Page 1
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 1/29
QOHELETH
STUDIES
Even a cursory survey of a good bliblical bibliography
of the
last ten years shows the interest surrounding the book
of
Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes). We do not intend
to
examine
in
detail
here all the studies published.
Rather
we shall present briefly
the most notable
of
them and attempt to bring out their
distinctive contribution to
a
better understanding
of
Qoheleth
Our survey of the commentaries and of the particular studies
will
be
followed by more personal reflections
on
the trend
of
present-day research'.
1 COMMENTARIES
With respect to the rather large number of commentaries
published recently
it
should
be
noted
that
some of them are
but new editions of older works2. As for the truly
new
ones it
is
not always evident that they represent new approaches or
offer new solutions worth considering.
Let
us examine some
of
the questions they raise.
1. Place
and Date
of Origin
There exists
a
sort
of
consensus among the commentators
to
give
a
Palestinian origin to Qoheleth3, and
to
disregard other
possibilities, like Egypt and Babylonia. Hertzberg's study of
the indications found
in
Qoheleth regarding the climate, the
geography, and other concrete
data
has contributed much
towards the acceptance
of
Palestine
as
its place
of
origin.
With
him also, the majority of the commentators think it wa s com-
For
editorial reasons the authors are referred to by their name
only and the page, when necessary. The full title of the works wil l
be
found
in
the bibliography.
2 Galling wrote his commentary in 1940, Herkberg in 1932,Dueste rg
in 1939, and Cords in 1951.
3
Hesitation on this point is expressed by Loretz
4 2 and
Eissfeldt
674.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 2
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 2/29
QOHELETH
STUDIES
3
posed in
Jerusalem, while others would
rather settle for the
Northern region,
h
Phoenician tei-ritory'.
Qoheleth is comionly held
to
be
a
postexilic book,
and
most critics place
its
composition in the 3rd century
(see
Loretz
28), for different motives: comparison
w i t h
other
books
of the
OT
(Hertzberg, Galling), influences
011
the vocabulary used
(Murphy, Loretz), the ideas expressed in the
book
(Eissfeldt).
But the decisive reason now rests on the discoveries of Qumran5.
The argumentation
b e d
on supposed historical allusions in Qo
4:13-16 and
10:16
has
not
been accepted8.
2. Influences and language
Commentators are generally more cautious today than for-
merly in admitting the presence in Qoheleth of Egyptianisnie
or Grecisms7. Foreign influences can hardly be denied, but it
is not always easy to establish specific cases of it. There exists
no
longer
the
once popular inclination to
turn
to Egypt or
Greece to find the sources of inspiration for
the
themes developed
in Qoheleth. Contacts obviously cannot
be
denied, and some
of
them are remarkable. But they need not
be
tlirect, since they
can
be
explained by
a
thematic widespread among the Orientals
as
their common patrimony (Zimmerli 128, von Rad
398).
Eiss-
feldt continues, however, to defend the Greek spirit in
Qo
(p.
675) and Loretz does not preclude
the
possibility
of
direct
contacts with the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic (p. 133f).
The langage
of
Qoheleth
is
that
of the later period;
it
has
noticeable similarities
w i t h
Mishnic Hebrew (Murphy
534).
Zimmerniann, Torrey, and Ginsberg attempted to revive the
older Burkitt thesis of an Aramaic original later translated into
Hebrew (cf. Eissfeldt 672).
It
offered
an
easy explanation
of
the numerous Aramaisms found in Qo. But why were so many
Cf. Barucq
18, Loretz
*
41,
nahood
B i b 1962,
07 1958, 317). On
Loretz
*
29, Dahood
in
Bib
1958, p. 303, and Muilenburg.
6
Again recently Schunk
has
proposed
a
comparison
of
this
type,
but the commentators do not
agree
with
him: cf.
Galling 75, Hertzberg
*
117,
Zimmerli
128.
Hertzberg
*
43,
56, Galling
77,
Murphy
534, Loretz
*
56.
Dahood's view see Hertzberg 45, n. 4 .
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 3
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 3/29
24 S. BRETON
Aramaic terms left untranslated (Galling 75)
?
This problem
leads scholars to follow Margoliouth’s theory, updated by Gordis:
Qoheleth wrote in Hebrew, but lie also knew Aramaic, the
language he probably used in ordinaiy life, like his contem-
poraries (Gordis 61).
3.
The
Unity of the
Book
This problem has been approached from widely different
angles: Ginsberg and Bea, considering the content of the book,
defend
a
progressive development which logically would have
led to
a
climax represented by ch. l Z 3 From the standpoint
of
formal analysis Galling defends exactly the contrary: a logical
development
is
out of the question. The structure
of
Qoheleth
can in no way
be
discovered through the logical progress of his
exposition. The small literary unit should be the point of de-
parture. The opinions of present-day commentators vary within
the limits set
by
the
two
extreme positions just mentioned:
Hertzberg denied to
Bea
and Ginsberg the right to see
a
plo-
gressive
logical development. The conclusion of the
book’s second
chapter, for exaniple, seeins just
as
clear
as that
reached
at
the end
of
the twelfth.
Ir?
each chapter we already have
an
order
and
a
logical structure.
In this
way Hertzberg differs also from
Galling.
For
him not the small unit but
the
chapter
is
im-
portant. He thus escapes the criticism levelled against Galling
by
Ginsberg,
that of atomizing the
book
(Hertzberg 36) . Yet
Hertzberg, has
to
acimit that the logical tenor of some chapters
is
rather hazy, that not rarely
a
title must
be
found
that
will
be
applicabIe to the most varied reflections
i b i d . ] .
Zimmerli 131f) recognizes the validity of Galling’s star-
ting-point, but would not build from
it a
concrete pattern
fo r
structuring and grouping the sinall units; this is for the ele-
mentary motive of doing justice to all the possibilities which
manifest themselves
in
the
book:
in
ch.
10,
for example, we
find
a mere enumeration, apparently the result of the hasty as-
sembling
of
a
remainder
of
sayings, before the termination
of
8
Bea,
Liber Ecclesiaste,
Ginsberg, Studies. But these two authors
come to completely different conclusions as
regards
the structure of
the book.
See
Wright 315,
NN.
4-5.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 4
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 4/29
QOHELETH STUDIES
s
t h e book. There are also units. once independent, which were
later disposed according to a recurring key-word: Qo 4:7-12;
4:13-16.
It
is possible to discern
a
mutual dependence of units,
which introduce, describe, or summarize various reflections (e.g.
Loretz warn s against th e dan ger of attem ptin g to discover
in
Qoheleth the projections of our own
rational
categories,
of
seeking there intentions and structures compatible with our
present-day mentality. It is methodologically mistaken to a p
proach Qoheleth with logical standards, be i t to
And
the rational
outlin e of t h e whole book, or to isolate
the
small unit. The key
to the solut ion
is
of a topical, not of
a
rational nature. Loretz
accepts the descriptive definition
of
the topos proposed by
Poggelers. For Loretz, Qoheleth is entirely the fruit of the t o p i
of th e wisdom lite ra tu re of Israel (p. 208f).
Also Zimmerli shares Loretz’ enthusiasm for the topoi , t h e
only valid m etho d, he th ink s, for th e exegesis of Qoheleth. How
would these authors explcin the passage from one t o p s to
another?
What
criteria govern
it?
Does
this
passage- result from
chance
or
improvisation? Not always. According
to
Zimmerli
p. 131) t h e ((log ical)) movem ent of a reflection usually calls
for t h e n e x t t o p s . But does not this solution call for the logic
which Loretz declares useless in dealing w i t h the problems of
Qoheleth?
Or
do
we
have
to
recognize that logic is relevant
when
it
comes to explain the leap froin one
t o p s
to another?
Would not this canonize a method just condemned?10
The closest defender of th e atomism for which Galling is
blamed seems to
be
Eissfeldt. Qoheleth
is
for Eissfeldt
a
sort
of
diary
in
which t h e writer assembled
the
most varied imperssions:
autobiographi,cal da ta, imperson al reflections, proverbs. Eissfeldt
admits wholly the literary complexity of Qo, while at the s ame
time he refuses th e task of classifyiiig the data (against Bickell)
QO
1:12 - 2~26) .
9 P6zzler
19.
The topoi (.motifs, themes >) are concepts or sen-
pences which lend themselves to an elastic usage and are characterized
by
a
lack
of
precision
and
systematic absence
of
concreteness.
They
cb
not exclude from
discussion
and dialogue
doubtful
declarations and
wewpoints. To know that Qo argues through t o p o f i s vital for evaluating
emrectly the stylistic construction of
th is
book.
l o
A more
elaborate criticism
of
Loretz can be
reed
in Ellermeier
m-47.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 5
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 5/29
26
S. BRETON
or
of
delineating a plan. Nor does he accept the onus of de-
limitating the units, an exacting and usually problematic kind
of work (Eissfeldt
669).
Recapitulating we may add that there exists a general ten-
dency to speak
of
a certain logical unity ))
of
the whole, without
claiming, however, that this is a strict unity,
as
Bickell does.
Eissfeldt admits that although no logical progression is found
in Qoheleth, we are not faced in the book with
a
meaningless
heap
of
sentences. Even Galling concedes that the reflections
are not simply juxtaposed at random like
a
set of playing cards
(p. 76). Some authors find support for such
a
u n i t y in stylistic
particularities:
hebel,
((vanity)),
as
the
main
axis
of
the book,
uniformity of the vocabulary, combination of the philosophically
and
of
the practically orientated chapters,
k i n g
fiction, recourse
to the m sh l (proverb), a piece of poetry both at the beginning
and at the end of the
book
(Loretz 212-15; Hertzberg
36).
A t
the present time the cominentators do not feel anxious
lo explain eventual inconsistencies, nor do they look for an
overall solution. Steinmann appeals
t o
the right every man
has
to contradict himself
(p.
19), Rudolph finds refuge in psycho-
logical observations or in the confrontation between Judaism and
Hellenism (p. 16f). Quite generally, recourse
is
made to the
formula Zwar-aber )) (((of course, but I ) ) , the magic rod which
is often used
to
cover rather than to solve difficulties.
Exegesis does not admit as easily today as formerly foreign
interventions in Qoheletb The intervention of at least
one
epiloguist
seems,
however, indisputable (Gordis
73).
Some auth-
ors
consider the possibility that two or even three have
inter-
vened in the work1'. Would it not be possible also that one of
the epiloguisk,
as
Ellemeier, for example, believes,
was
the
ce redactor
a
or even the compositor )) of the book (the texts,
from Qoheleth, would have been compiled by someone else).
4. The Style
The commentators willingly
attach
importance to the sty-
listic characteristics of Qoheleth.
His
vocabulary
is
analyzed,
statistics note the frequency of the words used, lists of the
l1 Two Epiloguists: Z i m m e r U
140 Galling
76.
Three
epiloguists:
Hertzberg
*
62.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 6
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 6/29
QOHELETH STUDIES ZI
fixed formulas are made, as well as
of
word-plays,
repetitions,
favorite phrases, and the combined use of observation
and
re-
flection comes for study. The results obtained are similar in
nature; w h a t varies is the starting-point of the analysis or the
insistence on
a
particular stylistic quality. Hertzberg’s attention
concentrates on each of the chapters, mainly to see where they
begin and terminate (pp. 35f). Zimmerli analyses the style from
the viewpoint of the proverb, the typical from of wisdom
lite-
rature. He presents observations on the length of these proverbs,
giving special attention to the so-called
t6b
))-sayings, that
is, proverbs involving the
t rm
good )) (pp.
128-30).
Loretz
underlines the importance of the
first
person narrative
Ich-Er-
zahlung , as the literary form of presentation. The whole book
would
be
set in
a
royal fiction
Konigs f ik t ion) ,
which would
provide its unity and would arrest the readers’ attention. The
fact that occasionally this literary device is abandoned in favor
of
a
text not in the first person does not point to
an
inconsistency
of style but to
a
change in perspective, attentively considered
by
the author12. Ellenneier insists on the literary genre
reflec-
tion
))
and proposes under this title his other stylistic observations
on Qoheleth (p.
50).
Controversies were bound to arise regarding these varying
evaluations of Qoheleth. Ellermeier, for example, deems it prob-
lematic that the narrative in the first person should be a simple
literary device to underscore the sayings of Qoheleth, recogni-
zing at the same time the danger of an excessive use of the
t rm
autobiography D. He thinks, moreover,
that
the expla-
nation of the I-narrative is to
be
sought
in
its
being
the fruit of
reflection. Much inore serious is his criticism of the attempt to
understand the whole book as a king-fiction pp. 82ff .
Is Qoheleth prose or fiction? Hertzberg maintains that it
is poetry with verses counting two or three accents, although
admittedly it is not always easy to determine this precisely. For
Zimmerli the book
is
prose with a large number of saying
inclusions, which dominate the context but are also regularly
discontinued
to
leave room for narratives. Galling discerns
in
the
sayings
a poetic structure, without attempting as Hertzberg
l2 Loretz
212f:
the change of perspective In also found in other
literatures.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 7
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 7/29
S.
B R E T O N
28
does to determine its precise m eter
(p.
74 ,
because of t h e serious
difficulties this involves.
A
major
point of divergency, and one upon which great
exegetical efforts con cen trate, is th e study of th e literar y un its
of Qoheleth. There are numerous interpretations and possibilities
in this area. A good survey
of
them can be found in Ellermeier s
work (pp.
129-41),
especially concerned with the study of t h e
formal elements in Qoheleth.
5 .
Qoheleth
and
the
Traditional Wisdom
The debate on the relations between traditional wisdom and
Koheleth has probably abated today. Previously some authors
would present a Qoheleth firmly confined wi th in the sapiential
patterns of Israel. Others held the book responsible for ((the
bankruptcy of traditional wisdom )) (Murphy
*305).
A n outline
of present-day solutions could run
as
follows:
a) A close relation of Qoheleth w ith tra ditio nal wisdom ca nn ot
be
denied.
This
connection
is
m anife st in several passages of th e
b) It
is
equally impossible to present Qoheleth as the defender
and supporter of this wisdom.
It is
t rue
that
he dea ls wi th the
same problems, but he submits them to an intense reflection
(Rudolph
11).
He questions the fundamental dogma of tradition:
th e relation between action an d result1 . Qoheleth has his o w n
distinctive conception of happiness (Barucq
89).
Qoheleth s
wisdom supposes t h e demythologisation of th e hu m a n
possibili-
ties, th e accepting of per turb atio n and insecurity (Zimmerli
137ff
)
.
c)
There is no denial in Qoheleth of th e va lue of wisdom, nor
of its superiority in regard to ignorance. But its whole value
comes from God. The value of wisdom is relative, not absolute,
s ince it
is
not available precisely when man is confronted with
the fundamental questions which interest him the most (Galling
78,
Hertzberg
233).
1 s Ellermder 108. t Seems
mistaken
to deny
that
Qo
is
the author
of the
proverbs which are traditional
in
tone. See
also
Rudolph
11.
Rudolph
14 Galling
79 Barucq
37.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 8
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 8/29
Q O H E L E T H S T U D I E S 29
d) It
is
generally recognized that Qoheleth has points of con-
tac t s w i t h the book of Wisdom, altrough they are two quite
different writings. Qoheleth
is
close to Job in
its
conception
of wisdom and
in
i ts approach t o some problems, but Qo’s so-
lution is much more radical (Rudolph llff. .
6. Pessimism
and
Faith
In
order to provide
a
soothing solution to Qoheleth’s vexing
pessimism, commentators usually relate
it
to the problem of
the
book’s stand on
God.
t
is
conimonly admitted
that
the negative
( (van i ty ) )concept pervades the book and colors all t h e h u m a n
realities. However, a host of indications are
found
to neutral ize
this
accent of pessimism, for example
that
Qoheleth als0
m entions th e goodness of creation, that he never states
that in
the world there is more evil than g d .
It is
also claimed that
the negative propositions show a grasp of reality, that Qoheleth
does not defend a s t ructured pessimistic p h i lm ph y, an d
so
on
(Loretz
261ff,
Barucq
38).
More precisely,
if
Qoheleth
is
not accused of pessimism,
it
is
because he appears as believer and takes the fear of God
in to a , c c ~ u n t * ~ .bviously it can be objected that belief in
God
does not necessarily rule out pessimism. Qoheleth is not an
athe istic pessimist. notes von Rad, because h e ha rbo urs no
doubts
w i t h
regard to Gcrd’s existence. Yet this does not erase
t h e
f a c t
of his pessimism. For Qoheleth questions od’s dispo-
nibility
to
intervene in history
and in
th e life of m en: w hen he
does,
his
intervention s bear th e m ar k of weariness (von
Rad
467 . Eissfeldt also has underlined the pessimistic features of
Qoheleth (p. 670). There is no spontaneous praise for the image
of God found in Qoheleth: if Qoheleth’s pessimism is denied on
the
basis of
his
faith
in God
authors on
the
other hand a re no t
lacking who find his image of
God
inconsistent on the
basis of
his pessimism16.
It is not difficult to prove Qoheleth’s
faith
by quoting from
the text of his work. He believes
in
a
creator
God
who govenls
th e life of man and does everything well.
It
this is t rue, then a
13
Barucq
37, Hertzberg
*
2331,
Zimmerli
137.
16 Below we sh ll
examine
Schmid’s opinion in
its
proper context.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 9
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 9/29
30 S.
BRETON
double result
is
obtained: God is retrieved from Qoheleth‘s
criticism and the book’s scepticism is confined to t he human
sphere: Qo’s scepticism
is
not about
God
but
about
the
world
and m an (Hertzbe rg 224ff, Loretz 271).
It is
however admitted
that Qoheleth’s God is a distant one, who
does
intervene in
h u m a n affairs b u t i n a way which man can hardly understand.
This expla ik man’s a t t i tude of passivity and fear, two com-
ponents of
his
relationship
w i t h
God. Several authors describe
Qoheleth’s God
as a
depersonalized being. Not only does Qo in
fact never use the personal name Yahweh,
b u t h e also
seems
inclined to fatal ism: the human incapacity
t o
determine the
criteria for recognizing the divine action (Hertzberg
224f,
Barucq
To establish his claim that Qoheleth’s
is
a personal God,
Loretz first appeals
to
the consemus
of
the majori ty of t h e
exegetes, then t o comparative literature, in which, in his view,
the t e rm ilu U od D includes personal traits (p. 278). It should
be
admitted as a minimum, Zimmerli observes, that Qoheleth’s
is
anything but
a
warm God
D.
26ff).
7 . Hebel
One encounters
no
special difficulty in translating the word
breath, or vapor. The question
is:
what
did
Qoheleth intend
to
convey through
this
metaphor? Barucq would interpret the term
as meaning absurd I ) , Galling as meaning nothing
D,
while
Hertzberg finds with Luther that it expresses vanity
)),
as does
also Zimmerli
in
different terms. Loretz
is
oontent
with
breath
of wind)) (Lufthauch), and confirms
his
choice through other
biblical texts and cuneiform writings“.
Zimmerli’s interpretation
places
the meaning of the word
half-way between what is impermanent or fugacious
and what
is weak or powerless.
This
scholar dissuades interpreters from
lending to hebel the nuance ( ( incomprehensible)) ,
a
rather sub-
jective meaning preferred
by
Galling and Barucq. Barucq does
no t t ake ( ( absurd) )
n
a
metaphysical
sense:
realities, for him,
are absurd t o
m n
hen they can in no way
be
understood.
1 7
The literal translation < Lufthauch, does not satisfy
Galling
79, nor Ellermeier 37-39.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 10
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 10/29
QOHELETH
S T U D I E S 31
Galling
thinks
the same: the incomprehensible is contradictory.
He does not a t tempt to
specify.
the nuance of
mata io tb ,
which
he considers
as
t ied to t he intention ‘or th e mood
of
the subject**.
8. Observations
We have now presented annotations from a few com-
mentaries and general works on Qoheleth. A comparison with
older commentaries may
be
helpful to evaluate the more recent
ones.
The modern commentators resume the problematic already
laid out by the traditional studies;
in
general they only express
agreement or disagreement with the older views, without making
extra efforts to provide new approaches to the problems. There
is
noticeable progress on some points, l ike the origin and
the
d a te of th e book. Th e articles of H ertzberg a n d Mu ilenburg, who
has
published Qoheleth fragments from Qumran, constitute
distinctive contributions in
that
area. Recent studies have also
clarified the questions regarding the original language of
Qo.
More often, however, the interpreters have reconsidered and
followed Margoliouth’s thesis.
With
regard to the unity of the
book
lready debated in ancient t imes omplementsry
glosses are not admitted as easily today as they were formerly
(cf. Ellermeier 125). The book’s uni ty
is
more thoroughly inves-
tigated, especially on the basis of fo rm al a nd litera ry data. There
mists , besides.
a greater interest for the in terrelation of form
and
content,
as
well
as
for the connections of Qo with the
productions of other cultures.
All this means
that
progress is registered in these areas
as
compared w i t h the traditional positions. The close connection
of the new wi t h the older commentators should also be noted:
Barucq, for example,
is
very dependent on Pdechard, whom
he quotes more
than
sixty times. Hertzberg refers con stantly
to
his
predecessor and expresses his admiration for the work
done by Delitzsch. Loretz represents
a
similar case, while
Ellermeier underlines the importance of
the
older authors in
specific fields: uni ty of th e book,
syntax,
problems of
transla-
18
O n
the different meanings of hebel
see
Meek.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 11
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 11/29
32 S. BRETON
tion, and notes that little progress
has
been done in recent
years in some of these or
in
related areas.
It. PARTICULAR STUDIES
We intend to present here the distinctive contribution of
some articles or publications which conientrate on some passages
or themes of Qoheleth. Even though these subjects are also
treated in commentaries, it seems helpful to reconsider them
more in detail and also in the larger fmnework of the proble-
matic involved.
1.
Philology
We have already said that present-day commentators quite
commonly agree about the original language of Qoheleth and
are careful not to get involved in the debate surrounding it.
They maintain a prudent reserve while awaiting for clearer
and more convincing results. The positions are
still
program-
matic, even largely hypothetical,
as is clear from the number
of articles published to strengthen stands already taken. The
debate is mainly
continued now by two or three authors,
as
we shall see. The abundance of their contribution explains the
length of the exposition that follows.
The debate originated mainly
w i t h
the publication
by M.
D a h d
of
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
)) Bib-
Zica
33 (1952) 121-221. The reason for the discussion was, of course,
the presence in Qoheleth of philological data which could not
simply be assigned to an author writing in Hebrew. Two
different approaches soon took shape: on the one hand, Burkitt
postulated an Aramaic original, which allowed him t o solve
some textual’probems, while he admitted that proofs for the
Aramaic thesis were not compelling; on the other, Dahood
claimed that the author wrote in Hebrew but used Phoenician
orthography,
that
the composition itself reveals its dependence
on
Canaanite-Phoenician literaturelD. We leave aside
for
the
moment the problem of dating the book, although
this
is
19 Dahood
is generally
careful
in
his articles to avoid
using
expres-
sions dcgmatic in tone.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 12
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 12/29
QOHELETH STUDIES z3
involved in the present discussion. It should be noted, besides,
that
Dahood’s stand does not preclude in principle the Aramaic
colour of Qoheleth, no r th e influence of hlishnic Hebrew (O n th e
M ishnah see BibTB 1972, pp. 208ff.).
Canaanite Influence
Dahood is convinced that to accept a strong Canaanite
influence on Qoheleth
opens the
way
to
a more satisfactory
approach towards solving the problems of orthography, morpho-
logy, and syntax in Qoheleth. For his demonstration Dahood
first surveys the difficult passages of
the
book,
showing
that
t h e
Aramaic a nd h4ishnic theories d o no t offe r satisfactory solutions
to the problems involved. He then presents the positive advanta-
ges of his theory by drawing arguments from different areas:
grammar, names, Phoenician inscriptions, Ugaritic literature,
and the au thor i ty of other philologists.
An important point of Dahood’s argumentation consists in
demonstrating thzt precisely the two main proofs advanced in
favor of th e A ramaic theory, nam ely th e erroneous usage of
the article and th e vocabulary, constitute evidence fo r th e
Phoenician influence on Qoheleth. Instead of admit t ing, in l ine
w i t h the Aramaic theory, that Qoheleth committed 24 mistakes
in the use
of
the article within the compass of a small book,
should we not consider the similarities with the Phoenician
grammar,
in
which the article obeys specific rules
B i b
1952,
200).
Dahood finds, besides, in Qoheleth, a large number of
terms derived from Phoenician roots or related to the Cana-
anite-Phoenician vocabulary. This, he claims, can partly account
for the monotony of QO’S terminology. In addition, Qoheleth
shows a liking for commercial terms, a typically Phoenician
feature (words like profit, loss, abundance are mentioned).
Light
from Q u m r a n
A few years later Dahood published ano ther im po rtan t
article, Qoheieth
and
Recent Discoveries
I ) ,
Bib
39
(1958)
302-318, in which he considers the fragments from Qoheleth
published by Muilenburg in 1954. In
his
interpretation of them
he confronts Ginsberg - ontinuator of Burkitt and typical
representative of th e Aram aic theory - nd also Gordis, who
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 13
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 13/29
34
S.
BRETON
seemed to negate the peculiari ty and the exceptionality of
Qoheleth’s vocabulary. Apparently, Ginsberg felt
that
many
problems would
be
solved
by considering Qoheleth
as
contempo-
nmus wi th the books of th e M accabees (he sug gests 167 B.C.).
On
the other hand, Ginsberg agrees
w i t h
the date proposed for
th e Qum ran fragments , 150 to 125 B.C., although this confronts
him
w i t h a problem: how could the
book
during the short period
of 17 years be
translated
and apparently widely distributed?
This
same objection is also raised by Muilenburg and Gordis.
Apart from this, Dahood mentions the inconveniences under
which labors th e Aramaic theory: far-fetched argu m entation
and unnatural interpretation of the texts.
On
t h e basis of the Qumran fragments, Dahood disagrees
also w i t h Gordis. If the Hebrew of Qoheleth represents 3rd
centu ry Hebrew, a n interm ediate stage between th e classical
form and the mishnic, why
are
not similarities ‘no ted between
the 3rd and the 2nd century Hebrew, the latter being known
f rom the frag m ents of Q um ran ? How ca n we ad m it
w i t h Gordis
that
Qoheleth provides evidence
of
the evolving process of
((normaln Hebrew, when,
for
.example, there is not a single
Qo example of the use of consecutive wtv? This is a typical
feature of classical Hebrew and it occurs up to 5 3 t imes in
one
of th e Qu m ran scrolls.
Fur ther on in
his
article, Dahood pursues his investigation
of
the connections
in
orthography and vocabulary between
Qoheleth and the Phoenician language. But often where Dahood
sees Phoenician Ginsberg
sees
Aramaic, one of
the
difficulties
being to determine th e d erivation of th e roots. Dahood also
questions
C.H.
Gordon’s suggestion that Qo might have been
w ritten in B2bylonia because of th e A kkad ian affinities fo und
in the book. This thesis, we are told, does not
fit
well
w i t h
t h e
phenomenon of scriptio defectiva; in any case, the Akkadian
connections would rather support the Phoenician thesis. Against
Hertzberg he notes the following: the fact that
Qo
never men-
tions
a
concrete
God,
.e.
Yahweh, may indicate
that
t h e
book
wa s not composed in Je rusa l em
Dahood acknowledges that the a rguments he has presented
do not al l have the same probative value. Taken together they
do seem
to
form
a
solid basis for his theory (cf.
Bib
1962, 365).
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 14
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 14/29
QOHELETH STUDIES
35
Another Viewpoint
R.
Gordis published in 1055 ((Was Koheleth a Phoenician?
Some observations on Methods
of
Research)) ,
JBL
74
(1955)
103-14. We shall here concentrate on his later article: ((Qohe-
le th and Qumran.
A
Stud y of St yl e) ), Bib
41 (1960)
395-410,
in which he argues that Dahood’s theory is neither convincing
nor necessary. He discusses again methdology and clarifies his
own viewpoint
in
connection
w i t h
Dahood’s position.
Gordis claims th a t D ahood approaches
the
problem s one-sided-
ly when he examines only the connections and
parallels
of
Qoheleth
w i t h
the geographically neighbouring cultures, not
taking into account the later stages of the cultural and rel i-
gious developments
of
the Jewish people, which cast light also on
the preceding
periods.
T he la te r development of Hebrew should
also be given
a
major importance in the discussions on biblical
language. Similarities and parallels have to
be
used with
caution. They do not by themselves prove textual dependence,
since th e common basic structure of the h um an mind can
often explain that different cultural milieus operating inde-
pendently can produce similar results.
The concrete examples produced by Dahood to show Phoe-
nician
connections would only confirm the position
adopted
by
Gordis, who claims t h a t no t Phoenician b ut Hebrew best explains
the textual difficulties of Qoheleth. Examples are given: the
end ing of th e Phoenician absolute st at e is well enough
at-
tested in bliblical Hebrew; the sm *pt io de fec tiva, a Phoenician
trait , remains
a
possibility in Hebrew, and
this is
confirmed by
the Massoretic texts; Phoenician references are unnecessary to
revocalize correctly some words
of
Qoheleth; many of
the
claimed hapax legomena of the
book
appear
as
such
for
t h e
sole reason that only th e Hebrew of th e biblical period
is
considered.
Qoheleth’s Distinctive Hebrew
It is
often stated
that
in
Gordis’ view the language
of
Qoheleth is th e ((n or m al) ) Hebrew of th e 3rd century
with
its
distinctive features derived from biblical, mishnic, and Aramaic
influences. Gordis reminds his readers that the expression
((normal l i terary Hebrew)) must
be
understood within the
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 15
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 15/29
36 S.
BRETON
context of its own specific literary genres,
that
no single literary
pattern can be considered
s the
style norm of
a
given period,
and that any author can use for
his
work other styles belonging
to quite different periods.
In
line w i t h these premises Gordis
asserts categorically: the style of Qoheleth
is
unique )), and
it would be a mistake to pretend to conceive it
as
the expression
of the style of his period. The stylistic originality of Qoheleth,
Gordis believes, rests
o n
the fact that he was the
first
writer
who used the Hebrew language for quasi-philosophical purposes,
a
task for which Hebrew was not conveniently prepared. Thus
it
happened
that
Qoheleth had few models which could help
him to classisize)) or
c
archaicizen
his
expression.
In
that
sense Qoheleth
has
anticipated the linguistic role to
be
played
later by the mishnic Hebrew.
Having
said all
this, Gordis defends the opinion
that Qo-
heleth’s style belongs to an intermediate
period:
its language
is
already outside of the classical period but has not yet
reached the development of the mishnic Hebrew. Gordis finds
support for this affirmation both in the vocabulary, which
abounds
in
aramaisms and
in
mishnic forms,
as
well
as
in the
syntax: even after assimilating distinctively mishnic traits, Qo
did not abandon completely what is typical of classical HebrewZo.
If
it is
objected that differences exist between the language
of the Qumran community
and
that of Qoheleth, Gordis answers
that this community’s religious mentality was of
a
completely
different
type.
For their religious and disciplinary textbooks
the covenanters had no need for a language like Qoheleth’s,
adapted to serve speculation.
On
the other hand, the differences
between the two styles should not be exaggerated, to
the
point,
for example, of ignoring the syntaxic elements common to Qohe-
leth and the Qumran community. They lived
in
the same period,
were subjected to the same influences, they shared in the same
religio-cultural heritage, to which they gave diverging interpret-
ations.
The possibility of an original Aramaic Qoheleth is
still being
discussed, but no new line of argumentation is proposed. More
and more parallels are advanced to fortify entrenched positions
20 Gordis
*
408-9. hlishnic traits: the use of the participle to express
the present tense, and tlie use
of
pronouns
as
subjects. Consecutive
m u a trait of
classical
Hebrew, occurs three times in Qoheleth.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 16
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 16/29
QOHELETH STUDIES 37
which neither side is disposed to abandon. There is
a
note OI
partiality in this attitude.
I f
Hertzberg’s commentary contains
inaccuracies
of
translation, this is due, Dahood suggests, to the
author’s failure
t o
take into account the parallels from the
Northwest Semitic dialects**. Perhaps similar remarks could
be
made from the other camp’s viewpoint
G.R.
Driver and
K.R.
Veenhof
w a r n
against the dangers of a panugaritism which
would underrate the importance
of
the other philological ma-
terialz2.
2.
Style
There are few studies directly devoted to
this
theme: Loader
finds
the structure of
a
sonnet
in
Qoh
3:2-8
Baumgartel inter-
prets 12:11
as a marginal gloss to 12:lO. The glossator would
have introduced here
a
metaphorical allusion to cuneiform
writing. B m dmits in Qoh 12:6 the possibility of a double
poetic imagery on the end of human life. All depends on what
meaning
is
given to gullcih,
a
key-word
in
Brun’s view.
We still have to mention the study of Loretz o n the nar-
ration in the first person
Ich-ErzahZung).
It proposes
an im-
portant question:
is
the
1))of
the
book
identical with the
1))
of the author? It is answered
that
they are different, since
in
the
first
place we hardly know anything of the author, and
besides there is no necessity to identify an author with his
work. This can serve as
a
warning not to interpret Qoheleth
as
an autobiography,
as
the diary
of a
pessimist, not to use indiscri-
minately the theory of the sources
Quellentheorie).
Loretz comes to the conclusion
that
the Ich-Erzahlung
1)
is a stylistic form purposely chosen by the author. Having.ac-
cepted the king-fiction
as
the axis
of
the book, Loretz turns to
the extrabiblical literature to find confirmed there the ancient
tendency to parallel oneself with kings. The Ich-Erzahlung
))
Dahood in Bib 1966. pp. 265ff. In his articles on Hebrew-Uga-
ritk
Lexicography. D. intends to point out additional meanings or
nuances
of
niimerous Hebrew ten by comparing them
with sinlilar
Phoenician and Ugaritic words.
2 2
G.R.
Driver in JSS
10
1965) 112-117;K.R. Veenhof in Bibliotheca
Orientalis
25 1968) 364-65:
review of
E.R.
Martinez,
Hebrew-Ugaritic
I ndex
t o
the
Writings of Mitchell
J Dahood...
(Rome
1967).
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 17
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 17/29
S. BRETON
38
adds vividness and interest to the work. Perhaps the solution to
the problem
of
the unity should
be
sought here. The ((Ich-Er-
zahlung
))
is one of the
most
distinctive
traits
of Qoheleth’s stylezs.
3.
Problems of
Structure
According to A.G. Wright the exegesis remains disoriented
because the key-principe
of
approach to the Qoheleth problematic
is not put into use. This principle is mistakenly sought in a
Source-theory, in a dialectical thought mould
of
Qoheleth,
or
in
his
doubting attitude with regard to
the
traditional teachings.
Wright concentrates on the structures. To read into the context
would
be
the cardinal
task of
exegesis.
Wright’s investigation is essentially based on the repetition
of
phrases and words in Qoheleth,
a
criterion which allows him
to discover and defend the theory that there are three successive
patterns in the book, embracing all the material between the
initial and concluding poems, in the following way:
Title
1:l)
Poem on Toil
(1:2-11)
I. Qoheleth’s Investigation of Life (1:12-6:9)
11.
Qoheleth’s Conclusions (6:lO-11:6)
Introduction
(0:lO-12)
A.
M a n
cannot
find out
w h a t
is
good
for
him
to
do
B.
Man does not
know
what
will
come after
him
(7:1-8:17)
9:
1-116)
Poem on Youth and Old Age
(115’-128)
Epilogue (13:9-14).
Thus
it
also appears that the saying ((Be not righteous over-
much)) 7:16)
is
certainly not the message
of
the
book, as
was
previously believed. Also the
habit
of seeing in Qo
a
collection
of
the author’s favourite proverbs shouid
be
abandoned.
Lorstz deserves praise for
seeking in
the
aich-EnBhlung,
an
external and objective criteriurn towards solving the
problem
of the
book’s
unity. Has he altogether avoided the danger of starting with
preconceived notions on style and
its
laws?
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 18
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 18/29
QOHELETH STUDIES 39
Castellino also would divide the work in two great parts. The
first
part, he thinks, ends w i t h 4:16,which is followed by the
prologue of the second
part.
This dixision
is
indicated
by a
grammatical observation: in the first four chapters
the
first
person is used in the narrative. Then suddenly
this
style
unexpectedly changes and the second person, w i t h imperatives
and admonitions, comes
into
use, although not exclusively.
This change of style
is
confirmed by a change in the key words
predominantly used: in the first part
predominate
words like
vanity
I ) ,
labor
I) ,
toil
I)
and
others, while
in
the second
part
the
key word
is
evil 1)
rac),
with an ethical connotation.
If
one considers separately tfiese two parts he could
draw
from
them two opposite judgments on Qoheleth: from the first that
he is a pessimist, from the second that optimism prevails.
Castellino then studies the relationship between
the
two
parts. The first presents a critical and negative appraisal of
human experience:
all is
vanity;
in
the second part
the
negative
impression
is
corrected by the use
of a
more positive
and
orthodox
language, more in tune
w i t h
the other wisdom books. Neither
part can
be
fully understood without the other; they are
complementary. Thus
in
a trial both prosecution and defense
are necessary. Concretely, the all
is
vanity)) of
the
first part
should
be
heard without forgetting that this phrase receives
its
full value in the ((fear God of the second. If the human
experience nourishes the temptation to
be
sceptical, religion
and wisdom propose
a
corrective,
set
on
a
higher plane, although
this may not be clearly grasped by man.
The teaching of Qoheleth
is
thus summarized by Castellino:
The goods )) of life are of their nature incapable of giving man
full satisfaction to
his
craving for 'happiness. For these values
are not stable, they cannot provide security. Man easily expe-
riences that he
is
not the master of events,
that
he is absolutely
unable
to
penetrate the laws of government and providence
in
the world. Faced with these facts, Qoheleth opts for
a
rea-
listic solution. He
s ts
aside anxiety, does not speculate on God s
ways, adopts an atkitude
of
thankfulness,
It is not posible tc examine here other investigations
in
the same areas.
In
spite
of a
similar approach to the problems
they often come to different results,
a fact
not likely
t o
create
any enthusiasm for the search of
tile
book s
plan. There
is
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 19
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 19/29
40 S. BRETON
certainly more objectivity in
modern
study but it is not
a lways
maintained throughout the whole enquiry..
No
great effort
is
required to
be
objective when cnly the observation of the accu-
mulation of linguistic
data
are involved. The difficult moment
comes
w i t h
the interpretation of the material.
This
interpretation
should do full justice to the objective data These points are
well
exposed by Castellino, but is he himself above
all
criticism?
Having found two antinomies in the book, doesn’t he divide
the
book
accordingly, choosing the evidence which suits
him
and overlooking the difficulties encountered. But in
this
area
who is without reproach?
4.
Wisdom
It is
usual
t
start here with general observations for which
a certain consensus has been reached. We have noted above
that Qoheleth presents some conformity
w i t h
the sapiential
current, although the bookmaintains
a
critical attitude towards
it.
H.H.
Schmid (pp.
186-201)
situates the difference between
traditional wisdom and Qoheleth in their diverging attitude on
the place of man
in
the world. Traditional wisdom looks for
an
answer to this problem, Qoheleth no longer hopes to find
it.
For
his
vision of the world has changed completely: Qoheleth,
influenced by
his
experiences, stands before the world as
an
indifferent spectator with no direct relation with the world he
is analysing. His conclusion all
is
absurd
))
would normally
lead him to the temptation of suicide as
is
the case for
the
existentialist philosopher.
This
path is not followed, because,
according to Schmid, Qoheleth
is
doubly inconsistent:
In
the
first place, he professes to believe
in
God, although he conceives
him as distant, fatalistic, and incomprehensible. Secondly,
Qo-
heleth finally abandons
his
previous atti tude of passive obser-
vation: he reassociates himself w i t h the world, reestablishing
the contacts from which he
had
previously intended
to
liberate
himself.
For Zimmerli, however, the God of Qoheleth is not
his
great
inconsistency *311-315). On the contrary,
God is
his only so-
lution. The impossibility to dominate the earthly realities, of
which Qoheleth has persuaded himself, leads him to put his
whole trust
in
God. Zimmerli notes the number of times God
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 20
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 20/29
41
OHELETH
STUDIES
is
presented in Qoheleth
as
the one who gives
p. 314).
This
is
a basic notion of Old Testament theology, perhaps overlooked
by the traditional wisdom.
It
is
opportunely recalled by Qoheleth.
For him also the fear of God is the principle of wisdom, but
he gives to the axiom its correct interpretation. The fear of God
is not
for man
a
means to monopolize .the earthly realities.
Fearing God, Qoheleth recognizes him as the Lord before whom
all human wisdom
is
silent. Ellermeier’s study comes
to
similar
conclusionsz4.
5.
God
A n
alternative then
has
been stated
in
the previous para-
graph:
God is
for Qoheleth
an
inconsistency,
or else he is
a
God with generosity and freedom. The other works
on the
problem do not provide new suggestions or arguments. The
complete list of the passages in which God occurs and their
analysis
By
Miiller certainly constitute
a
useful contribution.
His conclusions are not
too
surprising: there is
a real
gap
between the God of Qoheleth and the rest of his problematic.
We are
set
face to face
w i t h
a dominating and centralizing God,
before whom all human action loses its meaning. Qoheleth’s fear
of
God is
nothing else but resignation. A s Schmid couId well
have done, Muller blames Qoheleth for
his
lack of decision.
If
there remain
in
Qoheleth traces
of
a
religious ethic
it is
due
t o his
inconsistency.
The
thesis of Pfeiffer on Qoheleth’s faith can
be
considered
as a good
summary
of
the position of other authors concerning
the same problem. Pfeiffer does not deny that the fear of God
can influence the man-God relations, but he does not concede
that
it
has any particular significance to fortify Qoheleth’s
faith. The fear of God
is
incapable of preventing his excla-
mation: life and the world have no meaning (p.
158).
Ellermeier *
19.
Still Qoheleth recognizes the iisefulness of
wisdom in order to allow man
to
do what his
life situation requires.
But he denies that
wisdom
has a saving function, that it can ever give
life to man.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 21
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 21/29
S. BRETON
6. Pessimism
The theme
o€
Qoheleth’s pessimism is, of course, involved
in
most of the aspects examined above. We shall here give
an account of only one of the particular studies
which
have been
published on
this
subject, that
of
M.A. Klopfenstein, ((Die
Skepsis des Qohelethn, T Z
28 (1972) 97-109.
Klopfenstein tries to hold an intermediate
position
on this
question. Qoheleth’s scepticism, he thinks, is rooted in
the
cri-
sis
of traditional wisdom, unable to satisfy
his
quest
of
know-
ledge.
Qo
shows the weakness of
traditional
wisdom by four
arguments derived from experience: the discrepancy between
action and result
(Qo 8:14),
he failure of human efforts to
control the course of life
(Qo 9:11),
the futility of man’s
endeavour after earthly gain
2:11),
the reality of death
2:16).
Qoheleth ackno-tvledges the hand of God
in
the direction
of the world. Yet divine action is inaccessible to man, and on
this rests all
of
QO’Sscepticism. But his is
a
limited scepticism:
precisely the undeniable fact of the divine action in the world
is
an
absolute which relativizes
all
that
is
human, Qo’s scepti-
cism included. This absolute value engenders the fear of
God,
which
is
essentially understood as
an
open attitude of man
towards God.
For
this motive Qoheleth’s scepticism gradually
becomes untenable:
the
goodness of
God can
no longer
be
doubted. The goods of life
and
wisdom have their limits, but
they are values. Joy and pleasure must be judged authentic
when it
is
acknowledged that they come from God. Qo’s is
then, according to Klopfenstein,
a
moderate scepticism, neither
radical, nor tragic, for
the
reason that Qo feels he
is
in the
hands of God. He gives the impression of abandoning tradition,
and yet
he
remains w i t h i n its sphere.
7. Time
Rodriguez Ochoa
and
Galling* study
in
two differents ways
the observations of Qoheleth on time. The
first
author examines
rapidly
all the
relevant passages, Galling concentrates on Qo
Let us first bring out the main remarks
of
Rodriguez Ochoa
3:1-15.
on the different passages.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 22
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 22/29
QOHELETH STIJDIES 43
Qo 1:14-18. Qo’s interest here centers on human l ife, which
should be defined
as an
eternal repetition. He ponders over
the time of the generations. They pass
and
pass
but noth ing
new emerges. What me have here is a cyclic conception of time.
R.O. underl ines the
f a c t
that Qoheleth has not t aken
this
conception of tim e from th e an cie nt classical way of tho ug ht.
Rather ,
it
came to him throug h a constant observation of nature,
a
n a t u r e w h k h in Qoheleth runs in total independence from
God and man, and escapes their grasp. Human l ife appears to
have no meaning.
Qo
3 : l .
Changing
his
perspective, Qoheleth here transfers
his
attention from the passing of the generations
to the
temporality
of the individual existence. For a correct understanding of this
temporality
it
is necessary also to have in mind the Hebrew
conception of time. The Israelite does not speculate on
an
abstract t ime; he is interested in the concrete times,
in
t ime
as
kairos.
Th is also is for Qoheleth vanity .
Qo 3:11. This verse is a key passage for understanding the course
of
t ime. Here time
is
examined from two perspectives,
that
of
God
and
that of man.
God
is the absolute master of time
and
the creator in man’s mind of the idea
of
t ime taken
as a
whole.
Man is unable to understand the work of God.R.O.
sees
a n
advantage
in
this
interpretation of Qo
3 : l l : it
does
not lose
sight of th e general course of t h e book,
it
argues from the con-
tent itself
of
Qoheleth.
Qo 11:7-12:8. Th is passage should be interpreted in the
light
of
t h e
first
chapter: the observation of nature
and
its
parallelism
with the generations.
Galling sees in Qo
3: l -15
the enigma which man has to
accept , an enigma because man is inevitably submerged in
time. To oppose oneself to this enigma would
be
to c rea te
a
conflict
with
one’s own existence, which
is
essentially temporal.
It is also an enigma because man cannot project time nor avoid
the risks which time involves. This enigma
has both
a sombre
aspect, as
being
a
burden imposed on man,
and a
luminous
aspect, since it is also a gift of the personal God which brings
joy to man.
Galling divides Qo 3: l -15 into four parts. Verses
9 to
1 1 are
for him fundamental . He analyses them
in
detail
and
comes
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 23
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 23/29
44 S. BRETON
to grips with the difficult problems of interpretation involved
in them. In 3:11 the expression
ahis
hear t) ) would refer to
the sons of men
1
of
v.
10,
and
cdZQm
can be referred
to
world
1)
as
in Gen 1:28: ((subdue the earth)). This interpretation,
based on a textual emendation,
sets
the three ideas of
v. 11
in
a
logical unity: the decrees of
God
are true in their time; they
are
valid
for the whole duration of human life; man cannot
understand God’s plan.
Concentrating on one of the antitheses of
3:l-0
Galling
eqlains thus
3:5:
( ( a time to cast away stones, and a time
to gather stones together)) would represent
a
reflection
on a
scene of daily life of the small merchant: the marketing would
involve an exchange of small reckoning stones between the
seller and the buyer. The antithesis would simply mean: there
is
a time for selling and a time for buying. Only one ,of these
two transactions can
be
done at one t ime. Galling bases his
interpretation on other studies, by Scott and Eissfeldt, and on
the customs in Jerusalem,
at
the time of Qoheleth.
Qoheleth and the other Biblical Books
We have noted above
a
clear decline
of
interest among
recent authors for seeking Greek influences on Qoheleth. We
shall dwell longer on the relations noted between Qoheleth and
the other biblical writings.
C.C.
Forinan analyses the use made
by Qoheleth of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, reducing
to six main points the material Qoheleth and Genesis have in
common:
1)
The way Qo
1:5-8
sees the natural order has
a
parallel
in
Gen 8:21-22. There
is a
radical difference in the evaluation of
its
distinctive effects,
a
feeling of depression in Qo, in Genesis
a
source of tranquillity.
2)
Human nature
is
conceived in Genesis
as
dust,
as
spirit,
and
as image of God. Qo accentuates the assertion that man
has
been formed from the dust
of
the earth (3:20; 12:7),
without bothering much
to
show the essential difference which
separates man from the animals.
Only
Qo 7: 9
seems to sug-
gest weakly that also for
Qoheleth man
is
the image
of
God.
Qoheleth’s central conception
that
man is inclined to sin 720;
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 24
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 24/29
Q O H E L E T H S T U D I E S
45
8:ll; 9:3)
represents also in Genesis
a
cardinal point: evil has
entered into the world and propagated. Still the pessimistic
traits of Qoheleth
do
not lead
to
as
clear
a
condemnation of
human nature
as
in Gen 6:5.
3)
Qo
7:26
presents women in a rather unfavourable
light. A
more positive appraisal could be found in Qo
9:9,
and perhaps
in
4:9-12,
if these verses do refer to the woman as companion
of man, an idea expressed in Gen
2:18,20.
4
Qoheleth acknowledges the limitations of the human
mind
when it strives to discover the laws of the universe 8 3 ) In
the last analysis, the facts of life are irrational. Genesis con-
tains the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge, nar-
rates the expulsion from paradise to prevent man from eating
from the tree of life and thus live for ever
(3:22),
and finally
the confusion of the languages (11:T).
5)
Life
is
for Qoheleth vanity, tiring toil. It
is
not excluded
that the name of Abel in Genesis suggested the word hebel to
Qoheleth. In Genesis, man’s task is to keep and -till the garden
of Eden
(2:15),
Toil is punishment for
his
sin.
The description
of death found in Qo
9:4-6
and
11:8
is just as strongly r e p
resented in Gen
2:l‘i
and
3:3,
and the decree of Gen
3:19
finds
an echo
in
Qo 3:20 and 12:7.
6) Both Qoheleth and Genesis present us with a God who is
remote and inscrutable, whose
ways
are unknown to man,
perhaps to ascertain the maintenance of the divine superiority
(cf. Qo
3: l l ;
Gen
3:22). In Gen
11:6 God
seems
to
see man’s
progress as
a
threat. Forman finds insinuated
in
Gen
6:6
that
God is not omniscient, a fact not questioned by Qoheleth who
exhorts man to the fear of God.
J.E.
Bruns
has described, rat’ner rapidly, the points of
contact he has found between Qoheleth and the Fourth
Gospel.
They are far from obvious, but are worth considering. Bruns
points to the familiarity of John with the Sadducean world,
on the one hand, and
on the other
to
the fact that Qoheleth
has been described
as
((the breviary of the Sadducee)) (cf.
Steinmann
125),
Bea suggested that John’s gospel offers the
answers to some of the problems raised by Qoheleth: the inevi-
tability of death, the enjoyment of life, the desire for truth.
Qoheleth mistrusts human wisdom. He sees the necessity of
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 25
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 25/29
46 S.
BRETON
abandoning oneself into God’s hands. He would have deserved
Jesus’ appraisal: You ar e n o t far from
the
kingdom of
God 1)
(Mt
12:34),
a
declaration which, according to Guichou2’, would
have applied to Nicodemus. Where the wind blows is as much
a
mystery for Qoheleth
as
it is for Nicodemus
(Qo
8 :8 ;
11:51.
Also Nicodemus sh are s QO’S conviction th a t m a n
is
incapable
of knowing how God operates.
10. Historical Data
in
Qoheleth?
The attempts of
K.D.
Schunk to read
in
Qo 4:13-16 (and
10:
16-17)
historical
’
allusions have not been favorably received.
In his article Schunk analyzes carefully these verses, revocalizes
a
few words, formulates with nuance his understanding
of
t h e
passages, and proposes
a
translation. He finds the following
historical references:
n 4:13-14
is
reflected the change of government
in
t h e
Seleucide kingdom. Th e ((o ld an d foolish k in g )) is Antiochus
11,
to whom
his
son Seleucus
I1
succeeded.
-
n
4:15
th e words th e second
child))
refer
to
Antiochus
111, th e y ounger son of Antiochus 11. This youth reigns
in
place of his brother who
died
three years af ter mounting on th e
throne.
lso
4:16 would refer to Antiochus
111,
called Th e G rea t
n.
Schunk concludes that Qoheleth
l ived
and wrote during the
reign of Antiochus the Great.
n 10:16-17
both Schunk and Hitzig
see
Ptolemy
V
a n d
Antiochus I11 comparedz0.
11. Qoheleth
and
Death
N.
U h f i n k shows how imp ortant th e them e of dea th was
(it
is represented both
at
the
beginning
and at
or Qoheleth
z 5
P.
Guichou, L’ uangilc
selon
saint
Jean
(Paris 1957)
57s.
28 In another concrete area Hertzkrg has convincingly argued for
a
Palestinian origin of Qoheleth from a comparison
between
the meta-
phors
used
in the
book
and the geography, the climate, the produce,
and the customs of
Palestine
(see a PalBslinische ... >).
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 26
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 26/29
QOHELETH
S T U D I E S
47
the end of the book). Death is the frontier situation which
inexorably affects every living being. It represents a challenge
f o r
all the traditional meanings of
to
be
wise
D:
reputation and
fame, acquired during life, end up to
be
nothing with the passing
of time. This reflection on death produces in Qoheleth disillusion,
and even a feeling
of
hate towards life. But this attitude is not
f o r
him final. Precisely his reflection
on
death brings him t o a
positive exhortation: enjoy every moment of life as a gift from
God.Man’s projects and efforts are properly relativized before
God,
who alone rules responsibly over all human life. Qoheleth’s
invitation to rejoice becomes thus
a
religious call, since it is
God
who behind every human moment invites man
to
take advantage
of all the proffered joys.
It
is man’s task to heed the invitation,
even when he cannot understand its whole meaning.
This
brings to an end our presentation of recent studies o n
Qoheleth.
To
be complete, our survey would have to include
articles on archeological finds, works of translation, patristic
commentaries, and
so
on. All this could hardly be done here,
and it is
not
sure, besides, that the profit from i t would have
been worth while. considering the more general interests of
our
readers.
111
FINAL IMPRESSIONS
Perhaps the increasing number
of
particular studies, as
compared with the commentaries, could indicate that interest
in this latter type of work has begun
to
wane. The reason
might
be
the number of important problems which
a
m d e r n
commentator has to face. It becomes clear, besides,
that
the
traditional canons of exegesis represent today a n inadequate
approach, while the new ways of interpretation are still in
search of
a
secure basis.
It is
certainly commendable to look for
a
possible logical
order in Qoheleth’s presentation. Perhaps the key to its un-
derstanding is still to be found. The study of the literary
forms
in
Qoheleth is of course important and will generally
condition any progress in interpretation. On this count the
contribution of
philology is
determining. It may
be
opportune
to express the wish that in this as in other fields specialists
cooperate closely
to
reach
a
balanced consensus on the central
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 27
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 27/29
48 S. BRETON
issues. The exegete should seek the help of those scholars who
can advise him on how to approach
the
special problems which
are not of his direct competency.
This
would prevent many
from being too doematic. Ellermeier’s project to collect
all the
purallels to Qoheleth from other literatures deserves praise.
Hopefully when
this
is done
it
mill
be
possible
to
arrive
at
some solid conclusions.
Perhaps in concluding we can again stress the importance
of truly founding any interpretation on objective evidence.
For
even evidence can be subjectively interpreted. This
is
certainly
the case on one side or the other when two divergent or even
opposite explanations are given for the same data. It happens
too
often that the personal categories of the interpreter blur
the evidence and cast misleading shadows on the text
being
studied. The need for objectivity is particularly great in the in-
terpretation of
a
book
as
difficult and enigrriatic
as
Qoheleth*.
(translated from Spanish)
*
Editor’s
note.
This article substantially reproduces
a
seminar
work recently submitted
to the
Jesnit Theological Faculty of Sankt
Georgen
in
Fr,mkfurt, Germany.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alonso
Dim,
J., En
lucha con
el
rnisterio. El almn judfa an t e l o s premfos
Barucq, A., EclesiastCs. Qohelelh (Madrid
1971).
Baumgartel,
F., c
Die Ochsenstachel iind die Nagel in Koh
1 2 , l l >, ZAW
Bea, A. Liber Ecclesiastae qui ab hebracis appellaftlr Qohelelh ( R o m a
Bickell,
G.W., Der Prediger iiber de n We r t des Daseins
(Innsbruck
Bruns, J.E.,
c
Some Reflections on Coheleth
and
John
,,
CBQ 25
(1963)
y
castigos
y
la i:i
ultraterrenn (Santander
1967).
81 (19E9) 98.
1950).
1884).
414-16.
,
<The
Imagery
of
Eccles
12,6a>,
JBL
84 (1965) 428-30.
Burkitt, F.C.,
c
I s
Ecclesiastes a Translation? ,, JTS
23 (1922) 22-28.
Castellino,
hi., c
Qohelet and His
Wisdom,,
CBQ 30
(1968) 15-28.
Dahood,
hl., <
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence
in
Qoheleth,,
Bib 33 (1952)
,
c Qoheleth
and
Recent Discoveries >,
Bib
39
(1958) 302-18.
30-52, 191-221.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 28
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 28/29
Q O H E L E T H S T U D I E S
49
, c Qcheleth and Northwest Semitic Philology >, Bib 43 1962)
, < T h e Phoenician Background
of
Qoheleth,,
Bib
47 1966)
,
c
Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography (I-X)
.,
series of articles
published in Biblica since 1963,and to be continued.
349-65.
264-82.
nelitzsch, F.,
Kaheleth
(Leipzig 1875).
Duesberg, H. r Fransen I., Les scribes inspirhs. Introduction flux livres
Snpientiaux de la Bible: Prov., Job., Eccle., Sag., Eccli. (Maredsous
1986).
Eissfeldt, O., Einleitztng in das AZte Testament (3rd edit., Tubingen 1964).
Ellcrmeier. F., Qohelet. Teil
I,
Abschnitl
I
(Henberg am Herz 1967).
,
*
c
Die Entmachung der Weisheit im Denken Qohelets. ZU
Text und Auslcgung von Qoh 6,7-9 , ZTK 60 1963)
1-20.
Fonzo, L.
di, Ecclesinste
(Torino
1967).
Forman, C.C.,
c
Koheleth’s Use
of
Genesis >,
JSS
5
1960) 256-63.
Galling, K.,
Der Pred iger. Die Fiinf Mcgilloth. HbAT 2nd ed., Tiibingen
,
*
c Das Ratsel der Zeit im
Urteil
Koheleths (Koh 3,l-15)
1969).
STK 58 1961) 1-15.
Ginsberg, H.L., Stirdies in Koheletli (New
York
1950).
Glasser, Etienne, Le procas d u bonheur p a r Qohelet. Lectio Divina 61
Gordis, R., Kolieleth
-
The M a n and his World (2nd ed., New York
,
c
Qoheleth and Qumran.
A
Study of Style B,
Bib 41 1960)
, ** Was Koheleth a Phoenician? Some Observations on
Hertzberg, H.W.,
c
PalBstinische Beziige in1 Buche Kohelet >, Zeitschriit
, * Koheleth (Jerusalem 1961). [in Hebrew1
(Paris
1970).
See a review
in CBQ 1971, p. 5782.
1962).
395-410.
Methods in Research ,,
JBL
74 1955) 103-14.
des Deutschen PnlBstina-Vereins 73 1957) 113-24.
,
*
Der Prediger, KomAT (2nd ed., GUtersloh 1963).
Hitzig,
F.,
Der Prediger SaZomo’s (Leipzig 1847).
Klopfenstein, M.A., a Die Skepsis des Qohelet >, TZ 28 1972) 97-109.
Loader,
J.A.,
c
Qoh 3,243.A < Sonnet > in the OT
>
ZAW 81 1969)
LoMnk,
N.,
Dns Siegeslied a m Schilfmeer. Christliche Auseinanderset -
zungen mi t m AZtem Testament (Frankfurt a m M a i m 1965) 198-
243.
Loretz,
O., c Zur
Darbietungsform <Ich-Erzahlung>im Buche Qoheleth
,,
,
*
Qohelet und der Alte Orient. Untersixhungen zu
S f i l
und
theologischer Thematik de s Birches Qohelet
(Freiburg 1964).
Maltby, A., < T h e
Book
of Ecclesiastes and the After-Life
B,
EvQ ‘35
Margooliouth, A. c Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus >, The Expositor 1908)
240-42.
CBQ
25 1963) 46-59.
1963) 39-44.
118-26.
at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Page 29
8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 29/29
50
S. BRETON
Meek, T.J., Translating
the
Hebrew Bible >, JBI,
79
1960) 328-35.
Muilenburg,
J., c A
Qohelct Scroll from Qiunran ., ASOR 135 1954)
Muller,
1I.P..
c
Vie sprach QohlltIt von Gott?
>,
VT
18
1968) 507-21.
Murphy, R.E.
c
Ecclcsiostcs
>, Jerome Biblical Commenfnry
(London
20-28.
1968) 534-40.
,
*
< T h e P c n s k s of Qohelet >, CBQ 17 1955) 304-14.
Preiffer. E., c Die Gottesfurcht im Buclic Kohelet >, Fs. H.IV Herfzberg
Podechard,
E.,
L'Ecclksiaste (Paris 1912).
Pdggeler, O., < Dichtungstheorie und Toposforschung >. Jahrbuch tirr
Aesthelik und allgcmeine Kunstwisscnschaft 5 1960) 89-201.
Bad,
G.
von,
Theotogic des Allen Testaments I
(4th ed.,
1962).
Rodriguez,
I.,
<
Una a n t i y a estampa otofial. Ecl
11,3
y paralelos
cld-
sicos
>,
Z€cl?ncintica10 1959) 383- 90.
Rodriguez Ochoa,
J.hI., <
Estudio
de
la dimsnsibn temporal en
Pro., Job
y
Qoh. El e terno volcr y comcrizar en Qoh.
>,
Gstn 22 1963) 33-67.
Rudolph, W., V o m Buch Kolielefh (Murister 1959).
Schmtd, 11.11.. Wesen und Gcschichte der Weisheit. Eine Untersuchung
zur
altoricntalischen und israclitischen Weisheitsliteratur,
BZAW
(BerUn 1966) 186-201.
Schunk, K.D., c Drei Scleukiden im Buchc Kohelet? >, VT 9 1959) 192-
201.
Scott, R.B.Y.,
c
The Shekel Sign on
Stone
Wcfghts
>,
BASOR
153 1959)
32-35.
Scgert,
A.
c Zur litcrarischen Form un d Funktion de r fiinf hiegllloth
(In margine
der
ncuesten Kormnentare)
>, Archfo Orientdlni
33
(GClttingen 1965) 133-58.
195) 451-62.
Steinmann,
J.,
Ainsi parlait Qohetcfh
Paris
1955).
Stranzinger,
E.,Die Jense ifsoorslelltingcn bei Koheleth
(\ en
1962).
Torrey, C.C., c The Question
of
the Original Language of Kohelet >, JQR
\Vright, A. G.. < T h e Riddle of the Sphinx: the St ructu re of the Book
Zimmerli,
W.,
a s
Buch des Predigers
Snlonoo. ATD (G6ttingen 1962).
, * Gotfcs Offenbarung. Gesammelle Au fs dfz e z u m AT (Mtin-
Zimmermann, F., < T h e Aramaic Provenance of Qohelet,,
JQR
36
39 1948/49) 151-60.
of
QohelcLhB, CBQ
30 3968) 313-34.
chen
1963) 300-15.
1945/46) 17-45.
Santiago Bretdn, S.
J.
Via
della Pilotta, 25
00187
Roma.