Qoheleth: The Theology of a Hebrew Philosopher
Post on 23-Feb-2023
0 Views
Preview:
Transcript
QOHELETH: THE THEOLOGY OF A HEBREW PHILOSOPHER
by
Dr. Frantz St.Iago-Peretz, Ph.D.
D.B.S., Colegio Teológico del Caribe, 1981
B.S.B., Valley Forge Christian College, 1987
M.A.R., Eastern Mennonite Seminary, 1990
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
at Baptist Bible Seminary
Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania
August 2013
c/o P. O. Box 623
Ephrata, PA 17522-0623 U.S.A.
iheeb.usa@gmail.com
If you want a printed copy of this research, send $50.00 to the address above.
If you are able, send $7.00 contribution to the Instituto Hebreo Español
for this electronic edition.
Contact us at the address above for the Spanish version.
קהלת
מכון עברי ספרדי ללמוד התנ"ך
iii
Accepted:
________________________________
Dissertation Advisor
________________________________
Second Reader
________________________________
Third Reader
________________________________
Program Director
The following text is the dissertation as it was defended and approved in August 2013
by the faculty of the Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. A revised and
expanded edition with a few more chapters (appendixes) will be available. Contact us
for more information. This research was written keeping in mind the Fundamentalist
Baptist readers. However, this work could be useful and of interest to other Christian,
Jewish, and Muslim readers et al. The author followed the Turabian style. Please, send
your corrections, comments, and any feedback to the postal address above. If you have
questions or recommendations of articles, books or any other resource that can help
enhance this research, send it via electronic mail. Send a copy of any review of this
dissertation to the author. If quoted, send a copy of the article, book or research.
Please, do not print, distribute, or copy without permission.
ABSTRACT
This dissertation attempts to understand the theology and philosophy of Qoheleth,
specifically what the author says about ELOHIM; striving to find the author’s intended
meaning. Qoheleth’s philosophy seeks to comprehend the meaning of life and to have a
glimpse of ELOHIM. The book is not just philosophical, its core is theological. Qoheleth is
evidence that philosophia ancilla theologiae. This writer reconnoitres this by looking at
various philosophical and theological themes through the book in the Masoretic Text.
The procedure has some difficulties due to the lack of a clear structure and the language
is somehow different from the standard Biblical Hebrew. Qoheleth strives to find the
right words to speak on life’s paradoxes and absurdities.
Qoheleth’s philosophy and theology are evidence of the limitations of human
reasoning: humanity cannot know ELOHIM by reason alone. The knowledge available is
limited, at times to the point of desperate scepticism. Therefore Qoheleth writes with the
Torah as his antecedent theology and the source of his faith: Divine Revelation. This
thinker’s journey of doubts finds rest in the faith of the Torah; this is the foundation of
his theology. Although the future is unknown to him, it is with the assurance of the
reality of a personal GOD, ELOHIM, the GOD of Israel, that Qoheleth instructs the reader to
enjoy life in face of its paradoxes, uncertainties and ultimately death, by fearing ELOHIM
and obeying his commandments. Qoheleth must be interpreted within the imperative in
the epilogue: מורהים ירא ואת־מצותיו שלאת־הא (12:13, 15). This central message is evidence
that Qoheleth belongs to the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of ELOHIM. His
instruction implies a high standard of ethical values. This instruction makes Qoheleth a
wisdom book with significance for today, speaking to the reality human existence.
To the honour of the ONLY TRUE GOD, ADONAY, the HOLY ONE of Israel:
The academic study of the biblical text is an act of worship;
May it lead to wisdom, understanding and knowledge.
Dedicated to my loving family,
and our children Nitzah, Sarah, and Ezry
and our son-in-law, John Lewis
and grand-son Shmueli et al.
מלך העולם ברוך אתה יי אלהינו
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................x
Preface… ...........................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................16
Thesis ..........................................................................................................16
Goal of this Research ..................................................................................20
The need of this research ............................................................................22
Qoheleth and its Critics ..............................................................................26
Harmonization and Analogy .......................................................................37
Language ....................................................................................................43
Qoheleth the Orator ....................................................................................62
Structure......................................................................................................70
CHAPTER 2 The Methodology: Biblical Theology .........................................84
Introduction ................................................................................................84
The Place of Biblical Theology in the Theological Process .......................87
Objectivity in Biblical Theology ................................................................87
Theological Presuppositions and Biblical Theology ..................................91
Biblical Theology and Christian Theology ................................................98
Jewish Biblical Theology ...........................................................................102
Tanakh and Biblical Theology ...................................................................108
vii
Tanakh Biblical Theology and the Christotelic Reading ............................111
Toward a Biblical Theology of Qoheleth ...................................................113
Qoheleth and Systematization of Biblical Theology ..................................117
The Center of Old Testament/Tanakh ........................................................121
Biblical Theology and Ethics .....................................................................126
CHAPTER 3 Qoheleth’s philosophy: A survey of Qoheleth as a
Thinker/Philosopher ............................................................................130
Introduction ................................................................................................130
Qoheleth: The Preacher or the Philosopher? ..............................................132
Qoheleth and Philosophy ............................................................................134
Qoheleth and mort de l’auteur ....................................................................141
One Author and Many Voices ....................................................................146
Hebrew Philosophy and Israel ....................................................................148
Historical Context of Qoheleth’s Philosophy .............................................148
Qoheleth’s Audience ..................................................................................152
Qoheleth and Wisdom/Philosophical Literature .........................................153
Qoheleth’s Literary Rhetoric and Form......................................................158
Qoheleth and Parallel Philosophical Literature ..........................................162
Limitations of Human Reasoning ...............................................................171
Positive Pessimism .....................................................................................171
Hevel .............................................................................................177 הבל
Philosophers as Scientists ...........................................................................181
Epistemology: Our knowledge is limited ...................................................183
Scepticism ...................................................................................................189
Ethics ..........................................................................................................192
viii
Hedonism ....................................................................................................196
Existentialism?............................................................................................198
Politics ........................................................................................................201
Determinism ...............................................................................................202
Conclusion ..................................................................................................203
CHAPTER 4 Qoheleth the Theologian ...........................................................207
Introduction ................................................................................................207
Qoheleth and Torah ....................................................................................212
Qoheleth and Rabbinical Theology ............................................................218
ELOHIM: unreachable? ................................................................................220
ELOHIM: Unknown and Unnamed ..............................................................224
ELOHIM: Impersonal GOD? .........................................................................228
Limited knowledge of the future ................................................................232
Death ...........................................................................................................235
Humanity ....................................................................................................242
Human Life’s Contradictions .....................................................................244
Communion with ELOHIM: Prayer ..............................................................248
ELOHIM: The Essence of Hebrew “Humanism” .........................................251
A Closing Reflection ..................................................................................251
CHAPTER 5 Conclusion ..................................................................................254
ELOHIM .......................................................................................................254
Theodicy .....................................................................................................256
Torah ...........................................................................................................257
Practical Theology: Is there significance in the text? .................................258
Further work needed ...................................................................................259
ix
A final thought: A Pastoral Personal Reflection ........................................263
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................265
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
אלוהינו מלך העולם שהחיינו וקיימנו והגיענו לזמן הזה ייברוך אתה
I am grateful above all to the HOLY ONE of Israel, ADONAY TZEVAOT SHEMO. It is
also with so much appreciation that I express my gratitude to the faculty of the Baptist
Bible Seminary, especially Dr. Alan Ingalls, Dr. Michael Stallard, and Dr. Mark
McGinniss. Their patience, guidance and encouragement have brought me to the
completion of this project. There is so much I owe to the BBC&S library staff,
especially Josh Michael and Janis Steckiel. They went beyond their responsibilities to
help me acquire articles and publications from libraries outside my reach.
My major debt is toward my family. This project sadly took me away from them
too often and for too long. Sharon, my beloved wife, agreed to invest some of our
finances in these studies. Her words of encouragement to complete all the required work
always came at the right time. Through the years of these studies and writing, our three
children graduated from high school and university. I ask for their forgiveness for not
being there for them as often as I should have been, due to the hours of work on this
dissertation. It is my prayer and hope that this research be a blessing, at least of
encouragement, to them and their children and grandchildren et al.
Τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ θεῷ
τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν
1Timothy 1:17
xi
PREFACE
Solomon is the author of Song of Songs (שיר השירים), most of the content of
Proverbs (משלי שלמה), and Ecclesiastes/Qoheleth (קהלת ) according to Rabbinical
tradition.1 Jewish tradition tells that the ancient Rabbis rejected Song of Songs, from the
Tanakh, until Akiva allegorized it.2 He taught that this poem was about Israel and
ELOHIM.3 This interpretation became popular also among Christians.
4 Often the Greek
Church Fathers, i.e., Origen, allegorized it to be about the Messiah and the Church.5 In
1 Shlomo (שלמה), Yedid’ya (ידידיה), has a brief biography in 2 Samuel 12:24-25; 1 Kings 1:9-
11:43 (cf. 1 Chronicles 3:10-24; 22:6-19; 28; 29:22-30; 2 Chronicles 1-10), which is full of violence,
including political assassinations, foolishness and sexual immorality.
2 Tanakh (תנ"ך) is an acronym for Tora (תורה), Nevi’im (נביאים), and Ketuvim (כתבים). These are
the three traditional divisions of the Hebrew Bible (Pentateuch, Prophets and Writings).
3 This writer prefers to use the noun ELOHIM through this work since it is the one used by
Qoheleth in reference to GOD. Direct quotes would keep the term used by the author.
4 Two important works that without allegorizing approach the theology of the Song of songs are
Mark McGinniss’ Contributions of Selected Rhetorical Devices to a Biblical Theology of the Song of Songs
(Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011) and Douglas Sean O’Donnell’s The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to
Intimacy (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012). O’Donell is critical of the allegories from the Middle Ages while at
the same time he develops his own Christocentric approach to the Song of Songs.
5 Origenes Adamantios, Originis Adamantii Magni Illivs et Vetvsti Scripturarvm Interpretis et
Secvndi Ecclesiæ Post Apostolos Magistri, Opera, Qvæ Qvdem Proferri Potvervnt Omnia (Paris:
Chaudiere, 1573), 309-349. Justin (Ἰουστῖνος), Irenaeus (Εἰρηναῖος), and Origen (Ὠριγένης) followed a
platonic interpretation, tipos/allegory, similar to that of Paul. They understood and recognized the literal
meaning of the text, however by this practice they taught that the ‘spiritual’ meaning, hidden behind the
literal one was superior and only the wise would understand it. This was a method to bring together the
Tanakh and NT, while proposing the superiority of the NT over the Tanakh. Cf. Origenes, Manlio
Simonetti, et Argimiro Velasco Delgado. Comentario al Cantar de los Cantares (Madrid: Editorial Ciudad
xii
this way they explained the presence of this book in the sacred canon, the story says. The
Rabbis argued that Song of Songs was based on the youth of Solomon. Proverbs was
written in times of more maturity and wisdom. However, Qoheleth was written, they say,
when he became cynical.6 Looking back in life he realized that loving ELOHIM (fear
ELOHIM את־האלהים ירא) and obedience (keep his commandments was the ( את־מצותיו שמור
source of true joy in this life’s short journey; a love relation as he wrote in the Song of
Songs. The “legend” says this is the reason Song of Songs is read at Passover (פסח) and
Qoheleth at the Feast of Tabernacles (סוכות ).7
The facts are not as simple as this story. Regardless of the rabbinical legends and
the many scholarly writings, there are still many questions about these books and
specifically on Qoheleth. Its theology and philosophy are full of questions. This
dissertation does not pretend to have the final word or to answer every question raised by
the readers. This writer hopes to encourage further dialogue between the scholars and
students of this complex text, i.e., on Qoheleth’s theology. This dissertation is a very
small step in the quest to understand the theology and philosophy of one of the most
enigmatic texts in the Hebrew tradition.
The line of argument through the book is very difficult. There seems to be no
structure as a whole, except for small individual sections or passages, e.g., chapter 3. On
structure Smith writes that the “longer ‘reflection’ pattern provides a loose structure for
Nueva, 2007). On the validity of allegorical approach to the Song of Songs from an Evangelical perspective
see Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s “Ascending the Mountain; Singing the Rock: Biblical Interpretation Earthed,
Typed, and Transfigured.” Modern Theology 28:4 (October 2012): 797-798.
6 Cynic attitude is considered a sinful behaviour in Jewish tradition. It is listed among the sins of
the Yom Kippur prayer ‘Al-ḥet.’
7 This story is heard often in sermons or reflections by Rabbis during the Pesach week.
xiii
the book; the discourse is nevertheless intentionally repetitive, almost rambling.”8
However, Kaiser makes a very important observation. He argues that when the entire
book is read as a single unified composition, several purposes can be discerned, and
Qoheleth “satisfies the basic human hunger to see how the totality of life fits into a
meaningful pattern … it calls all humans to develop a GOD centered worldview, which is
essential for finding significance in life.”9 Regardless of the structural concerns, the
central theme of Qoheleth is clear: ELOHIM.
From a subjective and pragmatic perspective the reason for the religious
canonization of a book is its ethical and theological value for the members of a particular
faith tradition and community. It should be noticed that within the Christian Evangelical
community, canonization is related to the understanding of inspiration.”10
In this tradition
it is the doctrine of inspiration that defines the canon’s value for ethical and theological
purpose (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17).11
Ethics is a philosophical matter central to the biblical
writings; however, in any religious tradition, theology is the essence of these sacred
books; e.g., in the Tanakh the purpose of history/historiography, as it has been canonized
by the Jewish and Christian traditions, is theological. Colunga and García Cordero write:
La historia de Israel es ante todo una historia religiosa, y los autores sagrados, al
narrar los orígenes de la teocracia hebraica y sus antecedentes históricos, buscan
8 Christopher R. Smith, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and James (Colorado Springs: Biblica, 2011), 79.
9 Walter Kaiser, Ecclesiastes: Total Life (Chicago: Moody, 1979), 8-9.
10 Cf. Eckhard Schnabel, “History, Theology and the Biblical Canon: an Introduction to Basic
Issues,” Themelios 20.2 (1995): 16-24.
11 In Judaism canonization took many forms. For example the book of Esther was incorporated in
the canon of the Bible because Esther requested it according to rabbinical traditions and legends. Cf. b.
Meg. 7a.
xiv
ante todo destacar los designios divinos en la historia. Quieren asentar las bases
del monoteísmo en la comunidad israelita y crear una conciencia religiosa a base
de la elección de Israel entre todos los pueblos, lo que implica un destino histórico
excepcional que ha de culminar con la era mesiánica.12
This is also a fact of Wisdom Literature (which could also be called Hebrew
Biblical Philosophy), especially in Qoheleth. Sheppard observes: “The epilogue provides
a rare glimpse into a comprehensive canon conscious formulation concerning the
theological function of biblical wisdom.”13
It has a theological purpose; the center is
ELOHIM.
Qoheleth’s theology is the focus of this research, specifically theology proper:
What does Qoheleth say about ELOHIM? This theological work is concerned with the
GOD the reader encounters in the text of Qoheleth. This biblical theology of Qoheleth
(BTQ) will have as its main focus the exploration of theological and philosophical
themes and categories present in the text. The terminology used may reflect the
vocabulary of the great tradition of the systematic theologians but this is not a Systematic
Theology (ST) since it will not seek to harmonize Qoheleth with the rest of the biblical
canon neither will follow the analogy of scripture by interpreting Qoheleth in light of
other books, which is a very important and valuable part of the process of systematic and
dogmatic theology.
12 “The history of Israel is before everything else a religious story, and the sacred authors, while
narrating the origins of the Hebrew theocracy and its historical antecedents, seek above all to show the
divine purpose in history. They want to establish the foundations of the monotheism in the Israelite
community and create a religious conscience on the election of Israel from all the nations, which implies an
exceptional historical destiny that reaches its culmination with the Messianic age.” Profesores de
Salamanca, Biblia Comentada: Pentateuco (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1962), 29.
13 Gerald T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of
the Old Testament. BZAW (Berlin: Gruyter, 1980), 128.
xv
In summary, it is the purpose of this study to search within the canonical
Masoretic Text (MT) of Qoheleth the author’s intended meaning in order to understand
the theology of this Hebrew thinker, philosopher, seeker of wisdom. Chapter one is the
Introduction, which addresses the main thesis and a general comment on the language
and structure of Qoheleth. It also includes a brief survey of the diversity of perspectives
on Qoheleth. Chapter two presents the concept of biblical theology (BT) and briefly
addresses various methodologies as proposed by a few scholars and this writer. Chapter
three is dedicated to the philosophy of Qoheleth, which shows the limits of human
reason. Chapter four addresses the main focus of this work: the theology of Qoheleth,
especially its concept of GOD (ELOHIM אלהים). Finally, in chapter five, the conclusions, a
few questions are presented, especially on further studies on this book, and some
statements on the use of Qoheleth in practical theology.
16
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
It is written, in Qoheleth (12:12) ץת ספרים הרבה אין קעשו (There is no end to the
making of many books), and indeed, the book that contains this famous aphorism has
been the subject of hundreds of scholarly and thousands of no-so-scholarly works,
popular books, by writers from one extreme to the other of the theological spectrum. Ellul
exclaims that “once again” he faces “the same paradox, finding” himself “in the middle
of a discussion, developing into a book, about the book that warns against the writing of
books.”1
Thesis
Qoheleth’s philosophy, exemplifying the limitations of human reasoning, is
positive pessimism.2 This positive pessimism appears in the context of a negative
theology in which ELOHIM is seems to be unknown, although Qoheleth writes with the
assumption that ELOHIM, the GOD of Israel and GIVER of the commandments (מצוות) is
the GOD the reader must “fear.” 3 Qoheleth leads the reader to conclude that the right way
1“Me voici donc en présence, une fois de plus du même paradoxe: entre prendre une réflexion
sous forme d’un livre, sur un Livre qui met en garde contre l’Ecriture des livres.” Jacques Ellul, La Raison,
Méditation sur l’Ecclésiaste (Paris: Sevil, 1987), 9.
2This positive pessimism observes the absurdities of life while encouraging the enjoyment of it.
3“Commandments” is not the best translation of mitzvot. This writer’s preference is to keep the
transliteration. For the purpose of this particular project the translation “commandments” will be kept.
17
to face life’s absurdities and humanity’s ultimate irrational experience, death, is by
fearing ELOHIM and obeying his commandments.
The theology of Qoheleth is a very important part of the reasoning process of
ancient Israel and its religious experience. Garret is correct to say that Qoheleth “is not
the inferior piece of theology that Delitzsch asserts it to be. It should not be looked upon
as dark and inferior just because it is pre-Christ and therefore does not reflect the fullness
of the revelation of GOD. The entire Old Testament would suffer from such an
evaluation.”4 However, Garret admits that Qoheleth “contains a great deal of tension, and
many ambiguities are unresolved.”5 Therefore, Qoheleth’s philosophy is a sample of the
limitations of human reasoning. Its positive pessimism observes the absurdities of life
concluding that the right way to face them is by fearing ELOHIM and obeying his
commandments; a wisdom, understanding and knowledge that come from divine
revelation rather than human reasoning.
Qoheleth the theologian presents a negative theology.6 This is also the product of
the limitations of human reasoning. In his limited understanding of the reality of ELOHIM,
he perceives the ETERNAL MYSTERY, GOD/ELOHIM, to be unreachable. ELOHIM is
unknown to Qoheleth, i.e., the ways of ELOHIM are inscrutable. Burnett
4 Duane Garret, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs NAC, (Nashville : Broadman, 1993), 272.
Cf. Stephen F, Parson, Ecclesiastes 9:7-10 and the words of Qoheleth. (Th.M. Thesis, Baptist Bible
Seminary, 1985), 5. Cf. Cyrus I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1909), 702.
5 Garret, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 275.
6Negative Theology speaks of the Divine transcendence in terms of what GOD is not instead of
what GOD is.
18
writes: “Ecclesiastes engage the notion of divine inscrutability.”7 According to Perdue
Qoheleth is “unable to claim a revealed knowledge of ‘the GOD’ who is hidden…far
removed from the land of human dwelling.”8 However, Qoheleth knows about the
ELOHIM of the Torah. Qoheleth expresses questions that reflect a struggle with doubts,
which could be described as “agnostic” thinking, for lack of a better term. Qoheleth’s
experience and thinking affirm that humans cannot have a comprehensive knowledge of
ELOHIM by reason alone. Reason alone cannot name the ETERNAL MYSTERY, ELOHIM.
Nowhere in the book does Qoheleth raise a prayer. He never addresses ELOHIM directly;
neither does ELOHIM speak to him. The GOD of Qoheleth, ELOHIM, at times seems to be
in no direct relation with humanity; there seems to be a sense of distance between
ELOHIM and Qoheleth (e.g., 3:11; 5:2).
Qoheleth, apparently, questions the claims of previous prophets (3:11; 5:3, 7;
10:14). Geering argues that Qoheleth “questions the rest of the Bible.”9 Possibly he
struggles with the uncertainty of his faith, nevertheless, he holds to wisdom and faith;
regardless of how small his faith may be it is what sustains him. ELOHIM and the future
are unknown to Qoheleth. He finds ELOHIM’s relation with humanity complex and very
difficult to understand (9:1). The ETERNAL ONE at times seems absent and silent at the
reality of human suffering and injustice. This is reflected in life’s contradictions,
7 Joel S. Burnett, Where Is GOD?: Divine Absence in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2010), 105.
8 Leo G. Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 203.
9 Lloyd Geering, Such is Life! A Close Encounter with Ecclesiastes (Wellington, NZ: Steele
Roberts, 2009), 1. Geering proposes an interesting dialogue between the reader and the text or Qoheleth.
19
paradoxes, and absurdities, or as Enns calls them: “inconsistencies of life.”10
This is
questioned by Qoheleth, in his limited understanding, as unfairness. In his conclusion he
expresses confidence that at the end ELOHIM will judge every action of humanity (11:9;
12:14). ELOHIM will triumph over evil (cf. 8:12); it will go well for those who fear and
obey ELOHIM (7:18, 8:12).
Qoheleth’s major question and frustration is with life’s ultimate irrational
experience: death. Qoheleth’s pessimistic approach to death is positive since it
encourages him and the readers/audience to enjoy life to its fullness. The eulogy/epilogue
(12:9-15) is central to understand Qoheleth’s message. The fullness of life can only be
enjoyed when the essence of human life is understood in the context of the ULTIMATE
REALITY, the ETERNAL MYSTERY; by fearing ELOHIM and obeying his commandments.11
Without this statement in the epilogue the book of Qoheleth with its comments on human
events would be another “existential” observation; a book underlining the reality
everyone knows and lives. The epilogue gives hope and adds to the book a different
perspective about life.
10 Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 79. Reference to Enns’ work does not mean endorsement of some
of his conclusions on inspiration of the biblical text.
11 This author uses the phrase ETERNAL MYSTERY in reference to GOD, no only because GOD is
apparently a mystery to Qoheleth but because regardless of how much a Bible student searches, his/her
knowledge will always be limited. The biblical text does not give exhaustive information about GOD. The
GOD of the biblical writings, although knowable to some degree (Isaiah 11:9), remains a mystery to the
limited human mind (cf. 3:10). Humanity can know about GOD only what GOD has revealed (Deut 29:28;
Rom 1:19; 11:34).
20
Goal of this Research
This writer will strive to provide a quasi-comprehensive biblical theology of
Qoheleth (BTQ). There is no comprehensive BTQ. This work is a small step toward a
comprehensive BTQ, but it is not a comprehensive work in itself. This writer agrees with
Williams that “it may seem presumptuous for one to undertake a study of the ‘biblical
theology’ of a book when there is so little consensus among scholars as to the goal and
method of this discipline.”12
This still seems to be a reality today.
This BT addresses theology as found in the pages of Qoheleth. This BTQ is not
like the philosophico-theological work of the 3rd
and 4th
century Greek Church Fathers.
Nor is it like the philosophical theology of Tillich, which goes beyond the biblical text
depending mainly on human reasoning rather than divine revelation. Although this writer
strives to understand the human reality through the theology and philosophy of Qoheleth,
this is not an existentialist approach to theology like Fackenheim’s work.13
The philosophy of Qoheleth and his theology, point to the need of Divine
Revelation. There are questions in Qoheleth that only a direct revelation from ELOHIM
can answer, e.g., 3:21.14
Merrill says that Qoheleth “seems to be… largely a response by
mankind to the vicissitudes of life and reality rather than a record of truth from the divine
12 Neal D. Williams, “A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastes” (Th. D. diss., Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1984), vi.
13 Emil Fackenheim, Quest for Past and Future; Essays in Jewish Theology (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1968).
14 According to the Christian theological tradition this question has been answered in the progress
of divine revelation in later canonical books.
21
vantage point.”15
Nevertheless, the theology of Qoheleth is the product of the divine
providence at work within the process of thinking, reasoning, and philosophical human
endeavour which in itself is a gift from ELOHIM (cf. 1:13); it is also a step in the process
of revelation.
This dissertation does not pretend to raise every possible question and still less to
have an answer to all the questions raised by this writer or scholars of Qoheleth. The
writer will attempt to contribute to the contemporary debates on Qoheleth and the
implications of the philosophy and theology of this book for the ethical dilemmas of
contemporary postmodern society. This work seeks to contribute to the philosophical
trend of our postmodern secular society and develop an honest and open dialogue
between the postmodern humanist thinker/philosopher and the biblical theologian and
philosopher in order to communicate the absolute truth of the biblical text; Qoheleth is a
good key to unlock the door to this dialogue.
The research strives to provide scholars in Tanakh studies with both academic
theories as well as possible practical applications for further dialogue. Although the
essence of the message of the Biblical text is understood and never concealed behind
codes or secret jargon, Qoheleth does present a difficult book for both the lay reader as
well as the scholar. However, the central message of this book is clear in its conclusion
ראת־האלהים ירא ואת־מצותיו שמו :(12:15) “Fear ELOHIM and keep his commandments.”
15 Eugene H. Merrill, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2006), 633. Merril dedicates only pages 632-638 to Qoheleth’s theology.
22
The need of this research
The literature on Qoheleth’s theology is limited and brief. There remain so many
questions about Qoheleth and his theology, regardless of over 2,000 articles and books
written about him and his work in over 50 languages. However, when compared to the
large amount of books on BT of the Tanakh or on specific books or group of books, the
amount written on the theology of Wisdom Literature is very small and it is much less on
Qoheleth’s theology. Many of the writers of Tanakh theologies make brief reference to
Qoheleth, and Esther, or avoid these books completely.16
The other Wisdom Literature
books, e.g., Proverbs (משלי שלמה), and the megillot, Ruth, Lamentations (איכה), and Song
of Songs (שיר השירים), are quoted often.17
Birch says that “the book of Ecclesiastes is not
a primary resource for Old Testament faith.”18
This may be the reason why writers,
especially Christian scholars, have neglected this book. Most Tanakh theology works
provide summaries of the theology of Qoheleth which are too brief to be comprehensive.
Delitzsch’s encyclopaedic commentary summarizes its theology as “Hohelied der
Gottesfurcht.” He writes:
Man könnte deshalb das B. Koheleth eher das Hohelied der Gottesfurcht nennen,
als wie H. Heine da „Hohelied der Skepsis“; denn so groß auch der Weltschmerz
ist, welcher sich darin ausspricht – die religiöse Üeberseugung des Verf. bleibt
16 Often in Christian literature Qoheleth is quoted out of context, by making a phrase or a verse
into an isolated proverb, e.g., 7:20 cf. Rinaldo Diprose, Israele e la Chiesa (Roma: IBEI, 2008), 250.
17 These five books are called מגילות חמש (ḥamesh megillot), the Five Scrolls.
18 Bruce Birch et al., A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1999), 420.
23
davon unangekränkelt und inmitten alles Misbehagens an der gegenwärtigen Welt
steht der Glaube an Gott und an Gottes gericht, also an den Sieg des Guten wie
ein Fels, an dem zuletzt alle Wogen sich brechen.19
Perhaps some of Qoheleth’s proverbs, observations and comments apparently
incompatible with the rest of the biblical canon, have kept the Jewish and Christian
scholars from seeking theological understanding within this book. Delitzsch says that this
book could never be the product of writers like those from the NT, who, according to
him, have a greater revelation.20
Delitzsch may be correct when looking at the progress of
revelation; yet, Klink and Lockett warn the Christian theologian saying that “any truly
biblical theology must address how to relate to the OT and NT without forcing either out
of shape.”21
Only one work has been published specifically on the theology of Qoheleth, but
from a pessimistic liberal perspective.22
The argument of the writer is more pessimistic
than Qoheleth: William H. V. Anderson wrote Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology:
19 Franz Julius Delitzsch, Einleitung das Buch Koheleth in Biblischer Commentar über das Alte
Testament (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1875), 4:190. Tr. “One might therefore call the Book of
Koheleth, ‘The Song of the Fear of GOD,’ rather than, as H. Heine does, ‘The Song of Scepticism;’ for
however great the sorrow of the world which is therein expressed, the religious conviction of the author
remains in undiminished strength; and in the midst of all the disappointments in the present world, his faith
in GOD, and in the rectitude of GOD, and in the victory of the good, stands firm as a rock, against which all
the waves dash themselves into foam.” Franz Julius Delitzsch, The Book of Ecclesiastes, Translated by M.
G. Easton (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1891), 183.
20 Delitzsch, Einleitung das Buch Koheleth, 4:189.
21 Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012), 17.
22 Another work on Qoheleth is Neal D. Williams, “A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastes” (ThD
diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984).
24
Hermeneutical Struggle in Wisdom Literature.23
His work is among many suddenly new
publications on this book. Maussion observes that the growing interest in Qoheleth
among scholars shows that there is still so much to address about this book.24
This
renewed interest is evidence that there is need for further studies and research to be done
on this intriguing book.25
There is also one unpublished dissertation that similarly attempts to provide a
BTQ, Williams’ “A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastes.” 26
His dissertation is canonical
BT, gives a lot of attention to lexicographic, and addresses historical-theology. Williams
makes stress on the importance of the history of interpretation of the text which this
writer does not.27
He states: “Unless the contemporary interpretation of the book can be
judged and tempered historically, we will not benefit from the Spirit’s teaching in the
past.”28
Therefore, Williams’ subjective approach is closer to an Evangelical TIS than a
“pure” BT. His interest, like TIS, is to appropriate the ancient text for the Church today.
Williams writes: “In light of this exposition of the book’s theology, its benefit for the
23 William H. V. Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology: Hermeneutical Struggle in
Wisdom Literature (Lempter: Mellen, 1997).
24 Marie Maussion, Le mal, le bien et le jugement de Dieu dans le livre Qohélet. (Fribourg:
Editions Universitaires, 2003) 1.
25 Since 2010 a great series of books on Qoheleth and on its theology has been published. Due to
time limitations these works are not addressed in this dissertation.
26 Neal D. Williams, “A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastes” (Th. D. diss., Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1984).
27 Williams, “A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastes,” vi.
28 Ibid., 5.
25
church of today must be expounded.”29
Like Delitzsch he places Qoheleth in the progress
of revelation. Williams argues:
It is helpful to contrast the position of the New Testament saint, who is the
recipient of so much additional revelation, with that of Qoheleth. While the New
Testament believer has a better and more intimate relationship to GOD, he must
live under many of the same tensions experienced by the author of Ecclesiastes.
Therefore, it is in examining Qohelet’s handling of this crisis of life that the
greatest profit [lays] for today’s Christian.30
While struggling to be objective he admits the subjectivity of his work. Williams
approaches the text as a Christian theologian and with Christian presuppositions. He
writes that “subjectivity is obviously unavoidable.”31
This writer struggles for objectivity
and to overcome bias, interest, prejudice or presuppositions.
A very important detail common to both Williams and this writer is that in this
BTQ “an avoidance of the rubrics of systematic theology must be observed as much as
possible. The book must be allowed to speak from its own categories.”32
However, this
writer follows a systematized BT in both the philosophical and theological categories as a
convenience.
Williams and this writer attempt to work from the MT. However, this writer
agrees with Williams that to refer to the MT as the “finished product” is to claim too
much knowledge about the history of transmission of the text just as it will be too
29Ibid., 3.
30Ibid.
31 Ibid., 2.
32 Ibid., vi.
26
speculative to attempt to trace a development of the text, form criticism.33
Therefore,
questions on a possible previous form of the ancient text will not be addressed; only brief
comments on textual criticism when an observation on these matters may be appropriate.
In essence Williams addresses what he calls “crisis in life” in Qoheleth.34
Qoheleth’s life, as Crenshaw describes it, is an “existence in tormentis.”35
Williams says
that Qoheleth speaks of a “crisis in life that man cannot resolve with his limited
resources.”36
In this dissertation the limited resource is human reason. Finally the main
difference is that this writer sees Qoheleth as a philosopher whose aim is theological, a
theology that impacts his philosophy of life, i.e., ethics.
There is also one interesting article on the theology of Qoheleth by Longman III.
However, Longman’s approach to Qoheleth in the Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical
Theology, like most of its articles, is not a BT rather a TIS.37
Qoheleth and its Critics
Williams and Bartholomew provide two excellent summaries of the history of
interpretation of Qoheleth; the latter is extensive.38
Scholars from different traditions and
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., 3.
35 James Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, (Macon: Mercer, 1995), 122.
36 Williams, “A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastes,” 3.
37 Tremper Longman III, “Theology of Ecclesiastes” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical
Theology, ed.Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1996), 192.
38 Williams, “A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastes,” 88-168; Craig G. Bartholomew, Reading
Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory 139 Analecta Biblica (Rome: Editrice
Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1998).
27
perspectives agree on the difficulties this book presents to the interpreter. Husik suggests
that Qoheleth is “rambling rather than analytic, and on the whole mostly negative.”39
Castellino finds the book to be “a baffling book.” He admits that Qoheleth raises “many
problems of textual criticism, language, grammar and interpretation.”40
Géhin claims that
Qoheleth is just a very difficult book, especially because its style is unique due to the
influence of Greek thought.41
This writer argues that perhaps Qoheleth influenced the
Greeks. Crenshaw refers to it as a strange book with an oppressive message.42
Ogden,
one of the main and many respected scholars on Qoheleth, finds the book “difficult to
comprehend.”43
However, he observes with some optimism, that “not only does Qoheleth
provide a fascinating academic study; it more importantly offers profound insights into
the real issues of faith in a broken and enigmatic world.” 44
He seeks desperately
understanding in this confused world.
The author of Qoheleth, appeals to the “authority” of the sage’s experience and
knowledge (cf. 4:13); although at times he does not seem to trust the traditions of the
39 Isaac Husik, A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy (New York: McMillan, 1916), xv. It is
possible that what we have are fragments that survived from a larger manuscript.
40 George R. Castellino, “Qohelet and his Wisdom,” in Reflecting with Solomon, ed. Roy Zuck
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 31.
41 Paul Géhin, ed. Σχολια εις τον Εκκλησιαστην (Paris: Cerf, 1993), 9. The LXX of Qoheleth is
not addressed in this dissertation rather this work is limited to the MT.
42 James Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 23.
43 Graham S. Ogden, Qohelet (London:JSOT), 9. cf. Victor E. Reichter, “Ecclesiastes,” in The
Five Megilloth, SBB (London: Soncino, 1946), 12:104.
44 Ogden, Qohelet, 9.
28
sages (cf. 2:14-16). Scott writes that “The authority to which they [wisdom writers]
chiefly appeal is the disciplined intelligence and moral experience of good men.” 45
This
is common to the wisdom writers in Wisdom Literature, e.g., Proverbs. Scott adds:
“Some of the Wisdom writers were able to raise ultimate philosophic and theological
problems and discuss them without the restraints of orthodoxy.”46
Qoheleth is not afraid
of raising questions that the “orthodoxy” of his days may have objected or censored. It is
the “unorthodoxy” of his approach and freedom of reasoning that makes the book
disputed and extremely difficult to interpret. Ogden is correct when he states that there is
no other book in the Tanakh “that has caused so many problems for the interpreters as the
book of” Qoheleth.47
Qoheleth seems to be disappointed with tradition and popular wisdom. Levin
writes that Qoheleth’s “disillusionment extends to wisdom itself. Some otherwise
pessimistic Greek philosophers drew satisfaction from being able to contemplate the folly
and vain exertion of others.” 48
Qoheleth, according to Levin, “did not enjoy his wisdom;
for that too turned out to be empty and painful (1:16-18).”49
Scott finds Qoheleth to be “the strangest book in the Bible, or at any rate the book
whose presence in the sacred canons of Judaism and of Christianity is most
45 R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes: Introduction, translation, and notes, AB (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1965), 18:xvi-xvii.
46 Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes, xvi-xvii.
47 Graham S. Ogden, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes (Sttutgart: UBS, 1997), 1.
48 Saul Levin, Guide to the Bible (Bighamton: SUNY, 1991), 245.
49 Ibid., 245.
29
inexplicable.”50
Scott is subjective in his observation; Collin points out that “the
‘canonical shape of the text’ is largely in the eye of the modern interpreter.”51
Writing about Qoheleth is not easy. Its apparent pessimism, incongruence,
inconsistency, difficult writing style, and similarity to modern existentialist writings seem
antagonistic to the biblical faith. Birch says that Qoheleth “is not a primary resource for
Old Testament faith. Indeed it may reflect a time when the remoteness of GOD from lived
reality placed in doubt the large claims made by conventional faith.”52
Estes follows a
similar thought. Estes describes Qoheleth as “enigmatic” and points that the statement
שהכל הבל ] [ תחת השמ (all is havel …under the Sun) is more like a “twentieth-century
existentialism than biblical faith.”53
Nevertheless, Stafford finds value in the book, but
not in itself rather as a tool to lead toward “Christian” understanding of grace:
We have the struggles of a thinking man to square his faith with the facts of life.
In spite of all the difficulties, he fights his way through to a reverent submission
to GOD. The book then is valuable, since it shows that even with the lesser light of
the Old Testament it was possible for a thinking man to trust GOD; how much
more is it possible for us with the fuller light of the New Testament.54
50 Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes, 190.
51John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: An Inductive Reading of the Old Testament
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1988), 599. In Jewish tradition the concepts of canon are different from
that of the Christians; the canon is still open since GOD is still speaking. Mosaic succession and authority is
often recognized among Orthodox Jewish leaders, e.g., Rev Gedalia Schwartz, Av Din of the Beth Din in
the U.S.A., and their teachings are binding to the community. Greek Orthodox Christians hold to a similar
view.
52 Bruce C. Birch, A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, 420.
53 Daniel Estes, Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 271.
54 J. Stafford Wright, “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” Evangelical Quarterly 18.1 (January
1946), 19.
30
Zucker writes: “The general theme of Ecclesiastes is the fleeting nature of worldly
gains and the need to focus instead on spiritual matters.”55
Qoheleth observes often that
material things and pleasure are temporary. In a similar approach Bréneman makes an
argument that portrays Qoheleth as a precursor of Christian theology. He reads it through
Christian glasses and interest:
[Qoheleth] puede considerarse como una apología dirigida a los hombres cuya
visión no llega más allá de lo que está “debajo del sol”. El autor les demuestra la
vanidad de la filosofía que abrazan, y subraya la futilidad del materialismo y de
una vida sin Dios. Visto así, [Qoheleth] resulta ser una viva crítica del
secularismo, y pretende combatir la tendencia a relegar la religión a la categoría
de simple instrumento del secularismo. Si el hombre concibe el mundo como un
fin en sí, la vida se vuelve vanidad; pero si lo considera como un medio por el
cual Dios se nos revela y nos muestra su sabiduría y justicia entonces la vida tiene
significado (2:24; 5:18-20).56
Whitley writes that Qoheleth is “most unorthodox and varied of the writings” in
the Tanakh; “It contains elements ranging from the pessimism of the ancient Egyptians
and Babylonians to the fatalism and hedonism of the Stoics and Epicurean.”57
55 Dovid Zucker, introduction to Voice of the Nobles: Commentary of the Dubner Maggid on the
Book of Ecclesiastes (Koheles) by Jacob ben Wolf Kranz and Dovid Zucker (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 2009),
xxi.
56 Qoheleth “can be considered as an apology addressed to the men whose vision does not go
beyond what is ‘under the sun.’ The author shows the vanity of the philosophy they embrace, and
underlines the futility of the materialism and of a life without GOD. From this perspective, [Qoheleth]
becomes a lively critic of the secularism and pretends to fight the tendency to relegate religion to the basic
category of a simple instrument of secularism. If man sees the world as an end in itself, life becomes vain,
but if he considers it as a way for GOD to reveal himself and show his wisdom and justice, then life has
meaning.” J. Mervin Bréneman, “Eclesiastés,” Diccionario Ilustrado de la Biblia (San José, Costa Rica:
Editorial Caribe, 1977), 175 col. 2.
57 Charles F. Whitley, Koheleth: His Language and Thought (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1979), 1.
31
Bartholomew would agree with this comment.58
Qoheleth may have similar thoughts but
then again the conclusions and perspectives are different from these philosophical trends.
Candeday observes that some conservative scholars have struggled “to vindicate the
apparently negative view of life” and the apparent Epicureans’ thoughts in Qoheleth.59
The philosophical and ethical issues lead almost every writer to debate the canonicity of
this book from one view or another. However, it can be affirmed that Qoheleth was not
an Epicurean. Someone writes: “Eating and drinking … is not the gratification of sensual
appetite. To eat and drink, by a common figure in all languages, denotes to partake of
what may be either pleasurable or painful.”60
Eating and drinking is also deeply related to
the commandments on kashrut in the Torah.61
Scott, somehow negatively, says that “The author is a rationalist, an agnostic, a
skeptic, a pessimist, and a fatalist.”62
Needless to say, Qoheleth recognizes the limits of
human reason, holds to his faith, i.e, Torah, encourages enjoyment of life, and has hope
within his determinism. In a more friendly approach, Zimmermann attempts to
understand the author by providing psychoanalysis of Qoheleth; closer to profiling
instead.63
He says that “the book is a complete representation of Qohelet himself.”64
The
58 Craig Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 139:203.
59 Ardel B. Candeday, “Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” in Reflecting with
Solomon, editor Roy Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 85.
60 Anonymous, “The Scope and Plan of the book of Ecclesiastes,” 120.
61 The Commandments set limits to what can be enjoyed as food and drinks; what is eaten and
drank must be done as an act that shows fear and obedience toward ELOHIM, the source of life.
62 Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes, 192.
63 Frank Zimmermann, Inner World of Qoheleth, (New York: Ktav, 1972), ix.
32
book “is a mirror of the chain of neuroses that afflicted” the author, according to him.65
He continues his Freudian analysis saying: “A book is a mirror of its creator, and symbols
are but signals from the author’s unconscious.”66
He adds that the first, second, third
persons and even anonymous statements “in all cases they are reflections of one and the
same, Qohelet himself, searching, for some relief and deliverance from obsessions,
anxieties, and compulsions.”67
Again, borrowing Crenshaw’s observation, Qoheleth’s life
is an “existence in tormentis.”68
Zimmermann writes:
Qohelet’s personality has remained an enigma; we have not penetrated to the core
of his complex persona…Qohelet’s personality and thoughts are best explained by
the complex neuroses that gripped and overpowered him, neuroses which he tried
to ameliorate through a series of compulsive actions intended to drain off the
pressure and the drives that surged within him. Even with a first reading of the
book, it is easy to perceive in Qohelet the weariness of life, the lack of zest and
interest in living, the futility of planning for the future, the obsession with wasted
time.69
Lohfink writes that Qoheleth, the writer, presents “himself at the peak of human
aspiration…highly educated, technically all-competent shaker and mover, a master of
life’s pleasures. He tries everything.”70
Qoheleth “always lived wrongly” argues Sharp.71
64 Ibid., xiii.
65 Ibid., ix.
66 Ibid., xii.
67 Ibid., xiv.
68 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 122.
69 Zimmermann, Inner World of Qoheleth, xiii.
70 Norbert Lohfink, Qohelet: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 2.
33
She carries on saying: “The book presents the sage as one who strives mightily but
ultimately fails in the dystopian habitat constructed by his proud epistemological
autonomy.” 72
Others had a more favourable view toward the book. Renan writes that
Qoheleth which “passed formerly as the most obscure book of the Bible” in fact to the
contrary, he claims, “the book, as a whole, is very clear.”73
All these comments reflect a common sentiment toward this strange book. Loader
makes a very significant observation: “The Book of Qoheleth is one of the most delicate
and complex literary products of the ancient Near East.” 74
Nevertheless, he accurately
states that “without it world literature would have been much poorer indeed, and theology
would have had to forgo one of its most valuable biblical documents.”75
Regardless of it
the negative views about Qoheleth persist. This attitude or approach toward Qoheleth is
not new. Hirschman’s observes: “The book itself and its reputed author, Solomon, were
… extremely controversial, with some rabbis advocating the rejection of both.”76
Motyer’s frustration with the book is a general feeling among scholars: “What a problem
71 Carolyn Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2009), 212.
72 Ibid.
73 «L’Ecclésiaste passait autrefois pour le livre le plus obscure de la Bible. C’est là une opinion de
théologiens, tout à fait fausse en réalité. Le livre, dans son ensemble, est très clair ; seulement les
théologiens avaient un intérêt majeur à le trouver obscur.» Ernest Renan, L’Ecclésiaste, 3rd edition (Paris:
Calmann Léyy, 1890), 15.
74 J. A. Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet (Berlin: Gruyter, 1979), 133.
75 Ibid.
76 Marc Hirschman, The Greek Fathers and the Aggada on Ecclesiastes: Formats of Exegesis in
Late Antiquity, HUCA (1998), 59:138.
34
it presents as soon as we open its pages! What a dark view of life, a seemingly inevitable
pessimism!”77
Telushkin insists that Qoheleth “is…the most pessimistic” of the Tanakh.78
He says that attributing the book to Solomon was what led the Rabbis to include “this
otherwise rather irreligious work into the Hebrew Bible” canon, i.e., Tanakh.79
However,
“though generations come and generations go, the book of [Qoheleth] endures. Across
three millennia it speaks with the impact and in the language of a contemporary”
accurately writes Faier.80
Telushkin adds that “perhaps the Rabbis were delivering a
hidden, if ironic, assessment of their true feelings about this work’s value” when they
place the book in the late days of Solomon.81
According to Pérez, if the book was written
by Solomon or by more than one writer does not affect the dogma of inspiration since he
or they were all inspired.82
Ravasi published a book titled Qohelet: II libro più originale e “scandaloso”
dell’Antico Testamento.83
As the title says, he describes Qoheleth as “scandaloso.” Every
77 Alec Motyer, The Story of the Old Testament: Men with a Message (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2001), 160.
78 Joseph Telushkin, Biblical Literacy: The Most Important People, Events, and Ideas of the
Hebrew Bible (New York: Morrow, 1997), 365.
79 Ibid., 367.
80 Zvi Faier, Introduction to The Book of Qoheleth. Me’am Lo’ez: Torah Anthology on the Book
of Ecclesiastes by Rabbi Shmuel Yerushalmi (New York: Moznaim, 1988), vi.
81 Telushkin, Biblical Literacy, 367
82 Gabriel Pérez Rodriguez, “Eclesiastés” in Biblia Comentada: Libros Sapiensale, ed. Profesores
de Salamanca (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1967), 4:856.
83 Gianfranco Ravasi, Qohelet: il libro più originale e scandaloso dell'Antico Testamento
(Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 2001).
35
reader that has taken the time to study carefully this book has found all kinds of
“stumbles” in it or as the term is used today, they have found the book itself to be
“alarming.” Wright says, “Ecclesiastes is one of the most puzzling books of the Bible.”84
Qoheleth has conclusions that seem to be heretical. Contrary to this Sperka claims that
Qoheleth is just “analytical and pragmatic.”85
Whybray argues that “the discussion is
completely open and uninhibited: here is no blind acceptance of traditional views, but a
radical and ruthless testing of them in the light of reason and experience.”86
Voicing a
similar thought, Towner calls the book “the most real of the realists of the sacred
writers.”87
Kreeft calls Qoheleth one of the “three most profound books of philosophy” that
he has ever read.88
Kreeft, as the subtitle of the book says, describes Qoheleth as a
philosophy of Life as Vanity. The French social thinker Ellul had “explored it more than
any other book in the Bible.” 89
He says that it gave and spoke to him perhaps more than
any other book of the Biblical canon.90
84 J. Stafford Wright, Ecclesiastes, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein
(Grand Rapid: Zondervan, 1991), 5:1137.
85 Joshua Sperka, Ecclesiastes: Stories to Live by (New York: Bloch, 1972), 13.
86 R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes. OTG (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 12.
87 W. Sibley Towner, “The Book of Ecclesiastes: Introduction, commentary, and reflections,” in
NIB, eds. Leander E. Keck, and Richard J. Clifford (Abingdon: Nashville, 1997), 5:267.
88 Peter Kreeft, Three Philosophies of Life, (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989), 7.
89 Jacques Ellul, Reason for Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes. (Grand Rapids: Erdmann’s,
1990), 1.
90 Ibid.
36
There is simplicity in the book, common sense, according to others.91
Nevertheless, the consensus seems to be that Qoheleth remains a difficult text.92
Vinel
wrote that it shows numerous problems of interpretation.93
Brown is probably correct
when he states that Qoheleth is “the least straight forward” when compared with other
Wisdom books and “elusive” in its style.94
Qoheleth reflects the complexity of human
thoughts; just as complex as the paradoxes of life. At the same time, Evangelical scholars
do assert that regardless of these difficulties the book “is hardly a Biblical misfit.”95
Zuck
perhaps is correct to say that “no book of the Bible is more perplexing – and yet more
majestic in its appeal” than the Book of Qoheleth.96
However, he recognizes that “its
apparent pessimistic outlook, its supposed rejection of the value of wisdom and wealth –
all these contribute to the puzzling nature of the book.”97
Ogden, a respected Bible
translator and scholar on Qoheleth writes: “The contents of the book appear to be so
91 Cf. Levin, Guide to the Bible, 246.
92 Addison G Wright, “The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth,” in
Reflecting with Solomon, ed. Roy Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 45.
93 Françoise Vinel, Grégoire de Nysse Homélies sur L’Ecclésiastes, (Paris: Cerf, 1996), 7. She
includes an excellent and brief introduction to the use of Qoheleth by Church Fathers.
94 William P. Brown, Ecclesiastes, (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2000), 17. He does a good
analysis of Gilgamesh and Qoheleth.
95 Roy Zuck, “Introduction,” in Reflecting with Solomon, editor Roy Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1994), 13; cf. Wright, “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes” , 17.
96Zuck, “Introduction”, 15.
97Ibid.
37
confusing that two opposite … interpretations seem possible.”98
The apparent validity of
contradictory interpretations shows how difficult the book can be to readers, both the
untrained and the scholar. However, only one intended meaning is in the text.
Shields gives a warning: “The danger … is in becoming so caught up in
Qoheleth’s argument that we find ourselves sharing his conclusions”; forgetting “the
bigger picture” given in the epilogue; he continues: “Qoheleth’s world is not a
comfortable or a comforting one.”99
However, the reader must get into the book itself to
understand its essence and appreciate its contribution. This dissertation, though consults
the great variety of scholarly work, it makes every effort to listen to the text itself.
Harmonization and Analogy
Christian theologians have tried to harmonize Qoheleth with the New Testament
to make sense of it. Longe says: “The earliest situations in which principles of
interpretation were worked out were encounters with religious texts whose meanings
were obscure or whose import was no longer acceptable unless they could be harmonized
with the rest of the faith.”100
Ancient writings on Qoheleth, especially by the Greek
Church Fathers, strive to harmonize this book with the rest of the canon, i.e. NT. Erdman
says that Qoheleth “is read by Christians with doubt and perplexity. They find it hard to
extract from it anything spiritual and heavenly, and so try to read into it what is
98 Ogden, Qohelet, 100.
99 Martion A. Shields, The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical
Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), ix.
100 David E. Longe, “Introduction,” in Philosophical Hermeneutics by Hans-Georg Gadamer.,
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988) xii.
38
consciously contrary to its spirit and letter.”101
Perry makes a similar observation: “More
radically, one may rewrite or ‘paraphrase’ the received text in harmony with one’s own
theological bias.”102
Obviously this would be an unacceptable approach. Scholars like
Wright read the NT back into the Tanakh to make sense of Qoheleth.103
This is an
obvious sign of how complex this text is and how, without this relation between the NT
and the Tanakh, Qoheleth will be questioned by liberals and conservatives alike. When
the interpreter tries to harmonize Qoheleth by reading the NT and other Tanakh books
into it, it is no longer Qoheleth but something else. Mixing blue and yellow creates green;
it is no longer blue and no longer yellow. It is difficult not to be distracted toward the NT
when reading Qoheleth. It is almost in desperation that the thoughts find refuge and rest
in the Torah and the NT answers to the questions of Qoheleth. Regardless of this writer’s
struggle to be objective, the fact remains that the Torah and NT teachings have
influenced how this writer reads Qoheleth.104
After all, Qoheleth’s writer leads the reader
to the Torah (cf. 7:29; 12:13).
The principle of analogy is a very important part of the process of interpretation in
a theological study of the Bible, but must be handled carefully. The texts of the Tanakh
must stand on their own, and then the reader can explore how the NT has approached the
book or related topics. It is not clear that analogy of faith and harmonizing are different;
101 W. J. Erdman, Ecclesiastes: A Study (Philadelphia: Avil, 1895), 7.
102 T. A. Perry, Dialogues with Koheleth: The Book of Ecclesiastes (University Park:
Pennsylvania State University, 1993), xi.
103 cf. Wright, “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes”, 26.
104 Cf. H. Carl Shank, Qoheleth’s World and Life View as seen in His Recurring Phrases, WTJ
37 (1974), 79n37.
39
in practice it seems that harmonizing is what theologians are doing, by approaching the
canon with the presupposition that there are no ambiguities in the biblical text. While no
all passages can be interpreted by the reading of other biblical passages, in the Anabaptist
Christian tradition the teachings of Jesus provide the ultimate message to understand a
particular theological statement in the Tanakh or any other book of the NT canon.
The questions the writer of Qoheleth raises in the book may be to instigate further
exploration and thinking since the writer gives no answers, except by getting the readers’
attention toward the Torah, i.e., commandments. Whybray writes:
They are questions which no thinking person can ultimately escape: questions
about such matters as the purpose, if any, of human existence and whether the
universe is governed by moral laws – questions to which, more than two thousand
years later, and despite the efforts of many generations of philosophers and
theologians, no answer have yet been found – and indeed it is doubtful whether
one can even say that progress has been made.105
Salyer says that it is the first person narrative and rhetoric that makes Qoheleth
“different from other biblical” books and very “controversial.”106
Hirschman observes
correctly that Qoheleth’s “message remains a matter of dispute.”107
Qoheleth “é um livro
estranho” says Campos.108
Some entries about Qoheleth in Bible dictionaries are very
naïve, avoiding important questions.109
Schoors recognizes that the style and context is
105 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 12.
106 Gary D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes. JSOT, 327
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 15.
107 Mark Hirschman, The Greek Fathers and the Aggada on Ecclesiastes, 138.
108 Qoheleth is “a strange book” or “rare book.” Harold Campos, Qohélet/O-Que-Sabe (Sao
Paulo: Perspectiva, 1991), 17.
109 Cf. M. G. Easton, Illustrated Bible Dictionary (London: Thomas Nelson, 1894), 210.
40
“so unusual for a biblical book”, making Qoheleth “so difficult and so puzzling.”110
Perhaps many of the problems some scholars have with the book are because they master
everything about the book but not the book itself. With a similar concern, Sanders writes:
The current decline of literature and the attendant rise of literary theory in English
graduate programs was anticipated by the curricula of theological seminaries,
which have long emphasized scholarly-critical-methodologies over the biblical
text itself. The future pastor, rabbi, or priest has been expected to know the latest
theories in the history of the formation of various literary units of the Bible, but as
far as the academically reputable seminary is concerned, Bible content is left
almost entirely to the student.
Such a curriculum may have worked well up to the literal period, the first half of
this century (though I wonder even about that); however, it has produced a
generation of ministers reasonably adept at reciting basic histories of the
formation of the Bible but ignorant for the most part of the Bible itself.111
Faier says that Qoheleth “speaks to his audience, and his audience is an echo, a
reflection of himself…it speaks with the impact and in the language of a
contemporary.”112
It reflects human experience and reality. Qoheleth is an echo of the
loneliness of the soul in search for answers to its existence. Ellul says that for “the most
part this book is a book of solitary meditation, of withdrawal into the self. It is composed
of thoughts utterly impossible to express in an assembly.”113
It has an appeal to
monasticism. Monks have written some of the best non-exegetical reflective theological
110 Antoon Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of
Qoheleth (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 224.
111 J. Sanders, “The Integrity of Biblical Pluralism,” in “Not in Heaven”: Coherence and
Complexity in Biblical Narrative, eds. Jason P. Rosenblatt et Joseph C. Sitterson Jr. (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1991), 154.
112 Faier, “Introduction,” vi.
113 Ellul, Reason for Being, 18.
41
commentaries on Qoheleth. Melancholic writers and poets find the book appealing. These
same kinds of thoughts can be found in the deepest part of humanity: in the darkness of
the souls. Qoheleth exposes humanity’s darkest time. Nevertheless, it is in the same book
of darkness that light shines, in its last words.114
Shields accurately states:
The short epilogue to Qoheleth’s words…12:9-14, is foundational to
understanding the book…as a whole. Here the epilogist, who is effectively the
author of the work, expresses his own thoughts on Qoheleth and wisdom
movement of his time. Only from this perspective is it possible to proceed or
identify the relationship of Ecclesiastes to its world and of the remainder of the
canon.115
Qoheleth, on one hand, is very different in its content from any other
philosophical literature of the Hebrews, canonical and non-canonical. On the other hand,
common between Qoheleth and these books is the absence of the Exodus and related
events in the history of Ancient Israel, e.g., covenant.116
Although Qoheleth calls to keep
the commandments, this is not common for Wisdom writings. Crenshaw notices that
Wisdom Literature does not speak of the Covenant, the Exodus, or the call to follow the
commandments.117
Drane points to it and complements by saying:
There is also the honest recognition that faith sometimes seems to give little
meaning to the details of everyday activities. There is no mention of Israel’s
history here, nor of the nation’s experiences in events like the exodus, which other
114 The conclusion, regardless that may be from the hand of an inspired writer, it is still the
thoughts of Qoheleth.
115 Shields, The End of Wisdom, 47.
116 This writer uses the term canonical in referene to the Biblical books as available in the Tanakh
today. In Jewish tradition the Mishna, Talmud (Gemara), Tosefta, and even Baraita and Responsa are
considered canonical.
117 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 1.
42
authors of the Hebrew Bible would have referred to as some sort of answer to the
writer’s questions. Instead, the author concedes that, while the mere reiteration of
traditional religious dogmas is sometimes powerless to solve life’s most pressing
problems, ultimately the meaning of it all is known to GOD, even if the human
mind finds it impossible to comprehend. In practical terms, ‘all we can do is to be
happy and do the best we can while we are still alive. All of us should eat and
drink and enjoy what we have worked for. It is GOD’s gift’ (3:12–13).118
The Exodus or any other major event in Israel’s history is absent; however,
Qoheleth is a theologian. Qoheleth is also a thinker, a philosopher, a seeker of wisdom, a
poet, a scientist, a political analyst, an anthropologist. He is in search of answers to life’s
complex existence. His philosophical journey is toward theological understanding. He is
trying to make sense of the paradoxes and absurdities in human existence. In the process
he discovers the limits of human reasoning and the infinite and unfathomable ELOHIM.119
The epilogue, םיו שמור כי־זה כל־האדתצואת־האלהים ירא ואת־מ is a theological
conclusion to crown all the other scientific enquiring and Qoheleth’s journey of faith and
doubt.120
However, this journey has left humanity with one of the most difficult Hebrew
texts in the entire canon of Jewish literature. The language of Qoheleth is one of the main
complex aspects of the book. Its apparent lack of structure adds to the problem.
Reasoning often is expressed in speech and speech often becomes text and text
must have a structure. Reasoning, speech and text depend on the use of language. The
structure helps the reader to understand how the language is used. To understand the
theology of this Hebrew thinker, Qoheleth’s language and structure must be considered.
118John William Drane, Introducing the Old Testament (Oxford: Lion, 2000), 119.
119 Cf. Ronald E. Hawkins, Teaching and preaching the book of Ecclesiastes, D.Min.
120 Be reverent of ELOHIM and keep his instruction. “Fear of ELOHIM” is another term for being
religious, pious or observant of the Divine Instruction, i.e., Torah, in both modern and ancient Judaism.
43
The language is not the main subject of this dissertation; still, some comments may be
helpful to understand Qoheleth’s theology.
Language
Qoheleth’s greatest difficulties are found in the language and the apparent lack of
structure, which makes interpreting the text very difficult. There are excellent works on
Qoheleth’s language. Perhaps the best works on the language of Qoheleth are Elyo‘enai’s
ימחקרים הקהלת והמשל and Frederick’s book, Qoheleth’s language: Re-evaluating its nature
and Date.121
Qoheleth’s Hebrew, as Whybray accurately argues, is very different from
the ‘classical’ Hebrew, and presents major difficulties to the interpreter who has studied
and learned the language in the textbook of ‘standard biblical Hebrew.’122
Aaronson,
following Plungian, speculates that the language was originally a strange one used by
Solomon in exile during a rebellion, and later the book was “translated” into Hebrew.123
Kravitz and Olitzky find the text of Qoheleth often difficult to translate.124
One of the
samples they offer is 9:15 where the conjugations of טל מו and רזכ make it difficult to
translate the verse. Following ibn Ezra they translate:
121 D. C. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s language: Re-evaluating its nature and Date (Lewiston: Mellen,
1988); M. Elyo‘enai, מחקרים הקהלת והמשלי (Jerusalem: ha-Hevrah le-ḥeker ha-Mikra be-Yisraʼel, 1977).
122 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 29.
123 Lionel E. Z. Aaronson, Qoheleth: The Record of the Lecture Given by the Son of David who
was King in Jerusalem : a New and Original Translation and Paraphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes
(Trowitzsch: Berlin, 1924), 9-10. Cf. Mordecai Plungian, כרם לשלמה: והוא ביאור חדש ומספיק על ספר קהלת
(Vilna: Bi-defus ha-Almanah veha-Aḥim Rom, 1877).
124 Leonard S. Kravitz and Kerry M. Olitzky, Kohelet: a modern commentary (New York:
UAHC Press, 2003), 97.
44
IN THAT CITY THERE HAPPENED TO BE A POOR PERSON WHO, BY HIS [OR HER]
WISDOM, MIGHT HAVE SAVED THE CITY. ALAS, NOBODY MENTIONED THAT POOR
PERSON.125
Vinel writes that Qoheleth is a difficult text due to its language.126
She argues that
the writer was probably someone who spoke Aramaic fluently. Fishbane writes that
Qoheleth “is a great challenge” in part due to “the complicated issues of language,
particularly style, terminology, and of course possible Aramaic substrate.”127
Delitzsch observes on the complexity of the language of Qoheleth that if Qoheleth
is Solomonic then there is no history of the Hebrew language: “Wenn das Koheleth
altsalomonisch ware, so gäbe es keine Geschichte der hebräischen Sprachen.”128
It is
possible that the language is the idiolect of the scribe. Frederick states there are three
basic theories on the language of Qoheleth, which he analyzes well in his work:
1) Qoheleth is a Hebrew composition with many late biblical Hebrew (BH), Aramaic and
Mishnaic Hebrew (MH) elements; 2) Qoheleth is a translation from Aramaic and
3) Qoheleth was influenced by Phoenician and Ugaritic languages.129
Frederick lists a
summary of the argument scholars have presented in favour of a translation from an
125 Ibid. Perhaps, assuming that Shlomo is the author, the writer is remembering the experience
of David with Nabal and Abigail (1 Kings 25:2- 42).
126 Qoheleth «est un texte biblique difficile. Écrit en hébreu à une date tardive, dans une langue
que les exégètes s’accordent à reçonnaitre comme très marquée par l’araméen.» Vinel, Grégoire de Nysse
Homélies sur L’Ecclésiastes, 7.
127 Michael Fishbane, e-mail to writer, October, 19th
, 2012.
128 Delitzsch, Koheleth, 197. He et al. appeal to a rare book, dissertation thesis, found only in the
Dansk Biblioteks (Biblioteksstyrelse): H. G. Bernstein, Quæstiones nonnullæ Kohelethanæ (na: Vrastilava,
1854).
129Frederick, Qoheleth’s language, 11-25.
45
original Aramaic text: High density of alleged Aramaisms, unexpected absence or
presence of the definite article, and supposed improvements in the text obtained by
restoring “obscure” passages to the “original” Aramaic.130
Zimmermann makes the
strongest case for an Aramaic original.131
The influence of Aramaic may be present but
this does not point to a later post-exilic date, although the syntax at times may reflect the
language of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.132
Fredericks writes that the language of
Qoheleth does not need to be dated after the exile. He argues that “no accumulation of
linguistic evidence speaks against a pre-exilic date.”133
Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic,
Persian, shared a common history through centuries and their contact goes back long
before the records in the Bible. Aramaic was a common language in the region. From
ancient times, the Arameans are present in the history of Israel, after all Abram was an
Aramean.
It is an error to claim Aramaic influence based on its current vowel points.134
The
Tiberian vowel points were developed centuries later by people who spoke Aramaic.135
Loader seems to consider the possibility of Aramaic influence in the use of the Hebrew
language.136
This influence will be reflected in Aramaisms. Mercer observes: “The
130 Ibid., 15.
131 Zimmermann, The Inner World of Qohelet, 98-122.
132 Whitley, Koheleth, 1-2.
133 Fredericks, Qoheleth’s language, 262.
134 The text of Qoheleth should be studied without the vowels.
135 The other vowel system is the Babylonian one; it follows Aramaic vocalization.
136Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet, 15-20.
46
original text…contained many Aramaisms, approaching very nearly to the language of
the Mishna.”137
Crenshaw states that “the fact remains that the book is written in an
Aramaizing Hebrew, a language with strong Mishnaic tendencies.”138
Towner writes that
Qoheleth is 3.1% Aramaisms, based on Crenshaw’s theories.139
This does not mean the
text was an original Aramaic work. Murphy accurately opposes the ‘Aramaic original’
theory saying:
There is no clear case of a text in Ecclesiastes being an example of a
mistranslation from the Aramaic. Moreover, the paronomasia and other tricks of
style in the Hebrew text are more easily understood of one writing in a native
language than a translator. The entire episode, however, is symbolic of the
mystery of the language of this book, which still remains puzzling.140
It has been proposed that Phoenician may be the language of the original text.141
A Phoenician source for its philosophy is perhaps possible. Kügel comments:
More recently, it has been argued that the original language was Phoenician, a
dialect closely related to Hebrew but with distinctive features. Yet some of these
very features are absent or only intermittently present in Ecclesiastes; this
hypothesis too is to be rejected. Most likely, the language of Ecclesiastes is a late
brand of Hebrew, with many northern (or at least non-Jerusalemite) features, a
language thus situated somewhere between the artificial, ‘literary’ Hebrew of
other postexilic writings and the dialect known as MH that was to become a
literary language only after the close of the biblical period in the writings of
137 Samuel A. B. Mercer, The Ethiopic Text of the Book of Ecclesiastes, (London: Luzac, 1931), 1.
138 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 507.
139 Towner, “The Book of Ecclesiastes,” 72
140 Roland Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), xxviii. Cf. Robert Gordis,
Koheleth: the man and his World (New York: Schoken, 1968), 131, 399-400.
141 Shlomo had a very good relation with Phoenicians. Cf. 1 Kings 7:13-14. Wrights proposes a
Phoenician scribe as redactor of Qoheleth. Cf. Wright, Ecclesiastes, 1144.
47
rabbinic Judaism. That is to say, the author of Ecclesiastes did not consistently
frame his words, as other late authors did, in a literary, official Hebrew; on the
contrary, he seems at times to have relished the brassy sound of contemporary,
colloquial speech, especially when debunking accepted ideas. 142
Whiteley agrees that “Many constructions in the book are obscure, and its syntax
as a whole is cumbersome.”143
Qoheleth’s language is similar to MH; however, Qoheleth
strives to build a unique language to communicate his theology and philosophy. This
cannot be a translation. Translations provide a smooth clear text, which is not in
Qoheleth’s Hebrew text.144
Crenshaw agrees that Qoheleth’s author “forged a language
and syntax peculiar to this book.”145
He previously stated that “basic to the riddle is the
ambiguity of language; it can only generate where words bear meaning that are common
knowledge and at the same time conceal special connotations from exclusive group.”146
Barucq proposes that Qoheleth may have written intentionally in a colloquial language
and has taken the risk of being obscure to those used to the literary language.147
Burkitt
142James L. Kugel, Ecclesiastes, HBD (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 236.
143 Whitley, Koheleth, 1. This is one of the best works on Qoheleth’s language.
144 Cf. Kurt Marti, Prediger Salomo: Weisheit inmitten der Globalisierung: deutsche Fassung mit
Zwischentiteln und einem Einstieg. (Stuttgart: Radius, 2002). Marti’s translation provides a very smooth
text.
145 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 501.
146 Ibid., 58.
147 «Il se peut que l’auteur ait intentionnellement rédigé son ouvrage dans une langue proche de
la langue parlée dans le but de forcer l’attention et de rendre vivant un genre ordinairement très
académique. Il en résulte cependant quelque difficulté à laquelle il n’échappes pas, celle de charger certains
termes d’un sens qu’ils n’ont pas dans la langue littéraire biblique et de risquer d’être obscur.» André
Barucq, Ecclesiaste, Qoheleth: traduction et commentaire, Verbum salutis, Ancien Testament (Paris:
Beauchesne, 1968), 3:12.
48
writes that Qoheleth has “crabbed and unnatural lingo.”148
Tower writes that “the Hebrew
language in which Qoheleth wrote is distinctive. Either it is a late dialect peculiar to his
place and time or, because his task was to offer a philosophical discussion of issues, he
had to shape a new language for the purpose.”149
Philosophical work, in almost any
language, has a tendency to have a vocabulary and syntax of its own.
The possibility that perhaps Qoheleth arrived to us through a poor scribe, a non-
professional is always present. Rendsburg states that there are “a number of grammatical
peculiarities.”150
He affirms with other scholars that this is due “to the unusual history of
the Bible’s textual transmission, which purportedly has led to all sorts of scribal
errors/variants being inadvertently introduced into the text.”151
Crenshaw agrees with Delsman that the language of Qoheleth is closer to MH
than to BH; it is the transition from BH to MH.152
Lohfink proposed that the language of
Qoheleth is pre-Mishnaic, although he argues that it seems to belong to an Aramaic
speaking people. He also points out that “Greek syntax and stereotypes of speech in
148 F. C. Burkitt, “Is Ecclesiastes a Translation?” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1922), 20.
149 Towner, “The Book of Ecclesiastes,” 269.
150 Gary A. Rendsburg, “Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew” in
Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew ed. Walter R. Bodine (Winnona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 65.
151 Ibid. The best reserach on Tanakh textual criticism is Emanuel Tov’s Textual Criticism of
the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012).
152Cf. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 29, 31.
49
Greek culture mark the Hebrew” of this book. 153
This was often the case of first century
Jewish literature. A few scholars have insisted that Qoheleth is Second Temple Hebrew
(between 152-145 B.C.E. according to Whitley).154
Elyo‘enai argues that the Hebrew of
Qoheleth is the First Temple Hebrew with a few later forms and words, which have been
wrongly inserted later.155
It is always possible that Qoheleth’s autograph could have been of higher quality
in grammar, syntax and probably in the standard BH.156
This writer assumes that
Qoheleth spoke and he or his scribe wrote as it has come to us in the MT; however, there
is always the possibility that the current text has suffered unintentionaly in the process of
transmition at the hands of the scribes. Mercer notes that “scholars agree that the text of
Ecclesiastes has been transmitted to us, on the whole, with great fidelity.”157
Though, the
consensus is that Qoheleth’s language is poor, common, and written in the late post-exilic
period.158
Isakson agrees that this book is unique but disagrees on the nature of its
153 Lohfink, Qohelet, 7. Cf. Walter Baumgartner, “Lachish Letter” in Zum Alten Testament in
seiner Umwelt (Brill: Leiden 1959), 227. Cf. Moses Hirsch Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Claredon,
1909), 85.
154 Gordis, Koheleth, 84. On Hebrew dialects see the excellent work of Gary A Rendsburg,
“Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew”, 65-88. Whitley, Koheleth, 1-2.
155 M. Elyo‘enai, 133-146 ,מחקרים הקהלת והמשלי.
156 The autographa of the Tanakh are no longer available as far as scholars know.
157 Mercer, The Ethiopic Text of the Book of Ecclesiastes, 3. Mercer has a very good summary on
the transmission of the text of Ecclesiastes, cf. Ibid., 1-4.
158 Fredericks, Qoheleth’s language, 7; Ernest W. Hengstenberg, A Commentary on Ecclesiastes
(Minneapolis: Sovereign Grace, 1960), 9.
50
language and seems to reject the possibility of Qoheleth having a unique philosophical
language. He contends:
Language is a social phenomenon that does not permit an author to create
language of his own. If the Qoheleth text in the main is the product of one
historical time and one social community, as most commentators maintain, it was
of course expressed in the language of that community. The language is not a
matter of individual choice. As a matter of course this does not mean that a text is
bound to represent the ordinary language of the community. On the contrary, the
Qoheleth text certainly does not. However, such differences do not pertain to the
deeper structure of the language, what a structuralist would call la langue. That
which is individual and hence what is special and characteristic for a specific text
in the same community, pertains to la parole; which means specifically, that the
verbal system of the Qoheleth text the verbal system of his time, in his
community.159
There are scholars proposing that the language of Qoheleth is more uniform than
in any other book of the Bible.160
Whitley observes that Qoheleth uses at times the
Hebrew of Job and Esther.161
Lowth makes a very important observation: The language
“is frequently loose, unconnected, approaching to the incorrectness of conversation.”162
Philosophical works in ancient times were the product of dialogues between teachers and
159 Bo Isakson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on the Verbal
System. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 10 (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1987), 17.
160 Cf. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, Der Prediger (Qohelet) (Leipzig: Deichert, 1932).
161 Whitley, Koheleth, 148.
162Robert Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, (original 1787) (Translated from
Latin, Boston: Buckhinham, 1815), 342-343 (Reprint: Routledge, 1995), 2. Cf. Colloquialism in the Old
Testament in Mélanges Marcel Cohen: Etudes de Linguistique Ethnographie et Sciences Connexes Offertes
par ses Amis et Ses Eleves A L'occasion De Son 80eme Anniversaire, Avec Des Articles Et Etudes Inédits
par Marcel Cohen: Réunis par David Cohen (Den Haag: Mouton, 1970), 237-239.
51
disciples. Qoheleth’s Hebrew may be colloquial pre-exilic Northern Israel BH.163
Northern Israel BH is similar to some of the language of Qoheleth.164
In colloquial
language there are no written rules, but it is learned and changed as needed by the
speaker. This seems to be the case in Qoheleth.165
Murphy considers the “incorrectness of
conversation” as a reason for the language difficulties.166
This argument appears to be
better than the one on the decline of the Hebrew language or the Aramaic original.167
The
complexity of the language and vocabulary appears to be post-exilic. Levin says that
Qoheleth “from its Hebrew syntax and style … evidently belongs to the age of
decline.”168
Later he adds that Qoheleth’s “style…abounds in features rare or unknown in
163 Cf. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language, 267.
164 Ibid., 34-35. The unassimilated article for example in 1:7; 8:1; 10:3 cf 2 Kings 7:12. Other
details are: Anticipatory accusative pronominal ש as relative pronoun instead of זה ;אשר as feminine
demonstrative pronoun. Frederick also points to the use of זה instead of זאת in 2:2, 24; 5:15, 18; 7:23; 9:13.
165 That is why there is Tanakhi Hebrew or Ivrit Mikrait, MH, Middle Ages Rabbinical Hebrew
(closer to Mishnaic), Modern Hebrew, colloquial Modern Israeli Hebrew, newspaper Modern Hebrew,
modern poetry Hebrew, and Qoheleth’s Hebrew. To this list it should be added Samaritan liturgical and
colloquial Hebrew, Falasha colloquial Hebrew, Mizraḥi colloquial Hebrew, Sephardic and Ashkenazi
colloquial Hebrew, etc.
166 Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxviii.
167 In a public speech a Spanish religious leader said: “frente a la escarlata” (on front of the
scarlet) instead of “frente a la escalinata” (on front of the steps [to the capitol]). Everyone understood what
he meant even if he used the wrong word. This incorrectness is not limited to the spoken language. In a
popular Spanish song the author wrote: “He buscado nuevas ansiedades.” The writer of this song confused
“ansiedades” (anxieties) with “emociones.” Anxiety is a negative emotion, while the song implies a
positive exiting experience. Listeners, especially of the author’s community would have understood
ansiedades as emociones. No one has ever corrected the song. Could it be possible that there are “errors”
like these ones in the text of Qoheleth? “Errors” in the eyes of the current readers, but perfectly understood
by the original readers.
168 Levin, Guide to the Bible, 186.
52
Hebrew literature from the classic age – which suggests that he, wrote closer to the end of
the pre-Christian era.”169
The use of colloquial language makes sense; that is the case of
most of the Greek NT. Perchance, the difficult Hebrew grammar of Qoheleth is due to
colloquial rather than literary language.170
The language is also a difficulty to date Qoheleth when compared with other
Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature, especially its parallel within theological and
philosophical writings.171
Qoheleth’s theology and philosophy seems to be original
regardless of the influence of other languages, therefore, regardless of the possible impact
of other philosophical traditions.
What perhaps is at play in Qoheleth is la langue and la parole. Isakson writes: “A
distinction is made between la langue and la parole which means a distinction between
language as a social system of interrelated signs, and the individual and accidental
manifestations of that system in utterance (acts of speech).”172
Qoheleth seems to validate
in part Wittgenstein’s theory on the philosophy of language, which follows Heidegger:
language often goes on vacation when it attempts to describe the absurd dimension of
169 Ibid., 245.
170 In Spanish, for example the second person singular preterit ends in _ste in colloquial Borikua
(PR) Spanish it ends in _stes.
171 An excellent text on the subject is D. C. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s language: Re-evaluating its
nature and Date (Lewiston: Mellen, 1988). He rejects the post-exilic argument. The book is the product of
his dissertation in 1982.
172 Isakson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth, 11.
53
life.173
It is then that the writer or speaker experiences language; seeking the right words
to express a concept or idea (cf. 12:10a
Often artists will express .( ץקהלת למצא דברי־חפ שבק
their ideas in a painting when the right words are difficult to discern. Qoheleth’s language
is also evidence of the limitations of human reasoning. He searched for pleasing,
beautiful, correct words to express his thoughts. Crenshaw says: “The seekers of wisdom
sought to know the appropriate word or proper deed for a given occasion.”174
Qoheleth
strives to find the right words (redundancy intended).
The use of Hebrew language and its grammar in Qoheleth remains challenging.
Some scholars, such as Bullinger, have seen a wide variety of figures of speech in
Qoheleth. His argument, to make sense of Qoheleth by the use of figures of speech, is
somehow exaggerated, and it reads Greek rhetoric and English literary criticism into it.175
There are Bible scholars that have translated Qoheleth’s words following their
meaning in other biblical contexts ignoring the possibility of a different meaning or
multiple uses within Qoheleth.176
There are too many obscure words in this book, which
is common in philosophical work. The main one is הבל (hevel). Faier refused to translate
.in his English edition of the Me’am Lo’ez הבל177
This may be the best option. Terms like
173 Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (New York: Harper, 1962), 59. This reference does not
imply agreement with the whole of the theories of Heidegger et al. on language or linguistics.
174 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 4.
175 Cf. E. W Bullinger, Figures of Speech used in the Bible, (London: n.p, 1898; reprint, Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1968).
176 cf. Shank, Qoheleth’s World and Life View as seen in His Recurring Phrases, 77.
177 Zvi Faier, Introduction to The Book of Qoheleth. Me’am Lo’ez: Torah Anthology on the Book
of Ecclesiastes by Rabbi Shmuel Yerushalmi (New York: Moznaim, 1988), v.
54
just as the title and name of the book and author should remain un-translated instead ,הבל
a transliteration should be in place, because no one particular word can communicate the
exact meaning of these terms.
Two other words that present some difficulties are יתרון and יתרון .חכמה is often
translated advantage, profit and gain (יתר).178
The term חכמה is difficult to translate in
Qoheleth. There is not a clear use of the term and his attitude toward it is not clear
(cf. 1:13, 18). The context, although at times confusing, is the only help to the interpreter.
An example of it is when the writer claims to have “wisdom” by his side while
experimenting with “foolishness” (cf. 1:17; 2:3). This is one of the paradoxes in the
experience of Qoheleth, since when wisdom is present there is no room for foolishness,
as he concludes later (2:13); there is no darkness where light shines. Qoheleth recognizes
that חכמה is a gift from ELOHIM (2:26); how can anyone please ELOHIM without it? He
recognized and was amazed by the power of (9:13-15) חכמה. In Qoheleth חכמה is not the
personification of the Torah found in Proverbs. Towner observes that
Unlike the other “wisdom” books of the Hebrew Bible, [Qoheleth] never
explicitly identifies wisdom as “fear the Lord” (cf. Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov.
15:33; Sir 1:14), though he often recommends fearing GOD (e.g. Eccl. 5:7; 7:18;
8:12); nor does he use it as a synonym for Torah, GOD’s revealed will (cf. Sir.
24:23; Bar 4:10). [It is] an intellectual skill to be used in the discovery of truth
(e.g. 2:3; 7:23), or at least the discovery that truth is undiscoverable (1:12-14). It
is the mental endowment of “wise” people (e.g. 2:9) from whose instruction one
gains great profit (7:5; 9:17)...moral value (10:1)…rich body of lore (8:16).”179
178For a brief study of this term see Robert Laird Harris et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 420.
179 Towner, “The Book of Ecclesiastes,” 281.
55
The Hebrew of Qoheleth is frustratingly different. The meaning of its vocabulary
must be defined in the context of Qoheleth. Qoheleth must be understood in its own
context, style, vocabulary etc. Levin states that the “vocabulary is mostly quite
ordinary.”180
However, at times Qoheleth may be using these words to mean something
else in his reasoning. In the process of reasoning words can change meaning quickly.
Abstract reasoning provides a place for meaning change, especially in the dialogue
within. It is a popular idea that Hebrew thinking is concrete. Candeday says about
Qoheleth: “The query expresses in typical Hebrew concreteness the quest for the meaning
and purpose of life in this present world.”181
Hebrew literature can also be very
abstract.182
It is not accurate to say, as Davies states, that “the development of the
vowelized phonetic alphabet is due to the development of abstract thinking in ancient
Greece.”183
It is this writer’s experience that abstract thoughts are often found in
conversation, more than in written text, among Arabic and Hebrew speaking people.
Qoheleth is a good example of it. Frederick affirms that Qoheleth “is by its nature
abstract, presenting universal truths, ethics, and the deepest of theological issues.”184
180 Levin, Guide to the Bible, 246.
181 Ardel B. Candeday, “Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” in Reflecting with
Solomon, ed. Roy Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 96.
182 Jewish philosophers who grew up with the influence of Hebrew language and tradition are
abstract in their thoughts, as the evidence can be seen in their books and speeches, e.g., Spinoza, Derrida,
Maimónides, et al.
183 Casey Wayne Davies, Oral Biblical Criticism: the Influence of the Principles of Orality on
the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1999), 15.
184 Frederick, Qoheleth Language, 30.
56
Abstract thoughts in conversation and in written form can use a word to mean
different things according to its context. Figures of speech are another difficulty in the
translation of Qoheleth. For example, many versions, among them the BCI, translate המרע
as shepherd or pastor of a congregation in 12:11.185
The word here could mean המרע
someone that observes or a visionary, or maybe a prophet; the meaning is not clear. It is
possible that it is a reference to ELOHIM. Many words in Qoheleth could have a different
meaning from the one found in traditional BH.
Dialects, colloquialisms, and idiolects are present in every language. There are
many Hebrew dialects. Words may mean one thing in one dialect and something different
in another. Often the meaning is similar or related to the original word.186
Dialectology
has been very important in linguistics in Ibero America and Spain. 187
It has been
neglected in the study of BH.188
However, a few Jewish scholars have done dialectology
185 Bíblia catalana, traducció interconfessional (Barcelona: Associació Bíblica de Catalunya,
Editorial Claret, & Societats Bíbliques Unides, 1996).
186 There are words in the Spanish language (castellano) that are pronounced and spelled
differently in Spain, among Sephardic Jews in Bosnia and Turkey, and by the various communities in Ibero
America. If the Bible is translated and printed according to the way Spanish is pronounced or following the
meaning of a word in different regions, or according to its use by each ethnic group, the editions will be a
few hundreds with a great variety of spellings and different vocabulary. The United Bible Societies and
Editorial Verbo Divino have produced editions of the Bible to meet the needs of the diversity in regional
use of the Spanish languages.
187 Cf. Vicente Alonso Zamora, Dialectologia espanola (Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1967); Juan
C. Zamora Munne and Jorge M. Guitart, Dialectología Hispanoamericana: Teoría, Descripción, Historia
(Salamanca: Almar, 1982).
188 Today there is evidence of ancient colloquial dialects of Hebrew in the various editions of the
siddur, the liturgy of the Samaritans, and in the various Mizrahi/Sephardic communities’ songs.
57
work about the Hebrew language.189
There are lexicons from the Middle Ages that
address the dialects of the Hebrew language, especially BH and MH. A major modern
work on the subject is by Rendsburg.190
There is the need for a comprehensive study of
dialectology of BH. These possible dialects of Hebrew in ancient Israel could be
researched from the evidence of the biblical text and the archæological findings, e.g.,
Ebla.191
Often scholars have rushed to identify something difficult in the text as an error
and have been too quick to emend. Nevertheless, as Rendsburg says, “instead of simply
emending the text when a difficult presents itself, there has been a growing trend toward
seeking to explain the peculiarity.”192
Colloquialism may be a possible answer; it is not a
189 Ghil'ad Zuckermann, Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). Zuckermann’s books are controversial due to the motif of his work.
Often he has been criticized by Israeli and Jewish scholars for the lack of scientific linguistic evidence and
an anti-Zionist agenda. Cf. Zuckermann, Ghil'ad. ישראלית שפה יפהמאת (Tel Aviv: ʻAm ʻoved, 2008). As it
has been proposed against Zuckermann’s theories, there is more in common between the BH and Modern
Israeli Hebrew than between Old English or even Shakespeare’s English and American English. Cf.
http://www.forward.com/articles/4052/
190 Rendsburg, Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew, 65-88.
191 Today Hebrew has over 18 different phonetic variations. Modern Hebrew is pronounced
differently in Tel Aviv than in Jerusalem. European languages, especially French, influenced Hebrew in
Turkey. For example, the guttural “r” among Sephardic Jews and Modern Hebrew speakers is from French.
One of the best works on the study of MH is by Ghilad Zuckerman, Language Contact and Lexical
Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. Modern Hebrew is a continuation of the history and evolution of the Hebrew
language, although Zuckerman describes it as a new language. However, his approach, regardless of some
of the concerns by Hebrew linguists, can be applied to the study of Ancient Hebrew dialectology.
192 Rendsburg, Morphological Evidence, 66.
58
corruption of the text.193
Colloquialism of ancient languages is sometimes reflected in the
spelling.194
Anderson agrees that the language makes translating Qoheleth “a notoriously
difficult task” since, as it has been observed above, it has a “unique Hebrew style, syntax
and orthography.”195
There are also a few other grammar concerns in Qoheleth. Nicole
writes that there are cases in the MT of Qoheleth, “where it is difficult to ascertain the
precise construction intended by the author.”196
An effort must be made to understand the
grammar of the original text to comprehend the author intended meaning. Sharp warns:
“Authorial intent is a tricky thing to discern and demonstrate; that texts are full of
ambiguities, gaps, elusive references, and elements that may be used in their own
deconstruction; and that any historical-critical reading is necessarily provincial and
partial shaped by the bias and ideological suppositions of its proponents.”197
However, it
is possible to discern the author intended meaning.
The author’s intended meaning as it is within the MT must be a priority. The text
cannot say whatever the reader wants it to say. The reader cannot see in it what is not
193 Ibid., 68.
194 The Tiberian, Samaritan and Babylonian vowel systems are reflections of a particular dialect.
How does the reader know who pronounced correctly שבלת/ סבלת in Judges 12:6? The writer had to
replace the (ש)ש with a ס to make the point instead of using a ש, because the little dot above it was not
available until the time of the Masoretes. If they were both asked to write down the word, they probably
would have spelled it the same way, with ש. Pronunciation was the problem. (What a sick, tragic and
absurd story!) Each tribe had their own dialect influenced by the idiolect of their founders.
195 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 6.
196 Roger R. Nicole, “The Nature of Inerrancy,” The Gospel Witness (March 19, 1987), 8.
197 Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, 197.
59
there nor speak of what is not spoken. The text means only what it says and says what it
means regardless of how difficult may be to “discern and demonstrate.”198
Saying what it
does not mean or meaning what it is does not say is senseless speculation. The text has
one meaning. A text that means too many things means nothing. Needless to say, the
question remains: Did the original writer mean what the reader today understands from
the plain text?
All the reader has available is the text. The single meaning is in the text. Words
must be understood in their context. We do not know the mind of the author except for
what he or she provided in the text through the use of language. Often the reader
misunderstands the text. If the author was present perhaps the reader would hear him or
her saying: “You misread what I wrote.” Or, “No, that is not what I mean.” Regardless of
it, the reader must strive to understand the text.
Qoheleth does not contain the total or exhaustive knowledge, understanding or
experience of its writer; rather with the use of writing (script) its author attempts to
preserve his or someone else’s thinking. Thinking is so complex that two or three or even
more ideas can be processed at the same time regardless of contradictions, agreements or
without any relation at all to each other; even thinking of different things in different
languages at the same time. This experience can lead to write in one language while using
the syntax of another. Nevertheless, somehow it must be assumed that the final document
of Qoheleth (autograph) contains no more nor less than what its author intended, although
it is not the fullness of their thoughts, but the essence of it; in one language, the language
of Qoheleth. The written text can never express the deepest thoughts of a writer; no
198 Ibid.
60
words could communicate it at times. Writing is further away from thinking than
speech.199
The idea that a written text communicates perfectly the mind of the writer is
unsettled. The symbols, e.g., words (spoken or written), are imperfect expressions of
human imagination, adopted by a particular group of people.200
The “standard”
established by such a people, regardless of how closely unified they may be, cannot
express human thoughts in all its perfection (fullness). However, the text has priority; it is
through the text that the interpreter gets at the author’s intended meaning.201
The final
form of the text is extremely important in the process of interpreting the message for
today. Concerning the biblical text there is the conviction and faith that the essence of the
DIVINE AUTHOR intended meaning is clearly communicated.
The problem faced by the interpreter of Qoheleth is not a lack of mastery of BH
rather that Qoheleth’s Hebrew has its own grammar. His language is not the interpreter’s
language, neither standard BH grammar (if there is such a thing). To understand this book
the reader must be immersed in it and define the words in Hebrew within their literary
context. In the process of defining and translating into any language, the reader is already
199 Cf. Peggy Kamuf, ed. A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1991), 31.
200 Spoken words are symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken
words according to Aristotle. Cf. Ἔστι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ παθη- μάτων σύμβολα, καὶ
τὰ γραφόμενα τῶν ἐν τῇ φωνῇ. καὶ ὥσπερ οὐδὲ γράμματα πᾶσι τὰ αὐτά, οὐδὲ φωναὶ αἱ αὐταί· ὧν μέντοι
ταῦτα σημεῖα πρώτων, ταὐτὰ πᾶσι πα- θήματα τῆς ψυχῆς, καὶ ὧν ταῦτα ὁμοιώματα πράγματα ἤδη ταὐτά.
Aristotle, Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας 1-2 in Aristotelis Opera, eds. Immanuel Bekker, and Friedrich Sylburg (Oxonii:
e Typographeo academico, 1837), 39.
201 Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 213. Bartholomew advocates for a Christian world view
to approach the Tanakh. This approach will not allow the interpreter to have the text alone as the focus of
interpretation.
61
losing. However, mastering the language of Qoheleth does not guarantee full
understanding of the text. The pages of the Mikraot Gedolot (מקראות גדולות) are full of
commentaries on Qoheleth by the best Jewish exegetes, who mastered Hebrew and spoke
Hebrew, i.e., MH; regardless of this, their notes are full of contradictions (diversity of
thoughts).202
Nevertheless, the reader must commit himself or herself to master its
language. That is the closest the reader can get to understanding Qoheleth.
In summary, Qoheleth is using Hebrew for philosophical purposes.203
Public
speakers, e.g., poets and philosophers, in discussions or dialogue, in Spanish as well as in
other languages, show variations and use of grammatical rules or dispense of it
completely to make their point.204
A reading of the Hebrew text of Qoheleth is evidence
enough to see that its grammar is complicated and unusual. Its language appears to be a
possible colloquial dialect that a speaker could freely use without feeling he has insulted
202 The מקראות גדולות does not include Qoheleth within the Ketuvim, instead has another part
called the Megilot (scrolls); includes Esther, Eikha (Lamentations), Shir haShirim (Song of Songs), and
Ruth. This section is considered part of the books that speak about GOD instead of GOD speaking. The best
editions of the מקראות גדולות are the one by Bar Ilan University and the Jewish Publication Society. The
BIU project is all in Hebrew. It includes the Targumim, all Rabbinical commentaries, and the full Massorah
according to the Ben Asher school found in the Jewish Syrian manuscript of Aleppo.
203 Towner, “The Book of Ecclesiastes,” 269.
204 After all, the people make the grammar. Grammar is just a statement about how people use
the language as a common medium for communication. There is a standard grammar in every language, a
gift from GOD, but such patterns of syntax and meaning are the product of how people use the language
from generation to generation. We can speak of a standard colloquial language or dialect within a
community and of standard literary grammar, which sets the rules of proper writing and speech, but it does
not stop the evolution of the language. Spoken language is alive. Often how people speak is different from
how they write.
62
the intellectuals and grammarians of his days; after all Qoheleth is a Hebrew seeker of
wisdom, free to think and speak.
Regardless of the grammatical concerns in the current MT, if the language is
judged by what has been designated as BH, the author of Qoheleth produced a text
according to his best knowledge and understanding of the language, i.e., idiolect. Such
language difficulties do not affect divine inspiration, the infallibility of its message, or the
doctrine of inerrancy of the biblical text. The language problems in Qoheleth are there
and somehow they must be explained. This is not the purpose of this dissertation;
nevertheless, how the reader views the linguistic issues affects the understanding of the
meaning and significance of the text of Qoheleth.
Qoheleth the Orator
The possibility of colloquial Hebrew opens the doors to consider Qoheleth as the
product of a conversation or other oral form. Of course, what is available today is a
literary work, a text, which this writer assumes it was the original intention of the author.
However, much of the Bible was originally oral rather than written.205
Referring to it as
oral does not mean it is primitive, that the written text is of less value or no worth of
trust.206
This possibility does not mean that there were not written sources. Perhaps
Qoheleth’s words were a discurso, speech (cf. 12:13 ענשמ ), either in dialogue (12:12), or
just talking to himself (cf. 1:16). Eventualy they were written (12:10) by Qoheleth
himself or someone else. This is, of course, speculation. The Hebrew of Qoheleth seems
205 Cf. Charlotte I. Lee, Oral Reading of the Scriptures (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), 4.
206 Cf. Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville:
Westminster, 1996), 2.
63
like the colloquial language of a dialogue or speech, where at times grammar and words
can differ from the standard use.207
In this section this writer proposes that Qoheleth has
some characteristics of a text that was originally an oral presentation.
Kamano says that the frame-narrator of Qoheleth understands the original speaker
“as an orator within the former’s discourse” considering phrases like “Says Qoheleth”
(1:2; 7:27; 12:8).208
The text that came orally is shorter than those that were originally a
literary work. Qoheleth abound in this type of passages. The use of rare words with a
variety of meanings, according to context, like הבל is also a characteristic of these types
of works. Another aspect of oral speeches (non-written dialogues) is the lack of literary
structure, which is an issue in Qoheleth. Other characteristics of oral compositions are:209
1) Grammar rules are deductive: consistency and inconsistency, verbatim
memorization is rare. As Schoors states, “The relatively frequent lack of concord of
subject and verb could be a trait of colloquial language.”210
2) Epithets are used to develop clusters of terms.
3) The style is redundant: the speaker returns to previous vocabulary and
ideas (cf. 4:2). Rabbinic Hebrew has phrases like: “All the occurrences that occur.”211
Repeated ideas are not lost: They develop into tradition. Repetition in an oral speech is
207 Cf. Frederick, Qoheleth’s language, 37-38, 40.
208 Naoto Kamano, Cosmology and Character: Qoheleth’s Pedagogy from a Rhetorical-critical
perspective, Beihefle zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 312. (Berlin: Gruyter, 2002), 1.
209 Cf. Davies, Oral Biblical Criticism, 18-20.
210 Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, 224.
211 Cf. Upanishads in Sanskrit where similar expressions can be found.
64
more common, including repetition of sounds, grammatical constructions, words, and
topics.212
Repetition is a very important device in the rhetoric of Qoheleth’s
writer/speaker. Strawn says: “Repetition helps the speaker/writer talk around an issue that
is unclear and uncertain, that is hard to say and hard to say right.”213
4) Close to human reality: linked to our stories.
5) Agnostically tuned: It expresses doubts and raises questions.
6) The argument is empathetic: participatory rather than distanced. It is
subjective. The speaker is part of the experience of life; he/she describes or identifies
himself or herself emotionally with the events he/she observes.
7) Situational rather than abstract: Qoheleth has both.214
8) The statements show spontaneity. This also found in Mishnaic literature.
9) There is no “logical” structure. This is also a very important sign of an
oral speech as in a conversation (dialogue) or casual reflection while talking with friends.
This may be the case in Qoheleth.215
10) The speaker uses proverbs: Proverbs abound in oral speeches. Hasan-
Rokem says: “A proverb is a short text summarizing an idea formulated in such a way
212 Davies, Oral Biblical Criticism, 172.
213 Brent A. Strawn, “Keep/Observe/Do-Carefully-Today!” in A God so Near: Essays on Old
Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 239. This
happens often with speakers of one language trying to communicate in another language.
214 Cf. Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: the technologizing of the word. (London: Routledge,
1996), 26.
215 Cf. Anonymous, “The Scope and Plan of the Book of Ecclesiastes,” The Biblical and
Princeton Review 29 (July 1857): 419-440. Reprint, in Reflecting with Solomon, ed. Roy Zuck (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1994), 121.
65
that it implies collective experience and wisdom, and is applicable to numerous
situations.”216
The book of Qoheleth includes many of these ancient proverbs. Proverbs
are difficult to understand in translation. They are often bound to a particular culture,
time, language and circumstances.217
This is speculation, after all when a scholar speaks of final form the implication is
that there is access to the earliest form of the text, which in fact there is not. Bartholomew
argues that when scholars speak of a final form this “falsely implies that this same text
existed in a number of different forms. In fact this is never so. We only have the Old
Testament texts that we have, and any reconstructed earlier ‘forms’ are generally
speculative and based on readings of the ‘final form.’”218
However, scholars can still
speculate on the original form of the text as much as the present text allows exploring that
possibility. Qoheleth does have so many characteristic of colloquial, oral language that
allows some room to propose some theories. The proposal above is speculative, but a
possibility. Parallel to the possibility of Qoheleth being an oral speech originally there is
the problem of how it should be read. Jewish Ashkenazi tradition requires that it should
be chanted during Sukkot. How the text is read or chanted influences how the listener
interprets its meaning. The reader or chazzan by use of tones and body language
communicates an interpretation of the meaning of the text.
216 Galit Hasan-Rokem, “And GOD Created Proverb,” in Text and Tradition, Susan Niditch ed.,
The Hebrew Bible and Folklore series (Scholar: Atlanta, 1990), 108.
217 How the proverb was said (body language, tone of the voice, etc.) could change the audience
understanding of it.
218 Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 214.
66
Reading texts like that of Qoheleth is very difficult. How the biblical text is read
is an interpretation in itself. Curry asks: “Who has not felt dissatisfaction with the way
the Bible is read in public?”219
Body language, e.g., hand movements, facial expressions,
etc. are essential in communication. Body language is very much a part of an oral speech.
Many sections in Qoheleth perhaps were complemented by some type of body language,
which the readers miss. In ancient Egypt, as it can be seen in the artwork that goes with
their writings, body language has been preserved to some degree. It is important that a
text like Qoheleth be read in a way that correctly communicates the essence of the book
through appropriate body language and voice.220
Passages whith emphasis on parallelism, e.g., 3:1-8, are difficult to interpret. How
it is read can change drastically how the reader or audience understands the text. How
Qoheleth read or recited these words was probably very different from how they are read
today.221
Monotony can obscure meaning and the emotions expressed in the text.222
Reading the text without the current divisions of chapters and verses but making
pauses etc. where the text seems to demand it, makes a difference on how the interpreter
219 Samuel S. Curry, Vocal and Literary Interpretation of the Bible. (New York: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1903), vii. A Yiddish speaking person expressed anger over the recording of Matthew in
Yiddish by the Lederer Foundation. He said that Yiddish literature could not be read that way, in such a
monotonous way. It must express joy and make emphasis on the proper parts of the text.
220 It is absurd to see a news anchor reporting a tragedy with a smile. In many cultures the best
speakers are those who make natural use of body language.
221 Cf. Eugene Bhan Brooks et al., The Communicative Act of Oral Interpretation, (Boston:
Keith, Ally and Bacon, 1975), 5. The Spanish PBS, HITN, has a program where authors read from their
work. It is interesting to hear a poet reading his own poetry.
222 Ibid., 158-159.
67
understands the message. Listening to Qoheleth chanted for Sukkot by an Ashkenazi
cantor can give a different perception of meaning. The reading of the Bible, like any good
rhetorical work, should appeal to logic, human emotions and intellect. Emotions are part
of humans. The Bible cannot be read like a mathematical book but with “all the heart,
mind, and strength” as an act of worship in “spirit and truth” because the reading of it and
its academic study are also acts of worship.223
How the text is read would communicate
(interpret) the text just as calligraphy or painting would do it.224
In conclusion, in a written document, the writer has the opportunity to choose the
words carefully and edit the text as needed, but in a speech, he/she does not have this
opportunity and a word can mean so many things according to its context, i.e., the
speaker’s use of it. However, meaning is not lost; it is found in the context. Context is
extremely important to understand the meaning of a word. The speaker must strive
carefully to find the correct words. Qoheleth produced both oral and written text, striving
to find carefully the correct (logical) terms (10:12, 13).225
The term logic is used here
carefully. Barr writes: “Biblical theology is a theology that works with biblical concepts
223 cf. Jack Rang, How to Read the Bible Aloud (New Jersey: Paulist, 1994), 10.
224 How fonts, graphics, images and colours are manipulated in a PowerPoint Presentation
communicate very different than just reading the text or posting the simple text. In Islam, the Qur’an and
Hadith presented through calligraphy has been a powerful tool of education and communication among
Muslims.
225 Notice the use of the conjugation form in 12:13. Some of the things were heard instead נשמע
of read from a written text.
68
and biblical logic, as against any theology that works with philosophical concepts, within
Hellenistic presuppositions or with modern schemes of thought.”226
The main reason to consider the possibility that Qoheleth may be the product of
an oral speech is the aparent contradictions/tensions, e.g., 9:4-6. The speaker evaluates
all the options as he reasons. Contradictions (tensions between ideas) in the process of
reasoning, are peculiar in a speech, especially when thinking (talking to yourself), cf.
3:17, 18. The apparent contradictions in Qoheleth are observations of the paradoxes of
life.227
They complement instead of undermining his argument. However, some scholars
reject any possibility of contradictions. Dillon writes from a different perspective. He
considers that the efforts of theologians to “smooth away, explain, and reconcile all these
incoherencies and contradictions, constitute one of the most marvelous exhibitions of
mental acrobatics recorded ever in the history of hermeneutics.”228
This effort is due to
the conviction that only Solomon could have been the author and the diversity of views
on the meaning of divine inspiration. Many of these exegetes approach Qoheleth with the
presuposition (maybe correct) that a reflection of Solomon could not have any statement
incompatible with Christianity and Orthodox Judaism. Someone wrote that this text is
“worthy of the wise king of Israel.”229
226 James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 12.
227 See further reflection on the apparent contradictions in the section Human Life’s
Contradictions below.
228 E.J. Dillon, The Skeptics of the Old Testament: Job, Koheleth, Agur (London:
Isbister, 1895), 91.
229 Anonymous, “The Scope and Plan of the Book of Ecclesiastes,” 119.
69
Tensions are present in collections of sayings in other philosophical/wisdom
literature like the juxtaposition in Proverbs (26:4-5). Proverbs is a collection of
independent ancient sayings which allows for sayings that may be in apparent
contradiction with each other; however, Qoheleth is not that type of collection of
proverbs. In Qoheleth the ‘sayings’ and thoughts are probably from the same author. As
stated above, the presence of proverbs in it is a sign of at least an oral source of some of
the initial thoughts, for example, proverbs (sayings) that were collected by Qoheleth
(12:11).
In 7:27 says that Qoheleth “spoke” these words. The redactor or writer may be
listening to the words Qoheleth is saying. It was not unusual to have a scribe (secretary),
especially if the author was a king.230
There are words that describe the action of a
speech and of listening in a dialogue or to a public speech or conversation (12:9-10, 13).
He spoke, they heard and it was written.231
Again, it could be one single author from the
original speech to the final written text.
The logical uses of words, definitions, grammar etc. that meet standards, or what
may be considered so, are not present in Qoheleth. This text is a record of the thoughts,
personality, culture, emotions, and life of someone very distant in time and space.
Therefore, all these facts affect the structure which is difficult to discern.
230 Jeremiah had the help of the scribe Baruch (Jer 36:4). Apparently Paul dictated his letters so at
times he had to make clear he was the one writing (cf. 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thes 3:17).
231 In 12:13 the word .is translated “speech’ in some versions דבר
70
Structure
To complicate everything even more Qoheleth appears to be without any
reasonable structure, regardless of the many attempts to propose one. Of course, this view
reflects this writer’s cultural understanding of literature, but writers from other traditions
have noticed this detail and have attempted to find an answer. Williams writes:
“Regarding the apparent lack of a formal structure, one may simply observe that a united
composition does not necessarily demand a carefully structured work.”232
However,
Qoheleth’s apparent lack of structure seems to affect the unity of the text. At least
Qoheleth does not reflect the structure and unity easily recognized in other Wisdom
books.
Qoheleth theology is non-systematic; that may explain the lack of structure.
Moore recognizes that Qoheleth does not lend itself to easy outlining.233
Sweeney’s
excellent descriptive outline of Qoheleth gives the illusion of structure.234
The apparent
lack of structure is often found in other philosophical work of ancient times. At least they
do not meet the expectations of today’s standards about structure. This apparent lack of
structure adds to the problems translators and theologians have interpreting Qoheleth’s
theology and understanding his reasoning (philosophy).
232 Neal D. Williams, “A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastes” (Th. D. diss., Dallas Theological
Seminary, 1984), 29.
233 T. M. Moore, Ecclesiastes: Ancient Wisdom When All Else Fails: a New Translation &
Interpretive Paraphrase (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 12.
234 Marvin A. Sweeney, Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 439-440.
71
On the other hand Lohfink argues that “there is an organization to the whole.”235
The style, he writes, is similar to the Cynic Menippos of Gadara.236
Perhaps common
phrases of the book, e.g., להכל הב , are the key to the structure. The questions may be the
markers of the structure, e.g., מי יודע which is a central rhetorical question. Ogden
proposes that םמה־יתרון לאד and its negative answers are what give the structure to
Qoheleth.237
Johnson, as the title of his excellent dissertation proposes, deals with
rhetorical questions in Qoheleth in order to define its literary structure.238
The proposal
has validity.
Garret says that “all the levels of narration are a matter of literary technique and
are not indications of redaction history. The reason they all flow together so well is that
they are all part of the single perspective of a single author.”239
However, the flow of the
text is difficult to discern. Perdue argues that Qoheleth is “highly stylized and organized
into an artistic structure.” 240
He argues that the structure “revolves around the central
theme of the book” which he identifies as “the present joy or carpe diem (seize the
235 Lohfink, Qohelet, 7.
236 From the 3rd
century B.C.E. cf. Matthew 8:28 where Jesus of Nazareth’s confronting demons
in Gadara is a critic of Cynic life style and their “philosophy.” Gadara was a center of Cynicism.
237 Ogden, Qohelet, 13.
238 Raymond Johnson, The Rethorical Questions as a Literary Device in Ecclesiastes (Ph.D.
diss., SBTS 1986). Because time and space Johnson’s proposals will not be addressed further, but this work
must be considered carefully in any future research.
239 Garret, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 14:263.
240 Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus, 206.
72
day).”241
Crenshaw has an excellent essay on the structure.242
However, he concludes that
“all attempts to discern the book’s structure are inconclusive.” Estes agrees that
Qoheleth’s structure “is hard to define.”243
Nevertheless, Estes claims that there is
evidence “that the book was crafted as a literary unity.”244
There is an attempt by some
scholars to show unity of the text by identifying a structure. A more logical view is that
of Perry, who proposes that Qoheleth is structured as a transcript of a debate such as one
found in the Talmud between Hillel’s disciples (Pharisees) and Shammai’s school.245
Similar structure can be discerned in philosophical work. He says that Qoheleth “is
structured as a transcript of a debate such as the one reported to have occurred between
the Houses of Hillel and Shammai… sharp opinions as teaching techniques between
teacher and student, or as a literary dialogue on the Platonic model, or even to imagine
the text as an interior dialogue.”246
It is possible that the difficulty to discern the structure
is the “interior dialogue” aspect of Qoheleth. Perry proposes to “consider Qoheleth’s
contradictions as opportunities rather than embarrassments… as forming the literary basis
of the entire book.”247
Similarly Loader proposes a study of polarity as the base of
Qoheleth’s structure. By ‘polar structures’ he means “patterns of tension created by the
241 Ibid.
242 Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 34-49.
243 Estes, Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms, 277.
244 Ibid., 278.
245 Perry, Dialogues with Koheleth, ix.
246 Ibid., ix.
247 Ibid., xi.
73
counter position of two elements to one another.”248
He sees in this the literary unit and
the most “prominent characteristic” of Qoheleth. Loader’s proposal for a structure is
excellent.
Another possibility for a simple structure could start with הבל and ends with הבל;
perhaps the phrase הבל תחת השמש may be an indicator: everything between is the
argument, the evidence, e.g., 1:2-11, 12-18, 2:1-11, 12-21, 22-26, (3:1-8), 3:22-4:3, 4:2-
etc. Qoheleth is divided in four sections in the ancient Hebrew tradition: 1:1-3:12, 3:13-
6:12, 7:1-9:6, and 9:7-14.249
Murphy does a great analysis of the various proposals on
structure.250
Another good critical review of the various structures proposed by scholars
is found in Towner’s commentary.251
Levin’s structure of Qoheleth is brief and
selective.252
Martin and Allison in Rien de nouveau propose micro-structures within the
248 Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet, 1.
249 Rabbi Abraham Cohen, Ecclesiastes, Midrash Rabba vol. VIII (London: Soncino, 1961), viii.
Other excellent editions of the Midrash Rabba on Qoheleth are: Piergabriele Mancuso, Qohelet Rabbah:
midras sul libro dell'Ecclesiaste (Firenze: Giuntina, 2004); Maria del Carmen Motos López, Las vanidades
del mundo: comentario rabinico al Eclesiastés (Estella: Verbo Divino, 2001). On Rabbinical
interpretations of Qoheleth see: Jacob Kranz, Jacob ben Wolf, and Dovid Zucker. Voice of Nobles:
Commentary of the Dubner Maggid on the Book of Ecclesiastes (Koheles) (Jerusalem: Feldheim
Publishers, 2009); Leonard S. Kravitz, and Kerry M. Olitzky. Kohelet: a modern commentary (New York:
UAHC, 2003); Ruth N. Sandberg, Rabbinic Views of Qohelet (Lewiston: Mellen Press, 1999); Yitzhak I.
Broch, Koheleth: The Book of Ecclesiastes in Hebrew and English (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1982); Meir
Zlotowitz and Scherman Nosson, Koheles|Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with a Commentary
Anthologised from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources (New York: Mesorah, 1977).
250 Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxxv-xl.
251 Towner, “The Book of Ecclesiastes,” 277.
252 Levin, Guide to the Bible, 246.
74
sections of the text, specifically in the argumentative process.253
They observe that the
struggle to find structure is to defend the unity of the book.254
The questions on unity go
back before postmodern literary critics. Grotius was probably the first to address general
observations on Qoheleth being a collection without unity.255
Since then scholars have
worked diligently to find a structure in the book.
Qoheleth has a structure; it must, after all every text does. However, Qoheleth
structure is very difficult to comprehend or discern. What keeps Qoheleth standing is not
its structure, but its theology; its foundation is the Torah, and its fundamental conclusion
is: fear ELOHIM and keep his commandments. It is possible that the phrase “fear ELOHIM”
concludes each session. In an 1857 article an anonymous author writes:
We must take the text as we find it, which there is no reason to believe has been
corrupted. The deficiency of arrangement, which has been alleged, does not exist;
and the alterations, which have been proposed, are not improvements. There is a
clear and consistent plan in the book of Ecclesiastes, which need neither changes
nor mutilations in order to its discovery; one in fact of the most strictly logical
and methodical kind. Not only is the argument well conducted, conclusive and
complete, but its various points are so admirably disposed, its divisions so regular,
and its different parts too conformed in structure, as to give evidence that the
whole was carefully considered and well digested before it was put together.256
Unfortunately, the writer of this anonymous essay gives no evidence for the
argument. Qoheleth’s “structure” (if any) can be that of a draft or a philosophical journal.
253 Rose Martin and Béatrice Perregaux Allisson, Rien de nouveau: nouvelles approches du livre
de Qoheleth, OBO, (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1999), 168:36.
254 Ibid., 21.
255 Hugonis Grotii, “Ad Ecclesiasten,” in Annotata ad Vetus Testamentvm (Lvtetiæ Parisiorvm:
Cramoisy, 1644), I:521-540.
256 Anonymous, “The Scope and Plan of the Book of Ecclesiastes,” BPR 29, 122.
75
Ogden sees a structure that approaches life from a positive (affirmative) view rather than
a negative one.257
Garret argues that there is an intentional literary technique, which is
not the product of redaction.258
The discourse of Qoheleth has three levels according to
Garret:
1. Frame-narrator259
2. Wisdom is speaking.260
The teacher’s personal musings, using terms
which are universal and didactic about reality.261
3. First person recollections.262
The structure proposed by Garret, if he is correct, could be evidence for the
argument that a speech was probably the source.263
However, Qoheleth does not flow
well as Garret proposes.264
Regardless of the conclusions, there is no agreement on the
points of transition in any proposed structure. Eißfeldt argues that often the pious verses,
e.g., 2:26, 3:17, may be additions by a pious writer but “in a number of cases” he
observes, “if they are removed, the line of thought becomes clearer and the context more
257 Ogden, Qohelet, 22.
258 Garret, “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,” 263.
259 Some scholars propose that 12:9-11 is by the same author who follows a style found in
Egyptian writings. Cf. Otto Eißfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1934).
260 Garret, “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,” 14:265.
261 The terms are not universal, because each term must be understood in the culture and context
of Qoheleth.
262 Garret, “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,” 14:262-263.
263 Ibid., 269-270.
264 Ibid., 263.
76
intelligible.”265
However, the same could be said to the contrary: If the non-pious
statements are removed the text will flow better as a collection of pious sayings.
Looking at Qoheleth’s grammar Wright divides the book in two, from 1:1-4:16
and 4:17-12:12, because of the ‘I’ in the first part and impersonal voice in the second. He
sees no major break in 4:17.266
Wright proposes, based on patterns, that there are two
main parts: 1:12-6:9 and 6:10-11:6.267
All attempts to find structure are very subjective,
motivated by the theological view of the scholar rather than an objective observation of
the text, for example: “A proper treatment of the book will show that all his remarks are
directed, and that with a closeness of argument and a clearness of presentation worthy of
the wise king of Israel” (emphasis added).268
Nevertheless, what is proper? Like the
Rabbis the anonymous writer assumes that it is from Solomon, therefore it has to be the
best even if the text shows it is not. He implies that anyone following the “proper”
method to approach Qoheleth will reach the same conclusion. McKenzie writes: “The
systematic theologies of the classical period of theology were weak in the theory of
development and haunted by the principle that the entire system of doctrine was found in
the Scriptures, if one could interpret them properly.”269
Thus these theologies make an
265 Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (London: Harper, 1965, repr. 1974), 499.
Compared with the original work: Otto Eißfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1934).
266 Wright, “The Riddle of the Sphinx,” 52
267 Ibid., 55.
268 Anonymous, “The Scope and Plan of the Book of Ecclesiastes,” 119.
269 John L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974),
16.
77
argument like the Kejserens nye Klæder story.270
Only the wise will be able to see the
magnificent clothes! Until a little child said: “Men han har jo ikke noget paa”.271
The
diversity of views in liberal and conservative commentaries on Qoheleth is evidence to
the contrary. All that can be identified is a frame to a series of speeches or thoughts and
the final arguments, by a diversity of voices, although perhaps from one author, as this
writer assumes. A conservative anonymous author in “The Scope and Plan of the Book of
Ecclesiastes,” summarizes this issue very eloquently:
The scope of this book being thus settled, we proceed to consider its plan. It is of
course conceivable that the writer might discuss his theme without any orderly
arrangement or theological disposition of parts. He merely gives expression to
his reflections upon it as they spontaneously occurred to him or were suggested
by accidental association, without aiming to govern himself by any strict
logical sequence… it is so with… Proverbs… with other books of the Old
Testament as well as with admired productions of uninspired genius. And it
would cast no reflection upon the ability or excellence of this book to admit the
same thing here.272
[Emphasis added.]
The only parts that seem to have structure, beside the redactor’s or editor’s
conclusions, are the brief poems in 1:4-11 and 3. Ogden’s excellent commentary gives
270 Tr. The Emperor’s New Clothes.
271 Hans Christian Andersen, Kejserens nye Klæder in Eventyr, fortalte for Børn (Copenhagen:
C.A. Reitzel, 1847), 52-60. “But he has nothing on!” exclaimed the little boy. Andersen’s book was based
on Spanish literature from 1330 by Juan Manuel, Infante de Castilla, El Conde Lucanor (Valencia:
Editorial Castalia, 1962). Concerning method, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem an Israeli economics
student argued that the orthodox Jews have a method of interpretation. The method will lead everyone to
the same conclusions. The wise will master the method and only the wise will understand the logic of the
conclusions argue the heredim. Similarly Mormons argue that anyone who prays and receives wisdom from
Heaven will be able to discern that the Book of Mormon is authentic. The non-wise, by implication, are
those who cannot see it. Who wants to be labeled as the unwise?
272 Anonymous, “The Scope and Plan of the Book of Ecclesiastes,” 121.
78
structure to Qoheleth and makes sense of it as one book by one author. The current
division in chapters and verses causes misunderstanding and add to the problems.
Based on (12:9) אזן וחקר תקן and (12:10) בקש קהלת למצא Bartholomew argues that
Qoheleth’s book was “carefully ‘crafted’.”273
Nevertheless, an outline is very difficult to
draft, although some proposals are very convincing.274
Wright gives an excellent list of
proposed outlines by those that propose unity and intended genre or structure.275
Wright
proposes a structure that creates a complete new book. The book of Qoheleth could easily
be divided by subjects; every phrase under a heading. This, of course, will produce a new
and different book. Qoheleth is a text of theology and philosophy with a unique language
and structure, regardless that this writer cannot discern it. Possibly the best proposal for a
structure of the whole book is the one by Lohfink:
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
9:7-12:7 Ethic (concludes with a poem)
12:8 Frame276
The vocalization and accents by the Masoretes hundreds of years later
complicates defining the structure of the text. Many of the apparent errors, or exceptions
273 Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes, 228.
274 W. Sibley Towner, “Introduction to Wisdom literature,” in NIB, eds. Leander E. Keck, and
Richard J. Clifford (Abingdon: Nashville, 1997); Gordis, Koheleth: the Man and his World, 252.
275 Wright, “The Riddle of the Sphinx,” 45-49.
276 Lohfink, Qoheleth, 8.
79
to “standard” BH grammar, may be the product of the “errors” or variants preserved by
the סופרים (scribes) and the בעלי המסורה (Masoretes) traditions in the transmission of the
text.277
The Masoretes were concerned with the preservation of the book. Their purpose
was, according to Díaz:
1st Preserve the Bible text…order of letters and words, blank spaces, unusual
letters and also the errors or modifications attributed to the “scribes” since the end
of the Great Assembly time.
2nd
Preserve the pronunciation of the Hebrew judged correct, according to the oral
tradition…
3rd
To read correct the written text, adding vowels to the consonantal text so the
resulting words would agree with the interpretation of rabbinical Judaism.278
The Masorah of Qoheleth is the product of rabbinical writings, i.e., Karaites; its
authority rests on the scribes and the rabbinical councils that set the rules.279
Scribes who
fulfill a religious duty will follow carefully and with respect what the scribes before them
provided. The Masoretes with “fear and trembling” could have provided corrections to
the text; instead these were added as notes.280
Concerning Qoheleth MT often the scribes
277 Fernando Díaz Esteban, Sefer ‘Oklah wĕ-‘Oklah (Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas, 1975), XVI.
278 Ibid. “1º Conservar el texto de la Biblia en su materialidad gráfica, es decir, el orden y
distribución de todas las letras y palabras, los espacios en blanco, las letras anormales e incluso los errores
o modificaciones que por diversas causas se atribuian a los “escribas” desde el final de la época de la Gran
Sinagoga. 2º Conservar la pronunciación juzgada correcta del hebreo, según la tradición oral que había
llegado hasta ellos. 3º Leer correctamente el texto escrito, añadiendo las vocales al texto consonántico de
modo que las palabras resultantes estuvieran de acuerdo con la interpretación del judaismo rabinico.”
279 Some scholars, like Delitzsch, are over-dependent on the accent and vocalization of the MT of
the Tanakh, as can be observed in their commentaries.
280 The קרי/ כתיב in the Masoretic notes of Qoheleth are indication of this careful reproduction of
the text, from at least the 900 CE. There is no evidence for such a careful scribal work before it, except of
arguments from oral traditions and the mystics, who claim the anachronistic view that Moshe knew of it. A
80
simply corrected on the side what seems to be a misspelling, e.g., 5:10 ( תראי / תראו ); 9:4
( ריבח / ריחב ); 10:20 ( םהכנפי / םכנפי ); 12:6 ( קירח / קירת ).281
Schoors did an excellent research on
the יקר / יבכת in Qoheleth.282
In many cases these are two readings available in different
manuscripts; Schoors writes that the is the preferred one for some scholars, but it is יקר
not always correct or the best option.283
The later scribes would not incorporate
corrections into the main text. Actually the earlier soferim would not have such “fear”
although they preserved the text to the best of their ability and knowledge.284
Qumran manuscripts give us limited help with language and structure, and in
verifying the MT of Qoheleth.285
There are only three fragments.286
Since these scrolls
and fragments date from approximately the second century BC, it is known that Qoheleth
had canonical authority already in early times according to Loader.287
The fragments
complete list of these notes can be seen in the new Biblia Hebraica Quinta of the German Bible Society and
the Masorah preserved in the excellent research by Díaz Esteban.
281Adrian Schenker et al., Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Volume 18: General Introduction and
Megilloth (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004).
282 cf. Antoon Schoors, Kethibh-Qere in Ecclessiastes in Studia Paulo Naster Oblata eds. Paul
Naster, Simone Scheers, and J. Quaegebeur (Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek, 1982), 2:215-222.
283 Schoors, Kethibh-Qere, 215.
284 Ezra, according to Jewish tradition, was this type of scribe. The only difference is that
anything he and his school may have done to the available manuscripts, for example of the Torah, is
considered divinely inspired.
285 The manuscripts photographic facsimiles are available at
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/4Q110-1
286 Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary, The Tyndale Old
Testament Commentaries, (Leicester: IVP, 1983), 16.
287 James A. Loader, Ecclesiastes: A Practical Commentary, BZAW (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986), 2. The presence of a book in Qumran does not imply canonical authority. The Qumran manuscripts
81
found among the DSS, currently in Jordan, include the following text of Qoheleth: 1:10-
14, 15? (4QQohb)
; 5:13-17 [14-18c] (4QQoha); 6:1, substantial portion of 3-8, 12
(4QQoha); 7:1-10 (five words of vv. 7-9), 19-20 (4QQoh
a).
288 An excellent essay on
Qoheleth fragments from Qumran is Qohelet a Qumran by Puech.289
Qoheleth is never
quoted in any of the available documents from Qumran’s communities and sects.290
It is
neither quoted by Philo, Ben Sira, Wisdom, or the NT. The text of Qoheleth as it is today
in Qumran and MT may be the closest to the original; at least it may reflect what was
available in the 1st century BCE.
Other ancient translations have been consulted by many scholars in search of a
possible text that may have used an earlier manuscript of Qoheleth. The new Biblia
may be from 2nd
or 1st century BC, but no everything comes from that time. It is possible that some are from
the 60’s or 70’s CE and probably from later date or even modern forgeries. These books belonged to a
diverse group of people, instead of one single community with a common faith and leadership. This writer
states in his thesis that the scrolls and fragments represent a theological diversity that may have it source
from many communities that found refuge in Qumran during and after the year 70 CE. Frantz St.Iago-
Peretz, “Midrash…Pesher Hadavar” (MAR thesis, Eastern Mennonite Seminary, 1990).
288 Emanuel Tov, ed., The Text from the Judean Desert (Oxford: Clarendon, 2002).
289 Émile Puech, “Qohelet a Qumran,” in Il Libro del Qohelet: Tradizione, redazione, teologia,
eds. Giuseppe Bellia and Angelo Passaro (Milano: Paoline, 2001), 144-170. Other important work are:
Noam Mizrahi, “Qohelet 6:5b in Light of 4QQoha ii 2 and Rabbinic Literature,” Textus 21 (2002): 159-174;
Dorothee Ernst, and Armin Lange, “468k. 4QHymnic Text B? 468l. 4QFragment Mentioning Qoh 1:8-9,
468m-bb. 4Q Unidentified Fragments D, m-bb” in Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1, DJD 36, ed.
Stephen J. Pfann et al. (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 420-421, 422, 423-432.; Gerhard Wilhelm Nebe,
“Qumranica I: Zu unveröffentlichten Handschriften aus Höhle 4 von Qumran.” ZAW 106.2 (1994) : 307-
322; Puech, Émile. “Le livre de Qohélet à Qumrân.” Ho Theológos 18 (2000): 109-114; Émile Puech, “Un
nouveau fragment du manuscrit de l'Ecclésiaste (4QQohéletb ou 4Q110),” Revue de Qumran 19/4 (2000):
617-621; E. Ulrich, “Ezra and Qohelet Manuscripts from Qumran” in Priest, Prophets, Scribes ed. E.
Ulrich, JSOTSup 149 (Sheffield, 1992).
290 Cf. M. Gilbert, “Wisdom in Second Temple Literature” in Jewish Writings of the Second
Temple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 288.
82
Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) has the latest research on the textual problems of Qoheleth.291
The scholars of the BHQ propose possible Hebrew words based on these ancient texts.
The editors of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Bible Project eventually will produce
the best critical edition of Qoheleth, but they do not expect this to be any time soon. An
excellent critical apparatus is in Biblia Sacra Iuxta Latinam Vulgatam Versionem ad
Codicum Fiden. Some of the main manuscripts of Qoheleth are in the ancient Ethiopian
languages, Ge’ez and Amharic and also in Coptic. However, Mercer notes that
“apparently, the Book of Ecclesiastes was not a great favourite with the Ethiopians, for
out of the 1200 and more Ethiopic manuscripts outside Abyssinia only 22 contain an
Ecclesiastes, and in the scores of Ethiopic manuscripts which I saw and examined in
Abyssinia I found only 5 copies of the Book of Ecclesiastes.”292
It seems the Coptic may have been the text used for the Ethiopian versions.
Murphy accurately underlines: “The Coptic and other ancient translations have little
bearing on correction of the received Hebrew text.”293
The Peshita is one of the best
sources among ancient translations to seek the original text, but this work seems to be
based on a text similar to the MT according to Crenshaw.294
291 Cf. Libris Salomonis in Biblia Sacra iuxta latinum vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem
(Roma: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1957). The best collection of articles on textual criticism of the Tanakh
is the journal series Textus of the HUJ Bible Project.
292 Mercer, The Ethiopic Text of the Book of Ecclesiastes, 7.
293 Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxvi.
294 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 53. Gordis has written a very good and
brief comment on the Aramaic Targum and Syriac texts. Cf. Gordis, Koheleth, 138; 140-143.
83
In conclusion, the text stands on its own as evidence that there is not an easy
discernible structure, at least not the kind of structure some scholars have proposed based
on Western literary criticism. Any attempt to show structure, from this perspective, is
artificial and based on foreign methods that do not find connection to any Hebrew or
ANE literature of Qoheleth’s days. A Hebrew Literary Criticism may be more effective,
just as the study of English poetry is done better within the context of the scholarship on
Shakespeare than attempting to understand it in the context of Spanish Literary Criticism
of Cervantes’ work.
The text also witnesses to a language that is unique to this book. Qoheleth’s
philosophy, also his theology, does not need the language of classical Hebrew or the
structure of a Western work to communicate its thoughts. The apparent lack of structure
and the uniqueness of its language and apparent contradictions seem to be the product of
the process of reasoning and evidence of human limitations as the speaker seeks to
understand the absurdities of life and the place of ELOHIM in relation to humanity and
creation.
Regardless of all the textual, linguistic, historical, philosophical and theological
difficulties the reader faces in the study of Qoheleth, the book must be understood above
all in its own terms. The first step of BT is the study of the book by itself. In the next
chapter this writer will explore the concept of BT and the various proposals and
principles from this hermeneutical approach.
84
CHAPTER 2
THE METHODOLOGY: BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
Introduction
This research on the book of Qoheleth follows the general concept of Biblical
Theology (BT). Childs has written an excellent introduction to the history and the various
concepts and methods of BT in his encyclopaedic work Biblical Theology of the Old and
New Testaments.1 Another excellent work is Perdue’s Reconstructing Old Testament
Theology: After the Collapse of History.2 Anderson also includes a detailed survey and
review of the history of BT and the various approaches to it in Contours of Old Testament
Theology.3 One of the best publications interpreting the various approaches to BT is
Klink’s and Lockett’s work, Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory
and Practice.4 They analyze five approaches or methods to the concept of BT. In the
process they select one theologian as the main spokesman for that particular method: Barr
for Historical Description, Carson for History of Redemption, Wright for Worldview-
1 Brevard S. Childs, Biblical theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1992), 3-51.
2 Leo G. Perdue, Reconstructing Old Testament Theology: After the Collapse of History
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005).
3 Bernhard W. Anderson, Contours of Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011),
16-36.
4 Edward W. Klink and Darian R. Lockett. Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of
Theory and Practice (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012).
85
Story, Childs for Canonical Approach, and Watson for Theological Construction. They
and many others have written excellent introductions; therefore there is no need to write
an exhaustive introduction to the history and development of this concept at this time.
The following is a brief review of it and an introduction to the approach of this writer.
There is some confusion about the methodology and principles of BT, says Barr;
adding that it is a complex matter with “a ‘complexity’ of motives, issues and contracts.”5
Borrowing Birch’s words this writer considers that BT is a “complex and multifaceted
task.”6 McKenzie writes: “Old Testament theology…has no set and accepted structure
and style.”7 Later he writes: ‘Biblical theology is the only discipline or subdiscipline in
the field of theology that lacks generally accepted principles, methods, and structure.
There is not even a generally accepted definition of its purpose and scope.”8 Barr says
that “One of its weaknesses…has been the difficulty of defining exactly what it is.”9
However it is clear, as Barr contends, that “Biblical theology has the Bible as its horizon;
its source material is the biblical text, its subject is the theology which lies behind or is
implied by the Bible, and its scope is determined by the meanings as known and implied
within the time and culture of the Bible.”10
In that context the scope is also historical.
5 James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 17.
6 Bruce C. Birch et al., A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1999), 9.
7 John L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 9.
8 McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament, 15
9 Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 2.
10 Ibid., 74.
86
Ideally a BT structure should follow that of the biblical text under consideration.
This is somehow difficult in Qoheleth. Just as a good biblical sermon gets its structure
and themes from the passage or book, BT should get its themes and follow the text as
close as possible. In BT the text of a particular book must stand by itself outside the
canon; read like there is not a canon. The concept of BT has in mind a book or books of
the biblical canon; that is the Bible.
Biblical theology should not be a descriptive history of the religion of Israel or its
development. Smith-Christopher argues that “Biblical theology unavoidably includes a
tension between faith and history.”11
Pedersen is one of the few scholars that have
brought together this tension into a great compendium of ancient Israel’s history.
Pedersen’s work, Israel: Its Life and Culture, is not just a history of Israel as it is found in
the pages of the Tanakh canon, but a theological history, a theologico-political
interpretation. Its main characteristic is the ‘consistency to which Pedersen listens to the
text.’12
This method set possibilities for an authentic biblical theology of Qoheleth.13
Miller’s and De Vries’ works are also good examples of a similar approach.14
11 Daniel Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 2.
12 This writer makes this assessment his own; however, years ago this author has heard or read a
similar statement by someone else in a source which has not been located.
13 Johannes Pedersen, Israel: Its life and culture vol. I-II (London: Oxford University Press,
1926), vols. III-IV (1940). Published originally in Danish under the titles: Israel. I-II. Sjæleliv og
Samfundsliv (København: V. Pios Boghandel, 1920) and Israel III-IV Hellighed og Guddommelighed
(København: Branner, 1934).
14 Patrick D. Miller, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays (Sheffield: SAP,
2000) and Simon J. De Vries The Achievements of Biblical Religion: A Prolegomenon to Old Testament
Theology. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983.
87
The Place of Biblical Theology in the Theological Process
This writer views BT as the essential part and foundation of any theological work.
It studies and evaluates the teachings of each book individually and independently from
each other within the canon. The text is the source of any category. However, the terms
used will always reflect the contemporary vocabulary, e.g., theology. The theologian that
holds to the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of the Bible, will reject anything
contrary to the biblical teachings and will defend the authority of the biblical text.
In BT the interpreter may or may not hold to the authority of the biblical text.
Often the case is that the writers recognize some level of authority to the book in order to
approach it and give years of his/her life to the study of it or just due to an academic
interest. Qoheleth is approached in this dissertation as having canonical authority within a
particular tradition. Therefore, implications and applications of the fundamental message
of the text are explored in the conclusions. Bamberger writes:
The theologian tries to make the religious experience articulate in words. But in
addition, he often tries to organize the disconnected fragments of such experience
into an orderly whole… he works with sacred writings and traditions… such
primary data, whether first hand or not, are incomplete and unclear. The
theologian tries to determine their meaning and their implications, to arrange them
into a consistent pattern, to iron out apparent contradictions, to fill in gaps, and
then to extend the principles he has elicited so that he may deal securely with
problems and questions which the sacred documents do not plainly discus.15
Objectivity in Biblical Theology
Can the text of Qoheleth be approached objectively on its own terms? Blamires
understands Christian presuppositions to be central for any theological or even
15 Bernard J. Bamberger, The Search for Jewish Theology (New York: Behrman, 1978), 1-2.
88
philosophical work.16
The safe place to be is within the text. However, the observation
made by Brown is a reality for any one doing biblical theological research of any kind.
Brown, in his postmodern approach argues that the interpreter “does not stand aloof from
the text as a dispassionate observer, let alone as a machine going through the exegetical
motions. To the contrary, the theological interpreter has a vested interest in the text, for it
is out of the impulse of faith seeking understanding that one treats the ancient text more
as a partner than as an object.”17
There is some truth in his statement, however, in BT the
interpreter strives for objectivity; listening to the text in its own terms. The interpreter-
theologian must recognize consciously that the process is very difficult and subjective, in
part due to his or her own personal experiences, culture, and religious traditions. The
theologian cannot change who he/she is by ignoring his/her cultural context and history.
Bamberger writes that the theologian in his method “must take into account the scientific
and philosophic thought of his own time.”18
He argues that the theologian “may use a
current philosophy as the framework for his theological construction.”19
Objectivity is
possible by listening to the text on its own terms. Ogden shares with the interpreter and
the translator some words of caution:
Subjective factors inevitably influence one’s interpretation, owing to the cultural
separation, differing world views, geographical and historical distance, diversity
of language and the like, which stand between the reader and the original
writer(s). Yet at the same time, the interpreter must seek consciously to minimize
16 Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind (London: SPCK, 1963), 43.
17 Brown, “Theological Interpretation: A Proposal,” 389.
18 Bamberger, The Search for Jewish Theology, 2.
19 Ibid.
89
his or her subjectivity. Our search is for the meaning intended by the original
author or community whose work we are studying, insofar as that is recoverable
by us using all the critical tools available.20
The reader needs the hermeneutical community of scholars, pastors, rabbis, Bible
students, et al. Nevertheless, in ancient Israel there were lonely prophets, e.g., Amos,
whose understanding was clear and correct regardless that a “hermeneutical community”
concluded differently. The concept of “hermeneutical community” does not guaranty full
objectivity. Visotzky says: “Each community carries its own hermeneutic principles
about given texts, so the members of that community know how to read and evaluate
those texts.”21
Therefore he adds that “Every act of reading is a journey for which we
carry baggage.”22
This is often reflected in homilies and allegories of the Midrashim
writings.
Barr reminds the reader that “theology… is by its nature a matter of evaluation
and affirmation of conviction and proclamation and a discipline that does not include
these elements does not really deserve the name of biblical ‘theology’”23
Nevertheless,
BT must strive to be objective regardless that the interpretation of Qoheleth and
understanding the author’s intended meaning is difficult, resulting in subjective
assumptions. In the study of Qoheleth it is difficult at times for the reader to discern if his
understanding of the text is objective or subjective, since, as Ogden says: “The content of
the book appears to be so confusing that two opposite, and not just variant, interpretations
20 Graham S. Ogden, Qoheleth, 2nd
ed. (Shefffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 11.
21 Burton L. Visotzky, Reading the Book, (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005), 5.
22 Ibid.
23 Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 15.
90
seem possible.”24
This can be seen in rabbinical writings on Qoheleth; however, the text
has one single meaning.
Ollenburger writes: “We can only attain relative objectivity, because our
objectivity is limited by our situation in history.”25
Knierim says: “The question is not
whether we achieve absolute objectivity, but to what extent our subjectivity is objectified.
It should become clear that our subjectivity is controlled by the issue under discussion,
and not by our own assumptions.”26
However, objectivity is possible, although very
difficult. This seems to be a contradiction to previous statements, but it is just a paradox
of interpretation: believing and committed to objectivity while struggling with the reality
of subjectivity. It is after the objective reading of the text that the reader can reach a
subjective conclusion about the validity of its principles for today. There is validity in
subjectivity, as long as the first step in the reading has been done with the most rigorous
attempt to objectivity. However, no writer can approach Qoheleth with passive
objectivity.
The reality is that the theologian speaks within his own philosophical context:
consciously or not; by choice or by his/her cultural reality. It is this subjectivity that must
be overcome in BT; it can be overcome as long as the reader seeks to listen to the text in
24 Ibid.
25 Ben Ollenburger, “From Timeless Ideas to the essence of Religion: Method in Old Testament
Theology before 1930” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old
Testament Theology, 1930-1990 , eds. Ben C Ollenburger; E A Martens; Gerhard F Hasel (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1992), 11.
26 Rolf P. Knierim, in The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases:
Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 37.
91
its own terms and strives to overcome any theological presuppositions. Before addressing
the method/concept of BT, a note on theological presuppositions is in place.
Theological Presuppositions and Biblical Theology
Brown states that “theological reflection is typically deemed more confessional
than textual, a product more of the interpreter’s faith tradition or religious context than of
the biblical text’s meaning and context.”27
This seems to be the case often in Christian
OTT. However, BT must limit itself to the biblical text’s meaning and context. Would it
be possible to approach the text and listen to it without any presuppositions? Is insisting
in allowing the text to speak in its own terms without presupposition karaism? Is BT a
neo-karaism as Goshen-Gottstein claims?28
Barr states that the difference between BT
and doctrinal theology (dogmatic) places BT closer to non-theological study of the Bible,
mainly toward history of Israel’s religion, while the difference between BT and non-
theological studies of the Bible places it closer to doctrinal theology, at least as the
foundation to build the dogmas.29
Biblical Theology is not doctrinal theology; doctrinal
theology, although it must always be biblical or at least appeals to the biblical text, it is
the result of Systematic Theology (ST). Biblical Theology approaches the biblical text
similarly to the method of the Karaites.
The Karaites ( קראבני מ ) were a Jewish sect that flourished in Babylon (Iraq) and
Spain. They insisted that the biblical text should be heard and read without the midrashic
or other rabbinical interpretations. They accepted the biblical text as the final authority
27 Brown, “Theological Interpretation: A proposal,” 387.
28 Cf. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, 54-55 :(1980/81) 50 תרביץ ,תיאולוגיה מקראית יהודית ומדע דת התנ"ך.
29 Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 8.
92
and rejected the rabbinical oral Torah, e.g., Talmud. A similar approach is taken by this
writer. To read the biblical text on its own term is to seek understanding from the text
without the presupposition of the doctrines or dogmas of the Church or the Rabbis. Barr
correctly affirms that “biblical theology is thus very different from doctrinal theology.”30
Probably the best discussion on the difference between BT and doctrinal/dogmatic
theology (DT) is Barr’s “Difference from Doctrinal Theology.”31
Childs’ canonical
approach to BT is a good example of steps further toward a DT based on the theological
presupposition of a canon of sacred books.32
Dentan observes that BT “regards the Bible alone as the norm of faith.”33
This
does not mean that DT and ST as a whole are not biblical, rather that too often ST from
which DT develops, over depends on tradition and the magisterium rather than the
biblical text, especially in Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox. Irrespective of it, Klink
and Lockett interpreting Vos argue that “biblical theology and systematic theology
equally construct their individual projects by abstracting data from the biblical texts. It is
not as if biblical theology is somehow closer to what the text actually says and systematic
theology further through philosophical abstraction.”34
Nevertheless, BT attempts to
reflect accurately the plain meaning of the text. The BT concept insists that the plain text
30 Ibid., 7.
31 Ibid., 62-76.
32 Cf. Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 411, 422. It ignores the canons of other Christian
traditions, e.g., Eastern Orthodox, holding to the Western Christian Church’s.
33 Robert C. Denta, Preface to Old Testament Theology (New York: Seabury Press, 1963), 3.
34 Klink III and Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology, 16.
93
of the Bible, i.e., a particular book, must have priority; it must be free from
presuppositions. Vos writes:
[If BT] only concerns a peculiar method employed, viz., that of reproducing the
truth in its original Biblical form without subsequent transformation, then our
reply must be that, on the one hand, this necessity would seem to cast a reflection
on other theological disciplines, as though they were guilty of manipulating the
truth and that, on the other hand, Biblical Theology claims too much for itself in
professing freedom from transforming treatment of the Scriptural material. The
fact is that Biblical Theology just as much as Systematic Theology makes the
material undergo a transformation. The sole difference is in the principle on
which the transformation is conducted. In the case of Biblical Theology this is
historical, in the case of Systematic Theology it is of a logical nature. Each of
these two is necessary, and there is no occasion for a sense of superiority in
either.35
This perspective can be observed in how some theologians have approached
Qoheleth. The best collection of samples on how Christian theologians have interpreted
Qoheleth is the anthology of primary text by Christianson’s Qoheleth through the
Centuries.36
It is also a confirmation that the gap between ST and BT is larger than Vos’
recognizes, especially within the Greek Church Fathers. That gap is not as large within
the Evangelical ST that has its foundation on a pure BT and strives fro faithfulness to the
principles of grammatical-hitorical literal interpretation. Yet, both ST and BT
methodologies “transform” the biblical text in the process of interpretation; at least it
transforms the reader and how the interpreter approaches the text and comprehends its
meaning and significance. That is the case of the use or approaches to Qoheleth in ST or
BT, the text is somehow transformed, often to become a collection of proverbs, e.g.,
35Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948),
23.
36 Eric S. Christianson, Eric S. Ecclesiastes Through the Centuries, (Malden: Blackwell, 2007).
94
Mishnah. Crenshaw has also produced an excellent evaluation of the available theological
researches on Qoheleth up to 1984.37
These approaches often reflect a dogmatic or
confessional theology rather than a pure BT. There is validity in dogmatic and
confessional theology, but it must be clear that it is not the same as BT, regardless of how
biblical its content may be.
Biblical Theology stands between pure exegesis and dogmatic theology. It is
different from dogmatic/doctrinal theology, historical theology, philosophical theology,
and philological study of the text, and from other hermeneutical approaches, however, a
BTQ is influenced by all of them. It is unavoidable. Philological understanding of the
text, textual criticism, the historical use of Qoheleth by Jewish and Christian scholars in
one or another way influence the process.
The presupposition of the inspiration of the text is what moves readers to study a
text otherwise ignored by Christians and Jews. Perhaps, if not for this presupposition, the
theology of Qoheleth will not have a place in these schools just as a theology of the
Qur’an is disregarded in most seminaries of these two traditions. The divine inspiration of
the biblical canon, i.e., Tanakh, is understood as a presupposition of DT and tradition,
and is considered a fundamental doctrine of the Early Jewish Church, as well as of the
Early Greek Apostolic Church (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21). This is a theological
conviction difficult to avoid as this writer approaches Qoheleth. In evangelical circles
Paul’s and Peter’s statements are considered divinely inspired, therefore what they
37James L. Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old
Testament Wisdom (Macon: Mercer, 1995), 520-529.
95
declared concerning the Tanakh, assuming their canon is the same one, comes from the
biblical text, at least in the Greek Christian canon.
The theological concept of divine inspiration of the biblical text comes from the
text itself (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21), although Qoheleth does not claim any divine
authority for his writing/speech. It must be clarified that Qoheleth recognizes the Torah,
i.e., the Book of Genesis and the commandments, as divine revelation. However,
Qoheleth perhaps is one of those biblical texts which, using the statement by Decker,
“may not always be equally appropriate in any given situation, but they are all inspired
and authoritative Word of GOD.”38
Regardless of the truth of this theological
presupposition and conviction, which affirms Qoheleth as a book that communicates the
essence of the message from the Heavens; it is still a very difficult book to approach as a
source of theological reflection. In order to explore it and seek to understand its theology,
should the interpreter read it without this fundamental dogmatic theological
presupposition in mind? Should the reader not assume that the text is divinely inspired
neither that is not inspired? Is such neutrality possible? This writer must admit that it is
this theological presupposition and conviction on divine inspiration that leads his
approach to the text of Qoheleth, otherwise this writer perhaps would have ignored this
book at this time in his life.This writer attempts to overcome any theological or
philosophical presuppositions.
Our theological presuppositions, especially DT, e.g., Greek Church Fathers,
should not have a place in the process of BT; regardless that DT may be a good result of
38 Rodney J. Decker, When Bad Things Happen to a Good Text (Baptist Bible Seminary, March
2000).
96
BT. Ollenburger, following Gabler, states that BT “consists of historical exposition of the
Bible, which treats each biblical statement in terms of its own author’s historical
setting.”39
Again this must be the first and foundational step. He continues saying that it
is “followed by a philosophically informed explanation of those biblical statements; this
explanation seeks to determine which of the biblical ideas or concepts are abidingly
true.”40
It is this abinding truth that will form the arguments of DT and confessional
theologies. He says: “The biblical ideas that pass the test of reason, those that are not
merely historical or local, then provide the foundation for dogmatic theology.”41
The “test
of reason” does not mean that human reason is supreme to dictate and select what is true,
rather that human reason, although limited, is a gift to discern truth that is beyond
cultures, circumstances, or any other human boundaries.
When approaching the text with questions, presuppositions and method the
outcome of the research is set. The text is restricted, limited, to what the reader expects it
to say. Anything contrary to the presuppositions will be rejected consciously or
unconsciously or reinterpreted. Harmonization of the biblical text tends to be the
39 Ben Ollenburger, “From Timeless Ideas to the essence of Religion: Method in Old Testament
Theology before 1930” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old
Testament Theology, 1930-1990 , eds. Ben C Ollenburger; E A Martens; Gerhard F Hasel (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1992), 5.
40 Ben Ollenburger, “From Timeless Ideas to the essence of Religion: Method in Old Testament
Theology before 1930” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old
Testament Theology, 1930-1990 , eds. Ben C Ollenburger; E A Martens; Gerhard F Hasel (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1992), 5.
41 Ben Ollenburger, “From Timeless Ideas to the essence of Religion: Method in Old Testament
Theology before 1930” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old
Testament Theology, 1930-1990 , eds. Ben C Ollenburger; E A Martens; Gerhard F Hasel (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1992), 5.
97
“proper” approach since it is difficult to accept any theology that does not meet the
interpreter’s presuppositions. Nevertheless, harmonization has its proper place in DT.
Dogmatic theology will not dictate the outcome of the research. Borrowing the
concept from Ollenburger, this writer proposes that Tanakh BT “should reform dogmatic
theology.”42
The interpreter must be open to make any necessary changes in his DT or
confession of faith if required by the results of BT.43
Tanakh BT is not and should not be
DT.44
Ollenberger says that BT is also “an enquiry into the question how historical study
of the Bible should relate itself to dogmatic theology.”45
Biblical Theology must seek to
understand the intended meaning of the author independently from DT.46
Many methods look at how the Tanakh is quoted in the NT. The centrality of the
NT is often the main theological presupposition in Christian theology, e.g., Anabaptists in
Zurich (1524). The Tanakh becomes just the starting point or the foundation for
something better, e.g., Jacob Aman’s theology (1693). The Tanakh contains, for many of
these theologians, e.g., Mennonites, a limited revelation, an imperfect communication,
while the NT teachings complete or replace it. Can a Tanakh BT be written ignoring the
42 Ollenburger, “From Timeless Ideas to the essence of Religion,” 6.
43 The historical evidence is the Reformation, for example Juan de Valdez et al. in Spain, Martin
Luther in Germany, John Calvin, Urlich Zwingli and Conrad Grabel in Switzerland.
44 This writer prefers to speak of HBT or Tanakh BT instead of OTT. The term OTT implies in
itself a Christian presupposition about, sometimes against, the Tanakh and ancient Israel where the Tanakh
is obsolete and relegated as a “type”, instead of speaking of it as a source of biblical truth and meaningful
to the church today.
45 Ollenburger, “From Timeless Ideas to the essence of Religion”, 4.
46 Cf. William Arp, Authorial Intent, JMAT 4:1 (Spring 2000), 36-50.
98
NT? This writer will attempt to do so, although he must admit that the NT answers to
questions raised by Qoheleth keeps coming up as he reads through the pages of Qoheleth.
Biblical Theology and Christian Theology
The concept of BT is a concept that has been approached from different
perspectives. However, the task of BT has been mainly a Christian endeavour. Brown
says: “Any explicitly theological engagement with the biblical text has been largely
deemed a Christian enterprise.”47
Bauer’s work is a good example of this approach.48
The first to use the term BT was Calovius (Calov,1655) in a very general sense.49
The term BT is often used to mean a system of doctrines based on the biblical text.50
The
variety of writings called BT makes it difficult to define the concept. Dentan writes that
“the only definition of biblical theology which does justice to the history of the discipline
is that it is the study of the religious ideas of the Bible in their historical context.”51
Dentan makes reference to Büsching (1768), Semler (1791), and Ernesti (1781) as
47 Brown, “Theological Interpretation: A proposal”, 404n3.
48 Cf. Georg Lorenz Bauer, The Theology of the Old Testament, or, A Biblical Sketch of the
Religious Opinions of the Ancient Hebrews from the Earliest Times to the Commencement of the Christian
Era: Extracted and Translated from the Theologie Des Alten Testaments of Georg Lorenz Bauer (London:
C. Fox, 1838). In this dissertation OTT is used in reference to traditional Christian approaches to BT of the
Tanakh.
49 Abraham Calov, (Abrahami Calovii) Systema locorum theologicorum: e sacra potissimum
scriptura, et antiquitate, nec non adversariorum confessione, doctrinam, praxin, et controversiarum fidei,
cum veterum, tum imprimis recentiorum pertractationem luculentam exhibens (Witebergae: Sumptibus A.
Hartmann, 1655). Mentioned by Dentan, Preface to Old Testament Theology (New Haven: YUP, 1950;
select. repr. Forth Worth: Griffin, 1956; reprint, New York: Seabury Press, 1963), 3. This rare book is
available at the Lutheran Theological Seminary of Gettysburg, PA.
50 Cf. Denta, Preface to Old Testament Theology, 3.
51 Ibid., 90. Cf. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, 23.
99
theologians that held to the view that “the Bible must be interpreted in a purely historical
and grammatical sense.”52
He provides perhaps the best introduction and examples on
how the term or concept has been used and defined in different contexts. Dentan also
warned that the term “biblical theology” was in “danger of becoming a partisan
catchword rather than the name of a scientific discipline.”53
Levenson response to this
fact is more than adequate: he says that BT must not be Jewish or Christian but
historical.54
It must be an objective task; restoring theology to be again the Queen of
science. The fact is that too often BT works are Christian endeavours controlled by
dogmatic theological presuppositions, as noted above. Briggs and Lohr say that Tanakh
BT, i.e., OTT, is “shaped in certain significant ways by Christian theological concerns.”55
Goldsworthy’s approach confirms how the Christian understanding of the canon shapes
how the interpreter reads the text. He writes: “The bottom line in any discussion on the
principles of doing biblical theology is surely its practical value for the edifying of God’s
people and for their growth in grace and the knowledge of Christ.”56
Goldingay follows a
similar approach. His theology first volume’s title Old Testament Theology: Israel’s
52 Dentan, Preface to Old Testament Theology, 6. These rare books were not available to the
author at the time of this dissertation.
53 Ibid., iii.
54 Cf. Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews
and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 38.
55 Richard Briggs and Joel Lohr, eds. A Theological Introduction to the Pentateuch: Interpreting
the Torah as a Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2012), 3.
56 Graeme Goldsworthy, Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and
Principles (Downer Grove: IVP Academic, 2012), 227. He also argues for a biblical theology that produces
a practical pastoral theology.
100
Gospel already states that Christian and NT presuppositions are part of his approach to
the text of the Tanakh; this is evident through chapter 11.57
Nevertheless, he strives to
read the Tanakh no through the NT “glasses.” Goldingay makes a very important
statement arguing that Christian faith must start with the Tanakh, without it the NT is
incomplete.58
It is the NT that must be read in light of the Tanakh.
Scholars Klink and Lockett approach the text with a Christian theological
presuppositions; they see the biblical text as one and consider the connection between
Tanakh and NT essential to a BT.59
A Tanakh BT does not seek to demonstrate or find
unity within and between the Tanakh and NT, but to describe, understand, and apply (if
possible) the theology of the individual author of a particular book or collection of
books.60
Its purpose, like Jewish theology, is to seek truth.61
This Biblical truth, when
allowed to speak and stand on its own terms, may challenge traditions and dogmas. This
truth is not Jewish or Christian; rather it is just truth, biblical truth: an emanation of the
glory of GOD. It is a transforming truth; as it is written: γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ
ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς (John 8:32).
57 John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel, (Downers Grove: IVP Academic,
2003).
58 Ibid., 789.
59 Cf. Klink III and Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theolog, 20.
60 Searching for unity between the Tanakh (OT in Christian writings) and the NT is an obvious
and needed goal of Christian Biblical Theology.
61 Louis Jacobs, A Jewish Theology (New York: Behrman House, 1974), 1. Jewish theology seek
to at least understand the concept of truth in a particular book. In Christian theology the Spirit of Truth will
guide the reader to all truth.
101
Perhaps the first Christian theology of the Tanakh is found in the Gospels and the
writings of Paul. The Church Father’s interpretation of Paul as a theology contrary to the
spirit of the biblical Jewish faith has influenced centuries of Christian understanding of
the theology of the Hebrew canon. However, Paul’s Christocentric approach has set
limits to this endeavour. Historically the Christotelic and Christocentric methodologies
have distanced Christian OTT from any possible objective Tanakh BT, especially from
encouraging Jewish approaches to follow in the steps of Paul.62
There are some Jewish
scholars that in their theological and philosophical writings have considered Jesus of
Nazareth and Paul.63
Christian scholars often approach the Tanakh within systematic theologies in
which the OT is addressed as a unit, without considering any diversity. The Christian
scholars always bring together the OT and NT as one Bible; Barr describes that “in recent
years and in German usage, ‘biblical theology’ has been used for a particular operation,
namely the construction of one single theology of the entire Christian Bible, i.e., of both
Old and New Testament, as distinct from individual theologies of the Old or New
Testament.”64
However, often the separation is also present between the “Old” and the
“New.” This has its root in the interpretation of the NT writings by the magisterium, at
times within the NT itself.
62 The abbreviation OT is kept in this context since it also embeds how the Christian theologians
approach the Tanakh.
63 David Flusser, Pinchas Lapides, among a few others.
64 Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 2.
102
Jewish Biblical Theology
The BT of the Tanakh has its roots among the Jewish followers of Jesus of
Nazareth. However, today few Jewish scholars have approached the concept of BT and
its modern methodology.65
Levenson says that “It is precisely the failure of the biblical
theologians to recognize the limitation of the context of their enterprise that makes some
of them surprised that Jews are not interested in it.”66
He refers to the Christocentric ST;
although Christology is one of the cathegories of ST, often in Christian ST it is the main
motif. Christians, i.e., Lutherans, often use the Tanakh as a proof text for their
interpretation of the NT teachings. Previously Levenson writes:
The effort to construct a systematic, harmonious theological statement out of the
unsystematic … materials in the Hebrew Bible fits Christianity better than
Judaism because systematic theology in general is more at home in the church
than in the beth midrash (study house) and synagogue. The impulse to
systematize among Christians tends to find its outlet in theology.67
Nevertheless, some Jewish scholars have engaged in the process of writing
Tanakh BT. Perdue includes an excellent survey on Jewish Biblical Theology (JBT).68
65 Anti-Semitism by German scholars and the negative use of the term ‘Old Testament’ are
among the reasons that kept for too long Jewish scholars away from exploring and writing BT.
66 Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism, 61.
67 Ibid., 51.
68 Perdue, Reconstructing Old Testament Theology, 183-238. Perdue writes one of the best
surveys on Jewish theologians, regardless that he neglects to mention some very important ones.
103
Sweeney has a very good introduction to JBT.69
Barr provides an excellent survey in The
Concept of Biblical Theology.70
Fishbane writes: “The native theology of traditional Judaism is a biblical
theology.”71
However, very few works can be described as authentic Jewish Hebrew
Bible Theology or more appropriate, Tanakh Theology. Probably because in the first
place there seems to be reluctance among Jewish scholars to call it theology; often the
term philosophy has been used instead of theology.72
Hazony perhaps reflects this view
better than any other Jewish writer. He proposes that the majority of the books of the
Tanakh must be read as “wisdom literature.”73
Epstein’s writings are a good example of a Jewish philosophical biblical theology,
which goes beyond the Tanakh to the larger Hebrew canon.74
It must be underlined that a
major difference from Christian theology is that Jewish theologians, in general, are not
dogmatic. They argue for the plurality of theologies within the Jewish canon. A few
69 Marvin A. Sweeney, Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 3-41.
70 James Barr, “Jewish Biblical Theology?,” in The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old
Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 286-311.
71 Michael Fishbane, Judaism: Revelation and Traditions (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1987), 58.
72 Cf. Eliezer Schweid, The Philosophy of the Bible As Foundation of Jewish Culture: Philosophy
of Biblical Law. (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2008) and The Philosophy of the Bible As Foundation of
Jewish Culture: Philosophy of Biblical Narrative (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2008); Yoram Hazony,
The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
73 Hazony, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, 90.
74 Isidore Epstein, Step by Step in the Jewish Religion (London: Soncino, 1958).
104
scholars, for example Knierim, propose that there is, in the Tanakh, “a plurality of
theologies.”75
Often writers like Knierim see them as contradictory, but they can be seen
as complementing each other instead. Birch writes:
This collection of polyphonic voices does indeed enrich our perspectives on the
biblical experience of GOD. The Old Testament does not present a narrow
harmony of voices. There is, however, a danger in this affirmation. Our
affirmation of this diversity should not be understood as a setting for pluralistic
voices as an end in themselves or as a selection from which we simply make
congenial choices.76
Another difference is that JBT approaches a larger canon that includes a greater
diversity of theologies, e.g., post-biblical literature such as the Mishnah. Cohon’s
theology embraces a canon beyond the Tanakh and the Talmud; he argues that all Jewish
writings addressing psychology, philosophy, etc. must be part of a Jewish Theological
process.77
Zetterholm describing the hermeneutical approaches to the Tanakh by Jewish
scholars from ancient time and today says:
[Jewish theology] addresses the ostensible paradox between commitment to the
Bible and tradition on the one hand and the freedom in adapting them to present
realities on the other. In order to comprehend this paradox, one needs to
understand the underlying theology of revelation that, according to Jewish
tradition, allows humans to be God’s partners in interpreting his word. This idea
of an ongoing dialectical process between divine revelation and human
75 Rolf P. Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases: Essays
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 1.
76Birch, A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, 17
77 Cf. Jakob J. Petuchowski, introduction to Essays in Jewish Theology by Samuel Cohon
(Cincinnati: HUC, 1987), xi.
105
interpretation is the key… to understanding the character and development of
Jewish tradition.78
Although Jewish theological writings tend to be non-systematic theologies,
compared with Christian ones, the writers follow a series of theological categories
perhaps as a convenience.79
Cosgrove’s Jewish Theology in Our Time: A New Generation
Explores the Foundations and Future of Jewish Belief is perhaps the best example of a
contemporary Jewish approach to theology that reflects a methodology similar to that of
ST.80
Among the best Jewish theologies of the Tanakh is the work of Arye Kaplan, who
wrote a systematic introduction to the theology of the Tanakh.81
Another systematic work
is by Abraham J. Heschel, The Theology of Ancient Judaism.82
Heschel’s major
contribution to biblical theology and its practical implications for today is The Prophets:
A Theology of the Ethics of the Prophets.83
Three other major Jewish systematic works,
i.e., philosophical theology, of modern days include Neumark’s The Philosophy of the
Bible; Berkovits’ Man and God; Studies in Biblical Theology and the encyclopaedic
publication of Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, from its Beginnings to the Babylonian
78 Zetterholm, Jewish Interpretation of the Bible, xi.
79 Cf. Carole B. Balin, “Preface”, Jewish Theology in Our Time: A New Generation Explores the
Foundations and Future of Jewish Belief, ed. Elliot J Cosgrove (Woodstock: Jewish Lights Pub, 2010), xix.
80 Elliot J. Cosgrove, ed. Jewish Theology in Our Time: A New Generation Explores the
Foundations and Future of Jewish Belief (Woodstock: Jewish Lights, 2010). Cf. Robert G. Goldy, The
Emergence of Jewish Theology in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990).
81 Aryeh Kaplan, The Handbook of Jewish Thought (Brooklyn: Maznaim, 1979).
82 Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Theology of Ancient Judaism [In Hebrew]. Vol. 1. London:
Soncino, 1962; Ibid., Vol. II, 1965.
83Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962); the original work,
Die Prophetie. (Krakow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademji Umiejetnosci, 1936), was his dissertation.
106
Exile.84
Perhaps the best and most complete Jewish biblical theology of the Tanakh is
Sweeney’s Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible.85
Kaplan’s, Heschel’s and Sweeney’s approaches are canonical. They look at the
whole canon and its theology; including Mishnah. Maimonides, Moses Mendelsohnn,
Kaufman Kohler, Louis Jacobs et al. contributed many essays and books on theology, of
course, having the Tanakh as its foundation but cannot be called BT per se.86
Observe for
example Kohler. His work is a ST from a Jewish perspective. He divides his work into
theology proper, anthropology, and a study of Israel.87
These works, in approach and
format, are similar to the Christian systematic, dogmatic and doctrinal theologies.
84 David Neumark, The Philosophy of the Bible (Cincinnati: Ark, 1918). Neumark’s book is a
biblical theology within the larger Jewish canon and the history of Israel; Yeḥezkel Kaufmann The Religion
of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). This
is based on Kaufmann’s work in Hebrew (8 volumes), תולדות האמונה הישראלית: מימי קדם עד סוף בית שני
(Tel Aviv: Mosad Byalik ʻal yede Devir, 1937). Although the English title gives the impression that this is
a history of Israel’s religion, Kaufmann’s work is a biblical theology in the context of history; Eliezer
Berkovits,. Man and GOD; Studies in Biblical Theology (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1969).
Berkovits’ writings are gaining new interest among those seeking to develop a Jewish Tanak Theology.
85 Marvin A. Sweeney, Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible.
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011).
86 Moshe ben Maimón, Mishné Torá (משנה תורה) and Guide to the perplexed, of which there are
many editions and translations of these manuscripts in the English language.; Moses Mendelssohn,
Jerusalem, a Treatise on Religious Power and Judaism (Philadelphia: Sherman, 1852); Kaufmann Kohler,
Jewish Theology, Systematically and Historically Considered. New York: Macmillan Co, 1918, repr.
Cincinnati: Riverdale, 1943); Louis Jacobs, A Jewish Theology. Jacobs’ book is a systematic work that
includes the larger canon of Judaism, beyond the biblical text of the Tanakh, covering other religious
Hebrew literature.
87 Among Christian theologians Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum’s Israelology: The Missing Link in
Systematic Theology. (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1993) has attempted to write an exhaustive theology of
Israel. Fruchtenbaum is a Jewish scholar that converted to Evangelical Christianity.
107
Nevertheless, as Levenson writes, “systematic theology… is more at home in the
church.”88
These writings cannot be called OTT because for these writers the Tanakh is
central to life; the Tanakh is not an ancient obsolete canon, rather it is the Word of GOD.89
The closest to an authentic and “pure” Jewish Tanakh BT, beside the great work
done by Sweeney, would have been the book proposed by Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein,
ומדע דת התנ"ךתיאולוגיה מקראית יהודית . According to Tov this project was never published.90
Moshe Goshen-Gottstein summarized his proposal in two excellent articles, one by the
same title תיאולוגיה מקראית יהודית ומדע דת התנ"ך and “Tanakh Theology: the religion of the
Old Testament and the Place of Jewish Biblical Theology.”91
Goshen-Gottstein proposes
an approach, a very important method, for a JBT of the Tanakh. He says that a “Tanakh
theology…depends on the minute study of text units, aiming as much as possible for the
literal sense.”92
This statement is complemented by Perdue’s important observation. He
says that “Jews and Christians can work together on the literal sense and historical
meaning of Scripture, but they go their separate ways when articulating their theologies
88 Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism, 51.
89 In some Christian traditions some parts or specific covenants are considered obsolete. In
Judaism some of the mitzvot/ commandments are not relevant today, e.g., those related to the Temple.
90 Emmanuel Tov, correspondence with writer (August 6, 2012).
91 Goshen-Gottstein, 37-64 ,תיאולוגיה מקראית יהודית ומדע דת התנ"ך. “Tanakh Theology: The Religion
of the Old Testament and the Place of Jewish Biblical Theology,” in Ancient Israelite Religion eds. Patrick
D. Miller, et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987, reprint 2009), 617-644.
92 Goshen-Gottstein, “Tanakh Theology,” 632. Cf. Mike Stallard, “Literal Interpretation,
Theological Method, and the Essence of Dispensationalism,” JMAT 1:1 (Spring 1997): 5-36.
108
for contemporary faith and practice.”93
Jewish theologians also are careful on
grammatical details, but they go beyond the biblical canon to the larger canon of Jewish
writings, addressing the totality of Jewish religious experience. Bamberger, affirming this
approach to theology, writes that theological methods “would examine every theological
proposition and test it by reference to all the realities of human life. The theologian’s task
would then become one of exploration rather than organization. With such an approach,
the validity of an affirmation is not necessarily destroyed because it cannot be fitted
neatly into an all-embracing scheme.”94
This is what ST attempts to do and is often well
accomplished in Christian systematic theologies; however, not as extensive as Jewish
writers, e.g., Me’am Lo’ez.
Tanakh and Biblical Theology
Miller, interpreting the works of Bruggemann, says that “the Old Testament is a
theological document in every sense of the word. Its subject matter is theological and its
appropriation is theological.”95
This understanding, not only about Bruggemann’s
perception of the Tanakh, but the statement itself is absolutely correct: the subject or
interest of the writings of the Tanakh is theological; the reader does not bring this interest
into the text. It is an intrinsic part of the text. A book like the poem Song of Songs does
not seem to confirm this presupposition; however, its presence within the canon has a
theological and ethical purpose for the ancient rabbis and the Christian Church, even if
93 Perdue, Reconstructing Old Testament Theology, 187.
94 Bamberger, The Search for Jewish Theology, 3.
95 Patrick D. Miller, Introduction to Old Testament Theology by Walter Bruggemann
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.), xiii.
109
that meant for them allegorizing it (Hirsch argues that “allegorization is not necessarily
misinterpretation”).96
Historical books, e.g., Joshua, Chronicles and Esther, show that
their authors have a theological interest.
Bruggemann writes: “Biblical faith…is not stoic. It is not a set of statements that
are always and everywhere true; therefore contemporary biblical theology must not be
reductionist in order to make all of the Old Testament fit together.”97
Nevertheless, the
essence of biblical teachings is truth that goes beyond cultural and time frontiers.
Anderson argues through his book for pluralism in order to allow a place in the
canon for Qoheleth.98
The theologies in the Tanakh complement each other. Therefore, it
is important that each theology or each individual book and at times single narratives,
must be studied carefully in isolation from the rest of the canon before understood within
the canon. According to Knierim it must include comparison with each other; which is
beyond the scope of this dissertation but important for future research.99
Again, diversity
does not mean contradictory theologies, rather theologies that reflect the unique
96 Eric Donald Hirsch, “The Validity of Allegory,” in Convegno internazionale sul tema
ermeneutica e critica: Roma 7-8 ottobre 1996 (Roma: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 1998), 220. This
work must be understood in the context of Hirsch excellent arguments for author intended meaning in
Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967).
97 Walter Bruggemann, Old testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Themes, and Text
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 23.
98 William H. V. Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology: Hermeneutical Struggle in
wisdom Literature, (Lempter: Mellen, 1997).
99 Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology, 75, 479, 487. Throughout his book Knierim
makes a case for comparison as an essential part of the method.
110
experience and understanding of the writer; again, these theologies complement each
other. They must be understood in the context of the progress of revelation.
The question the reader must ask “What does it mean to read and interpret the text
of the Old Testament theologically?100
The answer by BT scholars would be very
different from that of the DT writers.The Tanakh BT must give emphasis to religious
ideas as found in the text. Its interest does not include the history of the development of
these ideas. Tanakh BT seeks to understand what the text says concerning GOD or any
other theological category only if available within the text. The principles and methods of
Tanakh BT must be developed in such a way that can be applied to the study of any
sacred religious book, e.g., the Qur’an. Pakkal warns that “one can and should use the
final text for theological purposes in the Synagogue and the Church, but this should
clearly be separated from historical questions.”101
The purpose of the Tanakh is theological; its center is ELOHIM. Birch et al.
propose that the reader must take “seriously the claim of the text that it is speaking about
encounter and relationship with GOD.”102
The encounter with GOD is the theological
experience and the relation with GOD is philosophical, i.e., ethical implications (impact of
the theology in the behaviour and thinking of the reader). The Tanakh is more than laws
and history; it was “written, collected, and passed on through generations as the witness
of a community of faith shaped in relation to the character and actions of the GOD of
100 Cf. Craig G. Bartholomew, “Ecclesiastes, Book of” in Dictionary of Theological
Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 182-185.
101 Juha Pakkal, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 8 (Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 2004), 11-12.
102 Birch et al., A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, 1.
111
Israel.”103
In BT it is important that the interpreter understand that these texts do have a
particular relation with a specific nation: Israel.
Dispensationalists’ Christotelic approach to the Tanakh allows room for the text
to have a specific significance for ancient Israel while it may or may not have
significance for the Church today. Reading the text from a Christotelic perspective allows
preaching from Qoheleth and to relate it to the message of Jesus of Nazareth.
Tanakh Biblical Theology and the Christotelic Reading
Reading the text Christocentricly excludes books like Song of Songs and
Qoheleth, unless they are allegorized, which is not a healthy approach. The Christotelic
approach avoids in the church the conflict of “OT vs NT” that is often heard in
Anabaptists and other Reform circles. It avoids also the use of the “OT” as just the
background to the NT. It will see the whole Bible as a source of truth and principles that
will find a meaningful place in the life of the church.
The Tanakh theology when read from a Christian perspective often is Christotelic:
“What did Jesus say?” is the question in the mind of the Christian interpreter, e.g.,
Mennonite, Presbyterian, et al. as he/she approaches a conclusion and application.
However, it is possible to preach from the Tanakh without ever making a reference to the
teachings of the NT. Enns coined the term Christotelic, based on Richard Hays’s term
“ecclesiotelic” and “out of conversations with two…colleagues at WTS who actually first
used the term with” him.104
Enns says: “One way of defining the term is ‘allowing the
103 Ibid.
104 Paul Enns, e-mail to author, May 18, 2012. Cf. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the
Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
112
death and resurrection of Christ to reframe and re-interpret the OT.’ This is what I see the
NT authors doing, which create a hermeneutical circle of sorts: Christ is the telos of the
OT but only after reframing the OT in light of Christ to make it so.”105
A Christotelic approach to the Tanakh, instead of Messianic/Christocentric is
more practical and faithful to the principles of hermeneutics. This approach
communicates the message of the Tanakh faithfully without reading the NT back into it
or finding Jesus everywhere in the text. McKenzie writes: “Jesus Messiah could have
emerged from nothing except Israel and the Old Testament; but the study of the Old
Testament does not demand that Jesus Messiah emerge from it.” 106
In Qoheleth there is nothing about the Messiah or specifically about Christ, i.e.,
Jesus of Nazareth. A Christotelic approach may be acceptable and practical for the
pastoral homily, but it is not in BT. In other words, as noted above, an exposition of
Qoheleth can conclude with reference to how Jesus or the apostles and the larger canon,
including the other books of the Tanakh, address the same concerns raised by the author.
Enns takes a similar approach in his commentary of Qoheleth.107
A Christian theology of
the Tanakh may conclude somehow with Jesus’s understanding, not necessarily so a
105 Paul Enns, E-mail to author, May 18, 2012. Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein speaks of “telic
orientation” in Christianity and Judaism; one toward the NT and the other finding further expression in the
rabbinical writings. Goshen-Gottstein asks if this approach should be avoided so a pure Tanak theology is
free from denominational dogmas and the meaning of the text can be appreciated better. Cf. Moshe H.
Goshen-Gottstein,“Tanakh Theology”, 625.
106 McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament, 29.
107 Peter Enns, Ecclesiastes (Cambridge, U.K.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2011).
113
Jewish theology of the Tanakh. Nevertheless, in BT the book of Qoheleth must be
addressed by itself in its own terms, outside of the canon: just the plain text.
According to the evangelical Christian understanding the coming of the Messiah
brought further light and understanding in the process of revelation. There is only one
OTT by a Christian theologian approaching the Tanakh as if there is not a NT:
MacKenzie’s A Theology of the Old Testament.108
Toward a Biblical Theology of Qoheleth
There is not a comprehensive Biblical Theology of Qoheleth (BTQ) by Jewish or
Christian scholars. This work is a step toward a comprehensive BTQ, but it is not a
comprehensive work in itself. This BTQ will attempt to stay within the text of Qoheleth
and away from the presuppositions and methods of DT and the doctrinal statements in
Christian and Jewish traditions. Systematic and dogmatic theologies often over-depend
on human reasoning and speculative philosophy, e.g., Greek Orthodox.109
Gabler states:
“theologiae dogmaticae ... proprie sit philosophia Christiana.”110
This project attempts to be bound to the biblical text instead of being guided by
the methods and interests of DT; to some degree this work is guided by the goal of
108 McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament.
109 Cf. Dentan, Preface to Old Testament Theology, 3.
110 J. Ph. Gabler, “De iusto discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque recte
utriusque finibus”, in Io. Phil. Gabler, Opuscula academica: Kleinere theologische Schriften. II. Band
(Ulm: Stettin, 1831), 193.
114
Gabler as interpreted by Dentan.111
Gabler’s goal, according to Dentan, was to bring
“liberation of biblical studies from the tyranny of dogmatic interests.”112
‘Tyrant’ is a
strong term to describe DT, but in the historical context of how it was abused by the
magisterium in the Christian tradition, i.e., Roman Catholic Church, perhaps it is sadly
the appropriate term. That does not mean that a complete Christian theological work on
Qoheleth will ignore the dogmas of the Church or the conclusions of ST; however
dogmatic presuppositions are not and should not be part of BTQ.
The approach to the theology of Qoheleth among Christian scholars often is also
canonical. They do not approach the book by itself, rather understood in the context of
the full canon, including the NT.113
Barr writes that BT “has, in general, been interested
in the whole rather than in the part.”114
This writer argues that to understand the whole,
i.e., biblical canon, the parts must be analysed first; BT must address individual books
111 This writer does not follow the use of the term biblical theology by Spinoza et al. since his
goal was not specifically one of faith; regardless that he may have some contribution to the development of
the concept.
112 Dentan, Preface to Old Testament Theology, 7. In the original Latin text of Gabler’s speech he
strives to make a difference between dogmatic and biblical theologies. He does not reject DT, rather wants
to develop a pure BT.
113 Cf. John W. Rogerson, A Theology of the Old Testament: Cultural Memory, Communication,
and Being Human (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010).
114 Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 13-14.
115
first of all. 115
However, Barr challenges the scholars by stating that BT is a theology of
the entire Bible.116
This perhaps is the final step in a comprehensive BTQ.
Can it be possible to study the theology exclusively of one particular book of the
canon without reference to any other part of the biblical canon? Is this method
appropriate? Reading Qoheleth like there is no canon and the text is isolated from what,
for the purpose of this dissertation, no longer exists. Can it be done? This writer keeps in
mind Brown’s caution: “No text is an island – literarily, much less theologically. Hence,
the text’s position in relation to other texts invites lively interaction with the surrounding
material.”117
It is correct that every text has a larger literary context, which in the case of
Qoheleth is the Torah; but the text must be understood first and above all by itself. This
will avoid the risk of reaching conclusions from another text instead of understanding as
much as possible the book under consideration. House argues that Qoheleth theology
must be understood canonically, especially in the context of Wisdom Literature.118
Canonical BT tends to move away from the concept of BT toward TIS. That is not the
case of House’s work, but often of theologians like Bartholomew and Childs. This writer
proposes that BT must be the starting point in any theological endeavour. In the study of
the biblical canon BT must come first and then the canon of the Tanakh must be the first
115 Exceptions may be letters like the one to the Galatians which is understood better in the
context of the whole compendium of Paul’s writings and biography in Acts of the Apostles.
116 Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 14.
117 Brown, “Theological Interpretation”, 390.
118 Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 47.
116
to be approached.119
It must address the theology of each individual book before anything
else. The study of the compendium of Solomonic literature, although it can be classified
as BT, cannot take precedence to the study of the individual book of Qoheleth.
This research’s methodology is limited to the Book of Qoheleth, i.e., the study of
the understanding about ELOHIM, as found in the text of Qoheleth.
The words from Miller must set a caution in the process to identify a method:
“The normative function of Old Testament Theology is not simply a matter that one
decides methodologically but is inherent in the character of the text and the relation to it
of those who read and study.”120
Nevertheless, this writer’s approach is not a readers’
approach. The text of Qoheleth is what matters and how it communicates the intended
meaning of the author. Therefore listening to the text speaking in its own terms is
fundamental to BT. Without overlooking figures of speech, which abound in Qoheleth;
the text has one meaning, a literal meaning.
In dispensationalist BT, like in JBT, the literal understanding of the text is central.
The book, i.e., Qoheleth, is read with the understanding that the author wrote with one
meaning in mind and that meaning is the literal statement in the text.121
This approach is
119 This must include the Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha as found in various canons of the
Christian Orthodox traditions.
120 Miller, Introduction, xv.
121 Cf. Mike Stallard, Literal Interpretation: The Key to Understanding the Bible, JMAT 4:1
(Spring, 2000), 14-34. Raju D. Kunjummen, The Single Intent of Scripture — Critical Examination of a
Theological Construct, GT 7:1 (Spring 1986), 81-110. Rodney J. Decker, When Bad Things Happen to a
Good Text, Baptist Bible Seminary, March 2000.
117
called פשט (peshat) in the rabbinical tradition.122
Lohfink argues that “in many passages
the book meant precisely the opposite of what the literal words said” and adds that Luther
and Samuel ben Meir agreed on this.123
This is correct if there is a figure of speech, like
sarcasm, but if that is not the case then Qoheleth must mean what he says. It has a variety
of significance or applications, but only one intended meaning. A text that means too
many things means nothing. Stendahl said that first of all the interpreter must seek to
understand “What the text meant not what it means.”124
Therefore multiple meanings
according to the reader’s context must be excluded. This is the case of Rashbam’s work
where, according to Japhet and Salters, “a word, a phrase, a verse – when found in a
given context – can have one and only one interpretation” so “the practice which is so
common in Jewish exegetical tradition… of suggesting several possibilities for
interpreting a given text, is completely absent.’125
This approach is also the one by
dispensationalist theologians.
Qoheleth and Systematization of Biblical Theology
A writer of a canonical book in the Tanakh at times seems to depend on the
theology found in a previous book. In some books due to questions of chronology,
e.g., Job, it is difficult to discern if a previous theology is in question, but that is not the
122 Sara Japhet and Robert B. Salters, The Commentary of R. Samuel Ben Meir, Rashbam, on
Qoheleth. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 61-62.
123 Lohfink, Qoheleth A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 3
124 Krister Stendhal, communication with author, nd.
125 Japhet and Salters, The Commentary of R. Samuel Ben Meir, Rashbam, on Qoheleth, 61-62.
118
case of Qoheleth. Qoheleth has what could be called a theology of the Torah: a BT of
Creation, i.e, the Creator.
This BTQ is not the scientific study of Israel’s religion; neither is it approached as
a theological history of ancient Israel.126
This BT does not set a foundation for dogmatic
theology, neither is it a historical theology approach. However, this BTQ is systematic. It
is a systematized biblical theology. Harrelson states that Tanakh BT is “the systematic
and critical evaluation of the relation of the deity to the cosmos, to the community, to its
individual members, as this relation is portrayed in the community’s surviving materials
available to the theologian.”127
Knierim says that “The function of the Old Testament
theologian is neither descriptive nor confessional, it is systematic. In one way or another,
Old Testament theology must be a systematic theology of the Old Testament, or an Old
Testament theology in the singular is impossible.”128
This systematization does not imply
the search for unity or harmonization of Qoheleth with the Tanakh. Murphy, answering
Knierim, writes:
He [Knierim] describes his biblical theology as systematic and standing between
exegesis and systematic theology, but differing from the later … But the fact
remains that systematization is done by postbiblical persons, faithful to the Bible
to be sure, but imposing upon it a unity that is necessary extrinsic…I am not
126 An important work on theology of the Tanakh closer to the Religiongeshichte of Israel is
Leopold Zunz’ Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch (Frankfurt: Verlag von Kauffmann,
1892).
127 Walter Harrelson response to Rolf P. Knierim, in The Task of Old Testament Theology:
Substance, Method, and Cases: Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 22.
128 Rolf P. Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology, 18.
119
saying that systematization of biblical thought is the same as systematic theology.
But the same drive for unity is at work in both cases.129
Knierim argues that if “systematization is foreign to the [Tanakh], then the only
legitimate form of interpretation would be to recite or to re-narrate the texts, to tell the
story, or at most, to exegete them.”130
In Judaism the reciting of the Tanakh is central to
the faith instead of systematic theology or harmonizing. Retelling the story as it is written
is the foundations of biblical festivals like Passover. However, the text of Qoheleth does
not lend itself for just retelling.131
Bamberger recognizes that “Systematic theology was
for a long time dominated by Aristotelian methods.”132
The theologian strived for logical
consistency both in the writing and the source of his theology.
Biblical Theology does not seek unity of the canon but to understand the
uniqueness of a particular book’s theology. It must allow room for observation of the
theological development of ancient Israel in the progress of revelation. Qoheleth,
although writing from a Torah antecedent theology, has a limited knowledge and
understanding of the Divine Revelation.133
However, if the question of the progress of
revelation is addressed further in a BTQ it will no longer be a BT method but rather a
systematic theology seeking unity by clarifying or attempting to understand the apparent
129 Ibid., 31.
130 Ibid., 48.
131 During Sukkot Ashkenazi Jews simply chant the text of Qoheleth.
132 Bamberger, The Search for Jewish Theology, 3.
133 Cf. Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and
Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 94. What Kaiser calls ‘antecedent theology’ should be considered
more carefully in future studies of Qoheleth. There is need for clarity and consistency in the use of this
concept.
120
diversity of theologies in the biblical canon. Harmonizing is part of DT not of BT.
Knierim accurately states that BT “is not harmonizing” the Tanakh.134
Qoheleth seems to
validate the need for a canonical theology and its interpretation in the context of the
progress of revelation, i.e., dogmatic theology on the biblical canon. The reader must stay
within Qoheleth; contrary to what Crenshaw has proposed: “Any attempt to understand
the theological perspective of canonical Hebrew wisdom must take into account diverse
material within Proverbs, Job and Qoheleth.”135
He holds addressing the individual book
in its own terms as the first step. Zimmerli proposes that “Any ‘Old Testament Theology’
has the task of presenting what the Old Testament says about GOD as a coherent whole.”
This cannot be the goal of Tanakh BT, rather it is the task of systematic and dogmatic
theology.
In conclusion, when approaching the text with questions, presuppositions and
method the outcome of the research is set. Bartholomew sets the foundation of the proper
method for the interpretation of Qoheleth. He states that the priority of the text is central
in exegesis: “The contention of this model of exegesis is that the Old Testament texts in
the form that we have them should be the focus of interpretation, since it is through this
text that we get at the message.”136
Barr proposes:
‘Biblical theology’ is an aspect of exegesis, directed toward individual texts, parts
of the texts and interrelations between texts, with reference to theological
relations and references that they imply and/or express and with openness to
134 Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology, 31.
135 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 481.
136 Craig G. Bartholomew, Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical
Theory. vol. 139 Analecta Biblica (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1998), 2.3.2, 213.
121
questions of truth – values as represented within the Bible, within the environing
world cultures, and within the religious/theological traditions that existed before it
and were developed afterwards within Judaism, Christianity and other relevant
systems. It should therefore be aware of, and welcome, its difference from what is
really theology.137
The Center of Old Testament/Tanakh
An important aspect of Tanakh BT is the center. Can it be possible to miss
something very important in Qoheleth by stating the center? Bruggemann writes that
there is not a center since “no single motif can contain all of the elements.”138
Perhaps, at
times, identifying a center could be an obstacle to see other themes. The reader often
brings the center instead of letting the text speak. However, there is importance of the
center for the method: Center and method are related. Defining the center will provide the
method; this method proposed by Merrill through his work argues that a center must be
found and then read the text in light of it.139
House in his Theology of the Old Testament
proposes that GOD is the center of every Tanakh book.140
He does a very good work
showing it book by book; however, he is not as extensive as he could be when addressing
Qoheleth. This writer’s basic approach in this dissertation follows Merrill and House,
except that it is not canonical as House’s BT approach. In the theology of Qoheleth the
center is clearly ELOHIM and the central message is to “fear ELOHIM” and the call “to
keep his commandments.” Torah is its secondary theme and its antecedent theology. The
137 Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 251.
138 Brueggemann, Old Testament Theology, 2.
139 Eugene H. Merrill, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: B&H,
2006).
140 Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998).
122
whole book, its theology, must be read in light of this center. The writer of Qoheleth
declares it to be its essence (12:13). This approach has its limitations. Brown writes:
“Understanding Ecclesiastes theologically, rather than from a more disinterested
standpoint, highlights particular aspects of the book while suppressing others.”141
However, in BT it is possible to overcome this interest and have an objective reading.
Form criticism and other critical approaches to the biblical text must be included
as long as they provide a tool for the understanding of the original text. Biblical Theology
in the Christian community has been the first step toward understanding the significance
of the text for today and defining doctrine and fundamental truth.142
If this is its purpose,
then textual criticism is essential. Defining the original text must be a priority. The
ecclesiastical or religious authorities relaying on the biblical text for faith and life cannot
afford establishing doctrine or dogma based on a text that may not be part of the original
autograph. The biblical text should be approached with reverence, with fear and
trembling, while being analytical and critical. The reader must keep in dialogue with the
text and raise questions and seek answers within the text. The methodology of BT, as this
writer attempts, is a dialogue between the reader and the text only; as Barr writes:
“Biblical theology can have no criterion or principle other than what is there in the Bible
as understood in its own times.”143
The principles articulated by Tracy for conversation
141 William P. Brown, Ecclesiastes (Louisville: John Knox, 2000), 121.
142 This writer is paraphrasing a statement he has read or heard, but has not been able to
remember its source. However, this is a common understanding as the evidence of so many denominational
confessions of faith, creeds, and statements of faith have developed through the centuries in the Christian
communities.
143 Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 16.
123
can have some application in this “dialogue.” The reader of the biblical text must be open
to change, transformation, of mind and spirit as he/she seeks understanding, knowledge
and wisdom from the text. In this “mystical” encounter with the voices and VOICE of the
text, the reader finds himself in a supernatural dialogue with the ultimate AUTHOR of the
text. Qoheleth has experienced it. Tracy says, concerning dialogue:
Conversation is a game with some hard rules: say only what you mean; say it as
accurately as you can; listen to and respect what the other says, however different
or other; be willing to correct or defend your opinions if challenged by the
conversation partner; be willing to argue if necessary, to confront if demanded, to
endure necessary conflict, to change your mind if the evidence suggests it. ...In
a sense they are merely variations of the transcendental imperatives elegantly
articulated by Bernard Lonergan: “Be attentive, be intelligent, be responsible, be
loving, and, if necessary, change.”144
Smith-Christopher reflects that “Biblical theology…since the mid-1990s has often
been declared difficult or impossible, and an enterprise that has been somewhat officially
declared “in crisis” since the 1970. In other words, does the study of the Bible have
implications for modern people seeking wisdom for modern Christian faith and
practice?”145
However, he believes that “it is possible to do a biblical theology in this
modern era.”
In summary, this study does not interpret Qoheleth in the compendium of
Solomonic literature. The writer strives, with difficulty, to avoid any dogmas or
144 David Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987; reprint, Chicago:
UCP, 1994), 19.
145 Daniel Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile, 1. Obviously NT theology does have
implications for the Christian faith and practice since it is its main source. The HB or Tanakh (OT) is often
neglected as a source of truth for faith and practice in most Christian traditions. Some exceptions are the
SDA and the Seventh Day Baptists.
124
theological presuppositions. Crenshaw writes: “As for the problem of subjectivity, there
is no way around it. We all write from the perspective that grows out of our own
experience, and try as we may we cannot be purely objective.”146
The original writer is gone, as well as the first speaker of these words. All the
reader knows is what these words mean to him or her. This is not advocating for a “reader
centered approach” but to recognize the fact that books like Qoheleth can easily mean
many things to many readers; this shows the exegetical difficulties and hermeneutical
problems Qoheleth presents to the theologian as he strives to show that there is only one
intended meaning and it sis embedded in the text. The intention of the original author, the
intention of its work, and the intention with which each one approaches the text, are
mixed in the process of interpreting this text and finding significance in it for today. No
other book of the Bible presents so much difficulty in the extremely important process of
understanding the intention and meaning of the original writer or speaker. However, the
interpreter must strive, seek, to understand the meaning of the words for the original
author and audience as he/she seeks the author’s intended meaning.
Perry suggests that we must merge into the text.147
It must be read carefully over
and over as Greenberg proposes: “There is only one way that gives any hope of eliciting
the innate conventions and literary formations of a piece of ancient literature, and that is
by listening to it patiently and humbly.”148
The text must read without chapter divisions,
146 James Crenshaw, e-mail message to author, December 1st, 2010.
147 Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet, xiii.
148 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 21.
125
eventually, in further research, without the Massoretic nikudot and exploring alternative
vocalization.149
The reader must identify the voices, in other words as Greenberg says:
“What points of views are being argued.”150
The purpose of this research is to explore the theology of the Book of Qoheleth as
it stands today in the MT of the Tanakh. The Masorah has been consulted in the process,
especially ’Oklah ve’Oklah.151
Methods, theological terms, and translations often bring presuppositions and
assumptions to the text. How would this text be read if it was not part of the Bible? There
is no methodology per se or system to follow. The various approaches to BT are still
developing and are debatable. No one agrees on what BT is or should be.152
The basic
and fundamental method is listening to the text and letting the text speak as it is in its
own terms. If the reader stay within BT, defined as the theology of one book or author
read outside of the canon, the reader may find himself or herself in a “cult.” The BT of a
book must be followed by a canonical biblical theology. Qoheleth concludes by pointing
to a larger canonical context that will tell us who is ELOHIM and what his commandments
are: Torah.
149 Cf. Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet, xiii.
150 Ibid.
151 Fernando Díaz Esteban, Sefer ‘Oklah wĕ-‘Oklah. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas, 1975.
152 Cf. Ben C. Ollenberger, “From Timeless Ideas to the Essence of Religion,” in The Flowering
of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology, 1930-1990. Sources
for biblical and theological study, 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 4.
126
This writer read and listened to Qoheleth in various languages and formats (read,
chanted, etc.) repeatedly. It is very difficult to do an objective reading of it. Brown
writes: “A close reading of the text helps to distinguish the world of the text from the
interpreter’s; it highlights the otherness of the text, an integrity that lies beyond the
interpreter’s own prejudices and projections. Exegesis requires becoming honest with the
text.”153
Every word heard from Qoheleth led the thoughts to other parts of the Tanakh,
and other Jewish writings, including the NT. While listening to it this writer realized that
the meaning of Qoheleth changed so much, for this interpreter, according to the reader
and his/her oral interpretation: meaning that how the text was read in Hebrew or in any
other language, by a Rabbi or anyone else, communicated a different meaning according
to how they read it.
Peter, speaking of Paul’s writings, states that there are “ἐν αἷς ἐστιν δυσνόητά
τινα” in his writings. If Peter who was a contemporary of Paul, sharing the same
language and other cultural and religious experiences found difficult some of his
teachings, how could an interpreter claim to have a comprehensive and clear
understanding of a book like Qoheleth?
Biblical Theology and Ethics
The Pauline principle is all the hermeneutic theory or method we need, argues
Hirsch: listen to the spirit of the text.154
The spirit of the “law” in the Pauline letters is
153 Brown, “Theological Interpretation”, 389.
154 Eric Donald Hirsch, “The Valitidty of Allegory,” in Convegno internazionale sul tema
ermeneutica e critica: Roma 7-8 ottobre 1996 (Roma: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, 1998), 229.
127
deeply connected to ethics, i.e., behaviour (Romans 12, 13:8; 2 Cor. 3:6; 2 Timothy 3:16-
17, cf. Matthew 5-7; Mark 12:28-34). The method must go beyond discovering historical
theology; the spirit of the text must speak to the reader today. All good theology must
have implications and application in our lives. Theology is not a simple intellectual
exercise, but a commitment to understand the Word of GOD and to apply its principles.
Although the biblical text has been written in a time and space far from us for a different
community, its principles and fundamental doctrines have relevance for us today. The ST
strives to make these doctrines and principles understandable to the contemporary reader.
The whole process starts with hermeneutics and exegesis of the biblical text, building on
biblical theology, followed by a development of a good theological method, which will
produce a systematic theology that is coherent. This theology will speak to our mind and
will transform our hearts, and will change our world view. The Spirit of GOD must be at
work in the process of seeking understanding of what the text meant and its significance
for today. This writer seeks with fear and trembling, humbly, his guidance and
illumination. This BTQ Qoheleth is not infallible, but strives to be faithful to the biblical
text, to grasp its message and transforming power.
Wolpe writes: “The Jewish people, Abraham Joshua Heschel famously declared,
is a messenger that has forgotten its message. In the intervening years, the dilemma has
become more acute: we are a people that has largely forgotten that we have a mission.”155
He continues: “Theology is about the restoration of mission as well as the clarification of
155 David J. Wolpe, “Foreword” to Jewish Theology in Our Time: A New Generation Explores
the Foundations and Future of Jewish Belief, xi. In it’s “Preface” Balin says: “Doing Jewish theology” is
“the process of piecing together a personally meaningful understanding of GOD.” xiii.
128
the message”156
According to Jacobs, “Jewish theology is an attempt to think through
consistently the implications of the Jewish religion.”157
Held states that Jewish theology
has “two critical and intertwined mandates...creating a just and compassionate society;
and entering into a conscious, explicit relationship with GOD.”158
This theology must
have ethical implications. Qoheleth’s theology, as any other biblical text, has the purpose
to challenge culture and transform humanity’s ways, encouraging the reader to an
encounter with ELOHIM. What is the message of Qoheleth and its ethical implications
today for the mission of the people that claim this book as their own, whether Jewish or
Christian theologians? The theology of this book has an important place in the canon and
the experience of the Jewish people. It message, its philosophy and theology speaks today
as it did centuries ago. The ultimate goal of BT is to understand if there are any universal
principles for today.
Biblical preaching evaluates the biblical theological message, according to Barr,
“to show how it ‘works’ for the present day, the assurance of the modern preacher
depends on the assumption that biblical theology has actually described the situation
correctly: for otherwise the evaluations are mistaken, and the assurance given by the
preacher are deceptive.”159
They need each other and the theologian concerned with
proclaiming GOD’s Word and its ethical implications and significance for today needs
156 Ibid., xiii.
157 Louis Jacobs, A Jewish Theology, 1.
158 Shai Held, “Living and dreaming with GOD,” in Jewish Theology in Our Time: A New
Generation Explores the Foundations and Future of Jewish Belief, 20.
159 Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 17.
129
both. Anderson proposes that “the task of the biblical theologian is to enter and
understand the biblical world(s) construed by imagination. When the symbolism finds an
echo in our poetic response…the Bible may speak today with the power of the Word of
GOD.”160
The reader must not approach the text with an interest. Readers cannot ask “What
am I looking for?”161
To do so is to address the text with presuppositions and bringing the
readers interest into the text. This will make the interpretation of the text even more
difficult; it will not allow room to listen to the text in its own terms. A BT cannot
presuppose anything that is not in the text. The theology of Qoheleth emerges as the
reader encounters the text and listens to its voice; a divine voice within its pages that
affirms its inspiration within the words: Fear ELOHIM and keep his commandments. The
only presupposition toward a theological reading of Qoheleth is that it is in the Jewish
and Christian canon, and that fact has a theological and ethical purpose in itself.
In the following chapter it can be observed how the philosophy. i.e., ethics, of
Qoheleth is the result of the encounter with the idea and person of ELOHIM. His theology
is the foundation. His theology and philosophy is a quest to find answers to human
existential realities.
160 Anderson, Contours of Old Testament Theology, 56.
161 Cf. Klink III and Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology, 19.
130
CHAPTER 3
QOHELETH’S PHILOSOPHY: A SURVEY OF QOHELETH AS A
THINKER/PHILOSOPHER
Introduction
This research on Qoheleth is limited by the language; not only the limitations of
the writer and his source, the language of Qoheleth, but also the limits imposed by
terminology, e.g., philosophical and theological terms. These terms, although
anachronistic in reference to Qoheleth, are used as a convenience. If this work was
written in Hebrew the terms will still be used as a convenience since they are foreign to
Qoheleth’s vocabulary, e.g., פסימיות ,אקזיסטנציאליזם ,אתיקה ,פילוסוף ,אלהות. Nevertheless,
this study on Qoheleth’s philosophy is not controlled by the popular definitions of these
philosophical terms; rather the concepts behind these terms are compared within similar
ideas in the context of Qoheleth’s thoughts, i.e., voices, as found in the text. The
“conflicting” voices in Qoheleth must be heard in their own context. These voices are
reflections on the various questions and answers before him. Some of the apparent
contradictions/tensions in his philosophical reflections are evaluations of possible
answers to his observations on the paradoxes and absurdities in life; the contradictions
are founded in life. It leads to the essence of his reflection, his theology: ואת־מצותיו שמור
however, contrary to this ;(Fear ELOHIM and keep his commandments) את־האלהים ירא
writer’s view, Barstad argues:
This philosophy was apparently too provocative for some of the ancient scribes.
Toward the end of the work, an editor has added his own comments in order to
adapt the text more to a traditional, orthodox view of the relationship between
GOD, Tora, and the pious…he warns against this type of writing, and lets the book
131
end in a hortatory speech that is contrary to the controversial content of the book.
Only in this way could this work be accepted as part of the Jewish canon.1
There is only one other work that attempts a detailed study of Qoheleth’s
philosophy. It is probably the best effort to produce a philosophical study of Qoheleth
within an evangelical context, Cone’s work Living Under the Sun.2 The book is an
excellent introduction to philosophy using Qoheleth as the outline. He also attempts a
detailed philosophical study of Qoheleth. The book provides a good foundation for
dialogue between the Christian thinker and the postmodern society. Cone finds parallels
within both ancient and modern philosophical schools. However, the modern
philosophies cannot be called parallel since in many cases they have been influenced by
Qoheleth, e.g., existentialism. At times he reads more than what the text says. He makes
of Qoheleth’s reflection the argument to confront ancient and modern worldviews that he
considers contrary to the biblical teachings. This dissertation does not attempt to confront
any particular theology or philosophy. Cone reads too often later theology and
philosophy into the text. Common to Cone’s work and this dissertation is the purpose of
this chapter, to show the limits of human reason. Ancient and modern philosophical
schools often fail because an over trust in human reasoning. Qoheleth shows its
limitations. A second purpose is to understand Qoheleth’s philosophy and how he uses it
as a handmaid to theology; Qoheleth’s work is mainly theological.
1 Hans M. Barstad, A Brief Guide to the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2010), 169.
2 Christopher Cone, Life Beyond the Sun: An Introduction to Worldview & Philosophy Through
the Lens of Ecclesiastes (Ft. Worth: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2009).
132
Qoheleth: The Preacher or the Philosopher?
The title, קהלת, presents the first problem to the reader (1:1). The books of the
Tanakh got their names centuries later often from the first line of the text; in Qoheleth’s
case the title is the noun the speaker uses to refer to himself at one time (1:12). The other
uses are in the third person statements (1:2; 7:27; 12:8, 9, 10). It is feminine instead of the
expected masculine (קוהל).3 The noun Qoheleth (קהלת) is translated ἐκκλησιάστης in the
LXX and meaning Preacher in some English, German, and Spanish versions.4 It is
generally understood as ‘one who convokes an assembly.’ Other scholars, following
Arabic cognate words, translate it ‘the Penitent.’5 There is not any Arabic root that can
be evidence for this argument. However, there is the word كهل (kahula) which means
3 The noun תקהל , according to the Masorah, is mentioned only five times in the book of Qoheleth.
The mention of it in verse 1 and 12 of chapter 1 do not belong to the original text, although verse 12 seems
to be in the mss found in Qumran. Some writers have dismissed the problem of a feminine instead of
masculine participle by appealing to other places in the Bible where the writers use feminine names for
male (בני־הספרת Ezra 2:55 and in 2:57). In Ezra 2:55, 57 the feminine nouns may refer to the mothers פכרת
(Soferet and Pokheret). It is also possible that these nouns refer to the profession of the mother, e.g., child
of the scribe, or to the job of these men, e.g., son of the scribal (profession). These were names of the
children of Shlomo’s servants. In other languages, a feminine noun can be used in reference to a male: juez
(Sp. judge), zorra (Sp. fox), atleta (Sp. Athlete) and خليفة (Arabic: successor, Caliph). In some languages
male nouns are also used in reference to female (Sp. abogado = lawyer); however these nouns could be
classified as neutrals. In BH there is also another female noun that can be used in reference to a male, מבשרת
(Isaiah 40:9). It has been proposed that קהלת is related to the Syriac ܩܗܠ meaning ‘to compile a book, to
consider attentively.’ Cf. R. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary founded upon the Thesaurus
Syriacus (Oxford: OUP, 1903; reprint, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 491.
4 Many modern European versions, e.g., Euskera, Catala, and Galego, have opted for a
transliteration of the tile instead of attempting a translation. Asians versions in Japanese, Chinese, and
Korean have translated it as the Evangelist and Apostle, obviously due to the Christian missionary
influence.
5 Cf. Robert Baker Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian
Doctrine. (London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1871), 355 §13. It is Grotius the first to refer to Qoheleth as
the Penitent. Cf. Ernest W. Hengstenberg, A Commentary on Ecclesiastes. (Menneapolis: Sovereign Grace,
1960), 8.
133
‘elderly.’6 If rabbinical tradition is correct, that Solomon wrote it in his late days, then
“The Elder” may be a possible translation. The title describes perhaps an elderly
philosopher/thinker reflecting theologically on his life and approaching death. Others
claim it may have been a woman behind this text or refers to Wisdom.7 Contrary to the
Solomonic collection of Proverbs, in which speaks metaphorically of ‘lady wisdom
existing independently from humanity,’ Fox argues that for Qoheleth, “wisdom must be
justified through the individual’s experience and reason.”8 There is not the
personification of wisdom in this book.
Garret translates it ‘Teacher.’9 Whitley proposes, probably due to the
philosophical content, if Qoheleth “is to be represented by one term in English ‘the
Skeptic’ would have some measure of adequacy.”10
The Midrash Rabba on Qoheleth
(MRQ) states that the name was Qoheleth because “he spoke” in public.11
Therefore, it
could be acceptable to translate Qoheleth as “the Speaker,” i.e., orador (orator). 12
6 Delitzsch proposes “Old Man,” based on a similar root related to ‘dry’ and ‘hard’ used in
reference to old age. Cf. Franz Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes in Commentary on the Song of Songs and
Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 644.
7 Comments during a class discussion at Lancaster Theological Seminary (Fall 1990). The only
verb agreement with the feminine noun Qoheleth is in 7:27, לתאמרה קה which the rabbis, i.e., soferim,
refuse to emend. They argue that Qoheleth refers here to the writer’s spirit (רוח).
8 Michael V. Fox, Qohelet and his Contradictions (Sheffield: Almond, 1989), 95.
9Duane A. Garret, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Song, in The New American Commentary, ed.
E. Ray Clendenen, (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 14:264.
10 Charles F. Whitley, Koheleth: Its Language and Thought (Berlin: Gruyter, 1979), 6.
11 It asks: קהלת למה נקרא שמו קהלת
and replies: ריו נאמרין בהקהל על שם שאמר אז יקהל שלמהקהלת שהיו דב cf. 1 Kings 8:1
12 Orador in Spanish is more than a speaker. He/she has a political, philosophical or even
theological purpose. There are rhetorical and persuasive elements in the speeches of an orador.
134
Ancient Jewish Tradition tells that Ezra and the Great Assembly (קהלה גדולה)
edited many of ancient biblical text under divine inspiration. The leader of this Assembly
because his words קהלת Rashi claims that Solomon was called .קהלת can be called (קהלה)
were to the קהל (the Great Assembly led later by Ezra).13
This writer proposes that קהלת
may have been the Hebrew term in this book for the Greek φιλόσοφος.14
Modern Hebrew
has the term הוגה דעות (thinker of knowledge/understandings/opinions, someone who
meditates on knowledge). Qoheleth is: a thinker, a seeker of knowledge, wisdom and
understanding. Qoheleth is more than a “lover of wisdom.” However, the Philosopher
seems to be a better translation than Preacher or Teacher. This writer preference is to
keep a transliteration of it, Qoheleth.
Qoheleth and Philosophy
Philosophy is the art and science of expressing ideas in a rational and logical way.
It is the use of the gift of human reason to make sense and understand human existence
and the world around. In its basic and fundamental definition philosophy is the process of
reasoning in order to find answers to human quest, describing with coherence and logic
what the thinker observes and the questions arising from the experience. The philosopher
is never afraid to question, to ask. He/she is never afraid to be wrong. The deist and theist
13 Reference to rabbinical writers is by their traditional name: Rashi (Rabbi Sholomo Yitzhaki).
The comments are under the particular verse in the Mikraot Gedolot (Rabbinical Bible), of which there are
multiple editions.
14 cf. Ardel B. Candeday, “Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?” in Reflecting with
Solomon, ed. Roy Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 83n8. cf. Robert Gordis, Koheleth: the man and his
World (New York: Schoken, 1968), 71-72.
135
philosopher is always in conversation with the ETERNAL TRUTH. The honest
agnostic/ignostic philosopher would question even his/her own “conclusions.”15
Qoheleth is a philosopher.16
Qoheleth seeks, treasures and loves wisdom and
questions his conclusions. He knows that the wise is above the powerful (2:14; 4:13;
7:11-12, 19; 8:1; 9:13-18); wisdom is a gift from ELOHIM (2:26). However, at times
Qoheleth seems to question the purpose of wisdom and how it meets human reality (1:18;
6:7). The commentators of Biblia de Nuestro Pueblo (Our People’s Bible - BNP) write:
“En la mente tormentosa del autor, rebelde sin violencia, contestador sin arrogancia, la
sabiduría entra en conflicto consigo misma.”17
Still, the one with wisdom is the only one
who can recognize the foolishness in this world full of absurdities (1:12-14, 16).
Anderson writes: “Nothing could be more painful for wisdom than to observe foolishness
and folly in the world. If one was wise one can discern the fool and their foolishness –
but the same cannot be said inversely.”18
At the same time, regardless of his wisdom
Qoheleth is troubled by his lack of power to change what he observes (1:15). Baab
writes:
The writer of the book of Ecclesiastes gives the impression of having reached a
position of social prestige…His was an inquiring mind, possessing a cold
curiosity which deprived him of the happiness he so self-consciously sought. He
15 Paul Kurtz has proposed the term ignostic or igtheism, admitting that the claims of atheists is
beyond reason, of course, he claims the same for the theist. He addresses the concept further in his book
The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992).
16 James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 478.
17 “In the tormented mind of the author, revel without violence, argumentative without arrogance,
wisdom is in conflict with itself.” BNP, 1365.
18 William H. V. Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology: Hermeneutical Struggle in
wisdom Literature (Lempter: Mellen, 1997), 183.
136
investigated all things – an ambitious undertaking – and set his mind to
acquisition of wisdom.19
Bamberger writes that theology is not objective while philosophy, search for
wisdom, is objective.20
However, philosophical writings outside the biblical text,
especially by postmodern thinkers, show a higher level of subjectivity than a theological
work seeking understanding from the biblical text. Nevertheless, Guttmann argues:
Armed with the authority of a supernatural revelation, religion lays claim to an
unconditioned truth of its own, and thereby becomes a problem for philosophy. In
order to determine the relationships between these two types of truth philosophers
have tried to clarify, from a methodological point of view, the distinctiveness of
religion. This is a modern development; earlier periods did not attempt to
differentiate between the methods of philosophy and religion, but sought to
reconcile the content of their teachings.21
Philosophy becomes also a problem for religion when it claims human reason to
be above all without recognising its limits. This conflict between philosophy and
theology does not need to be; philosophy is a helper to theology, which is the queen of
sciences.22
Qoheleth, a Hebrew philosopher, had made use of reasoning, by means of
everything available to the human mind ‘under the sun’ to express his questions, doubts,
and ultimately his faith in the ETERNAL MYSTERY, ELOHIM: Fides quaerens intellectum.23
His book is one of the best evidences of philosophy serving the purpose of theology.
19 Otto J. Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Aingdon, 1949), 201.
20 Cf. Bernard J. Bamberger, The Search for Jewish Theology (New York: Behrman, 1978), 5.
21 Julius Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism: The History of Jewish Philosophy from Biblical
Times to Franz Rosenzweig (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), 4.
22 cf. Julius Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism: The History of Jewish Philosophy from Biblical
Times to Franz Rosenzweig (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), 4.
23 Quoted in the Editors’ Preface to Anselmi, Monologium et Proslogion nec non Liber pro
Insipiente cus Libro Apologetico in Opuscula Philosophico-Theologica Selecta, Carol Haas ed. (Tübingen:
Lauppiano, 1863), I:VI.
137
Burrows is correct to state that Qoheleth “was reverent…[Qoheleth] has not a
satisfying philosophy of life…He does have, however, something which in its intense
earnestness and its steadfast allegiance to both reason and conscience, both mind and
heart, well deserves to be called faith.”24
Qoheleth expresses that faith in a philosophical
reflection about life. Qoheleth’s philosophy of life confronts reality with more power
than any of the ancient Greek philosophers. However, it is also evidence of the limits of
human reasoning. Contrary to Burrows, Scott writes that Qoheleth “is primarily a
philosophical work rather than a book of religion. It seeks a rational understanding of
human existence and a basis for ethics, through the application of human reason to
observable data.”25
Perry warns “that philosophy and theology must not displace or
postpone considerations of [Qoheleth] as a highly sophisticated… and dialectical (in the
Socratic sense) literary text.”26
Burnett observes that Qoheleth “does not turn to revelation to solve his
difficulties: he looks more to the limitation of man’s life and of his knowledge outside his
immediate environment.”27
Regardless of this observation, Qoheleth was not a
‘rationalist’ thinker, although the use of reason is central to any thinking process. What is
called ‘rationalism’ according to Bamberger, “generally implies the confidence that
human reason can solve all the problems, theoretic and practical, that need to be
24 Millar Burrows, “Kuhn and Koheleth,” JBL 46 (1927), 1/2: 97.
25 R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes: Introduction, translation, and notes. AB (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1965), 18:196.
26 T. A. Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes (University Park: Penn State
University, 1993), xi.
27 Joel S. Burnett, Where is GOD? Divine absence in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2010), 95.
138
solved.”28
Qoheleth, the book as a whole is evidence that this is not possible; human
reasoning is limited.
Sperka considers Qoheleth to be an “analytical and pragmatic” thinker.29
Qoheleth is unique in the biblical canon. Qoheleth is more objective than any
philosophical work of modern times. There are no traditions or codes that will stop him
from reasoning and raising questions no other writer in the biblical text has raised before
him. Qoheleth writes/speaks with “fear and trembling,” with a deep respect and reverence
toward ELOHIM.30
He asks, he seeks answers, he searches for understanding.
Crenshaw says that Qoheleth “warms against an uncritical acceptance of claims
about absolute truth (8:17).”31
No end to books means “no end to philosophy,” to
thinking and reasoning. Whybray writes: “The discussion is completely open and
inhibited: here is no blind acceptance of traditional views, but a radical and ruthless
testing of them in the light of reason and experience.”32
Contrary to Crenshaw’s and
Whybray’s view, Qoheleth is not testing the traditional views, rather expressing his
frustrations and perplexity as he faces the absurdities and paradoxes of life. His theology
and philosophy always reaffirm the foundation of Israel faith: ELOHIM and his
commandments, in order to give sense to the complexity of life. However, some scholars
have argued that Qoheleth is writing against the value of philosophical work. Longman
says that Qoheleth’s “speech (1:12-12:7) is a foil, a teaching device used by the second
28 Bamberger, The Search for Jewish Theology, 4.
29 Joshua Sperka, Ecclesiastes: Stories to live by (New York: Bloch, 1972), 13.
30 The phrase is used here similarly to its use in Søren Kierkegaard’s work, Frygt og Baeven
(Oslo: Gyldendal, 1969), from the Greek φόβου καὶ τρόμου (cf. 2 Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:5; Philippians 2:12) or
the Hebrew phrase יראה ורעד (cf. Ps. 55:6), which are used in different contexts in the biblical text.
31 James Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, (Macon: Mercer, 1995), 502.
32 R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, OTG (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 12.
139
wise man to instruct his son (vs. 12) concerning the dangers of speculative, doubting
wisdom in Israel.”33
Zimmermann argues that Qoheleth “is not a philosopher nor does he
have a philosophical system.”34
Later in his book Zimmermann refers to Qoheleth as a
philosopher but never recognizes any type of philosophical system in his work.35
Qoheleth does not show a philosophical system in the text; the type of system western
thinkers has produced in Greek, Roman, English, Italian, German, French or Spanish
writings. Qoheleth perhaps had a philosophical system, but the lack of a clear defined
structure does not let the reader appreciate it. The use of language, unique to Qoheleth,
does not allow the researchers discern a system or structure.
Qoheleth has a basic and practical philosophical content with a theological
purpose: understand the meaning of life, all life, both animals and humans, and the
relation of it to the Source of Life, ELOHIM. However, Qoheleth is not a work of
theological or philosophical dogmatics. Friedländer writes:
[Qoheleth] contemplates, teaches, mourns, comforts, imparts counsel, contradicts,
and correct himself…The author is no dogmatic and phlegmatic teacher, but a
warm and animated examiner of truth... To a philosopher, it is essential to listen to
the opposite opinions. He, without regarding his own system, listens to all
objections which can be made…He is not afraid to think aloud.36
Qoheleth is a paradox himself: a critical thinker, a man full of doubts and
questions, but with a profound faith in ELOHIM. The writer of this book of paradoxes
33 Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 286.
34 Frank Zimmermann, Inner World of Qohelet (New York: Ktav, 1972), xii.
35 Ibid., 6.
36 Quoted by Christian D. Ginsburg, Coheleth: Commonly Called The Book of Ecclesiastes;
Translated from the Original Hebrew, with a Commentary Historical & Critical (London: Longman,
Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1861), 79-80. Cf. David Friedländer, Der Prediger (Berlin: Maurer,
1788), 84.
140
encourages readers to think for themselves.37
Contrary to Scott this writer argues that
Qoheleth is about philosophy and theology; it is about religion in all its fullness.38
It is
seeking to understand the relation, the bounds, between the Mystery, the Divine, and the
.of human life הבל
Philosophy is a journey; for the religious thinker is a journey of faith. In the
Tanakh it is Qoheleth who brings together reason and faith, logic and hope, scientific
observation and philosophical speculation and theological reflection. Qoheleth is not
afraid of asking questions about ELOHIM. Qoheleth is a man of faith and ignostic, the
reflection of all human beings. His words are humanity’s words. His questions are
humanity’s quest. His doubts are humanity’s incomprehension of the absurdities of life.
The reader of this book gets deep into pessimistic thoughts within himself; however, it is
positive pessimism.39
The audience is led deep into the darkness of life and brought back
by the light of hope. Reading through these pages is a journey of faith, a struggle with
doubts, and at times a hopeless quest in itself. The reality of human existence, its joy,
suffering, happiness and sorrows injustice and triumphs, all is observed and experienced
by Qoheleth and the reader/audience. Brongerls writes: “The writer states basic
convictions rather than logically developing his ideas. At best he writes a book about the
art of living.”40
Qoheleth is concerned with humanity’s happiness. Eudaimonia
37 Cf. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 13, 50.
38 Cf. Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes, 196.
39 The writers of the introduction to Qoheleth in the BNP state that the author is not pessimistic
rather realistic. “El ‘Eclesiastés’ no es pesimista, sino realista.” BNP, 1366.
40 H. A. Brongers, “The Literature of the Old Testament,” in The World of the Old Testament,
eds. A. S. van der Woude and H. A. Brongers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 158.
141
(εὐδαιμονία – bliss or happiness of life, a good spirit) is a common concern of Greek
Aristotelian philosophy.41
In summary, Qoheleth’s philosophy aims toward an understanding of the meaning
of human life and its relation to the source of life, ELOHIM. The book is more than just
philosophy, it is in essence theology. It is both a philosophy and a theology of happiness.
At the end, there are no answers to all human questions. What matters is ‘to fear
ELOHIM’ and to ‘keep his commandments.’ The commandments of the Torah are
fundamentally about human existence, human relations, happiness and true religion.42
When hope and faith fade, a solid ethic based on love or correct relationship between
humans, or niceness, is what matters, to start, to continue the journey (cf. Mark 12:28-34;
Rom. 8:13-10; 1 Cor. 13:13).
Qoheleth and mort de l’auteur
Does the author of a philosophical work need to be known in order to have an
accurate understanding of the book? If the text states the intended meaning of the writer,
does the interpreter need the context of the author’s life? Is what the text gives not
enough? If the book does not give the context of the author’s life how much can the
interpreter assume it to be the author’s intended meaning from the text itself? The «mort
de l’auteur» answers these questions for the post-modern literary critic. Lavoie argues
through his writings that the understanding of the text does not depend on the knowledge
41 Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 203n13.
42 This writer assumes that the mitzvot/ commandments refer to the Torah. However, this is not a
theological presupposition since the text of Qoheleth seems to be making reference to the Torah, e.g.,
Creation story.
142
about its author neither on the original readers.43
The concept of the «mort de l’auteur»
has been used by some post-modern writers to argue for readers-hermeneutics, in which
the text can mean more than one thing regardless of what the author intended. However,
the «mort de l’auteur» should be understood as the text having embedded in it the
intended meaning of the author. The text communicates only what the writer intended.
Nevertheless, knowing the historical, cultural, and religious context of the author and his
or her biography is central to the interpretation of the text and must be consulted when
such information is available.
Caputo argues that “the text cannot be controlled by the intentions of the author;
therefore it is always determined by historical context.”44
However, historical context for
the postmodern does not mean the same as in the historico-grammatical-literal
hermeneutics. He says that “the meaning of ‘Hamlet’ is controlled not by Shakespeare’s
intentions but the understanding of “Hamlet” reached by contemporary readers through
the intermediary of the history of interpretations.”45
In that case the author’s historical
context is ignored, even if the author is known. Caputo argues that his proposal is the
opposite of “standing independent of historical context, time and space.”46
What Caputo
43 A reading of Lavoie’s work clearly shows his approach. Cf. Jean-Jacques Lavoie. La pensée du
Qohélet: étude exégétique et intertextuelle (Saint-Laurent, Québec): Fides, 1992 ; Qohélet: une critique
moderne de la Bible Collection Parole d'actualité, 2. (Montréal: Médiaspaul, 1995) ; and « Ironie et
Ambiguites en Qohelet 10, 16-20. » Studies in Religion. Sciences Religieuses, 37. 2 (2008): 183.
Cf. Rose Martin and Béatrice Allison, Rien de nouveau: nouvelles approches du livre de Qoheleth,
Orbis biblicus et orientalis (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1999), 168:27.
44 John Caputo, message to author, May 9th
and 10th
, 2011.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
143
identifies here is not the historical context of the text or the author rather the historical
context of its interpreter. Caputo also adds:
Independent of the author’s person intention in speaking to the original
audience—because the text as such re-contextualizable, which means capable of
gaining a new life in a new context, one the author did not and could not
foresee. Which is what “classics” are. Otherwise they are time bound to the
original intention and original audience and perish when the original situation
passes.47
There is truth in this statement; a text can become of no use or meaningless when
a particular circumstance to which it speaks is no longer real; of course, within this
writer’s faith tradition that is not true concerning the biblical text. The principles within
any text, especially the biblical text, may still speak through time according to the needs
and reality of the reader or circumstances or current reality; like the constitution of a
nation, its significance evolve with the people, however, the original meaning is still the
same. At the same time it must be recognized that the power of a sacred religious text,
like the biblical canon, has become relevant not only because principles but because it
can still speak the same message to an audience today facing the same reality. Although
the original audience of Qoheleth is gone and its circumstances are no longer the same,
its central message (12:13) is still relevant and meaninfull.
Sharp says that Qoheleth “embodies both the epitome of wisdom and the epitome
of the misery caused by privileging meta-irony of the book lies, inscribed from within the
constructed persona of Qoheleth and not simply imposed by a later redactional frame.”48
Qoheleth as it stands in the MT, as Whybray wrote, “is basically the work of one man,
the man” so any “attempt to interpret the complexity of its teachings” must be done with
47 Ibid.
48 Carolyn J. Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2009), 212.
144
this in mind.49
Kidner sees “the insight of a single mind, approaching the facts of life and
death from a variety of angles.” 50
Sharp agrees that it is one author with an “unwise”
Solomon in mind.51
Solomon, “powerless” when facing injustice by the powerful; there is
no political power that could confront and turn around the contradictions and absurdities
of life. Qoheleth humbled himself before ELOHIM as he faced reality; he becomes
powerless. Garret may have some truth in his argument when he sees in Qoheleth, not a
powerful king, but rather “the reflection of a wise man who ‘has been’ king” becoming-
the-teacher.52
This does not reject the presupposition that Solomon is the original author,
rather give a great image of humbleness and reverence before ELOHIM: a king on his
knees, Solomon. The Aramaic Targum interprets this book to be a prophetic statement by
Solomon. The MRQ attributes it to Solomon.53
Solomon is the philosopher that seems to
meet almost every characteristic of this author.54
Levin observes: “People came from all
over to listen to King Solomon; but it is not reported that he left any books to enlighten
posterity. That would have been somehow an anachronism or else a great innovation for a
king of that early age, although writing for other purposes was widely known.”55
Kaiser
gives very good evidence from the text and the canon in his defence of Solomonic
49 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 26.
50 Derek Kidner,The Message of Ecclesiastes: A Time to Mourn, and a Time to Dance. The Bible
Speaks Today (Leicester: IVP, 1989), 14.
51 Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, 215.
52 Duane A Garret, “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,” 264.
53 Cf. Cohen, Ecclesiastes, 2.
54 Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background
Commentary : Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Ec 1:1.
55 Saul Levin, Guide to the Bible (Binghamton: SUNY, 1991), 245.
145
authorship by appealing to “the allusions to circumstances [etc] that fit only” Solomon.
He lists the followings:
1. wisdom (1:16; cf. 1 Kings 3:12)
2. wealth (2:4–10, cf. 1 Kings 7:1–8)
3. servants (2:7–8, cf. 1 Kings 9:17–19)
4. “there is no man that does not sin” (7:20, cf. 1 Kings 8:46)
5. not a religious woman in a thousand (7:28, cf. 1 Kings 11:1–8)
6. weighing, studying and arranging proverbs (12:9, cf. 1 Kings 4:32).56
Garret sees it as Solomonic arguing that ךהייתי מל can be translated “I have been
king” rather than “was king.”57
Meaning it was an on-going position at the time of
speaking or writing, like saying ‘I have been in this job for a long time.’58
However,
Garret admits that “the use of the perfect tense is therefore odd.”59
Delitzsch makes an
interesting exposition of הייתי to show Solomon could not have said these words.60
The
book has been called a Königsfiktion.61
Regardless of the conclusions or debate the text
of Qoheleth does not name the author. Dunn writes: “There was evidently an early
memory of Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kings 4:29–34) that can be said to legitimate the
attribution of the proverbial tradition (Prov 1:1) to him as, once again, the authoritative
starting point of the tradition. The tradition was so powerful that it attracted also
56Walter C. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 1997), 292.
57 Garret, “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,” 261n 49.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid., 255.
60 Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. In Commentary on the
Old Testament by C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Reprint of TT Clark 1866-1891 edition, (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2006), 647-648.
61 Rainer Braun, „Kohelet und die frühhellenistische Popularphilosophie,“ BZAW (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1973), 161. Norbert Lohfink, Das Kohelethbuch: Strukturen und Struktur, in Schwienhorst-
Schönberger, Ludger. Ed. Das Buch Qoheleth: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie.
(Berlin: Gruyter, 1997), 103. Schoor, Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, 306.
146
Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) to his name (Eccles 1:1, 12; 12:8–14).”62
Still some scholars
insist the voices and diversity of ideas are not Solomonic; for example Bruggemann
writes:
While these connections to Solomon may be important for canonical intention and
interpretation, they provide no clue to tenth-century historical realities.
Subsequent postcanonical tradition and legend add to this ongoing later tendency
to assign sapiential matters to Solomon, but none of these add to the data for a
historical judgment.63
One Author and Many Voices
The author is dead and has left a book with more than one voice. Philosophers
often write as if more than one person or voices are in dialogue. Many scholars, probably
the majority, agree that there is one author, they disagree on who that author may be.64
Contrary to this view Longman argues that any positive thoughts in this work are from
another person, an “orthodox” writer.65
Ploeg proposes that “the most reasonable
supposition seems to be that a student of the ‘Preacher’ issued a collection of his words
(he refers to the master in 1:2 and 12:10, thus showing that he is not the Preacher
himself).”66
However, the voices are of one author, Solomon. Crenshaw claims Qoheleth
62J. D. G. Dunn, “Pseudopigraphy” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its
Developments, eds. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000,
c1997).
63 Walter A. Bruggemann, The Social Significance of Solomon as a Patron of Wisdom, in the
Sage in Isarel and ANE, 118.
64 Graham S. Ogden, Qoheleth, 2nd
ed. (Shefffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 11.
65 Tremper Longman, and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 285.
66 J. P. M. van der Ploeg, The writings: The Five “Scrolls”, Ecclesiastes in the World of the OT
by Woude, 283.
147
is a monologue in which Qoheleth speaks with his heart.67
He is a thinker, a philosopher.
The internal evidence within the text of Qoheleth points to Solomon (1:1,12,13), perhaps
the greatest thinker of ancient Israel. No one within the pages of the Bible has been
described as a philosopher, thinker, and scientist, knowledgeable of human behaviour and
mind (psychologist), and powerful king as Solomon (1:13, 16; 2:4-9; 7:23; 9:16; 12:9).68
The author of these enigmatic and melancolic words and challenging thoughts must have
been Solomon, perhaps in his late days; Merkin says that the book is to be read in a gray
day not a sunny clear day.69
There is another possibility since the text itself does not give us a final and clear
answer; Qoheleth is a literary pseudonymous. Qoheleth, the thinker, is perhaps the
character of this book. Solomon writes like many thinkers of ancient and modern times,
expressing the deepest struggles of the soul behind a character, e.g., Plato’s Socrates. The
purpose is not to deceive. It is rather a literary technique to free himself like the ones of
Kierkegaard; after all Kierkegaard was influenced by Qoheleth.70
Mackey writes:
A Kierkegaardian pseudonimity is a persona, an imaginary person created by the
author for artistic purposes, not a nom de plume, a fictitious name used to protect
his personal identity for the threats and embarrasements of publicity. When
67 James Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1987), 29.
68 Solomon’s kingdom was promised to be peaceful according to the interpretations of Nathan’s
prophecy to David, but it seems that this prophecy was about the Messiah. The promise of peace to
Solomon was also made when he had a ‘conversion.’ This conversion happened when GOD spoke to him in
a dream. In the early days of his kingdom and his late days, Solomon was as corrupted and perverted as his
father David. This was distinguished by violence and acts of gross revenge.
69 Daphne Merkin, “Ecclessiastes,” in Congregation: Contemporary Writers Read the Jewish
Bible, ed. David Rosenberg (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987), 393-395.
70 On the influence and use of Qoheleth in Søren Kierkegaard see Will Williams, “Ecclesiastes:
Vanity, Grief, and the Disticntions of Wisdom,” in Kierkegaard and the Bible, Tome 1: The Old
Testament. eds. Lee C. Barrett and Jon Stewart, Vol. 1, tome 1 of Kierkegaard Research: Sources,
Reception and Resources, ed. Jon Stewart (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2010), 1:179-194.
148
Kierkegaard signed his books with impossible names…no one... had any doubt
about their origin. Nor did he mean they should; his purpose was not mystification
but distance. By refusing to answer for his writings he detached them from his
personality.71
Hebrew Philosophy and Israel
Israel is never mentioned in wisdom/philosophy literature.72
Hebrew
philosophical writings are not interested in historical individuals or specific nations, but
have an interest in humanity as a whole. Israel and Jerusalem are mentioned in Qoheleth
(1:12) as a point of geographical reference. It is the only textual evidence for a particular
historical and cultural context of the book. Biblical wisdom literature transcends nations,
languages, cultures, and historical events or authors. Israel’s history does not seem
central to the writer, but human (אדם) history is fundamental.
Historical Context of Qoheleth’s Philosophy
Historical context is very importance to understand the text. Dating Qoheleth has
been a difficult matter. The historical context, if deduced from the text, could help
understanding his philosophy and the possible philosophical parallels. Based on parallel
literature, speculation and material outside the text there is a great number of scholars
who agree that Qoheleth was written between the 4th
or 2nd
century bce, for example
Campos, Gilbert, Drane et al. propose that it is from the 3rd
century.73
Some scholars
71 Louis Mackey, Kierkergaard: A Kind of Poet (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1971),
247.
72 Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bile: A Theology of the Old Testament (Leiden: DEO,
2005), 665.
73 Harold de Campos, Qohélet, Qohélet/O-Que-Sabe-Eclesiastes: Poema Sapiensal (São Paulo:
Perpectiva, 1991), 17. M. Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period,
ed. Michael E. Stone (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 286. John William Drane, Introducing the Old
Testament (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2000), 119. The Massoretic text of Qoheleth is from the 9th
century
C.E. The Massorets added the titles to the Psalms, Proverbs, and Qoheleth. The text has arrived to us almost
exact. Cf. Gordis, Koheleth138.
149
propose that date and historical context can be deduced from the language and concerns
of the writer(s). Crenshaw writes: “The meager political data that scholars have detected
in the book point to a period prior to the Maccabean revolt of 164 bce, for the attitude
toward foreign rulers fits best in the Ptolemaic period. The Zenon archives reflect a
political situation of economic prosperity for the upper echelons of Jewish society about
250 bce.”74
Brown says that Qoheleth was the product of his zeitgeist, which was “an age
of melancholy and questioning, a culture of death and disillusionment.”75
Qoheleth lived
in an urbanized, sophisticated society, not a rural one. Estes writes that “the linguistic
data is simply not definitive in establishing the date and setting in which the book was
written.”76
Hengstenberg argues that “it is of great importance accurately to determine the
circumstances of the time at which this Book was written. In this way, not only will
assure foundation be laid for investigations respecting its authorship, but a point be
secured from which we may start in endeavoring to unfold its meaning.”77
He adds that
“Malachi, the last of the prophets, delivered his prophecy during the Persian dominion,
and in particular during the reign of Artaxerxes, and his warnings and attacks are directed
to the same evils as those set forth in this book.”78
Frederick claims that Qoheleth is pre-
exilic.79
Pakkala argues that literary criticism should be above any questions of history or
74 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 508.
75 Brown, Ecclesiastes, 7.
76 Daniel Estes, Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), , 275.
77 Ernest W. Hengstenberg, A Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Minneapolis: Sovereign Grace,
1960), 1.
78 Hengstenberg, Ecclesiastes, 6.
79 D. C. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s language: Re-evaluating its nature and Date (Lewiston: Mellen,
1988), 267.
150
historical context. 80
He considers more important than authorship the dating of the text,
“for without an approximate dating it is difficult to use the text as historical witness for
any period.” Unfortunately, as Pakkala adds, “dating any text in the Hebrew Bible has
proven to be very controversial and hazardous.”81
Dating the book is a great difficulty but
that is the case for almost any ancient religious work unless the book tells us. Hirsh
recognizing it states: “Datedness is also a continual problem in interpreting religious
scripture and civil law, where the frequent inapplicability of original meanings forces
priests and judges to interpret authoritative texts in ways that make them applicable to the
present.”82
Could Qoheleth influence the Greeks? Many of the ideas taught by the Greeks
were common among Phoenicians and other Mediterranean cultures, including the
Hebrews, Iberians, Egyptians, and others. They all had similar philosophical sources. The
merchants and travellers through the region helped the propagation of ideas.
Perdue says that “the Book of Qoheleth emerges from a wisdom tradition that
engages critically and often opposes the conventional wisdom of the Jewish [people].”83
Collins argues that “Qoheleth’s hypothetical career is characteristic of the era in several
respects: the use of technology (irrigation), the exploitation of slaves, and the unabashed
80 Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 8 (Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 2004), 7.
81 Ibid., 15.
82 Eric Donald Hirsch, “Validity of Allegory,” in Convegno internazionale sul tema ermeneutica
e critica: Roma 7-8 ottobre 1996 (Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1998), 219.
83 Leo G. Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires
(GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 198. Cf. Rien de nouveau, 14. In footnote 4 p 14 “ego tamen Solomonis
esse non puto, sed scriptum seriùs sub illius Regis, tamquam pœnitentiâ ducti, nomine. Argumentum eius
rei habeo multa vocabula, quæ non alibi quam Danieli, Esdrâ et Chadæis interpretibus reperias.” De Groot,
Hugo. Annotata ad Vetus Testamentum. (Lutetiae Parisiorum: Sumptibus S. Cramoisy & G. Cramoisy,
1644), 521.
151
pursuit of pleasure.”84
According to Schoors the first writer to appeal to the language was
“H. Grotius, who thought the book contained too many words which are not found
anywhere except in Daniel, Ezra and the Chaldean interpreters.”85
Towner agrees with
this line of thought arguing that “The lateness of the Hebrew language of the book puts
its composition well after the time of Solomon, for that matter, any later royal ‘son of
David.’”86
Hengstenberg argues for a Persian date.87
According to Zimmermann, drawing from the text, the setting is “at Jerusalem,”
with the building of houses, parks, vineyards, etc.88
In Qoheleth the historical information
is limited to two verses (1:1, 12), but verse one is a title; titles were often added later by
the scribes. However, assuming that both verses are from the autograph, the text claims
the date of the speech to be by the end of Solomon’s reign, perhaps sometime before 927
bce (1:1, 12, 13; 4:15), when the kingdom was divided; at least before the destruction of
the first Temple (8:10). This helps to comprehend the philosophical and theological
matters Qoheleth confronted.
Qoheleth, like other philosophical or Wisdom books in the Bible are “notoriously
difficult to date, largely because of the timeless quality of its teachings. Sages endeavored
84 John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in Hellenistic Age, (Luisville: WTK, 1997), 28.
85 Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, 1. Schoors’ book is probably the best
text on the language of Qoheleth. “Ego tamen Salomonis esse non puto, ed scriptum serius sub illius Regis
tamquan poenitentia ducti nominee. Argumentum eius rei habeo multa vocabula quae non alibi quam in
Daniel, Esdra et Chaldeis interpretibus reperias.” Hugonis Grotii, “Ad Ecclesiasten,” in Annotata ad Vetus
Testamentvm (Lvtetiæ Parisiorvm: Cramoisy, 1644), I:521. Also quoted by Franz Delitzsch, Commentary
on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (Grand rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 190. cf. Ernest W. Hengstenberg,
A Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Evansville: Sovereign Grace, 1960), 7.
86 Sibley Towner, “Introduction to Wisdom literature,” in NIB, eds. Leander E. Keck, and
Richard J. Clifford (Abingdon: Nashville, 1997), 5:289. Cf. 2 Kings 18:1-12.
87 Hengstenberg, A Commentary on Ecclesiastes, 6.
88 Zimmerman, Inner World of Qoheleth, 12.
152
to communicate insights that transcend space and time… Accordingly, the wise remained
silent about the specifics of national history, choosing rather to dwell on things accessible
to every human being.”89
This is also evidence of the divine inspiration, the Heavenly
interest, and universal purpose of the book. There is no reason to doubt Solomon’s
authorship. This is important since future work on its philosophy and theology must
carefully study this book in the context of Solomonic compendium of literature.
Qoheleth’s Audience
Who were Qoheleth’s original audience/readers? The text no longer has the same
significance as it was to the original readers or audience because the current readers are
not in the same time, space, and historical-cultural-existential reality, including language.
Who were these original readers or listeners? Would it make a difference to know it?
Does the interpreter need to know and understand the significance of this text for the
original audience in order to make it relevant, contextualize it, for the current audience?
Garret says that the book’s philosophy and its theology cannot be understood properly
unless it is “assumed” that it was for the aristocracy.90
He makes three assumptions:
1) They must have access to the king, 2) “the pursuit of wealth was a real possibility” and
3) they had the luxury of time for intellectual pursuits. 91
Day also argues that wisdom
literature was part of the king’s ruling class in ancient times.92
Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth
and many Psalms show that in Israel this was not the case. A king, e.g., Solomon had
89 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 358.
90 Garret, “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,” 277.
91 Ibid.
92 John Day, “Foreign Semitic Influence on the Wisdom of Israel and its Appropiation in the
Book of Proverbs,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel, eds. John Day, Robert P. Gordon and H.G.M. Williamson,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 61. It is not clear why he speaks of Semitic influence
when Israel was Semitic.
153
access to the wisdom literature, but the way this literature came to us (for example on
clay tablets instead of gold plates, manuscripts instead of silver scrolls) shows that it was
a common heritage of the people, not a luxury of the aristocrats. It was the wisdom of the
people. It seems that in the time of David and Solomon the people had access to the king
and the members of his ‘court’ (cf. 1 Kings 3:16-28). Wealth was also accessible to the
people, not just to a few (1 King 4:20, 25). The pursuit of wisdom was not the luxury of a
few wealthy ones but a common goal among everyone searching to live a righteous life
fearing ELOHIM and keeping his commandments (cf. Proverbs).
It is probable that the speech was for the court, but the written text must have
been accessible to the public since fragments have been found at Qumran. This is also
evident by the concern the Rabbis had about its canonicity. Weeks writes: “As for
Qoheleth, the audience may have been ‘the people’, or at least those to whom books were
accessible and the purpose similarly to combine pleasure with a moral prod.”93
The text does not tell us anything about the reader, but implies that they may have
been those who have forgotten the foundation of life in pursuit of materialism, pleasure,
and power. This is a reality found through centuries among the powerful and the
powerless. Qoheleth could be writing to a son; at least we do know the audience must
have been the youth. Only 12:12 addresses someone as but this may be a general יבנ
expression.
Qoheleth and Wisdom/Philosophical Literature
Qoheleth, together with Proverbs, etc., belongs to the Wisdom (philosophical) of
Ancient Israel Literature. Following the teaching of Rabbi Ya’akov Kuli, who started the
Me’am Lo’ez, Faier says there are three type of wisdom literature: Chachma (חכמה),
93 Weeks, Early Israelite Wisdom (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 160.
154
Da’ath (דעת), and Tevunah (תבונה); Qoheleth is Tevunah.94
He reason that Qoheleth is not
seeking wisdom, neither in search of knowledge, rather it seeks understanding.
Concerning this type of literature Charles says:
This literature represents the development of the crude philosophy of more
ancient times, a philosophy which sought by means of proverbs and fables to
express the results of reflections concerning the general questions of life. Such
proverbs and fables were not necessarily of a religious character; see, e.g., Judg.
9:8–15 (Jotham’s parable), 2 Sam. 5:8, 20:18; but they tended to become so more
and more (cp. Jer. 31:29, Ezek. 18:2); this is well exemplified by such parables as
those contained in 2 Sam. 12:1–4 (Nathan’s parable of the ewe lamb), and Isa.
5:1–4 (the parable of the vineyard); and ultimately all wise sayings, upon
whatsoever subjects they were uttered, came to have a religious content inasmuch
as it was taught that all wisdom emanated from GOD.”95
Qoheleth also belongs to world literature reflecting the scepticism found in
Egyptians and Greek tomb inscriptions.96
However, contrary to Perdue’s view, it is
always possible that Greek scepticism was influenced by Qoheleth.97
Anderson writes that Qoheleth “is wisdom literature and not prophetic literature.
As a wisdom writer Qoheleth simply stated observable facts and allowed them to teach
by example rather than giving some kind of prophetic redress.”98
Rendtorff states that
wisdom literature is neither speech from GOD like prophecy nor speech to GOD as in the
Psalms. Its topic is the life and behaviour of the individual person in his or her social
94 Zvi Faier, Introduction to The Book of Qoheleth. Me’am Lo’ez: Torah Anthology on the Book
of Ecclesiastes by Rabbi Shmuel Yerushalmi (New York: Moznaim, 1988), xviii.
95R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon,
1913), 1:268.
96 Cf. Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus, 199.
97 Cf. Ibid., 247.
98 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 133.
155
circumstances.99
He adds that wisdom literature invites us to be ‘righteous’ (צדיק) but not,
he argues, in a religious sense, rather is an almost secular way: do this and you are
righteous.100
Biblical philosophy literature and its tradition, as he points out previously
“are certainly not purely secular.”101
It is theological/religious philosophy. A difficulty
the reader faces when approaching Wisdom (philosophy) literature is that it is not
basically a theology, although Qoheleth’s essence is theological. That makes a difference
between ANE wisdom literature and biblical wisdom. However, Barstad is correct to say
that “One of the traits of wisdom literature is that it does not reflect salvation history, and
does not refer to it as a framework for understanding the relationship between GOD and
the world. Humanity in general stands at the center, not the holy, chosen people [but] it is
nonetheless fundamentally religious.”102
Surprisingly Hazony quotes Qoheleth only four times in his work, The Philosophy
of the Hebrew Scriptures. He argues that Qoheleth and Mishlei Solomon (Proverbs)
“have been considered works of reason” but he wants “to show that the biblical corpus as
a whole can for the most part be read in this light.”103
Perhaps his observation can help
understand his reluctance to quote Qoheleth more often. He writes:
“Wisdom Literature” is a technical term used by scholars of the Bible and the
ancient Near East to associate certain works of the Bible, especially Proverbs and
Kohelet, with a genre of Egyptian and Mesopotamian treatises and poems seeking
worldly wisdom that can be seen as a precursor to Greek philosophy. ... In this
99 Rolf Rendtorff, The canonical Hebrew Bible: A theology of the Old Testament (Leiden: DEO,
2005), 665.
100 Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible, 666.
101Ibid., 665.
102 Hans Barstad, A Brief Guide to the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: WJK, 2010), 158.
103 Yoram Hazony, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2012), 90.
156
book I have not used the term “wisdom literature” or the scheme of categories that
it establishes. This is not because there is anything wrong with finding a strong
resemblance between an Egyptian manual on ethics and, for example, the book of
Proverbs. There isn't. But the fact that proverbs may indeed be similar in form to
an Egyptian manual on ethics does not mean that it is any more of a work of
“wisdom literature,” than Genesis or Judges, Jeremiah, or Esther. All these works
are works of “wisdom literature,” in that they were composed largely in an effort
to attain and inculcate worldly wisdom… the biblical narratives and prophetic
orations…It is these works that I believe we have to consider first if we wish to
study the philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, I look forward to the time
when most of the Hebrew Bible, if not all of it, will be recognized as “wisdom
literature.”104
In the MT of Qoheleth there are narrative accents instead of poetry accents as
Loader observes.105
Often wisdom texts are given poetry accents. The genre is mixed
although it is wisdom (philosophical) literature. Wisdom literature was a text for study in
schools and at homes.106
Its origins are in the family, and from the period of the clan
character derives many of the proverbs whose purpose was to equip one for life.107
Many
proverbs are circumstantial, limited to a specific time and space, cultural and political
realities. Although the principles in it are an absolute truth, in other context its application
may not be as realistic as it is stated since they may have different purposes. Crenshaw
writes:
Wisdom literature is of four kinds: (1) juridical, (2) nature, (3) practical, and (4)
theological. Distinction must be made between wisdom literature, wisdom
tradition, and wisdom thinking. Similarly, there exist (1) family/clan wisdom, the
goal of which is the mastering of life, the stance hortatory and the style
proverbial; (2) court wisdom, with the goal of education of a selected group, the
stance secular, and method didactic; and (3) scribal wisdom, with the aim of
104 Ibid., 284-285n26.
105 James A. Loader, Ecclesiastes: A Practical Commentary, BZAW (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986), 4.
106 Crenshwa, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 3.
107 Ibid., 47.
157
providing education for everyone,a stance that is dogmatico-religious, and a
dialogico-admonitory method.108
Calling these books Wisdom Literature tends to takes them away from their place
of world philosophical literature, i.e., Jewish philosophy. It seems to deny the reality and
value of philosophy in the Bible. Books like Qoheleth are philosophy, the best
philosophical work. Israel’s Wisdom (philosophical) literature can be compared to any
ancient civilization’s collection of philosophical work. Both the canonical and the non-
canonical work are full of some of the greatest thinkers humanity has known. They
influenced the philosophy and writings of their neighbours and they enriched their
tradition by collecting from their neighbourhood wisdom, in a time when copyright laws
could not stop these great works from being the heritage of humanity. Weeks writes:
Without specifying the date or the authors … it is clearly possible to present a
strong case for the wisdom literature being ‘high literature’ in Israel too. By such
a reckoning, its authors or redactors composed or sought out sayings from near
and far, for their pithiness or pointedness, then they adapted and arranged them to
pleasing effect. This is, substantially, the technique attributed to Qoheleth in Qoh
12.9ff.109
In the case of the biblical philosophical literature, there is the Divine inspiration
of the text (2 Timothy 3:16) and giving discernment to the authors redactors and
compilers of these sayings (cf. Prov 25:1). Garret accurately affirms that “Israelite
wisdom as it is found in the canonical texts was consistent with and produced by divine
revelation from the very outset.”110
Garret ads: “Its teachings are ultimately divine in
origin and are entirely consistent with orthodox faith of Israel. It achieves this without
explicitly subordinating wisdom to the Sinaitic covenant, a move that would have
108 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and probing Questions, 46.
109 Weeks, Early Israelite Wisdom, 160.
110 Garret, “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,” 27.
158
isolated biblical wisdom both culturally and historically.”111
Garret says this about
Proverb but with implications for the whole western canonical biblical wisdom literature.
Qoheleth subordinates wisdom and all philosophical endeavours under the Torah.
Hebrew philosophical literature does not limit itself to the collection of proverbs
and traditions from their neighbours. The adaptation of it to their reality and faith was not
a convenient act. It was the divine act of selecting and applying principles and traditions
that from ancient time humanity knew to be the truth. “All truth is GOD’s truth,” says a
popular proverb.112
Israel’s scribes, philosophers, prophets, and leaders were inspired to
choose from literature what was useful for the nation’s instruction. Sometimes these were
clear principles other times they were just popular proverbs and circumstantial sayings.
Qoheleth’s Literary Rhetoric and Form
Salyer states that “the type of vain rhetoric we encounter in the book of
Ecclesiastes is a performative concept… Its chief effect is to provide the reader with a
narrative experience of life’s absurdity.”113
He adds: “No biblical book is more
thoroughly basted in reduction upon reduction of irony than is the Book of Qohelet,”
i.e., “with regard to apparent contradictions or reversals of discrete maxims.” 114
Philosophical work does not avoid tension produced often by apparent contradictions.
Qoheleth, according to Loader, shows “patterns of tension…this tendency is so
111 Ibid, 28.
112 Arthur Holmes, All Truth Is GOD 's Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).
113 Gary D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes. JSOT, 327
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 18.
114 Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, 199.
159
prominent throughout the book that it may be called its outstanding characteristic.”115
Sharp observes:
Qohelet exploits a shifting and unstable constellation of freighted signifiers,
structuring devices, and rhetorical tools to convey its message. Pressed into
service are autobiographical, poetic, and sapiential literary forms; profound
philosophical speculation and mundane pragmatic observations; incisive
aphorisms, didactic parables, and elliptical metaphors.116
Sharp also notices that Qoheleth has a transparency no found in other wisdom
literature, subsequently he “speaks openly and explicitly not only of his actions but also
of his goals, his desires, and his affective states.”117
Perhaps this is a reality in Qoheleth
because he is speaking with himself (3:17-18, 7:22). There are no personal secrets anyone
can keep from himself (cf. Ps. 9:12; 1 Cor. 2:11; 1 John 3:21).
Campos calls Qoheleth a “poema obscuro” (dark poem).118
The “poetic” rhetoric
in Qoheleth is not like that of Psalms or Song of Songs or the prophetic writings.119
The
“simple syntax [of Qoheleth] is particularly suited to poetry, especially poetry of the
Hebrew type; but even Hebrew prose of the classical period employs very few
conjunctions and avoids subordinate clauses as much as possible.”120
Kugel observes that
“the literary form of Ecclesiastes is unique. Its basic unit of expression is the mashal, the
two-part proverb or saying. Yet it is not merely a collection of sayings (like, for example,
115 J. A. Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet (Berlin: Gruyter, 1979), 1.
116 Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, 196-197.
117 Ibid., 199.
118 Campos, Qohélet, 23.
119 Cf. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 31.
120 Ibid., 30.
160
the book of Proverbs). Instead, the sayings seem to frame a life history.”121
Therefore, it
is also autobiographical, regardless that the character is an anonymous author; Solomon
or anyone else is not mentioned by name, although Solomon is implied. It resembles
Egyptian royal testament according to von Rad.122
The proposal is rejected by Towner.123
Towner writes later that “perhaps Ecclesiastes is best viewed as a notebook of ideas by a
philosopher/theologian about downside and upside of life. In this notebook he reports
much of his own inner life.”124
Perry’s translate it as a dialogue making a very good
proposal, and a very interesting translation.125
The literary form reflects the style of self-eulogies found in Egyptians and Greek
tomb inscriptions.126
It is also similar to the obituaries of Egypt and Babylon.127
Perdue
suggests that the literary form of Qoheleth belongs to the literature of a dying person
speaking to the young generation, a patriarch to the family; similar to Egyptian
epitaph.128
Jewish testaments are also similar. These documents have first person voice,
list of achievements, offer counsel, and have a theme that unifies the text.129
Therefore,
121James L. Kugel, Ecclesiastes, HBD (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 237.
122 Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (London: SCM, 1972; reprint, Nashville: Abingdom,
1981), 226.
123 Towner, “Introduction to Wisdom Literature,” 270.
124 Ibid., 278.
125 Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet, 53-171, 53, 58, 65-67, 85, 89, 93, 96-97, 101, 107-108, 117,
118, 125-126, 134, 137-138, 144,148-149, 154-155, 165, 171. The translation itself is questionable, e.g.,
vv. 13-14.
126 Cf. Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus, 199.
127 Cf. Brown, Ecclesiastes, 7.
128 Cf. Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus, 205.
129 Ibid., 206.
161
Perdue calls this type of inscriptions and testaments, specifically Qoheleth, “a piece of
sapiential testamental literature.”130
Qoheleth is also similar to the Greek genre of parænesis (παραίνεσις) literature.
According to the “tentative definition” that “was worked out by the scholars participating
in the parænesis conferences in Lund 2000 and Oslo 2001” this is a “ concise, benevolent
injunction that reminds of moral practices to be pursued or avoided, expresses or implies
a shared worldview, and does not anticipate disagreement.”131
Parænesis is a moral
exhortation, reflection or injunction in which reader and writer share a common
understanding of ideas and language. Qoheleth’s audience/readers know the
commandments. Another characteristic is its brevity and the “not 'a' but 'b'” type of
statements.132
It is these two details that are unique in Qoheleth, especially the not “a” but
“b.” However in this aspect Qoheleth is closer to the Zwar-aber (“yes, but” “indeed, but,”
“certainly, but,” or “true, but”) statements. Garret recognizes also the diversity of genre
in Qoheleth, but argues that the entire text can be classified as reflection but includes
other forms.133
Parænesis is often reflective; especially on ethics (cf. Romans).
Perry on genre says that Qoheleth “is best conceived as a special kind of essay.
One of the endearing qualities of the book is its modesty, its refusal to take a leap of faith,
its persistent clinging to the limitations and integrity of human experience.” Human
experience “conclusions are tentative, subject to further evaluation.”134
He continues: “As
130 Ibid, 208.
131 Troels Engberg-Pedersen et James M. Starr. Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 4, 239n10.
132 Ibid, 3.
133 Garret, “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,” 32.
134 Perry, Dialogues with Koheleth, 6.
162
is now widely recognized, the difficulties of many passages in the OT are due to a failure
by interpreters to recognize the presence in the text of quotations.”135
This is one detail
that makes interpretation difficult if the reader cannot discern when Qoheleth is quoting
someone else. This writer proposes that Qoheleth may be quoting another source or
individuals, besides the obvious proverbs.
There are many proposals concerning the genre and use of Qoheleth. Levine reads
Qoheleth, in part, as comedy.136
While Zimmermann, through out his book, has attempted
to psychoanalyse Qoheleth, Marcus has attempted to understand it as a source of
psychoanalysis.137
He has made some interesting proposals, which are not of concern of
this writer at this point but worth exploring in further studies of Qoheleth.
Qoheleth and Parallel Philosophical Literature
Parallel to Qoheleth of similar philosophical literature can be found in ANE
literature. Garret makes an excellent introduction to the parallel literature through his
commentary on Qoheleth. Braun includes a very good study in his work.138
Many
conservative and liberal scholars have made the comparison of Qoheleth with other
ancient literature in order to date the text. Garret says:
The importance of this evidence should not be underestimated since it provides
invaluable information regarding the date of composition and the setting of
Ecclesiastes. Tradition ascribes Ecclesiastes to Solomon and this evidence
supports the reasonableness of that view. Furthermore, Scripture presents
Solomon as one who had access to the wealth of Egyptian and Babylonian
literature and who was renowned for wide literary and intellectual interests. It is
135 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 25.
136 Étan Levine, The Humor in Qohelet, ZATW 109.1 (1997): 82-83.
137 Paul Marcus, The Wisdom of Ecclesiastes and its Meaning for Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalytic
Review 87 (2000): 227-250. Frank Zimmermann, Inner World of Qohelet (New York: Ktav, 1972).
138 Rainer Brau, Qoheleth und die frühhellenistische Popularphilosophie BZAW (1973), 1-13.
163
much less likely that someone in the postexilic period would have had
acquaintance with the texts.139
Garret is correct to say that the parallels with Babylonian literature are not enough
reason to date the book after the Babylonian exile.140
He also lists books from Egypt
with similar teachings, but the connection with Babylonian writings is still the
strongest.141
There is no doubt that Qoheleth knew the story of Gilgamesh, Book of
Death, and probably Sanskrit and Chinese literature (cf. 1 King 4:21, 24, 30).
Matthews et al. commented that “as early as Sumerian literature and throughout
the traditions of the ancient Near East the meaninglessness of existence, and particularly
of the human plight, had been recognized.”142
When the interpreter approaches possible
parallels in Qoheleth within ANE literature he/she should keep in mind the words of
Lohfink: “The motifs found in Qoheleth are also throughout the world.”143
According to Crenshaw “the dominant characteristic of Qoheleth, the confession,
is recognized as a Gattung of Egyptian wisdom literature, while most of the final …
chapter is clearly an allegory (12:1-8).”144
Reading Qoheleth reminds of some parts of the
Book of Death of Egypt. Ancient Hebrew civilizations were Egyptians and they brought
139 Garret, “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs,” 266.
140 Ibid., 265.
141 Ibid., 265.
142Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background
Commentary : Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Ec 1:2.
143 Norbet Lohfink, Qohelet: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 4.
144 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 47.
164
with them many aspects of Egyptian cultures, religions, and philosophies, which are
reflected through the pages of the Bible. They cannot erase the experience in Egypt.145
Brown proposes a close parallel with the Epic of Gilgamesh.146
Gilgamesh is the
“larger ancient Near Easter context” of Qoheleth, he argues.147
Johnston distinguishes
between Gilgamesh and Qoheleth although he admits the similarities to be “striking.”148
Qoheleth 11:1 has been compared with this Babylonian literature: “Do a good deed and
cast it into the flood; when it dries you will find it.”149
Day argues that Gilgamesh
influence in Qoheleth is a fact; he writes that the parallels are seven and in the same order
in both books.150
According to Brown:
The sage behind the book, Qohelet, has woven numerous elements drawn from
this epic…Like the heroic king of Uruk this sage comes to witness everything
“under the sun,” human life in both its excess and frailty, its totality and its
“vanity.” In his search for something lasting advantage or gain in this life,
Qohelet finds death omnipresent and GOD inscrutable. Like Gilgamesh, Qohelet
come back from his journey, his investigation, empty-handed, yet with renewed
appreciation of his “vain life.”151
145 Ethnic groups can change; their children and grandchildren can assimilate so much in another
country in less than 50 years. How much greater was Egyptian influence on Israel’s traditions and culture!
They rejected many traditions, but their history show that there were still even polytheistic practices among
them. There is an old proverb by the Egyptian Jewish community of Brooklyn, NY: “If you are a Jew you
are an Egyptian.”
146 Brown, Ecclesiastes, 2-7.
147 Ibid., 6.
148 Robert Johnston, “Confessions of a workaholic,” in Reflecting with Solomon, ed. Roy Zuck
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 142.
149 Weeks, Early Israelite Wisdom, 175.
150 John Day, “Foreign Semitic Influence on the Wisdom of Israel and its Appropiation in the
Book of Proverbs,” 59-60.
151 Brown, Ecclesiaste, 6-7.
165
Fischer sees influence of Egyptian literature, especially from the Harpers’ Song,
although he is clear that Qoheleth does not depend on it.152
Christianson may be correct:
“Qoheleth may have drawn on Egyptian, Greek or Babylonian sources” or all three but he
approaches it from a different perspective.153
It has also been compared to King
Merikase.154
One of the closest similarities with Qoheleth, beside Gilgamesh, is be found
in the Babylonian the Counsel of the Pessimist.155
Lohfink says that “the book of Qoheleth can only be understood as an attempt to
profit as much as possible from the Greek understanding of the world, without forcing
Israel’s wisdom to give up its status.”156
He also affirms that “The book of Qoheleth is
the most transparent place, within the Bible, where Israel meets with Greek
philosophy.”157
Stanton writes: “Qoheleth seems aware of currents in Greek philosophy,
such as universalism and individuality (2:18–21; 3:19–22; 4:7–11).”158
Braun sees a
parallel with a popular Greek phrase. He says: Die Wendung הבל ורעות רוח bei Qoheleth
mit dem hellenistisch-popular-philosophischen κενοδοξíα καì τúφος zu identifizieren.”159
152 Stefan Fischer, “Qohelet and the ‘Heretic’ Harpers Songs,” JSOT 98: (2002): 117.
153 James Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1987), 26-27.
154James B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1955), 317. cf. 9:1, 1 Sam 15:22, Dt 23:21-23
155 W.G. Lambert, ed. Babylonian Wisdom Literature (London: Oxford, 1960), 107-109. See also
“The Dialogue of Pessimism,” 139ff, and “The Babylonian Theodicy,” 63ff.
156 Lohfink, Qohelet: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 6.
157 Lohfink, Qohelet, 14.
158G. R. Stanton, “Hellenism” in Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of
Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans, electronic ed. (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 5.6.
159 Braun, „Kohelet und die frühhellenistische Popularphilosophie,“ 130:46. Cf. 46n20.
166
This and other apparent Greek parallels have led to a proposal of a Greco-Alexandrine
origin for the book, e.g., doctrine of immortality, the transcendence of GOD.
Ogden argues that is only available in Qoheleth and in 3rd century תחת השמש
Phoenician transcriptions. However, it is common in Greek literature: υφ ηλιω κτλ, as
Braun argues above. The use of a phrase, a word, or even a whole collection of sayings
does not make Qoheleth the product of ancient Phoenicians. Phoenician literature and
culture may have some influence in the Hebrew tradition as in the Roman and Greek
cultures. Hebrew shares a cultural heritage with the Arameans and ancient Phoenicians
that can be found in their languages and a common political history.160
The similarities between Qoheleth and some of these writings are amazing. These
similarities have led some to think that Qoheleth is a translation into Hebrew of an
Ugaritic or even from an ancient Chinese book.161
Some have considered Taoism’s
literature, nonetheless scholars like Crenshaw critics Horton for going “further afield in
an effort to compare Qoheleth’s concept of opposites with Taoist views.”162
Horton’s
comparison is appropriate, after all Qoheleth has his roots among an Asian community
called Semitic. There are also similarities between the Vedas and Qoheleth.163
Do not be
too ‘holy’ or too much of a ‘sinner’ advises Qoheleth (cf. 7:16-17). This teaching on
balance of life is common to Hinduism as reflected in the teachings of Gautama Buddha.
160 Cf. Ogden, Qohelet, 30. A basic text on the Phoenicians, as a concise introduction is Glenn E.
Markoe, Phoenicians, People of the Past Series (Berkeley: University of California, 2000). Although the
book may be too brief, it has very valuable documentation.
161 Ogden includes a chapter on Chinese philosophy: Qoheleth, 2nd
ed., 233-239. Ogden writes
with the Bible translator in mind.
162Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 23.
163 See Patrick Olivelle, ed. The Early Upanishads: Annotated Text and Translation (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1998). Sri Aurobindo, The Upanishads: texts, Translation and Commentary.
(Pondicherry, India: Ashram Trust, 1972).
167
It has influenced the Greek concept of prudence (φρόνησις) which is also present in
Jewish Wisdom Literature with its emphasis on “fear GOD.”. There is need for further
research on the Chinese and other Asian literature and Qoheleth; that is its inmediate
geopolitical context. However, the interpreter must be careful not to become
parallelomaniac.
Ancient Israelites were influenced by other cultures, but as it can be seen in
Qoheleth, they made the ideas their own. They did not simply follow other philosophies.
These were tested in the context of the Torah.164
There is a touch from the Heavens in
this book that is not found in any other great philosophical or poetic writings. Wright
states this very well: “So nicely balanced are the ultimate conclusions of life and religion
that there is in places only a hair’s breadth between Koheleth and Omar Khayyam. Yet
that hair’s breadth puts Koheleth’s book in heaven and leaves the Rubaiyat of Omar
Khayyam tied to the earth.”165
The parallels with the Pseudopigrapha and Apocrypha books are obvious. Charles
et al. have done a very good study in his edition of the Apocrypha therefore there is no
need to address it in details here.166
Only one observation, the Pseudopigrapha and
Apocrypha are later, therefore, many of them find their source in Qoheleth’s ideas.
Parallelism is relevant as long as it would help us understand Qoheleth. After all
what matters is how Qoheleth uses such common phrases and thoughts. If 90% of
Qoheleth is from ANE literature, what matters is how the writer uses this for his own
purpose. Wisdom literature from Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and Israel do give attention to
164 cf. Day, “Foreign Semitic Influence on the Wisdom of Israel and its Appropiation in the Book
of Proverbs,” 59.
165 H. Carl Shank, “Qoheleth’s World and Life View,” in Reflecting with Solomon, ed. Roy B.
Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 75.
166Charles, Apocrypha of the Old Testament, 1:525-526.
168
the faith and religious practices of the nation. The only difference is that Israel’s
philosophical writings have an ethical/moral emphasis, which is not in many of these
other ancient writings. It is not that Israel’s wisdom “pays little attention to covenant and
the cult.” They do by applying with practical proverbs the essence of true religion.167
For
example, Babylonian philosophy is not about a righteous conduct in obedience to GOD, or
the gods, while Qoheleth’s is in essence about righteousness, living according to GOD’s
commandments. Babylonian and Egyptian wisdom literature do not demand behaviour
based on absolute ethical and moral principles. Like ancient Egyptian wisdom literature,
e.g., Qoheleth, is concerned with fate, determinism, predestination; every aspect of
human existence, in the context of Torah. However, Qoheleth is not hopeless like some
of Egyptian thoughts.168
Qoheleth has some kind of optimism within the struggle of life,
reflected in his positive pessimism.
Finding direct quotes from other literature would be very useful and important to
the study of Qoheleth. So far all available are phrases and concepts, possible allusions or
echo of other ANE literature. However, it has been neglected to understand Qoheleth and
its parallel within Jewish literature. The obvious main influence must have been from the
Hebrew literature, i.e., Tanakh.169
It is in this context that finally Qoheleth, in its
canonical form, must be understood.170
An important parallelism that seems to be ignored
167 Cf. John Day, “Introduction” to Wisdom in Ancient Israel, eds. John Day, Robert P. Gordon
and H.G.M. Williamson, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 1.
168 Cf. “The heart and the character, like their owner, are in the hand of god. Fate and fortune go
and come when he commands them.” Mirriam Lichtheim, and Jospeh Gilbert Manning, Ancient Egyptian
Literature (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2006), 3:197.
169An excellent contribution on intertextualite in Qoheleth is Ruth Fidler, “Qoheleth in ‘The
House of GOD’: Text and Intertext in Qoh 4:17-5:6 (Eng. 5:1-7),” Hebrew Studies. 47.1 (2011): 7-21.
170 An interesting essay is Das Buch Qohelet im kontext der Jüdischen Literatur by Thomas
Krüger ftp://ftp.unizh.ch/theol/publikationen/krueger/sgoa02.pdf
169
is within the book itself: repetition, self-quoting. The parallel with Psalms and the Torah
too often are ignored.
In conclusion, there are many similarities between Hebrew wisdom literature and
other ANE’s philosophical works. But what matters is what Qoheleth says and how he
uses the phrases or terms common to other ANE literature. Crenshaw reminds us that
“whatever similarities there may be to particular Greek philosophical ideas, none of the
philosophical systems in question considered as a whole can be said to lie at the basis of
his teaching and indeed every one of them possesses important features which are quite at
variance with his views.”171
Regardless of the possible parallels, Shield is correct; there is
no external historical or archaeological evidence to verify the thesis of Qoheleth.172
The proverbs, fables, stories, and even style seems to be very similar to other
ANE literature. This is due to the common heritage they all shared. Making Qoheleth or
any other biblical philosophy literature a plagiarism, without authority, and without
divine inspiration because the influence or collection from ANE literature is misleading
and without merits. The similarities only point to a nation and a faith that was very real
and alive within the ANE. Qoheleth, says Ellul, “may well made use of Theognis, but our
writer shows how this despair and anger are transformed when incorporated within the
faith of Israel.”173
Parson correctly observes that “Qoheleth is similar yet distinct from
other wisdom literature of the surrounding nations.”174
Israel’s philosophy and its
171 Crenshaw, Qohelet, 55.
172 Cf. Martion A. Shields, The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical
Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 239.
173 Ellul, Reason for Being, 14. Ellul denies a redactor, outside influences, and the need to
harmonize it.
174 Stephen F, Parson, Ecclesiastes 9:7-10 and the words of Qoheleth. (Th.M. Thesis, Baptist
Bible Seminary, 1985), 11.
170
theology, although with parallels and with roots in ancient Babylonian etc. concludes
with a different view about GOD and humans.
There are not exact parallel to Qoheleth in the Bible or in any other ANE
literature.175
However, the text shows that the speaker had access to a complex collection
of literature (1:12, 12:9-10). Tradition says that Solomon was known for his interest in
“foreign” literature, religions, and diplomacy with political leaders from the entire known
world.176
The similarities with Greek literature and Babylonian are striking. Hellenistic
thought taught not to accept traditional beliefs and ideas unexamined, encourages people
to think for themselves, and not to be afraid of reaching unorthodox conclusions.
Solomon may owe some influence to Greek philosophy in this area.177
Perdue says that
“while it is difficult to prove conclusively that Qoheleth was educated in the Greek
philosophical and cultural traditions … he would likely have encountered Egyptian and
Hellenistic skepticism, which existed in the commercial, political, and intellectual
exchanges.”178
However his journey is not negative pessimism, although overwhelmed
with doubts and some scepticism, it is a journey of faith and doubts empowered by faith;
a faith in the ETERNAL MYSTERY, ELOHIM. Qoheleth may have considered also
Babylonian pessimism as well as Mesopotamian pessimistic literature, but, as Crenshaw
underlines, he concluded for life.179
This philosophical journey is about the soul’s search,
within the limits of human reason, for ELOHIM.
175 Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 283.
176 Jewish legends teach that Shlomo was king all over the earth, then later only over Israel and in
his last days only over Jerusalem.
177 Cf. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 54. Cf. 52-55.
178 Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus, 201.
179 Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 26-27.
171
ELOHIM is a mystery that can only be understood by a revelation made by himself
to his creation. ELOHIM himself has revealed the very idea of his existence to the minds
of humanity. This GOD who has revealed himself to humanity through creation and
directly to human minds has also revealed himself through the experience of the people
of Israel. His revelation is found in the pages of the infallible, inspired, and inerrant
words of the Bible. Ancient Israel philosophy is theological: in Qoheleth philosophy is a
helper to theology.
Limitations of Human Reasoning
In the search for understanding, knowledge and wisdom human reasoning has its
limitations. Qoheleth’s philosophy ultimate goal is to understand ELOHIM, his works and
relation with Creation, i.e., humanity. In the process he addresses a series of thoughts,
observations, and questions that reflect or perhaps addresses what in modern terms are
called pessimism, scepticism, etc. The philosophical content of this book is evidence of
the limitations of human reasoning.
Positive Pessimism
Motyer, writing about Qoheleth exclaims with alarm: “What a problem it presents
as soon as we open its pages! What a dark view of life, a seemingly inevitable
pessimism!”180
Telushkin also shares his concerns: “Ecclesiastes is…the most pessimistic
[book of the Bible].”181
He says the attribution of the book to Solomon led Rabbis to
incorporate “this otherwise rather irreligious work into the Hebrew Bible” canon.182
180 Alec Motyer, The Story of the Old Testament: Men with a Message (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2001), 160.
181 Joseph Telushkin, Biblical Literacy: The Most Important People, Events, and Ideas of the
Hebrew Bible (New York: Morrow, 1997), 365.
182 Ibid., 367.
172
Loader maintains that pessimism is central to Qoheleth’s thinking.183
He even
goes as far as declaring such pessimism, especially the expression ים הכל הבלהבל הבל as
“the fundamental idea in the book.” 184
Loader writes that it is this philosophical subject
that gives theological meaning to the book. He writes: “If we try to argue this idea out of
the picture, we would deprive the book of its theological meaning.”185
Longman observes
that in contemporary literature about Qoheleth “some recent interpreters…deny that there
is anything unorthodox or pessimistic in Qoheleth’s teaching. He is rather a ‘Preacher of
Joy’ and a paragon of orthodoxy. To achieve such an interpretation, one must suppress
and distort many of the plain statements of the book.”186
Scott writes that Qoheleth “is critical, even radical in its attitude to conventional
beliefs; it is speculative, individualistic, and (broadly speaking) pessimistic.” 187
The
pessimism of Qoheleth has its root in the observation of human reality around him: war,
oppression, injustice etc. Perry sees 12:13-14 as trying to clean the book from pessimism.
It tries to prevent us from seeing the pessimism of the book.188
Qoheleth has positive
pessimism; the reader gets deep into the darkness of depression with Qoheleth to come up
later into the light of of the awe and reverence of ELOHIM and his works. Qoheleth is like
Augustine in search of rest for his soul.
183 Loader, Ecclesiastes, 4 , 14.
184 Ibid., 14. He cannot avoid his theological Christian presupositions through the whole
commentary.
185 Ibid.
186 Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 285.
187 Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes, xvix.
188 Perry, Dialogues with Koheleth, 4.
173
Martin et al. comment that “Qohelet is an ‘interpretation pessimiste’ of life and
many writers are pessimistic in their interpretation of this book.”189
Anderson writes that Qoheleth’s “pessimism lies in his basic thesis in 1:2 that all
of his life is absurd, vacuous and meaningless – and 12:8 is the validation of the thesis. In
the final analysis, [Qoheleth] just gave up trying to make sense of GOD, humanity, life in
the world and wisdom – or that can have any control in transforming the way life is.”190
Barucq agrees that it is “pessimisme” what is central to this book.191
Anderson says that
“a pessimist or an optimist varies depending on one’s life experiences and basic
psychological disposition…Scepticism is often considered the intellectual counterpart to
pessimism.” 192
He rightly observes that “in its religious form pessimism is often driven
by fatalism or a lack of control in human and worldly affairs.”193
The basic definition of
pessimism, according to Anderson, “lies in the fact that a person feels that they cannot
change the way life is.”194
Qoheleth experiences this to some degree (1:15; 3:18),
however, his pessimism is not just a philosophical experience, rather one of faith.
Anderson states that “religious pessimism often arises due to a conflict between one’s
beliefs and the way life really is, i.e., the tension between one’s doctrinal beliefs and
189 Cf. Rose Martin and Béatrice Allison, Rien de nouveau: nouvelles approches du livre de
Qoheleth, Orbis biblicus et orientalis (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1999), 167.
190 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 59.
191 André Barucq, Ecclesiaste, Qoheleth: traduction et commentaire, Verbum salutis, Ancien
Testament (Paris: Beauchesne, 1968), 3:14.
192 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 56.
193 Ibid.
194 Ibid., 101n 23.
174
one’s life experiences which invalidate them.”195
It is a spiritual crisis, evidence of the
limits of human reasoning.
Determinism, which is the philosophical side of religious fatalism, as presented in
Qoheleth does not lead to pessimism.196
Instead encourages hope and trust in a sovereign
being, ELOHIM, who will ultimately triumph. Religious fatalism leads to pessimism, as it
is in some branches of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Dillon makes reference to
Hinduism. Contrary to his view, Qoheleth’s apparent pessimism is not similar to
Hinduism’s.197
Of course, some branches of Judaism and Christianity are not exceptions.
Anderson calls Qoheleth existentialist and makes reference to what he calls “existential
despair.” 198
However, existentialism like humanism is not pessimistic rather optimistic.
Anderson refers to Qoheleth as “the materialistic.”199
This perhaps is the reason why the
apparent pessimism in Qoheleth seems to be overwhelming, he is reflecting from a very
materialistic experience “under the sun.”
Qoheleth describes one of the tragic aspects of life, which often is the source of
pessimism; this is loneliness (4:9-11). These circumstances can bring out the darkness of
the soul. Humans are social beings, with an intrinsic sense of community and fellowship.
These are reflections of the image of ELOHIM. Qoheleth seems to be at times isolated.
Shank proposes that “the theme of pessimism or cynicism becomes a suggested
option.”200
However, Drane, like Baab and Jastrow are wrong to call Qoheleth a cynic.
195 Ibid., 56.
196 Cf. Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 96-97
197 Dillon, The Skeptics of the Old Testament, xi.
198 Cf. Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 119, 120
199 Ibid., 111.
200 Shank, “Qoheleth’s World and Life View,” 67.
175
Cynisism is not in Qoheleth’s philosophy. To the contrary Qoheleth would have been in
an opposite place against the cynics of ancient Greece, e.g., Gadara.
Qoheleth, according to Reichter and Cohen, “finds nothing in man’s labour and
activities which he can exclude from his pessimistic verdict.”201
Zuck’s response to
similar perspective is that Qoheleth is “a book not of gloom and doom, but of reality and
responsibility.”202
Many Rabbis, like the translators of the Targum, paraphrased or
allegorized the book’s apparent pessimistic remarks. Again, Qoheleth’s pessimism is not
negative. Qoheleth’s positive pessimism leads humanity to recognize their need to “fear
ELOHIM and keep his commandments.” Qoheleth let the reader succumb to the lowest
despair before the absurdities and ‘vanities’ (הבלים) of human existence to bring him back
before the awesome ELOHIM and his commandments (divine instruction, a gift of a loving
GOD for the true enjoyment of life). Therefore, this pessimism is positive; it is not a
negative aspect of Qoheleth.
Anderson insists that Qoheleth is clearly pessimistic, in a negative sense.203
Other
writers see a strict pessimistic view of life in Qoheleth, and contend that the positive view
of life is by someone else. Likewise, Longman’s opinion is that Qoheleth’s “pessimistic
theology is not the concluding voice in the book. A second voice is heard at the
beginning of the book (1:1-11) and at the end (12:8-15), placing a frame around
Qoheleth’s speech and providing the perspective through which we should read his
opinions.”204
Anderson finds his final answer to Qoheleth’s pessimism in the NT, so at
201 Victor E. Reichter, “Ecclesiastes,” in The Five Megilloth, Books of the Bible, ed. Abrham
Cohen et al. (London: Soncino, 1946), 12:126. cf. 3:113.
202 Roy Zuck, “Introduction,” to Reflecting with Solomon. ed. Roy Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1994), 14.
203 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 2.
204 Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 37.
176
the end he approaches Qoheleth like the Greek Church Fathers.205
Nevertheless, it is
Qoheleth himself who confront his pessimism transforming it into positive pessimism
that encourages the enjoyment of life.
There are other proposals about Qoheleth’s philosophy. Among these proposals,
worth investigating in further studies are individualism, pragmatism and a critique of
perfectionism. The goal of the pessimism of Qoheleth is to encourage the enjoyment of
life in its fullness. The illustration in the introduction to Qoheleth in the BNP says: “Dios
quiere que disfrutemos de la vida.” (GOD wants us to enjoy life). However, keeping in
mind that we will give account for our actions to ELOHIM (11:9-10). Qoheleth must be
understood in the context of Torah as the conclusion demands (12:13).
In conclusion, Qoheleth describes (2) a decision, a mistake in his life, which he
describes as foolishness. Qoheleth admits that this behaviour was wrong. This hedonist
behaviour produces pain in society; sin steals the happiness from others beside the sinner.
This experience led him to the thoughts that can be described as pessimistic (1:3, 8,10-11,
14-15, 2:1, 11-12, 14b-17, 23; 3:9, 20; 4:2; 6:3, 6; 7:3; 9:2-3). These pessimistic
expressions in the context of his counsel to enjoy life can only be, as he stated, just
observations and frustration expressed in anger and pain. Nevertheless, it is a positive
pessimism that encourages enjoying life and understands that away from fearing and
obeying ELOHIM there is no joy in life that will be meaningful enough. His positive
pessimism is also expressed in the text with some words that embed the idea of
determinism instead of fatalism (1:5-7, 9-11; 2:17; 3:1-8; 8:2; 9:3, 11). Though, this
experience led him to use the expression הבל הבלים הכל הבל so often to show indignation,
frustration and perhaps depression.
205 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 230-232.
177
Hevel הבל
An excellent study on הבל and how this term is used through the Bible,
considering both semantics and etymological proposals is found in Anderson’s book
Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology.206
Another book is Symbol and Rhetoric in
Ecclesiastes: The Place of Hebel in Qohelet’s Work by Miller.207
A brilliant article is by
Fox, “The Meaning of Hebel for Qoheleth.”208
The term used by Qoheleth to express his
pessimism and frustrations is הבל (hevel).209
McCabe interprets הבל “Most frustratingly
enigmatic.”210
The same statement can refer to the whole book. Qoheleth seems to be
doing a play on names: Adam ( םאד humanity) and Habel (הבל).211
It is unknown if Habel
was named after he died because his life was hevel or if the term hevel developed from
Habel story.212
Perdue translates הבל as “breath” and adds: “not so much vanity but
206 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 8-28.
207 Douglas B. Miller, Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes: The Place of Hebel in Qohelet’s
Work (Atlanta: Scholar, 2002), 25.
208Michael V. Fox, “The Meaning of Hebel for Qoheleth,” JBL 105.3 (1986): 409-427.
209 Cf. Neal D. Williams, “A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastes”" (Th. D. diss., Dallas
Theological Seminary, 1984), 174-232.
210 Robert McCabe, “The Message of Ecclesiastes,” DBSJ 1 (Spring 1996): 85.
211 Cf. Garret, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 278-279; André Barucq, Ecclesiaste,
Qoheleth: traduction et commentaire, Verbum salutis, Ancien Testament (Paris: Beauchesne, 1968), 3:7.
may had its origin with the story of Habel (Abel) son of Adam and Eve in Genesis or he הבל 212
may have been named Hebel because the common meaning of the word. His life had absurdity
(contradictions): A faithful man ends in an irrational event. His life and sacrifice became at the eyes of the
observer “absurd” (futile, in vain, vapour) – no, this is not amplified, just expressing the anguish of
remembering a life like that taken away. His name may have been post-event, like those of the Patriarchs.
Many words have their meaning or origin in names and vise versa, e.g., Jubilee from Jubal, tyran from
Tyranus, Tzar and Kaiser from Caesar.
178
rather ‘evanescence’— all things do not endure.”213
Everything is transitory. Fox is
absolutely right when he states that “no one English word corresponds exactly to the
semantic shape of hebel as Qohelet uses it, but it is possible to render the word by an
equivalent that comes close to representing its range of meaning and that bears similar
connotations.” 214
Fox renders הבל as “absurd”.215
Towel defines הבל with stronger
terms. He writes: “It is evident that the term hebel; describes something that is without
merit, an unreliable, probably useless thing.”216
He considers the possibility that Qoheleth
“in the manner of creative thinkers everywhere…has welded new meaning onto this
already extant term so it can better serve his special purposes.”217
The meaning of הבל
seems to change through the biblical text according to the context.218
Ogden has noticed,
in Qoheleth הבל has a very specific meaning. He says that “it identifies the enigmatic, the
ironic dimension of human experience; it suggests that life is not fully comprehensible.”
219 But it does not the mean ‘vanity’ or ‘meaningless.’ In the Spanish language הבל, for
example in 6:12 can be translated as “pasajero” (brief, something passing by, temporary).
The BNP and NBE (Nueva Biblia Española/New Spanish Bible) translate it “Pura
ilusión…todo es una ilusión” (pure illusion…everything is an illusion.”220
213 Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus, 203.
214 Michael V. Fox, “The Meaning of Hebel for Qoheleth,” JBL 105.3 (1986): 409.
215 Ibid.
216 W. Sibley Towner, “The Book of Ecclesiastes: Introduction, commentary, and reflections,”
279.
217 Ibid.
218 E.g., Pss. 39:5-6, 144:4, 2 Kings 17:15, Zech 10:2, Job 21:34,
219 Ogden, Qoheleth, 17.
220 ‘Ilusión’ in this context does not mean that it is not real.
179
The phrase חהכל הבל ורעות רו can be translated “all is ephemeral and a desire for
[life’s] vital spirit,” according to Perdue.221
He adds: “Thus a more elegant translation
would be: “all is breath quickly passing and a desire to retain life’s animating spirit.” This
pessimistic expression, says Ogden, רוח is a humoristic phrase that could be רעות
translated ‘shepherding the wind,’ therefore Qoheleth, according to Ogden, speaks of
attempting the impossible.222
Often translators are subjective as they strive to communicate the meaning of a
text in another language. The LXX is an example of it. Gilbert writes: “The vanity and
futility of human effort, according to the Hebrew [Qoheleth], becomes in [the Greek
version of Aquilas] the frivolity and capriciousness of the human spirit and its consequent
estrangement from GOD.”223
Miller argues that Qoheleth “employs hebel as a symbol in his work.” He
continues saying that Qoheleth has a “rich use of metaphor” using הבל “with multiple
senses.”224
There are many options to translate הבל: ¡Contradicción de contradicciones
todo es una contradicción! In Spanish “Contradicción” can be an expression of anger. It
means that something is contrary to what is expected. Maybe some times הבל means
‘everything is apparently, it is not as we see it’ (cf. Descartes). To translate הבל by one
English word throughout the book does not make sense.225
However, some scholars have
221 Perdue, Wisdom Literature: A theological History (Louisville: WJK ), 192.
222 Ogden, Qohelet, 21.
223Gilbert, “Wisdom in Second Temple Literature,” 286n22.
224 Miller, Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes, 25.
225 It is interesting to observe that in old English the word “vanity itself had many meanings. One
of these is “dizziness” as in “For vanité of the hede a gude medsyn…” (MS Sloane 7 f. 79 quoted in
Dictionary of Archaic and Provenzal Words, ed. James Orchard Halliwell (Smith: 1855), 907 col. 1. When
180
argued that there must be only one meaning for הבל in Qoheleth.226
In Modern Hebrew,
,means illusion; things appear to be illusions הבל is used to mean ‘nonsense.’ At times הבל
transitory (Sp. algo pasajero), etc. but ‘meaningless’ and ‘vanity’ are not the best
translations.227
In addition, expressions like nonsense, apparent contradiction, absurdity
and confusing, are possibilities. The phrase may be a superlative: “What a contradiction!”
or “This is the greatest absurdity!”
In conclusion, Qoheleth’s pessimism is positive: life is worth living regardless of
its absurdities. Ogden sees the positive in Qoheleth. He is correct when he says that
Qoheleth’s realism “focus is upon an affirmative rather than a negative view of human
life.”228
Contrary to probably the majority of scholars, Sperka, similarly to Ogden, has a
more positive approach. He says: “Qoheleth is unique in that in spite of this pessimistic
question [If life is so bad, why go on living?] the book is not pervaded with a sense of
gloom and tragedy. The book suggests an answer to this basic question. There is
something positive and affirmative in life.”229
This is positive pessimism. It is not like
the pessimism of ancient Greek philosophers or postmodern French pessimists.230
Philosophical pessimism addresses often human responsibility in a direction contrary to
the reader searches for a word in Spanish, Sanskrit, Greek, or some other ancient language to translate הבל,
we are faced with many options. Context within the book can help the reader understand its meaning.
226 An excellent tool to study the term is found in the electronic edition of Francis Brown et al.
Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research
Systems, 2000), 210.
227 cf. Otto Kaiser, “Qoheleth,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel ,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel, eds.
John Day, Robert P. Gordon and H.G.M. Williamson, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 83.
228 Ogden, Qohelet, 22.
229 Sperka, Ecclesiastes- Stories to Live by, 14-15.
230 Cf. Joshua Foa Dienstag, Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2006). Dienstag’s work is one of the best studies on pessimism.
181
that of Qoheleth. In Qoheleth positive pessimism humans are responsible for their actions
(3:17; 11:9). Sperka continues: “Man has the ability and the duty to face up to the
problems of life. In his search for purpose man will find the purpose of his search. In this
search, he will find satisfaction… he who enjoys his possessions has received a gift from
GOD. Even striving for happiness can become a reasonable goal.”231
The frustration of
Qoheleth which reflects itself as pessimism is that of the poet and the singer; the sense of
hopelessness after years of singing for justice, peace, compassion etc. humanity choose
war, poverty, injustice and their words do not change anything.232
Nevertheless, like the
singer Qoheleth still sings, speaks, reflects, and share his thoughts.
Sperka insists that the book “expresses pessimism, skepticism, determinism and
faith.”233
However, Qoheleth’s pessimism is positive: life is worth living regardless of its
absurdities. Recognizing the absurdities of life is to admit the limitations of human
reason. The absurd is often the uncomprehendible.
Philosophers as Scientists
Qoheleth’s observation of Creation shows scientific empiricism. Fox observes:
“This, I believe, is revolutionary: a sage chooses to seek out sensory experience as a path
to insight.”234
The Philosopher/Sage is also a scientist, drawing speculating, questions
231 Sperka, Ecclesiastes- Stories to Live by, 14-15.
232 Cf. Nydia Caro and Riccardo Cerratto, “Hoy Sólo Canto por Cantar” (Today I Sing, Just for
Singing), 1974. Verses 2 and 4: “Que tonteria cantarle al mundo / pidiendo amor y que haya paz en todas
partes / Si nadie escucha lo que decimos, / lo que pedimos verso a verso los cantantes...La gente quiere oír
canciones / para olvidarse del dolor de nuestra tierra / De nada sirven las ilusiones / si una canción jamás
podrá parar la guerra” (What a foolishness to sing to the world / asking for love and that there be peace
everywhere / if no one listens to what we say / what we, the singers, ask verse by verse … people want to
listen songs / to forget the pain of our land / Illusions are useless / if a song will never be able to stop the
war).
233 Sperka, Ecclesiastes, 15.
234 Michael Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” HUCA (1987), 58:142.
182
and conclusions based on his observation of the natural phenomena; these natural events
are often illustrations for some of his arguments. Fox says that “the importance that
Qohelet gives to validation is unique in Wisdom literature.”235
Qoheleth’s argument is
from observation of Creation (1:5-7) and reflection on Creation texts (3:14, cf. Gen. 1-2).
These are one of the more ‘poetic’ (שיר) verses in Qoheleth. He uses these observations
to speak of the monotonousness of life and his own lack of satisfaction with it (1:8). In
the context of the Torah, his statement is about the perfection of the cycles/time in
Creation (cf. 3:11; 7:29). These observations at times are introduced with the same
rhetorical question: (3:9 ;1:3) מה־יתרון implying the negative answer (2:11) אין יתרון.236
However, regardless of this negative answer eventually he argues for the enjoyment of
life, therefore of Creation (2:24-25; 3:12-13; 8:15), including the enjoyment of human
relationships, e.g., marriage (9:9) and friendship (8:15?).
Sharp writes that Qoheleth “was an exceptionally wise sage whose empirical
observations of human existence constitute a reliable basis on which to construct his
skeptical philosophy regarding epistemology, value, and purpose in human life.”237
Regardless of what Qoheleth observes in nature and his experience there is still so much
he cannot understand. Fox says: “Qohelet’s epistemology is essentially empirical…
Qohelet’s conception of his investigative procedure, which looks to experience as the
source of knowledge, and the means of validation, and second by his concept of
knowledge, which views knowledge as created by thought and dependent on
235 Ibid., 145.
236 “What profit?”/ “There is not any profit.” The term ‘yitron’ (profit, gain) is difficult to
translate.
237 Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, 202.
183
perception.”238
However, empiricism cannot provide the knowledge about the totality of
reality and the divine; therefore human reasoning has limitations (11:5).
Epistemology: Our knowledge is limited
Bartholomew says that Qoheleth is not a philosophical work; nevertheless, he
admits “it does have implications for the theology of epistemology.”239
In Qoheleth
epistemology is still a philosophical question, although answered within a theological
conclusion. Fox observes that Qoheleth without question is different from other
philosophical/wisdom writings “in his epistemology than in his specific conclusions.”240
What can be known and how? Whybray says that Qoheleth writes “that the whole truth is
beyond our power of comprehension.”241
Is knowledge possible? Is knowledge of truth
possible? Whybray argues that it is not possible according to Qoheleth (8:17).242
However, Qoheleth is evidence of the limits of human knowledge. Human reasoning is
limited by its perception of reality and knowledge or the understanding of what it may be
known. Audi, speaking on empiricism, shares his own observation of the nature around
him and experience with the senses concluding: “It is altogether natural to think that from
perceptions like these, we come to know a great deal – enough to guide is through much
of daily life. But we sometimes make mistakes about what we perceive … We may then
think we know something when in fact we do not.”243
238 Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” 141 §2.
239Craig G. Bartholomew, “Ecclesiastes,” DTI (Grand Rapids: Bakers, 2005), 185.
240 Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” 154.
241 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 26.
242 Cf. Ibid., 63.
243 Robert Audi, Epistemology A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge.
(Londo: Taylor & Francis, 2010), 1. On a Christian perspective of knowledge see W. Jay Wood’s
Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998). An excellent
184
What is the source of true knowledge? According to Shield the divine knowledge
which comes by prophetic revelation “is achieved more through obedience than through
philosophical contemplation.”244
Qoheleth seems to be an exception, although he
concludes with a call to obedience. Shield adds that “there is human wisdom, wisdom
that rest solely in the application of human intellect to the problems of life in the
world.”245
He gives Qoheleth as evidence since that is what he is attempting; however,
Qoheleth is speaking within the context of divine revelation, Torah. Without Torah,
borrowing Shield’s words, the human philosophical inquire into the possibility of
knowledge is bound to fail. 246
Salyer apparently agrees with Shield’s observation:
The weakness of an empirically-based epistemology voiced solely through first-
person narration, with its built-in predilection for subjectivism, cried out for the
balancing perspective of public knowledge. As such there also comes to play the
subtle dynamics of third-person narration found on the outer edges of the book,
with its power to produce the effect, or perhaps the illusion of omniscience. Once
one intercalates the subtle rhetorical effects of the implied author’s use of a
frame-narrative, as well as his use of satiric and ironic characterizations. What
one begins to see in the book is a very delicate dialogue, or perhaps better, a
debate on the promises, prospects, and perils of private insight versus public
knowledge as general modes of human knowing…At issue in the book of
Ecclesiastes is the rhetorical question of how does one validate the “truth,” or
perhaps, wisdom of the individual.247
Postmoderns may see in Qoheleth the validation of empirical knowledge. Salyer
observes that at “one level” the source of knowledge “is located in the experiencing self,
as postmodernism would have it. In that, postmodernism seems to lie on a trajectory with
introduction to the philosophy of epistemology is Michael Williams’ Problems of Knowledge: A Critical
Introduction to Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
244 Shields, The End of Wisdom, 20, cf. 8, 19n2, 19n28.
245 Ibid.
246 Ibid., 20.
247 Salyer, Vain Rhetoric, 13-14.
185
the epistemology of the monologist, Qoheleth.” 248
Qoheleth does give emphasis to the
acquisition of wisdom and knowledge through experience (1:16). However, it is a limited
knowledge. Salyer sees two different arguments in Qoheleth. Experience is very
important in Qoheleth but is not the final source of knowledge. Salyer says that “the
Epilogist/implied author … suggests that true knowledge must be found in the broad-
based collective experiences of the human/religious community.” 249
He argues that this is
in agreement with “modernism…true knowledge is generated in the interaction between
private insight and public knowledge.”250
Knowledge in Qoheleth is not about true or
false, rather about validity of experience. Whybray says that in Qoheleth “we find the
subtleties of a genuine exploration of ideas in which one argument is weighed against
another, not with the intention of showing one to be absolutely true and another
absolutely false, but in order to assess how much truth there is in each; in order to present
reality in its complexity rather than to press home an unqualified conclusion.”251
Qoheleth is simply sharing his observations and reasoning, regardless that he has no
certainty on everything he observes and understands the limits of human reasoning.
Fox has a different view. He points out that wisdom’s epistemology is not
empiricism.252
He continues saying: “The question of the validity and scope of human
knowledge is at the center of Qohelet’s concerns. In addressing this question, Qohelet
reveals his ideas and assumptions about the nature of knowledge and presents a clear,
248 Ibid., 16.
249 Ibid.
250 Ibid.
251 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 13.
252Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” 137.
186
though inchoate epistemology.”253
Qoheleth does not argue for a full trust in experience,
therefore he is questioning human wisdom and reasoning. Routledge observes that “the
writer’s concern is not simply to set out a pessimistic view of life; he wants to expose the
limitations of human wisdom and understanding.”254
Therefore human knowledge and
wisdom is absolutely limited (cf. 1:16); at times is not clear when Qoheleth is referring to
human wisdom with its source within the limits of human reasoning, although a gift from
ELOHIM, it is still incomplete by human sinfulness. The human capacity to learn all
languages and accumulate (memorize) all type of written or visual information is
amazing. Nevertheless, not a human or all of humanity can possess the fullness of all the
knowledge in the universe; that belongs to only to ELOHIM (3:11, cf. Deut. 29:29).
Anderson says: “No matter how much a person can know – they cannot know it all – the
way GOD does! …humans have epistemological limitations.”255
Qoheleth asks: “Is there anything new?” In other words: Is there any knowledge
that ELOHIM does not know? Therefore with how much certainty can Qoheleth speak?
Fox argues that Qoheleth may experience “frustration at the impossibility of attaining the
kind of certainty he longs for (7:23-24; 8:16-17).”256
Devine revelation is the source of
certainty: that is Torah. Qoheleth has Torah as his antecedent theology and context for his
philosophy of life; however, he seems to struggle with uncertainty and doubts. Towner
explains this by saying:
One might ask whether the failure of experience and observation to convince the
writer of the truth either of traditional reward-and-punishment ideology or of an
253 Ibid.
254 Robin Routledge, Old Testament: A Thematic Approach (Downer Grove: IVP, 2008), 223.
255 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 154.
256 Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” 150.
187
untraditional outlook of total moral randomness may have led him to despair of
ever arriving at a working philosophy of life. Perhaps it led the writer to what is
now called, in psychological jargon, “the doubting syndrome,” in which he found
reason to question everything simply because its opposite could also be found.257
Knowledge in Qoheleth seems to have its main source in human experience. It
appears that only 12:13 appeals to divine revelation, Torah. According to Fox Qoheleth
does not appeal to anything else than human reason; he writes: “Qohelet … will
investigate the world with the aid of Chakhma; this means that he will use his powers of
reason rather his prior knowledge in his inquiry. He never invokes prior knowledge…as
an argument for his convictions.”258
Perhaps החכמ in Qoheleth is that prior knowledge,
Torah (12:13). Therefore the source of Qoheleth’s knowledge goes beyond the limits of
human reason to divine revelation: Torah.
Murphy says that Qoheleth “admitted that his effort to attain wisdom did not
succeed (7:23, 8:17).”259
This is evidence of the limits of human reason. Human
knowledge is limited (3:11, 21; 6:12; 7:13-14; 10:14)260
Nevertheless, knowledge is a gift
from ELOHIM (2:26). Contrary to this Fox argues that it “surely refers to wisdom in the
sense of a disposition to do what is wise, in other words, to the faculty of reason. It is not
a statement about the source of knowledge in general.”261
He says that 2:26 is a
description of inequity, not an act of justice.262
Nevertheless, it seems that for Qoheleth
257 Towner, “Ecclesiastes,” 277.
258 Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” 141-142, §2.11.
259 Roland Murphy, The Sage in Ecclesiastes and Qoheleth the Sage (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1990), 271.
260 Cf. Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 121.
261 Ibid, 148-149.
262 Michael Fox, Qohelet and his Contradictions (Sheffield: Almond, 1989), 128
188
humans are born with some information, understanding, knowledge, which was set in
their minds by ELOHIM (3:11).
The epistemology of Qoheleth is about ELOHIM: How much can we know about
ELOHIM, if anything at all. Perry writes: “If the individual cannot comprehend ‘the all’ of
nature, either by possession or through understanding, how then can he hope to grasp
GOD, the infinite that is their source and the ground of the totality’s limitation?”263
Here
is where is found the main limit of human reasoning: the knowledge about ELOHIM, the
ETERNAL MYSTERY. Human perceptions and experience are not reliable, especially about
the knowledge of ELOHIM. In Qoheleth this limit of human reason leads somehow to a
level of scepticism. Fox comments: “The belief that knowledge proceeds from perception
may also produce philosophical skepticism, for the subject is likely to recognize the
inherit fallibility and unverifiability of his own knowledge. In 6:12 Qohelet seems to do
just that.”264
Needless to say there are a few things that Qoheleth affirms to know and
these are central to his philosophy and theology (3:12-14; 8:12).
In wisdom literature, affirms Fox, דעת and חכמה are ethically positive and it is
more than just the acquisition of knowledge.265
This is a major distinction between
Biblical Wisdom Literature (philosophy) and the ‘wisdom’ or philosophical work outside
the Bible. The epistemology of Qoheleth has no parallel in ANE literature.266
Qoheleth’s
search for knowledge is a search for true wisdom (cf. Proverbs) as Fox correctly
observes.267
It is wisdom to enjoy life with an ethic that is acceptable before the ETERNAL
263 Perry, Dialogues with Koheleth, 27.
264 Fox, “Qohelet’s Epistemology,” 150.
265 Ibid., 139.
266 Cf. Ibid., 137.
267 Ibid., 140.
189
MYSTERY Mystery, ELOHIM. Qoheleth seems to doubt human reason and experience.
Anderson writes: “At the heart of the philosophy of skepticism is a basic doubt in
sensory perception and epistemology.”268
Scepticism
Perdue argues that “to understand Qoheleth is to enter into the cultural world that
include skeptical literature produced by thinkers who came to be known not only in the
Hellenistic Jewish colonies of the eastern Mediterranean regions but also Judah itself.”269
Perry proposes that Qoheleth “is the literary battlefield where piety hast its day in court
with skepticism.”270
Crenshaw states:
For many years I have been fascinated with Qoheleth, perhaps because he makes
my own skepticism appear solidly biblical. Like him, I observe a discrepancy
between the vision of a just world, which I refuse to relinquish and reality as I
perceive it. This radical absurdity gives an urgent and ultimacy to theological
probings.”271
Crenshaw ask for tolerance just as his original audience may have extended it to
the one “challenging virtually everything they cherished,” and it could be added,
sacred.272
Longman writes that Qoheleth’s “expresses a skepticism that sounds
modern.”273
Levin says that “the thought is so pungent ad instructive in a pessimistic
268 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 54.
269 Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus, 199.
270 Perry, Dialogues with Koheleth, 8.
271 Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 53.
272 Ibid., 53.
273 Longman, Intrroduction to the Old Testament, 278.
190
way, that it seemed quite worthy of a great, disillusioned sage.”274
He adds: “The
message is unorthodox skepticism, disbelief, boredom, futility.”275
Qoheleth’s scepticism seems foreign and secular to the biblical canon for some
Jewish and Christian theologian. However, Knohl writes that for him the “true spirit of
Qoheleth” and the “beauty of the Bible” is its “multiplicity of voices” in which “there is
room for skeptical voice of Qoheleth.”276Reichter and Cohen say, “The juxtaposition of
piety and skepticism, irreconcilable as they may appear seems to belong to the whole
paradox of the Jewish mind.”277
This paradox in Qoheleth that touch the edges of
scepticism are a reflection of humanity under the sun. However, as Collin says, “the
skepticism of Qoheleth is undermined by the rather conservative warning at the end, to
fear GOD and keep the commandments.”278
Scott considers the possibility that Qoheleth
“deepest roots are (1) in the skepticism native to one staring of the Near Eastern Wisdom
tradition, and (2) in certain deeply ingrained convictions of Hebrew religion, such as the
real existence of the one GOD, his creation of the world and man, his sovereign power
events, and awesome mystery of his being.279
Some scholars, like Sharp, consider the
scepticism in Qoheleth a matter of single authorship or voices in tension.280
She considers
of major importance “for exegetical efforts to understand the ways in which apparent
274 Levin, Guide to the Bible, 186.
275 Ibid., 187.
בעיני יופיו של התנ"ך הוא בריבוי הקולות שבו … רוחו של קוהלת נכונה 276 ויש מקום גם לקול הספקני של קוהלת…
Israel Knohl, message to the author, December 1st, 2010.
277 Reichter, “Ecclesiastes,” 12:126. cf. 3:105.
278John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: An Inductive Reading of the Old Testament
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1988), 603.
279 R. B. Y. Scott, The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1971), 178.
280 Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, 197.
191
tensions in the book may be significant for the meaning of the text.”281
The tension seems
to be within Qoheleth’s own reasoning; he struggles with his own doubts. Sharp writes:
The book of Qohelet is not a straight forward collection of skeptical sapiential
material that has been edited by someone betraying a more pious Tendenz, but is
instead a unified, thoroughly ironic discourse that represents its anti-hero as an
unwise Solomon and as a sinful Adam who strove for knowledge apart from
obedience to GOD.282
It is in this context that the apparent scepticism of Qoheleth, his self-doubting
(doubts in the certainty of his experience and the knowledge gained through it), seems to
intensify. Qoheleth seems to doubt his own conviction and at times optimism.283
This
may be the main scepticism of Qoheleth: do not trust your senses and perceptions.
Qoheleth doubts and scepticism is not directed toward ELOHIM as in his antecedent
theological source (cf. Gen. 3:1-6).
The questions of scepticism in Qoheleth may be the discourse devices. A key
question is מי יודע (who knows?), found in 2:19; 3:21; 6:12; 8:1. The answer to such a
rhetorical question is implied:
.(cf. 10:14) םלא־ידע האד284 There is so much Qoheleth
admits to be unknown to him and others. It is not clear if he includes himself (cf. 11:5-6);
this writer assumes that he does. Kravitz and Olitzky write: “There is skepticism and tired
resignation, but there is also an abiding faith.”285
This is what makes Qoheleth a different
sceptic from those in other ANE literature.
281 Ibid.
282 Ibid., , 215.
283 Cf. Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 513.
284 Ibid., 289.
285 Leonard S. Kravitz and Kerry M. Olitzky, Kohelet: A Modern Commentary (New York:
UAHC Press, 2003), xix.
192
It is that faith the source of this deep thirst for wisdom in the fear of ELOHIM,
seeking understanding and knowledge that leads to obedience to the commandments; this
is about a philosophy of ethics that develops within the scepticism: regardless of how
much humanity can know and the fact of the limits of human reason Qoheleth calls for
proper behaviour (12:1-13). Ethics is central to his philosophy and theology. What can
we really know and how we know it seems irrelevant to Qoheleth. What is important is
what we should know and what is essential to know in order to have an ethical order.
Ethics
Ethics is central to philosophy, secular or religious, i.e., Biblical Wisdom
Literature. Guttmann writes: “The distinctiveness of biblical religion is due to its ethical
conception of the personality of GOD. The GOD of the prophets is exemplified by his
moral will.”286
Ancient Near Eastern wisdom or philosophical work does not address
ethics per se. Hebrew philosophy or wisdom literature is unique since it seeks to teach the
reader or audience to behave properly toward the divine and in relation to humanity. This
is one of the main connections between the prophetic writings and Wisdom Literature;
knowledge provides the foundation of proper behaviour. Ethics and theology are deeply
connected in Qoheleth as it is in any other book of the Tanakh.
The ethical issues addressed by Qoheleth within the listed observations on human
contradictions or paradoxes, seems to be the result of a man struggling with his thoughts,
emotions, frustrations, and life. Crenshaw refers to Qoheleth’s ethics as “passive.”287
However, Qoheleth is not passive; his main tool of action is reasoning with all its
286 Julius Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism: The History of Jewish Philosophy from Biblical
Times to Franz Rosenzweig (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), 5.
287 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 570-571.
193
limitations. Wisdom plays a central role in Qoheleth’s and in Wisdom Literature’s ethics
(7:12; 8:1; 9:16-18; 10:2, 10; cf. Prov. 29:3; James 3:13).288
Levin notices that Qoheleth “does not seem to know at first hand the poor man’s
hard labor; that is one evil he never mentions. But he does note the misery of those who
are oppressed by other stronger than themselves and have none to comfort them (4:1).”289
Qoheleth’s ethics shows concern for the oppressed. Contrary to Anderson’s argument
Qoheleth does refer to the root of evil in the world: humans’ wrong choices (7:29).290
Ogden is correct to states that wisdom ethics has as its foundation “Fear GOD and
follow his commands.”291
Ethics and theology are linked in Qoheleth. Borrowing from
the thoughts of Gadamer, it is not what we do or what we should do, but what happens
beyond our willing and doing.292
The writer or speaker of a text wants to produce change
in the reader. Reader reaction or interpretation and praxis tell us the significance of the
text meaning.293
Qoheleth uses reason to reach conclusions or at least to raise questions
from his observations. He invites the reader to reason with him. Qoheleth does not
impose a view about life to the reader but gives the different circumstances to be
analysed. To some degree, he moves away from tradition, like an anarchist.
There is a philosophical ethical interest in Qoheleth that comes from his
theological convictions. Qoheleth reminds the readers/audience of the human suffering,
288 Cf. Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, 210.
289 Levin, Guide to the Bible, 245-246.
290 Cf. Anderson, Qohelet and its Pessimistic Theology, 126.
291 Ogden, Qoheleth, 20.
292 Hans-George Gadamer, Wahrheit und Method: Grundü-einer philosophischen hermeneutic.
(Tübingen: Mohr, 1960).
293 This paper is not advocating for ‘reader hermeneutics’ rather this writer recognizes the reality
of his own subjective understanding of the text.
194
loneliness, follishness, etc. away from the fear of ELOHIM. ELOHIM created everything
good, perfect, but humanity has taken a way contrary to this perfect way (7:29).294
It is
difficult to comprehend what Qoheleth means in his philosophy of ethics; nevertheless,
he is making a critique of culture and religion. Lohfink says that “Qoheleth’s religious
critique, inserted in the middle of the social critique (4:17-5:6). In it are criticized some
forms of our busy, but frivolous, religiosity.” He argues that it speaks of the true “fear of
GOD.”295
This is the foundation of true ethics. Fear ELOHIM and keeping his
commandments are about religion and action (cf. James 2:26, 3:13). It is about faith and
work. Fearing ELOHIM will lead to obedience. A claim of religious life that has no action
(responsibility) is empty, is vain. It has no purpose or benefit. Derrida says: “Religion is
responsibility or it is nothing at all.”296
As it is written: “Faith without action is dead”
(James 2:26).
When the philosopher or theologian reasons about ethics, inevitablely Theodicy is
a question that is always present. Qoheleth, says Bruggemann, is “concerned with the
‘theodicy crisis,’ with the awareness that the old expectations and assumptions of Israel
were no longer adequate…no longer are credited by public opinion as having
foundational authority.” 297
Similarly Bellia writes about a crisis of wisdom that led Israel
294 The list is long: weapons of mass destruction and chemical arms, pollute the environment and
destroys this beautiful creation GOD had given, for materialistic and selfish reason.
295 Lohfink, Qohelet, 3.
296 Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1995), 2. .
297 Walter A. Bruggemann, “The Social Significance of Solomon as a Patron of Wisdom,” in The
Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, eds. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 130.
195
to review its inadequate view on theodicy and its tradition.298
However, although
Qoheleth raises some questions due to the conflict between religious teachings and the
reality he faces, he affirms with faith and conviction the teachings of the Torah (8:12,
12:13). Qoheleth, following the Torah, makes various ethical prohibitions which
Crenshaw identifies to be nine: 5:1[2], 3[4], 4[5], 5[6], 7, 7:7, 9-10, 16-17, 21-22, 8:2-3
cf. 10:20, 9:8 cf. 9:9, 10:4, 11:6.
The canonical books of the Tanakh have a deep ethical interest, e.g., Proverbs,
Isaiah, and Micah. Qoheleth is not exception. Qoheleth confesses how his life was given
to a behaviour that by Torah’s standards was immoral, therefore produced un-ethical
foolish actions, including slavery (2:3ff). Seeking all type pleasures was part of his life
(2:10). The wisdom of Qoheleth, a sign of divine grace within his struggle and
questioning, is the fact that he was able to discern or at least see and identify what was
right or wrong in the society where he was king (3:16). He is deeply upset with violence
and injustice (4:1; 8:9); although it is not clear, if he took any action to solve the
problems he observed. At the same time, he was not the indifferent anthropologist but
rather a voice calling for justice, regardless of the suffering that standing for justice may
bring (7:15; 8:14). He is deeply concerned for the poor and the marginalized whom he
encouraged to be content (5:8), place hope in ELOHIM, and responds with peaceful
nonviolent action (5:9; 7:9, 19; 9:13-16, 18; 10:4), after all happiness is not in material
things (5:10, 12). The collections of proverbs that start in chapter 7 have an ethical
interest. It speaks about solidarity with those that are suffering (7:24), as an act of
298 Bellia writes: “il testo maggiormente espressivo di quella crisi della sapienza che ha,
obbligato Israele a rivedere and l’inadequatezza della sua teodicea…como coinvolgente gemito personale
del credente davant all’intollerabile silenzio di Dio e al proliferare saccente e indisponente delle teologie
tradizionallei.” Giuseppe Bellia, “Il libro del Qohelet e il suo contesto storico-anropologico,” in Il Libro del
Qohelet: Tradizione redazione teologica (Milan: Paoline, 2001), 173.
196
wisdom (7:7). In chapter 10:5-7 it is not clear if Qoheleth is using a metaphor to refer to
the wise as prince and the fool as “servants” or that the prince in his foolishness will end
as a servant and a wise servant may become a prince. In the context of chapter 10 it may
be just an observation of another apparent contradiction; what the wealthy expected life
to be or what the lack of wisdom would do to a leader. Qoheleth encouraged the poor as
well as the rich to share with others from the wealth or from the little he/she may have
(11:1-2). It is interesting to observe how Western capitalist thinkers have interpreted
these words through their economic system and have proposed here an inversionist
approach. Those writers may be reflecting their own social perspective and probably
reading in it more than the text says.
Qoheleth is concerned with proper behaviour of public figures, maybe leaders
(10:1). It is not clear here if he refers to actions that may be considered unethical in the
context of his days or sinful according to the Torah.
Hedonism
A first reading of Qoheleth gives the impression that he was a hedonistic writer.
Whybray says that “joy, as distinct frame mere hedonistic self-indulgence, is a theme to
which Qoheleth returned again and again.”299
In fact Qoheleth choose to live a hedonistic
life style. Kugel observes that “in the opening chapters” Qoheleth “describes his
experiment in investigating both Wisdom (i.e., the path of patience and restraint) and
Folly (hedonism and reckless abandon), an experiment that the resources of a king or
ruler make him especially well-suited to undertake (2:12).”300
Call to enjoyment is the
299 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 81.
300Kugel, “Ecclesiastes,” 237.
197
main thesis according to Ogden.301
The enjoyment of life he encourages is contrary to
hedonism, although at times it could get confused with hedonism, the selfish hedonism he
experienced (2:1-10). His hedonistic experience within the limits of his reasoning led him
to search for the joy with source in ELOHIM. However, there is not evidence that he ever
experienced it. Enjoyment of life and hedonism are not the same. Qoheleth was a
hedonist that later speaks of true enjoyment of life, but melancholy overshadow it. Sharp
observation is correct; there is not “a single phrase” that will describe for the reader to
imagine Qoheleth laughing. He says that “Qoheleth has no experience of joy,” true
enjoyment of life, because “what he knows is hedonistic self-indulgence and bitter
rationalization… he is not joyful.”302
An example of the failure of his selfish life is his confusing view on women
(cf.7:26-28). Qoheleth’s previous statements on his sexual behaviour (pleasure of men,
many concubines) show very corrupt view of women and human sexuality. Why would
Qoheleth speak about women in this way? However, the polygamist king later advises
monogamy to the youth (cf. 9:9). It seems Qoheleth was tempted in everything and
failed. Kugel correctly observes that Qoheleth “finds no answer in dissoluteness.”303
Qoheleth sees no better purpose in life that will honour ELOHIM than enjoy life in
it fullness and the fruit of his work (3:12, 22; 5:12a, 18; 9:8-9). Regardless that Qoheleth
took the way of the hedonist, he does not encourage others to do the same; rather he
rejects the foolishness of his choice. If each individual proposes to find unselfish joy in
life, in the context of Qoheleth, the development of a community that finds peaceful ways
to accomplish happiness is possible. Qoheleth hedonistic life leads him to conclude that
301 Cf. Ogden, Qoheleth, 17.
302 Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, 211.
303Kugel, “Ecclesiastes,” 237.
198
the experience of pleasure is not the essence of life (2:11). Gordis says “joy is GOD’s
categorical imperative for man.”304
Qoheleth’s emphasis is on responsible enjoyment of
life (2:24; 3:12-13; 5:18-20; 8:15; 9:7-9; 11:9; 12:1).
Existentialism?
Qoheleth is profoundly apprehensive with human existence. Gilbert observes that
Qoheleth raises “existential questions.”305
Qoheleth seeks to understand the reality and
absurdities of human experiences. Lohfink refers to Qoheleth as a precursor of existential
philosophy.306
Qoheleth had a deep influence in the development of modern
existentialism, especially in Kierkegaard.307
Crenshaw writes: “Scholars have often
admired Qoheleth for the timeless quality of his message. Comparison with existential
philosophy has acknowledged this unusual modernity while recognizing essential
differences. Naturally many philosophers have found in Qoheleth a kindred spirit.”308
Qoheleth seems to struggle to find meaning to human existence and answers to human
condition. In this sense, Qoheleth is an existentialist.309
Existentialism, in its positive
meaning, is deeply concerned with human relations; however, in modern colloquial and
even philosophical scholarly conversations the term is overloaded with negative meaning
304 Gordis, Koheleth, 129.
305Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature,” 286.
306 Lohfink, Qoheleth, ix, 14.
307 Cf. Will Williams “Ecclesiastes: Vanity, Grief, and the Disticntions of Wisdom,” in
Kierkegaard and the Bible, Tome 1: The Old Testament. eds. Lee C. Barrett and Jon Stewart, Vol. 1, tome
1 of Kierkegaard Research: Sources, Reception and Resources, ed. Jon Stewart (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2010), 1:179-194.
308 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 25.
309 cf. Lohfink, Qohelet: A Continental Commentary, 14. cf. Gordis, Koheleth, 112-121. Fox,
Qohelet and his Contradictions, 10. Kreeft, Three Philosophies of Life, 7.
199
and definitions. Many of the modern time philosophers classified as existentialists have
also give a negative place to the concept. Ancient Hebrew Wisdom Literature has a deep
concern for the relation between humans and human’s reality and existence, according to
Routledge.310
This seems to be a concern of Qoheleth as well (4:9-12).
The paradoxes of human existence are often what trouble existentialists.
Candeday says that Qoheleth reflects on “the paradoxical and anomalous nature of this
present world.”311
This is the struggle of a thinker, a philosopher facing the reality of life
with faith and his doubts.312
Kaufman, an existentialist theologian, used to say that the
theologian “must always have the Bible on one hand while holding the New York Times
on the other.”313
Qoheleth had on one hand the Torah and on the other his observations of
the reality of human existence. Qoheleth’s thoughts are echo in the writings of modern
existentialists. Although, Sartre speaks like Qoheleth at some points, contrary to Sartre
Qoheleth states that life with all its absurdities or futility is still worth living.314
However,
Qoheleth who at some point is “led to hate life” (2:17), says Levin, finds that “there is
something for him to commend after all: that each man should enjoy what he does (3:22)
and enjoy his bread and his wine (9:7). For it is not the toil for a living that appals this
author, but the futility of it; not benefiting from it yourself.”315
Nevertheless, he follows
in the steps of Moses (cf. Ps. 90). Faier comments: “The book of Koheleth continues the
310 Routledge, The Old Testament: a Thematic Approach, 248.
311 Candeday, “Qoheleth,” 81.
312 Cf. Wright, “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” 19. Cf. Lohfink, Qohelet, 10.
313 Gordon Kaufman made this statement at various public events during his years as Dean of the
Harvard Divinity School.
314 Wright, “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” 23.
315 Levin, Guide to the Bible, 245-246.
200
teaching transmitted through Moses, to bring into fulfillment the promise of what man
can become. It does so by first ridding him of all illusion.”316
He adds: “Its central
teaching is that there is hope for this world, for man in his labors, because existence
extends beyond the timebound reality of the sun’s cycle.”317
Burnett writes: “Ecclesiastes is not the final word or the only voice in the Hebrew
Scriptures. It serves as a balancing note. It presses the honest admission of human limits
to its logical extension and back to the point of trust in the divine.”318
After all, at the end
no one else is the judge, except ELOHIM. All each person can do is their best to examine
and understand life and live according to that understanding. Brown says that “the
outcome of the examined life and world is a heightened awareness of life’s ‘vanity’
(hebel): its futility and fragility, its absurdity and obscurity are all rooted in the
inscrutable sovereign will of GOD.”319
“But,” continues Brown: “inseparably wedded to
such awareness is a newly acquired freedom to savour these fleeting moments of
enjoyment that allow one to catch flashes of grace amid the absurdity. Such glimpses had
been, Qohelet contends, overlooked by more imperious theological perspectives that
attempt to penetrate the very mind of GOD.”320
In conclusion, Qoheleth is a reflection of the totality of human existence and
experience, the doubts and convictions, the faith and the ignosticism; the joy and
sorrows; everything humanity experiences under the sun. Anderson writes that
316 Zvi Faier, Introduction to The Book of Qoheleth. Me’am Lo’ez: Torah Anthology on the Book
of Ecclesiastes by Rabbi Shmuel Yerushalmi (New York: Moznaim, 1988), viii.
317 Ibid., vii.
318 Burnett, Where is GOD?, 113-114.
319 Brown, Ecclesiastes, 14.
320 Ibid.
201
Qoheleth’s “existential philosophical own dialectical unction is to encourage intellectual
integrity amongst believers – and relieve much of the psychological guilt and pain
involved in honest faith crises relative to the way life is.”321
Nevertheless, it is a crisis of
human reason. Scott says that Qoheleth’s “soul affirms what his reason would lead him to
deny and it is on a positive note that he lays stress as he tells young men how to live.”322
The “existential” inquiry of Qoheleth must be understood in their context. The
conclusion of Qoheleth insists that Torah (fear of ELOHIM and keep his commandments)
is the proper context to understand his “existential” quest. His “existential” frustrations
(e.g., 2:17-18, cf. 6:3c, 4:2) understood outside the context of the call to fear ELOHIM and
obey his commandments, are just another existentialist view of life. Qoheleth understands
life as a gift from ELOHIM and worth living in its fullness (9:4, 9:10), which is contrary to
“secular” existentialism. Human existence and its realities must be understood in the
context of the reality of the mystery, the sovereign ELOHIM, according to the sum of the
theology and philosophy of Qoheleth.
Politics
Qoheleth’s observations of the political life are of a social critic (4:1; 8:8 cf. Is.
1:16-17, 3:13-15; Micah 6:8). According to Crenshaw Qoheleth’s remarks about victims
of oppression with none to deliver them “carry pathos rather than contempt.”323
The
reader is never told if Qoheleth ever did anything to address these acts of injustice. In his
observation Qoheleth does not seem to be a powerful monarch. On politics Anderson
argues that according to Qoheleth ELOHIM endorses kings and monarchies.324
321 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 236.
322 Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes, 204.
323 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 85.
324 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 118.
202
Nevertheless, Qoheleth is concerned with the rulers who lack wisdom (4:13; 7:7).
Qoheleth praises those rulers who drink “for strength and not for drunkenness” in
contrast to those who “feast in the morning” (10:16–17 cf. Is. 28:7). It is ELOHIM who
gives power and honour, regardless of enjoyment of it or absence of it (cf. 6:1- 2).
Determinism
Anderson describes “In its religious form pessimism is often driven by fatalism or
a lack of control in human and worldly affairs.”325
Qoheleth is not religious fatalism but
philosophical determinism. However, in Qoheleth determinism is driven by positive
pessimism instead. Other interpreters, like Rudman, have seen determinism and fate as
the main topics of Qoheleth.326
According to Rudman, “determinism is apocalyptic.”327
This apocalyptic determinism is also another reason for some writers to date the book
around the time of the Second Temple when apocalyptic literature was popular.
Humans have always struggled with the concept of determinism, both
philosophically and theologically, after all at the end it becomes a theological concern.
Reichter comments that many ancient religions, including a few Jewish thinkers, “taught
that all the events of life are part of a fixed plan; they happen to the human being whether
he wills them or not; therefore individual effort is useless, in vain.”328
Rabbi Lipsker
says that everything has a divine purpose: “Even a tree leaf will not fall without GOD’s
commanding it.” Lipsker says that the leaf was followed by the Baal Shem Tov’s
disciples and they found how that leaf went to be the food a caterpillar needed.329
325 Ibid., 56.
326 Cf. Dominic Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes (Sheffield: JSOT, 2001).
327 Ibid., 164.
328 Reichter, “Ecclesiastes,” 123.
329 Rabbi Yosef Lipsker, personal conversation with author (nd).
203
The only strict determinism in Qoheleth in any context, are the verses from the
poem of chapter three (3:1-8). Everything, like the seasons, has their proper time;
everything has been set to happen in a specific place. He may be simply quoting a
deterministic poem from ancient times to express a different concept of time and human
life. Qoheleth may be quoting these words to express the simple observations that led him
into further reasoning about life.
In summary, according to the text Qoheleth “determinism” is not fatalism. There
is not fate in Qoheleth rather determinism. This determinism must be understood in the
context of Qoheleth’s antecedent theology: Torah. In other words divine determinism is
as complex in the Torah as it is in Qoheleth. It is a philosophical concept that human
reason cannot comprehend. Reading Qoheleth (9:11), Kaiser says:
Time is qualified for humans, in a way they cannot know, and so the latter
passage stresses that their abilities do not completely guarantee success: it is not
always the best runners who win the race… the most prudent, intelligent and well
informed who attain wealth and position. Despite their abilities, time and chance
can play terrible tricks on all humans.330
Determinism in Qoheleth is a trust that ELOHIM is in control one-way or another,
regardless that humans may not understand all the absurdities of life. There is a perfect
order in Creation, in the Mystery of the Universe, and its mysterious source, ELOHIM,
humanity must stand in awe and obedience. No recognizing ELOHIM, fearing him, and
disobedience it is what breaks the perfection of Creation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Hebrew Philosopher, more than a seeker or ‘lover of wisdom’
(playing with the etymology of the term) is a φιλόθεος (lover of GOD). It seeks no only
wisdom to enjoy life and lead proper government, but to do what is right (justice) before
330 Otto Kaiser, “Qoheleth,” 87.
204
ELOHIM. Hebrew philosophy, as can be seen in Qoheleth, has an ethical and religious
purpose. His philosophical work is guided by his theology. The frame-narrator, claims
Garret, does not present the leader as an authority whose words ought to be heard.331
The
authority is not the speaker and writer, but the words of the speech with the imperative
call to “fear ELOHIM and keep his commandments.” The AUTHOR is the one who gives
authority to this text (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).
Crenshaw reflects that theological wisdom, or in this case biblical philosophy,
“consists of long poems of theological reflection on the relation of [ADONAY] to wisdom
and creation. The personalization of wisdom is the means of maintaining an intimate
relationship between the creator and the created order where revelation is not
assumed.”332
This is what is found in Qoheleth, a quasi-poetic text reflecting
philosophically on theological matters.
The philosophy and theology of Qoheleth with all its limitations seeks to
understand human existence, its absurdities, and the ETERNAL MYSTERY, ELOHIM. In the
process humanity should enjoy life as a gift from ELOHIM. The philosophy of Qoheleth is
not like the Greek thinkers’ systems. Parson has some truth when he writes: “The blessed
man is the one who keeps occupied in the life and does not try to explain the
unexplainable. GOD wants his people to enjoy life in their labor not in philosophy.”333
Qoheleth theology and philosophy encourage the enjoyment of life and to realize that
there are questions that will never have an answer.
In the philosophical theology of Thomas Aquinas there is the general
understanding that philosophy is the handmaid to theology, the queen of science. This
331 Garret, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 262.
332 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 52.
333 Parson, Ecclesiastes 9:7-10 and the words of Qoheleth, 66.
205
idea was often negative, a rejection of philosophy as inferior to theology. Eventually it
developed into a positive expression that recognizes philosophy as part of the process of
theological reasoning and toward the development of dogmatic creeds. Kohler argues that
theology has its roots in philosophy.334
Qoheleth is evidence, within the limits of human reason, that philosophia ancilla
theologiae. Qoheleth has discovered philosophy as a “handmaid to theology” and
produces this book of Hebrew philosophy. The language and argument are philosophical
but the essence of the book is theological. In other words, it is through the use of
reasoning and scientific observations that the author of Qoheleth builds a philosophical
argument toward a theological conclusion. Through his reasoning he faced the limitations
of his understanding and the inadequacy of human reasoning and wisdom to know
ELOHIM and comprehend his relationship with humanity. When attention is given to the
text of Qoheleth in its own terms the reader can appreciate, according to Von Rad, “three
basic insights round which his thoughts continually circle.”335
He writes:
1. A thorough, rational examination of life is unable to find any satisfactory
meaning; everything is “vanity”. 2. GOD determines every event. 3. Man is unable
to discern these decrees, ‘the works of GOD’ in the world. It is clear that these
insights are all interconnected, that even if the emphasis of a statement lies only
on one of them, they nevertheless belong indissolubly together.336
The writer, the Hebrew Philosopher, is forging his own theology and in the
process an almost new language to express his thoughts. The philosophical language he
has developed is a tool to express his theological convictions and explore freely the
334 Kaufmann Kohler, Jewish Theology: Systematically and Historically Considered (reprint,
Cincinnati: Riverdale, 1943), 1.
335Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (London: SCM, 1972; reprint, Nashville: Abingdom,
1981), 227-228.
336Ibid.
206
ETERNAL MYSTERY. It is in his theology that Qoheleth finds a glimpse of light to his
philosophical quest.
Qoheleth is a very practical philosophy developed from observation of human
events and decisions, with a profound faith in ELOHIM. The next chapter studies
Qoheleth’s theology, specifically his understanding of ELOHIM. Qoheleth is not writing
theology within the context of his own time’s philosophy; rather he writes a series of
philosophical reflections based on his experience as he seeks understanding of the limited
knowledge and wisdom he has gained, mainly from the Torah; both, his theology and
philosophy are challenged in the process, as he raises questions to understand the ultimate
mystery in his quest: ELOHIM.
207
CHAPTER 4
QOHELETH THE THEOLOGIAN
Introduction
The philosophical quest of Qoheleth, is a journey of doubts that finds rest in the
faith of the Torah; this is the foundation of his theology. This Hebrew thinker is above all
a theologian. Some scholars, like Burrows, write that Qoheleth “has very little
theology.”1 This is a common view about this “strange” book of the Tanakh. Gordis
writes that Qoheleth does not have a proper “theology” or doctrine of GOD except the
recognition or acceptance of his existence with unlimited power. Therefore, according to
Gordis, Qoheleth’s “ideology” (theology) has an emphasis on “anthropology.” 2
Towner
with a similar view writes:
Ecclesiastes is not a book about GOD; it is a book about ideas. That is why one
speaks of its ideology in preference to its theology…He holds GOD in profound
respect but will never claim to know too much about GOD. Above all he will not
commit GOD to the program of distributive justice that Job’s friends advocated. Is
his GOD just then? Is his GOD even good? Qohelet does not tell us, perhaps cannot
tell us. His is not a book about GOD.3
Gordis says: “Deep within human nature is ‘an ineradicable desire for happiness,’
planted there by GOD. To live a moral life by doing the will of GOD, then, is to pursue
1 Millar Burrows, “Kuhn and Koheleth,” JBL 46, (1927), 2: 97.
2 Cf. Robert Gordis, Koheleth: the man and his World (New York: Schoken, 1968), 113.
3 W. Sibley Towner, “The Book of Ecclesiastes: Introduction, commentary, and reflections,” in
NIB, eds. Leander E. keck, and Richard J. Clifford (Abingdon: Nashville, 1997), 5:283.
happiness.”4 Qoheleth has a deep concern for human life and its happiness, ultimately, as
his theology shows, it is found in the fear of ELOHIM and humble obedience to his
commandments. He observes that to understand humanity and its existence, the reader
must have an understanding of the source of life and the expectations this Source,
ELOHIM, has of humanity in order to live in full happiness. A joyful life can only be
experienced in its fullness within the fear of ELOHIM and obedience to his
commandments. Qoheleth is a theological work above anything else. Bartholomew
argues that “whether interpreted allegorically or literally, Ecclesiastes, prior to the rise of
modern criticism, was read as Scripture, with the epilogue regarded as the key to the
book.”5 In principle the concept of Biblical Theology (BT) agrees that the text of
Qoheleth has theological meaning and theological significance; it is part of the infallible,
inerrant, inspired Word of GOD. It is part of the Scriptures of the community of faith,
both Jewish and Christian communities.
Borrowing Davies’ statement this writer affirms that Qoheleth’s “central issues
and the organizing principles are theological.”6 Whybray writes that Qoheleth “is not a
compendium of Jewish theology” but he adds that there is a “range of theological topics
alluded to in the book” and “Qoheleth shows himself to be entirely at one with traditional
Jewish belief.”7 Qoheleth writes one of the first Jewish theological works that set the
course for future theological writings in Judaism. Modern Judaism follows this pattern.
His foundation is the theology of the Torah, i.e., Creation and its Creator. Jacobs says that
4 Cf. Gordis, Koheleth, 113.
5 Craig G. Bartholomew, “Ecclesiastes, Book of” in Dictionary of Theological Interpretation of
the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 182.
6 Casey Wayne Davies, Oral Biblical Criticism: the Influence of the Principles of Orality on the
Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1999), xi.
7 R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, OTG (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 58-59.
“at the center of any Jewish theology is the doctrine of GOD.”8 The theology of Qoheleth
is obviously Theocentric: ELOHIM is the center. This is not as obvious in books like
Esther and Song of Songs. Qoheleth, according to Zuck, is not “without its emphasis on
GOD – his creative power, his sovereign control, his loving gifts, his testing of
humanity.”9 The sovereignty of ELOHIM is present through the whole book. Qoheleth
does not attempt to explain it or define it. Köhler underlines “GOD is Lord” is the main
theme of the Tanakh Theology.10
Qoheleth theology recognizes that ELOHIM is Lord
(e.g., 3:14), although he does not use ELOHIM’s Name neither makes reference to any
other term in reference to him. Qoheleth shares with the rest of the canon a common
theme found within the diversity of the biblical texts and theologies: the Sovereignty of
ELOHIM.
The GOD of Qoheleth, ELOHIM, although a mystery of mysterious ways to the
human reasoning, is full of grace, love, peace, justice and compassion, when understood
within its antecedent theology: Torah. Needless to say, Qoheleth, or the full canon of any
Jewish or Christian tradition, is not a comprehensive theology about GOD.11
Qoheleth’s
understanding of ELOHIM is limited by human reason. Welker statement on theology
somehow describes also the characteristics of Qoheleth’s theology:
We need not understand “theology” as talk of GOD in a comprehensively ramified
nexus of thought. We can also, in all humility, understand “theology” as talk of
GOD that is accompanied by certainty and directed toward truth, and that (1) has
substantial content, (2) possesses public intelligibility and consistency, and (3) is
capable of being substantively developed. However unprepossessing and
8 Louis Jacobs, A Jewish Theology (New York: Behrman House, 1974), 15.
9 Roy Zuck, “Introduction,” in Reflecting with Solomon, editor Roy Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1994), 14.
10 Ludwig Köhler, Old Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), 30.
11 The theology of the Tanakh does not provide everything about GOD, but what we need to know
about GOD.
fragmentary this theology might be, it serves to strengthen the certainty of
knowledge of GOD.12
Bamberger’s challenge and instruction to the theologian seems to be what
Qoheleth may have done in the process of collecting and organizing the data. He writes:
“We should be prepared to take into account all the data of religious experience, from all
possible sources, and examine them carefully, even though we may not be able to
organize them into a single consistent whole.”13
The author of Qoheleth explores many
aspects of life and nature as he seeks understanding about human existence and its
source, ELOHIM. He does not approach ELOHIM like an object to be defined; after all
ELOHIM cannot be described. His theology is not like the theological dogmas of the
magisterium. De Vrie writes:
The older style of Christian dogmatics was too strongly influenced by Greek
models, hence was much concerned with quest for the essence and being of GOD
… Presupposed was the tendency to treat GOD as an object suitable for thorough
investigation with the tools of philosophical inquiry… This method is altogether
inappropriate, not only because GOD is no object but also because the Bible is no
book of propositions concerning the being about GOD. It never tries to state
propositionally who or what GOD is… in his essence.14
ELOHIM cannot be known and understood by reason alone, as attempted by
natural theology, but from divine direct revelation as found in the biblical text, i.e.,
Torah, and in an experience of obedience to his will, i.e., commandments. Qoheleth
reasoning has been called, in modern terms, natural theology.15
However, its starting
point is the revelation of ELOHIM in the Torah, i.e., Creation. Anderson writes: “Wisdom
12 Michael Welker, “The Authority of the Bible in Pluralistic Environments,” in Brent A. Strawn
and Nancy R. Bowen. A GOD so Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 384.
13 Bernard J. Bamberger, The Search for Jewish Theology (New York: Behrman, 1978, 4.
14Simon J. de Vries, Simon J. The Achievements of Biblical Religion: A Prolegomenon to Old
Testament Theology (Lanham: University Press of America, 1983), 294-295.
15 Cf. James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 476-478.
literature is quite clearly based in creation theology. This disposition of Wisdom
Literature lends itself to natural theology. And this in turn became the basis for an
empirically based epistemology.” 16
However, Anderson’s further states: “For these
reasons it makes wisdom uneasy with the Torah and the Prophets which many…view as
the product of divine revelation through inspired prophets.”17
There are times that
Qoheleth may be ‘uneasy’ with Torah, but it is clear that his foundation is the divine
revelation of his will within the Torah, i.e., commandments. Qoheleth places for a brief
moment, somehow, his faith to the side, he observes, and reaches conclusions from
observation. He does not deny what he believes but pauses to evaluate reality or the
apparent reality. Doubt and faith are part of the same experience. Nothing in Qoheleth is
revelation per se; everything is a product of observation and in part of his personal
experience. GOD used experience to reveal himself and his will in the history of Israel;
nevertheless, this is a limited knowledge because the limits of human reason to
understand the experience. Divine revelation is required for a better understanding. It is
in the Torah where Qoheleth has his prior understanding by which he can judge his
experience and confront his untrusted senses, especially his emotions, i.e., heart/mind
(2:10-11, 5:2, 8:11, 9:3, 11:9).
The author of Qoheleth does not claim any special revelation; however, the appeal
to “fear ELOHIM” (3:14; 5:7; 8:12; 12:13) and “keep the commandments” (12:13)
assumes or implies the Torah, which came by divine revelation. Qoheleth’s theology may
not be as deep as that of Isaiah in Judaism or Romans in Christianity, it does not even
compares to the beauty of some of the ṣūfī writings about GOD; however, it is the essence
of his faith, conscience and reason. In it he brings together all his observations and
16 William H. V. Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology: Hermeneutical Struggle in
Wisdom Literature (Lempter: Mellen, 1997), 206.
17 Ibid.
collected data to state the essence of his theology: the sovereignty of ELOHIM, who must
be fear and obeyed: that is Torah Theology.
Qoheleth and Torah
The assumption is that the Torah was the source of Qoheleth’s theology.
According to Qoheleth creation has its source in ELOHIM. He created everything perfect
(e.g., 3:11, 20 cf. Gen. 1:1, 4) but humans choose a direction contrary to the Way ELOHIM
has set (7:29; 8:11 cf. Gen. 3). The imperative conclusion to fear ELOHIM and keep his
commandments is also central to the Torah, where the “fear” of ELOHIM is intrinsically
related to keeping his commandments (Gen. 20:11; 22:12; 42:18; Ex. 1:17, 21; 9:30;
14:31; 16:28-30; 18:21; 20:20; Lev. 19:14, 32; 25:17; 25:36, 43; Deut. 6:2, 13, 24; 10:12-
13, 20; 13:4-5; 14:23; 17:14-20; 25:18; 26:5; 28:1-15, 58-59; 30:7-10; 31:12). Abundant
life can only be enjoyed in obedience to ELOHIM; true freedom is found only in a life that
pleases ELOHIM. Qoheleth’s theology can be called Torah Theology. Scott argues that
Qoheleth’s religion “is not the religion of his fathers, nor by any means what the religion
of the Bible has meant to Jews and Christians, ancient or modern. That is why this is such
a strange book to be found in the Bible.”18
Contrary to this view, Qoheleth is not denying
the faith of his fathers, rather struggling with questions as he observes the total depravity
of humanity (7:29; 8:11; 9:3; cf. Gen. 6:5), concluding with hope: fear and obey ELOHIM.
The phrase “fear of ELOHIM,” as pointed above, is a central theme in the Torah.
The concept of the “fear of ELOHIM” is connected to a call to obedience as observed
earlier. According to Anderson the term ירא meaning reverence is used once in 5:7; in
other verses, he claims, it means to be afraid, to tremble, or scare.19
Anderson defines the
18 R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes: Introduction, translation, and notes. AB (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1965), 18:206.
19 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 113.
meaning of ‘fear’ as the “extreme reverence and awe, as toward a supreme power.”20
He
continues: “Reverential awe is the attitude that a person should display before GOD, the
Holy One, who is beyond the grasp of unaided human wisdom. Such an attitude is the
inescapable response to GOD’s judgments, but it is also the appropriate response to GOD’s
grace and forgiveness.”21
This is how Qoheleth uses the term through the book. Delitzsch
correctly states that central to the book is “Fear GOD.”22
Without this concept the book’s
positive pessimism becomes meaningless. It would be no more than another work of
ANE literature like that of Egypt or Babylon or of modern and post-modern Europe, like
that of Spinoza, Sartre, or Derrida.
It is the epilogue of the book that presents the command to “fear ELOHIM” as the
central message of the whole book: ELOHIM is the center, to fear him is the central
message, and unquestionable obedience is the source of true joy. Ogden says that “the
purpose of the Epilogue… is clear. It is not an orthodox ‘corrective’ to Qoheleth’s work
to bring it into line with acceptable theology”23
Sheppard writes: “The epilogue provides
a rare glimpse into a comprehensive, canon conscious formulation concerning the
theological function of biblical wisdom.”.”24
The call to “fear ELOHIM and keep his commandments” underlines the book’s
purpose and provides its context. Shanks says that Qoheleth’s observations “drive him to
acknowledge that wisdom resides” in fearing ELOHIM and keeping his commandments
20 Anderson, Bernhard W. Anderson, Contours of Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2011), 263. Cf. Roland Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 269.
21 Anderson, Countour of Old Testament Theology, 263. Cf. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 269.
22 Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (Grand rapids: Eerdmans,
1950), 630.
23 Graham S. Ogden, Qoheleth 2nd
ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007), 231.
24 Gerald T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of
the Old Testament. BZAW (Berlin: Gruyter, 1980), 160.
(12:13; cf. Prov. 1:7).25
Anderson says that “because,” according to Qoheleth (8:12-13)
“GOD does and will judge and punish – he should be feared.”26
Contrary to Shank and this writer’s view, Crenshaw writes that “the attempt to
sum up Qoheleth’s teaching in 12:13-14 misses the point entirely, and this bold piety
hardly grew out of inability to understand what the gentle cynic had written. Instead, the
epilogist offered advice that was intended to replace Qoheleth’s counsel.”27
On 12:9-10
Levin says: “An unmistakably later addition by another author hand, praising Ecclesiastes
and commending his words.”28
There is no reason to doubt that it is from the same
author. Levin continues: “This person goes on to close the book with sentiments much
more pious than those of Ecclesiastes himself… This conclusion must have made the
book as a whole more acceptable to religious people, so that it could find a place within
Holy Scripture.”29
Perry writes with a similar view:
The most resistant obstacle in the interpretation of Qoheleth involves
contradictions, the clearest example being the ‘pious’ conclusion on fearing GOD
and keeping His commandments (12;13), which seems out of step with
Qoheleth’s call to pleasure and his complaints on contradictions have come to be
seen as embarrassments, especially when the goal of interpretation is a smooth
text, one devoid of contradiction and having a fixed meaning.30
25 H. Carl Shank, Qoheleth’s World and Life View as seen in His Recurring Phrases, WTJ 37
(1974), 77.
26 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 115.
27 James L. Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old
Testament Wisdom (Macon, Ga: Mercer, 1995), 22.
28 Saul Levin, Guide to the Bible (Bighamton: SUNY, 1991), 248.
29 Ibid.
30 T. A. Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes (University Park: Penn State
University, 1993), xi.
Andersons is not correct when he states: “The epilogue remains a distortion of the
original context of Qoheleth.”31
Perry et al. are not accurate in their observation. The call
to fear ELOHIM and keep his commandments grows out of the reflection of Qoheleth
within his experience, doubts, questions, temptations, and as he meets the final
experience, death. This is the context to interpret Qoheleth, it is not a distortion at all.
Qoheleth does call to fear ELOHIM through the book as he reflects on the absurdities,
paradoxes and inconsistencies of life (5:7; 7:18; 8:12-13). It is this faith and
unquestionable obedience that gives peace and purpose to his tormented life.
Towner writes that “many of the values that are prominently in the earlier sections
of the Hebrew Bible – Torah and Former and late Prophets- are largely absent in this
wisdom canon: covenant, election of Israel, sacrificial cultus, GOD’s action in history.”32
Regardless that this book has nothing on heilgeshichte, it addresses human sinfulness;
however, it does not speak of forgiveness and redemption. Judgement implies possible
redemption and forgiveness in the context of the Torah. Qoheleth’s call to “fear ELOHIM
and keep his commandments” seems to have embedded a message of hope for
communion with ELOHIM and a joyful life; this is the meaningfulness of humanity’s life.
Torah teaches communion with ELOHIM (cf. Ex. 29:45).
Shank is correct when he argues that fearing ELOHIM and keeping his
commandments (12:13) indicate to humanity that “their ethical standard must be the
revealed Word of GOD.”33
Qoheleth’s message is for everyone, this makes Qoheleth an
inspired work that transcends cultural walls. Estes says: “This juxtaposition of reverence
for GOD and obedience to his commands is reminiscent both of the Mosaic Law (cf. Deut.
31 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 70.
32 Towner, “Ecclesiastes,” 281.
33 Shank, “Qoheleth’s World and Life View,” 79.
13:4) and of traditional Wisdom (cf. Prov. 3:7).” 34
He notices: “Within the body of the
book the references to fearing GOD in 3:14; 5:7; 7:18; 8:12 are not explicitly linked to
obedience.”35
However, it is implied.
Longman speaks of Qoheleth as confused through the book.36
Wright in
relatively similar way says that the apparent confusion is produced by what may be
“riddles.”37
However, Longman agrees that it is 12:9-14 that gives value to the book.38
Again, it is theology what matters in this text.
Which of the commands is Qoheleth thinking? There are ethical and ritual
commands (מצוות). Shank argues that Qoheleth speaks against the foolish multitude of
ritualism that was prevalent in the temple, Bethel (cf. 5:1-7).39
Reference to the temple’s
rituals are not implied here, at least the text does not say that. Qoheleth has an ethical
interest. The mitvot implied or that this writer assumes are those that are the product of
the fear of ELOHIM: a proper relation between ELOHIM and humanity and among humans.
The “fear of ELOHIM” leads to a good relation with humanity, to do what is right (e.g.,
Ex. 1:17; 18:21). Contrary to this a life without “fear of ELOHIM” leads to a life of
conflict between humans (cf. Gen. 20:11).
34 Daniel Estes, Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 382-
383.
35 Ibid.
36 Tremper Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 38, 280.
37 Addison G Wright, “The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth,” in
Reflecting with Solomon, ed. Roy Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 45
38 Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 38, 280.
39 Shank, “Qoheleth’s World and Life View,” 78.
Wright states that “the final conclusion is definitely presented as the final
conclusion: (12:13-14).”40
Estes also claims that “it is however, quite possible to regard
this climatic final note as the author’s ultimate conclusion after completing his search for
meaning under the sun…Qohelet at the end looks above the sun to consider GOD which
enables him to find meaning that has eluded him.”41
This conclusion is the main
theological statement in the Qoheleth (12:13, 15).
In summary, Qoheleth, the book, demands that the words of its author must be
understood in the context of Torah (12:13). It is Torah that answers which ‘god’ to fear,
ELOHIM and which commandments must be kept.42
This context and advice made the
book find its place into the canon. It is this counsel that recognized in the book, as a
whole, an inspired work on theology. It is doubtful that outside this context the book or
original speech would have found a place in Jewish religious tradition and ultimately in
the canon of the Tanakh. Its constant rejection of sin, although some areas we may
consider sinful are not addressed as such, do give merits to this book to be considered
inspired (5:6a; 7:26, 29).
43 The theological concept that ELOHIM will judge and reward
those who are faithful in following the teachings of the Torah can be enough reason for
its canonization (8:12-13). His hope and possibly faith in the grace of ELOHIM is in
agreement with the Torah (9:4). The Torah is not being read into the text, but the text, as
stated above, demands that the Torah be the proper context for its interpretation.
40 Wright, “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” 21.
41 Estes, Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms, 278.
42 This is similar to Acts 15 in Christian teachings. The dialogue and decision made by the
Apostles must be understood in the context of the Torah, i.e., Leviticus.
43 Qoheleth 5:6b has an apparent reference to a post-exilic Jewish tradition in which angels are the
ones who carry our prayers to GOD’s presence. They were the mediators between GOD and humanity (cf.
Daniel). In 7:26b it is possible that this was added by the redactor, the inspired redactor or scribe.
Qoheleth seems to have in mind the Glory and honour of ELOHIM (11:5), the ELOHIM of
the Torah.
Qoheleth and Rabbinical Theology
A traditional Midrash says that it was because of its teaching to the youth (11:9)
that the Rabbis overcame their suspicion of heresy in Qoheleth and included it in the
canon because its conclusion (12:13, 15).44
Rabbinical tradition claims that the opening
of the book is 1:12, since the first reference to the acts of GOD is in 1:13b. The rabbinical
tradition also agrees that the earlier reference to the Earth and Sun etc. is a reference to
Genesis 1.45
Midrash Rabba on Qoheleth, like the Talmud, often allegorizes the text, for
example it states that the sun rises and goes down must speak of wise men, since the sun
does not go up or down. The Talmud, Zohar, and the Kabbalah literature, quote phrases
from Qoheleth as proverbs, circumstantial and limited by context, rather than
authoritative on Halacha or any other religious doctrines.46
The Midrash Rabbah on
Qoheleth tries to make sense of the book by paraphrasing and including anecdotal stories
to show the truth of the maxims and struggles of Qoheleth.47
It tries to bring harmony to
the text within itself and the rest of the Tanakh.
44 Many Massoretic MSS include 12:15, which is obviously an intentional repetition of v. 13.
45 cf. Mishna Eduyot 5:3, Yadayim 3:5, Megillah 7a, Shabbath 30b.
46 For a different view, see George A. Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book
of Ecclesiastes, (New York: Scribner, 1908).
47 Abraham Cohen, translator. “Ecclesiastes,” in Midrash Rabbah. English edition by H.
Freedman and Maurice Simon. (London: Soncino, 1961).
The Me’am Lo’ez, the Sephardic Talmudic and Rabbinical compendium,
dedicates a complete volume to Qoheleth.48
Faier identifies 12 theological themes central
to Qoheleth.49
These are:
1. There is divine supervision of all human actions (5:1),
2. The world came into being as anew creation (3:11, 14; 7:13),
3. GOD created the world beautiful and with maximum perfection (3:11, 14),
4. It is beyond human thought to grasp the essence of GOD (7:23,24; 5:1;
8:17),
5. Because the human being is composed of many components, they separate
he must pass from the world (3:12; 5:17; 11:10),
6. All failures and afflictions that affect a person are related to his deeds, for
GOD is good and upright in everything He does (7:29),
7. GOD supervises all His creatures and knows everything they do; yet in all
things he does as he wishes (8:4),
8. The purpose of man’s creation is for him to attain wisdom, to fear GOD,
and to keep the commandments (7:19; 12:13),
9. The matter of angels is not a proper subject for man’s investigation (5:7), 10. All of the mitzvoth and acts of divine service and devout preparation are
splendid (9:10; 12:1-6),
11. The soul is eternal (12:7)
12. There are reward and punishment (3:17; 8:6, 13; 11:9; 12:4).50
Faier argues that according to Qoheleth Torah study (commandments/mitzvot)
and good deeds (required by the commandments) are the only good things for the
survival of the soul.51
However too often Yerushalmi’s commentary on Qoheleth in the
Me’am Lo’ez, interprets the verses out of its context; interestingly Yerushalmi brings
48 On the place of Qoheleth in the canon (order) see Zvi Faier, Introduction to The Book of
Qoheleth, Me’am Lo’ez: Torah Anthology on the Book of Ecclesiastes by Rabbi Shmuel Yerushalmi (New
York: Moznaim, 1988), x-xi
49 Ibid,. xii-xiv. The Me’am Lo’ez was written originally in Ladino (לאדיינו) the language of the
Spanish-Jewish communities of Constantinople (today’s Turkey).
50 Faier, “Introduction,” xii-xiv. The Me’am Lo’ez was written originally in Ladino (לאדיינו) the
language of the Spanish-Jewish communities of Constantinople (today’s Turkey).
51 Ibid., xiii.
them to the larger canonical context, by interpreting them within the Tanakh and the
Talmud.
ELOHIM: unreachable?
Qoheleth seems to perceive ELOHIM to be unreachable. Scott is not quite correct
when he states that Qoheleth “denies some of the things on which the other writers lay
the greatest stress – notably that GOD has revealed himself and his will to man, through
his chosen people Israel… He is rather mysterious, inscrutable Being whose existence
must be presupposed as that which determines the life and fate of man, in a world man
cannot change.”52
However, Qoheleth’s call to fear ELOHIM reflects some level of
certainty about the GOD revealed in the Torah. Opposing to this writer’s views, Shields,
in his historical theology work on Qoheleth says: “What is most perplexing about
Ecclesiastes is that a text of this sort is incorporated within a collection of writings that
speak of a GOD who reveals an redeems, who chooses people and care for them – themes
not only absent from Qoheleth’s words but frequently irreconcilable with them.”53
Birch
is not correct when he writes that Qoheleth “can barely affirm the reality of GOD.”54
However, he is correct that in Qoheleth GOD is transcendent: “In deed the GOD who
governs is remote, hidden … That is, the world is governed in inscrutable ways to which
human reason has no access.”55
Qoheleth main evidence of the limitations of human
reasoning is in his theology. ELOHIM seems to be distant (5:2, 6), but contrary to Birch he
52 Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes, 190.
53 Martion A. Shields, The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical
Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 1.
54Bruce C. Birch, A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1999), 416
55Ibid.
is also very real to Qoheleth, after all he must be fear and obeyed. 56
This is one of the
main paradoxes in this book: the sense of an unknown distant god, ELOHIM, whose
presence is also very real. Qoheleth addresses the immutability of ELOHIM’s nature and
purpose (3:14). Crenshaw argues that the Creator seems distant and uninvolved, but acts
as judge only in extreme cases.57
Qoheleth’s response to the reality of a divine force that seems to ignore human
suffering, according to Crenshaw, is ‘despair, criticism of GOD for not caring, the denial
of divine justice, hence of meaningful existence”58
He previously says: “Life is profitless,
totally absurd. This oppressive message lies at the heart of the Bible’s strangest book.
Enjoy life if you can, advises the author, for old age will soon overtake you…The deity
stands distant, abandoning humanity to chance and death.”59
Crenshaw further adds:
Qoheleth echoes traditional understanding of GOD as Creator, albeit in quite
different language…Qoheleth does not deny GOD’s generosity, but insists that a
probing intellect cannot discern any rationale for the distribution of divine favor.
Insofar Qoheleth can determine, chance reigns and makes a mockery of all
sapiential efforts to secure life…This state of affairs is possible because GOD
dwells in remote realms and remains indifferent to the human condition. In GOD’s
absence, death has stolen the scene, and its arbitrariness strikes despair in human
hearts.60
Burnett observes that “the book’s sense of divine absence rests on human
knowledge of divine presence unfulfilled. The partial understanding it reflects is based on
authentic experience. In the way Qoheleth presents divine absence as a necessary
56Ibid.
57 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 573.
58 Ibid., 185.
59 James Crenshaw L. Ecclesiastes: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 23.
60 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 202.
complement to divine presence in the cycle and spectrum of life’s experience.”61
Qoheleth perceives ELOHIM to be far away (5:2) and be careful not to offend him (5:6,
6:10).62
It is the senses that betray Qoheleth; human reasoning and emotions cannot
experience the fullness of the reality of the Presence of ELOHIM. However, Lohfink
argues:
Qoheleth is “stripped of any theological attribution or preconceived
conviction…he begins without any affirmation of theological conviction, and he
soon discovers there is no observable and knowable relationship between GOD,
cosmology, human society, and the hidden GOD, soon dismiss the sapiential
teaching of providence and election”63
According to Lohfink , Qoheleth sees the world as it is.64
Kidner, observing the
rhetoric of the book says that Qoheleth is a man who “knows GOD only from a
distance…he leads us to the conclusion to fear GOD, after taking us to desperation and
hopelessness.”65
Salyer writes:
The implied author has constructed a discourse constantly frustrates the reader
and, ultimately, allows the reader no sure answers. The narrator’s choice of words
often leaves the reader in a state of perplexity, confusion or indecision. By doing
so, the implied author has consciously constructed a text which would recreate the
same sense of hebel at a literacy level that one often experiences in real life.66
61 Joel S. Burnett, Where is GOD? Divine absence in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2010), 114.
62 Cf. Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 77.
63 Leo G. Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 203
64 Norbert Lohfink, Qohelet: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 2.
65 Kidner, The Message of Ecclesiastes, 14.
66 Gary D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes. JSOT, 327
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 17-18.
ELOHIM seems to be impersonal and remote from human existence, as it is in
post-exilic Judaism.67
This is due to the limitations of human reasoning and the deceiving
emotions and senses.
Loader says that Qoheleth “has a passive attitude toward GOD …he just observes
GOD’s acts without protesting”68
He adds that Qoheleth accepts the reality of ELOHIM,
but ELOHIM is far and “this is the ground for the polarity in his thought.” 69
However,
Qoheleth raises questions that at times the answers speak of a very personal and caring
divinity.
In the Tanakh the prophets, including Moses, use various names for the Only True
GOD, ELOHIM, speaking of him as a very personal deity. According to Loader
“Qoheleth’s evident monotheism, emphasized by the exclusive use of ELOHIM” is of a
later time.70
However, as Crenshaw observes “the use of ELOHIM may speak not so much
of the particular theology proper of Qoheleth, as much as its preference to speak in
general international terminology, or as some have suggested to speak of an especially
remote, impersonal GOD withholds vital information even from the pious.”71
Harrison on
the other hand says: “Qoheleth stubbornly refused to forswear a basic monotheistic
theology, even if those circumstances forced him to circumscribe his convictions
radically.”72
Assuming that Solomon is the author, there is a phrase that perhaps reflects
his late polytheism: (12:1) וזכר את־בוראיך. The words ‘your creators’ (בוראיך) may be
67 cf. J. A. Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet (Berlin: Gruyter, 1979), 124-126, 128
68 Ibid., 129.
69 Ibid.
70Ibid.
71 Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 24.
72 Robert C. Harrison, “Qoheleth among the Sociologists,” Biblical Interpretation 5:2, (1997),
179-180.
something left behind by the possible polytheistic experience of the speaker (1 Kings
11:1-8). However, this writer observes that it could be a scribal misspelling in the process
of transmission of the text. Other alternatives have been suggested: בארך (your well), בורך
(your grave), or בוראיך (your creators), meaning parents; parents reaching the last days of
their lives, whom he must remember by caring for them. The BHS and BHQ editors
propose to correct it to read following the LXX, Syriac and Vulgate texts. If the בורך
original text is exactly what is found in the MT today, perhaps it is use in the sense of
majesty, similarly to אלהים.
ELOHIM: Unknown and Unnamed
Regardless of how a personal deity is portrayed in Qoheleth, this divinity is still
somehow unknown and without a name; human reasoning and knowledge about ELOHIM
is limited. The limited understanding and knowledge of and about ELOHIM is evidence of
the limitations of human reasoning. Perdue writes: “In traditional wisdom, the three
major faculties (speech, sight, and hearing) are the gifts of GOD that allow humans to
discover and create knowledge…For [Qoheleth], the faculties and rational analysis of
experience do not lead to the discovery of the meaning of human existence or the nature
and character of” ELOHIM.73
Qoheleth, says Baab, “does not deny the existence or the
righteousness of GOD; but he declares, in effect, that it is useless to try to know the secret
of GOD’s justice and control of the world” 74
ELOHIM transcends human reason. Baab
continues: “Faith in unable to influence this writer’s logic, perhaps because his GOD is
conceived as a transcendent deistic creator instead of a merciful redeemer. GOD’s power
and justice are intellectually perceived, but his mercy and love are unknown to our
73 Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom Literature: A theological History (Louisville: WJK), 193.
74 Theodorus Christiaan Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology. (Oxford: Blackwell,
1958), 84.
disillusioned philosopher…there is not passion for GOD.”75
This speaks no about ELOHIM
rather on the fact of human limitation in its search to know him; ELOHIM remains a
mystery. Vriezen says that Qoheleth “proclaims the mysteriousness of GOD.”76
The
limited understanding Qoheleth has acquired about ELOHIM seems to have his source no
in human reasoning or experience rather in divine revelation: Torah.
Scott’s fatalistic interpretation of Qoheleth’s understanding of ELOHIM states that
the author “denies the possibility of man’s knowing GOD either through revelation or by
reason…to [Qoheleth], GOD is no more than a name for the incomprehensible power
which has created the unaltered conditions of man’s existence and determines his fate.”77
He adds that “others beside [Qoheleth], such as Jeremiah, faced life’s contradictions as
resolutely as he did but remained sure of GOD. After all, it is their testimony and not
[Qoheleth]’s doubts which created the Bible.”78
However, Qoheleth’s conclusion (12:15
MT) is a faithful proclamation of trust even in an unknown Almighty Sovereign ELOHIM.
According to Perdue, Qoheleth presents a negative view or concept of GOD,
which this writer cannot quote here. He continues saying that “humans exist in a world
where [ELOHIM], while he is in an unapproachable heavenly world and absent from our
world, predestines human beings to their future and dictates the course of events.” 79
There is no text within Qoheleth that would support this view. Determinism is not
predestination of individuals or nations, at least it is not in Qoheleth. He continues saying
that Qoheleth “acquiesces the skeptical view that ‘the GOD’ possesses an unlimited power
75 Otto J. Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Aingdon, 1949), 241.
76 Theodorus Christiaan Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Oxford: Blackwell,
1958), 84.
77 Scott, Proverbs Ecclesiastes, xx-xxi.
78 Ibid., 193.
79 Perdue, Wisdom Literature, 212.
that cannot be constrained even by righteous standards.”80
According to Perdue this GOD
is unknown.81
This interpretation reflects religious fate and a concept about GOD from
Greek traditions foreign to Qoheleth, instead of biblical understanding. Nevertheless,
Qoheleth also speaks in his Torah Theology of the limited understanding and knowledge
humans have about ELOHIM. Human knowledge about and from ELOHIM is limited.
Perhaps, to Qoheleth, sin is one of the causes of such a limited understanding (2:26).
Qoheleth has an understanding about ELOHIM (3:14) regardless that it is not a
comprehensive knowledge (9:1). Towner refers to 9:1 as an obscure and “poignant
agnostic statement.”82
However, it is not agnostic; rather it is evidence of the limits of
human reason. This verse has been difficult to translate and interpret. Campos writes: “a
insondabilidade aparentemente arbitrária dos desígnios e da obra de ELOHIM, que a razão
causal humana não consegue devassar.”83
There is a ‘level’ of uncertainty in Qoheleth;
some may call it agnosticism.84
Humanity cannot have a comprehensive knowledge of
ELOHIM by reason alone.
There are so many things humans do not know, understand or comprehend about
ELOHIM. Perdue observes that “despair is the prevailing mood…this sage confronts… the
confluence of severe doubts about several of traditional wisdom’s affirmations…Unable
to claim a revealed knowledge of ‘the GOD’ who is hidden…far removed from the land of
80 Ibid., 212.
81 Ibid., 216.
82 Towner,”Ecclesiastes,” 276.
83 Campos, Qohélet, 17. Campos calls Qohhelet the biblical Nietzsche.
84 Agnosticism used for lack of a better term, here does not mean the denial of the existence of a
supreme being called ELOHIM. Obviously Qoheleth believe in the existence of ELOHIM. It refers here to the
epistemological question concerning the possibility of having or not a comprehensive knowledge of GOD or
some knowledge of this Eternal Reality.
human dwelling.”85
Qoheleth’s theology aims to understand the hidden deity, ELOHIM.
Brown says that “A text’s theo-logic…points to the text’s reasoning about, or making
sense of GOD and the world that invites the reader’s to do the same.”86
This is Qoheleth’s
purpose. Routledge is correct when he states that Qoheleth “recognizing the hiddenness
of GOD, and the limitations of human wisdom and understanding, the writer of
Ecclesiastes urges us to make the most of the life he has given – with all its frustrations,
uncertainties and unanswered questions.”87
This uncertainty about what and how much humans can know or know about or
from ELOHIM is evidence of the limitations of human reasoning.88
Drane writes:
“Ecclesiastes is essentially negative and sceptical… It reminds readers that there is a
dimension of human life which cannot be understood by the exercise of rational thought,
and it testifies to the reality—and acceptability—of doubt and uncertainty about GOD’s
ways, even in the midst of a community of believing people.”89
This is a journey of faith
and doubts. Lohfink has asserted that for many modern agnostics or ignostics Qoheleth is
the last bridge to the Bible.90
The knowledge humanity can grasp about ELOHIM is much less than what humans
can understand of this beautiful universe or at least this planet called Earth. Kidner says
that 3:11 “captures the dazzling, bewildering beauty of a world so changeful that its total
pattern is beyond us. But pattern it is. We…can grasp enough to be sure of that, yet never
85 Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus, 203.
86 Brown, “The GOD Beyond the text,” 391.
87 Robin Routledge, Old Testament: A Thematic Approach (Downer Grove: IVP, 2008), 260.
88 Regardless of the limitations of human reasoning, there is not a computer that can match the
potential of the human brain and intellect.
89 John William Drane, Introducing the Old Testament, (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2000), 119.
90 Lohfink, Qohelet, 1.
enough to see the whole.”91
Agreeing that human reason is limited so the knowledge
about ELOHIM, Miller writes: “GOD’s ways are unknowable, and human knowledge is
restricted, yet Qohelet makes confident assertions about GOD in several areas (7:13-14;
9:-2; 11:5).”92
Ogden’s observation has validity: “As [Qoheleth] addresses the next generation
his point is simply that life is replete with situations to which even the sage, the
philosopher theologian, has no answer. It is the word הבל that Qoheleth applies to
describe these situations.”93
Ogden agrees that this frustration in the Hebrew sage is
common in Wisdom/Philosophical Literature. The Hebrew philosophers from the biblical
text, understand their limitations as human and do not pretend to have all the answers or
cover “all the complexity of human experience in one proverb.”94
Qoheleth was not an
agnostic as it is defined today; rather he was one who recognized his own limitations. He
found no answers for many of his questions except to trust ELOHIM.
ELOHIM: Impersonal GOD?
Darby and Scofield, argue that Qoheleth evaluates the present fallen state of
humanity and has no trace of the knowledge of redemption of humanity and has no
“recognized relationship with GOD.”95
Murphy says that in Qoheleth “there seems to be
no room for the personal relationship with GOD to which the rest of the Bible testifies.”96
91 Kidner, The Message of Ecclesiastes, 16.
92 Douglas B. Miller, Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes: The Place of Hebel in Qohelet’s Work
(Atlanta: Scholar, 2002), 157.
93 Ogden, Qoheleth, 2nd
ed., 21.
94 Ibid., 10.
95 John Nelson Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: Old Testament, The Ages Digital
Library: Books for the Ages (Albany: AGES Software, 1997), 405. Cf. Cyrus I. Scofield, Scofield
Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), 696.
96 Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lxviii.
However, he clarifies: “This is not to say that Qoheleth is unbiblical. There is plenty of
biblical precedent for the mystery of GOD.” 97
That is correct; there is so much through
the writings of the Tanakh that speak of ELOHIM and his acts as a Mystery, e.g., Jonah
3:9; Isaiah 40:13, (LXX cf. Rom. 11:34), 45:15. Loader writes:
To the Preacher, GOD is the distant and remote One (3:11; 8:17) with whom he
cannot even speak (5:2) and whose name he never mentions. GOD does what he
pleases with respect to life and death (3:2-8). GOD’s work is even referred to as
the “fate” (2:14) or “destiny” (9:2-3 NIV) that blindly overtakes people without
regard to wisdom, folly, or piety.98
Murphy observes a very important difficulty in Qoheleth, which is that Qoheleth
“does not say anything else” about ELOHIM. 99
However, he warns the reader that
“precisely at this point one must be careful not to read into him what he does not say. We
have no evidence of what he thought about the traditional salvation history, and it is
useless to try to interpret his mind on this.” 100
Nevertheless, Murphy affirms that “the
GOD [Qoheleth] was dealing with was the GOD he knew from his tradition, whom he
worshipped in the Temple. In short, it was” ADONAY.101
Therefore, its antecedent
theology, Torah, evident in the call to fear and obey ELOHIM implies in itself a deep
commitment to the Holy of Israel. It is difficult no to speculate on what is absent and
why, but the presence of evidence on the torah to be his source of knowledge can provide
a glimpse of his view on salvation history: at least he held to that of the Torah. In the
Solomonic understanding Wisdom is the Torah.
97 Ibid.
98 James A. Loader, Ecclesiastes: A Practical Commentary, BZAW (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986), 12-13.
99 Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lxviii.
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid.
According to Perdue Qoheleth concludes “that, while GOD determines the events
of reality, divine action cannot be understood, predicted, or known by even the wisest of
sages.”102
Nevertheless, Whybray is correct; he observes:
Like all his fellow-Jews, he assumed without question that there is one GOD who
created the world (3:11) and has sovereign power over it (3:14; 6:10; 7:13; 9:1;
11:5)…transcendent (5:2)…different from Creation (6:10), created a good world
(3:11), man created from dust (3:20)…it is man’s duty to worship this GOD
(5:1)”103
Qoheleth claims to know something about the world he observes and about the
GOD he confesses (e.g., 3:12, 14; 8:12; 9:5); although ELOHIM is impossible to name. In
Qoheleth ELOHIM may be unknown, especially through human reasoning, but he is never
a tyrant.104
He is not absent from the world.105
Qoheleth does not counsel his students to
ignore the worship of this unknown GOD. Perdue correctly observes that Qoheleth calls
humanity “to ‘fear GOD’ (5:6[7]), emphasizing that they should submit to the reality of
divine sovereignty.”106
This writer’s original assessment of the views of Qoheleth about ELOHIM reflects
an impersonal and abstract deity. However after reading the text with the center theme in
mind, fear ELOHIM, the image of this god, ELOHIM, shows to be more personal and not to
be so distant after all. The text of Qoheleth speaks of a very personal ELOHIM., the Holy
One of Israel, the same ELOHIM of the Torah. According to the Torah theology of
Qoheleth ELOHIM:
102 Perdue, Wisdom Literature, WJK, 207.
103 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 59.
104 cf. Perdue, The Sword and the Stylus, 252.
105 cf. Ibid., 253.
106 Ibid., 253.
gives at his will, whatever it is (1:13; 2:24, 26; 3:9, 13; 5:18-20; cf. Gen.
1-3; 39:23; Deut. 6:10-11)
is the source of wisdom and knowledge and happiness (2:26; cf. Gen.
41:38-39; Deut. 4:5-8)
has expectations from humans (2:26; cf. Gen. 1-2)
judges between people (2:26; 6:2; 7:18; cf. Exodus)
is Creator and sat everything to an order, even if humans cannot
comprehend it (3:10; 7:13, 29; 8:17; 11:5; cf. Gen. 1).
rules eternally above humanity (3:14-15; 6:2; 7:13-14; cf. Ex. 15; Deut. 32)
is the judge and aware of human events (3:17; 5:4, 6; 6:2; 8:12-13; 9:7;
11:9; 12:13-14; cf. Gen. 50:20)
provides time for humanity to know their limitations (3:18; cf. Joseph’s
story)
dwells in the Heavens as well as present in the Temple (5:1-2; cf. Ex. 29)
hears humans’ prayers (5:2; cf. Gen. 20:17)
must be worshiped properly (5:4; cf. Ex. 3:12; 20:1-8; 29)
has feelings/emotions (5:6; cf. Gen. 6:6; 24:12; Ex. 4:14; 34:6-7)
must be revered/fear (5:7; 7:18; 8:12-13; 12:13, 15 MT; cf. Deut. 6:2)
is the source of life (5:18; 8:15; 12:7; cf. Gen. 1:7)
is the source of joy (5:20; cf. Ex. 18:9; Deut. 15:16)
rules above human circumstances and is aware of them although humans
cannot understand (7:14; 9:1; cf. Gen. 50:20)
must be trusted (7:14, 18, 26; cf. Abraham’s story)
must be obeyed and pleased – he is well aware of our behaviour (7:26; 9:1,
7; 12:14; cf. Deut. 7:9-11)
is present and acting in the world although humans may not be aware
(8:17; cf. Joseph’s story). However, he is aware of everything humanity
experiences.
Murphy writes that the apparent distance between ELOHIM and humanity “appears
in the mystery of the divine ma’aseh.”107
The Creation in which human is just a small
part, nevertheless an important part, in the context of this amazing universe who is man
or humanity that ELOHIM would remember it! An important antecedent theology in
Qoheleth is the writing of his father David (cf. Ps. 8:3-6).
107 Murphy, Ecclesiastes, 269.
Loader writes that Qoheleth “is not a Deist who thinks that GOD has turned his
back on the world, but GOD is to him an inaccessible power.”108
After all, ELOHIM is, as
Perry observes, for Qoheleth supremely free.109
GOD is transcendent, beyond
comprehension, because the limits of human reason. Human reason will never be able to
grasp the fullness of the knowledge of ELOHIM.
Limited knowledge of the future
Qoheleth does not speak of eschatology except for a personal one (11:7-12:7) and
that there will be a time of judgement (3:17; 11:8-9). In Qoheleth the future is unknown
(8:7; 10:14; 11:2). Crenshaw writes: “GOD has created man so that he simply cannot
know the proper time for anything despite his boasts to the contrary (cf. 8:17).”110
It is
not clear if Qoheleth is questioning some of the prophets of his days. Shield writes
“Qoheleth’s words may represent the only record of the enmity that the sages felt toward
the prophets.”111
He quotes 5:3, 7; however, it is not clear if Qoheleth is referring to
prophets or dreamers who have visions. Nevertheless, it may be possible that Qoheleth is
referring to Deut. 13:1-5, in which it is also found the call to fear ELOHIM and keep his
commandments. Shields continues: “For Qoheleth, and thus for the wisdom Movement,
those who occupied religious or prophetic roles and claimed to speak for GOD were fools.
However, Qoheleth’s words ultimately discredited his own position in the eyes of the
epilogist.”112
The epilogue summarizes the intended meaning of the author of Qoheleth.
If Qoheleth despises any prophet or dreamer is the one described in the Torah, the false
108 Loader, Ecclesiastes, 12-13.
109 cf. Perry, Dialogues with Koheleth, 29.
110 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 122.
111 Shields, The End of Wisdom, 12.
112 Ibid.
prophets that mislead the nation to idolatry (cf. Deut. 13:1-3). Shields carry on his
argument by stating that “Further evidence supporting this case can be seen in Qoheleth’s
repeated assertion that the future is unknowable and unpredictable (e.g., Qoh 8:7; 10:14)
and that the world operates in a perpetual cycle that reveals no progress or purpose (e.g.,
Qoh 1:4,11).”113
Perry argues: “What humans do not know they fear, but the fear of GOD
is probably about that we can’t predict divine action.”114
Qoheleth is cautious about
predicting or claim knowledge of divine future actions in relation to the world or
humanity (3:11, 21; 7:14; 8:17; 11:5).
Garret makes a very good observation, that Qoheleth “silent before GOD” and
unable to have any power “to control or predict the future provokes him to dependence
on GOD. The futility of attempting to secure his future through Wisdom or acts of religion
(e.g., making vows) leads him not to impiety but to an understanding of the true nature of
obedient trust.”115
Perdue insists that this is evidence that Qoheleth has “a skeptical view
of GOD.”116
Qoheleth simply recognizes the limits of human reasoning to know and
understand the mysteries of ELOHIM.
Qoheleth does not present a concept about a future resurrection. His reference to
the eternal dwelling place (12:5) is about eternal death (9:10). Qoheleth’s eschatological
reflection is about the personal eschaton (12:1-7 cf. 3:21). It is possible that the personal
eschaton which makes reference to future judgement implies the resurrection or at least
life after death.
113 Ibid., 12n13.
114 Cf. Perry 28
115 Duane A. Garret, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Song, in The New American Commentary,
ed. E. Ray Clendenen, (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 14:345
116 Cf Perdue, The Sword and the Stykus, 200.
He refers to ELOHIM as a Judge, but it is not clear if it is a judgment after death,
during life on Earth, or in a distant future (cf. 3:17; 9:5; 11:9; 12:14).117
Ogden underlines
that “the notion of GOD as judge and arbiter of all is done on earth is crucial to
Qoheleth’s theology.”118
Campos states that the idea of a judgement after death seems
foreign to Qoheleth’s thought.119
Qoheleth is concerned with judgment regardless of
when it may happen; at the same time he encourages the reader to enjoy life in its fullness
here and now (2:24; 3:12, 22; 5:18; 8:15; 9:9): nevertheless, no apart from its source,
ELOHIM (2:25; 5:19; 9:7; 12:1). Qoheleth laments the possibility of not being able to
enjoy life before death (2:26; 6:1-2, cf. Deut. 28:15-68).120
Shank is correctly writes:
That which abides is the eternal work of GOD (3:11, 14, 15) and that all men must
place their fear in Him alone (3:14, cf. 2:22-26) and not in their own vanishing
works done under the sun. In this very practical citation there is truly ‘nothing
better’ for a man to do than to rejoice in what GOD has providentially given
him.”121
Considering the progress of revelation, the reader could say that Qoheleth did not
have the knowledge of resurrection and eternal life available later to Daniel or Paul or in
the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth, which is obvious. In conclusion, Qoheleth does not
know the future except for the certainty of death (7:12) and the judgement of ELOHIM.
117 The Samaritans, who accept only the Torah as inspired, have some traditions that reflect
Qoheleth’s statements. Cf. John MacDonald, The Theology of the Samaritans. (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1964), 228. Also James D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968).
118 Ogden, Qoheleth, 2nd
, 230.
119 Campos, Qohélet, 221.
120 This passage in the Torah describes how disobedience to the commandments leads to a life
full of sorrow and even insane behaviour.
121 Shank, “Qoheleth’s World and Life View,” 78.
Death
Death is one of the main concerns of Qoheleth. In Qoheleth life’s ultimate
irrational experience is death. The greatest absurdity in Qoheleth is to be born and die.
Baab writes that Qoheleth is an “old man, who includes in the consideration of his own
death reflection over the death of all creatures.”122
Often theology books that make any reference, usually briefly, to Qoheleth do so
when they address death or afterlife, e.g., Routledge.123
Sweeney argues that Qoheleth
“examines the question of human mortality and concludes that because all humans must
ultimately come to the grave, human existence is ultimately futile. Life is best lived and
enjoyed when it is available without concern for what is to come beyond the grave.”124
Every culture, after all every human, is concerned with death and do all that is
possible to extend life and prevent “early” death. Friar Laurence speaking to Juliet says:
“Lady, come from that nest of death, contagion, and unnatural sleep: A greater power
than we can contradict.”125
In almost every culture death is considered supernatural
power that cannot be overcomed. Death is unnatural. Anderson points out “there is a
current trend amongst biblical scholars that wisdom circles viewed death as ‘natural.’” 126
However Anderson responds wisely: “It seems to me that this notion amongst scholars
has taken on certain baggage which views ‘death as natural’ with benign psychological
and emotional indifference.”127
This indifference in some religious circles keeps people
122 Otto J. Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Aingdon, 1949), 201.
123 Routledge, Old Testament, 302-303.
124 Marvin A. Sweeney, Tanakh, 438.
125 William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet 5.3 (Nurngber: Campe, 1840), 89.
126 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 30.
127 Ibid.
away from expressing emotions and from searching for spiritual and emotional support
from friends and the community of faith.
Qoheleth speaks of death as something no human, rich or poor, powerful or
powerless, neither animal could ever avoid; their days are determined by GOD
(3:19).Towner interpret Qoheleth’s view on death as fate. He writes: “For the Teacher,
‘fate’ is fact. It is decreed by GOD, even though one can learn nothing about this decree; it
is death.”128
Perhaps this is the only place where religious fatalism could be identified in
Qoheleth; however, this writer insist that Qoheleth views show determinism, since
somehow he still believes that it will go well for those who fear ELOHIM (8:12). Fatalism
has no sign of hope. Then, how should human deal with death? Crenshaw writes:
Qoheleth’s author is convinced that life is empty, vain, profitless. Neither material
possessions, human friendships, nor religious devotion alter the fact that nature is
oppressive, that death is the negation of all good, that GOD is therefore untouched
by the plight of creatures. What then, is man to do? Qoheleth advises him to find
some pleasure …to work with dignity in this way postponing death as long as
possible. In Qoheleth there is a challenging of the power of human reason.129
Faier writes: “A generation goes and a generation comes, it is the dilemma of
human mortality. And the verse, ‘havel havalim all is havel,’ is usually understood as a
universal cry of futility in the face of death, the inevitable.”130
Qoheleth’s express the
idea that everyone is forgotten after death (9:5); perhaps this is evidence that he did not
have in mind future generation but this document was a very personal reflection.
Machado writing by the end of his life writes: “Nunca persegui la gloria, ni dejar en la
memoria de los hombres mi canción.”131
Pascal is a good example of a writer that did not
128 Towner, “Ecclesiastes,” 282.
129Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 184.
130 Faier, “Introduction,” v.
131 Antonio Machado, Poesias Completas. (Madrid: Residencia de Estudiantes, 1917), 221. Tr.
“Never did I seek glory, neither to leave in the memory of humanity my song.”
intend many of his works to be for public distribution. His thoughts about death are often
inside reflections (speaking to his heart) that a man in his right mind could not say
publicly. These thoughts may be a sign of deep depression. Qoheleth speaks of death as
an escape from all the absurdities he finds in life (4:2-3). Tragically modern
existentialists saw in death a friend; an echo of Qoheleth’s tormented mind by what he
could not esplain and could never accept. Crenshaw writes:
Several proverbs strengthen Qoheleth’s contention that the day of death is better
than the hour of birth, and give voice to similar pessimistic thoughts. Others
sparkle with humor, and scarcely advance the claim that everything, including
wisdom, is vain. An epilogue places some distance between the editor and the
traditions under consideration, and justifies Qoheleth’s deeply religious gropings
by summing up their impact as he sees it: fear GOD and keep his
commandments.132
Routledge says that death is the consequence of sin, according to the Tanakh: “As
such the Old Testament attitude towards death is generally negative” (9:5).133
This is
also a fact in the NT writings.134
He continues saying that “death is portrayed as a
frequently hostile, and an almost always unwelcome, reality. Nevertheless, in common
with the beliefs of other cultures, it is also seen as inevitable and natural.”135
Death is
supernatural, Qoheleth cannot explain it by human reasoning, except as the greatest
absurdity in life; it is an enemy (7:26 cf. 1 Cor. 15:26). Towner writes that for Qoheleth
“bad things happen to good people, too. The only transcendent truths are GOD’s
sovereignty over all things and the universality of death. All other supposed moral orders
132 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 419.
133 Routledge, Old Testament, 302-303.
134 Cf. 1 Cor. 15
135 Routledge, Old Testament, 302-303.
are absurd.”136
Baab states that this “old man” reflects in his death as well as that of all
creatures: It is a self-eulogy. He writes:
There is one fate for man and beast, for wise and simple, righteous and wicked; so
what is the value of life? Death ends it all, and after death there is no
remembrance of anything…Life is a vicious circle…Death is an undeniable and
final fact which nullifies and invalidates all existence, and painfully and
wearisomely shows the futility of everything.137
Qoheleth uses a series of metaphors to describe the decline of life. Qoheleth is not
concerned with afterlife or attempts to make a clear statement about it. Qoheleth’s
reflects about the personal eschaton (12:1-7) with a detailed description, almost
‘apocalyptic’ of the end of life. Salyers writes: “Qoheleth seems be drawing images from
cultural repertoire which stems from prophetic or apocalyptic traditions…which usually
relate to the demise of the nation or, perhaps, cosmos and then radically reinterpreted
them in relation to the demise of the individual.”138
However, it is possible, as Crenshaw
says that 12:3-4a could be literal instead of symbolic of old age. “Keepers of the house”
may be just that, and “grinders” may refer to women who prepare grain for daily food.139
Nevertheless, in the context it seems that the intended meaning is a metaphor about death.
Ryken writes:
Perhaps the most striking images of death are to be found in the concluding
chapter of Ecclesiastes. Qoheleth, the main speaker of the book, has treated death
as a major theme. Death renders everything in life meaningless. In Ecclesiastes
12:1–5 he likens the aging process to an encroaching storm. The deteriorating
body is represented by a house that, along with its inhabitants, slowly falls apart.
Although this is debated, it is hard not to recognize some nearly allegorical
connections between the inhabitants of the house and body parts. For instance,
when the text says that the grinders cease because they are few, it is hard not to
136 Towner, “Ecclesiastes,” 281-282.
137 Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament, 201.
138 Salyer, Vain Rhetoric, 369.
139 Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 30-31.
recognize an allusion to teeth. In verses 6 and 7 death is likened to the destruction
of precious items. A silver cord is snapped; a golden bowl is smashed.140
In this passage Qoheleth speaks of the spirit, breath of life (cf. Gen. 2:7),
returning to ELOHIM; it is about life going to its source, ELOHIM (12:7 cf. 3:21). Hinson
says that Qoheleth “never intended readers to think of the spirit having independent life
and sharing a personal relationship with GOD in heaven. He meant that the power of life
had been withdrawn. The departure of the spirit was part of the break up and
disappearance of the human individual.”141
While Knight argues that Qoheleth “adopts
what is almost a non-Hebraic view of the nature and function of the human spirit. In
contradiction to the teaching of all the documents that compromise the book of Genesis,
he so thinks of the union of matter and spirit in man that at death ‘the spirit shall return
unto GOD who gave it’ (Eccl. 12:7 cf. Psalm 104:29-30).”142
He adds: “The ‘Greek’
notion that GOD addresses merely the human soul, as if the later were an entity separable
from the body, is therefore an idea alien to the Bible. The only verse in the whole Old
Testament which even suggests such a possibility occurs in Eccl. 12.7”143
These two
views seem to ignore the antecedent theology of Qoheleth, the Torah (Ex. 3:6).
According to Jesus’s teachings this words spoken to Moses are evidence of life after
death (Matt. 22:29-32). Therefore, although Qoheleth does not speak of life after death he
may have a concept of it. However, it is interesting to observe that someone who speaks
so much about death would not address eternal life and resurrection if he had any concept
or knowledge of it.
140Leland Ryken, Jim Wilhoit, Tremper Longman et al., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, electronic
ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1998), 198.
141 David F. Hinson, Theology of the Old Testament, (London: SPCK, 2001),89.
142 George A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament (carisle: paternoster, 1969.
Rep. 1998), 75.
143 Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament, 336.
Death is not natural. Death is unnatural, abnormal, absurd, a curse upon humanity
and all creation. Death is senseless. It steals meaning to life. It is inconsistent with the
values of creation. Death is sadness, pain, suffering; Death is an enemy, never a friend.
Life is full of absurdities and this is the greatest of all. It is cruel. It divides humanity.
Death is not normal; eternity is for humanity. Humans have not been created to live for a
short time, Qoheleth speaks about “eternity” been placed in the hearts of humanity (3:11).
This is another difficult verse to translate. Perhaps it refers to a sense of “eternity” or a
desire for eternal life. The image of ELOHIM in humanity seems to include the sense of
eternal life. Death is an insult to human dignity. ELOHIM has given humanity a “sense of a
future.” Reichter correctly affirms that humanity is more than “the creature of a day, and
this consciousness is a cause of his dissatisfaction with the transitory experiences which
take place within the span of his time.”144
Regardless of all the pain, for example caused by death, and problems and
contradictions in life, there is joy. There is hope. The joyful moments of life are in fact
more than the sad ones. There are wars and violence, but also there are people dancing
and laughing. How beautiful is the smile of a child in the midst of war! It breaks through
the absurdity and irrationality of violence. It is a sign of hope. Humanity causes all this
pain, but ELOHIM gives the “gift” to enjoy life to its maximum and to live it in
abundance. Death is absurd. It steals away from people so many things: a grandfather, a
friend, a mother, etc. However, it is more absurd when humans are the one causing death
by war, pollution, by denying the opportunity of change and the miracle of life to other
human beings. When in its arrogance and selfishness humanity deprives another human
of life and steals his/her dreams giving them suffering and the nightmare of sorrow, how
great an evil this is under the sun!
144 Victor E. Reichter, “Ecclesiastes,” in The Five Megilloth, SBB, ed. Abraham Cohen et al.
(London: Soncino, 1946), 12:126. cf. 3:14.
Death in Qoheleth is linked to the sovereignty of ELOHIM who has set the seasons
and the time for humanity (3:1-8, 11 cf. 5:18; 7:13; 8:15; 12:7). Towner writes: “GOD is
not mentioned very often [in Wisdom books] but stands in the background as the
providential upholder of a world of such orders as the connection of deed to consequence
and certainty of death…Qohelet share these same understandings.”145
Lohfink reflects:
“Prosperity too is itself given to humans as a gift from GOD, and is not an assured product
of their efforts. Everything that happens is an act of GOD, and for that reason it is
something ‘perfect’... so the human lot is to accept in the ‘fear of GOD’ whatever GOD
gives.”146
He continues “Thus humankind is reduced to living each moment and
accepting good and evil from GOD’s hand, until death occurs to end it all. After death
there is nothing further. So we should times observe the transitional rules living, and
sometimes we should not. Only the ‘fear of GOD’ can guide us well in making
decisions.”147
In summary, Qoheleth’s view of death is complex. He accepts reluctantly with
resignation (3:2); he knows the certainty of death (9:5); life is brief (5:18). At times he
speaks of death like a “friend” (a pseudo-friend) providing the scape from the absurdities
of life. He speaks of it almost with a suicidal desire (4:2-3; 7:1 cf. 2:17; 6:3); while other
times death is one of the worse things, an enemy (7:26), an absurdity (evil) of life (2:16;
9:3). It is clear that no one, human neither animal, have any power over death (8:8 cf.
7:13), regardless of how much is done to prevent it or avoid it earlier (cf. 7:17). Death
ends everything (9:5-6) for both animals and humans (3:19-21); therefore Qoheleth
encourages enjoying life (9:7-10). In Qoheleth apparently there are no rewards after death
145 Towner, “Ecclesiastes,” 281-282.
146 Lohfink, Qohelet, 2.
147 Ibid., 2-3.
(9:5). He is seems sceptical about life after death ignoring if the spirit survives it (3:21),
later he has the assurance that the spirit or breath of life returns to ELOHIM (12:7), but it
is not clear if he refers to a surviving personal spirit or the abstract concept of life;
nevertheless, obviously, contact with the living ceases (3:22). The antecedent theology of
Qoheleth, Torah, prohibits speaking to the death, which shows there was a concept about
life after death among the Israelites. It is in further revelation that readers can understand
the survival of the spirit at the time of death. Although Qoheleth does not show any
concept on the hope of resurrection, his central message is not a morbid and pessimistic
reflection on death rather about the hope found in life (9:4). Qoheleth’s message is about
joy as a gift of ELOHIM, although temporary on this earth (2:24-25; 3:12-13, 22; 5:19-20;
8:15). Qoheleth’s reflection on death is evidence of the limits of human reasoning and the
need for divine revelation. It is in the progress of divine revelation that further clarity has
been found about the reality of death and life beyond this sad and absurd experience.
Nevertheless, within the limits of human reason Qoheleth has some understanding about
human life.
Humanity
According to Crenshaw, Qoheleth’s thesis is that human “life lacked profit and
therefore was totally absurd…[while] a remote GOD ruled over a crooked world.”148
Sperka summarizes the intention of Qoheleth’s writings to be about humanity’s “search
for meaning and purpose in life.”149
Qoheleth observes that the relation of ELOHIM with
humanity is difficult to understand (1:13-14; 3:9-14; 3:16-21; 9:1); ELOHIM is far away
from humanity (5:2). Humanity seems to have a beginning and end like any other living
creature. Castellino says, “One meets with statements that in their obvious sense are hard
148 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 509.
149 Joshua Sperka, Ecclesiastes: Stories to live by (New York: Bloch, 1972), 13.
to harmonize with the general doctrine of Old Testament man.”150
Shanks states that
Qoheleth “looked upon life and the world from the perspective of an Old Testament
believer who had understood the reality of the curse of GOD placed upon life ‘under the
sun’ in Gen. 3.”151
Towner agrees: “Like the writer of the story of the fall in Genesis 3,
he [Qoheleth] places human beings in a world from which both the presence and the
friendship of GOD are withdrawn and people are left to fend for themselves on an
accursed ground in lives of toil that end only in death.”152
Shank is right to say that
Qoheleth is describing humanity under the fall. However, human life is still a mystery to
Qoheleth. Life is a mystery full of contradictions, paradoxes and absurdities. Qoheleth is
grateful for being even when at times his own life was meaningless to him.
Tamez interprets that Qoheleth teaches us about “becoming human in a
dehumanizing present.”153
She is correct to see in its message a challenge to be more
compassionate; after all, everyone has gone through the same frustrations Qoheleth
experienced. Tamez refers to Qoheleth’s experience as “total frustration under the
sun.”154
Qoheleth seeks to understand what it means to be human, how can human live
with meaning and purpose, how can it enjoy the world created by ELOHIM and do what is
right. Qoheleth assume the existence of ELOHIM and the origin of human life and the
whole world in the perfect act of creation by ELOHIM.155
However, it never addresses
150 George R. Castellino, “Qohelet and his Wisdom,” in Reflecting with Solomon, ed. Roy Zuck
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 31.
151 Shank, “Qoheleth’s World and Life View,” 71.
152 Towner, “Ecclesiastes,” 280.
153 Elza Támez, When the Horizons Close: rereading Ecclesiastes (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2000), v.
154 Ibid., 35.
155 The Sacred Heart University (Fairfield, CT) has developed a Core Value curriculum that
addresses basically the questions raised by Qoheleth.
love, mercy, compassion or any other type of positive relationships between humans, but
by pointing out the wrong relationships. There is only one reflection in Qoheleth that may
be morbid after all, the words “better is to be at the house of mourning” rather speak of
extending compassion and solidarity toward those suffering (7:2).
No everything is vanity. Human life has meaning and seeking its happiness is
Qoheleth’s goal; not a selfish happiness but a concept of happiness that meets every
human expectations. This happiness reaches its fullness when humans stand in ‘awe’
before ELOHIM and keep the divine instruction, i.e., commandments /mitzvot (Torah).
However, Qoheleth often points to that human life is full of contradictions, paradoxes,
and absurdities.
Human Life’s Contradictions
The tension and apparent contradictions in Qoheleth, like in the list of opposed
events (3:2-8), are intentional statements. The contradictions are observed with the
paradoxes and absurdities of life. These are facts observed in human reality and the
consideration of possible answers to his quest. Perry interprets these contradictions by
saying that: “Qoheleth’s autobiographical statements affirm that his past is an integral
part of his present; that his critical method is based on an accounting of his experience;
and since his experience has been a search, competing and contradictory points of view
are not excluded but rather honored and recorded, collected and possibly
anthologized.”156
However, according to Perry “the most resistant obstacle in the
interpretation of Qoheleth involves contradictions, the clearest example being the ‘pious’
conclusion on fearing GOD and keeping His commandments (12:13), which seems out of
step with Qoheleth’s call to pleasure and his complaints on the vanity of creation.”157
156 Perry, Dialogues with Qoheleth, 6.
157 Ibid., x-xi.
Needless to say this is not a contradiction at all but complement and bring to a conclusion
his quest; as pointed above, humanity find full happiness and meaningful life in living in
reverence toward ELOHIM and humbly in obedience to his commandments.
Perhaps the apparent contradictions found in Qoheleth has what Brown calls
“direct thinking”; following C.G. Jung, he says that “it takes for granted the principle of
contradiction, and it imitates the causal sequence of events taking place outside the
mind.”158
Qoheleth explores all possible thoughts about the reality of human existence,
even if these thoughts may be contradictory to each other. Instead of contradictions
(μαχομένον) it could be called ασυμφωνία or ασυμφώνων (disaccord). Qoheleth speaks of
the paradoxes of life which make it look as ασυμφωνία; which observed as a whole
instead of segments it becomes a balanced and perfect συμφωνία.
Qoheleth observes the reality before him and describes it, as he is confronted by
unexpected facts. Life is not all as he thought it would be. Whybray says that Qoheleth is
“a unique phenomenon within the” Tanakh because presents “reality in its complexity
rather than to press home an unqualified conclusion.”159
Ogden perhaps is correct: “When
what Qoheleth says seems to be contradictory, he may be reminding the reader that
human life is not simple – there are inconsistencies and unanswered questions in this
world.”160
Human life is just complex.
Scholars that see multiple authors, for example Shields, argue that the
“Contradictions were collected by the epilogist to show the failure of the wisdom
158 Scuyer Brown, Begotten not Created: The Gnostic use of language in Jungian Perspective, in
Psychology and the Bible: From Christ to Jesus (Wesport: Praeger, 2004), 4:296.
159 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 13.
160 Graham S. Ogden et Lynell Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, UBS Handbooks (Sttutgart:
UBS, 1997), 2.
movement.”161
This is speculation that does not reflect the text. Instead, as Ogden writes:
“Because wisdom sayings are not able to encompass all the complexities of human
experience in one pithy saying, wisdom literature tends to contain a number of apparently
contradictory sayings…Simplistic sayings are not acceptable – the world, its worst and
all, are to be laid out for further reflection. Such is the mission of Qoheleth.”162
Human history is full of contradictions/tensions, and often these are the fruit of
our indifference. Qoheleth is well aware of it. Contrary to Baab’s view, Qoheleth does
not believe that “the historical process was always turning back upon itself in vain
repetition.”163
Santayana’s statement seems to reflect what Qoheleth attempts to say:
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is
absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible
improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is
perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”164
Qoheleth challenges the readers to recognize his/her own doubts and darkness,
and the hopelessness of humanity. However, there is no evidence that Qoheleth fear
ELOHIM and keeps his commandments as Shank observes.165
The reader can only
assumes that Qoheleth lived what he preached. Nevertheless, as Crenshaw says,
“Qoheleth experienced the religious bankruptcy of life emptied of trust in GOD.”166
It is
in that experience where all seems meaningless and full of contradiction or ασυμφωνία.
161 Cf. Shield, The End of Wisdom, 237.
162 Ogden, Qoheleth, 13.
163 Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament, 232.
164 George Santayana, The Life of Reason (New Yor: Scribner's, 1920), 1:284.
165 Shank, “Qoheleth’s World and Life View,” 601.
166 Crenshaw, Urgent Advice and Probing Questions, 493.
Loader presents a little different perspective on the subject. He sees this as a tension,
which it is alleviated by the conclusion, although Loader insists that the tension persists
until the end. Loader writes:
In all the other examples of protest literature known to us there is relaxation of
tension in the end because one or another solution to the crisis is offered. But in
Ecclesiastes the tension continues to the end; that is the most important
characteristic of the entire book. One element is repeatedly placed in opposition to
another and the frustration resulting from the tension between opposing elements
is accentuated. Polarization creates tension, and tension, when continued, means
frustration…It is certainly no wonder that the Preacher often states that all things
are meaningless.167
Routledge writes that Qoheleth “acknowledges that even his great wisdom cannot
make sense of the world. To the human mind, GOD’s world is not a fair and fulfilling
place; GOD, himself, stands aloof and acts in ways his creatures cannot understand.” 168
Human reason cannot comprehend it. He continue saying that Qoheleth “points to the
futility of earthly existence but encourages his readers to acknowledge and obey GOD
(12:13), to trust GOD’s final justice (3:17) and to seek contentment in the life GOD gives
(2:24; 5:18; 8:15; 9:7-10).” 169
He concludes that “contentment may be possible only by
recognizing that human understanding cannot fathom divine mysteries, and by accepting
the world as it is, with all its apparent unfairness.”170
Human limited understanding
defines as unfairness the reality of life; so, Qoheleth often seems to describe human
reality as fool of unfairness. He is not making ELOHIM responsible for everything.
Qoheleth clearly states that ELOHIM made everything beautiful in its time, but human
have chosen the wrong direction. ELOHIM created everything perfect, humanity choose
167 Loader, Ecclesiastes, 10.
168 Routledge, Old Testament, 223.
169 Ibid.
170 Ibid.
imperfection. What seems unfair is the product of humanity’s own decisions; even death
which is out of human’s control has its roots, according to the Torah, in human actions:
disobedience; which broke communion with ELOHIM.
Communion with ELOHIM: Prayer
Mellick writes concerning theological propositions saying that they “do not
constitute basic knowledge of the divine encounter. The linguistic unit of inquiry into the
divine encounter is not the isolated proposition presenting GOD’s attributes or his
essence; it is not an argument form instantiated with propositions; it is, rather, the
historical narrative reflecting the engaging dialogue with GOD.”171
Qoheleth does not
have a dialogue with ELOHIM. Qoheleth, the writer/speaker, does not address ELOHIM in
the text neither ELOHIM is quoted speaking to him. Burnette says: “Even while Qoheleth
draws on events around him, his perspective as observer places him at something of a
distance from both his society and the GOD standing behind it”172
Qoheleth does not talk
about prayer per se, but it may be implied in the advice to those in the Temple.173
Qoheleth exhortation saying that “words be few” (5:1 MT) seems to speak about prayer,
but the subject in these verses is not prayer but rather the apparent distance between
ELOHIM and humanity. Zimmermannn says that Qoheleth “never offers a prayer nor cries
out to GOD for mercy though he suffered much.”174
Again, Qoheleth seems to offer
advice on how to come before ELOHIM (cf. 4:17-5:1 MT). Anderson comments that “if
prayer is ‘communion’ with GOD, Qohelet demonstrated no intimacy with GOD on that
171David C. Mellick, “Introduction,” to The Achievements of Biblical Religion: A Prolegomenon
to Old Testament Theology by Simon J. de Vries (Lanham: University Press of America, 1983), x-xi.
172 Joel S. Burnett, Where is GOD? Divine absence in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2010), 95.
173 Cf. Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 122.
174 Zimmermann, Inner World of Qoheleth, xii.
point.”175
Prayer, claims Anderson, is nowhere in this book.176
Assuming that the Torah
is the theological context to read Qoheleth, prayer is never mentioned except once as
supplication (Gen. 25:21). However, there are many stories of conversations between
ELOHIM and humans. The part of the dialogues where a human speaks could be classified
as short/brief prayers. Therefore Qoheleth in fact may be advising here, as a side note,
that prayer must be in a few words (4:17-5:1 MT cf. Matt. 6:5-8).
Anderson argues that Qoheleth’s “view of GOD’s absolute sovereignty means that
he had no hope of changing GOD or the way life is under him – and may explain why he
nowhere mentions prayer in his book. Thus [Qoheleth] has a very pessimistic view of
GOD.”177
Earlier Anderson defending his interpretation writes: “To talk of a pessimistic
view of GOD may seem to some to be strange if not blasphemous…Perhaps [Qoheleth]
was just more honest about the way he felt about GOD than most people… [Qoheleth]
was simply writing down his views as he objectively understood them.”178
Qoheleth has a
deterministic view of ELOHIM instead of a fatalist or pessimistic view. It is this view that
seems to explain the reason for the absence of prayer or any direct communication with
ELOHIM.
ELOHIM is Sovereign: GOD is GOD! The only apparent reference to prayer in
qoheleth must be read in the context of the Sovereignty of ELOHIM. Humans’ behaviour
cannot change ELOHIM. Whybray, from a different perspective, says that Qoheleth (5:1-6;
7:16-17) reflects “apparently” the idea or “belief that GOD’s intentions can be influenced
175 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 122 cf. 101.
176 Ibid., 97.
177 Ibid., 101.
178 Anderson, Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology, 96.
by human behavior.”179
However, Qoheleth is already clear on his views: ELOHIM does
not change and humans cannot change what ELOHIM does (cf. 3:14; 7:13). Qoheleth
cannot change anything about ELOHIM neither could he ever influence ELOHIM to change
his mind (7:13). ELOHIM never changes (3:14-15). Brown says: “Shrouded in mystery,
GOD is free from human manipulation, not at the expense but in full acknowledgement of
humanity’s frail identity.”180
This relates to the philosophical questions of free will or
determinism; in religious terms, predestination and fatalism. In Qoheleth’s theological
and philosophical text, as shown previously, there is determinism, but we cannot translate
that determinism into religious fatalism. Lusseau observes, similarly to this writer’s
observations above, that everything Qoheleth addresses has its source in ELOHIM. He
writes that Qoheleth “praises the Divine wisdom (7:12, 19; 9:13-18) and professes with
conviction the reality of Providence (3:11,14-15; 8:17; 11:5). GOD is the one who gives
and takes life from humans (5:17; 8:15; 9:9; 12:7), wealth (5:18;6:12), happiness
(2:24;3:13; 5:18-19); GOD is the one who distribute happiness and sorrows (7:14).”181
He
concludes that Qoheleth final message is: “trust in the presence of GOD (6:10).”182
Lusseau sees a radical determinism that it is almost a religious fatalism, similar to that of
Islam. Towner writes:
By the simple device of shifting the emphasis’ from the admitted determinism of
an order in which GOD has already ordained everything to the human
responsibility or freedom that Qohelet also admittedly affirms, the weight comes
179 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 68.
180 William P. Brown, Ecclesiastes, (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2000), 133.
181 “Alaba la sabiduria divina (7,12.19; 9,13-18) y profesa con convicción la realidad de la
Providencia (3,11.14-15; 8,17; 11,5). Dios es quien da y retira al hombre la vida (5,17; 8,15; 9,9; 12,7), las
riquezas (5,18;6,12), las alegrías (2,24;3,13; 5,18-19); Dios es quien distribuye la felicidad y la desgracia
(7,14).” H. Lusseau, “Los otros hagiógrafos,” in Introducción Crítica al Antiguo Testamento, ed. Henri
Cazelles (Paris: Desclée 1973’ reprint, Paris: Herder, 1980), 681.
182 Ibid., 682. “Confia en la presencia de Dios (6,10).”
down not on a tragic fatalism – human beings in the hands of a distant, all-
powerful, and arbitrary GOD who causes good and evil alike- but on the
opportunity for human happiness in a world in which GOD is utterly sovereign and
people are truly free.”183
Gordis says: “GOD is all powerful, man resigns himself to ignorance regarding the
meaning and purpose of life.”184
It is the reluctant acceptance of the limit of human
reasoning.
In Ancient Judaism, i.e., Torah, there are mediators between ELOHIM and humans.
These were often called which the LXX translate ἄγγελος (messenger) מלאך
(angel/messenger). In Daniel it is an angel who mediates, bringing communication
between him and ELOHIM. Qoheleth does not speak of mediators in prayer, unless the
“angel” is a mediator (5:6). This concept developed further in post-exilic Judaism.
However the Greek and Syriac texts do not have “angel” instead says GOD (5:5 LXX);
there is not an implied mediator. The most striking thing is that in Qoheleth ELOHIM does
not speak at all or is ever quoted.
ELOHIM: The Essence of Hebrew “Humanism”
A Closing Reflection
Qoheleth is a Hebrew humanist; although again it is another anachronistic term
overloaded with controversy, it is for the lack of a better term the one that can express
Qoheleth’s deep concern with human existence. Of course he is not the secular humanist
regardless that he is observing human events and nature from a very secular and
materialistic perspective. However the true humanism, a deep concern for human
existence and its happiness, is fully reflected in Qoheleth who links the existence of
humanity and its material and secular joys to its source, ELOHIM. Moore correctly writes
that Qoheleth is a “warning to those who hope to make sense out of their lives apart from
183 Towner, “Ecclesiastes,” 284.
184 Robert Gordis, Koheleth: the man and his World (New York: Schoken, 1968), 274-275.
GOD, calling them to use sound reason and common sense.”185
In his paraphrases he
interprets accurately: “Our lives will not make sense apart from GOD.”186
Human life is a
gift from ELOHIM! Shields observes that the book is a “warning directed at students…
against the way of wisdom had followed and a call back to a theological wisdom
grounded in fear of GOD and obedience to his commandments.”187
Humanity can find its
meaning and fullness of life only in a life of reverence and obedience (12:13 cf. Deut.
30:11-20; Micah 6:8). Garret notes that “to ‘keep his commandments’ is not to behave
with the self-satisfied arrogance of religious presumption, nor is it a nod to piety from an
otherwise impious book. Rather, it is the deepest expression of humble acceptance of
what it means to be a human before GOD.”188
Depravation is what Qoheleth perceives in humanity: “el ladrón juzga por su
condición” (a thief judges according to his condition) says the old proverb. Qoheleth
knows from his own experience the human condition away from ELOHIM. He refers to the
human condition between the Fall and Redemption. Metzger writes, Qoheleth “has
reflected deeply on the frustrations of human existence, and has become disappointed
with the so-called good things of life. Yet, in spite of his pessimism, he advises his
readers to work hard, to overdo nothing, and to enjoy the gifts of GOD as much and as
long as they can.”189
To enjoy the gift of ELOHIM is to acknowledge its ultimate source,
185 T. M. Moore, Ecclesiastes: Ancient Wisdom when all else Fails (Downer Grove: IVP, 2001)
10. His parapharses is very interesting and well done.
186 Ibid, 31.
187 Shields, The End of Wisdom, 238.
188 Duane A. Garret, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Song, in The New American Commentary,
ed. E. Ray Clendenen, (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 345.
189 Bruce Metzger, ed. “Ecclesiastes,” The Reader’s Digest Bible (Pleasantville: RDA, 1982),
351.
the Sovereign One. This is the essence of Qoheleth philosophy, humanism, and theology:
ELOHIM is Lord. Kölhler summarizes Qoheleth’s theology well, by writing:
Daß Gott der gebietende Herr ist, das ist der eine und grundlegende Satz der
Theologie des ATs… Aus ihm fließt alles andere hervor. An ihn lehnt sich alles
andere an. Von ihm aus und nur von ihm aus kann alles verstanden werden. Ihm
ordnet sich alles andere unter.
Die Art, wie Gott als der Herr gebietet, der Umkreis nach Raum wie nach Zeit, in
dem er gebietet, was alles aus seiner gebietenden Herrschaft, sei es ganz von
selbst, sei es in nicht ohne weiteres naheliegender Ableitung fließt, darüber
mögen, wie noch darzustellen sein wird, die Angaben und die Anschauungen
schwanken. Die Grundtatsache aber ist immer ein und dieselbe und
unerschütterlich: Gott ist der Herr.190
Qoheleth has a doxological purpose: it brings glory to ELOHIM by making
emphasis through the book the imperative to “fear ELOHIM and keep His
commandments.” This is the essence of human life; the essence of true humanism. This is
the center of his philosophy and theology: ELOHIM.
190 Ludwig Köhler, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr, 1953), 12. The English
edition translates it: “GOD is the ruling Lord: that is the one fundamental statement in the theology of the
Old Testament…Everything else derives from it. Everything else leans upon it. Everything else can be
understood with reference to it and only to it. Everything else subordinates itself to it. The way in which
GOD rules as Lord, the extent of His rule in terms of space and time, the effects of His rule, both direct and
the not so obvious but indirect – these matters may be the subject of controversy; but the basic fact is
always one and the same and inviolable, ‘GOD is the LORD’.” Ludwig Köhler, Old Testament Theology.
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), 30. This is also affirmed by Miller in his Israelite Religion and Biblical
Theology (Sheffield: SAP, 2000), 406.
254
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
ELOHIM
Qoheleth, a Hebrew philosopher, is also one of the greatest theologians in biblical
literature. His theology is based on the Torah. He culminates his speech by reiterating the
call to live in reverence and obedience to ELOHIM. His theological and philosophical
work shows the human side of the biblical text by exposing the limits of human
reasoning. The author declares through the whole speech/book the sovereignty of ELOHIM
and the limitations of humanity. While humanity changes as it faces the paradoxes of life,
ELOHIM is transcendent and unchangeable; ELOHIM does not change.
ELOHIM knows everything before it becomes new to human eyes (1:9; 3:15).
There is no time for ELOHIM but his existence is in an eternal present. He considers every
blessing to be from ELOHIM and not from any other source (2:24, 26; 5:19; 6:2).
Qoheleth experienced the pain and torment caused by the absurdities,
contradictions and paradoxes of human existence. He also experienced the limits of
human reason to understand and interpret it. Nevertheless, for him, regardless of human
paradoxes, the essence of the whole book is that the gift of life and the possibility of
happiness are from ELOHIM. Borrowing Paul’s words, “Rejoice…I will say it again
rejoice!” sounds through the text of Qoheleth.1 According to Qoheleth, says Towner, the
1 Phil. 4:3
will of ELOHIM is “that we should enjoy our life, pitching our tents in an oasis of peace
and happiness in the middle of a desert of absurdity.”2
It speaks like a contemporary existentialist text, but recognizing the limits of
human reasoning. Needless to say, contrary to so many other “existentialist” texts from
ancient or modern times (or postmodern days), the text Qoheleth has a doxological
purpose: it brings glory to ELOHIM by making emphasis through the book to “fear
ELOHIM and keep his commandments” (Torah). It is its doxological purpose and Torah
theology that makes the book relevant for Judaism and the Church today. The canon of
the Torah provides the theological context for Qoheleth; therefore, he speaks of the Holy
One of Israel, ELOHIM, although he does not call him by name. Perhaps the echoes of the
Torah in Qoheleth, similarly to the NT references to the Tanakh, assume a common
knowledge of the text between writer and reader.
Qoheleth speaks about ELOHIM as Creator, who has control of his creation until
the end of time (3:11, 9:1, 12:7 cf. Gen. 1-2) and what he has created, especially humans,
are created to live forever (3:14a). Everything he created is perfect (3:14
b-15).
3 ELOHIM is
also the final judge of everyone and everything (3:17 cf. Gen. 18:25). Constantly
Qoheleth exhorts to fear ELOHIM who will also bless those who live a righteous life
(7:18b, 26
b, 8:2, 12:13 cf. 7:1, 18:19; Ex. 1:21; Deut. 10:12).
4
2 W. Sibley Towner, “The Book of Ecclesiastes: Introduction, commentary, and reflections,” in
NIB, eds. Leander E. keck, and Richard J. Clifford (Abingdon: Nashville, 1997), 5:303.
3 In this context הבל could not mean vanity or meaningless when speaking of Creation, rather
‘transitory’within the human experience.
4 In 8:2 it is possible that the King is GOD.
Theodicy
Qoheleth, with ‘fear and trembling,’ seems to question if there is justice; by
implication “where is ELOHIM?” (4:1-3).5 However, the question in Qoheleth is not ‘if
there is an all-powerful GOD, why so much injustice?’ rather Qoheleth recognizes the
sovereign ELOHIM and calls for reverence and obedience, so perhaps humanity can be an
instrument of joy (happiness) in this fallen world full of pain and sorrows and so much
sadness. He recognizes that so much of the injustice is the product of human actions
(cf. 7:29). Qoheleth’s observations, within his own limited reasoning, at times did not let
him see the ELOHIM of history. The GOD that is present in human events and the GOD that
is not silent. The distance between him and ELOHIM was as big as the distance between
him and his ancestors who received the Torah. The only hope for an experience with the
Presence of ELOHIM, perhaps could be found by keeping reverence before this GOD that
transcends the limits of human reason and humbly submit to his commandments.
Qoheleth calls humanity to be merciful and compassionated (cf. 7:2). Qoheleth is
taking the time to see all the evil in the world, but, what about the many beautiful things
in our society? So much love and justice can be found in the acts of so many people;
Qoheleth was overwhelmed by evil and hevel, all the absurdities of life, that he
overlooked the good around him. In his hopelessness and loneliness, Qoheleth surrenders
to ELOHIM sovereignty recognizing that the hope of humanity is in complete reverence
and obedience.
Humanity should not say there is not a just GOD because of evil in the word and
the suffering of the one who does justice. It must recognize that there is injustice because
of the evil in humanity and its indifference toward the suffering of others (cf. 4:1). Like
5 Theodicy is from Θεοδικία meaning ‘justice of GOD.’ The question often addressed is “why
there is so much evil (contradictions?) in this world if there is a perfect and just GOD?” The term was
coined by Gottfried Wilhem Leibnitz in his book Essais de Theodiçée sur la bonté de Dieu la liberté de
l'homme et l'origine du mal (Amsterdam: 1710).
Qoheleth society perceives ELOHIM far away (5:2), outside the history of human events.
Tragically, many people are the cause of so much suffering in the world. Regardless of
the evil in the world ELOHIM is still sovereign. He created everything perfect, but
humanity has chosen evil (7:29). Therefore fear ELOHIM and keep his commandments.
Torah
Qoheleth must be read in the context of his Torah theology: ELOHIM is Sovereign.
Reading Qoheleth isolated from the context of the Torah and ignoring his theological
emphasis place the reader in danger. According to Shields “the danger we face as readers
of Ecclesiastes is in becoming so caught up in Qoheleth’s argument that we find
ourselves sharing his conclusions.” 6
It must be read remembering “the bigger picture”
given in the epilog.7 These words do not attempt to make a correction rather summarizes
the essence of the text. Murphy says that if its purpose was “to correct the book in line
with ‘orthodox’ wisdom, his was an outstanding failure. Indeed it can be argued that the
epilogue is far from a corrective, that it constitutes an endorsement of the work as being a
kind of final statement of the wisdom tradition.”8 Shields writes: “Qoheleth’s world is not
a comfortable or a comforting one.”9 However, because the clear statement on the
essence and purpose of this book (12:13, 15) Qoheleth is a book of comfort and hope.
6 Martion A. Shields, The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical
Function of Ecclesiastes (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), ix.
7 Ibid.
8 Roland Murphy, The Sage in Ecclesiastes and Qoheleth the Sage (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1990), 264.
9 Shields, End of Wisdom, ix.
Practical Theology: Is there significance in the text?
Klink and Locket argue that the text, every text, speaks to today’s reality.10
As
Wisdom Literature, there is significance in the text of Qoheleth. It answers many of the
concerns of human beings, although it does not provide all the answers. However, it
guides him toward the right direction: be reverent before ELOHIM and enjoy life by
observing his commandments. The main thought within Qoheleth message for the post-
modern mind is that human intellect is limited. Humans do not know and cannot expect
to know all the answers to the mysteries of this world, human life, the universe and
ELOHIM. Further study of Qoheleth must give emphasis to how the text’s message speaks
to the post-modern society. Regardless of it, the book has so much value for the
contemporary reader. It is a good example of the intellectual and theological struggle a
believer can go through without losing his/her faith. Castellino says that we learn from
Qoheleth the following:
a) Set aside all anxious striving and labour
b) Avoid all speculation on GOD’s ruling of the world and
c) Be thankful to GOD for whatever satisfaction he gives you, valuing and
measuring everything as a gift from him and enjoying it, never forgetting that
you shall have to render strict account to GOD himself.11
Qoheleth’s interpretation has to be in the context of the frame placed by the
epilogue: the fear of ELOHIM and call to keep his commandments. The book is in the
canon. The interpretation of the canon reflects thousands of years of Rabbinical tradition
and what the Church itself accepted from that tradition. Qoheleth, within the Church,
must be understood in the context of the Tanakh.
10 Cf. Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 20.
11 George R. Castellino, “Qohelet and his Wisdom,” in Reflecting with Solomon, ed. Roy Zuck
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 43.
Qoheleth sets a good example for pastors, rabbis and their congregations to
dialogue honestly and openly about their doubts and questions. In pastoral care this book
offers a resource for dialogue on death and the joy of life. Human certainty of death is an
area for which Qoheleth provides practical applications or significance for the human
journey. Death in Qoheleth is the end of every living being. The absurdity is that often
humans bring this through wars, violence, poverty, etc. The absurdity of weapons of mass
destruction is a reality today that makes Qoheleth more significant in this journey of faith
and doubts. No human has the right to bring death to another human being. Enjoy life,
every minute of it is Qoheleth call to humanity. Seek the happiness of the other, in it you
will find your own happiness (cf. 11:1-2). Qoheleth, in the context of Torah, encourages
enjoying life; not in a selfish way neither forgetting the other who is also a human.
Dasein, human existence, find its fullness in the other. The existence of the being finds
meaning in ELOHIM: The Ultimate truth is ELOHIM. The reality of death should not be an
obstacle to enjoy life.
Further work needed
There is the need for more work on the theology of Wisdom Literature, both
canonical and deuterocanonical, as well as other canonical books individually. Such a
study can then lead further into a BT of a particular compendium of literature as a whole,
e.g., a Solomonic BT, BT of Wisdom books. Barr articulates it well: “Another possibility
is that separate ‘theologies’ of individual books, or group of books, should be
produced…certainly the idea of theologies written on one book is creative and promising,
and possibly it indicates a way in which the subject should move forward in the future.”12
Nevertheless, he recognizes that such a project will not result in “a theology of the whole
12 James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 53-54.
canon since the relation (interrelation) between books is the main problem in biblical
theology.”13
Further work on Qoheleth’s theology is needed. One of the areas in need to be
addressed is the concept of time; a theology of time. Time moves fast in Qoheleth. There
is very little written on the topic. A few of essays are by Perani, e.g., La concezione
ebraica del tempo. Breve storia del problema.14
Brin addresses briefly the idea of time in
Qoheleth in his work, The concept of time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.15
More work on Patristic interpretation of Qoheleth is needed.16
It must study more
carefully Gregory Thaumaturgos’ translation of Qoheleth, Μετάφρασις εις τον
Εκκλησιαστην του Σολομωντος. Thaumaturgos’ work was the first systematic study of
Qoheleth. He was Bishop of Neocaesarea. Jarick has presented his work in an English
edition.17
The Patristic studies in relation to Qoheleth must include the work of the
Eastern Church Fathers, e.g., Syriac Orthodox, which have been neglected. Another text
worth considering in future studies is Gregory of Nyssa’s homiletical work. A
Greek/French edition with excellent notes is available by Vinel.18
The same publisher,
Cerf, has another important work that needs to be studied carefuly in any further study of
13 Ibid.
14 Mauro Perani, “La concezione ebraica del tempo. Breve storia del problema,” Studi italiani di
linguistica teorica e applicat,” 5 (1976): 595-604; “La concezione del tempo nell'Antico Testamento,”
Sacra Doctrina, 87 (1978): 193-242; “La concezione ebraica del tempo: appunti per una storia del
problema,” Rivista Biblica, 26 (1978): 401-421.
15Gershon Brin, The concept of time in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2001).
16 André Benoit et Pierre Prigen, La Bible et les Pères.( Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,
1971). On the exegesis of the Church Fathers see the resources from the Colloque de Strasburg (October
1st-3
rd, 1969).
17 John Jarick, Gregory Thaumaturgos’ Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes, (Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 1990).
18 Françoise Vinel, Grégoire de Nysse Homélies sur L’Ecclésiastes. (Paris: Cerf, 1996).
Qoheleth, edited by Géhin.19
It is a study on the work of Ponticus Evagrius (345?-399).
There is also need for further studies on the Mediaeval Exegesis of Qoheleth This is a
good source of ancient documents to understand the Latin Church Fathers use of
Qoheleth. Medieval studies have been approached by students with a negative prejudice,
but there is so much that can be used and valued from these writings.20
The Targum of Qoheleth is another text which needs to be considered on its own.
A good translation into English is by Knobel in the Aramaic Bible series.21
The Targum,
although an Aramaic translation from the Hebrew, has shown to be helpful in the
investigation of the ancient israel’s understanding of original meaning of the text, for
example in the study of Isaiah. It is possible that the Targum on Qoheleth could make a
similar contribution.
More research is needed on parallel literature and texts. The funeral speeches in
Latin and Greek could also be an interesting subject to approach due to the parallels
between their proverbs and Qoheleth’s thoughts about life and death. The possible
relation with ancient Chinese and Hindu literature and later use of this book by early
Islam, and other religious and philosophical movements can also be of interest. In some
cases many of these groups have access to information and even documents preserved in
their libraries, which were unknown to scholars.
The Proverbs in Qoheleth will take a whole research of its own. More imperative
is a study on intertextualité in Qoheleth, especially the parallels within the previous
canonical books. Solomon’s antecedent theology found in the Torah, including Joshua,
and the book of Judges, as well as in the Davidic Psalms must be carefuly addressed.
19 Paul Géhin, Σχολια εις τον Εκκλησιαστην (Paris: Cerf, 1993).
20 The best text on this subject is Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of
Scripture, (Edingburg: T&T Clarck, 1998).
21 Peter S. Knobel, The Targum Qohelet (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1991).
Especial attention must be given to the possibility of direct quotes, echos or allusions.
The echoes from the books of Psalms in Qoheleth are more important than parallels
outside the biblical canon. The main parallel of Qoheleth is the antecedent theology and
history, and wisdom literature of ancient Israel.
Assuming Solomon as the author of Qoheleth, his life and time must be
considered carefully and seriously. The internal evidence seems to point to him as the
author of this book. The influence of his father, David, is another aspect worth exploring,
concluding with a BT of the Solomonic compendium of literature.
Maybe it should considered re-dividing chapters and verses and perhaps to
present an edition of Qoheleth without either. Perhaps the almost silly idea of
rearranging the passages could be an experiment that may show some profit to solve
some of the questions on structure, after all the arrangement available today is the MT
from the 10th
century CE. While the DSS, i.e., Qumran mss, have been helpful to confirm
the accuracy of many MT mss, at times they have also been instruments to make
corrections. There is need to explore for other fragments and ancient mss of Qoheleth
among the mss already recovered. Perhaps more manuscripts are still in Qumran that
hopefully will help the researcher with the textual study of Qoheleth, i.e. language. More
work needs to be done on the language of Qoheleth; consequently a study on colloquial
Hebrew and its dialects is needed. The development of a Historical-Critical Grammar of
Hebrew can help us reach further conclusions about Qoheleth’s language and dialects of
the biblical text. The study of ancient translations of Qoheleth, e.g., Greek (LXX),
Coptic, Armenian, Ge’ez, among many others, can be helpful in understanding its
language and grammar. Future studies and editions of Qoheleth must provide up to date
critical apparatus of MT manuscripts and ancient translations variations, including
everything available in rabbinical writings’ quotes, as well as DSS and the Syriac, Greek,
and Latin Church Fathers’ references to Qoheleth. The BHQ has done the best work in
this area, so far. The Hebrew University Bible Project eventually will provide such a tool.
A comprehensive BT and exegesis of Qoheleth that follows the historico-
grammatical-literal interpretation as presented by dispensationalist hermeneutics is
needed. This dissertation is a small attempt toward such a project. This BT must go
beyond the study of the individual book, as attempted here, to a canonical BT; meaning
that Qoheleth cannot be fully understood outside the Torah. There is the danger of
distorting Qoheleth if it is not understood in the context of the Torah and understanding
its place in the progress of revelation. There must be a dialogue between Qoheleth and
the other books of the canon of the Tanakh; within the church that dialogue includes the
NT writings. How Jesus of Nazareth addressed similar or even the same topics that
concerned Qoheleth needs more research.
A study addressing further the significance of Qoheleth for the church and the
synagogue today, especially in pastoral ministry, could be a practical tool. Qoheleth
provides a good source for dialogue and counselling on issues of aging, materialism and
other ethical matters facing the communities of faith today.
This writer had tried to approach the book as if he has never read it before. Yet,
this writer came with a bias: It is a sacred canonical book within over 2000 years of
tradition! Regardless of this and so many other researches, articles, essays, dissertations
and books on Qoheleth, as Murphy says: “Qoheleth the preacher of the absurd and
Qoheleth the preacher of joy…remains as mysterious as his name, as the wisdom he
sought (and failed 7:23) to capture.”22
A final thought: A Pastoral Personal Reflection
Life is worth living. Regardless of the sorrows, pains, wars, injustice, violence,
and so much suffering in this world, life is still beautiful. Although humanity has polluted
22 Roland Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), ix.
this beautiful creation due to greed and selfishness, it “is a wonderful world after all.”
There is hope. There is beauty. In the middle of so much absurdity in this life, reason still
triumphs; reason, although limited, is a gift from the Heavens. There is so much I we do
not understand, so much I do not know and of what I know there is so much of it that I do
not understand. There are so many questions for which I do not have an answer; perhaps I
will never have an answer; so many thing I will never know and so much I will never
understand, above all the Great Mystery called ELOHIM (GOD), but I, like Qoheleth, keeps
living, keeps walking, keeps believing; keep rejoicing because life is beautiful and worth
living: for there is hope. However, I know the peace of ELOHIM that is beyond reason; the
love and mercy of a HEAVENLY FATHER that cares for us like a Mother for her children.
At times when this writer asks to himself if anyone is listening somehow he had
experienced the presence of the ETERNAL ONE giving assurance that the ALMIGHTY cares
and hear the cry of the soul. When struggling with meaning in life in this journey of faith
and doubts, surrender in awe, reverence and amazed at the Presence of ELOHIM and
humbly seek to walk in the way of the commandments which bring meaning and joy in
life. ETERNAL ONE, make us an instrument of love, justice, mercy and peace; a light in
the darkness, a song of joy in the life of someone, in the life of our children, spouses, and
friends; even in the life of the enemy make each one the blessing that brings honour to
you, HOLY ONE. Transform us and this world will be a better place when we become all
you want us to be. May each one of us be a blessing to each other and all of Creation.
Make us each day the husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, friends, brothers and
sisters, the men and women we should be, because life is worth to live. Amen.
׃האדם־זה כל־מצותיו שמור כי־האלהים ירא ואת־סוף דבר הכל נשמע את
265
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aaronson, Lionel E. Z. Qoheleth: The Record of the Lecture Given by the Son of David Who Was King in Jerusalem: a New and Original Translation and Paraphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes. Trowitzsch: Berlin, 1924.
Adam, A.K.M. What is post-modern in Biblical criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Adams, Samuel L. Wisdom in Transition: Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Allison, Gregg R. “Theological Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction and Preliminary Evaluation.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. 14:2 (Summer 2010): 28-36.
Alshekh, Moses, Ravi Shahar, and Arieh Rottenberg. The Book of Kohelet: In Pursuit of Perfection. The Alshicah Tanach series. Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1992.
Anderson, William H.V. Qoheleth and its Pessimistic Theology: Hermeneutical Struggle in wisdom Literature. Lempter: Mellen, 1997.
———. "Philosophical Considerations in a Genre Analysis of Qoheleth," Vetus Testamentum 48.3 (1998): 289-300.
Antic, Radiša. “Cain, Abel, Seth, and the meaning of human life as portrayed in the books of Genesis and Ecclesiastes.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 44,2 (2006) 203-211.
Archer, Gleason L. “The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of 'Ecclesiastes',” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 12.3 (1969): 167-181.
Azize, Joseph. “Considering the Book of Qohelet Afresh,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 37 (2000): 183-214.
Baab, Otto J. The Theology of the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1949.
Baldwin, Joyce G. “Is There Pseudonymity in the Old Testament?” Themelios 4.1 (1978): 6-12.
Barstad, Hans M. A Brief Guide to the Hebrew Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010.
266
Bartholomew, Craig G. Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory. Vol. 139 Analecta Biblica. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1998.
Bartholomew, Craig. “Ecclesiastes.” In Dictionary of Theological Interpretation, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 182-185. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
———. “Qoheleth in the Canon? Current Trends in the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” Themelios 24.3 (May 1999): 4-20.
Barton, George Aaron. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. New York: Scribner, 1908.
Barucq, Andre. Ecclesiaste, Qoheleth: trad. et comm. Verbum salutis, Ancien Testament, 3. Paris: Beauchesne, 1968.
Bauer, Georg Lorenz. The Theology of the Old Testament, or, A Biblical Sketch of the Religious Opinions of the Ancient Hebrews from the Earliest Times to the Commencement of the Christian Era: Extracted and Translated from the Theologie Des Alten Testaments of Georg Lorenz Bauer. London: C. Fox, 1838. (original consulted: Georg Lorenz Bauer. Theologie des Alten Testament, oder, Abriss der religiösen Begriffe der alten Hebraër von den altesten Zeiten bis auf Anfang der Christlichen Epoche: Zum Gebrauch akademischer vorlesungen. Leipzig: Weygund, 1796)
Bellia, Giuseppe and Angelo Passaro (eds.), Il libro del Qohelet: Tradizione, redazione, teologia. Cammini nello Spirito, Biblica 44. Milan: Paoline, 2001.
Benoit, André et Pierre Prigen. La Bible et les Pères. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971.
Berger, Benjamin Lyle. “Qoheleth and the Exigencies of the Absurd.” Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 9, 2 (2001): 141-179.
Berlejung, Angelika et Pierre van Hecke, eds. The Language of Qohelet in its Context. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 164. Leuven: Petters, 2007.
Bickermann, Elias. Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther. New York: Shocken, 1967.
Billings, J. Todd. The Word of GOD for the People of GOD: An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Binder, Gehard and Leo Liesenborghs. Didymos der Blinde: Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1979.
Birch, Bruce C. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999.
Bodine, Walter R. ed. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winnona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
267
1992.
Bodine, Walter Ray. Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
Bolin, Thomas. “Rivalry and Resignation: Girard and Qoheleth on the Divine-Human Relationship.” Biblica 86 (2005): 245-259.
Bottéro, Jean. “Le Dialogue Pessimiste et la Transcendence.” Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie 16 (1966) 18.
Boyle, Brian. “Let your garments always be white” (Eccl 9:8): time, fate, chance and provident design according to Qoheleth. Australian Biblical Review 55 (2007) 29-40.
Brandscheidt, Renate. Weltbegeisterung und Offenbarungsglaube: literar-, form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Buch Kohelet. Trierer theologische Studien, Bd. 64. Trier: Paulinus Verlag, 1999.
Branick, Vincent P. “Wisdom, pessimism, and "mirth" : reflections on the contribution of biblical wisdom literature to business ethics.” Journal of Religious Ethics 34,1 (2006) 69-87.
Braun, Rainer. Kohelet und die frühhellenistische Popularphilosophie. Zeitschrift fu r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Beih, 130. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973.
Brenner, Athalya ed. A feminist Companion to Wisdom Literature. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1995.
Brewer, David Instone. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum, 30. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 1992.
Briggs, Richard, Joel N. Lohr, and R. W. L. Moberly. A Theological Introduction to the Pentateuch: Interpreting the Torah as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.
Broch, Yitzhak I. Koheleth: The Book Ecclesiastes in Hebrew and English with Talmudic-Midrashic Commentary. New York: Feldheim, 1982.
Brooks, Cleanth and RobertWarren. Modern Rhetoric. 2nd
ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1958.
Brooks, Eugene Bhan, et al. The Communicative Act of Oral Interpretation. Boston: Keith, Ally and Bacon, 1975.
Brown, William P. Ecclesiastes. Interpretation A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. John Knox, Lousville, 2000.
Brueggemann, Walter, and Patrick D. Miller. Old Testament Theology: Essays on
268
Structure, Theme, and Text. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Buber, Salomon. Midrash Zuta on Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations and Kohelet. Jerusalem: n.p, 1980.
Bullinger, E. W. Figures of Speech used in the Bible. London, 1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968.
Burkes, Shannon. Death in Qoheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.
———. GOD, Self, and Death: The Shape of Religious Transformation in the Second Temple Period. Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism, v. 79. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Burkitt F. C. “Is Ecclesiastes a Translation?” Journal Theological Studies (1921) os-XXIII(89): 22-28.
Burnett, Joel S. Where Is GOD? Divine Absence in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010.
Burrows, Millar. 1927. "Kuhn and Koheleth." Journal of Biblical Literature. 46, (1927) 2: 90-97.
Campos, Harold de and J. Ginsburg. Qohélet/O-Que-Sabe-Eclesiastes: Poema Sapiensal. São Paulo: Perpectiva, 1991.
Carson, D. A. “Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Yes, but...” In Theological Commentary: Evangelical Perpsectives, edited by R. Michael Allen, 187-207. London: T&T Clark, 2011.
Carter, Charles E., and Carol L. Meyers. Community, Identity, and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996.
Castelli, David. Il libro del Cohelet volgarmente detto Ecclesiaste. Pisa: Tipografia Nistri, 1866.
Charles, R. H. ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1913.
Choi, John H. “The Doctrine of the Golden Mean in Qoh 7,15-18: A Universal Human Pursuit.” Biblica Vol. 83 (2002) 358-374.
Christianson, Eric S. Ecclesiastes Through the Centuries. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007.
Clemens, David M. “The Law of Sin and Death: Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1-3.” Themelios 19.3 (May 1994): 5-8.
Clifford, Richard J. Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.
269
Cohen, A., and A. J. Rosenberg. The Five Megilloth. London: Soncino Press, 1984.
Cohen, Abraham et al., translator. “Ecclesiastes,” in Midrash Rabbah. English edition by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon. London: Soncino, 1961.
Cohen, Marcel. Mélanges Marcel Cohen: Etudes De Linguistique Ethnographie Et Sciences Connexes Offertes Par Ses Amis Et Ses Eleves A L'occasion De Son 80eme Anniversaire, Avec Des Articles Et Etudes Inédits Par Marcel Cohen : Réunis Par David Cohen. Janua linguarum. Series maior, 27. Den Haag: Mouton,1970.
Cohen, Chaim et Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul. Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume : Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Cone, Christopher. Life Beyond the Sun: An Introduction to Worldview & Philosophy Through the Lens of Ecclesiastes. Ft. Worth: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2009. Collins, John Joseph. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. Knox preaching guides. Atlanta: John Knox, 1980.
———. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Crenshaw, James L. ed. Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. New York: Ktav, 1976.
———. Ecclesiastes. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1987.
———. “Qoheleth in the Canon? Current Trends in the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” Themelios 24.3 (May 1999): 4-20.
———. Urgent Advice and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old Testament Wisdom. Macon, Ga: Mercer, 1995.
———, ed. Theodicy in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Curry, Samuel S. Vocal and Literary Interpretation of the Bible. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903.
Davies, Casey Wayne, Oral Biblical Critcism: the Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1999.
Davis, Barry C. “Ecclesiastes 12:1-8 Death and Impetus for Life.” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991) 298-317.
Day, John et Robert P. Gordon et H.G.M. Williamson eds. Wisdom in Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Delitzsch, Franz Julius. Einleitung das Buch Koheleth in Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament vol 4. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1875. Various English
270
editions consulted.
Dell, Katherine J. Ecclesiastes NIBCO V. Nashville: Abingdon, 2010.
Deppe, Klaus, Ephraem, Jacob, and Joannes. Kohelet in der Syrischen Dichtung. Gottinger Orientforschungen. Reihe 1: Syriac, Bd. 6. 1975.
Detweiler, Robert ed. Derrida and Biblical Studies. SEMEIA 23. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,1982.
De Vries, Simon J. The Achievements of Biblical Religion: A Prolegomenon to Old Testament Theology. Lanham: University Press of America, 1983.
Dewey, Rosemary. “Qoheleth and Job: Diverse Responses to the Enigma of Evil.” Spirituality Today, 37 (Winter 1985): 314-325.
Díaz Esteban, Fernando. Sefer ‘Oklah wĕ-‘Oklah. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1975.
Dieckmann, Detlef. "Worte von Weisen sind wie Stacheln" (Koh 12,11): eine rezeptionsorientierte Studie zu Koh 1-2 und zum Lexem dabar im Buch Kohelet. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2012.
Dillon, E.J. The Skeptics of the Old Testament: Job, Koheleth, Agur. London: Isbister, 1895.
Dionysius, and Antonio Labate. Catena Hauniensis in Ecclesiasten: in qua saepe exegesis servatur Dionysii Alexandrini. Cofrpus Christianorum, 24. Turnhout: Brepols, 1992.
Doré, Daniel. Eclesiastés y Eclesiástico. Cuadernos Bíblicos 91. Navarra: EVD, 2009.
Dotan, Aaron. The Establishment of Hebrew Linguistfics. Auroux, Sylvain ed. History of the language sciences: an international handbook on the evolution of the study of language from the beginnings to the present. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006, 215-228.
Dyke Parunak, H. van. “Some Axioms for Literary Architecture” Semitics 8 (1982): 1-16.
Eaton, James H. “The preacher” revisited: an examination of Qoheleth from the perspective of the fear of GOD. Unpublished Th.M. Thesis. Clark Summit: Baptist Bible Seminary, 1991.
Eaton, Michael A. Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale Old Testament commentaries, 16. Leicester: IVP, 1983.
Ebeling, Erich. Ein babylonischer Kohelet. Berliner Beitra ge zur Keilschriftforschung, Bd. 1, Teil 1. Berlin: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers, 1922.
Eissfeldt, Otto. Introduction to the Old Testament Including the Apocrypha and
271
Pseudepigrapha, and Also the Works of Similar Type from Qumram: The History of the Formation of the Old Testament. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964 (Original German text consulted: Eißfeldt, Otto. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Tübingen: Mohr, 1934).
Ellul, Jacques. Reason for Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1990. (Original French consulted: La Raison d’être: Méditation sur l’Ecclésiaste. Paris: Sevil, 1987).
Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, and James M. Starr. Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.
Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2005.
Erdman, W. J. Ecclesiastes: A Study. Philadelphia: Avil, 1895.
Estes, Daniel J. Handbook on the Wisdom Books and Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Finley, Tom. Ecclesiastes: Survival in the 21st Century. Ventura: Regal, 1989.
Fisch, Menachem. “Criticism, Interpretation, and Canon: A Reply of Sorts.” The Journal of the Society for Textual Reasoning. Vol. 4 No. 2 (March 2006)
Fischer, Alexander. 1991. “Beobachtungen zur Komposition von Kohelet 1,3-3,15.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 103, no. 1: 72-86.
Fox, Michael. Qohelet and his Contradictions. Sheffield: Almond, 1989.
———. A Time to Tear Down, a Time to Build up: A Re-reading of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
———. Ecclesiaste. JPS Bible Commentary. Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia, 2004.
———. “Qohelet’s epistemology.” HUCA 58:137-56.
Fredericks, D. C. Qoheleth’s language: Re-evaluating its nature and Date. Lewiston: Mellen, 1988.
Frydrych, Tomáš. Living Under the Sun: Examination of Proverbs and Qoheleth. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, v. 90. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Friedman, Maurice, ed. The Worlds of Existentialism: A Critical Reader. New York: Random, 1964.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.
Gammie, John G., and Leo G. Perdue. The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East.
272
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Gammie, John G., Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon perka considers, and William Johnston Wiseman. In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Garret, Duane A., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. In The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, 14. Nashville: Broadman, 1993.
———. “Ecclesiastes 7:25-29 and the Feminist Hermeneutic.” Criswell Theological Review 2.2 (1988) 309-321.
———. “Qoheleth on the Use and Abuse of Political Power.” Trinity Journal 8 (1987) 159-177.
Géhin, Paul. Evagre le Pontique Scholies a L’Ecclésiaste (Σχολια εις τον Εκκλησιαστην). Paris: Cerf, 1993.
Geisler, Norman L. ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Electronic ed. of the revised and expanded ed. Logos Library System. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996, c1989.
Gilbert, M. “Wisdom Literature.” Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. ed. Michael E. Stone. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984, 283-324.
Ginsburg, Christian D. Coheleth: Commonly Called The Book of Ecclesiastes; Translated from the Original Hebrew, with a Commentary Historical & Critical. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1861.
Girdlestone, Robert Baker. Synonyms of the Old Testament: Their Bearing on Christian Faith and Doctrine. London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1871.
Glazer, H. “A Meditation on Kohelet: Simha-The Joy of Gratefulness”. Conservative Judaism. 60, no. 1/2: 147-150, 2008.
Goldsworthy, Graeme. Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012.
Gomez Aranda, Mariano. “The Meaning of Qohelet According to Ibn Ezra's Scientific Explanations.” Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism - Volume 6, 2006, pp. 339-370.
González Núñez, Ángel. Qohélet: EL Sabio desengañado. Bilbao: EGA, 1996.
Gordis, Robert. Koheleth: the man and his World. New York: Schoken, 1968.
Green, Joel B. Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible As Scripture. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007.
273
Green, William Henry. “The Scope and Plan of the Book of Ecclesiastes.” Biblical Reparatory and Princeton Review 29 (1857) 419-40.
Greenspahn, Frederick E. Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East. Essential papers on Jewish studies. New York: NYUP, 1991.
———, ed. The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship. New York: NYUP, 2008.
Gross, Dieter. Kohelet. Stuttgart: Verl. Kath. Bibelwerk, 2005.
Grossfeld, Bernard ed. The Targum to the Five Megiloth. New York: Hermon, 1973.
Hall, Stuart george ed. Gregory of Nyssa Homilies on Ecclesiastes: An English version with Supporting Studies. Berlin: Gruyter, 1993.
Haden, N. Karl. “Qoheleth and the Problem of Alienation.” Christian Scholars Review 17 (1987) 52-66.
Hannah, John D. Inerrancy and the Church. Chicago: Moody, 1984.
Handy, Lowell K. ed. The Age of Solomon. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Haran, Menahem. Bible Scrolls in eastern and Western Jewish Communities from Qumran the High Middle Ages. Hebrew Union College Annual. Vol. LVI (1985), 21-62.
Harrison, C. Robert. Qoheleth among the Sociologists, Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches, Volume 5, Number 2, (1997), 160-180.
Hayyim, Ze’ev ben, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. New York: Harper, 1962.
Hengstenberg, Ernest W. A Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Menneapolis: Sovereign Grace, 1960.
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. Der Prediger (Qohelet). Leipzig: Deichert, 1932.
Henze, Matthias. Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Studies in the Dead Sea scrolls and related literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Hinson, David F. Theology of the Old Testament. London: SPCK, 2001.
Hirsch, Eric Donald. “The validity of allegory.” Convegno internazionale sul tema ermeneutica e critica. Convegno internazionale sul tema ermeneutica e critica: Roma 7-8 ottobre 1996. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1998.
Hirschman, Marc. The Greek fathers and the Aggada on Ecclesiastes: Formats of Exegesis in Late Antiquity, HUCA 59 (1998), 137-165.
Holmstedt, Robert D. “ ולבי אני the Syntactic Encoding of the Collaborative Nature of
274
Qohelet's Experiment.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9 (2009): 2-27.
Horne, Milton P. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2003.
House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Ingram, Doug. Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes. New York: T & T Clark, 2006.
Isaksson, Bo. Studies in the Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on the Verbal System. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 10. Uppsala: [Uppsala University], 1987.
Japhet, Sara and Robert B. Salters. The Commentary of R. Samuel Ben Meir, Rashbam, on Qoheleth. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985.
Jarick, John. Gregory Thaumaturgos’ Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1990.
Jastrow, Morris. A Gentle Cynic. London: Lippincot, 1919.
Johnson, Raymond Eugene. The Rhetorical Question As a Literary Device in Ecclesiastes. Thesis (Ph.D.)--Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1986.
Jong, Stephan de. 1997. “GOD in the Book of Qohelet: A Reappraisal of Qohelet's Place in Old Testament Theology”. Vetus Testamentum. 47, no. 2: 154-167.
Kaiser, Otto. Kohelet: das Buch des Prediger Salomo. Stuttgart: Radius-Verlag, 2007.
Kaiser, Walter C. and Ronald F. Youngblood. A Tribute to Gleason Archer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.
Kamano, Naoto. Cosmology and Character: Qoheleth’s Pedagogy from a Rhetorical-critical perspective. Beihefle zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Band 312. Berlin: Gruyter, 2002.
Kamuf, Peggy, ed. A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Katz, Sandra. Kohelet in Me'am Lo'ez. Thesis (M.A.H.L.)-Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, New York School, 1993.
Keck, Leander et al. New Interpreters Bible. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997-2004.
Kidner, Derek, and Derek Kidner. The Message of Ecclesiastes: A Time to Mourn, and a Time to Dance. The Bible speaks today. Leicester: IVP, 1989.
Knierim, Rolf P. The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases: Essays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Knight, George A. F. A Christian Theology of the Old testament. Carisle: Paternoster, 1969 (rep. 1998).
275
Knobel, Peter S. The Targum Qohelet. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1991.
Kofman, Sarah. Lectures de Derrida. Paris: Editions Galilée, 1984.
Koh, Y. V. Royal Autobiography in the Book of Qoheleth. Berlin: Gruyter, 2006.
Kohn, Eli. Book of Ecclesiastes-Kohelet: A Living Dialogue. Unpublished dissertation. S.l: s.n. 1997.
Köhler, Ludwig. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr, 1953. (English: Testament Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957).
Kranz, Jacob ben Wolf, and Dovid Zucker. Voice of Nobles: Commentary of the Dubner Maggid on the Book of Ecclesiastes (Koheles) Jerusalem: Feldheim, 2009.
Kravitz, Leonard S., and Kerry M. Olitzky. Kohelet: a Modern Commentary on Ecclesiastes. New York: UAHC Press, 2003.
Kroeber, Rudi. Der Prediger; Hebraisch und Deutsch. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963.
Krüger, Thomas. Kohelet (Prediger). Neukirchener-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. (English version: Kru ger, Thomas, O. C. Dean, and Klaus Baltzer. Qoheleth A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004).
Lacoste, Jean-Yves. Encyclopedia of Christian theology. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Lantz, J. Edward. Reading the Bible Aloud. New York: MacMillan, 1959.
Lauha, Aarre. Kohelet. Biblischer Kommentar, Bd. 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978.
Laurent, Franc oise. Les biens pour rien en Qohéleth 5,9-6,6 ou: La traversée d'un contraste. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fu r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Bd. 323. Berlin: Gruyter, 2002.
Lavoie, Jean-Jacques. La pensée du Qohélet: étude exégétique et intertextuelle. Saint-Laurent, Québec: Fides, 1992.
———. Qohélet: Un Critique Moderne de la Bible. Montréal: Médiaspaul, 1995.
———. «Ironie et Ambiguites en Qohelet 10, 16-20.» Studies in Religion. Sciences Religieuses. 37:2 (2008): 183.
Lee, Charlotte I. Oral Reading of the Scriptures. Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1974.
Leiman, Sid Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. 2
nd ed. CAAS: New Heaven, 1991.
Leithart, Peter J. Solomon Among the Postmoderns. Grand Rapids, Mich: Brazos Press, 2008.
276
Levin, Saul. Guide to the Bible. Binghamton: SUNY, 1991.
Levine, Étan. The Humor in Qohelet. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 109:1, (1997): 71–83.
Lewis, Gordon R. et al. eds. Challenges to Inerrancy: A Theological response. Chicago: Moody, 1984.
Lewis, Jack P. “What Do We Mean by Jabneh?” Journal of Bible and Religion 32.2 (Apr., 1964): 125-132.
Loader, James Alfred. Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet. Berlin: Gruyter, 1979.
Loader, James Alfred, and John Vriend. Ecclesiastes: A Practical Commentary. Text and interpretation. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1986.
Lohfink, Norbert. Qohelet: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003 (Original German text consulted: Lohfink, Norbert. Kohelet. Die neue Echter Bibel. [Wurzburg]: Echter Verlag, 1980).
Longman III, Tremper. The Book of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Longman, Tremper, Raymond B. Dillard, and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
Loewenclau, Ilse. „Kohelet Und Sokrates – Versuch Eines Vergleiches.“ Zeitschrift für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98.3: (1986): 327-33.
Longman III, Tremper. The Book of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Lubac, Henri de. Medieval Exegesis..The Four Senses of Scripture. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1998.
Lucà, Santo. Anonymus in Ecclesiasten commentarius qui dicitur Catena trium patrum. Corpus Christianorum, 11. Turnhout: Brepols, 1983.
Lys, Daniel. L’Ecclésiaste ou Que vaut la vie?. Paris : Letouzey et Ané, 1977.
MacDonald, John. The Theology of the Samaritans. Philadelphia: Westminster: Philadelphia, 1964.
Mancuso, Piergabriele. Qohelet Rabbah: midras sul libro dell'Ecclesiaste. Firenze: Giuntina, 2004.
Machado, Antonio. Poesias completas [1899-1917] de Antonio Machado. Madrid: Residencia de estudiantes, 1917.
McGinniss, Mark. Contributions of Selected Rhetorical Devices to a Biblical Theology of the Song of Songs. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011.
277
Mckenzie, John L. A Theology of the Old Testament. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974.
Marcus, Paul. The Wisdom of Ecclesiastes and its Meaning for Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalytic Review 87 (2000): 227-250.
Markoe, Glenn E. Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
Marti, Kurt. Prediger Salomo: Weisheit inmitten der Globalisierung: deutsche Fassung mit Zwischentiteln und einem Einstieg. Stuttgart: Radius, 2002.
Martin, Rose, and Béatrice Perregaux Allisson. Rien de nouveau: nouvelles approches du livre de Qoheleth. Orbis biblicus et orientalis, 168. Fribourg (Switzerland): Editions Universitaires, 1999.
Maussion, Marie. Le mal, le bien et le jugement de Dieu dans le livre Qohélet. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 190. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 2003.
Mazzinghi, Luca. “The Divine Violence in the Book of Qoheleth.”, Biblica. Vol. 90 (2009): 545-558.
McCabe, Robert. “The Message of Ecclesiastes.” DBSJ (Spring 1996): 85-112.
Meiri, Batsheva H. Kohelet: How to Live in a World of Absurdities. Unpublished dissertation. New York: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1996.
Mercer, Samuel A. B. The Ethiopic Text of the Book of Ecclesiastes. London: Luzac, 1931.
Motyer, J. A., and John R. W. Stott. The Story of the Old Testament: Men with a Message. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2001.
Moore, T. M. Ecclesiastes: Ancient Wisdom When All Else Fails : a New Translation & Interpretive Paraphrase. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Mulder, Martin Jan et Harry Sysling, eds. Mikra: Text, Translation, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Assen: Gorcum, 1988.
McCabe, Robert. “The Message of Ecclesiastes,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 85-112.
Miller, Douglas B. Symbol and Rhetoric in Ecclesiastes. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Mills, Mary E. Reading Ecclesiastes: A literary and cultural exegesis. Hants: Ashgate, 2003.
Müller, Hans-Peter. „Theonome Skepsis und Lebensfreude,“ Biblische Zeitschrift 30.1 (1986), 1-19.
Morgan, Donn F. The making of sages: Biblical Wisdom and Contemporary Culture.
278
Harrisburg: Trinity, 2002.
Motos López, Maria del Carmen. Las vanidades del mundo: comentario rabinico al Eclesiastés. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2001.
Murphy, Roland ed. Medieval Exegesis of Wisdom Literature: essays by Beryl Smalley. (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986.
———. “The Theological Contributions of Israel’s Wisdom Literature.” Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture 19 (1984), 30-40.
———. “Qoheleth and Theology?” Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, Feb 1991; vol. 21: 30 - 33.
———. “On Translating Ecclesiastes.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly. (1991) 571-579.
———. “The Faith of Qohelet.” Word & World 7,3 (1987): 253-260.
———. Ecclesiastes. Dallas, Tex: Word Books, 1992.
———. The Sage in Ecclesiastes and Qoheleth the Sage. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Naḥmani, Levi Se’adyah, Juliette Lichtenstein, and André Lichtenstein. L'Alliance de Levi: Kohelet L'Ecclesiaste: commentaires des trois livres du Roi Salomon: Kohelet, Proverbes, le Cantique des cantiques. S.l: s.n, 2004.__________. Ecclesiastes. Vol. 23A. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1992.
Neher, André. Notes sur Qohélét. Paris : Editions de minuit, 1951.
Nicole, Roger R. “The Nature of Inerrancy,” The Gospel Witness. March 19, 1987.
Niditch, Susan. Ancient Israelite religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
———, ed. Text and Tradition. The Hebrew Bible and Folklore series. Scholar: Atlanta, 1990.
———. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Westminster: Lousville, 1996.
Noegel, Scott B. "Word play in Qoheleth." The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7 (2007) #4.
Ogden, Graham S., Qohelet. London: JSOT, 1987.
———. Qoheleth, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007.
Ogden, Graham et Lynell Zogbo. A Handbook on Ecclesiastes. Sttutgart: UBS, 1997.
Ollenburger, Ben C., E. A. Martens, and Gerhard F. Hasel. The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-Century Old Testament Theology,
279
1930-1990. Sources for biblical and theological study, 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Okorie, A. M. “¡Vanidad de vanidades! Todo es vanidad; El veredicto del Eclesiastés.” Revista Bíblica 59 (1997): 129-133.
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: the technologizing of the word. London: Routledge, 1996.
Orlinsky, Harry. “The Import of the Kethib-Kere and the Masoretic Note on Leḵa h Judges 19.13.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 31.1 (Jul., 1940): 59-66.
Otomo, Satoshi. Kohelet und Apokalyptik. Unpublished dissertation. S.l: s.n., 1999.
Pakkala, Juha. Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 8. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2004.
Parson, Stephen F. Ecclesiastes 9:7-10 and the words of Qoheleth. Unpublished Th.M. Thesis. Clark Summit: Baptist Bible Seminary, 1985.
Paulson, Gail Nord. “The Use of Qoheleth in Bonhoeffer's Ethics.” Word & World 18, 3 (Summer 1998): 307-313.
Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.
———. Scribes, sages and seers: the sage in the Eastern Mediterranean world. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
———. The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Perdue, Leo G., Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman, eds. In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Perry, David. The Concept of Pleasure. Hague: Mouton, 1967.
Perry, T. A. Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes. University Park: Penn State University, 1993.
Peshitta Institute, Leiden, S. P. Brock, and M. J. Mulder. The Old Testament in Syriac: Peshitta Version 2,5, Proverbs, Wisdom, Qohelet, Song of Song. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Petersen, David L., Joel M. LeMon, and Kent Harold Richards. Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.
Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper, 1948.
280
Pinçon, Bertrand. L'enigme Du Bonheur: Etude Sur Le Sujet Du Bien Dans Le Livre De Qohelet. Supplements to the Vetus Testamentum, v. 119. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Pinker, Aron. 2008. "The Principle of Irreversibility in Kohelet 1,15 and 7,13". Zeitschrift FÜr Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 120, no. 3: 387-403.
———. “Intrusion of Ptolemaic Reality on Cultic Practices in Qoh 4:17.” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. 9 (2009): 2-30.
———. "Qohelet 6:9 -- It Looks Better Than It Tastes". The Journal of Jewish Studies. 60, no. 2 (2009): 214.
———. "Qohelet 2,12b". Biblische Zeitschrift. 53, no. 1 (2009): 94.
———. “The Doings of the Wicked in Qohelet 8:10.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol 8 (2008):
Plungian, Mordecai. כרם לשלמה: והוא ביאור חדש ומספיק על ספר קהלת Vilna: Bi-defus ha-Almanah veha-Aḥim Rom, 1877.
Podechard, E. L'Ecclésiaste. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1912.
Porter, Stanley and Thomas H. Olbricht eds. Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1996.
Porter, Stanley E. and Thomas H. Olbricht eds. The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference. Sheffield: Sheffiled University Press, 1997.
Purvis, James D. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968.
Rad, Gerhard von, and James D. Martin. Wisdom in Israel. Harrisburg, Pa: Trinity Press International, 1993.
Radmacher, Earl D. et al. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1984.
Rainey, Anson F. “A Study of Ecclesiastes.” Concordia Theological Monthly 35 (1964) 148-57.
Reitman, James S. “The Structure and Unity of Ecclesiastes.” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (July-September 1997): 297-319.
Rang, Jack. How to Read the Bible Aloud. New Jersey: Paulist, 1994.
Rankin O.S. et Gaius Glenn Atkins. The Book of Ecclesiastes Vol. V The Interpreter’s Bible. New York: Abingdon, 1956.
Reeves, John C., John Kampen, and Ben Zion Wacholder. Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday.
281
Journal for the study of the Old Testament, 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Rendtorff, Rolf. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament. Leiden: DEO, 2005.
Robertson, David. The Old Testament and the Literary Critic. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Rogerson, J. W. A Theology of the Old Testament: Cultural Memory, Communication, and Being Human. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010.
Rotnemer, Elie. Le livre de Kohelet. Armentière-en-Brie: Institutions 'Ohr Joseph', 1970.
Routledge, Robin. Old Testament: A Thematic Approach. Downer Grove: IVP, 2008.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Vom Buch Kohelet. Mu nster, Westf: Aschendorff, 1959.
Rudman, Dominic. Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 316. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Sandberg, Ruth N., and Samuel ben Meir. Rabbinic Views of Qohelet. Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press, 1999.
Sanders, J. “The Integrity of Biblical Pluralism” In “Not in Heaven”: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative. Edited by Jason P. Rosenblatt et Joseph C. Sitterson Jr. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.
Salyer, Gary D. Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 327. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Sandberg, Ruth N. Rabbinic Views of Qohelet. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Press, 1999.
Schellenberg, Annette. Erkenntnis als Problem: Qohelet und die alttestamentliche Diskussion um das menschliche Erkennen. Orbis biblicus et orientalis, 188. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universita tsverlag, 2002.
Schökel, Luis Alonzo. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Subsidia biblica, 11. Rome: EPIB, 1988.
Schoors, A. The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth. Leuven: Peeters, 1992.
———. Qohelet in the context of wisdom. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium, 136. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998.
———. “Kethibh-Qere in Ecclessiastes” in Studia Paulo Naster Oblata. eds. Paul Naster, Simone Scheers, and J. Quaegebeur. Leuven: Peeters, 1982, 2:215-222.
Schoors, A, and L Schwienhorst-Schonberger. “Recensiones - Vetus Testamentum –
282
Kohelet.” Biblica. 87.1 (2006): 127.
Schoors, A., Angelika Berlejung, and P. van Hecke. The Language of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta, 164. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.
Schubert, Mathias. Scho pfungstheologie bei Kohelet. Beitra ge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums, Bd. 15. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1989.
Schwab, George M. “Woman as the Object of Qoheleth’s search.” Andrews University Seminary Studies. (Spring 2001) Vol. 39, No.1, 73-84.
Schwienhorst-Scho nberger, Ludger. Kohelet. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004.
———, ed. Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fu r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Bd. 254. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.
Scott, R.B.Y. Proverbs Ecclesiastes: Introduction, translation, and notes. The Anchor Bible. Vol. 18. Garden City: Doubleday, 1965.
Seitz, Christopher R. The Character of Christian Scripture: The Significance of a Two-Testament Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
Seow, Choon-Leong. Ecclesiastes. Vol. 18C. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
Shank, H. Carl. Qoheleth’s World and Life View as seen in His Recurring Phrases. Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974) 57-73.
Sharp, Carolyn J. Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009.
Shead, Andrew G. “Reading Ecclesiastes 'Epilogically'.” Tyndale Bulletin 48.1 (1997) 67-91.
Sheppard, Gerald T. Wisdom As a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1980.
Shields, Martin A. The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes. Winonalake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
———. “Ecclessiastes and the End of Wisdom.” Tyndale Bulletin 50.1 (1999) 117-139.
Shnider, Steven, and Lawrence Zalcman. "The Righteous Sage: Pleonasm or Oxymoron? (Kohelet 7,16-18)". Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 115.3 (2003): 435-439.
Shuster, Martin. “Being as Breath, Vapor as Joy: Using Martin Heidegger to Re-read the
283
Book of Ecclesiastes.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2008 33: 219-244.
Sicker, Martin. Kohelet: The Reflection of a Judean Prince. New York: iUniverse, 2006.
Singer, Isodore ed. Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901.
Sharp, Carolyn J. Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009.
Sneed, Mark. “A Note on Qoh 8,12b-13.” Biblica. Vol. 84 (2003) 412-416.
Solé i Auguets, Maria Claustre. Déu, una paraula sempre oberta: el concepte de Déu en el Qohelet. Barcelona: Facultat de teologia de Catalunya, 1999.
Sperka, Joshua. Ecclesiastes: Stories to Live by. New York: Bloch, 1972.
Spieckermann, Hermann. «Suchen und Finden; Kohelets kritische Reflexionen», Biblica Vol. 79 (1998) 305-332.
Spinoza, Benedict de. Tractus Theologico-Politicus: A Critical Inquiry into the History, Purpose, and Authenticity of the Hebrew Scriptures. London: Trübner, 1862.
Steck, Odil Hannes. Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology. Resources for biblical study, no. 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.
Stoute, Percy P. “Bread upon the Waters.” Bibliotheca Sacra 107 (1950): 222-226.
Strawn, Brent A. and Nancy R. Bowen. A GOD so Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2003.
Sweet, Henry. A Manual of Current Shorthand, Orthographic and Phonetic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892.
Tabachnik, David E. Kohelet: introduccion al existencialismo judio. Jerusalem: Fundación Moises Vainer-Shimshon Feldman, 2004.
Tamez, Elza. When the Horizons Close: rereading Ecclesiastes. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2000.
Telushkin, Joseph. Biblical Literacy: The Most Important People, Events, and Ideas of the Hebrew Bible. New York: William Morrow, 1997.
Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Towner, W. Sibley. The Book of Ecclesiastes: Introduction, commentary, and reflections. vol. V 263-360 the New Interpreter’s Bible. Abingdon: Nashville, 1997.
Tracy, David. Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1987. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Treier, Daniel J. “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis: Sic et Non.” Trinity Journal
284
24:1 (Spr 2003): 77-103.
Treier, Daniel J. “Biblical theology and/or theological interpretation of scripture?” Scottish Journal of Theology, 61 (2008): 16-31.
Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis: AugsburgFortresss, 1994.
Troxel, Ronald L., Kelvin G. Friebel and Dennis R. Magary, eds. Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients : Essays offered to honor Michael V. Fox. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Ascending the Mountain; Singing the Rock: Biblical Interpretation Earthed, Typed, and Transfigured.” Modern Theology 28:4 (October 2012): 780-803.
Vilchez, José. Eclesiastes o Qohelet. Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1994.
Vinel, Françoise. Grégoire de Nysse Homélies sur L’Ecclésiastes. Paris: Cerf, 1996.
Von Rad, Gehard. Wisdom in Israel. London: SCM, 1972. Reprint, Nashville: Abingdom, 1981.
Vriezen, Theodorus Christiaan. An Outline of Old Testament Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1958.
Webster, J. B. The Domain of the Word: Scripture and Theological Reason. London: T&T Clark, 2012.
Wellum, Stephen J. “Reflecting Upon The ‘Theological Interpretation Of Scripture’” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14:2 (Summer 2010): 2-3.
Woude, A. S. van der, and H. A. Brongers. The World of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989
Weeks, Stuart. Early Israelite Wisdom. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994
Whitley, Charles F. Koheleth: Its Language and Thought. Berlin: Gruyter, 1979.
Whybray, R. N. Ecclesiastes. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
———. Ecclesiastes. Eerdmans, 1989.
———. The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament. Berlin: Gruyter, 1974.
Wilken, Robert ed. Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and early Christianity. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975.
Williams, Neal D. “A Biblical Theology of Ecclesiastes.” Th. D. diss., Dallas
285
Theological Seminary, 1984.
Wright, J. Stafford Ecclesiastes, Vol. 5 The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein Grand Rapid: Zondervan, 1991.
———. “The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes,” The Evangelical Quarterly 18.1 (Jan. 1946): 18-34.
Wright, J. Robert, and Thomas C. Oden. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, 9. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Wright, George Ernest, ed. The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961.
Yerushalmi, Rabbi Shmuel. The Book of Qoheleth. Me’am Lo’ez: Torah Anthology on the Book of Ecclesiastes. New York: Moznaim, 1988.
Zamora, Pedro. Fe, politica y economia en Eclesiastés: Eclesiastés a la luz de la Biblia hebrea, Sira y Qumran. Navarra: Verbo Divino, 2002.
Zimmermann, Frank. Inner World of Qohelet. New York: Ktav, 1972.
———. “The Aramaic Provenance of Qohelet.” The Jewish Quarterly Review, 36.1 (July 1945): 17-45.
Zuck, Roy ed. Reflecting with Solomon. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.
Zuck, Roy B. " GOD and Man in Ecclesiastes" Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991): 46-56.
Zlotowitz, Meir, and Scherman Nosson. Koheles|Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologised from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources. New York: Mesorah, 1977.
top related