ECCLESIASTES: KOHELETH'S QUEST
FOR LIFE'S MEANING
by
Weston W. Fields
Submitted in partial
fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of Master of
Theology in
Grace
Theological Seminary
May 1975
Digitized by Ted Hildebrandt
and Dr. Perry Phillips,
PREFACE
It was during a series of lectures given in Grace
Theological Seminary by
Professor Thomas V. Taylor on the
book of Ecclesiastes that the
writer's own interest in the
book was first stirred. The
words of Koheleth are remark-
ably suited to the solution of
questions and problems which
arise for the Christian in the
twentieth century. Indeed,
the message of the book is so
appropriate for the contem-
porary world, and the book so
cogently analyzes the purpose
and value of life, that he who
reads it wants to study it;
and he who studies it finds
himself thoroughly attached to
it: one cannot come away from
the book unchanged.
For the completion of this study the writer is
greatly indebted to his
advisors, Dr. John C. Whitcomb, Jr.
and Professor James R.
Battenfield, without whose patient
help and valuable suggestions
this thesis would have been
considerably impoverished.
To my wife Beverly, who has once again patiently
and graciously endured a writing
project, I say thank you.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GRADE PAGE iii
PREFACE iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT
OF PURPOSE 1
II. THE TITLE 5
Translation 5
Meaning of tl,h,qo 6
Zimmermann's Interpretation 7
Historical Interpretations 9
Linguistic Analysis 9
What did Solomon collect? 12
Why does Solomon bear this name? 12
The feminine gender 13
Conclusion 15
III. DATE, AUTHORSHIP, AND
LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND 16
Introduction 16
Authorship and Linguistic Background 16
The Traditional View 16
Arguments Against Solomonic Authorship 17
A literary device 18
Aramaic background 22
Definition of "Aramaisms" 23
History of Aramaic 26
Late-dating by Aramaisms 30
Limited vocabulary 32
Later documents 33
Reasons for Aramaisms 36
Noun formations 37
Reasons for non-routine terms 38
Conclusion on Aramaisms 40
An Aramaic original 41
Introduction 41
Proofs for an Aramaic original 42
Ecclesiastes 7:12 42
Ecclesiastes 10:15 44
vi
Chapter
Ecclesiastes
11:1 45
Proofs for a Hebrew original 47
Two Hebrew
dialects 47
Paronomasia
48
Canaanite
parallels 49
Ben Sira 49
Characteristics
of a translation 50
Conclusion on an Aramaic original 52
Ecclesiastes 1:12 52
Ecclesiastes 1:16 54
The Sitz im Leben of the
book 55
Arguments for Solomonic Authorship 56
Phoenician background 56
Introduction 56
Linguistic uniqueness 58
A literary genre 59
Dahood's arguments 63
Ecclesiastes
1:10 63
Ecclesiastes
1:16 64
Ecclesiastes
2:2 64
Ecclesiastes
2:24 65
Other
examples 65
Use of Ugaritic 71
Evaluation of Dahood 73
Building and commerce 74
Tradition 75
Internal arguments 77
Date 78
Conclusion 80
IV.
KOHELETH'S THEME AND DEVELOPMENT OF THOUGHT 82
Introduction 82
Theme 83
Unsympathetic
Interpretations 83
Sympathetic
Interpretations 90
A Suggested Theme 91
Development of Thought 94
Conclusion 98
V.
SELECTED DIFFICULTIES 100
Introduction 100
Vanity of Vanities 101
Definition 101
Usage of lb,h, 105
Relationship of the Name
"Abel" 108
Jewish Interpretations 109
vii
Chapter
Conclusion on lb,h, 111
Under the Sun 111
Occurrences of the
Phrase 112
Definition of the Phrase
114
Significance of the
Phrase 115
The Relationship of
Inspiration and Revelation 116
Introduction
116
Definition
of revelation and inspiration 117
Revelation
117
Inspiration
117
Correlation
of inspiration and revelation 118
Koheleth's
revelational teachings 120
Conclusion
on revelation and inspiration 122
The Meaning and Place of Pleasure 127
Introduction 127
Consideration of the
Texts 127
Ecclesiastes
2:1-11 127
Description
of the experiment 127
Linguistic
analysis 128
Ecclesiastes
2:1 128
Ecclesiastes
2:3 130
Ecclesiastes
2:8 133
Conclusion
on 2:1-11 134
Ecclesiastes
2:24-26 135
Description
of the passage 135
Linguistic
analysis 138
Ecclesiastes
2:24 138
Ecclesiastes
2:25 139
Conclusion
on 2:24-26 140
Ecclesiastes
4:8 140
Ecclesiastes
7:15-18 142
Description
of the passage 142
Linguistic
analysis 142
Oqd;ciB; 142
Ecclesiastes
7:16 143
Ecclesiastes
8:15 147
Ecclesiastes
11:9, 10 149
Conclusion 150
Death and Immortality 152
Introduction 152
Consideration of the
Texts 153
Ecclesiastes
2:12-17 153
Ecclesiastes
3:15-22 154
Figures
of speech 154
Psychology
of man and animals 155
viii
Chapter
Immortality
162
Ecclesiastes
4:1-3 163
Ecclesiastes
6:3, 12 166
Ecclesiastes
9:1-12 168
Old
Testament doctrine of Sheol 169
Interpretation
of the passage 173
Word
meanings 174
hW,fEma 174
NOBw;H,v; 175
tfadav; 176
hmAk;HA 177
Conclusion
on this passage 178
A
suggested translation of 9:10 180
Ecclesiastes
12:7, 13, 14 180
VI.
A SUMMARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL MESSAGE OF KOHELETH 181
Introduction 181
Consideration of the Topics 181
Insufficiency of Human
Endeavor 181
The problem
of knowledge 181
The
emptiness of things 183
Unthinking
materialism 184
Lack of
personal importance 185
Conclusion
on human endeavor 186
God's Supply of Life's
Needs 186
Stability 186
Time 187
Physical
requirements 188
Moral requirements
189
Life's
values 190
Sovereignty
of God 191
Conclusion 192
VII.
NEW TESTAMENT PARALLELS 193
Introduction 193
The Parallels 193
Summary 196
VIII.
NEAR EASTERN PARALLELS 197
Introduction 197
Some Parallels 197
Hittite 198
Aramaic 199
Egyptian 200
Summary 203
ix
Chapter
IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 204
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED 211
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF
PURPOSE
Few books of the Bible have suffered in recent years
from so much neglect as the
book of Ecclesiastes. Further-
more, a large portion of those
who have studied it have
unsympathetically criticized
and maligned both its author
and its message, until it has
come to be all but ignored by
even those who accept its
canonicity and inspiration. The
author of this book has been
accused of scepticism, of
fatalism, and of Epicureanism.
His words have been denounced
as "not revelation"
and human only.1 It is contended that
"anyone who essays to
explain Coheleth is doomed to failure;
it is vanity and a chase after
wind."2 Another has called
it "the strangest book in
the Bible."3 Suspected in days of
orthodoxy,4
neglected in periods of optimism, treasured in
1E. Schuyler English, et al., eds., The New Scofield
Reference Bible (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1967),
pp.
696, 702.
2Roland E. Murphy,
"The Penseés of Coheleth," The
Catholic Biblical
Quarterly,
17 (1955), 314.
3R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs-Ecclesiastes (hereinafter
referred
to as Ecclesiastes), in The Anchor Bible, ed. by
W.
F. Albright and David Noel Freedman, et
al. (
Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1965), p. 191.
4Robert Gordis, Poets, Prophets and Sages (Blooming-
ton,
2
days of frustration and
disillusionment, the writings of
Koheleth have always drawn men,
yet somehow eluded them.
Still, the enigmatic writing of
the king of
endures, the symbol of the ache
of disillusion and of the
peace that is possible
afterwards. "Whoever has dreamt
great dreams in his youth and
seen the vision flee, or has
loved and lost, or has beaten
barehanded at the fortress of
injustice and come back
bleeding and broken, has passed Kohe-
leth's door, and tarried awhile
beneath the shadow of his
roof."1
The book is unworthy of the abuse it has often
received at the hands of
commentators, for it consists of,
as John Trapp said more than
three hundred fifty years ago,
golden words, weighty, and worthy of
all acceptation;
grave and gracious apophthegms, or
rather oracles, meet
to be well remembered . . . compiled
and composed with
such a picked frame of words, with
such pithy strength
of sentences, with such a thick
series of demonstrative
arguments, that the sharp wit of all
the philosophers,
compared with this divine discourse,
seems to be utterly
cold, and of small account.2
It is not, and probably never will be, among the
most popular books in the
Bible. Yet, after one has studied
this book, it is difficult for
him to regard it with indif-
ference. It will either be
distrusted and minimized, or it
lIbid., p. 325.
2John Trapp, A Commentary on the Old and New Testa-
ments, Vol. III (5 vols.:
reprinted, 1868), p. 155.
3
will be accepted and utilized.1
It is from this book that
many Christians, though
separated in time from its author by
several thousand years, and
much richer than its author in
available theological
knowledge, could gain a very needed
message: that a life lived for
self and the world is "vanity"
and that nothing "under
the sun" every really satisfies.2
The book is not, however, without its problems and
obscurities, and the problems
posed by Koheleth seem to take
on increased proportion as they
cut across contemporary
concepts of thinking. But if
the reader will approach the
book with an open mind, divest
himself of unfavorable presup-
positions, and seek to
understand the book for what Koheleth
meant it to be, he will see
what he is being warned against,
and how wise that warning is
for this age.3 All that is
needful is to read Koheleth
himself with sympathy and imagi-
nation. "Then the dry
bones will take on flesh and his
lArthur Maltby, "The
Book of Ecclesiastes and the
After-Life,"
The Evangelical Quarterly, XXXV:1
(January-
March,
1963), 39.
2Ecclesiastes is included
among the "Wisdom" litera-
ture
of the Bible. For an excellent discussion of this
classification,
see W. O.
the Son of Sirach or
Ecclesiasticus,
in The
for Schools and Colleges (
Press,
1912), p. xlvii.
3Thomas V.
lished
mimeographed material for lectures in Grace Theologi-
cal
Seminary, March, 1972), p. 8. The page numbers of the
material
were added by the writer of this thesis.
4
spirit will live again."1
It is the purpose of this thesis to examine the book
of Ecclesiastes in order to
determine the veracity of its
teachings and the cogency of
its argument; to understand its
outstanding teachings; and to
explain some of the more prom-
inent difficulties. Included as
necessary
sions are the problems of
authorship and date (and the under
lying problem of the linguistic
background of the book), the
theme and development of
thought in the book, explanations
of significant problems, a
summary of the prominent theolog-
ical teachings, New Testament
parallels to the teachings of
Ecclesiastes, and parallels in
other Near Eastern literature.
Bible quotations are the writer's own translation,
unless otherwise annotated.
1Gordis, Poets,
Prophets, and Sages, p. 329.
CHAPTER II
THE TITLE
Translation
The English title, "Ecclesiastes," comes from
the
first line of the book in the
Septuagint: [Rh<mata
]Ekklhsi-
astou? ui[ou? Dauid.1 ]Ekklhsiastou? is a translation of the
Hebrew tl,h,qo, the Hebrew title of the author which is
also
used for the book, and usually
transliterated, Koheleth or
Qoheleth. Both the derivation
and the meaning of this word
are enigmatic. The word occurs
seven times in the book:
three times in the first part
(1:1, 2, 12). and three times
in the conclusion (12:8, 9,
10), with one occurrence in the
middle (7:27). It is not a
proper name, but an appellative,
a fact evident both from its
having the article in 12:8 and
its being construed with a
feminine verb in 7:27.2 This fact
has been recognized by major
translators over the centuries,
as evidenced in the LXX
translation (meaning, "one who par-
ticipates in a popular
assembly"), the title of Luther ("Der
lAlfred Rahlfs, ed.,
Septuaginta, Vol. II (2 vols:
p.
238. This is the text of the LXX used throughout the
thesis.
2Christian David
Ginsberg, The Song of Songs and
Coheleth (hereinafter referred to
as Coheleth) (2 vols. in
one:
p. 1.
6
Prediger"),1
and Jerome's title "Concionator."2 Actually,
the English title
"Ecclesiastes" is a direct carry-over from
the Vulgate, which merely
transliterated the LXX.3
Meaning of hl,h,qo
"The precise signification of this appelation has,
from time immemorial, been a
matter of great contention, and
the occasion of numerous and
most conflicting opinions."4
While some feel that the
meaning of the name is truly lost
and will be forever unknown,5
others, notably Renan and
Zimmermann, have suggested
ingenious solutions to the meaning
of the word. Renan's guess was
that hl,h,qo is an abbreviation,
much as Mbmr is an abbreviation for Maimonides, but Gordis
contends that this
"explains nothing."6 Jastrow suggests
that "Koheleth" is a nom de plume for Solomon and that the
1H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Ecclesiastes (herein-
after
referred to as Ecclesiastes) (
Book
House, 1974), p. 38
2Ibid.
3Robertus Weber, et al., eds., Biblia Sacra Iuxta
Vulgatam Versionem, Vol. II (2 vols.:
bergische
Bibelanstalt, 1969), p. 986.
4Ginsburg, Coheleth, p. 1.
5Gordis, Poets, Prophets and Sages, p. 326.
6Idem., Koheleth, the Man and
His World: A Study
of Ecclesiastes (hereinafter referred
to as Koheleth) (New
7
word was arrived at by
substituting the root lhaqA,
"assem-
ble," for MlewA, "complete," and by having a t replace the h
of hmolow;.1 This suggestion Gordis labels
"too ingenious to
be convincing."2
Zimmermann's
Interpretation
Zimmermann has a much more involved argument for the
derivation of the word.3
He contends that the equivalent of
tl,h,qo in
Aramaic is the feminine participle of hwAn;KA, since
wnaK; is a
very frequent translation word for lhaqA in the
Tar-
gumim.4 According to
him, the writer of the book used this
pseudonym with dviDA-rBA to attract attention to his work. It
is assumed that he knew of the
name rUgxA (Prov. 30:1) and
modeled his pseudonym upon it (rgx=wnk=gather).5
rUgxA is
regarded in rabbinic tradition
as one of the names of Solo-
mon. It is fairly certain as
well (according to Zimmermann)
1Morris Jastrow, Jr., A Gentle Cynic: Being a Trans-
lation of the Book of
Koheleth, Commonly Known as Ecclesias-
tes, Stripped of Later
Additions
(hereinafter referred to as
A Gentle Cynic) (
1919),
p. 68.
2Gordis, Koheleth, p. 204.
3Frank Zimmermann,
"The Aramaic Provenance of Qohe-
leth,"
Jewish Quarterly Review, XXXVI:1
(July, 1945), 43-5.
4Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the
Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature
(hereinafter
referred to as Dictionary), Vol. I (2
vols.:
5This would be the
original according to Zimmer-
mann's theory.
8
that hl,h,qo must mean "Solomon," perhaps
cryptically, as Renan
long suspected. It is
Zimmermann's hypothesis of an Aramaic
provenance of Koheleth which
supplies his key here, for he
finds his answer to the
cryptogram in numerology. hwAn;KA adds
up arithmetically to hmolow; (k=20; n=50; w=300; h=5; total,
375. w=300; l=30; m=40; h=5;
total, 375).1
While C. C. Torrey speaks of Zimmermann's hypothesis
as "convincing,"2
the writer is unconvinced not only because
such a theory presupposes an
Aramaic original for the book,
which is doubtful enough in
itself (and must preclude Solo-
monic authorship), but also
because of the untenability of
such numerological
interpretations generally.3 It must not
go unnoticed that Targum
Jonathon uses tl,h,qo not hwAn;KA.5
1Zimmermann, "The
Aramaic Provenance of Qoheleth,"
43-4.
2Charles C. Torrey,
"The Question of the original
Language
of Qoheleth," Jewish Quarterly
Review, XXXIX:2
(October,
1948), 156-7. For the numerical value of all the
Hebrew
letters, cf. J. Weingreen, A Practical
Grammar for
Classical Hebrew (
edition,
1959), p. 1.
3Cf. John J. Davis, Biblical Numerology (Grand
Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1968).
4tvlvdg
tvxrqm
reads: xUh tl,h,qo xBenat;xid; hxAUbin; ymegAtuPi
.
. . dvidA rBa hmolow; (tvlvdg tvxrqm, Vol. 1 [NewYork:
Parses
Publishing
House, Inc., 1951]). This is translated, "The
words
of the prophecy which Koheleth who is Solomon, the son
of
David, prophesied." Sperber also has tlhq, but does not
point
it (rbrpw rdnsklx, ed., tymrxb wdqh ybtk, x-d
jrk
[Ndyyl: lyrb
.
y .
x, 1968),
p. 150).
5Jastrow states that the
Targum thought of Solomon
as tl,h,qo (Jastrow, Dictionary, Vol. II, p. 1322).
9
Historical Interpretations
There have been numerous other explanations for the
word, including suggestions
that the word means "preacher,"
"gatherer of wisdom,"
"collector," (as of a compiler of a
book), "eclectic"
(because of his supposed skill in select-
ing and purifying the best of
the systems of different philo-
sophers), "accumulated
wisdom," "reunited soul" (describing
Solomon's readmission into the
congregation of
sequence of his repentance),
"penitent" (describing the con-
trite state of Solomon for his
apostasy), "assembly," "acad-
emy," "old man,"
"exclaiming voice," "Sophist," "philo-
sopher," and
"departed spirit."1 Most of these suggestions,
however, are better discarded.
Perhaps the best explanation
is one which finds its roots in
a linguistic and historical
explanation of the word within
Hebrew itself.
Linguistic Analysis
tl,h,qo is the
Qal active participle, feminine singular,
from the root lhaqA, meaning "to assemble."2 This verb is
1Ginsburg, Coheleth, pp. 3-7.
2F. Brown, S. R. Driver,
and C. A. Briggs, eds.,
A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament (herein-
after
referred to as BDB, Lexicon) (
don
Press, 1968), p. 874; cf. Ludwig Koehler and Walter
Baumgartner,
Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros
(herein-
after
referred to as KB, Lexicon) (
1968), p. 829.
10
the root to which Albright
traces the word lOq,
"voice,"
rather than to the root lvq, since in the Siloam inscription
the word is written lq, not lvq.l
lhaqA can be compared with
the Arabic qalah, the Ethiopic kaleha,
the Aramaic xlAqA, and
the Syriac 
all
with the idea of "to call," from the
original idea of
"sound."2 The ambiguity, however, is not
in the verbal root, but in the
participle as used in the
context of the book. The
feminine participle refers to the
author of the book, who is
obviously masculine if Solomon is
meant, and who is to be
construed as masculine in any case,
since the word is qualified by MilAwAUryBi j`l,m, dviDA-NB,.
Some, in fact, trace the Hebrew word back to an
Aramaic original, most of those
being adherents to the theory
of an Aramaic original for the
book. One of the reasons for
supposing that tl,h,qo was originally an Aramaic term is that
the verb lhaqA is not used in the simple conjugation in
Hebrew,
but is so used in Syriac, where
it is supposed, "it can only
1W. F. Albright,
"The High Place in Ancient Pales-
tine,"
in Supplements to Vetus Testamentus,
Vol. IV, ed.
by
G. W. Anderson, et al. (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1957), p.
256.
Cf. Loren Fisher, ed., Ras Shamra
Parallels, in Ana-
lecta Orientalia, 49 (Roma: Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum,
1972),
II 497 a-g, p. 329; II 94 g, p. 136. For the Siloam
inscription,
see H. Donner and
Aramaische Inschriften, Band I (3 Bände:
Harrassowitz,
1971), text 183, line 3, p. 34.
2BDB, Lexicon, p. 874; KB, Lexicon, p. 831. Cf.
also
the discussion of lq in Charles-F. Jean and Jacob
Hoftijzer,
Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Sémitiques
de
l'Ouest (hereinafter referred
to as DISO) (
Brill, 1965), p. 258.
11
represent an old heritage once
common to all Aramaic."1
Edward Ullendorff has likewise
suggested that tl,h,qo is
actu-
ally a translation of an
Aramaic form, xlAhEqA. He
blames the
translator for some of the
confusion when he states that
"the translator was
apparently not quite clear about the
function of the status emphaticus in Aramaic (hence tl,h,qo
appears in Hebrew with or
without the definite article)."2
He further states that in
Aramaic-Syriac lhq not
only
connotes "to summon an
assembly" (=lyhqh [the Hiph'il]), but
also means "litigiosus,
pertinax."3 "It would be hard to
imagine a more suitable name
for the putative author of the
book of Ecclesiastes than the
'arguer.'"4 tl,h,qo is variously
defined among the lexicons as
"a collector" (of sentences)
or "a preacher,"5
as well as "speaker (in an assembly)."6
Since the verb means primarily
"to gather together into an
assembly," or "to
assemble," it is doubtless best to relate
it directly to the meaning,
"collecting" or "assembling."
If this definition is accepted,
then there are three ques-
tions about this collecting
which must be answered: (1)
1H. L.
Ginsberg,"Ecclesiastes," Encyclopaedia
Judaica, 1971 ed., VI, 353.
2Edward Ullendorff,
"The Meaning of tl,h,qo," Vetus
Testamentum, 12 (April, 1962), 215.
The status emphaticus,
however,
is most elemental in Aramaic, and it is incredible
that
any translator worthy of the name should be "unfamiliar"
with
it.
3Ibid. 4Ibid.
5BDB, Lexicon,
p. 875. 6KB, Lexicon, p. 829.
12
What did Solomon collect? (2)
Why does he bear this name
here?1 (3) Why is
the word in the feminine gender?
What
did Solomon collect?
An examination of the passages in which the verb lhaqA
is used, either in the Niph'al or the Hiph'il, reveals that
the word is invariably used for
collecting or gathering
persons, especially for
religious purposes. Likewise, its
derivatives, lhAqA, hl.Ahiq;, Myliheq;ma, and tOlheq;ma,
without excep-
tion denote assemblies or
gatherings of people.1 "The
natural signification of tl,h,qo therefore is, an assembler of
scattered
people into the more immediate presence of God; a
gatherer
of those afar off unto God."2
Why
does Solomon bear this name?
The historical event which gave rise to the name is
probably that recorded in 1
Kings 8 (cf. 2 Chr. 5), where
the writer records that Solomon
gathered all
for the dedication of the
temple, that epoch-making assembly
which was among the most
important in all the history of
Israel.3 On this
occasion, Solomon not only called the
1KB, Lexicon, p. 829; BDB, Lexicon,
pp. 874-5.
2Ginsburg, Coheleth, p. 2."
3C. H. H. Wright, The Book of Koheleth, Commonly
Called Ecclesiastes (hereinafter referred
to as Koheleth)
(London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1883), p. 85.
13
people together, but he also
preached to them indirectly
through the prayer in which he
consecrated the temple, and
directly through his blessing
and exhortation of the people.
It is not without significance
that the root lhaqA
appears in
this chapter no less than 5
times (1 Ki. 8:1, 2, 14, 22, and
55). It is entirely possible
that Solomon was named tl,h,qo as
a result of this temple
dedication.1
The
feminine gender
There have been numerous explanations for the femi-
nine gender of tl,h,qo. Wright explains it on the analogy of
Arabic formations as an
intensive feminine formation.2
Others have suggested that
there is really no problem in-
volved in this usage since
there are other instances in
which an individual occupying a
post of honor is designated
by a name descriptive of the
functions he discharges or the
dignity he enjoys.3
Some examples are tr,p,so,
"scribe" (Neh.
7:57), and tr,k,po in the compound name MyibAc;.ha tr,k,
1Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs
and Ecclesiastes (hereinafter referred
to as Ecclesiastes),
trans.
by M. G. Easton (
Publishing
Company, reprint, 1970), p. 202.
2W. Wright, ed. and
trans. from the German of
Caspari,
A Grammar of the Arabic Language,
revised by.W. R.
Smith
and M. J. de Goeje, Vol. I (2 vols.:
the
University Press, 1955), p. 137, sect. 233.
3Duncan H. Weir,
"Ecclesiastes," Fairbairn's
Impe-
rial
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, reprint, 1957, II, 184.
14
gazelles" (Ezra 2:47).1
Apparently these names were first
extended to people holding the
office and finally became
personal names.2 A
further parallel can be seen in Arabic
nomenclature where the feminine
form of the word may be used
to denote an activity, office
or function. Thus, Friday is
known as the Yaum al-Jum'ah, the Day of Gathering
(for
prayer). The word Khalīfah is used for the supreme
ruler of
the Islamic world. It is only
in transliteration that the
word has been
"masculinized" into "Caliph." "Here is an
invariable use of the feminine
to indicate a masculine of-
fice Similarly, for the leading
divine or a first-rate
scholar, the feminine 'Allamāh is employed."3
On the other hand, Ginsburg maintains that the femi-
nine gender is employed because
Solomon personifies wisdom,
a view which he feels finds
confirmation in Ecclesiastes
7:27, where tl,h,qo is used with a feminine verb (tl,h,qo hrAm;xA), a
usage even Rashi and Ibn Ezra,
though interpreting tl,h,qo dif-
ferently, explained by the fact
that "wisdom is being spoken
of."4 Yet, the explanation offered for the word in
lWright, Koheleth, p. 279.
2Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament,
trans.
by David E. Green (Nashville: Abingdon Press,1968),
p.
336.
3Eric F. F. Bishop,
"A Pessimist in
(B.C.),"
1968),
33.
4Ginsburg, Coheleth,
p. 7.
15
connection with the feminine
gender as used in other Semitic
languages seems to have the
most force.1
Conclusion
It is the conclusion of the writer, therefore, that
the translation
"assembler" is probably most accurate. Any-
one who assembles will probably
also speak to the assembly,
and therefore the meaning
"preacher" is logical by exten-
sion. Throughout this thesis,
however, the writer prefers
to follow the example of most
authors by simply transliter-
ating the word
"Koheleth."2
1For further examples see
E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius'
Hebrew Grammar, ed. and trans. by A.
E. Cowley (hereinafter
referred
to as GKC, Grammar) (
Press,
1970), p. 393, sect. 122r.
2The precise
transliteration would be qōhelet,
but
initial
K and C are so widely used in place of Q, that the
most common transliteration,
Koheleth, is employed.
CHAPTER III
DATE, AUTHORSHIP, AND
LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND
Introduction
The matter of the date and authorship of Ecclesiastes
is an extremely complex
subject, not only because the date
and authorship are inevitably
interrelated, but also because
one's view of the linguistic
background of the book also
determines the boundaries for
fixing the authorship and the
date. These three subjects are
therefore considered togeth-
er in this chapter.
Authorship and Linguistic
Background
The Traditional
View
Ecclesiastes has traditionally been ascribed to
Solomon. This tradition finds
its basis in a number of
indications in the book, not
the least of which is that Solo-
mon was the only immediate dviDA-NB, who was lxerAW;yi-lfa
j`l,m,
MilAwAUryBi
(Eccl.
1:1, 12).1 The significance of this fact
should not be overlooked, for
this categorical statement
1This tradition is
evidenced in the title of the
book
in the Targum and the Syriac Peshitta. For the rela-
tionship
of the Targumim and the Peshitta, cf. R. K.
referred
to as Introduction) (
Publishing Company, 1969), pp.
240-42.
17
must be honestly explained by
any who attempt to circumvent
Solomonic authorship. Such
Solomonic authorship has, begin-
ning with Luther and
accelerating in the last century, been
almost universally abandoned.
Liberal and orthodox alike
have concluded that it is a
late document, and therefore
could not have been composed by
Solomon toward the end of
the tenth century B.C.
Arguments Against Solomonic
Authorship
It is said that one of the first to question the
Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes
was Luther, who in his
Table-Talk
explained the book as one of the more recent of
the Old Testament. He supposed
that the book was written by
Sirach rather than Solomon, and
that it might be "a Talmud,
collected from many books,
perhaps from the library of King
Ptolemy Euergetes, in
Solomonic authorship he was
followed by Hugo Grotius (1644),
who based his argument of
lateness on the language of the
book. Finally, in the present,
many scholars have complete-
ly discarded Solomonic
authorship. Scott, for example,
states: "It is quite out
of the question that the king
1Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, p. 204. Though the writer
was
unable to find the edition of Table-Talk
which included
this
statement, it is well to note that Luther seems to sup-
port
Solomonic authorship in "Defense and Explanation of All
the
Articles" (in Luther's Works,
Vol. 32, ed. by George W.
Forell [
18
[Solomon] was in fact the
composer of the whole book of
Proverbs, of Ecclesiastes and
Wisdom . . . .”1
A
literary device
It is first of all suggested that Solomon was
intended
to be a mere artistic device
designed to present more
effectively the message of the
unknown late author.
Since Solomon was known to have
experienced the satis-
faction of every human ambition and
had drunk to the
full every possibility of earthly
pleasure, he would
serve as an admirable test case in
evaluating hedonistic
enjoyment and intellectual achievement
as over against a
life entirely devoted to God.2
Fohrer, accordingly, states that "actual Solomonic
authorship is out of the
question. The association with
Solomon is a mere literary
form, only slightly disguised and
not carried out
systematically."3
While Muilenburg contends that "a Solomonic origin
has been given up by all modern
scholars, and it [Ecclesias-
tes] has subsequently been
dated as early as the fourth cen-
tury B.C. and as late as the
time of Herod,"4 it appears
1R. B. Y. Scott,
"Solomon and the Beginnings of
dom
in
East, Vol. III of Supplements to Vetus Testamentum (
E.
J. Brill, 1969), p. 262.
2Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction (hereinafter referred to
as Introduction)
(Chicago:
Moody Press, revised ed., 1974), pp. 478-9.
3Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, p.
336.
4James Muilenburg,
"A Qoheleth Scroll From
Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research, 135
(October,
1954), 20-21.
19
that the sequence of events was
just the opposite. On the
basis of its language, it was
dated later than the time of
Solomon;. consequently,
Solomonic authorship was given up.
Scott is among the most adamant
in his denial of the Solo-
monic authorship. He glibly
assures his readers that "there
is of course no possibility
that the Solomon of history com-
posed this book; to claim this
is like claiming that a book
about Marxism in modern English
idiom and spelling was writ-
ten by Henry VIII."1
He feels so certain that the role of
Solomon is assumed for literary
effect that he states that
"no-observant reader could
suppose otherwise."2
Appeal is often made to other books where such a
literary device is apparently
used. The most notable is the
apocryphal book known as the
Wisdom of Solomon. It is gen-
erally believed that this book
was written in Greek during
the first century B.C., even
though the superscription of
the book claims for it
Solomonic authorship.3 The appeals
1Scott, Ecclesiastes, pp. 95-6. 2Ibid., p. 96.
3Cf. Rahlfs, Septuaginta, Vol. II, p. 345, where the
title
reads SOFIA SALWMWNOS. The Peshitta extended the
superscription
to "The Book of the Great Wisdom of Solomon,
the
Son of David" (W. O.
the Books of the
Apocrypha
[
Christian
Knowledge, 1935], p. 196). Also see W. J. Ferrar,
The Uncanonical Jewish
Books (
Christian
Knowledge, 1918), p. 33; and especially, R. H.
Charles,
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the
Old Testa-
ment, Vol. I (Oxford: At the
Clarendon Press, 1913), p.
519.
20
to such a book, however, are
not valid, for this apocryphal
book is not inspired and whatever
falsehoods it might perpe-
trate are really of little
concern.1 On the other hand,
Ecclesiastes is inspired, and
while Wright is certain that
"the authority and
trustworthiness of the book of Ecclesias-
tes are not imperilled by the
denial of its Solomonic au-
thorship,"2
such a denial appears, in fact, to be accom-
plishing that very peril. The
book states that the author
was (1) a son of David, and (2)
King over (in)
No one fits this description
except Solomon. Therefore, a
denial of Solomonic authorship
necessarily involves a denial
of the integrity of at least
two verses in Ecclesiastes
(1:1, 12), for there could not
be a more explicit descrip-
tion of Solomon, unless his
name were used. Only if one
concedes that such a literary idiom
is legitimate can it be
concluded that "its author
was not Solomon, but one of 'the
wise' whose name can no longer
be recovered;"3 and that it
was written "not in the
time of Solomon, i.e. about 930
1Zimmermann argues that
most of the Apocryphal books,
including
the Wisdom. of Solomon, were originally written in
Hebrew
or Aramaic (Frank Zimmermann, The Inner
World of Qo-
heleth [
98-100).
2Wright, Koheleth, p. 110.
3Samuel Cox, The Book of Ecclesiastes in The Exposi-
tor's Bible, ed. by W. Robertson
Nicoll (
21
B.C., but some five or six
centuries later."1 Only then can
one agree with Wright that
the author had not the slightest
idea of committing any
fraud whatever, but simply sought to
assert in the
strongest manner possible that the
views he advocated,
in direct opposition to the Jewish
sensualist school of
of that heavenly wisdom which had
been bestowed upon the
great Solomon.2
Barton, for instance, is so certain about the non-
Solomonic authorship that he
makes this asseveration: "The
fact that Solomon is not the
author, but is introduced in a
literary figure, has become
such an axiom of the present day
interpretation of the book,
that no extended argument is
necessary to prove it."3
He further asserts that upon the
basis of the book's linguistic
features, Solomonic author-
ship is "unthinkable.
"4
There are other arguments against Solomonic author-
ship of the book which shall be
taken up below. All who
deny his authorship would agree
with Ginsburg, who, after
enumerating several other
proofs against it, proposed that
lIbid.
2Wright, Koheleth, p. 80.
3George Aaron Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Com-
mentary on the Book of
Ecclesiastes
(hereinafter referred to
as
Ecclesiastes), in The International Critical Commentary,
ed.
by S. R. Driver, et al. (
1908),
p. 68.
4Ibid., p. 59. Also cf. Otto Eissfeldt, The Old
Testament, An
Introduction,
trans. by Peter A. Ackroyd (New
22
"the strongest argument,
however, against the Solomonic
authorship of this book, is its
vitiated language and
style."1 There
is, however, little agreement about these
phenomena, consisting of many
supposed Aramaisms and affini-
ties with other books which are
late and/or partly Aramaic,
such as Nehemiah, Daniel, Ezra,
and Malachi.2 But it is
primarily out of respect for
these linguistic features of the
book that the date of composition
is lowered, and Solomon's
authorship is denied. The
linguistic background of the book
is therefore considered next.
Aramaic
background
Those who argue that the language of Koheleth can be
explained upon the basis of
Aramaic influence can be divided
into two groups. There are
those, first of all, who view
the language of the book as a
reflection of post-exilic
times, when the Jews were
speaking Aramaic increasingly, and
when Hebrew began to be
influenced as a consequence. Many
contend that the Hebrew of
Koheleth bears strong resemblances
to the Hebrew of the later
Mishnah.3 The second group asserts
that the book was originally
written in Aramaic.
1Ginsburg, Coheleth, p. 253.
2E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament
(Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952),
pp.
339-40.
3Ibid.,
p. 40.
23
Definition of
"Aramaisms"
The use of "Aramaisms" for dating a book is one
of
the most tenuous procedures in
biblical linguistic study.
For many years such arguments
were proposed to support a
late date for such books as
Daniel, Jonah, and Chronicles.
However, in recent times such a
position has generally been
abandoned, for from the
earliest times Hebrews and Arameans
were in constant and intimate
contact.1 Yet, Wright, Gins-
burg, Delitzsch, and others of
their era, though not des-
tructively critical, felt that
the Aramaisms of Ecclesiastes
indisputably rendered it late.2
Lamentably, Gordis is
correct when he states that
"one still encounters the sim-
plistic argument that the
existence of an alleged 'Aramaism'
is evidence of a late date for
the document."3 On the other
hand, a more balanced and
sophisticated analysis of Arama-
isms has been recently
emerging, as evidenced by Barr's di-
vision of Aramaisms into four
categories:
1. "Aramaism" may mean a statistical
displacement
towards what is more frequent
in Aramaic, and more
1Raymond A. Bowman,
"Arameans, Aramaic, and the Bi-
ble,"
Journal of Near Eastern Studies,
VII:2 (April, 1948),
70.
2Cf. Wright, Koheleth, p. 120; Ginsburg, Coheleth,
p.
253; and Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, pp.
210-17.
3Robert Gordis, "On
Methodology in Biblical Exege-
sis,"
The Jewish Quarterly Review, XLI:2
(October, 1970),
105.
24
infrequent in Hebrew. It is
common knowledge, for instance,
that xtAxE is the normal Aramaic word for the verb
"come."
This word does occur, however,
in the Hebrew of the Old
Testament in about twenty
instances, mostly in poetry. But
if xtAxE is found to occur more frequently for
"come" in a
certain text, and especially
outside a poetical context,
then "the situation in
this regard is more like that which
exists in Aramaic, and someone
may say that this is an 'Ara-
maism."'1 This
is a most unfortunate circumstance in termi-
nology, for there is no
question that the phenomenon itself
is real Hebrew; "the only
difference is in the distribution
and frequency."2
It is of incalculable importance that any
discussion of such phenomena
distinguishes between what is
not normal Hebrew, and what is
only statistically unusual.
2. "Usage may be identified by means of an appeal
to Aramaic, where this usage
has not previously been recog-
nized as existing in Hebrew
though it is well known in Ara-
maic."3 This is
meant to be an identification of a normal,
if uncommon usage in Hebrew,
not an identification of an
Aramaic word which does not
appear in Hebrew. Here, too,
the term "Aramaism"
is unfortunate. In such cases, the
1James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of
the Old Testament (hereinafter referred
to as Philology)
(Oxford:
At the Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 121.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.,
p. 122.
25
usage is a native Hebrew one,
inherited from earlier Semit-
ic, but when it is called an
"Aramaism" this only means that
the sense was discovered in
Aramaic, because through its
sparse usage in extant Hebrew
literature, its meaning had
been lost.1
3. "'Aramaism' may mean that an expression of Ara-
maic type was deliberately
used, or that, if not deliberate-
ly, at least in fact, the
existence of an Aramaic phenomenon
is actually affecting the
choice and the character of Old
Testament usage."2
It is possible, for instance, to explain
unusual locutions by northern
Israelite speakers such as
Hosea on this basis,3
and it might also be possible to ex-
plain many of Koheleth's
unusual expressions upon the basis
of all the contact he had with
foreign, Semitic-speaking
peoples such as the Arameans,
the Moabites, and especially,
the Phoenicians.
4. Lastly, the term "Aramaism" is sometimes
"used
when scholars hold that a text
was originally written in one
language and then translated
into another, and that the
characteristics of the diction
of the former state have been
carried over into the
latter."4 This has been argued for
both Job and Ecclesiastes, but,
as Barr and Gordis point out,
1Ibid.
2Ibid., pp. 122-3.
3Ibid., p. 123.
4Ibid.
26
if they were translations, they
were rather poor ones.1
Gordis characterizes Aramaisms in a slightly differ-
fashion:
(1) examples of the North-West
Semitic vocabulary and
usage indigenous to both Aramaic and
Hebrew, which be-
came frequent in Aramaic but
remaining rare (or poetic)
in Hebrew. Such forms are generally
early and cannot be
invoked for a late date and are not
really "Aramaisms"
at all; (2) Hebrew borrowings from
nearby Aramaic during
the pre-Exilic period, especially
during the heyday of
the
the Babylonian Exile and the early
post-Exilic period,
when Aramaic became the lingua franca of the
(4) idioms and morphological forms
introduced into He-
brew and patterned after Aramaic
usage, with which the
Hebrew writer or speaker was
familiar, because Aramaic
had become the vernacular of the Jewish community.2
History of Aramaic
Old Aramaic is the language (with some dialectical
variants) of the most ancient
inscriptions from
able and widespread group whose
earliest manifestations (in
extant inscriptions) go back to
at least the first millen-
nium, and survives in a few
places to the present.3 It is no
doubt true that "l'araméen
fortement influencé par le
1Ibid.; cf. Gordis, Koheleth,
p. 414.
2Gordis, "On
Methodology in Biblical Exegesis," 107.
3Sabatino Moscati, ed., An Introduction to the Com-
parative Grammar of the
Semitic Languages
in Porta Linguarum
Orientalium, Neue Serie, VI, ed. by
Bertold Spuler and Hans
Wehr
(hereinafter referred to as Comparative
Grammar)
(Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1969), pp. 10-11.
27
cananéen."1 Old
Aramaic, was, essentially, an unknown lan-
guage before the end of the
19th century. Then several in-
scriptions were discovered at
Zinčirli: the Panammu II In-
scription in 1888, the Panammu
I in 1890, and the Bir-RKB in
1891. In 1891 the inscriptions
of Sin-zer-ibni were dis-
covered at Nerab, and in 1898
Peiser published the enigmatic
inscription on a stele from Ördek-burnu.
In 1908 Pognon
published the important Zakir
Stele, which he had previously
discovered.2
Because of its affinities with
contemporary Canaanite,
and its considerable divergences
from later Aramaic,
the language of these inscriptions
was regarded by most
scholars as an artificial mixture of
some kind. The two
Panammu Inscriptions, moreover,
presented so many spe-
cial problems in orthography and
morphology when com-
pared with the other inscriptions,
that it became neces-
sary to suppose a separate Zincirli
dialect.
With the discoveries of
more recent years, suffi-
cient data accumulated to classify
the language of the
inscriptions as Old Aramaic.3
The relationship of Aramaic to the Hebrew of the
Bible is not always clear. It
is known that from the very
beginning of the Hebrew nation
(Abraham) there was a relation-
ship with the Arameans
(Abraham's stay in
1Henri Fleisch, Introduction a 1'Étude des Langues
Sémitiques (Paris: Librairie d'Amérique
et d'Orient, 1947),
p.
71.
2Frank M. Cross and David
N. Freedman, Early Hebrew
Orthography in American Oriental Series, ed. by James B.
Pritchard,
Vol. 36 (
1952),
p. 21.
3Ibid., p. 22.
28
11:31). Laban, of course, used
Aramaic in his encounter
with Jacob, recorded in Genesis
31:47. From the time of
David forward there was
widespread contact with Arameans.
David married an Aramean
(Maacah, 2 Sam. 3:3; 1 Chr. 7:14),
and Solomon ruled over much of
4:21).1 It is not to
be supposed strange, therefore, that
there should be cultural (and
therefore linguistic) inter-
changes. "The mutual
influence of the two languages [Hebrew
and Aramaic] reaches back to
early times: Aramaisms occur
in the earliest part of the Old
Testament."2 Driver has
argued that Hebrew is not pure
Canaanite, but a mixed lan-
guage in which traces of the
original Aramaic substratum are
still perceptible.3
Even in "Old Aramaic" several cultural
strains are observable.
diverse cultures, Semitic and
non-Semitic, of the adja-
cent areas have blended into curious
mixtures. It is
thus with the so-called "Old
Aramaic" of the region,
which is almost completely Canaanite
rather than Ara-
maic. In the Kilamwa inscription it
is only the word
"son" (bar), used in the royal genealogy, that
can be
recognized as Aramaic. Syntax and vocabulary are
1For the extent of Solomon's
kingdom, see the maps
in
Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, Macmillan
Bible
Atlas (New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, Inc., 1973),
p.
74, maps 113 and 115.
2R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament
(New
York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1941), p. 687. Cf.
also
GKC, Grammar, pp.. 16-17, sect. 2u,
w.
3G. R. Driver,
"Hebrew Language," Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1972,
XI, 279-80.
29
usually Canaanite; there are even
instances of the waw-
consecutive usually associated with
Hebrew. The spel-
ling of words manifests the
defective short forms fre-
quently encountered in Phoenician.
The alphabet too is
distinctly Canaanite; the letters
are quite similar to
those of contemporary Phoenician but
with the odd dif-
ference that the characters are not
incised but carved
in relief and in such fat and pudgy
shape that the gen-
eral appearance of such writing
resembles Hittite hiero-
glyphs. In some instances even the
shape of the monu-
ment suggests a Hittite prototype.
Indeed, such royal
names as Quril, Kilamwa, and
Panamwa, found in these in-
scriptions are non-Semitic,
apparently Anatolian. Thus,
in most "Old Aramaic writing,
several cultural strains
are observable, and there is almost
nothing distinctly
Aramaic.1
These characteristics of the "Old Aramaic" are
ex-
tremely important to the
discussion of the Solomonic author-
ship, because the period from
which these apparently very
homogeneous inscriptions date,
is approximately the time in
which Solomon lived.
It may also be that the language of Ecclesiastes
differs somewhat from other
biblical literature because the
style most of the books were
written in was apparently a
"specialized literary genre which was studied and cultivated
by the artists and writers of
that period."2 According to
Chomsky, furthermore, it may be
safely announced that the classical
models of the bibli-
cal language are not typical of the
daily conversational
language employed by "the
butcher, the baker, and the
candlestick maker." Undoubtedly, the conversational
1Bowman, "Arameans,
Aramaic and the Bible," 70.
2William Chomsky, Hebrew: The Eternal Language
(
1969), p. 48.
30
language was simpler, more flexible,
and lacking the
artistry characteristic of the
biblical style. It had
more in common with the so-called
mishnaic or post-bib-
lical Hebrew. It made up in
simplicity, flexibility,
and dynamic qualities for what it
lacked in grandeur
and elegance.1
Chomsky concludes that there seems to have existed
in pre-exilic
Side by side there were the
literary or classical tradition
and the popular or
conversational tradition.
The first tradition followed
generally the Canaanitic or
Ugaritic literary models, which date
back to the pre-
biblical days. In its poetic style,
its parallelisms,
vocabulary, metaphors, and
locutions, the Bible fre-
quently evinces a striking
resemblance to these ancient
documents. The second tradition had
its roots, appar-
ently, in the vernacular, which the
early Hebrew ances-
tors had brought with them from
their native homeland in
ditions admitted, on occasion, of
free intercrossing and
mutual influence, as will be pointed
out in Chapter IX
of this volume. It is nonetheless
quite probable, as
will be indicated later, that the
Canaanite influence
was prevalent in literary Hebrew,
while the Aramaic in-
fluence was preponderant in the
vulgar or conversational
Hebrew.2
The possible influence of Canaanite on the language
of Koheleth is taken up below.
For the present, however,
the reader should notice that
at least part of the linguis-
tic peculiarities of the book
may be a reflection of a more
conversational than literary
Hebrew.
Late-dating by Aramaisms
In his commentary on Ecclesiastes, Wright compiled
lIbid., pp. 48-9.
2Ibid.,
p. 49.
31
at least 98 expressions which
he said were "worthy of notice
as belonging mainly to the
modern period of the Hebrew lan-
guage,"1 and
which, therefore, supported the contention that
the Aramaisms of the book make
a late date certain. Others,
such as Hengstenberg, who
allowed only ten Aramaisms in the
book, are much more modest.2
It is, unfortunately, beyond
the scope of this thesis to
discuss each of these instances
individually, but the
methodology of such procedures must be
carefully scrutinized.
When one speaks of "Aramaisms" he must first of
all
define which of the types of
Aramaisms he means.3 If it is
an "Aramaism" so
named because it is statistically unusual,
but perfectly normal Hebrew,
its bearing on the date of the
book is negligible. If an
Aramaism is used to date Ecclesi-
astes, it must be proven that
(1) the word was borrowed at
a time subsequent to Solomon,
and that (2) Hebrew did not
have and would not have used
such an expression. These two
criteria seem reasonable
enough, but they make it very
1Wright, Koheleth, pp. 488 ff.
2Ernest W. Hengstenberg, A Commentary on Ecclesi-
astes (n.p.: Sovereign Grace
Publishers, 1960), p. 9.
3Cf. the distinctions of
Barr and Gordis above. On
the
relationship of Hebrew and Aramaic, cf. Zellig S. Harris,
Development of the
Canaanite Dialects,
Vol. 16 in the Ameri-
can Oriental Series, ed. by W. Norman Brown
(
Kraus Reprint Corporation,
reprint, 1967), pp. 1-28.
32
difficult for the late-date
theory of Ecclesiastes, predi-
cated upon the language of the
book, to stand. This is for
several reasons.
Limited vocabulary.--While
it is true that there is
presently extant a vast Hebrew
vocabulary, it is not true
that the Hebrew of the Bible
represents all the Hebrew words
which must have been in use in
ancient times. It is true,
for example, that the word hfAwA does not appear in biblical
Hebrew, though it does appear
in biblical Aramaic and in
modern Hebrew.1 One
must nevertheless be very cautious in
pronouncing on these grounds
that it did not exist in Hebrew
during biblical times, for the
word appears as a Canaanite
gloss in the Amarna letters.2
One here reaches the limits
which are set for linguistic
assertions about a dead lan-
guage which has left only a
very restricted body of litera-
ture. There are numerous
objects and realities of Hebrew
life for which biblical Hebrew
has no known name. The non-
occurrence of the word in the
literature presently extant is
not proof that it was unknown.3
The same applies to
lBDB, Lexicon, p. 1116.
2It is listed as "šêtu, Stande [hour], kanaan.?
[canaanite?]"
in J. A. Knudtzon, Herausgegeber, Die
El-Amar-
na-Tafeln, Band II (zwei Bände:
Aallen: Otto Zeller
Verlagsbuchhandlung,
Neudruck, 1964), p. 1521; 138:76.
3James Barr, Biblical Words for Time (
33
instances of hapax legomena, whose only parallels can
be
found in Aramaic. It is almost
inconceivable
that the seven or eight vocables
found in the Hebrew
Bible constituted all the words that
were current in
the language during that period,
just as it would be ab-
surd to assume that the 25,000 words
used by Shakespeare
or the 12,000 words employed by
total vocabulary in vogue in their respective periods.l
Later documents.--Furthermore, one may not legiti-
mately maintain that a document
is late merely because it
contains words which do not
occur in the earlier ones pres-
ently extant.
find of Egyptian Aramaic papyri
gives us words not known be-
fore--except, if at all, in
documents written hundreds of
years later."2
of proof that will prove almost
everything to be late, and
especially the parts considered
late to be early, is absurd
and inadmissable as evidence in
a case designed to prove
that some documents are later
than others because they con-
tain words of this kind."3
By statistical analysis of the
books of the Old Testament he
demonstrated that some of the
later books (Ezra 1-6, Malachi,
Ezekiel) have a far smaller
1Chomsky, Hebrew: The Eternal Language, p. 209.
2Robert Dick Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of
the Old Testament (hereinafter referred
to as Investigation)
(Philadelphia:
The Sunday School Times Co., 1926), p. 132.
3Ibid.,
p. 133.
34
percentage of words occurring 5
times or less, and also oc-
curring in the Talmud, than do
some of the earlier writings
("J," "E,"
Sam. --Kings, "P," and the "Deuteronomist").1
The
presence of "rare"
words in a document is no proof of its
relative lateness. Many of
these "rare" words were labeled
"Aramaisms" in
previous years because they were more common
in Aramaic than in Biblical
Hebrew, but the argument is not
valid.2
H. L. Ginsberg alleges that the Hebrew of Koheleth
must represent "the latest
stage in the evolution of bibli-
cal Hebrew"3
because the root JqaTA (4:12;
6:10) "can only be
borrowed from Aramaic; and not
before the seventh century
B.C.E., since the initial
consonant represents a Proto-Se-
mitic t which was only
shifted to t in Aramaic in the sev-
enth century B.C.E."4
He also argues that the nouns MysiDer;Pa
and MgAt;Pi must be late because they are borrowed
from Persian
and "
sixth century B.C.E."5
In these statements, however, he has made some basic
lIbid., p. 135.
2But see GKC, Grammar, where upon this basis these
are
late-dated: Joshua, Ruth, Jonah, Ecclesiastes, Job, et
al. (p. 16, sect 2u).
3Ginsberg,
"Ecclesiastes," p. 350.
4Ibid.
5Ibid.
35
methodological errors. He has
assumed that the word JqeTA
could not have been known
earlier than the Aramaic inscrip-
tions in which it is now extant
(the word originated only
just prior to the inscription?)
and he assumes that the pre-
cise date of the phonetic shift
of which he speaks is known
(it originated just prior to
the inscriptions?). As to the
"Persian" words,
Ginsberg again assumes too much. He not
only supposes that the words
could not have been adopted
earlier than the period of
Persian domination, he also sup-
poses that they could not have
been shared by Hebrew as
words common to both. From a
purely linguistic standpoint,
there is nothing about the
words which is necessarily
strange or foreign. It is true
that the usual Hebrew pat-
tern is formed with a
triconsonantal root, but
forms are attested over the entire
Semitic area on the
pattern C1aC2C3aC4u:
e.g. Heb. 'aqrāb, Syr. ‘əqarbā,
(Eth. 'aqrab "scorpion." Examples of other four-radical
patterns are Akk. humsīru "mouse,"
Heb. 'akkabīš "spi-
der," Syr. 'uqbərā "mouse," Ar. qunfud "hedgehog," Eth.
hanbāl
"saddle."1
It is one thing to make assertions like Ginsberg's;
it is another to substantiate
them. In view of the very
scanty inscriptional evidence
available for Aramaic from the
early part of the first
millennium B.C., it seems better to
resist generalizations about
what words were or were not in
the language, and when they
originated.
1Moscati, Comparative
Grammar, p. 84.
36
Reasons for
Aramaisms.--There are yet other factors
in deciding the impact of the
supposed Aramaisms of Ecclesi-
astes. A Hebrew writer could
have used an Aramaic word to
denote a thing, or to express a
thought,"either because
there was no Hebrew word that
he could equally well employ
[at least from his own
vocabulary], or because he was him-
self strongly under Aramaic
influence, or because he wanted
to show off his acquaintance
with foreign tongues."1 Both
the former and the latter of
these are distinct possibili-
ties for Solomon. Certainly
they are just as possible as
the overworked second one.
It should not escape the reader's notice that Solo-
mon had every opportunity to
imbibe foreign expressions. As
was previously pointed out, he
had a step-mother who was an
Aramean, Maacah (2 Sam. 3:3),
of which union with David were
born Tamar and Solomon's
notorious brother Absalom (2 Sam.
13:2). When difficulties beset
him in
his Aramean grandfather in
Geshur that Absalom fled for pro-
tection.2 A certain
close relationship is therefore as-
sumed, and it is not improbable
that Solomon himself may
have at times visited this
step-grandfather as a child, not
to speak of the contact he
probably had with the Aramaic-
1Wilson, Investigation, p. 140.
2Bowman, "Arameans, Aramaic, and the
Bible," 70.
37
speaking Maacah. Furthermore,
Solomon himself married an
Aramean (1 Kings 3:1, 11:3). He
also had other wives from
the Ammonite, Moabite, Hittite,
Phoenician, and Egyptian
kingdoms.1 He even
occupied
built store-towns in Hamath.3
Consequently, one would not
be surprised that he might
choose to write something spiced
with foreign expressions and
words. This is only a conjec-
ture, but it is a possibility.
Noun formations.--It
has also been alleged that
nouns ending in N are Aramaisms. The same is argued for
many of those ending in tU. However, it has been demon-
strated that such nouns are
found throughout Semitic lan-
guages at all stages of their
development.4
1Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Vol. I (Phil-
adelpia:
The Jewish Publication Society of America, re-
print,
1967), p. 161. Also see Charles Foster Kent, The
Founders and Rulers of
United
Scribner's
Sons, 1908), p. 1.
2Theodore H. Robinson, A History of
(2
vols.:
p.
256.
3Merrill F.
cus (London: James Clarke
and Co., Ltd., 1957), p. 54.
4Moscati, Comparative Grammar, pp. 82-3; 96 ff.
Cf.
also
lists
of Thutmes [sic.] III have seventeen nouns ending in
n out of 119 all told.
The Sendscherli Inscriptions have no
nouns
in n but the Sachau papyri have scores. They are
found
also in the Sabean and Minean Inscriptions and are
common
in Arabic and Syriac. There are 14 in the code of
Hammurabi
alone and 26 in the Babylonian of the Amarna
Letters."
38
Exclusive of proper names, about one
hundred and forty
nouns ending in n are found
in Biblical Hebrew. Sixty-
three of these are met with in the
Pentateuch. Of the
sixty-three, the Targum of Onkelos
renders twelve by the
same nouns ending in n, and
fifty-one by other nouns,
most of them ending in n. It
will thus be seen that
where the subject-matter is exactly
the same, the Hebrew
original and the Aramaic version
have exactly the same
number of words ending in n.
Judging from this fact, it
is left to our readers to determine,
if they can, wheth-
er the ending n is more
characteristic of Aramaic than
of Hebrew.1
There are several specific instances of supposed
Aramaisms in Ecclesiastes which
is true that the word NOFl;wi is found only in Ecclesiastes
(8:4, 8), it is also true that
its root occurs in Akkadian,
as well as in Hebrew, Arabic,
Aramaic, and Syriac.2 Some-
times "rare" words
are "rare" only in the sense that they
appear few times in the
biblical text. This does not mean
that they were not common in
the Hebrew language.
Reasons for
non-routine terms.--Besides the fact
that some of the terms in
Ecclesiastes may be strange only
because such a small amount of
literature from Solomon's
time is presently extant, there
are other reasons which can
1Wilson, Investigation, pp. 147-8. It is also in-
teresting
that in the Mesha inscription, the plural ending
in is consistently used,
instead of the more Hebraic im.
Yet,
in many respects the Mesha inscription is very similar
to
Hebrew (Chomsky, Hebrew: The Eternal
Language, p. 67;
cf.
Cross and Freedman, Early Hebrew
Orthography, pp. 39,
43;
A. H. Van Zyl, The Moabites [
1960],
p. 171-2).
2Wilson, Investigation,
p. 151.
39
be adduced for their
peculiarity. One may be that the char-
acter of the subject matter,
rather than the lateness of the
time of composition, has made
the language somewhat differ-
ent.1 Furthermore,
it is difficult to see why it would be
more likely that the thoughts
of the unconventional writer
would find expression in the
language of every day, or the
language of the historian or
prophet. Koheleth was a so-
phisticated writer who may have
written for learned readers
and, who, in any event, wrote
for some audience who would be
able to understand and
appreciate his language.2 Moreover,
if Solomonic authorship is accepted
for Ecclesiastes, and
Davidic authorship for many of
the Psalms, Solomon would
certainly have had an
exceedingly rich literary heritage
from his father, which may have
had the effect of making his
own writing (especially if he
chose to let it) singularly
distinctive. Who, having
translated the Psalms can gainsay
David's vocabulary?
In addition, the task of the writer of Ecclesiastes
was rendered difficult by two
other facts. The Hebrew lan-
guage has rather simple
structure, and only a relatively few
syntactic devices are available
to express all possible nu-
ances of meaning. Moods of
verbs must be inferred from the
lIbid., p. 150.
2Mitchell J. Dahood,
"Canaanite-Phoenician Influence
in
Qoheleth," (hereinafter referred to as "Qoheleth")
Biblica, 33:1
(1952), 31, note 1.
40
context, and subordinate
clauses of all varieties are exter-
nally indistinguishable from
coordinate clauses. These fac-
tors obviously complicate the
understanding where precision
is essential.1 Yet
another difficulty in the understanding
of Koheleth, his modes of
expression, and his vocabulary, is
that he was struggling to use
Hebrew for philosophic pur-
poses, a use to which the
language was not normally applied.
A millennium and a half later,
"medieval translators still
found that Hebrew had not yet
fully developed the flexibili-
ty, precision and vocabulary
necessary for the treatment of
philosophic themes."2
Koheleth's comparative success in
this respect is a tribute to
his literary skill.
Conclusion on Aramaisms
It is, therefore, the conclusion of the writer that
the date, and the limits it
places upon the authorship, must
be decided by means other than
inferences drawn from the
literary style or linguistic
peculiarities of the book.
Aramaisms may be used to prove
or to disprove Solomonic
authorship, depending upon
one's presuppositions and biases.
In any event, one cannot but
agree with
firms that "the presence
of Aramaisms is no necessary
1Gordis, Poets, Prophets and Sages, p. 343.
2Ibid.
41
indication of late date."1
An
Aramaic, original
In addition to those who view the language of Ec-
clesiastes as heavily
influenced by Aramaic, and therefore
late, there are those who argue
strongly for an Aramaic
original for the book, of which
the presently extant Hebrew
Koheleth is apparently a rather
poor translation. This
theory was first raised as a
question by Burkitt, has been
maintained by Zimmermann, and
vigorously defended by H. L.
Ginsberg.2 Burkitt
published his brief analysis of the
style of Ecclesiastes in 1921,
in which he concluded that
the style was neither natural
nor correct, and therefore
must be a translation from
Aramaic.3 There are numerous
arguments from the Aramaic
offered as solutions to the vari-
ous enigmas of the book.
Representative samples will suf-
fice to demonstrate the
methodology.
Introduction
There are many verses which those who propose an
1Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p.
1075.
2Gordis, Koheleth, pp. 374, 413. Cf. F. C.
Burkitt,
"Is
Ecclesiastes a Translation?" Journal
of Theological
Studies, 22 (1921), 23 ff.; F.
Zimmermann, "The Aramaic
Provenance
of Koheleth," 17-46; and H. L. Ginsberg, Studies
in Koheleth in Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological
Seminary of
logical
Seminary of America, 1950), pp. 16-40.
3Dahood, "Qoheleth," 31.
42
Aramaic original feel are much
more easily translated upon
the basis of that theory.
Following is a discussion of
three of them.
Ecclesiastes 7:12.--The
NASB translation of this
verse is "wisdom is
protection just as money is protection."
The margin is, "lit., in a shadow." The Hebrew reads: yKi
Js,KAha
lceB; hmAk;HAha lcEB;. Rowley says, in reviewing the reasons
for an Aramaic original, that
"the strongest individual ar-
gument [for such an original]
in the reviewer's opinion, is
the claim [of Ginsberg and
Zimmermann] that lceB; in
7:12 goes
back to the Aramaic tlaFiB; in the first case and lFeB; in the
second, and that these were
wrongly taken to be nouns when
they should have been regarded
as verbs, yielding the sense
‘when the wisdom goes, the
money goes.’"1
There are several problems with this argument, how-
ever. First of all, if the
"original Aramaic" had lFEB; in
7:12, why did the translator
not use the same Hebrew word
for it (lFaBA) as he did in 12:3. To be sure, this is the
only occurrence of the word in
the Hebrew Old Testament, but
it appears to have a legitimate
Hebrew usage, attested in
Akkadian as batâlu.2 It is passing
strange that the
1H. H. Rowley, "The
Problems of Ecclesiastes," The
Jewish Quarterly Review, XLII (1951-2), 88.
2KB, Lexicon, p. 119. Cf. also Riekele Borger,
Babylonisch-Assyrische
Lesestücke,
Heft I (3 Hefte: Roma:
Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum, 1963), p. LI.
43
supposed translator would have
used another word, when the
Hebrew and Aramaic words were
identical both in spelling
and meaning. It is true that c and F are
both emphatic
phonemes and therefore closely
akin, something which, no
doubt, points to two related
proto-Semitic roots.1 This
fact does not, however, support
the Aramaic original hypoth-
esis. It should also be noticed
that Symmachus, the Peshit-
ta, Jerome, and the Vulgate
seem to support another reading:
lceK;
hmAk;HA lceK;, while the LXX and others support a variant of
this: lck hmkH lcb.2 The
word lceK; would consist of the
inseparable preposition K and lce, from
the verbal root III.
llacA,
meaning "to be or grow dark."3 lce here would mean
"shadow."4 The targum seems to support the NASB
translation
above, rather than the one
based on an Aramaic original.
While it is true that the written targum material
is rather late, it is also true
that it preserves a
tradition, probably dating at
least to the time from which
the supporters of the Aramaic
original hypothesis would
say that the book of
Ecclesiastes should be dated (third or
1Cf. several other
Semitic languages which have a
cognate
beginning with t in KB, Lexicon, p.
804.
2Rudolf Kittel, ed., Biblia Hebraica (
Wurttembergische
Bibelanstalt, 1966), p. 1220.
3KB, Lexicon, p. 804; cf. BDB, Lexicon,
853.
4KB, Lexicon, p. 803.
44
fourth centuries B.C.). The
targum seems to be much easier
to explain in terms of an
original written in Hebrew, rather
than one written in Aramaic.
One wonders why the targum
would differ so much from what
the Aramaic original was
supposed to have been. Is one
to suppose that the Aramaic
was translated into Hebrew, and
then the Hebrew was trans-
lated back into Aramaic for the
targum? If Ginsberg's and
Zimmermann's hypothesis were
correct, for instance, one
would have expected to have
found lFeBA, "to be void,
abolished, suspended; to cease
to exist" in the present
verse.1
Finally, the translation of this verse suggested
by Ginsberg and Zimmermann does
not fit the context. Such
a circumstance makes any
suggested translation very doubt-
ful. The Aramaic original
hypothesis does not seem to offer
a valid solution to the
problems of this verse.
Ecclesiastes 10:15.--Perhaps
the most striking ex-
ample of the difficulties
created by the Aramaic original
hypothesis of Zimmermann is to
be found in this verse,
translated, "the toil of a
fool tires him so that he does
not know to go to a city."
It reads in Hebrew: MyliysiK;ha lmafE
ryfi-lf,
tk,l,lA fdayA-xlo rw,xE Unf,G;yaT;.
1Jastrow,
Dictionary, Vol. I, p. 157.
45
He [Zimmermann] confesses that he
cannot solve the last
part of the verse, but undertakes to
explain the changes
of gender and number in the first
half. The Aramaic
reads hnyhlwt
xyFwd xtvHfF.
The translator rendered
xtvHrF by lmf. The next moment, in
translating hnyFlwt,
he forgot that his Hebrew read lmf, a masculine noun,
and so he mechanically wrote the
verb in the feminine
fgyt. But his lapses were
not yet at an end. He mis-
read xyFwd as a plural and
rendered it Mylyskh, but, at
the very next word, forgot that he
had rendered it thus
and recognized it as a singular,
hence the singular suf-
fix in vxfgyt.
That this passage is
difficult is clear. That this
explanation meets the situation
seems considerably less
certain. The illustration is only
one of many indicat-
ing the depths of stupidity and
incompetence which must
be assumed for the translator who,
judging by Chapter
XII, was not as inept as the theory cheerfully assumes.1
Again, this observation by Gordis seems to be sup-
ported by the targum.2 Even though the actual composition
of Targum Onkelos is somewhat
later than the Aramaic original
was written, one would have
expected in the targum a reflec-
tion of a good deal more of the
reconstructed Aramaic origi-
nal than one finds.
Ecclesiastes 11:1.--It
is also suggested that this
verse, translated in the NASB,
"Cast your bread upon the
surface of the waters, for you
will find it after many days,"
is an instance in which an
Aramaic original explains an
otherwise inexplicable enigma.
Zimmermann's argument is
1Robert Gordis, "The
Original Language of Qoheleth,"
The Jewish Quarterly
Review,
XXXVII:l (July, 1946), 70-1.
2Cf. the text of rbrpw, tymrxb wdqh ybtk, d
jrk,
p. 165.
46
that the translators confused
the "original Aramaic"
(spread, as a sail, garment,
etc.) and II. srp
(break, as in
breaking bread).1
Thus, the Hebrew "translators" rendered
the phrase MyimAha yneP;-lfa j~m;H;la Hla.wa (according
to II. srp), us-
ing the word MH,l,. Again, however, the roots for both I and
II srp appear in Hebrew (although
wraPA.2
Why would a translator have used words other than
those completely cognate,
however, especially when the re-
sultant sense of his
translation in Hebrew is apparently so
strange? A good translator
would have used Hebrew sraPA,
which has the same meaning as
Aramaic sraP;. There must have
been a reason for this
circumstance, and the explanation one
finds most satisfying is that
which posits a Hebrew original,
which, when written had a clear
meaning, but which now is
lost. The targum interprets the
verse in the sense of
giving MHal; (alms, help) to the poor, for which one would
eventually be rewarded. Perhaps
the explanation is to be
1Zimmermann, "The
Question of Hebrew in Qoheleth,"
92.
Cf. also Frank Zimmermann, The Inner
World of Qoheleth
(New
York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1973), pp. 111-12.
2BDB, Lexicon, pp.828, 831. This same root is
found
in
relation to food in Ugaritic. Cf. Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugar-
itic Textbook (Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1965),
p.
470, #2110. DISO gives a meaning for
siéger,"
("to beseige, to dun"), found in the Mesha inscrip-
tion,
but this does not seem to help much (p. 137). Dalman
suggests
"Unterhalt," ("support") and "Masse,"
("assets"),
which
would fit this context (Gustaf H. Dalman, Aramäisch-
Neuhebräisches
Handwörterbuch zu Targum, Talmud and Midrasch
(Hildesheim:
Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1967), p. 216.
47
found in such a different shade
of meaning for the word MH,l,,
as the targum has done.1
Proofs for a Hebrew original
Besides the failure of the Aramaic original hypoth-
esis in these specific instances
to account for completely
cognate Hebrew words which
could have been used, and were
not, there are several other
difficulties which seem to make
a Hebrew original more
probable.
Two Hebrew dialects.--Chomsky
makes an interesting
observation about different
dialects in Hebrew, which may
not always have been reflected
in the biblical style:
It must therefore be assumed, as has
already been point-
ed out, that alongside the literary
classical style
there existed a simple
conversational style, employed
especially by the peasants and
simple folk of the back-
woods, particularly in the northern
part of
where these erotic pastoral idylls
[i.e. the Song of
Songs] must have been in vogue. It
is inconceivable
that even in
even during the heyday of the
classical period, spoke
the noble and majestic prose typical
of Amos and Isaiah,
or even of Genesis and Deuteronomy.
More probably, men
like Amos and Isaiah, after writing
down or delivering
their lofty and noble messages in
the classical style,
addressed their acquaintances or
members of their family
in the simple conversational
dialect, including col-
loquialisms and slang, current among
the rest of the
people. This non-classical style
must have gained cur-
rency during the exilic and
post-exilic periods, owing
especially to the unsettled and
transmigratory condi-
tions of the people of those days.
It often takes cen-
turies for a new word-coinage to
take root and be widely
lrbrpw, tymrxb wdqh ybtk, x-d
Jrk,
p. 166.
48
employed. Little wonder, then, that
many of the so-
called mishnaic words, grammatical
forms and syntactical
constructions, are already in
evidence in the Bible, to
a greater or lesser degree.1
It has already been suggested that Solomon may have
been influenced by his Aramean
relatives, as well as his
foreign wives. Both the
intended recipients and the con-
tents of the book may also have
affected his style. It will
also be suggested below that he
may have been influenced by
a Phoenician literary genre of
the philosophic discourse.
Finally, his style may have
been influenced by the common
conversational language of the
people. It is easily seen,
therefore, that no one solution
may totally solve the prob-
lems with the peculiarities of
the language of Ecclesiastes.
The best solution seems to be
one which finds a number of
different influences at work
upon the author.
Paronomasia.--The
phenomenon of paronomasia, which
exist in the present Hebrew
text, and which would not have
existed in an Aramaic text,
also argues against an Aramaic
original. "Thus in 7:1,
the play on šem and šemen would be
lost in the Aramaic sum and misha."2 This
same paronomasia
occurs in Song of Solomon 1:3: j~m,w; qraUT Nm,w,. Other in-
stances of paronomasia in the
book are "7:6, hassīrīm,
1Chomsky, Hebrew: The Eternal Language, p. 161.
2Gordis,
Koheleth, p. 413.
49
'thorns,' and hassīr, 'pot'; and 9:5 zēkher, 'remember,' and
sākhār,
'reward' (rather than the usual yithrōn)."1
Gins-
berg counters by offering an
example of a supposed parono-
masia in the "alleged
Aramaic of 3:4, raqed, 'dance,' and
‘arqed, 'mourn,’”2 but as
Gordis states, "this rhetorical
usage among fourteen pairs of
verbs in the Catalogue of
Seasons is hardly
impressive."3
Canaanite parallels.--The
vocabulary of Koheleth
reflects a very ancient
Canaanite literary background.
"That the singularly inept
translator whom the theory [of an
Aramaic original] creates would
render the Aramaic original
into Hebrew, using words and
phrases derived from a very
ancient Northwest Semitic
literary tradition, is another
extreme coincidence difficult
to accept."4
Ben Sira.--Ben
Sira's verbal dependence on Ecclesi-
astes also strengthens the case
for the Hebrew original.
"It would surely be
remarkable that Ben Sira (c. 190 B.C.E.)
could use the Aramaic
'original' of Koheleth and translate
its phraseology into Hebrew
which resembles the independent
translation of Koheleth, not
produced until much later!"5
lIbid. 2lbid. 3Ibid. 4Ibid., p. 414.
5Ibid. Later, that is, according to
their theory.
50
Characteristics of
a translation.--There is a very
fundamental objection to the
widely-held theory that a dif-
ficult text ipso facto presupposes a translation
from anoth-
er language. When faced with a
difficult original a trans-
lator may misread it for lack
of an adequate knowledge of
the vocabulary, and he may
misconstrue the grammar. He may
tacitly emend the text, fail to
penetrate its meaning, and
add irrelevant thoughts to it.
But ultimately he decides
upon some view of the passage,
which he then expresses in
his own idiom. "His
version may be incorrect, but it will
be clear and intelligible far
more so than the original, all
the difficulties and
alternatives of which will have been
ignored or obscured in the
process."1
Other things being equal, it may
therefore be maintained
that a difficult text may be
presumed to be the original
rather than a translation. In
general, the translation
hypothesis may be described as
visiting the sins, real
or imaginary, of the author, upon an
unlucky translator.
To him no folly or stupidity is
deemed impossible. Thus
Dr. Zimmermann asks us to believe
that in 9:1 the "trans-
lator slipped, thoughtlessly
incorporating the Aramaic
Mhydbf into the text instead
of the usual hWfm" (p. 20).
But the word hWfm occurs in the book
sixteen times be-
fore this passage, and four times
thereafter, all with-
in 222 verses. This would be a
remarkable lapse of
memory, since the translator had
rendered it correctly
in the verse immediately preceding
and had then rapidly
recovered, nine verses later.2
A translator is always conscious of the distinctions
between the two languages on
which he is engaged, for that
lIbid., p.. 69.
2Ibid., p. 70.
51
is, after all, the purpose of
his task. He is trying to
take a document written for the
speakers of one language and
render it in a language and idiom
intelligible to the speak-
ers of another language. If it
were really a Hebrew trans-
lation of an Aramaic original,
it is not unreasonable to
suppose that in such a case the
supposed Aramaisms would
have been Hebraized as well.1
On the other hand, a creative writer, familiar with
two closely related languages,
and "struggling to express
his original thought, might
unconsciously [or consciously]
employ a word or even a usage
from the other language."2
Such has been a common practice
in every age, even up to
the present time, in which
scholarly English writers employ
especially descriptive and
concise foreign terms from Latin,
French, and German quite
frequently.
Finally, no one suggests why such a Hebrew transla-
tion world have been made in
the first place. Other canoni-
cal works were left in Aramaic.
Moreover, if the book does
date from the post-Exilic
period (which the Aramaic original
theory assumes), in which
Aramaic had become the lingua
the language of the people?
1Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, p.
338.
2Gordis,
"'The original Language of Koheleth," 83.
52
Conclusion on an Aramaic
original
On the basis of the above evidence, it is the con-
clusion of the writer that the
theory of an Aramaic original
for Koheleth invents more
problems than it solves. It seems
best to view the present Hebrew
Koheleth as the original.1
Ecclesiastes
1:12
It is generally argued by those rejecting Solomonic
authorship that the words j`l,m, ytyyihA tl,h,qo ynixE should be
translated, "I, Koheleth,
was king." In this statement, the
writer is allegedly reflecting
on a time when he was mon-
arch, but is not at the time of
his statement.2 The
Talmud
has joined to this verse a
fable in which Solomon is com-
pelled to descend from his
throne on account of his sins.
An angel bearing his likeness
takes his place upon the
throne and Solomon wanders
throughout the land, claiming
that he is really the king, but
is disbelieved and belittled
by the people. While he goes
about begging, this is what he
says: "I, Koheleth, was
king in
1Cf. Robert Gordis,
"The Translation Theory of Qo-
heleth
Re-Examined," The Jewish Quarterly
Review, XL:1
(July,
1949), 116..
2Delitzsch,
Ecclesiastes, pp. 205-6.
53
his repentance, he is
reinstated.1
There is no proof from Scripture for this story, and
some of its details are
ludicrous. It does demonstrate,
however, the difficulty some
have seen in maintaining Solo-
monic authorship in the face of
Ecclesiastes 1:12. De-
litzsch argues at length that
such a statement could not
have been made by a man who was
still king.2 ytiyyihA is the
Qal perfect, first person,
common, singular, of hyAhA.
Archer
has suggested that a fitting
translation might be, "I became
king,"3 but one would have expected to find a l; following
hyAhA for
this translation, though the translation is not pre-
cluded by its absence. The NASB
translates it I "have been"
king, while the ASV translates
it "was." But the problem is
not really the translation; it
is the interpretation of the
translation which presents the
ambiguity. It is helpful in
this instance to compare Jonah
3:3, where the perfect of hyAhA
is used to describe the state
of
"
sense of the verse. The verse
cannot mean, "
1Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, Vol. 4 (4
vols:
2Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, pp. 205-6.
3Archer, Introduction, pp. 485-6.
4Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, p.
255.
54
[and is no longer] a great city,"
for such a statement would
be meaningless for Jonah.
Likewise, the meaning of Ecclesi-
astes is: "I, Koheleth,
was [and still am] king over
in
derstanding of the verse.
Ecclesiastes
1:16
Another objection to the Solomonic authorship is
that 1:16, "Behold I have
magnified and increased wisdom
above all who were over
ronism and is inexplicable in
terms of Solomonic author-
ship.l This objection is apparently grounded in
the sup-
position that the author is
here referring only to former
kings, and since David and
Solomon had been the only Isra-
elite kings in
misplaced. There are two
answers to this, however. First
of all, if Solomon were
speaking only of kings, he could
have been referring to the long
line of non-Israelite kings
which had preceded him, two of
the most notable of which
were Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18)
and Adonai-Zedek (Josh. 10:1,
lOtto Zöckler,
"Ecclesiastes," trans. by William
Wells,
in vol. V of Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures, ed.
by
John P. Lange (12 vols., reprinted:
dervan Publishing House, 1971),
p. 13.
55
26).1 But the best explanation is probably that
Solomon is
referring to all (i.e., anyone
and everyone), not just
kings, who had preceded him in
therefore completely proper and
understandable. 1 Kings
4:31 speaks of Solomon's
superiority and draws a comparison
with Heman, Chalcol, and Darda,
who may very well have been
sages in pre-Davidic Jerusalem.2
The
Sitz im Leben of the book
It has been contended that whereas Ecclesiastes
seems to reflect a time when
misfortune, misery, and oppres-
sion prevailed, the time of
Solomon was one of prosperity
and happiness. Nevertheless, it
is questionable whether the
book really does reflect a
period of dissatisfaction and
oppression. In any event, it is
difficult to make general-
izations about the state of the
common people, when so lit-
tle is told about the period in
the Bible, and when most of
what is told is concerned with
the monarchy. It is, however,
a misconception to maintain
that Solomon's period was one of
prosperity and happiness. It
may very well not have been,
1Cf. the letters of
'Abdu-Heba, prince of
requesting
Egyptian assistance in his struggles with the
'Apiru
(W. F. Albright, trans., "The Amarna Letters," in
Ancient Near Eastern
Texts Relating to the Old Testament,
ed.
by James B. Pritchard [hereinafter referred to as ANET]
[Princeton:
pp. 487-9).
2Archer, Introduction,
p. 485.
56
considering the taxes necessary
to support Solomon's extrav-
gances, and considering
Solomon's institution of "compulsory
or statute labor."1 Furthermore, prosperity does not equal
happiness, and this is the very
point that the author of
Ecclesiastes seems to be
arguing. There is nothing in the
tone of the book which
precludes its being written during
Solomon's time.
Arguments for Solomonic
Authorship
Phoenician
background
Introduction
Mitchell Dahood is the primary advocate of the view
that Koheleth was written in
the fourth century B.C. in He-
brew, but using Phoenician
orthography, and that it shows
heavy Canaanite-Phoenician
literary influence.2 The
tial difference between Hebrew
and Phoenician orthography, a
difference which became more
pronounced in the post-exilic
era, was the use of final and
medial vowel letters by the
Hebrew and the total lack of
them in standard Phoenician
1Martin Noth, The History of
ley
Godman (
1958),
p. 209.
2By "literary
influence" is meant the morphological,
syntactical,
and lexical phases of the author's style. Cf.
Dahood,
"Qoheleth," 22. Cf. the many points of similarity
in
Zellig S. Harris, A Grammar of the
Phoenician Language
in
the American Oriental Series, ed. by
W. Norman Brown, et
al., Vol. 8 (
reprint,
1971).
57
orthography.1 According to Dahood, the medial matres lec-
tiones were
introduced into Biblical Hebrew about the sixth
century B.C. under Aramaic influence.2 The use of matres
lectiones became
more and more common until by the time of
the Dead Sea Scrolls (first and
second centuries B.C.) even
short vowels were represented
sometimes by vowel letters.
Thus, while a work composed in Hebrew in the fourth-
third centuries would have been
amply supplied with final
and internal matres lectiones, a work composed in the
stan-
dard Phoenician orthography of
the corresponding period
would not have had these vowel
letters, and the possibility
of confusing the singular and
the plural of nouns in the
construct chain, unless the
context unambiguously determined
the meaning, would have been
much greater.3
Dahood's thesis
arises from the fact that the
variant readings in Qoheleth
reveal that they are mostly of
the type which would have
arisen from the editing or
copying of an original text which
1Ibid., 35-6. Cf. GKC, Grammar,
p. 5, sect. 2k; and
E.
Arbez, "Notes on the New Hebrew Manuscripts," The Catho-
Biblical Quarterly, 12:1 (January, 1950),
173-8. Also cf.
Cross
and Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography,
pp. 11-20.
2Dahood,
"Qoheleth," 35. On the development of
matres lectiones in Aramaic, cf. Cross
and Freedman, Early
Hebrew Orthography, pp. 31-4.
3Dahood,
"Qoheleth," 36. For an extensive discus-
sion
of the Phoenician script of the later periods, see J.
Brian
Peckham, The Development of the Late
Phoenician Scripts
(Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1968).
58
lacked all vowel letters.
If this is proven correct, there are two choices
which may be made about the
origin of Koheleth. One may
either say that (1) the book is
still to be late-dated, but
that the variants and problems
are to be explained on the
basis of Phoenician
orthography, as it would have been cur-
rent in the third or fourth
centuries B.C., or (2) that the
book was written at a much
earlier time in the history of
the Hebrew language when normal
Hebrew orthography would not
have included matres lectiones.
Linguistic uniqueness
It is important to recognize that "linguistically
the book [of Ecclesiastes] is
unique."1 All
the linguistic
data, including vocabulary,
morphology, syntax, and style of
the book have convinced Archer
that the text of Ecclesiastes
fits into none of the periods
of the history of the Hebrew
language. He states that
no significant affinities may be
traced between this
work and any of those canonical
books which rationalis-
tic higher criticism has assigned to
the Greek period
(Daniel, Zechariah II, Joel, and
portions of Deutero-
Isaiah). So far as the early
post-Exilic period is con-
cerned, the Heb. of Ecclesiastes is
quite as dissimilar
to that of Malachi, Nehemiah, Ezra
and Esther as to any
of the pre-Exilic books. This raises
insuperable diffi-
culties for the theory of Delitzsch and Young, who date
1Gleason L. Archer, Jr.,
"The Linguistic Evidence
for
the Date of Ecclesiastes," Journal
of the Evangelical
Theological
Society, XII:3 (Summer, 1969), 167.
59
it around 430 B.C., and of
makes it 400.1
Furthermore, the linguistic problem is not solved by
moving the date forward to the
Greek period or the Intertes-
tamental period. There are
"absolutely no affinities be-
tween the language of
Ecclesiastes and that of the
sectarian literature."2 An actual comparison of this text
with the Hebrew of the Talmud
and the Midrash shows fully as
great a dissimilarity as to any
book of the Old Testament
Canon. "No truly objective
or scientific examination of
these linguistic data can come
out to any other result than
that present evidence fails to
establish the contemporaneity
of Ecclesiastes with any period
whatever in the history of
Hebrew literature, on the basis
of the documents now ex-
tant."3
A literary genre
Gordis asserts that "the concept of a ‘normal lit-
erary Hebrew’ has little or no
meaning except within the
context of specific literary
genres."4 It is
the feeling of
Archer that Ecclesiastes
belongs to a particular literary
genre, that of the philosophic
discourse. There is increas-
ing evidence that in the
lIbid., 168.
2Ibid.
3Ibid., 169.
4Robert Gordis,
"Qoheleth and
Style," Biblica, 41:4 (1960), 402.
60
often be classified according
to differing literary genres.
"Modern discovery makes
completely justifiable the position
that the ancient Semitic
cultures cultivated differing
styles and choices of
vocabulary according to the conven-
tions of each genre such as
demonstrably obtained in the an-
cient Hellenic culture."1
Just as in Akkadian literature, legal codes and con-
tract tablets present a great
contrast to each other both in
technique and style, and these
in turn differ from the epis-
tolary or historical prose
coming from about the same peri-
od, so also in Hebrew a
conventional language in style came
to be used, which was felt to
be peculiarly fitting for each
literary genre.2 This same phenomenon can be observed in
Greek literature, where it is
found that once a genre was
developed in a particular
locality or city-state, the dia-
lect and lexical stock of the
original perfecters of this
genre became standard for all
subsequent composers in it
from that time forward,
regardless of the idiom and style
lArcher, "The
Linguistic Evidence for the Date of
Ecclesiastes,"
169.
2Idem, Introduction, p. 482. For examples of the
style
of a legal code, cf. Codex Hammurabi in
Babylonisch-Assyrische
Lesestücke,
Hefte II, III; and G. R.
Driver
and John C. Miles, eds., The Babylonian
Laws, Vol. II
(2
vols.:
English
translation of Akkadian prose, cf. A. Leo Oppenheim,
trans.,
"Babylonian and Assyrian Historical Texts," in ANET,
pp.
265-271.
61
prevailing in the composer's
own area. "Thus, since it was
Homer who first brought the
epic to its classical perfection
and did so in the Old Ionic
dialect (with some admixtures of
other dialects spoken in his locality),
it became the con-
vention from then on for all
composers of epics to employ
his Old Ionic, regardless of
what their own native tongue
might be."1
Likewise, the Dorian Greeks were the perfecters
of choral poetry, so all choral
poetry from that time for-
ward had to be in Doric, even
in the midst of Attic dramas.
The same held true for lyric
love poetry, which was written
in the Aeolic dialect.2
It is, therefore, not impossible that Ecclesiastes
belonged to a special genre
just as distinct as the Psalm,
the Historical Narrative, and
the Levitical Code. It had,
consequently, a distinct
literary tradition behind it, which
was apparently derived from a
segment of the Canaanite cul-
ture which had first developed
it as a literary form.
This was the genre of the
philosophical treatise, a type
of literature with which a genius of
wide-ranging inter-
ests like Solomon would undoubtedly
have encountered in
Phoenician circles. During his reign
there were close
commercial and political relations
with King Hiram of
dom would naturally incline him in
this direction. As a
careful observer of literary form
and tradition, it is
only to be expected that he preserved a distinct style
1Archer, "The
Linguistic Evidence for the Date of
Ecclesiastes,"
169.
2Ibid.
62
and vocabulary for a love poem like Canticles and a
collection of apothegms like Proverbs. This variety of
treatment and style is no more
striking than that ob-
servable in the later prophets, such
as Hosea and Isa-
iah, when they shifted from
oratorical prose to emotion-
ally charged poetry, with its
omission of the definite
article and its adoption of parallelistic structure.1
One of the first to point out the foreign nature of
the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes was
Professor Margoliouth of
Oxford.2 He offered
a rebuttal to those who were explaining
the linguistic peculiarities of
Koheleth on the basis of Ara-
maic or Mishnaic traits. He
pointed to the frequency of the
participial present, the
unintelligibility of certain
phrases which are apparently
not garbled in transmission,
the lack of sharpness in some
of the aphorisms, the complete
omission of the name hvhy, the utter lack of reference to
distinctive Jewish matters as
pointing to foreign Hebrew,
and yet he asserted a late date
(about 400. B.C.), though not
as late as some of his
contemporaries were proposing.3
It is possible that the "philsophical discourse
genre" used a dialect more
similar to conversational Hebrew,
the Hebrew Chomsky argues was
ultimately the foundation of
Mishnaic Hebrew.4
lIbid., 170.
2David Samuel
Margoliouth, "Ecclesiastes," The
Jew-
ish Encyclopaedia, V, 32-4.
3Ibid., 33.
4Chomsky, Hebrew: The Eternal Language, pp. 49,
161.
63
Dahood's arguments
As stated previously, Dahood's hypothesis is that
the book was originally
composed by an author who wrote in
Hebrew, but who employed
Phoenician orthography, and whose
composition shows heavy
Canaanite--Phoenician influence.1 He
is supported in this opinion by
W. F. Albright.2 The cases
he lists in support of his
arguments are too numerous to
cite exhaustively. However,
several of them are discussed
so that his theory as a whole
may be evaluated.
Ecclesiastes 1:10.--This
verse affords an example
characteristic of several
textual problems, which Dahood
cites as originating in scripto defectiva. The Massoretic
text reads: Unn,pAl;mi hyAhA rw,xE MymilAfol; while
several other
manuscripts read: UnnepAl;.mi UyhA rw,xE MymilAfol;.
Though some have
attempted to justify the
singular verb on the ground that
the Hebrew Bible is not always
exact in the agreement be-
tween the subject and the verb,
even when the subject comes
1Dahood,
"Qoheleth," 32. These ideas were original-
ly
formulated by Dahood in his doctoral dissertation at the
Influence
in Qoheleth." Cf. also Mitchell Dahood, "Phoeni-
cian
Elements in Isaiah 52:13-53:12," in Near
Eastern
Studies in Honor of
William Foxwell Albright, ed. by Hans
Goedicke
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971), p. 73.
2"[Ecclesiastes]
betrays Phoenician influence in
spelling,
morphology, syntax, vocabulary and content" (W. F.
Albright,
"Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew
Wisdom,"
in Wisdom in
in Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum,
Vol. III [
Brill,
reprint, 1969]), p. 6.
64
first, Dahood feels that there
are too many discrepancies of
this kind to ascribe them to
the grammatical imprecision of
the author. He feels that it is
much more reasonable to
suppose that the original
reading was a purely consonantal
yh, which
could have been taken as the singular, or as the
plural.1 In the same
manner Dahood explains most of the
variants in the book.
Ecclesiastes 1:16.--The
Massoretic text reads: -lKA
hyAhA-rw,xE, while
several other manuscripts read: UyhA-rw,xE-lKA,2
though this is not reflected in
Kittel's apparatus.3 This
would have been a very easy
mistake to make, for a copyist,
who would probably have been
inclined to write the simplest
form of the consonants yh.
Ecclesiastes 2:2.--The
Massoretic text reads: hzo.,
while some other manuscripts
have txz and vz,4 though,
again, this is not reflected in
Kittel's apparatus. It
would have been difficult for
these variants to have arisen
1Dahood,
"Qoheleth," 43. By the time of the Siloam
inscription
(c. 700 B.C.) , the word appears as 
(hyh)
(cf.
Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische: und Aramäische
Inschriften, Band I, text 189, p.
134.
2Dahood,
"Qoheleth," 37.
3Rudolf Kittel, ed., Biblia Hebraica (
Wurttembergische
Bibelanstalt, 1966), p. 1212.
4Dahood,
"Qoheleth." Cf. Harris, A
Grammar of the
Phoenician
Language, p. 53.
65
had Koheleth been composed in
the scriptio plena of the
fourth century Hebrew
orthography; but in Phoenician spel-
ling (and possibly in Solomon's
time) the masculine and the
feminine demonstrative pronoun
"this" was spelled merely by
the letter z.1
Ecclesiastes 2:24.--The
Massoretic text reads xyhi,
while many other manuscripts read
xUh. In Phoenician spel-
ling both the feminine and
masculine third person pronouns
are written xh.2 Since in this context either
gender is
grammatically justifiable, the
present differences resulted.
It is reasonable, therefore,
that the Vorlage may not have
been provided with vowel
letters.
Other examples.--Dahood lists many more examples.
While it is, regrettably,
beyond the scope of this thesis to
be more specific, it should be
noted that Dahood also finds
Phoenician parallels in several
other areas. Koheleth em-
ploys the masculine plural
suffix: Mh,- for a feminine ante-
cedent no less than five times,
and the feminine plural
suffix Nh,- is not
to be found in the book at all. The femi-
nine demonstrative pronoun is hz, instead of the normal
lA form Nz is found only on an
inscription from
but
it is not known which Phoenician dialect this repre-
sents
(Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician
Language, p. 53).
2Ibid.,
p. 47.
66
Hebrew txzo.1
Dahood also finds a parallel in the relative pronoun
w, often
used in Ecclesiastes instead of rwAxE. w is probably
closely related to Phoenician wx and Akkadian ša.2 It
occurs, in fact, as early as the
ninth century B.C. in the
Nora inscription from Sardinia.3
It occurs in the Song of
Deborah (yTim;q.awa, Jud. 5:7), and in several other pieces of
literature, all, including the song
of Deborah, associated
with northern
cially helpful:
Now, whatever the relation of the
two forms to each
other, there can be no doubt that w, is just as old as
rw,xE, if not older. Its
confinement in the earlier books
of the Bible to North Israelitish
documents would prove
that its use must have been common
in the colloquial
speech of
some extent at least, of the
Phoenician wx, w, the As-
syrian ša, and, perhaps, also the
scarcity of its occurrence even in
these documents must
be explained by the assumption that
it was regarded as a
vulgarism which the literary
language had to avoid. Its
use gradually extended to
the shorter and more pliable form,
it must in the course
of time have entirely supplanted the
longer rw,xE
in the
language of the common people, and
from this it de-
scended directly to MH. But the literary prejudice
lIbid., p. 54. Cf. Dahood, "Qoheleth," 38.
2Harris says: “One can
only guess at the origin of
its
initial x”
(Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Lan-
guage, p. 55). He also notes,
however, that in some indi-
vidual
Semitic and especially Phoenician words,
a prothetic
x is used before a sibilant followed by a
consonant (Ibid.,
note
21).
3Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische and Aramäische
Inschriften, Band II, p. 63; cf.
Band III, p. 23.
67
against it seems to have remained
even after BH had
ceased to be a living speech. Hence
its nonoccurrence
in Esther, its scarcity in
Chronicles, and the anxiety
to avoid it which is displayed by a
studious imitator of
the ancients like Sirach, and even
by such an indepen-
dent mind as the author of Qoheleth.l
Yet another similarity Dahood finds is the use of
the indefinite pronoun. The
development of the indefinite
pronominal combination w hm is peculiar to Koheleth, but is
attested in the Kilamuwa
inscription (ninth century B.C.),
which contains the
"etymologically identical compound wxm,
which has the meaning 'that
which.'"2
Further similarities which Dahood adduces include
the non-syncopated use of the
article, nominal formations,
the use of prepositions, the
use of adverbs, and the use of
conjunctions. Syntactical
similarities include the use of
the infinitive absolute
followed by the independent personal
pronoun, the periphrastic
future, the accusative of time,
and the accusative of place.3
1M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (
At
the Clarendon Press, 1958), p. 43.
2Dahood,
"Qoheleth," 45. Cf. Donner and Röllig,
Kanaanäische and
Aramäische Inschriften, Band I, p. 5,
Inscription
24, line 4; Band II, p. 32.
3For an excellent summary
of Dahood's arguments, cf.
Archer,
"Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Ecclesiastes."
For
the complete arguments see Mitchell Dahood, "Canaanite-
Phoenician
Influence in Qoheleth," Biblica
33:2 (1952), 191-
201.
This is a continuation of his first article, and is
differentiated
hereinafter only by the page numbers, since
it is cited as
"Qoheleth" as well.
68
There are also a number of lexical borrowings. For
instance, the term MdAxA, normally the generic term for man-
kind or for the population of a
locality, is the predominant
word in Koheleth (49 times; 7
times for wyxi ), a
ratio of
preference which cannot be
duplicated in any other book of
the Old Testament.1
In some instances the word is even used
where an individual man is
intended (2:18 21). Such a ratio
of preference can, however, be
roughly duplicated in the
ninth century Phoenician
Azitawadda inscription.2
It is particularly significant that the key phrase
of the book, wm,w.,ha tHaTa (under the sun), which occurs
27 times
in Ecclesiastes, has, in all of
ancient Northwest Semitic
literature thus far discovered,
been found only in Phoeni-
cian, in the inscriptions of
Tabnit and Eshmun'azar of
Sidon.3 There are
many other instances of parallels with
1Solomon Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti Concordan-
tiae, Vol. I (2 vols.:
anstalt,
1955), pp. 12, 13, 51-2.
2Dahood,"Qoheleth,"
202-3. Cf. Donner and Röllig,
Kanaanäische and
Aramäische Inschriften, Band I, pp. 5-6,
text
26; Band II, pp. 35-43. Azitawadda is the prominent
person
of the inscription. It is also known as "Karatepe,"
after
the place where it was found. Cf. also Cyrus H. Gor-
don,
"Azitawadda's Phoenician Inscription," Journal of Near
Eastern Studies, VIII:2 (April, 1949),
108-115.
3Cf. Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische and Aramäische
Inschriften, Band I, p. 3, text 14;
pp. 3-4, text 13; Band
II,
pp. 17-19, 19-23. Cf. also Franz Rosenthal, trans.,
"Canaanite
and Aramaic Inscriptions," in ANET,
pp. 653-4;
Tabnit and Eshmun'azar are
translated in Ibid., p. 662.
69
Phoenician words, and even
cases of attestations of words in
Ugaritic (fifteenth to twelfth
centuries B.C.), which had
formerly been called Aramaisms.1
Because of the great similarity between the vocabu-
lary of Koheleth and Phoenician
and Ugaritic, Dahood de-
Glares that "lexically,
the book of Ecclesiastes stands
alone in the old
Testament."2 Of the 29 Aramaisms claimed
by Kautzsch (Die Aramaismen im AT), for example,
Dahood
feels that at least a dozen of
them can be shown to be not
direct Aramaic borrowings at
all, but "derived from the rich
Canaanite-Phoenician vocabulary
in use along the eastern
Mediterranean seaboard."3
Dahood also cites 29 commercial
terms which are used throughout
the book, showing that who-
ever the author was, he was
probably very acquainted with
the business world, and very
interested in commerce.4
Gordon also sees Ugaritic parallels in Ecclesiastes,
though he would not draw from
them the same inferences that
Dahood does. For example, the
phrase Js,KAha lceB; (Eccl.
7:12),
is also found in Ugaritic, in
Text 51:II:27:5
(zl ksp). Gordon suggests the translation "shade" for zl,
1Dahood,
"Qoheleth," 203-4. 2Ibid., 201.
3Ibid., 202. 4Ibid., 221.
5Gordon, Ugaritic
Textbook, p. 170.
70
and "shelter, house,"
for a derived form, mzll.l
This com-
pares favorably with the NASB
translation, "money is protec-
tion."
Gordon further points out that not only are northern
idioms to be found in
Ecclesiastes, but also northern gram-
matical and lexical features.
He feels that the northern
character of Ecclesiastes
should be stressed rather than its
reputed "very late"
or "Greek" character.2
There is a further Ugaritic parallel in Ecclesiastes
which should be considered:
(hlh tšpl hlh trm). This is translated by Dahood, "Behold
it is slack, behold it is
erect" (Text 52:32).3 The pairing
špl // rm equals the balance found in
Ecclesiastes 10:6.4
lIbid., p. 407, #1052; cf. p. 422, #1284.
2Ibid. Since he dates the book late, he attributes
the
northernisms to "the impact of northern exiles on the
Hebrew
language" (p. 99, note 1). He also attributes such
things
as the Ny
masculine plural suffix, so common in post-
biblical
Hebrew, "normal in Moabite and dialectal in non-
Judean
O.T. compositions such as Prov. 31:3 (Nyklm) and Job
18:2;
26:4; 34:3; 38:2 etc. (Nylm)” not to Aramaic, but to
dialectal
Canaanite (Ibid.).
3Mitchell Dahood,
"Northwest Semitic Philology and
Three
Biblical Texts," Journal of
Northwest Semitic Lan-
guages, II (1972), 19, note 3.
4Ibid.
71
This, of course, neither proves
dependence, nor interrela-
tionship, but it is well at
least to notice the similarity.1
Use of Ugaritic
It is, perhaps, well to say a word about the use of
Ugaritic. Some have objected,
for instance, that the use of
Ugaritic to help illumine the
biblical text is invalid be-
cause Ugaritic word meanings
are so often uncertain. But
Dahood is correct when he
contends that "Cartesian clarity
is not demanded of a Ugaritic
text before it can be called
upon to elucidate in some
manner a biblical verse."2 The
Ras Shamra materials bear upon
the present problem, because
they have revealed that Hebrew
poetry (Ecclesiastes in-
cluded) is more archaic,
sophisticated, subtle, and complex
than earlier generations of
scholars could have imagined.3
It is true that one must exercise great caution in
comparative studies. Often a
scholar will see the whole
field of Near Eastern studies
through the lenses of his
1Cf. Psalms 113:6-7 and
138:6. It is difficult to
fix
the date of Psalm 113, since it is ascribed to no one.
Psalm
138, however, is ascribed to David. lpw is also found
in
the Aramaic proverbs of Ahiqar (A. Cowley, Aramaic
Papyri
of the Fifth Century B.C. [
1923],
p. 217, col. X, lines 149, 150; translated on p.
225);
cf. DISO, p. 317.
2Dahood, "Northwest
Semitic Philology and Three
Biblical
Texts," 19.
3Idem, "Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography V," Biblica,
48:3 (1967), 423.
72
particular specialty. Thus, in
some ways Dahood is justly
criticized for relating too
much to Northwest Semitic.
Gordis has reacted very
strongly against this, and complains
that "today it is Pan Ugariticism
which holds the field.
The uncertainties of
interpretation with regard to the ex-
tra-biblical texts being
adduced are all too often ignored."1
He further asserts that little
or no attention is being paid
to the problem of channels of
communication, which are as-
sumed to have existed between
fifteenth century
the Hebrew psalmists and Wisdom
sages, which, he says, were
nearly a millennium later. He
is assuming, however, that
they were really that much
later (when there is good evi-
dence they were not), and he is
forgetting that there is
good evidence that at least in
the time of Solomon such
intercourse was extensive.
Gordis greatly overstates his
case when he declares that in
some quarters the Bible has
become "little more than a
poorly transmitted corpus of
Ugaritic literature, which for
two millennia has been mis-
understood at hundreds of
points by those unfamiliar with
the 'original' language."2
1Gordis, "On
Methodology in Biblical Exegesis,"
94-5.
For similar sentiments see P. Wernberg-Møller, review
of
Zephanja. Versuch einer Neuübersetzung
mit philologischem
Kommentar, by L. Sabottka, in Journal of Semitic Studies,
XIX:l
(Spring, 1974), 105-7.
2Gordis, "On
Methodology in Biblical Exegesis,"
94-5.
73
Rainey, while preferring to reject the main points
of Dahood's work on
Ecclesiastes, nevertheless finds some
validity to it in certain
particulars. He states, for exam-
ple, that Dahood has drawn a
good parallel with reference to
the absolute infinitive
followed by a personal pronoun to
express a past action,
something which is shared by Eccles-
iastes only with Esther in
biblical literature, but which is
a common feature in Ugaritic
and Phoenician. He also feels
that the phrase mentioned
above, "shadow of silver," which
occurs in Ugaritic and
therefore obviates what was once la-
beled an Aramaism, is a valid
parallel.1
Evaluation of Dahood
Gordis remains totally unconvinced by Dahood's work.
He feels that his arguments
from orthography are overdrawn,
and that the problem is better
solved by assuming continued
mixed orthography down to the
second century A.D. It does
not appear, however, that he
musters sufficient evidence to
overthrow the fact that the
text of Koheleth is most easily
explained on the basis of
original consonantal spellings.
Gordis feels that the primary
weakness of the theory is that
it postulates Phoenician
influence where the Hebrew literary
1A. F. Rainey, "A
Study of Ecclesiastes," Concordia
Theological
Monthly, XXXV:3 (March, 1964), 149.
74
tradition itself offers a
thoroughly satisfactory explana-
tion.1 He prefers to
explain the phenomena of the text on
the basis of the various
elements of Koheleth's style as he
sees them: (1) biblical; (2)
proto-Mishnaic; and (3) Ara-
maic influence. The writer is
inclined, however, to agree
with Archer's estimation of
Gordis' criticisms of the Phoe-
nician theory: "If this,
then, is the ablest rebuttal that
can be brought against the
theory of a Phoenician background
for Ecclesiastes, it is only
reasonable to conclude that it
stands confirmed and vindicated."2
This statement is not
meant, either by Archer or by
the writer, to include the
totality of Dahood's argument
(late date, etc.), but to show
the validity of his main point:
that many of the textual
variants and difficulties can
be explained on the basis of a
Vorlage
written defectively, and on the basis of the book's
reflection of a Canaanite
literary genre. Unknowingly,
Dahood offers arguments which
substantiate both an early
date for the book, and,
consequently, Solomonic authorship.
Building
and commerce
If there is one activity which characterized the
reign of Solomon, it was
building. It is doubtless as a
1Gordis, Koheleth, pp. 416-17.
2Archer, "Linguistic
Evidence for the Date of
Ecclesiastes," 180.
75
builder that Solomon himself
would probably have desired to
be known.1 He spent
seven years building the
Kings 6:38), and thirteen years
building his own house (7:
1). He built stables,
fortresses and cities. A reading of
1 Kings 1-13 gives one the
impression that Solomon's chief
occupation was building and
commerce. When he was not
building, he was sending
convoys distant points of the
world. It is not without
significance, therefore, that the
book of Ecclesiastes abounds
with references to building,
labor, and commerce. Dahood's
long list of commercial terms
occurring in the book
constitutes a most compelling evidence
in favor of Solomonic
authorship.2 Building was Solomon's
life, and it is not surprising
that building, labor, and
commerce are often the main
backdrop against which Koheleth
discusses the real value of
life.
Tradition
It is often overlooked that tradition is itself an
historical phenomenon with
which the true historian must
grapple. Tradition should not
be believed just because it
is tradition; but neither
should it for that reason be re-
jected. It is true that from
the standpoint of biblical
1Theodore H. Robinson, A History of
(2
vols.:
p.
248.
2Dahood, "Qoheleth," 221.
76
scholarship, tradition is
inferior in trustworthiness, since
it is not inspired as the Bible
is. It is also true that
much of Jewish tradition is
ridiculous and extravagant. Yet
uninspired history and
tradition cannot be ipso facto dis-
carded. The universal
ascription of Solomonic authorship to
the book of Ecclesiastes
cannot, therefore, be precipitately
dismissed.1
It was taught by Jewish tradition "that Solomon
wrote Canticles, with its
stress on love, in his youth; Pro-
verbs, with its emphasis upon
practical problems, in mid-
life; and Ecclesiastes, with
its characteristic pessimism,
in old age."2
It was the general opinion of the church,
based upon many of the sayings
of Ecclesiastes, that Solomon
repented in later life of many
sins he had committed, and
that before he died he left
this book as a memorial to the
folly of sin.3
Though there is no specific indication else-
where in Scripture about such a
repentance, the book of
Ecclesiastes makes such a thing
possible. It is true that
if he did repent, it is a
matter of surprise that there is
1Such authorship is
assumed, for instance, in I. Ep-
stein,
ed., The Hebrew-English Edition of the
Babylonian
Talmud, trans. by H. Freedman,
Vol. I (
cino
Press, 1972), tractate Shabbath, pp.
30a-30b.
2Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p.
1073.
3George Gilfillan, The Bards of the Bible (
Harper and Brothers, 1851), p.
133.
77
not the least intimation of so
interesting and important a
circumstance, either in the
books of Kings and Chronicles,
or in Josephus.1 Yet
such an argument ex silentio is not
conclusive. It would be little
wonder if Solomon were
finally brought to his senses
in the last days of his reign.
He had lived as high as
any--and as sinfully--and had dis-
covered that life lived only
for self and possessions is in
the end nothing but utter
futility. Could not Ecclesiastes
be the recording of his turning
to God in the end?
Internal
arguments
There are also several strong indications within the
book that it is Solomonic.
These are the references to: (1)
unrivaled wisdom (1:16); (2)
unequaled wealth (2:8); (3) a
tremendous retinue of servants
(2:7); and (4) opportunities
for carnal pleasure (2:3).
"No other descendant of David
lJosephus, Antiquities of the Jews, in vol. V of 9
vols.
of Josephus in the Loeb Classical
Library, trans. by
Ralph
Marcus (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937),
Book
VIII, Chapters 1-7. Josephus does, however, give an
interesting
insight into the relationship between Solomon
and
Hiram of Tyre: "In return Solomon, among many other
gifts,
made him a present of land in
called
Chabulon. But the main bond of friendship between
them
was their passion for learning. They used to send each
other
problems to solve; in these Solomon showed the greater
proficiency,
as in general, he was the cleverer of the two.
Many
of the letters they exchanged are preserved at
this
day" (Josephus, Against Apion,
in vol. I of 9 vols. of
Josephus
in the Loeb Classical Library, trans.
by
Thackeray
[
78
measures up to these
specifications"1 as well as does Solo-
mon. The book's reflection of
the practice of polygamy (2:
8) also argues for at least a
pre-Exilic date. It is very
doubtful that a post-Exilic
book would have reflected such
a practice, for it had fallen,
by that time, into disrepute,
and largely, therefore, into
disuse.2
Date
One's view of the date is, as with the authorship of
the book, closely connected
with one's estimate of the lin-
guistic features of the book.
Pfeiffer confidently main-
tained in 1934 that
"Ecclesiastes wrote his book sometime
between 250 B.C. and 150
B.C."3 Others were even bolder and
asserted that the book showed
"Sadducean influence" and thus
would have dated from a time
closer to Christ.4 Cyrus Gor-
don discerns in the book
Babylonian influence, and would
date it late in post-Exilic
times. He says that it was
1Archer, "The
Linguistic Evidence for the Date of
Ecclesiastes,"
168.
2Paul Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament,
trans.
by William Heidt (
cal
Press, 1950), p. 191. Cf. the discussion of Eccl. 2:8
below.
3Robert H. Pfeiffer,
"The Peculiar Skepticism of
Ecclesiastes,"
Journal of Biblical Literature, LIII
(March-
December,
1934), 100.
4Hermann Schultz, Old Testament Theology, Vol. I
(2
vols.:
79
written in "Achaemenian
Babylonia before Alexander's con-
quest."1 Most
contemporary scholars, however, now set the
lower limit for the book's date
in the third century, a pos-
ition virtually forced upon
them by the discovery of part of
a copy of Ecclesiastes at
the upshot of our comparison with
4Q, DSIa, and the
Manual [of Discipline], on the one
hand, and the Edfu
papyri, on the other, makes it clear
that 4Q lies be-
tween the former and the latter.
From a paleographic
standpoint, therefore, one must date
our fragments about
the middle of the second century
B.C. This gives the
coup
de grâce to earlier views of the date of composi-
tion, such as those of Graetz,
Renan, Leimdorfer, Konig,
and others, and makes unlikely a
dating in the second
century.2
One must assume that the book had been written and
had been in circulation for
some time, and that it was ei-
ther accepted as Scripture, or
had at least attained some
degree of respect, to have been
copied and preserved at
ran at this early date. Thus,
from this standpoint alone,
third century date is as late
as one may legitimately date
it.
Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that there is
every possibility that the book
represents a literary genre
dating back to the tenth
century. Since there are so many
1C. H. Gordon,
"North Israelite Influence on Post-
exilic
Hebrew," Israel Exploration Journal,
5:2 (1955), 87.
2James Muilenburg,
"A Qoheleth Scroll from
Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research, 135
(October, 1954), 23-4.
80
other convincing proofs for
Solomonic authorship, a tenth
century date is chosen. The
book was probably written dur-
ing the later part of Solomon's
life, and reflects his view
of life after having departed
from the Lord and indulged in
many sins. If it was written by
Solomon in later life, it
reflects a repentant
heart--something anyone who reads the
narratives of his life must
surely hope he had.
Conclusion
The purpose of the rather detailed discussion of the
linguistic background of
Ecclesiastes has been to find what
limits that puts on authorship
and date. It was shown that
the supposed Aramaisms are
mostly non-existent, and, at all
events, are insignificant. The
hypothesis of an Aramaic
original was likewise rejected.
The close relationship Da-
hood shows between the Ugaritic
literature of Moses' time
and the language of
Ecclesiastes leads one to deduce that it
may reflect a literary genre
cultivated among Phoenician-
speaking peoples and adopted
from them by the gifted author
of the Hebrew Koheleth, whose
style was also affected by
other dialectical influences.1
It is the writer's opinion
that the best solution is one
which explains the linguistic
peculiarities of the book on
the basis of several factors,
1Archer, "Linguistic
Evidence for the Date of Eccles-
iastes,"
181.
81
the most important of which
are: (1) a Canaanite literary
genre; (2) tenth century
defective Hebrew orthography; and
(3) Northern Israelite
dialectical influence.
This seems to be a most reasonable deduction to make
from the linguistic evidence
presently at hand. The gram-
mar, language, and style of
Koheleth cannot support an argu-
ment for the spuriousness of
the book as a work of Solomon.
Koheleth, then, was Solomon.
CHAPTER IV
KOHELETH'S THEME AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THOUGHT
Introduction
Opinions concerning the theme, aim, development of
thought, and value of
Ecclesiastes are almost as varied as
its interpreters. The
estimations of it have ranged all the
way from Luther, who thought it
was so worthwhile that it
should be read every day1
to Hartmann, who said, "This book
which contains almost as many
contradictions as verses, may
be regarded as the Breviary of
the most modern materialism
and of extreme
licentiousness."2 One would expect little
more than the above conclusion
from what Hengstenberg has
labeled "soulless,
spiritless, vulgar rationalism,"3 but for
the student who has presupposed
before examination of the
book, that by virtue of its
inclusion in Scripture it must
certainly be more than
"the work of a morose Hebrew philoso-
pher, composed when he was in a
dismal mood, and in places
1Hengstenberg, A Commentary on Ecclesiastes, pp.
32-3.
2Hartmann, Das Lied vom Ewigen (St. Galle, 1859),
p.
12, cited by Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes,
p. 183.
3Hengstenberg, A Commentary on Ecclesiastes, p. 33.
83
thoroughly tedious,"1
a higher and more noble estimation
must of necessity be sought and
found ("All Scripture is
. . . profitable for teaching,
for reproof, for correction,
for training in
righteousness," 2 Tim. 3:16). It is only
upon the basis of a correct
understanding of Koheleth's
theme and development of
thought that the book can be right-
ly understood.
Theme
Almost every commentator on the book of Ecclesiastes
has proposed a theme for
Koheleth different from every other
commentator,2 but in
general, these commentators may be di-
vided into two large groups:
those unsympathetic with the
book, and those who are
sympathetic.
Unsympathetic
Interpretations
It is the opinion of some that Koheleth was facing a
problem on which he did not
have sufficient light to solve.
He saw great injustice in the
world; he saw the wicked go
unpunished and the righteous
unrewarded. The author of this
book, it is alleged, speaks
only from the standpoint of one
who is observing the world, and
what is done "under the
lIbid.
2For the most thorough
summary of all the interpret-
ers
of Koheleth up through the middle of the nineteenth cen-
tury, cf. Ginsburg, Coheleth, pp. 27-243.
84
sun,"1 for that
is all he knows.2 This position is sum-
marized in the New Scofield Reference Bible, which
states
that "Ecclesiastes is the
book of man 'under the sun' rea-
soning about life. The
philosophy it sets forth, which
makes no claim to revelation,
but which inspiration records
for our instruction represents
the view of one of the wisest
of men . . . . "3
In another publication Scofield makes his
view clear when he states:
The student should notice that it is
not at all the will
of
God which is developed, but that of man
"under the
sun" forming his own code. It
is, therefore, as idle
to quote such passages as ii.24,
iii.22, etc., as ex-
pressions of the divine will as it
would be to apply
Job ii.4, 5 or Gen. iii.4. The
constant repetition of
such expressions as "I
perceived," "I said in my heart,"
"then I saw," etc.,
sufficiently indicate that here the
Holy Spirit is showing us the
workings of man's own
dom and his reaction in weariness and disgust.4
1Cf. the discussion of
this phrase below.
2John Howard Raven, Old Testament Introduction (New
3English, The New Scofield Reference Bible, p.
696.
It
is noteworthy that most of the revisers felt that the ap-
proach
of the book was rather pessimistic. Gaebelein, in
fact,
said that there was "no hope of immortality in this
book.
It's a cynical volume, and is sometimes entitled 'The
Gentle
Cynic.' . . . it is human earthly philosophy, and I
feel
that it is here by inspiration to show us the best that
natural
man can do." (Transcript of the Proceedings of the
New
Scofield Reference Bible Committee, Trans. G., #155,
Rev.
1, Eccl. #lA, SRB 696, Disc 23a [examined by the writer
in
the rare book room of Grace Theological Seminary Library,
Nov.,
1973]). Cf. also J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore
the Book
(Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1966), p. 143.
4C.
School, Vol. I (
les, 1907), p. 111.
85
Another contends that "Coheleth would be the first
to admit that he has not
presented a finished Weltanschauung
[world view]. He is groping
through the conflicting facts
of experience and belief."1
Another asserts that "Ecclesi-
astes is not only a skeptic
with reference to the philosoph-
ical systems of his day, but
also with reference to the pur-
suit of a summum bonum of abiding truth."2 Pfeiffer feels
that the concept of divine
revelation is totally foreign to
Ecclesiastes. Koheleth refuses
to accept anything on faith.
"He tests the validity of
doctrines and value judgments and,
like Bertrand Russell, he
thinks 'that it is undesirable to
believe a proposition when
there is no ground whatever for
supposing it true.'"3
Another maintains that "L'auteur se
demande si 1'homme retire un
profit réel de toute sa peine
(1:3). La méthode employée pour
élucider ce problème est
cele de la sagéese humaine (5:13)."4
Skehan says that a man
for whom prophecy was
apparently no more, for whom the king-
doms of
1Roland E. Murphy,
"The Pensées of Coheleth," 306.
2Pfeiffer, "The
Peculiar Skepticism of Ecclesias-
tes,"
108.
3Ibid., 101.
4René Paché, ed., Nouveau Dictionnaire Biblique
(Lausanne:
Editions Emmaüs, 1961), p. 205. The translation
is:
"The author asks himself if man derives a real profit
from
all his work. The method employed to elucidate this
problem is that of human
wisdom."
86
book is post-Exilic), and for
whom the Christian message to
the individual soul did not
exist, should have said what Ko-
heleth did say: "vanity of
vanities, all is vanity."1 Von
Rad rather cavalierly dismisses
the book as a "sceptical
marginal note on the tradition
of the wise men, although of
course it is a very bitter
one."2 He further states that
when it is so taken, one is
"delivered from the hopeless
task of understanding its
content as a consistent unity of
thought, because it rests
wholly upon the traditional themes
of the Wisdom literature,
though freely glossing them."3
Yet another feels that the
doubts expressed in it are no
mere dialectic show, but doubts
that are honestly felt.4
Stadelmann asserts that the
author of the book views the
world as moving aimlessly and
human activity as advancing
similarly, in a perpetual
cycle, without producing anything
with meaning. The author of`
Ecclesiastes is disillusioned
with the world and feels that
it lacks specific purpose. He
1Patrick W. Skehan, Studies in Israelite Poetry and
Wisdom (Washington, D. C.: The
Catholic Biblical Associa-
tion
of
2Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. I
(2
vols.:
455.
3Ibid.
4Schultz, Old
Testament Theology, Vol. I, p. 434.
87
therefore views the world with
a certain skepticism.l John
Bright also takes a similar
"low" view of the book.2 Still
another commentator feels that
Ecclesiastes shares with Job
a rather deep pessimism with
regard to man's knowing and
understanding the nature and
purposes of God. "This posi-
tion, representing late Jewish
thought, contrasts sharply
with the earlier prophetic
conviction that God is known di-
rectly and fully in vision and
the spoken word."3
Another author avers that Koheleth can find no mean-
ing in life, that life to him
is empty, vain, and profit-
less. "Neither material
possessions, human friendship, nor
religious devotion alter the
fact that nature is oppressive,
that death is the negation of
all good, that God is there-
fore untouched by the plight of
creatures."4 Koheleth's ad-
vice, therefore, is a form of
Epicureanism.5 It is asserted
that the God of Koheleth is a
completely transcendent God,
remote, inscrutable,
unknowable. This God, it is said,
1Luis
World (Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1970), p. 8.
2John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament
(New
York: Abingdon Press, 1967), pp. 136, 152, 157-8.
3J.
of God (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1968), p. 17.
4J. L. Crenshaw,
"Popular Questioning of the Justice
of
God in Ancient Israel," Zeitschrift
fur die Alttestament-
liche Wissenschaft, 82:3 (1970), 389.
5Ibid.
88
"deliberately withholds
from man knowledge of his ways in
order to keep man in his
place."1 With this estimation
Scott agrees when he maintains
that "in Ecclesiastes God is
not only unknown to man through
revelation; he is unknowable
through reason, the only means
by which the author believes
knowledge is attainable."2
The mood of the writer, he fur-
ther asserts, is one of
disillusionment and resignation.
"His ethic has no
relationship to divine commandments, for
there are none."3
He further states that the only satisfac-
tion open to man is the
enjoyment of being alive. The au-
thor, Scott boldly asserts, is
a rationalist, an agnostic,
a skeptic, a pessimist, and a
fatalist. "In most respects
his views run counter to those
of his fellow Jews. The
title of a modern
autobiography, Treadmill to oblivion,
seems to sum up most (though
not quite all) of his conclu-
sions about life."4
Though not quite so radical in his view
of the book, Driver also feels
that the primary assertion of
the book is that life under all
its aspects is unsatisfying
and disappointing and that the
most man can do is enjoy it--
1Charles C. Forman,
"Koheleth's Use of Genesis,"
Journal of Semitic
Studies,
5 (July, 1960), 262.
2Scott, Ecclesiastes, p. 191. 3Ibid.
4Ibid.,
p. 192.
89
though in moderation.1
Some Jews, in fact, misunderstanding
the inherent balance of the
book, "tried to store away the
book because they found in it
words they felt tended to
heresy."2
Many more such opinions could be gathered; their
number is almost limitless,
especially among those inclined,
in accordance with their basic
working presuppositions, to
treat the Bible with less
respect.3 Yet such estimations of
Ecclesiastes are not the only
ones which have been made, and
they are not to be supposed to
be the correct ones. It is
the opinion of the writer that
when each of Koheleth's
statements are taken in their
context, and understood ac-
cording to the avowed purpose
of the author of the book,
these statements are true, and
applicable even to the con-
temporary Christian who has the
advantage of much more reve-
lation than Koheleth had.
1S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of
the Old Testament (
1923),
p. 470.
2C. G. Montefiore and H.
Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology
(New
York: Schocken Books, 1974), p. 206.
3Cf. W. O.
Hebrew Religion: Its
Origin and Development (
ety
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1931), p. 332; and
George
A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the
Old Testa-
ment (London: SCM Press
Ltd., 1959), pp. 87, 337.
90
Sympathetic Interpretations
One writer suggests that the book is a sermon de-
scriptive of Solomon's fall
into great sin, his discovery of
the absolute uselessness of a
sinful and self-centered life,
and his subsequent recovery of
his fear of God.l Leupold at
least partially supports Oehler
and others who believe that
the aim of the book is to
inculcate resignation, a "resigna-
tion coupled with a clear and
intelligent faith."2 Another
sees the theme of the book in
the form of a question: "What
is the chief good?"3
Hendry suggests that
Qoheleth writes from concealed
premises, and his book
is in reality a major work of
apologetic or "eristic"
theology. Its apparent worldliness
is dictated by its
aim: Qoheleth is addressing the
general public whose
view is bounded by the horizons of
this world; he meets
them on their own ground, and
proceeds to convict them
of its inherent vanity.4
Of all the commentaries written on Koheleth, perhaps
the one of Ginsburg is the most
thorough, and in many re-
spects, the best. There is much
truth in his view of the
1Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the
Whole Bible, Vol. III (6 vols.:
Revell
Co., n.d.), pp. 979-80.
2Leupold, Ecclesiastes, p. 20.
3Baxter, Explore the Book, p. 143.
4G.
tary, ed. by F. Davidson (
Publishing Company, 1968), p.
538.
91
theme of the book, which he
feels is
to gather together the desponding
people of God from the
various expediences to which they
have resorted, in con-
sequence of the inexplicable
difficulties and perplexi-
ties in the moral government of God,
into the community
of the Lord, by shewing them the
utter insufficiency of
all human efforts to obtain real
happiness, which cannot
be secured by wisdom, pleasure,
industry, wealth, &c.,
but consists in the calm enjoyment
of life, in the
resignation to the dealings of
vice of God, and in the belief in a
future state of re-
tribution, when all the mysteries in
the present course
of the world shall be solved.1
Eichrodt urges that "the author of Ecclesiastes, by
the relentless use of reductio ad absurdum demolished all
attempts to make the divine
power manageable by the cate-
gories of human reason, and
taught men to worship the incom-
prehensible greatness of God
their Creator by humble resig-
nation to the relativity of
human existence."2
A Suggested
Theme
In each of these sympathetic statements there is
some truth. Assuming that
Solomon is the author, the book
does, indeed, describe some of
his past sins and it does
record his personal faith in
God. It is true that underly-
ing the entire book is the
question: "What is the chief
good?" At the end of his
life (which seems to be the
1Ginsburg, Coheleth, pp. 16-17.
2Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament,
Vol.
I, translated by J. A. Baker (
minster Press, 1961), p. 263.
92
perspective of the author), he
is asking an open question to
any who may answer: what is
most worthwhile for a man to do
while yet on the earth? It is
true, as well, that he coun-
sels resignation to the will of
God, for, as he wisely
states, in such a resignation
to and reliance on the fact
that God is sovereign there is
to be found true consolation
and peace. "We are
anything but masters of our fate, and
God has decreed it so."1
It cannot be disputed, moreover,
that he does in some instances
bound his comments by the
world of the seen, but great
caution should be used in ap-
plying this generalization to
every particular in the book.
He does not limit every
statement by the world of the seen.
Most of all, it must be
remembered that the writer is not,
as some have imagined, a gloomy
misanthrope, who looks on
everything with a jaundiced
eye; but a believer in God who
is striving to behold
everything in the light of God, and
who seeks to lead men to the
true good by leading them to a
life of faith in God.
Among those who have best apprehended the message of
the book are Thomas Taylor and
J. Stafford Wright.
summarizes the theme of the
book in terms of what it claims
itself to be. He feels that the
book aims to present
1Derek Kidner,
"Wisdom Literature of the Old Testa-
ment,"
in New Perspectives on the Old Testament,
ed. by J.
Barton Payne (Waco, Tex.: Word
Books, 1970), p. 126.
93
--an empirical analysis (1:13, 17; 2:1-8; 2:12; 4:1;
7:15, etc.)
--of the affairs (1:17; 2:1-8; 4:1, etc.)
--that most interest man as executed by one
--thoroughly capable (1:16; 2:9-10; etc.)
--of full indulgence and guided in the conclusionary
processes
--by the wisdom of God (3:14; 12:11)1
Wright most ably discusses all the divergent opin-
ions about the theme of
Ecclesiastes, and lands on a very
sympathetic, and in the
estimation of the writer, a very
correct one. He is careful to
remind his readers that when
one is trying to understand any
book or composition, it is
first of all important to
survey the preface or introduction
and the conclusion.2
The conclusion of Ecclesiastes is found in 12:13,
14: The conclusion, when all
has been heard is: fear God
and keep his commandments,
because this applies to every
person; for God will bring
every work into judgment, every-
thing which is hidden, whether
it is good or evil."
1Taylor, "Studies in
Ecclesiastes," p. 8.
2J.
iastes,"
(hereinafter referred to as "Ecclesiastes" and to
be
carefully distinguished from Wright, Koheleth),
in Clas-
sical Evangelical Essays
in Old Testament Interpretation,
ed.
by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (
House, 1972), p. 137.
94
The orthodoxy of this statement is beyond question.
Matthew 19:17 records Christ's
statement that "if you wish
to enter into life, keep the
commandments." 1 Corinthians
3:13 says, "and the fire
itself will test the quality of
every man's work." It is
very important to understand the
significance of this
conclusion, for
if the book is a unity, it stands to
reason that no
statement elsewhere in the book can
be interpreted as a
final conclusion if it contradicts
the statement at the
end of the book. Or, to put it from
another angle, if
any statement in the course of the
book is given as a
final conclusion, it must be
interpreted in the light of
the ultimate conclusion at the end.
This is not a mat-
ter of inspiration or
non-inspiration; it is the treat-
ment that we should give to any book
written by a rea-
sonable man.1
The phrase, "vanity of vanities, all is
vanity," and
its variations, for instance,
must be interpreted in light
of the entire book, and in
light of the conclusion. Because
the theme of the book is best
understood by a proper recog-
nition of the development of
thought by the writer, this
topic is considered before a
conclusion regarding the theme
is drawn.
Development of
Thought
One of the difficulties that the book of Koheleth
presents, particularly to the
occidental mind, is its devel-
opment of thought. The book is
not organized as one might
1Ibid.,
p. 138.
95
organize a similar work in his
own contemporary culture, and
it does not pursue a format
even remotely similar to that of
present Western literature.
Many suggestions about Kohe-
leth's development of thought
have been offered. One writer
states that he is
"convinced that the golden key and the
Ariadne-thread through this
seeming labyrinth is to be found
in the assumption that the
author is conducting a dialogue
with himself, just as the book
of Job contains dialogues be-
tween Job and his
friends."1 Ginsburg, in his characteris-
tically elegant style, states
that the development of
thought
which the sacred writer adopts to
carry out this design
is most striking and effective.
Instead of writing an
elaborate metaphysical disquisition,
logically analysing
and refuting, or denouncing ex cathedra, the various
systems of happiness which the
different orders of minds
and temperaments had constructed for
themselves, Solomon
is introduced as recounting his
painful experience in
all these attempts. Thus, by laying
open, as it were,
to the gaze of the people the
struggles of a man of like
feelings with themselves, who could
fully sympathise
with all their difficulties, having
passed through them
himself, and found the true clue to
their solution, the
sacred writer carries out this
design far more touching-
ly and effectively than an
Aristotelian treatise, or the
have done.2
Another suggests that Koheleth's purpose was merely
to collect current proverbs,
and mold them into some sort of
1S. DuToit,
"Ecclesiastes," Christianity
Today, 5:21
(July
17, 1961), 32-3.
2Ginsburg, Coheleth,
p. 17.
96
a pattern, citing 12:9, 10,
and. 11 as proof.l While it
is
virtually certain that Koheleth
did employ some aphorisms
current in his own day, the
book certainly is not only a
collection of wise sayings. A
simple reading of the book
will demonstrate that. Maltby
affirms that the seeming con-
tradictions of the book can be
resolved in one of the fol-
lowing ways, by assuming:
(a) that the author was including
objections to his own
ideas and endeavouring to answer
them, [or] (b) that the
book reflects the struggle between
his higher and lower
nature, [or] (c) that the work
reveals the development
of his own outlook and philosophy,
beginning at the
start of his quest and leading us through to the end.2
He accepts the last view. There
is a certain attraction to
this view, but it is not, in
the opinion of the writer, com-
pletely correct. Furthermore,
if one precisely apprehends
the development of the book,
there are no contradictions.
Another suggestion is made by Zockler, who says that
Koheleth first places man in a
dilemma by stating something
favorable to the world, and
then balancing his statement
with the biblical view in order
to show the "vanity, unrest,
and joylessness of a
consciousness detached from God and de-
voted solely to the impressions
of worldly vanity."3
1Cox, The Book of Ecclesiastes, p. 23.
2Arthur Maltby, "The
Book of Ecclesiastes and the
After-Life,"
The Evangelical Quarterly, XXXV:1
(January-
March,
1963), 39-44.
3Zockler,"Ecclesiastes," p. 23.
97
Certainly, one of the most remarkable features of
the book is the way in which
one statement is balanced by
another, and in which any one
statement cannot be separated
from the context of the thrust
of the entire book, if it is
to be rightly understood.
Hendry has termed this phenomenon
"counterpoint."1
While the writer hesitates to agree completely with
Zockler in saying that a number
of statements are made by
Koheleth which are favorable to
the world, he agrees that
the most important aspect of
the development of the book is
that of balance. Isolated from
their context, and thus from
their inherent balance, some
passages seem, indeed, to be
little more than reflections of
worldly thinking. Taken in
their context, however, and
thus modified by all other
statements in the book, all of
Koheleth's statements are
found to be completely true in
the context in which he made
them, and in the sense in which
he meant them. Examples of
this balance are demonstrated
below in the discussion of
selected difficulties.
This concept of "balance" is, after all, only
the
principle of interpreting a
verse in its context. It is
most unreasonable to extricate
verses from a book like
Ecclesiastes, interpret them
devoid of their literary envi-
ronment, and expect to arrive
at a legitimate
1Hendry, "Ecclesiastes," p. 539.
98
interpretation.1
Conclusion
If one remembers, then, what the book of Ecclesias-
tes aims to be: "an
empirical analysis . . . by one . . .
guided in the conclusionary
processes by the wisdom of
God,"2 and what
is the outstanding characteristic of its
method: balance, he will find
much less difficulty in Kohe-
leth's words and will not have
to resort to interpretations
which seem to circumvent
supposed problems by a completely
unwarranted discarding of
Koheleth's words as merely human
and non-revelatory. It
"does not seem worthy of God to oc-
cupy valuable space in the
Bible with the arguments of the
skeptic and of the natural man
. . . . That is the diffi-
culty with Scofield's
theory."3
Based on a proper understanding of the development
of thought of the book, it can
be seen that Solomon's theme
is to show his readers the total
and unmitigated insuffi-
ciency of every human effort to
obtain real and lasting hap-
piness, which cannot be secured
by wisdom, pleasure,
1Cf. A.
(Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp.
99-113;
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical
Interpretation
(Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969), pp. 135-8; and
Milton
S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (
dervan
Publishing House, 1966), pp. 182-210.
2Taylor, "Studies in
Ecclesiastes," p 3.
3Wright, "Ecclesiastes," p. 137.
99
industry, wealth, success, or
any other human endeavor
(though there is nothing sinful
in them), but consists in
the calm enjoyment of life
(itself a gift from God to be
enjoyed), in the resignation to
the dealings of a Sovereign
God, in a life spent in serving
God, and in a belief in a
future state and retribution,
when not only shall all the
mysteries in the present world
be solved, but all the wrongs
shall be righted.1
1Ginsburg, Coheleth,
pp. 16-17.
CHAPTER
V
SELECTED
DIFFICULTIES
Introduction
To any reader of Ecclesiastes who is also familiar
with the other parts of
Scripture, it is immediately appar-
ent that Koheleth says things,
which upon a cursory examina-
tion, appear to be difficult to
harmonize and explain. For
this reason it was for many
years among those books whose
place in the canon was
disputed: it was an "antilegomen-
on."1 Some have
suggested that the work was originally a
book of unrelieved pessimism,
and that the original has now
been interpolated and adorned
"with orthodox allusions to
God and judgment, and a happy
conclusion, in order to bring
it into harmony with the canon
of Scripture."2 Morris Jas-
trow, in fact, in his A Gentle Cynic, has as his last chap-
ter one which he entitles
"The Words of Koheleth in Their
Original Form, Stripped of
Subsequent Interpolations, Maxims
and Comments."3
In an appendix he includes: "
by the 'pious' commentators;
II. additions by the 'maxim'
1Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, p. 189.
2Minos Divine, Ecclesiastes (
Company,
Ltd., 1916), p. 208.
3Jastrow, A
Gentle Cynic, p. 197.
100
101
commentators, and III.
miscellaneous comments and glosses."1
In the light of such abuse, it
is the purpose of this chap-
ter to examine selected
difficulties with a view to gaining
a more complete knowledge of
and a better appreciation for
the teachings of Ecclesiastes.
Vanity of Vanities
No discussion of Ecclesiastes would be complete
without an investigation into
the meaning of the phrase,
profusely used by Koheleth, and
perhaps most characteristic
of the general impression most
have of the book, MylibAhE lbehE.
It is not surprising that the
word lb,h, appears more times in
Ecclesiastes (40 times) than in
the entire remainder of the
Old Testament (33 times).2
Definition
lb,h, is a
masculine noun whose basic meaning is "
pour, breath, vanity."3
It is used in Isaiah 57:13 to de-
scribe what will carry away
idols--a breath. It is used
"elsewhere always . . .
[as] figurative of what is evanes-
cent, unsubstantial, worthless,
vanity, as . . . of the
lIbid., p. 243.
2Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae, Vol.
I,
p. 307. Cf. F. N. Jasper, "Ecclesiastes: A Note for Our
Time,"
Interpretation, 21 (July, 1967), 262.
3BDB, Lexicon,
p. 210.
102
fruitlessness of all human
enterprise and endeavour . . .”1
A meaning of "exhalation,
damp" is also suggested.2 The
Syriac is 
a also
translated "vanity, emptiness."3
The word apparently does not
occur in extant Ugaritic and
Phoenician texts.4
lbehE is the
construct of lb,h, which
can be traced to
verb lbahA, "to steam, exhale, to breath."5 Gordis has
suggested that as used in
Ecclesiastes the word has two nu-
ances of meaning: the breath (lb,h,) is (a) unsubstantial and
(b) transitory.6
These two nuances are added to by Meek,
who suggests that in the
context of the book at least five
are discernible: (1) futile
(1:2); (2) empty (6:12); (3)
sorry (6:4); (4) senseless
(8:14); and (5) transient (11:
10).7 It is
extremely important that the interpreter of the
book recognize the possibility
of different connotations for
the word in different contexts
within the book.
1Ibid. 2KB,
Lexicon, p. 223.
3J. Payne Smith, ed., A Compendious Syriac Dictio-
nary (Oxford: At the
Clarendon Press, 1903), p. 99.
4Cf. Richard E. Whitaker,
A Concordance of the Ugar-
itic Literature (
1972),
p. 210; Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische
and Ara-
mäische Inschriften, p. 7; and DISO, p. 62.
5Ginsburg, Coheleth, p. 259.
6Gordis, Koheleth, p. 205.
7Theophile J. Meek,
"Transplanting the Hebrew
Bible," Journal of Biblical Literature, 79
(1960), p. 331.
103
For example, in 11:10, "So remove vexation from your
heart and put away pain from
your body, for childhood and
the prime of life are" lb,h, the translation "vanity" in the
sense of
"unsubstantial" gives a very wrong impression. But
if lb,h, is understood in the sense of transitory, then
the
verse is once again
comprehensible. It is well translated
in the NASB:
"fleeting."
It is common, for the superlative sense, to use a
substantive in the construct
state before the plural of the
same word. Such is the case
with MylibAhE lbehE.1
Other in-
stances of this idiomatic
construction are found in Exodus
26:33, MywidAq<ha wd,qo,
"The most holy place," and Song of Solo-
mon Myriyw.iha rywi, "the most excellent
song."2 One vi-
able translation of this phrase
in Ecclesiastes, therefore,
might be "utter
futility--all is futile."3 This expression
also involves several figures
of speech. Ecclesiastes 1:2
is an example of
"mesarchia," or repetition of the same
word or words at the beginning
and middle of successive sen-
tences.4 It is also
a case of "polyptoton,"5 or repetition
1GKC, Grammar, p. 431, sect. 133i. 2Ibid.
3H. L. Ginsberg, ed. , hnvy rpsv tvlgm wmH (Philadel-
phia:
The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969), p.
57.
4E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the
Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, reprint, 1970), p.
260.
5Ibid.,
p. 284.
104
of the same part of speech in
different inflections, from
the Greek polu<ptwton.1
The Septuagint translation of this phrase is, matai-
o<thj
mataioth<twn. This can be compared with Romans 8:20,
which reads, t^? ga>r mataio<thti h[ kti<sij u[peta<gh . . . ,
"for
the creation was subjected to
futility. . . .” The Greek
word, as used in the New
Testament, seems to contain all the
nuances that the Hebrew lb,h, does, "emptiness, futility, pur-
poselessness,
transitoriness."2 For the LXX usages of the
word as a translation of lb,h,, Liddell and Scott suggest the
translations "vanity,
purposelessness."3 Greek translators
of the Old Testament sometimes
used the word a[tmi<j,4
meaning
"steam,."
"vapor."5 In the New Testament the suggested
lIbid., p. 267.
2W. F. Arndt and F. W.
Gingrich, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Lit-
erature (hereinafter referred
to as Lexicon) (a translation
and
adaptation of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches
Wor-
terbuch zu den Schriften
des Neuen Testaments and der ubrig-
en urchristlichen
Literatur,
fourth revised and augmented
edition,
1952) (
1969),
p. 496.
3Henry George Liddell and
Robert Scott, A Greek-
English Lexicon (hereinafter referred
to as Lexicon), re-
vised
and augmented by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie (
At
the Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 1084.
4Aquila and Theodotion
translated the phrase, "a]tmi>j
a]tmi>dwn ta> pa<nta
a]tmi>j"
(Fridericus Field, Origenis Hexa-
plorum, Tomus II [2 vols.:
Oxonii: E. Typographeo Claren-
doniano,
1875], p. 380).
5Liddell and. Scott, Lexicon, p. 271.
105
meanings are "mist,"
"vapor," "smoky vapor," or "steam that
rises from a pot," and
used typically of nothingness.1 New
Testament uses which may be
compared are Acts 2:19: ai$ma kai
pu?r
kai a]tmi<da kapnou?, "blood and fire and smoky vapor";
and
James 4:14: a]tmi<j ga<r e]ste, "For you are a
vapor."2
H. L. Ginsberg suggests the translation, "all is
zero." He connects this
with 1:3, "What advantage does man
have in all his work" by
translating "Since everything is
zero ('vanity') what plus
('profit') is there in the goods
one acquires?"3
Scott translates 1:2, "Breath of a breath!
(says Qoheleth). The slightest
breath! All is a breath."4
Usage of lbh
There are ten areas of life which Koheleth pronounc-
es lb,h,. They have been listed as follows:5
1Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, p. 120.
2For more New Testament
comparisons, see J. M. Ful-
ler,
ed. and abridger, Ecclesiastes, in The Bible Commentary,
ed.
by F. C. Cook and part of Baker Book House's set,
Barnes' Notes on the Old
& New Testaments (
Baker
Book House, 1974), p. 91.
3H. L. Ginsbu:rg,
"The Structure and Contents of the
Book
of Koheleth," in Wisdom in
to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. III (Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1969),
pp.
138-9.
4Scott, Ecclesiastes, p. 209.
5Baxter, Explore
the Book, p. 163.
106
2:15-16
The "vanity" of human wisdom Wise
and fool-
ish
alike have
one
end, death
2:19-21
The "vanity" of human labor Worker no bet-
ter
than the
shirker
in the end
2:26 The "vanity" of human purpose Altho' man pro-
poses,
it is
God
who disposes
4:4 The "vanity" of human rivalry Much success
brings
envy
more than joy
4:7 The "vanity" of human avarice "Much" feeds
lust
for "more"
yet
oft eludes
4:16
The "vanity" of human fame Is brief, un-
certain,
and
soon
forgotten
5:10 The "vanity" of human insatiety Money does
not
satisfy.
Increase
only
feeds
others
6:9 The "vanity" of human coveting Often gain
cannot
be en-
joyed,
despite
desire
7:6 The "vanity" of human frivolity It only cam-
ouflages
the
inevitable
sad end
8:10,
14 The "vanity" of human awards Bad often hon-
oured.
Good
and
bad get
wrong
deserts
107
"Futility of futilities, all is futile."
"Fear God,
and keep his commandments . . .
God shall bring every work
into judgment." The first
is Koheleth's verdict on all life
and the second is his counsel
in view of the verdict. But
is the verdict true? That is
what Koheleth examines for his
readers, turning life over and
over in his hands so that it
is seen from every perspective.
He forces his readers to
admit, that from a purely human
standpoint, and without
inclusion of God and cognizance
of his commandments and en-
suing judgment, life is,
indeed, vain, futile, empty, in a
word, zero. Yet he does not
mean that it is so in the sense
that it is not worth living.
Koheleth's use of lb,h, de-
scribes something vastly
greater than that. All life is
vanity in this sense, namely,
that it is unable to give us
the key to itself, and it is
unsubstantial.
The book is the record of a search
for the key to life.
It is the endeavor to give a meaning
to life, to see it
as a whole. And there is no key
under the sun. Life
has lost the key to itself.
"Vanity of vanities, all is
vanity." If you want the key
you must go to the lock-
smith who made the lock. "God
holds the key of all un-
known." And He will not give it to you. Since then you
cannot get the key, you must trust
the locksmith to open
the doors.1
One must acquiesce to the sovereignty of God. Only
then does life gain perspective
and meaning. Only then do
the things Koheleth pronounces
"zero" begin to add up. All
things are bl,h, only for those who do not enthrone God at the
1Wright,"Ecclesiastes," p. 140.
108
center of their existence as
absolute Sovereign.
Thus, while the recurring phrase MylibAhE lbeHE might at
first glance seem to be the
utterance of a spirit sunk in
the abyss of despair, yet,
looking into the treatise more
narrowly, we find that we
have misapprehended its true
character--that a principle
aim of its author is evidently to
inculcate contentment
and the quiet enjoyment of the
blessings which God has
bestowed--that throughout the whole
are scattered pre-
cepts and exhortations which are by
no means in harmony
with the dark meaning we have
attached to the opening
words.1
Relationship of the Name
"Abel"
Some have connected the word "Abel," the name
of the
second son of Adam, with the
word under discussion, for they
consist of the same consonants
(lbh). It is suggested that
when Adam and Eve named their
son they underscored the re-
ality of the fall of man and
the resultant curse upon the
world,2 the same
truth under discussion by Paul in Romans
8:20, "the creature was
subjected to vanity." One writer
suggested that Adam and Eve
were apparently so overcome by
the discovery of the vanity of
earthly life under the curse
that they named their second
son lb,h,.3 C. C. Forman makes
an interesting conjecture about
the use of the word:
1Weir,
"Ecclesiastes," p. 186.
2Leupold, Ecclesiastes, p. 42.
3H. Carl Shank,
"Qoheleth's World and Life View As
Seen
in His Recurring Phrases,"
Journal,
XXXVII:1 (Fall, 1974), 66-7.
109
Not only is man of the substance of
the ground but his
second born is significantly called
Abel, a name derived
from the Hebrew stem lbh, meaning "breath
of wind," "
pour," "vanity," and
the like. The significant point
here is that Abel is the
personification of the nomad,
and therefore, according to ancient
Hebrew notions, the
representative of the ideal life.
Yet the first nomad
whose way of life was the most
acceptable to God bore
in his name this telling description
of the essential
nature of life even in its most
favorable manifestation.
Life, at best, is a transitory thing
of no substance--it
is lb,h,:
"Abel's brief life is the life of Everyman."1
In the opinion of the writer, however, such infer-
ences as those cited above
about the name Adam and Eve gave
to their son rest on a tenuous
assumption, namely, that the
name "Abel" in
whatever language Adam spoke would have meant
the same as its Hebrew
counterpart, and would have had the
same affinities with the name
for "vanity" in Adam's lan-
guage. It is, perhaps, best not
to draw any inferences from
Abel's name, especially since
the text does not specify any
reason for that particular name
(Gen. 4:2).
Jewish
Interpretations
Several interesting ancient Jewish traditions about
lb,h, are
extant. They serve to show the ridiculous extrava-
gances possible, rather than to
illuminate the text. One
such comment from the Midrash
on Ecclesiastes 1 states:
Solomon used the word
"vanity" seven times, to
correspond with the seven stages
which man goes through.
In his infancy he is like a king,
fondled, kissed, and
made much of. At the age of two or three years he is
1Forman, "Koheleth's Use of
Genesis," 257-8.
110
more like a pig rolling in the mud,
etc. When about ten
years of age he is somewhat like a
little kid, jumping
about and skipping. About the age of
twenty he resem-
bles the wild horse in his lusts and
desires. When mar-
ried he is not unlike the ass in his
dulness and cheer-
lessness and sleepiness. Becoming a
parent, he becomes
bold like the dog in his anxiety to
obtain sustenance
for his family. And in his old age,
with his furrows
and wrinkles, he is not unlike an ape.l
Not quite so extravagant is this quotation from Mid-
rash Koheleth Rabba:
wy hryl lw rvnt lw lbhl Mx lbh hzyxl hmdlbhl
Mdx rmx dvd
Mylbh lbh d”hh wrypv vnb hmlw xb wmm vb
David said: "Man is like a
vapor." What kind of vapor?
If it be the vapor of an oven or the
vapor of the
hearth, it has some substance. Then
Solomon his son
came and explained: "Thus it is
written: "vapor of
vapors!"2
This is probably a reference to Psalm 39:5 (Heb., v.
7), in which David says that
"every man at his best is a
mere breath [lb,h,]." It is not Solomon alone, therefore, who
makes this estimate of man's
situation.
Another Jewish legend is reflected in this interpre-
tation by a modern commentator
The word hebel is to be reckoned as occurring
seven
times in the verse, each plural
denoting two. The
number seven corresponds to the days
of the world's cre-
ation. Koheleth, accordingly
pronounces the judgment
that the seven days of the creation
were the height of
vanity.3
1Samuel Rapaport, A Treasury of the Midrash (New
2Gordis, Koheleth, p. 205.
3A. Cohen, ed., The Five Megilloth, in the Soncino
Books of the Bible (London: The Soncino
Press, 1970), pp.
108-9.
111
Conclusion on lb,h,
It is of inestimable importance to the understanding
of the use of this word
throughout Ecclesiastes, that one
clearly apprehend the
differences in nuances of meaning as
it is used in differing
contexts by Koheleth. In certain
contexts the translations
"futility" or "zero" (in the sense
of adding up, ultimately, to
nothing substantial and lasting)
are, perhaps, the best
translations. In other instances the
translation
"transitoriness," may be better. In general,
the uses of the term by
Koheleth may be summarized as fol-
lows: (1) that which passes
away more or less quickly and
completely; (2) that which
leaves no adequate result behind;
and (3) that which fails to
satisfy the mind of man, which
naturally craves something
permanent and meaningful.1 Is
all lb,h,? In the context in which Koheleth says it--yes.
Under the Sun
Early in his composition Koheleth uses a phrase,
which like MylibAhE lbehE, is to be characteristic of
his book:
wm,w,.ha
tHaTa.
It is to this phrase that those interpreters who
feel that Solomon's perspective
is non-revelatory and com-
pletely terrestrial often
appeal for support of their views.
"Ecclesiastes is the book
of man 'under the sun' reasoning
lFuller, Ecclesiastes,
p. 87.
112
about life."1
"Man 'under the sun' might from his own
experience mistakenly think
that the earth would continue
indefinitely as it now
is."2 The copious use of this term
in the book, however, does not
necessarily suggest that the
writer's viewpoint is merely
earthly. A more detailed exam-
ination of the phrase is in
order.
Occurrences of the Phrase
It is most important that the contexts in which the
phrase is used, and the
subjects in connection with which it
is used be fully understood.
All 27 occurrences of the word
in the book of Ecclesiastes,
together with an explanation of
the contexts are listed below.
1:3 Toil under
the sun does not bring gain
1:9 Nothing new
under the sun
1:10 Everything
done under the sun is vanity
2:11 Nothing to
be gained under the sun
2:17 What is done
under the sun is grievous
2:18 Koheleth
hates the toil he has done under the sun
2:19 The one following him will use everything for
which he toiled and used wisdom under the
sun
2:20 He despaired of all the toil of his labors under
the sun
2:22 Questions what lasting value one gets from all his
labor under the sun
1English, The
New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 696.
2Ibid.
Cf. BDB, Lexicon, p. 1039.
113
3:16 Wickedness
in the place of justice under the sun
4:1 He
saw all the oppressions which are practiced
under the sun
4:3 Refers to
the evil deeds done under the sun
4:7 He
saw the vanity under the sun of one who works
with no goal in mind except to work
4:15 Viewed all
the living who move about under the sun
5:13 It is a grievous evil under the sun that some keep
riches to their hurt
5:18 Reference to
one's toil under the sun
6:1 Evil
under the sun of wealthy man who cannot enjoy
his wealth
6:12 Who can tell
a man what will be after him under the sun?
8:9 Applied his
mind to all done under the sun
8:15 The days of
his life which God gives a man under the sun
8:17 Man cannot
find out the work done by God under the sun
9:3 That all
die is an evil under the sun
9:6 The dead
have no more share of that done under the sun
9:9 Enjoy
life with one's wife all the days God gives
under the sun
9:11 Under the
sun the race is not to the swift
9:13 An example
of wisdom under the sun
10:5 That folly
is set in high places is an evil under the sun
There are two conclusions which can be immediately
drawn from this list: (1) This
entire book is obviously not
limited by wm,w,.ha tHaTa. (2) wm,w,.ha
tHaTa
obviously means the same
114
thing, essentially, as Cr,xAhA-lfa,1 and is so used because the
writer is an earth-dweller and
his topics are drawn from
earthly events.
Definition of the
Phrase
The phrase wm,w,.ha
tHaTa
is used in Ecclesiastes almost
as many times as Mylbh lbh, and does not occur elsewhere in
the Old Testament, though it
does appear in the later Hebrew
writings. The Aramaic Targum
reads xwmw tvHt,2 and the
LXX
translates it u[po> to>n h!lion.3
Since this phrase was current among the Greeks at a
later time, some have supposed
that it was borrowed from
their philosophers and rendered
into Hebrew. This has be-
come a very hazardous position,
however, in view of its dis-
covery in two 5th century B.C.
Phoenician inscriptions,
those of Tabnit and Eshmun'azar
of
Northwest Semitic and West
Semitic literature thus far un-
earthed, these two inscriptions
and the book of Ecclesiastes
are the only places the phrase
has been found.4
1Cf. Ginsburg, Coheleth, p. 260.
2rbrpw, tymrxb wdqh ybtk, x-d
jrk, p.
151.
3Cf. Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, p. 769.
4Cf. Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische and Aramäische
Inschriften, Vol. I, p. 3, #13,
lines 7, 8; #14, line 12;
and
vol. II, p. 17, #13 and p. 19, #14; DISO,
p. 310; and
Archer,
"The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Ecclesi-
astes," 177.
115
Written 
,1 the phrase appar-
ently meant the same as its
Hebrew counterpart. At least
its occurrence in Phoenician
attests to its use in what
Archer has termed the rich
mutual vocabulary of Hebrew-Ca-
naanite. There is no reason,
however, that the idiom could
not have been coined
independently by different peoples at
different times and in widely
separated places. It is,
after all, one of the most
natural idioms, and is just an-
other way of expressing
"under heaven"2 or "on earth." It
is identical to saying
"the world of men,"3 or "among those
who are alive," and by it
Koheleth designates "the place
where the affairs of human life
are enacted."4
Significance
of the Phrase
The definition of the phrase is certain enough. It
is the significance of its use
in the book which must be de-
cided. It is erroneous, in the
opinion of the writer, to
limit all the teachings of the
book to things terrestrial
only on account of Koheleth's
employment of this phrase. It
1J. Brian Peckham, The Development of the Late Phoe-
nician Scripts (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1968),
pp.
66-7.
2Gordis, Koheleth, p. 205. Cf. Mymwh
tHt in Ex.
17:
14;
Deut. 7:24; 19:14; and particularly Eccl. 2:3 and 3:1.
3Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, p. 219.
4Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, p.
72.
116
is true that many things he
speaks of, he limits to the
earth. Thus, when he says lb,hA lKoha MylibAhE lbEhE, Koheleth
speaks only of those things
upon the earth which he is dis-
cussing. He certainly does not
mean that everything without
exception in the entire
universe is futile or transitory,
for that would include God,
heaven, salvation, etc., and
many other things which
transcend the arena with which Ko-
heleth is immediately
concerned.
In those instances in which Koheleth specifically
says wm,w,.ha tHaTa, he has limited his immediate
comment to the
world of the human; but there
are many things in his book
that Koheleth does not limit by
wm,w,.ha tHaTa (as
demonstrated by
the list above, pp. 112-13),
and these it is necessary to
let speak for themselves.
Koheleth's viewpoint, it must be
carefully noted, is not only
that of a man under the sun; he
makes numerous statements
throughout the book which trans-
cend such a limitation.
The Relationship of Inspiration and Revelation
Introduction
It is, perhaps, proper at this point to consider,
briefly, the interrelationship
between inspiration and reve-
lation, for it is this
relationship upon which one's inter-
pretation of Ecclesiastes in
general, and several important
subsequent passages in
particular, ultimately hinges. Is it
true that Ecclesiastes contains
only the reasonings of man
117
under the sun? Is it true that
none of Koheleth's conclu-
sions are revelation? Is it
proper to strip an entire book
of its claim to revelation, and
conclude that it contains
only the erroneous thoughts of
a man, accurately recorded by
inspiration?1 These
are the questions to which the writer
addresses himself in the
following discussion.
Definition
of revelation and inspiration
Revelation
Revelation is of two kinds, general and special. In
its general and widest
signification revelation is any kind
of knowledge of which God is
the ultimate source and cause.2
Special revelation is the
written revelation of Scripture.
In Scripture revelation
involves truths about man and God,
which God has revealed to man,
which he otherwise could not
have known.3
Inspiration
Inspiration involves the inerrancy of the facts
recorded in written revelation.
Plot all facts contained in
lEnglish, The New Scofield Reference Bible, pp.
696;
702,
note 1.
2William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I
(2
vols.:
print,
1971), p. 62.
3Cf. Benjamin
Breckinridge Warfield, The Inspiration
and Authority of the
Bible,
ed. by Samuel G. Craig (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House,
reprint, 1970), pp. 71-102.
118
Scripture are a result of
revelation. Some historical and
geographical facts, for
instance, were the observations of
the writers of Scripture, and were
not supernaturally re-
vealed to them. Inspiration,
however, guarantees the verac-
ity of these recorded facts.1
Inspiration must also in some
way involve the worthiness of
the thoughts inspired and re-
corded, for the Scriptures say
that "all Scripture is God-
breathed (qeo<pneustoj) and is therefore useful for
doctrine
. . . " (2 Tim. 3:16).
Furthermore, inspiration also in-
cluded the moving of the writer
by the Holy Spirit to write
certain things: "No
prophecy of Scripture is a matter of
one's own interpretation, for
no prophecy was even made by
an act of human will, but men
moved by the Holy Spirit spoke
from God" (2 Pet. 1:20,
21, NASB). Thus, God was ultimately
responsible for the ideas,
choice of material, and words of
Scripture. Inspiration must be
extended at least that far.
Correlation
of inspiration and revelation
The primary problem regarding inspiration and reve-
lation in the book of
Ecclesiastes concerns the interrela-
tionship between them. The
correlation of these two aspects
of God's work in bringing the
Scriptures into being is a
matter of considerable disagreement.
Some, on the one hand,
emphasize the differences
between them:
1Shedd, Dogmatic
Theology, Vol. I, p. 70.
119
They differ, first, as to their
object. The object of
revelation is the communication of
knowledge. The ob-
ject or design of inspiration is to
secure infallibility
in teaching. Consequently they
differ, secondly, in
their effects. The effect of
revelation was to render
its recipient wiser. The effect of
inspiration was to
preserve him from error in teaching.
These two gifts
were often enjoyed by the same person at the same time.l
With such a distinction Chafer agrees when he
states
It [the Bible] is, by its own
claims, not only a re-
vealed body of truth, but is the only revealed body of
truth. It is a supernatural
interposition into the
affairs of men. This claim, of
necessity, implies two
divine operations, namely, revelation, which is the
direct divine influence which communicates
truth from
God to man; and inspiration, which is the direct divine
influence which secures an accurate
transference of
truth into language which others may
understand.
While these two divine
operations do often occur
together, it is equally true that
they often function
separately.2
On the other hand, there are those who emphasize the
inseparability of inspiration
and revelation:
Inspiration
refers to the miracle of conservation
where-
by the Spirit has preserved and
conserved divine reve-
lation (cf. Is. 30:8). Revelation generates Scripture!
Inspiration settles its actual form
that the text might
serve as an "adequate,
authentic, and sufficient vehicle
of special revelation."
Revelation and inspiration are
inseparable, though they are not
identical. The crea-
tion of graphe is the final stage in quite an extended
process of divine revelation.3
1Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. I (3 vols.:
1973),
p. 152.
2L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. I (8 vols.:
3C. H. Pinnock, Biblical Revelation--The Foundation
of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody Press,
1971), p. 35.
120
Orr, likewise, feels that the two are inseparable:
But now another fact has to be taken
into account. If,
on the one hand, it has been seen
that, in the order of
inquiry, revelation precedes
inspiration, it has become
not less clearly evident that over a
large area, in the
fact itself, revelation and
inspiration are closely and
inseparably united. Internal revelation, e.g., such as
we have in prophecy, or in the
"revelation of Jesus
Christ" claimed for himself by
Paul, is not conceivable
save as accompanied by an inspired
state of soul. In-
spiration is involved in the very
reception of such a
revelation; is a necessary condition
of the revelation
being apprehended, possessed, and
communicated to
others. In the very acknowledgment,
therefore, of reve-
lation as an element pervading the
Bible and giving
unity to its parts, there is implied
an acknowledgment
of inspiration. Just as, on the
other side, there can
be no degree of inspiration, however
humble, which does
not imply some measure of
revelation. Revelation and
inspiration thus go together, and
conjointly give to the
written word a quality which distinguishes it from any
product of ordinary human wisdom.l
In the writer's opinion, the inseparability of in-
spiration and revelation is an
important point. These two
operations of the Spirit must
not be confused; but neither
may they be divorced.
Koheleth's
revelational teachings
The controversy concerning revelation in Ecclesiastes
is, perhaps, best resolved by
an examination of Koheleth's
teachings. Consequently, the
following list of his concepts
and statements is offered to
the reader. The list consists of
truths which the unaided mind
of man would have had trouble
1James Orr, Revelation and Inspiration (
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910),
pp. 199-200.
121
deducing, and, hence, are
apparently revelation, either
directly or mediately through
revelational statements of
other inspired authors of
Scripture. The list is, of
course, subjective, but the
examples serve to demonstrate
the difficulty with dismissing
the entire book as non-reve-
lational.
1:13 God has
given men the task of understanding things
1:15 Predestination--God's
sovereignty
2:24, 25 No man can have enjoyment apart from God
2:11 God has put "eternity" in man's mind; God has
made everything
beautiful in its time; God's ways
are inscrutable
2:14 Whatever God does endures forever; God's control
of the world
2:17 God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for
he has appointed a time for every matter and
work
2:18 God is
testing the sons of men to show they are but beasts
5:2 God is in
heaven
5:4 God has no
pleasure in fools
5:18 God gives us
the few days of our lives
5:19 God gives
wealth and possessions
5:20 God keeps a
man occupied with joy in his heart
6:2 God
sometimes does not empower a man to enjoy his
wealth
7:13 God is
completely sovereign
7:14 God is
completely sovereign
7:18 He who loves
God will "come forth from them all"
122
7:20 There is not a righteous man on the earth who
does good and never sins: total depravity
7:26 He who
pleases God escapes evil women
7:29 God made men upright, but they have "sought out
many devices"
8:12 Confidence
that it will be well with those who fear God
8:13 It will not
be well with the wicked
8:17 Inscrutibility
of God
9:7 God has
already approved what you do
9:10 The
condition of the dead in Sheol
11:5 Man does not
know the works of God who makes everything
11:9 God will
bring man into judgment for whatever he does
12:7 At death,
the spirit returns to God who gave it
12:13, 14 Man is to fear God and
keep his commandments,
because God will bring every deed into
judgment
Conclusion
on revelation and inspiration
Among those writers who wish to make a rigid dis-
tinction between revelation and
inspiration generally, and
who use this distinction to
solve the supposed problems of
Ecclesiastes by saying the book
is inspired, but not revela-
tion, there are two examples
generally cited which purport-
edly illustrate the necessity
for such a distinction else-
where in Scripture. These are
the words of Satan in Genesis
3:4, and Job 2: 4, 5, and the
words of Job's friends. There
123
are, however, several serious
difficulties with these analo-
gies.
It is perhaps most important to notice that the er-
roneous words of Satan and Job
appear in narrative sections,
and are in the form of
quotations. It is obvious to the
reader of the passages who is
speaking, and that what is
said is only being quoted. In
contrast to this, Koheleth is
quoting no one. He states facts
which he evidently under-
stands to be true, and which
under inspiration he was com-
pelled to write, much as Paul
wrote things he felt to be
true, and under inspiration was
protected from error.
A second difficulty with these analogies is that, at
least in the case of Satan, the
recording of Satan's words
must of necessity have involved
direct revelation. Neither
the writer of Job, nor the
writer of Genesis would have had
any way of knowing what Satan
had said. It is true that in
the case of Genesis, Moses
could have been using some very
ancient, but still accurate
source. But considering the
very corrupt state of the
Babylonian creation epics even at
a time much before Moses,
dependence upon such a source
seems remote at best. One does
not, therefore, escape the
problem by saying that they
were not revealed. The distinc-
tion to be made is that on the
one hand, in the case of
Satan's words, God revealed to
the inspired writer an his-
torical fact, namely, what had
been said. On the other hand,
material was revealed to
Scripture writers for the express
124
purpose of instructing their
hearers in truth. Such teach-
ing would certainly not be
erroneous. In the one case, that
of Satan's words, the
revelation involved only something
which had happened (Satan's
speaking of the words) and the
content of that occurrence. In
other cases God revealed to
Scripture writers spiritual
truths which the human mind
could not by itself conceive.
Yet, in both instances what
was recorded in Scripture involved
revelation.
There is yet another problem with the analogy drawn
between the words of Satan and
Job's friends, and the teach-
ings of Ecclesiastes. Since
revelation is the disclosure of
new truth that is inaccessible
to the ordinary human mind,
all those teachings in
Ecclesiastes which fall into that
category must have been
revealed. The list above contained
the teachings which the writer
would fit into this category.
While it is true that the
subjectivity of the list might
make some of the citations
questionable, not all of them
are. An excellent example of
this is Solomon's view of
Sheol. One must surely question
how what Koheleth said
about Sheol cannot be
revelation. It is not only inconceiv-
able that Koheleth could have
discovered anything certain
about Sheol by his own unaided
intellect; it would have been
impossible. It is axiomatic
that it is impossible for any-
one to discover anything
certain about life after death by
means of his own mind.
125
Thus, one has two choices to make about what Kohe-
leth says about Sheol: (1) One
may say that his statements
are revelation from God and
are, therefore, trustworthy; or
(2) one may say that his
statements embody the thoughts of
his own imagination, and are
therefore erroneous. But if
inspiration is to be defined as
that work of God which in-
sures freedom from error in
presenting truth,1 then
the
teachings of Ecclesiastes
cannot at the same time be erron-
eous and inspired.
It might still be argued that the book is an accu-
rate record of Solomon's
erroneous thoughts. But such a
solution really only begs the
question. Such an interpre-
tive device could be used on
any Scripture whose understand-
ing was not readily apparent,
or which seemed to contradict
other Scripture when not taken
in its entire context or
seen in its entire perspective.
If one is to dismiss Kohe-
leth's teachings precipitately
because they are sometimes
difficult to understand, is one
also justified in doing the
same with John or Paul or
Peter? Is it not also possible
that their erroneous thoughts
were accurately recorded by
inspiration? Such a procedure
would, of course, effectively
negate inspiration and would
ignore the fact that all Scrip-
ture is God-breathed.
1Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 70-71.
126
As has already been pointed out, inspiration accord-
ing to Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16;
2 Pet. 1:20, 21) implies much
more than the accurate
recording of a perplexing mixture of
true and erroneous thoughts. It
implies the choice of mate-
rial and the guarantee of the
material's veracity. The in-
clusion in Scripture of
quotations of the erroneous state-
ments of persons other than the
writer, can never warrant
the exclusion of an entire book
from revelatory status.
It might also be objected that since the teachings
of Ecclesiastes often find
their roots in daily life, it
cannot claim revelatory status.
Such a proposition, however,
applied to books such as
Proverbs would also rob them of that
status. It is true that many of
the observations of Pro-
verbs could have been, and were
by others, made only on the
human level; it is also true,
as with Ecclesiastes, that
many of them could not have
been, and were not.
In the opinion of the writer, anyone who presupposes
the inspiration of the book of
Ecclesiastes by virtue of its
inclusion in the canon without any
evident distinction from
the other canonical writings,
is forced to concede that
where it speaks on a topic, it
speaks with authority and.
truth. The context of the book
indisputably implies this
kind of a perspective. An
interpreter should guard himself
from the kind of conceit which
assures him that the problem
in understanding is not with
him, but with the text. Is it
127
not the safer path to admit
that the problem is more proba-
bly with the interpreter? All
calumny against the book's
revelatory status should
therefore be avoided. Any inac-
curate statements made by men
or Satan and quoted in Scrip-
ture will be made obvious as
such by their contexts. Such
is not the case with the book
of Ecclesiastes.
The Meaning and Place of
Pleasure
Introduction
Of all the themes of Ecclesiastes, there are two
which have been greatly
misunderstood and which have, con-
sequently, suffered the most
abuse. One of these is Kohe-
leth's doctrine of death and
immortality; the other is his
teaching about the meaning of
pleasure and the place of it
in the life of the godly. It is
the meaning and place of
pleasure that is now
considered. The method of consideration
is an examination of all the
salient passages of the book on
the topic.
Consideration of
the Texts
Ecclesiastes 2:1-11
Description of the experiment
This section introduces the reader to what some have
labeled "Koheleth's
experiment." As many men before and
after him Koheleth decided that
he would test the pleasures
of the world to see what
meaning he could find in them: “I
said to myself, 'Come now, I
will test you with pleasure.
128
So enjoy yourself . . . ."' (2:1a). Thereupon he
investigated
pleasure by participation:
stimulating his body with wine
(2:3), building houses for
himself (2:4), planting vineyards
for himself (2:4), making
gardens and parks (2:5), planting
all kinds of fruit trees (2:5),
making ponds of water for
himself from which to irrigate
a forest of growing trees
(2:6), buying female slaves,
and homeborn slaves (2:7),
amassing flocks and herds
larger than all who had preceded
him in
treasure of kings and provinces
(2:8), providing himself
with male and female singers
and the pleasures of men--many
concubines (2:8). Koheleth also
relates that he became
great and increased more than
all who preceded him in Jeru-
eyes desired he did not refuse
himself, and he did not with-
hold himself from any pleasure
available to him, for, he
says, he was pleased with all
his labor (building activity?)
and he considered these
pleasures his just reward for that
labor (2:10).
Linguistic analysis
Ecclesiastes 2:1.--It
is crucial, not only to the
understanding of this passage,
but also to the understanding
of Koheleth's view of
"pleasure" in general, to understand
the word translated
"pleasure," hHAm;Wi. It is
a feminine noun
129
from the root HmaWA, "to rejoice, be glad,"1 and is comparable
to the Akkadian šamâhu, to flourish, to be glad.2 It is
used of mirth, gladness, joy,
gaiety, and pleasure.3 It is
most important that the reader
marks this fact about the
word: it has no necessary
sensuous or sinful connotations
except as the context in a
particular usage would suggest
such.4 Both the verb: 
(2
Aqht 11:9), and
the noun: 
('nt: 11:26) are found in
Ugaritic, where the meaning
"to rejoice," and "joy" respec-
tively are suggested by Gordon.5 The intent of Solomon
seems to be to "enjoy a
cheerful life,"6 and
the word here
might be better translated
idiomatically in English as
"fun," with all the
diverse connotations that word has.7
1BDB, Lexicon, p. 970; KB, Lexicon, p. 924.
2Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke, Heft
I,
p.
LXXX.
3BDB, Lexicon, p. 970.
4Leupold, Ecclesiastes, p. 58. Cf. KB, Lexicon, pp.
924-5.
The Aramaic Targum has hvdH (rbrpw, tymrxb wdqh ybtk,
x-d jrk, p. 151). This is defined by Jastrow as
"joy, re-
joicing,"
with no necessarily evil connotations (Jastrow,
Dictionary, Vol. I, p.. 426).
5Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, p. 491, #2432.
6Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, p. 233.
7Leupold,
Ecclesiastes, p. 59.
130
Ecclesiastes 2:3.--The
first of Koheleth's experi-
ments in fun or enjoyment
involves the use of wine. From
the perspective of the 20th
century Christian the word it-
self automatically suggests
something evil. While not ex-
cusing or suggesting the use of
wine among contemporary
American Christians, the writer
cautions against condemning
Koheleth just because he used
it himself. He was living in
another culture and in another
time, and only the misuse,
not the use of wine is
condemned by Scripture, an evidence
of which is Christ's own use of
it (Matt. 26:29). Koheleth
here describes his experiment: yriWAB;-tx, Ny.y.aBa j`Owm;li yBilib; yTir;Ta.
j`Owm; the Qal infinitive construct
from j`wamA, "to
draw, drag,"1
according to BDB. For the present passage
they suggest the meaning
"cheer (draw, attract, gratify)."2
Both Kittel (in the lower
textual apparatus)3 and KB, how-
ever, propose to emend the text
to j`OmW;li.4 KB then relate
the word to the word j`masA, with a meaning suggested in this
context of "support,
refresh."5 It is
not impossible that
the w and m could
have interchanged. It is also not impos-
sible that the w and s could
have been switched. Such a
proposal, therefore, has some
merit, and it certainly makes
1BDB, Lexicon, p. 604.
2Ibid.
3Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, p. 1212.
4KB, Lexicon, p. 574.
5Ibid., p. 661.
131
better sense in the context.1 The LXX translated it tou?
e]lku<sai,
translated "to drag."2 The
LXX translators thus
understood the Hebrew word to
be j`Owm;. Both Graetz and
Gordis emend the text to Hvwml, which would be translated in
the context, "to embrocate
my body with wine."3 It is dif-
ficult, from the language
alone, to infer whether Koheleth
envisioned the use of wine as a
mere drunken sensualist, or
as a connoisseur. But with the
qualifying phrase he uses to
describe the experiment, hmAk;HABa gheno yBiliv;, one can hardly lend
support to the former theory.4 It seems, rather, that this
is best taken as a reference to
a "consumption of wine which
enables a man to get the
highest possible enjoyment by a
careful use of it, so that the
appetite is sharpened, enjoy-
ment enhanced, and the finest
bouquets sampled and en-
joyed."5 The thought of crude extravagance seems to
be ex-
cluded when he states that his
mind (ble) was still keeping
control by means of wisdom.6
1Such a meaning for jms is also supported in
Ara-
maic,
Palmyrene, and Nabatean (DISO, p.
194).
2Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, pp. 534-5.
3Wright, Koheleth, p. 325; cf. Gordis, Koheleth, p. 214.
4Cf. Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, p 234.
5Leupold, Ecclesiastes, p. 60.
6For an excellent
discussion of the various meanings
of
bl,
see J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the
Older Testa-
ment (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1972), pp.
225-6.
132
The succeeding phrase, tUlk;siB;
zHox<l,v; is much more
difficult to understand. There
is no particular problem
with the meaning of zHox<l,, from zHaxA,
"to grasp, take hold,
take possession."1 The key to understanding the phrase is
in the word tUlk;siB;. This is a feminine noun from the verbal
root lkasA, "to be foolish, or a fool."2 The lexicon states
that it is usually used in a
moral or spiritual sense,3 but
this does not mean that it
always is. It can be compared
with the Syriac 
It is
suggested that by "folly"
here is meant the pleasures in
the following verses.5 It is
probably used here in the
"neutral" sense, denoting all
those harmless and enjoyable
forms of nonsense which are
known, but which are not
immoral. Perhaps the word tUlk;si
contains Koheleth's conclusion
concerning what some of the
"fun" in which he
engaged ultimately turned out to be:
folly. That is, he found it to
contain no lasting meaning
or satisfaction. He performed
this experiment, not to revel
1BDB, Lexicon, p. 28; KB, Lexicon, p. 29.
2BDB, Lexicon, p. 698. The tU ending is widely used
in
Semitic languages for abstract nouns, such as šarrūtu in
Akkadian
for "kingship" and tUkl;ma in Hebrew for the same
con-
cept
(Moscati, Comparative Grammar, p. 83;
cf. Harris, A
Grammar of the
Phoenician Language,
p. 58; and GKC, Grammar,
p.
241, sect. 86k).
3BDB, Lexicon, p. 698; cf. KB, Lexicon, pp. 657-8.
4Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, p. 377.
5Leupold, Ecclesiastes, p. 60.
133
in sensuality, but to see
whether he, with all the vast re-
sources at his command, could
not discover how to sweeten the
years of man's existence.1 In this he failed.
Ecclesiastes 2:8.--The
last of the most difficult
expressions in this section is
found in 2:8, translated by
the NASB, "many
concubines. " The phrase is tODwiv;
hDAwi. hDAwi
is apparently in apposition to tOgnufETa, "pleasures." The
lexicon lists the meaning of hDAwi as "unknown," comparing it
to the Akkadian šadâdu, "love," but noting
that this word
lacks evidence.2 The
word may be related to the root hdw,
which can be compared with the
Aramaic plural hy.AdaT; and
Syriac 
"breasts, "3 for which the Hebrew is dwa.4
Koehler and Baumgartner suggest
tracing the word to the root
found
in Ugaritic in 1 Aqht: 215; Text 52:59,
et al., and translated by
Gordon, "lady."5 The
change from
d to t would not be unusual, involving, as it does, a
change
between two non-emphatic dental
plosives, the voiceless t
and voiced d.6 It is interesting that Akkadian does not
1Ginsburg, Coheleth, p. 278. 2BDB, Lexicon,
p. 994.
3Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, p. 605.
4BDB, Lexicon, p. 994. This position is
defended by
Gordis,
who says that dwa, "breast" is used synecdochically,
as
a part for the whole, hence, "woman" (Gordis, Koheleth,
pp.
218-19).
5KB, Lexicon, p. 950; and Gordon, Ugaritic
Textbook,
p.
495, #2500. Cf. also p. 342.
6Moscati, Comparative Grammar, p. 31, sect. 8.21.
134
appear to distinguish between t,
d, and the emphatic plosive
t in
final position, but this was probably due to the pecu-
liarity of the cuneiform
system.1 The
comparison with Ugar-
itic, therefore, is probably
the best presently available,
and the translation
"concubine," as in the NASB is probably
justified, since women
multiplied by a man such as Solomon,
who was famous for such things
(1 Kings 11:1-4) would proba-
bly be for this purpose.2
This is certainly a much more
justified translation than that
of the LXX, whose transla-
tors were also apparently
mystified by the term, and who
translated it oi]noxo<on kai> oi]noxo<aj,
"pourers of wine,"
evidently as a result of
tracing the root to the Aramaic
xdAw;,
"to pour" (though not necessarily used of wine).3
Conclusion on 2:1-11
Following the style of many ancient writers, Kohe-
leth has given his readers his
conclusion at the beginning
of his description of the
experiment (2:2): "Concerning
laughter I said, 'It is
madness,' and concerning fun, 'What
1Ibid.,
sect 8.23.
2Cf. A. R. Hulst, Old Testament Translation Problems
(Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1960), p. 130.
3Barr, Philology, p. 235. Cf. also the
interesting
translation
"the luxuries of commoners--coffers and coffers
of
them," which is based upon the fact that while hDAwi occurs
only
here in the Hebrew Bible, it means "chests" in the
Mishna
(Ginsberg, hnVy rpsv
tvlgm wmH,
p. 59, note a).
135
does it accomplish (do)?'"
It might be paraphrased collo-
quially, "I went out and
had a good time, had a good deal of
fun and laughs, but in the end
it all turned out to be hol-
low, for such things give no
lasting satisfaction." Thus,
he concludes in 2:11: "So
I considered all my activities
(work) which my hands had done,
and the labor which I had
labored to do, and behold, all
was transitory (lh,h,) and
of
no lasting benefit (HaUr tUfr;U) , and there was no accrued
lasting profit in human life (wm,w,.ha tHaTa). All of his labors
and experiments, which Koheleth
had thought might bring
hHAm;Wi,
ultimately had no JOrt;yi
(advantage, profit, as in what
is left over on the balance
sheet).1 But
his view of plea-
sure (fun) and its meaning and
place is only beginning to
emerge. Its relation to this
particular experiment is only
one side of it. Yet it is one
side which should not be for-
gotten: fun can be secured; it
can be enjoyed; indeed, a
certain amount of it may be
psychologically healthy. But
when it is terminated and analyzed
for any lasting benefit
or profit, it (all wise men
should serve themselves notice)
is zero (lb,h,).
Ecclesiastes
2:24-26
Description of the passage
One of the preoccupations of Solomon is his building
1Gordis,
Koheleth, p. 205.
136
activity, which he also calls
his labor (lmafA). He
worries
about the man who will come
after him ("What will the man
who comes after the king do,
except that which has already
been done?" 2:12), and he
worries that his successor will
not appreciate all his work,
and that he will be a fool and
not a wise man (2:18, 19). He
realizes, as he begins to
think about it, that the same
fate befalls both the wise and
the fool, both the industrious
(as he classes himself) and
the slothful (which he worries
that his successor will be,
and he was not far wrong--1
Kings 12:14 ff.): both die.
All his labor has concerned
itself with the earth--and he
finds that earth's rewards are
just that and only that and
no more than that. They cannot
be lasting. Hence, he says:
"There is no more lasting
remembrance of the wise man than
the fool, for in the future all
will be forgotten. O how
the wise man and the fool alike
die!" (2:16). This realiza-
tion made him so despondant
that he said: "So I hated
life, for the work which had
been done under the sun was
grievous (fra) to me, for all is transitory (lb,h,) and of no
lasting benefit (HaUr tUfr;U).1 Thus I hated all the fruit
of
my labor (lmafA), in which I took part (lmafA) under the sun,
and which I must leave to the
man who will be after me" (2:
17, 18). Because the man
inheriting all his work might be
1Shank, "Qoheleth's
World and Life View as Seen in
His Recurring Phrases,"
67.
137
a fool, he says:
"Therefore, I completely despaired of all
the fruit of my labor which I
had performed (lmafA) under
the
sun" (2:20).
This is the background against which Koheleth makes
his statement in 2:24, the
first half of which has often
been quoted in support of the
contention that Koheleth was
advocating unbridled
sensualism: "there is nothing better
for a man than to eat and drink
and for his soul to see good
in his labor"(2:24a). This
statement, however, must be bal-
anced not only by what the
writer says in the immediate con-
text: "This also I have
seen, that it is from the hand of
God, for who can eat and who
can have enjoyment without Him
(except me)?" (2:24b, 25),
but also by the context of the
entire book. The last verse of
this section is, on a cur-
sory examination, the most
difficult to connect with the
preceding context. Solomon
laments that to a person who is
good in His estimation He (God)
has given wisdom and know-
ledge and joy (hHAm;Wi = pleasure), while to the sinner He has
given the task of gathering and
collecting (amassing),1 so
that He may give to one who is
good in God's sight. This,
too, is transitoriness and striving
after wind.
It is natural to assume, as is often done, that Sol-
omon is here classing himself
as the one who is ynep;li bOF
Myhilox<hA. He,
after all, is the one who was wiser than all
1Gordis,
Koheleth, p. 152.
138
who were before him in
has changed places briefly, for
here he speaks of the task
of gathering and amassing,
exactly what Solomon had done
during his life, as lb,h,. Is it not possible that he may
have written this later in
life, when he would have classi-
fied himself as xF,OH? If so, it is easy to understand why
he would pronounce the task of
amassing possessions which,
ultimately, are given to good
men, a futile task for the
sinner. Yet, even if Solomon
considers himself "wise" here,
the passage is coherent, and is
even more so, if lb,h, is
translated
"transitoriness."
Linguistic analysis
Ecclesiastes 2:24.--The
first phrase in question in
this section is htAwAv; lkaxyo.w, MdAxABA bOF-Nyxe.
Usually, this
phrase has been translated as
it has above, following the
NASB, "There is nothing
better for a man than to eat and
drink. . . .” It is suggested by Leupold, however, that
the expression is better
translated, “It is not a good thing
inherent in man that he is able
to eat and drink . . . .”1
In support of this translation
he argues that the "positive
and not the comparative usage
is used in Hebrew."2
Barton,
however, follows the comparative
usage, as do most others.3
1Leupold, Ecclesiastes, p. 74.
2Ibid., pp. 74-5.
3Barton,
Ecclesiastes, p. 84.
139
Either rendering changes the
sense little. Hengstenberg
suggests an interrogative,
"Is it not good?" noting that Nyxe
can sometimes be used that way,
even though one would expect
xlo. He
cites 1 Samuel 21:9 as an example of such a usage.1
Ecclesiastes 2:25.--The
problem in this verse cen-
ters about a textual problem
involving the word yni.m.,mi, "apart
from me." Many versions
over the years, including the LXX,
Vulgate, Syriac, and most
English versions have either
emended the text (in the case
of the more recent ones) or
had a different Vorlage before them when they
translated.2
The LXX translates, pa<rec au]tou?, "from him," as does
Jerome
and the Syriac, though the
Targum follows the Massoretic
text, ynym, “from me.”3
Ginsberg argues for this transla-
tion,4 but Delitzsch and most others reject it.5 Either one
renders a good sense, but the
Massoretic text is to be pre-
ferred and followed, since it
makes the best sense. The
translation would then be:
"Who shall drink and who shall
1Hengstenberg, Ecclesiastes, pp. 84-5.
2Cf. Kittel, Biblia Hebraica, p. 1214.
3rbrqw, tymrxb wdqh ybtk, x-d
jrk, p.
153.
4Ginsburg, Coheleth, p. 301.
5Delitzsch,
Ecclesiastes, p. 252. Cf. Scott, Ecclesiastes, p. 218.
140
eat more than I?1 It
is a rhetorical question, and the
answer is, "no one!"
Solomon had all the advantages possi-
ble, and in spite of this, his
pronouncement upon all of
these things was lb,h,. This is not to say that he discounts
the advisability of eating and
drinking; everyone must do
that. Furthermore, Koheleth
views the enjoyment of such
things as from God.
Conclusion on 2:24-26
At the center of Koheleth's statements is the reali-
zation that for purely earthly
things, the only enjoyment of
them is on the earth, and so if
they are to have any meaning
they must be enjoyed in the
present world. Just because
they have no lasting value does
not mean that their present
enjoyment is futile or sinful.
It is only important that
one recognize that temporal
things can only be enjoyed tem-
porally and temporarily, and
that if lasting evidence of and
satisfaction from life is
desired, it must be sought else-
where--in the place of which
Koheleth eventually tells his
readers--the keeping of God's
commandments.
Ecclesiastes
4:8
Against such unthinking materialism Koheleth con-
tinues to warn in Ecclesiastes
4:8: "There was a certain
1Cf. Cohen, The Five Megilloth, p. 122, and Gins-
berg, hnvy rpsv
tvlgm wmH, p. 61.
141
man without a dependent, having
neither son nor a brother,
yet there was no end to all his
labor. Indeed his eyes were
not satisfied with riches and
he never asked, 'And for whom
am I laboring and depriving
myself of pleasure?'" (NASB).
"This too is a transitory
and grievous task." There are
many who labor out of a sense
of compulsion, for whom the
acquisition of goods seems to
be an end in itself. They
never consider what good their
work or possessions do them;
they never enjoy any of the
fruit of their labor. Yet, they
work on, driven by a
materialism that is, as Koheleth right-
ly states, lb,h, and frA
Nyan;fi. frA is
used in the Scripture
both in a morally evil sense
and in the sense of "disagree-
able."1 It does not necessarily connote evil. Nyan;fi, from
NyAn;fi, is
used only in Ecclesiastes and means "task."2 Here
it is in the construct: "a
task of disagreeableness."
Thus, Koheleth says, for the man who works only for
himself,
gets no benefit from his work,
and who does not consider the
very little lasting value it
will have either for himself or
for those who will inherit the
work, it is a disagreeable
task. Nothing could be more
true. Again, Koheleth is not
counseling rampant sensuality
as a solution to life's prob-
lems. He only counsels that if
one works hard, he should
also share in the enjoyment
resultant from that work.
1BDB, Lexicon, p. 948; cf. KB, Lexicon, pp. 896-7.
2Ibid., p. 775; cf.
"occupation," KB, Lexicon,
p. 721.
142
Ecclesiastes
7:15-18
Description of the passage
This passage is among the most perplexing of the
entire book. It has been used
by many to advance their dic-
tums that Solomon counseled
sensualism--a sort of proto-Epi-
cureanism. Before the passage
is completely dismissed on
the basis of only a rather
hasty examination, it is incum-
bent upon the interpreter of
the Bible to seek to understand
completely the true meaning of
the text. Koheleth's state-
ment may not be as obvious as
it seems. It is, after all,
not straightforward prose, but
a highly condensed philosoph-
ical aphorism. Koheleth states:
I have seen everything during the
days of my transitori-
ness. There is a righteous man who
perishes in spite of
his righteousness, and there is a
wicked man who pro-
longs (his days) in spite of his
wickedness. Do not be
excessively righteous, and do not be
overly wise. Why
should you cause yourself ruin? Do
not be excessively
wicked, and do not be a fool. Why
should you die before
your time? It is good that you grasp
the one and also
from the other do not rest your
hand, for the one who
fears God shall go up with all of them.
Linguistic analysis
Oqd;ciB;.--The B; of this verse is variously translated.
Normally, of course, it is
translated "in," but there are
many other uses including
"at," "by," and "with."1 If it
were translated
"with" it would be the beth
comitatus which
1BDB, Lexicon, pp. 88-90; KB, Lexicon, pp. 102-105.
Cf. DISO, pp. 30-31 and Moscati, Comparative
Grammar, p. 121.
143
occurs frequently throughout
the Old Testament (cf. Prov.
3:19).1 This one seems to give a better sense than
the
other one often suggested,
"in the sphere of," but both are
comprehensible.2 Perhaps the best suggestion is that it be
taken adversatively, "in
spite of."3 The
word Oqd;ci is also
in question. It is a very
common word throughout the Bible
and is usually used with
reference to moral righteousness,
though there are other uses.4 The word was used with
reference to kings in the sense
of "legitimate" and Jean and
Hoftijzer suggest the
translation "pieux" ("pious") for the
word as it appears in the
Aramaic Ahiqar, line 128.5 In
view of the antithetical
parallelism used in this passage
(the righteous . . . the
wicked), it is probably being used
in some moral or religious
sense.
Ecclesiastes 7:16.--It
is important in this verse to
1Mitchell Dahood, Psalms, Vol. III in The Anchor
Bible, ed. by W. F. Albright
and D. N. Freedman (3 vols.:
Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday S, Company, Inc., 1970), pp.
38-44,
266, and 310. Ugaritic has given broader meanings to
many
prepositions, though the appeal here is not to Ugari-
tic.
Cf. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, p.
370, #435.
2Gordis, Koheleth, pp. 276-7. Cf. BDB, Lexicon, p.
90.
3BDB, Lexicon, p. 89, III c.
4Ibid., p. 842; KB, Lexicon,
p. 794.
5DISO, p. 243. "Légitimité" is one of the meanings
suggested
for qdc
II., and "pieux" is one of the meanings
suggested
for qdc III.
Cf. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the
Fifth
Century B.C., pp. 216, 244.
144
notice that qyDica is in parallelism with MkAHA, just as in the
next verse fwarA is in parallelism with lkAsA. There have been
many attempts to bring this
verse into line with the ortho-
dox view of life which assumes
that man cannot ever be too
righteous in the moral sense
(cf. Eccl. 7:20, "there is not
a righteous man on earth who
continually does good and who
never sins"). The Midrash,
the Targum, and Rashi all refer
it to judges: "be not too
righteous when the criminal is
found guilty of death in thy
court of justice, so as to have
compassion on him and not
execute him," taking qyDica in the
sense of clemency.1 Others have taken it in the sense of
hermitical piety, where one neglects
the maintenance of the
body.2
Barton, as one might suspect, suggests that "Qohe-
leth really implies that one
may sin to a moderate degree."3
This, however, ignores the
entire tone of the book (cf. 12:
13, 14). Zöckler feels that
7:16, 17 constitute "a warning
against that strictly exact,
but hypocritical and external
righteousness of those
predecessors of the Pharisees to whom
the preceding verse
referred."4 For
those who take a late
date of composition, a
connection with the Pharisees is not
so difficult to imagine, though
as a group they were
1Ginsburg, Coheleth, p. 379. 2Ibid.
3Barton, Ecclesiastes, p. 144.
4Zöckler, Ecclesiastes, p. 108.
145
certainly most famous much
later.1 But if
Solomonic author-
ship is defended, it is
doubtful that even their predeces-
sors are here envisioned.
Still, it is possible that there
were the overly scrupulous even
in Solomon's day. Wright
suggests that the phrase
"be not righteous overmuch" dis-
plays playful irony.2 He further suggests that the verse
should be compared with James
1:21: dio> a]poqe<menoi pa?san
r[upari<an
kai> perissei<an kaki<aj, "therefore putting off
all
filthiness and all abundance of
wickedness." The writer
does not, of course, imply that
a moderation of wickedness
is acceptable, as long as the
abundance of it is avoided.
While it would be convenient to
apply such a meaning to the
present passage, it does not
seem legitimate to do so, for
there is an unmistakable
parallelism here, and the point of
the first part of it is,
"be righteous, but not too much,"
so the last part must follow,
"be wicked, but not too much."
Ginsburg suggests that the solution lies in taking
the immediate context into
consideration. In the preceding
verses of chapter 7, Koheleth
is propounding the "common-
sense view of life."3 It is not, however, his final conclu-
sion. It was pointed out
earlier that this book must be
1Cf. Hugo Mantel, Studies in the History of the San-
hedrin, in Harvard Semitic Studies, Vol. XVII (
2Wright, Koheleth, p. 389.
3Ginsburg, Coheleth,
p.380.
146
interpreted in the light of the
whole, and that each state-
ment must be allowed to be
balanced by others bearing on the
subject in the book. Hence,
Ginsburg's suggestion has a
great deal of merit. The
passage may also be connected with verse 13:
The meaning may be best
explained by a paraphrase.
Solomon states how the wise man
should regard the "crook-
ed (v. 13) work of God" when it
bears upon him. He says
in effect, "Do not think that
thou couldest alter the
two instances (described in v. 15)
of such crooked work
so as to make it straight, that thou
art more righteous
or more wise than He is Who ordained
these events. To
set up thy judgment in opposition to
His would imply an
excess of wickedness and folly, deserving
the punishment
of premature death. But rather it is
good for thee to
grasp these seeming anomalies; if
thou ponder them they
will tend to impress on thee that
fear of God which is
a part of wisdom, and will guide
thee safely through all
the perplexities of this life."
The suggestion that
these verses are intended to
advocate a middle course
between sin and virtue is at
variance with the whole
tenor of the book.1
Yet another explanation is offered by Delitzsch:
The correct meaning of
"be no wicked over-much" may
be found if for fwrt we substitute xFAH,T,; in this form
the good counsel at once appears as
impossible, for it
would be immoral, since
"sinning," in all circumstances,
is an act which carries in itself
its own sentence of
condemnation. Thus fwr must here be a setting
oneself
free from the severity of the law,
which although sin in
the eyes of the over-righteous, is
yet no sin in itself;
and the author here thinks, in
accordance with the
spirit of his book, principally of
that fresh, free,
joyous life to which he called the
young, that joy of
life in its fulness which appeared
to him as the best
and fairest reality in this present
time; but along with
that, perhaps also of transgressions
of the letter of
the law, of shaking off the scruples
of conscience which
conformity to God-ordained
circumstances brings along
with it. He means to say: be not a narrow rigorist,
1Fuller, Ecclesiastes,
pp. 103-4.
147
--enjoy life, accommodate thyself to
life; but let not
the reins be too loose; and be no
fool who wantonly
places himself above law and
discipline: Why wilt thou
destroy thy life before the time by
suffering vice to
kill thee (Ps. xxxiv. 22), and by
want of understanding
ruin thyself (Prov. x. 21)?l
It is best to take the passage in the context of
Ecclesiastes as a whole, and
the tone of the book taken as
a unity is certainly not
licentiousness. If the view of
the book about life is not as
philosophically elevated as
the New Testament, Solomon
cannot be justly condemned.
After all, he had few of the
books of the Old Testament
which are now extant, much less
the entire New Testament.
But he could not have suggested
a life of sin, for he spe-
cifically commands to keep the
law (12:13, 14) and warns of
a coming judgment (11:9).
Perhaps Koheleth is merely sug-
gesting the avoidance of a
legalism which kept the letter,
but ignored the spirit of the
law.
Ecclesiastes
8:15
In a section in which Koheleth reaches some of his
greatest heights
("Although a sinner does evil a hundred
times, and he may lengthen his
life, still I know that it
will be well for the ones who
fear God, for the ones who
fear Him openly; but it will
not be well for the evil man
and he will not lengthen his
days like a shadow, because he
1Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, pp. 325-6. Cf. also the
excellent
translation in Ginsberg, hnvy rspv tlgm wmH, p.
68.
148
does not fear God"),
Koheleth again makes a statement about
hHAm;Wi:
"So I praised enjoyment, for there is nothing better
for a man under the sun than to
eat, to drink, and to be
joyful (HaOmW;), for this will accompany him in his labor
during the days of his life
which God has given to him under
the sun."
It is perhaps due to the familiarity of the Epi-
curean phrase, "eat,
drink, and be merry," that this verse
has been connected with that
type of philosophy, especially
since a number of English
versions have translated it thus.
It should be obvious,
nevertheless, that there is absolutely
nothing necessarily evil about
what Koheleth is saying. In
spite of all the perplexities
and inequities of the world,
there are three things that a
man can do, which he should do,
indeed, which he must do: eat
and drink and be joyful. The
first two are necessary
physiologically; the last is neces-
sary psychologically. The
reason Koheleth gives for sug-
gesting this enjoyment of the
most basic things of life (he
could get no more basic), is
that OlmAfEba Un.v,l;yi xUh. In
hnvy rpsv tlgm wmH phrase is translated "That much [that
is, the eating and drinking and
enjoying himself] can accom-
pany him, in exchange for his
wealth, through the days of
life that God has granted him
under the sun."1 The
trans-
lation "wealth" for lmafA is not the normal one. This is a
1Ginsberg,
hnvy
rpsv tlgm wmH, p. 71.
149
masculine noun normally
translated "trouble, labor, toil."1
Only by extension of the idea
of labor to include the ulti-
mate result of it could it mean
"wealth."2 The
sense of the
passage seems to be better
understood if lmafA is
translated
"toil" or
"labor." The eating and drinking and enjoyment
are then seen as a respite from
monotonous or tiring labor,
and the advice to participate
in enjoyable activities is
well taken.
Ecclesiastes
11:9, 10
These are two extremely intriguing verses, contain-
ing, as they do, two ideas
juxtaposed, which certain commen-
tators have labeled
contradictory.
Koheleth's advice is:
Rejoice (HmaW;) young man in your
youth, and let your
heart
be pleasant in the days of adolescence. And go in
the way of your heart, and
according to the vision of
1Scott's suggestion that lmafA means "the sheer
expen-
diture
of energy with no result" is unfounded (cf. Scott,
Ecclesiastes, p. 243).
2An important semantic
principle in Hebrew, which
possesses
wide ramifications, is that the same term will be
used
to express both a quality or an act and the conse-
quences
of that quality or act. Thus the noun lyiHa means both
"strength"
and "wealth,"' i.e., what is acquired by that
strength.
NOx
means both "vigor" and "wealth." xFAHA means
both
"sin" and "punishment." There are several other in-
stances
in Ecclesiastes where such an extension of the idea
of
lmafA
might legitimatize a translation of "wealth," but
8:15
does not appear to be one of them. For a complete
discussion
of the use of lmafA in Ecclesiastes, cf. Gordis,
Koheleth, Appendix D, "On
the Meaning of lmf in Koheleth,"
pp.
418-20. Cf. also, KB, Lexicon, p.
715.
150
your eyes; but know that for all
these things God will
call you in judgment. So banish care
from your heart
and take sorrow out of your body,
for childhood and the
prime of life are going.
This seems to be the advice of an old man to young
is nothing necessarily evil
connoted here. On the contrary,
Koheleth cautions young men to
remember that they will be
called into judgment for
whatever they do. Koheleth is ful-
ly aware of the depravity of
man (7:20), and what effect
that depravity will have on
one's jr,d, and hxAr;ma (from hxArA).
Still, he advises young men to
follow their desires. He
must mean, then, morally good
desires, else he would not
have warned them to remain
cognizant of the coming judgment.
He is not saying, as Barton
contends, "self-denial is self-
destruction."1 His mention of judgment precludes that. He
counsels only that it is wise
to take advantage of the many
good activities available to
one in his youth, for as age
increases many of these
opportunities decrease, and when
gone, they, as youth, are gone
forever. Surely no one can
condemn Koheleth for saying,
"Enjoy your youth while you
have it," for he balances
this by his affirmation that youth
is the best time to "remember"
one's Creator (12:1).
Conclusion
As many men before and after him, Koheleth decided
1Barton,
Ecclesiastes, p. 185.
151
that he would test the
pleasures of the world to see if they
contained any NOrt;yi, any lasting benefit. He did not with-
hold from himself any available
pleasure. Yet, when he
added up everything at the end
of the experiment, he had to
admit, honestly, that all is
"zero," for all is transitory.
In terms of lasting benefit and
meaningful progress, it is
all futile.
Throughout the book he periodically returns to the
subject of pleasure or
"fun." He concludes that a certain
amount of fun is useful
temporally, but it certainly is not
an end in itself, and if one
expects it to provide lasting
satisfaction in itself, it is a
dead end. In fact, the ben-
efit of pleasure is often so
illusive, and may be so harm-
ful, that Koheleth decides that
in some cases "Sorrow is
better than laughter, for when
a face is glum, a heart may
be happy. The mind of the wise
is in the house of mourning,
while the mind of fools is in
the house of pleasure" (7:3,
4). He does not mean this, of
course, in the absolute
sense, but what he says is
true, as any thinking man knows.
He balances these kinds of
statements by others such as the
one just considered above,
"Rejoice young man, during your
youth." Koheleth has
looked at pleasure and has concluded
that "no matter how
spirited the event, it provides no last-
ing assuage to man's ills. It
gives but a certain momentary
152
realease and at best is soon
gone."1 Yet
while life lived
only for enjoyment is
"vanity," life may still be enjoyable
and yet holy when legitimate
pleasures are enjoyed within
the sphere of God ("this .
. . I have seen is from God’s
hand . . ."), and with the
understanding that a future judg-
ment is certain.
Death and
Immortality
Introduction
There can be no doubt that the thought of death is
that which presses most heavily
upon the mind of Koheleth.
It is death which more than
anything stamps "vanity" upon
all terrestrial things. Through
the fear of death man is
all his lifetime subject to
bondage, for man lives but to
die, and what is worse, over
death he has no control (8:8).
He is the creature of an
irresistible law; in this he is not
much different from brutes
(3:19). But the problems with
Koheleth's views on this
subject come not so much from his
statements about death itself,
for all those are easily seen
to be true. The objections to
Ecclesiastes on this subject
have been raised about what
Koheleth predicates of existence
after death. The entire
question of immortality in the Old
Testament is, of course, very
perplexing, and among Bible
students there is little
agreement even upon the concept.
1Taylor,
"Studies in Ecclesiastes," pp. 4-5.
153
Furthermore, one should not
expect to find in Koheleth's
words the final word on the
doctrine of immortality. Yet,
one would expect, in view of
the inspired and revelatory
nature of the book, that what
Koheleth says on the subject,
however incomplete, would
nonetheless be accurate.
It is to the understanding of the most salient of
Koheleth's statements on the
subject that this section is
devoted. These include 2:12-17;
3:15-22; 4:1-3; 5:13-17;
6:1-6; 9:1-12; 11:7-10; and
12:7, 13, 14.
Consideration of the
Texts
Ecclesiastes
2:12-17
Of all the passages touching on immortality in the
book of Ecclesiastes, this is
one of the least perplexing.
Koheleth's statements here are
straightforward, and are mis-
understood only if the context
is not considered. His as-
severations about the value of
pleasure have been discussed
above. After concluding that
all such "fun" is lb,h,, the
writer proceeds to say
concerning the wise and the foolish
that MlA.Ku-tx, hr,q;yi dHAx, hr,q;miw, ("one
fate befalls all of them,"
2:14). This conclusion
immediately raises questions in the
mind of the Christian, because
Christian doctrine states
that the wicked are punished at
death, and the righteous are
rewarded. This objection should
not be raised in the pre-
sent instance, however, because
what Koheleth means is per-
fectly clear. In 2:16 he
reveals this when he says in an
154
exclamation: lyskh-Mf MkHh tvmy jyxv ("O how the wise man
dies with the fool"). This
is the point of Koheleth's
statement in the passage under
consideration. Death is no
respecter of the wise and the
fool, the righteous and the
unrighteous; it claims
everyone. Hence, righteousness that
is truly that (and therefore
acceptable to God) is futile in
this respect: it will not
postpone death forever, and death
will cancel all efforts which
have been earthly and only
earthly.
Ecclesiastes
3:15-22
This passage is somewhat more perplexing. It is
often cited to prove that
Koheleth had no conception of
immortality, or that if he did,
he was not completely con-
vinced of it. The difficulties
begin with verse 19 and con-
tinue through verse 22:
For the fate of the sons of men and
the fate of the
beast (hmAheB;) is one for them. As
this one dies, so
dies that one, for their spirit is
one and the same,
and there is no advantage of man
over the beast, for all
go to one place; all are made from
dust and all return
to the dust. Who knows if the spirit
of the sons of men
goes upward, and the spirit of the
beast downward to the
earth? And I have seen that there is
nothing better
than that man should be joyful (HmaW;yi) in his work, for
that is his proper share, for who
will bring him to see
what will occur after him?
Figures of speech
Bullinger suggests that 3:18 contains two important
figures of speech. The first is
heterosis, from the Greek
e!teroj, and
means the exchange of one voice, mood, tense,
155
person, number, degree, or
gender, for another. Thus, when
Koheleth says MdAxAhA yneB; trab;Di-lfa yBiliB; ynixE yTir;maxA, he
means,
"according to the
reasoning of man, or human reasoning:
i.e., man says in his
heart."1 He
also states that there is
an instance of pleonasm in
3:18, the figure of speech by
which more words are used than
the grammar requires, from
the Greek pleonasmo<j. "Here the figure shows
that the em-
phasis is on 'men' in contrast
to 'beasts.' Yet I said in
my heart respecting MEN, God
has chosen them to show that
they, even they, are like
beasts."2
Psychology of man and animals
One of the problems in this passage arises out of
the fact that theologians often
find in the words wp,n, and
HaUR
meanings more technical and more circumscribed than the
words actually have in
Scripture. It is true that when God
created man He hy.Aha wp,n,l; MdAxAhA yhiy;va Myy.iHa tmaw;ni vypAxaB;
HPayi.
(Gen.
2:7), but it is also true that
when God created animals, He
put in them a hy.Aha wp,n, (Gen. 1:30). Therefore, as far as the
wp,n,
is
concerned, there is no essential difference between
man and animals, at least as
distinguishable from the words.
It is even more revealing that
when the animals went
into the ark, they are
described as those which had a
1Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp.
510
and 524.
2Ibid., pp. 405, 408.
156
Myy.iHa
HaUr
(Gen. 7:15). This same term is applied to both
animals and man in Genesis
7:21, 22. Therefore, as far as
the words of Scripture are
concerned, both animals and man
have a hy.Aha wp,n, and a Myy.iHa
HaUr.
Their psychological distinc-
tion must be made on a
different basis than these words.1
In the present context it is the HaUr of man which is
under consideration. The
primary meanings of the word, de-
pending upon the context are
"breath," "wind," and "spir-
it."2 It is used to describe the wind in various
ways (east
wind, north wind, day wind). HaUr is
also used to describe
the quarter of the wind (east
side=Mydiq.Aha HaUr), to
describe
the air or gas from the womb
(Isa. 26:18), and as a metaphor
for a vain or empty and
meaningless thing (Job 7:7), and for
one's temper or disposition. It
is also used to describe
the vigor or animation of a person,
and the desire of a per-
son.3 It is further used in the Bible to
describe the mind,
and the same root is used for
"smell." Koehler and Baum-
gartner list the present
passage under the sixth general
heading, "breath, element
of life, the natural spirit of
man." It is found in
Ugaritic as 
(rh),
defined by Gordon as
"'wind,' 'spirit,' and possibly
1On the soul of man, cf.
Franz Delitzsch, A System
of Biblical Psychology (
print,
1966), pp. 209 ff.
2BDB, Lexicon, p. 924; KB, Lexicon, pp. 877-9.
3BDB, Lexicon, pp. 924-6.
4KB, Lexicon, pp. 877-9.
157
'scent."'1 It is also found in Phoenician with similar
mean-
ings.2 The term was, therefore, a widely used,
and extreme-
ly elastic one.
It was translated by a number of Greek words in the
LXX, including pneu?ma, a@nemoj, qumo<j, qumo<w, nou?j, pne<w,
pnoh<,
frone<w, fro<nhsij, yuxh<.3 It was translated by the
Vulgate as spiritus. Some have contended that before the
Exile HaUr signified only "breath,"4 but this is untenable
considering its many meanings
prior to that not only in bib-
lical literature, but also in
such extrabiblical literature
as Ugaritic and Phoenician. The
word is used both in con-
nection with God5 and in connection with "evil
spirits,"6
lGordon, Ugaritic Textbook, p. 483, #2308 and
2314.
It
is found in 3 Aqht 25, 36 and 'nt:II:2, where it possibly
means
the scent of animals.
2Cf. DISO, p. 276, where three basic meanings are
given: (1) "vent" ("wind"), (2)
"esprit" ("spirit"), and
(3)
"Esprit" ("Spirit"),. It is also found in Sefire (cf.
Joseph
A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of
Sefire (
Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1967), p. 104, Sf. III, 2.
3Cf. Elmar Camilo dos
Index for the Hatch
Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint
(
4Paul Van Imschoot, Theology of the Old Testament,
trans.
by Kathryn Sullivan and Fidelis Buck, Vol. I (2 vols.:
5Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 160.
6Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, trans.
by
Arthur W. Heathcote and Phillip J. Allcock (
Harper and Brothers,
Publishers, 1958), pp. 122-3.
158
presumably demons. The HaUr is given man by God (Zech. 12:1)
and it is His spirit (Gen.
6:3). Physical life is dependent
upon the HaUr. If God recalls His HaUr, all things die (Ps.
104:29), and idols are dead
because they have no HaUr (Ps.
135:17). HaUr is responsible for sensation and emotion: it
grieves (Isa. 65:14), is
patient (Eccl. 7:8), loses heart
(Isa. 61:3), is prudent (Prov.
17:27), humble (Prov. 29:23),
proud (Prov. 16:18). All
decisions depend upon the HaUr (1
Chron. 5:26), for it possesses
intelligence (Job 20:3). The
spiritual part of man
(religiously) meditates upon God's
providence (Ps. 77:7) and
serves God (Ps. 51:12) in repen-
tance (Ps. 51:19).1
Thus, when one comes to this passage in Ecclesiastes
he must allow Koheleth to
choose one of these various uses
for HaUr, and to use it in whatever manner he chooses,
either
by limitation or broadening of
its meaning according to the
context.
Again, Koheleth clearly states his meaning: there is
no advantage for man over the
beast because they all go to
the same place, physically
speaking, to the dust. This is a
universal fact: all living
things, whether human or brute,
eventually die, and eventually
decompose. From the purely
physical point of view, all
disappear.
In verse 21, however, Koheleth apparently begins to
1Heinisch,
Theology of the Old Testament, p.
160.
159
discuss the immaterial part of
man, and his provenance after
death. It has been translated
above by the writer, "Who
knows if the spirit of the sons
of men goes upward, and the
spirit of the beast, if it goes
downward to the earth?"
The problems which interpreters have had in under-
standing the verse are
demonstrated by the remarkable punc-
tuation of the Massoretes,
which Ginsburg says is due to
euphemism:
The different schools of textual
critics had a different
pronunciation of the He (h) which precedes the two
par-
ticiples, hlAfo
goeth upward, and td,reyo goeth downward. Ac-
cording to one School it was the
interrogative (hE... hE)
and denotes whether it (i.e. the
spirit of man) goeth
upward
. . . whether it (i.e. the spirit of the beast)
goeth
downward. This School recognized the fact that
the verse before us is part of the
general argument, and
that the proper answer to this
question is given at the
end of the book. The Chaldee, the
Septuagint, the
Syriac, the Vulgate, Luther, the
Revised Version follow this School,
and take the He (h)
interrogatively. Another School of
redactors, however,
with a sensitive regard for the
devout worshippers who
had to listen to the public reading
of the passage, were
anxious to obviate the appearance of
skepticism, and
hence took the He (h) as the article pronoun and inter-
preted the clauses in question, that goeth upward . . .
that
goeth downward. It is this School which the Mas-
sorites followed in their
punctuation of the two parti-
ciples, viz. td,r,yo.ha . . . hlAfohA.1
This verse has been a great
problem, especially to
1Christian David
Ginsburg, Introduction to the Mas-
soretico-Critical
Edition of the Hebrew Bible (
Ktav Publishing House, Inc.,
reprint, 1966), pp. 461-2.
160
the destructively critical
writers.1
Hengstenberg (who does
not fall into that category)
suggests several reasons for
rejecting the interrogative
view: (1) According to the
pointing, the h can be the article. (2) The interrogative
translation involves the writer
in a glaring contradiction
with himself. (3) The
interrogative view involves the writ-
er in a contradiction with the
rest of the Old Testament.
Hengstenberg would, therefore,
translate it, "Who knoweth
the spirit of the children of
men that goeth upward, and the
breath of the beast that goeth
downward."2 It
remains, how-
ever, that the ancient versions
took it interrogatively, a
fact which cannot be lightly
dismissed. It is assumed that
if the LXX translators, for
instance, had a Vorlage before
them which allowed them to translate
it in a manner more
easily harmonized not only with
the rest of the book, but
with the rest of the old
Testament, that they would have
done such. Yet, they translated
it: kai>
ti<j oi#den pneu?ma
ui[w?n
tou? a]nqrw<pou;
Furthermore, the passage does not involve the con-
tradictions that Hengstenberg
supposes. It is possible to
take it in the interrogative
sense and still correlate it
1Cf. Bernard W. Anderson,
The Living World of the
Old Testament (
ed.,
1967), p. 504, in which he argues that Koheleth did
not
believe in immortality at all. Cf. also Scott, Eccles-
iastes, pp. 222-3, and Barton,
Ecclesiastes, p. 110.
2Hengstenberg,
Ecclesiastes, pp. 119-21.
161
with the book as a whole, and
the Old Testament.
It seems best, therefore, to explain the problem in
terms of retaining the
interrogative reading. Perhaps it is
better understood, if one inserts
an answer to the question.
Who knows if the spirit of man
ascends upward and that of
the beast downward?--no one.1 No one knows, that is, except
God, and this is surely the
point Koheleth is making here.
He cannot mean by his question
that the spirit of man does
not ascend (i.e., go to God),
for he specifically states
(12:7), "then the dust
will return to the earth as it was,
and the spirit will return to
God who gave it." "It may
certainly be said of mi yode'a, as of ignoratur, that it
does not exclude every kind of
knowledge, but only a sure
and certain knowledge resting
on sufficient grounds."2 In
the end the matter is solved
for Koheleth by faith--as, in-
deed, it must be solved for
anyone in any age. Who knows
what happens to the HaUr of man?--no one except those who be-
lieve what God says about it.
It is interesting that the
Midrash on Ecclesiastes chapter
3 says: "All souls go up-
wards; but for those of the
righteous there is a resting
place, whilst those of the
wicked are fugitive."3 The
1Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp.
1021-2
2Delitzsch, Ecclesiastes, p. 271.
3Rapaport,
A Treasury of the Midrash, p. 181.
162
writers of the Midrash
evidently did not feel that Solomon's
statements precluded
immortality.
Immortality
As previously stated, some have mistakenly under-
stood Koheleth to be saying
here that there is no immortal-
ity: "The writer is aware
of the doctrine of human immor-
tality, but he cannot accept
it; there is no proof for it."1
Another alleges that the
doctrine of immortality is stated
only in one or two doubtful
expressions in the book, and
that the whole tenor of the
book is not that the heart or
the spirit is immortal, but
that, whether it is or not, in
the heart is planted the
thought, the consciousness of eter-
nity--and the longing after it.2 Another, assuming the late
date of the book, contends that
the book is a Sadducean doc-
ument, and that it preserves
their denial of the doctrine of
immortality, a denial, which
was still evident in Christ's
day (Matt. 22:23).3
None the less, these views neither represent the
teaching of the entire Old
Testament on the subject, nor the
1W. O. E. Oesterley and
Theodore H. Robinson, Hebrew
Religion: Its Origin and
Development
(
Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 1952), p. 365.
2 Alexander Maclaren, The Books of Esther, Job, Prov-
erbs and Ecclesiastes, in Expositions of the Holy Scriptures
(
3Oesterley and Robinson, Hebrew Religion: Its Ori-
gin
and Development, pp. 364-5.
163
teaching of the book of
Ecclesiastes. Koheleth's views of
Sheol, and the Old Testament
view in general, will be dis-
cussed below under the topics
of the ninth chapter. Here,
it is sufficient to let
Koheleth speak for himself in other
places in the book to
demonstrate that he does believe that
for man there is existence
after death.
(1) His belief in a future judgment demands it.
"God will judge both the
righteous and the wicked man" (3:
17); "God will bring you
to judgment for all these things"
(11:9); "God will bring every
act to judgment, everything
which is hidden, whether it is
good or evil," (12:14). (2)
Man has an "eternal
home" (12:5). (3) The spirit of man
(HaUr)
returns to God at death (12:7). One certainly cannot
agree with Jastrow, who
concludes that if there is anything
beyond death, Koheleth's system
of thought collapses.1
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
Koheleth surveys the world and he sees so much
misery and oppression, and so
little comfort in it, that he
feels compelled to exclaim:
"So I congratulated (HaBewav;)2 the
dead who are already dead, more
than the living who are still
living. But better than both of
them is the one who never
came into being, who has not
seen the evil work which is
1Jastrow, A Gentle Cynic, p. 129.
2BDB, Lexicon, p. 986.
164
done under the sun (4:2-3).
This statement is certainly not
the normal human way of viewing
life. Yet, for Koheleth's
purposes, it is eminently
appropriate, for what he says has
a certain truth in it. One
suspects that he means more than
Gordis deduces from the
passage:
The spectacle of wickedness in the
seats of justice and
the fruitless tears of the oppressed
fill Koheleth's
heart with despair. Nor can he find
consolation in
the shadowy doctrine of retribution
in another world,
which he dismisses with a shrug of
the shoulders. Only
the pursuit of personal happiness is
a sensible goal for
men.1
Cannot the passage be better understood, and more
legitimately so, by trying to
picture the situation Solomon
was describing, and then by
trying to understand what one's
own reaction would be?
Apparently many miseries were being
brought upon the helpless and
innocent by the very men who
should have been ameliorating
the condition of the communi-
ty.2 These conditions were so intolerable that
Koheleth re-
garded those whom death had
relieved from these bitter suf-
ferings as happier than those
who endured them. In fact,
conditions were so deplorable
that Koheleth says that those
who had never been born were
better than the living. There
have been many situations in
which such a statement would
have been true for God's
people, including not only the time
1Gordis, Koheleth, pp. 158-9.
2Ginsburg,
Coheleth, p. 322.
165
of Solomon,l but also the period of the Exile, the time
of
Antiochus Epiphanes, the Roman
period, various times
throughout the middle ages in
Nazi holocaust. It is true that
1 Kings speaks of the reign
of Solomon in glowing terms (1
Kings 4:20-25; 10:6-9), but
one must be astute enough to
read between the lines. Solo-
mon's wealth, wives, temples,
and palaces had to be financed
by someone, and as usual, it
was the average citizen upon
whom the bulk of that financing
fell.2
Furthermore, multi-
plied thousands of men were
drafted to work for Solomon for
long months and years away from
home (1 Kings 9:27; 5:13-
16). It is little wonder that
when Solomon died the people
complained to his son Rehoboam:
"Your father made our yoke
hard; therefore lighten the
hard service of your father and
his heavy yoke which he put on
us, and we will serve you"
(1 Kings 12:4).
It might seem singularly strange that the very man
who was responsible for the
hardship of the people should
lament that hardship. Yet, if
this book was written at the
close of his life, it is not
improbable that Solomon may
have come to take tardy
cognizance of what he had done to
1This statement is one of
those used to show that
Solomon
did not write the book, because such conditions did
not
obtain in his time. Cf. Ibid., but
see also the above
discussion.
2Such bad aspects of the
monarchy were predicted in
1 Samuel 8.
166
his people, and have written
such things. He was, at any
rate, correct in his
conclusion: in some intolerable situ-
ations, death is to be
preferred over life. To the com-
fortable contemporary Christian
such a conclusion may seem
reprehensible. To those
acquainted with unutterable misery,
it was not. Fortunately,
however, this is not his final
conclusion and he comes later
to other considerations which
mitigate the sting of this one.1
Ecclesiastes
6:3, 12
Koheleth considers in this section a man who, hypo-
thetically (though in Solomon's
case, maybe not so hypothet-
ically) has a hundred children
and lives many years, but his
soul has not been satisfied
"with good things," and he does
not even have a proper burial.
He says that the miscarriage
is better than this man, for a
miscarriage comes and goes in
obscurity (it has no name), and
it is never conscious of the
world and all that transpires
within it. This man, for what
reason the readers are not
informed, apparently had a very
unfortunate and unproductive
life. He had many children, it
is true, but he was always
miserable, and his misery even
followed him in death. One might
ask, why would such a man
exist? Why would he live and
die in this manner? Perhaps
1John Franklin Genung, Words of Koheleth, Son of
David, King in
Company, 1904), pp. 258-9.
167
it was because he did not
realize that gain is only meaning-
ful if it comes from God and if
that fact is acknowledged.
Koheleth's statement can only be understood in its
context. In the preceding verse
Koheleth is struck with the
misery of one who has been able
to accumulate a great deal
of wealth and possessions, but
who has not been able to
enjoy them, and who dies
without a son, as a consequence of
which a stranger, someone who is
not even a relative (wyxi
yrik;nA) inherits
his possessions. Solomon is understandably
chagrined at this thought, for
to "depart this life without
issue, and to leave one's
possessions to strangers was one
of the greatest calamities that
could befall an Eastern."1
Even if the situation were
reversed (v. 3) and the man had
many children and lived many
years, yet could not enjoy his
wealth, a miscarriage is
better. The reason for this is
quite clear: enjoying the fruit
of one's labor is a gift
from God (Eccl. 3:13).
Amid all this perplexity, and in view of the ulti-
mate indiscrimination by death
between the good and the bad,
the wise and the fool, the poor
and the rich, Koheleth ex-
claims: "Who knows what is
good for a man during his life,
during the few years of his
transitory (lb,h,) life?
He will
spend them like a shadow; for
who is able to tell a man what
will be after him under the
sun?" The answer to the first
lGinsburg,
Coheleth, p. 258.
168
question is "no one."
The answer to the second question is
"no one"--no one,
that is, except God. Only God can tell a
man what is worthwhile for him
to do while upon the earth,
and while there may be a
certain amount of enjoyment for
man, that is certainly not the
totality of his existence.
It is important to notice that
Koheleth does not say, "who
can tell a man what will be in
heaven after he dies?" He
says, “who can tell what will
be done wm,w,.ha tHaTa.” Only
God
knows the future on earth. This
is what he is lamenting,
and this he knows he must
accept.
Ecclesiastes
9:1-12
It is this passage which has led to many of the de-
nials of the doctrine of
immortality in Ecclesiastes. One
writer affirms that
Ecclesiastes unequivocally states that
there is no conscious
immortality, in outright contradiction
to the remainder of the Old
Testament.1 This
has been the
position of not a few
commentators. This passage may be
summarized thus: Koheleth is again troubled by the fact
that the fate of the righteous
and the wicked is the same:
all die. Yet, in his
estimation, for whoever is still liv-
ing there is hope that his life
may not be wicked but righ-
teous, for a "live dog is
better than a dead lion." The
living know that they will die,
but the dead do not know
1Scott, Ecclesiastes, p. 246.
169
anything (from a physical
standpoint). They have no more
ability to share in the
activities of earth. Since life is
fleeting, it should be enjoyed,
for this Koheleth considers
man's reward for his labor on
earth. Whatever activity one
finds to do, he should do it,
for in Sheol where he is going
there is no such activity.1 Time and chance overtake all,
and all eventually die. A man
does not know his time, and
like the fish swimming happily
and freely toward the fisher-
man's net, man is not aware of
his calamity until the moment
it overtakes him; then it is
too late.
Old Testament doctrine of Sheol
In keeping with the scope of this thesis, it is im-
possible to discuss Sheol with
the detail it could otherwise
demand. Yet, the doctrine must
be surveyed if Koheleth's
statements are to be understood
in their historical and
Scriptural context.
One of the outstanding characteristics of the Old
1Cf. the interesting and
famous Metaphrase of the
Book of Ecclesiastes by Gregory
Thaumaturgus: "But avail
thyself
of all that chanceth; for neither shall any one
take
account of thee for these things, nor are the things
that
are done by men known at all outside the circle of men.
And
Hades, whatever that may be, whereunto we are said to
depart,
has neither wisdom nor understanding" (Gregory Thau-
maturgus,
A Metaphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes,
trans.
by
S. D. F. Salmond in The Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. VI [10
vols.:
reprint,
1971], p. 15).
170
Testament is the feature of
"eternity."1 When
God spoke out
of the burning bush ("I am
the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, the God of Jacob,” Ex.
3:6), he implied that in some
way these men still had
existence. He is the God, not of
the dead, but of the living
(Mk. 12:27). The first hint of
immortality in the case of
Enoch (Gen. 5:24; Heb. 11:5) is
later expressed more vividly by
David: ywip;na hD,p;yi Myhilox<-j`xa
yniHeq.Ayi
yKi lOxw;-dy.ami (Ps. 49:16; 15
formed of the supposed death of
his son Joseph, he cried
despairingly: hlAxow;
lbexA yniB;-lx, drexe yKi (Gen. 37:35).
Some trace the meaning of lOxw;
to
the verb lxawA, “to
ask,”2 and others, to the root lfawA, “to be hollow, empt.”3
Knight suggests that the word
represented a great cavern in
the center of the earth.4 The lexicon suggests both of
these derivations, but
concludes that there is no positive
etymology.5 It is suggested by Fisher that Jacob's
phrase
1Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, p. 443.
Payne
lists five such characteristics, the other four of
which
are "monergism, the death of the testator, the promise
of
reconciliation, and the confirmatory sign."
2Ibid., p. 445. Some suggest that it was so named
from
its insatiable craving. See A. B. Davidson, The
Theol-
ogy of the Old Testament, ed. by S. D. F.
Salmond (
Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1926), p. 425.
3Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 255.
4Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament,
p.
338.
5BDB, Lexicon, pp. 982-3. Cf. KB, Lexicon, p. 935.
171
in Genesis 37:35, "I shall
go down to Sheol to my son mourn-
ing" is paralled in
Ugaritic by Text 67:VI:24, 25:
"after Baal shall I go
down to the netherworld."1
Apparent-
ly, the word lOxw; did not occur in Ugaritic in the sense of
"abode of the dead,"
and the normal expression was bars,
"in
the earth," a usage also
employed in Hebrew (Prov. 25:13).2
There is no unanimity even
among conservative scholars on
the meaning of the word as used
in the Old Testament. While
liberal scholars generally take
the view that "the Hebrews
were no farther advanced in
their thinking on Sheol than
were their pagan
neighbors"3 and
that the concepts of an
eternal place of bliss and one
of punishment evolved until
they are found in the advanced
form evinced by the New Tes-
tament, conservatives, on the
other hand, admit of a pro-
gressive revelation of the concept,
so that the concept of
the New Testament writers was
much more complete than that
1Loren R. Fisher, ed., Ras Shamra Parallels, in
Analecta
Orientalia, 49 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum,
1972), pp. 38-9, I, 28. Cf. also pp. 27-8, I, 21,
and
Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, p. 180.
2Mitchell Dahood, Proverbs and Northwest Semitic
Philology (Roma: Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum, 1963), p.
52.
3Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament,
p. 338.
172
of the Old Testament men. Thus,
the Old Testament revela-
tion on Sheol is inferior only
in the sense of less com-
plete, not less valid or less
true.1
The word itself is variously used to mean
"grave"
(Prov. 30:16) and death (Ps.
18:5). Moses applied the term
to the concept of
"hell" (Num. 16:30). Through David God
revealed that Sheol was to
include the place of punishment
for the wicked (Ps. 49; 88:5),
and that the righteous will
be rewarded (Ps. 17:15; 49).
Asaph knew himself to be con-
tinually with God and so could
state with confidence, "With
your counsel you will guide me,
and afterward receive me to
glory."2 This may, of course, be referring to the
resur-
rection, not the immediate
entrance of the saved Israelite
into the presence of God.
Still, it promises a future dis-
tinction and a future
immortality for the righteous person.
It is perhaps best to allow Sheol to refer to a wide
variety of things, the meanings
of which must be narrowed by
their particular contexts.
Sheol is definitely used to
refer to the grave (Ps. 6:5;
115:17, 18; Isa. 38:18, 19).
Sheol also refers to the abode
of the conscious dead (Ps.
13:14; Ps. 88:3). It is used
for the abode of both the
righteous and the unrighteous
dead throughout the Old
1Cf. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. III, pp. 510-13.
2Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, pp.
451-2.
173
Testament.1 Assuming Davidic authorship of many of the
Psalms, it is fair to say that
Solomon had a rather wide
spectrum of literature
available to him about Sheol.2 It
remains now to interpret
Solomon's statements in Ecclesias-
tes chapter 9.3
Interpretation of the passage
The verse which has posed the largest problem for
those who believe in conscious
existence after death for
both the saved and the unsaved
is found in verse 10: "What-
ever your hand finds to do,
verily do it with all your
might; for there is no activity
or planning or wisdom in
Sheol where you are
going." This is the NASB translation of:
tfadav; NOBw;H,v; hW,fEma Nyxe yKi hWefE
j~HEkoB; tOWfEla j~d;yA xcAm;Ti rw,xE lKo
.hmAwA j`leho hTAxa rw,xE lOxw;Bi
hmAk;HAv;
One of the most notable reactions against this verse
is to be found in The New Scofield Reference Bible:
This statement is no
more divine revelation concern-
ing the state of the dead than any
other conclusion of
"the preacher" (1:1). No
one would quote 9:2 as a di-
vine revelation. These reasonings of
man apart from
divine revelation are set down by inspiration just as
lLoraine Boettner, Immortality (
Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company, 1956), pp. 97-
102.
2Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, pp.
443-63.
3See also James Oliver
Buswell, Jr., A Systematic
Theology of the
Christian Religion
(2 vols. in one: Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1962), pp. 316-22.
174
the words of Satan (Gen. 3:4; Job
2:4-5; etc.) are so
recorded. But that life and
consciousness continue be-
tween death and resurrection is
directly affirmed in
Scripture.1
The matter of the interrelationship of revelation
and inspiration has been
discussed above in this thesis. It
is enough to repeat here that
to resort to this type of
escape mechanism in the
interpretation of any Scripture is
most unfortunate, especially
when, as in the case of Eccles-
iastes chapter 9, only a better
understanding of the context
and of the meanings of certain
key words is all that is nec-
essary to see that the passage
does not contradict the bib-
lical doctrine of consciousness
after death at all.
Word meanings
There are four activities which Koheleth says will
not be in Sheol. It is these
four which have given to many
the impression that there is no
conscious existence after
death. Such passages are
naturally seized upon by those
believing in soul-sleep or
annihilation, but it appears that
their arguments are based too
much upon the English text.
The following discussion
centers on these four activities.
hW,fEma.--This
word comes from the exceedingly common
verbal root hWAfA. Its primary definitions are "deed,
work."2
1English, The New Scofield Reference Bible, p.
702,
note
1.
2BDB, Lexicon, pp. 795; cf. KB, Lexicon, p. 551.
175
Its uses in the Old Testament
are amazingly varied and in-
clude evil works, works which
are the basis for judgment
(Eccl. 12:14); work or labor
such as farming (Ex. 23:16);
business pursuits, such as an
occupation (the meaning the
lexicon gives in Eccl. 9:7,
10), and enterprise (Deut. 15:
10); achievement (Est. 10:2);1 and all different types of
work in particular.2 The meaning "occupation"
suggested by
the lexicon seems to fit the
context very well. It is
translated in the Vulgate by opus, and in Greek by poi<hma.
NOBw;H,v;.--This word, from the root bwaHA, "to think, to
account," is defined in
this passage as "reckoning, ac-
count."3 The
related noun bw,He, also
a masculine noun, is
used of the "ingenious
work" involved in the ephod. The
verb is used of inventors of
ingenious and artistic things
(Ex. 31:4; 2 Chr. 2:13). It is
often used in connection
with workmen (Ex. 35:35;
38:23). In light of the context of
1It is found in this
sense in the Punic inscriptions
of Tripoli (Les inscriptions en écriture néopunique de la
Tripolitaine),
32:8, as m's', where the sense is
"mérite"
("worth,
merit, achievement") (DISO, p.
163). For the text,
see
Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische and Aramäische
Inschrif-
ten, Band I, p. 24, #126:8,
where it reads: ytbx xsxm ypl
N/tb xsxmv. The writer's
translation is "According to the
achievement
of my fatherhood and the achievement of my self"
(cf. Ibid., Band II, p. 131).
2BDB, Lexicon, pp. 795-6.
3Ibid., pp. 362-3. KB, Lexicon,
p. 340, suggests
"account, device" for
the uses in Ecclesiastes.
176
the passage and the meaning of
the above word, it is pos-
sible that a better translation
in Ecclesiastes 9:10 would
not be "planning"
(NASB) or "device," but "accounting," as
the accounting done in business
or trading. It is so used
in Papyrus 81:1 (Imperial
Aramaic),1 and in
Palmyrene. It
is defined by DISO in various contexts as "compte
des pro-
duits" (an accounting of
products), or "compte des mar-
chands" (an accounting of
merchants, tradesmen). The word
definitely as commercial
connotations.2
Interestingly, the
word is the same as the name of
the Biblical city NOBw;H,.3
tfadav;.--This
word is from the very familiar root fdayA,
"to know." It is a
feminine noun with the primary meaning
"knowledge," used
variously of "perception;" "skill in work-
manship" (Ex. 31:3);
"creative skill" (Isa. 40:14); the
knowledge possessed by God;
"discernment, understanding and
wisdom" (the definition
given for the present passage); and
"knowledge of God" in
the highest sense.4 It is
illuminat-
ing that the word is also used
to describe Solomon's work-
man, Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings
7:14). This word also appears
in a Punic inscription from
1Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.,
pp.
192, 196.
2DISO, p. 97. 3BDB, Lexicon, p. 363.
4Ibid., pp. 395-6; cf. KB, Lexicon, p. 215.
177
"complete knowledge."1 In keeping with the context in
Ecclesiastes the word probably
has something to do with
skill, as in workmanship,
though this is not the meaning
suggested by the lexicon.
hmAk;HA.--This
is also a very familar word in the old
Testament in general and in
Koheleth's book in particular.
It is defined in its primary
sense as "wisdom," but it can
have subsidiary meanings of
"skill" as in war and technical
work. It is used of wisdom in
administration, shrewdness,
prudence, and ethical and
religious wisdom.2 It is
also one
of the words used to describe
the qualities of Hiram of
that it is used in the
Phoenician inscription of Karatepe,
1:13, in the context of
building.3 The
word occurs in Ugar-
itic as 
(hkmt).4 Though the lexicon
does not so classify it in the
passage under consideration,
it is the preference of the
writer to translate it "skill"
1Cf. Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische and Aramäische
Inschriften, Band I, p. 23, 121:1,
and DISO, pp. 59, 329.
2BDB, Lexicon, p. 315.
3Cf. Donner and Röllig, Kanaanäische and Aramäische
Inschriften, Band I, 26:13, pp.
5-6; Band II, p. 37. Also
cf.
DISO, p. 88.
4Cf. Whitaker, A Concordance of the Ugaritic Litera-
ture, p.
259, and Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook,
p. 396, #859.
178
as in technical work, a usage
which definitely fits the con-
text.1
Conclusion on this passage
It is once again the context which provides the
clue to the meaning. It should
be borne in mind that Kohe-
leth is speaking only about the
physical aspect of life in
this passage. His point is that
death overtakes all, so
that if it is possible to enjoy
life, to that extent one
should enjoy it. If one has the
means to have white clothes
and oil on his head, he should
not deny himself (9:8). He
should enjoy life with the
woman whom he loves and who is a
gift from God (9:9).
Furthermore, whatever his hand finds
to do, he should do it, because
where he is going in Sheol
(that is, the sphere of the
dead, both righteous and unrigh-
teous), there is no
"occupation, accounting, skill in work-
manship, and wisdom as used in
technical work (skill)." All
of these things are purely
physical and consequently, when
the physical existence ceases,
so do these. Koheleth is
trying to make the point that a
man should utilize the op-
portunities presented upon the earth,
for when death comes,
those opportunities are gone
forever. He neither says, nor
means to imply, that there is
no conscious existence after
death. From the viewpoint of
the purely physical, "the dead
1BDB, Lexicon, p. 315.
179
do not know anything" (Myfid;Oy MnAyxe Mytime.hav;, 9:5), and their
love, their hate, their zeal,
as well as any memory of them
is soon gone (9:5, 6). But this
is only the physical dimen-
sion, and as it applies to the
physical, everything Koheleth
says here is perfectly true.
There is no reason to question
his veracity.
Concerning Koheleth's objective of impressing his
readers with the need to
utilize available opportunities
while they are still living,
Leupold says:
This thought is then
driven home more securely by
the reminder that a time is coming
when opportunities
for achievement will be cut off. For
all those happy
faculties that man possesses for
doing work (ma'aseh),
for devising new things (chesbon), for employing the
knowledge that he has accumulated (da'ath), for employ-
ing constructive knowledge that is
ethically motivated
(chokhma)--all
these rare privileges are at an end.l
The passage is therefore no problem at all. While
it is true that in many ways
death was for the Old Testament
saint a gloomy prospect (Job
10:20-22; Ps. 6:5; Isa. 38:10-
20, etc.), it is also true that
there was some light to al-
leviate the gloom (Job
19:25-27; Ps. 16:8-11; Ps. 49:15; Ps.
73:24; Isa. 25:6-8; Hos. 13:14,
etc.).2 Part
of the light
they had concerned the
consciousness of the people in Sheol
(Isa. 14:9-11), although if
Solomonic authorship is accepted
1Leupold, Ecclesiastes, p. 217.
2Alva J. McClain,
"Christian Theology: Biblical
Eschatology,"
revised by John C. Whitcomb Jr. (unpublished
class
syllabus, Grace Theological Seminary, 1973), pp. 14-
15.
180
for Ecclesiastes, Solomon did
not have this revelation, but
certainly had others from the
Psalms. Solomon is not saying
that there is no consciousness
in Sheol; he is merely stat-
ing that in Sheol the
activities for which a man needs his
body will not exist.
A suggested translation of 9:10
"Everything which your hand finds to do, do with all
your might, for in Sheol, where
you are going, there is no
occupation, accounting, skill
in workmanship, and wisdom as
used in technical work."
Ecclesiastes 12:7, 13, 14
Only a brief word need be said about the concluding
section of the book. It. is
important to note, however, that
when Koheleth makes his
conclusion, he affirms two very im-
portant truths: (1) The HaUr of man returns to God who gave
it, in contradistinction to the
body which returns to the
dust of the earth of which it
was made. (2) There is a
final judgment coming for every
man in which both the good
and evil works will be judged,1
and in consequence of which
the best advice Koheleth can
give is, tx,v; xrAy; Myhilox<hA-tx,
rOmw;
vytAOc;mi-, "Fear God and keep His commandments." This is
Koheleth's final advice--the
only advice any man needs.
1A possible translation
is "for God will bring every
deed
into judgment on every secret thing, whether good or
evil" (Hulst, Old Testament Translation Problems, p.
134).
CHAPTER
VI
A SUMMARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL
MESSAGE OF KOHELETH
Introduction
The theological message of the book deals not so
much with the attributes of
God, or with the plan of redemp-
tion, or with His workings with
infer from it something about
God, and something about God's
final plans for men, but the
book is intensely interested in
God's relation to men as
concerns their everyday affairs:
their aims, their aspirations,
and their purpose in life.
Most importantly, the book is
concerned with men's relation-
ship to God: do they fear God
or not; and does the course
of their life prove it? Many
topics could be chosen from
the book, but for the present
study only two have been cho-
sen. Inasmuch as is possible,
repetition of former themes
in this thesis has been
avoided.
Consideration of the Topics
Insufficiency of Human
Endeavor
The
problem of knowledge
Koheleth shows the grief in knowledge in an early
statement in the book:
"And I set my mind to seek and ex-
plore by wisdom concerning all
that has been done under
heaven. It is a grievous task
which God has given the sons
182
of men with which to be
afflicted" (1:13). He further
states that "in much
wisdom there is much grief, and in-
creasing knowledge results in
increasing pain" (1:18). He
also states that while God has
set "eternity in their heart"
men still cannot "find out
the work God has performed from
the beginning to the end"
(3:11). God is completely in-
scrutable. Moreover, while
seeking for wisdom, Koheleth
said that it was far from him
(7:23). He states, in fact,
that while he sought wisdom,
the only thing he found out for
sure was the depravity of man
(7:29).1 He
concludes that
though a man should seek to
understand the happenings of
earth, and never sleep again
while he continuously seeks,
"man cannot discover the
work which has been done under the
sun." God's providence is
thus inscrutable, is incompre-
hensible, past finding out
(8:16, 17); but that is no more
than one would expect of such a
magnificent and sovereign
God. Even, Koheleth goes on to
say, if a man should have
wisdom in a particular
instance, and use it to save people
temporarily from a disaster,
both he and his wisdom will be
forgotten and despised
(9:13-18).
It seems that Koheleth phrases the
thought in this man-
ner because he wants to indicate
that all the "sons of
men" even if they know not God,
feel a deep compulsion
or inner urge to discover truth. God has put that urge
1On man's depravity, cf.
Albert C, Knudson, The Re-
ligious Teaching of the
Old Testament
(
Cokesbury Press, 1918), pp.
217-65.
183
into their heart. But they are at
the same time caught
in the difficulty that the task that
God has laid upon
them, by the very fact that they are
human beings, fails
to yield the desired result. It is
hard, difficult, un-
rewarding; it is bad business. You
strive after high
objectives, but your quest fails to
produce satisfactory
results.1
Thus, the more "one knows the more his frustration
increases . . . both by what he
doesn't know and by the
alarm from what he does know.
You may not like this con-
cept, but it is true of the
enterprise in itself."2
Emptiness
of things
"Thus I considered all my activities which my hands
had done and the labor which I
had exerted, and behold all
was vanity and striving after
wind and there was no real
profit under the sun"
(2:11). The first thing that must be
noticed about this statement is
that it is a perfectly nat-
ural conclusion;3 there is nothing sinful about it. Kohe-
leth is obviously speaking of
physical things which he has
accomplished, and he explains
his attitude in the succeeding
verses, where he says: “Thus I hated all the fruit of my
1Leupold, Ecclesiastes, p. 53.
2Taylor, "Studies in
Ecclesiastes," pp. 4-5.
3Because of this
statement, however, Mickelsen
brands
Koheleth a pessimist, though he does admit that some
of
his pessimism might be "realism derived from empirical
observation
(Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible,
pp. 313-14).
See
also A. Lukyn Williams, Ecclesiastes
in The
Bible for Schools and
Colleges,
ed., by A. F. Kirkpatrick
(Cambridge:
At the University Press, 1922), p. 23.
184
labor for which I have labored
under the sun, for I must
leave it to the man who will
come after me" (2:18). Again
and again this thought,
expressed in different ways, greatly
troubles Koheleth. He is
disturbed that while he has la-
bored with "wisdom and
knowledge and skill" (2:21) the one
who inherits his work after he
dies will neither appreciate,
nor take care of all these
things he has made (the most pre-
cious of which to Solomon must
have been the Lord’s temple
and his own palace).
Unthinking
materialism
Some men never understand the inability of material
accumulation to satisfy, and
never think ahead far enough to
contemplate the reason for
compulsive acquisition of mere
earthly "things" or
the destiny of themselves or their pos-
sessions. Koheleth describes
such a man in 4:7-8: "There
was a certain man without a
dependent, having neither a son
nor a brother, yet there was no
end to all his labor. In-
deed, his eyes were not
satisfied with riches and he never
asked, 'For whom am I laboring
and depriving myself of fun?"'
In fact, one soon discovers that the more he obtains,
the more he wants: "He who
loves money will not be satis-
fied with money, nor he who
loves affluence with its income"
(5:11). Having decided upon the
vanity of materialism,
then, Koheleth gives some
excellent advice, which if remem-
bered amid the constant drive
for accumulation, may give it
185
a more proper perspective:
"As he had come naked from his
mother's womb, so he will
return as he came. He will take
nothing from the fruit of his
work that he can carry in his
hand" (5:15). The
conclusion of the matter, thus, is that
man's life does not consist in
the multitude of things he
possesses. "They do not
content him now and he must leave
them behind in time."1 "The really wise make what they own
subservient to their spiritual
needs."2
Lack
of personal importance
It seems to bother Koheleth a great deal that no
matter who you are, when you
die your status is soon for-
gotten and "out of sight,
out of mind."3 The
wise man re-
ceives no more lasting
remembrance than the fool: they both
die, the bodies of both decay
and return to dust,4 and
both
are almost as quickly forgotten
(3:19, 20). While most men
live as though they were
oblivious to the fact of their in-
evitable death, some men
realize its certainty and try to
make provisions for their
perpetual remembrance subsequent
1Taylor, "Studies in
Ecclesiastes," pp. 4-5.
2Gains Glenn Atkins,
"Ecclesiastes" in The Inter-
preter's Bible, Vol. V, ed. by George
Arthur Buttrick (12
vols.:
3Taylor, "Studies in
Ecclesiastes," pp. 4-5.
4For an interesting
discussion on man as composed of
rpf, see
Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible,
pp. 313-14.
186
to their death. This shows that
they are either unaware of
or underestimate the value of
"laying up treasure in heaven"
where is to be found the only
remembrance that is worth-
while; or, they are so inastute
that they are incapable of
seeing that in all of history,
only a handful of men have
succeeded in perpetuating their
memory. "O how the wise man
and the fool alike die!"1
Conclusion
on human endeavor
Koheleth concludes, then, that accumulation of
things and enjoyment of
"fun" are not necessarily evil un-
less viewed as ends in
themselves, and unless performed out-
side the sphere of the will of
God. As an end in itself,
human endeavor brings only
grief; it must at least be bal-
anced by the fear of God
(3:14).
God's Supply of Life's
Needs
Stability
Man's problem concerning stability is simply that
God is the only one who has it.
His stability can be seen in
lIt is suggested that j`yxev; might be better trans-
lated,
"And O, how is it," for "it is an exclamatory burst
of
irrepressible feeling, laying open the very heart of the
writer.
. . . It is no skepticism in regard to God's righ-
teous
government, no denial of essential moral distinction;
it
is not an assertion of fatality on the other, but a cry
of
anguish at a spectacle ever passing before his eyes, and
which
he fails clearly to comprehend" (Zöckler, "Ecclesias-
tes,"
pp. 58-9, footnote on 2:16).
187
the way in which the natural
processes of the earth are gen-
erally stable and uniform: the
earth remains forever, the
sun rises and sets, the wind
comes and goes and comes again,
the rivers flow endlessly into
the sea, yet the sea is never
filled and the rivers never run
dry (1:4-7). "That which
has been is that which will be,
and that which has been done
is that which will be
done" (1:9a). Moreover, Koheleth
states, he knows that
"everything God does will remain for-
ever . . . " (3:14). This
is in stark contrast to the in-
stability, the mutability, and
the fragile nature of man,
whose life is but a vapor that
dissipates almost as quickly
as it appears (James 4:14).
Thus, any measure of stability
that man experiences, no matter
how small, must come from
God, who "has so worked
that men should fear Him" (3:14).
Time
Man needs time; he feels the lack of it; but only
God has it.l Since God is He who controls time, He has
de-
creed what will happen and when
it will happen. What the
beautiful poem of 3:1-8
describes is that "He has made ev-
erything appropriate in its
time" (3:11).2 There are appro-
priate times for an almost
innumerable variety of activities,
1Taylor, "Studies in
Ecclesiastes," pp. 4-5.
23:11 speaks of
"eternity" (MlAfo) in man's heart.
Some
have suggested that it should be interpreted like the
Arabic
'ilm, "knowledge," but Barr
feels such a suggestion
should be held in suspension
(Barr, Philology, p. 162).
188
a few of which he lists. There
are times for births and
deaths, planting and
harvesting, killing and healing, tear-
ing down and building up,
weeping and laughing, mourning and
dancing, throwing stones and
gathering stones, embracing and
shunning embracing, searching
and giving up the lost, keeping
and throwing away, tearing
apart and sewing together, being
silent and speaking, loving and
hating, fighting a war and
seeking peace (3:1-8). The
point is that it is God who
makes appropriate times for all
these things, but the plight
of men is similar to that of a
school of fish that swims
along, each fish thinking he is
free, thinking he controls
his own destiny, including the
events of his life, and ulti-
mately, even the time of his
demise. Yet, the school is
suddenly tangled in a net, and
it discovers that time has
run out: someone else is in
control, and he has stopped the
clock (9:12). Any time for
earthly activity at all is a
gift of God, and it is God who
will stop the clock. "Man
does not know his time"
(9:12a).1
Physical
requirements
Man needs certain physical commodities in order to
exist. Some men think they need
more than others, but in
reality all men have the same
general needs: water to
drink, food to eat, and shelter
from inclement weather.
1See
12:1-7, where the writer seems to be writing
under the pressure of a clock
which is ticking double-time.
189
Even clothing might be
considered extra-basic for mere exis-
tence. But Koheleth shows his
true heart attitude, and the
depth of his spiritual insight,
when he states that even
these basic needs, eating and
drinking, are ultimately fil-
led by God himself. “There is
nothing better for a man
than to eat and drink and tell
himself that his work is
good. This also I have seen,
that it is from the hand of
God” (2:24, 25). Koheleth's
statements here and other
places throughout the book have
been the occasion for accus-
ations of a supposed sensualism
or Epicureanism.l It
should
be obvious, nevertheless, that
eating and drinking no more
denotes sensualism, than does
the wearing of clothes. Both
are normal functions of
physical living. Furthermore, the
reader will observe that in the
passage quoted above, it is
connected with labor. What
enjoyment Koheleth gains, he
says, is the gift of God, a
statement surely not to be ex-
pected from the lips of some
impious Epicurean!
Moral
requirements
As with the physical requirements, man is dependent
upon God to supply his moral
requirements. Koheleth is not
blind to man's depravity:
"Indeed, there is not [one] righ-
teous man on the earth who
continually does good and who
never sins" (7:20). He
recognizes, too, that this was not
1Atkins,
"Ecclesiastes," p. 42. Cf. Scott, Ecclesi-
astes, p.
197.
190
the original condition of man:
"Behold I have found only
this, that God made men
upright, but they have sought out
many devices" (7:29). Man
can only gain God's approval by
fearing Him and keeping His
commandments (12:13), and for
the ability to do this he is
dependent upon God (9:1).
"Although a sinner does
evil a hundred times and may length-
en his life, still I know that
it will be well for those who
fear God, who fear Him
openly" (8:12).
Life's
values
Yet another of the things of life for which man is
dependent upon God is life's
values. Man does not set these
values; God does. "In the
day of prosperity be happy, but
in the day of adversity
consider this: God has made the one
as well as the other, so that
man cannot discover anything
that will be after him"
(7:14). Righteousness is of the ut-
most value, for he who has it
is "wise" and he who does not
is a "fool." This is
because God "will bring you into judg-
ment for all these things"
(11:9; cf. 7:15-19).
In short, it is not our human
enterprise that meets
our need, but God's provision. He
meets it on the basis
of His gift, not our striving. As we
accept what He
gives, continually use and enjoy it
before Him, we are
blessed. As our eyes are set on His
values and our
ultimate accountability, we find fulfillment.1
The feebleness of man is
inherent in his creatureship.2
1Taylor, "Studies in
Ecclesiastes," p. 5.
2Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 151.
191
That is why he is dependent
upon God for any value in life.
Sovereignty
of God
In the book of Ecclesiastes the concept of sover-
eignty "has been confused
occasionally with fatalism . . .
but the driving force in
Ecclesiastes is not fatalism . . .
it is a personal God--not an
unknowing force--an intellectu-
al faculty to whom we are
accountable."1 This
"determinism"
is evident, for instance, in
the statement, "He has made
everything appropriate in its
time" (3:11). Stronger yet is
Koheleth's declaration that
"Just as you do not know the
way of the wind, and how bones
are formed in the womb of the
pregnant woman, so you do not
know the activity of God who
makes all things" (11:5).
In the conclusion of the book
God's sovereignty is evident in
His coming judgment: "Be-
cause God will bring every act
to judgment, everything that
is hidden, whether it is good
or evil" (12:14). There is to
be no mistake about it, God is
in complete control of the
universe, and only when one has
understood and acquiesced to
this fact can he live a
satisfied life.2
lTaylor, "Studies in
Ecclesiastes," p. 5. For a
summary
of determinism in the Old Testament from a liberal
standpoint,
see Eichrodt, Theology of the Old
Testament,
Vol.
II, pp. 167-185.
2Cf. Benjamin
Breckinridge Warfield, Calvin and
Augustine, ed. by Samuel G. Craig
(
House, reprint, 1974), pp.
502-3.
192
Conclusion
In searching out the meaning and purpose of life by
means of his empirical
investigation Koheleth has learned
some vitally important facts:
no amount of knowledge either
satisfies or suffices; the
acquisition of material "things"
for the sake of acquisition,
and apart from the considera-
tion of the ultimate end of
life, is pure futility; no
amount of fun or riches
satisfies; only God can supply the
most necessary things of life:
stability, time, morality,
and values for life. Most
importantly, if one is to make
any sense out of life, and if
he is to have any holy satis-
faction, the physical must be
subordinated to the spiritual
and man must live in complete
acquiescence to God's total
and absolute sovereignty.
CHAPTER VII
NEW TESTAMENT PARALLELS
Introduction
One of the most compelling arguments against the
view that the conclusions of
Koheleth are not revelation is
the circumstance that so many
of his statements can be found
in similar form in the New
Testament. There is every possi-
bility that there was direct
dependence upon the book by the
New Testament writers, for even
if one takes the late date
of composition, the work was
extant several centuries before
the writers of the New
Testament. Comparison with the LXX,
which most of the New Testament
writers used, is one of the
best ways of establishing
parallels.
The
Parallels
There is a striking parallel between the phrase
"vanity of vanities"
(mataio<thj mataioth<twn) (1:2,
etc.),
and Romans 8:20, "For the
creation was subjected to futili-
ty" (mataio<thti). Ecclesiastes 2:24 says that
such things
as eating and drinking and
enjoying one's labor are from the
hand of God, a thought
paralleled in 1 Timothy 6:17, which
speaks of God "who richly
supplies us with all things to
enjoy." Ecclesiastes 3:11
informs the reader that man can-
not "find out the work
which God has done from the beginning
194
even to the end," a
thought which Paul repeats in Romans 11:
33, "How unsearchable are
His judgments and inscrutable His
ways!" In Ecclesiastes
3:17 Koheleth warns that "God will
judge both the righteous man
and the wicked man," and Mat-
thew 16:27 (and many other
places in the New Testament) af-
firms that Christ "will
then reward every man according to
his works." Ecclesiastes
5:2 advises, "Do not be hasty in
word or impulsive in thought to
bring up a matter before the
presence of God. For God is in
heaven and you are on the
earth; therefore, let your
words be few." This is paralleled
by Christ's advice to his
disciples, "When you are praying,
do not use meaningless
repetition, as the Gentiles do, for
they think that they will be
heard for their many words"
(Matt. 6:7). Koheleth reminds
his readers not to be sur-
prised when they see oppression
of the poor, and denial of
justice (5:8), much as Peter
reminds his in 1 Peter 4:12,
"do not be surprised at
the fiery ordeal among you." Some
very good advice is given by
Koheleth in 5:15, "As he came
naked from his mother's womb,
he will return as he came,"
which is paralleled by Paul in
1 Timothy 6:7: "For we have
brought nothing into the world,
so we cannot take anything
out of it either."
Koheleth's statement that "Patience
(LXX=makro<qumoj) of spirit is better than
haughtiness of
spirit" (7:8) is
paralleled by Paul's admonition concerning
the fruit of the Spirit
(patience=makroqumi<a, Gal.
5:22) and
the need for patience (makroqumi<aj, Eph. 4:2). "Do not be
195
eager in your heart to be
angry" (7:9) is just another way
of saying, "But let
everyone be . . . slow to anger" (James
1:19). Ecclesiastes 7:20,
"Indeed, there is not a righteous
man on earth who continually
does good and who never sins,"
is closely paralleled by Romans
3:23, "For all have sinned."
Ecclesiastes 8:11,
"Because the sentence against an evil
deed is not executed quickly;
therefore, the hearts of the
sons of men among them are
given fully to do evil," is para-
phrased in Romans 2:4, "Or
do you think lightly of the
riches of His kindness and
forbearance and patience, not
knowing that the kindness of
God leads you to repentance?"
The admonition "Whatever
your hand finds to do, verily, do
it with all your strength"
(9:10) is similar to Paul's ad-
vice not to be "lagging
behind in diligence" (Rom. 12:11),
and "whatever you do, do
your work heartily," (Col. 3:23).
A very striking parallel can be
seen between Ecclesiastes
11:5, "Just as you do not
know the path of the wind . . . so
you do not know the activity of
God who makes all things"
and John 3:8, "The wind blows
where it wishes and you hear
the sound of it, but you do not
know where it comes from
. . . ." Finally, the last
verse in Ecclesiastes 12:14,
"Because God will bring
every act to judgment, everything
which is hidden, whether it is
good or evil," is very
closely related to 1
Corinthians 4:5, which says that the
Lord will "both bring to
light the things hidden in darkness
and disclose the motives of
men's hearts; and then each
196
man's praise will come to him
from God," and to 2 Corin-
thians 5:10, which states that
all (saved) "must appear be-
fore the judgment seat of
Christ, that each one may be rec-
ompensed for his works in the
body, according to what he
has done, whether good or
bad."
Summary
These should suffice to demonstrate that Koheleth's
conclusions are not merely
"human." He is not speaking only
of life "under the
sun," and he does indeed speak by inspir-
ation and from revelation. It
is true that none of these
similar New Testament passages
necessarily demonstrate a
dependence upon Ecclesiastes,
but they do show that he says
many of the same things which
are found in the latter books
of the Bible. Koheleth gives
advice which, if followed,
helps the contemporary
Christian to understand the world in
which God has placed him, to
understand God's control over
and relation to it, and to
understand that a life pleasing
to Him is one which is
characterized by patient submission
to the will of God and careful
obedience to His command-
ments.
CHAPTER VIII
NEAR EASTERN PARALLELS
Introduction
It is not surprising that the writings of others in
the
leth raised. After all one
common denominator among men
both past and present is their
quest for the meaning of
life. It is, furthermore, not
even surprising that men were
able to see, by themselves and
without supernatural aid, the
essential futility of life if
there is no hope beyond the
grave. Their difference with
Koheleth is that he gave some
answers they could not.
Some Parallels
The Gilgamesh Epic exclaims: "Only the gods [live]
forever under the sun. As for
mankind, numbered are his
days; Whatever they achieve is
but wind! Even here thou
art afraid of death."1 This is paralleled in Ecclesiastes
1E. A. Speiser, trans.,
"Akkadian Myths and Epics,"
in
ANET, p. 79, III:iv:5-7. For an
extended discussion of
death
and the afterlife in the Gilgamesh Epic, cf. Alexander
Heidel,
The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament
Parallels
(
1949), pp. 137-223.
198
1:3-4a: "What advantage
does man have in all his labor
which he does under the sun? A
generation goes and a gener-
ation comes . . ."
Gilgamesh further laments, "Do not they
compose a picture of death, The
commoner and the noble, once
they are near to [their
fate]?"1 This
seems to be paral-
leled by Koheleth's general
observation that no matter what
one's station in life, all die:
"O how the wise man and
the fool alike die!"
(5:16). The Akkadian Proverb, "The
life of the day before
yesterday is that of any day,"2 is
similar to Ecclesiastes 1:9:
"That which has been is that
which will be, and that which
has been done is that which
will be done." A number of
parallels can be seen in "A Dia-
logue about Human Misery,"3 which is often called the "Baby-
lonian Ecclesiastes,"
though it resembles it only superfi-
cially, and has neither the
elevated philosophy, nor the
theocentric hope of its
namesake. The parallels are only
that because of the common
misery of men who are under the
curse.
Hittite
Gaster draws this parallel. with Ecclesiastes 10:20:
1Ibid., p. 93a, X:vi:34-36.
2Robert H. Pfeiffer,
"Akkadian Proverbs and Coun-
sels,"
in ANET, p. 425d, III:A.K 4347, line
50.
3Idem, "A Dialogue About Human Misery," in ANET,
pp. 438-40.
199
"Furthermore, in your
bedchamber do not curse a king, and in
your sleeping rooms do not
curse a rich man, for a bird of
the heavens will carry the
sound, and the winged creature
will make the matter
known:"
The allusion in this
proverbial phrase is to the
widespread tale of The Bird of Truth, who discloses
treachery, murder, marital
infidelity, and the like.
Tales of this type are to be found
in Grimm, in The
Arabian Nights, in the famous Legend of the Seven Sages,
and in the English and Scottish
ballads. A classic
Greek example is the familiar story
of the cranes of
Ibycus. The motif is very ancient.
In the recently
discovered Hittite Tale of Elkunirsa (which evidently
goes back to a Canaanite original),
"Istar," disguised
as a bird, overhears the love-making
of Baal and Asher-
ath and reports it to the latter's
husband, Elkunirsa
(i.e., El Qoneh 'eres, "the God who owns the earth," cf.
Gen. 14:19). Related to this theme
is the popular ex-
pression, "a little bird told
me," the prototype of
which occurs already in
Aristophanes. A popular belief
in
nifies news.1
Aramaic
Another writing which is parallel to Ecclesiastes in
many ways is the Aramaic
"Words of Ahiqar,"2 which
Albright
dates in the second half of the
seventh century B.C.3 Once
again, however, the perspective
is not the elevated one of
1Theodor H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the
Old Testament (New York: Harper and
Row, Publishers, 1969),
p.
838.
2H. L. Ginsberg, trans.,
"The Words of Ahiqar," in
ANET, pp. 427-30. For the
text and another translation, cf.
Cowley,
Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.,
pp. 204-
48.
3Albright, "Some
Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of
Hebrew
Wisdom," p. 6.
200
Koheleth, though it is,
perhaps, the most elevated of all
the parallels between
Ecclesiastes and Near Eastern litera-
ture generally adduced.
Egyptian
The parallels of thought between "A Song of the Har-
per" (dated by
most obvious:
Let thy desire flourish,
In order to let thy heart forget the
beatifications for
thee.
Follow thy desire, as long as thou
shalt live.
Put myrrh upon thy head and clothing
of fine linen upon
thee,
Being anointed with genuine marvels
of the god's property.
Set an increase to thy good things;
Let not thy heart flag.
Follow thy desire and thy good.
Fulfill thy needs upon the earth,
after the command of
thy heart,
Until there come for thee that day
of mourning.
The Weary [of Heart] hears not their
[mourn]ing,
And wailing saves not the heart of a
man from the under-
world.
Refrain:
Make holiday, and weary not therein!
Behold it is not given to a man to
take his property with him.
Behold, there is not one who departs
who comes back again.2
There are differences between this and Koheleth, however,
including the absence here of
Koheleth's warning of future
1John A. Wilson, trans.,
"A Song of the Harper," in
ANET, p. 467.
2Ibid.
201
judgment, and Koheleth's belief
that after death the spirit
of a man returns to God.
Another Egyptian parallel can be seen between the
"Instruction of Ani "1 ("Do
not talk a lot. Be silent, and
thou wilt be happy."), and
Ecclesiastes 5:2: "Do not be
hasty in word or impulsive in
thought . . . therefore let
your words be few."
The men of
worth of life:
The transliteration of this is:
lIdem, trans., "The Instruction of Ani," in ANET,
p. 420, iv:l.
202
mt . uhryt . mh . yqh
mh . yqh . mt . atryt
spsg . ysk . [l]riš
hrs . lzr . qdqdy
[w]mt . kl . amt
wan . mtm . amt.l
It is translated:
"Man, what does he get as his lot;
What does he get as his destiny?
Whiteness will be poured on my head;
Hoariness on top of my pate;
And the death of all (men) I will die;
I will surely die!2
This, no doubt, represents the most that pagan men
could say for sure: death comes
upon everyone. But what
came after death they could not
say for sure, nor could they
even be certain that they would
exist after their body died.
This is where Koheleth rises
above all pagan literature: he
knew what happened to the HaUr at death, and he could give
1Cf. John Gray, The Legacy of
to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. V (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1965),
p.
113.
22 Aqht VI:34-37. Cf.
Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, pp.
335;
369, #424; #451, #1792. Also cf. G. R. Driver,
ite Myths and Legends (
1971), p. 55; and Andrée Herdner, "Textes
Mythologiques,"
in Corpus des
Tablettes en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques in Mis-
sion de Ras Shamra, Tome X, ed. by C. F.
A. Schaeffer (
Imprimerie
Nationale, 1963).
203
divine advice on how to live in
view of that fact.
Summary
Many other parallels could be cited. These suffice
to show that men everywhere
were asking the same questions:
why is man on the earth and is
death really all that he may
anticipate? The difference
between Ecclesiastes and the
literature of which samples are
given above, is that Kohe-
leth gave some answers, and he
gave some good ones, for he
spoke of a final judgment in
light of which man's life on
earth should be characterized
by a fear of God. Living life
in recognition of and
submission to this fact gives it pro-
per perspective and true
meaning.
CHAPTER IX
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
It is the purpose of this thesis to examine the book
of Ecclesiastes in order to
determine its theological per-
spective, to understand its
outstanding teachings, and to
explain some of its more
prominent difficulties. The title,
tl,h,qo, was
first studied, and it was concluded that the word
probably means "one who
assembles;" and that as an appella-
tive for Solomon, it may refer
to his historic assembling of
the Israelites on the day of
the dedication of the temple.
The authorship and date of the book were next con-
sidered. It was pointed out
that many of the "Aramaisms,"
once used to date the book in
the post-Exilic period, are
usually not Aramaisms at all,
and that in any event, such
Aramaisms may be just as easily
explained in terms of a Sol-
omonic date. The theory of an
Aramaic original was likewise
disallowed, for it generates more
problems than it dissi-
pates.
Mitchell Dahood's theory of a Phoenician background
for the book was discussed
next. He argues that the book
was written under heavy
Canaanite-Phoenician literary influ-
ence, with defective Phoenician
orthography, but still in
Hebrew. He also demonstrates
that many of the textual
205
variants of the book can be
explained by the theory of orig-
inally defective (no vowel letters)
orthography. From his
theory and data it was shown
that the same facts could be
applied to a Solomonic date of
composition to explain the
language of the book which is
singularly peculiar and unpar-
alleled in all of the Old
Testament. In the tenth century
B. C. Solomon would have used
defective orthography. He
also had numerous close and
intimate contacts over a long
span of years not only with the
Phoenicians, but also with
many other peoples who spoke
Canaanite dialects, or lan-
guages closely related to
Hebrew, all of which also may have
affected his linguistic style.
It was also contended that it is possible that there
was a particular literary genre
for a philosophical dis-
course like Ecclesiastes, just
as there was a literary genre
for psalms, historical
narratives, prophetic works, and cer-
tain other poetic forms (such
as archaic poetry). It was
concluded that the language and
linguistic peculiarities of
Koheleth can best be explained
in terms of an original writ-
ten in Hebrew in the tenth
century B.C., in current defec-
tive orthography, and using a
literary genre of the philo-
sophical discourse which
employed vocabulary common to
Phoenician and Hebrew (and
other Canaanite dialects such as
Ugaritic).
The theme and development of thought of Koheleth
were next evaluated, in order
to discover what the
206
perspective of the writer was,
and, consequently, what use-
fulness Ecclesiastes contains
for the contemporary Chris-
tian. It was concluded that far
from being a skeptical and
pessimistic work from the hand
of one who wrote only from
the standpoint of man wm,w,ha tHaTa, Ecclesiastes, when rightly
understood, presents truth
which is not only consistent with
the remainder of the Bible, but
which is eminently suited to
the situation of contemporary
Christians. Koheleth demon-
strates the unmitigated
inefficaciousness of wisdom, plea-
sure, industry, wealth,
success, or any other human enter-
prise, to provide lasting
satisfaction.
Certain prominent difficulties of the book were also
examined. It was shown that the
word lb,h,, normally trans-
lated "vanity"
throughout the book without sufficient con-
sideration of the context in
which it is used, has a number
of different nuances of
meaning, which if substituted for
the translation
"vanity" in the proper contexts, aid con-
siderably in apprehending the
meaning of the text. Among
these different nuances are
"futility," "unsubstantiality,"
"emptiness,"
"senselessness," and "transitoriness," of which
the latter is perhaps the most
useful. Thus, many circum-
stances and enterprises which
Koheleth denounces as lb,h, are
really only "empty,"
or ultimately "futile," or "transient,"
not sinful or completely
useless.
It was also the contention of the writer that the
phrase wm,w,ha tHaTa, though used copiously
throughout the book,
207
does not, nevertheless, limit
the scope of the book only to
those things terrestrial (Cr,xAhA-lfa). To be sure, in certain
contexts Koheleth does so limit
his comments; for the book
as a whole he does not. In this
connection the relationship
between inspiration and
revelation was also considered. The
dichotomy between inspiration
and revelation which the au-
thor of the note in the New Scofield Reference Bible sets
forth in order to harmonize the
truths of the rest of the
Bible with the statements of
Koheleth was contested as to-
tally unnecessary and
unscriptural. One must surely wonder
how it can be said that
Ecclesiastes is God-breathed (pa?sa
grafh?
qeo<pneustoj, 2 Tim. 3:16), and yet human only and not
revelation. Those passages such
as the narratives in Job
and Satan's words in Genesis
which record false statements
unsanctioned by God, occur in
contexts of statements which
make such a fact prominently
apparent; but to dismiss an en-
tire canonical book as
analogous to such is a serious devia-
tion from the import of 2
Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20, 21.
Concerning the meaning and place of "pleasure"
as
Koheleth declares it, the
writer contended that Koheleth was
not Epicurean. To Koheleth
"pleasure" or "enjoyment" is
from God and is the just reward
to man for his toil on
earth, but it is to be enjoyed
in view of the coming judg-
ment upon men, and in view of
the fact that it brings only
temporary satisfaction. It only
becomes wrong when it is
made the chief goal in life. Life lived only for enjoyment
208
is lb,h, because enjoyment itself is lb,h, (transitoriness),
but life may still be
enjoyable, and that, in fact is how
God intended it.
Koheleth's view of death and immortality was also
surveyed, with the result that
it was indisputably estab-
lished that he did believe in
conscious immortality; and
more than that, a final
judgment when the righteous will be
rewarded and the wicked
punished. Koheleth cannot be casti-
gated for not evincing a
fully-developed doctrine of escha-
tology, for he, after all,
lived far back in the line of
progressive revelation. But
what God had revealed to him
was true, and his veracity
should not be questioned only be-
cause what he predicated of
life after death is incomplete
from the perspective of
revelation which came a millennium
later.
A short summary of two main themes in Ecclesiastes
was next offered. It was shown
that man, because he is fi-
nite, can only have partial
knowledge of the universe and
its workings. Such partial
knowledge is painful, but God is
inscrutable, and by his
definition must remain such; con-
sequently, all that man can do
is believe the knowledge God
gives him, and rest in His
sovereignty. The emptiness of
"things" was also
shown, as was the ultimate dissatisfaction
of the blight of unthinking
materialism, the present magni-
tude of which undoubtedly makes
the general situation in
Solomon's day pale into total
insignificance. It was shown
209
that the solution to the lack
of personal importance and
eternal perpetuation of men,
with which many are so violent-
ly troubled, is found only in
the importance and perpetua-
tion which God grants the
righteous. It was affirmed that
it is only God who can supply
the most vital and sought of
life's needs: stability, time,
physical requirements, moral
requirements, true values for
life and a dependence upon and
confidence in the sovereignty
of God.
For the purposes of comparison, but not to show
literary dependence
necessarily, both New Testament and Near
Eastern parallels were adduced.
The book of Ecclesiastes is both practical and rele-
vant. It is practical because
it shatters the foundations
of man-oriented thinking which
does not comprehend that
human enterprise, possessions,
accomplishments, and plea-
sures give only their minute
inherent satisfaction; they do
not ultimately satisfy. It is
relevant because man in every
age has needed such a message.
Life rushes on, as this morning's shadow which is
already gone, though it is but
afternoon. Does man not
know--that he was born only to
be buried and forgotten? But
wait--there is more; the grave
only ends the physical. It
ends all the accumulation, all
the selfish and insane piling
of things upon things, all the
transitory activities meant
to satisfy only temporarily.
But there is a judgment coming
and there man must account for
himself; there it will be
210
seen whether he grasped the
true nature of life. What
should man therefore do? How
may something accrue to him
which will endure? Koheleth
said it best himself: "The
conclusion, when everything has
been heard, is: fear God
and keep His commandments,
because this applies to every
person" (12:13).
Koheleth's purpose was to lead the wander-
ing people of God back to a
life characterized by such fear,
and to a life totally
acquiescent to the sovereignty of God.
He did not fail.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED
Aharoni,
Yohanan and Avi-Yonah, Michael. Macmillan
Bible
Atlas.
Inc., 1973.
Albright,
W. F., trans. "The Amarna Letters." In Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Edited by James B. Pritchard.
Princeton:
University Press, third ed., 1969.
_________.
"The High Place in Ancient
plements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV. Edited by
G. W. Anderson, et al.
_________.
"Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew
Wisdom." In Wisdom in
Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. III.
E. J. Brill, reprinted, 1969, pp. 1-15.
Anderson,
Bernard W. The Living World of the Old
Testament.
ed., 1967.
Arbez,
E. "Notes on the New Hebrew Manuscripts." The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 12:1 (January, 1950),
173-8.
Archer,
Gleason L., Jr. "The Linguistic Evidence for the
Date of Ecclesiastes." Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society, XII: III
(Summer, 1969), 167-81.
_________.
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.
Revised
edition.
Arndt,
W. F. and Gingrich, F. W. A Greek-English
Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Lit-
erature. A translation and adaptation of Walter
Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den
Schriften des Neuen Testaments and der übrigen
urchristlichen Literatur, fourth revised and
aug-
mented edition, 1952.
Barr,
James. Biblical Words for Time.
Revised edition.
Naperville, Ill.: Alex
R. Allenson, Inc., 1969.
212
_________.
Comparative Philology and the Text of the
Old
Testament.
Barton,
George Aaron. A Critical. and Exegetical
Commentary
on the Book of Ecclesiastes. In The International
Critical Commentary, edited by S. R. Driver, et al.
Baxter,
J. Sidlow. Explore the Book.
dervan Publishing House, 1966.
Bishop,
Eric F. F. "A Pessimist in
1968), 33-41.
Boettner,
Loraine. Immortality.
terian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1956.
Hefte. Roma: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum,
1963.
Bowman,
Raymond A. "Arameans, Aramaic, and the Bible."
Journal
of Near Eastern Studies, VII:2 (April,
1948), 65-90.
Bright,
John. The Authority of the Old Testament.
Brown,
F., Driver, S. R., and Briggs, C. A., eds. A
Hebrew
and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.
At the Clarendon Press, 1968.
Bullinger,
E. W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible.
Burkitt,
F. C. "Is Ecclesiastes a Translation?" Journal of
Theological Studies, 22
(1921), 23-44.
Buswell,
James Oliver, Jr. A Systematic Theology
of the
Christian Religion. 2 vols. in one.
Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.
Chafer,
L. S. Systematic Theology, Vol. I. 8
vols.
Charles,
R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of
the Old
Testament, Vol. I. 2 vols.
don Press, 1913.
213
Chestnut,
J. Stanley. The Old Testament
Understanding of
God.
Chomsky,
William. Hebrew: The Eternal Language.
Philadel-
phia: The Jewish Publication Society
of America,
1969.
Cohen,
A., ed. The Five Megilloth. In the Soncino Books of
the Bible. Edited by A. Cohen.
cino Press, 1970.
Cowley,
A. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century
B.C.
At the Clarendon Press, 1923.
Cox,
Samuel. The Book of Ecclesiastes. In The Expositor's
Bible. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll.
Hodder and
Crenshaw,
J. L. "Popular Questioning of the Justice of God
in Ancient
mentliche Wissenschaft, 82:3
(1970), 380-95.
Cross,
Frank M. and Freedman, David N. Early
Hebrew Ortho-
graphy. In the American
Oriental Series, Vol. 36.
Edited by James B. Pritchard.
Oriental Society, 1952.
Dahood,
Mitchell J. "Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in
Qoheleth." Biblica, 33:1 (1952), 30-52; 33:2 (1952),
191-220.
________.
"Northwest Semitic Philology and Three Biblical
Texts." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages,
II (1972), 17-22.
_________.
"Phoenician Elements in Isaiah 52:13-53:12." In
Near
Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell
Albright. Ed. by Hans Goedicke.
Johns
_________.
Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology.
Roma:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1963.
_________.
Psalms. In The Anchor Bible. Edited by W. F.
Albright and D. N. Freedman. 3 vols.
Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1970.
_________. "Ugaritic-Hebrew Lexicography V." Biblica, 48:3
(1967), 421-38.
214
Dalman,
Gustaf H. Aramäisch-Neuhebräisches
Handwörterbuch
zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch.
Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1967.
Davidson,
A. B. The Theology of the Old Testament.
Edited
by S. D. F. Salmond.
Sons, 1926.
Book House, 1968.
Delitzsch,
Franz. Commentary on the Song of Songs and
Ecclesiastes. Trans. by M. G. Easton.
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted, 1970.
_________.
A System of Biblical Psychology.
Baker Book House, reprinted, 1966.
Divine,
Minos. Ecclesiastes.
Company, Ltd., 1916.
Donner,
H. and Röllig, W. Kanaanäische and
Aramäische
Inschriften. 3 Bände.
witz, 1971.
Dos Santos, Elmar Camilo. An
Expanded Hebrew Index for the
Hatch-Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint. Jeru-
Driver,
G. R. and Miles, John C., eds. The
Babylonian Laws,
Vol. II. 2 vols.
1955.
Driver,
G. R. Canaanite Myths and Legends.
T. & T. Clark, reprinted, 1971.
Driver,
S. R. An Introduction to the Literature
of the Old
Testament.
1923.
DuToit,
S. "Ecclesiastes." Christianity
Today, V:21 (July
17, 1961), 32-3.
Eichrodt,
Walther. Theology of the Old Testament.
Trans.
by J. A. Baker. 2 vols.
minster Press, 1961.
215
Eissfeldt,
Otto. The Old Testament, An Introduction.
Trans. by Peter A. Ackroyd.
and Row, 1965.
English,
E. Schuyler, et al. The New Scofield Reference
Bible.
Epstein,
lonian Talmud.
Trans. by H. Freedman. Vol. I. n.d.
Ferrar,
W. J. The Uncanonical Jewish Books.
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1918.
Field,
Fridericus. Origenis Hexaplorum.
Tomus II. 2 vols.
Oxonii: E. Typographeo
Clarendoniano, 1873.
Fisher,
Loren, ed. Ras Shamra Parallels. In Analecta
Orientalia, 49. Roma: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum, 1972.
Fitzmyer,
Joseph A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre.
In Biblica et Orientalia, 19. Rome:
Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1967.
Fleisch, Henri. Introduction
à 1'Étude des Langues Sémi-
tiques.
Paris: Librairie d'Amerique et d'Orient,
1947.
Fohrer,
Georg. Introduction to the Old Testament.
Trans.
by David E. Green.
1968.
Forman,
Charles C. "Koheleth's Use of Genesis." Journal
of Semitic Studies, 5
(July, 1960), 256-63.
Frensdorff,
S. The Massorah Magna.
lishing House, Inc., 1968.
Fuller,
J. M., editor and abridger. Ecclesiastes.
In The
Bible Commentary. Edited by F. C. Cook and part of
Baker Book House's set, Barnes' Notes on the Old &
New Testaments.
1974.
Gaster,
Theodor H. Myth, Legend, and Custom in
the Old
Testament.
1969.
Genung,
John Franklin. Words of Koheleth, Son of
David,
King in
Company, 1904.
216
Gilfillan,
George. The Bards of the Bible.
Harper and Brothers, 1851.
Ginsberg,
H. L. "Ecclesiastes." Encyclopaedia
Judaica,
VI, 350-55.
__________.
ed. hxvy rpsv tvlgm wmH.
Jewish Publication Society of
__________.
"The Structure and Contents of the Book of Kohe-
leth." In Wisdom in
East.
Edited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas,
Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. III.
E. J. Brill, reprinted, 1969, pp. 138-49.
__________.
Studies in Koheleth. In Texts and Studies of the
Jewish Theological Seminary of
_________,
trans. "The Words of Ahigar." In Ancient
Near
Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited
by James B. Pritchard. Princeton:
University Press, third ed., 1969.
Ginsburg,
Christian David. Introduction to the
Massoretico-
Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible.
Ktav Publishing House, Inc., reprinted, 1966.
_________
. The Song of Songs and Coheleth.
Publishing House, Inc., reprinted, 1970.
Ginzberg,
Louis. Legends of the Jews, Vol. 4. 4
vols.
Gordis,
Robert. Koheleth--The Man and His World:
A Study
of Ecclesiastes.
________"On
Methodology in Biblical Exegesis." The
Jewish Quarterly Review, LXI:2 (October, 1970), 93-
118.
_________.
"The Original Language of Qoheleth." The Jewish
Quarterly Review,
XXXVII:l (July, 1946), 67-84.
_________.
Poets, Prophets and Sages.
University Press, 1971.
_________.
"Qoheleth and
41:4 (1960), 395-410.
217
_________.
"The Translation of Qoheleth Re-Examined." The
Jewish Quarterly Review, XL:1
(July, 1949), 103-116.
Gordon,
Cyrus H. "North Israelite Influence on Postexilic
Hebrew."
85-8.
_________.
Ugaritic Textbook. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical
Institute, 1965.
_________.
"Azitawadd's Phoenician Inscription." Journal of
Near Eastern Studies,
VIII:2 (April, 1949), 108-115.
Graetz,
Heinrich. History of the Jews, Vol.
I. 6 vols.
Gray,
John. The Legacy of
Testamentum, Vol.
V. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.
Harris,
Zellig S. Development of the Canaanite
Dialects.
In the American Oriental Series, Vol. 16. Edited
by W. Norman Brown.
poration, reprinted, 1967.
__________.
A Grammar of the Phoenician Language.
In the
American
Oriental Series, Vol. 8. Edited by W.
Norman Brown, et al.
Oriental Society, reprinted,, 1971.
Harrison,
R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament.
Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969.
Heidel,
A. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament
Parallels.
ed., 1949.
Heinisch,
Paul. Theology of the Old Testament.
Trans. by
William Heidt.
Press, 1950.
Hendry,
G. S. "Ecclesiastes." In The
New Bible Commentary.
Edited by F. Davidson.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968.
Hengstenberg,
Ernest W. A Commentary on Ecclesiastes.
N.p.:
Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1960.
Henry,
Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on
the Whole
Bible, Vol. II. 6 vols.
Revell Company, n.d.
218
Hodge,
Charles. Systematic Theology, Vol. I.
3 vols.
reprinted, 1973.
Hulst,
A. R. Old Testament Translation Problems.
E. J. Brill, 1960.
Jacob,
by Arthur W. Heathcote and Philip J.
Allcock. New
Jasper,
F. N. "Ecclesiastes: A Note for Our Time." Inter-
pretation, 21
(July, 1967), 262-5.
Jastrow,
Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the
Talmud
Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature.
2 vols.
1950.
Jastrow,
Morris, Jr. A Gentle Cynic: Being a
Translation
of the Book of Koheleth, Commonly Known as Ecclesi-
astes, Stripped of Later Additions.
J. B. Lippincott Company, 1919.
Jean, Charles-F., and Hoftijzer, Jacob. Dictionnaire des
Inscriptions Sémitiques de l'Ouest. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1965.
Josephus.
Against Apion. In vol. I of 9 vols.
of Josephus
in the Loeb Classical Library. Trans. by
Thackeray.
________
. Antiquities of the Jews. In vol. V
of 9 vols. of
Josephus in the Loeb Classical Library. Trans. by
Ralph Marcus.
1937.
Kautzsch,
E., ed. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar.
Trans. and
edited by A. E. Cowley.
Press, 1970.
Kent,
Charles Foster. The Founders and Rulers
of United
Kidner,
Derek. "Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament."
In New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited
by J. Barton Payne.
Kittel,
Rudolf, ed. Biblia Hebraica.
tembergische Bibelanstalt, 1966.
219
Knight,
George A. F. A Christian Theology of the
Old Testa-
ment.
Knudson,
Albert C. The Religious Teaching of the
Old Testa-
ment.
Knudtzon,
J. A., Herausgegeber. Die El-Amarna
Tafeln, Band
II. Zwei Bände. Aallen: Otto Zeller
Verlagsbuch-
handlung, Neudruck, 1964.
Koehler,
Ludwig and Baumgartner, Walter. Lexicon
in Veteris
Testamenti Libros.
Leupold,
H. C. Exposition of Ecclesiastes.
Baker Book House, 1974.
Liddell,
Henry George and Scott, Robert. A
Greek-English
Lexicon. Revised and augmented by H. S. Jones and
R. McKenzie.
Luther,
Martin. "Defense and Explanation of All the Arti-
cles." In Luther's Works, Vol. 32. Ed. by George
W. Forell.
Maclaren,
Alexander. The Books of Esther, Job,
Proverbs,
and Ecclesiastes.
1907.
Maltby,
Arthur. "The Book of Ecclesiastes and the After-
Life." The Evangelical Quarterly. XXXV:l (Janu-
ary-March, 1963), 39-44.
Mandelkern,
Solomon. Veteris Testamenti
Concordantiae.
2 vols.
1955.
Mantel,
Hugo. Studies in the History of the
Sanhedrin. In
Harvard Semitic Studies, Vol. XVII.
Margoliouth,
David Samuel. "Ecclesiastes." The
Jewish
Encyclopedia, Vol.
V. n.d.
McClain,
Alva J. "Christian Theology: Biblical Eschatol-
ogy." Revised by John C.
Whitcomb, Jr. Unpublished
class syllabus, Grace Theological Seminary, 1973.
Meek,
Theophile J. "Transplanting the Hebrew Bible."
Journal of Biblical
Literature, 79 (1960) , 331-37.
220
Mickelsen,
A. Berkeley. Interpreting the Bible.
Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970.
tvlvdg
tvxrqm,
Vol. v.
Inc., 1951.
Montefiore,
C. G. and Loewe, H. A Rabbinic Anthology.
Moscati,
Sabatino, ed. An Introduction to the
Comparative
Grammar of the Semitic Languages. In Porta
Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Serie, VI. Edited by
Bertold Spuler and Hans Wehr.
Harrassowitz, 1969.
Muilenburg,
James. "A Qoheleth Scroll from
letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research,
135 (October, 1954), 23-28.
Murphy,
Roland E. "The Pensées of Coheleth." The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly, 17
(1955), 304-14.
Noth,
Martin. The History of
Godman.
Oesterley,
W. O. E. An Introduction to the Books of
the
Apocrypha.
Knowledge, 1935.
________
and Theodore H. Robinson. Hebrew
Religion: Its
Origin and Development.
moting Christian Knowledge, 1952.
_________.
The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach or
Eccles-
iasticus. In The
Cambridge Bible for Schools and
Colleges.
Oppenheim,
A. Leo, trans. "Babylonian and Assyrian Histori-
cal Texts." In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard.
Princeton:
1969.
Orr,
James. Revelation and Inspiration.
Scribner's Sons, 1910.
Pache, René, ed. Nouveau
Dictionnaire Biblique.
Editions Emmaüs, 1961.
Payne,
J. Barton. The Theology of the Older
Testament.
221
Peckham,
J. Brian. The Development of the Late
Phoenician
Scripts.
1968.
Pfeiffer,
Robert H., trans. "Akkadian Proverbs and Coun-
sels." In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to
the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard.
Princeton:
1961, pp. 425-27.
_________.
"A Dialogue About Human Misery." In Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Edited by James B. Pritchard.
Princeton:
University Press, third ed., 1969, pp. 438-40.
_________. Introduction to the Old Testament.
Harper and Row, 1941.
_________.
"The Peculiar Skepticism of Ecclesiastes."
Journal
of Biblical Literature, LIII (March-Decem-
ber, 1934), 100-109.
Pinnock,
C. H. Biblical Revelation--The Foundation
of Chris-
tian Theology.
Rahlfs,
Alfred, ed. Septuaginta, Vol. II. 2
vols. Stutt-
gart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt,
reprinted,
1972.
Rainey,
Anson F. "A Second Look at Amal in Qoheleth."
Concordia
Theological Monthly, XXXVI:11 (December,
1965), 805.
Ramm,
Bernard. Protestant Biblical
Interpretation. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969.
Rapaport,
Samuel. A Treasury of the Midrash.
Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1968.
Raven,
John Howard. Old Testament Introduction.
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1910.
Robinson,
Theodore H. A History of
of which the second is by W. O. E.
Oesterley.
Rosenthal,
Franz, trans. "Canaanite and Aramaic Inscrip-
tions." In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to
the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard.
Princeton:
1969, pp. 653-62.
222
Rowley,
H. H. "The Problems of Ecclesiastes." The Jewish
Quarterly Review, XLII
(1951-2), 87-90.
Schultz,
Hermann. Old Testament Theology. 2
vols. Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1892.
Scofield,
C. I. The Scofield Bible Correspondence
School,
Vol. I. Los Angeles: Bible Institute
of Los
Angeles, 1907.
Scott,
R. B. Y. Proverbs-Ecclesiastes. In
the Anchor
Bible. Edited by W. F. Albright and David Noel
Freedman, et al.
Inc., 1965.
_________.
"Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in
In Wisdom in
Edited by M. Noth and D. Winton
Thomas, Supplements
to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. III.
Brill, reprinted, 1969, pp. 262-79.
Segal,
M. H. A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew.
Clarendon Press, 1958.
Shank,
H. Carl. "Qoheleth's World and Life View As Seen in
His Recurring Phrases." The
Journal,
XXXVII:l (Fall, 1974), 57-73.
Shedd,
William G. T. Dogmatic Theology,
Vols. I, III. 3
vols.
reprinted, 1971.
Skehan,
Patrick W. Studies in Israelite Poetry
and Wisdom.
of
Smith,
J. Payne, ed. A Compendious Syriac
Dictionary.
Stadelmann,
Luis I. J. The Hebrew Conception of the
World.
Speiser,
E. A., trans. "Akkadian Myths and Epics." In
Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. Prince-
ton:
pp. 60-119.
rbrpw rdnsklx, ed. tymrxb wdqh ybtk, x-d
jrk. Ndyyl:
lyrb. y. x, 1968.
223
Taylor,
Thomas V. "Studies in Ecclesiastes." Unpublished
mimeographed material for lectures
in Grace Theo-
logical Seminary, March, 1972.
Terry,
Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics.
Zondervan Publishing House, reprinted, 1966.
Thaumaturgus,
Gregory. A Metaphrase of the Book of
Ecciesi-
astes. Translated by S. D. F. Salmond. In The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. 10 vols. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, re-
printed, 1971.
Torrey,
Charles C. "The Question of the Original Language
of Qoheleth." The Jewish Quarterly Review, XXXIX:2
(October, 1948), 151-60.
Trapp,
John. A Commentary on the Old and New
Testaments,
Vol. III. 5 vols.
printed, 1868.
Ullendorff,
Edward. "The Meaning of tlhq," Vetus Testa-
mentum, 12:2
(April, 1962), 215-18.
Unger,
Merrill F. Israel and the Arameans of
Van
Imschoot, Paul. Theology of the Old
Testament. Trans.
by Kathryn Sullivan and Fidelis
Buck. 2 vols.
Van Zyl, A. H. The Moabites.
Von
Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology.
2 vols. Trans
by D. M. G. Stalker.
1962 (I) and 1965 (II).
Warfield,
Benjamin Breckinridge. Calvin and
Augustine.
Edited by Samuel G. Craig.
Book House, reprinted, 1974.
_________.
The Inspiration and Authority of the
Bible.
Edited by Samuel G. Craig.
Book House, reprinted, 1970.
Weber, Robertus, et
al., eds. Biblia Sacra Iuxta
Vulgatam
Versionem 2 vols.
Bibelanstalt, 1969.
224
Weingreen,
J. A Practical Grammar for Classical
Hebrew.
Weir,
Duncan H. "Ecclesiastes." In Fairbairn's
Imperial
Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
reprinted, 1957, Vol. II.
Wernberg-Møller,
P. Review of Zephanja. Versuch einer
Neuübersetzung mit philologischem Kommentar, by L.
Sabottka. Journal of Semitic Studies, XIX:1
(Spring, 1974), 105-7.
Whitaker,
Richard E. A Concordance of the Ugaritic
Litera-
ture.
Williams,
A. Lukyn. Ecclesiastes. In The
for Schools and Colleges. Edited by A. F. Kirk-
patrick.
Wilson,
John A. "The Instruction of Ani." In Ancient Near
Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Edited by James B. Pritchard.
Princeton:
University Press, third ed., 1969.
_________.
"A Song of the Harper." In Ancient
Near Eastern
Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by
James B. Pritchard. Princeton:
sity Press, third ed., 1969.
Wilson,
Robert Dick. A Scientific Investigation
of the Old
Testament.
Company, 1926.
Wright,
C. H. H. The Book of Koheleth, Commonly
Called
Ecclesiastes.
Wright,
J. Stafford. "The Interpretation of Ecclesiastes."
In Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament
Interpretation. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.
Wright,
W., editor and translator from the German of
Caspari. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Revised
by W. R. Smith and M. J. de Goeje,
Vol. I. 2 vols.
Young,
Edward J. An Introduction to the Old
Testament.
1952.
225
Zimmermann,
"The Aramaic Provenance of Qoheleth." The
Jewish Quarterly Review, XXXVI:l (July, 1945), 17-
46.
________.
The Inner World of Qoheleth.
Publishing House, Inc., 1973.
________.
The Question of Hebrew in Qoheleth." The
Jewish
Quarterly Review, XL:l
(July, 1949), 79-102.
Zöckler,
Otto. "Ecclesiastes." Translated by William
Wells. In Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Vol.
V. Edited by John P. Lange. 12 vols.
Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
reprinted,
1971.
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt: ted.hildebrandt@gordon.edu