), as though they are supposed to know who she is. No woman has been mentioned previously in the book, and there are only two other references 44.  This is also suggested in BHS. 45.  This reading is supported by the Septuagint. See M. V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 265, 267–68. 46.  Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, 180–81. 47. See Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 144, 146. 48.  R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes (NCBC; Grand Rapids, MI; London: Eerdmans; Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1989) 125.

230

Doug Ingram

to women, the highly contentious note two verses later and the mention in 9:9, where the tone seems to be quite different from 7:26–29, “Enjoy life with the wife [‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ ]ה ִַא‬whom you love.” Readers are faced with the question of who the woman is in 7:26, and a number of possibilities are entertained by commentators: (1) womankind in general; 49 (2) a specific sort of woman, who is described in the rest of the verse; 50 (3) a specific woman, perhaps Qohelet’s wife; 51 (4) Dame Folly, perhaps picking up on the only definite word in the previous verse, ‫“( ה ִַּס ְכלּות‬the folly”); 52 (5) Lady Wisdom, picking up on ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬wisdom”) in the previous verses; 53 (6) an  54  55 “untimely death”; (7) heresy; or (8) “the agent of a deterministic force.” 56 Matters are further complicated by other words in the context: 1. The verb ‫“( ּומֹוצֶא‬find”) is a participle, while the other verbs that maintain the flow of the discussion are first-person perfect verbs. Most scholars think this indicates that Qohelet is describing recurring events or a constant happening, but this does not explain why the participle is used here in this way and not elsewhere. 57 Michel argues that the participle indicates that what comes next is a quotation, which Qohelet then criticizes. 58 This is possible but cannot be confirmed with any certainty. I am not aware of a fully convincing explanation for the participle in 7:26. In addition, although ‫“( מצא‬to find”) is a III-ʾalep verb, it is pointed here as a III-he verb. This is not particularly unusual in late Hebrew but is an anomaly nonetheless. 59 2. The adjective ‫“( מַר‬bitter”), which modifies ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫“( ה‬the woman”), is masculine, while ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ ִא‬is a feminine noun. The usual explanation for this is the proximity of the masculine noun ‫“( ָמוֶת‬death”) or a comment about Qohelet’s loose grammar. Both of these are possibilities, but the anomaly remains nonetheless. 49.  Shepherd, “Ecclesiastes,” 325. 50.  Shields, The End of Wisdom, 186–87. 51.  Different forms of this view have been held from very early times. See the discussion in Fontaine (“Many Devices,” 153–57). 52.  This is currently a popular approach. See, for example, Seow, Ecclesiastes, 262. 53.  Krüger suggests this possibility, among others (Krüger, Qoheleth, 147). 54.  Ogden, Qoheleth, 2nd ed, 130. 55.  For a rabbinic perspective, see R. N. Sandberg (Rabbinic Views of Qohelet [Mellen Biblical Press Series 57; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1999] 181). A more recent example is found in H. C. Leupold (Exposition of Ecclesiastes [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1952] 173). 56.  Rudman, Determinism, 106–7. 57.  The only other use of the participle + ‫אנִי‬ ֲ (“I”) is in 8:12, where many commentators think it introduces a saying that is not consistent with Qohelet’s view of life. 58. D. Michel, Untersuchungen zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989) 235–37. 59.  Schoors (The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, 1.98–99) suggests that other examples of confusion between III-ʾalep and III-he verbs are found in 2:26; 8:1, 12; 9:2, 18; and 10:5.

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example

231

3. The object marker attached to ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫“( ה‬the woman”) makes “the woman” the direct object of the verb, but this is not strictly correct: Qohelet did not find the woman but found the woman to be more bitter than death. Again there is a grammatical anomaly. 4. Either the words ‫ר־היא‬ ִ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ ‫ א‬can be translated “who is” (‫ ִהיא‬functioning as a copula), 60 or ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬can be translated “because,” resulting in the translation “because she.” The first indicates that it is specifically the woman who fits the description in the rest of the verse that is “more bitter than death”; the second indicates that “the woman” (whoever she is, perhaps even all women) is more bitter than death, because she is as described in the rest of the verse. 5. It is unclear whether ‫צֹודים‬ ִ ‫“( ְמ‬snares”) goes along with ‫ָמים‬ ִ ‫ַוחֲר‬ (“nets”), reading with the accents in the Masoretic Text, and producing the translation “her heart is ‘snares’ and ‘nets’” but leaving ‫ֲׁשר־‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ ִהיא‬hanging; or it goes with ‫היא‬, ִ reading with the ancient Versions, resulting in the translation “she is [or who is] snares and her heart is nets.” Either solution suffers from the fact that plural metaphors are being used with a singular object. Seow describes this as the “plural of complexity,” 61 but it remains awkward. Although the general sense is clear enough, the anomalies cause an awkward reading and an inability to pin down the text with any certainty. The question arising from the last line of 7:26 is how to interpret ‫טֹוב ִל ְפנֵי‬ ‫( ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬lit., “one who is good before God”) and ‫( חֹוטֵא‬lit., “one who misses [or sins]”). Many recent commentators read these as amoral terms, meaning something like “the lucky” and “the unlucky,” 62 or individuals who for whatever reason please God or fail to please God. 63 Others argue, however, that “[w]e should allow ṭôb (good) and ḥôtē ʾ (sinner) their full ethical and religious force at this point.” 64 I discuss the word ‫ טֹוב‬and other associated words, such as ‫ חֹוטֵא‬in depth in my book Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes 65 and conclude that the terms in 7:26 (and elsewhere, especially 2:26) are genuinely ambiguous; thus, readers need to determine for themselves whether the words should be read with a moral sense or as amoral. The choice cannot properly be made on the basis of the words alone but must be based on the way the words are used throughout the book.

60.  See GKC §141f–h. 61.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 263. 62.  Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 146. 63.  Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 265, 267. 64.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 266. 65.  Ingram, Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes, 169–249.

232

Doug Ingram

Ecclesiastes 7:27–29 These verses are highly ambiguous, because it is unclear (with one exception) what has been found and what has not been found, and this is true despite the repeated admonition ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫“( ְראֵה זֶה ָמצ‬see this I found”). I return to this problem below, but first I will consider a few minor points of ambiguity or difficulty in these verses. The first is a problem we have noted already: what does the demonstrative pronoun ‫“( זֶה‬this”) refer to when Qohelet says, ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫“( ְראֵה זֶה ָמצ‬see this I found”)? The word ‫“( זֶה‬this”) may refer back to the preceding verse, picking up on ‫ּומֹוצֶא‬ ‫אנִי‬ ֲ (“I find”) at the beginning of that verse. Alternatively, it may point forward, in which case there are several interruptions before it is completed with the words ‫ָדם ֶאחָד ֵמ ֶאלֶף‬ ָ ‫“( א‬one person/man among a thousand”). The next challenges are introduced by the words ‫ָמרָה ק ֶֹהלֶת‬ ְ ‫“( א‬says Qohelet”). Two questions arise: (1) Is the Hebrew word division wrong? (2) Why is this phrase inserted at this point in the book, when third-person references to Qohelet appear otherwise only in the opening and closing “frame” of the book? In relation to the first question, the problem with the Hebrew as it stands is that the verb is feminine, while elsewhere Qohelet is always masculine. The phrase “says (the) qohelet” appears three times, and each time it is different: 1:2: ‫“( ָאמַר ק ֶֹהלֶת‬says Qohelet”; masculine verb + proper noun) 7:27: ‫ָמ ָרה ק ֶֹהלֶת‬ ְ ‫“( א‬says Qohelet”; feminine verb + proper noun) 12:8: ‫“( ָאמַר הַּקֹו ֶהלֶת‬says the qohelet”; masculine verb + common noun) Most scholars argue that the words have been incorrectly divided and that the text should be emended from ‫ָמרָה ּק ֶֹהלֶת‬ ְ ‫“( א‬says Qohelet”) to ‫“( ָאמַר הַּק ֶֹהלֶת‬says the qohelet”). Minor corruptions of this sort are not unusual in the Hebrew Bible. The emendation finds support in the Septuagint, and it readily solves the problem. However, many phrases are repeated in Ecclesiastes in different forms, often with no discernible difference in meaning, and this sort of anomaly seems quite in keeping with this enigmatic book. 66 Koosed appears to accept the consensus of critical scholars but nonetheless plays with interpretive possibilities: There are two texts here—the one that appears in the MT and the one that is formed through the emendations of the text critic. In a deconstructive reading, neither of these texts is privileged; rather, they are superimposed upon each other and remain undecidable. From one angle, there is a coherent male speaker and audience. But out of the corner of my eye, I see bursts of the feminine interrupt the text’s smooth surface. 67 66.  I devote ch. 3 of my Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes to a discussion of “Qohelet.” 67.  Koosed, (Per)Mutations of Qohelet, 83. Fontaine employs a somewhat similar argument (see “Many Devices,” 151). Krüger sees the feminine form here as part of “[t]he ironically critical ‘play’ with misogynistic statements” (Krüger, Qoheleth, 148–49).

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example

233

Perhaps, however, the text critic has got it wrong in this instance! Second, commentators come to different conclusions about the purpose of the words ‫ָמרָה ק ֶֹהלֶת‬ ְ ‫“( א‬says Qohelet”). Salyer argues that the frame narrator uses these words to distance himself from Qohelet’s opinion expressed here. 68 On the other hand, Fredericks says the words indicate that “[this] is a climactic point of some sort, and probably indicates a more profound moment of reflection.” 69 Schoors claims that the phrase “underlines that Qoh now expresses his own position,” as opposed to the material that he quotes in v. 26 and in the second half of v. 28 in order to refute it. 70 In fact, it is not obvious why the words ‫“( ָאמַר ק ֶֹהלֶת‬says Qohelet”) appear at this point in the book, whether emended or not. The words ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫“( ַאחַת ְל ַאחַת ִל ְמצֹא ח‬one to one to find a conclusion”) need the addition of a verb to make sense. I am not aware of any significant difficulty here, because, although various (implied) verbs are suggested by different commentators, the resulting meanings are much the same—something along the lines of “adding one thing to another to find a conclusion.” The word ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬with which v. 28 begins may be read in different ways: as the relative pronoun “which,” referring to ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬conclusion”); 71 as “that,” used to complete ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫“( ְראֵה זֶה ָמצ‬see this I found”); as the beginning a new statement, “What my soul still sought and did not find was . . .”; 72 or as “whom,” referring back to Qohelet’s search for “Wisdom.” 73 Fox makes the “minor emendation” from ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬to ‫ּשׁה‬ ָ ‫א‬, ִ resulting in the translation, “I sought a woman continually but did not find one.” 74 Scholars are divided over the meaning of ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬in v. 28; should it be rendered “person,” conveying the sense that it has every other time it is used in Ecclesiastes (some 48×), 75 or should it be translated “man,” in opposition to ‫ּשׁה‬ ָ ‫“( ִא‬woman”) in the next part of the verse? 76 The issue is probably not so much the interpretation as it is the uncertainty regarding gender. The word ‫ּשׁה‬ ָ ‫“( ִא‬woman”) may refer to either “a woman” or “a wife.” It is possible that Qohelet sought (and did not find) a wife, especially since the phrase “find a wife” in Prov 18:22 is the only other place in the OT where ‫“( ָמצָא‬find”) and ‫ּשׁה‬ ָ ‫“( ִא‬woman”/“wife”) appear together. 77 Despite the presumptions of many scholars, the text does not clarify for whom 68.  Salyer, Vain Rhetoric, 344. 69.  Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, 185. 70. A. Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part II: Vocabulary (OLA 143; Louvain: Peeters, 2004) 173–75. 71.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 265. 72.  Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 75. 73.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 252, 264. 74.  M. V. Fox, Ecclesiastes: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004) 52. 75.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 267. 76.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 264, 274. 77.  Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, 181.

234

Doug Ingram

(man or woman) Qohelet is looking. In fact, a very significant gap is left here for readers to fill. There is also dispute over what the word ‫“( ֵאּלֶה‬these”) refers to, whether the “thousand” among whom one man/person was found in the previous clause (the majority view) or the sorts of women described in v. 26. 78 It may be that the “thousand” is an allusion to Solomon’s 700 wives and 300 concubines. 79 Longman says of the word ‫“( ְלבַד‬only”), with which v. 29 begins, “[T]his is the only case when only (lĕbad) is used absolutely in biblical Hebrew. Most translations and commentators, however, render the first part of the verse ‘I have found only this.’ This ignores the fact that only begins the verse and is separated from this (zeh).” Longman translates “Only observe this. . . .” 80 However, if the (late) verse divisions are ignored, ‫ ְלבַד‬may be read with ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫לֹא ָמצ‬, which would be more in keeping with its use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and would translate “I did not find this alone,” which matters considerably to the way that 7:27–29 is understood. Commentators read the word ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( ָהא‬the person/man”) as the plural “people,” in light of the pronoun ‫“( ֵהּמַה‬they”) in the second half of the verse. This makes good sense in the context, but nowhere else in Ecclesiastes is the singular ‫ָדם‬ ָ‫א‬ used with a plural pronoun or verb, even when it refers to “people in general.” It is always the phrase ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫( ְּבנֵי ָהא‬lit., “the sons of the man,” meaning “people”) that is used with the plural. Hence, there seems to be a grammatical anomaly here that does not appear elsewhere in the book. It is possible, however, that ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ ָהא‬here refers back to ‫ָדם ֶאחָד ֵמ ֶאלֶף‬ ָ ‫“( א‬one person/man among a thousand”) in the previous verse, or at least that readers will make this link. In this case, v. 29 could be read to say that God made that person/man upright, but the others sought many schemes. The word ‫ָׁשר‬ ָ ‫ י‬means “straight” but, as with ‫“( טֹוב‬one who is good”) and ‫חֹוטֵא‬ (“one who misses” or “sins”), scholars disagree about whether ‫ָׁשר‬ ָ ‫ י‬has moral implications here. 81 The word ‫ּׁשבֹנֹות‬ ְ ‫“( ִח‬schemes”) is similar to a key word used twice earlier in this passage, ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬conclusion” or “sum”). However, the singular of ‫ּׁשבֹנֹות‬ ְ ‫ ִח‬is ‫ּׁשבֹון‬ ָ ‫ח‬, ִ which occurs elsewhere only in 2 Chr 26:15, where it means “schemes” or “inventions.” The word ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ח‬, used in vv. 25 and 27, does not appear anywhere else as a common noun but is used 38× as the name of a city, Heshbon. Some scholars emend ‫ּׁשבֹנֹות‬ ְ ‫“( ִח‬schemes”) to ‫ֶׁשּבֹנֹות‬ ְ ‫“( ח‬conclusions”), while others insist on leaving the text unchanged. Many, however, see a play on words here, where perhaps both meanings are intended. Another question arises concerning the end of v. 29, ‫ּׁשבֹנֹות רַ ִּבים‬ ְ ‫ְו ֵהּמָה ִב ְקׁשּו ִח‬ (“they sought many schemes”): is it to be understood positively or negatively? 78.  Ibid., 185–86. 79.  D. A. Hubbard, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (ed. L. J. Ogilvie; Communicator’s Commentary 15b; Dallas: Word, 1991) 177. 80.  Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 202 n. 121. 81.  Compare, for example, Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 272; Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, 186.

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example

235

Most scholars read it negatively, taking the ‫ ְו‬as a disjunctive “but”: “God made human beings straightforward, but they have devised many schemes.” However, it may also be read as the conjunctive “and,” in which case the clause is seen as praising human ingenuity or creativity. 82 Having worked through various points of ambiguity or difficulty in vv. 27–29, I now return to the main ambiguity that characterizes these verses: what is “found” and “not found.” The punctuation in the Masoretic Text, represented by modern verse divisions, hides an interesting construction that appears if one divides the lines after the first set of nine words plus one word. A carefully balanced alternating structure of “finding” and “not finding” becomes visible among lines of three words; this structure is followed by a concluding set of lines with one word plus nine words. Portraying the lines graphically, as below, heightens the effect of the verbal/aural point being made, which is that the “search” continues: ‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ָמרָה ק ֶֹהלֶת ַאחַת ְל ַאחַת ִל ְמצֹא ח‬ ְ ‫ָאתי א‬ ִ ‫ְראֵה זֶה ָמצ‬ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ׁשי‬ ִ ‫קׁשה נ ְַפ‬ ָ ‫עֹוד־ּב‬ ִ ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ְולֹא ָמצ‬ ‫ָדם ֶאחַד ֵמ ֶאלֶף‬ ָ‫א‬ ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ָמצ‬ ‫ּׁשה ְבכָל־ ֶאּלֶה‬ ָ ‫ְו ִא‬ ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫לֹא ָמצ‬ ‫ְלבַד ְראֵה־זֶה‬ ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ָמצ‬ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ּׁשבֹנֹות רַ ִּבים‬ ְ ‫ָׁשר ְו ֵהּמָה ִב ְקׁשּו ִח‬ ָ ‫ָדם י‬ ָ ‫ָׂשה ָהאֲל ִֹהים אֶת־ ַהא‬ ָ‫ע‬ See this I-found says Qohelet one to-one to-find conclusion that/which/because still sought my-soul and/but-not I-found person one among-a-thousand I-found and-woman/wife among-all these not I-found only see this I-found that/which/because made God [object-marker] the-person straight,   and/but-they sought schemes many

82.  Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, 186.

(9 words) (1 word) (3 words) (3 words) (3 words) (3 words) (1 word) (9 words)

236

Doug Ingram

I noted above that ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫“( ְראֵה זֶה ָמצ‬see this I found”), at the beginning of v. 27, could point backward or forward. If it points backward, vv. 27–29 might be read thus: “See this (discussed previously) I found by adding one thing to another to find a conclusion,” said Qohelet. “What I continually sought but did not find was a person/man among a thousand. Indeed, I found a woman/wife among all these, but this is not all I found. I found that God made people straightforward, and/but they sought many schemes.”

Here the ‫ ְו‬on ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫“( ְו ִא‬and a woman”) is read as emphatic, which is an awkward reading (but see ‫ ְו ִל ִּבי‬in v. 26). Another possibility would be to take the end of v. 28 as a proverb that Qohelet quotes: “See this (discussed previously) I found by adding one thing to another to find a conclusion,” said Qohelet. “What I continually sought but did not find (to be true) is (the saying) ‘A person/man among a thousand I found, but a woman/ wife among all these I did not find.’ Only, see this I found, that God made people straightforward, and/but they sought many schemes.”

However, ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ ְראֵה זֶה ָמצ‬could point forward and be picked up by the first ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫א‬, with the second half of v. 27 functioning as a parenthesis, in which case it would be parallel to ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ְראֵה זֶה ָמצ‬ ֶ ‫ א‬in v. 29: Qohelet said, “See this I found (by adding one thing to another to find a conclusion), that my soul continually sought and did not find. I found a person/man among a thousand, but I did not find a woman/wife among all these. Only, see this I found, that. . . .”

Alternatively, ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ ְראֵה זֶה ָמצ‬may point forward to the end of v. 28, with the second half of v. 27 and the first half of v. 28 functioning as a parenthesis: Qohelet said, “See this I found (by adding one thing to another to find a conclusion, which my soul continually sought but did not find): I found a person/man among a thousand, but I did not find a woman/wife among all these. Only, see this I found. . . .”

Another possibility is to regard the second half of v. 28 as an intrusion and to remove it (as Seow does 83): Qohelet said, “See this I found by adding one thing to another to find a conclusion, that my soul continually sought but did not find. [ . . . ] Only, see this I found. . . .” 83.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 252, 264–65.

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example

237

Shields, however, makes a different emendation: he removes ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫“( ָמצ‬I found”) from v. 28 (leaving the two occurrences of ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫“[ לֹא ָמצ‬I did not find”]): 84 Qohelet said, “See this I found by adding one thing to another to find a conclusion, which my soul continually sought. I did not find one man/person among a thousand [ . . . ], nor did I find a woman/wife among all these. Only, see this I found. . . .”

These possible translations are far from exhaustive but illustrate the difficulties that readers face in trying to make sense of vv. 27–29 and especially in trying to figure out what Qohelet claims to have found and not found. There seem to be too many occurrences of the verb ‫“( מצא‬to find”), setting readers hunting for parentheses or quotes. It seems that the text is a riddle, waiting to be solved, except that it is a riddle without a definitive solution. Thus, we readers, like the people described in v. 29, will continue to seek “schemes” to explain this passage of Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 8:1 The first verse of ch.  8 follows my comments above very well; Fredericks writes, “The reader has just been challenged by a complicated riddle in 7:27–28, and now the clarion is given to solve it. That is the meaning of pēšer (interpretation): to interpret the obscure.” 85 In relation to 7:23, we raised the issue of whether or not the questions in Ecclesiastes beginning with ‫“( ִמי‬who?”) should be understood as rhetorical questions. Here, as there, the issue is precisely that they may be understood as rhetorical but are not necessarily rhetorical. If these are rhetorical questions, further issues arise: Who is ‫“( ֶה ָחכָם‬the wise person”)? Does this person ‫ֵׁשר ָדבָר‬ ֶ ‫יֹודֵ עַ יּפ‬ (“know the interpretation of a thing”)? In light of 7:23–24, it may be that “the wise person” is an idealization, which no human being is. In this case, nobody “knows the interpretation of a thing,” and we return ironically to the puzzles in the earlier verses. 86 This is in some tension with the second half of 8:1, which refers to ‫ָכמַת‬ ְ‫ח‬ ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( א‬a person’s wisdom”) and presumes that some people do have wisdom and thus are wise people. However, we encountered this sort of tension in 7:23–24, so it is no surprise to find it here as well; this may raise a question about what kind of wisdom is being referred to in each instance. Or it may be that “the wise person” is Qohelet himself, in which case no one “knows the interpretation of a thing” except him. After all, Qohelet repeatedly parades his wisdom, claiming to be wiser than any other, and it is specifically stated in the epilogue (12:9) that ‫ָהיָה ק ֶֹהלֶת ָחכָם‬ (“Qohelet was a wise man”). Or it may be that wise people generally are in view; 84.  Shields, The End of Wisdom, 188. 85.  Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, 186. 86.  Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 209.

238

Doug Ingram

thus only they “know the interpretation of a thing,” or not even they know. 87 The result is four possibilities for interpretation: • No one is truly wise, and therefore no one knows the interpretation of a thing. • No one is wise like me, and no one else knows the interpretation of a thing. • No one else is like the wise, who alone know the interpretation of a thing. • No one else is like the wise, but even they do not know the interpretation of a thing. If the questions are not rhetorical, however, they may be addressed to readers, challenging them to consider whether they are wise enough to work things out: 88 • Are you wise enough to know the interpretation of a thing? There are two other points to note in relation to the first half of the verse. (1) The retention of the -‫ ה‬of the definite article (“the”) alongside the preposition -‫“( כ‬like”) in ‫“( ְּכ ֶה ָחכָם‬like the wise person”) is unusual, though certainly not without precedent, particularly in later biblical material. However, this has led some scholars to follow the Septuagint, Symmachus, and Aquila and emend the text to ‫“( ִמי כֹה ָחכָם‬who is so wise”), which does give a more straightforward reading. 89 (2) The word ‫ֵׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ ּפ‬appears only here in Biblical Hebrew. However, it is very common in the Aramaic of the book of Daniel, where it refers to the interpretation of obscure dreams. The main issue in regard to the second half of the verse concerns the interpretation of the last three words, ‫ׁשּנֶא‬ ֻ ‫“( ְועֹז ָּפנָיו ְי‬the hardness of one’s face is changed”). The expression ‫ עֹז ָּפנָיו‬is unique in the Hebrew Bible, but a similar phrase, ‫“( עַז ָּפנִים‬strong of face” = “impudent”), occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Deut 28:50, Dan 8:23) and in Postbiblical Hebrew. With or without emendation, it is likely that here the expression means something similar. The final word, ‫ׁשּנֶא‬ ֻ ‫“( ְי‬is changed”), is pointed as the III-he verb ‫“( ׁשנה‬to change”) but has a final ʾalep, which may indicate that it ought to be the III-ʾalep verb ‫“( ׂשנא‬to hate”), as represented in the Septuagint and Peshiṭta. 90 I noted above that the participle, ‫ּומֹוצֶא‬, in 7:26, is the other way around: it has the consonants of a III-ʾalep verb but is pointed as a III-he verb. Most commentators read ‫ׁשּנֶא‬ ֻ ‫ ְי‬as the III-he verb ‫ׁשנה‬ 87.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 280. 88.  Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, 186. 89.  Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 265, 272. 90.  But see the use of the III-ʾalep verb šnʾ in 2 Kgs 25:19 and Lam 4:1, where it seems to be the same as the III-he verb ‫“( ׁשנה‬to change”).

“Riddled with Ambiguity”: Ecclesiastes 7:23–8:1 as an Example

239

(“to change”). Perhaps there is a deliberate ambiguity here. Fox, however, regards the word ‫אנִי‬ ֲ (“I”) with which 8:2 begins as anomalous (this certainly seems to be true, and it is usually removed by commentators); he suggests that ‫אנִי‬ ֲ results from a mistaken word division and should be added to the verb ‫ׁשּנֶא‬ ֻ ‫“( ְי‬is changed”) as a third-person-singular pronominal suffix, which would be ‫“( יְׁשַ ְּנאֶּנּו‬changed it”). This changes the text from “People’s wisdom makes their faces shine, and their impudence is changed,” to “People’s wisdom makes their faces shine, but their impudence changes it” (presumably the face). 91 For Fox, this pertains to the way that people conduct themselves in front of a king, the subject of the following verses. Many commentators regard 8:1a as an appropriate conclusion to 7:23–29 (or 7:25–29), because of its negative view about “wisdom” and the impossibility of “interpretation,” but take 8:1b as the beginning of the next section, partly because it seems to be too positive about wisdom to belong with 8:1a. 92 Others argue that 8:1b need not be interpreted so positively and may therefore fit well with the first half of the verse. 93 Some scholars contend that the whole of 8:1 is positive and thus an appropriate conclusion to 7:23–29. 94 And still others read the whole of 8:1 as positive but regard it as the beginning of the next section. 95 Some think that 8:1 may serve as a link between the preceding verses and those that follow. 96 Finally, there are scholars who consider the verse to be out of keeping with the verses on both sides of it and remove it as the work of a glossator 97 or regard the second half of the verse as a quotation that Qohelet disparages. 98 All the bases are covered by someone, it seems! As Murphy asserts, “There is simply no certain solution.” 99

Conclusion There is simply no certain solution! I have demonstrated that Eccl 7:23–8:1 is riddled with ambiguity and uncertainty and requires readers’ active involvement in solving the riddles that this ambiguity creates in order to make sense of the text. In this respect, these verses are typical of the book as a whole, where ambiguity is used as a heuristic device to encourage readers to engage themselves in the challenges that the text throws up, hone their own interpretive skills, and then implement these skills in relation to the ambiguities and uncertainties of life and faith. 91.  Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 273–74. 92.  Ibid., 265, 272–73. 93.  Shields, The End of Wisdom, 190–91. 94.  Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, 186. 95.  Ogden, Qoheleth, 2nd ed., 137–38. 96.  Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 208. 97.  For example, Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes, 149. 98.  For example, Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 149. 99.  Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 75.

240

Doug Ingram

Qohelet the teacher does not present to his students clear, ready-made conclusions, but expects them to devise many schemes as they, like him, strive to be wise, seeking and finding out what they can, appreciating that there are snares along the way that cannot be interpreted in the abstract but only as they are encountered in context. In the end, students of wisdom must accept the fact that a conclusive wisdom of the sort that can resolve all the ambiguities and uncertainties of life and faith will always will be “far off ” and “very deep.” It is not just for rhetorical reasons that the narrator of Qohelet’s words chooses to ambiguate where he could elucidate; the rhetoric has heuristic purposes.

The Meaning of   ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet: An Intertextual Suggestion Russell L. Meek Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary No one seriously doubts the importance of ‫ הבל‬for understanding Qohelet; the word’s 38 occurrences in the book make its importance clear. 1 What scholars do doubt, however, is the word’s meaning in Qohelet. In this essay, I contribute to the conversation by proposing that ‫ הבל‬is an intertextual reference to Abel in Gen 4 that is intended to cause the reader to reflect on the life of Abel and the discontinuity between what Abel experienced and what he should have experienced. In order to reach this conclusion, I proceed as follows: in the first section, I outline a brief history of the interpretation of ‫ הבל‬in order to help readers gain their bearings in the vast ocean of scholarship on this enigmatic term; in the second section, I outline the intertextual method employed and apply this method to Qohelet’s use of Genesis; in the third section, I examine the narrative of Cain and Abel to demonstrate how Qohelet uses the life of Abel as a launching point for his own treatise.

‫הבל‬: A Brief History of Interpretation The meaning of ‫ הבל‬outside Qohelet is rarely debated because the immediate context usually makes its meaning obvious. 2 However, this is not generally the case in the book of Qohelet. Because of the word’s ambiguity, the history of interpretation of ‫ הבל‬is quite varied. 3 The Septuagint (LXX) uses the word ματαιοτης (“transitory,” “breath,” “emptiness,” “vanity”) to translate every occurrence of ‫הבל‬ Author’s note: I would like to thank N. Blake Hearson for first suggesting to me that there may be a relationship between the Abel of Gen 4 and Qohelet’s use of ‫הבל‬. I also thank the editors of this volume for their insightful suggestions for improving this piece. 1.  Qohelet 1:2 (5×); 1:14; 2:1, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26; 3:19; 4:4, 7, 8, 16; 5:6[ET 7], 9[ET 10]; 6:2, 4, 9, 11, 12; 7:6, 15; 8:10, 14 (2×); 9:9 (2×); 11:8, 10; 12:8 (3×). The use of ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet constitutes over half of its number of occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. 2.  Its range of meaning outside the book includes words and ideas such as “breath” (Ps 39:6), “vapor/mist” (Prov 21:6), and “worthless/useless” (Isa 30:7). 3.  On the history of interpretation of Qohelet, including ‫הבל‬, see also C. Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory (AnBib 139; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998) 31–205.

241

242

Russell L. Meek

in Qohelet. The range of meanings for ματαιοτης is broad, which in turn limits its usefulness for determining the meaning of ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet. However, it is noteworthy that, outside Qohelet, the LXX translates ‫ הבל‬with a variety of other terms that have more-restricted ranges of meaning, such as κενος (“empty,” “void,” “vain”; Job 7:16), καταιγις (“blast of wind”; Isa 57:13), ειδολα (“idol”; Jer 16:19), and ματην (“in vain”; Ps 38:7[ET 39:6; Heb. 39:7]). 4 The targum translates three (1:2 [2×]; 2:17) of the occurrences of ‫ הבל‬with ‫“( הבל‬vapor,” “breath”). The translation in 1:2 reflects the targum’s interpretation of Qohelet as being written by Solomon as he considered the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. 5 Everything for which he had labored was thus “vapor,” in that it did not last. The targum translates the rest of the occurrences of ‫ הבל‬with ‫“( הבלו‬vanity”). Midrash Rabbah understands ‫ הבל‬as “breath” but indicates that Qohelet uses it to indicate insubstantiality. The midrash states that Solomon uses the phrase ‫“ הבל הבלים‬without explaining it and its exposition was given by his father David. David said, Man is like breath (Ps. cxliv, 4).” 6 The text goes on to state that: “It may be likened to a man who sets on the fire seven pots one on top of the other, and the steam from the topmost one has no substance in it, [and such is man].” 7 This interpretation thus uses the nonmetaphorical meaning of ‫הבל‬, “breath,” but expands its range of meaning to the metaphorical idea of “insubstantiality.” The most influential translation is Jerome’s use of vanitas, 8 the range of which is considerably more restricted than either ‫ הבל‬or ματαιοτης. 9 This has left an indelible mark on the translation and interpretation of ‫ הבל‬that has proven to be of questionable value for interpreting the book. Many modern versions (for example, the esv, nkjv, nab, nasb, nrsv) follow Jerome by translating ‫ הבל‬with the English term “vanity,” which likewise has a narrower range of meaning than ‫ הבל‬and is inherently negative. 10 4.  See J. J. Lavoie, “Habel habalim hakol habel: Historie de l’interprétation d’une formule celebre et enjeux culturels,” Science et Esprit 53 (2006) 222–23. 5.  Note T. Longman (The Book of Ecclesiastes [NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998] 3), who observes that the targum tends “to use the book of Ecclesiastes to fill in gaps in the life of Solomon. . . . Thus, Ecclesiastes became the witness to his return to orthodoxy at the end of his life.” 6.  A. Cohen, trans., Midrash Rabbah, vol. 7: Ecclesiastes (3rd ed.; New York: Soncino, 1983) 4. 7.  Ibid., 5. 8. C. Bartholomew (Ecclesiastes [Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009] 28) states that, not only was Jerome’s use of vanitas to translate ‫ הבל‬profoundly influential, but his commentary “became the standard interpretation” of the book until the Reformers. 9. See Lavoie, “Habel habalim,” 227–28. 10.  See D. Fredericks and D. J. Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (Apollos Old Testament Commentary 16; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity; Nottingham: Apollos, 2010) 46–47.

The Meaning of   ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet: An Intertextual Suggestion

243

Jerome’s use of vanitas to translate ‫ הבל‬is supported by the contemptus mundi approach he uses to interpret Qohelet, arguing that “all is vanity” means that the earthly realm (“all”) lacks value (“is vanity”). 11 Christianson points out that Jerome qualifies his statement by excluding spiritual realities from vanity and stating that earthly realities, as God’s creation, are inherently good but lack value in comparison to God. 12 Jerome’s model is helpful by encouraging people to value God most; however, it does not satisfactorily explain what Qohelet means when he says, “All is vanity.” Qohelet does not argue that the entire earthly realm lacks value. He offers exceptions to the “all”—working, eating, drinking, and one’s lover (2:24; 9:9)—and attaches value to them. 13 He only qualifies the exceptions with an admonition to enjoy within God’s parameters (12:13–14). With qualification, Jerome’s contemptus mundi reading dominated Qohelet scholarship for roughly the next one thousand years. 14 For example, Ettlinger points out that Gregory of Agrigentum nuances the contemptus mundi reading by stating that “nothing is totally useless.” 15 However, Bonaventure’s modifications turn Jerome’s reading on its head by arguing that “the person who despises the world, despises God.” 16 By calling into question the validity of contemptus mundi reading, Bonaventure paves the way for Luther to argue that ‫ הבל‬refers to humanity’s vanity (demonstrated by the human inability to be content with God’s gifts) rather than to the gifts themselves (that is, creation). 17 Despite the argument over what exactly Qohelet refers to as “vanity,” the term remained the dominant translation for ‫ הבל‬until recently. 18 Scholars have now begun to move away from Jerome’s influential translation, instead posing a plethora of interpretations for ‫הבל‬. C. L. Seow argues that 11.  E. S. Christianson (Ecclesiastes through the Centuries [Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007] 100–101) notes that Origen is likely the originator of the vanitas reading but that Jerome popularized it. 12.  Ibid, 100–101. See also K. Farmer, Who Knows What Is Good? A Commentary on the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991) 144. 13.  Note that Qohelet thinks that lasting value remains elusive (see below). 14.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 31. 15.  G. H. Ettlinger, “The Form and Method of the Commentary on Ecclesiastes by Gregory of Agrigentum,” in Papers of the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Studia Patristica 18/1; Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1985) 320. Christianson (Ecclesiastes through the Centuries, 102) notes that Augustine and John Chrysostom, as well as Gregory of Agrigentum, closely followed Jerome. See also E. Christianson’s essay in this volume. 16. St. Bonaventure, St. Bonaventure’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes (ed. and trans. R. J. Karris and C. Murray; Works of St. Bonaventure 7; Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 2005) 77. 17. M. Luther, Notes on Ecclesiastes (ed. and trans. J. Pelikan; Luther’s Works 15; St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1972) 10–11. 18. On ‫ הבל‬as “vanity,” see Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries, 98–141.

244

Russell L. Meek

‫ הבל‬means “beyond mortal grasp.” 19 He arrives at this meaning through rigorous examination of the usage of ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet, the rest of the OT, and rabbinic literature; he also uses comparative linguistics to examine parallel words and phrases in relevant ancient Near Eastern literature. Seow states that Qohelet uses the word in its traditional sense—to mean “breath” or “vapor,” that is, “not lasting.” 20 He argues that Qohelet has expanded ‫ הבל‬to include everything in life that, like vapor, cannot be grasped. Bartholomew takes an approach similar to Seow when he argues that ‫הבל‬ should be translated “enigmatic.” 21 He notes that, in the framing statements in 1:2 and 12:8, ‫ הבל‬must be translated consistently. However, he agrees with Douglas Miller (see below) that Qohelet uses ‫ הבל‬as a live metaphor, the meaning of which is controlled by the near context. This makes it imperative that the reader be attuned to various nuances that the word may carry.  22 Bartholomew’s proposal takes seriously the importance of the framing statements, as well as the frequent occurrence of ‫ הבל‬at important junctions in the text. Furthermore, he offers readers a translation that does not immediately color their perception of the book. Something that is enigmatic is not necessarily negative. However, his rendering of ‫ הבל‬does not do justice to the dominant meaning of the word—“breath or vapor.” Like Bartholomew, Graham Ogden thinks that ‫ הבל‬should be translated “enigma” or “mystery.” 23 He rightly argues that the primary problem with ‫הבל‬ is that verbal consistency has been favored over contextual consistency by most commentators and translators, which should not be the case. The usage of ‫ הבל‬in other contexts (verbal consistency) does not necessarily dictate the meaning of its usage in Qohelet (contextual consistency). Based on an examination of select passages in which Qohelet uses ‫הבל‬, Ogden concludes that he is describing situations that are beyond human understanding—that is, enigmatic. Michael V. Fox rejects previous attempts to translate ‫ הבל‬as being unable to convey its full meaning, opting for the word “absurd” instead. 24 He borrows this terminology from Camus’ work The Myth of Sisyphus, where “absurd” indicates the absence of a rational relationship between (legitimate) expectations and outcomes, a sentiment that, according to Fox, Qohelet shares. Fox thus assesses ‫הבל‬ as an entirely negative term, an assessment that is consistent with his view that Qohelet represents a crisis in Israel’s wisdom tradition. This view is problematic, 19.  C. L. Seow, “Beyond Mortal Grasp: The Usage of Hebel in Ecclesiastes,” ABR 48 (2000) 1–16. 20.  Ibid., 3–7. 21.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 106. 22. Ibid. 23. G. Ogden, “Vanity It Certainly Is Not,” The Bible Translator 38 (1987) 301–7. 24.  M. V. Fox, “The Meaning of Hebel for Qoheleth,” JBL 105 (1986) 409–27. See also J. Hobbins’s article in this volume, in which he suggests that ‫ הבל‬should be translated as “crock.”

The Meaning of   ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet: An Intertextual Suggestion

245

however. His presupposition of a crisis in Israel’s sapiential tradition is somewhat circular. In order for Qohelet to be seen as pessimistic, ‫ הבל‬must be read as “absurd,” but, for there to be a crisis in the wisdom tradition, Qohelet must be viewed as a pessimist. Also problematic for Fox’s thesis is that it relies more heavily on twentieth-century literature than ancient Near Eastern literature for its support. Douglas Miller understands ‫ הבל‬as a symbol that encompasses three referents. 25 He divides understandings of ‫ הבל‬into three categories: an abstract sense, multiple senses, and a single metaphor. After pointing out various flaws in each of these schemas, he suggests a new way forward: Qohelet uses ‫ הבל‬as a symbol to indicate one or more of three referents: insubstantiality, transience, and foulness. Miller supports his thesis with (1) evidence that Qohelet is a skillful narrator who makes significant use of various literary devices throughout Qohelet, as well as (2) evidence from the use of ‫ הבל‬outside Qohelet. In the present essay, I rely on Miller’s work but modify his approach to argue that ‫ הבל‬refers back to various aspects of Abel’s life. However, to show that Qohelet uses ‫ הבל‬to refer to Abel, I must first demonstrate the intertextual relationship between Gen 1–4 and Qohelet.

Echoes of Genesis in Qohelet To demonstrate the relationship between Genesis and Qohelet, I must: (1)  briefly outline the methodology used to determine exactly what qualifies as an “echo”; and (2) systematically work through echoes of Genesis in Qohelet. 26 In the latter section, I defend the designation of each particular text as an echo and— most importantly—comment on the reason that Qohelet echoes each of these texts. Does Qohelet echo Genesis to reinforce it, overturn it, and/or offer a fresh interpretation of it? 27 This aspect of the essay is most helpful in clarifying the larger questions related to Qohelet, such as its view of God, creation, and humanity. 25. D. Miller, “Qohelet’s Symbolic Use of ‫הבל‬,” JBL 117 (1998) 437–54. See also his book Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes: The Place of Hebel in Qohelet’s Work (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 26.  Many scholars have recognized the link between Genesis and Qohelet, but a full treatment of their intertextual relationship has not yet been developed. See, for example, A. Nehur, Notes sur Qohelet (Paris: Minuit, 1951); J. Chopineau, Hevel en Hebreu biblique: Contribution à l’étude des rapports entre semantique et l’exégèse de l’Ancien Testament (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Strasbourg, 1971); idem, “Une image de l’homme: Sur Ecclésiaste 1/2,” ETR 53 (1978) 366–70; E. Dor-Shav, “Ecclesiastes, Fleeting and Timeless: Part 1,” JBQ 36 (2008) 211–21; R. Antic, “Cain, Abel, Seth, and the Meaning of Human Life as Portrayed in the Books of Genesis and Ecclesiastes,” AUSS 44 (2006) 203–11. Note especially H. W. Hertzberg (Der Prediger [KAT 17/4; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963] 230), who states, “Es ist kein Zweifel: das Buch Qoh ist geschrieben mit Gn 1–4 vor den Augen seines Verfassers; die Lebensanschauung Qoh’s ist an der Schöpfungsgeschichte gebildet” (italics original). 27. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985) 282–83, 291.

246

Russell L. Meek

Methodology Van Wolde accuses biblical exegetes of using the discipline of intertextuality in biblical exegesis merely to “supply labels” rather than as an overarching interpretive method. 28 Her criticism is especially valid given the method’s understanding of “text.” It assumes a “new notion of what text is” to the effect that it becomes a “network of traces” in which the determiner of meaning is no longer the author but the reader. 29 This notion of “text” makes many interpreters reluctant to adopt intertextuality as their guiding method. Nevertheless, the interpreter must use every tool at her disposal to discern the author’s intending meaning. 30 Therefore, although I am cognizant of van Wolde’s criticism, I use intertextuality but refuse to adopt its definition of text. 31 In discussing Qohelet’s use of Genesis, I employ the term echo to indicate Qohelet’s use of words, phrases, and themes that the author of Genesis previously used. 32 For a section of Qohelet to qualify as an echo of Genesis, it must meet the following criteria: (1) There must be a correspondence of theme (topoi) between the text in Qohelet and its proposed parallel in Genesis. 33 (2) There must be a correspondence of at least one word between the text in question in Qohelet (the traditio) and the proposed parallel in Genesis (the traditum). 34 Taken together, these criteria form the methodological boundaries in the search for echoes of Genesis in Qohelet. However, the first boundary may be breached in the rare situation in which a theme is discussed using a confluence of words that are not identical but have lexical similarities and/or overlapping ranges of meaning. 35 For example, Qohelet discusses work at great length, a concept that is introduced in Gen 2 and 28.  E. van Wolde, “Trendy Interextuality?” in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. Sipke Draisma; Kampen: Kok, 1989) 43. 29.  W. S. Vorster, “Intertextuality and Redaktionsgeschichte,” in ibid., 20–21. 30.  See K. J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998) 201–80. 31.  See the recent discussion by G. D. Miller (“Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,” Currents in Biblical Research 9 [2011] 283–309), in which he argues for a new label to distinguish between various forms of “intertextuality.” Also note the recent study by R. Schultz (“Intertextuality, Canon, and ‘Undecidability’: Understanding Isaiah’s ‘New Heavens and New Earth’ [Isaiah 65:17–25],” BBR 20 [2010] 19–38), in which he argues for a modified intertextual approach that seeks to combine the fruits of intertextuality with respect for the authority of the biblical text. 32.  Discussion of the authorship of Genesis and Qohelet is beyond the scope of this article. On Genesis, see J. Wellhausen (Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historichen Bücher des Alten Testaments [3rd ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1899]) for the classical formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis. For a more recent view on Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, see J. Sailhammer (The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009]). On Qohelet, see Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 43–54; and Fredericks, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, 31–36. 33. Ibid. 34.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 285. 35.  See, for example, Longman, Ecclesiastes, 119.

The Meaning of   ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet: An Intertextual Suggestion

247

complicated by Adam’s sin in Gen 3. Qohelet develops both the meaningful and frustrating aspects of work found in Genesis, but he uses the term ‫“( עמל‬work, toil”) instead of ‫“( עבד‬work, tend”), the term used by Genesis (see below for further explanation and justification). Like most of the OT, Qohelet lacks obvious textual features to mark borrowing, such as quotation marks or an introductory formula. 36 This makes the first criterion essential for safeguarding against a purely subjective quest for echoes of Genesis. 37 The second criterion is also essential because common vocabulary may indicate intentional borrowing, reliance on a common source, or the use of stock phrases. It ensures that interpreters do not commit the error of relying too heavily on similar vocabulary between two passages that do not relate to each other thematically. 38

Echoing Genesis “Paradise Retried”

After bringing to mind the short life of Abel, Qohelet looks to the Garden of Eden as he attempts to recreate paradise. In a brief article, Arian Vorheij demonstrates that Qohelet’s description of his garden in Qoh 2:4–6 draws heavily on the language used in Genesis to describe creation in general and the Garden of Eden in particular. 39 Note the terminology used in Qoh 2:4–6: ‫הגדלתי מעׂשי בניתי לי בתים נטתי לי כרמים‬ ‫עׂשיתי לי גנות ופרדסים ונטעתי בהם עץ כל פרי‬ ‫עׂשיתי לי ברכות מים להׁשקות מהם יער צומח עצים‬ I made great works for myself. I built for myself houses; I planted for myself vineyards. I made for myself gardens and parks, and I planted in them trees of every kind. I made for myself ponds of water from which to water the forest of growing trees. 40

In the space of three verses (Qoh 2:4–6), Qohelet uses eight terms also found in Gen 1–2 to describe the garden he made for himself. 41 Qohelet plants (‫ )נטע‬for 36. R. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 218–19. 37.  Ibid., 19. 38. J. Crenshaw, “Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon ‘Historical’ Literature,” JBL 88 (1969) 133. 39. A. Verheij, “Paradise Retried: On Qohelet 2:4–6,” JSOT 50 (1991) 113–15. 40.  All translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own. 41.  C. L. Seow (Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997] 150) states that this section is meant to show the “legendary success” that “calls to mind the activities and fabulous wealth of Solomon in 1 Kings 3–11.” Many other commentators have made this same observation, and this goal is certainly one function of this passage. Similarly, Bartholomew (Ecclesiastes, 132) demonstrates its similarities with ancient

248

Russell L. Meek

himself a vineyard in 2:4 and plants (‫ )ונטעתי‬fruit trees (‫ )עץ כל פרי‬in his garden in 2:5. Qohelet’s use of ‫ נטע‬echoes the use of the word in Gen 2:8, where God “planted a garden in Eden.” Qohelet makes for himself gardens (‫ )גנות‬in 2:5, a statement that echoes God’s garden in Gen 2:8, 9, 10, 15, and 16. The ‫עץ כל פרי‬ (“trees of every kind of fruit”) that Qohelet plants in his gardens is another phrase that echoes verses in Genesis (1:11, 12, 29; 2:9, 16) that describe both the Garden of Eden and the general state of creation. Qohelet waters (‫ )להׁשקות‬his gardens and vineyards with a system of pools that echoes the river that waters (‫)להׁשקות‬ Eden (Gen 2:10). Finally, Qohelet states in 2:4, 5 that he made (‫ )עׂשיתי‬for himself gardens and pools. His use of the term ‫ עׂשה‬echoes Gen 2:2, which uses the term twice to state that God completed all the work he “made” (‫ )עׂשה‬and that he rested from the work he “made” (‫)עׂשה‬. Vorheij cogently sums up the matter: “Taken separately, these words are not remarkable: for the most part they are indeed very common in Biblical Hebrew. It is their combined occurrence here and in Genesis that establishes a firm link between the texts.” 42 The question remains, however: for what purpose does Qohelet echo the account of the Garden of Eden? Vorheij argues that he does so in order to demonstrate that his work had the opposite effect of God’s work. Rather than creating good (Gen 1:31), Qohelet’s efforts produce only worthlessness. 43 Yet, could it be that Qohelet picks up on the language of the Garden of Eden to hint at the fact that human efforts at replicating God’s works are ultimately transient (‫)הבל‬, as opposed to God’s efforts, which last forever? 44 Qohelet says as much in 2:11: “Then I turned to all the works that my hands worked, and to all the toil that I toiled to do it, and behold it was all hebel, and striving for wind, and there was no lasting advantage under the sun.” Could Qohelet also be hinting at the great divide between humans as they were created (perfect) and humans as they became (imperfect): “God made humanity upright, but they have sought many schemes” (Qoh 7:29 esv)? Qohelet echoes the language of the Garden of Eden in order to discuss the failure of human efforts to achieve anything of lasting value. Though God created a perfect garden in which humans and God communicated directly, humans have “sought many schemes” (Qoh 7:29). Though God’s creation was perfect, human efforts are merely fleeting, faltering attempts at imitation. By drawing a parallel between his own efforts and those of God in Gen 2, Qohelet paints a vivid picture of the failure of human effort to imitate God’s works.

Near Eastern royal inscriptions. This aspect of the text is not explored here because my task is to demonstrate Qohelet’s reliance on Genesis. 42.  Ibid., 114. 43.  Ibid., 114–15. See also Longman, Ecclesiastes, 32. 44.  Compare with Bartholomew’s (Ecclesiastes, 133–34) assessment.

The Meaning of   ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet: An Intertextual Suggestion

249

Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust

Genesis asserts in two places—the creation narrative (Gen 2:7) and the fall narrative (Gen 3:19)—that God made humanity out of the dust. Likewise, Qohelet states in two places (3:20, 12:7) that people (and animals, in the first instance) are formed from dust and will return to dust when they die. 45 These two texts in Qohelet echo both the account of creation (Gen 2:7) and the curse (Gen 3:19), though the connection with the curse is more obvious. Genesis 2:7 records the creation of Adam from the dust of the ground and, since it is from the dust (‫)עפר‬ that God makes Adam, the term plays a prominent role in the passage. Likewise, the term is crucial for both Qoh 3:20 and 12:7. Thematically, the Qohelet passages are linked with Gen 2:7 in that they deal with creation—humans (and beasts) are “from dust.” The echo becomes clearer when one also examines Gen 3:19, which has a greater correspondence of words and also deals with the death of humans, which is probably Qohelet’s primary concern. 46 In addition to the use of the term ‫“( עפר‬dust”) in both Qoh 3:20 and 12:7 to describe the material from which humans (and beasts) are made and to which they will return, there are a number of other words shared between the two passages in Qohelet and Gen 3:19. Note the correspondence of terms in these passages: ‫( כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תׁשוב‬Gen 3:19b) “For dust you are, and to dust you will return.” ‫( הכל מן העפר והכל ׁשב אל העפר‬Qoh 3:20b) “Both are from the dust, and both will return to the dust.” ‫( ויׁשב העפר על הארץ כׁשהיה‬Qoh 12:7) “And the dust returns upon the earth as it was.” Qohelet repeats the words ‫“( ׁשוב‬return”), ‫“( עפר‬dust”), and ‫“( אל‬to”). Note also that Qohelet has rearranged the repeated words. For example, ‫“( ׁשוב‬return”) comes at the end of Gen 3:19b, at the beginning of Qoh 12:7, and third from last in Qoh 3:20b. This rearrangement is notable because, as Fishbane points out, “[O]f particular aid and importance in this judgement is the dense occurrence in one text of terms, often thoroughly reorganized and transposed, found elsewhere in a natural, uncomplicated form.” 47 This “dense occurrence of terms” in Qohelet (a repetition of half of the words from the Genesis passage) along with their re­arrangement and 45.  Longman (Ecclesiastes, 273) states that Qohelet’s allusion to Genesis represents a “reversal of creation.” 46.  Dor-Shav, “Ecclesiastes, Fleeting and Timeless: Part I.” 47.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 291.

250

Russell L. Meek

the obvious thematic correspondence make it likely that Qohelet is echoing texts in Gen 2 and 3. Again the question remains: to what end does Qohelet employ the earlier text? As noted previously, Qohelet uses this “dust” language in 3:20 to support his argument that humans and animals are alike in their fate, which is death. 48 He uses the language again in ch. 12 as a conclusion to both the well-known poem of death and dying and the body of the book: “and the dust returns upon the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to the God who gave it.” Qohelet’s last statement thus sums up his view of human life—it begins in dust and ends in dust—and perhaps answers the question posed in 3:21: “Who knows if the spirit of humans goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?” He thus echoes the texts in Genesis to affirm them and support his own argument: (1) God created humanity, (2) humans die, and (3) work is toilsome, even if it is enjoyable. By echoing Gen 2:7, Qohelet reminds his readers once again that God is the Creator: it is he who formed them from the dust. However, death is inescapable, which provides the impetus to enjoy the gifts of God while one still lives. By echoing Gen 3:19, Qohelet also subtly reminds his readers that the curse has greatly affected the ability to take pleasure in one’s work. Although Qohelet still values enjoyment in work (for example, Qoh 2:24, 3:13), he notes throughout the book that work is indeed difficult (for example, Qoh 2:11, 18).

The Quest for Eden

Another way that Qohelet echoes Genesis is Qohelet’s desire to return to a life-style similar to the Garden of Eden. In Gen 2:15, God created the man (‫)האדם‬ and placed him in the Garden of Eden to “work it and keep it” (‫)לעבדה ולׁשמרה‬. 49 The man (‫ )האדם‬is then given free rein to eat (‫ )אכל‬from any tree in the garden, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16). God then decides that it is not good (‫ )לא טוב‬for a man to be alone, and so he creates a woman (‫)אׁשה‬ for him. All in all, life is good in the garden; people have plenty of food to eat, work to do, and company to keep. In the so-called carpe diem passages (Qoh 2:24–26; 3:10–15, 16–22; 5:18–20[ET 17–19]; 8:10–15; 9:7–10; 11:7–10), Qohelet encourages his readers to live life in a similar manner. Bartholomew states that these six carpe diem passages are “the vision evoked with Eden in Gen. 2 and in the promises to the Israelites about the good land of Israel” and that they present “an alternative vision set in contradictory juxtaposition to the conclusion of hebel that Qohelet’s epistemology leads him to.” 50 If 48.  Longman (Ecclesiastes, 130) points out that Qohelet here departs from traditional OT teaching by ignoring the special relationship that God afforded humans when he created them in his image, which makes them distinct from animals. 49. Contra Longman (ibid., 106–10) and J. L. Crenshaw (Ecclesiastes [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987] 89), who argue that Qohelet expresses resignation, not hope in the carpe diem passages. 50.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 152.

The Meaning of   ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet: An Intertextual Suggestion

251

Table 1 Qohelet

2:24–26 3:10–15 3:16–22 5:18–20[17–19] 9:7–10 11:7–10

‫האדם‬

×

×

×

×

‫טוב‬

×

×

×

×

‫אׁשה‬ ‫אכל‬

× ×

×

× ×

×

×

×

Bartholomew is right that Qohelet relies on the Eden of Gen 1–2 for his vision of life, there must be both linguistic and thematic elements that connect these texts. Four of the six carpe diem passages have some variation of the construction: X-‫“( אין טוב האדם ׁש‬there is nothing better for the man than X”). The wording varies with regard to the relative pronoun ‫ׁש‬, the intervening terms, and the definite article on ‫אדם‬. In some passages, an inseparable preposition is attached to ‫“( אדם‬man”), and some appearances of ‫ אדם‬simply have the definite article. Nevertheless, ‫“( אדם‬man”) is definite in every passage, which is notable because ‫“( אדם‬man”) is also definite in each of its occurrences in Gen 2. In the final two passages, Qohelet has switched from offering advice to giving commands, so the “better-than” wording disappears altogether. 51 Despite the variance in the wording of these passages, they are similar enough thematically and lexically to be considered a unit. Furthermore, these passages show considerable similarity to Gen 2:15–25. 52 Table 1 marks the correspondence of key terms between the carpe diem passages in Qohelet and Gen 2:15–25. 53 Every carpe diem passage repeats the term ‫“( טוב‬good”), five of the six passages employ ‫“( אדם‬man”) in a definite form, four of the six use ‫“( אכל‬eat”), and one of the six refers to one’s ‫“( אׁשה‬woman/wife”). In addition to these terms, it is notable that each passage (except 11:7–10) repeats the injunction to find enjoyment in one’s work. Qohelet uses the terms ‫“( עמל‬toil”) and ‫“( עׂשה‬work, make, do”) whereas Genesis uses ‫“( עבד‬tend”), so this is not a verbal parallel. Nevertheless, 51.  Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 162. 52.  Following B. Isaksson (Studies in the Language of Qoheleth [Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 10; Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 1987] 79), Longman (Ecclesiastes, 119) also observes that Qoh 3:11 contains “rather significant allusions to Genesis 1.” I do not explore the relationship between those texts here because my focus is on the relationship between the carpe diem passages and the Garden of Eden. 53.  It should be noted that there is also a correspondence of the term ‫ אלהים‬between the Qohelet passages and the Genesis passage. The Genesis text, however uses the name ‫יהוה אלהים‬. The name ‫ יהוה‬does not occur in Qohelet, which prefers to refer to God strictly as ‫אלהים‬. My argument for Qohelet’s use of Genesis stands without recourse to this particular instance of echoing. I have therefore omitted the repetition of ‫ אלהים‬due to the complexity of the argument surrounding the Divine Name.

252

Russell L. Meek

the terms overlap in their ranges of meaning. Qohelet argues that people should enjoy their work, even though it is toilsome. In this way, he echoes both the positive (Gen 2:15) and negative (Gen 3:19) aspects of work in Genesis. Qohelet’s reliance on Genesis in the carpe diem passages is also demonstrated by the thematic echoes between the two texts. God deems his creation good (‫)טוב‬ with the exception of the man’s lack of companionship, which God quickly rectifies. The man is placed in the garden and (presumably) enjoys eating, working, and communing with his wife. These (plus drinking) are the precise elements that Qohelet advocates enjoying in the post-sin, death-ridden life. 54 By singling out these particular aspects of life, Qohelet clearly echoes Genesis, as Bartholomew states, in order to present readers with an “alternative vision” that is to be sought out in the face of death. Qohelet argues that the only good to be found in life is in capturing a small part of Eden—enjoyment in the fleeting gifts of God. The lexical and thematic similarities between the carpe diem passages and Gen 2:15–25, therefore, appear to be deliberate allusions to Gen 2:15–25. The final piece of this intertextual puzzle is Qohelet’s use of ‫ הבל‬to echo the Cain and Abel narrative in Gen 4. However, it is beneficial for us to look briefly at the Cain and Abel narrative before I delve into Qohelet’s use of it.

Cain and Abel: Unexpected Outcomes The Cain and Abel narrative in Gen 4 presents readers with a conundrum. In the beginning chapters of the Hebrew Bible, one finds a story that seems to overturn much of what the rest of the Hebrew Bible teaches: if a person obeys Yahweh, the person will be blessed. 55 Until this point in Genesis, disobedience resulted in curses. 56 Adam and Eve suffered the consequences of their sins—death, separation from God, pain, strenuous work (Gen 3:14–19). However, the pattern of sinpunishment does not hold true for the Cain and Abel narrative. Abel offers an acceptable sacrifice to Yahweh; Cain does not. 57 When Cain becomes angry because of Yahweh’s rejection of his sacrifice, Yahweh warns him that sin is ready to devour him but that he must overtake it instead. 58 Cain fails to do this, murdering his brother instead. Yahweh curses Cain: “Now you are cursed 54. G. Ogden, Qoheleth (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; 2nd ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007) 52–53. 55.  See, for example, Deut 7:11–15; 30:11–20; Ps 1, among many examples. 56.  Concerning Adam and Eve, W. Brueggemann (Genesis [Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982] 48–49) states, “What had been a story of trust and obedience (chapter 2) now becomes an account of crime and punishment (3:1–7).” 57.  There are several suggestions about the reason that Abel’s offer was accepted while Cain’s was rejected. See the major commentaries for discussion. 58.  D. W. Cotter (Genesis [Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry; College­ ville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003] 42–43) interestingly points out that Yahweh speaks directly to Cain, rather than to Abel or his parents, which constitutes Yahweh’s first attempt to prevent sin.

The Meaning of   ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet: An Intertextual Suggestion

253

from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Gen 4:11–12). Cain protests that the punishment is too severe, so Yahweh mitigates it, placing on him a sign of protection (4:13–15). Cain’s life is prolonged, he has many descendants, and he builds a city (4:17). 59 The righteous Abel (Matt 23:35) suffers the consequences of disobedience: his life is cut short, leaving him with no children, no heritage, no material wealth. The one-to-one relationship between disobedience and curses, obedience and blessing, has been reversed. 60

Hebel of Hebels Qohelet 1:2 loudly proclaims that everything is ‫הבל‬, a refrain that is repeated throughout the book. The first appearance of this word in the Hebrew Bible comes at the beginning of Genesis in the Cain and Abel (‫ )הבל‬narrative. It is no secret that names often reveal some aspect of a person’s character in the Hebrew Bible. 61 For example, Cain was “gotten” by Eve, and Abraham is the “father of a multitude” (Gen 17:5). The same holds true for Abel: the nonmetaphorical meaning of his name (‫ )הבל‬is “breath” or “vapor,” which is, by its nature, ephemeral and transient. 62 Jacques Ellul states that Abel was so named for this very reason: though he is the righteous character in the narrative, his life is cut short by Cain. 63 Abel is thus the embodiment of transience. Joseph Blenkinsopp also argues that Abel’s name presupposes his murder at the hands of his brother, indicating that Abel is “breath” or ephemeral—a theme that Qohelet develops by commenting on the transience of all humans (for example, Qoh 3:19–20). 64 This echoing continues throughout the book. By using ‫ הבל‬as the leitmotif of the book, Qohelet expands the theme of transience introduced in Gen 4 to include everything in life. Not only 59.  This is not meant to imply that Cain received no punishment but that the punishment was not as severe as would be expected or deserved. J. McKeown (Genesis [Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008] 42) states, “Cain’s complaint is not dismissed, and he is reassured that whoever kills him will suffer sevenfold vengeance. Yahweh places a mysterious sign or mark on Cain to protect his life,” but, “[w]hereas blessing had fostered harmony, cursing breeds separation and alienation.” 60.  On retributive justice in the OT, see J. G. Gammie, “Theology of Retribution in the Book of Deuteronomy,” CBQ 32 (1970) 1–12; K. Koch, “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?” ZTK 52 (1955) 1–42; and Bernd Janowski, “Die Tat kehrt zum Täter zurück: offene Fragen im Umkreis des ‘Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhangs,’” ZTK 91 (1994) 247–71. 61.  Longman (Ecclesiastes, 177) states this concept more forcefully: “In the OT, naming captures the essential nature of a person or thing.” 62. K. Seybold, “Hebel,” TDOT 3.315. See also HALOT, 236–37. Hebel is used in its literal sense in Job 7:16; Isa 57:13; Pss 62:10, 144:4. 63. J. Ellul, Reason for Being (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990) 50. 64. J. Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2011) 84–85.

254

Russell L. Meek

is Abel transient, but everyone and everything in life is subject to the reversal of fortunes that he experienced. 65 However, perhaps more is at work in Qohelet than simply the matter of transience. Miller proposed that ‫ הבל‬is a symbol with multiple referents, and thus it seems to me that Qohelet uses ‫הבל‬, not only to refer to the transience of life, but as a symbol to discuss how a number of situations in life are “Abel-like” or contain an aspect of “Abel-ness.” Each situation that Qohelet deems ‫ הבל‬is in some way related to the reversal found in Abel’s story. Instead of explicitly stating his assessment of a situation, he calls it ‫ הבל‬and leaves it to the reader to decide to which aspect of Abel he is referring: Abel’s transience, the lack of congruence between his actions and rewards, the injustice he suffers, or his inability to attain lasting value. Qohelet states in 1:14 that he has seen all the works done under the sun and that they are all ‫ הבל‬and a pursuit of wind. By making ‫ הבל‬parallel with pursuing wind, Qohelet points to the inability of all people, like Abel, to grasp anything with lasting value, which like wind is ungraspable. 66 The obedient should experience tangible blessings that add value to one’s life. For Qohelet, however, the one-toone correspondence between actions and rewards has disappeared, and the attainment of lasting value through one’s actions is like attempting to grasp wind. In 2:15, Qohelet laments that the wise and foolish are alike in their end—death. No one escapes Abel’s fate, the culmination of the curse. 67 This is also Abel-like in another regard. Not only is life transient, but also the relationship between one’s actions and one’s rewards is incomprehensible. Fool or wise: both are subject to the same fate. Qohelet states in 3:19 that “man has no advantage over the beasts, for all are hebel.” This passage discusses the similarity between humans and animals— namely, they share the same breath (‫ )רוח‬and the same fate, which is death. In this way, Qohelet elaborates on the theme of transience introduced in Gen 4. As Abel was transient, so is everything else—human and animal alike. Similarly, the “Royal Experiment” 68 of ch. 2 finds that everything in life is ephemeral (‫)הבל‬, lacking 65.  See D. C. Fredericks, Coping with Transience: Ecclesiastes on the Brevity in Life (Biblical Seminar 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 1–32. Note also R. Alter (The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary [New York: Norton, 2010] 346), who prefers the word “breath” because “Hevel, ‘breath’ or ‘vapor,’ is something utterly insubstantial and transient, and in this book suggests futility, ephemerality, and also as Fox argues, the absurdity of existence.” 66. However, Longman (Ecclesiastes, 81–82) argues that this parallelism “reinforces the conclusion that life is hebel, meaningless.” Fredericks (Ecclesiastes, 53–54) interprets ‫ רעות רוח‬as a subjective, possessive genitive, “the wind’s desire,” which he states, points to life’s unpredictability and transience. See also P. Leithart (Solomon among the Postmoderns [Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2008] 26), who notes that the wind is uncontrollable. 67.  W. H. U. Anderson, “The Curse of Work in Qoheleth: An Exposé of Genesis 3:17–19 in Ecclesiastes,” EvQ 70 (1998) 99–113. 68. T. Krüger, Qoheleth: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 45

The Meaning of   ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet: An Intertextual Suggestion

255

any lasting value (‫)יתרון‬, and that humanity’s only recourse is to enjoy the gifts of God—eating, drinking, and pleasurable toil, which are themselves also transient (Qoh 2:24–25). Another aspect of Abel-ness that Qohelet discusses is the disconnect between hard work and the fruits of one’s labor. For example, he states in 4:4, “I myself saw all the toil and all the skill of work, that this is from the envy of a man of his fellow. This also is hebel and a pursuit of wind.” Qohelet indicates that labor and work, the effort to acquire, result from envy.  69 Instead of obedience to Yahweh that results in material blessing, people rely on their own ingenuity and hard work, thus reversing the order of the world. Blessing appears to come from one’s own hand, not Yahweh’s. This passage also echoes the envy that Cain felt as a result of Yahweh’s accepting Abel’s offering while rejecting his own, which resulted in Cain’s acquisition of wealth and progeny while Abel suffered from lack of both. 70 Qohelet goes on to discuss the Abel-ness of the person who has no children in 4:8, “For whom am I laboring and depriving myself from the good? This also is hebel and an evil task.” Qohelet works tirelessly to establish wealth and honor, yet he does not receive the blessing of descendants to inherit his wealth. 71 This is a situation that should not exist, for wealth itself represents blessing from Yahweh, a “normal reward for righteous living.” 72 However, Yahweh has withheld from him the further blessing of progeny. Qohelet indicates that the person who has obtained the blessing of wealth should also experience the blessing of children. The former without the latter is an “evil” thing. Finally, Qohelet states in 8:14 that “there is hebel that is done upon the earth: that there are righteous to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked, and there are wicked to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous. I said that this also is hebel.” This passage is the most explicit reference in Qohelet to the reversal of the expected order of life. As in the Cain and Abel narrative, so in the rest of life—sometimes the disobedient receive blessing while the obedient receive curses. 73 Life often lacks congruency between actions and results, which, given the intertextual connections established between Gen 1–3 and Qohelet, is perhaps what Qohelet asks his readers to remember when he says “Hebel of hebels, everything is hebel.” 69.  Longman (Ecclesiastes, 137) rightly points out that the term ‫ קנה‬is inherently negative and that this text in no way advocates capitalism, as some have tried to argue. See also Bartholomew (Ecclesiastes, 187–88) and Fredericks (Ecclesiastes, 132), who make similar observations. 70.  Antic, “Cain, Abel, Seth,” 205. 71.  The phrase ‫ יׁש אחד ואן ׁשני‬indicates that the man was completely alone. See Longman, Ecclesiastes, 140. 72. R. Ellis, “Amos Economics,” Review and Expositor 107 (2010) 463–79. See also Deut 7:11–15. 73.  Longman (Ecclesiastes, 131) makes a similar observation about Qoh 3:22 but argues that Qohelet is uncertain whether there will ever be justice.

256

Russell L. Meek

The End of the Matter I noted at the outset of this article that interpreters have had great difficulty agreeing upon the meaning of ‫ הבל‬in Qohelet. Whether one settles on “vanity,” “vapor,” “breath,” “meaningless,” “absurd,” “ephemeral,” or any of a number of other possibilities, problems of meaning and significance remain. In an effort to address the difficulties inherent in these translations, I propose an intertextual reading of Qohelet that calls for a new understanding of ‫הבל‬. Pointing to lexical and thematic similarities between Qohelet and Genesis, I have demonstrated that Qohelet echoes Genesis in at least three aspects: (1) Qohelet relies on the language used to describe the Garden of Eden to describe his own building projects; (2) Qohelet borrows the “dust” (‫ )עפר‬imagery from Genesis to describe the origin and destination of people; and (3) Qohelet adopts Genesis’s depiction of life in the Garden of Eden to project his own idea of the good in life after Eden. Consequently, these three aspects of intertextuality, as well as an examination of Qohelet lend considerable weight to the proposal that Qohelet picks up on the inconsistencies of Abel’s (‫ )הבל‬life and uses ‫ הבל‬as a thematic word to describe the “Abel-ness” of all things.

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes Mark J. Boda McMaster Divinity College, McMaster University Throughout the history of scholarship on the book of Ecclesiastes only a few issues have competed for the prized position of crux interpretum of the book. Some might say that this issue is the identity of Qohelet, others the meaning of the key word ‫“( ֶהבֶל‬breath, futility, etc.”), and still other scholars refer to the tensions or contradictions within the autobiography of Qohelet. However, in recent years no issue has so dominated the discussion as the function of the final pericope of the book: Eccl 12:9–14. It is obvious to nearly all modern readers of Ecclesiastes that the perspective of this final pericope contrasts with the perspective of the major portion of the book. Whereas most of Ecclesiastes is rendered in first-person speech as the autobiographical testimony of a figure named Qohelet (for example, 1:12, “I, Qohelet, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem”), the final pericope reflects the point of view of someone evaluating the work of Qohelet (for example, 12:9, “Beyond the fact that Qohelet was wise, he also taught the people knowledge”) and the wisdom tradition in general (for example, 12:11, “The words of the wise . . .”) in an address to his son or disciple (12:12, “my son”). 1 This point of view that is external to Qohelet can also be discerned in the opening sentence of the book as a whole, ְ ‫ֶן־ּדִוד ֶמל‬ 1:1 (‫ירּוׁש ִָלם‬ ָ ‫ֶך ִּב‬ ָ ‫ּד ְברֵי ק ֶֹהלֶת ּב‬,ִ “the words of Qohelet, son of David, king in Jerusalem”), in the narrative voice (‫ ָאמַר [הַ]ּקֹו ֶהלֶת‬, “says [the] Qohelet”), which presents the summarizing statement of Qohelet (‫ָלים] הַּכֹל‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫הבֵל‬ ֲ [ . . . ‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫הבֵל‬ ֲ ‫ ָהבֶל‬, “hebel of hebels . . . [hebel of hebels], everything is hebel”) in 1:2 and 12:8, and at 7:27 (‫ ָאמַר הַּקֹו ֶהלֶת‬, “says the Qohelet”). 2 Besides the interjection at 7:27, a 1.  Traditionally, this distinction between the first-person core and third-person conclusion was understood by reference to a young Solomon (Qohelet) and an old Solomon (the final voice); compare with T. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998) 2, 7. Note that, in this essay, I refer to the book as Ecclesiastes and the stated author as Qohelet. 2.  The MT has incorrectly divided the two words in 7:27 as ‫ָמרָה ק ֶֹהלֶת‬ ְ ‫ ;א‬see M. V. Fox, “Frame-Narrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet,” HUCA 47 (1977) 84 n. 3.

257

258

Mark J. Boda

rhetorical oddity that appears to be marking a key juncture in Qohelet’s search, 3 the external point of view is restricted to the literary sections that frame the book as a whole, forming an outer envelope that introduces and evaluates the work as a whole (1:1, 12:9–14) and an inner envelope that summarizes Qohelet’s message (1:2, 12:8). 4 There is debate over the role of the opening poem in 1:3–11, which follows the opening summary in 1:2 and precedes the autobiographical introduction of 1:12. However, its emphasis on the ephemerality of human existence bears a striking resemblance to the closing poem in 11:8–12:7, which precedes the final summary of 12:8. It may be, then, that these two poems (1:3–11, 11:8–12:7) function as an inner envelope around the work as a whole, an inclusio that represents the voice of Qohelet. 5 Although most scholars would agree that there is a frame with an external point of view surrounding the testimony of Qohelet, the relationship between this outer frame and the core autobiography is highly debated. In the present essay, I summarize the past debate and reevaluate the evidence. Scholarly opinions on the relationship between the epilogist and Qohelet can be arranged on a continuum that ranges from the extremes of affirming on the one side and antithetical on the other. Other scholars track whether this quality of relationship (affirming Qohelet, antithetical to Qohelet) is evidenced by a single epilogist or multiple epilogists. 6 3. As in C. G. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009) 265: “This reminds us that the words of Qohelet are cast in a third-person framework, and also that this is a highly significant point of reflection in Qohelet’s journey, thus reinforcing the opening imperative of v. 27.” For the role of 7:27 and the frame narrator, see C. J. Sharp (“Ironic Representation, Authorial Voice, and Meaning in Qoheleth,” BibInt 12 [2004] 51). A. G. Shead (“Reading Ecclesiastes ‘Epilogically’,” TynBul 48 [1997] 84–86) has demonstrated the close relationship between 7:23–8:1 and the final frame epilogue; and T. L. Walton (Experimenting with Qohelet: A Text-Linguistic Approach to Reading Qohelet as Discourse [Ph.D. diss., Free University, 2006] 43–44) notes how 7:25 marks a return to the first person for the first time since 3:17–18 and has striking similarities in grammar, syntax, lexical stock, and participant sets to Qohelet’s initial announcement of his investigation in 1:13–2:3. 4.  On this frame structure, see, for example, Fox (“Frame-Narrative,” 83–106) and A. G. Shead (“Ecclesiastes from the Outside In,” RTR 55 [1996] 24–37), who contrasts the indicative statement of the inner frame (vanity) with the imperative of the outer frame (fear God). See also D. Beldman’s contribution to the present volume. 5.  See M. V. Fox (Qohelet and His Contradictions [JSOTSup 71; Sheffield: Almond, 1989] 309–10), who claims that Eccl 12:1–8 reverses the structure of 1:2–8. O. Kaiser (“Qoheleth,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton [ed. J. Day, R. P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995] 83–93, esp. p. 85) identifies 1:4– 11 and 11:7–12:7 as an “inner foreword and afterword.” Longman (Ecclesiastes, 20) includes 1:3–11 in his framework prologue with Qohelet’s autobiographical speech beginning in 1:12. 6.  Another issue is whether the voice of the epilogist or the voice of Qohelet is the normative voice; see E. S. Christianson, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup 280; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes

259

At the antithesis extreme lies the contribution of Longman, who argues that the epilogist rejects Qohelet’s viewpoint and offers his own alternative. In this approach Qohelet is a skeptic—that is, a doubter—for whom everything is meaningless. The epilogist is an unnamed wisdom teacher warning his disciple (or son) of the futility of Qohelet’s search and world view and thus is the voice of orthodoxy and the source of positive teaching in the book. As Longman states it: “Qoheleth’s speech is a foil, a teaching device, used by the second wise man in order to instruct his son (12:12) concerning the dangers of speculative, doubting wisdom in Israel.” 7 According to Longman, the book of Ecclesiastes has a structure and argument similar to Job, in which large portions of the book are undermined by a closing correction. 8 Whereas the positive teaching in Job comes from God’s words from the whirlwind (Job 38–41), the positive teaching in Ecclesiastes comes in the correction of the external point of view in the final pericope in 12:9–14. This approach has the potential to resolve some of the tensions between Qohelet’s speech, with its pessimistic approach to life, and other portions of the canon. According to this view, readers should focus attention on the concluding teaching of 12:13–14, which calls them to a right relationship with God, to obedience, and to a proper understanding of final judgment. The affirmation side of the continuum is represented well by Bartholomew, who sees the epilogist as endorsing Qohelet’s concluding viewpoint. 9 According to this approach, the narrator presents Qohelet’s ‫ ֶהבֶל‬conclusions in contradictory juxtaposition to his joy passages in order to prompt the reader to reflect on the relationship between the two. Thus the narrator subtly shapes the reader’s response by ironically demonstrating an empirical epistemology, which always leads to the ‫ ֶהבֶל‬conclusion, and by encouraging a covenantal stance at the conclusion to his testimony (“Remember your Creator,” 12:1). 10 The frame narrator (epilogist) is an unnamed wisdom teacher advocating Qohelet’s teaching to his disciple (or son). Bartholomew also notes the similarity between the books of Ecclesiastes and Job but focuses on the way in which earlier words of Job are affirmed by a normative voice in the conclusion (see Job 42:7). This approach makes sense of the apparently positive evaluation of Qohelet in Eccl 12:9–10 and the striking similarities 7.  Longman, Ecclesiastes, 38. 8.  Ibid., 37. 9.  This is summarized best in C. G. Bartholomew, “Qoheleth in the Canon? Current Trends in the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” Themelios 24/3 (1999) 4–20, esp. pp. 14–16; see also idem, Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory (AnBib 139; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998); idem, Ecclesiastes, 74–84. 10.  Fredericks is an even more extreme example of the affirmation side in that he sees a full affirmation of Qohelet, without Bartholomew’s qualification of the ironic presentation of Qohelet’s journey; see D. C. Fredericks, “Ecclesiastes,” in Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (ed. D. C. Fredericks and D. J. Estes; Apollos Old Testament Commentary 16; Nottingham: Apollos, 2010) 243–52.

Foxe

Bartholomewd The Epilogist affirms Q’s viewpoint but seeks to make it palatable for wider audience

Seow b

Lohfink a

The Epilogist endorses Q’s concluding viewpoint

One epilogist (12:9–13a) affirms Q’s viewpoint, another (12:13b– 14) calls attention to the additional dimension of obedience

One epilogist (12:9–12) endorses Q’s viewpoint, a later one discourages any other books while defending Q’s orthodoxy (12:13–14)

The Epilogist is partly critical of Q’s viewpoint but chose aspects of Q most congenial to him

Gordisf

Crenshaw c

One epilogist affirms Q’s viewpoint, another rejects it

Longmang

The Epilogist finds The Epilogist Q’s viewpoint rejects Q’s radical and offers viewpoint a corrective.

Childs

Single Epilogist

Antithesis

Multiple Epilogists

a.  See also H. Gese (“Zur Komposition des Koheletbuches,” in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, vol. 1: Judentum [ed. H. Cancik, H. Licht­enberger, and P. Schäfer; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996] 69–98), who sees the epilogue material as highlighting Qohelet’s teaching. b.  See also G. T. Sheppard, “The Epilogue to Qohelet as Theological Commentary,” CBQ 39 (1977) 182–89; also R. N. Whybray (Ecclesiastes [NCB; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans / London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1989] 169), who notes that “the second appears to be attempting to soften the effect of his teaching on the readers by emphasizing what it regards as its more edifying features.” See also A. A. Fischer (Skepsis oder Furcht Gottes? Studien zur Komposition und Theologie des Buches Kohelet [BZAW 247; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997] 252), who posits two epilogists (12:9–11a, 12–14) and an editor (12:11b); J. Blenkinsopp (Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism [rev. ed.; Oxford Bible Series; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995] 71), who sees the first epilogist as offering an apologia and the second as offering “much less positive” comments that “this sort of speculative approach to life is all right, but the best advice is to keep it simple.” See Fox below.

Affirmation

Table 1.  Views on the Relationship between the Epilogist and Qohelet

Multiple Epilogists

Single Epilogist

260 Mark J. Boda

c.  See also E. Podechard, L’Ecclésiaste (Paris: Lecoffre, 1912); W. Zimmerli, Das Buch des Predigers Salomo (ATD 16/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962); K. Galling, “Der Prediger,” in Die Fünf Megilloth: Ruth, Hoheslied, Klagelieder, Esther, Der Prediger (ed. M.  Haller; HAT 18; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1969) 73–125; A. Lauha, Kohelet (BKAT 19; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978) 6–7; C. Dohmen, “Das viele Büchermachen hat kein Ende (Koh 12,12): Wachtstumsspuren in der heiligen Schrift,” in Biblischer Kanon, Warum und Wozu? Eine Kanontheologie (ed. C. Dohmen and M. Oeming; QD 137; Freiburg: Herder, 1992) 51. d.  See also G. Ogden, Qoheleth (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987); Fredericks, “Ecclesiastes,” 243–52. e.  See also R. E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992). Also see T. Krüger (Qoheleth: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004] 215), who seems to side with Fox, although he leaves the door open for multiple epilogists. f.  See also G. D. Salyer (Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes [JSOTSup 327; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001] 372–73, 375 n. 119), who speaks of both a public endorsement of Qohelet by the epilogist and a fundamental disagreement between Qohelet and the epilogist in relation to wisdom, God and tradition. g. See Christianson (Time to Tell), who also sees a clash between the epilogist and Qoheleth, but Christianson sees Qohelet as normative, not the epilogist; and M. A. Shields, “Re-Examining the Warning of Eccl XII 12,” VT 50 (2000) 123–27.

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes 261

262

Mark J. Boda

between some of the themes introduced in 12:13–14 and the narrator’s account of the testimony of Qohelet. Near the center of this continuum (see Table 1, p. 260) from antithesis to affirmation lie scholars such as Gordis and Crenshaw, who see in the epilogue both critique and affirmation. Gordis posits a single epilogist who was partly critical of Qohelet’s viewpoint but chose aspects of Qohelet that were most congenial to him; Crenshaw identifies two epilogists, one affirming Qohelet’s viewpoint and the other rejecting it. 11 Closer to the antithesis side is Childs, who sees an epilogist who considered Qohelet’s viewpoint too radical and thus offered a corrective. 12 Nearer the affirmation end of the continuum are Fox, Seow, and Lohfink. Fox describes a single epilogist who affirmed (actually created) the viewpoint represented by Qohelet but sought to make it palatable for a wider audience. 13 Seow identifies two epilogists, one affirming Qohelet’s viewpoint (12:9–12) and the other calling attention to the additional dimension of the call to obedience. 14 Lohfink identifies two epilogists who fully endorse Qoheleth’s viewpoint. 15 In order to resolve this impasse within the academic community regarding Qohelet, we must revisit two key issues related to the book. Important, at first, is to investigate the tone of the epilogist’s (or epilogists’) evaluation of Qohelet by a close analysis of 12:9–12 and recent scholarly work on these verses. Second, the level of connectivity between the epilogist’s (or epilogists’) viewpoint and Qohelet’s must be analyzed with (1) a special focus on Qohelet’s autobiographical testimony before moving to (2) a close analysis of the autobiography’s connection and disconnection with the epilogue, in 12:13–14.

11. R. Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World (3rd ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1951); J. L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 189–90. 12.  B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 584–86. 13.  Fox, “Frame-Narrative,” 83–106; idem, Qohelet and His Contradictions. Although see idem, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 95–96, 363–77, where Fox distinguishes between the epilogist (12:9–12) and the author of the postscript (12:13b–14). “The epilogue serves to buffer the words of Qohelet and to assure the reader of their legitimacy . . . a postscript sets boundaries on wisdom, namely the religious principles of piety and obedience.” A comparison of Fox’s various works on Qohelet reveals a few inconsistencies, not unlike those of the object of his study. 14. C.-L. Seow, “‘Beyond Them, My Son, Be Warned’: The Epilogue of Qoheleth Revisited,” in Wisdom, You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O.Carm, on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (ed. M. L. Barré; CBQMS 29; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1997) 125–41; idem, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997). 15. N. Lohfink, Qoheleth (trans. S. McEvenue; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 12–13. The second epilogist attributes back to Qohelet the leading theme of Sirach’s new textbook.

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes

263

The Epilogist’s Evaluation of Qoheleth There has been heated debate over the tone of the epilogist’s description of Qohelet in 12:9–12, so it is necessary to review each verse and provide orientation to the main issues in conversation with three scholars whose views lie at various points on the continuum described above (Longman, Fox, and Bartholomew), before I finally offer evaluation and clarification.

Ecclesiastes 12:9 ‫ׁש ִלים ה ְַרּבֵה׃‬ ָ ‫ׁש ָהיָה ק ֶֹהלֶת ָחכָם עֹוד ִלּמַד־ּדַ עַת אֶת־ ָהעָם ְו ִאּזֵן ְו ִחּקֵר ִּתּקֵן ְמ‬ ֶ ‫ְויֹתֵ ר‬ In addition, because Qohelet was wise, he also taught the people knowledge, he listened, examined thoroughly, and orderly arranged many proverbs. 16

Overview

The epilogue begins with the particle ‫“( ְויֹתֵ ר‬in addition”), which signals its role as additional material following the climactic presentation of Qohelet’s key statement in 12:8. The epilogist identifies Qohelet as ‫“( ָחכָם‬wise”), before describing a broader set of activities that include teaching, assessing, and composing wisdom.

Past Scholarship

Bartholomew leans heavily on the introductory statement in 12:9 that Qohelet was “wise,” returning to this statement at several points during his argument regarding the more-ambiguous phrases in the epilogue. 17 For Bartholomew, this statement is akin to Job 42:7 where, at the end of that wisdom book, Job’s words are identified as normative. Thus 12:9 “indicates from the narrator’s perspective that Qohelet does indeed resolve his struggle and arrive at a position that fits with that of traditional wisdom.” 18 The description of his activities bolsters this initial 16.  Translation of “because”: with Seow, “Epilogue,” 127–28; Seow (Ecclesiastes, 383), who notes the disjunctive accent in the MT on ‫ויֹתֵ ר‬,ְ and taking the ‫ׁש‬ ֶ on ‫ׁש ָהיָה‬ ֶ as causal (see Joüon §170.e); see also Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 359. Seow is correct that this should not be translated as “beyond the fact that” because the activities described in the second half of the verse are those associated with the wise. Compare with Lauha (Kohelet, 217), who translates here: “Ein Nachtrag,” followed by “Kohelet war ein Weiser” (no causal); Fox (Time to Tear Down, 349), who translates “Furthermore, Qohelet was wise”; and T. A. Perry (Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes—Translation and Commentary [University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1993] 171), “In addition, Kohelet was not only himself a sage.” Translation of “listened”: see Fox (Qohelet and His Contradictions, 323; idem, Time to Tear Down, 352) for the argument that the Piel of ‫( אזן‬only occurring once in HB) is equivalent to the Hiphil. 17.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 366 (for 12:10), 366–67 (for 12:11). 18.  Ibid., 363.

264

Mark J. Boda

evaluation, producing “an attractive portrait of Qohelet as a hard-working and creative wise man with a heart for the people of God as a whole.” 19 Although Longman admits that Eccl 12:9 appears to be “somewhat complementary,” he goes on to argue that it is “very reserved” and “lacks any honorifics or terms of respect.” 20 He reminds the reader that, although Prov 8:12–21 links wisdom to righteousness, negative figures such as Jonadab in 2 Sam 13:3 and Ahithophel in 2 Sam 16:15–17:29 are also called ‫“( ָחכָם‬wise”). 21 For Longman, the description of Qohelet as teaching the people knowledge employs what he considers “rather neutral terms.” 22 Fox translates ‫ ָחכָם‬as “sage” (compare with Eccl 12:11), emphasizing Qohelet’s role rather than his character. 23 However, he understands the epilogist to be praising “Qohelet’s diligence in studying Wisdom and teaching it to the people. He was, we are told, a public figure, dedicated to the people, an author of quantity as well as quality.” 24

Evaluation and Clarification

One role played by this verse is to identify Qohelet as an individual who is firmly embedded in the wisdom tradition: he has the key quality of wisdom and performs its core activities. Although it is true that the term ‫“( ָחכָם‬wise”) is used to refer to nonnormative characters elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, it must be noted that the book of Ecclesiastes lies within the wisdom tradition, where this term has normative force. Whether this is a technical term for “sage” (as Fox writes) or a quality of the wise (as Bartholomew indicates), in both cases the term identifies a normative character in Hebrew wisdom literature. 25 The teaching of knowledge (‫)לּמַד־ּדַ עַת‬ ִ is associated with God elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Pss 94:10, 119:66; compare with Job 21:22, Isa 40:14). Teaching (‫ )למד‬is associated with wise instruction, the ignoring of which will lead to ruin (Prov 5:13–14). Although it is “the broadest of the wisdom words,” 26 knowledge (‫ )דַ עַת‬is often a key normative 19.  Ibid. 20.  Longman, Ecclesiastes, 277. 21.  See also Sharp (“Ironic Representation, Authorial Voice, and Meaning in Qoheleth,” 61), who takes these terms in less than flattering ways. 22.  Longman, Ecclesiastes, 277. 23.  Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 310, 330–32. 24.  Ibid., 317. 25.  Compare with B. K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs (2 vols.; NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004) 93–100; T. Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006) 56; Whybray (Ecclesiastes, 170) notes that Qohelet never uses ‫ ָחכָם‬to refer to a professional teacher but, rather, in the general sense familiar from its use in Proverbs, often in contrast to the “fool” (see Eccl 2:14, 16; 6:8; 7:4, 5; 10:2, 12), and “there is no reason to suppose that the epilogist is using it in a different sense.” See R. N. Whybray (Proverbs [NCBC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994] 33) for the use of this term in its “non-technical sense” in Prov 1:5; also note its use in Prov 22:17, 24:23 (compare with Jer 18:18) to designate a class. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs: The Concept of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 (SBT 45; Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1965) 18. 26.  M. V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9 (AB 18A; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 31.

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes

265

term for the content of wisdom (Prov 1:4, 7, 22, 29; 2:5, 10; 5:2; 8:9, 10, 12; 9:10; 10:14; 11:9; 12:1, 23; 13:16; 14:6, 7, 18; 15:2, 7, 14; 17:27; 18:15; 19:2, 25, 27; 20:15; 21:11; 22:12, 17, 20; 23:12; 24:4, 5; 30:3). 27 When combined with the verb ‫למד‬ (Piel), as here in Eccl 12:9, it is related to teaching from God (Pss 94:10, 119:66) or to the fact that God needs no teaching since he is the possessor of all knowledge (Job 21:22, Isa 40:14). This connection among knowledge, teaching, and God echoes the regular identification of God as the source of knowledge (compare with 2:6, 3:20). Thus, these terms in 12:9 do not appear to be neutral terms, as Longman argues. Instead, this opening verse of the epilogue appears to affirm Qohelet, identifying him with the normative wisdom tradition of Israel. Although Qohelet had testified to his wisdom at the outset of his journey (1:16–17), here the epilogist affirms this evaluation at the end of Qohelet’s testimony.

Ecclesiastes 12:10 ‫אמֶת׃‬ ֱ ‫ׁשר ִּד ְברֵי‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ִּבּקֵׁש ק ֶֹהלֶת ִל ְמצֹא ִּד ְברֵי־ ֵחפֶץ ְוכָתּוב י‬ Qohelet sought to find pleasing words, written correctly as truthful words.

Overview

In Eccl 12:10, the epilogist focuses on the character of the words taught and collected by Qohelet according to 12:9. These words are identified as both pleasing and truthful, pointing to their quality in both “form and content.” 28 Although the term ‫“( ֵחפֶץ‬pleasing”) does not make these words associated with Qohelet normative, the term ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ (“truthful”) clearly does. Furthermore, the term ‫ׁשר‬ ֶֹ ‫י‬ (“correctly”) functions as an adverbial accusative, 29 describing how these truthful words were written. This term thus extends normativity beyond the words themselves to the writing of the words. However, debate has raged over the verbs used to describe this activity.

Past Scholarship

Longman and Fox focus on the fact that the epilogist only claims that Qohelet “sought to find” these pleasing and truthful words. For Longman, the words chosen “cast doubt on Qohelet’s success,” since “sought to find” is found in Qohelet’s testimony at many points to describe what he seeks but does not find (7:24–29, 8:17), and the things that he does find are undesirable (7:26). 30 Thus the epilogist “falls far short of commending either Qohelet’s literary skills or his truthfulness.” 31 27. See D. Kidner (The Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary [TOTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1975] 37), who notes that this knowledge is “not so much an informed mind as a knowing of truth and indeed of God Himself (2:5; 3:6).” 28.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 364. 29.  Compare with Seow, Ecclesiastes, 386. 30.  Longman, Ecclesiastes, 278. 31. Ibid.

266

Mark J. Boda

According to Longman, the fact that Qohelet’s search is unsuccessful is clear from the incongruity between the epilogist’s collocation “words of delight,” which Longman sees as a reference to “artful expression,” and the actual form of Qohelet’s testimony, which is “better characterized as difficult and problematic.” 32 Longman also points to the incongruities among Qohelet’s conclusion (although he admits that “Qohelet truly describes the world as it really is under covenant curse”), 33 what he considers to be “a normative Old Testament perspective,” and the fact that the epilogist “turns his son’s attention away from Qohelet at the end by directing it towards the foundational truths of his faith (12:13–14).” 34 Although Fox does note that here the epilogist refers only to seeking to find and thus is “subtly non-committal” because this seeking does not always lead to finding in Qohelet’s account, 35 he nonetheless considers seeking and finding to be “praiseworthy goals.” 36 Bartholomew argues vigorously against Longman and Fox, noting that Qohelet’s search is not always unsuccessful in the passages in Ecclesiastes identified by Longman and Fox and that “finding” is not always used ironically in Qohelet’s speeches (see 9:10, 15; 11:1). Bartholomew affirms the fact that the use of “seeking” and “finding” vocabulary here does remind the reader of Qohelet’s “encounter with the limitations of human knowledge,” but this does not necessarily mean that the epilogist is noncommittal, especially since Qohelet is explicit when he wants the reader to know that his search ends in failure. 37 Bartholomew also argues that the affirmation of Qohelet’s esthetic form in 12:10 echoes the affirmation of Qohelet as a master of form in 12:9 and that Fox’s view suggests a tentativeness toward this form in 12:10 (the failure to find in 12:10 refers to ‫“[ ִּד ְברֵי־ ֵחפֶץ‬pleasing words”] and not just to ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ‫“[ ִּד ְברֵי‬truthful words”]). 38 Finally, Bartholomew considers a negative reading of 12:10 to be incongruous with his positive reading of 12:9a. The debate over 12:10 also has focused on the word ‫“( כָתּוב‬written”). The MT points this as a passive participle of ‫“( כתב‬to write”), a reading that appears to be affirmed by the LXX (γεγραμμένον). The problem with ‫ כָתּוב‬is identifying its referent since the expected close referent is masculine plural (‫ּד ְברֵי־ ֵחפֶץ‬,ִ “pleasing words”). It is possible that the singular form of the participle was used to refer to the plural words as a totality or was attracted to the singular attribute ‫“( ֵחפֶץ‬pleasing”). Five Hebrew manuscripts and Aquila, Symmachus, the Peshiṭta, and the Vulgate treat this verb as a perfect (‫כתב‬, “he wrote”) and thus parallel with 32.  Ibid. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid. 35. See Fox, “Frame-Narrative,” 96, 101. 36. Idem, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 317. 37.  Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 162. 38. Idem, Ecclesiastes, 365–66.

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes

267

the previous verb, ‫“( בקׁש‬he sought”). Some scholars have suggested retaining the consonants of the MT but revocalizing them as an infinitive absolute (‫כָתֹוב‬, “to write”). Since the infinitive absolute can express nearly any verbal form in Hebrew, it could be translated either as a second perfect in this verse (thus paralleling ‫בקׁש‬, “he sought”) or as a second infinitive construct (thus paralleling ‫“[ מצא‬to find”], making it a second object of the main verb ‫“[ בקׁש‬he sought”]; see Isa 1:17, 42:24). 39 Longman repoints this as an infinitive absolute and treats it as a second object of ‫“( בקׁש‬to seek”). Fox takes this approach in his earlier work, 40 but in later work expresses it as a perfect (still repointing as an infinitive absolute). 41 Bartholomew is noncommittal on this issue, concluding that “both can be understood in opposition to Fox’s position.” 42 Bartholomew claims that essential to the position of Fox (and, by association, Longman) is repointing ‫“( כתוב‬written”) as an infinitive absolute and that inflexibility produces “tentativeness,” which “makes his translation less likely.” 43

Evaluation and Clarification

Longman’s arguments are largely based on his evaluation of material external to this verse: (1) his evaluation of Qohelet’s testimony as not esthetically pleasing; (2) his evaluation of the overall testimony of the Old Testament as being incongruous with Qohelet’s testimony; and (3) his evaluation that Eccl 12:13–14 represents a rejection of Qohelet’s testimony. The first argument is (as he admits) a “subjective judgment,” and the second assumes that he has a firm grasp of this “normative OT perspective” and that all books in the Old Testament will espouse the same theology. The third is questionable (see below). Like Longman’s, Bartholomew’s arguments are based on issues external to 12:10, both issues relying on his interpretation of phrases in 12:9. The view of Bartholomew that Qohelet is treated as a master of form is based on his reading of the activities of Qohelet in 12:9b. The activities there are not necessarily linked to the activity underlying the phrase ‫“( ִּד ְברֵי־ ֵחפֶץ‬pleasing words”), although this link is possible. 44 His reliance on his view of 12:9a (that Qohelet is wise) means that 12:10 does not bolster his overall argument. In relation to the word ‫“( כָתּוב‬written”), Bartholomew’s arguments do not undermine Fox’s (or Longman’s) position. His claims that Fox’s dependence on repointing ‫“( כָתּוב‬written”) as ‫“( כָתֹוב‬to write”) 39. See Longman, Ecclesiastes, 275 n. 65. 40.  Fox, “Frame-Narrative,” 97; compare with idem, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 323–24. 41.  Ibid., 348; idem, JPS Torah Commentary: Ecclesiastes (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004) 83, 87 n. 62. 42.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 364. 43. Ibid. 44.  Crenshaw (Ecclesiastes: A Commentary, 191) treats this phrase as a reference to the esthetic form of Qohelet’s sayings (“words that bring delight to those who hear them, hence pleasing expressions”); compare with Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 365. Childs (Introduction, 585) argues that it “is not an aesthetic description, but rather portrays his writings as ‘fitting’ and ‘appropriate’.”

268

Mark J. Boda

is essential to his position and reduces the validity of his conclusion are less than convincing. First, Fox’s position could be retained even with the passive participle reading, since ‫“( כָתּוב‬written”) would function as a descriptor of the phrase ‫ִּד ְברֵי־‬ ‫“( ֵחפֶץ‬pleasing words”), which is already subordinate to the collocation . . . ‫ִּבּקֵׁש‬ ‫“( ִל ְמצֹא‬he sought . . . to find”). Second, flexibility of views to encompass a variety of readings is not determinative of validity. It appears, then, that neither view is bolstered by the evidence found in this verse. The meaning of the verse is dependent on issues external to it. Nevertheless, at the least, the epilogist is affirming Qohelet’s search as having worthy goals.

Ecclesiastes 12:11 ‫ִּתנּו מֵרֹעֶה ֶאחָד׃‬ ְ ‫אסֻּפֹות נ‬ ֲ ‫ְטּועים ַּבעֲלֵי‬ ִ ‫ַׂש ְמרֹות נ‬ ְ ‫ָמים ּכַָּד ְרבֹנֹות ּו ְֽכמ‬ ִ ‫חכ‬ ֲ ‫ִּד ְברֵי‬ The words of the wise are as animal goads, and as implanted goad nails are those responsible for collections. They have been given by 45 one herder.

Orientation

With 12:11, the epilogist expands the discussion from Qohelet to the broader wisdom tradition, by using the term ‫ָמים‬ ִ ‫חכ‬ ֲ (“wise”), which plays off the term ‫ָחכָם‬ (“wise”), used of Qohelet in 12:9, and the term ‫“( ִּד ְברֵי‬words”), which plays off the phrases ‫“( ִּד ְברֵי־ ֵחפֶץ‬pleasing words”) and ‫אמֶת‬ ֱ ‫“( ִּד ְברֵי‬truthful words”) in 12:10. These connections, however, mean that the evaluation in this verse also applies to Qohelet. The words of sages such as Qohelet are compared to an instrument used by herders to guide their animals and compared to firmly planted nails. The description of the wisdom material moves from the smaller unit (words) to the larger unit (collections), and the description of the subjects moves from the term “wise/ sage” to the term “master/one responsible.” The final phrase introduces the image of the herder, 46 who is described with the adjective ‫“( ֶאחָד‬one”).

Past Scholarship

Fox argues that 12:11 is deliberately ambiguous. The image of the goad focuses on its negative connotation of stinging and hurting, even though Fox admits that a goad “prods one on to thought and better behavior.” 47 The “words of the sages, in other words, are a bit dangerous.” 48 For Fox, the image of the shepherd should not be linked to God (as it has traditionally been; see Bartholomew below) because in the Hebrew Bible God is called shepherd only in his role as keeper and 45.  The word ‫ ִמן‬introduces the source of the gift when used with the Niphal of ‫( נתן‬see 2 Kgs 25:30//Jer 52:34). 46.  The verb ‫ רעה‬can refer to the pasturing activity of various domestic animals, including sheep (Gen 29:9), donkeys (Gen 36:24), and cattle (Isa 27:10). 47.  Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 325. 48. Ibid.

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes

269

protector—aspects that are not in view in Eccl 12:11. 49 Furthermore, unlike wisdom “as a personified entity,” as “a personal mental quality,” or as the “essential, abstract content of Wisdom”—the source of the specific words of the wise is never seen as God. Treating the term ‫“( ֶאחָד‬one”) here theologically (one God) would draw emphasis away from the similes of 12:11a; thus, ‫ ֶאחָד‬should be understood as an indefinite article (“a”). The term ‫“( מֵרֹעֶה‬herder”) fits the metaphorical domain of the previous part of the verse and should be taken as an image for the sages introduced at the outset of the verse. 50 The subject of the verb ‫ִּתנּו‬ ְ ‫“( נ‬have been given”) is the ‫ְטּועים‬ ִ ‫ַׂש ְמרֹות נ‬ ְ ‫( מ‬implanted nails, stuck in by a shepherd). 51 Longman largely follows Fox in regard to the connotations of “goad,” noting that, if the epilogist wanted a positive image, he could have used the rod and staff. Instead, by using this image, the epilogist seeks “to emphasize the dangerous and painful aspects of wisdom teaching, a very appropriate image after presenting the skeptical and pessimistic teaching of the wise man Qohelet.” 52 Bartholomew argues that there are multiple images at play here, the first that of the goad, the second that of firmly planted nails, and the third that of a Divine Shepherd. Arguing against Fox, he finds it extraordinary that the epilogist would create distance between himself and Qohelet by identifying the words of the wise as dangerous after making the positive statement in 12:9 that Qohelet was among the wise. Bartholomew claims that the greater variety of his approach to the first two images is more in line with Alter’s view on the dynamic nature of biblical parallelism, in which there is a stress on movement from one line to the next. He also attacks Fox’s view on the use of ‫“( ֶאחָד‬one”) here, taking up his various examples to highlight “the danger of too quickly assuming that we are dealing with the indefinite article when we encounter” the term ‫“( ֶאחָד‬one”). In a footnote, Bartholomew bolsters his claim for the theological focus of the term ‫“( ֶאחָד‬one”) by offering evidence for a relationship between Ecclesiastes and Deuteronomy, where ‫ֶאחָד‬ (“one”) appears in the famous Shemaʿ (Deut 6:4). 53 Finally, Bartholomew challenges Fox’s limitation of the divine image of Shepherd to activities of keeping and saving by arguing that the image of a divine Shepherd “as the unified source of the diverse words of the wise would explain their value.” If the shepherd here could be securely identified with God, then the epilogist here must be evaluating the words of the wise positively.

Evaluation and Clarification

Bartholomew’s arguments do not always seem to be the most appropriate or effective for challenging the view of Fox (and Longman). His argument that 49.  Ibid. 50.  Fox, Ecclesiastes, 84. 51. Ibid. 52.  Longman, Ecclesiastes, 280. 53.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 368 n. 45.

270

Mark J. Boda

scholars who treat 12:11 as creating distance between the epilogist and Qoheleth do not take into account the identification of Qohelet with the wise in 12:9 assumes that the designation in 12:9 is a positive designation. One might say that the epilogist is now defining the designation wise/sage introduced in 12:9 and is doing so in a negative way. Bartholomew’s appeal to Alter’s dynamic view of parallelism offers no clear foundation for Bartholomew’s view. Fox’s approach also produces dynamic development between the two lines, as the image shifts from the entire goad to the specific nail implanted in its end. Against Bartholomew’s view is Fox’s greater sensitivity to the broader domain of herding, evidence that Bartholomew leverages when bolstering his view on the divine Shepherd. As for the role of ‫ֶאחָד‬ (“one”), Bartholomew admits himself that he has not undermined the use of ‫ֶאחָד‬ (“one”) as an indefinite article, thus leaving that possibility open. Bartholomew does not really undermine Fox’s limitation of the divine metaphor of Shepherd to keeping and saving, sidestepping the main issue by noting how God as the source of wisdom is appropriate to this context. It is always best to treat poetic units such as Eccl 12:11 as being part of a single semantic domain if at all possible. In this respect, Fox’s view provides a unified domain, in which a shepherd prods his animals along the way with a stick implanted by a nail. 54 Although the image unquestionably has a negative dimension, this does not necessarily mean that the epilogist is attacking the wisdom tradition (or, by association, Qohelet), since this sort of painful guidance has a larger protective purpose. Fox’s unified domain in the end undermines his view that the Shepherd image here cannot be linked to God, since the shepherd image is used in connection with God as guide (for whom, a goad would be helpful) elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (for example, Ps 23). Likewise, Fox’s assertion that God is not associated with the specific words of the wise is inappropriate since one cannot vaguely try to distinguish between specific words and general wisdom principles/values in the wisdom tradition (see Prov 2). Bartholomew’s evidence of connections between Ecclesiastes and Deuteronomy offers the best evidence for understanding “one” here as a theological reference, but this conclusion is not certain. 55 There is little reason, then, to treat Eccl 12:11 as a negative evaluation of the wisdom tradition. The verse speaks to the disciplinary methods of the wisdom tradition, but these methods do offer safe guidance for the willing. At the same time, the emphasis here is on the disciplinary character of wisdom rather than on its rewards, as one finds in passages such as Prov 9. 54. See Seow (“Epilogue,” 133–135), who notes the endurance of the herding imagery in this verse. 55.  See also M. J. Boda (“The Delight of Wisdom,” Themelios 29 [2004] 4–11) for the key role that Deuteronomy plays in linking Covenant/Torah traditions and Wisdom traditions in Old Testament theology. While identifying the shepherd as God would make certain that this verse endorses the wisdom tradition associated with Qoheleth, it is not necessary for the affirmation view as can be seen in Salyer (Vain Rhetoric, 373).

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes

271

Ecclesiastes 12:12 ‫ָׂשר׃‬ ָ ‫ְגעַת ּב‬ ִ ‫ָרים ה ְַרּבֵה אֵין קֵץ ְו ַלהַג ה ְַרּבֵה י‬ ִ‫ְויֹתֵ ר ֵמ ֵהּמָה ְּבנִי ִהּזָהֵר עֲׂשֹות ְספ‬ In addition to these things, my son, be warned: the making of books increases; 56 there is no end. And study increases; it is weariness to the body.

Orientation

The opening phrase of Eccl 12:12 is highly debated, 57 but the verse clearly voices a warning and relates this warning to constant increase in the production of books and the activity of study, all of which leads to physical exhaustion.

Past Scholarship

Fox translates 12:12a: “At the same time, my son, of these things be wary,” 58 and “A further word: Against them, my son, be warned!” 59 Longman translates it: “Furthermore, of these, my son be warned!” 60 In contrast, Bartholomew translates 12:12a: “And besides them, my son, be warned.” 61 For Fox and Longman, the warning is against the wisdom tradition described in 12:11, which is also connected with Qohelet; while, for Bartholomew, the warning is against anything that goes beyond the wisdom tradition just described. For Bartholomew, Fox, and Longman, the remainder of 12:12 is a negative statement but functions in different ways. For Bartholomew, 12:12b provides the reason for not wandering outside the wisdom tradition (there is no end to the production of books, and much study wearies the flesh). Although their view is not clearly articulated, Longman and Fox appear to treat 12:12b as another description of the activities of the wise identified in 12:11 and of Qohelet in 12:9–10. 62

Evaluation and Clarification

The first key issue in Eccl 12:12 is the role of ‫“( ֵמ ֵהּמָה‬these things”) in the opening phrase of 12:12 (‫ויֹתֵ ר ֵמ ֵהּמָה ְּבנִי ִהּזָהֵר‬,ְ “In addition to these things, my son, be warned”). Fox, Longman, and Bartholomew have related ‫ ֵמ ֵהּמָה‬to the verb ‫ִהּזָהֵר‬ (‫ זהר‬Niphal, “be warned”) that follows it, while the Masoretic accentuation binds it more closely to the opening phrase, ‫“( ְויֹתֵ ר‬in addition”). 63 56.  The infinitive absolute of ‫( רבה‬Hiphil) in this verse has many connotations. Traditionally, it has been taken to function as an attributive participle modifying ‫ָרים‬ ִ‫ ְספ‬and ‫ ַלהַג‬. However, it may function as a verb. 57.  On the history of interpretation of this translation and the witness of the early Versions, see especially Shields (“Re-examining the Warning”). 58.  Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 310. Periphrastically as: “So at the same time, my son, you should realize that the words of the sages should be treated with some caution” (p. 348). 59. Idem, Ecclesiastes, 86. 60.  Longman, Ecclesiastes, 276 61.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 369. 62.  Longman, Ecclesiastes, 276, 281; Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 327–28. 63.  Notice the ṭiphḥā on ‫ ֵמ ֵהּמָה‬, here dividing the first part of the verse (marked by the ʾathnâḥ on ‫)הּזָהֵר‬ ִ into two portions; see I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (trans.

272

Mark J. Boda

The preposition ‫“( ִמן‬from”) does appear in connection with the root ‫“( זהר‬to be warned”) on three occasions in Ezekiel (3:18; 33:8, 9). In those passages, the preposition introduces the state from which one is to be warned (that is, from one’s wicked way). 64 However, in all three of those examples, the ‫“( ִמן‬from”) clause follows the verb, which is not as in Eccl 12:12, where the ‫“( ִמן‬from”) clause precedes the verb. More important, however, is the fact that the examples in Ezekiel all employ the Hiphil form of ‫“( זהר‬to be warned”), unlike the Niphal that occurs in Eccl 12:12. In every other case in the Hebrew Bible, the Niphal of ‫זהר‬ (“to be warned”) is intransitive (that is, it has no object). Furthermore, the presence of the vocative ‫“( ְּבנִי‬my son”) between ‫“( ֵמ ֵהּמָה‬these things”) and ‫“( ִהּזָהֵר‬be warned”) weakens the likelihood of a link between the two words. 65 Instead, ‫ֵמ ֵהּמָה‬ (“these things”) appears to be more closely related to the opening word, ‫“( יֹתֵ ר‬in addition”), which when followed by the preposition ‫“( ִמן‬from”) in Esth 6:6 means “more than”; or here, “beyond,” with the ‫“( ִמן‬from”) introducing what is less or now to be ex­ceeded. 66 It appears, then, that ‫“( ְויֹתֵ ר ֵמ ֵהּמָה‬in addition to these things”) is introducing a new section, 67 just as ‫“( ְויֹתֵ ר‬in addition”) introduced Eccl 12:9. The verb ‫“( ִהּזָהֵר‬be warned”) is a new verbal clause related to what follows. 68 Shields has recently argued that in each of the other instances in Biblical Hebrew where an unmodified infinitive construct follows an imperative verb, the infinitive construct functions as an adverb—that is: “with respect to” (Isa 23:16, Ps 33:3) or a verbal complement (Jer 15:15, 18:20). 69 The second sense is akin to Eccl 12:12. The “son” audience of the external frame is being warned about the limits of wisdom. E. J. Revell; Masoretic Studies 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1980) 169, 180–81. 64.  See J. Tropper (“Hebräisch zhr, ‘Kundtun, Warnen’,” ZAH 8 [1995] 144–48) for a review of the various verbal roots that use the consonants ‫ זהר‬and the relationship between the Hiphil and Niphal. Interestingly, he claims that the Hiphil is used primarily in the sense of “to disclose, instruct” and only secondarily as “to warn.” In his opinion, then, this word may not even have the darker nuance often given it; see Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 166; idem, Ecclesiastes, 369. One must be careful here, however, in mixing observations on the Hiphil with those on the Niphal. The relationship between the two remains a matter of speculation; see J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961); D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996). 65.  See also Shields, “Re-examining the Warning,” 124. Even though at times a vocative can break up a phrase, see Prov 1:8, 3:11. 66.  Besides Esth 6:6 and 1 Sam 15:15 (where it means “the remaining/rest”), ‫ יֹותֵ ר‬is restricted to Qohelet in the Hebrew Bible; it also appears in Eccl 2:15 and 7:16 with the adverbial sense of “excessively” (see 7:16, where it appears to be related to the infinitive absolute ‫ )ה ְַרּבֵה‬and in Eccl 6:8, 11; and 7:11, where it appears with the preposition -‫ ל‬and means “advantage,” with the lamed introducing the one who has the advantage. 67.  On the structural role of ‫ויֹתֵ ר‬,ְ see Shead, “Reading Ecclesiastes ‘Epilogically’,” 68. 68.  Since the Niphal is elsewhere always intransitive, the phrase ‫ ְויֹתֵ ר ֵמ ֵהּמָה‬should not be taken as the object of ‫הּזָהֵר‬. ִ Even if it were interpreted this way, it would mean that the disciple should be warned of anything in addition to the words of Qoheleth, thus implicitly affirming the words of Qoheleth. 69.  Shields also notes the common occurrence of the infinitive construct verb as adverbial following finite verb forms.

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes

273

This argument reveals the weakness of both Fox/Longman and Bartholomew. The opening phrase ‫“( ְויֹתֵ ר ֵמ ֵהּמָה‬in addition to these things”) is not related to the verb ‫“( ִהּזָהֵר‬be warned”) and does not refer specifically to the words of the wise in v. 11; instead, it functions as a discourse marker that refers back to the previous argument, in vv. 9–11, introducing a second phase in the overall rhetoric of 12:9–14. The warning to “my son” thus refers to what follows the verb ‫“( ִהּזָהֵר‬be warned”)— that is, the ever increasing and unending production of books and pursuit of study, which wearies the body. These activities, which are wearying, have the potential to include the words of the wise but do not necessarily. The repetition of the infinitive absolute ‫“( ה ְַרּבֵה‬increases”) and employment of the phrase ‫“( אֵין קֵץ‬there is no end”) highlights the main focus of this warning, especially when understood in conjunction with the opening phrase of 12:13: ‫סֹוף‬ ‫ִׁשמָע‬ ְ ‫“( ָּדבָר הַּכֹל נ‬the end of the matter, all has been heard”). Seeking to bring the discourse to a close, the epilogist warns of the temptation of endless debate within the wisdom tradition, which he thus brings to a close at the outset of 12:13, declaring that all has been heard. 70

Conclusion This analysis of Eccl 12:9–12 offers little support for those who argue that the epilogist is rejecting Qohelet’s testimony. The epilogist affirms Qohelet as wise in character and activity. At the least, Qohelet is praised for setting out on a worthy search, and there is no reason to suspect that he did not achieve his goal, especially in light of the description of his activities in 12:9b. Although 12:11 expands the consideration to encompass the entire wisdom tradition, Qohelet is clearly identified as part of this tradition. The darker character of the image of 12:11, with its herder guiding animals with a goading stick implanted by nails, matches the darker tone of Qohelet’s wisdom, focusing regularly on ‫“( ֶהבֶל‬breath, futility, etc.”), death, and warning. Ecclesiastes 12:12 is not focused on either affirming or rejecting Qohelet or the wisdom tradition, but instead, together with 12:13a, is part of a rhetorical strategy to bring the discussion of the book as a whole to a close, preparing the way for the final statement in 12:13b–14. This final statement, however, has played a key role in the debate over the relationship between the epilogist and Qohelet, for in it the viewpoint of the epilogist comes to the fore. Does the message of the epilogist in 12:13b–14 affirm or reject Qohelet’s message? 70.  I am not convinced by scholars who see in the epilogue a canonizing impulse or consciousness. See Sheppard, “Epilogue,” 182–89; G. Wilson, “‘The Words of the Wise’: The Intent and Significance of Qohelet 12:9–14,” JBL 103 (1984) 175–92; C. Dohmen, “Der Weisheit Letzter Schluss? Anmerkungen zur Übersetzung und Bedeutung von Koh 12,9–14,” BN 63 (1992) 12–18; K. Koenen, “Zu den Epilogen des Buches Qohelet,” BN (1994) 24–27; K. J. Dell, “Ecclesiastes as Wisdom: Consulting Early Interpreters,” VT 44 (1994) 308–13; see critique in Seow, “Epilogue,” 125–41. One can discern a progression from the individual sage Qohelet to the broader wisdom tradition as one moves from 12:9–10 to 12:11–12, but there is no reason to treat the exhortation to obey commandments as somehow alien to wisdom; see my “Delight,” 4–11; Krüger, Qoheleth, 24–25; Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 368 n. 45.

274

Mark J. Boda

Connectivity between the Epilogist’s and Qohelet’s Viewpoints Qohelet’s Viewpoint One challenge when someone compares the words of the frame with Qohelet’s testimony has been discerning the core message of Qohelet, whose thought has been called “tortuous.” 71 How one treats Qohelet’s argument has an effect on the way one views the role of the epilogue since, if one cannot determine Qohelet’s message, one cannot discern whether the epilogue is affirming or criticizing this message. The frame narrator in 1:2 and 12:8 highlights the key message of Qohelet as ‫“( ֶהבֶל‬breath, futility, etc.”), but a cursory reading of Qohelet reveals more diversity than this. As with the relationship between the epilogist and Qohelet, so also with the message of the autobiographical speech of Qohelet: there are two key approaches in scholarship. On the one side, Qohelet has been treated as a pessimistic skeptic who has rejected the traditional wisdom of the sages of Israel and the distant God who lay beyond his grasp in his search. As Longman, summarizing the theological message of Qohelet, notes: “Life is full of trouble and then you die.” 72 Thus, “[i]n the darkness of a life that has no ultimate meaning, enjoy the temporal pleasures that lighten the burden.” 73 On the other side, Qohelet has been depicted as a preacher of joy who encourages a more positive approach to life through a series of speeches that occur regularly throughout the autobiography. 74 In these speeches, the sage encourages the audience to embrace the joys of creational existence in the midst of the challenges of a fallen world and even provides an apologetic for God’s ways in this world. 75 Bartholomew describes these passages “as a confessional evocation of a holistic, positive approach to life that we find in so much of the OT. These passages present the voice of Qohelet the Israelite believer who affirms life as God’s good creation.” 76 To have a text defined in such radically different ways makes one wonder how scholars could have come to such variant conclusions, and the reason is that these two streams of thought can be discerned throughout the book. One approach has been to accentuate the one stream over the other, allowing it to dominate and 71.  Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lviii. Or as J. L. Koosed ([Per]Mutations of Qohelet: Reading the Body in the Book [Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 429; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006] 1) states, “a knot of contradictions.” 72.  Longman, Ecclesiastes, 34. 73.  Ibid., 35. 74.  See especially R. N. Whybray, “Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy,” JSOT 23 (1982) 87–98. 75.  See further M. A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC  16; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983). 76.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 81.

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes

275

drown out the other. However, there are other ways to deal with these competing voices. 77 One may attribute the tensions within Qohelet’s arguments to several factors, ranging from positing later sloppy editorial hands that introduced other more-orthodox perspectives into the text to identifying inadequacies in Qohelet’s argumentation or fluctuations in his mood. Another option is to see in Qohelet a progression in thought over time; still another scholar may see a polemical dialogue between a sage and fool (as per Gregory the Great) or the use of dialectal strategies in which the opinions of others are introduced for the sake of argument, only to be undermined. This dialectic, however, may be a feature of the internal struggle of Qohelet with the pessimistic conclusions juxtaposed to the joy conclusions intentionally to highlight the contradiction between them and to open gaps in the reading that can later be filled in response to subtle prompting by Qohelet. 78 The opening autobiographical words in 1:12–13 (“I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven”) set up the expectation that Qohelet’s account is journalistic, autobiographical, and thus, designed to create a sense of journey or exploration that can move in different directions and introduce a variety of perspectives. 79 Thus, the genre signaled at the outset of the autobiography sets for us a strategy for reading this account—a strategy that expects twists and turns and even tensions as the journey progresses toward its conclusion. 80 A key question, however, is whether the epilogue undermines the overall thrust of this journey.

The Viewpoints of the Epilogist and Qohelet Compared There are striking similarities between the conclusion to the epilogue (12:13b–14) and the autobiographical reflections of Qohelet. 81 Thus, a closer look at the final two verses is in order.

77.  See K. A. Farmer, “The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,” in The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues (ed. S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) 139–41. Krüger (Qoheleth, 14–19) distinguishes the biographical explanatory model, the literary-critical/redaction-historical approaches, polar structures, and  dialogue. 78.  Bartholomew, “Qoheleth in the Canon,” 15–16. 79. As Krüger (Qoheleth, 18), “intended and meaningful elements of larger trains of thought and argumentation” (italics his). 80. See Whybray (Ecclesiastes, 17–19), who notes that “the most probable explanation of the tensions within the book is that these tensions existed within Qohelet’s own mind.” 81.  See also the study of Shead (“Reading Ecclesiastes ‘Epilogically’,” 72–75) for a statistical comparison of the epilogue’s vocabulary with Qohelet’s (78% of the words in the epilogue occur in the autobiographical core, the shared words make up 29.5% of the book’s total words, and almost half of the words in the epilogue can be classified as “favourite and idiomatic words in Ecclesiastes,” p. 75).

276

Mark J. Boda

Ecclesiastes 12:13–14 ‫ִׁשמָע‬ ְ ‫סֹוף ָּדבָר הַּכֹל נ‬ ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ׁשמֹור ִּכי־זֶה ּכָל־ ָהא‬ ְ ‫ֹותיו‬ ָ ‫ֶת־מ ְצ‬ ִ ‫אֶת־ ָהאֱל ִֹהים יְרָא ְוא‬ ‫ֶעלָם ִאם־טֹוב ְו ִאם־רָע‬ ְ ‫ׁשּפָט עַל ּכָל־נ‬ ְ ‫ָבא ְב ִמ‬ ִ ‫ֲׂשה ָהאֱל ִֹהים י‬ ֶ ‫ִּכי אֶת־ּכָל־ ַמע‬   The end of the matter, all has been heard.   Fear God and keep his commands, for this is for all humanity/ all for humanity. For God will bring to judgment every deed, every hidden thing, whether good or evil.

Orientation

It is in 12:13–14 that the epilogist moves beyond an evaluation of Qohelet and the broader wisdom tradition and explicitly articulates his own core values. As already noted above, his rhetorical strategy is to bring closure to the book as a whole.

Past Scholarship

Both Fox and Longman admit that Qohelet advocates the fear of God, but for Longman Qohelet does so “with doubtful conviction,” 82 and for Fox the “epilogue . . . states the principle firmly and definitively.” 83 Although Fox notes that “‘orthodox legal piety’ is indeed foreign to Qohelet insofar as he, like Proverbs, does not speak of specific divinely revealed commandments,” he asserts that “Qohelet does not contradict” this sort of legal piety. 84 In this way, then, Fox considers the epilogist to be relegating “the words of the sages—Qohelet’s among them, but not more so than the others’—to a place of secondary importance by summing up the essence of human wisdom: fear God and keep his commandments.” 85 The reminder of divine judgment in 12:14 also echoes Qohelet’s testimony (3:17, 11:9), according to Fox, but again the principle is stated “firmly and definitively.” 86 Longman regards the abruptness of the phrase ‫ִׁשמָע‬ ְ ‫“( סֹוף ָּדבָר הַּכֹל נ‬the end of the matter, all has been heard”) as possibly reflecting the negative disposition of the epilogist toward Qohelet, paraphrasing it as: “Enough of Qohelet, let’s get on with what is really important.” 87 Longman highlights the fact that “Qoheleth never . . . admonished his students” to keep God’s commandments as the epilogist does in 12:13. Although admitting that Qohelet discussed God’s judgment, as does the epilogist in 12:14, he points out that Qohelet never connected this judgment with God’s law, nor did he “discover evidence that God would make things right.” 88 82.  Longman, Ecclesiastes, 282. 83.  Fox, Ecclesiastes, 85. 84. Idem, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 319. 85. Ibid. 86. Idem, Ecclesiastes, 85. 87.  Longman, Ecclesiastes, 282. 88.  Ibid., 283. A more radical view is articulated by Crenshaw (Ecclesiastes: A Commentary, 192), who claims that themes in 12:9–14 are “alien to anything that Qohelet has said thus far.”

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes

277

For Bartholomew, the phrase “the end of the matter” signals the articulation of the ultimate conclusion to Qohelet’s quest, and “all has been heard” refers to Qohelet’s quest itself. Bartholomew not only sees parallels to Qohelet’s thought in the epilogist’s call to fear God in 12:13b but also sees no tension between Qohelet’s thought and the exhortation to keep God’s commands. Bartholomew questions the tension often envisioned by scholars between wisdom and law and sees clear indications in Ecclesiastes that Qohelet was aware of cultic and other law, noting especially Eccl 5:1–7[ET 4:17–5:6]. 89 The motivation to fear and obey in 12:14 is linked to divine judgment, just as in Qohelet’s grand finale in Eccl 12:1–7.

Evaluation and Clarification

Key to the conclusion of the book is the emphasis on God, in terms of both human action (“fear God,” ‫ )אֶת־ ָהאֱל ִֹהים יְרָא‬and divine action (“God will bring into judgment,” ‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫ָבא ְב ִמ‬ ִ ‫) ָהאֱל ִֹהים י‬. As I noted above, if one isolates the sections in Qohelet’s reflections that mention God (‫ ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬, especially 1:13; 2:24–26; 3:10– 18, 22; 5:18–6:2; 7:18; 8:12–17; 9:7–9; 11:9–12:1), two ranges of vocabulary appear, one positive or joyful and one negative or sobering. On the positive or joyful side, however, in these sections that speak of God, one reads of the “lot” (‫) ֵחלֶק‬ that humanity has received (3:22; 5:18, 19; 9:9; cf. 2:10, 21). Although this term is used negatively in Job 20:29, 27:13, 31:2, and Isa 17:14 for the punishment of the wicked, its dominant use in the Hebrew Bible is to describe one’s inherited portion in the land—that is, something positive. Other vocabulary in these sections is equally positive as Qohelet speaks of the goodness (2:24; 3:12, 13, 22; 5:17[ET 18]; 7:18; 8:12, 13; 9:7), 90 appropriateness (3:11; 5:17[ET 18]), and joyfulness (2:26; 3:12, 22; 5:18, 19[ET 19, 20]; 8:15; 9:7; 11:8, 9) experienced by people to whom God grants (3:13; 5:17, 18[ET 18–19]; 6:2; 8:15; 9:9) the gifts of life (5:17[ET 18]; 8:15; 9:9) and its pleasures, including riches and wealth (5:18[ET 19]; although 6:2), marriage (9:9), and especially eating (‫ ;אכל‬2:24, 25; 3:13; 5:17, 18[ET 18, 19]; 8:15; 9:7; although 6:2) and drinking (‫ׁשתה‬: 2:24; 3:13; 5:17[ET 18]; 8:15; 9:7). 91 When God is introduced into Qohelet’s autobiographical testimony, one can also discern a more negative or sobering tone in the vocabulary. Occasionally there is a declaration of the frustration of life lived “under the sun,” employing the noun ‫“( ִע ְניָן‬task, burden,” 1:13; 2:23, 26; 3:10; 5:2, 13; 8:16; cf. 5:2) or the verb ‫ָענָה‬ 89.  See also Salyer, Vain Rhetoric, 375; J. L. Koosed, “The Question of Qohelet’s Piety: Reading the Epilogue through This Body,” in Autobiographical Biblical Criticism (Leiden: Deo, 2002) 183–96; idem, (Per)Mutations, 108–10 (but also note her “second opinion” on pp. 110–11). 90.  See G. S. Ogden (“Qoheleth’s Use of the ‘Nothing Is Better’-Form,” JBL 98 [1979] 339– 50) for the role played by the phrase ‫“( אין טוב‬there is nothing better than”) as an answer to the key question of the book in 1:3 (compare with 3:9; 5:15[ET 16]): ‫“( מה יתרון לאדם‬what is the advantage for humanity?”). This need not be taken negatively, because the goodness to be pursued is a divine gift (see p. 345). 91. See Fox (Qohelet and His Contradictions, 73), who notes the duality in Qohelet: “[H]e recognizes that something may be hebel and yet have good aspects; this is true of pleasure, of toil, of growing wise, and of life as a whole.” In the end, he does note that “[m]ore often and more emphatically Qoheleth praises pleasure.”

278

Mark J. Boda

(“to be occupied, busied with,” 1:13; 3:10). For instance, in 1:13 Qohelet declares “what a heavy burden God has laid upon humanity,” and in 3:10–11 again, “I have seen the burden God has laid on humanity. He has made everything fitting in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of humanity, yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” There is also the careful reminder that God will judge the deeds of both the righteous and wicked (‫ ׁשפט‬in 3:17; ‫ בוא‬Hiph + ‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬in 11:9). Also important in these texts is the fear of God (‫ירא‬, 3:14; 7:18; 8:12, 13) and the warning to remember (‫)זכר‬, whether remembering the days of one’s life (5:19[ET 20]; 11:8) or the Creator who has granted them (12:1). The vocabulary represented in these “God” sections that appear consistently throughout the inner autobiography point to Qohelet’s attempts to answer his quest and the frustration he observes in life under the sun. God is introduced into the quest, and Qohelet argues that, although life is meaningless in this frustrated world, God has provided a way to live in the midst of this frustration. First of all, God provides gifts through food, drink, sex, and satisfaction in one’s work, and these are to be deemed good and to be enjoyed. Qohelet is thus a preacher of joy. 92 But one should not miss, secondly, that Qohelet also articulates a vision for relationship with this God, identifying God as not merely a divine dispenser of gifts but also a divine judge to whom humanity is accountable. Because of this, Qohelet speaks of the importance of remembering God in the midst of all this human activity and calls for his audience to fear this God. One cannot ignore the frustration of Qohelet in the midst of his search and at times even his questioning of God’s plan in the midst of this frustration; however, ultimately Qohelet is not a secular philosopher, because he draws God into the discussion. One cannot say, then, that Qohelet’s message is at odds with the conclusion provided in the external frame in 12:13–14. The vocabulary and themes found in this conclusion, especially the call to “fear God” and the reminder that “God will bring every act into judgment . . . whether good or evil,” can also be discerned in Qohelet’s speeches. 93 The epilogist, however, does ignore many of the darker and more pessimistic elements in Qohelet’s testimony as well as Qohelet’s focus on enjoying creation’s delights. In their place, the epilogist makes explicit 92.  See especially Whybray, “Qoheleth,” 87–98; A. B. Caneday, “Qohelet: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” Grace Theological Journal 7 (1986) 21–56; contra Longman (Ecclesiastes, 32–36), who sees these passages as expressing “resignation rather than affirmation” of the limited joys of this life. He sees Qohelet’s view of God as “distant, occasionally indifferent, and sometimes cruel,” dismissing Qohelet’s calls to “fear God” as merely advocating “fright before a powerful and dangerous being, not respect or awe for a mighty and compassionate deity.” 93. See Krüger (Qoheleth, 213), who argues: “The ‘ideology’ and ‘perspective’ of vv. 13–14 is in no way totally foreign to the rest of the book of Qoheleth”; also Shead, (“Reading Ecclesiastes ‘Epilogically’,” 86), who notes that the epilogue “encapsulates the essence of Qohelet’s words, thereby providing the reader with a guide for reading”; Gese (“Komposition,” 69–98), who argues that Qohelet is being treated as advocating, not skepticism but, rather, deeper piety.

Speaking into the Silence: The Epilogue of Ecclesiastes

279

what is only a minor element in Qohelet’s testimony: obedience to Torah. 94 This is not a mere echoing of Qohelet but careful nuancing. The epilogue accentuates certain elements in Qohelet’s journey and at the same time serves as “a vehicle by which the reader is refamiliarized with their world, a world that has been totally defamiliarized by Qohelet’s monologue.” 95 It appears, then, that the epilogist’s strategy is not antithesis, nor is it mere affirmation; rather, it is emphasis—focusing on aspects of Qohelet’s message that he thinks are essential for the future generations who are represented by his implicit audience, “my son.”

Conclusion In this essay, I review what has become the crux interpretum of Ecclesiastes: the relationship between the voice of Qohelet and the epilogist. I have ascertained that the epilogist does not reject Qohelet’s teaching, but he does not simply affirm it either. While affirming Qohelet, applauding his search, and echoing themes explicit in his message, the epilogist leaves out certain key explicit elements of Qohelet’s message (for example, joy in the pleasures of creation, ‫) ֶהבֶל‬, and in their place he accentuates a theme that is merely implicit in Qohelet’s testimony (keeping the commandments). This does not eliminate the value of the elements that are absent from the epilogist’s final admonition, since the epilogist has expressed his admiration for Qohelet and his search, but it shows that the epilogist is not merely echoing Qohelet’s testimony. In this investigation, I also highlight a key rhetorical strategy in the epilogue. The employment of the discourse marker ‫“( ְויֹתֵ ר‬in addition”) creates a sense of forward movement that reaches a feverish pitch in 12:12 with its twofold employment of the infinitive absolute ‫“( ה ְַרּבֵה‬to increase”) alongside the phrase ‫אֵין קֵץ‬ (“there is no end”). It is not surprising, then, that it is in this verse that the epilogist’s voice shifts from commendation to warning, and immediately following it in 12:13a he declares: ‫ִׁשמָע‬ ְ ‫“( סֹוף ָּדבָר הַּכֹל נ‬the end of the matter, all has been heard”), forcing an end to what could be endless debate. It is into this silence that the epilogist offers his final emphatic word designed to capture the minds and hearts of future readers. 94.  Interaction with the Torah in Qohelet’s testimony has been traced not only by Bartholomew (Ecclesiastes, 368 n. 45) but also by Krüger (Qoheleth, 24–25; however, see p. 27 for Qohelet’s temple and cult criticism). 95.  Salyer, Vain Rhetoric, 375.

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet Robert Holmstedt University of Toronto The language of the book of Qohelet has long been a source of some frustration. In this book, we are faced with a number of apparent neologisms, awkward phrases, and grammatical features, some of which seem to anticipate the Hebrew of the Mishnah while others are unique. Squarely in the middle of the discussion are the function words ‫ שׁ‬and ‫—אשׁר‬the latter the overwhelmingly typical nominalizer in the Hebrew Bible and the former used but rarely. Moreover, in no other biblical book is the distribution of ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬like the distribution in Qohelet (68× ‫ שׁ‬vs. 89× ‫)אשׁר‬. Isaksson’s conclusion fairly represents the state of the issue: “the immense use of šæ- in the Book of Qohelet probably is due to the influence of a Northern dialect, if not a northern origin. The mixed use of two seemingly interchangeable relative particles remains unexplained. Possibly, we should also reckon with Aramaic influence.” 1 Does ‫ שׁ‬reflect dialect, style, register, or diachrony? In this essay, I explain what has so far been left without satisfactory explanation. Although there are about 5,500 ‫ אשׁר‬clauses in the Hebrew Bible, there are only 139 occurrences of ‫שׁ‬. Of these, 68 are in Qohelet, and 32 are in the Song of Songs. 2 Twenty-one are in various psalms from Ps 122 onward, and the remaining 18 are scattered in the Hebrew Bible, literally, from beginning to end. 3 The distribution of ‫ אשׁר‬and ‫ שׁ‬in nonbiblical texts is somewhat similar. In epigraphic texts from the first millennium, there are 32 clear occurrences of ‫ אשׁר‬and none 1. B. Isaksson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on the Verbal System (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 10; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987) 161. 2.  Qohelet 1:3, 7, 9 (4×), 10, 11 (2×), 14, 17; 2:7, 9, 11 (2×), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (3×), 19 (2×), 20, 21 (2×), 22, 24, 26; 3:13, 14, 15, 18, 22; 4:2, 10; 5:4, 14 (2×), 15 (2×), 17; 6:3, 10 (2×); 7:10, 14, 24; 8:7, 14 (2×), 17; 9:5, 12 (2×); 10:3, 5, 14, 16, 17; 11:3, 8; 12:3, 7, 9: Song 1:6 (3×), 7  (2×), 12; 2:7, 17; 3:1, 2, 3, 4 (4×), 5, 7, 11; 4:1, 2 (2×), 6; 5:2, 8, 9; 6:5 (2×), 6 (2×); 8:4, 8, 12. 3.  Psalms 122:3, 4; 123:2; 124:1, 2, 6; 129:6, 7; 133:2, 3; 135:2, 8, 10; 136:23; 137:8 (2×), 9; 144:15 (2×); 146:3, 5; Gen 6:3; Judg 5:7 (2×); 6:17; 7:12; 8:26; 2 Kgs 6:11; Jonah 1:7, 12; 4:10; Job 19:29; Lam 2:15, 16; 4:9; 5:18; Ezra 8:20; 1 Chr 5:20; 27:27.

283

284

Robert Holmstedt

of ‫שׁ‬. 4 The Hebrew text of Ben Sira contains 29 cases of ‫  שׁ‬5 (and also 67 of ‫)אשׁר‬. 6 In the Qumran nonbiblical texts, ‫( שׁ‬including ‫ )שׁל‬appears 145 times, but 124 of these are in only two texts: 57 in the Copper Scroll [3Q15] 7 and 67 in 4QMMTB,C [4Q394–99] 8; the remaining 21 examples are spread out, and no one text uses 4. Excluding questionable readings, reconstructions, and unprovenanced texts, there are 22 epigraphic occurrences of ‫ אשׁר‬and none of ‫( שׁ‬for the texts, see F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp et al., Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005]): Arad 8.9; 18.6–8; 29.7; 40.4–5; 71.2; Kuntillet Ajrud 16.1; Lachish 2.5–6; 3.4–6, 10–12; 4.2–3, 3–4, 11–12, 9.4–9; 18.1; Yavneh Yam/Mesad Hashavyahu 1.6–8, 8–9; Papyrus Murabbaʿat 17a 1.2; Nahal Yishai 1.1; Samaria Basalt 1.1; Silwan 2.1, 2–3; 3.2. Additionally, there are 8 examples of ‫ אשׁר‬in unprovenanced texts, mostly seals, within private collections: Moussaieff Ostraca 1.1, 2.4–6 (see Dobbs-Allsopp et al. for the texts) and seals ##1, 20, 403, 404, 405, 406 in N. Avigad and B. Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997). Finally, to this latter group, we may add ostracon 2 (lines 6 and 9) in the unprovenanced tests published in A. Lemaire and A. Yardeni, “New Hebrew Ostraca from the Shephelah,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz; Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 197–245. 5.  Ben Sira 3:22A; 14:16A, 18A; 15:17B; 16:3AB, 15A; 25:8C; 26:17C; 30:12B[2×], 19B, 34E, 36E; B 34:10 , 15B, 16B[2×], 20B, 27B; 37:3B; 44:9M; 51:30B. This includes one conjectured reconstruction (30:19A) and two occurrences of ‫שׁל‬‎ (13:5A, 30:28E). Additionally, the following cases exhibit alternation between the manuscripts: 3:22 (A = ‫ ;במה שׁהורשׁית‬B = ‫באשׁר שׁהורשׁיתה‬‎); 15:17 (A = ‫ ;אשׁר יהפץ‬B = ‫וכל שׁיחפץ‬‎); 34:15 (B = ‫ ;ובכל שׁשׂנאת‬margin = ‫וכל אשׁר שׂנאת‬‎); 44:9 (B = ‫וישׁ מהם‬ ‫ ;אשׁר אין לו זכר‬M = ‫)וישׁ מהם שׁאין לו זכר‬. And finally, the following is the one case of the two relative words used in the same verse: 16:15A: ‫ייי הקשׁה את לב פרעה אשׁר לא ידעו שׁמעשׂיו מגולין‬ ‫תחת השׁמים‬. 6.  Ben Sira 3:22C; 6:37A; 7:31A; 8:9A, 14A; 10:9A; 12:15A; 13:2A, 7A; 15:11A[2×]B, 16AB, 17A; AB 16:7 , 15A; 18:32C; 30:19B, 20B; 33:4B + margin, 5B; 34:15B[margin], 16B; 36:31B[2×]C[2×]D[2×]; 37:12B[2×]D, 15BD; 38:13B + margin, 14B, 15B, 27B; 40:11B; 44:9B[3×]M, 20B; 45:23B, 24B; 46:1B, 11B; 47:13B, 23B[2×]; 48:1B, 4B, 11B, 15B; 49:10B; 50:1B, 2B, 3B, 24B, 27B[2×]; 51:8B. This includes four conjectured reconstructions of the text: 30:19B; 36:31C; 37:12D; see ‫( ספר בן־סירא המקור וקונקורדנציה וניתוח אוצר המילים‬Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and Shrine of the Book, 1973) 99–100; see also P. C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (corrected ed.; VTSup 68; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). 7.  In the Copper Scroll, there are 32 occurrences of ‫שׁ‬‎: 3Q15 1:1, 6; 2:1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13; 3:8, 11; 4:1, 6, 9, 11; 5:5, 12; 6:14; 7:8; 8:1, 2, 14; 9:1, 14, 16, 17; 10:3, 5, 9; 11:7, 8, 14; 12:10. There are also 25 cases of ‫שׁל‬‎: 3Q15 1:9, 10, 13; 2:11; 3:2; 4:13; 5:6, 8; 6:1, 7, 8; 7:3, 8, 10, 14; 8:8, 10, 14; 9:14; 10:8, 15; 12:4, 6, 7, 8. 8.  In the B manuscript of 4QMMT, there are 43 occurrences of ‫שׁ‬‎: 4Q394 frags. 3–7 i 4, 5, 9, 12 (2×), 13, 14, 15, 19; frags. 3–7 ii 14, 16; frag. 8 iv 2, 3, 5 (2×), 8, 11; 4Q395 frag. 1:6; 4Q396 frags. 1–2 i 3, 5; frags. 1–2 ii 1, 5, 7 (2×), 10; frags. 1–2 iii 1, 6 (2×), 10; frags. 1–2 iv 2 (2×), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; 4Q397 frags. 1–2:4; frags. 6–13:11 (2×), 12, 13 (2×), 14. There are three cases of ‫שׁל‬‎: 4Q394 frags. 3–7 i 15, 19; 4Q395 frag. 1:10. In the C manuscript, there are 19 occurrences of ‫שׁ‬:‎ 4Q397 frags. 14–21:2, 10, 12, 15, 16; frag. 22:2; frag. 23:2; 4Q398 frags. 11–13:3, 4 (2×), 6, 7; frags. 14–17 i 5; frags. 14–17 ii 1, 3 (2×), 4, 6; 4Q399 frag. 1 i 11. There are 2 cases of ‫שׁל‬‎: 4Q397 frag. 23:2; 4Q398 frags. 14–17 ii 6.

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

285

‫ שׁ‬more than twice. 9 The Bar Kokhba period texts from Nahal Hever and Wadi Murabbaʿat contain 118 occurrences of ‫ שׁ‬and none of ‫אשׁר‬. 10 Finally, ‫ שׁ‬dominates in the Mishnah, where ‫ אשׁר‬is used only 69 times—all in biblical quotations or allusions. 11 This distribution raises a host of questions regarding the status of ‫ שׁ‬in general and its use in Qohelet in particular. For example, was ‫ שׁ‬an item native to the grammar of the author of Qohelet (and Song of Songs, Ben Sira, etc.), whereas it was not for most biblical authors? If so, why did it not displace ‫ אשׁר‬entirely (as in the Song of Songs and the Mishnah)? Did the author of Qohelet, for instance, borrow ‫ שׁ‬from another dialect of Hebrew, and if so, why? Is it a case of archaizing, perhaps to strengthen the Solomonic persona of the book’s primary voice? As the first step in the process of untangling this knotty issue, I consider what has been one of the majority explanations: that ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬reflect northern and southern Hebrew dialects, respectively.

A Dialectal Difference? Since Gotthelf Bergsträsser’s “Das hebräische Präfix ‫שׁ‬,” the scholarly consensus has been to trace the etymology of Hebrew ‫ שׁ‬from the Akkadian ša. 12 The 9.  There is 1 case of ‫שׁל‬‎ (4Q385 frag. 6:9) and there are 20 occurrences of ‫( שׁ‬CD 15:11; 20:4; 4Q222 frag. 1:7; 4Q266 frag. 10 i 1; frag. 10 ii 2; 4Q302 frag. 8:3; 4Q322 frag. 1:3; 4Q322a frag. 1:9; 4Q324 frag. 1:6; 4Q332 frag. 2:3; 4Q333 frag. 1:3; 4Q448 3:5; 4Q468l frag. 1:2; 4Q521 frag. 2 ii  + 4:11; 4Q522 frag. 9 i + 10:10; 11Q5 28:13; 11Q20 12:14; KhQ3 1:1 [2×], 4). 10.  From Naḥal Ḥever, there are 51 occurrences of ‫ שׁ‬in the texts collected in Y. Yadin et al., The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters ([Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002] 44.5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 [2×], 13 [2×], 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26; 45.7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18 [2×], 19; 46.3 [3×], 4, 5 [3×], 7 [3×], 9, 11; 49.5, 6, 7 [3×], 8 [3×], 11, 13; 51.5; 61.4) and twelve ‫שׁל‬‎ (44.7, 10, 11; 45.7, 12, 20, 21; 46.7 [2×], 8; 51.6) and, from the Naḥal Ṣeʿelim we may add 7 ‫שׁ‬‎ (8.9 [2×], 8e–k.9, 30.7, 49.8 [2×], 12) and a single occurrence of ‫שׁל‬‎ (8.9; see H. M. Cotton and A. Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Naḥal Ḥever and Other Sites, with an Appendix Containing Alleged Qumran Texts (the Seiyâl Collection II) [DJD 27; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997]). From Wadi Murabbaʿat, there are 39 occurrences of ‫שׁ‬‎ (22.5–6; 22h.1; 24b.4, 11, 12, 15; 24c.4, 7, 9; 24d.4; 24e.3, 6, 9; 30.3, 15, 19 [2×], 23 [3×], 36; 42.2, 3 [2×], 4 [2×], 5, 6; 43.5, 6; 44.2, 9; 45.3; 46.3, 4, 7, 8, 9; 47.5) and 8 of ‫שׁל‬‎ (30.26; 22 frags. 2, 5–6; 24.6; 42.1, 4; 46.7; 47.3; see A. Yardeni, ‫ עבריות ונבטיות ממדבר יהודה וחומר קרוב‬,‫אוסף תעודות ארמיות‬‎ [2 vols.; Jerusalem: Hebrew University/Ben-Zion Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, 2000]). 11.  See M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927) 42; M. P. Fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 50. 12. G. Bergsträsser, “Das Hebräische Präfix ‫שׁ‬,” ZAW 29 (1909) 40–56. The “separate etymology” view has rarely been questioned since Bergsträsser’s article, with the notable exceptions of I. Eitan (“Hebrew and Semitic Particles: Comparative Studies in Semitic Philology,” AJSL 44 [1928] 177–205), C. Brockelmann (Hebraische Syntax [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1956]), and J. Huehnergard (“On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative šɛ-,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives [ed. S. E. Fassberg

286

Robert Holmstedt

pathway for this etymological connection, from Akkadian to the biblical data, is generally taken to include two intermediaries: northern Canaanite (for example, Phoenician) and northern Hebrew. 13 This seems plausible: ‫ שׁ‬became the relative word of choice, by change and diffusion, in some of the Hebrew grammar of the north, from which it influenced parts of the southern Hebrew grammar, particularly after 722 b.c.e.. Thus, it eventually replaced ‫אשׁר‬, the process and final result of which we see in Qohelet and the Song of Songs, respectively. 14 One problem with a simple northern-to-southern dialectal explanation, however, is the complete absence of ‫ שׁ‬from any epigraphic text with a northern provenance. A second problem with this explanation, as Rendsburg notes, is that ‫ אשׁר‬is used in biblical texts often identified as northern in origin (for example, Judges 5–8, Hosea). 15 For these two reasons, the simple northern-to-southern explanation is inadequate. Another dialectal approach is social instead of geographical. As Waltke and O’Connor state concerning the Biblical Hebrew data, “[T]here are signs that the speech of men differs from that of women; speech addressed to young or old may vary from a standard. Speech itself often differs from narrative prose, and there are traces of dialect variation based on region in both.” 16 In this vein, some have identified ‫ שׁ‬as the colloquial Hebrew relative word and ‫ אשׁר‬as the literary choice. 17 Taking this a step farther, Rendsburg has argued that the biblical texts contain evidence of diglossia in the biblical period. Diglossia is, following Ferguson’s classic definition, and A. Hurvitz; Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006] 103–25). For a defense of the separate etymology of ‫ שׁ‬and ‫אשׁר‬, see my “Etymologies of Hebrew ʾăšɛr and šɛC-,” JNES 66 (2007) 177–91. 13.  Within Northwest Semitic, we have evidence of a relative š in the alphabetic cuneiform text from Tanaach, an Ammonite amulet/seal (ca. 600 b.c.e.), and a Philistine text. Additionally, the determinative pronoun/genitive marker in Punic and a few late colonial Phoenician inscriptions is often considered to be cognate, and I take the view that the relative ʾš in Phoenician (Standard though late Neo-Punic) and Ammonite are also cognate. See my “Etymologies” (ibid.) for discussion of this topic. 14.  See, among others, C. H. Gordon, “North Israelite Influence on Postexilic Hebrew,” IEJ 5 (1955) 85–88; E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982) 32, §45; J. R. Davila “Qoheleth and Northern Hebrew,” in Sopher Mahir: Northwest Semitic Studies Presented to Stanislav Segert (Maarav 5–6) (ed. E. M. Cook; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 69–87; G. A. Rendsburg, “Israelian Hebrew in the Song of Songs,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz; Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 315–23. 15.  G. A. Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1990) 114–16. On the identification of Judges 5–8 as northern, or “Israelian” Hebrew, see also, among others, S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (rev. ed.; New York: Scribner’s, 1913) 449. 16.  B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) §1.4.1a. 17. A. Bendavid, Leshon Mikra u-Leshon Ḥakhamim: Metukenet u-Murḥevet. (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1967) 77; see also P. Joüon, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (corrected 1965 ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1923) 89; Segal, Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, 42–43.

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

287

a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written or formal spoken purposes, but is not used by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation. 18

In the application of diglossia to Biblical Hebrew, ‫ שׁ‬represents the “low,” colloquial register and ‫ אשׁר‬the “high,” literary register. How the colloquial form made its way into literary products (that is, Qohelet, Song of Songs) is explained by Rendsburg as follows: During the period of the monarchy, 1000–586 b.c.e., a standard literary Hebrew was utilized in which ‫ אשׁר‬was the sole relative pronoun. The colloquial form, which existed side-by-side with the classical form, was ‫שׁ‬, which in a very few instances infiltrated literary composition. The upheaval of 586 b.c.e., with the resultant exile and restoration, effected changes in the Hebrew language, and one of these was the further penetration of ‫ שׁ‬into written records. 19

Clearly, a straightforward diglossic explanation is perceived to be inadequate, since Rendsburg, following Segal and Rabin before him, combines the diglossia analysis with a geographical and diachronic analysis. Thus, for him, the full story is that ‫ שׁ‬was the relative in the north and ‫ אשׁר‬in the south; during the monarchy and after, northern and southern Hebrew influenced each other, and thus we see ‫ שׁ‬in both supposedly northern and southern texts; and ‫ שׁ‬continued in colloquial Hebrew, but ‫ אשׁר‬maintained its preferred status in the literary register. 20 Before evaluating this diglossic-geographical-diachronic complex proposal, we should note here that the continued study of diglossic situations has brought to light a number of common features that are relevant for the ancient Hebrew discussion. First, the high variety is quite often associated with sacred writings and small priestly groups. 21 Second, the decline of diglossia is often connected with social change, such as a move toward nationalism; the decline of existing class structures (which would include the literary elite); greater literacy; or catastrophic 18.  C. A. Ferguson, “Diglossia,” Word 15 (1959) 336. 19.  Rendsburg, Diglossia, 116–17. 20.  Ibid., 118. Rendsburg’s study is particularly relevant to an analysis of the language of Qohelet: he asserts that from the exile onward “the loss of political independence brought an end to the heyday of classical Hebrew. It continued to be used during the Exilic and post-Exilic periods, but the decay is evident from the greater number of spoken forms which appear in literary compositions” (ibid., 168). Of all the books that contain features that Rendsburg identifies as colloquial, Qohelet has by far the greatest percentage (14%). 21. A. Hudson, “Outline of a Theory of Diglossia,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157 (2002) 20, 26.

288

Robert Holmstedt

political and social events (such as the Babylonian Exile or Maccabean revolt). 22 Third, if a change occurs regarding high and low varieties, it is always high that loses ground and low that becomes the new standard, which is essentially what is proposed for the shift from Biblical to Rabbinic Hebrew. 23 Fourth, it is possible that some high varieties represent early forms of their low counterparts, and thus low is a later stage on an expected path of grammatical development; the high is “frozen” by social convention, whereas the low continues to change. 24 Each one of these observations fits what we know of the biblical books and the history of Israel at various points and make it very likely that diglossia did exist in ancient Israel. 25 However, the fact remains that the evidence we have at our disposal is all literary, which for obvious methodological reasons makes it difficult to argue confidently for the diglossic proposal. One important principle underlying the diglossic analysis—as well as the geographical and diachronic views—concerns language usage: the use of ‫ שׁ‬versus ‫ אשׁר‬was dictated by location, time, or social context; it was not open to free manipulation by the language user. As Kaye notes, users in a diglossic situation do not mix the high and low varieties; rather, “[N]ative speakers possess an overall ‘communicative competence’ rather than a mere ‘grammatical competence.’” 26 Thus, if the variation between ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬reflects intentionality (so Young and Davila), then the salient linguistic distinction is not dialect but style. 27

A Stylistic Difference? Whereas dialectal differences in the textual evidence represent a linguistic accident—the differences reflect the separate origins of the contrasting linguistic forms—stylistic differences are not accidental. That is, characters are often distinguished by their speech in a range of genre, from plays to novels and other types 22.  Ibid, 32–34. 23.  Ibid, 8, 30. 24.  Ibid, 18–19, 22. 25.  For criticism of Rendsburg’s hypothesis, see S. Ólafsson (“On Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew and Its Graphic Representation,” FO 28 [1991] 193–205), I. Young, R. Rezetko, and M. Ehrensvärd (Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts [2 vols.; London: Equinox, 2008] 1.173–79); for a more positive (though still qualified) assessment, see A. S. Kaye, “Review of Gary A. Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew,” AJS Review 18 (1993) 105–8. 26.  Idem, “Comment,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157 (2002) 120. Crystal makes a similar observation about the communicative competence of users (although he includes more distinctions than just diglossia): regional dialects, class dialects, and temporal dialects are “rarely consciously manipulated by the individual language-user” (D. Crystal, “New Perspectives for Language Study: I Stylistics,” English Language Teaching 24 [1970] 103). 27. I. Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew (Tübingen: Mohr, 1993); J. R. Davila, “Dialectology in Biblical Hebrew: A North Israelite Dialect? Synchronic and Diachronic Considerations” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago, 1994).

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

289

of narrated literature (for example, James Joyce’s works). Speech may color the characters as old or young, educated or not, wealthy or poor, respectful or rude, local or foreign. 28 Coloring the characters’ speech achieves two related ends for the storyteller. First, it allows the storyteller to stay out of the story, because an intrusive narrator (for example, “He said, in a Cockney accent, ‘. . .’”) is a cumbersome device, disrupts the flow of the story itself, and is mostly reserved for subjective asides or background information (for example, “He was a nasty sort of fellow” or “This was the way it was done back then”). Second, it allows a character continually to be distinguished from other characters with different speech patterns, thus subtly keeping the differences in the audience’s mind without being explicit. This literary technique is not simply esthetic, however: the differences are used to engage the reader and encourage the construction of a reader identity vis-à-vis the characters’ identities. The specific type of language use I have been describing is called style-shifting. 29 Style-shifting is a form of the linguistic phenomenon of code-switching. Code-switching is typically associated with “the use of more than one language in the course of a single communicative episode,” whereas style-shifting is used to refer to the presence of more than one register within the same dialect, such as formal versus informal. 30 Importantly, Gordon and Williams argue that “when we look at code-switching in literature we are looking at a very conscious language use, unlike some instances of code-switching in speech.” 31 In their study, they identify three primary functions of literary code-switching: extrinsic, organic, and political. 32 The extrinsic type of code-switching simply supplies local color in the text, whereas the organic type intends to avoid alienating the reader by translations or explanatory glosses. Political usage has the opposite goal: it is intended to 28.  For biblical examples, see G. A. Rendsburg, “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign’ Factor in the Hebrew Bible,” in Language and Culture in the Near East (ed. S. Izre'el and R. Drory; IOS 15; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Faculty of Humanities, 1996) 177–90. 29.  To my knowledge, S. Kaufman (“The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period and Some Implications Thereof,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions: Hebrew and Aramaic Languages [ed. Moshe Bar-Asher; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988] 55) was the first to use the term style-switching in the context of ancient Hebrew studies, and it has since been adopted and developed by G. Rendsburg in a number of articles (see, for example, “Linguistic Variation”; “Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew [ed. W. R. Bodine; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992] 65–88; “Kabbir in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for Style-Switching and Addressee-Switching in the Hebrew Bible,” JAOS 112 [1992] 649–51); however, this general concept is not new and has long been noticed in Hebrew studies—for example, in discussions about intentional “archaizing” (albeit not from an explicitly linguistic framework). 30. E. Gordon and M. Williams, “Raids on the Articulate: Code-Switching, Style-Shifting and Postcolonial Writing,” The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 33/2 (1998) 75–76, 92. 31.  Ibid, 70. 32.  Ibid, 80–81.

290

Robert Holmstedt

discomfort the reader by creating a cultural boundary. Literary code-switching in the organic and political categories works to establish group membership between some characters and some readers; that is, in-groups and out-groups are created with parts of the audience. 33 I have argued elsewhere that linguistic forms are used to create an in-group between the characters of Jonah and Ruth and the audience. 34 But is this what the author of Qohelet was doing with ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ ?אשׁר‬That is precisely what Davila has suggested: “[T]he impression we get of [the author of Qoheleth] is that he was a proud iconoclast, and it is not hard to imagine him as a sage who insisted on talking like real folks and not the highbrows in Jerusalem.” 35 In other words, there were social registers of Hebrew in ancient Israel (note that this is not the same phenomenon as diglossia), and Qohelet intentionally used a lower-class variety to identify with his intended audience. Young makes a similar suggestion: “Perhaps then, just as with Deir Alla, we should describe Qohelet’s language as the local literary dialect, even if it be considered as the author’s own invention and filled with what were according to contemporary literary taste, non-literary forms.” 36 The critical problem with the stylistic variation argument, at least for ‫ שׁ‬and ‫אשׁר‬, is the lack of a clear pattern. If ‫ שׁ‬did represent the lower social register, then why not use it exclusively (as in the Song of Songs)? What sort of group membership or reader identity can the ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬variation help to establish? It is entirely unclear to me that it helps do this at all. Additionally, the random variation between ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬is not explained by the “lowbrow-highbrow” proposal. 37 Studies of style-switching and code-switching (whether literary or spoken) have observed distinct patterns of usage, which do not match the case of ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet. 33.  Similarly, D. Herman (“Style-Shifting in Edith Wharton’s The House of Mirth,” Language and Literature 10 [2001] 62) argues that style-switching “functions to mark aspects of participants’ identity, thereby reinforcing patterns of co-operation and conflict encoded at other levels of narrative structure as well.” 34. R. Holmstedt, “The Story of Ancient Hebrew ʾăšɛr,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43 (2006) 7–26; Idem “‎‎‫אנִי ְו ִל ִּבי‬ ֲ ‎‎‎‎‎: The Syntactic Encoding of the Collaborative Nature of Qohelet’s Experiment,” JHS 9 (2009) 1–26, http://www.jhsonline.org. Similarly, see I. Young (“The ‘Northernisms’ of the Israelite Narratives in Kings,” ZAH 8 [1995] 63–70) on ‫ שׁ‬in Judg 6–8, 2 Kgs 6:11, and Lamentations. Rendsburg (Diglossia, 123 n. 29) and I (“Story of Ancient Hebrew ʾăšɛr”) also comment briefly on 2 Kgs 6:11. 35.  Davila, “Dialectology in Biblical Hebrew.” 36.  Young, Diversity, 157; see also idem, “Biblical Texts Cannot Be Dated Linguistically,” HS 46 (2005) 347–48. Y. Shlesinger (“‫’ ו‘אשׁר’ בספר קהלת‬-‫תפוצת כינויי הזיקה ‘שׁ‬‎,” in ‫מחקרים בלשׁון‬ ‫[ העברית העתיקה והחדשׁה מוגשׁים למנחם צבי קדרי‬ed. S. Sharvit; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1999] 91–109) makes a similar argument—that the author varied the forms for style—but does not explain the motivation or impact of this choice. Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (Linguistic Dating, 2.65) take the stylistic analysis a step farther: the use of ‫ שׁ‬is identified as “substandard” Hebrew in the service of the “unconventional writing” of an “unconventional thinker” and denied any diachronic relevance (ibid., 1.214, 227, 247). 37.  The variation occurs indiscriminately, sometimes in the same verse and in adjacent and parallel clauses: 1:10; 2:12; 3:14, 15, 22; 4:2; 5:4, 14, 17; 6:10; 8:7, 14; 10:14; 12:7. Note that ‫את שׁ‬ does not appear in Qohelet but does appear in the Song of Songs (3:1, 2, 3, 4).

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

291

As with the dialectal hypothesis, there is little compelling about the stylistic variation hypothesis when it is teased apart. The next possible distinction to investigate is grammar itself.

A Grammatical Difference? Both ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬serve primarily as nominalizing function words; that is, they are both subordinators that recategorize clauses to fill the syntactic roles typically filled by noun phrases. 38 This recategorization produces relative clauses, verbcomplement clauses, and noun-complement clauses. By far, the most common use of ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬is as relative elements, either (1) with or (2) without an overt relative head. (1)  Overtly-Headed Relative Clause (a) ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ׁשּנַעֲׂשּו ּתַ חַת ה‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשים‬ ִ ‫יתי אֶת־ּכָל־ ַה ַּמע‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ‫ר‬ “I have seen all the deeds that have happened under the sun.” (1:14) 39 (b) ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ֲׂשה ּתַ חַת ה‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר נַע‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה א‬ ֶ ‫ֶת־ל ִּבי ְל ָכ ֽל־ ַמע‬ ִ ‫יתי ְונָתֹון א‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫‏אֶת־ּכָל־זֶה ר‬ “I have seen all of this while setting my ‫ לֵב‬to every deed that happens under the sun.” (8:9) 40 (2)  Covertly-Headed Relative Clause (a) ‫ִהיּו ָל ַאחֲרֹנָה‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ִהיֶה ָלהֶם ִזּכָרֹון ִעם‬ ְ ‫לֹא־י‬ “(They) will not have a memory with (those) that come later.” (1:11) 41 (b) ‫ֲׁשר הּוא ָעמֵל‬ ֶ ‫ָעֹוׂשה ַּבא‬ ֶ ‫ִתרֹון ה‬ ְ ‫‏מַה־ּי‬ “What is the profit for the worker in exchange for (the toil) that he does?” (3:9) 42 38. In Waltke and O’Connor (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §38.4), these functions are discussed as “constituent noun clauses”; in Joüon and Muraoka (P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew [rev. ed.; SubBi 27; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006] §157) under the heading “substantival clause.” 39.  Qohelet 1:3, 7, 10, 11a, 14; 2:11 (2×), 12, 17, 18 (3×), 19 (2×), 20, 21 (2×), 24, 26; 3:13; 4:2, 10; 5:14, 15b, 17; 7:14; 8:14; 9:12a; 10:5, 16, 17; 11:3; 12:3, 9. For the use of the interrogative as a relative head, producing the indefinite pronoun, for example, “whatever,” see Qoh 1:9aα, bα; 3:15, 22; 6:10a; 7:24; 8:7; 10:14. 40.  Qohelet 1:10, 13, 16; 2:3, 10; 3:10, 11, 14; 4:1, 2, 3, 9, 13, 15, 16; 5:17, 18; 6:1, 2 (2×); 7:19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28; 8:3, 9 (2×), 10, 11, 12ac, 13, 14 (3×), 15b, 16, 17; 9:3, 4, 6, 9 (2×), 10 (2×); 10:15; 11:5; 12:1, 7. 41.  Qohelet 1:9aβ, bβ, 11b; 2:7, 9, 16; 5:4, 14, 15a; 6:10b; 8:17; 9:12b; 10:3; 11:8; 12:7. Note that I do not consider the quantifier ‫“( כל‬all, every”) to be a relative head; instead, I take it to quantify a null head, which is itself defined by the necessarily restrictive relative clause following. 42.  Qohelet 2:3, 12; 3:9; 15; 4:3 (2×), 17; 5:3 (2×), 14, 17; 6:10; 7:2, 13; 8:4, 7, 16; 9:2 (3×); 10:14; 11:5; 12:1, 2, 6.

292

Robert Holmstedt

Both of the relative clauses in (1) and (2) contain finite verbs, but ‫ שׁ‬and ‫אשׁר‬ clauses also allow participial clauses 43 and null copula (“verbless”) clauses. 44 Given that the essential function of a relative word such as ‫ שׁ‬or ‫ אשׁר‬is to re­categorize a clause to fill a syntactic role normally occupied by a noun phrase, it is not surprising that relative words are also used to nominalize clauses in non­ relative contexts (analogous to English that). The words ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬also nominalize clauses to serve as (3) complements of verbs as well as (4) complements of prepositions. (3)  Verbal Complement (a) ‫רּוח י‬ ַ ‫ׁשּגַם־זֶה הּוא רַ ְעיֹון‬ ֶ ‫ייָדַ ְע ִּתי‬ “I knew that this also was chasing the wind.” (1:17) 45 (b) ‫ִהיֶה־ּטֹוב ְלי ְִראֵי ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר י‬ ֶ ‫י ָאנִי א‬ ‫‏ּכי ּגַם־יֹודֵ ַע‬ ִ “Yet I also know that it will be well for those who fear God.” (8:12) 46 (4)  Prepositional Complement (a) ‫ּׁש ִּתּדֹור ְולֹא ְתׁשַ ּלֵם‬ ֶ ‫א־תּדֹר ִמ‬ ִ ֹ ‫ֲׁשר ל‬ ֶ ‫טֹוב א‬ “That you do not vow is better than that you do vow and don’t fulfill (it).” (5:4) 47 (b)

‫ָׂשה ָהאֱל ִֹהים מֵרֹאׁש‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר־ע‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה א‬ ֶ ‫ָדם אֶת־ ַה ַּמע‬ ָ ‫ִמצָא ָהא‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר לֹא־י‬ ֶ ‫‏מ ְּב ִלי א‬ ִ  48 ‫ְועַד־סֹוף‬

43.  For a ‫שׁ‬-relative followed by a participle, see Qoh 1:7, 9aβ; 2:16, 18; 8:14a; 9:12a; 10:3, 5. For ‫אשׁר‬, see 4:1; 8:12, 14; 9:2, 10; 11:5. 44.  For a ‫שׁ‬-relative followed by a null copula clause, see Qoh 2:21, 26; 10:16, 17. For ‫אשׁר‬, see 3:15; 4:2, 9; 5:17; 6:10; 7:2, 26; 8:4, 13, 14, 15; 9:1. 45.  Qohelet 1:17; 2:13, 14, 15; 3:18; 7:10; 8:14b; 9:5. I also include 6:3, following the emendation proposed by Seow of ‫ רַ ב‬to ‫( רָב‬third-person masculine-singular perfect √‫ריב‬, “to complain”). C.-L. Seow, Ecclesiastes (AB 18C; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1997) 211. 46.  Qohelet 5:4 (the subject clause of a null copula and predicate adjective); 5:17 (the second ‫ אשׁר‬in a complement clause in apposition to the null head of the previous ‫ אשׁר‬clause, “Look, (the thing) that I saw is good—that it is fitting”); 7:18, 29 (appositional to ‫זה‬‎); 8:12b, 15a (appositional to the NP complement “I commended happiness, that is, that there is no good thing”); 9:1 (appositional to ‫)זה‬. 47.  Although I have listed them above in n. 41 as covertly-headed relatives, 5:4 above in (4a) and ‫ׁש ְּכבָר‬ ֶ ‫‏ּב‬ ְ ‎ in 2:16 (“because that already”) seem to fit in this category better. 48.  The sequence ‫ מבלי אשׁר לא‬is without parallel in the Hebrew Bible. Both ‫ ְב ִּלי‬and ‫ִמ ְּב ִלי‬ mean “without” but also function simply as negatives for finite verbs (HALOT, s.v.; see also M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [repr. New York: Judaic, 1996 {1903}]) s.v.). But “without that man can/does/should not grasp the deed that God has done” is nonsensical in translation. The solution to this little knot is twofold: (1) to recognize that the ‫ אשׁר‬simply nominalizes the finite verbal clause so that it can function as the complement to ‫ ;מבלי‬and (2) Hebrew allows double negation as a strategy to

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

293

“without [lit. without that] man’s ability to ‘find out’ the work that God has done from beginning to end” (3:11) 49 Clausal complements of prepositions such as those given in (4) seem to be related to covertly-headed relative clauses illustrated in (2). It is possible that the latter type reflects a reanalysis of the Preposition + Null Head + ‫שׁ‬/‫ אשׁר‬sequence so that the null head was omitted, leaving the nominalized clauses to satisfy the selectional features of the preposition by itself rather than requiring a null head (which the ‫שׁ‬/‫ אשׁר‬clause modifies as a relative). 50 This is a plausible explanation for both the syntax and the origin of constructions such as above in (4) and below in (5). (5)  Reanalysis → Prepositional Complement 51 (a) ‫ָדם ַאחֲרָיו‬ ָ ‫ִמצָא ָהא‬ ְ ‫ׁשּלֹא י‬ ֶ ‫ַל־ּד ְברַ ת‬ ִ ‫ָׂשה ָהאֱל ִֹהים ע‬ ָ ‫עּמַת־זֶה ע‬ ֻ ‫ּגַם אֶת־זֶה ְל‬ ‫ְמאּומָה‬ “Indeed–God has made this (day of prosperity) corresponding to that (day of adversity). (I have concluded this) because [lit., because that] man does not find anything after him.” (7:14) 52 intensify the negative polarity of the statement. That is, in Hebrew, unlike English but like many of the world’s languages, two negatives do not cancel each other out and thus reverse the polarity of the clause. The word ‫ מבלי‬includes negative semantics in that it comments on the “lack” of something, and the ‫ לא‬with the finite verb in the ‫ אשׁר‬clause reinforces the negative and makes it clear what the author intends. This analysis supports the translation of M. V. Fox (A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999] 192) but stands counter to many others. See, for example, C. F. Whitley (Koheleth: His Language and Thought [New York: de Gruyter, 1979] 33), R. Murphy (Ecclesiastes [WBC 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992] 29), and Seow (Ecclesiastes, 163); see also A. Schoors (The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part I: Grammar [OLA 41; Leuven: Peeters, 1992] 147–48) for a brief discussion of past proposals. 49.  Although I have listed them above in n. 42 as covertly-headed relatives, ‫ֲׁש֥ר‬ ֶ ‫‏ ַּבא‬‎ in 7:2 and 8:4 (“because that”) seem to fit in this category better. 50.  On syntactic reanalysis, see Alice C. Harris and Lyle Campbell, Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 61–96. 51.  A nominalizer such as ‫ שׁ‬is expected in constructions like 12:9: ‫ׁש ָהיָה ק ֶֹהלֶת ָחכָם‬ ֶ ‫ְויֹתֵ ר‬ ‫“ עֹוד ִלּמַד־ּדַ עַת אֶת־ ָהעָם‬in addition to Qohelet’s being wise [lit., in addition that Q. was wise], he also taught the people knowledge.” The nominalizer allows the finite verbal clause to exist in the position normally taken by a noun phrase (compare the unattested but grammatical “besides his wisdom [NP], he was . . .”). See also ‫ׁש‬ ֶ ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫‏אֵין־טֹוב ָּבא‬‎in 2:24 (“there is nothing better among man (than) that . . .”) and ‫ׁש‬ ֶ ‫עּמַת‬ ֻ ‫‏ּכָל־‬‎ in 5:15 (“like that he came; so he will go”; see Schoors, Pleasing Words, 146–47). 52.  Most commentators take -‫ׁש‬ ֶ ‫ַל־ּד ְברַ ת‬ ִ ‫ ע‬as a purpose or result construction, as do the standard lexica and grammars (for example, Seow, Ecclesiastes, 230, 240; T. Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes [NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998] 181; Fox, A Time, 257; HALOT, s.v. ‫ ;דברה‬DCH, s.v. ‫ ;דברה‬GKC §165b). Although I suggest that the causal analysis reflected in

294

Robert Holmstedt (b) ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר הּוא סֹוף ּכָל־ ָהא‬ ֶ ‫ׁש ֶּתה ַּבא‬ ְ ‫טֹוב ָל ֶלכֶת אֶל־ּבֵית־ ֵאבֶל ִמ ֶּלכֶת אֶל־ ֵּב֣ית ִמ‬ “It is better to walk to the house of mourning than to walk to the house of feasting, because [lit., because that] it is the end of every man.” (7:2)

In each case, one may compare the corresponding constructions with noun phrases (6) to the nominalized clauses with ‫ שׁ‬or ‫אשׁר‬‎ above in (5). (6a) ‫ֶם־ּב ֵהמָה‬ ְ ‫ׁשה‬ ְ ‫ָדם ְלבָרָם ָהאֱל ִֹהים ְו ִל ְראֹות‬ ָ ‫ַל־ּד ְברַ ת ְּבנֵי ָהא‬ ִ ‫אנִי ְּב ִל ִּבי ע‬ ֲ ‫ָאמ ְַר ִּתי‬ ‫ֵהּמָה ָלהֶם‬ “I said, I with my ‫לֵב‬, 53 concerning man, ‘God should test them and show that they are beasts, they themselves.’” (3:18) (6b) ‫ָכמָתֹו‬ ְ ‫ָעיר ְּבח‬ ִ ‫ּומּלַט־הּוא אֶת־ה‬ ִ ‫ּו ָמצָא בָּה ִאיׁש ִמ ְסּכֵן ָחכָם‬ “But he finds a poor, wise man in it, and he spares the city because of his wisdom.” (9:15) 54 The comparison between the examples given in (4) and (5) on one hand and (6) on the other illustrates that it is not the nominalizers ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬that serve a causal, result, temporal, or other sort of function. 55 Rather, the prepositions or subordinating conjunctions preceding ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬‎establish the semantic nature of the clause, while the ‫ שׁ‬or ‫ אשׁר‬properly categorizes the clausal complement of the preposition or subordinating conjunction. 56 In summary, ‫ שׁ‬operates in Qohelet no differently from ‫אשׁר‬. 57 That is, ‫ שׁ‬exhibits no unique syntactic features that would suggest a motivation for the aumy translation above makes better sense contextually (see also Schoors, Pleasing Words, 147), even if the construction did signal purpose or result, the role of the ‫ שׁ‬would not change. 53.  On the syntax and rhetorical function of the “I-and-my-‫ ”לֵב‬construction, see my article “‎‎‫אנִי ְו ִל ִּבי‬ ֲ ‎‎‎‎‎: The Syntactic Encoding.” 54.  On the causal use of ‫ב‬, see Waltke and O’Connor (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §11.2.5e). 55.  For further discussion, see my “Story of Ancient Hebrew ʾăšɛr” and “Etymologies of Hebrew ʾăšɛr and šɛC-.” Most identifications of this sort in Qohelet have arisen from a misunderstanding of the nominalizer role of ‫ שׁ‬or from the preferences of the target language in translation (literary English, for example, prefers other types of subordination to many of the nominalized constructions in Qohelet). Seow’s (Ecclesiastes, 17) position is representative of the inaccurate approach to ‫שׁ‬: “It may be observed, too, that še- is used in Ecclesiastes in a variety of ways, including as a conjunction introducing a subject of an object clause, or even a purpose clause. . . . This wide and varied use of še- is characteristic of Late Biblical Hebrew; še- is used as a relative particle in the older texts but not to introduce an object or a purpose clause.” 56.  See the appendix (p. 300) for a discussion of the few difficult occurrences of ‫ שׁ‬or ‫אשׁ‬ ‫ ר‬that do not immediately appear to fit this analysis. 57.  So also Shlesinger, “‎‫’ ו‘אשׁר’ בספר קהלת‬-‫שׁ‬.’” While many of the syntactical contexts illustrate the path by which ‫ שׁ‬came to be used in non-nominalizing subordinate contexts in the Mishnah, there are no convincing arguments for such an analysis of the vast majority of

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

295

thor’s use of it in the book. Thus, the syntactic comparison of ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬brings us no closer to determining the reason for the alternation of both in Qohelet. Thus, without a synchronic grammatical explanation, we now consider whether the explanation is diachronic, which may also allows us to contextualize properly the “marginal” examples given and discussed in (7)–(10).

A Diachronic Difference Given that the bulk of the Hebrew Bible witnesses the use of ‫ אשׁר‬to the exclusion of ‫שׁ‬, and also given that the Mishnah exhibits nearly the opposite case (the use of ‫ שׁ‬and the relegation of ‫ אשׁר‬to biblical quotations and allusions), it seems logical on the surface that the book of Qohelet represents a middle point on this continuum of language change. Similarly, the many Aramaic-like features and mishnaiclike features in the book have been adduced to support this relative placement of Qohelet. And since I have shown the grammatical, dialectal, and stylistic analyses to be inadequate, a diachronic explanation becomes the last best option. 58 It is likely that the diachronic story, if it is correct, unfolded this way: the admission of ‫ שׁ‬into the lexicon became diffuse, and at a later point another change occurred, the marginalization of ‫אשׁר‬, which also became diffuse by the compositional period of the Mishnah. The nearly equal usage of ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet indicates that the grammar of its author existed right in the middle of the diffusion of these two changes. We could include in this story the Song of Songs, the Copper Scroll, and 4QMMT as examples of the diffusion of the change whereby ‫שׁ‬ replaced ‫ אשׁר‬even before the Mishnah. This explanation would also be congruous with the data from Ben Sira, which is grammatically similar to Qohelet, in that both ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬are used freely in the same syntactical contexts, presumably preceding the stage witnessed by the texts that use only ‫שׁ‬. To make sense of this sketch, we need to recognize a few features of language change. First, it is only the formal grammar represented in the output of an individual, the I-language represented by an idiolect, that is a discrete object of scientific study. 59 From an I-language perspective, “change results when transmission is flawed with respect to some features. When transmission is not flawed (with examples in premishnaic texts. For instance, of all the occurrences of ‫שׁ‬, only two suggest that the move toward adding other subordinating functions (as in the Mishnah) had begun by the very end of the biblical period. A possible causal use of ‫ שׁ‬is Song 1:7c, ‫ֶדרֵי‬ ְ ‫ֶהיֶה ְּכע ֹ ְטיָה עַל ע‬ ְ ‫ׁשַ ָּלמָה א‬ ָ‫ח ֵברֶיך‬ ֲ , “because why should I be like (one who) wraps (herself) beside the flocks of your companions?” (see also Song 6:5). A possible result use of ‫ שׁ‬is Song 5:9, ‫ַע ָּתנּו‬ ְ ‫ׁשּב‬ ְ ‫ׁש ָּככָה ִה‬ ֶ ‫מַה־ּדֹודֵ ְך ִמּדֹוד‬, “How is your beloved (better) than (another) beloved, so that you made us swear so?” 58.  This section has been condensed from my “Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. C. L. Miller-Naudé and Z. Zevit; Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012) 97–124. 59. M. Hale, Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 21; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007) chap. 1; see also J. A. Naudé, “The Transitions of Biblical

296

Robert Holmstedt

respect to some feature), there has been no change in the strict sense.” 60 This feature, the product of imperfect transmission in the acquisition process, spreads or becomes diffuse when it is accurately acquired by another speaker. The change-and-diffusion approach has a number of implications for how we may even talk about the history of Hebrew. First, each I-language, represented by the idiolect that is itself represented in the language of the philologically reconstructed texts of the biblical books, is its own “stage,” as it were. 61 Another way to approach this same issue is to borrow and modify the dialectological dictum slightly: every change and the resulting diffusion (if it becomes diffuse) has its own history. It is unlikely that any two change-and-diffusion features will have the same origin. It is also unlikely that any two I-languages will reflect the same cluster of change-and-diffusion features, which means that the relative order of texts may vary for each feature analyzed. But no single feature set can be determinative for a relative order, since the texts (or, the I-languages represented within the texts) do not stand in a two-dimensional line; rather, since each I-language is a unique constellation of features, some will stand to the “left” or to the “right” of any twodimensional line of descent. 62 Second, it necessarily follows from the acquisition-related change-anddiffusion framework that a new form will coexist with the corresponding older form within the speech community, perhaps for many generations. 63 Indeed, this precise pattern that has been observed many times over follows a Sigmoid, or “S”shaped curve. Charles-James Bailey describes this pattern succinctly: A given change begins quite gradually; after reaching a certain point (say, twenty per cent), it picks up momentum and proceeds at a much faster rate; and finally tails off slowly before reaching completion. The result is an S-curve: the statistiHebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. I. Young; London: T. & T. Clark, 2003) 197. 60.  Hale, Historical Linguistics, 36. 61.  So also Naudé, “Transitions.” 62.  For a discussion of statistical modeling on biblical texts and grammar, see F. I. Andersen and A. D. Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (BibOr 41; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1986). 63.  A commonly cited syntactical example is the development of “do”-support in Middle English, in which “do” appears as an auxiliary verb (or better, as the finite verb carrying the bundle of inflectional features) in questions (“Do you want?”), clauses with an initial adverb (“Rarely did they want”), and other restricted environments. This development began in a restricted environment and then spread to other contexts. Moreover, non-“do”-support clauses coexisted with the newer construction for over 300 years, until finally being replaced entirely by the “do”-support construction. See D. W. Lightfoot, Principles of Diachronic Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979); A. Kroch, “Reflexes of Grammar in Patterns of Language Change,” Language Variation and Change 1 (1989) 199–244; idem, “Syntactic Change,” in The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory (ed. M. Baltin and C. Collins; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001) 699–729.

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

297

cal differences among isolects in the middle relative times of the change will be greater than the statistical differences among the early and late isolects. 64

In light of a change-and-diffusion framework and with the S-curve in mind, we see that it is absolutely normal and expected that “corresponding [Early Biblical Hebrew] and [Late Biblical Hebrew] features coexist in both Early Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew books” and that “the principal difference between EBH and LBH is the frequency of certain features.” 65 The question now becomes how we might analyze ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in light of the three features of language change that I have presented. Table 1 (p. 298) is based on the raw data provided in the first section of this essay and presents the occurrences of ‫ אשׁר‬and ‫ שׁ‬by increasing frequency of ‫שׁ‬. 66 If the order by increasing frequency of ‫ שׁ‬is on the right diachronic track, the results can then be plotted on an idealized S-curve, as in fig. 1. 67 What do we do with the information in table 1 and fig. 1? For instance, must it reflect only diachronic change? Not necessarily. One or two, or even a few cases in which a borrowed word is used for style do not undermine its overall diachronic story. Consider the use of ‫ אשׁר‬in the majority of the Qumran texts but the use of ‫ שׁ‬in the Copper Scroll (3Q15) and the Halakic Letter (4QMMT). It is reasonable, given the ancient writers’ stance toward “Scripture,” to posit that the use of ‫ אשׁר‬reflects a religiously-oriented archaizing—a very specific stylistic choice. This parallels the Mishnah’s use of ‫ אשׁר‬only in biblical quotations or allusions. In contrast, the use of ‫שׁ‬, then, in 3Q15, 4QMMT, and the Mishnah represents the “real” picture of diffusion: ‫ שׁ‬replaced ‫אשׁר‬. The same explanation can apply to books that other feature analyses suggest belong later on the scale, such as Daniel; the lack of ‫ שׁ‬in the Hebrew of Daniel does not necessarily mean that the book is early but simply that the feature had not yet become diffuse in the Hebrew author’s idiolect, 64.  C.-J. N. Bailey, Variation and Linguistic Theory (Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1973) 77; see also Kroch, “Reflexes of Grammar”; S. Pintzuk, “Variationist Approaches to Syntactic Change,” in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (ed. B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda; London: Blackwell, 2003) 509–28. 65.  Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating, 1.57 (italics theirs). It is not without irony that I quote Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd’s work, since both statements given above were intended as a criticism of the conventional model of Hebrew diachrony. The irony lies in the fact that what they give as criticism actually reflects the facts of language change! 66.  That is, the ratio of new forms to the sum of the old and new forms. Note that sound methodology does not allow any preconceived ordering of the texts used for the statistical study. In this case, the ordering by increasing frequency of ‫ שׁ‬reflects a third step in the analysis. Once the data are compiled using canonical order (for the Bible) as the default, the texts can be arranged by increasing frequency of ‫שׁ‬, by increasing frequency of ‫אשׁר‬, and by decreasing frequency of each. Then, if we take the epigraphic texts and the Mishnah as the two historicallygrounded end points, the frequency-by-‫ שׁ‬order emerges as the most likely. 67.  The books in parentheses are those for which the ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬data more likely reflect the influence of intentional stylistics; see further the subsequent discussion in the main text.

298

Robert Holmstedt Table 1.  ‫ אשׁר‬and ‫ שׁ‬in Ancient Hebrew

By Frequency Epigraphic texts Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Sam Isa Jer Ezek Hos

‫אשׁר‬ ‫שׁ‬ % (Old) (New) New 38 309 309 295 584 265 428 171 461 342 12

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Joel Amos

12 18

0 0

0 0

Obad Mic Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal Ps A (1–121, 125–28, 130–32, 134, 138–43, 145, 147–50) Prov Ruth

4 16 2 3 6 7 44 13 96

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 42

0 0

0 0

Esth

99

0

0

Dan

47

0

0

By Frequency

‫שׁ‬ % ‫( אשׁר‬New) New

Qumran Majority Sectariana Kgs Gen Chr b Ezra–Neh CD Job Judg 4Q266 11Q20 Qumran Set A (4Q385, 521, 522) Jonah Qumran Set B (4Q222, 11Q5) Ben Sira Lam Qoh 4Q448 Ps B (135, 144, 146) Song 4QMMT (394–99) Mishnah Ps C (122–24, 129, 133, 136–37)

1864 696 411 345 120 132 40 177 67 12 23

0 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 2 1 3

0 0.14 0.24 0.58 0.83 1.5 2.4 2.7 2.9 7.7 11.5

12 6

3 2

20 25

71 9 89 1 6 1 2 69 0

26 4 68 1 7 32 67 11690 14

26.8 30.8 43.3 50 53.8 97 97.1 99.4 100

3Q15 Qumran Set C (4Q302, 322, 322a, 324, 332, 333, 468l) Naḥal Ḥever (and N. Ṣeʿelim) Wadi Murabbaʿat

0 0

56 7

100 100

0

71

100

0

47

100

a.  As A. Jones (“The Relative Clause in Ancient Hebrew Texts: A Quantitative and Comparative Analysis” [unpublished ms, 2010] 5) points out, “[I]n order for groups of texts to be useful in statistical analysis as a random sample, it is not permitted to organize the groups ahead of time to match the conclusions being sought by the research. Any groups of texts need to be formed for reasons independent of the distribution of the grammatical forms at hand, such as dating that is based on historical considerations.” b.  The frequency in the table is for all of Chronicles. However, if only nonparallel passages are considered, there are only 36 case of ‫ אשׁר‬in the same passages, for a 5% frequency of ‫שׁ‬. For an argument against the validity of taking the nonparallel passages as indicative of the Chronicler’s language (versus the language of the Samuel–Kings source), see Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (Linguistic Dating, 2.78–79).

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

299

Figure 1.  The Diffusion of ‫ שׁ‬on an Idealized S-Curve. or the author was intentionally mimicking the “scriptural” use of ‫אשׁר‬, just as in the majority of the Qumran texts. In addition to stylistic archaizing, there also appear to be examples of ‫ שׁ‬used as a literary device to portray a character as “non-Hebrew.” Note the isolated example in 2 Kgs 6:11, the three examples in Jonah, and possibly the five examples in Judges. 68 If this analysis is accurate, it implies first that ‫ שׁ‬was perceived by the author and intended audience as “foreign” (though intelligible) and second that, as a borrowing for a literary need, these examples may have contributed to the actuation of change and diffusion but do not represent the process of diffusion itself. Thus, they do not sit on the S-curve of change in the position that corresponds to the frequency of the new item. In fact, it is my view that ‫ שׁ‬more likely reflects the borrowing (followed by the change-and-diffusion) of ša from Late Babylonian by the exilic population than it reflects use of earlier Akkadian through northern Canaanite. This, of course, fits a primarily diachronic explanation for the ‫ שׁ‬and ‫אשׁר‬ variation in both Qohelet specifically and the Hebrew Bible as a whole. 69 68. See my “Issues in the Linguistic Analysis of a Dead Language, with Particular Reference to Ancient Hebrew,” JHS 6 (2006) 16–17, http://www.jhsonline.org; see also Young, “The ‘Northernisms.’” In 2 Kgs 6, ‫ שׁ‬is placed in the mouth of an Aramean king, even though ‫ שׁ‬is not used in Aramaic. In Jonah, ‫ שׁ‬is placed once in the mouth of the sailors; this establishes in the narrative world that ‫ שׁ‬is non-Israelite speech. The fact that God uses ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשר‬in proximity at the end of the book may be a clever linguistic cue regarding one of the author’s theological points: that Yhwh is the God of non-Israelites as well as Israelites. 69.  D. C. Fredericks (Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date [ANETS 3; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988] 147) adamantly opposes placing Qohelet’s language midway

300

Robert Holmstedt

Conclusion After considering the various ways to analyze the ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬data—dialectal, stylistic, grammatical, and diachronic, I conclude that the likeliest reading of the data is primarily diachronic, although I also acknowledge the probable place of dialect and style (all of which reflect the complexity of real language). To summarize, the rarity of ‫ שׁ‬in early texts (for example, Judg 5:7, 6:17, 7:12, 8:26; 2 Kgs 6:11; Jonah 1:7, 12; 4:10) reflects a literary strategy of borrowing an intelligible form from a close dialect (for example, northern Hebrew) in order to color characters’ speech; later examples (that is, Gen 6:3; Job 19:29; Lam 2:15, 16; 4:9; 5:18; Ezra 8:20; 1 Chr 5:20; 27:27, and its appearances in Qohelet and the Song of Songs as well as in Ben Sira and 3Q15, 4QMMT, and the Mishnah) reflect a change-anddiffusion process in the exilic or postexilic period.

Appendix: Difficult ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬Clauses in Qohelet The standard lexicons and reference grammars list only 12 examples of ‫( שׁ‬out of 139 total) and 59 examples of ‫( אשׁר‬out of 5,495 total) introducing causal, purpose, result, conditional, comparative, or temporal clauses. 70 Table 2 provides a quick reference to the most commonly used grammars. However, I have previously argued that analyses of this sort are flawed— that is, that ‫ אשׁר‬in particular (but also ‫ )שׁ‬was not used as anything more than a nominalizer—as I have also argued in this essay. 71 The examples of ‫ שׁ‬and ‫אשׁר‬ in Qohelet present the greatest challenges to the legitimacy of this position for all stages of Biblical Hebrew. In other words, although ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬may have been only nominalizers in the majority of the biblical books, it is possible that in Qohelet and the Song of Songs (as well as Ben Sira) through the process of reanalysis the two nominalizers took on broader subordinating functions that were retained in later Hebrew (for example, Rabbinic Hebrew). In this appendix, I discuss a number of challenging ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬examples in Qohelet and offer what I consider (in light of my analysis of ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬as being nominalizers) to be the most linguistically and exegetically likely analyses.

between Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew due the mixed use of ‫ שׁ‬and ‫אשׁר‬‎in Qohelet. Although his study focuses on methodology, it does not reflect the statistically based historical linguistic analysis that I have presented above. 70. For ‫שׁ‬, see Judg 5:7 (2×), 6:17; Jonah 4:10; Song 1:6 (2×), 5:2; Qoh 2:16, 18; 3:14; 8:17; 10:16. For ‫אשׁר‬, see table 2. 71. See my “Story of Ancient Hebrew ʾăšɛr”; idem, The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 2002).

The Grammar  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

301

Table 2.  Non-nominalizing Analyses of ‫ אשׁר‬and ‫ שׁ‬in Recent Grammars

Causala Conditional

b

Comparative

c

GKC 1910

Waltke and O’Connor 1990

van der Merwe, Naudé, Joüon and and Kroeze 1999 Muraoka 2006

§158b

§38.4

§40.6.5

§170e

§159cc

§38.2

§40.6.7

§167j

§161b

§174f

Temporal

§164d

§19.4 (esp. n. 14)

Purposed

§165b

§38.3

§40.6.4

§168f

Result

§166b

§38.3

§40.6.3

§169f

e

a.  For supposed causal ‫אשׁר‬, see Gen 30:18; 31:49; 34:13, 27; 42:21; Num 20:13; Deut 3:24; Josh 4:7, 23; 22:31; Judg 9:17; 1 Sam 2:23; 15:15; 20:42; 25:16, 23; 2 Sam 2:5; 1 Kgs 15:5; 2 Kgs 12:3, 17:4, 23:26; Jer 16:13; Job 34:27; Qoh 8:11, 12; Dan 1:10. b.  For supposed conditional ‫אשׁר‬, see Lev 25:33; Num 5:29; Deut 11:26–28, 18:22; Josh 4:21; 1 Sam 16:7; 1 Kgs 8:31, 33; Isa 31:4. c.  For supposed comparative ‫אשׁר‬, see Exod 10:6, 14:13, 34:18; Isa 7:17. d.  For supposed purpose ‫אשׁר‬, see Gen 11:7, 24:3; Exod 20:26; Deut 4:40, 6:3 (2×), 32:46; Josh 3:7; 1 Kgs 22:16; Neh 8:14. e.  For supposed result ‫אשׁר‬, see Gen 22:14; Deut 28:27, 35, 51; 1 Kgs 3:8, 12, 13; 2 Kgs 9:37; Mal 3:19.

For Qoh 2:18 (A1), many commentators simply translate or assert without discussion that the ‫ שׁ‬in ‫ שׁאניחנו‬is causal. 72 (A1) ‫ִהיֶה‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ׁש ַאּנִיחֶּנּו ָלא‬ ֶ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫אנִי ָעמֵל ּתַ חַת ה‬ ֲ ‫ׁש‬ ֶ ‫ָלי‬ ִ ‫אנִי אֶת־ּכָל־עֲמ‬ ֲ ‫ֵאתי‬ ִ ‫ׂשנ‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ ‫ַאחֲרָי‬ “I hate, I, all my acquisition(s) that I exerted myself for under the sun, which I shall leave it to the man who comes after me.” (2:18) Schoors at least tries to provide a logical reason for the causal instead of relative analysis: “[T]he absence of a connecting waw before ‫ שׁאניחנו‬renders [the relative analysis] quite improbable.” 73 However, this is not a compelling reason for a non-relative analysis. I take it as a second, stacked, relative clause modifying the 72.  Whitley, Koheleth, 26; Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 24; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 136; Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 102; Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 185. F. Delitzsch (Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament: Hoheslied und Koheleth [Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1875] 253) seems to take it as a purpose clause. 73.  Schoors, Pleasing Words, 140.

302

Robert Holmstedt

head NP ‫ ;עמלי‬in contrast to the first (restrictive) relative, the second relative is non­restrictive. Within the relative, the clitic object pronoun ‫ נו‬attached to the verb ‫ אניח‬resumes the relative head and is present to disambiguate the intended relative head: the head is ‫עמל‬, not the closer candidate, ‫שׁמשׁ‬. That is, although the noun ‫ שׁמשׁ‬is masculine in 1:5, it is feminine in 12:2, and, given the gender ambiguity of ‫שׁמשׁ‬, here (in 2:18) the third masculine-singular pronoun would more strongly point to the further ‫עמל‬. On ‫ מבלי אשׁר‬in 3:11, see above, example (4b), and the discussion in n. 48. For 3:14 (A2), Whitley asserts simply that ‫ שׁ‬can introduce a purpose clause and does so here in this verse. 74 (A2) ‫ׁשּי ְִראּו ִמ ְּל ָפנָיו‬ ֶ ‫ָׂשה‬ ָ ‫ְ‏ו ָהאֱל ִֹהים ע‬ “God did (this); who [they] should fear him.” (3:14) Fox interprets and explains the construction similarly: “God intends for people to fear him (thus še- introduces a purpose clause), but he does not impose that fear. By enforcing human ignorance and helplessness, God occasions fear but does not directly cause or ‘make’ it.” 75 There are three legitimate grammatical options. First, the relative clause may be extraposed—that is, moved from its normal position following its head, ‫ האלהים‬in this case—to a lower position, after the verb ‫ עשׂה‬in this case. Relative clause extraposition is common when the relative clause is “heavier” than the remainder of the clause (that is, the single word ‫ עשׂה‬here). As such, it is related to the well-known phenomenon “heavy noun phrase shift.” 76 If we move it back to its original place, we can see the good sense of the construction: ‫האלהים‬ ‫שׁיראו מלפניו עשׂה‬, “God, whom they fear, did (it).” The second option is to take the ‫ שׁ‬clause as an overtly-headed relative clause that is an appositive to ‫( האלהים‬similar to the first explanation: the appositive placed after the verb reflects a heavy noun phrase shift). A literal gloss reflecting this syntactic analysis is “God did it, (he) whom they fear.” The first and second analyses, although syntactically distinct, do not differ much from each other in meaning but provide a very different meaning for the clause in the verse. In the relative analysis, one cannot infer that God intends that people fear him; rather, they simply do. That is, the relative clause is descriptive of the situation but says nothing about God’s character or plans. However, the third grammatical option for the clause includes intentionality: the ‫ שׁ‬is a nominalizer for ‫למען‬, which has been omitted. The result is an under74.  Presumably following GKC §165b. Whitley, Koheleth, 34, followed by Schoors, Pleasing Words, 143; so also Delitzsch, Hoheslied und Koheleth, 265–66; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 165; Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 113. 75.  Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 213 (italics original). 76.  For a discussion of extraposed ‫ אשׁר‬relatives, see my “Headlessness and Extraposition: Another Look at the Syntax of ‫אשר‬,” JNSL 27 (2001) 1–16.

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

303

stood purpose, “(for the purpose) that. . . .” In this analysis, the ‫ שׁ‬is technically still a nominalizer, but one can see how ‫ שׁ‬might have been reanalyzed in cases of abbreviation like this so that, by the time of Mishnaic Hebrew, it seems to have introduced just about any subordinate clause. If this third option is at all correct, it must be the path by which ‫ שׁ‬and also just a few cases of ‫( אשׁר‬for example, Deut 4:40, Qoh 7:21) came to be associated (by ancient speakers as well as modern grammarians) with causal, purpose, result, or temporal meanings. (For further discussion, see below on 7:21.) In 4:9 (A3), the causal analysis and translation of the ‫ אשׁר‬flows from the logic of the statement: it makes good sense that “the second half of the verse gives the reason for the idea expressed in the first half.” 77 (A3) ‫ׂשכָר טֹוב ַּבעֲ ָמלָם‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר י ֵׁש־ ָלהֶם‬ ֶ ‫ַּׁשנַיִם ִמן־ ָה ֶאחָד א‬ ְ ‫טֹובים ה‬ ִ ‫‏‬ “Two are better than one, who have a good wage in exchange for their toil.” (4:9) ‎

However, there is no reason for a relative analysis not to work equally well. The key is recognizing the phenomenon of relative clause extraposition (see above, in the discussion of 3:14). Here in 4:9, the relative head is ‫ השׁנים‬and the relative clause has been moved lower than the comparative prepositional phrase. In this way, instead of providing an explicit reason motivating the preceding comparison, the ‫ אשׁר‬clause describes the salient quality of ‫ השׁנים‬for the purpose of the comparison. The logical difference between the two analyses is negligible, although the relative analysis is grammatically preferable due to the principle of parsimony (that is, ‫ אשׁר‬is clearly associated with relative clauses). This same methodology also applies to 5:15b (‫ׁשּיַעֲמֹל לָרּוחַ י‬ ֶ ‫ִתרֹון לֹו‬ ְ ‫ּומַה־ּי‬, “what is profit to him who exerts himself for wind?”) and 10:15 (‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ילים ְּתי ַ ְּגעֶּנּו א‬ ִ ‫עֲמַל ה ְַּכ ִס‬ ‫ֶל־עיר‬ ִ ‫לֹא־יָדַ ע ָל ֶלכֶת א‬, “the toil of fools tires him, who does not even know the way to town!”) 78 In both cases, a causal analysis is taken by many scholars due to the logical relationship of the propositions in both halves. However, the descriptive nature of the relative clause in each can be understood to imply that the activity in 5:15 and state of knowledge in 10:15 contribute—causally—to the proposition in the main clause. 79 The ‫ אשׁר‬clauses in 6:12 (A4) and 8:13 (A5) present two of the more difficult occurrences in Qohelet. 77.  Schoors, Pleasing Words, 140; so also Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 41; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 182; Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 141; Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 222. 78.  So also Delitzsch, Hoheslied und Koheleth, 372; D. Michel, Qohelet (EdF 258; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988), 244; Schoors, Pleasing Words, 74. 79.  For other examples of a relative clause modifying a clitic pronoun, as in 10:15, see my Relative Clause, 67.

304

Robert Holmstedt (A4)

‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ֶבלֹו ְויַעֲׂשֵ ם ַּכּצֵל א‬ ְ ‫ָדם ַּב ַחּיִים ִמ ְסּפַר ְימֵי־ ַחּיֵי ה‬ ָ ‫ִּכי ִמי־יֹודֵ ַע מַה־ּטֹוב ָלא‬ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ֲריו ּתַ חַת ה‬ ָ ‫ִהיֶה ַאח‬ ְ ‫ָדם מַה־ּי‬ ָ ‫ִמי־י ִַּגיד ָלא‬ “Because who knows what is good for man in life (during) the number of the days of his absurd life (and he spends like a shadow)? Because who can tell man what will be after him under the sun?” (6:12)

ְ ‫ֲר‬ (A5) ‫ֲׁשר אֵינֶּנּו יָרֵא ִמ ִּל ְפנֵי אֱל ִֹהים‬ ֶ ‫ָמים ַּכּצֵל א‬ ִ ‫יך י‬ ָ ‫ִהיֶה לָר‬ ְ ‫ְוטֹוב לֹא־י‬ ִ‫ָׁשע ְולֹא־יַא‬ “And wellness will not belong to the wicked person, and he will not lengthen days as (in) a shadow—(he) who does not have fear before God!” (8:13) Fox takes ‫ ויעשׂם כצל‬in (A4), the two words preceding the ‫אשׁר‬, as a parenthesis, “(which he passes like a shadow)” and then asserts that the ‫“ אשׁר‬motivates the negation implicit in the rhetorical question of v. 12aα”; 80 thus, the ‫ אשׁר‬clause is a causal/motive clause, “for who can tell . . . ?” He does not discuss the construction in 8:13 but translates it “because he does not fear God.” 81 Schoors simply asserts that the ‫ אשׁר‬in 8:13 is causal and then uses it to support a causal analysis of the ‫ אשׁר‬clause in 8:12 but does not explain his causal analysis of v. 13. 82 Although Seow acknowledges that the function of ‫ אשׁר‬in 6:12 is unclear, he suggests that it functions like the ‫ כי‬at the beginning of v. 12, “for who knows.” 83 Murphy translates the construction as causal (“for who can tell . . . ?” and Longman translates “so who can tell . . . ?”; neither discusses the construction). 84 Schoors is also tentative: “The ‫ אשׁר‬of Qoh 6,12 seems to have causal force: ‘for who can tell man what will be after him under the sun?’ (rsv).” 85 But, following Lauha, he allows that it may also be a result clause, which “gives good sense to the verse” and is favored because “the verse already opens with a causal clause, introduced by ‫כי‬‎.” 86 Clearly both verses give scholars trouble. Michael Wise submits an innovative proposal based on the bilingualism of Hellenistic Judea. 87 He argues the ‫ כצל‬in 6:12 (A4) and 8:13 (A5; and also in 7:14, although there is no ‫ אשׁר‬in that occurence) is a calque on Aramaic ‫בטלל‬, which, unlike the Hebrew phrase, went through a series of semantic shifts: “in the shadow (of)” > “with the help (of)” > ‘because (of).” For 6:12 and 8:13, Wise suggests that the calque is of ‫ בטלל זי‬and means “because, for.” He divides the 80.  Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 248. 81.  Ibid., 282; so also Seow, Ecclesiastes, 276; Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 217. 82.  Schoors, Pleasing Words, 141. 83.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 234. 84.  Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 57; Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 176. 85.  Schoors, Pleasing Words, 142; see also Delitzsch, Hoheslied und Koheleth, 308. 86.  Ibid., 142. 87.  M. O. Wise, “A Calque from Aramaic in Qoheleth 6:12; 7:12; and 8:13,” JBL 109 (1990) 249–57.

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

305

verse against the ‫( טעמים‬note the ‫ א ְַתנ ְַח ָתא‬on ‫ )כצל‬and translates the clause beginning with ‫כצל‬, “For who is able to tell a man what will happen under the sun after him?” 88 Although Schoors does not refer to Wise’s argument, he does interact with Ginsburg’s similar proposal, that ‫ כצל אשׁר‬is a translation of Aramaic ‫כטל‬ ‫די‬. Although a translational understanding (Ginsburg) is different from a calque proposal (Wise), Schoors’s conclusion remains valid: “[T]his explanation is tainted with too many suppositions,” and “there is no reason to abandon the traditional understanding of ‫ כצל‬as ‘like a shadow.’” 89 Note also the criticism leveled by Longman, who argues that Wise “appears to misunderstand this verse as applying to the wicked in contrast to the righteous and also the force of the image, leading to his assertion of an Aramaic calque.” 90 Although a relative analysis of 8:13, illustrated by my translation in (A5), is acceptable, 91 the ‫ אשׁר‬in 6:12 remains problematic: Michel’s explicative “i.e.,” notwithstanding, this ‫ אשׁר‬seems to be causal. 92 As I suggested in my comments above on 3:14, it is possible if not likely that ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬were moving along the grammaticalization path toward becoming less-restricted function words—that is, moregeneral subordinators. This shift may have begun taking place in the postexilic period but was not finished until the early rabbinic period, as witnessed by the Hebrew of the Mishnah. For ‫אשׁר‬, the process was interrupted by the fact that this word was replaced by ‫ ;שׁ‬thus, while there are a few arguable cases in the Hebrew Bible and a few more among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the use of ‫ אשׁר‬in the Mishnah, in biblical quotes and allusions, is restricted to relative clauses. 93 The relative ‫שׁ‬, in contrast, continued in the grammaticalization process and is used in a variety of subordinating contexts in the Mishnah that are unattested in earlier texts. For ‫אשׁר‬, the example in 7:21 (A6) illustrates the means by which the grammaticalization process probably worked. (A6) ָ‫ׁשמַע אֶת־ע ְַב ְּדךָ ְמקַ ְללֶך‬ ְ ‫א־ת‬ ִ ֹ ‫ֲׁשר ל‬ ֶ ‫ַל־ּתּתֵ ן ִלּבֶךָ א‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר יְדַ ּבֵרּו א‬ ֶ ‫ָרים א‬ ִ‫ּגַם ְלכָל־ה ְַּדב‬ “Indeed, don’t pay attention to any of the words that they speak, (in order) that you don’t hear your servant cursing you.” (7:21) Like the three other “purpose” cases (Gen 11:7; Deut 4:40, 6:3), the one “conditional” case (Deut 11:27), and the one “temporal” case (Neh 2:3), the example in 7:21 reflects the nominalizer role of ‫ אשׁר‬with a crucial twist: the actual subordinator is missing. That is, the function word or phrase that establishes the semantics of the subordinate clause, such as ‫ למען‬or ‫יום‬, has been omitted. To understand 88.  Ibid., 257. 89.  Schoors, Pleasing Words, 148. 90.  Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 178, n. 10. 91.  See also Delitzsch, Hoheslied und Koheleth, 342; Michel, Qohelet, 223. 92.  Ibid., 224. 93. See my “Story of Ancient Hebrew ʾăšɛr.”

306

Robert Holmstedt

this proposal, it is first necessary to compare the ‫ למען‬+ infinitive construct with ‫ למען אשׁר‬+ yiqtol (see Gen 18:19, Deut 20:18, 2 Sam 13:5, Jer 42:6). The difference is that the infinitive clause is already categorized so that it may fill a nominal slot; in contrast, a verbal clause (for example, a yiqtol clause) must be nominalized by the ‫אשׁר‬. However, the nominalizer ‫ אשׁר‬need not be overt, since we have examples with just ‫ למען‬+ yiqtol. Similarly, in Gen 11:7; Deut 4:40, 6:3; and Qoh 7:21, the nominalizer is overt, but the initial subordinator is missing. For any learners who acquired this covert subordinator/overt nominalizer pattern, the next step of reanalysis would have been natural: ‫ אשׁר‬itself would have been understood as the semantically determinative subordinator. 94 The two ‫ אשׁר‬clauses that begin 8:11 (A7) and 8:12 (A8) have been analyzed in quite a number of ways. (A7)

‫ָדם ָּבהֶם‬ ָ ‫ָרעָה ְמהֵרָה עַל־ּכֵן ָמלֵא לֵב ְּבנֵי־ ָהא‬ ָ ‫ֲׂשה ִפ ְתגָם ַמעֲׂשֵ ה ה‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר אֵין־נַע‬ ֶ ‫‏א‬ ‫ַלעֲׂשֹות רָע‬ “. . . that a decision is not made quickly (regarding) the deed of evil; therefore, the mind of humans is full of them to do evil.” (8:11) ‎

ְ ‫ֲר‬ ‫ִהיֶה־ּטֹוב ְלי ְִראֵי‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר י‬ ֶ ‫יך לֹו ִּכי ּגַם־יֹודֵ ַע ָאנִי א‬ ֶֹ ‫ֲׁשר חֹטֶא ע‬ ֶ‫א‬ ִ‫ׂשה רָע ְמאַת ּו ַמא‬ ‫ִיראּו ִמ ְּל ָפנָיו‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר י‬ ֶ ‫ָהאֱל ִֹהים א‬ “. . . that a sinner does evil a hundred times and prolongs himself. Yet I also know that it will be well for those who fear God— of whom they should be afraid!” (8:12)

(A8)

Schoors argues that both cases are causal. 95 Seow takes the ‫ אשׁר‬in v. 11 as causal but the ‫ אשׁר‬beginning v. 12 as a covertly-headed relative, “one who errs.” 96 Although Fox seems to take the second ‫אשׁר‬, beginning v. 12, as causal (he translates “For an offender . . .”), he analyzes the first ‫ אשׁר‬quite differently: “ʾAsher here is best translated ‘namely,’ ‘the fact that,’ or represented by a colon. Syntactically, it is a noun-equivalent . . . in apposition to a preceding substantive (in this case, hebel).” 97 Of all the proposals, I think only Fox is correct and he only partly so. Schoors correctly points out that ‫“ גם זה הבל‬never introduces a statement but concludes it,” and the ‫ גם זה הבל‬of 8:10 is no exception—it concludes the observation made 94.  Whitley (Koheleth, 68) translates the ‫ אשׁר לא‬as “lest” and compares it with Gen 11:7; so also Delitzsch, Hoheslied und Koheleth, 323; Schoors, Pleasing Words, 143; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 258; Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 193; contra Michel, Qohelet, 240. 95.  Schoors, Pleasing Words, 140–41; following Delitzsch, Hoheslied und Koheleth, 340– 41; so also Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 79–81; Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 216–17. 96.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 276, 287. 97.  Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 285; see p. 282 for his translation.

The Grammar of  ‫ שׁ‬and ‫ אשׁר‬in Qohelet

307

in that verse. 98 However, this does not mean that ‫ זה‬may not be further modified by an appositional clause, as Fox essentially suggests (although he is wrong to connect the apposition to ‫ הבל‬rather than ‫)זה‬. Additional examples of ‫ אשׁר‬clauses in apposition to ‫ זה‬appear in 7:29 and 9:1. In each case, the appositional clause provides an additional example (related, of course, to the initial example in each context) of what is ‫הבל‬. This analysis does not fit only 8:11, however, but also 8:12: both ‫ אשׁר‬clauses provide additional ‫ הבל‬examples related to what was described in 8:10. Finally, the odd sequence ‫ בשׁל אשׁר‬in 8:17 (A9) is probably a legitimate calque on a late Aramaic phrase, ‫בדיל ד‬. (A9)  ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה א‬ ֶ ‫ָדם ִל ְמצֹוא אֶת־ ַה ַּמע‬ ָ ‫יתי אֶת־ּכָל־ ַמעֲׂשֵ ה ָהאֱל ִֹהים ִּכי לֹא יּוכַל ָהא‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫ְור‬ ‫ִמצָא ְוגַם ִאם־יֹאמַר‬ ְ ‫ָדם ְל ַבּקֵׁש ְולֹא י‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר יַעֲמֹל ָהא‬ ֶ ‫ׁשל א‬ ֶ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש ְּב‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה תַ חַת־ה‬ ָ ‫נַע‬ ‫ֶה ָחכָם לָדַ עַת לֹא יּוכַל ִל ְמצֹא‬ “I saw the whole work of God, that man is not able to “find out” the deed that happens under the sun, in order that man toils to seek but does not find. Even if the wise man intended to understand, he could not ‘find (it) out.’” (8:17) Whitley notes the similarity of ‫ בשׁל אשׁר‬in 8:17 to ‫“ בשׁלמי‬on account of who” and ‫“ בשׁלי‬on account of me” in Jonah 1:7 and 12. 99 Schoors notes that ‫ בשׁל שׁ‬occurs in the Qumran text 4QMMT (4Q394 frags. 3–7 i 15, 19; 4Q397 frag. 23:2; 4Q398 frags. 14–17 ii 6) and once in a Bar Kokhba letter (Mur 46.7), and he suggests the translation “so that.” 100 Seow notes that “the expression corresponds to Targumic Aramaic bdyl d, which is used to translate Hebrew lmʿn ‘so that’ or ‘in order that.’” 101 Fox asserts that the final/result meaning does not fit this context and that ‫בדיל ד‬ can also indicate cause, 102 which he takes as the appropriate nuance here in 8:17 as well. 103 Note Longman’s translation, which nicely illustrates how the ‫ ד‬and ‫ אשׁר‬are nominalizers: “on account of which he toils.” 104 98.  Schoors, Pleasing Words, 141. 99.  Whitley, Koheleth, 77. 100.  Schoors, Pleasing Words, 146. 101.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 290; see also Delitzsch, Hoheslied und Koheleth, 345. 102.  Jastrow, Dictionary, 140. 103.  Fox, A Time to Tear Down, 289. 104.  Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 222; also Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 81; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 289.

The Verb in Qohelet John A. Cook Asbury Theological Seminary The language of the book of Qohelet has long attracted attention, not only because of its philological significance for dating the book but because of the insights it potentially affords into the linguistic development of ancient Hebrew. As with most languages, the verbal system is a central and ubiquitous feature of the grammar of ancient Hebrew. In many respects, the verb in Qohelet is unremarkable in comparison with other portions of the Hebrew Bible: about 200 verbs occur a total of some 700 times in Qohelet, which is consistent with the density of verbs in the other books of the Hebrew Bible; 1 these verbs consist of 526 Qal, 55 each of Piel and Hiphil, 4 Niphal, 8 Pual, 5 Hithpael, and 1 each of Pilpel, Poel, Poal, and Hithpolel, which is also in keeping with the pattern in other biblical writings. By contrast, most of the scholarly interest in the verb in Qohelet has centered on the distribution of verbal conjugations: 222 Imperfects (yiqtols), 206 Perfects (qatals), 117 Active Participles and 10 Passive Participles, 29 Imperatives, 3 Past Narratives (wayyiqtols), and 110 Infinitives Construct and 4 Infinitives Absolute. 2 Most striking in this list are the 3 Past Narratives, compared with the form’s preponderance in most other biblical books, and the relative frequency of the Active Participle, which accounts for about twice the percentage of conjugations in Qohelet as it does in Genesis–Kings. The question that confronts every analysis of the verb in Qohelet, given these statistics, is to what extent these particular data should be attributed to changes in the verbal system (that is, Qohelet was late, and the Past Narrative was falling into disuse, while the Participle was becoming more prominent) versus attributing them to the genre and literary peculiarities of Qohelet (that is, non-narrative wisdom/philosophical treatise). 1.  Approximate numbers are given due to some textual questions that affect the final tally. 2.  I am using capitalized traditional terminology for the verbal conjugations (for example, Perfect, Imperfect, Imperative, Jussive, and Participle). I depart from the traditional nomenclature only with respect to the consecutive forms (that is, Past Narrative for Waw-Consecutive Imperfect, Irrealis Perfect for Waw-Consecutive Perfect), since these terms reflect a significant misunderstanding of the TAM of these forms (J. A. Cook, “The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of Wayyiqtol and Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” JSS 49 [2004] 247–73). These statistics are based on the Westminster tagged text; the statistics are altered somewhat by textual judgments that I make in the course of my investigation (below).

309

310

John A. Cook

The main focus of this essay is to describe the tense-aspect-mood (TAM) system in Qohelet. My approach is to examine the various conjugations and their interrelationships in Qohelet in light of the TAM patterns found throughout the Hebrew Bible, noting consistencies and divergences. This descriptive task provides the basis for drawing conclusions regarding the place of the TAM in Qohelet in the development of the ancient Hebrew verbal system. I proceed by outlining my theory of the TAM in Biblical Hebrew and then examining the TAM system of Qohelet in several sections: the Past Narrative and Perfect and the autobiographical foreground; the Participle and Imperfect; the Directive-volitive (that is, Imperative, Jussive, and Cohortative) forms; and the infinitive forms. The final section fleshes out the linguistic conclusions arising from the preceding description of the TAM in Qohelet.

A Sketch of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System The following sketch of the Biblical Hebrew TAM system is the basis of my analysis of the verb in Qohelet. 3 TAM distinctions in Biblical Hebrew are indicated primarily by the verbal conjugations; however, word order is also relevant to mood distinctions, reinforcing the morphological distinction of modality in some cases and disambiguating mood distinctions within a single conjugation in other cases. The two most frequently occurring verbal conjugations, the Perfect and Imperfect, form a perfective-imperfective aspectual distinction. The semantic identification of this pair is based on comparison with the perfective-imperfective opposition throughout the world’s languages, in which it constitutes the most common type of verbal system according to the studies by Bybee and Dahl: 4 the perfective member of the opposition is largely confined to past-time expressions—either (absolute) perfective or (relative) perfect or anterior—whereas the “unmarked” imperfective member may express imperfective events in the past as well as general non-past events. 5 The next most frequent conjugation in Biblical Hebrew is the literary Past Narrative form (the so-called waw-consecutive imperfect), which predominates in the extensive narrative material in the Bible and 3.  For further details, see especially my Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2012); see also idem, “Hebrew Verb: A Grammaticalization Approach,” ZAH 14 (2001) 117–43; idem, “The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics”; idem, “The Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Do Express Aspect,” JANES 30 (2006) 21–35; idem, “The Participle and Stative in Typological Perspective,” JNSL 34 (2008) 1–19. 4.  J. L. Bybee and Ö. Dahl, “The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World,” Studies in Language 13 (1989) 83; see discussion in my Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb, 199–201. 5. J. Bybee, R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca (The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994] 126) argue that an imperfective in a non-past temporal sphere is identical with present tense.

The Verb in Qohelet

311

is found much less frequently in the poetic portions. This narrative form occurs with a distinctive waw-conjunction (with following gemination) prefixed to it. The conjugation always appears in verb-subject word order through a syntactic triggering that is probably associated with the peculiar conjunction and analogous to triggered inversion of word order found after most of the clausal function words in Biblical Hebrew (for example, ‫ למען‬,‫ אׁשר‬,‫כי‬, etc.). 6 The Participle in Biblical Hebrew is an adjective that encodes event predicates. 7 Thus, it is partially marked for verbal distinctions (that is, it distinguishes binyanim), but it uses nominal agreement markers of gender and number (that is, it lacks person agreement). Thus, when used predicatively, the Participle is always “supported” by a copula, though it is rarely overt because Biblical Hebrew allows null copula strategies. 8 This predicative Participle construction (that is, a copular predicate complement) expresses progressive aspect in the past, present, or future—the latter mainly in the sense of expected future (for example, “I am giving you this land” = “I am going to give you this land”). Finally, there is a morphologically distinct Directive-volitive modal system consisting of an Imperative form and a Jussive (including Cohortative) system: the Imperative is restricted to second-person positive directives, whereas the Jussive system appears in all three persons and complements the positive Imperative by encoding negative directives with the distinct “directive” negative word ‫אל‬. 9 In addition to these morphological and morphosyntactic TAM distinctions, Biblical Hebrew has a Realis : Irrealis syntactic mood distinction: Realis (or Indicative) expressions are subject-verb word order, whereas Irrealis expressions are verb-subject word order. 10 This Irrealis word order applies not only to the (Irrealis) Directive-volitive modal system but to the two most frequent conjugations, the Perfect and Imperfect: as Realis-mood forms expressing perfective and imperfective aspect, respectively, they have subject-verb word order; however, when they express Irrealis mood, they appear in verb-subject word order. The Irrealis Perfect (which encompasses the traditional category of the waw-consecutive Perfect 6.  See R. D. Holmstedt, “Word Order and Information Structure in Ruth and Jonah,” JSS 59 (2009) 124–25. 7.  For a detailed argument see my “Participle and Stative.” 8.  See ibid., 15 n. 23. 9.  The category of Cohortative is of questionable value: it complements the second- and third-person Jussive forms as a first-person jussive; the “distinctive” ‫ה‬-suffix is of dubious “volitive” significance and admits to other explanations that better unite its diverse use, including on about 100 nonvolitive Past Narrative forms and its “conventionalization” on all first-person forms in post-BH (see discussion in my Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb, 238–41). 10.  Although the Realis : Irrealis distinction is typologically equivalent to Indicative : Subordinate, the former terminology has the advantage of being clearly technical terms and avoids possible confusion with traditional grammatical categories of Indicative and Subjunctive mood. So F. R. Palmer, Mood and Modality (2nd ed.; Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) 4).

312

John A. Cook

plus other uses, such as following ‫ אם‬or ‫ כי‬in conditional protases), and Irrealis Imperfect forms are predominantly subordinate (subjunctive) mood forms. However, the Irrealis Perfect also frequently expresses past habitual and procedural directives (for example, do this, then do this, etc.), while the Irrealis Imperfect expresses categorical prohibitions in contrast to the immediacy of the negativeJussive prohibitions. The above sketch is an adequate description of the TAM system of Biblical Hebrew; however, it is inadequate as an explanation of the system, because it does not account for the overlaps of meaning and function among the forms. The only way to achieve this sort of explanation is to turn to evidence outside the language system itself, such as typological and diachronic data. 11 Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca have posited two paths of development exhibited among the world’s TAM systems, one associated with perfective/past conjugations and another associated with progressive/imperfective forms. 12 (1) (a)  resultative (“be”/“have”)    completive (“finish”)

perfect (anterior) → perfective/past

(b) progressive       imperfective Given these two paths of development, we may reasonably hypothesize that the Past Narrative and Perfect forms in Biblical Hebrew belong to the first (1a), and the Imperfect and predicatively used Participle belong to the second (1b). The suitability of these two hypotheses is rooted in a number of pieces of evidence. For the Past Narrative and Perfect, there are the following considerations. First, the interaction of these forms with stative verbs seems to confirm the past tense versus perfective aspect identification of the forms on the path of development. 13 Second, the expression of both perfect (anterior) and perfective aspects by the Perfect conjugation may be explained by the adherence of the older anterior meaning beyond the development of a new perfective meaning. 14 Third, the restriction of the Perfect largely to past-time expressions (exceptions are the instantaneous 11.  See M. Haspelmath, “Does Linguistic Explanation Presuppose Linguistic Description?” Studies in Language 28 (2004) 574. 12.  Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar, 105, 127. 13.  Namely, the Past Narrative yields only past-time expressions’ stative verbs, whereas the Perfect can express either past or non-past temporal expressions (for example, ‫“ ַוּיֵדַ ע‬He knew/ came to know” versus ‫“ יָדַ ע‬He knows/he knew”; see discussion in my Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb, 194–99). This difference is a key behavioral distinction between past tense and perfective aspect verbs according to Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar, 92. 14.  On the development of multiple meanings in this way, see discussion of English wolde/ would in P. J. Hopper and E. C. Traugott (Grammaticalization [2nd ed.; Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003] 48).

The Verb in Qohelet

313

performative in the sphere of the present and the infrequent future perfect in future time) results from the close association (implication) of perfective aspect and past tense, 15 whereby perfective verbs may be said to “default” for past temporal interpretations. 16 Finally, the disappearance of the Past Narrative form in postBiblical Hebrew is explained by the further development of the Perfect form into a new and competing past tense. 17 The following evidence supports my identification of the Imperfect and Participle with the path in (1b). First, the two forms are semantically similar enough to alternate in the same passage (2) and thus belong to the same path of development. (2)  Genesis 37:15 ‫ַה־ּת ַבּקֵׁש׃‬ ְ ‫ָאיׁש לֵאמֹר מ‬ ִ ‫ִׁש ָאלֵהּו ה‬ ְ ‫ַּׂשדֶה ַוּי‬ ָ ‫ִמ ָצאֵהּו ִאיׁש ְו ִהּנֵה תֹעֶה ּב‬ ְ ‫‏ ַוּי‬ And a man found him wandering in the field; and the man asked him, “What are you looking for?” Second, the Imperfect exhibits a wider range of meanings/functions, which is the main distinguishing feature between it and the Participle. 18 Third, the Participle “gains ground” against the Imperfect in post-Biblical Hebrew, where the Imperfect becomes restricted mainly to its Irrealis subordinate functions, and the Participle’s meanings and functions broaden (for example, more regularly used for generic, future, and present performative expressions in post-Biblical Hebrew).

The Past Narrative, the Autobiographical Foreground, and the Perfect I am following Isaksson’s lead by turning first to the verbs in the “autobiographical thread,” 19 which entails analyses of the three Past Narrative forms and the distribution of the Perfect conjugation within and outside this “thread.” My investigation into this autobiographical thread, however, is independent of the intractable questions of the literary structure and genre of the book. 20 My focus 15.  See Ö. Dahl, Tense and Aspect Systems (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985), 79. 16.  C. S. Smith, “The Pragmatics and Semantics of Temporal Meaning,” in Proceedings, Texas Linguistic Forum 2004 (ed. P. Denis et al.; Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, 2006) 92. 17.  The etymology usually proposed for the Perfect conjugation in West Semitic—namely, an adjectival copular expression—further supports this explanation by paralleling the lexical source of perfects in other languages. See J. Huehnergard, “Languages: Introductory Survey,” ABD 4.156. 18. See Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar, 40–41, 127. 19. B. Isaksson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth, with Special Emphasis on the Verbal System (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 10; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987) chap. 2. 20.  Compare with ibid., 39–42; Isaksson lets himself get caught up in genre considerations. Although his recent treatment (“The Syntax of the Narrative Discourse in Qohelet,” in The Language of Qoheleth in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of

314

John A. Cook

is on the linguistic contours of this autobiographical thread as defined by the role of the participating verb forms, which include the Past Narratives, most of the first-person Perfect verbs, and a few other Perfect forms. Linguistically, I am identifying this “thread” as the foreground of the book. Although the concept of foreground is customarily encountered in treatments of narrative discourse, the organization of events into foreground and background based on their relative saliency is a universal psycholinguistic trait of all human discourse. 21 While this foreground structure gives the book a certain literary “cohesiveness . . . in the constant presence of a single brooding consciousness mediating all the book’s observations, counsels, and evaluations,” 22 it is not a “narrative” foreground inasmuch as it lacks any consistent temporal succession between events. 23

The Past Narrative In light of the non-narrative character of the book, it is not surprising that some scholars have attributed the paucity of Past Narrative verbs in the book to literary or genre considerations rather than to (the traditional diachronic explanation of) the lateness of its language. 24 However, Schoors has questioned the sufficiency of this literary explanation, because the book does contain passages, most notably 9:14–15 (3), in which Past Narrative forms are more expected than the Perfects that are employed. 25 Although a number of scholars have argued for an His Seventieth Birthday [ed. A. Berlejung and P. van Hecke; Leuven: Peeters, 2007] 35–46) seems more linguistically aware, my approach remains divergent from his insofar as I do not treat the thread as narrative and therefore do not intermingle the foreground-background distinction with issues of temporal succession, on which see my “Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics.” 21.  See ibid., 254–55. 22.  M. V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 151. 23.  See D. C. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date (Near Eastern Texts and Studies 3; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988) 30; compare with J. L. Crenshaw (Ecclesiastes [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987] 30), who refers to this thread as the “autobiographical narrative” (emphasis mine). On temporal succession as the defining feature of narrative, see my “Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics,” 251–54, and linguistic sources cited there. 24. O. Loretz (Qohelet und die Alte Orient: Untersuchungen zu Stil und theologischer Thematik des Buches Qohelet [Freiburg: Herder, 1964] 26 n. 34) claims that Past Narrative verbs are unexpected because the book is not prose narrative; Crenshaw (Ecclesiastes, 50) states that “the literary types in the book do not lend themselves to the frequent use of this verb form” (though he retains the “narrative” of the autobiographical foreground; see n. 23 above); Isaksson (Studies in the Language of Qoheleth, 60) attributes the lack to the “philosophical approach” of the book; Fredericks (Qoheleth’s Language, 78), agreeing with Loretz, adds that the author consciously avoided the Past Narrative in order to avoid “temporal and logical ambiguity” among successively reported events. 25. A. Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth (OLA 41; Leuven: Peeters, 1992) 86–87. Other passages do not so clearly demand an anecdotal narrative interpretation as 9:14–15 but may be so understood (for example, 4:14–16,

The Verb in Qohelet

315

irrealis interpretation of this passage, 26 the most natural interpretation of the passage is as a realis anecdotal narrative. 27 (3)  Qohelet 9:14–15 ְ ‫ָׁשים ּבָּה ְמעָט ּובָא־ ֵאלֶי ָה ֶמל‬ ‫ֶך ּגָדֹול ְו ָסבַב א ָֹתּה ּו ָבנָה ָעלֶי ָה‬ ִ ‫אנ‬ ֲ ‫ִעיר ְק ַטּנָה ַו‬ ‫ָכמָתֹו‬ ְ ‫ָעיר ְּבח‬ ִ ‫ּומּלַט־הּוא אֶת־ה‬ ִ ‫צֹודים ּגְד ִֹלים׃ ּו ָמצָא בָּה ִאיׁש ִמ ְסּכֵן ָחכָם‬ ִ ‫ְמ‬ ‫ָאיׁש ה ִַּמ ְסּכֵן הַהּוא‬ ִ ‫ָדם לֹא זָכַר אֶת־ה‬ ָ ‫ְוא‬ There was a city and the men in it were few, and a great king came against it and surrounded it and built great siege works against it. And a poor wise man was found in it, and he delivered the city by his wisdom, yet no one remembered that poor man. What makes this passages stand out is that the events make sense only if interpreted in ordo naturalis—that is, as occurring in the order in which they are recounted. By contrast, for example, the extensive series of first-person Perfect verbs in 2:5–8 demand no such ordo naturalis interpretation. Schoors, however, notes that even within the autobiographical foreground there are sequences of verbs that imply a successive interpretation, such as the sequence of Perfects in 2:12–13, 15 (4). 28 (4)  Qohelet 2:12–13, 15 ‫ִתרֹון‬ ְ ‫ׁשּיֵׁש י‬ ֶ ‫יתי ָאנִי‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫ ְור‬. . . ‫ָכמָה ְוהֹולֵלֹות ְו ִס ְכלּות‬ ְ ‫אנִי ִל ְראֹות ח‬ ֲ ‫ִיתי‬ ִ ‫ּו ָפנ‬ ‫אנִי ְּב ִל ִּבי‬ ֲ ‫ ְו ָאמ ְַר ִּתי‬. . . ‫ָכמָה ִמן־ה ִַּס ְכלּות‬ ְ ‫ַלח‬ I turned to examine wisdom and madness and folly . . . and I saw that there is advantage to wisdom more than folly . . . then I said in my heart . . . Not only are Past Narrative verbs absent in places where they might be expected, but the three occurrences of the Past Narrative form in the book (5a–c) exhibit significant peculiarities. (5) (a)  Qohelet 1:17 I gave my mind to know wisdom . . .

. . . ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫ֶּתנָה ִל ִּבי לָדַ עַת ח‬ ְ ‫‏‏ָוא‬

5:12–16, 7:27–29, 10:5–7); however, none of these other passages has as extensive a string of Perfects as 9:14–15. 26.  See ibid., 86 n. 285. 27.  Schoors (ibid., p. 86) points approvingly to Fox’s (A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 299) argument that Qohelet treated the event as historical. On anecdotal narrative in wisdom literature, see my “Genericity, Tense, and Verbal Patterns in the Sentence Literature of Proverbs,” in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. R. L. Troxel, K. G. Friebel, and D. R. Magary; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 130–31. 28. See Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, 87.

316

John A. Cook (b)  Qohelet 4:1 ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ֲׂשים ּתַ חַת ה‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר נַע‬ ֶ ‫ֻקים א‬ ִ ‫ֶראֶה אֶת־ּכָל־ ָהעֲׁש‬ ְ ‫אנִי ָוא‬ ֲ ‫ְ‏וׁשַ ְב ִּתי‬ I looked again at all the oppression that occurs under the sun. (c)  Qohelet 4:7

‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ֶראֶה ֶהבֶל ּתַ חַת ה‬ ְ ‫אנִי ָוא‬ ֲ ‫ְ‏‏וׁשַ ְב ִּתי‬ Again I saw an absurdity under the sun.

To begin with, the grammatical forms of these examples are peculiar. The first-person Past Narrative of ‫( נתן‬as in [5a]) occurs 12 out of 37× with the “paragogic he” suffix, 29 and about 100 examples of the Past Narrative with the “paragogic he” occur in the Hebrew Bible—all but 2 of which are first-person forms. 30 Significantly, Qumran Hebrew exhibits the conventionalization of the “paragogic/ cohortative he” on first-person prefix-pattern (that is, Past Narrative or Imperfect) forms when preceded by a waw-conjunction. 31 The other two Past Narrative examples are morphologically and lexically identical but unique. 32 The construction in each case is a verbal hendiadys, “I looked again,” but it contrasts with the usual collocation, which forms both verbs as Past Narratives, as in examples (6a–b). (6) (a)  Genesis 14:7

. . . ‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫ַוּיָׁשֻבּו ַוּיָבאּו אֶל־עֵין ִמ‬

They returned to En-Mishpat . . . (b)  Nehemiah 2:15 I returned through the valley gate.

‫‏ָואָׁשּוב ָואָבֹוא ְּבׁשַ עַר ַה ַּגיְא‬

29.  Numbers 8:19; Judg 6:9; 1 Sam 2:28; 2 Sam 12:8; Ezek 16:11; Ps 69:12; Eccl 1:17; Dan 9:3; Neh 2:1, 6, 9. 30.  Counts vary: P. J. Gentry (“The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew,” HS 39 [1998] 24 n. 67) lists 99 instances, but he notes that his list varies from L. McFall (The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System [Sheffield: Almond, 1982] 211–14). A search of the Westminster electronic text yields 104 examples: 95 first-person singular forms (Gen 32:6; Num 8:19; Josh 24:8; Judg 6:9–10, 10:12, 12:3; 1 Sam 2:28, 28:15; 2 Sam 4:10, 7:9, 12:8, 22:24; Jer 11:18, 32:9; Ezek 3:3, 9:8, 16:11; Zech 11:13; Pss 3:6; 7:5; 69:12, 21; 73:16; 119:55, 59, 106, 131, 147, 158; Job 1:15–17, 19; 19:20; 29:17; Qoh 1:17; Dan 8:13, 15, 17; 9:3–4; 10:16, 19; 12:8; Ezra 7:28; 8:15–17, 24–26, 28; 9:3, 5–6; Neh 1:4; 2:1, 6, 9, 13; 5:7–8, 13; 6:3, 8, 11–12; 7:5; 12:31; 13:7–11, 13, 17, 19, 21–22, 30), 6 first-person plural forms (Gen 41:11, 43:21; Ps 90:10; Ezra 8:23 [2×], 31), and 2 non-first-person forms (Ezek 23:16, 20). 31. E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSS 29; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 44; S. Morag, “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations,” VT 38 (1988) 154–55. 32.  Jeremiah 18:4 (‫ׁשב ַוּיַעֲׂשֵ הּו ְּכ ִלי ַאחֵר‬ ָ ‫ְ‏ו‬, “so he remade it into another vessel”) is perhaps the closest parallel.

The Verb in Qohelet

317

In addition, alternate constructions exist in Qohelet that express this same sense: the Perfect of ‫ ׁשוב‬with Infinitive Absolute of ‫ ראה‬in 9:11 (7a); and ‫ עוד‬with the Perfect of ‫ ראה‬in 3:16 (7b). (7) (a)  Qohelet 9:11

. . . ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ֶ ‫‏ׁשַ ְב ִּתי ְורָאֹה תַ חַת־ה‬

I looked again under the sun . . . (b)  Qohelet 3:16

. . . ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫יתי ּתַ חַת ה‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫ְ‏ועֹוד ר‬

I looked again under the sun . . . Seow thinks that the ‫ עוד‬pattern (7b) indicates continuity with the preceding material, whereas the pattern in 4:1, 7 (5b–c) emphasizes discontinuity. 33 Alternatively, the pattern in 2:12 (8), which belongs to this same semantic domain, may indicate that all of these (that is, 5b–c, 7a–b, and 8) are simply stylistic variants of the author’s transitional formula involving a metaphorical use of “turn” and “see/ look” together (compare with the metaphorical use of “turn [to another topic]” and “look into [some issue]” in English). (8)  Qohelet 2:12

. . . ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫אנִי ִל ְראֹות ח‬ ֲ ‫ִיתי‬ ִ ‫‏ּו ָפנ‬

I turned to look at wisdom . . . But this hypothesis does not address why the writer chose to use the Past Narrative at all, given the preponderance of Perfect forms in the book. No semantic difference is discernible between the Past Narrative ‫ ואתנה‬in 1:17 (5a) and the Perfect form ‫ נתתי‬in 1:13 (9), and the “stylistic” explanation simply begs the question. (9)  Qohelet 1:13

. . . ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫ֶת־ל ִּבי ִל ְדרֹוׁש ְולָתּור ַּבח‬ ִ ‫ְ‏ונָתַ ִּתי א‬ I gave my mind to seek and to explore by wisdom . . .

None of the three Past Narrative examples appears to indicate any particular salience (foregrounding) compared with the surrounding foreground Perfects, and there is no clear inference of temporal succession between these and their preceding verbs, except perhaps 1:17 (5a), which Murphy translates “So I applied my mind. . . .” 34 Thus the most that we can conclude is that the writer of the book uses 33.  C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes (AB 18C; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1997) 177. 34.  R. E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992) 11.

318

John A. Cook

the Past Narrative in peculiar but recognizable constructions insofar as they are close variants of Past Narrative syntagms elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. However, why the author chose to employ the form in these three instances alone does not admit a ready explanation.

The Autobiographical Foreground The Perfect conjugation predominates in the autobiographical foreground material. Isaksson lists 82 Perfect verbs in the foreground material, including 61 without a prefixed waw and 21 with it. 35 Apart from these Perfects and the Past Narrative forms, Isaksson identifies only 6 other verbs as part of the foreground material. 36 Because I have defined this autobiographical thread as the nonnarrative foreground in the book, my catalog of verbs belonging to it differs from Isaksson’s. First, foreground by definition excludes subordinate clause material, which Isaksson has excluded for the most part as well. However, he retains as part of the autobiographical thread the following relative-clause Perfects: ‫( אׁשר ׁשאלו‬‎2:10); ‫ ׁשעׂשו‬‎(2:11); ‫ ׁשעמלתי וׁשחכמתי‬‎(2:19); ‫ ׁשעמלתי‬‎(2:20); ‫ ראיתי‬‎(unmarked, 5:12); ‫אׁשר‬ ‫ ראיתי אני‬‎(5:17); ‫ אׁשר ראיתי‬‎(6:1); ‫ כאׁשר נתתי‬‎(8:16); ‫( ראיתי‬unmarked, 10:5). 37 Except for the example in 2:19, these relative expressions are subordinate directly to foregrounded material; particularly after ch. 2, they appear subordinate to transitional statements introducing new topics (that is, 5:12, 17; 6:1; 8:16; and 10:5). Second, Isaksson does not distinguish between first-person foreground material and first-person reported speech, which must be excluded from the foreground: ‫ ולבי ראה הרבה חכמה ודעת‬. . . ‫ הגדלתי והוספתי‬‎(1:16); 38 ‫ ולמה חכמתי‬‎(2:15); ‫ אחכמה‬‎(7:23); ‫ מצאתי‬. . . ‫ לא מצאתי‬. . . ‫ מצאתי‬. . . ‫ בקׁשה נפׁשי ולא מצאתי‬. . . ‫מצאתי‬ ‎(7:27–29). Although the foreground-background distinction still holds within reported speech, it has a separate deictic center from its surrounding discourse 35.  Isaksson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth, 43. Without waw (first-person unless marked otherwise): 1:12, 14, 16 (3× 1s, 1× 3ms), 17; 2:1, 2, 3, 4 (3×), 5, 6, 7 (1× 1s, 2× 3ms), 8 (2×), 9 (3fs), 10 (1× 3p, 1× 3ms, 2× 1s), 11 (1× 1s, 1× 3cp), 15, 19 (2×), 20, 24; 3:10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18; 4:15; 5:12, 17; 6:1, 3; 7:15, 23 (2×), 25, 27, 28 (1× 3fs, 3× 1s), 29; 8:9, 10, 14, 16; 9:1, 11, 13; 10:5, 7. With waw: 1:13, 16; 2:5, 9 (2×), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 (2×), 17, 18, 20; 3:22; 4:1, 4, 7; 8:15, 17; 9:16. 36. Ibid., 58: ‫( ואני ׂשמח‬Infinitive Absolute, 4:2); ‫( אחכמה‬Cohortative, 7:23); ‫ומוצא אני‬ (Participle, 7:26); ‫( ונתון‬Infinitive Absolute, 8:9); ‫( יודע אני‬Participle, 8:12); and ‫( וראה‬Infinitive Absolute, 9:11). 37.  I retain the ‫ כי‬clause in 9:1 as part of the foreground, treating ‫ כי‬as asseverative rather than as a subordinating conjunction: ‫כי את־כל־זה נתתי אל־לבי‬, “Indeed, all this I have taken to heart” (so also Seow, Ecclesiastes, 296). 38.  Commentators differ about whether the final clause (‫ולבי ראה הרבה חכמה ודעת‬, “and my heart has seen much wisdom and knowledge”) is part of the reported speech (see Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 69; R. Gordis, Koheleth, the Man and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes [3rd ed.; New York: Shocken, 1968] 148; Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 11) or not (see Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 170; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 116).

The Verb in Qohelet

319

context, and therefore the foreground-background distinction within the speech is separate from the distinction of the speech frame. 39 Thus, in 7:27–29, the speech frame in the narrator’s voice (‫ )אמרה קהלת‬is foreground, but the first-person verbs form a separate (subsidiary) foreground within the reported speech itself. 40 Third, two verbs that Isaksson lists as part of the foreground are better interpreted as apostrophes or asides with respect to the foreground material: ‫אף חכמתי‬ ‫אמדה לי‬, “Also, my wisdom stood by me” (2:9) and ‫‏וזה־היה חלקי מכל אמלי‬, “And this was my apportionment from all my labor” (2:10). Similarly, if ‫ אמרתי‬in 6:3 is interpreted as a performative (as most interpret it), “(in that case,) I say . . . ,” it diverges from the past deictic center and stands outside the autobiographical foreground thread. Finally, although stative and negative expressions are generally excluded from discourse foreground, 41 there are several examples of both types of statements in the foreground material of Qohelet: ‫ הייתי‬in Qohelet’s self-introduction ‎(1:12); the ‫ היה לי‬possessive expressions (twice) in 2:7; inchoative statives ‫ידעתי‬, “I came to realize” (1:17; 3:12, 14), 42 ‫וגדלתי‬, ‎‎“I became great” (2:9), and ‫וׂשנאתי‬, “I came to hate” (2:17, 18); and the negatives ‫ לא־מנעתי‬. . . ‫ לא אצלתי‬in 2:10. In light of these points, the autobiographical foreground in Qohelet consists of the verb forms listed in table 1 (see p. 320). I have classified the Perfect forms based on whether they have a waw conjunction (following Isaksson) and whether they have a following subject pronoun. The latter feature Fredericks suggests is a key to their interpretation: “When Qoh[eleth] wished to describe an act or thought as simple past (preterite), he added ‫ אני‬to the conjugated perfect, thus referring to his specific quest.” 43 However, his hypothesis is not borne out by the data, which show Perfects with and without pronouns functioning alike in the foreground (compare with ‫ וׂשנאתי‬in 2:17 and ‫ וׂשנאתי אני‬in 2:18), and the postverbal pronoun appears with the Perfect in the nonforegrounded relative clause in 5:17 (‫אׁשר־‬ ‫)ראיתי אני‬. The central question regarding the foregrounded Perfects is whether they should be interpreted as perfective (for example, “I did great things . . . I built . . . I planted”) or perfect (for example, “I have done great things . . . I have built . . . I have planted”). Both interpretations are available to the Perfect conjugation and, because the foreground is non-narrative (that is, no continuous temporal succession), the “bounded” perfective interpretation is not required. 44 Commentaries 39.  C. L. Miller, The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis (HSM 55; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 74. 40.  On subsidiary foreground, see T. Reinhart, “Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts,” Linguistics 22 (1984) 785. 41.  See ibid., 786. 42. The ‫ ידעתי‬clause in 1:17 may alternatively be treated as an apostrophe: “I know that. . . .” 43.  Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 69. 44.  A perfective, as opposed to perfect, interpretation creates “bounded” events, which are thereby eligible to stand in temporal succession with one another (see my “Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics,” 252–53).

320

John A. Cook

Table 1.  Verbal Forms in the Autobiographical Foreground in Qohelet –waw, –pronoun Perfects (58×)

–waw, +pronoun +waw, –pronoun +waw, +pronoun

1:12, 14, 17; 2:2, 3, 4 1:16; 2:1, 24; 3:17, 1:13; 2:5, 9 (2×), 2:11–15, 18, 20; (3×), 5, 6, 7 (1× 1s, 18; 7:25 15, 17; 3:22; 8:17 4:1, 4, 7; 8:15; 2× 3ms), 8 (2×), 10 9:16 (2×); 3:10, 12, 14, 16; 4:15; 7:15, 23 (2×), 27 (3fs); 8:9, 10, 14; 9:1, 11, 13; 10:7

Past Narr. 1:17; 4:1, 7 (3×) Other (5×)

‫( ואני ׂשמח‬Infinitive Absolute, 4:2); ‫( ומוצא אני‬Participle, 7:26); ‫( ונתון‬Infinitive Absolute, 8:9); ‫( יודע אני‬Participle, 8:12); ‫( וראה‬Infinitive Absolute, 9:11)

and translations show a good deal of variation, not only among each other, but also in their own analyses. Among the variety of treatments, however, there is one consistency: the foregrounded Perfect verbs in ch. 2 are treated as perfectives (that is, English Simple Pasts) while, beginning with ch. 2, increasingly perfect (that is, English Present Perfect) renderings of the foregrounded Perfects appear. 45 This trend points to the crux of the issue: ch. 2 comes across as a “report” of Qohelet’s “experiment” in which he recounts discreet actions completed some time ago—long ago enough to reflect back on their significance—hence the tradition that the book came from the end of Solomon’s life. However, increasingly this “report” model breaks down, just as the literary persona of King Solomon does. This is evident simply from the decline of foregrounded Perfects after ch. 2. 46 Although the foreground is non-narrative, as already noted, the events are usually discrete rather than overlapping (that is, “I did this, I did that, I did this other thing” versus “I did this while also doing that during the time I was doing this other thing”). Thus, while not temporally successive, these discrete events are nevertheless interpreted as “bounded,” a status attributable to their perfectivity. Thus, with few exceptions, the foregrounded dynamic verbs should be analyzed as perfective and the handful of foregrounded stative verbs as inchoative states (see table 1 and the list of statives on p. 319). Although states cannot be “bounded” by perfectivity as dynamic events can, the inchoative stative interpretation represents 45.  For example, note the variation among and within translations and commentaries between a perfective and perfect analysis of ‫ ראיתי‬in the foreground passages: 1:14; 2:13; 3:10, 16, 22; 4:4, 15; 8:9–10, 17; 9:13; 10:7. 46.  The distribution of foregrounded Perfects in the book is as follows: 6 in ch. 1; 28 in ch. 2; 7 in ch. 3; 6 in ch. 4; none in chs. 5–6; 5 each in chs. 7 and 8; 4 in ch. 9; 1 in ch. 10; and none in chs. 11–12.

The Verb in Qohelet

321

a partially “bounded” state by indicating a point in time when the state was entered into (that is, “I became” versus “I was”). 47 There are a few exceptions to the aforementioned pattern, which are discussed here. First, the two foregrounded ‫ היה‬forms in 2:7 do not exhibit an inchoative sense; however, neither are they clearly stative. Rather, with the following ‫ ל‬preposition they express possession (“I had/possessed this . . . I had/possessed that”). This idiomatic sense accounts for their non-inchoative meaning as well as their presence in the foregrounded thread. Second, the Perfect verb in 7:15 is widely treated as a perfect (10). (10)  Qohelet 7:15 Both I have seen in my absurd life.

‫ֶב ִלי‬ ְ ‫יתי ִּבימֵי ה‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫‏אֶת־הַּכֹל ר‬

Here, the temporal expression ‫ בימי הבלי‬constrains the perfect interpretation, because the bounded sense of the perfective interpretation would imply (pragmatic implicature) that the speaker is dead at the time of speaking: “Both I saw in my absurd life.” As mentioned, after ch. 2, there is increased variation in the interpretation of the Perfect verbs because of the breakdown of the “report” mode. Instead of the perfective expressions in independent clauses that predominate in ch. 2 (for example, ‫וראיתי אני‬, ‎“I saw,” 2:13, 24), a number of first-person Perfects appear in relative clauses subordinated to foregrounded copular expressions: ‫יׁש רעה ראיתי‬ . . . ‫תחת הׁשמׁש‬, “There is an evil that I have seen under the sun . . .” (10:5; see list of relative clause Perfects, p. 318). The subordination of these Perfects to present-time (stative) expressions constrains the perfect interpretation (in the same manner as the speaker’s deictic anchor in reported speech within past narrative frequently constrains the perfect interpretation of Perfect verbs) and in turn may influence the way scholars have rendered verbs in neighboring verses: ‫ראיתי עבדים‬, “I saw slaves” in 10:7 is interpreted by some as perfect (“I have seen slaves”) but without good reason other than the influence of the perfect rendering “I have seen” in v. 5. One of the central cruxes of the book is ‫ הייתי‬in 1:12 (11). The judgment of most scholars is upheld by the above analysis: on the one hand, scholars agree that it should not be interpreted as a present state, “I am king”; on the other hand, the past-stative interpretation (“I was king”) adopted by many translations (for example, the asv, niv, and njps) implies that Qohelet is no longer king, which seems at odds with the role of his persona as giving him a vantage point from which to give the following reflections. A present-perfect interpretation therefore makes the best sense, and inasmuch as the perfect sense connects Qohelet’s past (the time when he undertook his experiment) and present (the time he reflects on his experiment), it is ideally suited to this lead-in to the “report” that follows. 47.  On boundedness and states, see my “Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics,” 252–53.

322

John A. Cook (11)  Qohelet 1:12

ְ ‫ִיתי ֶמל‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם‬ ָ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ִּב‬ ְ ‫ֶך עַל־י‬ ִ ‫אנִי ק ֶֹהלֶת ָהי‬ ֲ‫‏‬ I, Qohelet, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.

It is difficult to draw any clear conclusions regarding the other five verbal forms in the foreground that are neither Perfects nor Past Narratives. The use of Infinitives Absolute in place of finite verbs is known from other parts of the Hebrew Bible and Phoenician. In Qohelet, they are of three sorts: in 4:2, the Infinitive stands in place of a Perfect verb with a preceding pronoun: ‫אני ׁשבח‬, “I praised the dead.” 48 In 8:9, the Infinitive Absolute ‫ ונתון‬follows a leading Perfect as a sort of “serial” verb: “I saw and (then) gave my mind to. . . .” Other examples of the Infinitive Absolute following and continuing the sense of a finite verb are found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (for example, Zech 7:5; Esth 2:2–3, 9:1). 49 Finally, the Infinitive Absolute ‫ וראה‬in 9:11 forms a verbal hendiadys with the lead Perfect ‫ ׁשבתי‬to form an expression synonymous with ‫( וׁשבתי אני ואראה‬with Past Narrative) in 4:1 (see discussion on pp. 316–318 above). The above portrayal of the autobiographical thread is admittedly an incomplete picture inasmuch as copular expressions are used to transition between topics, especially after ch. 2 (cf. 3:10, “I have seen the task . . . ,” and 6:1, “There is an evil that I have seen under the sun”). Unfortunately, beyond recognizing the copular clauses with subordinate first-person Perfect verbs (5:12, 17; 6:1; 10:5), identifying foregrounded copular clauses is hampered by the intractable problems of literary structure. 50

The Perfects outside the Autobiographic Foreground Schoors criticizes Isaksson for his tendency “to multiply the instances of a perfect tense with a present force.” 51 This “tendency” derives in part from Isaksson’s dependence on Rundgren’s model of the Semitic verb, which overemphasizes the stative origin of the Perfect verb, which Isaksson is at some pains to show retains 48.  In every instance, the first-person pronoun as verbal subject follows the verb, except in this instance and the Perfect expression in the reported speech in 1:16: ‫אני הנה הגדלתי‬, “And I, behold, I have increased.” On the significance of Qohelet’s preference for postverbal pronouns, see R. D. Holmstedt, “‫אנִי ְו ִל ִּבי‬ ֲ : The Syntactic Encoding of the Collaborative Nature of Qohelet’s Experiment,” JHS 9 (2009) 19, http://www.jhsonline.org. 49. A. Rubinstein, “A Finite Verb Continued by an Infintive Absolute in Hebrew,” VT 1 (1952) 362–67. 50.  Isaksson does not address these sorts of copular clauses with respect to the autobiographical thread in his book, but in his recent study (“The Syntax of the Narrative Discourse in Qohelet”), he treats “nominal clauses” as background material in principle. However, his judgment in this regard seems affected by his view that the autobiographical thread is actually a “narrative,” which generally excludes such nontemporally successive expressions as copular clauses. 51.  Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, 174.

The Verb in Qohelet

323

its stative (present) semantics in Qohelet. 52 But this “tendency” is also a result of Isaksson’s conflation of present perfect and present stative meanings. Altogether, he examines 18 Perfects with present-time reference outside the foreground material. 53 My redefinition of what constitutes the “autobiographical thread” results in a larger number of Perfects outside the foreground than Isaksson’s list of 18 present-time Perfects. Nevertheless, Isaksson’s treatment conveniently exemplifies four issues that I use to frame my discussion of the remaining Perfect forms. First, as mentioned, Isaksson misleadingly groups together the Perfect forms that express a present perfect sense with those that express a general present sense. The former is the more frequent, less restricted meaning of the Perfect conjugation and therefore unproblematic. But it remains desirable (and absent in Isaksson’s treatment) to explain the basis by which a present perfect versus a pastperfective meaning is assigned to these Perfects. I submit that the principle that disambiguates a past or a perfect interpretation of the Perfect conjugation lies in the temporal deixis of the surrounding discourse. Unfortunately, the numerous levels of temporal deixis created by the pastiche texture of the book complicates the interpretation of the verb forms. Consider that the motto of the book is a quotation by Qohelet that is introduced by a narrator: ‫אמר קהלת‬, “. . . Qohelet said . . .” (1:2). Beginning in 1:12, the deictic center shifts to Qohelet himself, who describes what he has done in the past (ch. 2 especially), what the world is like (which introduces a generic [universal] temporal deixis), and addresses the audience directly with imperatives and other second-person forms. These shifts in temporal deixis throughout the book dictate how the Perfect conjugation should be interpreted. The Perfect forms that express perfective-past in the nonforeground material reside mainly in subsidiary “foreground” threads, such as anecdotal narratives (‫יצא‬ ‫ נולד‬. . . , 4:14; 9:15–16; see example [3] above) or the narrator’s statements about Qohelet’s activities (1:2, above; and the epilogue in 12:8–11 [7×]). The remaining Perfects with a perfective-past meaning appear in subordinate clauses. The Perfects in 2:10 (‫אׁשר ׁשאלו‬, “which they asked”) and 8:16 (‫כאׁשר נתתי‬, “when I applied”) are subordinate to verbs in the autobiographical foreground. The relative clause in 8:9 (‫ )אׁשר ׁשלט‬modifies a past null copula clause beginning an anecdotal narrative: “There was a time when a man had power over another man to harm him.” In 5:15 and 6:4, the Perfect ‫ בא‬contrasts as a perfective-past with a future Imperfect ‫ילך‬: “just as he came, he will go”; “for he came in absurdity, and in darkness he will go.” Similarly, the contrast between ‫ תׁשוב‬and the subordinate ‫ אׁשר נתנה‬in 12:7 makes the perfective-past interpretation unavoidable: “The spirit returns/will return to God who gave it.” Finally, the relative Perfects ‫ כאׁשר יצא‬and 52.  For a summary and critique of Rundgren’s model, see my Biblical Hebrew Verbal System, 125–27. 53.  Qohelet 1:9; 2:23, 26; 3:11, 15; 4:3; 5:10, 17; 6:3, 10; 7:10, 14, 19, 24, 27–28; 8:15; and 9:9 (Isaksson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth, 75–92). Two other forms he discusses, ‫הייתי‬‎ (1:12) and ‫ וׂשנאתי‬‎(2:18), are part of the foreground material, discussed above (pp. 319, 321–322).

324

John A. Cook

‫ כׁשבא‬in 5:14 create a past-future contrast with Imperfects: “Just as he came forth . . . he will return . . . just as he came.” The relative Perfects in 2:11 (‫ ׁשעמלתי‬. . . ‫ )ׁשעׂשו‬allow for either a past or a past-perfect interpretation: “that which my hands did/had done . . . which I labored to do/had labored to do.” The contrast between these examples and the relative Perfect in 2:10 (‫אׁשר ׁשאלו‬, “which they asked”), which is also subordinate to the foreground material, has to do with the situation aspect of the verbs: in 2:10, the activity ‫ ׁשאלו‬is almost coincidental with the action of not withholding (‫לא‬ ‫ )אצלתי‬of the main clause, thus making a perfective-past interpretation more suitable; by contrast, in 2:11, the accomplishment verbs presume the completion of the event prior to examining it (main clause), thus allowing a more nuanced pastperfect interpretation. A similar ambiguity holds for the stative relatives ‫ ׁשהיו‬and ‫ ׁשהיה‬in 2:7, 9, which admit a past-stative or past-perfect stative understanding: “who were/had been in Jerusalem before me.” The latter rendering more strongly underscores that the former kings are now dead by creating a bounded end-point to the stative copular (that is, “they had been there but are not now,” versus “they were there and may still be”). Finally, although the text of 8:10 makes it difficult to decide how to interpret ‫אׁשר כן־עׂשו‬, most scholars treat the preceding Imperfects as past habitual: “they would come and go . . . ,” which shifts the temporal deixis of the subordinate clause to past or past perfect: “where they acted/had acted thus” (see example [32] below). By contrast, the Perfects that are interpretable as present perfect (apart from the foregrounded ‫ ראיתי‬in 7:15, discussed above) appear either in clauses subordinated to present-time (mostly copular) clauses (2:21; 4:3 [2×]; 5:2, 12, 17 [2×], 18 [2×]; 6:1; 7:13; 8:15; 10:5) or in reported speech, where the temporal deictic center shifts to the speaker’s present (1:16 [3×]), or in addresses to the implied audience (second-person contexts), in which case the deixis is shifted to the reader’s present (7:10, 14, 22; 9:7, 9). The Perfect ‫אבדה‬, “has passed away,” in 9:6 may be treated as a perfect, conjoined with a copular clause (‫אין‬, v. 5) (12). (12)  Qohelet 9:5–6 ‫ָתם ְּכבָר‬ ָ ‫ַם־ק ְנא‬ ִ ‫ָתם ּג‬ ָ ‫ַם־ׂש ְנא‬ ִ ‫ָתם ּג‬ ָ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫ִכרָם׃ ּגַם ַא‬ ְ ‫ִׁשּכַח ז‬ ְ ‫ׂשכָר ִּכי נ‬ ָ ‫ְואֵין־עֹוד ָלהֶם‬ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ֲׂשה ּתַ חַת ה‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר־נַע‬ ֶ ‫ָדה ְו ֵחלֶק אֵין־ ָלהֶם עֹוד ְלעֹולָם ְּבכֹל א‬ ָ ‫ָאב‬ They have no more reward, for even the memory of them has been forgotten. Their love, their hatred, their jealousy has already passed away. Similarly, the null-copular relative clauses in 2:26 (‫ לחוטא‬. . . ‫ׁשטוב לפניו‬, “who is pleasing before him . . . who is displeasing”) leads to a present-perfect interpretation of the two Perfect forms (‫ )נתן‬that describe God’s actions. A number of Perfect forms in the book are ambiguous between a perfectivepast and a present-perfect interpretation: the forms in 3:10–14 (‫נתן‬‎ 2×, ‫ עׂשה‬‎3×)

The Verb in Qohelet

325

describe God’s actions in bringing about the present state of affairs; the string of Perfects in 7:27–29 (‫ מצא‬‎5×, ‫ בקׁש‬‎2×, ‫ עׂשה‬‎1×) are ambiguous because it is unclear whether these verses are to be read as a anecdotal narrative of discrete events (like the autobiographical foreground), or as events related to a current reflection, thus more suitably conveyed with the perfect interpretation (13). (13)  Qohelet 7:27–29 ‫ׁשה‬ ָ ‫עֹוד־ּב ְק‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ֶׁשּבֹון׃ א‬ ְ ‫ָמרָה ק ֶֹהלֶת ַאחַת ְל ַאחַת ִל ְמצֹא ח‬ ְ ‫ָאתי א‬ ִ ‫ְ‏ראֵה זֶה ָמצ‬ ‫ָאתי‬ ִ ‫ּׁשה ְבכָל־ ֵאּלֶה לֹא ָמצ‬ ָ ‫ָאתי׃ ְו ִא‬ ִ ‫ָדם ֶאחָד ֵמ ֶאלֶף ָמצ‬ ָ ‫ָאתי א‬ ִ ‫ׁשי ְולֹא ָמצ‬ ִ ‫נ ְַפ‬‎ ‫ָׁשר ְו ֵהּמָה ִב ְקׁשּו‬ ָ ‫ָדם י‬ ָ ‫ָׂשה ָהאֱל ִֹהים אֶת־ ָהא‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר ע‬ ֶ ‫ָאתי א‬ ִ ‫ְלבַד ְראֵה־זֶה ָמצ‬ ‫ּׁשבֹנֹות רַ ִּבים‬ ְ ‫ִח‬ “Look! This I found/have found,” said Qohelet, “(adding) one thing to another to find a solution—what my soul still sought/has sought, but I did not find/have not found: one man among a thousand I found/have found; but a woman among all those I did not find/ have not found. Only this did I find/have I found: that God made/ has made humans upright; but they sought/have sought for many solutions.” Second, Isaksson assumes that the Perfect of ‫ היה‬regularly expresses a present state. However, a glance at the data from the rest of the Hebrew Bible shows that this interpretation is actually marginal—and with good reason: Hebrew allows a null-copula strategy for present-time copular expressions, 54 which creates a threeway tense distinction with the Perfect and Imperfect of ‫היה‬: the Perfect (and Past Narrative) of ‫ היה‬marks past tense, null copula marks present, and Imperfect of ‫ היה‬marks future tense. 55 The data in Qohelet support this pattern: the 23 Perfect and 20 Imperfect forms of ‫ היה‬contrast in terms of tense—past versus present—often in close succession (for example, 1:9–11 [see example 14]; 12:7). Several Perfect forms of ‫היה‬ unambiguously express a past state: ‫ אׁשר היה‬‎(1:10), ‫ וזה־היה‬‎(2:10), 56 ‫אׁשר־היה‬ (‎4:16), ‫ היו‬‎(7:10), ‫ כׁשהיה‬‎(12:7), and ‫( ׁשהיה‬‎12:9). And the two examples in the foreground material in 2:7 (‫ )ׁשהיו‬and 2:9 (‫ )ׁשהיה‬are ambiguous between past and past-perfect statives: “Who were/had been before me in Jerusalem” (compare with 1:16 below in reported speech). About an equal number are ambiguous between a past-stative and present-perfect stative interpretation (that is, “were” and “have been”): ‫ מה־ׁשהיה‬‎(1:9, 6:10, 7:24), ‫ כבר היה‬‎(1:10, 3:15), ‫( הייתי‬‎1:12), ‫ אׁשר־היה‬‎(1:16), 54.  Cook, “The Participle and Stative,” 9. 55. The difference between the Perfect and Past Narrative of ‫ היה‬is not semantic but discourse-pragmatic: the Past Narrative of ‫ היה‬is used either in a narrative foreground or as a discourse-pragmatic tense indicator at the beginning of a new “episode.” 56.  The parenthetical relationship of this construction with the past autobiographical foreground leads Seow to render it as a past-perfect: “This had been . . .” (Seow, Ecclesiastes, 118).

326

John A. Cook

‫( לא היה‬‎4:3), ‫ היה‬‎(7:10). The ambiguity in these forms stems, as in the case of the non-stative Perfects, from their present temporal deixis, whether in reported speech (1:12, 16; 7:10) or in the context of talking about the present state of affairs (1:9, 10). Fox argues that the phrase ‫ מה־ׁשהיה‬‎(1:9, 3:15, 6:10, and 7:24) is equivalent to ‫ מה־נעׂשה‬and that both phrases are generic in all their occurrences: “that which happens.” 57 However, Fox appears to demand too much consistency in translating the construction identically throughout the book—a consistency that he even fails to carry through when he translates the construction in 6:10 as “Whatever has happened.” 58 It is preferable to recognize the construction as ambiguous in 6:10 and 7:24 between the present perfect and present stative interpretations, but the context of 1:10–11 disambiguates the interpretation of the phrase in 1:9 by clearly reinforcing a past-future rather than a present-future contrast (14). (14)  Qohelet 1:9–11 ‫ָדׁש ּתַ חַת‬ ָ ‫ָׂשה ְואֵין ּכָל־ח‬ ֶ ‫ׁשּיֵע‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה הּוא‬ ָ ‫ַה־ׁשּנַע‬ ֶ ‫ִהיֶה ּומ‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ַה־ּׁש ָהיָה הּוא‬ ֶ ‫‏מ‬ ‫ֲׁשר ָהיָה‬ ֶ ‫ָמים א‬ ִ ‫ָדׁש הּוא ְּכבָר ָהיָה ְלעֹל‬ ָ ‫ׁשּיֹאמַר ְראֵה־זֶה ח‬ ֶ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש׃ י ֵׁש ָּדבָר‬ ָ‫ה‬ ‫ִהיֶה ָלהֶם ִזּכָרֹון ִעם‬ ְ ‫ִהיּו לֹא־י‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ָראׁשֹנִים ְוגַם ָל ַאחֲרֹנִים‬ ִ‫ִכרֹון ל‬ ְ ‫ִמ ְּל ָפנֵנּו׃ אֵין ז‬ ‫ִהיּו ָל ַאחֲרֹנָה‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ What was is what will be, and what happened is what will happen; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, “Look, this is new”? It already existed in the ages that were before us. There is no remembrance of those who were long ago, and also of those yet to come who will be there will not be any remembrance with those who will be after them. If we want to find some consistency in Qohelet’s use of this phrase, therefore, we should take 1:9 and its restriction to a past or present-perfect stative interpretation as our lead and interpret the other instances accordingly. In other instances, the contrast is more between past and generic, as in 3:20, which contains generic Participles (15a). However, the “before” construction (‫עד אשר‬, v. 6) with Imperfect forms in the similar passage in 12:7 makes the past-present/future contrast more evident (15b). In both of these cases, the ‫ היה‬should be interpreted as past or perhaps present-perfect but not generic present. 59

57.  Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 169, 265. On the Niphal Perfect of ‫עׂשה‬, see point 3 below, in this section. 58.  Ibid., 247. 59.  The meaning of ‫ היה‬in both passages seems close to its use in designating the event of a prophetic word: “The word of Yhwh came to. . . .”

The Verb in Qohelet

327

(15) (a)  Qohelet 3:20 ‫ׁשב אֶל־ ֶה ָעפָר‬ ָ ‫‏הַּכֹל הֹול ְֵך אֶל־מָקֹום ֶאחָד הַּכֹל ָהיָה ִמן־ ֶה ָעפָר ְוהַּכֹל‬ All go to the same place; all came from dust and all return to dust.

(b)  Qohelet 12:7 ‫ְתנָּה‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר נ‬ ֶ ‫יּתׁשּוב אֶל־ ָהאֱל ִֹהים א‬ ָ ‫ָרּוח‬ ַ ‫ׁש ָהיָה ְוה‬ ֶ ‫ְ‏ויָׁשֹב ֶה ָעפָר עַל־ ָה ָארֶץ ְּכ‬ [Before . . . ] and the dust returns to the earth accordingly, whence it came, and the spirit returns to the God, who gave it.

The same construction, ‫מה־ׁשהיה‬, in 3:15 is not as readily explained: the Infinitive and Perfect of ‫ היה‬in the second part make the past-future contrast set up by the verse obvious: “and what is to be already was.” But the initial part of the verse is startling for its apparent use of the Perfect to designate what is and a verbless clause with ‫ כבר‬to designate what was (16). (16)  Qohelet 3:15 ‫ֲׁשר ִל ְהיֹות ְּכבָר ָהיָה ְו ָהאֱל ִֹהים ְי ַבּקֵׁש אֶת־נ ְִרָּדף‬ ֶ ‫ַה־ּׁש ָהיָה ְּכבָר הּוא ַוא‬ ֶ ‫‏מ‬ That which is, already was; that which is to be, already was; and God seeks out what has been pursued. Given that the contrast of past-future is already apparent from the latter portion of the verse, I suggest that the need for a “landing site” for the proclitic relative -‫ׁש‬ is what led to the marginal use of the Perfect of ‫ היה‬for present stative while the use of the verbless clause following is to avoid the confusion of two Perfect ‫היה‬ forms in a row, which would invite a tautological interpretation: ‫?מה־ׁשהיה כבר היה‬ “Whatever has happened has already happened.” The remaining Perfect forms (‫ לא היתה‬in 6:3 and ‫ היו‬in 7:19) are cruxes. Coming as the final phrase in a conditional protasis after several Imperfects, the Perfect form in 6:3 seems out of place, though perhaps the irreal conditional context accounts for it (on the basis of the past tense-irreal metaphor in language) (17a). In 7:19, the ‫ היו‬likewise appears odd if all that is intended is a present-time locative expression, “who are in the city.” Perhaps it conveys that the former rulers are gone, after the wisdom of the wise has prevailed: “that were/had been in the city” (17b). (17) (a)  Qohelet 6:3 ‫ֵי־ׁשנָיו ְונ ְַפׁשֹו לֹא־‬ ָ ‫ִהיּו ְימ‬ ְ ‫ׁשּי‬ ֶ ‫ִחיֶה ְורַ ב‬ ְ ‫ׁשנִים רַ ּבֹות י‬ ָ ‫ם־יֹוליד ִאיׁש ֵמאָה ְו‬ ִ ‫‏א‬ ִ ‫ְתה ּלֹו ָאמ ְַר ִּתי טֹוב ִמּמֶּנּו ַהּנָפֶל‬ ָ ‫ַם־קבּורָה לֹא־ ָהי‬ ְ ‫ִת ְׂשּבַע ִמן־הַּטֹובָה ְוג‬ If a man begets a hundred children, and lives many years, however many might be the days of his years, but his appetite is not satisfied by some of the good things, and even a burial were not his, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he.

328

John A. Cook

(b)  Qohelet 7:19

‫ָעיר‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר הָיּו ּב‬ ֶ ‫יטים א‬ ִ ‫ֲׂשרָה ׁשַ ִּל‬ ָ ‫ָכמָה ָּתעֹז ֶל ָחכָם ֵמע‬ ְ ‫‏ ַהח‬ Wisdom strengthens the wise more than ten rulers that had been in the city.

In contrast to these uncertain uses of stative ‫היה‬, the other stative verbs are consistently interpretable as present states: 60 ‫( מתו‬‎4:2); 61 ‫( לא־ׁשכב‬‎2:23); 62 ‫לא־ידע‬ (‎4:13); ‫( רבו‬‎5:10); ‫ ידע‬‎(7:22); ‎‎‫ על־כן מלא‬‎(8:11); ‫ מלא‬‎(9:3); ‫ אׁשר־אהבת‬‎(9:9); ‫אׁשר‬ ‫ לא־ידע‬‎(10:15); and ‫( כי מעטו‬‎12:3). 63 The only two exceptions are ‫ ולא־ידע‬in 6:5, which may be interpreted as past or perhaps a present perfect: “and did not know/ has not known,” 64 and the reported speech ‫ למה חכמתי‬in 2:15, which makes best sense as a perfect inchoative: “Why have I become so wise?” Third, the Niphal Perfect verbs require particular attention because of the distinct treatment they have been given by Isaksson and others. There are 21 Niphal Perfects in the book, 12 of which are forms of ‫עׂשה‬, all in relative clauses. Isaksson and others claim that this has a stative present sense, “which happens,” analogous with the treatments of ‫( היה‬see above, this section). 65 This interpretation seems suspiciously influenced by the similarities between passive voice and stative situation aspect. The other 9 Niphal Perfects are less ambiguous than the Niphal ‫ עׂשה‬forms, and thus it is methodologically more sound to examine these 9 first and follow their lead in interpreting the more ambiguous Niphal ‫עׂשה‬. Setting aside the Irrealis Perfect ‫( ונרץ‬‎12:6), to be treated below, we find several Niphal Perfects express perfective-past (‫ נתנו‬‎in the narrator’s report in 12:11; ‫ נולד‬in 4:14 and ‫ נתן‬in 10:6, both part of anecdotal narratives). The Nifal Perfect ‫ נׁשכח‬‎(2:16) is arguably the only verb in the book with a future perfect meaning: “for their memory will have been forgotten.” The remaining 4 forms express present perfect: ‫נעבד‬, “a field that has been tilled” (5:8); 66 ‫נקרא‬, “has been designated” (6:10); ‫נׁשכח‬, 60.  The form ‫ ָעמֵל‬‎(2:18, 22; 3:9; 4:8; 9:9) may be interpreted as stative Perfect (see HALOT, s.v.), in which case it expresses a present state in all but 2:18, which is a past state subordinate to the autobiographical foreground. 61.  Or a present perfect “have died,” if treated as an achievement “die” instead of stative “be dead.” 62.  I am inclined to treat this verb as a stative, with Schoors (The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, 174): “even at night his mind is not at rest.” Note the stative a-class prefix pattern: ‫ִׁשכַב‬ ְ ‫י‬. 63.  Gesenius and Kautzsch (GKC §52k) note that the (only) Piel of this stative is intransitive here: “are few.” 64.  The present perfect is somewhat awkward with the “stillborn” subject, about which a continued state of “knowing” seems out of place. 65.  Isaksson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth, 69–74; Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 169, 265. 66.  The interpretation of the verb is clear despite textual problems with the verse; see ibid., 234; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 204, for emendations.

The Verb in Qohelet

329

“for their memory has been forgotten” (9:5); ‫נׁשמע‬, “everything has been heard” (12:13). Given these unexceptional meanings for the Niphal Perfect of perfective past and present perfect, a present stative interpretation of the Niphal Perfects of ‫ עׂשה‬is questionable. Instead, a present perfect interpretation of the Niphal Perfects of ‫ עׂשה‬should be followed: “that which has happened under the sun” (1:9; see example [14] above; 1:13–14; 2:17; 4:3; 8:9, 11, 14, 16–17; 9:3, 6). Fourth, Isaksson entertains the idea that the aforementioned verbs may be Niphal Participles instead of Perfect forms, and indeed a case might be made in 8:11 where the form is preceded by ‫אין‬. 67 However, the unambiguous Perfect in 1:14 (‫ )נעׂשו‬and Participle in 4:1 (‫ )נעׂשים‬make it evident that both may equally be a part of Qohelet’s grammar. This state of affairs raises the question of whether an adequate explanation of variation such as this among verb forms in the book is possible. Generally, the answer to such a question has been negative: there is no distinguishable difference between the Niphal Perfect and Participle of ‫ עׂשה‬within the context of this favorite phrase of Qohelet’s. I concur with this conclusion, seeing in this alternation an analogy to the stylistic variations in the topic-transition formula with ‫ראיתי‬, which I noted above (p. 317). However, difficulties arise when stylistic variants of this sort are treated as semantically equivalent, leading many commentators and translators to ignore TAM distinctions in the book. Indicative of this inattention to TAM distinctions is the penchant for general-present renderings of Perfects, Imperfects, and Participles in commentaries and translations, a penchant that arises in large part from the unconscious connection between generic expressions and the general present. However, there is no such correlation in language generally, even though many English proverbs use general present tense: “That’s the way the cookie crumbles”; “Like father, like son”; “Boys will be boys”; “Faint heart never won fair lady.” More crucially, and to return to the specific case of the Niphal of ‫עׂשה‬, a significant stumbling block in treating this form is that both perfect and progressive in English tend to force a particular rather than generic reading. 68 Thus, English-speaking commentators and translators especially tend to level the Perfects in generic expressions in Qohelet (and Proverbs) and read them as general presents. A case in point is 5:2 (18): (18)  Qohelet 5:2

‫ָרים‬ ִ‫‏ּכי ּבָא ַהחֲלֹום ְּברֹב ִע ְניָן ְוקֹול ְּכ ִסיל ְּברֹב ְּדב‬ ִ For the dream came/has come with much preoccupation, and the voice of fools with many words.

67. See Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 285. 68.  Cook, “Genericity, Tense, and Verbal Patterns,” 122.

330

John A. Cook

As awkward as the rendering in (18) appears in English, I think it is out of place to simply treat ‫ בא‬as a general present (or read it as a Participle). 69 Rather, if we take the normal perfect sense seriously, we might see a proverbial deduction from past experience as a warning for the present or future. To paraphrase: “Because just as the dreams came/have come with much preoccupation, so the voice of fools (will come) with many words.” The shift from reflection to warning in the comparison makes use of the elliptical play on the verb and is something that can be seen in the sentence literature of Proverbs as well (for example, 19:29). We should recognize, however, that this is a target-language issue, not the actual TAM value of these verb forms in Qohelet, which should be read in ways that are in keeping with their use elsewhere in ancient Hebrew. As I noted in previous studies, 70 in the past some scholars have failed to recognize the occurrence of the so-called Waw-consecutive Perfect in Qohelet. Based on the above theory of the Hebrew verbal system (pp. 310–313), I am reanalyzing these forms as Irrealis Perfect. The customary waw conjunction has to do with the frequent clause-initial position brought about by the verb-subject order of the form. In fact, several examples of Irrealis Perfects appear in the book without the conjunction, preceded instead by a condition marker: ‫ לא ראה‬. . . ‫( אלו חיה‬‎6:6) and ‫אם־קחה קלקל‬ . . . (‎10:10). Most of the Irrealis forms with the conjunction likewise appear in conditional clauses: the temporal protasis that makes up the allegorical passage in 12:1–7, beginning with ‫( והגיעו‬‎8 verbs altogether); the temporal apodosis ‫ וחם‬in 4:11 (following the ‫ אם־יׁשכבו‬protasis); in 5:13, the pair of Irrealis Perfects ‫ ואבד והוליד‬. . . mark the temporal protasis and apodosis, respectively. In addition to these conditional Irrealis Perfects, the form expresses a final or result idea in 5:5 (‫ )וחבל‬and appears in the repeated judgment of what is good in life, conjoined to relative Imperfect verbs and expressing a subjunctive or optative sort of idea: “there is nothing better than that . . .” (2:24 [2×], 3:13 [2×]). Similarly, a final interpretation fits ‫“( ואמר‬so that he says . . .”) well in 10:3. The only truly problematic Irrealis Perfects appear in 1:5 (‫ וזרח‬and ‫)ובא‬, where they are out of place among the preponderance of Participles. A possible, though quite uncertain, explanation is that they are subordinate to the preceding statement, contrasting the immovable earth with the rising and setting sun (19). 71 69.  The inverted word order of verb-subject after ‫ כי‬is unexpected if it is a Participle; see R. D. Holmstedt, The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 2002) 156–57. 70. See Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, 88. 71. See Seow (Ecclesiastes, 106–7) on the certainty of the text and the word order as indicating Irrealis Perfect versus Participle. However, the anomalous use of the Irrealis Perfects in this passage dominated by Participles makes a Participle reading of both forms quite plausible (the corruption of ‫ וזרח‬being explained as a result of metathesis), despite the uniform textual evidence (see Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 64).

The Verb in Qohelet

331

(19)  Qohelet 1:4–5 ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש ְואֶל־‬ ָ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש ּובָא ה‬ ֶ ‫‏ּדֹור הֹל ְֵך ְודֹור ּבָא ְו ָה ָארֶץ ְלעֹולָם עֹמָדֶת ְוזָרַ ח ה‬ ‫ׁשם‬ ָ ‫ְמקֹומֹו ׁשֹואֵף זֹורֵ חֽ הּוא‬ A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever, while the sun rises and the sun goes down, panting to its place, where it rises.

The Participle and Imperfect The Participle As I described above and in detail elsewhere, 72 the Participle is essentially an adjectival encoding of an event predicate. When used predicatively, it is supported by a copula, which is more frequently covert than overt. 73 Although the overt copula becomes more frequent in Rabbinic Hebrew, Qohelet shows no increase in this direction. The Participle in Qohelet appears as a predicate complement in both main and subordinate clauses, and it frequently fills a nominal slot functioning as a “headless” relative clause. 74 When the Participle appears in main clauses in Qohelet, it generally exhibits a generic sense; that is, it characterizes a certain state of affairs (20). 75 (20)  Qohelet 1:4

‫‏ּדֹור הֹל ְֵך ְודֹור ּבָא ְו ָה ָארֶץ ְלעֹולָם עֹמָדֶת‬ A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.

72.  Cook, “The Participle and Stative”; idem, Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb, 223–33. 73.  That is, even when not phonologically present, the predicatively used Participle is supported by a covert/zero or “implied” copula. Minimal pairs such as those in 2 Sam 7:16 (with ‫היה‬ copula) and 1 Chr 17:24 (with zero copula) demonstrate that there is no distinction in meaning, and the copula is implied in the latter case. The weaknesses of the alternative explanation, that zero-copula expressions consist of a juxtaposed subject and predicate, are discussed by L. Stassen (Intransitive Predication [Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997] 65–76). See also my “Genericity, Tense, and Verbal Patterns,” 126 n. 35; and idem, “The Hebrew Participle and Stative,” 9 n. 12. 74.  Discerning between a qotel-pattern agentive noun and a headless relative Participle is not straightforward. See my article “The Participle and Stative,” 3 n. 4. Here the issue is mostly moot, my concern being simply whether the “Participle” fills a nominal or verbal slot. 75.  See also Qoh 1:4 (3×), 5, 6 (6×), 7 (3×); 2:14; 3:20 (2×); 4:5 (2×); 5:9 (2×), 11; 6:6, 10, 11; 8:1, 12 (2×); 9:1, 5 (2×), 16, 17; 10:19.

332

John A. Cook

By contrast, the Participle in a main clause epresses a “real” present sense in only a few instances and always in rhetorical questions. One is reported speech (21a); the others are questions posed by Qohelet to the implied reader (21b). 76 (21) (a)  Qohelet 4:8

‫ׁשי ִמּטֹובָה‬ ִ ‫ּומ ַחּסֵר אֶת־נ ְַפ‬ ְ ‫אנִי ָעמֵל‬ ֲ ‫‏ּול ִמי‬ ְ For whom, now, am I toiling while denying my soul good things?  77



(b)  Qohelet 2:19

‫ִהיֶה אֹו ָסכָל‬ ְ ‫י ֶה ָחכָם י‬ ‫‏ּומי יֹודֵ ַע‬ ִ And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool?

Three notable examples of the Participle in a main clause depart from this pattern. In 2:3, ‫ נהג‬appears to demand a past-progressive sense (22). Alternatively, this Participle could be translated as a small clause, similar to the way the preceding Infinitive Construct is treated by some. 78 (22)  Qohelet 2:3

ְ ‫‏ּתַ ְר ִּתי ְב ִל ִּבי ִל ְמ‬ ‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫ׂשִרי ְו ִל ִּבי נֹהֵג ַּבח‬ ָ ‫ֶת־ּב‬ ְ ‫ׁשֹוך ַּבּיַיִן א‬ I went about in my heart, leading my body by wine and my heart leading by wisdom . . .

The other two notable exceptions appear within the autobiographical foreground, which suggests an interpretation of nonprogressive past, which is anomalous for the Participle (23). (23) (a)  Qohelet 8:12 79

‫ִהיֶה־ּטֹוב ְלי ְִראֵי ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר י‬ ֶ ‫י ָאנִי א‬ ‫‏ ִּכי ּגַם־יֹודֵ ַע‬ . . . yet I know/I came to know that it will go well for those who fear God.



(b)  Qohelet 7:26 ‫ֲסּורים‬ ִ ‫ָמים ִלּבָּה א‬ ִ ‫צֹודים ַוחֲר‬ ִ ‫ר־היא ְמ‬ ִ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ ‫ּׁשה א‬ ָ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫אנִי מַר ִמ ָּמוֶת אֶת־ה‬ ֲ ‫‏ּומֹוצֶא‬ ‫יָדֶי ָה‬ I find/found more bitter than death the woman who is a trap, and whose heart is snares, whose hands are fetters.

76.  Qohelet 2:2 (2×), 19, 22; 3:21; 4:8; 6:8, 12. 77.  The form ‫ ָעמֵל‬here and elsewhere in the book (2:18, 22; 3:9; 9:9) is identified as an adjective (HALOT, s.v.), but it may arguably be interpreted as a stative Perfect verb. 78.  For example, Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 178. 79.  See also 6:8, 12, both within a question, “Who knows . . . ?”

The Verb in Qohelet

333

Both of these examples are significant. In 8:12, the Participle appears where we would expect a Perfect, ‫( ידעתי‬compare with Qoh 1:17; 2:14; 3:12, 14), and may indicate the increased use of the Participle for stative roots that is evident in Rabbinic Hebrew. 80 In this case, the Participle would demand an interpretation as the present stative “I know,” in contrast to the inchoative “I came to know” of the Perfect. Given that the Participle does not admit a perfective-past rendering, if the text of 7:26 is correct, it may be best to treat the Participle as a general present with almost a performative sense: “I find. . . .” This too is significant, since the Participle comes to displace the Perfect in performative expressions in Rabbinic Hebrew. 81 The two primary meanings for the Participle, the generic present and real present, appear likewise in subordinate and relative clauses, except that in these cases the temporality of the Participle clause is determined by the main clause to which it is subordinate or in which it serves as a nominal element (that is, a headless relative clause). The majority of the nominal examples appear in generic contexts, 82 while only a few are found in reported speech (3:9, 5:7, 12:1) or in past foregrounded material (4:2). In the latter case, the stative meaning of the verb is “unbounded” by the past temporal deixis of the foreground, so that it is present rather than past stative (24). 83 (24)  Qohelet 4:2

‫ׁש ְּכבָר מֵתּו‬ ֶ ‫אנִי אֶת־ ַהּמ ִֵתים‬ ֲ ‫ְ‏וׁשַ ּב ֵַח‬

I praised those who are dead. The Participles in 4:1 illustrate the occasional difficulty in distinguishing generic and real present (25): is Qohelet describing something that he observed happening (that is, a specific episode) or something that generally happens (generic)? It is also possible that 4:1 belongs to the category of anecdotal narratives, which are by definition “specific” episodes illustrating generic truths, in which case Qohelet may be describing some specific act of oppression. However, the character of the passage is far from being made specific through the portrayal with Participles. 84

80.  M. Pérez Fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J. Elwolde; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 137. 81. F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “(More) on Performatives in Semitic,” ZAH 17–20 (2004–7) 65–66. 82.  Qohelet 1:15; 2:8 (2×), 26; 3:15; 4:1 (6×), 14; 5:10, 11; 7:11, 26; 8:5, 12; 9:2 (3×), 3, 5 (2×), 11 (2×), 17, 18; 10:1, 4, 8 (2×), 9 (2×); 11:4 (2×); 12:3 (2×), 5, 11. 83. On “boundedness” and statives, see Cook, “The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics,” 250–54. 84.  Other Participles about which it is difficult to decide between generic and real present include: ‫ עׂשים‬‎(4:1); ‫ המהלכים‬‎(4:15); ‫ ׁשמור‬‎(5:12); ‫ חלה‬‎(5:12, 15); ‫ מענה‬‎(5:19); ‫ אבד‬and ‫מאריך‬ ‎(7:15); ‫ ׁשיצא‬‎(10:5); ‫ הלכים‬‎(10:7).

334

John A. Cook (25)  Qohelet 4:1

‫ֻקים ְואֵין‬ ִ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש ְו ִהּנֵה ִּד ְמעַת ָהעֲׁש‬ ָ ‫ֲׂשים ּתַ חַת ה‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר נַע‬ ֶ ‫ֻקים א‬ ִ ‫ֶראֶה אֶת־ּכָל־ ָהעֲׁש‬ ְ ‫אנִי ָוא‬ ֲ ‫ְ‏וׁשַ ְב ִּתי‬ ‫ׁשקֵיהֶם ּכ ֹ ַח ְואֵין ָלהֶם ְמנַחֵם‬ ְ ֹ ‫ּומּיַד ע‬ ִ ‫ָלהֶם ְמנַחֵם‬

When I turned, I observed all the oppressions that happen under the sun. Look at the tears of the oppressed—and they have no comforter! Their oppressors have the power—and they have no comforter.

Relative participles also usually express a generic meaning. 85 However, there are exceptions to this pattern. In 2:6 the relative ‫ צומח‬is bound in the past time of the autobiographical foreground (26). (26)  Qohelet 2:6

‫ַׁשקֹות ֵמהֶם יַעַר צֹו ֵמ ַח ע ִֵצים‬ ְ ‫יתי ִלי ְּברֵכֹות ָמיִם ְלה‬ ִ ‫ָׂש‬ ִ ‫‏ע‬

I made pools of water to irrigate a forest (that was) sprouting trees.

Though set within a present temporal deixis, the Participles in 2:16 and 9:10 have an expected future meaning: an implied future event based on the present state (note well: the analogy with the present perfect, an implied present state based in a past event) (27). (27) (a)  Qohelet 2:16

‫ִׁשּכָח‬ ְ ‫ָאים הַּכֹל נ‬ ִ ‫ָמים ַהּב‬ ִ ‫ׁש ְּכבָר ַהּי‬ ֶ ‫ִכרֹון ֶל ָחכָם ִעם־ה ְַּכ ִסיל ְלעֹולָם ְּב‬ ְ ‫‏ּכי אֵין ז‬ ִ

For no remembrance of the wise or of fools remains forever, because, in the days that are coming/going to come, all will have been forgotten.

(b)  Qohelet 9:10

‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ׁשאֹול א‬ ְ ‫ָכמָה ִּב‬ ְ ‫ֶׁשּבֹון ְודַ ֣עַת ְוח‬ ְ ‫ֲׂשה ְוח‬ ֶ ‫ָדךָ ַלעֲׂשֹות ְּבכֹחֲךָ עֲׂשֵ ה ִּכי אֵין ַמע‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר ִּת ְמצָא י‬ ֶ ‫‏ּכֹל א‬ ‫ׁשּמָה‬ ָ ‫ַּתה הֹל ְֵך‬ ָ‫א‬

Whatever your hand finds to do, perform with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, whence you are going.

A good number of the Participles in other (nonrelative) subordinate clauses have a reader-based temporal deixis, indicated by second-person statements or Qohelet’s rhetorical questions. 86 Three of the four remaining examples in nonrelative subordinate clauses are in generic contexts (4:17, 8:7, 12:5), and 8:16, if the reading is correct, appears to have a past progressive-habitual sense (28).

85.  Qohelet 1:5; 3:2; 4:1, 12, 15; 5:12, 15; 6:8; 7:5, 15 (2×); 8:14 (2×); 9:4, 12; 10:3, 5, 7, 12; 12:11. 86.  Qohelet 2:19, 22; 3:9, 21 (2×); 4:8; 5:7 (2×); 7:21; 11:5, 6; 12:1.

The Verb in Qohelet

335

(28)  Qohelet 8:16

‫ׁשנָה ְּבעֵינָיו אֵינֶּנּו רֹאֶה‬ ֵ ‫‏ּכי גַם ּבַּיֹום ּו ַב ַּל ְילָה‬ ִ For also by day and by night his eyes were not seeing any sleep.

A final category that overlaps with the above categories but is of particular interest for the dating of the book is the participial encoding of stative roots. 87 It appears significant that Qohelet uses the active Participle with stative roots 19×, given that this is the strategy used for many stative roots in Rabbinic Hebrew after the grammar no longer permitted the expression of present states with stative roots in the Perfect. 88 Particularly noteworthy are the following: the Participle form of ‫ היה‬‎(2:22), which is 1 of only 2 in the Hebrew Bible (see Neh 6:6) but which is a form that appears some 96× in Qumran texts; and ‫ידע‬, which is more frequently encoded by the Perfect than the Participle in the Hebrew Bible (500 Perfects versus 99 Participles) but shows a reversal in the Mishnah (112 Participles versus 51 Perfects) that parallels the pattern in Qohelet: 15 Participles versus 8 Perfects. 89

The Imperfect Approximately the same number of Imperfect forms appear in Qohelet as Perfect forms, and together, they comprise well over half of all the verbs in the book. These Imperfect forms are about equally distributed between the two mood categories of Realis and Irrealis meanings. Realis Imperfects include generic expressions as well as statements with future, present, or past temporal deixis. The meaning of the Imperfect in generic expressions in Qohelet, as in Proverbs 90 expresses a typical situation or an inevitability, as in (29). 91 (29) (a)  Qohelet 7:3

‫י ָּפנִים יִיטַב לֵב‬ ‫י־בר ֹ ַע‬ ְ ‫‏טֹוב ַּכעַס ִמ ְּׂשחֹק ִּכ‬ Better vexation than laughter, for by a sad face the heart is made well.

87.  Qohelet 2:19, 22; 3:21; 4:2, 14, 17; 5:7, 9 (2×); 6:10, 12; 8:1, 7, 12; 9:1, 5 (2×); 11:5, 6. These cases feature just five roots (‫אהב‬, ‫היה‬, ‫ידע‬, ‫מות‬, ‫)רוׁש‬. 88. See my “Detecting Development in Biblical Hebrew Using Diachronic Typology,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. C. L. Miller-Naudé and Z. Zevit; Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012) 83–96. 89. These statistics are based on searches in the Accordance texts (Westminster BHS, Qumran sectarian texts and Mishnah Kaufmann A 50 manuscript prepared by M. Abegg). 90. See my “Genericity, Tense, and Verbal Patterns,” 127–29. 91.  Generic Imperfects: Qoh 1:3 (or general present), 18 (2×); 2:3 (or general present), 16, 21 (or future); 3:14 (2×), 15, 17; 4:10 (2×), 11, 12; 5:9 (stative), 11, 17 (or general present); 6:7 (stative), 12; 7:3, 7 (2×), 9, 12, 18, 19, 20 (2×), 26 (2×); 8:1 (2×), 3 (2×), 5 (2×), 12, 13, 15; 9:4, 11; 10:1 (2×), 8 (2×), 9 (2×), 12, 14, 15, 18 (2×), 19 (2×), 20 (2×); 11:3 (2×), 4 (2×), 5.

336

John A. Cook

(b)  Qohelet 7:7

‫ַּתנָה‬ ָ ‫ׁשק יְהֹולֵל ָחכָם ִוי ַאּבֵד אֶת־לֵב מ‬ ֶ ֹ ‫‏ּכי הָע‬ ִ Surely oppression makes a fool of the wise, and a bribe corrupts the heart.

What is notable compared with Proverbs is the ratio of Imperfects to Participles in generic expressions in Qohelet: the sentence literature of Proverbs contains 272 generic Imperfects and 73 generic Participles; by contrast, Qohelet contains only about 51 generic Imperfects versus 110 generic Participles. 92 Another notable point is that, apart from 12 relative clauses, these generic Imperfects occur in main/independent rather than subordinate clauses. By contrast, the Imperfect has become frequent in subordinate clauses in Rabbinic Hebrew. 93 There are 15 examples of Imperfect expressing a variety of present-time expressions, including general and habitual, which both differ from generic only by their expression of particular events or episodes and differ from each other by the contextual implication of regular repetition. 94 (30) (a)  Qohelet 5:4

‫ּׁש ִּתּדֹור ְולֹא ְתׁשַ ּלֵם‬ ֶ ‫א־תּדֹר ִמ‬ ִ ֹ ‫ֲׁשר ל‬ ֶ ‫‏טֹוב א‬ Better that you do not make a vow than that you make a vow and do not fulfill it.



(b)  Qohelet 10:16–17 ְ ‫ַׁש‬ ְ ‫ׂשרַ י‬ ְ ‫‏אי־ל‬ ‫ֶן־חֹורים‬ ִ ‫ׁשּמ ְַלּכ ְֵך ּב‬ ֶ ‫רֵיך ֶארֶץ‬ ְ ‫ִך ּבַּבֹקֶר יֹאכֵלּו׃ א‬ ָ ‫ׁשּמ ְַלּכ ְֵך נָעַר ְו‬ ֶ ‫ָך ֶארֶץ‬ ִ ְ ‫ַּׁש ִתי‬ ְ ‫ׂשרַ יִך ָּבעֵת יֹאכֵלּו ִּב ְגבּורָה ְולֹא ב‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ Woe to you, O land whose king is a lackey and whose princes dine in the morning! Happy are you, O land whose king is a nobleman and whose princes dine at the proper time—in a manly fashion without drunkenness!

Only one present-imperfective (8:4) and one present-stative expression with the Imperfect appear in the book (4:8) (31). The latter combination of stative root with Imperfect (versus Perfect) may alternatively be interpreted as future, but in 92.  This comparison is slightly exaggerated because the numbers from Proverbs (Cook, “Genericity, Tense, and Verbal Patterns,” 124) do not distinguish Irrealis (for example, dynamic and epistemic) Imperfects from generic Realis Imperfects, whereas I have distinguished these categories in the Qohelet data. However, these Irrealis examples account for less than 50 of the 272 Imperfects in Proverbs, so the point is still valid: Qohelet shows a significantly increased use of the Participle in generic expressions versus the Imperfect. 93. Pérez Fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, 125. 94.  General present Imperfects: Qoh 5:3, 4 (3×), 15, 16; 6:2 (3×). Habitual present Imperfects: 7:21; 9:10; 10:16, 17.

The Verb in Qohelet

337

either case seems to serve to reinforce the negative by its sense of eventuality: “His eyes are not satisfied (Pf.)” versus “His eyes are never/will never be satisfied (Ipf.).” (31) (a)  Qohelet 8:4

ְ ‫ֲׁשר ְּדבַר־ ֶמל‬ ‫ֲׂשה‬ ֶ ‫ּומי יֹאמַר־לֹו מַה־ּתַ ע‬ ִ ‫ׁש ְלטֹון‬ ִ ‫ֶך‬ ֶ ‫‏ ַּבא‬ . . . inasmuch as the word of the king is authority, and who will dare say to him, “What are you doing?”



(b)  Qohelet 4:8 Also his eyes are not sated with riches.

‫ׁשר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫א־ת ְׂשּבַע ע‬ ִ ֹ ‫‏ּגַם־עֵינָיו ל‬

Similarly, few—only two past habitual and one past imperfective—examples of the Imperfect appear in Qohelet (8:10 [2×], 10:6). The former examples (8:10 [2×]) appear in a passage of uncertain interpretation, while the latter (10:6) occurs within a past anecdotal context. (32) (a)  Qohelet 8:10 ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ָעיר א‬ ִ ‫ִׁשּתַ ְּכחּו ב‬ ְ ‫ּומ ְּמקֹום ָקדֹוׁש ְי ַהּלֵכּו ְוי‬ ִ ‫ֻרים ָובָאּו‬ ִ‫ׁש ִעים ְקב‬ ָ ‫יתי ְר‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫‏ּובכֵן ר‬ ְ ‫ּכֵן־עָׂשּו ּגַם־זֶה ָהבֶל‬ And then I saw the wicked buried. They used to come and go from the holy place! But those would be forgotten in the city who had acted justly. This also is absurd. 95

(b)  Qohelet 10:6

‫ּׁשפֶל יֵׁשֵבּו‬ ֵ ‫ֲׁש ִירים ַּב‬ ִ ‫רֹומים רַ ִּבים ַוע‬ ִ ‫‏נִּתַ ן ַה ֶּסכֶל ּב ְַּמ‬ Folly was placed on lofty heights, and rich men were sitting in low estate.

Of the 31 Imperfects that denote a future-time event, ‫ היה‬accounts for 17 examples, while 5 others appear in the context of a Perfect-Imperfect past-future contrast. 96 Finally, the 2 Imperfect forms in the past anecdotal context of 4:15–16 seem to call for a relative future (future-in-the-past) interpretation (33). 97

95.  First half-verse translation is from Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 79. 96. Future ‫ היה‬forms: 1:9, 11 (3×); 2:18–19; 3:14, 22; 6:12; 8:7 (2×), 12–13; 10:14 (2×); 11:2, 8. The usage in 3:14 could alternatively be analyzed as simply generic or as having a particularly future sense: “exists/will exist forever.” Past-future contrast: 1:9; 5:14–15; 6:4 (2×). Remaining future Imperfects: 2:12, 14–15, 19; 4:15–16; 11:6, 9; 12:14. 97.  See comments in F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament: Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon (trans. M. G. Easton; reprint ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989) 6.280.

338

John A. Cook (33)  Qohelet 4:15–16 ‫ֲׁשר יַעֲמֹד‬ ֶ ‫ּׁשנִי א‬ ֵ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש ִעם ַהּיֶלֶד ַה‬ ָ ‫יתי אֶת־ּכָל־ ַה ַחּיִים ה ְַמה ְַּל ִכים ּתַ חַת ה‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫‏ר‬ ‫ֲׁשר־ ָהיָה ִל ְפנֵיהֶם ּגַם ָה ַאחֲרֹונִים לֹא‬ ֶ ‫ּתַ ְח ָּתיו׃ ‏אֵין־קֵץ ְלכָל־ ָהעָם ְלכֹל א‬ ‫ִׂש ְמחּו־בֹו‬ ְ‫י‬ I saw all the living who were walking under the sun with the second youth who would step into his place. There was no end to all the people who were before him; and those who come after him would not praise him.

The largest category of Irrealis Imperfect is the expression of dynamic modality (that is, ability). In several cases, it is lexically based (‫)יכל‬, 98 but various other roots, both stative and dynamic, also appear (34). 99 (34)  Qohelet 8:17 ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ׁשל א‬ ֶ ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש ְּב‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה תַ חַת־ה‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר נַע‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה א‬ ֶ ‫ָדם ִל ְמצֹוא אֶת־ ַה ַּמע‬ ָ ‫ִּכי לֹא יּוכַל ָהא‬ ‫ִמצָא‬ ְ ‫ָדם ְל ַבּקֵׁש ְולֹא י‬ ָ ‫יַעֲמֹל ָהא‬ Indeed, man is unable to discover what occurs under the sun, so that man toils to seek but cannot discover (it). Other modalities are modestly represented, including deontic necessity and permission, 100 and epistemic necessity and possibility. 101 A final category, which may be referred to simply as Irrealis Imperfect, consists mainly of Imperfects appearing in subordinate clauses (for example, conditional and temporal protases) 102 in addition to three counterfactual interrogative clauses: “Why should this be the case (when it is not now)?” (5:5). 103

The Directive-Volitive System: Imperative, Jussive (and Cohortative) Semantically there is nothing strikingly unique about the directive modal system in Qohelet. There are 29 Imperatives, 18 second-person Jussives (all negated by ‫)אל‬, and 7 third-person Jussives (3 negated by ‫ אל‬and 4 in coordinate structures 98.  Qohelet 1:8, 15 (2×); 6:10; 7:13; 8:17 (2×). 99.  Qohelet 1:8 (3×), 15 (2×); 2:25 (2×); 3:11, 13, 22; 6:10, 12; 7:13, 14, 24; 8:7, 17 (3×); 9:1, 18; 10:4, 14 (2×); 11:2, 5. 100.  Deontic necessity (“must”): Qoh 2:24; 3:22; 7:2, 18; 10:10; 11:8 (2×). Deontic permission (“may”/ “let”): 6:2; 7:21; 8:8. 101.  Epistemic possibility (“may”): Qoh 1:1; 2:3; 3:14; 5:14; 8:17; 11:1. Epistemic necessity (“must”): 2:18. 102.  Subordinate clauses: Qoh 4:10, 11, 12, 17; 5:3, 7, 19; 6:3 (4×); 8:17; 9:12; 10:4, 11; 11:3 (3×), 8; 12:1, 2, 3, 4 (2×), 5 (4×), 6 (3×), 7 (2×). 103.  Counterfactual questions: Qoh 5:5; 7:16, 17.

The Verb in Qohelet

339

with negated Jussives or Imperatives), 104 all of which express directive modality. Two first-person Jussives (Cohortatives) occur, both expressing volitive modality. 105 More significantly, the syntax of the directive system in Qohelet shows notable peculiarities, as outlined by Joosten; however, he makes some notable misstatements that obscure the patterns. 106 For example, he claims that 9× the Imperative is clause initial, and 9× it is not; but he seems to be counting verses rather than occurrences. The data actually show that the Imperative occurs clause initially 18× in the book, and 11× it appears in a position other than clause initial. 107 Nevertheless, this is significant in contrast to Genesis–2 Kings, in which Shulman finds that 96% of Imperatives occur clause initially. 108 Similarly, Joosten finds that negated (with ‫ )אל‬Jussives occur 10× clause initially and 9× non–clause initially. However, we obtain a more complete picture if we include the two first-person Jussives (Cohortatives) and 4 positive Jussives (above), in which case there are 17 Jussive clauseinitial examples versus 10 non-clause-initial examples in the book. 109 Again, these data are significant in either case. Especially notable is the subject-verb order for the negative Jussive in 5:1 (35). (35)  Qohelet 5:1

‫הֹוציא ָדבָר ִל ְפנֵי ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬ ִ ‫ַל־ּפיךָ ְו ִל ְּבךָ אַל־ ְי ַמהֵר ְל‬ ִ ‫ַל־ּת ַבהֵל ע‬ ְ ‫‏א‬ Do not be rash with your mouth, and let not your heart rush to bring forth a word before God.

Joosten also examines the Imperfect with waw conjunction, noting that, in Standard Biblical Hebrew, clause-initial, waw-prefixed Imperfects are generally Irrealis mood. In Qohelet, however, this pattern of clause-initial waw-marking of Irrealis Imperfects does not seem to exist. By my own count of data, excluding the negative and other conjunctions (for example, ‫ )אם‬there are 5 examples of Realis Imperfect with waw conjunction versus 9 examples of Irrealis Imperfect with waw conjunction. 110 The significance of these data, Joosten notes, is that Qohelet exhibits 104.  Third-person Jussive negative: Qoh 5:1, 9:8, 11:6. Third-person Jussive: 5:1, 8:3, 9:8. 105.  Schoors (The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, 89–90) misses the form in Qoh 2:1, treating the form in 7:23 as the only Cohortative. 106. J. Joosten, “The Syntax of Volitive Verb Forms in Qoheleth in Historical Perspective,” in The Language of Qoheleth in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. A. Berlejung and P. van Hecke; OLA; Leuven: Peeters, 2007) 47–61. 107.  Clause-initial Imperatives: Qoh 1:10; 2:1 (2×); 4:17; 7:13, 27; 9:7 (3×), 9; 11:1, 2, 9 (3×), 10 (2×); 12:1. Non-clause-initial Imperatives: 5:3, 6; 7:14 (2×), 29; 8:2; 9:10; 11:6; 12:12, 13 (2×). 108. A. Shulman, The Use of Modal Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1996) 138. 109.  Clause-initial Jussives: Qoh 2:1; 5:1 (2×), 5 (2×), 7; 7:9, 10, 16 (2×), 17 (2×), 23; 8:3 (3×); 11:9. Non-clause-initial Jussives: Qoh 5:1, 3; 7:18, 21; 9:8 (2×); 10:4, 20 (2×); 11:6. 110.  Realis Imperfect with waw conjunction: 1:18; 2:19; 6:12; 7:7; 8:10. Irrealis Imperfect with waw conjunction: 11:8; 12:4 (2×), 5 (3×), 6 (2×), 7.

340

John A. Cook

a “loosening” of word-order conventions that is diachronically significant given the freer word order evident in the Qumran writings and beyond, which loosening was predicated by the loss of distinction between the Imperfect and Jussive. 111

The Infinitive Forms Qohelet has 108 Infinitives Construct and 3 Infinitives Absolute. 112 The Infinitives Construct are used in predictable ways, mostly as the predicate of subordinate complement or adjunct clauses. More significantly, the Infinitive Construct in Qohelet behaves most like the form in Rabbinic Hebrew. First, 94 of the examples occur with the ‫ ל‬preposition, as in Rabbinic Hebrew: “In practice, the infinitive construct simply does not occur except with the prefixed -‫ל‬.” 113 Of the remaining cases, the ‫ ל‬preposition is gapped in 2 instances (1:17 and 7:25), 5 occur with the ‫ מן‬preposition (Qoh 1:8, 3:5, 4:17, 6:9, 7:2), and 2 occur with the temporal preposition ‫( ב‬5:10 and 12:4), and one is preceded by the construct ‫מיום‬ with a temporal sense: “since the day of . . .” (7:1). Second, the dearth of temporal expressions using ‫ ב‬or ‫ כ‬with the infinitive is also similar to Rabbinic Hebrew, in which these constructions are unknown. 114 The Infinitive Absolute cases, though few, have attracted more attention than the Construct cases. Much has been made of both their use in the book and their paucity. That there are only 3 may be understood as indicative of the lateness of the book, given that the Infinitive Absolute disappears in later Hebrew. 115 At the same time, Qohelet’s use of the Infinitive Absolute in place of a finite verb (8:9, 9:11) and in temporal succession (4:2) are in keeping with its use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and cannot convincingly be taken as evidence of Phoenician influence. 116

111.  Joosten, “The Syntax of Volitive Verb Forms in Qoheleth,” 59–60. 112.  Infinitive Construct: 1:7–8, 13, 15–17; 2:3, 6, 11–12, 20, 26; 3:2–8, 10, 12, 14–15, 18, 22; 4:10, 13–14, 17–5:1; 5:3, 5, 10–11, 14, 17–18; 6:2, 8–10; 7:1–2, 5, 9, 13, 25, 27; 8:8, 11, 15–9:1; 9:10; 10:10, 15; 11:7; 12:4, 10, 12. Infinitive Absolute: 4:2; 8:9; 9:11. A fourth Infinitive Absolute should be read in 12:10 in place of the passive-Participle pointing: ‫( כתוב‬so Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 352–53). I have discounted two Construct examples and one Absolute: the Kethiv reading ‫‏‬in 6:10 is Infinitive Construct, but the Qere ‫ׁשּתַ ִּקיף‬ ֶ adjective reading is preferred; and ‫( לֵאמֹר‬only 1:16) is not properly an infinitive but a speech complementizer (see C. L. Miller, The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative, 199–200); the form ‫ ָקרֹוב‬in 4:17 may be parsed as an Infinitive Absolute or an adjective with the sense of “suitable, appropriate” (Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up, 230; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 194). 113. Pérez Fernández, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, 144. 114. Ibid. 115. Ibid. 116.  Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 84–85; Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, 180.

The Verb in Qohelet

341

(36) (a)  Qohelet 4:2

‫ׁש ְּכבָר מֵתּו‬ ֶ ‫אנִי אֶת־ ַהּמ ִֵתים‬ ֲ ‫ְ‏וׁשַ ּב ֵַח‬ Then I praised those who are already dead.



(b)  Qohelet 8:9 ‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ֲׂשה ּתַ חַת ה‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר נַע‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה א‬ ֶ ‫ֶת־ל ִּבי ְלכָל־ ַמע‬ ִ ‫יתי ְונָתֹון א‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫‏אֶת־ּכָל־זֶה ר‬ All these things I saw and gave my heart to everything that occurs under the sun.



(c)  Qohelet 9:11

‫ַּׁשמֶׁש‬ ֶ ‫‏ׁשַ ְב ִּתי ְורָאֹה תַ חַת־ה‬

I turned and saw under the sun. . . .

Significance of the Findings The longstanding view of a majority of scholars is that Qohelet represents some of the latest Biblical Hebrew. 117 Several conclusions of this study uphold this judgment on the basis that the verbal system in Qohelet exhibits not simply dialectal differences but evidence of diachronic change away from the pattern of earlier Biblical Hebrew toward the grammar of post-Biblical Hebrew (for example, Qumran and/or Rabbinic Hebrew). These findings include the following points. First, the paucity of Past Narrative cannot be explained fully on the basis of genre or stylistic grounds. It seems reasonable that there is an element of diachronic change that led to the use of Perfect verbs, even in anecdotal narratives in the book, where one might well expect the Past Narrative form. Second, the decline of the Irrealis Perfect in Qohelet, which subsequently disappears in Hebrew just as the Past Narrative does, also seems to admit a diachronic explanation. Third, the ratio of Perfect to Participle encoding of statives aligns Qohelet with Qumran and Rabbinic Hebrew against the rest of the Hebrew Bible. This too seems to be diachronically significant as evidence of a change that cannot easily be explained as register or dialectal variation. Fourth, the Imperfect form occurs less frequently in subordinate clauses in Qohelet than in Rabbinic Hebrew, in which it approaches becoming a subordinate and volitive verb form, but it also appears more frequently in subordinate clauses in Qohelet than it does in other biblical books. 118 The ratio in Qohelet may be evidence of the gradual restriction of the Imperfect to subordinate clauses. 117.  See discussion and sources cited in my “Hebrew Language” (in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings [ed. T. Longman III and P. Enns; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008] 265–66) as well as in the standard commentaries and introductions. 118.  The Imperfects in independent clauses versus subordinate clauses in Qohelet is about 1.5 : 1 (135/87). A search of Accordance’s initial syntax data shows a ratio ranging from 2.6 : 1 to

342

John A. Cook

Fifth, the reversal in dominance of the Imperfect and Participle in generic expressions between Proverbs and Qohelet may point to the encroachment of the Participle on the Imperfect as a contributing factor in the increasing restriction of the Imperfect to subordinate clauses. 119 Sixth, the loosening of restrictions on word order in the Directive-volitive system and Imperfects may also be diachronically significant, as Joosten claims. Seventh, and finally, the ubiquity of the ‫ ל‬preposition on Infinitives Construct in Qohelet hints at the conventionalization of the construction, as in Rabbinic Hebrew. Although any of these findings might be individually challenged with respect to my claim that they are diachronically significant, together they constitute a strong argument that Qohelet lies diachronically between earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible and later, post-Biblical Hebrew (that is, it is exemplary of Late Biblical Hebrew). The case is strengthened when these changes are viewed within the context of the diachronic typological models presented in (1): the decline of the Past Narrative and Irrealis Perfect are attributable to the gradual displacement of the older Past Narrative by the Perfect form, which precipitated the exclusion of non-past Irrealis meanings for the Perfect; the restriction of the Imperfect to subordinate clauses and increased use of the Participle for generic expressions are results of the Participle’s gradual appropriation of meanings earlier associated with the Imperfect; the loosening of word order among the Jussives and Imperfects points to the merger of these categories evident in later Hebrew. From the perspective of Qohelet’s verbal system, Delitzsch’s famous quip about the book can hardly be denied: “If the book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language.” 120 4.6 : 1—4.1 : 1 in Genesis (533/130); 2.6 : 1 in Joshua (142/54); 2.7 : 1 in Judges (186/70); 3.8 : 1 in Psalms (828/219); and 4.5 : 1 in Proverbs (606/133). 119.  Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (The Evolution of Grammar, 148) note that generic is one of the last meanings retained by a present/imperfective verb when a progressive form begins to take over the former’s functions. 120.  Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, 190.

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet: Methodological Problems in Identification and Interpretation Eva Mroczek Indiana University The prevalence of so-called “Aramaisms” in the book of Qohelet has long been a commonplace in research on Hebrew philology. Qohelet’s “Aramaisms” have generally been used to date the book to the Persian period or later, when contact with the Aramaic language was intensified. In recent years, however, scholars have challenged the use of “Aramaisms” to support a late date and have suggested other explanations for Aramaisms or Aramaic-like features. In his programmatic 1968 article “The Chronological Significance of ‘Aramaisms’ in Biblical Hebrew,” 1 Avi Hurvitz emphasized that contact between Hebrew and Aramaic existed throughout the biblical period. Aramaisms are not automatic indications of lateness but can also appear in preexilic texts; besides diachronic considerations, apparent Aramaisms may also be contingent on genre (such as, wisdom and poetry), literary technique (for example, reflecting “foreign” speech), or regional/dialectical differences (such as northern Hebrew). In this essay, I apply Hurvitz’s suggestions to the question of “Aramaisms” in Qohelet. Using a selection of philological features that have commonly been called “Aramaisms,” I discuss how they have been identified and interpreted. I ask whether they really represent interference of Aramaic in Hebrew (and therefore, whether they are properly called “Aramaisms”) or whether other considerations may account for their presence in the book. In the process, I draw attention to some broader issues with regard to the way that linguistic elements have been interpreted by biblical scholars. The conclusion that emerges from this investigation is that the diversity and complexity of linguistic features have not been considered sufficiently. Features that are reminiscent 1. A. Hurvitz, “The Chronological Significance of Aramaisms in Biblical Hebrew,” IEJ 18 (1968) 234–40. On the identification of Aramaisms and their implications for dating, see I. Young and R. Rezetko with M. Ehrensvärd (Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts [2 vols.; London: Equinox, 2008] 1.208–22) on Aramaisms in general and 2.64 on Qohelet specifically.

343

344

Eva Mroczek

of Aramaic should not be considered part of a single phenomenon—usually assumed to be contact-induced language change as a result of increased contact with the source language—because they may, in fact, reflect a wide variety of different phenomena that are not necessarily the result of diachronic language change, not necessarily due to external interference, and not necessarily related to one another other at all. Scholars who wish to use linguistic data to draw conclusions about the dating and provenance of biblical texts should draw on the work of historical linguists, who recognize that unusual linguistic features can be explained in terms of diachronic change, code-switching and borrowing, register, or stylistic choice— and that, especially in a limited literary corpus, it is not always clear what accounts for the presence of a given feature. Before moving on to my analysis of specific elements, I offer a brief overview of approaches to Aramaisms in Qohelet and in the Hebrew Bible in general, devoting the most space to the latest scholarship that attempts to take linguistic categories and methodology into account (Part 2). Then, I move on to a detailed analysis of selected “Aramaisms” (Part 3). Finally, I offer an assessment and conclusions about the identification and significance of “Aramaisms” in the Book of Qohelet (Part 4). The general conclusion that emerges is that the appearance of Aramaisms cannot be used conclusively to date the book. Most of the terms that look like “Aramaisms” can be explained in other ways besides late, external influence; the variety of possible explanations for these features precludes us from treating them as part of one general phenomenon and arguing based on the density or frequency of Aramaisms. Then, I offer some observations about how the wisdom themes, style, and Solomonic narrative frame of the book—rather than its date—might account for the presence of Aramaic-like features, and what it means to try and “date” such a composition at all.

Overview of Scholarship on Aramaisms in Qohelet Early Scholarship Early scholarship on Aramaisms in Qohelet was in line with contemporary approaches to the question of Aramaisms in the Hebrew Bible in general. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century philologists 2 identified and cataloged instances of “Aramaisms,” by which they meant linguistic features that could be attributed to language change that was (a) external, and (b) late. Late texts such as Esther, Daniel, and Chronicles contained a high frequency of Aramaisms; conversely, a high frequency of Aramaisms was taken to be indicative of a late date. On this basis (and on the basis of other linguistic features, such as “Mishnaisms,” also 2.  See, for example, E. Kautzsch, Die Aramaismen im Alten Testament (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1902).

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet

345

assumed, as a rule, to be the results of diachronic change), Qohelet was aligned with Ezra–Nehemiah, Chronicles, and Esther and thought to represent a similar stage in the diachronic development of Hebrew. Such an approach was taken by Delitzsch and Driver and, later, Wagner. 3

Translation Theory Aramaic influence in Qohelet’s language has been interpreted in a different way as well. In the 1950s, F. Zimmermann, C. C. Torrey, and H. L. Ginsberg developed a theory (first proposed by J. Burkitt in the 1920s) that Qohelet’s high density of Aramaisms and other peculiarities can be explained by the fact that the book is a poor translation of an Aramaic original. 4 This theory has since been refuted, most notably by R. Gordis, 5 on the grounds that a translation usually smooths out philological difficulties rather than compounding them and that it is unlikely that a translator would have left so many Aramaic-like features untranslated.

Recent Approaches Though the translation theory no longer convinces, the problems it had set out to solve have remained. How do we account for Qohelet’s high frequency of Aramaisms? Since Hurvitz’s 1968 article, an uncritical jump from Aramaic features to a late date has not been acceptable. In recent work, Hurvitz has developed his methods, suggesting three criteria for identifying late Aramaisms (resulting from external influence of Aramaic on Hebrew in the Persian period): (1) [T]he biblical documentation of the “Aramaism” must be characteristic of distinctively late biblical texts; (2) it must be demonstrated that the “Aramaism” deviates from standard usage in the earlier books of the Old Testament; and (3) the “Aramaism” must be shown to have enjoyed widespread usage and vitality in the Aramaic dialects in which it presumably originated. 6 3. F. Delitzsch, Commentary of the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, vol. 6: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (trans. M. G. Easton; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980); S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed.; New York: Scribner’s, 1913); M. Wagner, Die Lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentliche Hebräisch (BZAW 96; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1966). 4.  See F. C. Burkitt, “Is Ecclesiastes a Translation?” JTS 23 (1922) 22–26; F. Zimmermann, “The Aramaic Provenance of Qohelet,” JQR 36 (1945/46) 17–45; idem, “The Question of Hebrew in Qohelet,” JQR 40 (1949/50) 79–102; C. C. Torrey, “The Question of the Original Language of Kohelet,” JQR 39 (1948/49) 151–60; H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Koheleth (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 17; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950). 5. R. Gordis, “The Original Language of Qohelet,” JQR 37 (1946–47) 67–84; idem, “The Translation Theory of Qohelet Re-examined,” JQR 40 (1949–50) 103–16; and idem, “Koheleth: Hebrew or Aramaic?” JBL 71 (1952) 93–109. 6. A. Hurvitz, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: the Problem of ‘Aramaisms’ in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. I. Young; London: T. & T. Clark, 2003) 35.

346

Eva Mroczek

If these criteria of biblical distribution, linguistic contrast, and external sources are not all met, we must consider the possibility that the “Aramaism” in question may not be indicative of a late date but may instead appear in a context where Aramaic-like features are often present, regardless of chronology. Possible contexts are (a) poetry; (b) texts that reflect a northern regional dialect; (c) texts about foreign characters or words placed in a foreign character’s mouth; or (d) wisdom literature. 7 Since Hurvitz’s challenge, new voices have entered the discussion about Aramaisms in Qohelet as well as in other texts. Scholars have taken up Hurvitz’s program to see “Aramaisms” as a “polysemous” 8 concept that should be analyzed in light of dialect, register, genre, and style, as well as date. In his work on the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History, for example, Gary Rendsburg has made a case for distinguishing “Aramaisms”—postexilic Aramaic influences on Hebrew—from “Aramaic-like features,” preexilic features that may reflect a common Semitic background or an origin in a northern region. 9 With regard to Qohelet, this approach has been used by D. C. Fredericks, who suggests a preexilic date for the book. 10 Fredericks understands most of the Aramaisms in Qohelet to reflect common Semitic stock or rare but native Hebrew forms, the wisdom genre of the work, and a northern dialect—not a late date. 11 A preexilic date, albeit on different grounds, has also been proposed by Ian Young, who, building on Gary Rendsburg’s work and drawing on the methods of linguistics, ascribes Qohelet’s “Aramaisms” to diglossia. Qohelet, Young maintains, used a nonliterary dialect, a colloquial style that fits his subversive message well. 12 The commonly termed “Aramaisms” that have been aligned with Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) works such as Esther and Chronicles 13 are actually functioning quite differently in Qohelet than in those works and thus do not conclusively place Qohelet in the same chronological frame. Young dates the book to the monarchic period on contextual, not philological grounds. 14 Fredericks and Young, then, have dated Qohelet’s language to the preexilic period and have found its “Aramaisms” to be indicative of its dialectal or diglossic 7.  Ibid., 29–33. See also the discussion of the concentrations of Aramaisms or Aramaiclike features in various BH contexts in Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 1.212–14. 8.  Hurvitz, “The Chronological Significance,” 237. 9.  G. A. Rendsburg, “Hurvitz Redux: On the Continued Scholarly Inattention to a Simple Principle of Hebrew Philology,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. I. Young; London: T. & T. Clark, 2003) 104–28. Rendsburg surveys and criticizes scholarship since Hurvitz’s 1968 article that still automatically interprets Aramaic-like features as the result of externally influenced language change and evidence of a Persian period date. For additional critiques, see idem, “Aramaic-Like Features in the Pentateuch,” HS 47 (2006) 163–76. 10.  D. C. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 3; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988) 263. 11.  Ibid., 208–41. 12. I. Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew (Tübingen: Mohr, 1993) 155. 13.  Compare with Driver, An Introduction, 474–75. 14.  Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew, 146–49.

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet

347

character rather than its date. But their arguments have not convinced most scholars. The general consensus still seems to be to give the book a postexilic date and to include its Aramaisms among the linguistic features that align it with the late development of the language. C. L. Seow, for instance, dates Qohelet to the Persian period, largely based on economic vocabulary that has parallels in contemporary Aramaic. 15 A. Schoors, although he formulates his philological judgments cautiously and allows that “Aramaisms” may be reflective of dialectal/regional difference or stylistic choices unique to Qohelet’s genre, believes that the balance of the evidence points to lateness after all. 16 Avi Hurvitz himself also favors a late date for Qohelet, 17 although he has not tackled its Aramaisms in detail in published work. The book’s Aramaisms, then, have been defined and interpreted in a variety of ways and harnessed to support divergent dating suggestions. My purpose in the remainder of this essay is to evaluate these approaches based on selected features in the book. I do not attempt to be exhaustive but select several elements to illustrate the variety of Aramaic-like features in Qohelet. I ask what Hurvitz’s methodology for identifying and interpreting “Aramaisms” can reveal when taken to its logical conclusion and applied to Qohelet. For each linguistic feature, I keep a series of questions in mind: (1) What does it mean to classify the element as an “Aramaism”? (2a) Does it reflect language change as a result of external and late influence on Hebrew, or (2b) is there a possibility that it might represent internal language change or early, preexilic features? (3a) Does the feature fulfill Hurvitz’s threefold method for identifying lateness? (3b) If not, how else can we explain it through linguistic categories—if it does not tell us about diachronic development and a chronological change in the author’s internal grammar, does it reflect the dialect, register, genre, or stylistic choice of the work?

Analysis of Selected “Aramaisms” in Qohelet Lexical Elements ‫( טחנה‬Qohelet 12:4)

The word ‫“( טחנה‬mill”) may be considered an Aramaism. It appears only in Qoh 12:4 in the HB, where the common term for “mill” is ‫רחים‬. The word ‫טחנה‬ (“mill”) appears in a Persian period Aramaic papyrus from Saqqara. 18 However, a 15.  C. L. Seow, “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qoheleth,” JBL 115 (1996) 653–54; idem, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18C; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1997) 13–14. 16. A. Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part I: Grammar (OLA 41; Leuven: Peeters, 1992) 221–24; T. Krüger, Qoheleth: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress , 2004) 36. 17.  For example, A. Hurvitz, “Review of Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date,” HS 31 (1990) 152; and idem, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period,” 36. 18.  See J. B. Segal, Aramaic Texts from North Saqqara (Texts from Excavations 6; London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983), cited in Seow, “Linguistic Evidence,” 652.

348

Eva Mroczek

masculine noun, ‫“( טחון‬mill”), appears in Hebrew in the poetic book of Lamentations (5:13), and the root ‫טחן‬, “to grind,” appears many times in the Hebrew Bible (for example, Num 11:8, Exod 32:20, Job 31:10). This form of the root may well be an uncommon Hebrew word, not the result of outside influence. Furthermore, even if we did find more data to support the idea that this word came from Aramaic, they still would not help us date its usage to a late period, because we would need to consider the poetic context in which it appears in both Lamentations and Qohelet (unlike the narrative context of the ordinary Hebrew word for “mill,” ‫)רחים‬. In Qohelet, the word appears in the context of an enigmatic poem about old age that may have been composed by Qohelet but may also have been based on or at least inspired by traditional material. 19 Poetic texts of any era are open to using archaic and/or Aramaic elements. 20 The word ‫“( טחנה‬mill”) is probably of Hebrew lineage based on a pan-Semitic root, 21 a nonstandard term that is at home in poetry.

The Root ‫( שלט‬Qohelet 2:19; 5:18; 6:2; 8:4, 8)

Qohelet’s use of the root ‫ שלט‬as a verb figures prominently in C. L. Seow’s linguistic argument for dating the book to the Persian period. 22 Seow, following Douglas M. Gropp, maintains that it appears in a technical sense in the book with the meaning of a legal right of disposal, a definition that is operative only in Persian period Aramaic documents. 23 Since in post–Persian period documents the word means only “to rule,” Qohelet must date to the Persian period. I will devote a fair bit of space to this element because Seow’s methodology is problematic with regard to (1) identifying this element as an Aramaism and (2) interpreting its chronological significance. First, is the word an Aramaism at all? The root appears in Gen 42:6, and its use in Daniel has even been called a Hebraism! 24 Indeed, it is only necessary to call it an Aramaism if we accept Seow’s position that it bears a technical, economic 19.  Many studies have appeared on the meaning of this poem and its place in Qohelet; see C. L. Seow (“Qohelet’s Eschatological Poem,” JBL 118 [1999] 209–234) for an eschatological interpretation and a bibliography of earlier studies. Seow calls the section from 11:7 to 12:8 the book’s “conclusion” (Ecclesiastes, 346), and Krüger (Qoheleth, 191) considers it a “closing summary of the ‘teachings’ of the book of Qoheleth”; while commentators rightly consider this poem to be in continuity with ch. 11 and within the context of the book as a whole, it seems likely that it did draw on older imagery, traditions, and metaphors that would have been recognizable and meaningful to its audience or was at least inspired by “popular litanies about geriatric woes” from the ancient Near East (Seow, “Qohelet’s Eschatological Poem,” 234, with examples on p. 211). 20.  The fact that the Aramaic papyrus from Saqqara dates to the Persian period does not indicate that the word was unavailable earlier and has no bearing on its chronology in Hebrew. 21.  See BDB 377 on its appearance in both Geʿez and Arabic. 22.  Seow, “Linguistic Evidence,” 653–54; idem, Ecclesiastes, 13–14. 23.  D. M. Gropp, “The Origin and Development of the Aramaic šallīt Clause,” JNES 52 (1993) 31–36. 24.  Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 215.

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet

349

meaning in the text. This argument is questionable. 25 The word may simply mean, as it does elsewhere in Hebrew, simply “to rule”; in fact, this meaning seems more likely given that the speaker is a ruler, a king. What the author is speaking of here is not merely that an unworthy person may inherit the legal right to his possessions but that the next king will come to rule—have dominion—over all that once belonged to him. Finally, it seems somewhat incongruous that Qohelet, speaking in abstract, existential terms about the world and human activity, would use technical legal/economic jargon here. Indeed, Dominic Rudman suggests that the figurative use of the root in Daniel, in the sense of a deity’s granting property to human subjects, has more to do with the intellectual climate of Qohelet than the purely literal, technical uses of the root in the Persian period legal papyri. 26 If we cannot prove that this word is used in the technical legal sense in which it appears in Aramaic documents (and LBH), we cannot argue conclusively that it is an Aramaism at all. Second, even if we accept Seow’s argument about its meaning here, his argument for Persian period dating is unconvincing. First, there is no evidence that it was not used prior to the Persian period (Seow does not mention this possibility). The only textual evidence that Seow seems to use is the legal documents from Elephantine and Wadi Daliyeh, which all happen to date to the fifth/fourth century b.c.e. Texts of a similar genre from an earlier period may show that Aramaic had used this word in this way earlier as well; it is merely by chance that these particular documents from the great Persian bureaucratic machine have survived. 27 If indeed Qohelet uses the wording in an Aramaic legal sense, the date when it penetrated into Hebrew cannot be determined conclusively. What about the terminus ante quem for Qohelet? Seow builds his argument on the idea that the term was no longer used in Aramaic in the technical sense after the Persian period (using a variety of sources to support this claim). However, Dominic Rudman has marshaled evidence that a technical/legal use of the root may indeed have persisted well into the Hellenistic period in both Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Rudman also points out that, thereafter, the lingua franca for most legal documents was Greek, not Aramaic, complicating any claim about language change in Aramaic based on evidence from legal usage! 28 Moreover, even if the word was no longer used in Aramaic in this legal sense after the Persian period, this does not compel us to date the Hebrew of Qohelet to this era. If we accept the implications of Seow’s argument—that an Aramaic legal 25.  This point has also been made by T. Longman in a review of Seow’s commentary (Bib 80 [1999] 420–24). 26. D. Rudman, “A Note on the Dating of Ecclesiastes,” CBQ 61 (1999) 52. 27.  Compare with I. Young, “Fallacies in the Linguistic Dating of Qohelet: A Discussion Paper” (unpublished paper, 2006) 3. Regarding Akkadian, Gropp claims that the word had a limited legal sense in the seventh century (“Origin and Development,” 35–36). 28.  Rudman, “A Note on the Dating of Ecclesiastes,” 49.

350

Eva Mroczek

term influenced the development of Hebrew semantics in the Persian period— there is no reason to assume that this usage diffused through Hebrew right away 29 or that it underwent parallel development in Hebrew and Aramaic thereafter. Even if the legal sense of the word fell out of use in Aramaic, we cannot assume that it also fell out of use in Hebrew at the same time; we simply have insufficient legal/economic sources to tell us about this word’s legal usage in Hebrew. But even if we make all of these assumptions and assume that the technical sense of the ‫ שלט‬root was no longer in use after the Persian period, this still does not force us to date Qohelet to this era. Even if the word was no longer in current use in a legal/economic sense, this would not prevent a writer from using it for his own stylistic purposes in a work that is not a legal document or prevent him from repeating it from older, traditional sayings at his disposal. 30 In fact, using an archaic word or using it in an “Aramaizing” sense may have been a stylistic strategy to enhance the narrator’s Solomonic persona or to give the work an Aramaic-like (“distant,” sapiential) flavor. 31 In short, Seow’s argument is vulnerable at the stage of both the identification and the interpretation of the philological element. Qohelet’s use of the verb ‫שלט‬ may or may not be an “Aramaism,” and even if it is, it can tell us nothing about the date of the book’s composition.

‫( זמן‬Qohelet 3:1)

The word ‫“( זמן‬time”) is frequently cited as an example of Qohelet’s late Aramaisms. It is well attested in Imperial and Biblical Aramaic, but in Hebrew it appears only in Nehemiah (2:6) and Esther (9:27, 31), and later, in post-Biblical Hebrew. 32 However, there is not enough evidence to conclude either its external provenance or its late entry into Hebrew. The root and meaning are widely attested in Semitic languages, for example, Akkadian, 33 so it may have been used but simply is not attested in the extant texts with Hebrew that is much earlier than the Persian period. 34 The context in which this word is used—only once in Qohelet in a poetic passage—should also raise some doubts. It is parallel with the standard Hebrew term ‫“( עת‬time”), which is used many more times than ‫“( זמן‬time”). Therefore, we have no clear evidence here of a case of late language change taking place; that is, it is nowhere near as convincing as Avi Hurvitz’s go-to example of lexical development, the early Hebrew term ‫“( ספר‬letter”) that was replaced by 29.  On the distinction between change and diffusion, see J. Naudé, “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. I. Young; London: T. & T. Clark, 2003) 189–214, esp. p. 200. 30.  See again Rudman, “A Note on the Dating of Ecclesiastes,” for the possible persistence of this shade of meaning in nonlegal literature during Hellenistic times. 31.  Once again, see Rudman (ibid., 52) on the figurative use of the root in Daniel. 32. See Seow, Ecclesiastes, 159; and Schoors, The Preacher, 60–61. 33.  Compare with Amarna letter 29:119; Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew, 123. 34.  Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 224.

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet

351

‫“( אגרת‬letter”) in late texts. 35 Instead, we have a poetic text, where archaisms or Aramaisms are more likely, regardless of date, and where an unusual word is used as a (near-)synonymous parallel to a standard Hebrew form. This unusual word may be a late Aramaism, but other explanations are possible.

‫( כשר‬Qohelet 11:6; cf. 10:10)

The word ‫ כשר‬is elsewhere found in Biblical Hebrew only in Esth 8:5, but there the meaning is “pleasing” or “proper,” not Qohelet’s sense of “success” or “prosperity.” Because of this semantic difference, we cannot align the usage in Qohelet with the usage in the late text of Esther. 36 In the early Ps 68:7, the word ‫כושרות‬ also has the sense of “prosperity.” External influence from Aramaic is not necessarily responsible for this word in Hebrew, because the root is common in Semitic languages. Kutscher 37 uses this root as an example of the idea that words that are only attested in late texts could be ancient. 38 Once again, we may have an example, not of language development, but of the deliberate use of an unusual word.

‫( בהל‬Qohelet 8:3, 5:1, 7:9)

The word ‫בהל‬, meaning “to hasten” and appearing in the Piel and Niphal in Qohelet, has been called a late Aramaism. Its meaning in earlier BH is “to terrify,” but later texts have the Aramaic meaning “to hasten.” However, this semantic change may be internal to Hebrew. Fredericks suggests that the meanings “to terrify” and “to hasten” are actually semantically related, and no external influence need be assumed, since other words with this pair of meanings exist in Hebrew, for example, ‫חפז‬. 39 Fredericks also cites James VanderKam, who suggests a common Semitic root meaning “to speak passionately,” which came to express both terror and haste. 40 Young, on the other hand, argues that, even if there was external Aramaic influence, it may have come before the exile and may have begun in wisdom texts. The Aramaic meaning “to hasten” was available and “quite acceptable” in Hebrew wisdom literature early on, although it was not commonly used in most other 35.  Hurvitz cites this example in more than one publication (see his “Historical Quest for ‘Ancient Israel’ and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations,” VT 47 [1997] 311–14; and his review of Fredericks, 150–51); indeed, it seems to me that it is the only straightforward and convincing example of late, Aramaic-influenced language change that fulfills Hurvitz’s threefold criteria. However, see Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts) for a critique of even this example on the grounds that the word ‫אגרת‬ is not exclusive to the postexilic period but is already attested in Aramaic texts from the NeoAssyrian period, contemporary with “Early Biblical Hebrew”; they argue that the “Aramaic evidence is thus strictly irrelevant to the question of the word’s chronology within Hebrew” (1.220). 36.  Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew, 152. 37.  E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (ed. R. Kutscher; Jerusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill, 1982) 83. 38.  Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 184. 39.  Ibid., 218. 40. J. VanderKam, “BHL in Psalm 2:5 and Its Etymology,” CBQ 39 (1977) 245–50.

352

Eva Mroczek

contexts until later. As an example of early Hebrew use of the word in this sense, Young cites Prov 28:21, “which is in one of the oldest collections of Proverbs,” as well as Prov 20:21: “An estate acquired in haste (‫ )נחלה מבהלת‬at the outset will not be blessed in the end.” 41 It is impossible to tell what stage, if any, of language change is represented by Qohelet’s use of ‫“( בהל‬to hasten”). Here again, Hurvitz’s three criteria remain unmet.

Morphological and Grammatical Features The linguistic elements cited as Aramaisms have been predominantly lexical, but such features are less reliable for gauging actual language change than other kinds of linguistic evidence. Lexical elements may be the result of conscious word choice, while morphological and syntactical elements are more likely to reflect the internal grammar of the language user. 42 Below, I will evaluate a selection of nonlexical features that have been interpreted as signs of Aramaic influence.

‫ון‬- Noun Endings

The ‫ון‬- abstract noun endings have been understood to be the result of late Aramaic influence, because the ‫ון‬- nominal pattern is thought to be Aramaic. However, this form does not fulfill Hurvitz’s criteria for identifying late Aramaisms. There is no biblical distribution, because these words (including the most important, ‫יתרון‬, “advantage”) appear in this form only in Qohelet. There is no linguistic contrast—that is, deviation from early standard usage—because it appears that both Qohelet’s forms and his abstract concepts are unique, having no equivalent terms in Biblical Hebrew. Finally, the third criteria of external sources (widespread usage and vitality in Aramaic) is also missing. The use, if any, of these words in Aramaic sources is sporadic and late. 43 41.  Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew, 152. The dating of Proverbs is its own complex issue. On this see, most recently, the commentary of M. V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18B; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009). 42.  See R. Rezetko, “Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from Samuel–Kings and Chron­ icles,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. I. Young; London: T. & T. Clark, 2003) 245–49. On grammar and language change, see B. Heine and T. Kuteva (Language Contact and Grammatical Change [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005]). Lexical elements, particularly uncommon vocabulary, are indeed often borrowed from languages in contact (see, for example, Sarah G. Thomason, “Contact as a Source of Language Change,” in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics [ed. B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003] 687–712, on code-switching and borrowing.) The issue once again is how to distinguish, based on a limited literary corpus, between loanwords indicating contact-induced change and words that are simply uncommon native forms and/or deliberately chosen for stylistic reasons. Linguists have long been aware of a variety of reasons that could account for unusual lexical features; on stylistic choice, see, for example, David Crystal, “New Perspectives for Language Study, 1: Stylistics,” English Language Teaching Journal 24 (1970) 99–106. 43.  Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 227–29. The ending is also present in Moabite proper nouns; Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew, 150.

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet

353

Of course, this refers to the specific lexical elements rather than the ‫ון‬- morphology, which is indeed well attested in Aramaic. However, this still does not encourage conclusions about late contact-induced change. The morphology is available in texts traditionally thought to be composed in preexilic Hebrew. 44 As for the roots of these words (‫חסר‬, ‫יתר‬, ‫חשב‬, ‫כשר‬, ‫—)שלט‬they are all attested in Hebrew across a variety of books and are quite productive, each with a wide variety of morphological attestations throughout a wide span of HB texts (this is especially true of the most frequently used root, ‫)יתר‬. 45 Rather than assuming late, externally-influenced morphological development, then, we might instead consider the particular subject matter of the work: a reflection on general truths about the world, which would encourage the formation of abstract nouns (possibly, for added stylistic effect, Aramaic-sounding abstract nouns) based on available roots and patterns. 46 Digressing from the theme of Aramaisms to an illustrative parallel issue in the study of Qohelet’s language: a similar argument can be made for Qohelet’s use of the participle for the present tense. This feature is often understood diachronically as a late development because of its similarity to Mishnaic Hebrew. However, since Qohelet is speaking about the cyclical nature of the universe and human activity, he may have harnessed this grammatical form to fit his message and subject matter. He wishes to speak about neither complete nor incomplete actions but generalities. Indeed, the participle, which combines features of both a verb and a noun, seems quite apt to express the ever-moving but ever-static nature of human striving. This usage should not necessarily be placed on a linear continuum with Mishnaic grammar, because it may not be a question of grammar development but of stylistic choice adopted for a particular literary purpose. To return to the question of Aramaisms and the ‫ון‬- morphology in Qohelet: it has been suggested that scribal transmission may have affected this feature as well. Fredericks draws attention to an odd feature of the words of the ‫ון‬- morphology: the words that have exact parallels elsewhere in the HB are pointed according to the trisyllabic pattern (‫“[ ִחּשְבֹנֹות‬schemes”], ‫“[ ִזּכָרֹון‬reminder”], ‫“[ ִב ָטּחֹון‬trust”]), which is native to Hebrew; however, the words that are not attested elsewhere in the HB (‫ֶסרֹון‬ ְ ‫“[ ח‬what is lacking”], ‫ִתרֹון‬ ְ ‫“[ י‬advantage”], ‫ֶשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫“[ ח‬scheme”], ‫ִש ְלטֹון‬ [“that which has power”]) are given a bisyllabic vocalization more reminiscent of Aramaic. It appears, according to Fredericks, that “a scribe quite possibly worked with the principle that if no precedent for pointing existed, then the spelling was 44.  Ibid., 229. The issue of which books and passages are to be considered preexilic is, of course, much debated. Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd (Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts) retain the typological nomenclature of Early and Late Biblical Hebrew but argue that these are not chronological periods but coexisting styles of Hebrew. 45.  Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 227; Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew, 149–50. 46.  See also Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 30–31.

354

Eva Mroczek

uniformly patterned after a ‘late’ form; otherwise it was spelled as it was elsewhere in BH.” 47 The pattern that Fredericks has illuminated is suggestive, although I do not think of the scribe’s approach in terms of a conscious “principle”—more likely, I think, is that the scribe used BH precedents for his pointing if they were available, but if they were not, he relied on his own intuition and “ear” without reflecting on the similarity or dissimilarity of these nominal patterns. In any case, in the original consonantal text, the “early” and “late” forms would have looked morphologically the same. We have no way of knowing whether the vocalization reflects the actual morphology of the author’s language or whether these Aramaic-looking words actually followed a better-attested Hebrew pattern. 48

Qĕtāl-Pattern Nouns

The reduced first vowel and qamets in the second syllable in both the absolute and the construct (‫“[ ע ְַבדֵ יהֶם‬their works”], 9:1) of some words in Qohelet suggest a morphology borrowed from Aramaic 49 (for example, ‫“[ ע ְַבדֵ יהֶם‬their works”] 9:1, ‫“[ ְקרָב‬war”] 9:18,[“time”] ‫ ְזמָן‬3:1). However, this indicates nothing about the chronology of this borrowing. Such a reduced-vowel pattern for various roots is attested for absolute state nouns in Isa 7:28, Zeph 1:4, Judg 6:2 and 8:26, and 1 Sam 23:14, 19. Any argument that this feature indicates lateness must contend with the chronology of these appearances as well.  50

‫שׁ‬/ ‫“( אשׁר‬That/Which/Who”) Used as a Conjunction

Schoors has made the argument that Qohelet’s “more frequent” use of the relative particle ‫“( אשׁר‬that/which/who”) or ‫“( שׁ‬that/which/who”) as a “conjunction” is an Aramaism, a calque of Aramaic ‫“( די‬that/which/who”). 51 Seow has also commented on the conjunctive use of this particle, 52 although he does not call this an Aramaism but a characteristic of LBH. However, it is not clear that any of the 157 instances of ‫“( אשׁר‬that/which/who”) and ‫“( שׁ‬that/which/who”) in Qohelet is used in such a non-nominalizing sense at all. 53 Even if we were to accept the possibility of this sort of usage, which is present in the Mishnah, there is no evidence for calling it a calque of Aramaic ‫“( די‬that/which/who”); it could equally likely be a result of language development within Hebrew or perhaps a sign of a less-formal, 47.  Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 211. 48.  See also Young, “Biblical Texts,” 349–51, on the fluidity of individual linguistic elements in the scribal transmission of a text. 49.  For example, Wagner, Die lexicalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen, 122; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 209. 50.  See further Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 233–34. 51.  Schoors, The Preacher, 223. 52.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 17. 53.  See the contribution of R. Holmstedt to this volume; also Holmstedt (“The Etymologies of Hebrew ʾăšɛr and šɛC-,” JNES 66 [2006] 177–91; idem, “The Story of Ancient Hebrew ʾăšɛr,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43 [2007] 9–28). I am mentioning this interesting feature only briefly, as I do not wish to repeat the arguments presented there.

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet

355

colloquial register that allowed more syntactical flexibility. Thus, both the identification and the interpretation of this “Aramaism” are dubious. 54

Inconsistent Use of the Definite Article

Qohelet’s inconsistent use of the definite article was one of the Aramaic-like features cited by the proponents of the Aramaic translation theory: Aramaic had lost the clear distinction between definite and indefinite nouns, and this blurring is reflected in the inconsistent Hebrew rendering. While the translation theory has been effectively discredited, Qohelet’s definite articles remain puzzling. However, as Fredericks observes, 55 this inconsistency was not considered a sign of external influence by scholars who worked before the translation theory was proposed. Instead, it was explained on other grounds, including rhythmical considerations in poetical passages 56 (for example 12:4, 6); appropriate use of the article in statements about general truths or abstractions (for example ‫“[ כל־האדם‬all humanity”], 5:18); or use with only one of two parallel words (7:25; 3:17; 10:20; 12:1) 57. One case where the article is omitted (‫[ אל־עיר‬lit., “to a city”], 10:15), is more problematic, but this has been ascribed to a vernacular/colloquial element in the book. 58 The sporadic use of the definite article is not a feature that should be attributed to external Aramaic influence, but to other considerations, like poetic genre and vernacular language. Such an evaluation is needed only to bolster the translation theory and has no basis if that theory is abandoned.

Observations and Assessment General Observations: The Polysemous Character of “Aramaisms” in a Single Work Scholars have proposed conflicting explanations for the presence of practically every so-called Aramaism in Qohelet, harnessing them to a variety of theo54.  One compound expression that includes the particle ‫“( שׁ‬that/which/who”) is ‫על־דברת‬ ‫ שלא‬in 7:14, which has been seen as a calque from the Aramaic ‫( על־דברת ד‬Dan 4:14 and 2:30), and therefore added to the list of Qohelet’s Aramaisms (Seow, Ecclesiastes, 13). However, this evidence is inconclusive. We cannot identify this expression as the result of late, external Aramaic influence on the sole basis of a text in Daniel, which is influenced by Hebrew in many places. In fact, the cognate expression in Daniel has elsewhere been identified as a possible Hebraism (Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 215, and bibliography cited on p. 252 n. 44). There is good reason to consider this an acceptable Hebrew expression. Parallel syntax and meaning exists in the expression ‫ למען אשר לא‬which appears, for example, in Num 17:5 and Deut 20:18. ‫על־דבר‬ is present for example, in Gen 12:17; 20:11, etc. Therefore, both the syntax and the component parts are found in early BH, and so it is likely that ‫ על־דברת שלא‬is a Hebrew expression and not a “calque” from Aramaic (indeed, Fredericks has somewhat confusingly called it an “internal BH calque,” [Qoheleth’s Language, 234], by which he apparently means it replicates the structure of ‫)למען אשר לא‬. 55.  Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 15. 56.  Compare with GKC 126. 57. Ibid. 58.  Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 37; see also Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew, 150.

356

Eva Mroczek

ries about dating and provenance. What has emerged from my selective analysis is that most of the Aramaisms can be understood, not as evidence of late, externallyinfluenced language change, but as evidence of either internal or early language development, or language usage dictated by stylistic concerns or genre. The features described above do not fulfill Hurvitz’s threefold criteria for judging late Aramaisms (biblical distribution, linguistic contrast, and external sources). 59 In addition, of the nondiachronic reasons that Hurvitz and Rendsburg cite for the presence of Aramaisms or Aramaic-like features, most come together in Qohelet: the book contains poetry, some of which may draw on very old, traditional materials; 60 it participates in the genre of wisdom; and it may reflect a northern dialect. The remaining type of nonchronological Aramaism that Hurvitz cites is the use of Aramaic for foreign speech; below, I argue that Aramaic is even used for foreign speech in Qohelet, although here the “foreign” person is not a non-Israelite but a different kind of “distant other,” a staggeringly wise and wealthy ancient king whose renown extended far beyond his own borders. 61 A general methodological conclusion can be drawn. I follow Avi Hurvitz’s emphasis on the polysemous character of the idea of “Aramaisms,” but I would take this statement to its logical conclusion: different features that have been considered “Aramaisms” within a single work can also be of polysemous character and reflect separate processes that cannot be viewed as one category. That is, we cannot lump together different linguistic features on the basis that they all reflect “Aramaisms” and then make global assessments based on their sheer number. 62 Calling them by one name may be convenient and may reflect classical and still-influential scholarship, but it can also be misleading. Individual elements may represent completely different motivations and processes; they cannot be considered to reflect a general philological tendency of a work. In the case of Qohelet, the features that have been identified as “Aramaisms” and traditionally used in toto to support a late date on the grounds of their frequency or the “balance of the evidence” are probably not the result of a single linguistic phenomenon and should not be treated as such. 59.  Hurvitz, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period,” 35. 60.  See the section below on Qohelet as being partially a collection. This does not necessarily mean that the book is the work of several authors. Even if we argue for the book’s compositional integrity, the author must have used older material, whether from written or oral sources; this should not be surprising, because a major and self-conscious theme of the work is a sage’s position vis-à-vis his ancestral traditions. For a discussion of the book’s compositional history, see Krüger, Qoheleth: A Commentary, 14–18. 61.  Compare with Holmstedt, “The Etymologies of Hebrew ʾăšɛr and sɛC-.” 62.  See esp. Seow (Ecclesiastes, 13–15) and Schoors (The Preacher, 223), who make arguments based on the large number or concentration of Aramaisms. This problem is compounded when Aramaisms and other linguistic features (such as “Mishnaisms,” another general term that may be applied to diverse features that are not necessarily products of diachronic change and may be unrelated to each other) are all considered together, counted, and used to form judgments about the date and provenance of texts.

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet

357

How, then, do we evaluate the various scholarly approaches to Qohelet’s peculiar language and particularly his use of Aramaic-like elements? Below, I briefly comment on the approaches of scholars who have used Qohelet’s “Aramaisms” in particular ways: Seow, Fredericks, Hurvitz and Schoors, and Young. These scholars consider many more elements than Aramaisms in making their conclusions, but I concentrate solely on their consideration of Aramaisms.

Assessment of Selected Scholarly Approaches Seow: Persian-Period Aramaic Economic Vocabulary and Persian-Period Dating

Seow’s argument for dating is perhaps the closest to the classic approach, which saw evidence of a late date in the “high frequency” 63 of Qohelet’s Aramaisms. However, Seow makes a more specific argument by dating Qohelet to the fifth/fourth century based on a collection of lexical items that are also found in fifth-century Egyptian Aramaic texts. Seow concludes that these terms came into LBH no earlier than in 500 b.c.e. because they are not attested in Hebrew or Aramaic before then; therefore, Qohelet also dates to after this time. Further, Seow considers Qohelet’s terminus ante quem to be the end of the Persian period based on the semantic change of ‫שלט‬, which loses its technical legal meaning after this era. I have discussed Seow’s arguments about ‫“( שלט‬to rule”) above (pp. 348–350), but my critique applies to his approach as a whole. First, it is merely by chance that we have a large collection of Persian-period Aramaic legal and economic documents where these words appear. Just because we do not have earlier texts that use these words does not mean they did not exist; we simply do not have enough surviving evidence from a comparable genre to make this judgment. We cannot assert that the evidence that has survived is the first-ever use of the term. Second, if a word exists in Egyptian Aramaic legal texts in the fifth century, it does not necessarily follow that a Judean/Israelite Hebrew philosophical/literary text also comes from that time: linear dependence cannot be assumed when the texts are so different geographically and generically. Furthermore, Seow does not take into account the difference between language change (the first time a neologism is used in a language) and diffusion (the spread of the element through the language, which takes time). Even if the lexical elements that he cites were a result of Aramaic-influenced language change, there is no way to determine when they were used in (or inserted into) Qohelet. 64 Third, Seow assumes externally-influenced language change but does not provide evidence that these terms replaced earlier, native Hebrew terms in late literature (compare with the standard example of change from ‫“[ ספר‬letter”] to ‫אגרת‬ 63.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 15. 64.  See the discussion of ‫“( שלט‬to rule”) above (pp. 348–350); and Naudé, “Transitions of Biblical Hebrew.”

358

Eva Mroczek

[“letter”]). He also overlooks other linguistic considerations that may account for Aramaic-like features, such as dialect, register, genre, or stylistic choice. Seow has no sound methodological basis for dating a literary work such as Qohelet to the same period as the Egyptian Aramaic legal documents with which it shares some linguistic forms.

Fredericks: Pre-exilic Northern Origin

Fredericks, in his extensive study, does consider dialect and genre, concluding that Qohelet reflects a preexilic northern dialect and that some of Qohelet’s word choices are due to his unique subject matter. Fredericks finds that 41 of Qohelet’s alleged “Aramaisms” can be explained by a poetic or sapiential setting, preexilic language, Hebraisms in Aramaic texts, internal Hebrew development, and other, nondiachronic considerations. His evidence is impressive and effectively shows that Aramaisms must be carefully assessed on their own merits—not simply counted and presumed to suggest lateness. But his firm conclusion about Qohelet’s preexilic date and northern provenance fails to convince and remains, as Hurvitz writes in his review, only “a theoretical possibility.” 65

Schoors and Hurvitz: The Balance of the Evidence Points to a Late Date

A. Hurvitz is in agreement with A. Schoors, who is critical of Fredericks’s conclusions and aligns Qohelet linguistically with Late Biblical Hebrew. Both Schoors and Hurvitz are careful to note that the Aramaic-like features of Qohelet do not automatically and necessarily signify a late date. Nevertheless, both of them seem to consider “Aramaisms” to be a general phenomenon that supports a late dating, 66 arguing that Qohelet’s Hebrew is influenced by Aramaic and already contains Mishnaic features. This is not convincing because, with a little effort, almost all the alleged Aramaisms in Qohelet can be explained as the result of internal Hebrew developments or with reference to nondiachronic categories; they do not fulfill Hurvitz’s own criteria for identifying late Aramaisms. The idea of the “polysemous” phenomenon of Aramaisms is described 67 but not applied, because Schoors still speaks of the “high frequency” of Aramaisms as a whole as one of the arguments for the late dating. Generalizations about “frequency” are not valid, since features that look like “Aramaisms” can be explained in diverse and unrelated ways. 68 65.  Hurvitz, “Review of Fredericks,” 145. 66.  See A. Schoors, “The Use of Vowel Letters in Qoheleth,” UF 20 (1989) 282; idem, The Preacher, 223–24; and Hurvitz, “Review of Fredericks,” 152. 67.  Schoors, The Preacher, 223–24. 68.  Another consideration that may be of peripheral relevance to Aramaisms is Qohelet’s orthography, which Schoors uses as additional dating evidence. Schoors (The Preacher, 285–86) writes that “Qohelet represents a somewhat middle stage in the development of plene writing—a middle stage between classical and Qumran orthography.” This passage is cited with approval in Hurvitz’s review of Fredericks’s book as a major argument against Fredericks’s early dating

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet

359

Young: No Conclusive Linguistic Dating; Colloquial Register

I am most sympathetic to the approach of Ian Young, who is unwilling to date the book on philological grounds at all. 69 Young gives nondiachronic explanations for a group of Aramaisms and refuses to align Qohelet with the philological profile of any other text. Qohelet uses a type of Hebrew that was never the standard literary dialect of any period but, Young says, represents a vernacular, colloquial register. It stands alone and thus is linguistically undatable. 70 I agree with Young that Qohelet is not datable on linguistic grounds; however, I accept neither his characterization of Qohelet’s language as colloquial/vernacular nor his preexilic dating, which I discuss in greater detail below (pp. 359–362). In sum, Aramaic-like features have been interpreted as signs of both archaic and late language, as traits of poetry and wisdom literature, and as signs of northern provenance. This lack of consensus presents special challenges for a text that (a) has usually been considered late; (b) contains traditional material and places itself contextually in an ancient time (see pp. 359–362 below); (c) contains poetry; (d) draws on the wisdom tradition; and (e) displays possible dialectical characteristics of the north. Any or all of these facts can account for some of the Aramaisms that have been identified in Qohelet. It is impossible conclusively to sift out features that correspond to each of these categories, and it is impossible to date the book based on its Aramaisms.

Qohelet as a Solomonic Collection: Dating a Pseudepigraphic, Layered Text Permit me now to move on to more specific conclusions about the different sorts of “Aramaisms” in Qohelet. Fredericks and Young have already made interesting cases for a dialectical and diglossic explanation of Qohelet’s language, including its Aramaic-like features. Here, I explain in more detail how Aramaisms reflect the special character of the book’s content and genre and how these aspects make it especially difficult to date the text. Scholars have long recognized that wisdom and poetic texts are especially prone to Aramaic influence or archaic elements that may look like Aramaic. 71 This (“Review of Fredericks,”152). However, as we know from the plene orthography of a text such as 1QIsa, orthography tells us nothing conclusive about the date a text was composed. It may suggest when a particular manuscript was copied but not much more. 69.  Young, Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew; idem, “Biblical Texts Cannot Be Dated Linguistically.” 70.  The problem is how to identify colloquial and literary linguistic features. On this, see the work of Gary Rendsburg, especially Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew (AOS 72; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1990), where he draws on comparative evidence from other languages, particularly Arabic. 71.  See, for example, the early study of G. R. Driver, “Hebrew Poetic Diction,” in Congress Volume: Copenhagen, 1953 (VTSup 1; Leiden: Brill, 1953) 26–39.

360

Eva Mroczek

is observable in work on Qohelet; all the scholars surveyed here emphasize the genre of Qohelet as wisdom/philosophical literature. However, not enough attention has been paid to the implications of two aspects of the book: (1) the work as a collection of traditional wisdom materials; and (2) the Solomonic, royal persona that Qohelet assumes. I begin with the first consideration, the book as a collection. As the epilogue itself tells us, the author is a sage who collects and arranges existing material (12:9–10): ‫ ויתר שהיה קהלת חכם עוד למד דעת את העם ואזן וחקר תקן משלים הרבה‬.9 ‫ בקש קהלת למצא דברי חפץ וכתוב ישר דברי אמת‬.10 9.  Besides being wise, Qohelet also taught the people knowledge and weighed and studied and arranged many proverbs. 10.  Qohelet sought to find pleasing words, and he wrote words of truth plainly.

This passage describes how the work of a ‫“( חכם‬sage”) or a “scribe/teacher” was understood. The wisdom text is not the original work of one author and one moment in time. Rather, it is a collection, an anthology of traditional material passed down, supplemented, and interpreted (or, in Qohelet’s case, subverted) through the generations. 72 This understanding of the enterprise of Wisdom writing is also present in Ben Sira’s description of the scribe/sage (39:1–2, 7–8): ‫ חכמת כל הראשונים ידרש ובנבואות יהגה׃‬.1 ‫ שיחת אנשי שם ישמר ובעמקי מליצות יבוא׃‬.2 . . . . . . . . . . ‫ הוא יכין עצה ודעת ובמסתריו יתבונן׃‬.7  ‫ הוא יביע מוסר שכל ובתורת ייי יתפאר׃‬.8

 73

1.  [The scribe] seeks out the wisdom of all the ancients and ponders prophecies; 2.  he preserves the sayings of the famous and enters into the subtleties of parables. . . . . . . . . . . 7.  He [God] will direct his counsel and knowledge, as he meditates on his mysteries. 8.  He will pour forth wise teaching, and will glory in the law of the Lord.

Here, the sage is a collector, preserver, interpreter, and teacher of traditional material.

72.  On this, see J. Kugel, “Wisdom and the Anthological Temper,” Prooftexts 17 (1997) 9–32. For Kugel, the phrase in the next verse, “‫עשות ספרים הרבה אין קץ‬,” also refers to collecting rather than composing books. 73.  P. C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1997).

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet

361

What does this have to do with Aramaisms in Qohelet and their significance for its dating? Dating a text by the linguistic character of some of its parts might be appropriate for an original text composed by an individual author, but not for a text that draws so heavily on stock sayings and received tradition. We must ask what it means to “date Qohelet” in the first place. Unless we can distill Qohelet’s “own words” from the traditions that he collects, arranges, and turns on their head—and I think it is quite impossible to isolate his words, considering that the author himself seems ambivalent about whether or not he is speaking with the voice of tradition—and date his words alone, linguistic features cannot be used to date the book’s composition. The association of Aramaic with wisdom and the fact that Qohelet seems to be repeating and meditating on received sayings suggest that many of the Aramaic-like features are not representative of language change in the Persian period at all (whether or not the text was written in the Persian period). The author may be quoting sayings or anecdotes that had always had an Aramaic flavor; this does not tell us anything about when the author himself worked. In addition to using old material with Aramaic or archaic features, the author may have made a deliberate stylistic choice to give his own words this Aramaic-like flavor that was familiar from the material that he knew. In short, there is not much evidence for us to use in deciding whether the Aramaisms in Qohelet were preexilic and suggest a date similar to Job or Proverbs, or whether the Aramaisms were part of a style that tried to imitate works such as Job and Proverbs as it reflected on similar themes— or a combination of both. Once again, I emphasize the polysemous nature of the Aramaic-like features in the book. The book itself is probably a patchwork of materials from diverse times and places, collected, arranged, and meditated upon by our writer. In addition to this, we cannot rule out that Qohelet itself, as a wisdom collection, was updated and expanded to some degree by successive generations of sages. After all, ‫“( עשות ספרים הרבה אין קץ‬of making many books there is no end”) —a fact that complicates an already muddled picture. The second significant issue pertaining to Qohelet’s genre and style is the Solomonic persona that the writer affects, which, I think, may also have implications for the language of the book. This is connected to the previous issue of Qohelet as a collection of wisdom material. It appears that the book reflects an already developed tradition about Solomon as a wise king who had mastered many proverbs (compare with ‫“[ משלים הרבה‬many proverbs”], Qoh 12:9): Solomon’s encyclopedic wisdom had surpassed that of all the foreign sages, the ‫“( בני קדם‬men of the East”), and people from around the world came to listen to him (1 Kgs 5:10–14). The international character of the wisdom tradition is clear. In the book of Qohelet, Qohelet/Solomon questions the value of his unsurpassed wisdom, royal power, and riches as he looks back on an earlier time. This could imply two things for the book’s language, both having to do with deliberate stylistic choice. First, a book associated with the wisest king in the world, the

362

Eva Mroczek

master of foreign wisdom could feasibly entail a nonstandard style of language, and our author may have constructed a difficult text deliberately. 74 Foreign-sounding words and expressions could “help create the aura of ‘Solomonic profundity.’” 75 Words that are (or sound) Aramaic might have been considered especially appropriate. This language was connected to the enterprise of wisdom, in which Solomon excelled over the “men of the East,” who traditionally resided in the northern Transjordanian region and whose language was probably some form of Aramaic. 76 Second, I interpret the book to be looking back on hoary antiquity, before the glory of Israel’s monarchy had passed away. This is reflected in the descriptions of fabled royal opulence, through the character of the narrator, a legendary king who evokes Solomon but is never explicitly named, and perhaps even in the past narrative voice: “I was,” ‫הייתי‬, “king in Jerusalem.” The writer may have constructed a temporal distance by deliberately choosing words and phrases that evoked a bygone time, including some of the nonstandard forms that have been identified as Aramaisms. Whether these words actually do reflect archaic Hebrew is irrelevant; the point is that the author could have selected words that were nonstandard in his time in order to bolster the claim of ancient provenance. 77

Conclusion None of the features deemed “Aramaisms” must be explained as resulting from Aramaic-influenced language change in the Persian period and beyond. The grammatical and morphological evidence for Aramaic-influenced language change is sparse and unconvincing, and the lexical evidence can be explained using chronologically indefinite categories. With Young, I believe that Qohelet is not datable on linguistic grounds: it cannot be aligned closely with any datable text and should be allowed to stand alone. However, I differ from Young in two respects. He tends to explain most of Qohelet’s linguistic peculiarities with a theory of diglossia, saying that the language reflects a colloquial dialect. This does not seem to fit the sapiential/philosophical subject matter of the book and the royal persona; it is more likely, I think, that the language reflects an affected style, as described above, rather than ordinary speech. Second, Young dates the book to the monarchic era 74.  Here, the stylistic considerations of discourse, modality, and singularity may be relevant; see the discussion in Crystal, “New Perspectives,” 103–5. 75. R. Holmstedt, “The Grammar of ‫ ׁש‬and ‫ אׁשר‬in Qohelet,” in this volume. 76.  Hurvitz, “Review of Fredericks,” 33. On “foreign” speech, see also G. Rendsburg, “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign’ Factor in the Hebrew Bible,” in Language and Culture in the Near East (ed. S. Izre'el and R. Drory; IOS 15; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Faculty of Humanities, 1996) 177–90. 77.  Similar points about how the language is deliberately constructed to “create a temporal and social boundary meant to bolster the gravitas and authority of the message,” using the distribution of še (“who/which/that”) and ʾăšer (“who/which/that”) in the book, are made in Holmstedt, “The Grammar of ‫ ׁש‬and ‫ אׁשר‬in Qohelet,” in this volume.

“Aramaisms” in Qohelet

363

on nonlinguistic grounds, based on the “proximity” of the king, in contrast to a late text such as Ben Sira, in which the monarchy does not figure prominently. On the contrary, I suggest that in Qohelet the king is an ancient character of legendary wisdom and wealth, invoked by a pseudepigraphic narrator who conjures up the distant past. 78 The existence of an expanding tradition of Wisdom literature linked to the figure of Solomon during the Hellenistic period should serve as a convincing counterargument to Young’s claim. The royal persona could be bolstered by the conscious use of nonstandard forms, some of which might have been (or looked like) Aramaisms. Apparent Aramaisms may also have resulted from Qohelet’s use of older, traditional poetic and sapiential materials; from native forms that were simply rare in Hebrew; from internal linguistic development in Hebrew (perhaps including Qohelet’s own neologisms); or from a combination of all of these factors. “Aramaisms” should not be placed uncritically in a monolithic category and judged as a whole, and nothing compels us to privilege diachronic explanations for linguistic features. Though I would date Qohelet in its present form to at least the Persian period, if not later, the high frequency of so-called Aramaisms does not serve as a criterion for this dating. Rather, it is the narrative frame and content of the book that, in my interpretation, suggests a later date—a time when the monarchy that had once been in Jerusalem had become the stuff of bittersweet legend and nostalgia. But by clothing itself in Solomonic garb, and by invoking older traditions, the work “deliberately effaces its own origin”; 79 and it is an ‫“( ענין רע‬grievous task,” Qoh 1:13) to attempt to date a text of this sort at all. 78.  Young’s argument (Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew, 157) that the prevalence of the theme of kingship in the book suggests a monarchic date is unconvincing, because the book, with its pseudepigraphic frame, is looking backward to an earlier time. (Looking back at Solomonic riches and splendor from a wholly different point of view, when these things have passed away, is in keeping with the themes of the work.) Besides this dubious dating, Young’s assessment of Qohelet is problematic for other reasons—most notably, his argument that the book retained its supposed “colloquial” or “oral” character. He characterizes the book as a collection of a teacher’s best “lectures” (p. 156), which were memorized by “the Tannaim of the Wisdom Academy” and therefore retained their “oral” character, which accounts for the colloquial language. I find this argument difficult to accept. The idea of “tannaim” who wrote down Qohelet is without support, although Young argues that “the structure of the book,” with sayings joined loosely by verbal association, “supplies proof of the correctness of [his] theory.” This overstates the case. Catena-like verbal connections between literary units may reflect memorized material, but they may also reflect a literary style. Perhaps the material did circulate orally; but to reconstruct the history of its development in such detail, based only on vague parallels with the Mishnah (which according to Young would be written down at least 800 years after Qohelet) is problematic. 79. H. Najman, “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation in 4 Ezra,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 529; Najman discusses the difficulties of drawing historical conclusions about pseudepigraphic texts that deliberately place themselves in a bygone era.

The Theology of Ecclesiastes Craig G. Bartholomew Redeemer University College My aim in this essay is not merely to summarize the message of Ecclesiastes, controversial as that is, but to explore its message in the context of the canon as a whole and thereby to relate its theology to contemporary theology. 1 The most fruitful hermeneutic in this respect is, in my view, a Trinitarian hermeneutic, 2 since it enables one to do justice to the discrete witness of Ecclesiastes while insisting that the book forms part of the canonical witness as a whole and must be read as such. In reading Ecclesiastes as part of Christian Scripture, we must note the diverse genres that constitute the unified witness of Scripture. Thiselton rightly notes that “[s]uch texts as Job, Ecclesiastes, and the parables do not function primarily as raw-material for Christian doctrine. . . . Their primary function is to invite or to provoke the reader to wrestle actively with the issues, in ways that may involve adopting a series of comparative angles of vision.” 3 Ecclesiastes is a rich reservoir for theology, but it is not first a kerygmatic book. Rather, it is a book that calls the reader to engage with Qohelet’s journey and to wrestle with the issues that he raises.

Ecclesiastes as Performative There is thus an important sense in which Ecclesiastes is performative. 4 Abraham says that 1.  Exegetical support for the positions I take can be found in my Ecclesiastes (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009). Note that, in this essay, I refer to the book as Ecclesiastes and the stated author as Qohelet. 2. See my “Listening for God’s Address: A Mere Trinitarian Hermeneutic for the Old Testament,” in Hearing the Old Testament (ed. C. G. Bartholomew and D. Beldman; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012) 3–19. 3.  A. C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997) 55–56. 4. By performative, I mean that Ecclesiastes enacts its message in the way it is written and thereby pushes the reader to engage with the issues with which Qohelet himself is struggling. In biblical studies today, performative is used in a number of different ways. Interpretation of Ecclesiastes may appear to be a classic case of what N. Wolterstorff (Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995] 171–82) calls performative interpretation—that is, it is less interested in what the

367

368

Craig G. Bartholomew to have a canon of Scripture is to have a sophisticated means of grace which is related to formation in holy living in a host of ways. On this . . . reading, Scripture functions to bring one to faith, to make one wise unto salvation, to force one to wrestle with awkward questions about violence and the poor, to comfort those in sorrow, and to nourish hope for the redemption of the world. 5

The performative nature of Ecclesiastes is an intrinsic part of its theology. Qohelet is struggling to see how the fragments of life that he observes fit together, and the reader struggles to see how Ecclesiastes as a whole fits together—or not. During years of working on Ecclesiastes, I have been struck, as have most commentators, by how hard it is to grasp Ecclesiastes as a whole. Trying to grasp Ecclesiastes feels like trying to pin down a large resistant octopus; just when you think you have the tentacles under control, there is one sticking out again! Once again, this is the performative nature of Ecclesiastes; one’s sense of its whole has a profound effect on how one reads it, but it is far from easy to acquire a sense of its whole, just like life. For me, an important insight was that Ecclesiastes lacks a logical, systematic structure—a structure that many modern exegetes have sought in vain to find. 6 But this does not mean that it is not a literary whole; its structure is a literary, organic structure befitting the struggle of Qohelet to find his way through the crisis in which he is immersed. It is rare in modern interpretation of Ecclesiastes to find reflections on the human, psychological dimension of Qohelet’s struggle, 7 but psychologists would quickly alert us to the fact that the journey of anyone immersed in a life-death struggle over the meaning of life will not proceed logically or systematically. There will be long periods of despair and anger, moments of insight, and then regression—three steps forward and two steps backward. The journey is hard to track because the person involved does not him/herself know where it is going to lead. This sort of journey is literally, and by its very nature, out of the control of the person involved and, of course, this is exactly how we feel when we read Ecclesiastes. Once again, this is its performative dimension: our frustration in author of Ecclesiastes has said than in what the reader makes of it. However, as I argue below, the diversity of interpretations of Ecclesiastes is not nearly as wide ranging as is often suggested. K. J. Vanhoozer (The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005] 151–85) helpfully distinguishes between two types of performance interpretation. His Performance I fits with my approach. In reading Scripture, we not only engage it and its authors; we engage and are engaged by God. As Vanhoozer notes, “Performance I interpretation is essentially a matter not of authoring but of ‘answerability,’ of acknowledging what the playwright is doing in the many voices in Scripture and of responding to it in an appropriate manner” (p. 180). 5.  W. J. Abraham, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 6–7. Italics mine. 6.  See D. Beldman’s essay in the present volume. 7. F. Zimmermann’s (The Inner World of Qohelet [New York: KTAV, 1973]) eccentric reading is the most well known. In my Ecclesiastes (pp. 377–82), I have proposed an alternative psychological reading.

The Theology of Ecclesiastes

369

trying to grasp Ecclesiastes and to discern its structure mirrors Qohelet’s struggle and thereby draws us as readers into his quest for the meaning of life. Brevard Childs was once asked by a student how to become a better exegete. His response: become a deeper person. This is especially true of books such as Job and Ecclesiastes. Those who themselves have struggled with the meaning of life will be more sympathetic with the endless struggles of Qohelet and his slow emergence into the light. Jerry Sittser’s remarkable Grace Disguised tells of his hellish experience of losing his wife, mother, and one of his children in a car accident caused by a drunk driver. He had, of course, not sought for such an experience, but now he was in the midst of it. Would he survive the experience? And if so, how? As such suffering does, it puts one in a situation in which everything feels completely out of control. Jerry describes how at a certain point he had to stop running from the darkness and consciously enter into it without any assurance of where it would take him. Since I knew that darkness was inevitable and unavoidable, I decided from that point on to walk into the darkness rather than try to outrun it, to let my experience of loss take me on a journey wherever it would lead, and to allow myself to be transformed by my suffering rather than to think that I could somehow avoid it. 8

In my view, this is the sort of situation in which we need to imagine Qohelet. We are not told what precipitated his crisis, but here he is immersed in it, with no idea where it will lead.

Ecclesiastes and the Meaning of Life Qohelet articulates his crisis in terms of the meaningfulness of work or labor (1:3), so that in one sense Ecclesiastes is a book about work. 9 However this question backs him into the deeper question of the meaning of life “under the sun.” As his journey unfolds, the still-deeper question surfaces of how to explore such a question wisely: the central issue of epistemology, the nature of “wise knowing.” Life is deeply interconnected, and it is not hard to see how Qohelet’s struggle with the meaning of life would raise the epistemological issue of how we know whether life is meaningful amidst the brokenness that we experience on a daily basis. Qohelet (1:13, 2:9) goes out of his way to stress that it is by wisdom that he conducts his search, but the signposts that he relies on to guide his journey—observation, experience, and reason—cause us to wonder whether this is the sort of wisdom represented by Proverbs. In recent decades, Ecclesiastes has been well 8. J. Sittser, A Grace Disguised: How the Soul Grows through Loss (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004) 42. 9.  S. de Jong, “A Book on Labour: The Structuring Principles and the Main Theme of the Book of Qohelet,” JSOT 54 (1992) 107–16.

370

Craig G. Bartholomew

served by several analyses of Qohelet’s epistemology, and Ryan O’Dowd adds to these his essay in this volume. 10 I have argued elsewhere 11 that the signposts that Qohelet relies on manifest a very different epistemology from that of Proverbs, which makes the fear of the Lord the starting point and foundation of wisdom. The issues that Qohelet struggles with are real, desperately so, but his orientation toward them—that is, his epistemology—results in his continually running into the conclusion that all of life is ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. A remarkable parallel to Qohelet’s search is Augustine’s journey toward faith. In the Confessions, Augustine comments about his search for the truth in relation to the origin of evil, that “[m]y ignorance was so great that these questions troubled me, and while I thought I was approaching the truth, I was only departing the further from it.” 12 Later in the Confessions, Augustine comments that “I was trying to find the origin of evil, but I was quite blind to the evil in my own method of research.” 13 Reading Cicero had aroused in Augustine a desire for wisdom, and like Qohelet, he found the issues of evil and injustice to be major obstacles in his journey to God. Like Ecclesiastes, Augustine’s Confessions is autobiographical 14 and, like Qohelet, Augustine, while thinking he was wisely engaged in a quest for wisdom, “blundered upon that woman in Solomon’s parable who, ignorant and unabashed, sat at her door and said Stolen waters are sweetest, and bread is better eating when there is none to see. She inveigled me because she found me living in the outer world that lay before my eyes, the eyes of the flesh, and dwelling upon the food which they provided for my mind.” 15 In my reading of Ecclesiastes, Qohelet is engaged in a real search for truth but is oblivious to the evil at work in his autonomous epistemology. A crucial moment of insight in Qohelet’s journey comparable to Augustine’s takes place in Eccl 7:23–29. Seow and Spears 16 have done rich work on this text, arguing, rightly in my view, that although Qohelet thinks he is being wise he ends up in the arms 10.  See J. L. Crenshaw, “Qoheleth’s Understanding of Intellectual Inquiry,” in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (ed. A. Schoors; BETL 136; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998) 204–22; M. V. Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” HUCA 58 (1987) 137–55; A. Schellenberg, Erkenntnis als Problem: Qohelet und die Alttestamentliche Diskussion um das menschliche Erkennen (OBO 188; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag  / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002); R. P. O’Dowd, “A Chord of Three Strands: Epistemology in Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes,” in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God (ed. M. Healy and R. Parry; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007) 65–87. 11.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 57–59, 269–77. 12.  Augustine, Confessions (London: Penguin, 1961) 3.7. 13. Ibid., 7.5. Italics mine. 14.  See T. Longman’s (Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990]) important comparative work in this respect. 15.  Augustine, Confessions 3.6. 16.  C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997); A. D. Spears, The Theological Hermeneutics of Homiletical Application and Ecclesiastes 7:23–29 (Ph.D. diss., University of Liverpool, 2006) 120–95.

The Theology of Ecclesiastes

371

of Lady Folly, and no matter what he does he cannot find Lady Wisdom. 17 Like Augustine, he has been blind to the evil in his own method of research. Hermeneutically, as we seek to open up the theology of Ecclesiastes, an important aspect to attend to is its autobiographical nature and the predominance of the first-person singular. Augustine recognized that the self involved in his search for wisdom was far from neutral but predisposed in a particular direction. A major insight of recent studies in autobiography is a diagnosis of the way in which the use of the first person may obscure what is really going on. In his How Our Lives Become Stories, Eakin notes that [w]e tend to think of autobiography as literature of the first person, but the subject of autobiography to which the pronoun “I” refers is neither singular nor first, and we do well to demystify its claims. Why do we so easily forget that the first person of autobiography is truly plural in its origins and subsequent formation? Because autobiography promotes an illusion of self-determination: I write my story; I say who I am; I create myself. 18

Thus, apart from his dependence on experience, reason, and observation, Qohelet’s use of the “I” also betrays the autonomy at work in his epistemology. From this perspective, Ecclesiastes can be seen rightly as a demystification of the autonomy of the subject. In this way, Qohelet’s question about the value of work backs not only into the meaning of life and epistemology but also into anthropology, the nature of the self. Ecclesiastes 12:13 contains the evocative expression “all the man,” that is, the whole of what constitutes being human. Intriguingly, the expression ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( ּכָל־ ָהא‬all the man”) is used in a similar way in 7:2 and 5:17[ET 18]. In 5:17[18], it is used in the context of one of the carpe diem passages whereas, in 7:2, it is used in relation to its being better to go to the house of mourning than the house of feasting because this is ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫“( ּכָל־ ָהא‬all the man”). Scholars translate this expression in different ways, but attention to its repetition in these three verses is revealing. Qohelet’s question about the value of work leads him inevitably to the question of what it means to be human. Questions about how we know, who we are, and what the nature of our world is—epistemology, anthropology, and ontology—are always linked, just as they are in Ecclesiastes. In terms of Qohelet’s autonomous anthropology, one can see why 12:1, “Remember your creator,” marks the final demystification of Qohelet’s illusory “I.” We are not autonomous selves but creaturely, relational selves, and we are relational selves primarily in relation to God. 17. J. Edwards (The “Blank Bible,” in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online [24.596; http:// www.edwards.yale.edu]) takes this woman to be the complete woman of Prov 31. 18.  P. J. Eakin, How Our Lives Become Stories: Making Selves (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999) 43. The title of this section is “Relational Selves, Relational Lives: Autobiography and the Myth of Autonomy.”

372

Craig G. Bartholomew

Ecclesiastes: A Materialist Spirituality? The so-called carpe diem passages in Ecclesiastes are predominantly read in recent times as a despairing resort to hedonism or making the best of a bad situation. In my view, this is quite wrong. Bonhoeffer rightly appeals to these passages in Ecclesiastes in his discussion of “The Right to Bodily Life.” 19 Bonhoeffer notes: Man is a bodily being, and remains so in eternity as well. Bodiliness and human life belong inseparably together. And thus the Bodiliness which is willed by God to be the form of existence of man is entitled to be called an end in itself. . . . It is in the joys of the body that it becomes apparent that the body is an end in itself within the natural life. If the body were only a means to an end man would have no right to bodily joys. . . . This would have very far-reaching consequences for the Christian appraisal of the body, housing, food, clothing, recreation, play and sex. 20

We do find a despairing hedonism in Ecclesiastes; for example, when Qohelet gives himself over to construction, wine, and women (2:1–11). The Solomonic fiction intends us to imagine someone with the power and wealth to indulge himself on a grand scale. However, this is quite different from the carpe diem passages’ moderate emphasis on basic embodied acts such as eating, drinking, working, and enjoying the wife of one’s youth. These passages evoke the ordinary glory of embodied life as represented in Gen 1–2 and as referred to by Bonhoeffer. 21 In my reading, Qohelet’s insight into the richness of ordinary, embodied life stems from his Israelite upbringing and immersion in the OT tradition with its materialist spirituality. The problem for Qohelet is that, while on the one hand he cannot deny the validity of this approach, it sits in stark contradiction to the hebel conclusion he keeps banging up against in his search for “wisdom.” It is this tension between the autonomous “Greek” Qohelet and the Israelite believing Qohelet that is at the heart of Ecclesiastes. 22 Qohelet cannot sustain this tension, and neither can we; the crucial question becomes: is there a way to resolve the tension? In his search, Qohelet raises many ethical issues and, as Bonhoeffer rightly notes, how a Christian decides these issues will have far-reaching effects on his or her view of bodily life, of eating, drinking, work, clothing, and so on. 19. D. Bonhoeffer, Ethics (ed. E. Bethge; trans. N. H. Smith; Library of Philosophy and Theology; London: SCM, 1955) 112–22. 20.  Ibid., 113. 21.  See, for example., L. R. Kass, The Hungry Soul: Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature (New York: Free Press, 1994). Kass notes: “Compared to wisdom, eating may be a humble subject, but it is no trivial matter. It is the first and most urgent activity of all animal and human life: We are only because we eat” (p. 2). 22.  For an introduction to Greek philosophy, see R. Tarnas (The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View [New York: Ballantine, 1991] 3–72).

The Theology of Ecclesiastes

373

In discerning the theology of Ecclesiastes, one must first understand that this tension is central to the book. The second step is to explore signs of resolving this tension. As Ecclesiastes progresses, the force of the carpe diem passages and the despair gather momentum until the spark caused by their friction threatens to explode. Amidst these contradictions, there are crucial places where Qohelet gains insight into his condition. The first major passage is Eccl 4:17[ET 5:1] to 5:6[ET 5:7], with its emphases on approaching the Temple to listen to God and on fearing God. Lohfink argues that this passage is the center of Ecclesiastes. 23 Whether or not this is the case, this passage is remarkable in that it articulates a view of wisdom akin to that of Proverbs: fearing God and listening to him while being careful with one’s own words are the way to wisdom. Ecclesiastes 5:6[ET 7] is especially telling. The experience of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, which is precisely Qohelet’s struggle, is caused by many dreams and many words. As so often in Ecclesiastes, the irony is inescapable: Qohelet is producing many words, but they are not leading him to wisdom. Instead, he should fear God! As we would expect in terms of the performative nature of Ecclesiastes, Qohelet soon lapses back into despair. However, the insight of this short section on worship should not be missed. Approaching God reverently in order to be taught by him, being careful about expressing one’s own views, and fearing God—all these attitudes together are the expression of the sort of wisdom that we find in Proverbs. This wisdom has the potential to demystify Qohelet’s autonomous “I.” But Qohelet has not yet found this sort of wisdom. The second major breakthrough comes in 7:25–29. Here we witness greater insight by Qohelet into his condition. His search by “wisdom” has led him right into the arms of Dame Folly, who is more bitter than death and a snare (compare with Prov 5:1–6). Against the background of Proverbs, the woman he cannot find is best identified as Lady Wisdom. Try as he may, he cannot find her. Ecclesiastes 7:29 is remarkably different from 1:12–15. In the latter passage, responsibility for the crookedness of the world is laid firmly at God’s feet. Verse 7:29 is different: God made human beings upright, but they have sought out many schemes. Here a sense of the responsibility of humans—and perhaps Qohelet?—for the condition of the world emerges. Is Qohelet’s quest perhaps itself one of these many schemes? It is one thing to begin to see where the problem in one’s suffering may lie; it is quite another to emerge existentially out of the darkness. Ecclesiastes 11:7 marks the existential emergence of Qohelet out of the despairing darkness of his journey. For most of the book, life “under the sun” is oppressive and terribly frustrating. However, 11:7 is like the Easter candle that is lit outside a dark church and carried in to illumine the darkness. In contrast to the oppression of life “under the sun,” Qohelet is now in a position where light is sweet, and it is pleasant for the eyes to see the sun! 23. N. Lohfink, Qoheleth: A Commentary (trans. O. C. Dean Jr.; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 18.

374

Craig G. Bartholomew

What has enabled this emergence from his despair? In terms of a Trinitarian hermeneutic and the canon taken as a whole, it is the work of the Spirit and God’s grace that have facilitated this existential shift; Qohelet could never make it by himself. He gives expression to the new place in which he finds himself with the double exhortation to rejoice and to remember. These two verbs govern 11:7–12:7. Ecclesiastes 12:1–7 makes it very clear that the challenges of life are not dissipated, but remembering one’s Creator provides a place to stand from which one can live life coram deo, with all its mysteries and with the hope and joy that are appropriate for a created being. A major issue in the interpretation of Ecclesiastes is the relationship of the epilogue (12:9–14) to the main body of the text. 24 How does the voice of the narrator(s) in the epilogue relate to Qohelet’s voice and his journey? The epilogue is often said to introduce the new theme of law into Ecclesiastes and to be quite at odds with Qohelet’s despair. As I show below (pp. 377–380), there are multiple references to the law in the main body of Ecclesiastes, and, of course, I do not think that Qohelet ends in despair. Well before the epilogue, there are signs of Qohelet’s emergence out of despair, culminating in the exhortation to “remember your creator,” a stance that radically undercuts his autonomous epistemology. That there is resolution in Ecclesiastes and not just in the epilogue is vital to the theology of the book. In a way that is typical of OT wisdom, Qohelet addresses a remarkable range of topics in the course of his journey: work, history, epistemology, the self, time, pleasure, placemaking, justice, oppression, business, evil, death, community, and so on. Surprisingly, these topics are rarely examined theologically by commentators or theologians. This is partly because most scholars view Qohelet as a pessimist and think that there is no resolution to his despair. Theologically, they are then reduced to seeing Ecclesiastes as a negative witness to the gospel or a counter voice within the OT witness. In my view, this creates not a counter voice but a contradiction in the biblical witness. Hermeneutically speaking, Qohelet throws into question all of life under the sun. If there is resolution, all of life—all the areas he addresses—are cast in a different light; they all matter and matter deeply. In a similar vein, Gordon Spykman notes: “Nothing matters but the kingdom, but because of the kingdom everything matters—especially the ministries of the church and the Church’s daily living.” 25 There is not enough space to explore the rich contribution that Ecclesiastes makes theologically to all the areas mentioned above; in my commentary, I attend to these themes in detail. Here, it is important to note that exploration of Ecclesiastes theologically must attend to its relationship to the rest of the OT and to the 24. See my Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory (AnBib 139; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998) 155–68. 25.  G. J. Spykman, Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992) 478. Italics mine.

The Theology of Ecclesiastes

375

NT. Before I briefly explore a few of the theological issues, however, some comments about the reception history of Ecclesiastes are in order.

The Reception History of Ecclesiastes Recent scholars have alerted us to the value of attending to the reception history of a book for its interpretation. This has certainly been my experience in wrestling with Qohelet, and I have written on the history of interpretation in detail elsewhere. 26 In terms of the theology of Ecclesiastes, the two major paradigms in its history of interpretation are illuminating. Jerome’s reading dominated the interpretation of Ecclesiastes for some one thousand years, according to which Ecclesiastes encourages an attitude of contemptus mundi; thus, we focus our lives on what really matters, the spiritual. The continued influence of Jerome’s reading is evident in what remains the most popular spiritual classic of all times, Thomas à Kempis’s Imitation of Christ. As a cursory reading of the opening pages of the Imitation reveals, the book is framed by Jerome’s contemptus mundi reading of Ecclesiastes. 27 Melanchthon, Brenz, and Luther broke the back of this thousand-year tradition with their rediscovery of the doctrine of creation and vocation. Luther’s commentary on Ecclesiastes is shaped by his doctrine of two kingdoms, 28 but he still stresses its material spirituality. In the introduction to his commentary on Ecclesiastes, he asserts, “Some foolish men . . . have therefore taught absurd ideas about contempt for the world and flight from it. . . . the point and purpose of this book is to instruct us, so that with thanksgiving we may use the things that are present and the creatures of God that are generously given to us and conferred upon us by the blessing of God.” 29 On Eccl 2:24, Luther notes that “[t]his is the principal conclusion, in fact the point, of the whole book, which he will often repeat. This is a remarkable passage, one that explains everything preceding and following it.” 30 This breakthrough in the interpretation of Ecclesiastes is discussed in detail in Al Wolters’ essay in the present volume, so I do not explore it further here. It will be obvious from the above that I think the Lutheran reformers were profoundly insightful in their reading of Ecclesiastes. Historical criticism is generally thought to mark a watershed in the interpretation of the Bible, including Ecclesiastes, and in important ways it does. However, in effect, what most critical scholars have done with Ecclesiastes is to reappropriate Jerome’s contemptus mundi reading while discarding his “spiritual” reading of the book. Looked at in 26.  Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes; idem, Ecclesiastes, 21–43. 27.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 30–31. 28.  See W. J. Wright, Martin Luther’s Understanding of God’s Two Kingdoms: A Response to the Challenge of Skepticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010). 29. M. Luther, Luther’s Works (Vol. 15; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972) 9–10. 30.  Ibid., 46.

376

Craig G. Bartholomew

the light of reception history, much modern critical work on Ecclesiastes is thus little more than a secularized version of Jerome’s interpretation. In my opinion, at the heart of deciding between the two paradigms is what we make of the carpe diem passages. If I (following Luther and Bonhoeffer) am right in seeing them as affirming the bodiliness of creaturely life, then the next step is to inquire how this positive theology relates to the ‫ ֶהבֶל‬theology in Ecclesiastes. If we conclude that the carpe diem passages express a despairing hedonism or an attitude of making the best of a terrible situation, then we will side with Jerome’s paradigm and either conclude that Ecclesiastes as a “whole” is negative about life or argue that the frame corrects Qohelet.

Reading Ecclesiastes within the Context of Proverbs and Job and Its Connection to the OT As OT wisdom texts, Proverbs and Job provide the immediate co-texts for reading Ecclesiastes. Qohelet’s relationship to traditional wisdom has featured large in twentieth-century interpretation of Ecclesiastes, with Qohelet regularly seen as reacting strongly against traditional wisdom. The subject of the origin and development of wisdom literature in Israel is a complex topic that I cannot pursue in detail here. However, insofar as intertextuality goes, there are good reasons for rejecting the sort of understanding of the Ecclesiastes-Proverbs relationship that much historical criticism advocates. Gladson persuasively argues that “retributive paradox” occurs in all strands of OT literature, including Proverbs, 31 so that taken as a whole Proverbs by no means presents a mechanical act–consequence understanding of retribution. This has been clearly demonstrated in an excellent article on wealth and poverty in Proverbs by Van Leeuwen. 32 Once one recognizes that Proverbs’ understanding of retribution is more complex than a mechanical deed–consequence notion, then Ecclesiastes’ relationship to Proverbs and traditional wisdom must be reevaluated. Qohelet’s autonomous methodology demands a certainty that traditional wisdom was well aware that it could not provide. Consequently, rather than Ecclesiastes’ representing a crisis in wisdom, it should be seen as focusing on the retributive paradox that Proverbs is aware of and subsumes under its more general long-term character-consequence understanding. Because Qohelet’s epistemology is based on observation, experience, and reason alone, he moves in the direction of deconstructing the tradition by always focusing on the individual exceptions. 31.  J. A. Gladson, Retributive Paradoxes in Proverbs 10–29 (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1978). P. T. H. Hatton (Contradiction in the Book of Proverbs: The Deep Waters of Counsel [Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2008]) develops the notion of “provocative contradiction.” He does not engage with Gladson or Van Leeuwen. 32.  R. C. Van Leeuwen, “Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction in Proverbs,” HS 33 (1992) 25–36.

The Theology of Ecclesiastes

377

Job and Ecclesiastes should be seen as parallel representations of the struggle with the paradoxes of life in which the character-consequence structure appears not to apply. Job focuses on the devastating experience of an individual, whereas Ecclesiastes is more of an intellectual quest, with the question of epistemology at its heart. Both books find resolution to the problems they wrestle with through a painful and hard-won recovery of the doctrine of creation. Another intertextual issue that has featured centrally in the interpretation of Ecclesiastes is the relationship between wisdom and law, especially as this is focused in 12:13b: “Fear God and keep his commandments.” For many scholars, the introduction of law is alien to the wisdom tradition in which Ecclesiastes is situated, thus revealing that the epilogue, or at least this part of it, is a later attempt to make Qohelet appear orthodox or to thematize a relationship between wisdom and the commandments in the law. 33 However, there is no textual-critical evidence—and there are good reasons for resisting attempts to conclude—that the epilogue is a later addition. The genre of Ecclesiastes and the circular intent at totality 34 drive us to explore other avenues before concluding that the reference to law must make the epilogue a later addition. And there are clear indications that the reference to law is not as alien to Ecclesiastes as some suggest. As Lohfink points out, for example, law is not alien to the fear of God in Ecclesiastes. 35 He makes the point that 5:6 concludes the section 4:17[5:1]–5:6[7]. Indeed 4:17–5:6 contains a restatement of the law of Deut 23:22–24 in 5:3–4, and the background to 5:6 is Num 15:22–31. Furthermore, this section with its allusions to the Torah concludes with the exhortation to “fear God.” 36 Ecclesisastes 4:17–5:6 also makes clear that Qohelet is well acquainted with the cultus of the Temple, as does the reference to “clean” and unclean” in 9:2. This evidence of awareness of pentateuchal cultic legislation needs to be combined with the vocabulary in Ecclesiastes that also relates to the domain of Torah—namely, “judgment” (3:17; 11:9), “sinner,” “sin” (2:26; 5:5; 8:12), “wicked” and “righteous” (3:17), “wickedness [is folly]” (7:25), “one who pleases God” versus “the sinner” (7:26), and so forth. Many try to minimize the religious and ethical nuance of this vocabulary in Ecclesiastes. Even as even-handed a commentator as Murphy says, for example, of the one who is good versus the sinner 33.  See G. T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientalizing of the Old Testament (BZAW 151; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980) 121–29. 34.  For the phrase “circular intent at totality” (borrowed from Paul de Mann’s work), see my book Reading Ecclesiastes, 227. 35. N. Lohfink, “Qoheleth 5:17–19—Revelation by Joy,” CBQ 52 (1990) 633. 36.  There is however considerable disagreement as to how to understand Qoheleth’s view of the cult. See L. G. Perdue (Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature [Nashville: Abingdon, 1994] 178–188) and G. Ogden (Qoheleth [Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987] 75–80) for two different views. In my opinion Ogden’s is the more satisfactory view.

378

Craig G. Bartholomew

in 2:26 that these terms should be understood, “not as moral qualifications, but as designations of human beings in terms of the inscrutable divine will.” 37 Similarly, regarding “the sinner” in 7:26, Fox argues that, “As many interpreters recognize, the ḥoṭe ʾ [“sinner”] here [2:26 and 7:26] is not a transgressor against the law or moral norms, but rather one who has somehow incurred God’s disfavour.” 38 This person “may be no more or less virtuous than others. Qohelet calls a man pleasing or offensive to God in accordance with his fate rather than his deeds.” 39 It is not only the language in Qohelet that overlaps with the language of Torah that is denied moral significance. Schoors, for example, argues that nowhere does “folly” have a moral connotation in Ecclesiastes. 40 Fox says of wisdom in Ecclesiastes that, “In sharp contrast to Proverbs, but not to most of the Bible, Qoheleth does not regard wisdom as an ethical or religious virtue. . . . He does pair righteousness and wisdom in 7:16 and 9:1, but he is bracketing the categories as positive values, and not pairing them.” 41 The reasons for this voidance of these terms of moral and religious overtones are multiple. First, the developmental notion of wisdom as originally secular and only later connected with Israel’s faith lingers and continues to influence studies of wisdom. However, in the OT and the ANE, wisdom is inherently religious and thus moral; the OT knows nothing of the sacred-secular dualism common to modernity. Second, “wisdom” (‫ָכמָה‬ ְ ‫ )ח‬and its associated vocabulary 42 cover a range of meanings including technical skill and intelligence, abilities that can be misdirected, and thus ‫ ָחכָם‬can, for example, have the negative meaning of “crafty,” as in 2 Sam 13:3. 43 By focusing on the religious base of wisdom, Proverbs does not abandon the notion of wisdom as expertise but grounds it in the doctrine of creation. Third, there is a tendency to see Torah, prophecy, and wisdom as distinct and separate categories whereas, in my opinion, as Ecclesiastes demonstrates, they were far more organically interwoven than is generally recognized. Murphy has helpfully suggested that “[t]he problem of the relationship between wisdom literature and other portions of the Old Testament needs to be re37.  R. E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992) 76. 38.  M. V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 189. 39.  Ibid., 269. 40. A. Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qohelet, Part II: Vocabulary (OLA 143; Louvain: Peeters, 2004) 169. 41.  M. V. Fox, “Wisdom in Qoheleth,” in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie (ed. L. G. Perdue, B. B. Scott, and W. J. Wiseman; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 128. 42. See M. V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18A; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 28–43, for a discussion of the main vocabulary of wisdom. 43.  In arguing that Qoheleth is in line with the rest of the OT, Fox (A Time to Tear Down, 72) also refers to Isa 29:14, 47:10; Ezek 28:5. These verses, however, have a strong religious overtone, contrasting the wisdom followed by the Israelites and Tyre in Ezekiel with the Lord’s wisdom. See R. C. Van Leeuwen (“Wisdom Literature,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible [ed. K. J. Vanhoozer; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005] 848) on wisdom as a totality concept.

The Theology of Ecclesiastes

379

formulated in terms of a shared approach to reality.” 44 It needs to be remembered that the strong distinction between law and wisdom is a modern construct, and certainly by the third century b.c.e. it is likely that wisdom and law would not have been considered separate paths to successful living in the minds of teachers and populace, since both related to ordering life in all its dimensions. This becomes particularly clear when one notes that “[a] relationship between religious and secular is not applicable to OT wisdom teaching.” 45 Neither is it applicable to Torah, which also orders all areas of life. How then might the two approaches of secular (or, creation) and sacred (or, Torah/law) have been understood to relate to each other? The link of wisdom with creation has long been recognized. What is often not noted, however, is that the order that Proverbs finds in the creation is not and cannot be simply read from the creation. This is the point that Fox makes about Israelite wisdom; it is not empirical 46 in the way that Qohelet conceives it, but it assumes ethical principles, which it uses observation to support. This is the sort of position exemplified in Gen 1–3. The ordering of creation is not antithetical to instruction from Elohim/Yahweh Elohim. Order and instruction/Torah go hand in hand, and obedience requires both a good creation and instruction. The point is that wisdom literature assumes certain ethical principles that are not just read from creation but are similar to the principles found in the law. Van Leeuwen, for example, argues that Prov 1–9 indicates that it is in “the liquid abandonment of married love” that healthy communitas takes place. As Van Leeuwen notes, “This reality has its parallel at Sinai.” 47 Thus it can be argued that, although wisdom is most closely related to creation, it presupposes instruction. Similarly, when the narrative frame within which law always occurs (in the final form of the OT) is foregrounded, it becomes apparent that the law of Yahweh the redeemer God is also the law of the Creator God. This link between Yahweh as Creator and redeemer is central to covenant in the OT 48 and alerts us to the link between law and creation. My suggestion, therefore, is that law and wisdom share an underlying and often tacit presupposition of a dynamic order built into the creation. This is their shared reality. Instruction from Yahweh should therefore not be seen as conflicting with the way he ordered his creation but as providing the ethical principles for 44.  R. E. Murphy, “Wisdom: Theses and Hypotheses,” in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien (ed. J. G. Gammie; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978) 38. 45.  Ibid., 40. 46.  Fox refers to Qohelet’s epistemology as empirical, but I prefer the term autonomous. Classically, empiricism is the view that true knowledge is derived exclusively from sense perception, whereas Qohelet depends on reason, experience, and observation. See my Ecclesiastes, 269–77. 47.  R. C. Van Leeuwen, “Liminality and Worldview in Proverbs 1–9,” Semeia 50 (1990) 132. 48. See my “Covenant and Creation: Covenant Overload or Covenantal Deconstruction,” CTJ 30 (1995) 11–33.

380

Craig G. Bartholomew

discovery of this order. If this is even close to the situation that prevailed in Israel, then it would confirm our caution about arguing that the epilogue must be an addition because it mentions keeping God’s commandments. Many other aspects of biblical intertextuality in relation to Ecclesiastes could be considered. A strong connection between Ecclesiastes and the early chapters of Genesis has rightly been noted. 49 There are many connections with the Psalms; for example, Pss 39 and 73; Eccl 12:1–8 contains eschatological language that is akin to language found in the prophets 50—all of which suggests a more organic interdependence of the various genres of OT literature than historical critics often allow.

Qohelet, Intertextuality, and the NT The Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek NT lists one literal quotation from Ecclesiastes in Rom 3:10, in which Paul is thought to quote Eccl 7:20 as part of his argument that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Scholars also discern a link with Ecclesiastes in Rom 8:20, where “futility” (ματαιότης) is the same word that the LXX uses to translate ‫ ֶהבֶל‬in Ecclesiastes. 51 In Rom 8, Paul speaks of the creation as having been subjected to futility or frustration but in hope that it will be set free. This is a reference to the effect of the fall on the whole creation and likewise to the cosmic implications of there being “no condemnation in Christ.” Ecclesiastes is certainly in touch with the frustration and sense of futility that can grip individuals in our fallen world, and Qohelet, in his explorations, emphasizes the fact that this futility touches every aspect of our lives. This is what the Reformed tradition means by total depravity; it is not that everything is as bad as it can be but that the fall affects every aspect of created life. And, of course, the catholic tradition teaches that every aspect of life has been, is being, and will be redeemed in Christ. 52 Qohelet demonstrates the futility of trying to find meaning in a fallen world apart from remembering one’s Creator and beginning with the fear 49.  Idem, Ecclesiastes, 92. H. W. Hertzberg (Der Prediger [KAT 17/4; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963] 230) asserts that there can be no doubt; the author of Ecclesiastes wrote the book with Gen 1–4 in front of him! Similarities as well as differences with Genesis are important. For example, as Robert Alter pointed out to me in private conversation, much of Qoheleth has a very different understanding of time from the understanding of Gen 1:1–2:4. 50.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 345–53. 51.  See, for example, B. G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (New Studies in Biblical Theology; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000) 107–9. 52.  On the Reformed side, see A. M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985); from the Catholic side, see Catechism of the Catholic Church, part 1/6 (New York: First Image, 1995); and on the Orthodox side, see A.  Schmemann, For the Life of the World (New York: National Student Christian Federation, 1964).

The Theology of Ecclesiastes

381

of the Lord, but he also affirms life, and he resolves this tension at the conclusion of his journey precisely through his exhortation to remember one’s Creator. Thus, the futility that Ecclesiastes exposes is the attempt to find meaning while embracing human autonomy in a world that depends at every point upon its Creator. As the NT story unfolds, it becomes apparent that Jesus redeems us from this futility and our sinful autonomy and suppression of the truth about this world (Rom 1:18–23). 53 He does this by ushering in the kingdom of God, the main theme of Jesus’ teaching. Just as ‫ ֶהבֶל‬casts its shadow over all areas of life, so also Christ claims all areas of life as rightly his and thus to be redeemed and brought to fulfillment under his rule. Christ does not simply teach about the kingdom; through his incarnation, he enters the very history that is subject to futility. He embodies the kingdom in his acts and ultimately in his death, resurrection, and ascension. In his death, he takes upon himself the full weight of the futility of separation from God and thereby opens the gate to entrance into the kingdom in which full meaning is found in Christ. The NT therefore provides a more comprehensive perspective on the problems with which Qohelet struggles. The problem of death, for example, overshadows his journey of exploration, but in light of the Christ event we know that history is indeed headed toward the final judgment and resurrection, something no OT believer saw with comparable clarity. Death is not the end but a stepping stone into the presence of the living and true God. In terms of history as well, from a NT perspective we now have the contours, if not the details, of the full story—something that Qohelet lacked. In terms of the ongoing relevance of Ecclesiastes, we should note that the era of mission inaugurated at Pentecost is the age that falls between the coming of the kingdom and its consummation. In this era, the whole creation still groans, and thus Ecclesiastes remains a book of great pastoral and evangelistic significance as believers and unbelievers struggle with the meaning of life amidst its many enigmas. It is important, however, that we not limit the relationship of Ecclesiastes with the NT to the places where it is alluded to or quoted. 54 Jesus fulfills the whole of the OT, including the wisdom tradition, and as Witherington rightly argues, the wisdom traditions of the OT form an important background to the Jesus tradition in the Gospels. 55 What is rarely explored is Ecclesiastes’ role in this respect, and 53.  See J. E. Bruns, “Some Reflections on Coheleth and John” (CBQ 25 [1963] 414–16) for comparable points. Bruns notes that similarities to Sadducean teaching have been discerned in both the Gospel of John and Ecclesiastes. Bruns asserts, “Surely it is apparent that the Jesus of John’s Gospel is the anodyne to this melancholic philosophy of life. Almost all of the ‘I AM’ sayings of Jesus parallel the negative attitudes of Coheleth” (p. 415). 54.  There are other echoes of Ecclesiastes in the NT. See T. Krüger, Qoheleth: A Commentary (trans. O. C. Dean Jr ; CC; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 32–34. 55. B. Witherington III, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1994). D. A. Hubbard (“The Wisdom Movement and Israel’s Covenant Faith,” TynBul 17 [1966]

382

Craig G. Bartholomew

yet its celebration of life and its affirmation of feasting resonate deeply with Jesus’ ministry, especially as it is described in Luke’s Gospel, in which Jesus seems to go from party to party: “Jesus literally ate his way through the Gospels.” 56 Anderson and Foley describe Jesus as “A Storyteller with Bread.” They remind us how much of his ministry is remembered through the food and dining metaphors that provide the vernacular for narrating the Jesus event. His food was the will of the one he called Father, and this divine will, in turn, became the enduring banquet for any who dared to follow him. Jesus’ ministry, his evangelizing, his legacy were so intimately linked to the ritual metaphors of dining and food that, in his fascinating book Six Thousand Years of Bread (1944), H. E. Jacob could title his chapter on Jesus as “Jesus Christ: The Bread God.” . . . And as remembered over and over in the Gospels, they killed him because of the way he ate; that is, because he ate and drank with sinners. 57

Ecclesiastes, with its particular emphasis on eating and drinking offers itself as a major source from which Jesus would have taken this understanding of the kingdom. In Matt 11:16–19, Jesus specifically relates his eating and drinking to wisdom. The book of Revelation looks forward to the marriage feast of the Lamb, and John, in his final exhortations encourages all those of us who thirst—and this side of the consummation of the kingdom, we do indeed thirst—to come and drink of the water of life. Commenting on the Mary-Martha story in Luke’s Gospel, in which Martha is busy while Mary sits at Jesus’ feet, Augustine asks, “What was she doing? I know,” he says, “she was eating Christ!” That ultimately is the place to which Ecclesiastes must lead us. Only thus will we be able to love God with our whole hearts as “a kind of cantus firmus to which the other melodies of life provide the counterpoint. . . . Where the cantus firmus is clear and plain, the counterpoint can be developed to its limits.” 58 Or as Simone Weil states in terms that resonate strongly with Ecclesiastes, “Man’s great affliction, which begins with infancy and accompanies him till death, is that looking and eating are two different operations. Eternal beatitude is a state where to look is to eat.” 59 By these means, we will interweave a theology of the cross with full involvement in the life of the world. 60 28) rightly notes, “Christ was not only master of the wise man’s techniques. He was steeped in the wise man’s message. He not only personifies wisdom, after the manner of Proverbs 8, but He virtually identifies Himself with it. Surely it is His wisdom that will be justified by her deeds (Mt. 11:19).” 56. H. Anderson and E. Foley, Mighty Stories, Dangerous Rituals: Weaving Together the Human and the Divine (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998) 155. 57.  Ibid., 154–55. 58.  D. F. Ford, Self and Salvation: Being Transformed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 254. 59. Ibid. 60.  See ibid., 255.

The Theology of Ecclesiastes

383

The Nature of OT Wisdom Reviewed For all its positive benefits, historical criticism has been of limited help in terms of excavating the rich veins of theology in OT wisdom. We are left with a thin view of wisdom as mechanical, crisis-ridden, or ultimately despairing. So much energy is spent on determining whether or not Job and Ecclesiastes represent a crisis of wisdom that virtually no time is spent on exploring the rich, thick, deep view of wisdom available in Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. In my opinion, the view that these books contradict each other and present alternative world views needs to be jettisoned once and for all so that we can attend to their polyphonic unity. Van Leeuwen and others have demonstrated that, read as a whole, Proverbs by no means articulates a simplistic act-consequence ideology. Instead, its characterconsequence theology is carefully nuanced with an awareness that life is filled with “exceptions” to this theology. I place exceptions in quotation marks because even this approach is in danger of assuming a thin view of wisdom according to which living in a certain way ultimately produces the good life. What is missing is a thick understanding of deep wisdom that envisages the transformation of the person as a whole—“all the man.” In my view, it is precisely this sort of view of wisdom upon which Job and Ecclesiastes insist. In this respect, it is worth reanalyzing the Solomonic fiction of Ecclesiastes. The surprise of Eccl 1:2 pushes us to reflect on how it could be possible that someone like Solomon—so gifted with wisdom—could come to a view of this sort. And if we take the canon of Scripture seriously, this statement about ‫ הבל‬pushes us to reflect more deeply (as Ecclesiastes is designed to do) on Solomon. Was he really so wise, or was he more complex than we had thought? What is the true nature of wisdom? Because historical-critical scholars generally separate OT wisdom from OT narrative, this question is rarely pursued. However, once we note that OT wisdom is much more integrated with the other genres of OT literature, we can begin to see how powerful and nuanced is the association of Qohelet with Solomon. Our primary source for the story of Solomon is 1 Kgs 1–11. 61 In this narrative, wisdom and law are central themes, as are intertextual connections with Genesis. 62 Solomon is indeed depicted as having been granted great wisdom by God, and his major achievements are to build the Temple and to extend the borders and 61.  Solomon’s story is also told in 2 Chr 1–9. The relationship between the two stories is disputed. The different contexts for which 1–2 Kings were written as well as their different aims go a long way to explain the differences. Chronicles focuses in particular on Solomon as the builder of the Temple but, even in its very positive narration, 2 Chr 8:11 is alert to the idolatry involved in Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter. 62.  See P. J. Leithart, 1 and 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2006) 77–89; K. I. Parker, “Solomon as Philosopher King? The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kings 1–11,” JSOT 53 (1992) 75–91.

384

Craig G. Bartholomew

fame of Israel. However, the depiction of Solomon is far more nuanced than this. From the outset, his character is depicted as ambiguous in terms of his devotion to the Lord; Solomon’s consolidation of his throne is brutal (1 Kgs 2); contrary to Deuteronomy’s instructions, he takes Pharaoh’s daughter as his wife (1 Kgs 3:1), 63 and he worships at the high places (1 Kgs 3:2–3). By the end of 1 Kgs 1–11, Solomon has wandered far from God’s ways and has become enmeshed in idolatry. As Leithart notes, Solomon reaches the heights of political and cultural attainments, develops creativity in all spheres of endeavor, yet his cultivation and energy are ultimately directed toward finding new ways to violate the Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. . . . Solomon’s life . . . shows a wise man who fails precisely at the height of his wisdom, precisely at the moment when everyone acknowledges his wisdom, indeed, precisely in his exercise of wisdom. 64

Whybray perceptively notes regarding the Deuteronomistic Historian, who he believes wrote 1 Kgs 1–11, that “[t]he author was well aware, as were the authors of Proverbs, that not everything which passes for wisdom should be accepted at its face value, and also that wickedness can assume the character of wisdom for its own purposes.” 65 Solomon is paradigmatic of the truth that being gifted with great wisdom, power, and wealth is not enough to guarantee wisdom. Solomon asks God for a hearing heart ( ‫לֵב ׁשֹמ ֵַע‬, 1 Kgs 3:9). Listening to God and the advice of the wise is central to OT wisdom. Solomon builds the Temple and, intriguingly, as we saw, at the heart of Ecclesiastes is Qohelet’s instruction that we should approach the Temple reverently to listen for / to hear (5:1–6)—the same verb is used—God’s instruction. 66 But, is this what Solomon and Qohelet do? Through Qohelet’s association with Solomon, immediately followed by his thoroughly unorthodox statement in v. 2, we are thus compelled to stop and reflect on the true nature of wisdom. Wisdom is not always what it seems, and we need to be careful about claims to be wise that may in fact turn out to be foolishness. As we have seen this is emblematic of Qohelet’s turbulent journey. Like Job, Ecclesiastes thus teaches us that genuine wisdom is not easily attained. Like Solomon, one may be very gifted, but this will not automatically make one wise. In different ways, both Job and Ecclesiastes alert us to the fact that ‫י‬

63.  In my opinion I. W. Provan (1 and 2 Kings [NIBCOT; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995] 44) is right in interpreting Solomon’s marriage this way as opposed to Leithart (1 and 2 Kings, 43), who argues that, “Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter fulfills the Abrahamic promise to bless the nations.” 64.  Ibid., 82. 65.  R. N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974) 90. 66.  As Eccl 5:1–6 demonstrates, for Ecclesiastes, as for 1 Kgs 1–11, wisdom and law are correlates and inseparable.

The Theology of Ecclesiastes

385

wisdom involves personal transformation and that this often involves excruciating suffering.

Ecclesiastes and Christian Scholarship Modern (and postmodern) thought and life are built on the doctrine of human autonomy. Karl Jaspers perceptively notes, “Men claim absolute truth for opinions based on accident and situation, and in their pseudo-lucidity succumb to a new blindness. . . . The purest enlightenment recognizes that it cannot dispense with faith.” 67 Human autonomy has been savaged by the major events of the twentieth century, but even postmodernism, in its reaction to modernity, has retained its faith in human autonomy. Autonomy may not get us to the truth about the world, but then we will celebrate our finitude and loss of truth in a sort of cheerful nihilism. In a Capri consultation about religion with Vattimo, Derrida, and others, Gadamer argued that we cannot go back before Kant; the old church doctrines cannot be recovered. 68 While the openness to discuss religion by postmoderns is most welcome, their view of religion turns out to a post-Nietzschean, hollowedout version of “kenotic” Christianity. 69 It is in this light that we can see just how powerful and relevant is Ecclesiastes’ exposé of the illusion of human autonomy and its inability to provide an adequate foundation for life. As with OT wisdom and indeed biblical religion, it strikes at the heart of our modern faith in ourselves and our reason. Ricoeur notes, Nothing is further from the spirit of the sages than the idea of an autonomy of thinking, a humanism of the good life; in short of a wisdom in the Stoic or Epicurean mode founded on the self-sufficiency of thought. This is why wisdom is held to be a gift of God in distinction to the “knowledge of good and evil” promised by the Serpent. 70

Ecclesiastes is particularly important in this respect, because Qohelet appropriates an autonomous approach to life in his quest for meaning. Presumably this approach spoke powerfully in his day because it was a very real temptation faced by his hearers. Ecclesiastes is thus an example of the contextualization of biblical faith or what Lohfink calls “a model of enculturation.” 71 Qohelet puts himself into 67. K. Jaspers, Way to Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1954) 93. 68.  H. G. Gadamer, “Dialogues in Capri,” in Religion (ed. J. Derrida and G. Vattimo; Cambridge: Polity, 1998) 207. 69.  See, for example, G. Vattimo, Belief (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996). 70. P. Ricoeur, Essays on Biblical Interpretation (ed. L. S. Mudge; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 88. 71.  Lohfink, Qoheleth, 6. However, I am less optimistic than Lohfink about Qohelet’s attempt to draw as much as possible from the Greek world view without abandoning Israel’s wisdom.

386

Craig G. Bartholomew

the shoes, as it were, of the autonomous “Greek” thinkers and applies their world view to the world that he observes and experiences, but only in order to show that it leads again and again to enigma rather than to truth. Ecclesiastes is just as relevant, if not more so, today. It reminds me of the creative strategies that Kierkegaard reached for in his attempt to push his Danish neighbors to appropriate Christian faith personally, rather than continuing to live amidst the delusions of Christendom. 72 Modernity has been savaged, but we cling to what remains. Ecclesiastes reminds us, first, that human autonomy will never serve as an adequate basis for life and thought. But, second, it alerts us to the difficulty of decentering the self, the “I,” from its pretended autonomy. Modernity may indeed be characterized by nostalgia for the absolute, 73 but recent history shows that we will seek the absolute almost anywhere other than in the living and true God. Ecclesiastes gives us an idea of the depth of transformation involved in moving away from human autonomy to a life centered in God. The church fathers, unlike many contemporary Christian thinkers, continually resorted to OT wisdom as they sought to account for their faith. Ecclesiastes primarily serves to undercut human autonomy but, once we see this, the positive possibilities of “faith seeking understanding” appear. Intriguingly, we are witnessing creative signs of a major recovery of faith seeking understanding in our day, and not least in philosophy. A central insight of Reformed epistemology as articulated by Wolterstorff, Plantinga, C. S. Evans, and others is that we need not philosophize on the basis of autonomous reason but that it is perfectly rational to begin with our basic beliefs—“Remember your Creator”—and work from there. Kant wrote his Religion within the Bounds of Reason; Wolterstorff, his Reason within the Bounds of Religion. Contra Gadamer, we can indeed go behind Kant in order to recover the ancient paths and a healthy epistemology for today. Qohelet reminds us that this approach is not only rational but that to do otherwise is folly. 72. S. Kierkegaard, The Point of View for My Work as an Author: A Report to History (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962). 73. G. Steiner, Nostalgia for the Absolute (Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1974).

Ecclesiastes and the Canon Stephen G. Dempster Crandall University

Ecclesiastes was historically controversial because the plain sense of its words seemed to be out of place in a biblical book. “The Words of Koheleth” (as they are called in the superscription to the book) struck certain readers as being dangerously heterodox, apparently questioning the traditional teachings of divine justice and counseling a carpe diem approach to life. For many in the early Church, as also in the Jewish tradition of interpretation, the only way to reconcile these words with the Word of God as a whole was by means of allegorical expositions, in which Solomon (the supposed author of Ecclesiastes) could be made to speak in complete harmony with the tradition. Indeed allegorical interpretation of the Bible in general, represented particularly by the Alexandrian school of exegesis, was an immensely popular interpretative tool in the early centuries of Christian exposition. 1

This statement shows the interpretive problems that the content of this difficult book caused for believers in both the church and the synagogue, both in the past and throughout its long interpretive history. With the advent of historical criticism, the book has often been regarded as the reflections of a hardened cynic that could have only been “redeemed” for canonicity by the pious injunction of an orthodox redactor who literally got the final word. Although this saved the book for the canon, according to some scholars it has been a hermeneutical disaster for the book ever since. Canonicity supposedly forced all sorts of interpretive distortions as readers became ingenious at finding “further ways and means of extracting piety from the text.” 2 A very secular and pagan book has been made to fit a very narrow Procrustean bed of orthodoxy. 3 1. J. Jarick, “Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” in The Bible in Human Society (ed. M. Daniel Carroll R. et al.; JSOTSup 200; Sheffield: Continuum, 1995) 306. Note that, in this essay, I refer to the book as Ecclesiastes and the stated author as Qohelet. 2.  R. B. Salters, “Qoheleth and the Canon,” ExpTim 86 (1975) 342. 3.  “It is fair to say that no other book in the Old Testament has been interpreted in so radically different ways as the Book of Ecclesiastes” (S. Holm-Nielsen, “On the Interpretation of Qoheleth in Early Christianity,” VT 24 [1974] 168).

387

388

Stephen G. Dempster

This problematic tendency of Ecclesiastes has virtually been there from the beginning. Even though it is clear that it was probably viewed as canonical by the Qumran community by about 150 b.c.e., an early Greek translator may have modified at least one of its controversial verses with a more orthodox slant. 4 The Wisdom of Solomon (ca. 50 b.c.e.–50 c.e.) may have also sought to answer some of the problematic content. A possible reading of unbridled hedonism in the face of the oblivion of death is “corrected” by stressing immortality and final judgment. 5

Jewish Disputes The seeds of interpretive controversy bloomed by the middle of the first century c.e. as the two major rabbinic schools of the time became involved in a dispute about the divine inspiration of Ecclesiastes, again no doubt provoked by its controversial subject matter. The famous schools of Shammai and Hillel (10–80 c.e.) were contemporaneous, and it is has been recorded that they differed on about three hundred understandings of the Torah. Normally it was the case that the School of Hillel was more lenient in its understanding—perhaps more theologically liberal and oriented to adaptation—than the School of Shammai, which was more theologically conservative and oriented to preservation. With the reconstitution of Judaism after the debacles of 70 c.e. and 135 c.e., the rulings of Hillel became dominant. In the matter of Ecclesiastes, however, the School of Hillel was remembered as having the more stringent understanding. The evidence for this difference is preserved in the Mishnah in a number of places. The first is as follows: All the Holy Scriptures render the hands unclean. The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean. Rabbi Judah says: The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean but about Ecclesiastes there is dissension. Rabbi 4. J. Muilenburg, “A Qoheleth Scroll from Qumran,” BASOR 135 (1954) 20–27. If certain statements from the Talmud reflect historical accuracy, there were a number of rabbis from the pre-Christian era who cited Ecclesiastes as Scripture: see Baba ben Buta and Simeon ben Shatah. For the references and discussion, see R. T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985) 300. Compare the Hebrew of Eccl 11:9 with the Greek (Vaticanus): Thus, “Walk in the ways of your heart and in the vision of your eyes” becomes “Walk in the ways of your heart blameless and not in the vision of your eyes.” This may also be an inner Greek development because it is not found in other texts, but if it is an inner Greek phenomenon it illustrates the problems scribes had with the content of Ecclesiastes. For additional evidence of a further toning down of theological problems by the Greek translator, see Holm-Nielsen, “On the Interpretation of Qoheleth in Early Christianity,” 168–77. 5.  “The correspondences between the speeches of the ungodly in Wis. 2:1–20 and numerous expressions in Ecclesiastes have led some to conclude that the author combats a form of thinking derived from (but not necessarily the same as) the view of life articulated in Ecclesiastes” (see D. A. de Silva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004] 138). See also R. Meyer, “κρύπτω: Supplement on the Canon and Apocrypha,” TDNT 6.985.

Ecclesiastes and the Canon

389

Jose says: Ecclesiastes does not render the hands unclean, and about the Song of Songs there is dissension. Rabbi Simeon says: Ecclesiastes is one of the things about which the School of Shammai adopted the more lenient, and the School of Hillel the more stringent ruling. Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai said: I have heard a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they made Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah head of the college [of Sages], that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes both render the hands unclean. Rabbi Akiba said: God forbid!—no man in Israel ever disputed about the Song of Songs [that he should say] that it does not render the hands unclean, for all the ages are not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel: for all the Writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies. And if aught was in dispute the dispute was about Ecclesiastes alone. Rabbi Johanan ben Joshua, the son of Rabbi Akiba’s father-in-law, said: According to the words of Ben Azzai, so did they dispute and so did they decide. 6

The second example from the Mishnah preserves three exceptional rulings in which the School of Hillel followed the stricter interpretation and the School of Shammai the more lenient understanding: 7 Rabbi Simeon reports three opinions in which the School of Shammai follow the more lenient and the School of Hillel the more stringent ruling. According to the School of Shammai the book of Ecclesiastes does not render the hands unclean. And the School of Hillel say: It renders the hands unclean. According to the School of Shammai Sin-offering water which has fulfilled its purpose is clean; and the School of Hillel declare it unclean. The School of Shammai declare black cummin insusceptible to uncleanness; and the School of Hillel declare it susceptible. So, too, [do they differ] concerning [whether it is liable to] Tithes. 8

The term “render the hands unclean” is the ancient Jewish equivalent to “canonical” or “inspired Holy Scripture.” The origin of the term is shrouded in mystery, and it is not immediately clear why holy writings would contaminate the hands. 9 It 6.  M. Yad. 3:5 (Danby’s translation). 7.  Although this may seem an odd evaluation since Ecclesiastes’ “unorthodox” content would seem to make its inclusion in the canon the result of a more liberal leniency on the part of the School of Hillel, it is a fact that from a later perspective, at least, this decision was more orthodox. See below, where I suggest that the theology of the School of Shammai was at odds with tradition on this point and led to an unorthodox decision from the viewpoint of traditon. 8.  M. ʿEd. 4:3 (Danby’s translation). 9. For further study, see Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 278–83; L. M. McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (3rd ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007) 58–63. As McDonald points out, the expression was probably first used in a debate that Rabbi Johannan ben Zakkai (50 c.e.) had with the Sadducees about texts that defiled the hands. Evidently the Sadducees thought it was ironic to impute contamination to sacred texts. They wondered how it could be that the Scriptures defiled the hands while the writings of Homer did not. They were answered, “As is our love for them so is their uncleanness—that no man make spoons from the bones of his father or mother” in contrast to

390

Stephen G. Dempster

may have been a means of prohibiting eating while the Scriptures were being studied in the temple, or a way to separate the Scriptures from an area in the temple where food offerings were being stored, since the presence of food would attract unwanted rodents which would destroy the Holy Books. 10 Roger Beckwith argues convincingly on the basis of the rabbinic evidence that this expression was used in its own way to protect the Scriptures from “careless and irreverent treatment, since it is obvious that no one would be so apt to handle them heedlessly if he were every time obliged to wash his hands afterward.” 11 Nonetheless, there was a dispute between these two schools of rabbis about the status of Ecclesiastes as Holy Scripture. There is no explicit reason adduced in the above texts but one suspects that one school had problems with the actual content of the book. 12 This is supported by the fact that Song of Songs also had controversial content and it was considered “tainted” as well as Ecclesiastes. This is supported by later Jewish traditions recorded in the Tosefta, the Talmud, and the Midrash, which pointed to internal contradictions within the book as well as texts which suggested heterodox theology. For example Midrash Qohelet Rabbah records that the command to follow the ways of the heart in youth (Eccl 11:9) directly contradicted a command in the Torah (Num 15:39) and that the questioning of the profitability of human labor (Eccl 1:3) implied that even Torah study was futile. 13 These problems were resolved by pointing out the larger conthe bones of an ass [because the bones of an ass are clean but the bones of a parent are unclean and thus in a completely different “untouchably reverent” category (m. Yad. 4:6). Michael Broyde suggests that it was the presence of the sacred name that contaminated one’s hands and the question was not about books’ place in the canon. Since three books did not contain the divine name (Esther, Ecclesiastes, Songs), they did not defile the hands, but their canonicity was not in doubt. While Broyde raises an important point, the plain meaning of the expression suggests canonicity (see M. J. Broyde, “Defilement of the Hands, Canonization of the Bible and the Special Status of Esther, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs,” Judaism 44 [1995] 65–79). 10.  “And why did the Rabbis impose uncleanness upon a Book? Said R. Mesharsheya: Because originally food of terumah was stored near the Scroll of the Law, with the argument, This is holy and that is holy [It was therefore appropriate since the food and the Scriptures were holy]. But when it was seen that they [the Sacred Books] came to harm, [i.e. they would be eaten by rodents attracted by the food] the Rabbis imposed uncleanness upon them” (b. Šabb. 14a; trans. H. Freedman, Soncino Talmud, 1938). 11.  Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 280. 12.  Thus I am not in complete agreement with Marc Hirshman, who argues that, since there are no grounds supplied to question the book’s canonicity in the early records, the reasons provided later reflect “Amoraic homily more than historical debate” (M. Hirshman, “Qohelet’s Reception/Interpretation in Early Rabbinic Literature,” in Studies in Ancient Midrash [ed. J. L. Kugel; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001] 99). 13.  Midr. Qoh. Rab. on 1:3, 11:9. To be sure, the midrash notes that the Sages who thought that Ecclesiastes tended toward heresy realized that “Solomon had spoken well” when they read the complete context of the verse, which urged the enjoyment of pleasure, “knowing that for all these things, God would bring you into judgment.” Similarly they excluded labor in the Torah from futile labor. But these questions show the problematic status of the book derived from its

Ecclesiastes and the Canon

391

text of Eccl 11:9, which indicates that enjoyment should always be aware of divine judgment 14 and that Torah study was exempt from the sweeping conclusion of the futility of work. There is also evidence in the Tosefta (ca. 300 c.e.), an early supplement to the Mishnah, that Solomon was viewed by one rabbi as not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore Ecclesiastes was not canonical. 15 Even though all of these criticisms were answered in the respective works, they do show the unease that surfaced in early Judaism regarding the canonicity of Ecclesiastes. This unease apparently lingered in certain Jewish circles until the time of Jerome, for he mentions in his commentary on Ecclesiastes: “The Jews say that . . . this book seemed fit to be consigned to oblivion because it asserted the creatures of God to be vain, and thought all to be for nothing, and preferred eating, drinking, and transitory pleasures to all things.” 16

Ecclesiastes and Jabneh It is sometimes argued that Ecclesiastes’ place in the third section of the Hebrew canon, the Ketubim, is further proof of its uncertain canonicity. On this view, it is believed that by the first century c.e. the previous two sections of the canon, the Torah and the Prophets, had already been closed (the Torah in 400 b.c.e. and the Prophets in 200 b.c.e.). 17 The third section was still open and its contents in flux until it was closed at a council at Jabneh, which purportedly took place in 90 c.e., and is alluded to in the Mishnah. 18 This council decided in favor of Hillel and against Shammai. This also explains for some scholars the difference between the narrower canon of Judaism and the wider canon of Christendom, since the Christian church inherited the wider canon of Judaism, the third division of which was still open before the decision at Jabneh. 19 The theory of a canon-defining council at Jabneh, however, has become a casualty of more intensive scrutiny. Jack Lewis, in his own words “an amateur, content. See also b. Šabb. 30b, which points out internal contradictions in Ecclesiastes and a harmonization (see also b. Šabb. 30b for questions about Proverbs). The rabbis argued for inclusion since Ecclesiastes began on a religious note and ended on one (see Eccl 1:3, 12:13–14). 14.  Note the conclusion to the verse: “Know that God will bring you into judgment for all these things” (11:9c). 15.  T. Yad. 2.14. 16.  Jerome, Commentarii in Ecclesiasten, in Patrologiae Latine (ed. J.-P. Ligne; Paris: Migne, 1863) 1172: “Aiunt Hebraei cum inter catera scripta Salomonis quae antiquata sunt nec in memoria duraverunt et hic liber oblitterandus videretur eo quad vanis Dei assereret creaturas et totem putaret esse pro nihilo et cibum et potum et deficias transeuntus praeferret omnibus ex hoc uno capitulo meruisse auctoritatem.” 17.  See, for example, the standard theory, which is still (with some modifications) accepted widely today: H. E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament: An Essay on the Gradual Growth and Formation of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1904). 18.  M. Yad. 3:5. 19.  A. C. Sundberg, “‘The Old Testament’: A Christian Canon,” CBQ 30 (1968) 143–55.

392

Stephen G. Dempster

unpublished in either rabbinics or canon study,” had first accepted that the evidence for such a council was substantial. But the more he probed beneath the surface he began to discover “a consensus had formed by repetition of what was at first a tentative suggestion.” 20 That suggestion by Heinrich Graetz was simply accepted by subsequent scholars until it became one of the assured results of modern scholarship and was perpetuated in Ryle’s study, which simply asserted that it was common knowledge that a council of rabbis met at Jabneh around 90 c.e. to close the canon. 21 The idea of a rabbinic council’s deciding which books were included in the canon and which were excluded seemed more like a Christian retrojection of later ecclesiastical, conciliar decisions in Christendom. 22 What is clear, however, is that there was some debate over whether certain books were canonical before the first century c.e. But this debate was probably prompted by the fact that the canon had already been decided—hence, the problems. As Beckwith has argued, to infer noncanonical status from the questioning of a book’s canonicity would be like stating that, because Luther thought that James should not have been in the NT canon, it never was. 23 The fact that the more rigid and conservative school of rabbinic thought had problems with Ecclesiastes even though it was canonical suggests that its theological system “trumped” tradition in this case, probably in the same way that Martin Luther’s theology guided his thinking on canonical matters. Ecclesiastes would never have presented a problem unless it was already recognized as canonical by many.

Ecclesiastes and Early Christendom In terms of the Christian Old Testament, the Ecclesiastes’ canonicity from a very early period was unquestioned. In the first explicit Christian lists dating to the second century c.e., Ecclesiastes is clearly part of the canon of the Old Testament. 24 A few decades later, it is found in Origen’s list in exactly the same place as in the previous two lists. 25 The only list in the East where it is not found is a second list of Pseudo-Chrysostom, dating probably to the fifth century c.e. As for the Western lists, the book is not explicitly mentioned in two of them, but it is prob20.  J. P. Lewis, “Jamnia Revisited,” in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee M. McDonald and James M. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002) 146–62, esp. p. 151. 21.  Ibid., 146–47. 22.  The idea that this has been a retrojection of Christian ideas has been nuanced by David Aune. He argues that Spinoza and Graetz after him were influenced by the early church’s councils to conceptualize the canonical process (D. E. Aune, “On the Origins of the ‘Council of Javneh’ Myth,” JBL 110 [1991] 491–92). But compare the rejoinder by Lewis, “Jamnia Revisited,” 159. 23.  Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 276. 24.  Bryennios (125–50 c.e.); Melito (175 c.e.). The order in both lists is: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. 25.  Origen (220 c.e.).

Ecclesiastes and the Canon

393

ably subsumed under the category of Solomonic authorship. This is clearly shown in two lists of Jerome, where Solomonic books are explicitly cited in one list and implicitly in the other under the name “Solomon.” 26 Ecclesiastes is found in all the major early Greek codexes: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus from the fourth century c.e., and Alexandrinus from the fifth century. In the fragmentary Ephraimi Rescriptus from the fifth century c.e., although much of the Old Testament has been lost, Ecclesiastes remains largely intact. 27 In early Christian interpretation, Ecclesiastes’ message of the vanity of human life was echoed in Origen’s comments (ca. 200 c.e.). 28 He saw Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs working together in harmony, with Solomon casting doubts on the validity of knowledge and human endeavors and therefore preparing for a marriage with Christ. Origen’s student, Dionysius of Alexandria (230 c.e.), transformed Ecclesiastes’ endorsement of eating and drinking from the physical to “things spiritual.” 29 Augustine remarks that this eating and drinking alludes to the sacrament of communion: “For when he [Solomon] says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man, except that he should eat and drink,’ what can he be more credibly understood to say, than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament Himself, the Priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with His own body and blood?” 30 Jerome encouraged a woman named Blesilla by reading to her from Ecclesiastes, “so that I might provoke her to the contempt of this earthly scene, and to count as nothing all that she saw in the world” (ca. 400 c.e.). 31 Here the focus on the vanity of life dominated his understanding. In his commentary, Jerome often resorted to symbolism and allegory regarding, for example, the repeated injunction to eat and drink and be joyful, which he considered to be like experiencing the sacrament of Holy Communion. 32 His views provided the standard for interpretation during the ensuing Middle Ages, 33 with the exception of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who did not resort to allegorical exegesis but a straightforward, historical 26.  The two lists are those of Jerome and the list of the Council of Hippo. 27.  It is interesting that the discovery in the last century of part of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s commentary on Ecclesiastes showed that he affirmed the canonicity of Ecclesiastes without the use of allegory. See Jarick, “Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes.” 28.  For a brief history of pre-modern interpretation see C. G. Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009) 25–34. 29.  E. S. Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007) 25. Christianson provides a helpful compendium for early interpretation. 30.  Augustine, City of God 17.20 (trans. Marcus Dods). 31.  Jerome, Commentarii in Ecclesiasten-Praefatip, 1061. 32.  See further M. Hirshman, A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity (trans. Batya Stein; Albany: SUNY Press, 1996) 96–108. 33.  Idem, “The Greek Fathers and the Aggadah on Ecclesiastes: Formats of Exegesis in Late Antiquity,” HUCA 59 (1988) 137–65.

394

Stephen G. Dempster

reading. While there were claims that he did not regard the book as canonical, it is clear that these claims were wrong. His historical interpretation argued that the book’s message was the “the futility of the unregenerate life and the certainty of the appropriate requital for the righteous and the unrighteous in the life to come.” 34 Unfortunately his failure to allegorize the text caused him much trouble with ecclesiastical authorities.

Jewish and Christian Canonical Sequences The Hebrew Bible is organized differently from the Christian Old Testament. Both begin with the five books of Moses, the Torah, but after this section, there is a different principle of arrangement. In the Hebrew canon, after the Torah there are 8 Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve (Hosea–Malachi). The second section of the Christian Old Testament, in contrast, has a large division of 12 historical books arranged in chronological order from Joshua to Esther. The Hebrew Bible concludes with the Writings, a diverse collection of literature, much of which is associated with wisdom. The arrangement of this section is much more flexible, but in many lists it begins with Ruth or Psalms and ends with Chronicles or Ezra–Nehemiah. After the History division in the Christian Old Testament, there is a compilation of Poetry that is largely wisdom literature (Job-Psalms-Proverbs-Ecclesiastes-Song of Songs). This is followed by the Classical Prophets: Isaiah-Jeremiah-Lamentations-Ezekiel-Daniel and the 12 Minor Prophets (Hosea–Malachi). 35 In the Hebrew order, there are many documented arrangements for the Writings. Beckwith has helpfully organized them into four classifications: literary, liturgical, anomalous, and chronological orders. 36 The two major complexes are the literary and the liturgical. In the literary orders, after the initial two books of Ruth and Psalms, there is a wisdom collection, most of which is linked to Solomonic authorship: Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Lamentations. An order that groups Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs together appears more frequently than others, 37 but the grouping of the five books together virtually never varies. 38 The literary order indicates that Solomonic authorship and wisdom determine the location of Ecclesiastes in the third division of the canon. 34.  Jarick, “Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” 315. 35.  This order is more of a tendency. As far as I am aware there is no early listing which closes with the Twelve, nor any manuscript which does. But there is a strong tendency to close with the Prophets. See the following lists: Bryennios, Melito, Cyril, Athanasius, Gregory, Augustine, Pseudo-Chrysostom-2. Compare also the Vaticanus manuscript. 36.  Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 449–468. 37.  Twelve of 21 attestations. 38.  Twenty of 21 times, the exception being the fourteenth-century c.e. Spanish manuscript Palatine. Job is separated from the rest of the books by Esther.

Ecclesiastes and the Canon

395

Since it appears near the beginning of the canonical division, there is an important hermeneutical role for wisdom. Clearly this tradition views Ecclesiastes as an important part of the wisdom literature, despite its difficult content. It is to be read in canonical context as an important part of the place of reason within the structure of biblical revelation: First comes the Torah, then the Prophets, and both stress revelation, but Wisdom allows more of a role for reason. However, it is a sanctified reason that begins with the Torah and ends with the Torah: “The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom.” This statement runs like a connecting thread through significant hermeneutical contexts in the wisdom literature (Job 28:18; Prov 1:7, 9:10; Eccl 12:13). Consequently, the third division of the canon, particularly wisdom literature, provides an important role for reason within the Scriptures, but it is a reason that is not in opposition to but inspired by faith. The fact that Ecclesiastes has problematic content indicates that life is problematic. The resources of faith should not blind one to this reality nor shrink from it but instead face it squarely without flinching. In the later liturgical orders, 39 Ecclesiastes is grouped methodically, without exception, in the Megillot, which are the five books that are read on various memorial occasions in Judaism: Passover (Song of Songs), Weeks (Ruth), Ninth of Ab (Lamentations), Booths (Ecclesiastes), Purim (Esther). There are a variety of orders in the Megillot, but they are always combined into one larger text complex. The significant point about Ecclesiastes in this canonical context is that it must be read during the Feast of Booths, which suggests that its content makes it appropriate for this festive occasion for a number of reasons. The Feast of Booths is essentially a thanksgiving feast for the fall harvest (Lev 23:33–36, Deut 16:13–17). The Israelites were commanded to commemorate this feast by including in their celebrations the construction of a temporary hut to live in for the holiday in order to remember the wandering in the wilderness after the exodus and before the conquest. Ecclesiastes with its stress on enjoying life while it lasts is the literary incarnation of the Feast of Booths and the impermanent hut. Life is short: enjoy it and be wise. On the one hand, the focus on joy is legitimate; but on the other hand, it needs to be a responsible focus lived in the fear of God, because life is transient. 40 39.  It is generally assumed that the Megillot order was established on the basis of a later liturgy based on the five festive times in Israel (compare the Babylonian Talmud, Soperim 14). Recently, Timothy Stone has argued that the order preceded the liturgy. For example, the first explicit evidence of Ecclesiastes’ being read liturgically is not until the early thirteenth century c.e. (Maḥzor Vitri), yet in the earlier Masoretic order it is already grouped with the other Megillot. He also mentions that it is not obvious why Ruth and Songs are linked with the feasts of Weeks and Passover. Stone suggests that the complex of these books was already set before liturgical reasons were found for their use (private communication, July 2010). 40.  For some important reflections on the choice of this book for the celebration of the Feast of Booths, see B. G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001) 106–7. Webb points out the paradox of a somber book’s being read at such a festive celebration. But it is clear

396

Stephen G. Dempster

In the attested Christian canonical orders, the book is virtually always grouped with Proverbs and Song of Songs, probably because of its Solomonic stamp. In both the Eastern and Western lists of the early church, the order is regularly Proverbs-Ecclesiastes-Song of Songs. Job is virtually always positioned in the immediate environment, but it is sometimes separated from them by other books. Similarly, in some lists “Deuterocanonical” books are placed in proximity. Whenever Lamentations is explicitly listed, it appears either as part of Jeremiah or following it—not with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, as in the Hebrew Bible. 41 Thus the link between Solomon and wisdom is firmly established in both canonical traditions, the Jewish and the Christian. One particular Jewish resolution to the hermeneutical tension existing within these wisdom books has Solomon writing the Song of Songs in his youth (with its emphasis on the enjoyment of the body), Proverbs in middle age (with the focus on experience), and Ecclesiastes in the twilight of his life (as death approaches): R. Jonathan said: He [Solomon] first wrote the Song of Songs, then Proverbs, then Ecclesiastes. R. Jonathan argues from the way of the world. When a young man, he composes songs; when he grows older he makes sententious remarks; when he becomes an old man he speaks of the vanity of things. 42

Canon and Theology It is interesting that the earliest literary order, Proverbs-Ecclesiastes, is preserved as the dominant literary order in both Jewish and Christian canonical sequences. The juxtaposition of these two books is hermeneutically relevant. Proverbs states that the beginning of the path to wisdom is the fear of Yahweh (Prov 1:7, 9:10). This statement is found at the beginning and end of the introduction to the book. It provides the underlying assumption for the wise life. The many proverbs that follow (Prov 10–31) are viewed as the roadmap to wisdom. They show the order and structure to the universe and the inextricable connection between action and consequence. The importance of beginning with the fear of the Lord in understanding the world is classically expressed by von Rad: [The fear of the Lord] .  .  . contains in a nutshell the whole Israelite theory of knowledge. In the almost abrupt way in which it is expressed, it gives the impression that some form of polemic might be involved. Why the repetition of this that there is a strong focus on the idea carpe diem. It is probably because of the approaching reality of death. For a recent study of this polarity as a key to understanding the book, see Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes. See also G. T. Sheppard, “Canonization: Hearing the Voice of the Same God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions,” Int 34 (1982) 21–33. 41.  Athanasius, Cyril, Council at Laodicea, Epiphanius, Council of Rome, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus. In Vaticanus, it follows Baruch, which follows Jeremiah. 42.  Midr. Song 1.1, 10.

Ecclesiastes and the Canon

397

firm assertion that all knowledge has its point of departure in knowledge about God, if the pupil’s range of vision did not contain other possible ways of acquiring knowledge which were being firmly repulsed? But nothing specific can be said about this. At any rate there lies behind the statement the awareness of the fact that the search for knowledge can go wrong, not as a result of individual erroneous judgments or of mistakes creeping in along the way but of one single mistake at the beginning. 43

Ecclesiastes with its constant stress on the inscrutability of the divine order thus becomes a powerful canonical dialogue partner with Proverbs. That this is intentional is shown by the fact that Ecclesiastes ends up at the same place that Proverbs begins. There is transience, futility, randomness, and pointlessness, but the end of the wisdom lesson is crystal clear: “Fear God and keep his commands because this is what it means to be human; moreover, God will bring into judgment every deed, whether good or evil” (Eccl 12:13–14). A number of scholars have argued that the end of Ecclesiastes with its focus on the important role of the wisdom tradition, the rejection of other books, and the final summing up of the meaning of life as the fear of God is evidence of a powerful canonical consciousness on the part of the final editor of the book. 44 Gerald Sheppard argues that this probably occurred during the time of Ben Sira, in which there is a coalescence between wisdom and Torah. But such a late date is not demanded by the evidence, as Deuteronomy plainly indicates. 45 However, Gerald Wilson has made the case that the ending of Ecclesiastes intentionally complements the beginning of Proverbs, thus firmly binding the two books together into an almost inextricable canonical sequence. Similar words and foci are concentrated in them, suggesting canonical redaction, and a much later date is not necessary. 46 Although Martin Shields finds problems with Wilson’s individual points, 47 their cumulative weight when considered with their virtually inextricable canonical sequence (Proverbs-Ecclesiastes) is compelling. A powerful hermeneutical note by the canonical editors is struck. The fear of God is relevant for the beginning and ending of the journey of life, as well as through all of life, with its order and disorder. Beginning with the fear of God in 43.  G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International, 1993) 67. 44.  G. T. Sheppard, “The Epilogue to Qoheleth,” CBQ 39 (1977) 182–89; compare with Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 586. 45.  Deuteronomy 4:6; See C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 395–96. 46.  G. H. Wilson, “The Words of the Wise: The Intent and Significance of Qoheleth 12:9– 14,” JBL 103 (1984) 175–92. The similarities between the beginning of Proverbs and the end of Ecclesiastes are as follows: “the words of the wise” as a technical term for wisdom teachers (Prov 1:6, Eccl 12:11); the fear of God (Prov 1:7, Eccl 12:13). Both superscriptions stress Solomon (Prov 1:1, Eccl 1:1). 47.  M. A. Shields, The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 71 n. 64.

398

Stephen G. Dempster

Proverbs helps one to get off to the essential beginning in order to understand life, but one is still forced to wrestle with difficult questions, with injustice, violence, death, and most of all, ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. Whether this word means “transience,” “meaninglessness,” or “futility,” 48 the juxtaposition of Ecclesiastes with Proverbs forces the believer to confront the problems of life. 49 Proverbs may stress the orderly elements of life, but Ecclesiastes shows the messy and chaotic aspects of existence. Proverbs describes life with the picture of a strong, well-built mansion where people are welcomed to eat at a banqueting table before a sumptuous spread of food (Prov 9:1–7); Ecclesiastes describes life as an old house in disrepair, about to fall apart, with no sound of the grinders getting the food ready (Eccl 12:1–7). Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the verdict of Ecclesiastes is the same as the beginning of Proverbs: Fear God—this is not only the beginning of wisdom, it is the end. It may be that Gerhard von Rad is right when he remarks that “the statement that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom could even be turned around, to the effect that knowledge and experience lead to the fear of God.” 50 But in this regard, Bartholomew aptly comments: Ecclesiastes is one of those books that force us to wrestle with very difficult questions that are pursued relentlessly. In the process it leads us back to the starting point of faith, but this time to know more fully. Faith, we might remind ourselves, is a gift, but Ecclesiastes reminds us that it is not cheap. 51

Walter Brueggeman has used the scheme orientation-disorientation-reorientation to describe how the genres of the psalms correspond to the seasons of life that human beings experience. 52 In times of regularity and order, the hymn becomes appropriate as a way to honor the Creator who gives life and is responsible for its structure. The hymn thus corresponds to orientation. But there are other times when “the bottom drops out of the world,” and in this profound disorientation, the lament is sung from the depths. When the prayer for help is answered, profound reorientation occurs, and one cannot help but sing a song of thanksgiving. It may be helpful to use a scheme of this sort to understand the relationship between Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. At the beginning, the believer is profoundly 48.  For a list of all the possible meanings, see Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 104–6. While there are various nuances for the word, Bartholomew accepts Seow’s overall understanding of the word as meaning enigmatic or incomprehensible. Seow remarks, “He does not mean that everything is meaningless or insignificant but everything is beyond human apprehension and comprehension” (Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction, 157). 49.  “It is fundamental to the purpose of Qoheleth that his words did trouble his audience and, in particular, those who were students or prospective students of the wisdom movement of his day” (Shields, End of Wisdom, 236). 50. Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 194. 51.  Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 20. 52. W. Brueggemann, Message of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985).

Ecclesiastes and the Canon

399

oriented by the fear of God, and this stance leads to the journey through Proverbs. There is solidity, stability, regularity, and order. But this is not the end of the wisdom journey. It must continue to the world of Ecclesiastes with its chaos, its injustice, its violence, its death, and its ‫— ֶהבֶל‬its intense disorientation. However, at the end of this journey, one returns to the beginning—but it is a different beginning; it is a profound reorientation. The words are the same, but everything is different. 53

Ecclesiastes and Christ For Christians, the ultimate context for Ecclesiastes is the entire Christian Bible, both the Old and New Testaments. Thus the complete canon witnesses to Jesus Christ as God’s final saving word. As mentioned above, early Christian interpretations used allegory as a means of connecting the message of Ecclesiastes to Christ. But some of the themes of this book, which point to the disordered, chaotic, fallen aspects of existence, serve as an Old Testament dramatic foil to the really “new thing” that has happened in Jesus Christ. Whereas in Ecclesiastes there is the forceful reminder that there is nothing new under the sun, in the completed Christian canon there can now be heard the message of the One who will make all things new (Rev 21:5). Whereas the specter of death and disorder and curse haunts the book of Ecclesiastes from beginning to end, the Christian now hears the words of a greater than Solomon, who enters into the disorientation, tastes death for every person, and leaves the tomb empty, his final sign for an old history: death is beginning to be swallowed by resurrection life (John 11:25). Whereas “vanity” had cast its shadow over everything, the resurrection of Christ assures the believer that nothing done for the Lord will ever be in vain (1 Cor 15:58). Whereas judgment looms ominously after death in Ecclesiastes, the dreaded judgment has fallen upon Christ, and there is now the unbelievably good news of the cross, because Christ took upon himself all the labor of a cursed world (Rom 1:20, 2 Cor 5:21, Heb 10:19). 54 The motto at the end of the book about fearing God (which is the essence of humanity) now appears as the ultimate object of this fear: Christ, the Wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:30). Nevertheless, despite the present reality of the kingdom, “the already here” is still the “not yet.” The Spirit has been given as a down payment, a type of firstfruits, 53.  It is interesting that Bartholomew concludes that the prime legacy of modern critical interpretation is to read Ecclesiastes without its conclusion, whereas the conclusion provides the hermeneutical key for precritical interpretation (Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes, 37). Canonical interpretation shows the fundamental importance of canonical context for the conclusion. 54.  For a profound meditation on some of the biblical theological aspects of Ecclesiastes, see H. C. Shank, “Qoheleth and His World and Life View as Seen in His Recurring Phrases,” WJT 37 (1974) 57–73; compare with D. M. Clemens, “The Law of Sin and Death: Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1–3,” Themelios 19 (1994) 5–8. See also the outstanding commentary by Bartholomew, Ecclesiastes.

400

Stephen G. Dempster

while the final payment is still to come. Death may have lost its sting, but it still casts its long and dark shadow. The world is still wracked with evil, pain, and fear. At the end of Ecclesiastes, the editor reminds his readers that the teacher’s wisdom leads to the conclusion that one must fear God and keep his commandments anyway. Similarly, Christians are called to “follow Jesus anyway, no matter what.” 55 Until their appearance before the judgment seat of Christ, believers are urged to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12–13). 55. P. Enns, “Ecclesiastes according to the Gospel: Christian Reflections on Qohelet’s Theology,” Scripture and Interpretation 2 (2008) 38.

Fresh Perspectives on Ecclesiastes: “Qohelet for Today” Iain Provan Regent College The attentive reader of this volume of essays will have noticed that the correct interpretation of the book of Ecclesiastes is disputed. It is important that we understand this and that we understand why it is important in relation to this essay. It is important because what we might think that Ecclesiastes means for “today” is firmly bound up with what we think it meant “back then.” My task in this essay is to write about “today,” but I can only attempt to complete this task in the light of my own understanding of “back then.” It is good for the reader to know, then, where I stand on some of the disputed issues of interpretation surrounding the origin and original meaning of the book. A full account of these matters is found in my commentary on Ecclesiastes and Song and Songs. 1 Here, I only summarize.

Qohelet Back Then First, I do not believe the ancient, extrabiblical tradition that tells us that Solomon, “the son of David, king of Jerusalem” (Eccl 1:1), was the author of Ecclesiastes and that he wrote the book in his weary old age. Already in this tradition, we find that a decision has been made about the overall tone of the book (weariness), from which I dissent. I agree that Solomon’s reign is evoked in numerous ways throughout the opening chapters of Ecclesiastes (see 1:12–2:11, comparing it especially with the story in 1 Kgs 3–11); however, I believe the book to be the composition of an anonymous, postexilic writer (revealed to us clearly in 12:9–14) who stands within the wisdom tradition of ancient Israel and reports the words of the speaker (the “I-voice” in the book) because he values them as some of the “words of the wise” (12:11). This “I-voice,” Qohelet, stands within the same wisdom tradition, gathering and reflecting upon proverbial wisdom and seeking to arrive at its 1. I. Provan, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001). Note that, in this essay, I use Ecclesiastes to refer to the book and Qohelet to refer to the stated author of the book.

401

402

Iain Provan

proper interpretation (12:9–10). As he reflects on the nature of the universe and of mortal life, he takes on various “personae” other than his own. For example, he explores reality “as if ” he were Solomon in 1:12–2:26, imaginatively reenacting Solomon’s reign (“I was king over Israel in Jerusalem”) in order to describe “life under the sun” from the perspective of great wealth and power and wisdom. But as he moves on, he ceases to act out this royal character and begins to explore other dimensions of human life that do not require him to speak “as if ” he were a king. 2 Second, I do not believe the modern, extrabiblical tradition that we should understand the message of the book of Ecclesiastes in terms of “traditional wisdom” that is rejected by Qohelet. 3 “Traditional wisdom” is rejected by Qohelet within the book, this theory runs; but in the end, it is reimposed upon Qohelet by the author of the book, or by the later editors of the book. I do not believe this. I do not agree that Qohelet often quotes wisdom material, the opinions of which he himself does not share; and I certainly do not believe that later authors/editors, alarmed by the allegedly unorthodox nature of Qohelet’s thinking, inserted material designed to neutralize its most troubling aspects. 4 I specifically do not believe that the author of Ecclesiastes distances himself from Qohelet’s teaching in 12:8–12 while offering us an evaluation of it. 5 It seems clear to me, on the contrary, that he passes on Qohelet’s teaching to us precisely because he values it. All of this means that I take Ecclesiastes’ own closing statements about its nature seriously and that I expect to find throughout its pages the unified (though complex) whole that these statements imply. Qohelet has something to say that is knowledge and truth (12:9–10), which the author has passed on to his readers because he considers it to be valuable. Of what does this knowledge and truth consist? Here I have three things to say. Having said them, I shall be able to move on immediately to our main concern: what does Qohelet have to teach us today? In the first place, the author of the book sets the whole of Qohelet’s teaching in the context of reverence for and obedience to God, who has created a moral universe in which there is accountability for actions (Eccl 12:13–14). This builds on aspects of Qohelet’s own thinking (for example, in 3:1–17 and 8:5–6), which is suffused with an important wisdom idea. It is the idea, found throughout the book of Proverbs and in a psalm such as Psalm 1, that there are “two ways” through life. These two ways are taken by the wise and the righteous, on the one hand, and by 2.  Contra Y. V. Koh, Royal Autobiography in the Book of Qoheleth (BZAW 369; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006). 3.  So, for example, J. L. Crenshaw (Ecclesiastes [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987] 23), who thinks that Qohelet’s argument “strikes at the foundation of the sages’ universe.” 4. So, again, Crenshaw, ibid., commenting (for example) on 3:17a (p. 102), 8:12b–13 (pp. 155–56), and 11:9b (p. 184). 5.  So, for example, T. Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998).

Fresh Perspectives on Ecclesiastes

403

the foolish and the sinners, on the other. Qohelet does have some qualifications to offer, in the course of his writing, concerning the value of wisdom. He is in no doubt, however, that “wisdom is better than folly” (Eccl 2:13). He therefore offers a great deal of wisdom to his readers, expecting that they will be the better for it (for example, in 7:1–22, 10:1–20). This advice is offered, as in the book of Proverbs, in the context of belief in a Creator God who loves what is right and hates what is wrong—who gives “commandments” that are “the whole duty of man” to keep, in reverence of him (12:13). It is this overarching backdrop to Qohelet’s thought that, in the second place, makes it so inexplicable that commentators have sometimes characterized him as a hedonist. They have done so on the basis of passages such as Eccl 2:24–26; 3:12–13, 22; 5:18–20; 9:7–10; and 11:9–10. These various passages commend things such as drinking wine and eating and the enjoyment of wife, work, wealth, and possessions. Yet it is obvious (at least to me) that God himself is prominently present in all of these texts. It is God who enables eating, drinking, and enjoyment of work in 2:24–25; who gives mortals, as a gift, both the days in which joy can be found and the enjoyment and contentment themselves in 3:12–13 and 5:18–20; who smiles on these human activities in 9:7–10; and who sets their moral boundaries in 11:9–10. There is indeed pleasure here. There is indeed the enjoyment of the good things of life. But it is pleasure received from God’s hand and joy expressed in God’s presence. This way of living in the world is by no means opposed to faith in God, as far as Qohelet is concerned; and it is certainly not antithetical to the morally good life (note especially the reference to “doing good” in 3:12). This brings us in the third place to consider the more troubled and gloomy tone in Ecclesiastes that marks significant sections of the book and that has so often held the attention of readers, to the exclusion of the other passages that we have just considered. The parts of Qohelet’s discourse that have this tone are best understood, in my opinion, only in the context of the other passages, in which he seeks to lead his readers to think and live in a certain way. That is: these “pessimistic” passages are designed only to gain a hearing for Qohelet’s more positive advice, by dispelling false consciousness about the world and by undermining false dreams and hopes. The general heading under which all of this gloomier material is presented is found in Eccl 1:2 and 12:8, which enclose all of Qohelet’s other words. The niv unhelpfully renders the relevant phrase “everything is meaningless,” as though we were encountering in Qohelet an early French existentialist rather than an ancient Hebrew God-fearer. It is much better translated “everything is a breath.” 6As consideration of the whole book reveals, the 6.  The key word here is ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, meaning “breath” or “breeze” (Isa 57:13), and thus by extension, things that are insubstantial or fleeting or actions that are in vain or to no purpose (BDB, 210–11). Ephemerality is thus one of the main associations of ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, including actions that are “passing” in the sense that they make no permanent impact or impression on reality. They are futile or pointless, and their effects do not last.

404

Iain Provan

emphasis lies on the passing nature of existence and on its elusiveness and resistance to intellectual and physical human control. There is no idea of any intrinsic “meaninglessness.” The main obstacle to living well in the world is that mortal beings consistently refuse to accept their mortality and finitude. 7 Qohelet sets out to convince them of their mortality and finitude. It is not insignificant in this context that his positive advice to his hearers (especially in Eccl 9:7–10) is similar to the advice given in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh to the hero Gilgamesh. In this text, Gilgamesh is on a quest for immortality, but he is encouraged to accept instead the limitations of human existence. The Bible itself sets the entirety of human existence as we know it within the context of such a failed human attempt to become “like God” (Gen 3). This attempt to become like God, the Bible proposes, derives from a refusal to accept divinely ordained boundaries. It is against this background that Qohelet speaks. He is trying to persuade his hearers of the futility of this ongoing human quest and thus to save them from a life that is itself characterized by futility. His two favorite targets as he engages in this quest are the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of wealth. The universe, he argues, is beyond human comprehension and cannot be fathomed. Wisdom may indeed be better than folly, but it does not enable us to construct a comprehensive account of reality. It certainly does not provide us with the means of somehow controlling reality (for example, Eccl 1:1–18, 2:12–16, 3:11, 7:23–29)—of “shepherding the wind.” 8 The pursuit of wealth is likewise a futile chase; I cannot guarantee, even if I attain wealth, that I shall be able to keep it, use it, or pass it on to my descendants. The possession of wealth does not in any case lead inevitably to the possession of fulfillment and joy (for example, 2:1–11, 17–23; 4:7–8; 5:10–17; 6:1–6). Overshadowing all such human attempts to overcome the limitations set on life is the ultimate empirical reality that demonstrates that individuals cannot control life: the reality of death. It is above all death that mocks human attempts at godlikeness. Qohelet constantly returns to this topic. It is death that in the end brings the wise man and the fool to the same place (2:12–16). It is death that renders futile the life that is devoted to the accumulation of wealth (2:17–23). It is the reality of death that should persuade the young man to embrace life in the present (11:7–12:8). It is in the end the reality of death that makes rational the way of life that Qohelet commends to all his readers. It is death that should lead us to focus on living each moment of life joyfully before God, rather than focusing on the pursuit of wisdom, wealth, or any other human pursuit that comes under the heading of “chasing the wind” (see 1:14, 17). Death comes to all, whether wise or foolish, rich or poor, good or bad (see 9:1–6); there is no way for human beings to 7.  D. C. Fredericks, Coping with Transience: Ecclesiastes on Brevity in Life (The Biblical Seminar 18; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993). 8.  P. J. Leithart, Solomon among the Postmoderns (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2008) 68.

Fresh Perspectives on Ecclesiastes

405

avoid it. It is best, therefore, to give up all attempts to control destiny and simply to live out our lives before God. This “simple living” will certainly involve human activities such as work and wealth-creation; it will involve the employment of wisdom. However, these activities will be undertaken “in the fear of God.” They will be undertaken with no illusions about the nature of the universe or about what can be humanly achieved within it. Undertaken in this way, it will be possible to experience joy whether in work or in wealth and to find, in wisdom, valuable help for living.

Qohelet for Today Although we cannot be sure about the precise historical background of the book of Ecclesiastes, it seems clear that the world into which Qohelet was speaking (as we deduce it from the book of Ecclesiastes) was quite similar to our own world. I say “our world,” assuming that this book will mainly be read by people who, like me, live in a “Western” society. Those who do not live in a Western society may well find that what I have to say is relevant to their own contexts as well—or they may not. Westerners, anyway, certainly live in a world in which there is much “toiling after gain,” as people strive to get ahead of the game of life and to exercise significant control over their lives. The oppression and injustice that this pursuit of gain and advancement all too often produces is just as much a feature of our own world as it is of Qohelet’s. It is just as obvious in our world, as in Qohelet’s, that joy and fulfillment do not automatically flow from this pursuit. In ever-increasing parts of the world, in fact, the ever-more-frantic pursuit of gain and advancement is evidently accompanied by spiritual emptiness and world-weariness, as people strive to achieve what they can never possess by the futile means that they have chosen for the attempt. One important aspect of this pursuit is the part played by knowledge and technique. At the heart of the chase lies a conviction that the universe is ultimately comprehensible and therefore malleable. It can be fashioned to our own ends. Accumulating human wisdom can be brought to bear on it, enabling the onward march of progress toward a universal, or at least a personal Utopia. However, at the same time the weakness of empirical inquiry as a foundation for human life has never been as evident as it is at present. The information explosion has resulted in individual human beings’ knowing more and more about less and less, since no one can possibly process all the “facts” that exist in order to arrive at overarching truths about the universe in which we live. It may be true, as the popular TV show The X-Files used to tell us, that “the truth is out there”; but for many people, it is unclear what that truth is, how it may be known, and what it means for living. Overshadowing everything in our world, as in Qohelet’s, is the reality of death. It is partly this reality that drives the insane rush after gain, as people try to protect themselves from death and to seize everything that can be seized from life

406

Iain Provan

before it is taken away. At the same time death is a reality denied by and dismissed in public discourse. It is common knowledge that death is coming and that it renders much of life futile, yet there is no common knowledge about how to “handle” it. Simple denial follows. Death is in fact, in our world as in Qohelet’s, the ultimate reality of life that demonstrates that the universe cannot be “handled” by human beings at all. Qohelet’s world is not so different from our world, and this means that it is not a difficult task to apply his message to ourselves. We may usefully consider some aspects of what Ecclesiastes means for today by looking at each section of the book in turn. We begin with Eccl 1:1–11, reflecting on this passage in the context of a common modern view of the world that has both religious and secular forms. According to this view, the world may or may not have been created by God, but if it was, then God does not continue to have much interest in it. It is passing away, and eventually it will be consumed by fire. Therefore, the created order, as such, should not figure in any central way in our understanding of human destiny. We should focus instead on our various human goals and ends: the redemption of our souls (the religious version of this heresy) or the pursuit of happiness and fulfillment (the secular version). In practice, both versions can coexist quite happily in the individual life, since the narrowing of the religious vision of life simply to the future state of the soul leaves plenty of scope for enthusiastic participation in the secular dream as far as the body is concerned. This is why so many people in the modern world who take the name “Christian” are in many respects indistinguishable (aside from a few personal rules that make them eccentric) from their non-Christian counterparts. They have largely bought into the secular dream, and while talking a good Christian talk, they are in fact pursuing with all their might precisely the same goals as many of their non-Christian neighbors. They are looking for happiness and fulfillment in this life (albeit with an insurance policy for the next life in their back pockets); they are looking to make their mark (or for their children to do so); they are looking to manipulate the world in order to achieve their own personal and family goals. It does not matter very much that many of them are doing this in a Christian subculture rather than in the world at large. They are still approaching the world in a fundamentally irreligious manner, just as a secular person often does. To all individuals who thus try to “gain” from life, whatever it is they claim to be doing, Qohelet presents a stark, immovable reality. It is a reality that does not change simply because we want it to change. It remains fundamentally as it is, in spite of all that comes under the heading of “progress.” The more things change, the more they stay the same. The universe, Qohelet tells us, is not designed to enable “gain”; those who attempt to fly in the face of this reality can only ever know grief and frustration. The universe is not designed to contain gods and heroes who control the world. It is designed to contain mortal beings who accept the limita-

Fresh Perspectives on Ecclesiastes

407

tions that have been set upon their lives by the Creator of the world and who move forward within these limitations in quietness and humility. This life is intended to have as its center the God who creates everything and holds everything in his hand. It is intended to consist in proper relationships with God and with neighbor, in care of the “garden” that has been entrusted to us by him. The culture at large has decided it would like reality to be different, so it dethrones God. It worships gods and heroes who burst through life’s limitations while patently failing to love their neighbor (think of most of the movies you have seen in the last decade), and it exploits the earth for its own ends. The church sometimes cannot quite decide, it seems, which reality it will embrace. Qohelet forces us to think about these sorts of things and to reconsider our stance. The leading question of the book of Ecclesiastes has now been stated and initially explored: “What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun?” (1:3). Ecclesiastes 1:12–2:26 then pursues this question quite explicitly from the perspective of the “king over Israel in Jerusalem” (v. 12). If any person might be expected to “gain from labor” in Israel, it is the king—especially a king such as Solomon (whose reign is evoked in numerous ways in this passage). Solomon had unlimited time and resources at his disposal and had his famed wisdom to guide him (see 1 Kgs 3–10). He was, to all appearances, in a wonderfully advantageous position, if “getting ahead of the game” is the human goal. However, despite all of their apparent advantages, it turns out that kings—even Solomon—must content themselves with regarding life as an end in itself rather than as an object to be manipulated for profit. It is in the humble things, received as gifts from God—eating and drinking and finding satisfaction in one’s work—that joy is to be found. In modern life, there are not many kings (or queens) left in the world, and those who still exist often try, at least, to behave as ordinary mortal beings. This is not to say, however, that we have fewer people in the world who aspire to live like kings (and queens). On the contrary, we have probably never lived in an age in which more people worldwide aspired to a priveleged life-style. In these aspirations, they are driven onward by a rapacious and immoral advertising industry that promises them the earth in return for their souls. They are driven also by a movie and TV industry that provides them, first, with an ever-fresh succession of “role models” (if this is the correct term) for imitation; and second, with an endless supply of fantasies that they can live out in preference to real life. Only kings and the elite few who surrounded them in the ancient world (and indeed, for most of human history) could hope to fashion their environments to some extent after their own whim and liking. Most people faced a harsh reality everyday that allowed no self-deception about human nature and destiny. Modern life, however, is full to the brim with illusion and delusion, because we are constantly told that there are “gains” to be made that will radically alter life itself. There is yet another way to increase our income; yet another way to improve our health and stave off illness and death; yet another way to increase our sexual pleasure.

408

Iain Provan

If the aspiration to “kingship” is thus deeply rooted in our materialistic and superficial culture, the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge is closely allied to it, at least in principle. The very foundation of the modern economic miracle in the West was indeed laid several centuries ago in the explosion of empirical inquiry and consequent technological endeavor, which is often labeled “the scientific revolution.” We understand better than any generation before us, we imagine, how to make the world work for us; and this has bred enormous self-confidence, culturally, in our ability to govern ourselves and in due course to usher in Utopia. A politician is hardly ever elected to office in modern times unless he or she more or less promises that this goal is achievable—that things are always and only going to become better. “Yes, we can.” Education has also been drawn into this lusting after Paradise, as wisdom and knowledge are portrayed not simply as goods in themselves that enable us to live well in the world but as means to the end of control and wealth—as means to the end of fulfilling our own personal dreams. It is therefore not difficult to understand the contemporary significance of Eccl 1:12–2:26. Moving on: Eccl 3:1–22 underlines the nature of the reality the embrace of which has just been advocated in 1:12–2:26, especially in the light of death. We live in a culture that is uncertain about life after death. A well-known slogan associated with one response to this uncertainty is carpe diem—a Latin phrase that is translated “seize the day.” We do not know what comes afterward, and life may be short; therefore, “seize the day” and live it to the full now. Qohelet’s philosophy is also, to some extent, that all mortal beings should “seize the day.” It is an appropriate response to the reality of the “times” that are beyond our control but lie in the hands of God, that we should cease to worry much about the outcome of things. We should concentrate instead on living joyfully and well in the moment that is currently given to us (Eccl 3:12–13). What is noticeable about what Qohelet says, however, and what distinguishes his philosophy from the modern secular views of the world with which it shares superficial similarity is that it is centered on God. Qohelet’s carpe diem is an expression of faith, not of self-fulfillment. It is not the greedy consumption of experiences and pleasures before oblivion consumes us. It is, rather, the patient and joyful embrace of daily life as it comes to us as a gift from God. That it involves ethics is clear from 3:12. It is not a life centered on the self but a life that is turned outward, toward one’s neighbor, asking oneself what is “good.” We are indeed to seize the day, according to Qohelet, but we are to remember its divinely created nature as we do so. Thus, the biblical carpe diem is not a self-centered response to the uncertainties surrounding life after death. It is a worshipful response to the God of creation, who is also the God of new creation and resurrection. We should not confuse the biblical and the modern carpe diem. Nor should we underplay the former. It is important to stress it, in fact, in a religious culture in the Western world that has all too often given the impression to others that the point of the Christian faith is to repress life in the here and now in order to gain

Fresh Perspectives on Ecclesiastes

409

life in the future. This is not so, biblically speaking. It is true, of course, that we are called by Jesus to deny ourselves and take up our crosses (Matt 16:24), but this is the sort of call to displace self from the center of the universe that we already find in Ecclesiastes. It is not a call for a life-denying approach to existence, as Jesus’ own life demonstrates (for example, Matt 9:14–15 and Luke 7:33; see also 1 Cor 10:31 and Col 3:17). Life, rather, is to be grasped; the day that God has given us is to be seized. In Eccl 4:1–5:7, we move from consideration of the “times” that are beyond our control to reflection on oppression and injustice in the world. Qohelet suggests that the world as we know it is marked by oppression and unjust gain (4:1– 16). Other biblical texts agree. At the same time, they present to us an alternative vision of a society marked by the true worship that Qohelet describes in 5:1–7, out of which flows right relationships with God and neighbor. This is no utopian vision within our human grasp, if only we can find sufficient will and skill for the task. It can only become present reality as God works in the world to bring in his kingdom. In the meantime, Qohelet sketches a countercultural pathway for the righteous: hard work for and in community, rather than envy-driven, selfcentered, lonely toil in pursuit of personal advancement. The alternative pathway is unfortunately “the one more traveled” in modern Western culture: the pathway of secular individualism that has everything to do with self-sufficiency and selffulfillment, little to do with worship of God and social responsibility, and nothing to do with the Bible. Even the religious individualism that lays great emphasis on a person’s relationship with God but little emphasis on a person’s social, economic, political, and religious relationships with other people ultimately has little to do with the Bible. The Bible is about persons in community, whether in the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Spirit, or in the church, or in the world at large. The proper goal of the Christian is not an individualistic heaven. It is to live in right relationship with God, neighbor, and God’s world now and in the future—a future that will, by God’s grace, stretch beyond death. We remember that Jesus himself taught us that our neighbor is whoever is in need of our help, even if it is our enemy (for example, Matt 5:43–48, Luke 10:25– 37). With this in mind, modern Christian readers need to respond (with some serious commitments) to Qohelet’s graphic description of the world as it is and to the different way of life that he opens up for us. The first is to root out from our hearts all destructive and sinful thoughts that lead us to pursue a selfish and individualistic path through life. Envy, which Qohelet mentions in Eccl 4:4, is certainly one of these, and is highlighted also in the NT (for example, Mark 7:22, Rom 1:29, 1 Cor 13:4, Gal 5:21, Titus 3:3). Excessive desire for our own advancement is another problem (Eccl 4:13–16), and Christians are explicitly told not to set out on this road but to aim at servanthood (for example, Mark 10:35–45). Another is the refusal to accept that all other human beings do indeed have a stake in the world. This refusal leads to our turning a blind eye to the reality that we possess much

410

Iain Provan

more than others do, for various reasons (for example, greed or government policies framed “in the national interest”). It is not just that we possess more; it is that many of the “others” have in fact been deprived of the most minimal means with which to live their lives. Once we have rooted out these bad attitudes and, with them, the implicit belief that “my family” or “my nation” has some inherent right to more of the world’s resources than others do, we must secondly make a commitment to do as much as we can to contribute to community and to alleviate the suffering of the world. It is impossible to be a follower of Jesus and simply observe “the tears of the oppressed” who “have no comforter” (Eccl 4:1). Nor is it acceptable simply to offer empty words. The contribution of our own lifestyle choices to their plight—in a world where the market (or in biblical terms, Mammon) dominates the agenda rather than human interests—is a factor here. There must also, naturally, be practical comfort in loving actions—caring for the widows and orphans, the immigrants, and the poor, of which the whole Bible speaks. We do this for others, but at the same time we do it for ourselves; what is good is also good for us. A life of selfish individualism leads neither to happiness nor to eternal life. The blessed life is that of the worshiper who remembers that it is God who should be the focal point of worship and not the self (Eccl 5:1–7); who worships the one true God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), rather than idols. In Eccl 5:8–6:12, we read more about oppression and the pursuit and hoarding of wealth. The key word of the whole section is “consumption” (Heb. ‫אכל‬, “eat,” in 5:11, 12, 17, 18, 19; and 6:2, translated variously by the niv as “consume,” “eat,” and “enjoy”). If the good life involves what goes out of our mouths (5:1–7), it also involves what “enters” them and how it does so. More than anything else, it is the irrationality of human rebellion against God that is on open display in this section of the book. The destruction that results for our fellow human beings is also painfully visible. What is it in human nature that leads us to “run after” material things (Matt 6:32)? Why do we behave in adulthood as we behaved first as very young children, accumulating and hoarding possessions that we are unwilling to share, rather than learning to trust and to worship the Creator God? Why are we so blind that we cannot see that this way of life is not even in our own best interests, much less in the interests of our neighbor or our planetary home? It is the breathtaking stupidity of sin, rather than simply its wrongness that often strikes the biblical authors. Even the ox knows his master, and the donkey his owner’s manger; but human beings are too foolish to recognize their Creator (Isa 1:3). They go on hoarding goods to their own harm (Eccl 5:13), even though these possessions do them no real good. They bring only lack of satisfaction, worry, sleeplessness, frustration, and anger (5:11–12, 17; 6:1–6). They are ultimately consumed by other people, whether in life or in death (whither we go naked, 5:11, 15–16). It is this reality of human life that is reflected throughout the Bible. Human attachment to material things is identified as one of the primary barriers between

Fresh Perspectives on Ecclesiastes

411

God and his human creatures and at the same time as resulting in dire consequences for our neighbors. This is true not only at the personal level but also at the communal level; for governmental and judicial power usually lies in the hands of the rich, and it all too often functions, whether with deliberate intent or simply through neglect, to establish the interests of the rich over those of the poor (Eccl 5:8–9). This is one of the reasons why the words rich and wicked so often appear closely connected in the Bible and are sometimes used entirely interchangeably (as in Isa 53:9). Yet each one of us will, sooner or later, come face to face with reality: the reality that God has created human beings in his image to love and honor him, to love and respect their neighbors, and to look after the planet on his behalf. That is just how the universe is. It is not set up to allow human beings, in the end, to worship idols and in their pursuit of idols to exploit other human beings and the rest of creation. It is not designed to allow the sacralization of created things, which then become central to human life and evoke a religious-like awe and submission that is due only to God. We may either choose to embrace reality or we shall ultimately be forced to embrace it. Qohelet is helpful to us in attaining the clear-headedness that is first of all essential here. Jesus is crucial: “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” It is hard, for wealth is routinely accumulated in our world through deliberate personal—or negligent second-hand—oppression of others; and once we possess it, we are not keen to share it. Modern Christians sometimes behave as though, once we have made it clear that wealth is not necessarily and intrinsically evil in the Bible (which is true), we have said all there is to say; but this is not all that the Bible has to say. “It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” If idolatry lies at the heart of what is evil, Eccl 7:1–12 now proceeds to tell us about numerous “good” things (Heb. ‫)טֹוב‬, and these “good” things are often “better” (also Heb. ‫ )טֹוב‬than other things in this passage with which they are compared. Qohelet may have a keen eye for human folly and misery, and he may possess deep convictions in particular about the folly of expecting too much from wisdom (1:12–18, 2:12–16). However, he never deviates from his belief that some ways of living in the world are better than others—that wisdom is better than folly. He never stops believing that the good life is bound up with knowing and accepting that this is true (for example, 2:13, 24–26; 3:12–13, 22; 4:6, 9, 13; 6:9). This is the point that is now underlined in Eccl 7. The reality of death lies at the heart of the opening six verses of the chapter. Previously employed in order to relativize wisdom, here death is introduced as an incentive for embracing wisdom rather than folly. There is a middle path to be walked between idolizing wisdom, on the one hand, and despising it, on the other. Recognizing the brevity and preciousness of life, we should live life seriously. For example: joy, eating, and drinking are all aspects of the good life as it is received from God (see 2:24–26), but there is a way of living that is centered on feasting, on the pursuit of joy, on empty laughter and singing. This way of living is to be avoided (Eccl 7:2–4). Wisdom

412

Iain Provan

enables us to make these discriminations. It is like an “inheritance” (7:11–12) that is passed down through the generations so that those who now receive it may live well. It enables us to walk the narrow path of which the Gospels speak (Matt 7:13–14), avoiding the dangers on either side. This same path is mapped out for us in Eccl 7, as Qohelet first of all extols wisdom and provides us with some specifics for our journey (7:1–12), before going on to mix similar material with reflections on wisdom’s limitations (7:13–29). This “serious way of life” that Jesus also recommended is not (in either the OT or the NT) a way of life that is joyless and repressive; for it is a seriousness lived before the God of grace and goodness. The blessed who mourn are the same blessed people who are already invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9) and who in the meantime know that God has “blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph 1:3). The serious life is not the gloomy life. Jesus himself models it for us. It is a life firmly based on reality. It does not allow itself to be distracted from the right path by illusion or delusion; yet it is a way of being that, focused on God who is ultimate reality, knows liberation and joy. It is capable of knowing this even in the midst of adversity and grief. This balance is necessary with respect to modern as well as ancient life. We live in an escapist culture, and this escapism is itself only a reaction to despair. The materialist mansion that we modern people have constructed for ourselves has become for many an unbearably oppressive prison, the spiritual emptiness of which is all too apparent. The sensible course of action would be to visit the archives, find the building plans, and begin a discussion of what went wrong. This would be to admit, however, that a mistake has been made, and there is widespread unwillingness to consider this option—not least because we still rather like our living quarters and would not enjoy moving. Escapism is the alternative choice, an escapism that often has religious undertones, as we seek “spiritual cleansing” from modern culture and we journey to find our “real selves.” Against all such escapism Qohelet should help us stand, even as we empathize with and grieve over the sense of personal alienation that produces it. Biblical faith is not escapist. It does not advocate the evacuation of the mind in the face of unpleasant facts nor the embrace of fantasy in the face of a harsh reality. It also does not advocate the increase of both noise and activity lest the silence should frighten us, and our inactivity give us time to think. It certainly does not advise us to seek redemption by dancing the night (or the morning) away. It does not advocate a “party culture,” as Qohelet makes clear. The healing of our pain of which the Bible speaks requires us to confront reality rather than seeking to escape from it; and one of the realities it requires us to confront is the reality of death. It invites us to embrace this reality, rather than seeking to push it away; all the partying in the world will not push it away forever. It invites us to allow the fact of death, looked squarely in the eye, to do its work in us. It invites us to pursue the question of death to the end rather than pursuing joy. To help us accept this implausible invitation, it claims that to

Fresh Perspectives on Ecclesiastes

413

make joy our focus is only to know death now and also forever. Conversely, to deal with death is in the end, surprisingly, to find joy. The broader biblical context in which Eccl 8:1–17, next, must be understood is provided by all of the material in the Bible that speaks of the foolish and wicked rulers of this present age. These are rulers under whose power the people of God must live for a time; and the Bible offers us models of, and advice about, what righteous living should look like in this situation. It takes for granted that much human government is wicked, even though government as such is instituted by God for human good and should not lightly be opposed. Idolatry is usually what lies at the root of the problem. Kings, made in the image of God to govern creation as God’s representatives, come to “worship the image” or the self. They set themselves up as gods in opposition to the living God. The consequence is harm—harm to other human beings, to the rest of creation, and, ultimately, to the king himself. The most fundamental picture of this reality is provided by the exodus narrative; but the “battle between gods” that is described there (Pharaoh against the Lord) is replayed in different forms throughout the remainder of the Bible (for example, Isa 14, 2 Kgs 18–19, Ezek 28:1–10, Dan 3–4). The battle is still ongoing, and will not end until the Son of God comes with power to claim his kingdom. The question for the believer is how to live “between the times”—in the present, where government is flawed and often wicked, before the end times come and the kingdom of God is fully among us. Qohelet, although he seems to have little explicit interest in the end times, offers some helpful advice on this matter. He counsels caution when confronting power; for although this power when compared to God’s is no power at all, it is still capable of doing great harm. The NT will later speak of this in terms of being “as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” To caution, Qohelet adds patience, which is naturally allied to faith; for it is necessary to keep our heads clear when confronted by the idols of power, lest we are tempted to view the world from their point of view. The wicked powers will face judgment, and “their days will not lengthen like a shadow” (Eccl 8:13)—therefore people of faith should believe. To caution and patience, Qohelet adds, finally, integrity. These same virtues are required of modern Christians as well, because we are confronted by power in the present, whether in its terrifying or more seductive forms. The primary conviction that we must possess is that we are called to “worship the Lord our God and serve him only.” We are always servants of God first and the servants of others second. There is no place for any “God and . . .” in Christian thinking. “God and . . .” is idolatry. One of the most serious of these idolatries is “God and country.” We are always citizens of the kingdom of God first of all and citizens of our nation-states second; and we are always to live in a different way from individuals who worship the idols of power and Mammon. One of the emphases of the material in chs. 7–8 of Ecclesiastes is that, although wisdom is superior to folly and, although righteousness is better than

414

Iain Provan

wickedness, nevertheless wisdom and righteousness often do not seem to bring their practitioners sufficient reward. Wicked fools, on the other hand, prosper—a challenge to the notion of a morally coherent universe. Ecclesiastes 9:1–12 continues in this vein. Contrary to what is claimed in much modern pseudo-Christian theology, the Bible never promises that any human being will know in this life only good health, financial prosperity, and happiness. It certainly never ties faith and righteousness to the attainment of these things in any simplistic way. It is true that the way of faith and obedience to God is in the end the blessed way; and it is true that God’s blessings can include good health, financial prosperity, and happiness. It is untrue that a faithful and obedient person will always possess these things and can somehow be sure of avoiding illness, disaster, and death if (s)he can simply muster enough religious devotion. To believe this is to believe something profoundly unbiblical. To teach it is to insult every Christian throughout the past two thousand years who has known illness, poverty, and misery. To press it upon the sick, the poor, and the unhappy of the present day is to place a millstone around the neck of those who are drowning rather than offering them the comfort and hope of the Gospel. God is much more concerned to make us holy and to shape us in the image of Christ than he is to make us happy, rich, and healthy. When Qohelet speaks of the life of individuals in the way that he does, therefore (each of us is destined to experience both good and evil, both love and hate, both misery and the effects of folly and joy and the effects of wisdom; and in the end to know death), he speaks a truth that is widely proclaimed elsewhere in the Scriptures (for example, in the book of Job and in the life and teaching of Jesus). Qohelet does not yet express a fully Christian faith, of course; those who know of the resurrection of the dead would not be as stark as Qohelet in their evaluation of the difference between life and death. However, Qohelet’s faith is truly Christian faith in its insistence that God is God and we are not; that God’s ways in the world are beyond us and beyond our control; and that believers live the same human life as anyone else, experiencing the same range of human experiences even while experiencing the presence of God in their midst. Having clarified the limitations as well as the benefits of wisdom, Qohelet returns to the overall benefits in Eccl 9:13–11:8. Wisdom may be limited, but it is a good thing. It is particularly necessary to possess it when dealing with foolish and wicked rulers, who function in the first part of this section of the book (9:13– 10:20) as the central illustration of fools. After that, Qohelet’s advice on living wisely becomes more generalized and not focused so specifically on the business of bad government and how to survive it (11:1–8). All this advice is most pertinent for the modern person. We live in a world where information is widely privileged over wisdom. We are bombarded with “facts” and expected somehow to accommodate them all and integrate them into our lives; however, we are like the readers of a complicated novel who are able to read all the sentences yet cannot grasp the plot. The information highway runs directly through our homes in the form of TV

Fresh Perspectives on Ecclesiastes

415

and the Internet, and we are exhilarated at the chance of catching a ride and ending up in exotic places; but there is too much traffic and it moves too fast. We are more likely to find ourselves playing the role of roadkill caught beneath the wheels of this traffic than the role of daring hitchhiker. It is a world in which no one thinks to ask whether 24-hour news channels are a good thing (it is thought to be obvious that they are); a world in which it is self-evident that information technology is a more important school or college subject than philosophy; a world in which “Have you heard the latest?” is a more pressing question than “Do you know the truth?” We have never known so much and understood so little. We live in a world, in fact, in which wisdom—at least insofar as it derives from authority and tradition—is routinely suspected, mocked, and despised. Long gone are the days when the venerable age of an idea was thought to be an indicator of its value. Long gone, too, are the days when trust was placed in authorities, whether ancient or modern. These are more suspicious, fractured times. We are all the distant heirs of the Enlightenment idea that truth must be rediscovered from the ground up—all previous truth claims notwithstanding. What we have discovered, however, as we have pressed the suspicion of “authorities” further and further, is just how difficult it is to know any truth at all. Truth has thus become a highly personal matter that changes with the individual life circumstances of the person who proclaims it; and the only wisdom that counts is the wisdom that has been collected experientially along the way. Swimming in the midst of the ocean of “facts” is the lonely individual, who must somehow determine how at least some of the facts cohere with each other and make sense. It is in the end completely impossible, of course, for the solitary, transient individual to make sense of the universe or even for a band of individuals to do so. We all need some larger story to inhabit, with an Author who knows the beginning and the end and who controls the plot. We all need wisdom from above and from outside us—and from before us—if we are to know who we are, what it is all about, and where we are going. We all need to know Truth if we are to make even the beginnings of an attempt to sort out truth from fiction in all the claims and counterclaims of human experience, in all that passes for “wisdom” in society, whether it comes from children or adults, from authorities or those who are suspicious of authority. We shall not find this Truth by watching TV chat shows or by listening to politicians or to famous actors or performers. We shall only find it in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, who is the touchstone of all reality and the focus of all wisdom. The book of Ecclesiastes does not know about Jesus, but it points us in his direction. Qohelet has advocated the embrace of joy while our brief life lasts, before the darkness of death overshadows us. His thoughts now turn in the end (Eccl 11:9–12:8) to the young man who, because the time of youth is brief (11:10), has a still shorter period in which to make the most of his opportunities. In view of not only death (12:6–7) but also the slow and steady intrusion of death into life as

416

Iain Provan

people age (12:1–5), the young man is urged to live life to the full (11:9–10). We all need the wisdom that derives from those who possess a world view a little less limited than our own; but young people, who do not even have the advantage of a wide experience of life in the present perhaps require this wisdom more than most. The question is: what should we tell them? We live in a time when there is a palpable crisis of confidence among many adults regarding what to say to their children. Having lost hold on God, the culture has by degrees lost hold of any larger story that makes sense of our individual and group stories—stories that provide us with shared codes of ethics and with role models who enact them. This loss of narrative and of direction makes life difficult enough for the adults who have experienced it and who no longer know where they are heading or why. It makes the task of instructing the younger people who accompany us on the journey particularly difficult. There is a justifiable antipathy to the older, authoritarian “do as I say, not as I do” approach to parenting, for which young people have little respect in any case. This leads in practice, however, simply to saying less and less and having less and less conviction about it. Parenting becomes by degrees a matter of the blind leading the blind. It is often simply delegated to the professionals who are thought to know something that we do not (schoolteachers, doctors, psychologists) or to the willing amateurs, such as sports coaches, who seem to get on well with children. Into this modern crisis comes our biblical narrative and all the texts that are bound up with it, reflect on it, and comment on it. Here is the map that we need both for our own journey through life and for helping others (including our children) to find the best path. Qohelet paints a corner of this map, and he suggests to us that a young person needs to be told two things: (S)he needs to be told, first, about the reality of decay and death and what this signifies about God and about ourselves. This is important, because young people often think of themselves as indestructible and all but eternal, and youth culture often seems designed to promote this self-understanding. (S)he also needs to be told, however, about the goodness of God and to be encouraged to live responsively to this goodness. This involves virtue, of course, but it also involves joy. It is important to speak about both. Qohelet has a great deal to say “for today.” He still imparts “knowledge to the people” (Eccl 12:9). What he wrote remains “upright and true” (12:10). It remains our whole duty and our only path to joy in this life and the next to “fear God and keep his commandments” (12:13). Modern Christian readers read Qohelet’s words, of course, in the light of a larger story and in the light of a centrally important teacher and savior, but this should not diminish Qohelet’s words. Rather, it should bring into clearer focus their significance for us.

Preaching Qohelet Daniel C. Fredericks Belhaven University Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort; who comforts us in all of our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. (2 Cor 1:3, 4, nasb)

Nothing related to the book of Ecclesiastes is easy, 1 especially when one considers how it should be preached! One need only count the number of sermons one has ever heard from the book; it is a brief exercise. If the goal of preaching is edification, some might wonder exactly how this is going to happen with Ecclesiastes—a book that allegedly says repeatedly that life and everything associated with it is vanity, meaninglessness, or absurdity. Preaching also assumes that there is a lucid and coherent message in a text that is worthy of exposition for individuals hungry not only for truth but for credible encouragement based on this truth. Based on some interpretations, this would be hard because Qohelet is seen to contradict himself often and profoundly enough that he is not considered a trustworthy source of instruction. If, however, there is an expectation that Ecclesiastes is in the canon for some higher reason than simply its association with Solomon, then presumably there is something positive in the book to guide the believer’s way. There may appear to be a direct link between Ecclesiastes and preaching since the speaker, “Qohelet,” is rendered “the Preacher” in some translations. However, Qohelet is an official title describing a position within an assembly without any inherent religious meaning. Thus, the ‫( ָקהָל‬noun: assembly) is called together by the Qohelet, the assembler or convener, and “the words of Qohelet” in this case are interpreted as “the teachings of the Convener.” In other writings about Solomon, whose persona is reflected in Ecclesiastes, he literally assembles (‫)קהַל‬ ָ people for various reasons, including national consecrations and speeches to foreign dignitaries (1 Kgs 4:34, 8:1, 10:1; 2 Chr 5:2). Effective preaching moves believers to responsible kingdom action in the most direct way that the believing culture suggests. In this sense, a systematic and 1.  Note that, in this essay, I refer to the book as Ecclesiastes and the stated author as Qohelet.

417

418

Daniel C. Fredericks

highly regulated approach such as S. Greidanus’s 2 might be preferred by parishioners in the Reformed culture. However, others would find his approach instructive but hardly normative. His homiletic is a theological deduction from his version of a redemptive-historical framework and is prescribed for every Ecclesiastes sermon, regardless of the text that is chosen from Ecclesiastes. Apart from his restrictive layers, however, his comments on the content of Ecclesiastes are often incisive and are helpful when consulted in the pastor’s study. Several presuppositions and prescriptions for preaching Ecclesiastes are given by Greidanus: Ecclesiastes should be preached as “wisdom literature.”  3 However, “wisdom literature” is simply a rubric of convenience when one is neatly identifying a minimum number of Old Testament genres. Ecclesiastes is unique in its style in the Old Testament and should be allowed to speak for itself without the imposition of a loose generic title and any attending homiletical rules. In the Hebrew canon, Ecclesiastes is simply referred to as one of the “writings.” Each Ecclesiastes sermon must be preached with a single theme, as any modern sermon. 4 This rule might be derived from one’s cultural setting, but simultaneous cultures suggest different approaches, and a singular approach such as this, based on such a nebulous term as “modern” would not be accepted as obligatory by all, especially not by individuals who choose to preach on many themes of Ecclesiastes in the same sermon. Each Ecclesiastes sermon must be preached as “gospel.” 5 This prescription is especially curious since Greidanus places the word gospel in quotation marks, implying that it needs further clarification; unfortunately, he does not clarify it. Nonetheless, by any definition of this central word in biblical theology, this is an unnecessary fetter fastened to every sermon, including sermons from Ecclesiastes All sermons, including those from Ecclesiastes, must preach Christ. 6 One respects this sort of commitment to our savior and Lord, but since two books in the Old Testament do not even mention God (Esther, Song of Solomon), we might assume that God’s revelation can be effectively transmitted even in preaching without referencing Christ explicitly. The congregant over the weeks, months, and years presumably will hear the totality of the preacher’s theology and wisdom about Christ, even though, at times, it is only implied. Ecclesiastes sermons must preach Christ since all major Old Testament themes lead to him. 7 This assumption is inaccurate regardless what one might determine these major themes to be. All OT and NT themes ultimately lead to the Trinity 2. S. Greidanus, Preaching Christ from Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010). 3.  Ibid., 13. 4.  Ibid., 23. 5.  Ibid., 24. 6. Ibid. 7.  Ibid., 28.

Preaching Qohelet

419

because Christ lifts the redeemed world in the end to the Father as his completed work (1 Cor 15:24–28). Christ came to honor the Ancient of Days as his commissioner (Dan 7:13–14) and to do only his will in speech and act (John 5:19, 36). The homiletical inference we can make, therefore, is that an Ecclesiastes sermon may be God-centered but not necessarily Christ-centered. New Testament references from the letters are admissible if the teaching is linked to Christ. 8 This statement unfortunately excludes innumerable biblical passages from participating in the critical hermeneutical principle of analogia scriptura. If somehow a God-breathed reference cannot find a direct enough link to a saying of Jesus, for Greidanus, it is not permissible in a sermon from Ecclesiastes because it lacks this exegetical chaperone. If one were to preach Christ from Ecclesiastes, Greidanus certainly provides a rich exemplar of how exactly to do it. However, these artificial rules may only lead to compromising the poignancy of a text, especially when a pastor has only a few moments in a sermon to motivate the congregation and its redeemed souls to more biblically responsible living. P. G. Ryken’s (2010) recent work on Ecclesiastes in the Preaching the Word commentary series is an example of commentaries designed to “cut to the chase” in moving a biblical text toward a sermon. 9 These are more “popular” in their approach and are, of course, helpful resources in this regard. Though Ryken does not prescribe any homiletical techniques, as Greidanus does, he follows the same pattern of directing every literary section of Ecclesiastes toward the “gospel of Jesus.” For Ryken, Qohelet describes life at its worst, which prepares us for this gospel. In fact, Ryken believes that Qohelet had an evangelistic purpose that drives one to faith in God, and he thinks the most important reason to study Ecclesiastes is to see our need for the gospel of Jesus. 10 Again, this is a way to preach Ecclesiastes, but it is not the only way. Consequently, I do not suggest in this essay one particular method of preaching Ecclesiastes. Rather, I suggest themes that should be noted as profoundly relevant to any congregation so that through faithful preaching the believer can grow in obedient wisdom to God’s Word, which is found in this Old Testament book. My purpose is to highlight what should be included in substantive preaching on Ecclesiastes, leaving homiletics to the individual preacher and his theological and pastoral tradition. It is the preaching shepherds who best determine the appropriate homiletic to motivate believers, using the unique communication expediencies of their own cultures. For instance, some church cultures elevate intellectual understanding 8.  Ibid. 9.  P. G. Ryken, Ecclesiastes: Why Everything Matters (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010). 10.  Ibid., 21–22.

420

Daniel C. Fredericks

and logical progressions in their sermons. Others elevate good-humored, winsome storytelling to motivate their parishioners. Still others depend on the witness of many believers in an egalitarian setting to convey the “message” or messages on Sunday. Homiletics itself is not a doctrine deduced from Scripture. It is not a doctrine that unites the kingdom of God. It is a tool, a technique, an art, a spiritual gift and skill that should be crafted and wielded wisely by each preacher for the edification of the believers but not in compliance with any alleged theorems. Homiletics is a product of love and wisdom, not of Western rhetorical rules. Nor should every homiletic expect “Jesus” to be shouted out as the answer to every question in every biblical text. Since we honor Christ as king, we see his gospel to be the message of his kingdom. Living responsibly in his kingdom can be encouraged and described effectively and faithfully without focusing on him explicitly in every sermon. The Old Testament is not “Christian literature” because it speaks copiously about Christ. It is Christian literature because it speaks about the same God as the newer testament, who is Father, Christ, and Holy Spirit. It is Christian literature because it contains the same moral code for holy management within his kingdom as in the newer testament. Consequently, sermons about our relationship with God of course honor Christ as a member of the sovereign Trinity, as they honor the Holy Spirit and the Father. On the other hand, we believe that the plainest reading of Scripture will have one appropriate interpretation with many applications. In other words, the same relativity in homiletics is not possible for hermeneutics. Consequently, much of what is written in this edited volume is intended to help prepare the Ecclesiastes text for accurate teaching and preaching. The assumption is that Qohelet has several points that he presents to his assembly clearly enough as far he was concerned. These points are what I offer in this essay as topics for preaching to today’s assemblies. My assumption is that there are statements by Qohelet himself that edify the believer through preaching. However, it remains to be determined within the pastor’s study whether his words are to be qualified and to what extent. The reader will be struck with the positive reading of Ecclesiastes advocated in this article. This reading comes from my understanding of Qohelet’s use of hebel (breath) to mean “temporary,” as it does in several passages in the Old Testament, particularly in the poets and wisdom literature. I address this below, but first I look at what Qohelet considers to be the undeniable realities of life that are disappointing if not frustrating and deeply discouraging for anyone. I then offer Qohelet’s own observations and conclusions that share common ground with the conventional wisdom of the Old Testament. Then, I introduce the key differences in interpretation of Qohelet’s conclusions since preachers will arrive at a fork in the road where a decision must be made about which interpretive destination to pursue.

Preaching Qohelet

421

The Many Real Challenges in Life The pastor is not limited to preaching the words of Qohelet to equip the congregation for dealing with life’s troubles. Nonetheless, in spite of biblically realistic conclusions—or even because of them—preaching can create in the believer a more sober awareness of sin and a desire to counter it. The entire Bible highlights the devastation that human folly and wickedness bring—their debilitating impact on the individual and the community. However, foolishness and sin were not behind Job’s disease and afflictions. In addition, the curse of natural disasters caused by the initial spiritual battle in Eden has brought fear, suffering, and tragedy into innumerable lives throughout the millennia. How empty would a pulpit ministry be if it did not often deplore the human condition experienced by the wearied individual and by beleaguered humanity as a whole? How insensitive to reality and how intentionally oblivious to a distressed world would a minister be to preach only soft half-truths to believers seated comfortably in padded pews? A true shepherd cannot ignore what must be dealt with privately when the congregation returns home to broken families, fractured dreams, and failing bodies. Although parts of Qohelet’s teaching may not inspire uplifting lyrics sung by a clapping worship team, they can bring a congregation to its knees in extended prayer for each other and for a world that suffers under the Enemy’s delight in oppression, brutality, and destruction.

Innate Human Limitations We Are Mammals Part of Qohelet’s realism is based on humanity’s limitations that God intended from the beginning; they were God’s design in the creation he called “good.” We cannot be bitter that we were created less than God, finite and dependent on him. To second guess this fact is to reenact the fall! However, we may find Qohelet’s reminder of who we are as creatures a bit insensitive. God severely tests them to show them that they are themselves but an animal, since it happens to the sons of men and to the animal alike, the same for both—as one dies, so dies the other because there is one breath to both. So there is not an advantage to humanity over the beast for both are temporary. Both go to one place. Both are from the dust, and both return to the dust. (Eccl 3:19–20) 11 11.  In this essay, the quotations from Ecclesiastes are my own translation and are found in D. C. Fredericks and D. J. Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (Apollos Old Testament Commentary Series; Nottingham: Apollos, 2010).

422

Daniel C. Fredericks

Though we were created to steward God’s creation, including the animal kingdom, we are still creatures ourselves. Preaching includes putting human existence, even the Christian life, in the context of the rest of God’s creation. Now, after Qohelet’s description of our animal nature, we may want to jump immediately to the promise of eternal life to assuage Qohelet’s offense. We want to leverage our eternal souls to simulate a level of dignity that does not really belong to us. But God prefers to prove to us through our finiteness and death that we are animals—finite mammals who are merely God’s creations: equally subject to his will, equally dust, equally distant from his infinite transcendence. His sovereign will and attention apply equally to a common sparrow as to a reigning king (Eph 1:11, Matt 10:29, Prov 21:1). Our DNA is near that of other mammals; we even share the same “breath of life in our nostrils” (Gen 2:7, 7:22). Furthermore, the fall brought humans and animals even closer together as we became less reflective of God’s personal image and more beastly in our lusts and conduct. God’s intention for the physical journey of humans and beasts is to begin and end the same (Gen 3:19; Job 10:9; 34:14, 15; Pss 104:29; 146:4). Can we follow Qohelet’s lead and at least for a moment humbly admit this?

We Do Not Know Everything One of the usual distinctions between humans and animals is our extraordinary human knowledge based on reason and the conclusions we derive from observing the complexity in the rest of the world. The beginning of Qohelet’s speech clearly announces his search for knowledge and wisdom (1:12) followed by numerous observations and conclusions that are both negative and positive, though nonetheless accurate in every case. No one can deny the power of human reason even if it is often compromised by a moral depravity that drives one to act contrary to that reason. However, one of the greatest frustrations of life is that we do not know all about the most significant events in our personal lives or in God’s kingdom purposes. We do not know the full meaning of events and experiences of the past and present, and we certainly do not know what the future holds. Consequently, one of the pastor’s greatest challenges is to console the believer in the midst of the unknown and the anxiety it can bring. Qohelet finds himself exhausted and disappointed at the minimal extent of human knowledge, even after his persistent effort to discover and understand everything. But he is resigned to the substantial limits of knowledge as a fact of life, particularly when it involves the purposes of God. I observed that one is not able to understand all of God’s work, the work that is done under the sun. Even though one labors in searching, one will not understand it all. And even if the wise say they know, they cannot understand it all. (Eccl 8:16, 17)

Preaching Qohelet

423

Just as you do not know what is the way of the wind—as the way of limbs in the womb of the pregnant—so you do not know the work of God who does both. (Eccl 11:5) Humanity will not understand the deeds that God does from beginning to end. (Eccl 3:11) I said, “I want to be wise.” But it was far from me. Whatever has been is far and very deep; who can find it? (Eccl 7:23, 24)

However, limited knowledge is another of God’s blessings—it is an advantage not to know everything and to be aware only of what God permits to be known. In fact, Qohelet can hardly bear what he already does know: “Surely, in much wisdom there is much sorrow, and increasing knowledge increases grief ” (1:18). As disappointing as our limited knowledge may be, we as preachers must encourage other “believers” to trust in the mercy of a sovereign God. The most prevalent example of the limits of human knowledge in Ecclesiastes is not that of understanding the present; it is, instead, the lack of human memory and foresight. Qohelet’s trust in human memory of even important things is not high (1:11; 2:15–16; 9:5, 15). But it is the unpredictable nature of the future that most interests Qohelet. It is human nature to look ahead, to anticipate the future perfectly in order to manage it better and cope with it. But Qohelet teaches that this is impossible. He expresses this fact in three ways: no one knows what will be (8:7; 9:1, 11–12; 10:14; 11:2); consequently, no one can say what will be (3:22, 6:12, 8:7, 10:14); particularly, no one knows what will come after his or her death (2:19, 6:12, 7:14, 10:14).

We Cannot Control Everything Believers hunger and thirst for sermons that emphasize God’s love, mercy, wisdom, power, and sovereignty—especially believers who strive to be responsible, proactive, and organized yet find their best efforts rebuffed by circumstances beyond their control. One cannot control everything in life. Trying is more of a psychological disorder than a virtue—a cause for anxiety, frustration, and anger. Again, this lack of control is due in part to our limited knowledge, but Qohelet reminds us that there are many other reasons. Nature and the seasons have inevitable rhythms that determine our situations for us (1:5–7, 11:3–6, 12:1–2). God’s purposes are absolute and disallow tampering (3:14–15, 7:13–14). Certainties can only be butted against senselessly (1:15, 6:10). The built-in temporariness of life, human generations, and personal experience shortens the opportunity for control (1:4, 2:16, 3:2, 8:8, 9:10, 12:1). Ironies of life simply happen, beyond and contrary to reason or explanation (9:11).

Injustice The issue of theodicy is a stumbling block for the believer and nonbeliever alike. Why does evil prevail when God is all-powerful? It is also one of the most

424

Daniel C. Fredericks

knotty questions asked a pastor: “Why would God let this happen?” Qohelet does not avoid the question; he does not deny the pervasiveness or severity of human sinfulness and its disastrous effects. The need for justice against wickedness is sorely felt by him. In a place of justice and fairness, there is wickedness instead. (Eccl 3:16) See the tears of the oppressed, yet there is no comforter for them. (4:1–2) Every advantage from one’s actions is surely someone else’s envy. (4:4) There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin. (7:20) I have seen . . . a time when one man rules tragically over another. (8:9) When a sentence against evil is not executed quickly, then the heart of the sons of men is fully intent on evil. (8:11) The heart of the sons of men is full of evil. (9:3) One sinner destroys a lot of good. (9:18)

Qohelet also describes more-general travesties of justice that may not be attributed to sin but to circumstances that God allows and that ironically affect the righteous and the wicked. Who knows whether it will be a wise person or a fool, yet he will control all my estate for which I have been wise and labored under the sun. (Eccl 2:19) There is a righteous man who dies in his righteousness, but a wicked man lives on in his wickedness. (7:15) There are righteous people who experience things as if they were wicked and evil people who experience things as if they were righteous. (8:14) [Love or hatred] occur to everyone the same: for the righteous and for the wicked . . . for the good as for the sinner. (9:2) The chase is not to the swift, or the battle to the strong, or even food for the wise, or even riches to the discerning, or even favor to the knowledgeable, for timely episodes happen to everyone. (9:11) A little folly is respected more than wisdom and honor. (10:1)

Even the most stable believers are shaken by these observations! What preaching can counter these ravaging disappointments for those who sing praises Sunday morning but feel the deep distress of Monday-morning headline news and who experience it in their own lives? Old Testament heroes are also jolted by the same scenes.

Preaching Qohelet

425

Why do the wicked still live, living on and becoming powerful? (Job 21:7) I saw the success of the wicked . . . they are not in trouble like others. (Ps 73:3, 5) Why has the wicked’s way prospered? Why are the treacherous at ease? (Jer 12:1) Why do you look favorably on the treacherous? Why are you silent when the wicked swallow those who are more righteous? (Hab 1:13)

For the flock’s sake, the pastor must be able to distinguish effectively between a deep trust in God and an insipid optimism. Simple optimism trusts probability at best while faith defers to God’s perfect judgment regardless of the circumstances. Qohelet, at the end of the day, reveals an orthodox view of God’s justice—not the shallow view of Job’s friends, who are unable to get past a binomial view of good and evil, blessing and tragedy. For them, immediately in life, goodness only results in blessing, and wickedness always ends in tragedy. This view was inadequate and finally condemned by God. On the other hand, Qohelet and his epilogist are convinced that, in his perfect timing, God judges all justly, whether “righteous or wicked” (Eccl 3:17; 5:6; 8:13; 9:7, 9; 11:9; 12:14).

Death Death is such an ominous reality that it informs much of Qohelet’s realistic assessment of human experience. Pastors may be tempted to relegate sermons about death to funerals and merely refer to it at other times, such as when discussing the destinations of believers and unbelievers. But, for Qohelet, the relevance of death pervades his view of the most general and profound realities in life. Examples of his statements are listed here to show the many directions that this topic can take a pastor in preparing a congregation for the storm of death coming to them and their survivors. These conclusions recorded tersely below are surrounded by contexts of rich reflection with which to confront believers from the pulpit. It is only within a full sermon that a preacher can adequately qualify and magnify these pointed statements about the death we prefer to neglect. A generation goes, a generation comes. (Eccl 1:4) The wise dies along with the fool. (2:16) A time for birthing, but a time for dying. (3:2) It happens to the sons of men and to the animal alike . . . as one dies, so dies the other. (3:19)

426

Daniel C. Fredericks Those who were already dead I considered more fortunate than those still alive. (4:2) As he came from his mother’s womb, he returns just as naked. (5:15) The miscarriage comes as a breath and leaves in darkness. (6:4) The day of death is better than the day of birth. (7:1) Better to go to a funeral home than to a party house. (7:2) I have seen . . . there is a righteous man who dies in his righteousness. (7:15) Do not be excessively wicked, and do not be foolish—why die when it is not your time? (7:17) There is no authority over the day of death. (8:8) I have seen the wicked buried, even the ones entering and leaving from a holy place. (8:10) The wicked will not lengthen his days as a shadow since he does not fear God. (8:13) A living dog is better than a dead lion, for the living know they will die, but the dead know nothing. (9:4, 5) There is no activity or explanations, knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are about to go. (9:10) The dust returns to the earth . . . and the breath returns to God who gave it. (12:7)

Qohelet is no more negative than other Old Testament thinkers, whose analyses of life and its horrendous challenges and injustices are just as blunt—whose catharses are understandable yet mitigated within a theology of God’s sovereignty. Psalmists, prophets, composers of many proverbs, Job, and Qohelet are not ashamed to voice their agony and displeasure with a world that is so far removed from its original perfection at creation. People who object to Qohelet’s view of the real world are like Job’s friends, who ignored the challenges that everyone faces. They offer twisted logic and false accusations to explain their own shallow perspective on life’s troubling episodes. Preaching Qohelet presents the most profound challenges to a congregation’s faith while presenting ample biblical wisdom to grow in this faith. Qohelet’s conclusions about wisdom are based on these realistic assessments of a fallen world.

Biblical Wisdom In Qohelet’s realism, tragedies, injustices, and death do not render wisdom and its pursuit useless; instead, they challenge the wise to even higher levels of

Preaching Qohelet

427

wisdom. In Old Testament wisdom literature, the art of wisdom leads to personal success in spite of those limitations. Thus, sermons on Ecclesiastes should raise the believer to this same level of wisdom! Beginning and finding a way forward are the tasks that are most difficult. I discuss below how the biblical themes of wisdom and righteousness are qualified by various interpretations of Qohelet. But here, these topics are offered as beginning points: wise living, trusting God’s sovereignty, and enjoying life.

Wise Living The Value of Wisdom

Wisdom is as commendable according to Qohelet as it is according to the rest of Scripture. Though there are certainly many limitations and counterweights that frustrate wisdom’s immediate or fullest impact—or even overwhelm it—Qohelet prefers wisdom repeatedly; for example: I became great . . . especially my wisdom supported me. (Eccl 2:9) There is an advantage of wisdom over folly as there is of light over the darkness. (2:13) Better a common yet wise young man than an old and foolish king. (4:13) The advantage to knowledge is that wisdom gives life to its masters. (7:12) Wisdom is strong for the wise, more than any ten rulers in the city. (7:19) The wisdom of a man gives light to his face and relaxes its stiffness. (8:1) It will be well for those who fear God, who fear him publicly. (8:12) Wisdom is better than strength, but . . . (9:16) Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but . . . (9:18) A wise person’s heart goes to his right, but the heart of the fool goes to his left. (10:2) So, the advantage of wisdom is success. (10:10)

And the epilogist concurs with Qohelet: The words of the wise are like goads, and the masters of these collections are like firmly set nails. They are given by one Shepherd. (12:11)

It would be unfortunate for a minister of the Word to avoid the unnerving realism of Qohelet, to steer clear of the book, and deprive the flock of these strong encouragements to seek wisdom and its advantages. After all, it is exactly through wisdom that one copes with the realities of a fallen world and its afflictions that

428

Daniel C. Fredericks

mar the path of the believer. This is the immeasurable value of Ecclesiastes: it assures us that wisdom walks with us on the path through the valley of the shadow of death. James even goes as far as to prescribe joy, much as Qohelet does in the midst of affliction: “Consider it all joy, brothers and sisters, when you meet various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. . . . But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him” (Jas 1:2–3, 5). We will see below that Qohelet also assures us that God will give joy and wisdom to individuals he considers acceptable, just as James prescribes (Eccl 2:26). Preaching on righteousness is far more prevalent than preaching on wisdom. However, Old Testament ethics equate wisdom with righteousness: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: all who obey his commandments have a good understanding” (Ps 111:10). Qohelet affirms in 3:12 that there is nothing better than to “do good” (‫ָׂשה טֹוב‬ ָ ‫ )ע‬just as the psalmist encourages the believer by using the same Hebrew phrase, ‫ָׂשה טֹוב‬ ָ ‫( ע‬Pss 14:1, 34:14). Conversely, Qohelet warns against “doing evil” (‫ָׂשה רָע‬ ָ ‫ע‬, Eccl 5:1; compare 4:3, 8:11) since those who are “good before God” are contrasted with sinners, who are criticized (Eccl 2:26; 5:5; 7:20, 26; 9:18). Though Qohelet is adamant about the preeminence of wisdom and righteousness, he agrees with the prophetic voices throughout Scripture who profess the first tenet of salvation: “There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin” (7:20). This is an unfortunate truth, whether claimed by historian (1 Kgs 8:46), sage (Prov 20:9), or apostle (Rom 3:23).

Wise Speech

Nothing can divide a congregation or erode relationships in the believing community more than foolish words spoken in private, in fellowship, or from the pulpit! This is why the many sayings in Proverbs speak about the tongue—to keep inflammatory, destructive lips from inflicting slashing wounds on any member of the community of faith. Hasty, foolish words can lead to mutually annihilating retorts, to festering silence, or smug passive resistance. Qohelet’s instructions are consistent with biblical teaching on wise speech and are an effective source for preaching on the tongue (compare with Jas 3:2–12). [There is] a time for being silent, but a time for speaking. (Eccl 3:7; compare with Prov 10:19, 11:12–13, 12:23, 15:23, 17:28) Your mouth should not be quick, nor your heart hasty to speak a word before God, so let your words be few. (Eccl 5:2; compare with Ps 46:10, Prov 29:20, Jas 1:19) Many times, your heart knows, you too have cursed others. (Eccl 7:22; compare with Matt 7:5, Rom 2:1) Do not persist in damaging comments because the king does whatever he chooses. (Eccl 8:3, 10:20; compare with Prov 22:11)

Preaching Qohelet

429

The words of the wise are heard when quiet. (Eccl 9:17; compare with Prov 15:1, 4; 16:24, 32) The words of the mouth of the wise are favorable, but the fool’s lips consume him. (Eccl 10:12; compare with Prov 10:21, 17:20, 18:6–7) The beginning of the fool’s comments is foolish, and the end of them is insanely evil; yet, the fool multiples words. (Eccl 10:13–14a)

In Qohelet’s balanced way, he commends wisdom and righteousness while warning the wise not to expect too much in a fallen world. He predicts the disappointments that might come in spite of speaking wisely and profoundly: “The wisdom of a common man is despised, and his words, they are not heeded” (Eccl 9:16). Unfortunately, wise speech can be mitigated by overpowering foolishness and wicked intentions! Christ’s irrefutable responses during his trial alone prove that, even though truth falls on morally deaf ears, one should not hesitate to say what others do not want to hear or are too distracted to understand. The effectiveness of his parables is due to this assumption (Matt 13:10–17), and he resigns himself to the irony that “the only places a prophet is not honored are in his hometown, in his own house, and by his relatives” (Mark 6:4). Effective preaching does not simply excite people to be righteous; it prepares them for the real world and for coping with other people’s reactions and negative responses by countering with an attitude of grace, discernment, and righteous resignation.

Diligence

Bless the heart of any pastor who delivers sermons as practical as encouraging wise speech and hard work—especially if they are preached during prime time on Sunday morning and not relegated to the evening service or mid-week! What wonderfully refreshing moments they would be if a pastor commended the congregation for its hard work not only in the church but in the marketplace and community! Whether Paul was pointedly commenting to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 4:11–12, 5:14; 2 Thess 3:6–13) or consoling servants throughout the kingdom (Col 3:22–25, Eph 6:5–8), his words about diligence came from a long tradition of wisdom teaching in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. As should any pastor, Paul frequently and publicly commended his hardworking fellow-laborers as well. Qohelet speaks clearly about the enjoyment, virtue, and benefits of wise hard work. He denounces laziness as destructive to self and others. In this way, his words align with biblical teachings about the value of work. All that your hands find to do, do with your strength. (Eccl 9:10) In the morning sow your seed, and until evening do not relax your hand. (Eccl 11:6; compare with Prov 12:11, 28:19) The fool who folds his hands eats his own flesh. (Eccl 4:5 compare with Prov 6:10–11, 19:15, 20:13, 24:33–34, 26:15)

430

Daniel C. Fredericks Woe to the nation . . . [where] princes feast in the morning (Eccl 10:16; compare with 7:2–6; Isa 5:11–12, 28:7–8, 47:8; Prov 23:19–21, 31:4–5) Blessing the nation . . . [where] princes eat at an appropriate time—for strength. (Eccl 10:17) By laziness the rafters sag, and because of slack hands the house leaks. (Eccl 10:18; compare with Prov 12:11, 18:9)

For Qohelet, there are many blessings and rewards that come from hard work. The first reward is the joy that can come from work itself: “[N]othing is better than that one enjoys his activity, for it is his reward” (Eccl 3:22; also 5:18–19). This joy from work is a creation blessing. The Garden was meant to be a place of fulfilling work even before the fall. And now, while the earth and humanity struggle against each other, there can still be satisfaction in wise work. This was Qohelet’s incentive for his own accomplishments recorded in 2:4–8. Successful hard work also allows one to enjoy many basic needs and, additionally, desires and joys (2:10; 4:9; 11:6). These will be viewed later when we discuss Qohelet’s theme of joy. Several pastoral and practical caveats put diligence in perspective. Qohelet encourages working a full day, not just part time (11:6). Teamwork is an effective workplace model (4:8–12). Rest is prescribed along with working hard. One should be aware of the physical limits of labor and the obligation to take care of oneself (4:6); sleep and the Sabbath have refreshing power. However, Qohelet warns that the results of one’s hard work can be diminished by life’s circumstances, making work’s benefits only temporary (2:11). He gives various reasons for this: God’s unexplained sovereign discretion (6:1), some natural or other tragedy (5:14, 11:2); a successor’s foolishness (2:18–21); others’ forgetfulness (2:15–16; also 1:11); and just plain circumstances (9:11–12). Proverbs and James agree with these realistic conclusions, both recommending humility about our working plans: Do not boast about tomorrow since you do not know what will happen the next day. (Prov 27:1) You who say, “We will do a profitable business there,” how do you know? . . . Your life is like the fog in the morning; here a while, then gone! . . . You should say, “If the Lord wills” . . . otherwise, you are boasting. (Jas 4:13–16)

Furthermore, our temporariness drives Qohelet to instruct us that one should work with all one’s might, since planning, wisdom, and actions are not possible from the grave (9:10). His awareness of the stark reality of death drives him to drill deeply into this subject of diligence.

Humility

Two themes contribute to Qohelet’s instructions on humility. First, an individual should be teachable, unlike the old king who foolishly avoided advice (Eccl

Preaching Qohelet

431

4:13). One should always be open to wisdom spoken quietly, even if it means being corrected (7:5, 9:17). This is a word for God’s people, regardless of whether they are small children or adults under the authority of church officials or under authority in the workplace. Even friends and enemies can teach us. Second, if correction comes from a superior, one should respectfully submit, whether it is deserved or not (10:4, 8:2–5; compare with Prov 12:16). Patience is better than pride and anger (Eccl 7:8–9). Peter also prescribes humility in the workplace: “Servants, honor your masters by submission, not only to the good and reasonable ones, but even to the harsh” (1 Pet 2:18–19). Preaching on marketplace matters can broaden the pastor’s impact on a congregation, the members of which in turn witness to kingdom values in their community.

Money

The subject of money was frequent in Christ’s parables, and Paul mentions it repeatedly as a way for believers to show their personal priorities and concerns for their brothers and sisters. On the other hand, greed is a constant theme for Old Testament prophetic rebuke against Israel and foreign nations. James (5:1–6) and Paul (1 Tim 6:6–9, 17) address the dangers of money in some depth. Qohelet sees the positive and negative effect of money as well. He values its ability to provide some coverage in our threatened lives and considers it a gift from God. Wisdom is protection [Heb., “shadow”]; money is protection. (Eccl 7:12) Everyone to whom God gives riches and wealth . . . this is God’s gift! (5:19)

But he cautions us just as strongly, as does the rest of Scripture: Money does not satisfy whoever loves it. (Eccl 5:10; compare with 1 Tim 6:10, Prov 27:20) When prosperity increases, so do those who eat it. (Eccl 5:11; compare with Prov 14:20; 19:4, 6) The many possessions of the rich do not allow them to sleep. (Eccl 5:12; compare with Matt 6:25–27) There is a sickening tragedy . . . wealth hoarded to the owner’s severe detriment. (Eccl 5:13; compare with Matt 6:19–24) Extortion makes a fool of a wise person, and a bribe destroys one’s heart. (Eccl 7:7; compare with Exod 23:8, Prov 15:27, Isa 33:15)

Qohelet’s “nothing in, nothing out” message echoes throughout Scripture and should motivate the faithful to wise stewardship in the here and now:

432

Daniel C. Fredericks As he came from his mother’s womb, he returns just as naked . . . in every way he came, he goes. (Eccl 5:15–16) Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will leave. (Job 1:21) [The rich] will take nothing with him when he dies. (Ps 49:17) We brought nothing into this world—we cannot take anything out of it. (1 Tim 6:7)

Sermons about money are often given apologetically; the preacher not wanting to disturb the closet idolatry of a congregation and, usually, procrastinating until “Stewardship Sunday.” But, rather than capitulating, the wise pastor will address this issue as a key element of sanctification.

Trusting God’s Sovereignty That the sovereign, fair, and loving God holds power over problems is the ultimate consolation of a believing community when its members feel the brunt of a fallen world. In these situations, we are fortunate to have Paul’s consolation, “All things work together for good” (Rom 8:28) and Joseph’s consolation to his brothers, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen 50:20). Divine sovereignty is often the only rationale when things seem out of control—trusting God’s goodness, timing, and control over the present and the indefinite future. God’s sovereignty does not bind him to divulge his purposes, as the story of Job clearly shows. In Eccl 3:11–14, we hear one of the most balanced descriptions of divine sovereignty and providence in all of Scripture. Qohelet consoles his listeners regarding God’s sovereign timing, that it is or will be beautiful (‫)יָפֶה‬, yet he reminds them that they should not expect to understand many of his infinite ways (Eccl 7:14; 11:5; compare with Isa 40:28, 55:8; 1 Cor 13:12). God has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also given them the sense of eternity in their hearts so that humanity will not understand the deeds God does from beginning to end. I know, then, there is nothing better for them than to be happy and to do good in one’s life. Surely, everyone should eat, drink, and enjoy one’s labor; it is God’s gift. I know that everything God does will remain for eternity; nothing can be added on, and from it nothing can be taken, for God works so that they will revere him. (Eccl 3:11–14)

Several other biblical truths related to God’s sovereignty are wrapped up in this tight passage: God is a giving God; the pleasures of life are a consolation to the believer’s uncertainty; one is still required to be righteous; God’s ways are unchangeable (also Eccl 7:13). Preaching Qohelet will encourage attitudes of thanksgiving for God’s gifts of life and its pleasures, since specific examples of God’s sovereignty come from

Preaching Qohelet

433

his “giving” nature. In addition to the gift of tasting a bit of the “eternal,” God gives us the pleasures of food, drink, work, wisdom and knowledge, riches, and wealth (2:24–26; 3:13; 5:19, 20; 6:2). He also gives us the very days and years in which to enjoy these advantages (5:18, 8:15, 9:9) since, as the Creator, he gives us breath (3:18, 19; 7:29; 12:1, 7). However, what God “gives” includes an abundance of tragic knowledge about this world too, without much knowledge of the “whys” of his ways (1:13, 18; 3:10). For these reasons, Qohelet commands that God be feared, a command consistent with the wisest advice given in Scripture on the responsible reaction to God’s sovereign control, blessing, and timely judgment of his world. God works so that they will fear him. (Eccl 3:14) Truly, fear God. (5:7) Whoever fears God comes through with both . . . (7:18) It will be well for those who fear God. (8:12) But it will not be well for the wicked . . . since he does not fear God. (8:13)

In this sense, there is no distance between Qohelet and the closing comment of the epilogue—“Fear God and keep his commandments” (12:13).

Enjoy Life While preparing to preach Ecclesiastes, one might be surprised by Qohelet’s frequent agreement with conventional Israelite faith about wise living and confessing God’s ultimate sovereignty. But the extent to which Qohelet encourages the enjoyment of life might be the greatest surprise with which a pastor can bless the congregation. Apart from the joy found in one’s lover/spouse that is so clear in Song of Solomon, there is no other book in the entire canon that elevates happiness as highly and frequently as Ecclesiastes. There is the theme of joy in the Lord and his salvation throughout the Scriptures, but joy in the routine, everyday experiences and activities of life is not a significant theme apart from Ecclesiastes. Though Qohelet warns that the limitations and mitigations to this joy are no slight matter, our temporary enjoyment of life’s fruit becomes more than a theme; it becomes a refrain that pervades his speech. This shalom refrain is introduced most often by the phrase “Nothing is better than. . . .” There may be other experiences of life that are equally good, but nothing is better than the happiness that Qohelet preaches. That these joys are not shallow frivolities but experiences to be relished is clear by his pointing to God as the giver of these joys. Nothing is better for one than to eat and drink and for his soul to enjoy the good in his labor. I saw that this was also from the hand of God, for who can eat and be glad without him? (Eccl 2:24–25)

434

Daniel C. Fredericks I know then there is nothing better for them than to be happy and to do good in their life. Surely everyone should eat, drink, and enjoy one’s labor; it is God’s gift. (3:12–13) So I have observed that nothing is better than that one enjoys his activity, for it is his reward. (3:22) Look at what I saw: it is good and beautiful to eat and to drink and to enjoy one’s labor . . . since it is one’s reward. (5:18) So I commended happiness since there is nothing better under the sun for man than to eat and to drink and to be happy. (8:15)

The shalom theme of the Old Testament is the sign of a satisfied, fulfilled covenant nation: “[T]hey ate, drank, and were joyful” (1 Kgs 4:20). But one would think when hearing some sermons that it is a sign of disbelief to enjoy this life and its daily pleasures. On the other hand, some believing communities presume that, as the King’s children, they are entitled to affluence and perfect health. Qohelet’s common sense suggests that enjoying the simple pleasures of life is enough, even though others may actually be wealthy (5:12). In addition to the pleasures of food and drink, Qohelet gives many other reasons for joy. That joy comes from work itself has already been discussed. Additional pleasure is found in music (2:8), laughing and dancing (3:4), embracing (3:5), love (3:8), rest (4:6, 5:12), wealth and prosperity (5:19, 7:11–13), wine (9:7), a spouse (9:9), the light (11:7), one’s youth (11:9, 10); and for those who use discretion, pleasure is acceptable from all that one’s eyes and heart desire (2:10, 11:9–10). No wonder the preaching pastor or any believer who reads the translations of Ecclesiastes that lead with “vanity, vanity” or “meaningless, meaningless” may question whether Qohelet echoes the teaching of the rest of the Bible. How can everything be meaningless if wisdom, diligence, joy, humility, respect for God, and wise speech are so highly valued? This is the crux of interpreting Ecclesiastes.

Significantly Different Interpretations One cannot ignore the vastly different views of Qohelet’s theology and message when discussing the preaching of its contents. In this study, I am unable to engage the complexity of these views; I can only refer preachers to the diverse perspectives in the commentaries. At this point, it is evident that I see much in Qohelet’s speech that is a valid source for orthodox, edifying preaching. However, some of his statements are said to contradict his own words and biblical wisdom, which may cause a pastor to be uncertain about the overall reliability of Qohelet’s words.

Contradictions Because Qohelet dares to raise the hardest questions, he is nearly heroic in challenging the conventional theology of Israel on our behalf. If we were to ask the questions he asks and make statements like his, the rest of the members of our

Preaching Qohelet

435

Bible-study classes would cringe at our audacity in interrupting their “easy listening.” But individuals who are truly serious about understanding God’s ways are relieved that someone is asking what is on everybody’s mind. Frequently, however, Qohelet is seen to be hopelessly contradictory, and his teaching is discounted as unreliable; he is virtually barred from the pulpit for being an impertinent gadfly. The fact is, his questions and observations should be embraced as honest introductions to richer wisdom about coping in a world of trials and tribulations. They pose the proverbial “riddles” that only comprehensive biblical revelation, discerning reflection, and candid discussion can solve (Prov 1:5–6). I can offer only three examples here.

Wisdom’s Limitations

Qohelet sets out as a journeying theologian, looking for wisdom, and learning to identify its opposite. Though he discovers or confirms much wisdom along the way, he still must admit that wisdom is hard to find, and the distance he must travel seems endless (Eccl 7:24). However, he does not despair. He extols wisdom as stronger than rulers and weapons (7:19) and gives examples of it, but he also knows that the opposite of wisdom, sin and folly, can destroy a great deal of good (9:18). This is not a contradiction; it is an acknowledgment of the equally overwhelming power of both righteousness and sin. Regarding his overriding question about labor (1:3), which is it? Is there an advantage to hard work or not? Qohelet may seem to contradict himself by claiming that he received pleasure from it and its fruit, but he also found it to be only breath (hebel; 2:10–11). This is not a contradiction, however, as much as it is a frustration over the fact that these advantages are ultimately not enough in themselves.

Is Life Better than Death?

Which is better—life or death? Well, even Paul is ambivalent on this subject. Though he explicitly weighs eternal and natural life, he believes death is better than life (Phil 1:21–23), as does Qohelet (7:1). Qohelet delves further, however; he can imagine at least two similar scenarios when it would be better not to exist than to live: First, under severe oppression it would be better if one had “already” (‫)ּכבָר‬ ְ died and others had not “yet” (‫ֲדנָה‬ ֶ ‫ )ע‬lived (Eccl 4:2, 3). This is not to say that one should never have existed; rather, it is a matter of timing, as Qohelet says in 3:2. Second, Qohelet says to be stillborn is better than to live but not experience pleasure in life (6:3–6). On the other hand, he says a live dog is better than a dead lion (9:4). This obvious proverb has the same authority as other biblical proverbs; they describe general truth, not laws of nature. “To be or not to be” is the question for everyone, from playwrights to philosophers to the clinically depressed. The instinct or conviction to survive will nearly always trump a preference for death. Qohelet contradicts himself no more than anyone does who can conceive of death in some positive light.

Can One Be Too Righteous?

One of the most disconcerting statements by Qohelet is “Do not be excessively righteous, and do not make yourself too wise—why overwhelm yourself?”

436

Daniel C. Fredericks

(Eccl 7:16). How does this preach? The epilogist also warns, “Beware a lot of bookwork—it is endless—and much study tires the flesh” (12:12). To ignore the wisdom of these statements is to ignore of one of the most refreshing gifts—rest. In the pursuit of doing good (3:12), there must be a realistic assessment of human limitations. It is hard for the devout to imagine being excessively righteous or wise until one eventually faints away, literally or figuratively, from exhaustion. Qohelet does not shy away from warning his listeners not to be deceived about an unhealthy amount of work.

Interpretations of Hebel I have not yet referred to Qohelet’s numerous claims that life is hebel, or “breath.” In fact, he claims that everything under the sun is as a breath: “Breath of breaths,” said Qohelet, “Breath of breaths. Everything is breath!” (Eccl 1:2; also 12:8). Other essays in this volume deal with this word Hebrew word for “breath” (hebel) as well, since it is the pivotal word for understanding Qohelet’s message. The challenge of interpreting and preaching Qohelet lies in the relationship between his orthodox statements exemplified above and the meaning of this pervasive metaphor of “breath.” There are mainly four different treatments of this word in the commentaries and academic literature on Ecclesiastes: 1.  Hebel means “vanity” or “meaningless,” as it does in most cases in the Old Testament. 2.  Hebel means something in Ecclesiastes that it does not mean anywhere else in the Old Testament. 3.  Hebel means “temporary, transitory,” as it does in some poetic and wisdom books. 4.  Hebel means various things, depending on the context in Ecclesiastes.

The perspective from which Ecclesiastes is preached is determined by the way a pastor understands this one word.

“Vanity, Meaninglessness”

Historically, the predominant interpretation of hebel has been as the futility not only of life but of everything experienced and attached to life. Is Qohelet, then, an antagonist to orthodox Jewish theology, and can the epilogue of 12:9–14 provide the context by which the book of Ecclesiastes as a whole can be salvaged, regardless of Qohelet? Somehow, all commentators admit that Qohelet himself believes there are some good things in life with at least relative meaning, so this interpretation of hebel as meaning “vanity” or “meaninglessness” sees Qohelet contradicting himself at the very core of his message. He says clearly, not simply as a conclusion but as the primary, ever-pervasive conclusion that everything is absolutely vain, absurd, or meaningless; there is no room for some sort of limited value to life and its contents, given his phrasing. By this interpretation, the things that

Preaching Qohelet

437

are meaningless include God’s gifts, our tragic challenges in life, and the examples of biblical wisdom that are discussed above—namely, wise speech, diligence, joy, humility, and the fear of God. If hebel means “vanity,” hebel alone must carry the burden of proof throughout the book. Nowhere in Ecclesiastes are the words used that appear nearly a hundred times in the rest of the Old Testament and that could have been used as synonyms: ‫“( ַעיִן‬nothing, naught”), ‫“( רֵק‬empty, worthless”), ‫“( ִריק‬emptiness, vanity”), ‫ׁשְוא‬ ָ (“emptiness, vanity”), ‫“( תֹהּו‬empty, worthless”). If Qohelet says “nothing is better than,” and “x is better than y,” he is making qualitative distinctions within the categories of “meaningless.” How can something be more meaningless than something else if all is indeed meaningless? If there is ultimately no meaning to one’s activities, then telling someone to act “with all your might” (9:10), knowing it will eventually be utterly futile, is not innocent betrayal. Furthermore, there is a spurious jump in logic to equate “transience” with “vanity.” 12 Transience was built into the world at creation—even then, it was declared to be “good.” Furthermore, Eccl 3:1–8 explains that there are temporary seasons for all wise activities. Nonbiblical Meanings for Hebel It is relatively new in the history of interpreting Ecclesiastes that meanings found nowhere else in the Old Testament are offered for hebel. Staples suggests that hebel means “incomprehensible, unknowable.” 13 This agnostic trend surfaces in the interpretation of Good (“irony”), Ogden (“enigmatic”), Fox (“absurd”), and Seow (“incomprehensible”), who continue this thread of the non-rational. 14 Lately, Miller can go only to the rabbinic writers to find “foulness” as a meaning. 15 Stepping outside the Old Testament realm of meanings to translate the word is unwarranted and unnecessary, yet it does show how unworkable many commentators find “vanity” and its synonyms to be. They respect Qohelet for being able to present cogent observations and conclusions but still cast him as a seeker who resigns himself to the ultimate mysteries of life. It is a comfortable place to put Qohelet since we find ourselves there too, at times, with unanswerable questions. However, lexical innovations are not recommended hermeneutically.

Temporary

Perhaps the best interpretation of Qohelet comes from translating hebel with one of its biblical meanings, “temporary”; this avoids the irrational cynicism that 12.  For example, C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 112. 13.  W. E. Staples, “The ‘Vanity’ of Ecclesiastes,” JNES 2 (1943) 95–104. 14.  E. M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield: Almond, 1981); G. S. Ogden, Qoheleth (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987); M. V. Fox, “The Meaning of Hebel for Qoheleth,” JBL 105 (1986) 409–27; C. L. Seow, “Beyond Mortal Grasp: The Usage of Hebel in Ecclesiastes,” ABR 48 (2000) 1–16. 15.  D. B. Miller, Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes: The Place of Hebel in Qohelet’s Work (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002) 15, 51, 97, 189; followed by T. Frydrych, Living under the Sun: Examination of Proverbs and Qoheleth (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 45.

438

Daniel C. Fredericks

is explicit in “vanity, meaninglessness” and also avoids giving a nonbiblical meaning to a common word in the Old Testament. Translating hebel as “temporary” reveals the thought of Qohelet to be reasonable, given common human experience and given Qohelet’s orthodox, biblical assessments of God’s gifts, our tragedies in life. It also manifests his concurrence with biblical wisdom ideas such as wise speech, diligence, joy, humility, and the fear of God. In all cultures, profound thinkers often conclude that life is temporary—generations and individuals come and go too swiftly. The ancient Near East was no exception; Mesopotamian and Egyptian laments about human transience appeared in only a slightly wider context as the same biblical concerns. 16 The Old Testament has an intense interest in our temporariness, accentuating it often, for example: Job 7:6–7, 10:20, 14:1–5, 16:22; Pss 90:5–6, 10–12; 103:15–17; Isa 40:6–7, 24; Hos 13:3; 1 Pet 1:24; Jas 4:14. In six additional passages, hebel is used to describe this transience (Job 7:16–17; Pss 39:4–6, 78:33, 144:3–4; Prov 13:11, 21:6). The Old Testament includes a constellation of words that converge at times to describe human temporality. Ecclesiastes 6:12, Pss 39:5, and 144:4 use “breath” and “shadow” (‫ )צֵל‬together. 17 Ecclesiastes 2:3, 5:17, and 6:12 use “a few days,” as does Job 16:22. Ecclesiastes 6:12 combines “shadow” and “a few days,” as in Job 14:2, 5. Wind (  ַ‫ )רּוח‬is also combined with the concept of “transience” in the Old Testament. Job 7:6, 7 groans, “My days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle . . . remember my life is  ַ‫ רּוח‬.” Isaiah 57:13 warns about the brevity of physical idols: “The  ַ‫רּוח‬ will carry them off, a breath (hebel) will take them away.” The psalmist’s recounting of Israel’s fleeting past is included in 78:33, 39, “He made their days vanish like a breath (hebel) . . . a passing  ַ‫ רּוח‬that doesn’t return.” Frequently, along with hebel is this phrase,  ַ‫רעּות רּוח‬.ְ This phrase occurs seven times in Ecclesiastes and is translated by many as “desiring the wind,” “chasing the wind,” or some similar description of futility. However, this phrase is probably a subjective, possessive genitive rather than an objective genitive and should be translated “the wind’s desire” or “the whim of the wind,” connoting the transience of life and its experiences, which are like the unpredictable wind’s desire. The wind constantly changes from north to south, east to west, downward, upward, around, and it even temporarily becomes absolutely still. It would be hard to find someone who could not admit that much of what Qohelet describes as hebel is merely temporary. Sixteen passages consider the following to be temporary: life (3:19; 6:4, 12; 7:15; 9:9); youth (11:10); pleasure (2:1, 23); success (4:4); wealth (4:7–8, 5:10, 6:2); desires (6:9); frivolity (7:6); and popularity (4:16, 8:10). Even injustice, as prevalent and torturous as it can be, is a temporary ‫י‬

‫י‬

 

‫י‬ ‫י‬

‫י‬

 

‫י‬

16.  D. C. Fredericks and D. J. Estes, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (Apollos Old Testament Commentary Series; Nottingham: Apollos, 2010) 24–27. 17.  The word ‫“( צֵל‬shadow”) means “temporary” in 1 Chr 29:15; Pss 102:12, 109:23; Job 8:9, 14:2, 17:7.

Preaching Qohelet

439

experience (8:14). What might be more of a challenge is to agree with Qohelet’s generalization in the other six passages that everything under the sun is temporary—every effort (1:14, 2:11–19), all the fruit of our labors (2:21–26), all future events (11:8), everything (1:2, 12:8). But the reality of death and its intensification of our human transience seals the conclusion that, at least in our lives, everything is temporary (2:16; 3:2, 3, 19–21; 5:15–16; 6:3–6; 7:1–4, 15, 17, 26; 8:8, 13; 9:3–6, 10; 12:7). I have written extensively elsewhere that hebel means “temporary.” 18 Other scholars have seen hebel to mean “temporary” as well. 19

Multiple Meanings

The same reticence to translate hebel consistently as “vanity” or “meaninglessness” that has led some to look outside Biblical Hebrew drives others to translate the word differently from context to context. Bible translations and most commentators find some places in Ecclesiastes where hebel means “temporary” but then freely translate other instances using other meanings as well. Again, these freer translations inevitably depend on the interpreter’s imagination for preferred meanings that are not in the Hebrew lexicon. 20 Though this multiple-meaning approach may appear in its flexibility to solve the challenge of hebel, it ignores the poetic consistency and grammatically formulaic presentation of hebel in almost every instance where it occurs in Ecclesiastes. Qohelet designed a constant hebel refrain for use throughout his speech; this suggests strongly that hebel meant the same throughout.

Expository Preaching If a minister is looking for an outline in Ecclesiastes that shows a logically progressive and linear argument, he or she will become highly frustrated. At best, 18.  Fredericks and Estes, Ecclesiastes, 24–31, 46–54; D. C. Fredericks, Coping with Transience: Ecclesiastes on the Brevity of Life (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 11–32. 19.  D. B. Macdonald, The Hebrew Philosophical Genius (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1936) 87; K. A. Farmer, “Who Knows What Is Good?” A Commentary on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991) 145; L. G. Perdue, Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 206–8; B. G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000); I. W. Provan, ed., Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001) 57; R. Schultz, “A Sense of Timing: A Neglected Aspect of Qoheleth’s Wisdom,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients (ed. R. L. Troxel et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 245–59; E. Dor-Shav, “Ecclesiastes, Fleeting and Timeless: Part I,” JBQ 36 (2008) 217. 20.  For example, T. J. Meek, “Translating the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 79 (1960) 331; C. F. Whitley, Koheleth: His Language and Thought (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978) 172–73; D. Ingram, Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Study 431; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006) 91–129.

440

Daniel C. Fredericks

what will be found is a cyclical, cumulative pattern that no commentator has yet been able to tame. There are some rhetorical devices that bring continuity to Qohelet’s speech, such as the formulaic hebel phrasing and the shalom refrains, but no sustained rhetorical structure is evident. We have already surveyed Qohelet’s themes to prepare for topical sermons, but the following outline of the book is suggested tentatively for a series of expository sermons. Of course, many other outlines have been suggested in the commentaries.

Cycles in Nature and Experience (Eccl 1:2–11) Like the breathing cycles of life, inhale-exhale, inhale-exhale, the natural forces around us exemplify the circularity of life’s experiences and accomplishments. This analogy between nature and humanity led Qohelet to his thematic question, which he answers cyclically throughout his speech: “What is the advantage of laboring under the sun?”

The Search for Wisdom (Eccl 1:12–2:3) Seeking wisdom is a commendable journey and will lead one to understand the difference between wisdom and foolishness. The conclusions drawn from observations during this journey will be helpful, but they lead to disappointment regarding the brevity of life and the inevitable heartache that comes from being even more aware of the sorrow, grief, and tragedies that appear along the way.

Autobiography Leads to Catharsis (Eccl 2:4–26) Wisdom will lead to worthy accomplishments and to rewards for hard work. However, the sorrow and grief anticipated in 1:18 hit Qohelet hard: regardless of his wise achievements, they are only temporary and may be destroyed by whoever follows him. Nonetheless, joy is possible, since our just God gives the wise joy in their labor and in the fruits of this labor.

Human Action and Providence (Eccl 3:1–22) Wisdom is both knowledge and acting, as the seasons of life require. But wisdom is not autonomous; it works with the sovereign God, who makes everything beautiful (not meaningless) in its time. Wisdom realizes the temporary reign of injustice until God’s own justice prevails. However, wisdom elevates our beast-like existence to a higher appreciation of joy.

Wise Living in Relationships (Eccl 4:1–5:9) Living at all means living with or without certain personal relationships. Thus, Qohelet speaks on appalling oppression (4:1–4), unfulfilling isolation (4:5–8), productive cooperation (4:9–12), fleeting reputation (4:13–16), righteous submission (5:1–7), and societal resignation (5:8–9). Qohelet shows his broad understanding of the individual’s social and spiritual context.

Preaching Qohelet

441

Qualified Advantages of Labor (Eccl 5:10–6:9) There are advantages to hard work even though they may be brief. Thus, money is not to be the center of gravity, whether one has much or little of it. It is God who gives wealth or poverty, and those who have the latter can be glad for their simple life and for fewer burdensome financial losses. Because one leaves life with nothing just as one arrives with nothing, enjoying life is all that one needs.

Death’s Implication for the Wise (Eccl 6:10–7:22) Death is constantly in the background of life’s choices and pursuits. The wise will artfully balance the sobering absolutes of life: one’s inevitable death, the sovereignty of God, one’s finite capacities magnified by one’s propensity to sin. Admitting God’s utter sovereignty empowers the realist, without giving up, to give way to God’s help in navigating through a dangerous, fallen world.

A Search for Lady Wisdom (Eccl 7:23–8:1) The search for wisdom is refreshed here by the proverbial image of the women of wisdom and folly. With the same double entendre used in Prov 1–9, folly and illicit sex are compared and equated. No wisdom will be found in the presence of an immoral woman. Men will find many other ways to affirm their fallen nature as well, whereas wisdom will bring some individuals real satisfaction.

Realistic Wisdom in the Royal Court (Eccl 8:2–15) Wisdom is needed in the workplace. Insubordination in any career position is unwise and should be replaced by a more-timely decision to speak or act with respect for authority. Unfairness is just part of life, and one will be at the wrong end of it at times. Though trials will come, perhaps frequently, fearing God is better than Godlessness, which will lead only to his judgment.

Disappointments and Ironies (Eccl 8:16–10:1) In a fallen world, one can expect even the righteous to be dealt an unjust hand. And, if not injustice, then the rewards that the wise and righteous may believe themselves entitled to may not be given, now or ever in this life. Nevertheless, joy in the simple pleasures of life that God gives will be adequate for those who trust his sovereign grace.

Career Management in the Court (Eccl 10:2–20) Wisdom in the workplace is addressed again, this time to both the upper and lower echelons. Whether in the royal court or in the quarry, one needs to be careful when going about one’s business. Fools rush in and pay the price. Idleness in the streets or courts leads to failure, and reckless words and behavior can even lead to disaster.

442

Daniel C. Fredericks

Life’s Storms (Eccl 11:1–12:8) Negative circumstances beyond human control can be mitigated by human control of one’s wisdom, work ethic, and patient acceptance of an imperfect world. Most storms of life can be weathered, but even those that cannot be, including the ravages of old age, should be preceded by the more enjoyable days of success, pleasures, and rewards.

Epilogue (Eccl 12:9–14) After all is said and done, Qohelet’s conclusions—in fact, his whole ministry is exonerated by the epilogist, who does not want life’s central truth to be lost in the complexities of Qohelet’s broad and deep reflections on life: Qohelet is correct in elevating reverence for God and his expectations to the highest level of wisdom.

Conclusion Pastors should aspire to observe, analyze, and address publicly the most profound philosophical and theological questions. This was Qohelet’s goal: to enlighten his assembly about the importance of wisdom, the nature of being (impermanence), the nature of God (eternal and just), the nature of humanity (imperfect yet responsible), the role of ethics (what is the good?), the path to truth (revealed and discovered), the value of hard work, and the tragedies of oppression. If a pastor emulates Qohelet’s realism in the pulpit, there will be little that a congregation cannot, or should not, accept. Qohelet presents a challenging model for preaching that is brutally honest and relevant, providing unvarnished descriptions (even catharses) that honor the silent but honest pondering of a seeking, suffering, but teachable community of believers.

Solomon’s Sexual Wisdom: Qohelet and the Song of Songs in the Postmodern Condition Peter J. Leithart New Saint Andrews College Postmodernism 1 is about justice. Postmodernism is about death. Postmodernism is about sex. These three. Justice first: According to Derrida, “deconstruction is justice.” 2 Deconstruction is a method for giving voice to the voiceless, a technique for problematizing and subverting structures of domination and submission so instinctive as to be all but unrecognizably embedded in the discourses and institutions of modernity. Modern totalizing projects, and modern methodological epistemologies, are unjust because they marginalize uncooperative facts or beat them into proper theoretical shape. The analogy between totalizing and totalitarian is more than verbal: both torture the recalcitrant. Justice demands hospitality for the excluded Other, including the cognitive and empirical Other. A postmodern hermeneutics of suspicion thus serves the interests of justice by unmasking the interests served by the discourses of modernity and by peeling off the rationalizations and exposing the regimes of power-knowledge that determine what modernity counts as true. Theological critiques of modernity have similarly protested the injustice and inhospitality of modernity. John Milbank charges that both modernity and postmodernity assume an ontology of violence. Modernity’s Marxist, Freudian, and 1.  I use this notoriously vague term vaguely, as a catch-all for a set of intellectual and discursive habits within twentieth- and twenty-first-century thought and culture that share the family habit of challenging what is characterized by “modernity.” Throughout this essay, I use modernity to describe the cultural, scientific, and political project begun in the seventeenth century and organized by the confidence that human beings are capable of sufficient control of the world to liberate us from traditional and natural constraints and improve the human condition. For a more detailed discussion of both terms, see my Solomon among the Postmoderns (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2008). 2. J. Derrida, “Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority,’” in Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice (ed. D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, and D. G. Carlson; London: Routledge, 1992) 15.

443

444

Peter J. Leithart

Liberal metanarratives are violent in suppressing contrary evidence and forcing conformity, while postmodernity’s antipathy to metanarrative produces warfare among competing tribes. Milbank’s argument is ontological and epistemological but at the same time political. Modern nation-states stomped down uncooperative colonial populations with the same ferocity that their theorists stomped on uncooperative facts, and the “malign” ontology of postmodern theory, Milbank argues, can only issue in malign tyrannical politics. 3 William Cavanaugh’s more thoroughly political assault on the modern state charges that religion has been illegitimately displaced in public life by the modern myth by which the state poses as a savior that delivers political society from the ravages of irrational passions such as “religion,” a category that the modern state itself helped to construct. 4 So much for justice; on to death: Derrida said in an interview that he had contemplated death nearly every day of his adult life, and he affirmed Socrates’ claim in Phaedo that philosophy is “the attentive anticipation of death, the care brought to bear upon the dying, the meditation on the best way to receive, give, or give oneself death, the experience of a vigil over the possibility of death, and over the possibility of death as impossibility.” 5 Death, Derrida argues, is the ultimate gift, the purest gift, since it is given without any expectation of a contaminating return gift. After spending his career assaulting every vestige of self-presence, Derrida discovers (following Heidegger) a moment of complete “sameness of self,” a selfsame identity “given by death” and by the “being-towards death that promises me to it.” 6 In a theological vein, Catherine Pickstock has argued that modernity established a problematic “spatialization” of time and change, and hers is also a philosophical-political complaint against modern society. 7 Because modernity denies and displaces death, it reduces life to stasis, a living death without the temporal transition and transitoriness that acknowledgment of death would bring. We can put the point in terms of an Augustinian theory of music and language: Augustine argues that music and language work only if each word or note yields to its successor. Each sound must die before the next sound, and if earlier sounds do not die we have only confused cacophony, not meaning. In language and music, “death” is essential to the affirmation of difference, and difference is necessary to meaningful communication. Without this yielding and self-sacrifice of one word or note to 3. J. Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (2nd ed.; London: Blackwell, 2006) 257–442 (part 4). 4.  W. T. Cavanaugh, Theopolitical Imagination: Discovering the Liturgy as a Political Act in an Age of Global Consumerism (London: T. & T. Clark, 2002) 9–52, ch. 1: “The Myth of the State as Saviour.” See also C. Tilly, “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime,” in Bringing the State Back In (ed. P. Evans et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 169–87. 5. J. Derrida, The Gift of Death (2nd ed.; trans. D. Wills; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008) 12–13. 6.  Ibid., 45. 7. C. Pickstock, After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy (London: Blackwell, 1998).

Qohelet in the Postmodern Condition

445

another, difference coagulates into a blank unity, with no movement or development. Time is linguistic and musical, each moment “dying” in order to yield to the next moment. History’s dynamism thus depends on a kind of death. Without self-sacrifice, the static condition of death reigns. 8 Denial of death is thus denial of difference, and thus necrophilia paradoxically founds the necropolis. 9 Postmodernism is, finally, about sex. Here, of course, Foucault’s sexuality, care of the self, S & M, comes to the fore, but postmodernism’s obsession with sex is bigger than Foucault. Freud stands with Marx and Nietzsche in the pantheon of suspicion, and, mediated through Lacan, Freudian categories became part of the theoretical tools most ready to hand. Postmodernism’s deeper historical roots feed this interest in sexuality. Many of the best-known postmodern theorists were formally trained as medievalists or developed a nonprofessional interest in medieval studies, and the sensibility of postmodernism owes much to the medieval courtly love tradition. Unfulfilled longing is the heart of that tradition, a longing for tangible presence that never arrives. Deconstruction, it might be said, is courtly love masquerading as linguistic theory. 10 Scrambling sexual categories is also a favorite hobby among postmodernists. If deconstruction is the project of doing justice to the marginalized, then it is about doing justice—showing hospitality—to marginalized sexual categories—women, bisexuals, gays, all those judged deviant by the standards of orthodox Christianity or the Victorian West. If deconstruction is about problematizing oppressive binaries, the binary of male and female is one of the most obvious candidates for subversion. As Judith Butler says, “The internal coherence or unity of either gender, man or woman . . . requires both a stable and oppositional heterosexuality. That institutional heterosexuality both requires and produces the univocity of each of the gendered terms that constitute the limit of gendered possibilities within an oppositional, binary gender system.” 11 Once this oppositional heterosexuality is destabilized, the whole structure dissolves to dust. How does Solomon hold up here? 12 Does Qohelet share the same obsessions as postmodern thinkers, and does it present a challenge to modernity similar to that 8.  For discussion, see J. Begbie, Theology, Music, and Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 71–97. 9.  Pickstock, After Writing, 47–118. 10.  On postmodernism’s roots in medievalism, see B. Holsinger, The Premodern Condition: Medievalism and the Making of Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). 11. J. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (London: Routledge, 1999) 30. 12.  By “Solomon,” I mean King Solomon, since I take the unfashionably Neanderthal position that Solomon wrote the book. We Neanderthals are few but not quite extinct. See W. Kaiser, Ecclesiastes: Total Life (Chicago: Moody Press, 1979) 25–29; D. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (NAC; Nashville: Holman, 1993) 254–66. The strongest evidence for a postSolomonic and postexilic date is linguistic, on which, see D. Fredericks (Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date [Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988]), who destabilizes the consensus by arguing for an eighth- or seventh-century date, earlier than most scholars, albeit

446

Peter J. Leithart

of postmodernism? A number of biblical scholars have answered with qualified affirmatives. For some, Ecclesiastes “deconstructs” standard wisdom literature, 13 but Mark Sneed is not so sure. While Qohelet undermines the “standard” belief in retribution and reward, he “stops short” and refuses to “let go of the standard sapiential form of presence, which is the notion of a cosmic retribution or moral order.” 14 Similarly, Qohelet dissolves categories of wisdom and righteousness as the sages typically understood them but does not “touch the notion of God-fearing—it is too sacred; it is presence for him.” 15 As a result, for all of his teasing radicalism, Solomon is not really serious: he remains “rather conservative.” 16 Though often assumed, the notion of a “standard” sapiential tradition is less straightforward than it appears. Job is clearly a protest against a simplistic belief in reward and retribution, but this simplistic wisdom is never given canonical expression. Proverbs more clearly articulates the inner connection between reaping and sowing than Job or Ecclesiastes, but it does not pretend that the relation of moral cause and effect is transparently obvious or inevitable. 17 The very specificity of Proverbs means that it resists overgeneralization. Qohelet, on the other hand, recognizes the complexities of human life but also warns several times that God will bring everything to judgment (3:17; 11:9; 12:14), which surely means that ultimately everyone reaps what he or she has sown. 18 Nevertheless, Sneed has a point. Although Qohelet exhibits postmodern interests, it is true that Solomon’s perspective is not simply postmodern or even resolutely anti-modern. By exploring how Solomon treats the three concerns identified above, we will be able to gain a better grasp of what Qohelet might teach us in our postmodern situation.

Justice Injustice is a recurring theme in Ecclesiastes. At times, Solomon laments the reality of political injustice. When he observes the place where justice should be still too late for Solomon. If the reader wishes to add quotation marks, he is of course free to do so. Throughout this essay, I use “Ecclesiastes” and “Qohelet” to describe the book, varying the usage according to stylistic whim. 13. M. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 138–45; W. Brown, Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996) 134. 14. M. Sneed, “(Dis)closure in Qohelet: Qohelet Deconstructed,” JSOT 27 (2002) 118–19. 15. Ibid. 16.  Ibid., 120. 17.  See C. Bartholomew, “The Theology of Qoheleth,” in this volume. 18.  Some scholars, of course, deny that the final chapter comes from Qohelet. Briefly, see R. B. Dillard and T. Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994) 249–50. More elaborately, see T. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). I am skeptical of these arguments, but for my purposes they do not matter: I am more interested in the canonical form of the book.

Qohelet in the Postmodern Condition

447

done, he sees wickedness (Eccl 3:16). Oppression of the poor and denial of justice is so common that Solomon counsels his audience not to be shocked when they see it (5:8). Though Solomon considers social and economic inequities to be an inevitable fact of life, he recognizes that kings commonly exercise their authority for their own enrichment and to another man’s hurt (8:9). More galling than the petty and large injustices of political life are the cosmic injustices that mark human existence. Here Solomon is at his most “subversive,” since he shows the complexities of moral cause and effect. The fate of the fool is the same as the fate of the wise (2:14). Memory appears random. The wise man is no more likely to be remembered than the fool (2:16), and even a heroic poor sage who delivers a city by his wisdom will not be remembered (9:15). Solomon’s mode of thought also fits with postmodern critiques of modernity’s epistemological injustice. Modernity is a world of straight lines. History progresses evenly toward a universal climax, and even where deviations and side trips are acknowledged, they are easily rolled back into a progressive view of time. The best of modern thinkers move from axioms in straight lines to their deductive conclusions, and certain systems of thought rise like buildings at right angles to their secure foundations. For everyone from Descartes on, geometry is the model toward which all systematic thought aspires. Nothing more dramatically captures the spirit of modernity than the smooth surfaces and straight lines of a van der Rohe skyscraper. The world according to Qohelet is a different sort of world. It turns, turns, and turns again. Generations walk on, then exit. Suns rise and set and rise and set in endless circularity. “Round and round,” ‫סֹובֵב סֹבֵב‬, goes the wind and then returns on its rounds (‫ׁשב‬ ָ ‫ַל־ס ִביב ָֹתיו‬ ְ ‫ ;ע‬Eccl 1:4–6). The wind returns (1:6), and human beings finally return to the returning wind: “the spirit returns to God who gave it” (12:7). 19 Solomon’s thought follows the twists and turns of the world he observes. He “sees” something in the world, then turns and sees it again, and these turns and twists are rendered in a style that reinforces the fact that his exploration of reality is “full of false starts.” 20 There appears to be no certain foundation on which Solomon can rest easy and no straight path anywhere—except to the grave (9:10). 21 By contrast with many postmoderns, however, Solomon is quite enamored of the power of human construction and control. Ecclesiastes 2 is a creation account. Solomon declares that he “makes” things seven times in 2:5–11, and the sequence of construction follows the sequence of Gen 2 quite closely: 22 19. The inclusio is noted by M. Carasik (“Qohelet’s Twists and Turns,” JSOT 28 [2003] 194–95), who cites Choon-Leong Seow as the source of his observation. 20.  Ibid., 203. 21.  Ibid., 207–8. 22. E. Davis (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs [Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000] 178) points out that Solomon’s projects are recounted in a list of seven achievements, recalling the heptamerous structure of the creation narrative of Gen 1.

448

Peter J. Leithart Genesis 2

Ecclesiastes 2

Yahweh plants garden, 2:8

The king makes gardens and orchards, 2:5a

Yahweh causes trees to grow, 2:9

The king plants tree, 2:5b

River flows from Eden, 2:10

The king makes ponds, 2:6

Yahweh places man in garden, 2:15 The king collects men and women, 2:7–8 Yahweh gathers animals, 2:19

The king possesses animals, 2:7b

Yahweh builds a woman, 2:22–25

The king has many concubines, 2:8b

Solomon plants orchards (‫)פ ְַרּדֵ ִסים‬, but in the context, the word should carry the full weight of its later meanings. The king has created a paradise on earth. His godlike “works” are impressive and his achievements real. Yet they are not permanent. Solomon knows that the world will move on and that he will move off and that he has no knowledge of or control over his successor. His programs and schemes may produce a pleasure garden for a time but will not produce a permanent Utopia. If we read Ecclesiastes as a mirror for philosopherprinces, the great lesson is the lesson discerned by Luther: “[T]his book should especially be read by new rulers, who have their heads swollen with opinions and want to rule the world according to their own plans and require everything to toe the mark. But such people should first learn to know the world, that is, to know that it is unjust, stubborn, disobedient, malicious, and, in short, ungrateful.” 23 This technological humility resonates with postmodern protest against modern hubris, but it does not keep Solomon from marveling at what he was able, so briefly, to achieve. Terry Eagleton has argued that only Marxism has been capable of recognizing both the glories and evils of the Enlightenment experiment. The chief threats to enlightened modernity are not irrationalisms and fundamentalisms but “the fruits of the Enlightenment itself, which has always been its own worst enemy.” He enumerates: The language of Enlightenment has been hijacked in the name of corporate greed, the police state, a politically compromised science, and a permanent war economy. The economic individualism of the early, enlightened middle classes has now spawned into vast corporations which trample over group and individual rights, shaping our destinies without the slightest popular accountability. The liberal state, founded among other things to protect individual freedom, has burgeoned in our time into the surveillance state. Scientific rationality and freedom of inquiry have been harnessed to the ends of commercial profit and weapons of 23. M. Luther, Notes on Ecclesiastes, in Luther’s Works (trans. and ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; St. Louis: Concordia, 1972) 15.140.

Qohelet in the Postmodern Condition

449

war. . . . Freedom of cultural expression has culminated in the schlock, ideological rhetoric, and politically managed news of the profit-driven mass media. 24

In the face of this, Eagleton not only remains an unrepentant Marxist but argues that only Marxism has recognized modernity for what it is, “an enthralling advance in humanity and an insupportable nightmare.” The nightmare is not the product of residual “premodernity,” nor are the two sides “contingently cheek by jowl.” For Marxism, they are “structurally complicit.” Again he enumerates: Only Marxism recounts the story of how these two contrasting narratives are secretly one. It reminds us of the mighty achievements of Francis Bacon, but also of the fact that he believed in torture. It insists that modernity means both contraception and Hiroshima, liberation movements and biological warfare. Some people think it Euro-centric to point out that Europe was the historical home of modernity, forgetful that this also means that it was also the home of the Holocaust. The radical answer to the question of whether modernity is a positive or negative phenomenon is an emphatic yes and no. 25

Qohelet provides a similarly complex evaluation of human achievements. The king is a quasi-divine figure in his creative mastery of creation, yet he is at the same time fully aware of his limits. This crooked old world can be put straight but only a bit and only for a moment.

Death Death is a complex presence in Qohelet. On the one hand, death is no respecter of persons. It is the great equalizer, dealing out the same grave and the same decay to the wise and the fool, the righteous and wicked, those who fear God and those who defy him. At the same time, death is the greatest source of injustice. Death is what brings an end to Solomon’s projects and potentially hands their future over to a fool. Death is what deprives the wise man of his proper reputation. Death, the great equalizer, is the greatest of the world’s inequity. And death, for Solomon, is pervasive, the keynote of created reality. The complex term hebel (“vapor”) is obviously a key theme of Ecclesiastes, used over 30 times in the book and enclosing the entire meditation at 1:2 and 12:8 with the superlative refrain ‫ָלים הַּכֹל ָהבֶל‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫הבֵל‬ ֲ . 26 While I recognize the possibility that the word carries and takes on difference nuances, I take the concrete meaning of “vapor” or “mist” as a useful initial translation that goes some way toward expressing 24. T. Eagleton, Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009) 71. 25.  Ibid., 69. 26.  See D. Miller, “Qohelet’s Symbolic Use of ‫הבל‬,” JBL 117 (1998) 437–54.

450

Peter J. Leithart

the point of the book. It serves as a concrete symbol that connotes the insubstantiality (3:19–20) and transience (6:12) of life under the sun. 27 The Hebrew phrase ‫“ הַּכֹל ָהבֶל‬rhymes” visually even more than it does aurally, but the phrase contains an internal tension if not contradiction. Hebel disperses; whatever it might form, it cannot form an “all.” To say “all is vapor” is to say that there is no discernible “all” at all. 28 In the larger canonical context, the word resonates with the early narratives of Genesis, where Cain’s younger brother, Hebel, is the first to suffer death, the first to demonstrate the universal truth that all flesh is as grass and flourishes as the flower of the field. With this resonance in the background, the Preacher’s lament that “all is hebel” takes on a political cast. If all is hebel, all is transient, and much is transient as a result of the violence of others who breathe and will breathe their last. Hebel points to injustice as well as death, points doubly to the injustice of death, especially the death of the just. The insubstantiality and transience of human life are reinforced by other striking images. “Striving after wind” is, more accurately and vividly, “shepherding wind.” 29 When Solomon realizes that there is no lasting remembrance for the wise man any more than for the fool, since both die (2:16), he concludes that life is hateful and work evil; he concludes that everything is “shepherding wind” (2:17). Trying to shepherd sheep is difficult enough, but shepherding wind is altogether impossible. Death intervenes when our projects are unfinished, and even if they are finished, death removes us from the scene and thus leaves our projects unprotected. Similarly, Solomon’s repeated qualification of life as “under the sun” points to the temporal limits to our existence. Since the sun is a temporal marker in the creation account of Gen 1, being “under the sun” is plausibly a symbol of “temporal finitude” in Ecclesiastes as well. 30 Life under the sun is life passing as a shadow, life as transient as vapor. The sun rises, the sun sets, and each rosy sunset is a reminder of the grave that lies just over the horizon. Thus, Solomon is as obsessed by death as Jacques Derrida: How the wise man and the fool alike die. (Eccl 2:16) 27.  Both the notion that hebel functions as a “symbol” and the connotations of “transience” and “insubstantiality” are taken from Miller (“Qohelet’s Symbolic Use,” 446–48), who substantiates these connotations from outside Ecclesiastes as well as from the words and phrases that Qohelet uses as synonyms, contraries, and extensions of hebel. I am unconvinced by Miller’s argument that hebel also connotes “foulness.” 28. J. Jarick, “The Hebrew Book of Changes: Reflections on HAKKŌL HEBEL and LAKKŌL ZEMĀN in Ecclesiastes,” JSOT 90 (2000) 79–99. 29.  I am following J. Meyers, Ecclesiastes through New Eyes: A Table in the Mist (Monroe, LA: Athanasius, 2007). 30.  The phrase comes from G. Janzen, “Qohelet on ‘Life under the Sun,’” CBQ 70 (2008) 474, 480–81.

Qohelet in the Postmodern Condition

451

The fate of the sons of men and the fate of beats is the same. As one dies, so dies the other; indeed they have all the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is hebel. (3:19) This also is a grievous evil—exactly as a man is born, thus will he die. (5:16) The living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. (9:15)

Furthermore, Solomon closes his musings with a chilling portrait of dying. A dying man is a collapsing cosmos, a deserted city, a highway terrorized by brigands, a shattered pitcher (Eccl 12:1–7). 31 The man who was animate dust is divided into dust and spirit, the dust returning to the ground from which it came and the breath returning, so he hopes, to the God who gave it. Because death reigns, Solomon’s meditations circle around in the end to where they began: “‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫הבֵל‬ ֲ ,” says Qohelet, “all is hebel.” In his obsession with death, Solomon is closest to contemporary theorists and thinkers. Solomon shares much of the Heraclitean sensibility of postmodern theorists, their recognition of the provisionality, contingency, instability, and relativity of human life. Solomon joins Moses, Plato, and Derrida in offering the wisdom of limits, the wisdom of “numbering days” (Ps 90:12).

Sex With respect to postmodernism’s third obsession, however, Solomon seems to depart thoroughly from contemporary concerns. Sex, after all, is hardly one of Qohelet’s obsessive themes. Solomon’s pleasure garden includes “the pleasures of men—many concubines” (Eccl 2:8). The pleasures that dazzled Solomon’s heart and inflamed his soul surely included sexual pleasures (2:10), but the concubines disappear as soon as they appear, swept away as quickly and thoroughly as all of Solomon’s other pleasures (2:9–11). There are a few other references to women in the book (7:26–28, 9:9; and see below), but in Ecclesiastes there is scarcely a petticoat to be seen. This should be more surprising than it usually is. Much of Israel’s other wisdom literature, after all, casts women as major characters. Women characters find voices they never enjoyed in Torah. Wisdom marks Israel’s entry into adolescence, 31.  Some interpreters see a collapsing house in this parable (see J. Sawyer, “The Ruined House in Ecclesiastes 12: A Reconstruction of the Original Parable,” JBL 94 [1975] 519–31). Domestic imagery is certainly present, but I submit that the poetry is too richly layered to stay put in a single metaphorical frame. Body, house, city, and cosmos are overlapping and mutually interpreting realities in the Bible as a whole. For fuller discussion, see M. Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); M. Kline, Images of the Spirit (repr.; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999); and J. Jordan, Through New Eyes (repr.; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000).

452

Peter J. Leithart

and the literature canonically linked to the early monarchy displays a burgeoning appreciation of feminine beauty and feminine bodies, as well as a growing recognition of the potential dangers of beauty. The early chapters of Proverbs narrate a courtship in which the prince, under the guidance of his father, Solomon, is exhorted to renounce the loose Lady Folly and cling to Lady Wisdom (Prov 1–9). Proverbs ends with the celebration of an implausibly productive wife, the embodiment of Wisdom if not Wisdom herself (31:10–31). The prince has chosen well, and Wisdom now dwells with him. The Song of Songs is an erotic poem yet traditionally grouped with Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs as part of the sapiential literature. As we follow the (English) canonical order of the wisdom books attributed to Solomon, we see a progression from the early exhortation “Choose the right woman” to the quaint domesticity of Prov 31 to the passionate mutual delight of the Song. Does Qohelet have any place in this sequence? Qohelet’s apparent lack of interest in sex is also surprising given the steady drip-drip of allusions to the early chapters of Genesis that patters throughout the book. Solomon uses ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬50 times, and the key word hebel puns on the name of Adam’s youngest son, whose brief flicker of life provides the earliest biblical instance of Qohelet’s theme of instability, ephemerality, and death. 32 We noted above how closely the description of Solomon’s pleasure garden follows the creation account of Gen 2, but in place of a singular “Eve,” we find a bevy of concubines. A woman made suitable for Solomon, an Eve built from the man’s rib is nowhere to be found. She is nowhere to be found—unless she is implicit in another of Solomon’s references to women in the book (Eccl 7:26–28): a description so cranky that Solomon is regularly charged with misogyny. Here especially, Sneed concludes that Qohelet fails to present legitimate postmodern credentials. When the feminine Other appears, Solomon does not welcome but ignores, insults, recoils, and objectifies. Solomon’s 47 uses of ‫“( ָרעָה‬evil”) evidences his masterful masculinity, his effort, despite all the frustrations attendant on the project “to look and discover an order in the universe that will put everything in its place.” 33 Women especially need to be put in their place, which is out of sight and out of mind, since “women represent the irrational for Qohelet.” Solomon’s later exhortation to “enjoy life with the woman you love” (9:9) does not, Sneed argues, “mitigate the misogyny.” Qohelet’s “only use for the woman is as an object of sexual fulfillment. The Other remains an object of his gaze.” 34 Perhaps Solomon is following Genesis after all but skips past the astonished delight of Adam’s first encounter with Eve and heads straight for the fall. 35 Every woman is an Eve, which is to say, every woman is a trap. 32.  Davis, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 168. 33.  Sneed, “(Dis)closure,” 122. 34.  Ibid., 122–23. 35.  Solomon does regularly draw on the fall and curse narratives of Genesis 3, as well as the following account of Abel. D. Garrett summarizes neatly: “Evidence that Qoheleth builds his reflections on the early chapters of Genesis is conspicuous. Qoheleth’s preoccupation with death

Qohelet in the Postmodern Condition

453

I do not agree with Sneed, and I do think that Ecclesiastes fits into the sequence of erotic wisdom that I noted above. To show that this is the case, however, I must pause for detailed attention to the two key passages of Qohelet that deal with women.

Ecclesiastes 7:25–29 According to a common reading, 36 Solomon is in full misogynist display in Eccl 7:25–29: 37 I myself directed my heart to know and to investigate and to seek wisdom and a device (‫)חֶׁשּבֹון‬, and to know the evil of folly and the folly of madness. And I myself found this: More bitter than death is woman, whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are chains. Good before the face of God the one who escapes from her, but the sinner will be caught by her. Look at what I found, says Qohelet, adding one to one to find a device (‫)חֶׁשּבֹון‬, which still my soul seeks and does not find. One man from the thousand I found, but a woman in all these I found not. Behold! Look at what I found: God made humanity straight, but they seek many devices (‫ּׁשבֹנֹות‬ ְ ‫)ח‬. ִ

Solomon thus declares that women in general are mortal dangers and that it is virtually impossible to discover a decent woman even if you have a thousand to examine (as Solomon had!). (e.g., 3:18–22; 9:1–6) reflects more than his own gloominess and pessimism; it is derived from Gen 2:17 and the story of the fall in Genesis 3. In addition, Qoheleth is dismayed at how much of life is consumed by vexing labor and hardship (e.g., 2:18–23; 5:15–17). This surely reflects an awareness of the curse on man in Gen 3:17–19. Forman notes that Eccl 1:5–8 calls to mind the descriptions of the seasons in Gen 8:21–22. It often alludes to the inaccessibility of knowledge (e.g., 1:15–17; 8:16–17), an idea which builds upon both the forbidden nature of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and on the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the presence of God. Indeed, the hiddenness of God is a major theme of Ecclesiastes (see 3:11; 8:17–9:1; 11:5). Eccl 3:19–20 all but directly quotes Gen 3:19c in referring to the idea that all are dust and all return to dust (see also Eccl 12:7). Compare also Gen 6:5–6 to Eccl 7:29; 8:11 and 9:3 (D. Garrett, “Ecclesiastes 7:25–29 and the Feminist Hermeneutic,” CTR 2 [1988] 313–14, citing C. C. Forman, “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” JSS 5 [1960] 256–258). 36.  In what follows, I am closely following the interpretation of K. Baltzer, “Women and War in Qohelet 7:23–8:1a,” HTR 80 (1987) 127–32. For an alternative interpretation, see D. Ingram, Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Study 431; London: T. & T. Clark, 2006) especially ch. 7. 37. T. Frymer-Kensky has called this “the first openly misogynist statement in the Bible” (In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth [New York: Ballantine, 1992] 20). J. Koosed ([Per]mutations of Qohelet: Reading the Body in the Book [Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Study 429; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006] 78) agrees, resists the text, and reviews the various alternative excuses offered by commentators (pp. 78–80). Koosed is not impressed with Eccl 9:9 either, which falls far short of the positive portrait of the wise woman in Prov 31 and describes the woman’s value as limited to the pleasure she gives her husband. She concludes that the text is unredeemable (p. 81).

454

Peter J. Leithart

We should be more suspicious. Easy passing-on of conventional wisdom has not been Solomon’s style up to ch. 7, and we should approach the text with openness to the possibility that something more subtle is going on. 38 The precise beginning of this section is difficult to gauge, but there are good reasons to conclude that Solomon makes his opening move in 7:25. Klaus Baltzer notes that the key word “distant” (‫רָחֹוק‬/‫חֹוקה‬ ָ ‫)ר‬ ְ appears at the end of v. 23 and again at the beginning of v. 24, adding that the word resonates with the emphatic doubling of ‫ עָמֹק‬in the phrase “exceedingly deep” (v. 24). These verses both proclaim the inaccessibility of wisdom, a theme apparently picked up again in 8:1: “Who is like the wise man and knows the interpretation of the matter?” In short, 7:23–24 and 8:1 frame and thus highlight what stands between. 39 Verses 25–29 are, further, bound internally by the threefold repetition of the rare word “devices” (‫ֶׁשּבֹון‬ ְ ‫ ;ח‬vv. 25, 27, 29), the triple repetition of “seek” (‫ ;בקׁש‬vv. 25, 28–29), and the seven uses of “find” (‫ ;מצא‬vv. 26, 27 [2×], 28 [3×], 29). The repetitions contribute to a dense texture. In seeking wisdom, Solomon has discovered something about woman (‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫)א‬. ִ Interpreters who attempt to soften the text by suggesting that Solomon is speaking from personal romantic embitterment are grasping at straws. Whether Solomon has been jilted or not is immaterial, not to mention unknowable. Wherever he got his information, he draws a conclusion about “woman” in general. 40 No doubt, the fall story is running along underneath his observations, 41 and no doubt Solomon is also employing the language applied to Lady Folly in Proverbs. She brings bitterness (Prov 5:4), her house is a house of death (Prov 2:18, 5:5, 7:27), and Solomon says that woman is “more bitter than death.” She is a huntress who snares and nets and imprisons her prey (Prov 7:23), just as Solomon says. 42 But the words and phrases that hook Eccl 7 to Prov 1–7 do not serve to qualify the starkness of Solomon’s declaration: “More bitter than death is woman.” The generalization is only 38.  For the syntactical and grammatical difficulties of the passage, see C. R. Fontaine, “‘Many Devices’ (Qoheleth 7.23–8.1): Qoheleth, Misogyny and the Malleus Maleficarum,” in Wisdom and Psalms: The Feminist Companion to the Bible (ed. A. Brenner and C. Fontaine; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 143–45. 39.  Baltzer, “Women and War,” 127. 40.  I find Seow’s comment incoherent and incomprehensible: “Given the context, with its focus on wisdom and folly, it seems unlikely that Qohelet is suddenly introducing the topic of women in general, or even of a particular type of woman” (Ecclesiastes [AB 18C; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1997] 262). On the contrary, this seems to be exactly the context in which we would expect Solomon to introduce a meditation on women in general. 41. See Garrett, “Ecclesiastes 7:25–29.” 42. C. Bartholomew concludes that “[i]t is surely this metaphorical Dame Folly that Qohelet has in mind in v 26,” and the Preacher’s point is that, “if one pleases God, one escapes Dame Folly, but the sinner is seized by her” (Ecclesiastes [Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009] 266–67. In keeping with this interpretation, Bartholomew also takes the elusive woman of v. 28 as a reference to Lady Wisdom (p. 267). I think this is on the right track but misses the cleverness of the trap that Solomon sets for his readers.

Qohelet in the Postmodern Condition

455

reinforced by what follows. In the Song of Songs (4:1–7, 7:1–8), the lover gazes in delight at his beloved: hair like goats descending a mountain, teeth white as washed wool, breasts like fauns, a neck like a tower. In Qohelet’s chillingly inverted wasf, the woman’s hands are weapons, guided by a heart that seeks only to enslave, deploying “nets” that lead to utter ruin (the word ‫ ֵחרֶם‬, which means “net” here, also refers to the “ban”). 43 If you took Solomon aside with a “See here, man. Not all women are like that,” he would no doubt agree. Solomon must make his point with unqualified bluntness because he is setting up the reader—that is, the typical male reader of his book. After v. 26, the fellas are all nodding in hearty agreement, spinning the ice in their scotch glasses, taking another pull on large dark cigars, and waiting for Solomon to continue. He arrests them with a “Look what I found.” They can hardly wait, certain that more of Solomon’s juicy antifeminist rant will follow. To listen to most interpreters of the passage, we would think that this is exactly what follows. Adding one thing to another to find a “device,” Solomon concludes that he has been seeking for a woman and cannot find one among a thousand. Most commentators assume an ethical context: Solomon searches in vain for a righteous woman, a woman who will falsify his bald statement about feminine entrapment. The Hebrew is more ambiguous. 44 It is not clear what sort of man or woman he is searching for, or even that he is searching for a particular sort of woman or man. This is not the point anyway. The point is where he is seeking a man or woman— “from all the thousand.” Verse 26’s ‫צֹודים‬ ִ ‫“( ְמ‬snares”) may be taken as “fortifications,” and with this military hint hanging in the air, we are justified in hearing the military nuance of ‫“( ֶאלֶף‬thousand”) as well (compare with Num 1:16, 21, 23, 25; etc.; 2 Sam 19:17; 24:9, 15). Seeking a man among the thousand means seeking a man in the regiment, and when Solomon seeks a man among the killing warriors, he finds at least one worthy of the name ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫א‬. Among all the thousands, however, he finds not a single woman. 45 To press the point home, he ends with another military reference. In the beginning, God made the ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ א‬straight, but humans seek many devices. Solomon has been doing just that, seeking to know a device (vv. 25, 27), so he is exhibit number one of the wandering course of human inquiry. But the last use of ‫ חֶׁשּבֹון‬takes a new twist. It is plural, and in the only other instance of the plural word in the Hebrew Bible it means “engines of war” (2 Chr 26:15). 43.  Seow, Ecclesiastes, 263. 44. I. Provan (Ecclesiastes/Song of Songs [NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001] 154–55) notes the ambiguity and links the “seeking and finding” of men and women in v. 28 to the pervasive concern with seeking wisdom and understanding of the world. When he has been able to search out and discover devices, “it has only ever been another man” who has proved susceptible to understanding. By contrast, “women have remained clothed in mystery.” Provan may well be correct as far as he goes, but I believe that Solomon’s rhetorical trap is more subtle. 45.  Baltzer, “Women and War,” 130–31.

456

Peter J. Leithart

Feminists and conservative antifeminists both have been taken in by the subtlety of Solomon’s “subversive” sexual wisdom, which subverts postmodern subversion as much as it undermines male chauvinism. He certainly does not follow postmodern theorists in attempting to subvert the binary of male/female—a binary that he no doubt assumes to be ineradicably built into creation. To subvert this binary, he would think, is nothing less than insane. Further, and more galling to contemporary readers, he accepts and affirms sexual stereotypes. “Women are deadly,” he says, and he means it. Who can disagree? Women do, after all, trap and destroy men. It has, as they say, been known to happen. Reeling from this offense against political correctness, however, contemporary readers miss the punch line. Solomon himself imitates the wiles of women—of Lady Wisdom—by snaring his readers in a rhetorical net. Women are deadly, but, Solomon continues, look what I found: men are the ones who make war, devoting all the creativity of which they are capable to finding more efficient ways to kill each other while minimizing the risk to themselves. Women may be deadly, but at least they limit themselves to killing one man (or a handful!) at a time. Women may trap and kill men; but when they set up their engines of war, men are often looking for opportunities to rape. Women have hearts like nets and hands like chains, but if you want to see real killers, there is only one place to look: among the “thousand.”

Ecclesiastes 9:7–9 If the imagery of Eccl 7 hooks back to the imagery of Lady Folly from the early chapters of Proverbs, the exhortation to delight in the woman you love leans toward the Song of Songs: Go. Eat in happiness your bread, and drink with a good heart your wine, for already God has approved your works. At all times, let your garments be white, and oil on your head do not lack. See life with the woman whom you love all the days of the life of your hebel that he gave to you under the sun all the days of your hebel, for this is your portion in your life and in your work which you work under the sun.

Solomon has issued several earlier exhortations to eat, drink, and enjoy life (2:24, 3:13, 5:18, 8:15), but this is the last and most elaborate and, importantly, also the only such exhortation that explicitly links marital and sexual love with the other delights of life. It follows one of Solomon’s bleakest meditations on death. 46 Righteous and wicked both go to the grave. Nothing—not righteousness, goodness, cleanness, sacrifice, neither swearing nor refusing to swear—nothing can stave off death (9:2; note the list of five categories). After a life of evil and even insanity, all go to the same fate (9:3). Life is the great—the only value—so great that a 46.  I am adapting the analysis of M. G. Bachmann, “A Study of Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 9:1–12,” International Review of Mission 91 (2002) 385–88.

Qohelet in the Postmodern Condition

457

living dog is superior to a dead lion (9:4). The dead at least have this advantage: they know nothing. For the living, the anticipation of death fills life and renders it hateful (9:5–6). Verses 11–12 return to the concerns of the opening verses, again listing five categories (swift, warriors, wise, discerning, men of ability) of people who are swallowed up by time, chance, and ultimately Sheol itself. Nestled within this grim analysis of the inevitability and inescapability of death, Solomon contrasts the five lacks of the dead with the pleasures that the living can still enjoy. 47   Dead, vv. 5–6

  Living, vv. 7–9

Know nothing

Eat and drink

No reward

God approves works

No memory

Clothes and oil

No hate or love

Enjoy life with woman

No portion

This is portion

In the context, “seeing life” with the woman one loves might be taken as a pleasurable escape from the gnawing expectation of death. Care is the enemy of life, but life and sex can be a shield against care, especially cares about death. At best, Solomon seems to offer the wisdom of seduction poetry, which is the wisdom of death. 48 This is certainly part of the point, emphasized by the repetitive “all the days . . . of your hebel” in v. 9. He does not offer any hope that death and hebel can be overcome. This life, this life of hebel, is the lot of all human beings and thus should be grasped with enough fervor to squeeze out all that is in it. “Whatever your hand finds to do”—whether eating, drinking, or enjoying the wife you love—“do it with all your might,” because the opportunity to enjoy it will soon pass (v. 10). I suspect something more is going on. What Solomon offers is not merely a defiant hedonistic fist shaken in the face of death but a theologically grounded vision of life. In v. 7, the enjoyment of food, festivity, and sex is overseen by God. What gives one leave to enjoy life is the confidence that God has approved his works. Bread, wine, oil, and joy are, in the Hebrew Bible, particularly associated with the festivities of the sanctuary (Deut 12:1–19, 14:23), so Solomon’s exhortation to eat, drink, and rejoice is, in part, an exhortation to enjoy the gifts of God offered directly at His house. Further, the woman of v. 9 is the woman who has been implicitly given by God. 49 Were life not a gift, were human beings simply thrown 47.  Though the two lists match at certain points, in detail they do not appear to be parallel. 48.  Here is the history of seduction poetry in a prosaic nutshell: life is short, you and I are getting neither younger nor more attractive, so we’d better get it on now while we still want to. 49.  This point is emphasized by J.Y. S. Pahk, “A Syntactical and Contextual Consideration of ʾšh in Qoh. ix 9,” VT 51 (2001) 370–80. Pahk’s main interest is to show that the woman in 9:9 is the “given” wife, not just “any” woman.

458

Peter J. Leithart

into a world not of our own making and called to live authentic human lives, we would have good reason to opt for one of the easy and obvious paths: postmodern Epicureanism or postmodern Stoicism. If, as Solomon thinks, this life comes from God, if the particular contours of life as Qohelet expresses them are the particular contours of an unasked and undeserved gift, then the proper human response is the kind of response we make to gifts. Wishing things were different is a form of ingratitude and an obstacle to happiness. Whoever wishes things were different is not only a fool but a spoiled brat of a fool, like the child who stomps out of the room and ruins Christmas for everyone because he got the wrong X-Box game. Brief, ephemeral, vaporous as it is, this life of eating, drinking, festivity, love, and work is the gift that God gives and, as with all gifts, it is to be received with grateful joy. This line of meditation is clear from the whole of Ecclesiastes, but I suspect that something even more is going on in Solomon’s reference to the “woman you love.” Ecclesiastes 9:7–9 contains multiple connections with the Song of Songs. “Eating and drinking” comes at the center of the Song as a metaphor for delighted love-making (Song 4:16–5:1), 50 and near the end of the Song the woman offers the “juice of my pomegranates” to her lover to drink (8:2). Wine—tasty, aromatic, intoxicating—is a polysemic symbol of love in the Song (1:2, 4), and oils and perfumes add to the sensual overload of sexual delight (1:3). In Song 4:10, love is again compared with wine, and the lover also revels in the “smell of your oils,” which are superior to “all spices.” Most obviously, Eccl 9 reaches toward the Song with its reference to sexual love (Eccl 9:9). Qohelet uses the verb “love” (‫)אהב‬ 4 times (Eccl 3:10, 5:10, 9:9) and the noun (‫הבָה‬ ֲ ‫ ) ַא‬twice (9:1, 6), but only in 9:9 does it overtly refer to a man’s love for a woman. In the Song, the verb is used 7 times, and the noun 11 times, sometimes to describe the passion that sickens the woman (Song 2:5, 5:8), sometimes as a name for the beloved (7:6), and in one passage as an apparently omnipotent cosmic force (8:6–7). Other verbal connections link Song 8:6–7 and Eccl 9:7–9. As noted above, the exhortation to eat, drink, and enjoy one’s wife is surrounded by stark reminders of death. In a neat bit of word-painting, the words ‫“( מֹות‬death”) and “Sheol” lay siege to the words “bread, wine, and woman” just as surely as the reality of death surrounds the living. On the one side, Eccl 9 uses ‫ מֹות‬4 times in three verses (9:3, 4, 5 [2×]), while on the other side, Sheol opens his maw (v. 10). Likewise, Song 8:6–7 affirms the power of death over Mot and Sheol, throwing in Reseph, god of fiery plague, for good measure. 51 In both passages, in short, sexual love is set in defiant opposition to the forces of decay that dominate human life. This is not about progeny. Neither passage suggests that death is overcome by producing children. 50.  Many commentators have concluded that these are the structurally central verses in the Song of Songs. See, for example, R. M. Davidson, “The Literary Structure of the Song of Songs Redivivus,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14 (2003) 44–65. 51.  M. H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB 7C; New York: Doubleday, 1977) 670.

Qohelet in the Postmodern Condition

459

Rather, Solomon’s sexual wisdom teaches that the wise face a world of death and hebel by clinging to those they love. The two passages differ, however, in the power attributed to love. It is possible that already in Eccl 7:26 Solomon has made a teasing declaration about the power of sex. “More bitter (‫ )מַר‬than death,” he says of women, but Dahood and Lohfink both suggest that ‫ מַר‬derives from ‫מרר‬, “be strong.” 52 Hence, Eccl 7:26 could be read as an affirmation of feminine strength, a strength that overcomes death. This is not necessarily wholly positive, because an immortal feminine is so much more capable of setting traps, laying out nets, and chaining men. Given Solomon’s fondness for wordplay and riddles, 53 it is certainly possible that Solomon intended the word to bear both meanings: “More bitter than death is woman,” and “Stronger than death is woman.” Whether or not this interpretation of Eccl 7:26 is plausible, the Song makes a remarkable, theological declaration about the power of erotic love. Much of this declaration is uncontroversial. Love, which in the context of the Song means the erotic passion of a woman for a man and a man for a woman, holds the beloved as strongly as Mot grasps his victims—the protective jealousy inspired by love longs for the lover fiercely as Sheol longs for new flesh. Love is a fire that consumes the lover who wants to consume the beloved and make her his own; love is the fire that consumes both lovers until they can declare, “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine” (Song 1:6, 6:3, 7:10). More controversial is the claim that this love is divinely inspired, that the fire that burns the lovers is the flame of the Lord. The issue turns on whether the suffix on the final word of Song 8:6 (‫ֶתיָה‬ ְ ‫ )ׁשַ ְל ֶהב‬is an intensifying or feminine suffix, or it is the divine name Yah. Richard Davidson has argued persuasively that the word should be translated “flame of Yah.” The word is a causative form, which anticipates a suffix that names the agent that causes the flame (Davidson appeals to the parallel of Jer 2:31), and the surrounding lines are studded with words that name divine forces. 54 To Song 8:6’s references to Mot, Sheol, and Reseph, 8:7 adds the phrase “many waters,” which are the cosmic forces of chaos that would quench any but the most vehement flame. 55 Far from being devoured by death or quenched by the cosmic waters of chaos, the flame of Yah is a consuming fire that devours death. 52. M. Dahood, “Qoheleth and Recent Discoveries,” Bib 39 (1958) 308–10; N. Lohfink, “War Kohelet ein Frauenfeind? Ein Versuch, die Logik und den Gegenstand von Koh 7, 23-8, la herauszufinden,” in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (ed. M. Gilbert; Gembloux: Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1979) 259–87. 53.  See S. B. Noegel, “‘Word Play’ in Qoheleth,” JHS 7 (2007) 2–28, http://www.jhsonline​ .org. 54. R. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007) 624–29. 55.  H. G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbim, ‘Many Waters,’” JBL 74 (1955) 9–21.

460

Peter J. Leithart

The link between Qohelet and the Song of Songs indicates that that the enjoyment of a woman’s love is not simply a gesture of defiance in the face of death. The passion of the man and woman in the Song is a spark from the flame of Yahweh himself, and as such holds a promise of conquest over death. Clinging to the wife you love is not a survival tactic, a desperate holding-out against the grave. Insofar as it participates in the fiery love that Yah is, just so much it is death’s equal, offering hope for a life beyond life under the sun, life beyond the whirling hebel. Thus Qohelet takes its place in the progression of sexual wisdom found in the sapiential tradition of the Bible. Proverbs instructs the young man: Choose the right woman. Ecclesiastes adds: Enjoy her love in a world of death and change. The Song of Songs gives the crowning assurance: In loving the right woman, you share in Yah’s conquest of death. 56

Conclusion Postmodernism is about justice. Postmodernism is about death. Postmodernism is about sex. These three. And so is Qohelet. But at each point, Solomon offers tools for subverting the subverters. To skeptical relativists, Solomon affirms the distinction between wisdom and folly and defends the value of pursuing wisdom. To antimodernists busily researching on the Internet to write articles on their word processors, Solomon celebrates the (limited) achievements of technike. He stands with postmoderns most thoroughly in his meditations on death, which is king of the world under the sun. Solomon offends feminists by acknowledging that women can be cunning and catty; he offends masculinists by highlighting the silliness of well-armed males cowering before the dangers of women. To jaded, exhausted fornicators, he hints at the possibility of a love that burns and burns, flashing with the flame of Yah, the consuming fire. In its ultimate canonical context, Solomon opens up a deeper and higher subversion. For Solomon, it is life “under the sun” that is ‫ָלים הַּכֹל ָהבֶל‬ ִ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫הבֵל‬ ֲ (“vapor of vapors, all is vapor”). But God will bring all works in this world into judgment, and then what? Might we hope for a world above and after the world under the sun? Is there, perhaps, finally a place to stand where all is not under the dominion of death? Might there be a Word that speaks a word better than the words of hebel? 56.  Is this post-Romantic courtly nonsense imposed on the biblical text? I think not: as I argued above, Song 8:6–7 is the climax of a poem of erotic love and points to Yahweh’s fiery, unquenchable love as the source. But how does love conquer death? One might most immediately think of procreation as the conquest of death, but I suspect we need to take death more broadly. If man is a social creature, then the dissolution of social bonds is a form of death. When a man clings in love to a wife, and a wife to a husband, they resist the solvent of sin and death that falls unleashed on the world.

Works Cited Abraham, W. J. Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Academy of the Hebrew Language. ‫ספר בן־סירא המקור וקונקורדנציה וניתוח אוצר המילים‬. (The Book of Ben Sira: Origin, Concordance, and Analysis). Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, 1973. ʿAli, Yephet ben. The Arabic Commentary of Yephet ben ʿAli on the Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapters 1–6. Translated with introduction and commentary by R. M. Bland. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1969. Allen, L. C. Psalms 101–150. WBC 21. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Alonso Schökel, L. Estudios de poética hebrea. Barcelona: Juan Flors, 1963. Alter, R. The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary. New York: Norton, 2010. Andersen, F. I., and A. Dean Forbes. Spelling in the Hebrew Bible. BibOr 41. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1986. Anderson, H., and E. Foley. Mighty Stories, Dangerous Rituals: Weaving Together the Human and the Divine. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998. Anderson, W. H. U. “The Curse of Work in Qoheleth: An Exposé of Genesis 3:17–19 in Ecclesiastes.” EvQ 70 (1998) 99–113. Antic, R. “Cain, Abel, Seth, and the Meaning of Human Life as Portrayed in the Books of Genesis and Ecclesiastes.” AUSS 42 (2006) 203–11. Aranda, M. G. “Ibn Ezra and Rashbam on Qohelet: Two Perspectives in Contrast.” HS 46 (2005) 233–58. _____ . “The Meaning of Qohelet According to Ibn Ezra’s Scientific Explanations.” Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism 6 (2006) 339–70. Augustine, St. The Confessions. Introduction, translation, and notes by M. Boulding. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1997. _____ . Expositions on the Book of Psalms by Saint Augustine. Edited by P. Schaff. NPNF 8. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956. Aune, D. E. “On the Origins of the ‘Council of Javneh’ Myth.” JBL 110 (1991) 491–93. Avidgad, N., and B. Sass. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997. Bachmann, M. G. “A Study of Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) 9:1–12.” International Review of Mission 91 (2002) 382–94. Backus, I., ed. Bibliotheca Dissidentium. Répertoire des non-conformistes religieux des seizi­ ème et dix-septième siècles, vol. 2: Martin Borrhaus (Cellarius). Baden-Baden: Koer­ ner, 1981. Bailey, C.-J. N. Variation and Linguistic Theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1973.

461

462

Works Cited

Baines, J. “Myth and Literature.” Pp. 361–78 in Ancient Egyptian Kingship: History and Forms. Edited by A. Loprieno. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Baltzer, K. “Women and War in Qohelet 7:23–8:1a.” HTR 80 (1987) 127–32. Barr, J. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. Bartelt, A. H. The Book around Immanuel: Style and Structure in Isaiah 2–12. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Bartholomew, C. G. “Covenant and Creation: Covenant Overload or Covenantal Deconstruction.” CJT 30 (1995) 11–33. _____ . Ecclesiastes. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009. _____ . “Listening for God’s Address.” In Hearing the Old Testament. Edited by C. G. Bartholomew and D. Beldman. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. _____ . “Qoheleth in the Canon? Current Trends in the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes.” Themelios 24/3 (1999) 4–20. _____ . Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory. AnBib 139. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1998. Barton, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. ICC. New York: Scribner, 1908. Bayer, O. Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation. Translated by T. H. Trapp. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Beal, R. The Medieval Tradition of the Libri Salomonis in Dante’s Comedia and Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1982. Beckwith, R. T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. Beeke, J. R., and R. J. Pederson. Meet the Puritans. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2006. Beentjes, P. C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1997. _____ . The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Corrected ed. VTSup 68. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. _____ . “‘Who Is like the Wise?’ Some Notes on Qohelet 8,1–15.” Pp. 303–315 in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998. Begbie, J. Theology, Music, and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Bendavid, A. Leshon Mikra u-Leshon Ḥakhamim: Metukenet u-Murḥevet. Corrected and revised ed. Tel Aviv: Devir, 1967. Bergsträsser, G. “Das Hebräische Präfix ‫שׁ‬.” ZAW 29 (1909) 40–56. Berlin, A. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985. Revised and expanded ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008 _____ . “Parallelism.” Pp. 155–62 in vol. 5 of ABD. Edited by D. N. Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Berndt, R., S.J. “Skizze zur Auslegungsgeschichte der Bücher Proverbia und Ecclesiastes in der abendländischen Kirche.” Sacris erudiri 34 (1994) 5–32.

Works Cited

463

Beza, T. Iobus: Theodori Bezae partim commentariis partim paraphrasi illustratus. Cui etiam additus est Ecclesiastes, Solomonis concio de summo bono, ab eodem Th. B. paraphrasticè explicata. London: University of Cambridge Press, 1589. http://eebo​ .chadwyck.com. Bhabha, H. K. The Location of Culture. 2nd ed. Routledge Classics. London: Routledge, 2004. Bickell, G. Der Prediger über den Wert des Daseins: Wiederherstellung des bisher zer­ stückelten Texts, Übersetzung und Erklärung. Innsbruck: Wagner’sche Universitäts­ buch­handlung, 1884. Biéler, A. The Social Humanism of Calvin. Translated by Paul T. Fuhrmann, with a foreword by W. A. Visser’t Hooft. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1964. Blenkinsopp, J. Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11. London: T. & T. Clark, 2011. _____ . Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism. Revised ed. Oxford Bible Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Boda, M. J. “The Delight of Wisdom.” Themelios 29 (2004) 4–11. Bonaventure, St. Works of St. Bonaventure, vol. 7: St. Bonaventure’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Edited and translated by R. J. Karris and C. Murray. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 2005. Bonhoeffer, D. Ethics. Edited by E. Bethge. Translated by N. H. Smith. The Library of Philosophy and Theology. London: SCM, 1955. Braun, R. Koheleth und die fruhhellenistische Popularphilosophie. BZAW 130. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973. Brecht, M. Die frühe Theologie des Johannes Brenz. BHT. Tübingen: Mohr, 1966. Brenner, A., and C. Fontaine, eds. Wisdom and Psalms: The Feminist Companion to the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998 Brenz, J. Der Prediger Salomo: Faksimile-Neudruck der ersten Ausgabe Hagenau 1528. Mit einer Einleitung von Martin Brecht: Glaube und Skepsis. Die erste evangelische Auslegung des Predigers Salomos von Johannes Brenz. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1970. Breton, S. “Qoheleth Studies.” BTB 3 (1973) 22–50. Brock, S. “Text Divisions in the Syriac Translations of Isaiah.” Pp. 200–221 in Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman. Edited by A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg. JSOTSup 333. The Hebrew Bible and Its Versions 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Brockelmann, C. Hebraische Syntax. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1956. Brook, B. The Lives of the Puritans. 3 vols. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1996. Brown, C., and G. V. Smithers. Religious Lyrics of the XIVth Century. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952. Brown, S. G. “The Structure of Ecclesiastes.” Evangelical Review of Theology 14 (1990) 195– 208. Brown, W. P. Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. _____ . “Character Reconstructed: Ecclesiastes.” Pp. 120–50 in Character in Crisis. Edited by W. P. Brown. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

464

Works Cited

_____ . Ecclesiastes. IBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Broyde, M. J. “Defilement of the Hands, Canonization of the Bible and the Special Status of Esther, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.” Judaism 44 (1995) 65–79. Brueggemann, W. Genesis. IBC. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. _____ . Message of the Psalms. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985. Bruns, J. E. “Some Reflections on Coheleth and John.” CBQ 25 (1963) 414–16. Burkes, S. Death in Qoheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999. Burkitt, F. C. Ecclesiastes: Rendered into English Verse by F. Crawford Burkitt. London: Macmillan, 1936. _____ . “Is Ecclesiastes a Translation?” JTS 23 (1922) 22–26. Butler, J. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge, 1999. Bybee, J. L., and Ö. Dahl. “The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World.” Studies in Language 13 (1989) 51–103. Bybee, J. L., R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca, eds. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Cameron, E. Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Caneday, A. B. “Qohelet: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” Grace Theological Journal 7 (1986) 21–56. Carasik, M. “Qohelet’s Twists and Turns.” JSOT 28 (2003) 192–209. Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996. Castellino, G. “Qohelet and His Wisdom.” CBQ 30 (1968) 15–28. Cavanaugh, W. T. Theopolitical Imagination: Discovering the Liturgy as a Political Act in an Age of Global Consumerism. London: T. & T. Clark, 2002. Charlesworth, J. H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. ABRL. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983. Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Chopineau, J. Hevel en Hebreu biblique: Contribution à l’étude des rapports entre semantique et l’exégèse de l’Ancien Testament. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Strasbourg, 1971. _____ . “Une Image de l’homme: Sur Ecclésiaste 1/2.” ETR 53 (1978) 366–70. Christianson, E. S. Ecclesiastes through the Centuries, Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. _____ . A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes. JSOTSup 280. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Chrysostom, J. Concerning the Statues. NPNF 9. New York: Christian Literature, 1889. Clemens, D. M. “The Law of Sin and Death: Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1–3.” Themelios 19 (1994) 5–8. Clines, D. J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–. Cloete, W. T. W. Versification and Syntax in Jeremiah 2–25: Syntactical Constraints in Hebrew Colometry. SBLDS 117. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Coffey, J., and P. C. H. Lim, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Cohen, A., trans. Midrash Rabbah Ecclesiastes. 3rd ed. New York: Soncino, 1983.

Works Cited

465

Collins, J. J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Cook, J. A. The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System: A Grammaticalization Approach. Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 2002. _____ . “Detecting Development in Biblical Hebrew Using Diachronic Typology.” Pp. 83– 96 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by C. L. Miller-Naudé and Z. Zevit. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. _____ . “The Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Do Express Aspect.” JANES 30 (2006) 21–35. _____ . “Genericity, Tense, and Verbal Patterns in the Sentence Literature of Proverbs.” Pp. 117–33 in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by R. L. Troxel, K. G. Friebel, and D. R. Magary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. _____ . “Hebrew Language.” Pp. 260–67 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings. Edited by T. Longman III and P. Enns. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008. _____ . “The Hebrew Verb: A Grammaticalization Approach.” ZAH 14 (2001) 117–43. _____ . “The Participle and Stative in Typological Perspective.” JNSL 34 (2008) 1–19. _____ . “The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of Wayyiqtol and Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” JSS 49 (2004) 247–73. _____ . Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Cooper, J. M. “Arcesilaus: Socratic and Sceptic.” Pp. 81–103 in Knowledge, Nature, and the Good. Edited by J. M. Cooper. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Cornell, D., M. Rosenfeld, and D. G. Carlson, eds. Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice. London: Routledge, 1992. Cotter, D. W. Genesis. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Cotton, H. M., and A. Yardeni. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Naḥal Ḥever and Other Sites, with an Appendix Containing Alleged Qumran Texts (the Seiyâl Collection II). DJD 27. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Cotton, J. Brief Exposition with Practical Observations upon the Book of Ecclesiastes. London: Ralph Smith, 1654. Coxe, A. C., ed. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius. ANF 6. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. _____ . Tertullian Part Fourth, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen—Parts First and Second. ANF 4. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Crenshaw, J. L. Ecclesiastes. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. _____ . “Ecclesiastes, Book of.” Pp. 271–80 in vol. 2 of ABD. Edited by D. N. Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992. _____ . “Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon ‘Historical’ Literature.” JBL 88 (1969) 129–42. _____ . Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998.

466

Works Cited

_____ . “Qoheleth’s Understanding of Intellectual Inquiry. Pp. 204–22 in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. BETL 136. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998. _____ . “The Wisdom Literature.” Pp. 369–407 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Cross, F. M., Jr. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Cross, F. M., Jr., and D. N. Freedman. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Joint Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1950. 2nd ed.: Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Crüsemann, F. “The Unchangeable World: The ‘Crisis of Wisdom’ in Koheleth.”Pp. 57–77 in God of the Lowly: Socio-historical Interpretations of the Bible. Edited by W. Schottroff and W. Stegemann. New York: Orbis, 1979. Crystal, D. “New Perspectives for Language Study, I: Stylistics.” English Language Teaching 24 (1970) 99–106. Culley, R. “Metrical Analysis of Classical Hebrew Poetry.” Pp. 12–28 in Essays on the Ancient Semitic World. Edited by J. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970. _____ . Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms. Near and Middle East Series 4. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967. Dahl, Ö. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985. Dahood, M. “Qoheleth and Recent Discoveries.” Bib 39 (1958) 302–18. Davidson, R. M. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. _____ . “The Literary Structure of the Song of Songs Redivivus.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 14 (2003) 44–65. Davila, J. R. “Dialectology in Biblical Hebrew: A North Israelite Dialect? Synchronic and Diachronic Considerations.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Chicago, 1994. _____ . “Qoheleth and Northern Hebrew.” Pp. 69–87 in Sopher Mahir: Northwest Semitic Studies Presented to Stanislav Segert. Edited by E. M. Cook. Maarav 5–6. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Davis, E. F. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. WBC. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. _____ . Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. DeCaen, V. “Theme and Variation in Psalm 111: Phrase and Foot in Generative-Metrical Perspective.” JSS 54 (2009) 81–109. De Lacy, P. “Thematic and Structural Affinities: The Wanderer and Ecclesiastes.” Neophilologus 82 (1998) 125–37. Delitzsch, F. Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament: Hoheslied und Koheleth. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1875. ET: Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, vol. 6: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. Translated by M. G. Easton. Clark’s Foreign Theological Library 4/53; Edinburgh:

Works Cited

467

T. & T. Clark, 1885. [Reprinted: Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989.] Dell, K. J. “Ecclesiastes as Wisdom: Consulting Early Interpreters.” VT 44 (1994) 301–29. Derrida, J. “Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority.’” Pp. 68–94 in Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice. Edited by D. Cornell, M. Rosenfelt, and D. G. Carlson. London: Routledge, 1992. _____ . The Gift of Death. 2nd ed. Translated by David Wills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. DeSilva, D. A. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004. Desvoeux, A. V. A Philosophical and Critical Essay on Ecclesiastes. Wherein the author’s design is stated; his doctrine vindicated; his method explained in an analytical paraphrase annexed to a new version of the text from the Hebrew; and the differences between that new translation and the received version accounted for in philological observations. London: Hawkins, 1760; German trans., 1764; Dutch, 1776. Devine, J. M. Ecclesiastes, or The Confessions of an Adventurous Soul. London: Macmillan, 1916. Diego Sánchez, M. “El ‘Comentario al Ecclesiastés’ de Didimo Alejandrino.” Teresianum 41 (1990) 231–42. Dillard, R. B., and T. Longman III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “The Effects of Enjambment in Lamentations (Part 2).” ZAW 113 (2001) 370–95. _____ . “The Enjambing Line in Lamentations: A Taxonomy (Part 1).” ZAW 113 (2001) 219–39. _____ . “(More) on Performatives in Semitic.” ZAH 17–20 (2004–7) 36–81. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W., J. J. M. Roberts, C.-L. Seow, and R. E. Whitaker. Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005. Dohmen, C. “Das Viele Büchermachen Hat Kein Ende (Koh 12,12): Wachtstumsspuren in der Heiligen Schrift.” Pp. 30–54 in Biblischer Kanon, Warum und Wozu? Eine Kanontheologie. Edited by C. Dohmen and M. Oeming. QD 137. Freiburg: Herder, 1992. _____ . “Der Weisheit letzter Schluss? Anmerkungen zur Übersetzung und Bedeutung von Koh 12,9–14.” BN 63 (1992) 12–18. Dor-Shav, E. “Ecclesiastes, Fleeting and Timeless: Part I.” JBQ 36 (2008) 211–24. _____ . “Ecclesiastes, Fleeting and Timeless: Part II.” JBQ 37 (2009) 17–23. Douglas, M. D. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Driver, G. R. “Hebrew Poetic Diction.” Pp. 26–39 in Congress Volume: Copenhagen, 1953. VTSup 1. Leiden: Brill, 1953. _____ . An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 9th ed. New York: Scribner, 1913. Dunbar, W. William Dunbar: The Complete Works. Edited by J. Conlee. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University Press, 2004.

468

Works Cited

Eagleton, T. Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. Eakins, P. J. How Our Lives Become Stories: Making Selves. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Eaton, M. A. Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC 16. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983. Edwards, J. The “Blank Bible.” In The Works of Jonathan Edwards. http://www.edwards.yale​ .edu. Ehrhart, M. J. “Machaut’s Jugement dou roy de Navarre and the Book of Ecclesiastes.” Neu­ philologische Mitteilungen 81 (1980) 318–25. Eitan, I. “Hebrew and Semitic Particles: Comparative Studies in Semitic Philology.” AJSL 44 (1928) 177–205. Eliason, J. Vanitas Vanitatum: “Piers Plowman,” Ecclesiastes, and Contempt of the World. Ph.D. diss. University of Virginia, 1989. Ellermeier, F. Qohelet, I/1: Untersuchungen zum Buche Qohelet. Herzberg: Jungfer, 1967. Ellis, Robert. “Amos Economics.” Review and Expositor 107 (2010) 463–79. Ellul, J. Reason for Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes. Translated by J. M. Hanks. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. Enns, P. “Ecclesiastes according to the Gospel: Christian Reflections on Qohelet’s Theology.” Scripture and Interpretation 2 (2008) 25–38. Erasmus, D. The Correspondence of Erasmus, vol. 8: Letters 1122 to 1251, 1520–1521. Edited by J. M. Estes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988. Ettlinger, G. H. “The Form and Method of the Commentary on Ecclesiastes by Gregory of Agrigentum.” Pp. 317–20 in Papers of the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies: Oxford 1983. Edited by E.A. Livingstone. SP 19. Leuven: Peeters, 1985. Evans, P., et al., eds. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Ewald, H. “Qohelet.” Pp. 289–329 in Die Dichter des alten Bundes. Zweiter Theil: Die Salomonischen Schriften. Edited by H. Ewald. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1867. Farmer, K. A. Who Knows What Is Good? A Commentary on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. _____ . “The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes.” Pp. 129–51 in The Hebrew Bible Today: An Introduction to Critical Issues. Edited by S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Feeley-Harnik, G. The Lord’s Table: The Meaning of Food in Early Judaism and Christianity. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1994. Ferguson, C. A. “Diglossia.” Word 15 (1959) 325–40. Fisch, H. Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation. Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. Fischer, A. A. “Beobachtungen zur Komposition von Kohelet 1,3–3,15.” ZAW 103 (1991) 72–86. _____ . Skepsis oder Furcht Gottes? Studien zur Komposition und Theologie des Buches Kohelet. BZAW 247. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Works Cited

469

Flesher, P. V. M. “The Wisdom of the Sages: Rabbinic Rewriting of Qohelet.” Paper presented at the Society of Bibilical Literature annual meeting. New Orleans, 1990. Fokkelman, J. P. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis. 4 vols. SSN 37, 41, 43, 47. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998–2004. _____ . Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide. Translated by I. Smit. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Fontaine, C. “‘Many Devices’ (Qoheleth 7.23–8.1): Qoheleth, Misogyny and the Malleus Maleficarum.” Pp. 137–68 in Wisdom and Psalms: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series). Edited by A. Brenner and C. Fontaine. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Fontenrose, J. E. The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Operations, with a Catalogue of Responses. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. _____ . The Oracle: The Lost Secrets and Hidden Messages of Ancient Delphi. New York: Penguin, 2006. Ford, D. F. Self and Salvation: Being Transformed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Forman, C. C. “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis.” JSS 5 (1960) 256–63. Fox, M. V. “Frame Narrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet.” HUCA 48 (1977) 83–106. _____ . “The Inner Structure of Qohelet’s Thought.” Pp. 225–38 in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998. _____ . JPS Torah Commentary: Ecclesiastes. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004. _____ . “The Meaning of Hebel for Qoheleth.” JBL 105 (1986) 409–27. _____ . Proverbs 1–9. AB 18A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. _____ . Proverbs 10–31. AB 18B. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. _____ . “Qohelet.” Pp. 249–54 in vol. 2 of Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by J. H. Hayes. 2 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. _____ . Qohelet and His Contradictions. JSOTSup 71. Sheffield: Almond, 1989. _____ . “Qohelet’s Epistemology.” HUCA 58 (1987) 137–55. _____ . A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. _____ . “Wisdom in Qoheleth.” Pp. 115–32 in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie. Edited by L. G. Perdue, B. B. Scott, and W. J. Wiseman. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Frank, D. “Karaite Exegesis.” Pp. 110–28 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300), part 2: The Middle Ages. Edited by M. Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Fredericks, D. C. Coping with Transience: Ecclesiastes on Brevity in Life. Biblical Seminar 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. _____ . Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 3. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988. Fredericks, D. C., and D. J. Estes. Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 16. Nottingham: Apollos / Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2010.

470

Works Cited

Freedman, D. N. “Acrostics and Metrics in Hebrew Poetry.” HTR 65 (1972) 367–92. Reprinted, pp. 51–76 in Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Frey, J.-B., ed. Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum. 2 vols. Rome: Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana, 1936–52. Froelich, K. “Christian Interpretation of the Old Testament in the High Middle Ages.” Pp. 496–558 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300), part 2: The Middle Ages. Edited by M. Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Frydrych, T. Living under the Sun: Examination of Proverbs and Qoheleth. VTSup 90. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Frymer-Kensky, T. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. New York: Ballantine, 1992. Gadamer, H. G. “Dialogues in Capri.” Pp. 200–211 in Religion. Edited by J. Derrida and G. Vattimo. Cambridge: Polity, 1998. Galling, K. “Der Prediger.” Pp. 73–125 in Die Fünf Megilloth: Ruth, Hoheslied, Klagelieder, Esther, Der Prediger. Edited by M. Haller. HAT 18. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1969. Gammie, J. G. “Stoicism and Anti-Stoicism in Qoheleth.” HAR 9 (1985) 169–80. _____ . “Theology of Retribution in the Book of Deuteronomy.” CBQ 32 (1970) 1–12. García Martínez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 1: 1Q1– 4Q273. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Garr, W. R. Dialect Geography of Syria–Palestine, 1000–586 b.c.e. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Garrett, D. A. “Ecclesiastes 7:25–29 and the Feminist Hermeneutic.” CTR 2 (1988) 309–21. _____ . Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. NAC 14. Nashville: Broadman, 1993. Gentry, P. J. “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew.” HS 39 (1998) 7–39. Gese, H. “Zur Komposition des Koheletbuches.” Pp. 69–98 in Geschichte-TraditionReflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, vol. 1: Judentum. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1996. Gesenius, W., and G. Kautzsch. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910. Gibbon, E. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Edited with introduction by J. B. Bury. 7 vols. London: Methuen, 1909. Ginsberg, H. L. Studies in Koheleth. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 17. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950. Ginsburg, C. D. Coheleth (Commonly Called the Book of Ecclesiastes). London: Longman, 1857. Repr., New York: Ktav, 1970. Ginzberg, L. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968. Gladson, J. A. Retributive Paradoxes in Proverbs 10–29. Ph.D. diss. Vanderbilt University, 1978. Gnanaraj, D. The Language of Qoheleth: An Evaluation of the Major Scholarly Studies from 1987–2004. Th.M. diss. Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology, 2009. Goheen, M. W., and C. G. Bartholomew. Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008.

Works Cited

471

Goldman, Y. A. P. “Qoheleth.” Pp. 25–53, 13*–17*, 28*–30*, 40*–43*, 64*–112* in Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 18: General Introduction and Megilloth. Edited by A. Schenker et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004. Good, E. M. Irony in the Old Testament. Sheffield: Almond, 1981. Gordis, R. “Koheleth: Hebrew or Aramaic?” JBL 71 (1952) 93–109. _____ . Koheleth, the Man and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes. 3d ed. New York: Shocken, 1968. _____ . “The Original Language of Qohelet.” JQR 37 (1946/47) 67–84. _____ . “The Translation Theory of Qohelet Re-examined.” JQR 40 (1949/50) 103–16. Gordon, C. H. “North Israelite Influence on Postexilic Hebrew.” IEJ 5 (1955) 85–88. Gordon, E., and M. Williams. “Raids on the Articulate: Code-Switching, Style-Shifting and Postcolonial Writing.” The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 33 (1998) 75–96. Grassi, E. Rhetoric and Philosophy: The Humanist Tradition. Translated by J. M. Krois and A. Azodi. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2001. Gray, G. B. The Forms of Hebrew Poetry: Considered with Special Reference to the Criticism and Interpretation of the Old Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915. Reprinted with “Prolegomenon” by D. N. Freedman. Library of Biblical Studies. New York: Ktav, 1972. Repr. of 1915 ed.: Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on Ecclesiastes. Edited by S. G. Hall. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Gregory the Great. Saint Gregory the Great: Dialogues. Translated by O. J. Zimmerman. Fathers of the Church 39. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1959. Greidanus, S. Preaching Christ from Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Griswald, C. “Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/platorhetoric/. Groot, A. W. de. “The Description of a Poem.” Pp. 294–300 in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27–31, 1962. Edited by H. G. Lunt. The Hague: Mouton, 1964. Gropp, D. M. “The Origin and Development of the Aramaic šallīt Clause.” JNES 52 (1993) 31–36. Hale, M. Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 21. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007. Halivni, D. W. Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Hallo, W. W., and K. L. Younger Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Halperin, D. “The Book of Remedies, the Canonization of the Solomonic Writings, and the Riddle of Pseudo-Eusebius.” JQR 72 (1982) 269–92. Hankinson, R. J. The Sceptics. London: Routledge, 1995. Harley, T. Matthew Poole: His Life, His Times, His Contributions along with His Argument against the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2011. Hartman, C. O. Free Verse: An Essay on Prosody. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980.

472

Works Cited

Haspelmath, M. “Does Linguistic Explanation Presuppose Linguistic Description?” Studies in Language 28 (2004) 554–79. Hatton, P. T. H. Contradictions in the Book of Proverbs: The Deep Waters of Counsel. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2008. Heim, K. M. Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1–22:16. BZAW 273. New York: de Gruyter, 2001. Heine, B., and T. Kuteva. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Helsel, P. B. “Enjoyment and Its Discontents: Ecclesiastes in Dialogue with Freud on the Stewardship of Joy.” Journal of Religion and Health 49/1 (2010) 105–16. Henry, M. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. 6 vols. Iowa Falls, IA: Word Bible, 1935. Henten, J. W. van, and P. W. van der Horst, eds. Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Herman, D. “Style-Shifting in Edith Wharton’s The House of Mirth.” Language and Literature 10 (2001) 61–77. Hertzberg, H. Der Prediger. KAT 17/4. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963. Hirshman, M. “The Greek Fathers and the Aggada on Ecclesiastes: Formats of Exegesis in Late Antiquity.” HUCA 59 (1958) 137–65. _____ . “The Midrash on Ecclesiastes and Jerome’s Commentary.” Pp. 95–108 in A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation. Edited by M. Hirshman. New York: State University of New York Press, 1996. _____ . Midrash Qohelet Rabbah, vol. 1. Ph.D. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 1983. _____ . “Qohelet’s Reception/Interpretation in Early Rabbinic Literature.” Pp. 87–99 in Studies in Ancient Midrash. Edited by J. L. Kugel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. _____ , ed. A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity. Translated by B. Stein. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. Hobbins, J. F. “Regularities in Ancient Hebrew Verse: A New Descriptive Model.” ZAW 119 (2007) 564–585. Holladay, J. S., Jr. “Yahudiyya, Tell el-.” Pp. 527–29 in vol. 3 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Edited by D. B. Redford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Holladay, W. L. “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (I): Which Words ‘Count’?” JBL 118 (1999) 19–32. Holmes, J. “Bonaventure on Ecclesiastes.” St Paul Center for Biblical Theology (2003). http:// www.salvationhistory.com. Holm-Nielsen, S. “The Book of Ecclesiastes and the Interpretation of It in Jewish and Christian Theology.” ASTI 10 (1976) 38–96. _____ . “On the Interpretation of Qoheleth in Early Christianity.” VT 24 (1974) 168–77. Holmstedt, R. D. “‫אנִי ְו ִל ִּבי‬ ֲ : The Syntactic Encoding of the Collaborative Nature of Qohelet’s Experiment.” JHS 9 (2009) article 19. http://www.jhsonline.org. _____ . “The Etymologies of Hebrew ʾăšɛr and šɛC-.” JNES 66 (2006) 177–91. _____ . “Headlessness and Extraposition: Another Look at the Syntax of ‫אשר‬.” JNSL 27 (2001) 1–16.

Works Cited

473

_____ . “Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew.” Pp. 97–124 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012. _____ . “Issues in the Linguistic Analysis of a Dead Language, with Particular Reference to Ancient Hebrew.” JHS 6 (2006) article 11. http://www.jhsonline.org. _____ . The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis. Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 2002. _____ . “The Story of Ancient Hebrew ʾăšɛr.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43 (2006) 9–28. _____ . “Word Order and Information Structure in Ruth and Jonah.” JSS 59 (2009) 111–39. Holsinger, B. The Premodern Condition: Medievalism and the Making of Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Hoop, R. de. “The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of a Recent Approach, Part I.” JNSL 26 (2000) 47–73. _____ . “Lamentations: The Qinah-Metre Questioned.” Pp. 80–104 in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship. Edited by M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch. Pericope 1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000. _____ . “‘Trichotomy’ in Masoretic Accentuation in Comparison with the Delimitation of Units in the Versions: With Special Attention to the Introduction to Direct Speech.” Pp. 33–47 in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature. Edited by M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch. Pericope 4. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003. Hopper, P. J., and E. C. Traugott. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Horbury, W., and D. Noy. Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt with an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Horst, P. W. van der. Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millenium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 bce–700 ce). Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991. _____ . “Das Neue Testament und die jüdische Grabinschriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit.” BZ 35 (1992) 161–78. Howard, D. M., Jr. The Structure of Psalms 93–100. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Hubbard, D. A. Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. Edited by L. J. Ogilvie. The Communicator’s Commentary 15b. Dallas: Word, 1991. _____ . “The Wisdom Movement and Israel’s Covenant Faith.” TynBul 17 (1966) 3–33. Hudson, A. “Outline of a Theory of Diglossia.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157 (2002) 1–48. Huehnergard, J. “Languages: Introductory Survey.” Pp. 155–70 in vol. 4 of ABD. Edited by D. N. Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992. _____ . “On the Etymology of the Hebrew Relative šε-.” Pp. 103–25 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Edited by S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Hurvitz, A. “The Chronological Significance of Aramaisms in Biblical Hebrew.” IEJ 18 (1968) 234–40.

474

Works Cited

_____ . “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of ‘Aramaisms’ in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible.” Pp. 24–37 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Edited by I. Young. London: T. & T. Clark, 2003. _____ . “The Historical Quest for ‘Ancient Israel’ and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations.” VT 47 (1997) 301–15. _____ . “Review of Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date.” HS 31 (1990) 144–54. Ingram, D. Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Study 431. London: T. & T. Clark, 2006. _____ . Ecclesiastes: A Peculiarly Postmodern Piece. Grove Biblical Series 34. Cambridge: Grove, 2004. Innocent III. Lotario dei Segni (Pope Innocent III): De Miseria Condicionis Humane. Edited and translated by R. E. Lewis. The Chaucer Library. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1978. Isaksson, B. Studies in the Language of Qoheleth, with Special Emphasis on the Verbal System. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 10. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987. _____ . “The Syntax of the Narrative Discourse in Qohelet.” Pp. 35–46 in The Language of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by A. Berlejung, and P. van Hecke. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Janowski, B. “Die Tat kehrt zum Täter zurück: offene Fragen im Umkreis des ‘Tun-ErgehenZusammenhangs.’” ZTK 91 (1994) 247–71. Janzen, G. “Qohelet on ‘Life under the Sun.’” CBQ 70 (2008) 465–83. Japhet, S. The Commentary of Rashbam to Qoheleth. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. Jarick, J. “The Bible’s ‘Festival Scrolls’ among the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pp. 170–82 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans. JSPSup 26. Roehampton Institute London Papers 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. _____ . Gregory Thaumaturgos’ Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes. SBLSCS 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. _____ . “The Hebrew Book of Changes: Reflections on HAKKŌL HEBEL and LAKKŌL ZEMĀN in Ecclesiastes.” JSOT 90 (2000) 79–99. _____ . “Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes.” Pp. 306–16 in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson. Edited by M. D. Carroll R., D. J. A. Clines, and P. R. Davies. JSOTSup 200. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Jaspers, K. Way to Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1954. Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Repr., New York: Judaica, 1996. [original, 1903] Jerome, St. Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Unpublished work, translated by R. M. Lane, 2000. _____ . S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Commentarius in Ecclesiasten. Edited by M. Adriaen. CCSL 72. Brepols: Turnholt, 1959.

Works Cited

475

_____ . St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works. Translated by W. H. Fremantle. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 6. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954. Jones, A. “The Relative Clause in Ancient Hebrew Texts: A Quantitative and Comparative Analysis.” Unpublished manuscript, 2010. Jong, S. de. “A Book on Labour: The Structuring Principles and the Main Theme of the Book of Qohelet.” JSOT 54 (1992) 107–16. Joosten, J. “The Syntax of Volitive Verb Forms in Qoheleth in Historical Perspective.” Pp. 47–61 in The Language of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by A. Berlejung and P. van Hecke. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Jordan, J. Through New Eyes. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000. Joüon, P. Grammaire de L’Hebreu Biblique. Corrected 1965 ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1923. Joüon, P., and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rev. ed, SubBi 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006. Kaiser, O. “Qoheleth.” Pp. 83–93 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by J. Day, R. P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Kaiser, W. Ecclesiastes: Total Life. Chicago: Moody, 1979. Kallas, E. Ecclesiastes: Traditum et Fides Evangelica: The Ecclesiastes Commentaries of Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and Johannes Brenz Considered within the History of Interpretation. Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1979. _____ . “Melanchthon and ‘The Preacher’: A Theology of Life.” Concordia Journal 23 (1997) 295–308. Kamano, N. “Character and Cosmology: Rhetoric of Qoh 1,3–3,9.” Pp. 419–24 in Qoheleth in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998. Kass, L. R. The Hungry Soul: Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature. New York: Free Press, 1994. Kaufman, S. A. “The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period and Some Implications Thereof.” Pp. 41–57 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions: Hebrew and Aramaic Languages. Edited by M. Bar-Asher. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988. Kautzsch, E. Die Aramaismen im Alten Testament. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1902. _____ . Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd Eng. ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Kaye, A. S. “Comment.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 157 (2002) 117– 25. _____ . “Review of Gary A. Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew.” AJS Review 18 (1993) 105–8. Kelly, J. N. D. Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies. London: Duckworth, 1975. Kempis, T. A. The Imitation of Christ. Translation and introduction by L. Sherley-Price. London: Penguin, 1976.

476

Works Cited

Kidner, D. The Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1975. Kierkegaard, S. The Point of View for My Work As an Author: A Report to History. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962. Klassen, W. “Cocceius, Johannes.” P. 202 in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by J. H. Hayes. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. Kline, M. Images of the Spirit. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999. Knobel, P. S., ed. The Targum of Qohelet. The Aramaic Bible 15. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Koch, K. “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?” ZTK 52 (1955) 1–42. Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Koenen, K. “Zu den Epilogen des Buches Qohelet.” BN 72 (1994) 24–27. Koh, Y. V. Royal Autobiography in the Book of Qoheleth. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Kolatch, Y. Masters of the Word: Traditional Jewish Bible Commentary from the First through Tenth Centuries. Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2006. Koosed, J. L. (Per)mutations of Qohelet: Reading the Body in the Book. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 429. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006. _____ . “The Question of Qohelet’s Piety: Reading the Epilogue through This Body.” Pp. 183–96 in Autobiographical Biblical Criticism Criticism: Between Text and Self. Edited by I. R. Kitzberger. Leiden: Deo, 2002. Korpel, M. C. A. “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code.” Pp. 123–150 in Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose. Edited by J. C. de Moor and W. G. E. Watson. AOAT 42. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. _____ . “Fundamentals of Ugarit and Hebrew Poetry.” UF 18 (1986) 174–212. Reprinted pp. 1–61 in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry. Edited by W. van der Meer and J. C. de Moor. JSOTSup 74. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. _____ . “Introduction to the Series Pericope.” Pp. 1–50 in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship. Edited by M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch. Pericope 1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000. _____ . The Structure of the Book of Ruth. Pericope 2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001. Korpel, M. C. A., and J. C. de Moor. The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40–55. OTS 41. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Kraus, M. “Christians, Jews, and Pagans in Dialogue: Jerome on Ecclesiastes 12:1–7.” HUCA 70–71 (1999–2000) 183–231. Kreeft, P. Three Philosophies of Life. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989. Kroch, A. “Reflexes of Grammar in Patterns of Language Change.” Language Variation and Change 1 (1989) 199–244. _____ . “Syntactic Change.” Pp. 699–729 in The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Edited by M. Baltin and C. Collins. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001. Krüger, T. “‘Frau Weisheit’ in Koh 7:26.” Bib 73 (1992) 394–403. _____ . Kohelet (Prediger). BKAT 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. _____ . Qoheleth: A Commentary. CC. Translated by O. C. Dean, Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.

Works Cited

477

Küchler, M. Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens. OBO 26. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Kugel, J. Early Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. _____ . The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981. Repr., Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. _____ . In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990. _____ . “Qohelet and Money.” CBQ 51 (1989) 32–49. _____ . “Some Medieval and Renaissance Hebrew Writings on the Poetry of the Bible.” Pp. 57–81 in vol. 1 of Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature. 3 vols. Edited by I. Twersky. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. _____ . “Wisdom and the Anthological Temper.” Prooftexts 17 (1997) 9–32. Küng, H. The Religious Situation of Our Time. London: SCM, 1992. Kutscher, E. Y. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill, 1982. Lachoower, F., and I. Tishby, eds. The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts. Translated by D. Goldstein. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. The Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. LaSor, W. S. An Approach to Hebrew Poetry through the Masoretic Accents.” Pp. 327–53 in Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University (1909–1979). Edited by A. I. Katsh and L. Nemoy. Philadelphia: Dropsie University Press, 1979. Lauha, A. Kohelet. BKAT 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Lavoie, J. J. “Habel habalim hakol habel: Historie de l’interprétation d’une formule celebre et enjeux culturels.” Science et Esprit 53 (2006) 219–49. Leiman, S. Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. Hamden, CT: Archon, 1976. Leithart, P. J. 1 & 2 Kings. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2006. _____ . Solomon among the Postmoderns. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2008. Lemaire, A., and A. Yardeni. “New Hebrew Ostraca from the Shephelah.” Pp. 197–245 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Edited by S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1952. Levine, E. The Aramaic Version of Qohelet. New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1978. Lewis, B. The Sargon Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero Who Was Exposed At Birth. ASORDS 4. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980. Lewis, J. P. “Jamnia Revisited.” Pp. 146–62 in The Canon Debate. Edited by L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Ley, J. Leitfaden der Metrik der hebräischen Poesie. Halle: Waisenhauses, 1887. Lightfoot, D. W. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

478

Works Cited

Linafelt, T., and F. W. Dobbs. “Poetic Line Structure in Qoheleth 3:1.” VT 60 (2010) 249–59. Loader, J. A. Ecclesiastes: A Practical Commentary, Text and Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Lohfink, N. Qoheleth: A Commentary. CC. Translated by O. C. Dean Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. _____ . “Qoheleth 5:17–19: Revelation by Joy.” CBQ 52 (1990) 625–35. _____ . “War Kohelet ein Frauenfeind? Ein Versuch, die Logik und den Gegenstand von Koh 7,23–8, la herauszufinden.” Pp. 259–87 in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament. Edited by M. Gilbert. Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1979. Long, A. A., and D. Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Longman, T., III. The Book of Ecclesiastes. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. _____ . Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. _____ . Job. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012. _____ . “Proverbs.” Pp. 464–503 in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. Edited by J. H. Walton. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. _____ . “Review of C.-L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary.” Bib 80 (1999) 420–24. Longman, T., III, and R. Dillard. Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006. Loretz, O. Qohelet und der alte Orient: Untersuchungen zu Stil und theologischer Thematik des Buches Qohelet. Freiburg: Herder, 1964. Lowth, R. De sacra poesi Hebraeorum: Praelectiones academicae Oxonii habitae, subjicitur Metricae Harianae brevis confutatio et oratio Crewiana De sacra poesi Hebraeorum: praelectiones academicae Oxonii habitae, subjicitur Metricae Harianae brevis confutatio et oratio Crewiana. Oxford: Clarendon, 1753. Reprinted with introduction by D. Reibel, ed., in Robert Lowth [1710–1787]: The Major Works. London: Routledge/ Theommes, 1995. _____ . Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. Translated by G. Gregory. 4th ed. London: Thomas Kegg, 1839. Reprinted in Robert Lowth [1710–1787]: The Major Works. Edited by D. Reibel. London: Routledge/Thoemmes, 1995.

_____ . Isaiah: A New Translation with a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes. London: Dodsley, 1778. Reprinted in Robert Lowth [1710–1787]: The Major Works. Edited by D. Reibel. London: Routledge/Thoemmes, 1995.

Lubac, H. de. Exégèse médiévale: Les Quatre sens de l’écriture. Paris: Aubier, 1960. Luther, M. Ecclesiastes Solomonis, cum Annotationibus Doc. Mart Luth. Vuittembergae, 1532. _____ . Luther’s Works, vol. 15: Notes on Ecclesiastes, Lectures on the Song of Solomon, Treatise on the Last Words of David. Edited by J. Pelikan and H. C. Oswald. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1972. _____ . Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe. 120 vols. Weimar, 1883–2009. Macdonald, D. B. The Hebrew Philosophical Genius. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1936. Marcus, J. “Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology.” JBL 103 (1984) 557–74.

Works Cited

479

Marcus, P. “The Wisdom of Ecclesiastes and Its Meaning for Psychoanalysis.” Psychoanalytic Review 87 (2000) 227–50. Matsuda, T. “Death and Transience in the Vernon Refrain Series.” English Studies 70 (1989) 193–205. Maurer, W. “Der Kursächsische Salomo: Zu Luthers Vorlesungen über Kohelet (1526) und über das Hohelied (1530/31).” Pp. 99–116 in Antwort aus der Geschichte. Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum geschichtlichen Bild der Kirche. Walter Dress zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by W. Sommer. Berlin: Christlicher Zeitschriftenverlag, 1969. May, H. G. “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbim, ‘Many Waters.’” JBL 74 (1955) 9–21. McDonald, L. M. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. McFall, L. The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System. Sheffield: Almond, 1982. McKeown, J. Genesis. The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to Ecclesiastes with Notes and Appendices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904. Meade, D. G. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. Meek, T. J. “Translating the Hebrew Bible.” JBL 79 (1960) 328–35. Melanchthon, P. Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae Supersunt Omnia, vol. 14: Enarratio brevis concionum libri Salomonis cuius titulus est Ecclesiastes. Edited by C. G. Bretschneider. Halle: Schwetschke, 1847. Mendenhall, G. E. “The Shady Side of Wisdom: The Date and Purpose of Genesis 3.” Pp. 319–34 in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers. Edited by R. D. Heim, H. N. Bream, and C. A. Moore. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. Meyers, J. Ecclesiastes through New Eyes: A Table in the Mist. Monroe, LA: Athanasius, 2007. Michaelis, J. D., ed. De sacra poesi Hebraeorum . . . notas et epimetra adjecit Ioannes David Michaelis. Göttingen: Pockwiz u. Barmeier, 1758–61. Michel, D. Qohelet. EdF 258. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988. _____ . Untersuchungen zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Milbank, J. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell, 2006. Miller, C. L. The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis. HSM 55. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003. Miller, D. B. “Qohelet’s Symbolic Use of ‫הבל‬.” JBL 117 (1998) 437–54. _____ . Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes: The Place of Hebel in Qohelet’s Work. Academia Biblica 2. Leiden: Brill / Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Miller, G. D. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 9 (2011) 283–309. Mills, M. E. Reading Ecclesiastes: A Literary and Cultural Exegesis. Burlington: Ashgate, 2003.

480

Works Cited

Misch, G. A History of Autobiography in Antiquity, vol. 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950. Momigliano, A. The Development of Greek Biography. Expanded ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993. Monti, D. Bonaventure’s Interpretation of Scripture in His Exegetical Works. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1979. Moor, J. C. de. “The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel, I: The Rhythmical Structure.” Pp. 119–39 in Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Y. Avishur and J. Blau. Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1978. Morag, S. “Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations.” VT 38 (1988) 148–63. Muilenburg, J. “A Qoheleth Scroll from Qumran.” BASOR 135 (1954) 20–27. Murphy, R. E. Ecclesiastes. WBC 23A. Dallas: Word, 1992. _____ . “Qohelet Interpreted: The Bearing of the Past on the Present.” VT 32 (1982) 331– 37. _____ . Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. FOTL 13. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981. _____ . “Wisdom: Theses and Hypotheses.” Pp. 35–42 in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien. Edited by J. G. Gammie. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978. Najman, H. “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation in 4 Ezra.” Pp. 529–36 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by A. Hilhorst et al. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Naudé, J. “The Transitions of Biblical Hebrew in the Perspective of Language Change and Diffusion.” Pp. 189–214 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Edited by I. Young. London: T. & T. Clark, 2003. Nehur, A. Notes sur Qohelet. Paris: Minuit, 1951. Noegel, S. B. “‘Word Play’ in Qoheleth.” JHS 7 (2007) article 4. http://www.jhsonline.org. Noonan, B. “Wisdom Literature among the Witchmongers.” Pp. 169–74 in Wisdom and Psalms: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series). Edited by A. Brenner and C. Fontaine. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Nordheim, E. von. Die Lehre der Alten: Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum Hellenistisch-Romischen Zeit. ALGHJ 13. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Noth, M. “Die Bewährung Voc Salomos ‘Göttlicher Weisheit’.” Pp. 225–37 in Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by M. Noth and D. W. Thomas. VTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. O’Connor, M. P. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. _____ . “Parallelism.” Pp. 877–79 in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by A. Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. O’Dowd, R. “A Chord of Three Strands: Epistemology in Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.” Pp. 65–87 in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God. Edited by M. Healy and R. Parry. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007.

Works Cited

481

Oesch, J. M. Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen su einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testaments. OBO 27. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1979. Ogden, G. S. “Qoheleth 11:7–12:8: Qoheleth’s Summons to Enjoyment and Reflection.” VT 34 (1984) 27–38. _____ . Qoheleth. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. _____ . Qoheleth. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. 2nd ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007. _____ . “Qoheleth’s Use of the ‘Nothing Is Better’-Form.” JBL 98 3 (1979) 339–50. _____ . “Vanity It Certainly Is Not.” The Bible Translator 38 (1987) 301–7. Ólafsson, S. “On Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew and Its Graphic Representation.” FO 28 (1991) 193–205. Pahk, J. Y. S. “A Syntactical and Contextual Consideration of ʿšh in Qoh. ix 9.” VT 51 (2001) 370–80. Pardee, D. “Ugaritic and Hebrew Metrics.” Pp. 113–30 in Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic. Edited by G. D. Young. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. _____ . Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (ʿnt I and Proverbs 2). VTSup 39. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Parker, K. I. “Solomon as Philosopher King? The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kings 1–11.” JSOT 53 (1992) 75–91. Patrick, Bishop of Dublin. The Writings of Bishop Patrick, 1074–1084. Edited by A. Gwynn. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1955. Penna, A. Principi e crattere dell’exegesi di San Gerolamo. Rome: Pontifcal Biblical Institute, 1950. Perdue, L. G. The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. _____ . Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. _____ . Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Peres, I. Griechische Grabinschriften und neutestamentliche Eschatologie. WUNT 157. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Pérez Fernández, M. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Translated by J. Elwolde. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Perry, T. A. Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Phinney, D. N. “Life Writing in Ezekiel and First Zechariah.” Pp. 83–103 in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology. Edited by M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. London: T. & T. Clark, 2008. Pickstock, C. After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy. London: Blackwell, 1998. Pintzuk, S. “Variationist Approaches to Syntactic Change.” Pp. 509–28 in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Edited by B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda. London: Blackwell, 2003.

482

Works Cited

Podechard, E. L’Ecclésiaste. Paris: Lecoffre, 1912. Poole, M. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. 3 vols. Hendrickson, 1985. Pope, M. H. Song of Songs. AB 7C. New York: Doubleday, 1977. Preminger, A., and T. V. F. Brogan, eds. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. 3rd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. Pritchard, A. B., ed. ANET. 3rd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969. Provan, I. W. Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. _____ . 1 & 2 Kings. NIBCOT. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Provan, I. W., V. P. Long, and T. Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Qimron, E. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Raabe, P. R. Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24D. New York: Doubleday, 1996. Rad, G. von. Wisdom in Israel. Translated by J. D. Martin. London: SCM, 1972. Ranston, H. Ecclesiastes and the Early Greek Wisdom Literature. London: Epworth, 1925. Rashbam. The Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir Rashbam on Qoheleth. Edited and translated by S. Japhet and R. Salters. Jerusalem: Magnes /Leiden: Brill, 1985. Reinhart, T. “Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts.” Linguistics 22 (1984) 779–809. Rendsburg, G. A. “Aramaic-Like Features in the Pentateuch.” HS 47 (2006) 163–76. _____ . Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1990. _____ . “Hurvitz Redux: On the Continued Scholarly Inattention to a Simple Principle of Hebrew Philology.” Pp. 104–28 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Edited by I. Young. London: T. & T. Clark, 2003. _____ . “Israelian Hebrew in the Song of Songs.” Pp. 315–23 in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Edited by S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Magnes / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. _____ . “Kabbir in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for Style-Switching and Addressee-Switching in the Hebrew Bible.” JAOS 112 (1992) 649–51. _____ . “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign’ Factor in the Hebrew Bible.” Pp. 177–90 in Language and Culture in the Near East. Edited by S. Izre'el and R. Drory. IOS 15. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Faculty of Humanities, 1996. _____ . “Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew.” Pp. 65–88 in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Edited by W. R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Renz, T. Colometry and Accentuation in Hebrew Prophetic Poetry. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 4. Waltrop, Germany: Spenner, 2003. Revell, E. J. “Biblical Punctuation and Chant in the Second Temple Period.” JSJ 7 (1976) 181–98. _____ . “Five Theses on the Masoretic Accents Formulated by Paul Sanders for a Planned Discussion at the SBL Groningen Meeting 2004: A Response.” http://www​ .pericope.net. _____ . “The Oldest Evidence for the Hebrew Accent System.” BJRL 54 (1971–72) 214–22.

Works Cited

483

_____ . “Pausal Forms in Biblical Hebrew: Their Function, Origin, and Significance.” JSS 25 (1980) 165–79. Reynolds, E. The Works of Edward Reynolds, vol. 4: A Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1998 Rezetko, R. “Dating Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from Samuel–Kings and Chronicles.” Pp. 215–50 in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. Edited by I. Young. London: T. & T. Clark, 2003. Ricoeur, P. Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Edited by L. S. Mudge. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. _____ . Memory, History, Forgetting. Translated by K. Blamey and D. Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Robinson, H. W. Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1946. Robinson, J. “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Philosopher’s Prooenium.” Pp. 83–146 in vol. 3 of Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature. 3 vols. Edited by I. Twersky. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. Romano, T., trans. The Wanderer. 1998. http://www.aimsdata.com/tim/anhaga/edition.htm. Rosenberg, A. J. The Five Megilloth, vol. 2: Lamentations, Ecclesiastes. New York: Judaica, 1992. Rosin, R. Reformers, the Preacher, and Skepticism: Luter, Brenz, Melanchthon, and Ecclesiastes. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, Abteilung Abendländische Religionsgeschichte 171. Mainz: von Zabern, 1997. Rousseau, F. “Structure de Qohelet 1:4–11 et Plan du Livre.” VT 31 (1981) 200–217. Rubinstein, A. “A Finite Verb Continued by an Infintive Absolute in Hebrew.” VT 1 (1952) 362–67. Rudman, D. Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes. JSOTSup 316. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. _____ . “A Note on the Dating of Ecclesiastes.” CBQ 61 (1999) 47–52. Ryken, P. G. Ecclesiastes: Why Everything Matters. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010. Ryken, L. Wordly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986. Ryle, H. E. The Canon of the Old Testament: An Essay on the Gradual Growth and Formation of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1904. Sæbø, M. Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300), part 2: The Middle Ages. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Sailhammer, J. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009. Salters, R. B. “Qoheleth and the Canon.” ExpTim 86 (1974–75) 339–42. Salyer, G. D. Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes. JSOTSup 327. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Sandberg, R. N. Rabbinic Views of Qohelet. Mellen Biblical Press Series 57. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1999. Sanders, P. “Ancient Colon Delimitations: 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18.” Pp. 277–311 in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship. Edited by M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch. Pericope 1. Assen: van Gorcum, 2000.

484

Works Cited

_____ . “The Colometric Layout of Psalms 1 to 14 in the Aleppo Codex.” Pp. 226–57 in Studies in Scriptural Unit Division. Edited by M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch. Pericope 3. Assen: van Gorcum, 2002. _____ . “Pausal Forms and the Delimitation of Cola in Biblical Hebrew Poetry.” Pp. 264–78 in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature. Edited by M. C. A. Korpel and J. M. Oesch. Pericope 4. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003. Saperstein, M., ed. Jewish Preaching, 1200–1800: An Anthology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989. Sawyer, J. “The Ruined House in Ecclesiastes 12: A Reconstruction of the Original Parable.” JBL 94 (1975) 519–31. Schellenberg, A. Erkenntnis als Problem: Qohelet und die alttestamenliche Diskussion um das menschliche Erkennen. OBO 188. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Schmemann, A. For the Life of the World. New York: National Student Christian Federation, 1994. Schoors, A. The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part I: Grammar. OLA 41. Leuven: Peeters, 1992. _____ . The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part II: Vocabulary. OLA 143. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. _____ . “The Use of Vowel Letters in Qoheleth.” UF 20 (1989) 277–86. _____ . “The Verb Hāyâ in Qoheleth.” Pp. 229–38 in Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw. Edited by D. Penchansky and P. L. Redditt. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Schultz, R. “Intertextuality, Canon, and ‘Undecidability’: Understanding Isaiah’s ‘New Heavens and New Earth’ (Isaiah 65:17–25)” BBR 20 (2010) 19–38. _____ . The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. JSOTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. _____ . “A Sense of Timing: A Neglected Aspect of Qoheleth’s Wisdom.” Pp. 245–59 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients. Edited by R. L. Troxel et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Scott, R. B. Y. “Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel.” Pp. 262–79 in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Edited by J. L. Crenshaw. New York: Ktav, 1976. _____ . Proverbs Ecclesiastes. AB 18. New York: Doubleday, 1965. Segal, J. B. Aramaic Texts from North Saqqara. Texts from Excavations 6. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983. Segal, M. H. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927. Seow, C.-L. “Beyond Mortal Grasp: The Usage of hebel in Ecclesiastes.” ABR 48 (2000) 1–16. _____ . “‘Beyond Them, My Son, Be Warned’: The Epilogue of Qoheleth Revisited.” Pp. 125–41 in Wisdom, You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by M. L. Barré. CBQMS 29. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1997. _____ . Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18C. New York: Doubleday, 1997. _____ . “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qoheleth.” JBL 115 (1996) 643–66. _____ . “Orthography, Textual Criticism, and the Poetry of Job.” JBL 130 (2011) 63–85.

Works Cited

485

_____ . “Qohelet’s Autobiography.” Pp. 275–87 in Fortunate the Eyes That See. Edited by A. Beck. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. _____ . “Qohelet’s Eschatological Poem.” JBL 118 (1999) 209–34. _____ . “The Social World of Ecclesiastes.” Pp. 189–217 in Scribes, Sages, and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World. Edited by L. G. Perdue. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Sextus, Empiricus. Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Translated by R. G. Bury. LCL 273. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933. Seybold, K. “Hebel.” P. 315 in vol. 3 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. _____ . Poetik der Psalmen. Poetologische Studien zum Alten Testament 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003. Shank, H. C. “Qoheleth and His World and Life View as Seen in His Recurring Phrases.” WJT 37 (1974) 57–73. Sharp, C. J. “Ironic Representation, Authorial Voice, and Meaning in Qoheleth.” BibInt 12 (2004) 37–68. Shead, A. G. “Ecclesiastes from the Outside In.” RTR 55 1 (1996) 24–37. _____ . “Reading Ecclesiastes ‘Epilogically’.” TynBul 48 (1997) 67–91. Shepherd, J. “Ecclesiastes.” Pp. 253–365 in vol. 6 of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition. Edited by T. Longman and D. E. Garland. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Sheppard, G. T. “The Epilogue to Qohelet as Theological Commentary.” CBQ 39 (1977) 182–89. _____ . Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientalizing of the Old Testament. BZAW 151. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Shields, M. A. The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. _____ . “Re-examining the Warning of Eccl XII 12.” VT 50 (2000) 123–27. Shlesinger, Y. “‫‘ ’אׁשר ‘ בספר קהלת‬-‫תפוצת כינויי ’ׁש‬.” Pp. 91–109 in ‫מחקרים בלשׁון העברית‬ ‫העתיקה והחדשׁה מוגשׁים למנחם צבי קדרי‬‎. Edited by S. Sharvit. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1999. Shulman, A. The Use of Modal Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose. Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1996. Siegfried, C. Prediger und Hoheslied. HKAT 2/3/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898. Sievers, E. Metrische Studien I: Studien zur hebräischen Metrik. Untersuchungen. Textproben. ASAW 21/1–2. Leipzig: Teubner, 1901. Sittser, J. A Grace Disguised: How the Soul Grows through Loss. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004. Sitwell, G. “A Fourteenth-Century English Poem on Ecclesiastes.” Dominican Studies 3 (1950) 285–90. Smalley, B. “Some Thirteenth-Century Commentaries on the Sapiential Books. Part 1.” Dominican Studies 2 (1949) 318–55. _____ . Some Thirteenth-Century Commentaries on the Sapiential Books. Part 2.” Dominican Studies 3 (1950) 41–77, 236–74.

486

Works Cited

_____ . The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1952. Smith, C. S. “The Pragmatics and Semantics of Temporal Meaning.” Pp. 92–106 in Proceedings, Texas Linguistic Forum 2004. Edited by P. Denis et al. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, 2006. Smith, H. The Sermons of Master Henrie Smith, Gathered into One Volume. London: Thomas Irwin, 1592. Sneed, M. “(Dis)closure in Qohelet: Qohelet Deconstructed.” JSOT 27 (2002)115–26. Soden, W. von. The Ancient Orient: An Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Near East. Translated by D. G. Schley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994. Sokoloff, M. Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 3. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. _____ . A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns / Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Sparks, K. L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Spears, A. D. The Theological Hermeneutics of Homiletical Application and Ecclesiastes 7:23– 29. Ph.D. diss., University of Liverpool, 2006. Sprenger, J., and H. Institoris. Malleus Maleficarum. Edited and translated by M. Summers. Suffolk: John Rodker, 1928. Spurgeon, C. H. Commenting and Commentaries. Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2008. Spykman, G. J. Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992. Staples, W. E. “The ‘Vanity’ of Ecclesiastes.” JNES 2 (1943) 95–104. Stassen, L. Intransitive Predication. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Stegmüller, F. Repertorium biblicum medii aevi. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1977. Steiner, G. Nostalgia for the Absolute. Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1974. Steinitz, W. Ostjakologische Arbeiten. Edited by G. Sauer and R. Steinitz. 4 vols. Janua linguarum Series practica. The Hague: Mouton, 1975–89. _____ . Der Parallelismus in der finnisch-karelischen Volksdichtung. Folklore Fellows Communication 115. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1934. Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. The Indiana Literary Biblical Series. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987. Stuart, D. K. Studies in Early Hebrew Meter. HSM 13. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Sturrock, J. The Language of Autobiography: Studies in the First Person Singular. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Sundberg, A. C., Jr. “‘The Old Testament’: A Christian Canon.” CBQ 30 (1968) 143–55. Svavarsson, S. H. “Pyrrho’s Undecidable Nature.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 27 (2004) 249–95. Tamas, R. The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our Worldview. New York: Ballantine, 1991.

Works Cited

487

Tamez, E. When the Horizons Close: Rereading Ecclesiastes. New York: Orbis, 2000. Tcherikover, V. A., ed. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957–64. Telushkin, J. Jewish Literacy. New York: Morrow, 1991. Thaumaturgos, G. In Ecclesiastem Solomonis Metaphrasis Divi Gregorii Neocaesariensis Episcopi, interprete Oecolampadio. Augsburg: In officina Sigismundi Grimm medici, ac Marci Vuirsung, 1520. Thiselton, A. C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. Thomas, D. “On Poetry.” Pp. 192–93 in Quite Early One Morning. New York: New Directions, 1954. Thomason, S. G. “Contact as a Source of Language Change.” Pp. 687–712 in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Edited by B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. Tilley, C. “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.” Pp. 169–91 in Bringing the State Back In. Edited by P. Evans et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Torrey, C. C. “The Question of the Original Language of Qoheleth.” JQR 39 (1948–49) 151–60. Toussaint-Samat, M. A History of Food. Translated by A. Bell. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley / Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009. Tov, E. “Special Layout of Poetical Units in the Texts from the Judean Desert.” Pp. 115–28 in Give Ear to My Words: Psalms and Other Poetry in and around the Bible—Essays in Honour of Professor N. A. van Uchelen. Edited by J. Dyk. Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1996. Trapp, J. Commentarie upon the Books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. London: Bellamie, 1650. Tropper, J. “Hebräisch zhr, ‘kundtun, warnen’.” ZAH 8 (1995) 144–48. U.S. Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: First Image, 1995. Vance, D. R. The Question of Meter in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Studies in Bible and Early Christianity 46. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2001. VanderKam, J. “BHL in Psalm 2:5 and Its Etymology.” CBQ 39 (1977) 245–50. Vanhoozer, K. J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. _____ . Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. Van Leeuwen, R. C. Context and Meaning in Proverbs 25–27. SBLDS. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. _____ . “Liminality and Worldview in Proverbs 1–9.” Semeia 50 (1990) 111–44. _____ . “Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction in Proverbs.” HS 33 (1992) 25–36. _____ . “Wisdom Literature.” Pp. 847–50 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by K. J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005. Vattimo, G. Belief. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996. Verene, D. P. The History of Philosophy: A Reader’s Guide. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2008. Verheijj, A. “Paradise Retried: On Qohelet 2:4–6.” JSOT 50 (1991) 113–15.

488

Works Cited

Viviano, P. “The Book of Ecclesiastes: A Literary Approach.” TBT 22 (1984) 79–84. Vorster, W. S. “Intertextuality and Redaktionsgeschicte.” Pp. 15–26 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas von Iersel. Edited by S. Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989. Wagner, M. Die Lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttestamentliche Hebräisch. BZAW 96. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1966. Waltke, B. K. The Book of Proverbs. 2 vols. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004–5. Waltke, B. K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Walton, T. L. Experimenting with Qohelet: A Text-Linguistic Approach to Reading Qohelet as Discourse. Ph.D. diss., Free University, 2006. Published in Amsterdamse cahiers voor exegese van de Bijbel en zijn tradities Supplement Series 5 Maastricht: Shaker, 2006. Watson, W. G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. 2nd ed. JSOTSup 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1986. Repr. with corrections and supplementary bibliography, London: T. & T. Clark, 2005. Webb, B. G. Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Weil, S. Gravity and Grace. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1952. Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historichen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 3rd ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1899. White, G. “Luther on Ecclesiastes and the Limits of Human Ability.” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 29 (1987) 180–94. Whitley, C. F. Koheleth: His Language and Thought. BZAW 148. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979. Whybray, R. N. Ecclesiastes. NCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989. _____ . The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974. _____ . Proverbs. NCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994. _____ . “Qoheleth as a Theologian.” Pp. 239–66 in Qoheleth in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by A. Schoors. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998. _____ . “Qoheleth, Preacher of Joy.” JSOT 23 (1982) 87–98. _____ . Wisdom in Proverbs: The Concept of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9. SBT 45. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1965. Wildberger, H. Jesaja, vol. 1: Jesaja 1–12. 2nd ed. BKAT 10/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu­ kirchener Verlag, 1980. _____ . Jesaja, vol. 2: Jesaja 13–27. BKAT 10/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. _____ . Jesaja, vol. 3: Jesaja 28–39. BKAT 10/3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Wilson, G. H. “‘The Words of the Wise’: The Intent and Significance of Qohelet 12:9–14.” JBL 103 (1984) 175–92. Wise, M. O. “A Calque from Aramaic in Qoheleth 6:12; 7:12; and 8:13.” JBL 109 (1990) 249–57. Witherington, B., III. Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994.

Works Cited

489

Wolde, E. van. “Trendy Intertextuality?” Pp. 43–49 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas von Iersel. Edited by S. Draisma. Kampen: Kok, 1989. Wölfel, E. Luther und die Skepsis: Eine Studie zur Kohelet-Exegese. Forschungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Protestantismus 10. Reihe, 12. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958. Wolters, A. M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. _____ . The Song of the Valiant Woman: Studies in the Interpretation of Proverbs 31:10–31. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2001. Wolterstorff N. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim That God Speaks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Wright, A. G. “Additional Numerical Patterns in Qoheleth.” CBQ 45 (1983) 32–43. _____ . “Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth.” CBQ 30 (1968) 313–34. _____ . “The Riddle of the Sphinx Revisited: Numerical Patterns in the Book of Qoheleth.” CBQ 42 (1980) 38–51. Wright, J. R., ed. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. ACCS 9. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. Wright, J. S. “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes.” EvQ 18 (1946) 18–34. Wright, W. J. Martin Luther’s Understanding of the Two Kingdoms: A Response to the Challenge of Skepticism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010. Yadin, Y., et al. The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2002. Yardeni, A. ‫ עבריות ונבטיות ממדבר יהודה וחומר קרוב‬,‫אוסף תעוֵדות ארמיות‬‎. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University/Ben-Zion Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, 2000. Yerushalmi, Y. H. Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996. Young, I. “Biblical Texts Cannot Be Dated Linguistically.” HS 46 (2005) 341–51. _____ . Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew. Tübingen: Mohr, 1993. _____ . “The ‘Northernisms’ of the Israelite Narratives in Kings.” ZAH 8 (1995) 63–70. Young, I., R. Rezetko, and M. Ehrensvärd. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 vols. London: Equinox, 2008. Zhirmunsky, V. M. Introduction to Metrics: The Theory of Verse. Translated and edited by C. E. Brown. Introduction by E. Stankiewicz and W. N. Vickery. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. _____ . Selected Writing: Linguistics, Poetics. Moscow: Progress, 1985. Zimmerli, W. Das Buch des Predigers Salomo. ATD 16/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. Zimmermann, F. “The Aramaic Provenance of Qohelet.” JQR 36 (1945–46) 17–45. _____ . Biblical Books Translated from the Aramaic. New York: Ktav, 1975. _____ . The Inner World of Qohelet. New York: Ktav, 1973 _____ . “The Question of Hebrew in Qoheleth.” JQR 40 (1949–50) 79–102. Zlotowitz, M. Koheles: Ecclesiastes/A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources. 2nd ed. Artscroll Tanach Series. New York: Mesorah, 1994.

Index of Authors Abegg, M.  335 Abraham, W. J.  367, 368 ʿAli, Y. b.  12, 13, 29 Allen, L. C.  181 Alonso Schökel, L.  180 Alter, R.  254, 269, 270, 380 Andersen, F. I.  296 Anderson, H.  382 Anderson, W. H. U.  254 Antic, R.  245, 255 Aranda, M. G.  50, 51, 52, 53 Arcesilaus  105, 106 Aristotle  15, 72, 150, 163 Augustine  5, 26, 31, 33, 201, 243, 370, 371, 382, 393, 444 Aune, D. E.  392 Aurogallus  58 Avigad, N.  284 Bachmann, M. G.  456 Backus, I.  55 Bailey, C.-J. N.  296, 297 Baines, J.  124 Baltzer, K.  453, 454, 455 Barr, J.  272 Bartelt, A. H.  175, 176 Bartholomew, C.  73, 74, 95, 125, 126, 127, 138, 139, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 201, 202, 203, 204, 209, 216, 221, 222, 231, 233, 238, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 255, 258, 259, 260, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 367, 368, 370, 374, 375, 377, 379, 380, 393, 396, 398, 399, 446, 454 Barton, G. A.  127, 128, 139, 146, 228, 239 Bayer, O.  61 Beal, R.  20

491

Beckwith, R.  23, 388, 389, 390, 392, 394 Beeke, J. R.  69, 70, 71, 72 Beentjes, P.  128, 284, 360 Begbie, J.  445 Beldman, D.  258, 368 Bendavid, A.  286 Bergsträsser, G.  285 Berlin, A.  178, 179 Berndt, R.  55 Beza, T.  55, 67, 69 Bhabha, H. K.  104 Bickell, G.  139 Biéler, A.  195, 211, 214, 217 Blenkinsopp, J.  253, 260 Boda, M.  152, 270, 273 Bonaventure  13, 15, 16, 20, 24, 32, 33, 243 Bonhoeffer, D.  372, 376 Borrhaus, M.  55 Braun, R.  99, 125 Brecht, M.  64, 65 Brenz, J.  55, 56, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 375 Breton, S.  143 Brockelmann, C.  285 Brock, S.  167 Brook, B.  70, 71, 72 Brown, C.  19 Brown, S. G.  140 Brown, W. P.  19, 102, 145, 157, 446 Broyde, M. J.  22, 38, 390 Brueggemann, W.  252, 398 Bruns, J. E.  381 Bryennios  392 Bucer, M.  55, 69 Bullinger, H.  55, 69 Burkes, S.  94, 97, 99 Burkitt, F. C.  28, 345 Burkitt, J.  345 Bury, R. G.  106

492

Index of Authors

Butler, J.  445 Bybee, J. L.  310, 312, 313, 342 Calvin, J.  55, 69, 79, 84, 211, 214, 217 Cameron, E.  3, 5 Campbell, L.  293 Caneday, A. B.  143, 144, 278 Capito, W.  55 Carasik, M.  149, 447 Carneades  105, 106 Carson, D. A.  272 Castellino, G.  140 Cavanaugh, W. T.  444 Charlesworth, J. H.  108 Chaucer, G.  20 Childs, B.  131, 153, 260, 262, 267, 369, 397 Chopineau, J.  245 Christianson, E. S.  4, 22, 23, 24, 42, 44, 45, 50, 63, 78, 119, 128, 131, 132, 134, 135, 138, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 157, 159, 198, 199, 204, 208, 209, 243, 258, 261, 393 Chrysostom, J.  26, 27, 31, 243 Cicero  8, 106, 370 Clemens, D. M.  399 Cloete, W. T. W.  181 Cocceius, J.  69, 70 Coffey, J.  69 Collins, J. J.  186 Cook, J. A.  93, 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 315, 319, 321, 323, 325, 329, 331, 333, 335, 336, 341 Cooper, J. M.  106 Cotter, D. W.  252 Cotton, H. M.  285 Cotton, J.  70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85 Coxe, A. C.  5 Crenshaw, J. L.  123, 131, 142, 143, 155, 157, 197, 200, 202, 215, 228, 229, 231, 239, 247, 250, 251, 262, 267, 276, 277, 314, 318, 330, 370, 402 Cross, F. M., Jr.  175 Crüsemann, F.  28 Crystal, D.  288, 352, 362

Culley, R. C.  175 Dahl, Ö.  310, 313 Dahood, M.  459 Danby, H.  389 Dante  20 Davidson, R.  458, 459 Davila, J. R.  286, 288, 290 Davis, E. F.  211, 447, 452 DeCaen, V.  163, 169, 176 De Lacy, P.  17, 18 Delitzsch, F.  93, 139, 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 337, 342, 345, 342 Dell, K. J.  40, 41, 44, 146, 273 Derrida, J.  385, 443, 444, 450, 451 Desvoeux, A. V.  170 Devine, J. M.  28 Didymus the Blind  5, 6, 73 Diego Sánchez, M.  6 Dillard, R. B.  90, 94, 446 Dionysius of Alexandria  5, 45, 393 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.  186, 187, 188, 284, 333 Dohmen, C.  261, 273 Domeris, W. R.  96 Dor-Shav, E.  53, 245, 249, 439 Douglas, M.  451 Driver, G. R.  359 Driver, S. R.  286, 345, 346 Dugard, T.  73 Dunbar, W.  35, 36 Eagleton, T.  448, 449 Eakin, P. J.  371 Eaton, M.  75, 274 Edwards, J.  371 Ehrensvärd, M.  288, 290, 297, 298, 343, 346, 351, 353 Ehrhart, M. J.  14 Eleazar, R.  24, 389 Eliason, E.  8, 9, 13, 14, 20, 27, 30, 31, 33 Ellermeier, F.  138, 139 Ellis, R.  255 Ellul, J.  143, 144, 202, 203, 216, 253 Enns, P.  400 Epstein, I.  10

Index of Authors Erasmus  56 Estes, D. J.  91, 221, 223, 228, 229, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 242, 421, 438, 439 Ettlinger, G. H.  31, 243 Evans, C. S.  386 Ewald, H.  170, 171, 172, 175 Faber, R.  56 Farmer, K.  157, 243, 275, 439 Feeley-Harnik, G.  211, 213 Ferguson, C. A.  286, 287 Fernández, M. P.  285, 333, 336, 340 Fischer, A.  127, 260 Fisch, H.  147, 199 Fishbane, M.  245, 246, 249 Flesher, P. V. M.  11, 13 Fohrer, G.  138 Fokkelman, J. P.  175, 176 Foley, E.  382 Fontaine, C.  21, 157, 220, 223, 230, 232, 454 Fontenrose, J. E.  110 Forbes, A. D.  296 Ford, D. F.  382 Forman, C. C.  202, 453 Foucault, M.  445 Fox, M. V.  11, 12, 22, 28, 32, 40, 41, 53, 120, 124, 127, 131, 138, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 155, 158, 166, 171, 172, 185, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 215, 216, 229, 231, 233, 234, 238, 239, 244, 245, 254, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 276, 277, 293, 294, 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 314, 315, 318, 326, 328, 329, 332, 340, 352, 370, 378, 379, 437, 446 Frank, D.  12 Fredericks, D. C.  91, 94, 221, 223, 228, 229, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 242, 246, 254, 255, 259, 261, 299, 314, 319, 340, 346, 348, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 359, 404, 421, 438, 439, 445 Freedman, D. N.  175, 176

493

Freedman, H.  11 Freud, S.  445 Frey, J.-B.  111 Froelich  17 Frydrych, T.  221, 226, 437 Frymer-Kensky, T.  453 Gadamer, H. G.  385, 386 Galling, K.  138, 147, 261 Gammie, J.  99, 253 García Martínez, F.  4 Garrett, D. A.  69, 70, 91, 445, 452, 453, 454 Garr, W. R.  95 Gemser  128 Gentry, P. J.  316 Gese, H.  260, 278 Gesenius, W.  328 Gibbon, E.  34 Ginsberg, H. L.  94, 138, 345 Ginsburg, C. D.  5, 8, 12, 33, 34, 228, 305 Ginzberg, L.  24, 25, 135 Gladson, J. A.  376 Gnanaraj, D.  73 Goheen, M. W.  148 Goldman, Y. A. P.  186 Good, E. M.  437 Gordis, R.  94, 127, 128, 146, 171, 172, 209, 223, 260, 262, 318, 345 Gordon, C. H.  286 Gordon, E.  289 Grassi, E.  163 Gray, G. B.  178 Gregory of Agrigentum  31, 243 Gregory of Nyssa  6, 26, 27, 29 Gregory Thaumaturgos  5, 6, 9, 26, 56, 73, 91 Gregory the Great (Pope)  8, 9, 10, 16, 275 Greidanus, S.  x, 418, 419 Griswold, C.  191 Groot, A. W. de  181 Gropp, D. M.  95, 348, 349 ha-Kohen, E.  34 Hale, M.  295, 296 Halivni, D. W.  46

494

Index of Authors

Hallo, W. W.  118 Halperin, D.  22, 23 Hankinson, R. J.  103 Harley, T.  70 Harris, A. C.  293 Hartley, J. F.  96 Hartman, C. O.  181 Haspelmath, M.  312 Hatton, P. T. H.  376 Hayward, M.  117 Heidegger, M.  444 Heim, K. M.  138 Heine, B.  352 Helsel, P. B.  147 Henry, M.  69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 Henten, J. W. van  110 Herman, D.  290 Hertzberg, H.  128, 245, 380 Hirshman, M.  4, 7, 8, 27, 33, 37, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 390, 393 Hobbins, J. F.  178, 181, 244 Holladay, J. S., Jr.  111 Holladay, W. L.  177 Holmes, J.  15, 16 Holm-Nielsen, S.  14, 22, 24, 387, 388 Holmstedt, R.  93, 196, 199, 227, 286, 290, 294, 295, 299, 300, 302, 303, 305, 311, 322, 330, 354, 356, 362 Holsinger, B.  445 Homer  45, 48, 110, 389 Hoop, R. de  168 Hopper, P. J.  312 Horace  8 Horbury, W.  110 Horst, P. van der  110, 112, 113 Howard, D. M., Jr.  176 Hubbard, D. A.  234, 381 Hudson, A.  287 Huehnergard, J.  285, 313 Hurvitz, A.  ix, 343, 345, 346, 347, 350, 351, 352, 356, 357, 358, 362 Ibn Ezra, A.  50, 51, 52, 53, 54 Ibn Tibbon, S. 15 Ignatius  5 Ingram, D.  146, 219, 231, 232, 439, 453

Innocent III (Pope)  35 Institoris, H.  21 Isaksson, B.  120, 135, 251, 283, 313, 314, 318, 319, 322, 323, 325, 328, 329 Iser, W.  148 Janowski, B.  253 Janzen, G.  450 Japhet, S.  14, 49 Jarick, J.  6, 7, 12, 26, 73, 74, 76, 91, 387, 393, 394, 450 Jaspers, K.  385 Jastrow, M.  165, 292, 307 Jerome  6, 7, 8, 13, 16, 23, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 57, 85, 242, 243, 375, 376, 391, 393 John of Damascus  31, 32 Johnson, M.  164 Jones, A.  298 Jong, S. de  369 Joosten, J.  339, 340, 342 Jordan, J.  451 Joüon, P.  286, 291, 301 Kaiser, O.  127, 258 Kaiser, W.  445 Kallas, E.  57, 64, 66, 67 Kamano, N.  132 Kant, I.  385, 386 Kass, L. R.  212, 213, 372 Kaufman, S.  289 Kautzsch, E.  328, 344 Kaye, A. S.  288 Kelly, J. N. D.  7, 8 Kidner, D.  265 Kierkegaard, S.  386 Klassen, W.  70 Kline, M.  451 Knobel, P. S.  12, 25 Koch, K.  253 Koenen, K.  273 Koh, Y. V.  91, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 128, 135, 402 Kolatch, Y.  49 Koosed, J. L.  132, 220, 223, 232, 274, 277, 453 Korpel, M. C. A.  168, 173, 174, 176, 183 Kraus, M.  7, 8

Index of Authors Kreeft, P.  75 Kroch, A.  296, 297 Kroeze, J. H.  301 Krüger, T.  140, 143, 156, 157, 158, 166, 171, 172, 203, 205, 210, 222, 223, 230, 232, 254, 261, 273, 275, 278, 279, 347, 348, 356, 381 Küchler, M.  108 Kugel, J.  15, 45, 46, 97, 191, 360 Küng, H.  12 Kuteva, T.  352 Kutscher, E. Y.  286, 351 Lacan, L.  445 Lachoower, F.  21 Lakoff, G.  164 LaSor, W. S.  168 Laue, L.  139 Lauha, A.  127, 143, 261, 263, 304 Lavoie, J. J.  242 Leiman, S. Z.  22, 23, 37, 38 Leithart, P.  254, 383, 384, 404, 443 Lemaire, A.  284 Leupold, H. C.  230 Levine, E.  44, 91, 135 Lewis, B.  122 Lewis, J. P.  391, 392 Ley, J.  175, 180 Lichtheim, M.  123, 124 Lightfoot, D. W.  296 Lim, P. C. H.  69 Linafelt, T.  187, 188 Loader, J. A.  225 Lohfink, N.  78, 139, 140, 143, 152, 153, 204, 208, 214, 221, 222, 227, 260, 262, 373, 377, 385, 459 Long, A. A.  103, 106 Long, V. P.  90 Longman, T., III  89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 98, 118, 119, 121, 122, 139, 145, 149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 202, 209, 215, 216, 227, 234, 237, 239, 242, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 269, 271, 273, 274, 276, 277, 293, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 349, 370, 402, 446 Loretz, O.  143, 314

495

Lowth, R.  137, 170, 178 Lubac, H. de  14 Luther, M.  31, 32, 34, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 84, 243, 375, 376, 392, 448 Macdonald, D. B.  439 Mann, P. de  377 Marcus, J.  200 Marcus, P.  147 Marx, K.  445 Matsuda, T.  18, 19, 20 Maurer, W.  62 May, H. G.  459 McDonald, L. M.  389 McFall, L.  316 McKenzie  157 McKeown, J.  253 McNeile, A. H.  139, 146 Meade, D. G.  127, 131, 132 Meek, R.  204 Meek, T. J.  439 Melanchthon, P.  55, 56, 58, 64, 66, 67, 69, 84, 375 Melito of Sardis  5 Mencken, H. L.  71 Mendenhall, G. E.  131 Merwe, C. H. J. van der  301 Meyer, J.  450 Meyer, R.  388 Michel, D.  146, 230, 303, 305, 306 Milbank, J.  443, 444 Miller, C. L.  319, 340 Miller, D. B.  28, 29, 135, 164, 166, 196, 244, 245, 254, 437, 449, 450 Miller, G. D.  246 Mills, M. E.  147 Misch, G.  119, 125 Möller, J.  67 Momigliano, A.  125 Monti, D.  16 Moor, J. C. de  168, 173, 174, 176 Morag, S.  316 Mroczek, E.  95 Mühlhausen, R. L.  33 Muilenburg, J.  388 Muraoka, T.  291, 301

496

Index of Authors

Murphy, R. E.  8, 117, 123, 127, 137, 138, 139, 157, 159, 160, 204, 222, 223, 233, 239, 261, 274, 293, 301, 303, 304, 306, 307, 317, 318, 337, 377, 378, 379 Najman, H.  363 Naudé, J. A.  295, 296, 301, 350, 357 Nehur, A.  245 Newbigin, L.  148 Nietzsche, F.  445 Noegel, S. B.  459 Noonan, B.  21, 22 Nordheim, E. von  108 Noth, M.  131 Noy, D.  110 O’Connor, M.  173, 177, 178, 183, 186, 191, 286, 291, 294, 301 O’Dowd, R. P.  202, 205, 370 Oecolampadius  55, 56, 57 Oesch, J. M.  167 Ogden, G.  138, 139, 152, 154, 160, 201, 209, 221, 230, 239, 244, 252, 261, 277, 377, 437 Ólafsson, S.  288 Origen  5, 6, 20, 26, 27, 30, 42, 73, 243, 392, 393 Pagliuca, W.  310, 312, 313, 342 Pahk, J. Y. S.  457 Palmer, F. R.  311 Pardee, D.  178, 191 Parker, K. I.  383 Patrick, B.  18 Pederson, R. J.  69, 70, 71, 72 Pemble, W.  69, 70 Penna, A.  8 Perdue, L.  97, 98, 99, 100, 123, 124, 125, 128, 132, 202, 377, 439 Peres, I.  109, 113, 114, 115 Perkins, R.  310, 312, 313, 342 Perry, T. A.  10, 134, 143, 144, 157, 263 Pfalz, P. von der  56 Phinney, D. N.  119 Pickstock, C.  444, 445 Pintzuk, S.  297

Plantinga, A.  386 Plato  125, 163, 191, 451 Podechard, E.  139, 146, 261 Polycarp  5 Poole, M.  69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83 Pope, M. H.  458 Provan, I.  90, 384, 401, 439, 455 Pseudo-Chrysostom  392 Pyrrho  103, 105 Qimron, E.  316 Raabe, P. R.  176 Rabin, C.  287 Rad, G. von  120, 396, 397, 398 Ramban  29 Ranston, H.  99 Rashbam  14, 15, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 Reinhart, T.  319 Rendsburg, G. A.  286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 346, 356, 359, 362 Renz, T.  168 Revell, E. J.  168, 169 Reynolds, E.  70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86 Rezetko, R.  288, 290, 297, 298, 343, 346, 351, 352, 353 Ricoeur, P.  206, 207, 385 Robinson, H. W.  103 Robinson, J.  15 Romano, T.  17, 18 Rörer, G.  58 Rosenberg, A. J.  12 Rosin, R.  55, 57, 58, 64, 66, 67 Rousseau, F.  140, 141, 142 Rubinstein, A.  322 Rudman, D.  95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 221, 230, 349, 350 Rundgren, F.  322, 323 Ryken, L.  71 Ryken, P. G.  x, 77, 419 Ryle, H. E.  391, 392 Sæbø, M.  3 Sailhammer, J.  246

Index of Authors Salters, R. B.  14, 22, 387 Salyer, G. D.  138, 143, 144, 147, 148, 152, 222, 233, 261, 270, 277, 279 Sandberg, R.  44, 230 Sanders, P.  168 Saperstein, M.  34 Sass, B.  284 Sawyer, J.  451 Schellenberg, A.  370 Schoors, A.  94, 135, 221, 230, 233, 293, 294, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 314, 315, 322, 328, 330, 339, 340, 347, 350, 354, 356, 357, 358, 378 Schultz, R.  246, 247, 439 Schwienhorst-Schöberger, L.  140, 143 Scott, R. B. Y.  131, 134 Sedley, D.  103, 106 Seeger, P.  149 Segal, J. B.  347 Segal, M. H.  285, 286, 287 Seow, C.-L.  94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 118, 120, 127, 132, 135, 139, 143, 151, 157, 195, 197, 198, 202, 203, 206, 216, 228, 230, 231, 233, 236, 243, 244, 247, 260, 262, 263, 265, 270, 273, 292, 293, 294, 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 317, 318, 325, 328, 330, 340, 347, 348, 349, 350, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 370, 397, 398, 437, 447, 454, 455 Sextus Empiricus  103, 106 Seybold, K.  192, 253 Shakespeare, W.  72 Shank, H. C.  399 Sharp, C. J.  258, 264 Shead, A. G.  258, 272, 275, 278 Shepherd, J.  91, 220, 221, 230 Sheppard, G. T.  153, 260, 273, 377, 396, 397 Shields, M. A.  119, 129, 132, 134, 145, 153, 221, 230, 237, 239, 261, 271, 272, 397, 398 Shlesinger, Y.  290, 294 Shulman, A.  339 Sibbes, R.  71 Siegfried, C.  139, 146 Sievers, E.  175, 180, 191

497

Silva, D. A. de  388 Sittser, J.  369 Sitwell, G.  19 Smalley, B.  13, 14, 16, 32 Smith, C. S.  313 Smith, H.  27 Smithers, G. V.  19 Sneed, M.  446, 452, 453 Soden, W. von  128 Sokoloff, M.  165 Sparks, K. L.  100, 124 Spears, A. D.  152, 157, 158, 159, 370 Sprenger, J.  21 Spurgeon, C. H.  70, 71, 72 Spykman, G. J.  374 Staples, W. E.  437 Stassen, L.  331 Stegmüller, F.  55 Steiner, G.  386 Sternberg, M.  148, 219 Stern, D.  5 Stuart, D. K.  175 Sturrock, J.  119 Sundberg, A. C.  391 Svavarsson, S. H.  104 Tamez, E.  28, 157 Tarnas, R.  372 Tcherikover, V. A.  111 Telushkin, J.  43 Theodore of Mopsuestia  6, 74, 393 Thiselton, A. C.  367 Thomas, à Kempis  35, 375 Thomas, D.  190 Thomason, S. G.  352 Tigchelaar, E. J. C.  4 Tilly, C.  444 Tishby, I.  21 Torrey, C. C.  94, 345 Toussaint-Samat, M.  211 Tov, E.  168 Trapp, J.  70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 Traugott, E. C.  312 Tropper, J.  272

498

Index of Authors

Vance, D. R.  191, 192 VanderKam, J. C.  351, 352 Vanhoozer, K. J.  246, 368 Van Leeuwen, R. C.  138, 376, 378, 379, 383 Vattimo, G.  385 Verene, D. P.  163 Verheij, A.  247 Virgil  8, 48 Viviano, P.  143, 144 Vorster, W. S.  246 Wagner, M.  345, 354 Waltke, B. K.  130, 264, 286, 291, 294, 301 Walton, T.  142, 143, 156, 157, 158, 258 Watson, W. G. E.  179 Webb, B. G.  380, 395, 439 Weeks, S. D.  143 Weil, S.  382 Wellhausen, J.  246 Whitaker, W.  69, 70 White, G.  68 Whitley, C. F.  93, 293, 301, 302, 306, 307, 439 Whybray, R. N.  22, 127, 132, 141, 146, 204, 209, 210, 229, 260, 264, 274, 275, 278, 384 Wildberger, H.  180

Williams, M.  289 Wilson, G.  153, 273, 397 Wise, M. O.  304, 305 Witherington, B., III  381 Wittgenstein, L. J. J.  144 Wolde, E. van  246 Wölfel, E.  57, 58, 64, 66, 68 Wolters, A.  63, 65, 66, 69, 70, 158, 375, 380 Wolterstorff, N.  367, 386 Wright, A. G.  138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 Wright, J. R.  5, 32, 33, 73 Wright, J. S.  150 Wright, W. J.  60, 61, 375 Yadin, Y.  285 Yardeni, A.  284, 285 Yeivin, I.  271 Yerushalmi, Y. H.  207 Young, I.  125, 134, 288, 290, 297, 298, 299, 343, 346, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 357, 359, 362, 363 Zhirmunsky, V. M.  180, 181 Zimmerli, W.  127, 261 Zimmermann, F.  94, 147, 345, 368 Zlotowitz, M.  29, 34 Zwingli, H.  55, 69

Index of Scripture Genesis 1  204, 251, 450 1–2  211, 247, 251, 372 1–3  202, 210, 255, 379, 399 1–4  245, 380 1–11  202, 253 1:1–2:4  380 1:11–12  248 1:15–17  453 1:26  211, 213 1:26–28  210 1:28  204, 211 1:29  248 1:31  46, 248 2  248, 250, 251, 447, 452 2:2  248 2:5  448 2:6  448 2:7  198, 249, 250, 422, 448 2:7–8  448 2:8  248, 448 2:8–10  248 2:9  212, 248, 448 2:10  248, 448 2:15  211, 250, 252, 448 2:15–16  248 2:15–25  251, 252 2:16  248, 250 2:17  453 2:18  59 2:18–23  453 2:19  448 2:22–25  448 3  131, 212, 213, 247, 250, 452, 453

Genesis (cont.) 3:6–7  212 3:14–19  252 3:17  83, 213 3:17–19  254, 453 3:18  83 3:19  213, 249, 250, 252, 422, 453 4  252, 253 4:11–12  253 4:13–15  253 4:17  253 5:15–17  453 6:3  283, 300 6:5–6  453 7:22  422 8:16–17  453 8:21–22  453 9:3–4  211 11:7  301, 305, 306 12:17  355 14:7  316 15:15  113 17:5  253 18:19  306 20:11  355 22:14  301 24:3  301 25:8  113 29:9  268 30:18  301 31:49  301 32:6  316 34  219 34:13  301 34:27  301 35:29  113 36:24  268

499

Genesis (cont.) 37:15  313 37:35  113 41:11  316 42:6  348 42:21  301 43:21  316 49  108 49:3  113 50:20  432 Exodus 1:10  225 10:6  301 14:13  301 15  51, 187 15:1–18  167 20:26  301 23:8  431 32:20  348 34:18  301 Leviticus 19–26  173 23:33–36  395 23:33–37  12 25:33  301 26  174 26:3–45  174, 177 Numbers 1:16  455 1:21  455 1:23  455 1:25  455 5:29  301 8:19  316 11:8  348

500 Numbers (cont.) 15:22–31  377 15:39  24, 39, 390 17:5  355 20:13  301 Deuteronomy 3:24  301 4:6  397 4:40  301, 303, 305, 306 6:3  301, 305, 306 6:4  269 6:5  199 7:11–15  252, 255 11:26–28  301 11:27  305 12:1–19  457 14:1–21  211 14:23  457 16:13–17  395 16:14  53 18:22  301 20:18  306, 355 23:22–24  377 28:27  301 28:35  301 28:50  238 28:51  301 30:11–20  252 32  176 32:1–43  167 32:46  301 Joshua 3:7  301 4:7  301 4:21  301 4:23  301 12:9–24  167 22:31  301 24:8  316 Judges 5–8  286 5:7  283, 300 6–8  290

Index of Scripture Judges (cont.) 6:2  354 6:9  316 6:9–10  316 6:17  283, 300 7:12  283, 300 8:26  283, 300, 354 9:17  301 10:12  316 12:3  316 18:30  90 Ruth 2:1–10  174 1 Samuel 2:1–10  174 2:23  301 2:28  316 15:15  272, 301 16:7  301 20:42  301 23:14  354 23:19  354 25:16  301 25:23  301 28:15  316 2 Samuel 2:5  301 4:10  316 7:9  316 7:16  331 12:8  316 13:3  264, 378 13:5  306 16:15–17:29  264 19:17  455 22  168 22:24  316 24:9  455 24:15  455 1 Kings 1–11  383, 384 2  384

1 Kings (cont.) 2:43–44  128 3–10  109, 407 3–11  204, 247, 401 3:1  384 3:2–3  384 3:5  41 3:5–9  25 3:8  301 3:9  41, 384 3:12  204 3:12–13  301 3:15  41 4:20  434 4:34  417 5:10–14  361 5:12  23, 434 8:1  41, 42, 417 8:31  301 8:33  301 8:46  128, 428 9:10  42 10:1  417 10:18  42 10:27  42 11  43 11:3  128 11:4  43 11:9–40  24 15:5  301 22:16  301 2 Kings 6  299 6:11  283, 290, 299, 300 9:37  301 12:3  301 17:4  301 18–19  413 22:20  113 23:26  301 25:19  238 25:30  268 1 Chronicles 5:20  283, 300

Index of Scripture 1 Chronicles (cont.) 17:24  331 27:27  283, 300 29:15  438

Esther (cont.) 9:1  322 9:27  350 9:31  350

2 Chronicles 1–9  383 5:2  417 8:11  383 26:15  234, 455

Nehemiah 1:4  316 2:1  316 2:3  305 2:6  316, 350 2:9  316 2:13  316 2:15  316 5:7–8  316 5:13  316 6:3  316 6:6  335 6:8  316 6:11–12  316 7:5  316 8:14  301 12:31  316 13:7–11  316 13:13  316 13:17  316 13:19  316 13:21–22  316 13:30  316

Job 1:15–17  316 1:19  316 1:21  114, 147, 432 2:10  147 4–14  176 7:6–7  438 7:16  242, 253 7:16–17  438 8:9  438 10:9  422 10:20  438 14:1–5  438 14:2  438 14:5  438 15–42  176 16:22  438 17:7  438 19:20  316 19:29  283, 300 20:29  277 21:7  425 21:22  264, 265 27:12  165 27:13  277 28:18  395 28:28  208 29:17  316 30:1  186 31:2  277 31:10  348 34:14–15  422 34:27  301 38–41  259 41:8  163 42:7  154, 259, 263

Esther 2:2–3  322 6:6  272 8:5  351

Psalms 1  252, 402 1–14  168 2:5  351

Ezra 7:28  316 8:15–17  316 8:20  283, 300 8:23  316 8:31  316

501 Psalms (cont.) 3:6  169, 316 7:5  316 13  103 13:3  113 14:1  428 18  168 19:4–6  204 23  270 23:5  188 27:4  169 33:3  272 34:14  428 38:7  242 39  380 39:4–6  438 39:5  438 39:6  241 46:10  428 49:17  432 62:10  165, 253 68:7  351 69:12  316 69:21  316 71:14  169 71:15  169 73  380 73:3  425 73:5  425 73:16  316 78:33  438 78:39  438 90  216 90:5–6  438 90:10  316 90:10–12  438 90:12  451 93–100  176 94  103 94:10  264, 265 101–150  181 102:12  438 103:15–17  438 104:1  169 104:14–15  211 104:21–23  204

502 Psalms (cont.) 104:29  422 109:23  438 111–12  182 111:10  428 119  176 119:4  83 119:55  316 119:59  316 119:66  264, 265 119:106  316 119:131  316 119:147  316 119:158  316 122  283 122:3–4  283 123:2  283 124:1–2  283 124:6  283 129:6–7  283 133:2–3  283 135:2  283 135:8  283 135:10  283 136:23  283 137:8–9  283 144:3–4  438 144:4  47, 165, 253, 438 144:15  283 146:3  283 146:4  422 146:5  283 Proverbs 1–7  454 1–9  264, 378, 379, 441, 452 1:1  89, 397 1:2  171 1:4  265 1:5  264 1:5–6  435 1:6  397 1:7  208, 265, 395, 396, 397

Index of Scripture Proverbs (cont.) 1:8  272 1:10–33  182 1:15  171 1:18  171 1:22  265 1:29  265 2  179, 270 2:1–22  182 2:2  171 2:5  208, 265 2:8  129 2:10  265 2:11  171 2:14  171 2:16–19  157 2:18  454 2:21  206 3:2  206 3:5  199 3:11  272 3:15  171 3:19–20  171 4:5–6  171 4:23  198 5:1–6  373 5:2  171, 265 5:3–6  157 5:4  454 5:5  454 5:6  171 5:9  171 5:13–14  264 5:14  171 5:15–19  81 6:4–5  171 6:10–11  429 6:24–26  157 7:5–27  157 7:7  39, 171 7:12  171 7:19  171 7:23  454 7:27  454 7:29  171 8  382

Proverbs (cont.) 8:1  171 8:1–21  182 8:5  171 8:9–10  265 8:12  265 8:12–21  264 9  270 9:1–7  398 9:3–18  157 9:4  171 9:10  265, 395, 396 9:11  206 10–29  376 10–31  352, 396 10:1–22:16  138 10:7  206 10:14  265 10:18  171 10:19  428 10:20  171 10:21  429 11:4  171 11:9  265 11:10  171 11:12–13  428 12:1  265 12:2  171 12:11  429, 430 12:13  403 12:16  431 12:23  265, 428 13:11  438 13:14  206 13:16  265 14:6–7  265 14:18  265 14:20  431 14:35  129 15:1  429 15:2  265 15:4  429 15:7  265 15:14  265 15:23  428

Index of Scripture Proverbs (cont.) 15:24  206 15:27  431 16:10  129 16:12  129 16:13–15  129 16:24  429 16:32  429 17:20  429 17:27  265 17:28  428 18:2  199 18:6–7  429 18:9  430 18:15  265 18:22  233 19:2  265 19:4  431 19:6  431 19:12  129 19:15  429 19:25  265 19:27  265 19:29  330 20:2  129 20:9  428 20:13  429 20:15  265 20:21  352 20:26  129 20:28  129 21:1  422 21:6  165, 241, 438 21:11  265 22:11  428 22:12  265 22:17  264, 265 22:20  265 23:12  265 23:19–21  430 24:4–5  265 24:23  264 24:33–34  429 25–27  138 26:4–5  154 26:15  429

Proverbs (cont.) 27:1  430 27:20  431 28:15  129 28:19  429 28:21  352 28:26  199 29:12  129 29:20  428 29:26  129 30:3  265 30:6  23 31  371, 452, 453 31:3  129 31:4–5  430 31:10–31  158, 452 Qohelet 1:1  70, 89, 90, 91, 109, 117, 123, 150, 154, 172, 173, 185, 204, 257, 258, 338, 397, 401 1:1–2  50, 151, 152 1:1–2:26  142 1:1–3:13  6 1:1–4:8  14 1:1–11  92, 141, 150, 151, 154, 406 1:1–18  404 1:2  27, 28, 34, 47, 66, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 161, 163, 170, 172, 184, 185, 186, 187, 190, 201, 205, 232, 241, 242, 244, 253, 257, 258, 274, 323, 383, 403, 436, 439, 449 1:2–3  77, 140, 164, 201 1:2–8  258 1:2–9  171 1:2–11  viii, 140, 166, 170, 172, 183, 184, 186, 187, 440

503 Qohelet (cont.) 1:3  12, 39, 40, 133, 150, 154, 184, 186, 187, 201, 277, 283, 291, 335, 369, 390, 391, 407, 435 1:3–4  186 1:3–11  129, 150, 151, 189, 190, 258 1:4  70, 184, 206, 331, 423, 425 1:4–5  186, 331 1:4–6  447 1:4–7  210, 331 1:4–8  171 1:4–9  171, 186, 187 1:4–11  140, 145, 151, 154, 170, 172, 204, 205, 258 1:5  184, 302, 330, 334 1:5–7  423 1:5–8  453 1:6  70, 171, 184, 447 1:7  175, 176, 184, 283, 291, 292 1:7–8 175, 176, 182, 186, 340 1:8  35, 175, 184, 186, 338, 340 1:9  51, 184, 185, 187, 226, 291, 292, 323, 325, 326, 329, 337 1:9–10  26, 186, 326 1:9–11  135, 283, 325, 326 1:10  75, 184, 290, 291, 325, 339 1:10–11  186, 187, 291, 326 1:11  167, 185, 205, 291, 337, 423, 430 1:12  13, 43, 90, 91, 109, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 126, 130, 135, 151, 257, 258, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 325, 326, 422

504 Qohelet (cont.) 1:12–13  172, 275 1:12–15  183, 373 1:12–18  149, 151, 154, 155, 157, 411 1:12–2:3  440 1:12–2:7  204 1:12–2:11  117, 127, 401 1:12–2:26  127, 141, 198, 199, 402, 407, 408 1:12–3:15  140, 204 1:12–6:9  141 1:12–12:7  90, 92, 145, 151 1:13  25, 157, 196, 198, 204, 211, 214, 225, 227, 277, 291, 317, 318, 340, 363, 369, 433 1:13–14  329 1:13–18  204, 205 1:13–2:3  258 1:14  28, 46, 164, 166, 172, 241, 254, 283, 291, 318, 320, 329, 404, 439 1:14–15  164 1:14–2:23  209 1:15  52, 70, 164, 170, 171, 172, 184, 333, 338, 423 1:15–17  340 1:16  91, 198, 225, 291, 318, 322, 324, 325, 326, 340 1:16–17  172, 183, 190, 265, 318 1:16–18  182 1:17  78, 157, 164, 227, 229, 283, 292, 315, 316, 317, 319, 333, 340, 404 1:18  47, 129, 170, 171, 172, 183, 184, 190, 335, 339, 423, 433, 440

Index of Scripture Qohelet (cont.) 1:31  210 2  447 2:1  28, 122, 133, 149, 183, 184, 190, 196, 200, 225, 227, 228, 241, 339, 438 2:1–2  164, 183 2:1–11 108, 318, 372, 404 2:1–23  210 2:1–7:22  157 2:2  40, 79, 172, 178, 183, 184, 187, 190, 224, 332 2:3  172, 198, 200, 204, 210, 211, 225, 227, 228, 291, 332, 335, 338, 340, 438 2:4  174, 248 2:4–5  248 2:4–6  133, 247 2:4–7 174, 176, 177, 182 2:4–8  430 2:4–11  96 2:4–26  440 2:5  93, 174, 248, 318 2:5–6  176 2:5–8  315 2:5–11  447 2:6  174, 265, 334, 340 2:7  70, 174, 176, 283, 291, 319, 321, 324, 325 2:7–10  135 2:8  121, 333, 434, 451 2:9  204, 225, 283, 291, 318, 319, 324, 325, 369, 427 2:9–11  451 2:10  227, 277, 291, 318, 319, 323, 324, 325, 430, 434, 451

Qohelet (cont.) 2:10–11  435 2:10–16  172 2:11  28, 133, 164, 184, 210, 213, 241, 248, 250, 318, 324, 430 2:11–12  291, 340 2:11–15  318 2:11–19  439 2:11–22  283 2:11–23  129 2:12  92, 227, 229, 290, 291, 317, 337 2:12–13  315 2:12–16  404, 411 2:12–17  206 2:12–26  196 2:13  70, 145, 171, 172, 320, 321, 403, 411, 427 2:13–14  171 2:13–15  292 2:14 108, 110, 171, 172, 184, 206, 264, 331, 333, 447 2:14–15  28, 337 2:15  122, 129, 164, 225, 227, 241, 254, 272, 315, 318, 328 2:15–16  145, 423, 430 2:16  49, 206, 264, 291, 292, 300, 328, 334, 335, 423, 425, 439, 447, 450 2:17  28, 164, 241, 242, 319, 329, 450 2:17–18  211, 319 2:17–20  318 2:17–21  291 2:17–23  404 2:18  72, 135, 250, 292, 300, 301, 302, 319, 323, 328, 332, 338 2:18–19  27, 28, 337

Index of Scripture Qohelet (cont.) 2:18–21  430 2:18–26  172 2:19  164, 207, 226, 241, 318, 332, 334, 335, 337, 339, 348, 423, 424 2:19–20  204, 318 2:20  227, 228, 318, 340 2:21  28, 70, 129, 164, 241, 277, 292, 324, 335 2:21–26  439 2:22  201, 328, 332, 334, 335 2:23  92, 164, 200, 241, 277, 323, 328, 438 2:24  45, 49, 198, 200, 209, 211, 243, 250, 277, 283, 291, 293, 318, 321, 330, 338, 375, 456 2:24–25  5, 255, 277, 403, 433 2:24–26  70, 71, 79, 80, 108, 141, 155, 160, 200, 209, 250, 403, 411, 433 2:25  226, 338 2:25–26  173 2:26  28, 92, 164, 209, 230, 231, 241, 277, 283, 291, 292, 323, 324, 333, 340, 377, 378, 428 3  8 3:1  12, 167, 169, 187, 204, 350 3:1–7  402 3:1–8  149, 170, 171, 172, 437 3:1–9  viii, 166, 170, 171, 183, 184, 187, 188, 190 3:1–13  141 3:1–15  196

Qohelet (cont.) 3:1–22  408, 440 3:1–7:24  142 3:2  169, 187, 334, 423, 425, 435 3:2–3  439 3:2–8  166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 340 3:3  187 3:4  172, 187, 434 3:5  187, 340, 434 3:6  187 3:7  187, 428 3:8  187, 434 3:9  169, 171, 187, 188, 201, 277, 291, 328, 332, 333, 334 3:10  277, 318, 320, 322, 340, 433, 458 3:10–11  131, 278, 291 3:10–14  172, 324 3:10–18  277 3:10–22  200, 250 3:11  206, 251, 277, 293, 302, 323, 338, 404, 423, 453 3:11–14  432 3:12  25, 202, 277, 318, 319, 333, 340, 403, 408, 428, 436 3:12–13  71, 108, 141, 210, 277, 403, 408, 411, 434 3:12–15  155, 160 3:13  202, 250, 277, 291, 330, 338, 433, 456 3:13–15  283 3:14  278, 291, 300, 302, 303, 305, 318, 319, 333, 337, 338, 433 3:14–15  290, 335, 340, 423 3:14–22  141 3:15  226, 291, 292, 323, 325, 326, 327, 333 3:15–17  172

505 Qohelet (cont.) 3:16  96, 184, 206, 317, 320, 424, 447 3:16–17  128 3:16–18  318 3:16–4:16  140 3:16–6:10  140 3:17  276, 278, 335, 355, 377, 402, 425, 446 3:17–18  122, 227, 258 3:17–22  110 3:18  283, 292, 294, 340 3:18–19  172, 433 3:18–20  9, 213 3:18–22  453 3:19  28, 92, 164, 241, 254, 425, 438, 451 3:19–20 253, 421, 450, 453 3:19–21  439 3:20  172, 184, 249, 250, 265, 326, 327, 331 3:20–21  114 3:21  52, 53, 250, 332, 334, 335 3:21–22  226 3:22  108, 141, 155, 206, 210, 226, 255, 277, 283, 290, 291, 318, 320, 337, 338, 340, 403, 411, 423, 430, 434 3:22–4:1  172 4:1  96, 128, 184, 292, 316, 317, 318, 322, 329, 333, 334, 410 4:1–2  424 4:1–3  91, 127, 172, 291 4:1–4  440 4:1–16  409 4:1–5:7  409 4:1–5:9  440 4:1–5:19  141 4:2  283, 290, 291, 292, 318, 322, 328, 333, 335, 340, 341, 426

506 Qohelet (cont.) 4:2–3  145, 435 4:3  147, 291, 323, 324, 326, 329, 428 4:4  92, 164, 241, 255, 318, 320, 409, 424, 438 4:5  331, 429 4:5–6  170, 171, 172, 184 4:5–8  440 4:6  164, 411, 430, 434 4:7  316, 317, 318 4:7–8  28, 96, 241, 404, 438 4:8  198, 226, 255, 328, 332, 334, 336, 337 4:8–12  430 4:9  291, 292, 303, 411, 430 4:9–12  171, 172, 440 4:10  206, 283, 291, 340 4:10–12  335, 338 4:11  97, 330 4:12  171, 334, 340 4:13  172, 184, 291, 328, 411, 427, 431 4:13–14  340 4:13–16  128, 409, 440 4:14  323, 328, 333, 335 4:14–16  314 4:15  25, 64, 318, 320, 333, 334 4:15–16  291, 337, 338 4:16  92, 164, 241, 325, 438 4:17  9, 291, 334, 335, 338, 339, 340, 373 4:17–5:1  340 4:17–5:6  78, 140, 171, 172, 184, 377 5  78 5:1  9, 83, 208, 339, 340, 351, 428 5:1–6  384

Index of Scripture Qohelet (cont.) 5:1–7  277, 409, 410, 440 5:1–20  196 5:2  72, 171, 277, 324, 329, 428 5:3  184, 291, 338, 339, 340 5:3–4  336, 377 5:4  283, 290, 291, 292, 336 5:5  10, 97, 330, 338, 339, 340, 377, 428 5:6  164, 184, 241, 339, 373, 377, 425 5:7  97, 98, 333, 334, 335, 338, 339, 433 5:7–8  91, 97, 128, 172 5:7–6:10  140 5:8 107, 328, 447 5:8–9  96, 127, 411, 440 5:8–12  156 5:8–6:12  410 5:9  97, 164, 226, 241, 331, 335 5:9–11  172 5:9–16  172 5:10  96, 323, 328, 431, 438, 458 5:10–11  96, 333, 340 5:10–17  404 5:10–6:9  441 5:11  335, 410, 431 5:11–12  410 5:12  96, 318, 322, 324, 333, 334, 431, 434 5:12–16  315 5:13  277, 330, 410, 431 5:13–17  156 5:14  290, 291, 324, 338, 340, 430 5:14–15  283, 291, 337 5:15  147, 277, 293, 303, 323, 333, 334, 426 5:15–16  336, 410, 432, 439

Qohelet (cont.) 5:15–17  108 5:16  97, 201, 451 5:16–17  156 5:17  16, 277, 283, 290, 291, 292, 318, 319, 322, 323, 335, 371, 410, 438 5:17–18  277, 291, 324, 340 5:17–19  108, 141, 200, 210, 410 5:17–6:2  172 5:18  9, 277, 348, 355, 433, 434, 456 5:18–19  277, 430 5:18–20  71, 155, 156, 160, 250, 403 5:18–6:2  277 5:19  206, 278, 333, 338, 431, 434 5:19-20  433 6:1 107, 318, 322, 324, 430 6:1–2  164, 291 6:1–6  404, 410 6:1–7  156 6:1–9  198 6:1–8:15  141 6:2  241, 277, 336, 338, 340, 348, 410, 433, 438 6:3  145, 147, 178, 179, 182, 190, 283, 292, 318, 319, 323, 327, 338 6:3–6  178, 182, 435, 439 6:4  164, 172, 178, 179, 241, 323, 337, 426, 438 6:4–5  178, 179, 182, 184, 190 6:5  178, 179, 200, 328 6:6  178, 179, 182, 190, 330, 331

Index of Scripture Qohelet (cont.) 6:7  335 6:7–9  172 6:7–13  172 6:8  264, 272, 332, 334 6:8–10  340 6:8–12  156 6:9  166, 241, 340, 411, 438 6:9–10  166 6:9–12  164 6:10  226, 283, 290, 291, 292, 323, 325, 326, 328, 335, 338, 340, 423 6:10–11  331 6:10–7:22  441 6:10–11:6  141 6:11  165, 201, 272 6:11–12  145, 241 6:11–9:6  140 6:12  82, 206, 226, 303, 304, 305, 332, 335, 337, 338, 339, 423, 438, 450 6:16–17  145 6:22–23  201 7  411, 412, 454, 456 7:1  171, 340, 426, 435 7:1–2  340 7:1–4  439 7:1–9  184 7:1–12  171, 411, 412 7:1–14  170 7:1–22  403 7:1–8:8  172 7:1–8:17  141 7:2  291, 292, 293, 294, 338, 340, 371, 426 7:2–4  411 7:2–6  430 7:3  40, 335 7:4  228 7:4–5  264 7:5  334, 340, 431 7:6  79, 164, 241, 438

Qohelet (cont.) 7:6–7  165 7:7  335, 336, 339, 431 7:8  10 7:8–9  431 7:9  335, 340, 351 7:9–10  339 7:10  283, 292, 323, 324, 325, 326 7:11  97, 200, 272, 333 7:11–12  184, 412 7:11–13  434 7:12  96, 97, 304, 335, 427, 431 7:13  200, 226, 291, 324, 338, 339, 340, 432 7:13–14  338, 423 7:13–29  412 7:14  71, 206, 283, 291, 293, 304, 323, 324, 339, 355, 423, 432 7:14–15  210 7:15  28, 164, 241, 318, 321, 324, 333, 334, 424, 426, 438, 439 7:15–20  171 7:16  129, 272, 378, 436 7:16–17  61, 156, 338, 339 7:17  426, 439 7:18  277, 278, 292, 338, 339, 433 7:18–20  335 7:19  171, 323, 327, 328, 427, 435 7:19–22  291 7:20  127, 128, 380, 424, 428 7:21  303, 305, 306, 334, 336, 338, 339 7:22  324, 328, 428 7:23  156, 157, 223, 224, 225, 237, 318, 339, 454 7:23–24  156, 223, 224, 226, 237, 423, 454

507 Qohelet (cont.) 7:23–25  221 7:23–29  152, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 239, 370, 404 7:23–8:1  219, 220, 221, 239, 258, 441, 453 7:24  223, 225, 226, 283, 291, 323, 325, 326, 338, 435, 454 7:24–29  265 7:25  95, 101, 156, 222, 223, 227, 228, 229, 234, 258, 318, 340, 355, 377, 454 7:25–29  156, 239, 373, 453, 454 7:25–10:15  142 7:26  21, 157, 222, 223, 229, 230, 231, 233, 236, 238, 265, 291, 292, 318, 332, 333, 335, 377, 378, 428, 439, 455, 459 7:26–28  220, 451, 452 7:26–29  223, 230 7:27  25, 95, 101, 150, 151, 152, 154, 157, 161, 200, 219, 220, 229, 232, 234, 236, 257, 258, 339, 340 7:27–28  222, 237, 323 7:27–29  232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 315, 318, 319, 325 7:28  60, 128, 158, 198, 222, 233, 236, 291 7:29  101, 222, 223, 229, 234, 236, 248, 292, 307, 339, 373, 433, 453 8  199 8:1  170, 171, 184, 223, 224, 225, 226, 230, 237, 239, 331, 335, 427, 454

508 Qohelet (cont.) 8:1–5  128 8:1–8  224 8:1–17  413 8:1–11:6  159 8:2  224, 239, 339 8:2–5  128, 431 8:2–15  441 8:3  224, 291, 335, 339, 351, 428 8:4  226, 291, 292, 293, 336, 337, 348 8:5  224, 333, 335 8:5–6  402 8:6  171 8:6–7  458 8:7  224, 226, 283, 290, 291, 334, 335, 337, 338, 423 8:8  171, 338, 340, 348, 423, 426, 439 8:9  224, 227, 291, 318, 322, 323, 329, 340, 341, 424, 447 8:9–10  318, 320 8:9–17  291 8:10  206, 241, 306, 307, 324, 337, 339, 426, 438 8:10–14  164 8:10–15  200, 250 8:11  93, 306, 307, 328, 329, 340, 424, 428, 453 8:11–12  301 8:12  230, 292, 304, 306, 307, 318, 331, 332, 333, 335, 377, 427, 433 8:12–13  277, 335, 337, 402 8:12–17  277 8:12–113  278 8:13  303, 304, 305, 413, 425, 426, 433, 439 8:13–15  292

Index of Scripture Qohelet (cont.) 8:14  241, 255, 283, 290, 291, 292, 318, 329, 334, 424, 439 8:14–15  335 8:15  40, 71, 108, 141, 159, 210, 277, 292, 318, 323, 324, 335, 433, 434, 456 8:15–17  172 8:15–9:1  340 8:16  227, 277, 291, 318, 323, 334, 335 8:16–17  329, 422 8:16–9:10  141 8:16–10:1  441 8:17  19, 129, 265, 283, 291, 300, 307, 318, 320, 338 8:17–9:1  453 8:18–20  335 8:22–26  200 8:24  200 8:29  200 8:32  200 9  458 9:1  28, 58, 101, 224, 227, 292, 307, 318, 331, 335, 338, 354, 378, 423, 458 9:1–2  164 9:1–6  404, 453 9:1–12  414, 456 9:1–11:6  141 9:2  172, 230, 291, 292, 377, 424, 456 9:2–3  110, 333 9:3  172, 328, 329, 424, 453, 456 9:3–4  291 9:3–5  458 9:3–6  439 9:4  145, 226, 334, 335, 435, 457 9:4–5  426 9:4–12  172

Qohelet (cont.) 9:5  206, 283, 292, 329, 331, 333, 335, 423 9:5–6  108, 324, 457 9:6  291, 324, 329, 458 9:7  25, 277, 324, 339, 425, 434 9:7–9  71, 78, 80, 171, 277, 456, 458 9:7–10  108, 141, 159, 160, 200, 210, 250, 403, 404 9:7–12:8  140 9:8  81, 171, 339 9:9  72, 81, 110, 230, 241, 243, 277, 323, 324, 328, 332, 339, 425, 433, 434, 438, 451, 452, 453, 457, 458 9:9–10  291 9:10  82, 95, 101, 110, 208, 266, 292, 334, 336, 339, 340, 423, 426, 429, 430, 437, 439, 447, 458 9:11  171, 220, 317, 318, 322, 333, 335, 340, 341, 423, 424 9:11–12  423, 430, 457 9:11–11:10  141 9:12  283, 291, 292, 334, 338 9:13  224, 318, 320 9:13–10:20  414 9:13–11:8  414 9:14–15  172, 314, 315 9:15  206, 266, 294, 423, 447, 451 9:15–16  323 9:16  318, 427, 429 9:16–17  331 9:16–12:8  172 9:17  429, 431 9:17–18  171, 333 9:17–10:2  171, 184

Index of Scripture Qohelet (cont.) 9:17–10:3  171 9:17–10:4  170 9:18  230, 338, 354, 424, 427, 428, 435 10:1  333, 335, 424 10:1–20  403 10:2  171, 228, 264, 427 10:2–20  441 10:3  283, 291, 292, 330, 334 10:4  333, 338, 339, 431 10:5  230, 283, 291, 292, 318, 321, 322, 324, 333, 334 10:5–7  127, 128, 315 10:6  328, 337 10:6–13  171 10:7  318, 320, 321, 333, 334 10:8  171 10:8–9  333, 335 10:8–11:4  170 10:10  171, 330, 338, 340, 351, 427 10:11  338 10:12  264, 334, 429 10:13–14  429 10:14  226, 283, 290, 291, 337, 338, 423 10:15  291, 303, 328, 340, 355 10:16  300, 430 10:16–17  128, 283, 291, 292, 336 10:16–20  127, 171 10:16–12:7  142 10:17  430 10:18  430 10:18–20  171, 184 10:19  96, 97, 331 10:20  91, 128, 339, 355, 428 10:46–52  200 10:47  200 11:1  266, 338

Qohelet (cont.) 11:1–2  96, 184, 339 11:1–6  189, 215 11:1–8  189, 414 11:1–12:7  172 11:1–12:8  442 11:2  226, 337, 338, 423, 430 11:3  170, 283, 291, 338 11:3–5  335 11:3–6  423 11:4  171, 184, 200, 333 11:5  291, 292, 338, 423, 432, 453 11:5–6  334, 335 11:6  184, 337, 339, 351, 429, 430 11:7  160, 184, 189, 340, 348, 373, 434 11:7–8  160, 189 11:7–10  108, 171, 210, 250, 251 11:7–12  159 11:7–12:7  149, 155, 159, 160, 200, 258, 374 11:7–12:8  141, 171, 196, 215, 404 11:8  108, 164, 165, 189, 206, 241, 278, 283, 291, 337, 338, 339, 439 11:8–9  277 11:8–12:7  258 11:9  24, 39, 82, 109, 160, 188, 189, 276, 278, 337, 339, 377, 388, 390, 391, 402, 425, 446 11:9–10  9, 339, 403, 416, 434 11:9–12:1  277 11:9–12:7  189, 190 11:9–12:8  viii, 166, 183, 184, 188, 189, 190, 415

509 Qohelet (cont.) 11:10  188, 189, 241, 415, 438 12  20, 228 12:1  160, 188, 206, 210, 259, 278, 291, 333, 334, 339, 355, 371, 423, 433 12:1–2  291, 423 12:1–5  416 12:1–7  7, 160, 171, 216, 277, 330, 338, 374, 398, 451 12:1–8  170, 258, 380 12:2  160, 165, 188, 302 12:3  188, 283, 291, 328, 333 12:4  188, 340, 347, 355 12:4–7  339 12:5  108, 189, 333, 334 12:6  160, 189, 291, 328, 355 12:6–7  415 12:7  189, 249, 283, 290, 291, 323, 325, 326, 327, 426, 433, 439, 447, 453 12:8  27, 28, 50, 140, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 163, 164, 189, 190, 232, 241, 244, 257, 258, 263, 274, 348, 403, 436, 439, 449 12:8–11  323 12:8–12  402 12:8–14  92, 142, 150, 151, 152, 154, 161 12:9  152, 214, 237, 257, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 283, 291, 293, 325, 361, 416 12:9–10  84, 152, 154, 259, 271, 273, 360, 402

510 Qohelet (cont.) 12:9–11  197 12:9–12  260, 262, 263, 273 12:9–13  260 12:9–14  ix, 109, 141, 146, 150, 257, 258, 259, 273, 276, 374, 397, 401, 436, 442 12:10  214, 263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 340, 416 12:11  74, 257, 263, 264, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 328, 333, 334, 397, 401, 427 12:11–12  152, 154, 273 12:12  85, 92, 257, 259, 271, 272, 273, 279, 436 12:12–13  339 12:12–14  197 12:13 x, 9, 40, 76, 83, 208, 273, 276, 277, 279, 329, 371, 377, 395, 397, 416, 433 12:13–14  23, 152, 154, 172, 203, 243, 259, 260, 262, 266, 267, 273, 275, 276, 278, 391, 397, 402 12:14  276, 277, 337, 425, 446 Song of Songs 1:1  89 1:2  458 1:3  458 1:4  458 1:6  300, 459 1:6–7  283 1:7  295 1:12  283 2:5  458 2:7  283 2:17  283

Index of Scripture Song of Songs (cont.) 3:1–4  290 3:1–5  283 3:7  283 3:9  186 3:11  283 4:1–2  283 4:1–7  455 4:6  283 4:10  458 4:16–5:1  458 5:2  283, 300 5:8  458 5:8–9  283 5:9  295 6:3  459 6:5  295 6:5–6  283 7:1–8  455 7:6  458 7:10  459 7:11  39 8:2  458 8:4  283 8:6  459 8:6–7  458, 460 8:7  459 8:8  283 8:12  283 Isaiah 1–12  180 1–21  180 1:2–20  182 1:3  410 1:17  267 2–12  176 5:11–12  430 7:17  301 7:28  354 13–27  180 14  413 17:14  277 23:16  272 24–27  180 27:10  268

Isaiah (cont.) 28–30  180 28–39  181 28:7–8  430 29:14  378 30:7  241 31:4  301 33:15  431 40–55  168, 173, 174 40:1–11  182 40:6–7  438 40:14  264, 265 40:24  438 40:28  432 42:24  267 43–44  180 47:8  430 47:10  378 53:9  411 55:8  432 57:13  165, 242, 253, 403, 438 65:17–25  246 Jeremiah 1:1–3  89 2–25  181 2:31  459 11:18  316 12:1  425 15:15  272 16:13  301 16:19  242 18:4  316 18:18  264 18:20  272 32:9  316 42:6  306 52:34  268 Lamentations 1  175 1–4  182 1:3  188 1:6  188 2:15–16  283, 300

Index of Scripture Lamentations (cont.) 3:46  188 4:1  238 4:9  283, 300 5:13  348 5:18  283, 300 Ezekiel 3:3  316 3:18  272 9:8  316 16:11  316 23:16  316 23:20  316 28:1–10  413 28:5  378 33:8–9  272

Daniel (cont.) 2:30  355 3–4  413 4:14  355 7:13–14  419 8:13  316 8:15  316 8:17  316 8:23  238 8:24–26  316 8:28  316 9:3  316 9:3–4  316 9:5–6  316 10:16  316 10:19  316 12:8  316

Daniel 1:10  301

Hosea 13:3  438

511 Jonah 1:7  283, 300, 307 1:12  283, 300, 307 2:3–10  182 4:10  283, 300 Habakkuk 1:13  425 Zephaniah 1–3  182 1:4  354 Zechariah 7:5  322 11:13  316 Malachi 3:19  301

New Testament Matthew 5:43–48  409 6:19–24  431 6:25–27  431 6:32  410 7:5  428 7:13–14  412 9:14–15  409 10:29  422 11:16–19  382 13:10–17  429 16:24  409 23:35  253

Luke 7:33  409 10:25–37  409

Mark 4:10–12  200 6:4  429 7:22  409 10:35–45  409

Romans 1:18–23  381 1:20  399 1:29  409 2:1  428 3:10  380 3:23  428

John 1:49  27 4:24  410 5:19  419 5:36  419 11:25  399 Acts 10:33  83

Romans (cont.) 8  380 8:20  33, 59, 75, 380 8:28  432 1 Corinthians 1:30  399 2:16  217 10:31  409 12  74 13:4  409 13:12  432 15:24–28  419 15:58  399 2 Corinthians 1:3–4  417 5:21  399 Galatians 5:21  409

512 Ephesians 1:3  412 1:11  422 6:5–8  429 Philippians 1:21–23  435 2:12–13  400 Colossians 3:17  409 3:22–25  429 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12  429 5:14  429

Index of Scripture 2 Thessalonians 3:6–13  429 1 Timothy 6:6–9  431 6:7  432 6:10  431 6:17  431 Titus 3:3  409 Hebrews 10:19  399 James 1:2–3  428 1:5  428

James (cont.) 1:19  428 3:2–12  428 4:13–16  430 4:14  438 5:1–6  431 1 Peter 1:24  438 2:18–19  431 1 John 3:2  217 Revelation 19:9  412 21:5  399

Deuterocanonical Literature Ben Sira 3:22  284 6:37  284 7:31  284 8:9  284 8:14  284 10:9  284 12:15  284 13:2  284 13:5  284 13:7  284 14:16  284 14:18  284 15:11  284 15:16–17  284 15:17  284 16:3  284 16:7  284 16:15  284 18:32  284 25:8  284

Ben Sira (cont.) 26:17  284 30:12  284 30:19  284 30:19–20  284 30:28  284 30:34  284 30:36  284 33:4–5  284 34:10  284 34:15  284 34:15–16  284 34:20  284 34:27  284 36:31  284 37:3  284 37:12  284 37:15  284 38:13–15  284 38:27  284 39:1–2  360

Ben Sira (cont.) 39:7–8  360 40:11  284 44:9  284 44:20  284 45:23–24  284 46:1  284 46:11  284 47:13  284 47:23  284 48:1  284 48:4  284 48:11  284 48:15  284 49:10  284 50:1–3  284 50:24  284 50:27  284 51:8  284 51:30  284

Index of Other Ancient Sources ʿAli, Yephet ben, The Arabic Commentary of Yephet ben ʿAli on the Book of Ecclesiastes Chapters 1–6  12, 13, 29, 30 Amarna Letters  350 ʾAbot de Rabbi Nathan 39 Adad-guppi Autobiography, The 122 “And Some Time Think on Easter Day” 19 Aramaic Text from Saqqara  348 Aristotle, Poetics 150 Augustine, City of God  5, 26, 27, 31, 393 Confessions of St. Augustine  201, 370 Exposition on the Book of Psalms, by St. Augustine 33 Babylonian Talmud  10, 25, 37, 43, 220, 395 B. B. Bat. 100b 34 B. Ber. 17a 34 ʿEd. 5:3  22, 23 Giṭ. 68b 43 Ḥag. 17a 12 Ḥul. 2a 10 Ketub. 72a 10 Meg. 7a  22, 23 Menaḥ. 81a 10 Ned. 9a 10 Roš 43 Šabb.   3 24  32b 10  14a–b 38   30b  39, 40, 391  14a 390 Sanh. 104b 43 Yad.   2:14 22  3:15 23

513

Beza, Theodore, Ecclesiastes sive Concionator: Paraphrasis concionis a Salomone de summo bono habitae 67 “Birth Legend of Sargon of Akkad, The” 118 Bishop Patrick, “To a Friend on the Frailty of Life” (ad amicum de caduca vita) 18 Bonaventure, Commentary on Ecclesiastes  15, 16, 24, 32, 33, 243 Brenz, Johannes, Der Prediger Salomo 64, 65 Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde  20, 21 Chrysostom Concerning the Statutes 27 Homilies on Ephesians 31 Cicero, Academica 106 Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin  122, 129 “Cyrus Cylinder”  118 Dante, La comedia  20, 21 Dead Sea Scrolls and other Judean Desert texts 3Q15 (Copper Scroll)  284, 295, 298, 299, 300 4Q222  285, 298 4Q266  285, 298 4Q302  285, 298 4Q322  285, 298 4Q322a  285, 298 4Q324  285, 298 4Q332 298 4Q333  285, 298 4Q385  285, 298 4Q394 307 4Q397 307 4Q398 307 4Q448  285, 298 4Q468l  285, 298 4Q521  285, 298

514

Index of Other Ancient Sources

Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. (cont.) 4Q522  285, 298 4QMMT  295, 298, 299, 300, 307 4QMMTB,C 284 11Q5  285, 298 11Q20  285, 298 KhQ3 285 Damascus Document 298 Nahal Ḥever  285, 298 Nahal Ṣeʿelim  298 Wadi Daliyeh  349 Wadi Murabbaʿat texts  285, 298, 307 Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 6 Dionysius of Alexandria, Commentary on the Beginning of Ecclesiastes  5, 45 Dispute of a Man with His Ba 100 Dunbar, William, “Of the World’s Vanitie”  35, 36 Elephantine Papyri  349 Elijah ha-Kohen of Izmir, “Restoring the Soul: eulogy for Jacob Hagiz”  34 Ephraimi Rescriptus 393 Epic of Gilgamesh  100, 119, 404 Epitaph from Leontopolis  112 Erasmus, The Correspondence of Erasmus 56 Eusebius of Caesarea, Praep. ev. 176 Exodus Rabbah 43 “For Each Man Ought Himself to Know”   19 Glossa ordinaria 31 Greek Epitaph of a Jewish Woman of Leontopolis 111 Greek grave inscription  115 Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes  6, 26, 29 Gregory of Thaumaturgos Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes  6, 26, 91 Gregory the Great, Dialogues of Gregory the Great  8, 9, 10, 275 Guillame de Machaut, Jugement dou roy de Navarre 14 Harper’s Songs 100 Hermes of Rome, “Inscription”  114, 115

Homer 110 Hugh of St. Victor, Homilies on Ecclesiastes  14, 31 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 51, 52, 53 Ibn Tibbon, Samuel, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 15 Innocent III, De Contemptu Mundi sive de Miseria Condicionis Humane 35 “Inscription of King Mesha, The”  118 “Inscription of King Yehawmilk, The” 118 “Inscription of Zakkur”  118 Instruction for Merikare 123 Instruction of Amenemhet 123 Isocrates, Antidosis 125 Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes  7, 8, 23, 27, 30, 31, 391, 393 Jewish Epitaphs at Beth-shearim  112, 113 Jewish Grave Inscription from Leontopolis  111, 112 John of Damascus, Barlaam and Joseph 32 Luther, Martin Epistel 65 “Notes on Ecclesiastes”  58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 “Preface to the Books of Solomon”  64 Luther’s Works 375 Tischreden 63 Melanchthon, Enarratio brevis concionum libri Salomonis cuius titulus est Ecclesiastes 66 Mesha Stele  133 Midrash Deuteronomy 24 Midrash Leviticus 22 Midrash Qohelet Rabbah  4, 5, 10, 11, 24, 24, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 242, 390 Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah  42, 396 Mishnah  285, 295, 297, 298, 299, 300, 305, 335, 363, 388, 389 ʿEd.  4:3 389  5:3 38

Index of Other Ancient Sources Mishnah (cont.) Yad.   3:5  389, 391 Mühlhausen, R. Lipman  33, 34 Oecolampadius, In Ecclesiastem Solomonis Metaphrasis Divi Gregorii Neocaesariensis Episcopi, interprete Oecolampadio  56, 57 Origen, de Principiis 30 Rashbam, The Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meier Rashbam on Qoheleth 14, 15, 49, 50, 51, 53 Sextus Empiricus Outlines of Pyrrhonism 103 Against the Logicians 106 Sin of Sargon, The (A Sennacherib Autobiography) 122 Smith, Henrie, The Sermons of Master Henrie Smith, Gathered into One Volume 28

515

Sprenger, Jakob, and Heinrich Institris, Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) 21 Targum Qohelet  11, 25, 26, 91, 242 “This World Fares as a Fantasy” (“This World Passes Like a Dream”)  19 Theodore of Mospuestia, Commentary on Ecclesiastes  6, 7, 74, 75 Thomas à Kempis, Imitation of Christ 35, 375 Tosefta 391 Yad.   2.3 38  2.14 391 Vernon manuscript, 18, 19 Wanderer, The  17, 18 Zeno papyri  105 Zohar, The 21