bretÓn s. qohelet studies

8/10/2019 BRETÓN S. Qohelet Studies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/breton-s-qohelet-studies 1/29

QOHELETH

STUDIES

Even a cursory survey of a good bliblical bibliography

of the

last ten years shows the interest surrounding the book

of

Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes). We do not intend

to

examine

in

detail

here all the studies published.

Rather

we shall present briefly

the most notable

of

them and attempt to bring out their

distinctive contribution to

a

better understanding

of

Qoheleth

Our survey of the commentaries and of the particular studies

will

be

followed by more personal reflections

on

the trend

of

present-day research'.

1 COMMENTARIES

With respect to the rather large number of commentaries

published recently

it

should

be

noted

that

some of them are

but new editions of older works2. As for the truly

new

ones it

is

not always evident that they represent new approaches or

offer new solutions worth considering.

Let

us examine some

of

the questions they raise.

1. Place

and Date

of Origin

There exists

a

sort

of

consensus among the commentators

to

give

a

Palestinian origin to Qoheleth3, and

to

disregard other

possibilities, like Egypt and Babylonia. Hertzberg's study of

the indications found

in

Qoheleth regarding the climate, the

geography, and other concrete

data

has contributed much

towards the acceptance

of

Palestine

as

its place

of

origin.

With

him also, the majority of the commentators think it wa s com-

For

editorial reasons the authors are referred to by their name

only and the page, when necessary. The full title of the works wil l

be

found

in

the bibliography.

2 Galling wrote his commentary in 1940, Herkberg in 1932,Dueste rg

in 1939, and Cords in 1951.

3

Hesitation on this point is expressed by Loretz

4 2 and

Eissfeldt

674.

at The Hebrew University Library Authority on November 25, 2012btb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://btb.sagepub.com/





QOHELETH

STUDIES

3

posed in

Jerusalem, while others would

rather settle for the

Northern region,

h

Phoenician tei-ritory'.

Qoheleth is comionly held

to

be

a

postexilic book,

and

most critics place

its

composition in the 3rd century

(see

Loretz

28), for different motives: comparison

w i t h

other

books

of the

OT

(Hertzberg, Galling), influences

011

the vocabulary used

(Murphy, Loretz), the ideas expressed in the

book

(Eissfeldt).

But the decisive reason now rests on the discoveries of Qumran5.

The argumentation

b e d

on supposed historical allusions in Qo

4:13-16 and

10:16

has

not

been accepted8.

2. Influences and language

Commentators are generally more cautious today than for-

merly in admitting the presence in Qoheleth of Egyptianisnie

or Grecisms7. Foreign influences can hardly be denied, but it

is not always easy to establish specific cases of it. There exists

no

longer

the

once popular inclination to

turn

to Egypt or

Greece to find the sources of inspiration for

the

themes developed

in Qoheleth. Contacts obviously cannot

be

denied, and some

of

them are remarkable. But they need not

be

tlirect, since they

can

be

explained by

a

thematic widespread among the Orientals

as

their common patrimony (Zimmerli 128, von Rad

398).

Eiss-

feldt continues, however, to defend the Greek spirit in

Qo

(p.

675) and Loretz does not preclude

the

possibility

of

direct

contacts with the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic (p. 133f).

The langage

of

Qoheleth

is

that

of the later period;

it

has

noticeable similarities

w i t h

Mishnic Hebrew (Murphy

534).

Zimmerniann, Torrey, and Ginsberg attempted to revive the

older Burkitt thesis of an Aramaic original later translated into

Hebrew (cf. Eissfeldt 672).

It

offered

an

easy explanation

of

the numerous Aramaisms found in Qo. But why were so many

Cf. Barucq

18, Loretz

*

41,

nahood

B i b 1962,

07 1958, 317). On

Loretz

*

29, Dahood

in

Bib

1958, p. 303, and Muilenburg.

6

Again recently Schunk

has

proposed

a

comparison

of

this

type,

but the commentators do not

agree

with

him: cf.

Galling 75, Hertzberg

*

117,

Zimmerli

128.

Hertzberg

*

43,

56, Galling

77,

Murphy

534, Loretz

*

56.

Dahood's view see Hertzberg 45, n. 4 .







24 S. BRETON

Aramaic terms left untranslated (Galling 75)

?

This problem

leads scholars to follow Margoliouth’s theory, updated by Gordis:

Qoheleth wrote in Hebrew, but lie also knew Aramaic, the

language he probably used in ordinaiy life, like his contem-

poraries (Gordis 61).

3.

The

Unity of the

Book

This problem has been approached from widely different

angles: Ginsberg and Bea, considering the content of the book,

defend

a

progressive development which logically would have

led to

a

climax represented by ch. l Z 3 From the standpoint

of

formal analysis Galling defends exactly the contrary: a logical

development

is

out of the question. The structure

of

Qoheleth

can in no way

be

discovered through the logical progress of his

exposition. The small literary unit should be the point of de-

parture. The opinions of present-day commentators vary within

the limits set

by

the

two

extreme positions just mentioned:

Hertzberg denied to

Bea

and Ginsberg the right to see

a

plo-

gressive

logical development. The conclusion of the

book’s second

chapter, for exaniple, seeins just

as

clear

as that

reached

at

the end

of

the twelfth.

Ir?

each chapter we already have

an

order

and

a

logical structure.

In this

way Hertzberg differs also from

Galling.

For

him not the small unit but

the

chapter

is

im-

portant. He thus escapes the criticism levelled against Galling

by

Ginsberg,

that of atomizing the

book

(Hertzberg 36) . Yet

Hertzberg, has

to

acimit that the logical tenor of some chapters

is

rather hazy, that not rarely

a

title must

be

found

that

will

be

applicabIe to the most varied reflections

i b i d . ] .

Zimmerli 131f) recognizes the validity of Galling’s star-

ting-point, but would not build from

it a

concrete pattern

fo r

structuring and grouping the sinall units; this is for the ele-

mentary motive of doing justice to all the possibilities which

manifest themselves

in

the

book:

in

ch.

10,

for example, we

find

a mere enumeration, apparently the result of the hasty as-

sembling

of

a

remainder

of

sayings, before the termination

of

8

Bea,

Liber Ecclesiaste,

Ginsberg, Studies. But these two authors

come to completely different conclusions as

regards

the structure of

the book.

See

Wright 315,

NN.

4-5.







QOHELETH STUDIES

s

t h e book. There are also units. once independent, which were

later disposed according to a recurring key-word: Qo 4:7-12;

4:13-16.

It

is possible to discern

a

mutual dependence of units,

which introduce, describe, or summarize various reflections (e.g.

Loretz warn s against th e dan ger of attem ptin g to discover

in

Qoheleth the projections of our own

rational

categories,

of

seeking there intentions and structures compatible with our

present-day mentality. It is methodologically mistaken to a p

proach Qoheleth with logical standards, be i t to

And

the rational

outlin e of t h e whole book, or to isolate

the

small unit. The key

to the solut ion

is

of a topical, not of

a

rational nature. Loretz

accepts the descriptive definition

of

the topos proposed by

Poggelers. For Loretz, Qoheleth is entirely the fruit of the t o p i

of th e wisdom lite ra tu re of Israel (p. 208f).

Also Zimmerli shares Loretz’ enthusiasm for the topoi , t h e

only valid m etho d, he th ink s, for th e exegesis of Qoheleth. How

would these authors explcin the passage from one t o p s to

another?

What

criteria govern

it?

Does

this

passage- result from

chance

or

improvisation? Not always. According

to

Zimmerli

p. 131) t h e ((log ical)) movem ent of a reflection usually calls

for t h e n e x t t o p s . But does not this solution call for the logic

which Loretz declares useless in dealing w i t h the problems of

Qoheleth?

Or

do

we

have

to

recognize that logic is relevant

when

it

comes to explain the leap froin one

t o p s

to another?

Would not this canonize a method just condemned?10

The closest defender of th e atomism for which Galling is

blamed seems to

be

Eissfeldt. Qoheleth

is

for Eissfeldt

a

sort

of

diary

in

which t h e writer assembled

the

most varied imperssions:

autobiographi,cal da ta, imperson al reflections, proverbs. Eissfeldt

admits wholly the literary complexity of Qo, while at the s ame

time he refuses th e task of classifyiiig the data (against Bickell)

QO

1:12 - 2~26) .

9 P6zzler

19.

The topoi (.motifs, themes >) are concepts or sen-

pences which lend themselves to an elastic usage and are characterized

by

a

lack

of

precision

and

systematic absence

of

concreteness.

They

cb

not exclude from

discussion

and dialogue

doubtful

declarations and

wewpoints. To know that Qo argues through t o p o f i s vital for evaluating

emrectly the stylistic construction of

th is

book.

l o

A more

elaborate criticism

of

Loretz can be

reed

in Ellermeier

m-47.







26

S. BRETON

or

of

delineating a plan. Nor does he accept the onus of de-

limitating the units, an exacting and usually problematic kind

of work (Eissfeldt

669).

Recapitulating we may add that there exists a general ten-

dency to speak

of

a certain logical unity ))

of

the whole, without

claiming, however, that this is a strict unity,

as

Bickell does.

Eissfeldt admits that although no logical progression is found

in Qoheleth, we are not faced in the book with

a

meaningless

heap

of

sentences. Even Galling concedes that the reflections

are not simply juxtaposed at random like

a

set of playing cards

(p. 76). Some authors find support for such

a

u n i t y in stylistic

particularities:

hebel,

((vanity)),

as

the

main

axis

of

the book,

uniformity of the vocabulary, combination of the philosophically

and

of

the practically orientated chapters,

k i n g

fiction, recourse

to the m sh l (proverb), a piece of poetry both at the beginning

and at the end of the

book

(Loretz 212-15; Hertzberg

36).

A t

the present time the cominentators do not feel anxious

lo explain eventual inconsistencies, nor do they look for an

overall solution. Steinmann appeals

t o

the right every man

has

to contradict himself

(p.

19), Rudolph finds refuge in psycho-

logical observations or in the confrontation between Judaism and

Hellenism (p. 16f). Quite generally, recourse

is

made to the

formula Zwar-aber )) (((of course, but I ) ) , the magic rod which

is often used

to

cover rather than to solve difficulties.

Exegesis does not admit as easily today as formerly foreign

interventions in Qoheletb The intervention of at least

one

epiloguist

seems,

however, indisputable (Gordis

73).

Some auth-

ors

consider the possibility that two or even three have

inter-

vened in the work1'. Would it not be possible also that one of

the epiloguisk,

as

Ellemeier, for example, believes,

was

the

ce redactor

a

or even the compositor )) of the book (the texts,

from Qoheleth, would have been compiled by someone else).

4. The Style

The commentators willingly

attach

importance to the sty-

listic characteristics of Qoheleth.

His

vocabulary

is

analyzed,

statistics note the frequency of the words used, lists of the

l1 Two Epiloguists: Z i m m e r U

140 Galling

76.

Three

epiloguists:

Hertzberg

*

62.







QOHELETH STUDIES ZI

fixed formulas are made, as well as

of

word-plays,

repetitions,

favorite phrases, and the combined use of observation

and

re-

flection comes for study. The results obtained are similar in

nature; w h a t varies is the starting-point of the analysis or the

insistence on

a

particular stylistic quality. Hertzberg’s attention

concentrates on each of the chapters, mainly to see where they

begin and terminate (pp. 35f). Zimmerli analyses the style from

the viewpoint of the proverb, the typical from of wisdom

lite-

rature. He presents observations on the length of these proverbs,

giving special attention to the so-called

t6b

))-sayings, that

is, proverbs involving the

t rm

good )) (pp.

128-30).

Loretz

underlines the importance of the

first

person narrative

Ich-Er-

zahlung , as the literary form of presentation. The whole book

would

be

set in

a

royal fiction

Konigs f ik t ion) ,

which would

provide its unity and would arrest the readers’ attention. The

fact that occasionally this literary device is abandoned in favor

of

a

text not in the first person does not point to

an

inconsistency

of style but to

a

change in perspective, attentively considered

by

the author12. Ellenneier insists on the literary genre

reflec-

tion

))

and proposes under this title his other stylistic observations

on Qoheleth (p.

50).

Controversies were bound to arise regarding these varying

evaluations of Qoheleth. Ellermeier, for example, deems it prob-

lematic that the narrative in the first person should be a simple

literary device to underscore the sayings of Qoheleth, recogni-

zing at the same time the danger of an excessive use of the

t rm

autobiography D. He thinks, moreover,

that

the expla-

nation of the I-narrative is to

be

sought

in

its

being

the fruit of

reflection. Much inore serious is his criticism of the attempt to

understand the whole book as a king-fiction pp. 82ff .

Is Qoheleth prose or fiction? Hertzberg maintains that it

is poetry with verses counting two or three accents, although

admittedly it is not always easy to determine this precisely. For

Zimmerli the book

is

prose with a large number of saying

inclusions, which dominate the context but are also regularly

discontinued

to

leave room for narratives. Galling discerns

in

the

sayings

a poetic structure, without attempting as Hertzberg

l2 Loretz

212f:

the change of perspective In also found in other

literatures.







S.

B R E T O N

28

does to determine its precise m eter

(p.

74 ,

because of t h e serious

difficulties this involves.

A

major

point of divergency, and one upon which great

exegetical efforts con cen trate, is th e study of th e literar y un its

of Qoheleth. There are numerous interpretations and possibilities

in this area. A good survey

of

them can be found in Ellermeier s

work (pp.

129-41),

especially concerned with the study of t h e

formal elements in Qoheleth.

5 .

Qoheleth

and

the

Traditional Wisdom

The debate on the relations between traditional wisdom and

Koheleth has probably abated today. Previously some authors

would present a Qoheleth firmly confined wi th in the sapiential

patterns of Israel. Others held the book responsible for ((the

bankruptcy of traditional wisdom )) (Murphy

*305).

A n outline

of present-day solutions could run

as

follows:

a) A close relation of Qoheleth w ith tra ditio nal wisdom ca nn ot

be

denied.

This

connection

is

m anife st in several passages of th e

b) It

is

equally impossible to present Qoheleth as the defender

and supporter of this wisdom.

It is

t rue

that

he dea ls wi th the

same problems, but he submits them to an intense reflection

(Rudolph

11).

He questions the fundamental dogma of tradition:

th e relation between action an d result1 . Qoheleth has his o w n

distinctive conception of happiness (Barucq

89).

Qoheleth s

wisdom supposes t h e demythologisation of th e hu m a n

possibili-

ties, th e accepting of per turb atio n and insecurity (Zimmerli

137ff

)

.

c)

There is no denial in Qoheleth of th e va lue of wisdom, nor

of its superiority in regard to ignorance. But its whole value

comes from God. The value of wisdom is relative, not absolute,

s ince it

is

not available precisely when man is confronted with

the fundamental questions which interest him the most (Galling

78,

Hertzberg

233).

1 s Ellermder 108. t Seems

mistaken

to deny

that

Qo

is

the author

of the

proverbs which are traditional

in

tone. See

also

Rudolph

11.

Rudolph

14 Galling

79 Barucq

37.







Q O H E L E T H S T U D I E S 29

d) It

is

generally recognized that Qoheleth has points of con-

tac t s w i t h the book of Wisdom, altrough they are two quite

different writings. Qoheleth

is

close to Job in

its

conception

of wisdom and

in

i ts approach t o some problems, but Qo’s so-

lution is much more radical (Rudolph llff. .

6. Pessimism

and

Faith

In

order to provide

a

soothing solution to Qoheleth’s vexing

pessimism, commentators usually relate

it

to the problem of

the

book’s stand on

God.

t

is

conimonly admitted

that

the negative

( (van i ty ) )concept pervades the book and colors all t h e h u m a n

realities. However, a host of indications are

found

to neutral ize

this

accent of pessimism, for example

that

Qoheleth als0

m entions th e goodness of creation, that he never states

that in

the world there is more evil than g d .

It is

also claimed that

the negative propositions show a grasp of reality, that Qoheleth

does not defend a s t ructured pessimistic p h i lm ph y, an d

so

on

(Loretz

261ff,

Barucq

38).

More precisely,

if

Qoheleth

is

not accused of pessimism,

it

is

because he appears as believer and takes the fear of God

in to a , c c ~ u n t * ~ .bviously it can be objected that belief in

God

does not necessarily rule out pessimism. Qoheleth is not an

athe istic pessimist. notes von Rad, because h e ha rbo urs no

doubts

w i t h

regard to Gcrd’s existence. Yet this does not erase

t h e

f a c t

of his pessimism. For Qoheleth questions od’s dispo-

nibility

to

intervene in history

and in

th e life of m en: w hen he

does,

his

intervention s bear th e m ar k of weariness (von

Rad

467 . Eissfeldt also has underlined the pessimistic features of

Qoheleth (p. 670). There is no spontaneous praise for the image

of God found in Qoheleth: if Qoheleth’s pessimism is denied on

the

basis of

his

faith

in God

authors on

the

other hand a re no t

lacking who find his image of

God

inconsistent on the

basis of

his pessimism16.

It is not difficult to prove Qoheleth’s

faith

by quoting from

the text of his work. He believes

in

a

creator

God

who govenls

th e life of man and does everything well.

It

this is t rue, then a

13

Barucq

37, Hertzberg

*

2331,

Zimmerli

137.

16 Below we sh ll

examine

Schmid’s opinion in

its

proper context.







30 S.

BRETON

double result

is

obtained: God is retrieved from Qoheleth‘s

criticism and the book’s scepticism is confined to t he human

sphere: Qo’s scepticism

is

not about

God

but

about

the

world

and m an (Hertzbe rg 224ff, Loretz 271).

It is

however admitted

that Qoheleth’s God is a distant one, who

does

intervene in

h u m a n affairs b u t i n a way which man can hardly understand.

This expla ik man’s a t t i tude of passivity and fear, two com-

ponents of

his

relationship

w i t h

God. Several authors describe

Qoheleth’s God

as a

depersonalized being. Not only does Qo in

fact never use the personal name Yahweh,

b u t h e also

seems

inclined to fatal ism: the human incapacity

t o

determine the

criteria for recognizing the divine action (Hertzberg

224f,

Barucq

To establish his claim that Qoheleth’s

is

a personal God,

Loretz first appeals

to

the consemus

of

the majori ty of t h e

exegetes, then t o comparative literature, in which, in his view,

the t e rm ilu U od D includes personal traits (p. 278). It should

be

admitted as a minimum, Zimmerli observes, that Qoheleth’s

is

anything but

a

warm God

D.

26ff).

7 . Hebel

One encounters

no

special difficulty in translating the word

breath, or vapor. The question

is:

what

did

Qoheleth intend

to

convey through

this

metaphor? Barucq would interpret the term

as meaning absurd I ) , Galling as meaning nothing

D,

while

Hertzberg finds with Luther that it expresses vanity

)),

as does

also Zimmerli

in

different terms. Loretz

is

oontent

with

breath

of wind)) (Lufthauch), and confirms

his

choice through other

biblical texts and cuneiform writings“.

Zimmerli’s interpretation

places

the meaning of the word

half-way between what is impermanent or fugacious

and what

is weak or powerless.

This

scholar dissuades interpreters from

lending to hebel the nuance ( ( incomprehensible)) ,

a

rather sub-

jective meaning preferred

by

Galling and Barucq. Barucq does

no t t ake ( ( absurd) )

n

a

metaphysical

sense:

realities, for him,

are absurd t o

m n

hen they can in no way

be

understood.

1 7

The literal translation < Lufthauch, does not satisfy

Galling

79, nor Ellermeier 37-39.







QOHELETH

S T U D I E S 31

Galling

thinks

the same: the incomprehensible is contradictory.

He does not a t tempt to

specify.

the nuance of

mata io tb ,

which

he considers

as

t ied to t he intention ‘or th e mood

of

the subject**.

8. Observations

We have now presented annotations from a few com-

mentaries and general works on Qoheleth. A comparison with

older commentaries may

be

helpful to evaluate the more recent

ones.

The modern commentators resume the problematic already

laid out by the traditional studies;

in

general they only express

agreement or disagreement with the older views, without making

extra efforts to provide new approaches to the problems. There

is

noticeable progress on some points, l ike the origin and

the

d a te of th e book. Th e articles of H ertzberg a n d Mu ilenburg, who

has

published Qoheleth fragments from Qumran, constitute

distinctive contributions in

that

area. Recent studies have also

clarified the questions regarding the original language of

Qo.

More often, however, the interpreters have reconsidered and

followed Margoliouth’s thesis.

With

regard to the unity of the

book

lready debated in ancient t imes omplementsry

glosses are not admitted as easily today as they were formerly

(cf. Ellermeier 125). The book’s uni ty

is

more thoroughly inves-

tigated, especially on the basis of fo rm al a nd litera ry data. There

mists , besides.

a greater interest for the in terrelation of form

and

content,

as

well

as

for the connections of Qo with the

productions of other cultures.

All this means

that

progress is registered in these areas

as

compared w i t h the traditional positions. The close connection

of the new wi t h the older commentators should also be noted:

Barucq, for example,

is

very dependent on Pdechard, whom

he quotes more

than

sixty times. Hertzberg refers con stantly

to

his

predecessor and expresses his admiration for the work

done by Delitzsch. Loretz represents

a

similar case, while

Ellermeier underlines the importance of

the

older authors in

specific fields: uni ty of th e book,

syntax,

problems of

transla-

18

O n

the different meanings of hebel

see

Meek.







32 S. BRETON

tion, and notes that little progress

has

been done in recent

years in some of these or

in

related areas.

It. PARTICULAR STUDIES

We intend to present here the distinctive contribution of

some articles or publications which conientrate on some passages

or themes of Qoheleth. Even though these subjects are also

treated in commentaries, it seems helpful to reconsider them

more in detail and also in the larger fmnework of the proble-

matic involved.

1.

Philology

We have already said that present-day commentators quite

commonly agree about the original language of Qoheleth and

are careful not to get involved in the debate surrounding it.

They maintain a prudent reserve while awaiting for clearer

and more convincing results. The positions are

still

program-

matic, even largely hypothetical,

as is clear from the number

of articles published to strengthen stands already taken. The

debate is mainly

continued now by two or three authors,

as

we shall see. The abundance of their contribution explains the

length of the exposition that follows.

The debate originated mainly

w i t h

the publication

by M.

D a h d

of

Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth

)) Bib-

Zica

33 (1952) 121-221. The reason for the discussion was, of course,

the presence in Qoheleth of philological data which could not

simply be assigned to an author writing in Hebrew. Two

different approaches soon took shape: on the one hand, Burkitt

postulated an Aramaic original, which allowed him t o solve

some textual’probems, while he admitted that proofs for the

Aramaic thesis were not compelling; on the other, Dahood

claimed that the author wrote in Hebrew but used Phoenician

orthography,

that

the composition itself reveals its dependence

on

Canaanite-Phoenician literaturelD. We leave aside

for

the

moment the problem of dating the book, although

this

is

19 Dahood

is generally

careful

in

his articles to avoid

using

expres-

sions dcgmatic in tone.







QOHELETH STUDIES z3

involved in the present discussion. It should be noted, besides,

that

Dahood’s stand does not preclude in principle the Aramaic

colour of Qoheleth, no r th e influence of hlishnic Hebrew (O n th e

M ishnah see BibTB 1972, pp. 208ff.).

Canaanite Influence

Dahood is convinced that to accept a strong Canaanite

influence on Qoheleth

opens the

way

to

a more satisfactory

approach towards solving the problems of orthography, morpho-

logy, and syntax in Qoheleth. For his demonstration Dahood

first surveys the difficult passages of

the

book,

showing

that

t h e

Aramaic a nd h4ishnic theories d o no t offe r satisfactory solutions

to the problems involved. He then presents the positive advanta-

ges of his theory by drawing arguments from different areas:

grammar, names, Phoenician inscriptions, Ugaritic literature,

and the au thor i ty of other philologists.

An important point of Dahood’s argumentation consists in

demonstrating thzt precisely the two main proofs advanced in

favor of th e A ramaic theory, nam ely th e erroneous usage of

the article and th e vocabulary, constitute evidence fo r th e

Phoenician influence on Qoheleth. Instead of admit t ing, in l ine

w i t h the Aramaic theory, that Qoheleth committed 24 mistakes

in the use

of

the article within the compass of a small book,

should we not consider the similarities with the Phoenician

grammar,

in

which the article obeys specific rules

B i b

1952,

200).

Dahood finds, besides, in Qoheleth, a large number of

terms derived from Phoenician roots or related to the Cana-

anite-Phoenician vocabulary. This, he claims, can partly account

for the monotony of QO’S terminology. In addition, Qoheleth

shows a liking for commercial terms, a typically Phoenician

feature (words like profit, loss, abundance are mentioned).

Light

from Q u m r a n

A few years later Dahood published ano ther im po rtan t

article, Qoheieth

and

Recent Discoveries

I ) ,

Bib

39

(1958)

302-318, in which he considers the fragments from Qoheleth

published by Muilenburg in 1954. In

his

interpretation of them

he confronts Ginsberg - ontinuator of Burkitt and typical

representative of th e Aram aic theory - nd also Gordis, who







34

S.

BRETON

seemed to negate the peculiari ty and the exceptionality of

Qoheleth’s vocabulary. Apparently, Ginsberg felt

that

many

problems would

be

solved

by considering Qoheleth

as

contempo-

nmus wi th the books of th e M accabees (he sug gests 167 B.C.).

On

the other hand, Ginsberg agrees

w i t h

the date proposed for

th e Qum ran fragments , 150 to 125 B.C., although this confronts

him

w i t h a problem: how could the

book

during the short period

of 17 years be

translated

and apparently widely distributed?

This

same objection is also raised by Muilenburg and Gordis.

Apart from this, Dahood mentions the inconveniences under

which labors th e Aramaic theory: far-fetched argu m entation

and unnatural interpretation of the texts.

On

t h e basis of the Qumran fragments, Dahood disagrees

also w i t h Gordis. If the Hebrew of Qoheleth represents 3rd

centu ry Hebrew, a n interm ediate stage between th e classical

form and the mishnic, why

are

not similarities ‘no ted between

the 3rd and the 2nd century Hebrew, the latter being known

f rom the frag m ents of Q um ran ? How ca n we ad m it

w i t h Gordis

that

Qoheleth provides evidence

of

the evolving process of

((normaln Hebrew, when,

for

.example, there is not a single

Qo example of the use of consecutive wtv? This is a typical

feature of classical Hebrew and it occurs up to 5 3 t imes in

one

of th e Qu m ran scrolls.

Fur ther on in

his

article, Dahood pursues his investigation

of

the connections

in

orthography and vocabulary between

Qoheleth and the Phoenician language. But often where Dahood

sees Phoenician Ginsberg

sees

Aramaic, one of

the

difficulties

being to determine th e d erivation of th e roots. Dahood also

questions

C.H.

Gordon’s suggestion that Qo might have been

w ritten in B2bylonia because of th e A kkad ian affinities fo und

in the book. This thesis, we are told, does not

fit

well

w i t h

t h e

phenomenon of scriptio defectiva; in any case, the Akkadian

connections would rather support the Phoenician thesis. Against

Hertzberg he notes the following: the fact that

Qo

never men-

tions

a

concrete

God,

.e.

Yahweh, may indicate

that

t h e

book

wa s not composed in Je rusa l em

Dahood acknowledges that the a rguments he has presented

do not al l have the same probative value. Taken together they

do seem

to

form

a

solid basis for his theory (cf.

Bib

1962, 365).







QOHELETH STUDIES

35

Another Viewpoint

R.

Gordis published in 1055 ((Was Koheleth a Phoenician?

Some observations on Methods

of

Research)) ,

JBL

74

(1955)

103-14. We shall here concentrate on his later article: ((Qohe-

le th and Qumran.

A

Stud y of St yl e) ), Bib

41 (1960)

395-410,

in which he argues that Dahood’s theory is neither convincing

nor necessary. He discusses again methdology and clarifies his

own viewpoint

in

connection

w i t h

Dahood’s position.

Gordis claims th a t D ahood approaches

the

problem s one-sided-

ly when he examines only the connections and

parallels

of

Qoheleth

w i t h

the geographically neighbouring cultures, not

taking into account the later stages of the cultural and rel i-

gious developments

of

the Jewish people, which cast light also on

the preceding

periods.

T he la te r development of Hebrew should

also be given

a

major importance in the discussions on biblical

language. Similarities and parallels have to

be

used with

caution. They do not by themselves prove textual dependence,

since th e common basic structure of the h um an mind can

often explain that different cultural milieus operating inde-

pendently can produce similar results.

The concrete examples produced by Dahood to show Phoe-

nician

connections would only confirm the position

adopted

by

Gordis, who claims t h a t no t Phoenician b ut Hebrew best explains

the textual difficulties of Qoheleth. Examples are given: the

end ing of th e Phoenician absolute st at e is well enough

at-

tested in bliblical Hebrew; the sm *pt io de fec tiva, a Phoenician

trait , remains

a

possibility in Hebrew, and

this is

confirmed by

the Massoretic texts; Phoenician references are unnecessary to

revocalize correctly some words

of

Qoheleth; many of

the

claimed hapax legomena of the

book

appear

as

such

for

t h e

sole reason that only th e Hebrew of th e biblical period

is

considered.

Qoheleth’s Distinctive Hebrew

It is

often stated

that

in

Gordis’ view the language

of

Qoheleth is th e ((n or m al) ) Hebrew of th e 3rd century

with

its

distinctive features derived from biblical, mishnic, and Aramaic

influences. Gordis reminds his readers that the expression

((normal l i terary Hebrew)) must

be

understood within the







36 S.

BRETON

context of its own specific literary genres,

that

no single literary

pattern can be considered

s the

style norm of

a

given period,

and that any author can use for

his

work other styles belonging

to quite different periods.

In

line w i t h these premises Gordis

asserts categorically: the style of Qoheleth

is

unique )), and

it would be a mistake to pretend to conceive it

as

the expression

of the style of his period. The stylistic originality of Qoheleth,

Gordis believes, rests

o n

the fact that he was the

first

writer

who used the Hebrew language for quasi-philosophical purposes,

a

task for which Hebrew was not conveniently prepared. Thus

it

happened

that

Qoheleth had few models which could help

him to classisize)) or

c

archaicizen

his

expression.

In

that

sense Qoheleth

has

anticipated the linguistic role to

be

played

later by the mishnic Hebrew.

Having

said all

this, Gordis defends the opinion

that Qo-

heleth’s style belongs to an intermediate

period:

its language

is

already outside of the classical period but has not yet

reached the development of the mishnic Hebrew. Gordis finds

support for this affirmation both in the vocabulary, which

abounds

in

aramaisms and

in

mishnic forms,

as

well

as

in the

syntax: even after assimilating distinctively mishnic traits, Qo

did not abandon completely what is typical of classical HebrewZo.

If

it is

objected that differences exist between the language

of the Qumran community

and

that of Qoheleth, Gordis answers

that this community’s religious mentality was of

a

completely

different

type.

For their religious and disciplinary textbooks

the covenanters had no need for a language like Qoheleth’s,

adapted to serve speculation.

On

the other hand, the differences

between the two styles should not be exaggerated, to

the

point,

for example, of ignoring the syntaxic elements common to Qohe-

leth and the Qumran community. They lived

in

the same period,

were subjected to the same influences, they shared in the same

religio-cultural heritage, to which they gave diverging interpret-

ations.

The possibility of an original Aramaic Qoheleth is

still being

discussed, but no new line of argumentation is proposed. More

and more parallels are advanced to fortify entrenched positions

20 Gordis

*

408-9. hlishnic traits: the use of the participle to express

the present tense, and tlie use

of

pronouns

as

subjects. Consecutive

m u a trait of

classical

Hebrew, occurs three times in Qoheleth.







QOHELETH STUDIES 37

which neither side is disposed to abandon. There is

a

note OI

partiality in this attitude.

I f

Hertzberg’s commentary contains

inaccuracies

of

translation, this is due, Dahood suggests, to the

author’s failure

t o

take into account the parallels from the

Northwest Semitic dialects**. Perhaps similar remarks could

be

made from the other camp’s viewpoint

G.R.

Driver and

K.R.

Veenhof

w a r n

against the dangers of a panugaritism which

would underrate the importance

of

the other philological ma-

terialz2.

2.

Style

There are few studies directly devoted to

this

theme: Loader

finds

the structure of

a

sonnet

in

Qoh

3:2-8

Baumgartel inter-

prets 12:11

as a marginal gloss to 12:lO. The glossator would

have introduced here

a

metaphorical allusion to cuneiform

writing. B m dmits in Qoh 12:6 the possibility of a double

poetic imagery on the end of human life. All depends on what

meaning

is

given to gullcih,

a

key-word

in

Brun’s view.

We still have to mention the study of Loretz o n the nar-

ration in the first person

Ich-ErzahZung).

It proposes

an im-

portant question:

is

the

1))of

the

book

identical with the

1))

of the author? It is answered

that

they are different, since

in

the

first

place we hardly know anything of the author, and

besides there is no necessity to identify an author with his

work. This can serve as

a

warning not to interpret Qoheleth

as

an autobiography,

as

the diary

of a

pessimist, not to use indiscri-

minately the theory of the sources

Quellentheorie).

Loretz comes to the conclusion

that

the Ich-Erzahlung

1)

is a stylistic form purposely chosen by the author. Having.ac-

cepted the king-fiction

as

the axis

of

the book, Loretz turns to

the extrabiblical literature to find confirmed there the ancient

tendency to parallel oneself with kings. The Ich-Erzahlung

))

Dahood in Bib 1966. pp. 265ff. In his articles on Hebrew-Uga-

ritk

Lexicography. D. intends to point out additional meanings or

nuances

of

niimerous Hebrew ten by comparing them

with sinlilar

Phoenician and Ugaritic words.

2 2

G.R.

Driver in JSS

10

1965) 112-117;K.R. Veenhof in Bibliotheca

Orientalis

25 1968) 364-65:

review of

E.R.

Martinez,

Hebrew-Ugaritic

I ndex

t o

the

Writings of Mitchell

J Dahood...

(Rome

1967).







S. BRETON

38

adds vividness and interest to the work. Perhaps the solution to

the problem

of

the unity should

be

sought here. The ((Ich-Er-

zahlung

))

is one of the

most

distinctive

traits

of Qoheleth’s stylezs.

3.

Problems of

Structure

According to A.G. Wright the exegesis remains disoriented

because the key-principe

of

approach to the Qoheleth problematic

is not put into use. This principle is mistakenly sought in a

Source-theory, in a dialectical thought mould

of

Qoheleth,

or

in

his

doubting attitude with regard to

the

traditional teachings.

Wright concentrates on the structures. To read into the context

would

be

the cardinal

task of

exegesis.

Wright’s investigation is essentially based on the repetition

of

phrases and words in Qoheleth,

a

criterion which allows him

to discover and defend the theory that there are three successive

patterns in the book, embracing all the material between the

initial and concluding poems, in the following way:

Title

1:l)

Poem on Toil

(1:2-11)

I. Qoheleth’s Investigation of Life (1:12-6:9)

11.

Qoheleth’s Conclusions (6:lO-11:6)

Introduction

(0:lO-12)

A.

M a n

cannot

find out

w h a t

is

good

for

him

to

do

B.

Man does not

know

what

will

come after

him

(7:1-8:17)

9:

1-116)

Poem on Youth and Old Age

(115’-128)

Epilogue (13:9-14).

Thus

it

also appears that the saying ((Be not righteous over-

much)) 7:16)

is

certainly not the message

of

the

book, as

was

previously believed. Also the

habit

of seeing in Qo

a

collection

of

the author’s favourite proverbs shouid

be

abandoned.

Lorstz deserves praise for

seeking in

the

aich-EnBhlung,

an

external and objective criteriurn towards solving the

problem

of the

book’s

unity. Has he altogether avoided the danger of starting with

preconceived notions on style and

its

laws?







QOHELETH STUDIES 39

Castellino also would divide the work in two great parts. The

first

part, he thinks, ends w i t h 4:16,which is followed by the

prologue of the second

part.

This dixision

is

indicated

by a

grammatical observation: in the first four chapters

the

first

person is used in the narrative. Then suddenly

this

style

unexpectedly changes and the second person, w i t h imperatives

and admonitions, comes

into

use, although not exclusively.

This change of style

is

confirmed by a change in the key words

predominantly used: in the first part

predominate

words like

vanity

I ) ,

labor

I) ,

toil

I)

and

others, while

in

the second

part

the

key word

is

evil 1)

rac),

with an ethical connotation.

If

one considers separately tfiese two parts he could

draw

from

them two opposite judgments on Qoheleth: from the first that

he is a pessimist, from the second that optimism prevails.

Castellino then studies the relationship between

the

two

parts. The first presents a critical and negative appraisal of

human experience:

all is

vanity;

in

the second part

the

negative

impression

is

corrected by the use

of a

more positive

and

orthodox

language, more in tune

w i t h

the other wisdom books. Neither

part can

be

fully understood without the other; they are

complementary. Thus

in

a trial both prosecution and defense

are necessary. Concretely, the all

is

vanity)) of

the

first part

should

be

heard without forgetting that this phrase receives

its

full value in the ((fear God of the second. If the human

experience nourishes the temptation to

be

sceptical, religion

and wisdom propose

a

corrective,

set

on

a

higher plane, although

this may not be clearly grasped by man.

The teaching of Qoheleth

is

thus summarized by Castellino:

The goods )) of life are of their nature incapable of giving man

full satisfaction to

his

craving for 'happiness. For these values

are not stable, they cannot provide security. Man easily expe-

riences that he

is

not the master of events,

that

he is absolutely

unable

to

penetrate the laws of government and providence

in

the world. Faced with these facts, Qoheleth opts for

a

rea-

listic solution. He

s ts

aside anxiety, does not speculate on God s

ways, adopts an atkitude

of

thankfulness,

It is not posible tc examine here other investigations

in

the same areas.

In

spite

of a

similar approach to the problems

they often come to different results,

a fact

not likely

t o

create

any enthusiasm for the search of

tile

book s

plan. There

is







40 S. BRETON

certainly more objectivity in

modern

study but it is not

a lways

maintained throughout the whole enquiry..

No

great effort

is

required to

be

objective when cnly the observation of the accu-

mulation of linguistic

data

are involved. The difficult moment

comes

w i t h

the interpretation of the material.

This

interpretation

should do full justice to the objective data These points are

well

exposed by Castellino, but is he himself above

all

criticism?

Having found two antinomies in the book, doesn’t he divide

the

book

accordingly, choosing the evidence which suits

him

and overlooking the difficulties encountered. But in

this

area

who is without reproach?

4.

Wisdom

It is

usual

t

start here with general observations for which

a certain consensus has been reached. We have noted above

that Qoheleth presents some conformity

w i t h

the sapiential

current, although the bookmaintains

a

critical attitude towards

it.

H.H.

Schmid (pp.

186-201)

situates the difference between

traditional wisdom and Qoheleth in their diverging attitude on

the place of man

in

the world. Traditional wisdom looks for

an

answer to this problem, Qoheleth no longer hopes to find

it.

For

his

vision of the world has changed completely: Qoheleth,

influenced by

his

experiences, stands before the world as

an

indifferent spectator with no direct relation with the world he

is analysing. His conclusion all

is

absurd

))

would normally

lead him to the temptation of suicide as

is

the case for

the

existentialist philosopher.

This

path is not followed, because,

according to Schmid, Qoheleth

is

doubly inconsistent:

In

the

first place, he professes to believe

in

God, although he conceives

him as distant, fatalistic, and incomprehensible. Secondly,

Qo-

heleth finally abandons

his

previous atti tude of passive obser-

vation: he reassociates himself w i t h the world, reestablishing

the contacts from which he

had

previously intended

to

liberate

himself.

For Zimmerli, however, the God of Qoheleth is not

his

great

inconsistency *311-315). On the contrary,

God is

his only so-

lution. The impossibility to dominate the earthly realities, of

which Qoheleth has persuaded himself, leads him to put his

whole trust

in

God. Zimmerli notes the number of times God







41

OHELETH

STUDIES

is

presented in Qoheleth

as

the one who gives

p. 314).

This

is

a basic notion of Old Testament theology, perhaps overlooked

by the traditional wisdom.

It

is

opportunely recalled by Qoheleth.

For him also the fear of God is the principle of wisdom, but

he gives to the axiom its correct interpretation. The fear of God

is not

for man

a

means to monopolize .the earthly realities.

Fearing God, Qoheleth recognizes him as the Lord before whom

all human wisdom

is

silent. Ellermeier’s study comes

to

similar

conclusionsz4.

5.

God

A n

alternative then

has

been stated

in

the previous para-

graph:

God is

for Qoheleth

an

inconsistency,

or else he is

a

God with generosity and freedom. The other works

on the

problem do not provide new suggestions or arguments. The

complete list of the passages in which God occurs and their

analysis

By

Miiller certainly constitute

a

useful contribution.

His conclusions are not

too

surprising: there is

a real

gap

between the God of Qoheleth and the rest of his problematic.

We are

set

face to face

w i t h

a dominating and centralizing God,

before whom all human action loses its meaning. Qoheleth’s fear

of

God is

nothing else but resignation. A s Schmid couId well

have done, Muller blames Qoheleth for

his

lack of decision.

If

there remain

in

Qoheleth traces

of

a

religious ethic

it is

due

t o his

inconsistency.

The

thesis of Pfeiffer on Qoheleth’s faith can

be

considered

as a good

summary

of

the position of other authors concerning

the same problem. Pfeiffer does not deny that the fear of God

can influence the man-God relations, but he does not concede

that

it

has any particular significance to fortify Qoheleth’s

faith. The fear of God

is

incapable of preventing his excla-

mation: life and the world have no meaning (p.

158).

Ellermeier *

19.

Still Qoheleth recognizes the iisefulness of

wisdom in order to allow man

to

do what his

life situation requires.

But he denies that

wisdom

has a saving function, that it can ever give

life to man.







S. BRETON

6. Pessimism

The theme

o€

Qoheleth’s pessimism is, of course, involved

in

most of the aspects examined above. We shall here give

an account of only one of the particular studies

which

have been

published on

this

subject, that

of

M.A. Klopfenstein, ((Die

Skepsis des Qohelethn, T Z

28 (1972) 97-109.

Klopfenstein tries to hold an intermediate

position

on this

question. Qoheleth’s scepticism, he thinks, is rooted in

the

cri-

sis

of traditional wisdom, unable to satisfy

his

quest

of

know-

ledge.

Qo

shows the weakness of

traditional

wisdom by four

arguments derived from experience: the discrepancy between

action and result

(Qo 8:14),

he failure of human efforts to

control the course of life

(Qo 9:11),

the futility of man’s

endeavour after earthly gain

2:11),

the reality of death

2:16).

Qoheleth ackno-tvledges the hand of God

in

the direction

of the world. Yet divine action is inaccessible to man, and on

this rests all

of

QO’Sscepticism. But his is

a

limited scepticism:

precisely the undeniable fact of the divine action in the world

is

an

absolute which relativizes

all

that

is

human, Qo’s scepti-

cism included. This absolute value engenders the fear of

God,

which

is

essentially understood as

an

open attitude of man

towards God.

For

this motive Qoheleth’s scepticism gradually

becomes untenable:

the

goodness of

God can

no longer

be

doubted. The goods of life

and

wisdom have their limits, but

they are values. Joy and pleasure must be judged authentic

when it

is

acknowledged that they come from God. Qo’s is

then, according to Klopfenstein,

a

moderate scepticism, neither

radical, nor tragic, for

the

reason that Qo feels he

is

in the

hands of God. He gives the impression of abandoning tradition,

and yet

he

remains w i t h i n its sphere.

7. Time

Rodriguez Ochoa

and

Galling* study

in

two differents ways

the observations of Qoheleth on time. The

first

author examines

rapidly

all the

relevant passages, Galling concentrates on Qo

Let us first bring out the main remarks

of

Rodriguez Ochoa

3:1-15.

on the different passages.







QOHELETH STIJDIES 43

Qo 1:14-18. Qo’s interest here centers on human l ife, which

should be defined

as an

eternal repetition. He ponders over

the time of the generations. They pass

and

pass

but noth ing

new emerges. What me have here is a cyclic conception of time.

R.O. underl ines the

f a c t

that Qoheleth has not t aken

this

conception of tim e from th e an cie nt classical way of tho ug ht.

Rather ,

it

came to him throug h a constant observation of nature,

a

n a t u r e w h k h in Qoheleth runs in total independence from

God and man, and escapes their grasp. Human l ife appears to

have no meaning.

Qo

3 : l .

Changing

his

perspective, Qoheleth here transfers

his

attention from the passing of the generations

to the

temporality

of the individual existence. For a correct understanding of this

temporality

it

is necessary also to have in mind the Hebrew

conception of time. The Israelite does not speculate on

an

abstract t ime; he is interested in the concrete times,

in

t ime

as

kairos.

Th is also is for Qoheleth vanity .

Qo 3:11. This verse is a key passage for understanding the course

of

t ime. Here time

is

examined from two perspectives,

that

of

God

and

that of man.

God

is the absolute master of time

and

the creator in man’s mind of the idea

of

t ime taken

as a

whole.

Man is unable to understand the work of God.R.O.

sees

a n

advantage

in

this

interpretation of Qo

3 : l l : it

does

not lose

sight of th e general course of t h e book,

it

argues from the con-

tent itself

of

Qoheleth.

Qo 11:7-12:8. Th is passage should be interpreted in the

light

of

t h e

first

chapter: the observation of nature

and

its

parallelism

with the generations.

Galling sees in Qo

3: l -15

the enigma which man has to

accept , an enigma because man is inevitably submerged in

time. To oppose oneself to this enigma would

be

to c rea te

a

conflict

with

one’s own existence, which

is

essentially temporal.

It is also an enigma because man cannot project time nor avoid

the risks which time involves. This enigma

has both

a sombre

aspect, as

being

a

burden imposed on man,

and a

luminous

aspect, since it is also a gift of the personal God which brings

joy to man.

Galling divides Qo 3: l -15 into four parts. Verses

9 to

1 1 are

for him fundamental . He analyses them

in

detail

and

comes







44 S. BRETON

to grips with the difficult problems of interpretation involved

in them. In 3:11 the expression

ahis

hear t) ) would refer to

the sons of men

1

of

v.

10,

and

cdZQm

can be referred

to

world

1)

as

in Gen 1:28: ((subdue the earth)). This interpretation,

based on a textual emendation,

sets

the three ideas of

v. 11

in

a

logical unity: the decrees of

God

are true in their time; they

are

valid

for the whole duration of human life; man cannot

understand God’s plan.

Concentrating on one of the antitheses of

3:l-0

Galling

eqlains thus

3:5:

( ( a time to cast away stones, and a time

to gather stones together)) would represent

a

reflection

on a

scene of daily life of the small merchant: the marketing would

involve an exchange of small reckoning stones between the

seller and the buyer. The antithesis would simply mean: there

is

a time for selling and a time for buying. Only one ,of these

two transactions can

be

done at one t ime. Galling bases his

interpretation on other studies, by Scott and Eissfeldt, and on

the customs in Jerusalem,

at

the time of Qoheleth.

Qoheleth and the other Biblical Books

We have noted above

a

clear decline

of

interest among

recent authors for seeking Greek influences on Qoheleth. We

shall dwell longer on the relations noted between Qoheleth and

the other biblical writings.

C.C.

Forinan analyses the use made

by Qoheleth of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, reducing

to six main points the material Qoheleth and Genesis have in

common:

1)

The way Qo

1:5-8

sees the natural order has

a

parallel

in

Gen 8:21-22. There

is a

radical difference in the evaluation of

its

distinctive effects,

a

feeling of depression in Qo, in Genesis

a

source of tranquillity.

2)

Human nature

is

conceived in Genesis

as

dust,

as

spirit,

and

as image of God. Qo accentuates the assertion that man

has

been formed from the dust

of

the earth (3:20; 12:7),

without bothering much

to

show the essential difference which

separates man from the animals.

Only

Qo 7: 9

seems to sug-

gest weakly that also for

Qoheleth man

is

the image

of

God.

Qoheleth’s central conception

that

man is inclined to sin 720;







Q O H E L E T H S T U D I E S

45

8:ll; 9:3)

represents also in Genesis

a

cardinal point: evil has

entered into the world and propagated. Still the pessimistic

traits of Qoheleth

do

not lead

to

as

clear

a

condemnation of

human nature

as

in Gen 6:5.

3)

Qo

7:26

presents women in a rather unfavourable

light. A

more positive appraisal could be found in Qo

9:9,

and perhaps

in

4:9-12,

if these verses do refer to the woman as companion

of man, an idea expressed in Gen

2:18,20.

4

Qoheleth acknowledges the limitations of the human

mind

when it strives to discover the laws of the universe 8 3 ) In

the last analysis, the facts of life are irrational. Genesis con-

tains the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge, nar-

rates the expulsion from paradise to prevent man from eating

from the tree of life and thus live for ever

(3:22),

and finally

the confusion of the languages (11:T).

5)

Life

is

for Qoheleth vanity, tiring toil. It

is

not excluded

that the name of Abel in Genesis suggested the word hebel to

Qoheleth. In Genesis, man’s task is to keep and -till the garden

of Eden

(2:15),

Toil is punishment for

his

sin.

The description

of death found in Qo

9:4-6

and

11:8

is just as strongly r e p

resented in Gen

2:l‘i

and

3:3,

and the decree of Gen

3:19

finds

an echo

in

Qo 3:20 and 12:7.

6) Both Qoheleth and Genesis present us with a God who is

remote and inscrutable, whose

ways

are unknown to man,

perhaps to ascertain the maintenance of the divine superiority

(cf. Qo

3: l l ;

Gen

3:22). In Gen

11:6 God

seems

to

see man’s

progress as

a

threat. Forman finds insinuated

in

Gen

6:6

that

God is not omniscient, a fact not questioned by Qoheleth who

exhorts man to the fear of God.

J.E.

Bruns

has described, rat’ner rapidly, the points of

contact he has found between Qoheleth and the Fourth

Gospel.

They are far from obvious, but are worth considering. Bruns

points to the familiarity of John with the Sadducean world,

on the one hand, and

on the other

to

the fact that Qoheleth

has been described

as

((the breviary of the Sadducee)) (cf.

Steinmann

125),

Bea suggested that John’s gospel offers the

answers to some of the problems raised by Qoheleth: the inevi-

tability of death, the enjoyment of life, the desire for truth.

Qoheleth mistrusts human wisdom. He sees the necessity of







46 S.

BRETON

abandoning oneself into God’s hands. He would have deserved

Jesus’ appraisal: You ar e n o t far from

the

kingdom of

God 1)

(Mt

12:34),

a

declaration which, according to Guichou2’, would

have applied to Nicodemus. Where the wind blows is as much

a

mystery for Qoheleth

as

it is for Nicodemus

(Qo

8 :8 ;

11:51.

Also Nicodemus sh are s QO’S conviction th a t m a n

is

incapable

of knowing how God operates.

10. Historical Data

in

Qoheleth?

The attempts of

K.D.

Schunk to read

in

Qo 4:13-16 (and

10:

16-17)

historical

’

allusions have not been favorably received.

In his article Schunk analyzes carefully these verses, revocalizes

a

few words, formulates with nuance his understanding

of

t h e

passages, and proposes

a

translation. He finds the following

historical references:

n 4:13-14

is

reflected the change of government

in

t h e

Seleucide kingdom. Th e ((o ld an d foolish k in g )) is Antiochus

11,

to whom

his

son Seleucus

I1

succeeded.

-

n

4:15

th e words th e second

child))

refer

to

Antiochus

111, th e y ounger son of Antiochus 11. This youth reigns

in

place of his brother who

died

three years af ter mounting on th e

throne.

lso

4:16 would refer to Antiochus

111,

called Th e G rea t

n.

Schunk concludes that Qoheleth

l ived

and wrote during the

reign of Antiochus the Great.

n 10:16-17

both Schunk and Hitzig

see

Ptolemy

V

a n d

Antiochus I11 comparedz0.

11. Qoheleth

and

Death

N.

U h f i n k shows how imp ortant th e them e of dea th was

(it

is represented both

at

the

beginning

and at

or Qoheleth

z 5

P.

Guichou, L’ uangilc

selon

saint

Jean

(Paris 1957)

57s.

28 In another concrete area Hertzkrg has convincingly argued for

a

Palestinian origin of Qoheleth from a comparison

between

the meta-

phors

used

in the

book

and the geography, the climate, the produce,

and the customs of

Palestine

(see a PalBslinische ... >).







QOHELETH

S T U D I E S

47

the end of the book). Death is the frontier situation which

inexorably affects every living being. It represents a challenge

f o r

all the traditional meanings of

to

be

wise

D:

reputation and

fame, acquired during life, end up to

be

nothing with the passing

of time. This reflection on death produces in Qoheleth disillusion,

and even a feeling

of

hate towards life. But this attitude is not

f o r

him final. Precisely his reflection

on

death brings him t o a

positive exhortation: enjoy every moment of life as a gift from

God.Man’s projects and efforts are properly relativized before

God,

who alone rules responsibly over all human life. Qoheleth’s

invitation to rejoice becomes thus

a

religious call, since it is

God

who behind every human moment invites man

to

take advantage

of all the proffered joys.

It

is man’s task to heed the invitation,

even when he cannot understand its whole meaning.

This

brings to an end our presentation of recent studies o n

Qoheleth.

To

be complete, our survey would have to include

articles on archeological finds, works of translation, patristic

commentaries, and

so

on. All this could hardly be done here,

and it is

not

sure, besides, that the profit from i t would have

been worth while. considering the more general interests of

our

readers.

111

FINAL IMPRESSIONS

Perhaps the increasing number

of

particular studies, as

compared with the commentaries, could indicate that interest

in this latter type of work has begun

to

wane. The reason

might

be

the number of important problems which

a

m d e r n

commentator has to face. It becomes clear, besides,

that

the

traditional canons of exegesis represent today a n inadequate

approach, while the new ways of interpretation are still in

search of

a

secure basis.

It is

certainly commendable to look for

a

possible logical

order in Qoheleth’s presentation. Perhaps the key to its un-

derstanding is still to be found. The study of the literary

forms

in

Qoheleth is of course important and will generally

condition any progress in interpretation. On this count the

contribution of

philology is

determining. It may

be

opportune

to express the wish that in this as in other fields specialists

cooperate closely

to

reach

a

balanced consensus on the central







48 S. BRETON

issues. The exegete should seek the help of those scholars who

can advise him on how to approach

the

special problems which

are not of his direct competency.

This

would prevent many

from being too doematic. Ellermeier’s project to collect

all the

purallels to Qoheleth from other literatures deserves praise.

Hopefully when

this

is done

it

mill

be

possible

to

arrive

at

some solid conclusions.

Perhaps in concluding we can again stress the importance

of truly founding any interpretation on objective evidence.

For

even evidence can be subjectively interpreted. This

is

certainly

the case on one side or the other when two divergent or even

opposite explanations are given for the same data. It happens

too

often that the personal categories of the interpreter blur

the evidence and cast misleading shadows on the text

being

studied. The need for objectivity is particularly great in the in-

terpretation of

a

book

as

difficult and enigrriatic

as

Qoheleth*.

(translated from Spanish)

*

Editor’s

note.

This article substantially reproduces

a

seminar

work recently submitted

to the

Jesnit Theological Faculty of Sankt

Georgen

in

Fr,mkfurt, Germany.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alonso

Dim,

J., En

lucha con

el

rnisterio. El almn judfa an t e l o s premfos

Barucq, A., EclesiastCs. Qohelelh (Madrid

1971).

Baumgartel,

F., c

Die Ochsenstachel iind die Nagel in Koh

1 2 , l l >, ZAW

Bea, A. Liber Ecclesiastae qui ab hebracis appellaftlr Qohelelh ( R o m a

Bickell,

G.W., Der Prediger iiber de n We r t des Daseins

(Innsbruck

Bruns, J.E.,

c

Some Reflections on Coheleth

and

John

,,

CBQ 25

(1963)

y

castigos

y

la i:i

ultraterrenn (Santander

1967).

81 (19E9) 98.

1950).

1884).

414-16.

,

<The

Imagery

of

Eccles

12,6a>,

JBL

84 (1965) 428-30.

Burkitt, F.C.,

c

I s

Ecclesiastes a Translation? ,, JTS

23 (1922) 22-28.

Castellino,

hi., c

Qohelet and His

Wisdom,,

CBQ 30

(1968) 15-28.

Dahood,

hl., <

Canaanite-Phoenician Influence

in

Qoheleth,,

Bib 33 (1952)

,

c Qoheleth

and

Recent Discoveries >,

Bib

39

(1958) 302-18.

30-52, 191-221.







Q O H E L E T H S T U D I E S

49

, c Qcheleth and Northwest Semitic Philology >, Bib 43 1962)

, < T h e Phoenician Background

of

Qoheleth,,

Bib

47 1966)

,

c

Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography (I-X)

.,

series of articles

published in Biblica since 1963,and to be continued.

349-65.

264-82.

nelitzsch, F.,

Kaheleth

(Leipzig 1875).

Duesberg, H. r Fransen I., Les scribes inspirhs. Introduction flux livres

Snpientiaux de la Bible: Prov., Job., Eccle., Sag., Eccli. (Maredsous

1986).

Eissfeldt, O., Einleitztng in das AZte Testament (3rd edit., Tubingen 1964).

Ellcrmeier. F., Qohelet. Teil

I,

Abschnitl

I

(Henberg am Herz 1967).

,

*

c

Die Entmachung der Weisheit im Denken Qohelets. ZU

Text und Auslcgung von Qoh 6,7-9 , ZTK 60 1963)

1-20.

Fonzo, L.

di, Ecclesinste

(Torino

1967).

Forman, C.C.,

c

Koheleth’s Use

of

Genesis >,

JSS

5

1960) 256-63.

Galling, K.,

Der Pred iger. Die Fiinf Mcgilloth. HbAT 2nd ed., Tiibingen

,

*

c Das Ratsel der Zeit im

Urteil

Koheleths (Koh 3,l-15)

1969).

STK 58 1961) 1-15.

Ginsberg, H.L., Stirdies in Koheletli (New

York

1950).

Glasser, Etienne, Le procas d u bonheur p a r Qohelet. Lectio Divina 61

Gordis, R., Kolieleth

-

The M a n and his World (2nd ed., New York

,

c

Qoheleth and Qumran.

A

Study of Style B,

Bib 41 1960)

, ** Was Koheleth a Phoenician? Some Observations on

Hertzberg, H.W.,

c

PalBstinische Beziige in1 Buche Kohelet >, Zeitschriit

, * Koheleth (Jerusalem 1961). [in Hebrew1

(Paris

1970).

See a review

in CBQ 1971, p. 5782.

1962).

395-410.

Methods in Research ,,

JBL

74 1955) 103-14.

des Deutschen PnlBstina-Vereins 73 1957) 113-24.

,

*

Der Prediger, KomAT (2nd ed., GUtersloh 1963).

Hitzig,

F.,

Der Prediger SaZomo’s (Leipzig 1847).

Klopfenstein, M.A., a Die Skepsis des Qohelet >, TZ 28 1972) 97-109.

Loader,

J.A.,

c

Qoh 3,243.A < Sonnet > in the OT

>

ZAW 81 1969)

LoMnk,

N.,

Dns Siegeslied a m Schilfmeer. Christliche Auseinanderset -

zungen mi t m AZtem Testament (Frankfurt a m M a i m 1965) 198-

243.

Loretz,

O., c Zur

Darbietungsform <Ich-Erzahlung>im Buche Qoheleth

,,

,

*

Qohelet und der Alte Orient. Untersixhungen zu

S f i l

und

theologischer Thematik de s Birches Qohelet

(Freiburg 1964).

Maltby, A., < T h e

Book

of Ecclesiastes and the After-Life

B,

EvQ ‘35

Margooliouth, A. c Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus >, The Expositor 1908)

240-42.

CBQ

25 1963) 46-59.

1963) 39-44.

118-26.







50

S. BRETON

Meek, T.J., Translating

the

Hebrew Bible >, JBI,

79

1960) 328-35.

Muilenburg,

J., c A

Qohelct Scroll from Qiunran ., ASOR 135 1954)

Muller,

1I.P..

c

Vie sprach QohlltIt von Gott?

>,

VT

18

1968) 507-21.

Murphy, R.E.

c

Ecclcsiostcs

>, Jerome Biblical Commenfnry

(London

20-28.

1968) 534-40.

,

*

< T h e P c n s k s of Qohelet >, CBQ 17 1955) 304-14.

Preiffer. E., c Die Gottesfurcht im Buclic Kohelet >, Fs. H.IV Herfzberg

Podechard,

E.,

L'Ecclksiaste (Paris 1912).

Pdggeler, O., < Dichtungstheorie und Toposforschung >. Jahrbuch tirr

Aesthelik und allgcmeine Kunstwisscnschaft 5 1960) 89-201.

Bad,

G.

von,

Theotogic des Allen Testaments I

(4th ed.,

1962).

Rodriguez,

I.,

<

Una a n t i y a estampa otofial. Ecl

11,3

y paralelos

cld-

sicos

>,

Z€cl?ncintica10 1959) 383- 90.

Rodriguez Ochoa,

J.hI., <

Estudio

de

la dimsnsibn temporal en

Pro., Job

y

Qoh. El e terno volcr y comcrizar en Qoh.

>,

Gstn 22 1963) 33-67.

Rudolph, W., V o m Buch Kolielefh (Murister 1959).

Schmtd, 11.11.. Wesen und Gcschichte der Weisheit. Eine Untersuchung

zur

altoricntalischen und israclitischen Weisheitsliteratur,

BZAW

(BerUn 1966) 186-201.

Schunk, K.D., c Drei Scleukiden im Buchc Kohelet? >, VT 9 1959) 192-

201.

Scott, R.B.Y.,

c

The Shekel Sign on

Stone

Wcfghts

>,

BASOR

153 1959)

32-35.

Scgert,

A.

c Zur litcrarischen Form un d Funktion de r fiinf hiegllloth

(In margine

der

ncuesten Kormnentare)

>, Archfo Orientdlni

33

(GClttingen 1965) 133-58.

195) 451-62.

Steinmann,

J.,

Ainsi parlait Qohetcfh

Paris

1955).

Stranzinger,

E.,Die Jense ifsoorslelltingcn bei Koheleth

(\ en

1962).

Torrey, C.C., c The Question

of

the Original Language of Kohelet >, JQR

\Vright, A. G.. < T h e Riddle of the Sphinx: the St ructu re of the Book

Zimmerli,

W.,

a s

Buch des Predigers

Snlonoo. ATD (G6ttingen 1962).

, * Gotfcs Offenbarung. Gesammelle Au fs dfz e z u m AT (Mtin-

Zimmermann, F., < T h e Aramaic Provenance of Qohelet,,

JQR

36

39 1948/49) 151-60.

of

QohelcLhB, CBQ

30 3968) 313-34.

chen

1963) 300-15.

1945/46) 17-45.

Santiago Bretdn, S.

J.

Via

della Pilotta, 25

00187

Roma.

bretÓn s. qohelet studies

Documents