Qoheleth: The Theology of a Hebrew Philosopher

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.

[email protected]

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

Copyright 2013 by Frantz St. Iago-Peretz i Bennazar & Family

All rights reserved

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