Qoheleth

A volume in the Story of God Bible Commentary series (Zondervan). This work offers a new interpretation of both Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, places them on the trajectory of theological development, and offers thoughts on reading these books as Christian scripture. Ecclesiastes is identified as (mainly) the work of a Davidic descendant in the Hellenistic Era, deploring the state of the Jewish nation under wicked and foolish leaders, and agonising over why God does not seem to do anything to fix the situation. Song of Songs is viewed as a ballad that tells the story of a young woman who has fallen in love with a shepherd boy, when her brothers promise her in marriage to King Solomon. The Song is also viewed as resistance literature, encouraging Jews to be faithful to their true shepherd, Yahweh, even to the point of death during the Antiochene persecution.

A popular critical theory suggests that the epilogue of Qohelet, which recommends
discipline and piety, is a later addition aimed at reconciling the unorthodox ideas of
the book with conservative views. While this hypothesis is well-established on the
basis of the text’s style and content, no external evidence to support it has ever been
suggested. This paper seeks to present an empirical model for this redactional theory
from a comparative point of view. It examines the development of the vanity theme in
Mesopotamian literature, and shows that the subversive ideas of vanity literature gave
rise, from the very beginning, to redactional activity focused on re-interpreting it in
light of traditional values. Several examples of this process of conservative redaction
are discussed, including Sumerian, Akkadian, and Akkadian-Biblical cases. The theory
that the final verses of Qohelet are a later interpolation thus gains credibility in light of
similar phenomena in Mesopotamian literature.

This study explores the timeliness of the book of Qohelet in Christian Apologetics. It follows a methodology of close reading in Qohelet conducted within the conceptual frame of Charles Taylor’s Secular Social Imaginary. This is an interdisciplinary study including biblical theology, rhetorical analysis, and Christian apologetics. These come together to show both how humanism provides an invalid construction for meaning and how Qohelet destroys all meaning-making undertaken apart from God. Subsequent apologetic cues from this comparison will be discussed. All this is done to chase readers to the present and eternal meaning found only in Christ.

This English rendering of the full text of Ecclesiastes is mainly an updating of the version published in 1917 by the Jewish Publication Society. My main purpose has been to modernize the English. Sometimes, however, I have preferred an alternative wording or an alternative meaning backed by reliable commentators.

The text is available for use under the broadest Creative Commons license. A docx file is also available.

Cruxes like “the notorious olam” (3:11), the king and the field (5:9), and “the wicked buried” (and what else goes on in 8:10) are left to the commentary.

I do not argue that this English rendering is superior to others. I have merely tried to provide a serviceable rendering, and without undue spin.

Because my own training lies in works from Sanskrit traditions, for questionable points in the text I have relied on the Hebrew expertise of others.

Comments and criticisms are warmly welcomed.

Attending to ongoing debates about the "meaning of life" in Ecclesiastes, this article determines how Qoheleth addressed meaningfulness by drawing on a threefold scheme of definitions for life's meaning. These definitions are derived from psychological research and used to argue that all three conceptions appear within the book of Ecclesiastes. Qoheleth was primarily concerned with life's "coherence," which depends on predictable and reliable patterns in life that render it sensible, yet he also addressed life's "purpose" and "significance." While primarily determining how these three forms of meaning, along with their attendant ideas, are handled within Ecclesiastes itself, this article also demonstrates how resources from psychological research help to resolve debates among biblical interpreters, who agree far more than it at first appears once clearer definitions of "meaning" are employed.

While a more recent method for biblical study, Trauma Hermeneutics has helped provide greater context for our understanding of Scripture as a whole. Qoheleth, the author of Ecclesiastes, takes traditional wisdom literature and rewrites a new version in order to make sense and meaning from an experienced traumatic event in the process of rebuilding shattered personal and collective myths. The anti-wisdom of the Teacher can readily be explained through this new method, although it also calls for caution to not westernize or colonize how the Israelites may be processing through disasters they endured.

Commentators frequently compare Eccl 10:5-7 to examples of the "topsy-turvy" motif in extrabiblical wisdom texts, especially Egyptian exemplars. The topos is found elsewhere, however, and a Neo-Assyrian letter from an unemployed exorcist named Urad-Gula to the Assyrian king provides a close parallel to Qoheleth's sentiments. Beyond matters of specific content, the Neo-Assyrian letter is also nearer Qoheleth's time period than most of the other Egyptian parallels typically adduced. Still further, Urad-Gula's real-life (mis)fortunes suggest that the topsy-turvy motif may (at least in some instances) be much more than only or merely a literary device: it may also describe situations that were actually experienced by sages and other persons like Urad-Gula-people like Qoheleth himself.

In the book of Ecclesiastes, the motif of “fear of God” can be designated as the supreme song and quintessence of biblical piety (Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, 183). This motif that appears seven times in the book (3,14; 5,7; 7,18; 8,12, twice, 13; 12,13), finds in its epilogue its theological synthesis. However, the passage in Ecclesiastes 12,13.14 has been commonly evaluated by book scholars as a later textual addition by a second author or simply the intervention of a wise commentator. In this article the text of Ecclesiastes 12,13-14 will be approached (with special emphasis on verse 13), through an exegetical analysis according to its own textual design within the book, examining its vocabulary both in its two final verses as well as throughout chapter 12. Also will be analyzed the linguistic connections with the rest of the book and how this passage turns out to be an elaborate conclusion of the wise writer. In this study, some intertextual relations with sapiential, poetic, and prophetic literature will be examined, with the purpose of demonstrating how this text offers us a rich theology for the entire Hebrew Bible focused especially on the important relationship between the moral character of the human being, the Decalogue as their fundamental life norm, and the eschatological orientation of the last verses of Ecclesiastes. The Qohelet’s epilogue can be considered a veritable master theological work and the present article will seek to investigate in this passage and its truths for our time.

This paper re-examines the relation between the Gilgamesh tradition and Qohelet. It presents formerly recognized analogies between the two texts, along with a newly identified parallel. Analysis of the data indicates that Gilgamesh is the only currently known ancient text that can be considered
a direct literary source of Qohelet. The paper then discusses the nature of the Gilgamesh epic used by Qohelet's author. It shows that this version is not identical with any Gilgamesh recension known to us. Consequently, an attempt is made to describe this unique Gilgamesh version, and to locate it within Qohelet’s historical and intellectual context.

This paper proposes a new linguistic method for dating the Book of Qohelet. While linguistic methods employed in previous studies of Qohelet led to the conclusion that it is a post-exilic book, they could not yield a more accurate dating. The methodology proposed here identifies calques in Qohelet that reflect Aramaic phrases of uneven distribution-i.e., phrases that occur only in the Aramaic dialects of a specific period. Two Aramaic calques serve as test cases: בשל אשר and בצל אשר. Tracing the inner-Aramaic development and distribution of their Aramaic equivalents, I conclude that these phrases evolved in Aramaic in the Hellenistic period, thus excluding a Persian-period dating of the relevant calques. The paper then briefly refers to the implications of these findings for the contextualization and interpretation of the Book of Qohelet.

The author assumes that the Book of Qohelet comprises, after the superscription 1:1, two main parallel sections - 1:12-7:14 // 7:15-11:6 - with 11:7-12:7 as its central section and 1:2-11 (prologue) // 12:8-14 (epilogue) as its frame. First, the ideal world of the Sage in Qoh 1-3 is outlined; then, the seven proclamations of (with indicative verb forms) and invitations to (with volitive verb forms) joy in the Book are analyzed in their respective contexts. They are as follows: 2:24-26, 3:12-13 + 22, 5:17-19, 7:13-14, 8:15, 9:7-10, and 11:7-12:7. Human work and experience in the world is ambivalent; it always gives double answers - negative and positive from human perspective - both coming from the only God. The fear of God allows human beings to live according Godʼs dispensation, enjoying when God sends goods in life and reflecting on His message when He sends pain. Joy is at the same time “part” of man, i.e., fruit of his effort, and a gift from God.

This essay attempts to give the reader an up to date review of the corpus referred to by scholars as Mesopotamian wisdom. The following types of wisdom are presented and discussed: proverbs and instructions; vanity literature; pious-sufferer compositions; perceptive hymns; riddles; fables; disputation poems; and folktales. For each type, a full list of currently known texts is presented, along with a review of its main characteristics and its relation to the concept of wisdom.

The last decade has witnessed a lively scholarly debate regarding the diachrony of biblical Hebrew and the validity of the differentiation between CBH and LBH. Lately, two of the prominent challengers of the traditional views have criticised the diachronic school from a new perspective, arguing against the use of the Masoretic Text as a basis for the linguistic discussion. This paper seeks to establish the validity of the Masoretic Text as a basis for diachronic linguistic analysis from the angle of Tiberian vocalisation. Three case studies from the Book of Qoheleth are examined, each involving an LBH component whose existence in the text is revealed to us only through Masoretic vocalisation. The case studies include the assimilation of third aleph with third he participles; the use of the abstract nominal pattern qitlôn; and the feminine demonstrative ‫ֹז‬ ‫.ה‬ The case studies show that the Masoretes had preserved the difference between CBH and LBH pronunciations, although they were probably unaware of the historical nature of these different pronunciations and of their diachronic dimension. These findings testify to a strong and stable oral Masoretic tradition which accompanied the written one. Both were transmitted for many centuries, and they were, in many cases, precise to the extant they could reflect dialectological differences within Biblical Hebrew. The paper concludes with a comment regarding Masoretic anachronisms and their place in the overall picture of Masoretic traditions.

The theme of undeserving suffering is apparent in the book of Ecclesiastes. The predicament of the righteous is obvious in the speech: a righteous person dies in his righteousness while a wicked person’s life is prolonged in his wickedness. Certainly, the speech touches on a range of sufferings endured by the righteous. Ultimately, the crux of the problem lies in the “unfair” ends of the righteous.  This article seeks to consider the theme of suffering in the context of the call to fear God in Ecclesiastes.

The enigmatic anecdote of the old and foolish king in Ecclesiastes 4,13-16 is a key text for identifying the specific context of Qohelet. This article argues that the anecdote is not merely proverbial and abstract, but reflects actual political events in the second half of the third century BCE. The old and foolish king, and the two youths who follow him, may be identified with specific figures from the Seleucid Kingdom. This identification is upheld by further clues in the rest of Qohelet’s discourse and provides us with a specific dating of Ecclesiastes in the 220s BCE. The context of the struggles between the Ptolemies and Seleucids demonstrates that the book of Ecclesiastes provides not just abstract philosophical wisdom but also pointed political commentary on developments in Judea during this time.

The historical-critical method that characterizes academic biblical studies remains often separate from approaches that stress the history of interpretation, which are employed most frequently in the area of Second Temple or Dead Sea Scrolls research.  This paper examines a test-case where the two methods mutually reinforce one another.  The law of vows in Deuteronomy 23:22-24 is difficult both in its syntax and in its legal content.  The difficulty is resolved once it is recognized that the law contains a previously unrecognized interpolation that disrupts the original coherence of the law.  However, once that interpolation was added and became accepted as part of the textual tradition, it created a “ripple effect” whereby Second Temple readers were forced to resolve the disruption in order to make sense of the text’s content and syntax.  The divergent reformulations of the law by Qoheleth 5:4–7, on the one hand, and 11QTemple 53:11–14, on the other, suggest that each of these independent witnesses sensed the textual disruption and sought to compensate for it.  The fact that each did so in a different way, while seeming to respond to the same textual “trigger,” appears to confirm the hypothesis of the interpolation.  In that way, the history of interpretation offers a window into the composition history of Deuteronomy’s law of vows.

Keywords
law of vows; intertextuality; inner-biblical exegesis; linguistic updating; protasis; conditional clauses; interpolation; Deut 23:22–24; Qoh 5:4–7; Eccl 5:4-7; 11QTemple 53:11–14; Temple Scroll; Numbers 30, Sipre Deuteronomy; Sifre; Matthew 5:33-37

Rabbinic wisdom materials betray the influence of Israelite and Greco-Roman wisdom on the one hand and the rabbinic system of law and values on the other. This chapter considers both the familiar and distinctive dimensions of rabbinic wisdom and focuses particularly on the place of wisdom within, and its contribution to, a rabbinic worldview. In addressing this issue, the chapter surveys the major wisdom works in rabbinic literature, the definition and scope of "wisdom" in the rabbinic corpus, and the reception of important earlier wisdom compositions in rabbinic literature.

This work examines how the book Ecclesiastes is situated in its traditional and historical context. Specific research concerning the traditional background is based on the wisdom literature of the Old Testament while the Hellenistic Age provides the historical frame. The main topics are: How did the Hellenistic Period affect the book of Ecclesiastes, which is written in the third century B.C.? How did the author interpret his own traditions in this historical context? Are there similar thoughts in the theology of Ecclesiastes and the Hellenistic philosophy? To answer these questions the paper provides a comparison of the main theological thoughts in the book of Ecclesiastes with texts from the wisdom literature and the Hellenistic philosophy.

This paper examines the message of Qohelet’s Catalogue of Times and its interpretive appendix. Scholars disagree on the extent to which this unit deviates from the traditional free-will theology of the Bible. The paper presents a fresh reading of the passage, which sheds new light on the problem of determinism in Qohelet. Beginning by a novel delineation for the unit, it then suggests fresh solutions for the main exegetical cruxes of the passage (3:14, 15, 17), and finally presents an innovative, somewhat radical, understanding of Qohelet’s approach towards the problem of free will.

The use of the article in the book of Qoheleth is commonly considered chaotic and taken as an argument in favor of a non-Hebrew original of the book or of its late date of composition. However, the claim of inconsistencies in the use of the article in the book of Qoheleth should be reexamined in light of the use of the article in cognate North-West Semitic languages and of linguistic study of the article. Indeed, a careful and close reading of single verses and sections of the text in their respective contexts reveals that the article is used in a meaningful and logical manner in order to convey the author’s thought in his own, particular perspective. Therefore, any grammatical analysis of the article in the Hebrew Bible should be concerned with possible contextual reasons of its use and non-use.

The article explores the image of God that appears in Qoheleth's final poem (11:7–12:8). The wise writer, being elsewhere so reluctant to talk about God, in his final poem mentions God three times (11:9; 12:1,7), each one of them showing exegetical difficulties. According to their interpretation, God's image in the poem can have different nuances. Being the ‘Preachers’ last words, this important presence of the divinity in them sheds light on his comprehension of humans' life and final destiny ‘under the sun’.

El artículo estudia la figura de Dios que aparece en el poema final de Qohélet (11,7-12,8). El sabio, que se caracteriza por ser muy escueto en sus referencias a Dios, en el poema final lo menciona tres veces (11,9; 12,1.7), las tres no carentes de dificultades. Según cómo se las interprete, la imagen de Dios que emerge del poema tendrá matices distintos. Tratándose de las «últimas palabras» del «Predicador», la presencia importante de la divinidad en ellas echa luz sobre su comprensión de la vida y del destino final de los seres humanos «bajo el sol».

This essay examines Qoheleth's Catalogue of the Times poem in Eccl 3:2-8. I argue that the two most common scholarly interpretations of the poem's overall meaning fail to sufficiently account for its literary context and that an underdeveloped alternative reading is to be preferred. When we read the poem in light of two other closely related passages, 1:4-11 and 3:9-15, it becomes clear that a poem ostensibly about "time" is much less concerned with "timing" than is typically thought, but instead signifies Qoheleth's frustration with the inevitable equilibrating tendency embedded into every human task.

Il piccolo libretto di Qohelet, “scandaloso” gioiello biblico, sembra scardinare tutte le nostre certezze e consegnarci a un pessimismo disperante. Che legame ci può essere tra questo libro della Bibbia e Gesù? A tale interrogativo vuole rispondere il presente volume. Partendo da un’intuizione fondamentale dei Padri della Chiesa – «il nostro Ecclesiaste è Cristo» –, l’autore ci propone una rinnovata lettura cristiana di Qohelet, intendendola più o meno così: l’uomo Gesù Cristo si è confrontato con le domande e i problemi lasciati aperti da Qohelet. Li ha affrontati, pensati, solo in parte risolti, anzi spesso li ha trasformati in nuove domande. Un particolare cammino di lettura di Qohelet poco battuto ma capace di aprire sentieri inediti di riflessione in vista di una lettura cristiana, dunque umana, di Qohelet. E, di conseguenza, dell’esistenza tout court, perché tra i libri biblici Qohelet è tra quelli più moderni, o forse eterni, nel tratteggiare il mestiere di vivere.

Faith of Ecclesiastes is put to a severe trial - as the faith of Abraham, Moses and Job. Koheleth has nothing to support his faith: he has no experience of God's love and God's closeness, he has no evidence for God acting for the benefit of man. Finally, he has no hope of any reward for good, wise and godly life. This is a test of faith - perhaps the most difficult in the history of the characters of the Bible. We all have times when emptiness and meaninglessness seem absolute. Then the voice of Qoheleth speaks our pain and offers us the consolation of companionship, if not of explanation.

Qohelet’s complex rhetoric, particular syntax, and apparently antithetical statements (e.g., compare 2:24, 3:13, and 5:18 with 11:9) have resulted in an array of technical commentaries whose authors examine the idiosyncrasies of Ecclesiastes, striving to unravel its complexities and explicate the message(s) of the book.