A Study of Ecclesiastes
Anson F. Rainey
[EDITORIAL
NOTE: Dr. Anson F. Rainey (
Among
the books of the Bible Qoheleth1 has the distinction of being the
most distrusted by the pious but best liked by the skeptic. It is disturbing to
acknowledge that a sacred book has pleased the agnostic or the pessimist more
than it has edified the saint. The range of opinion regarding origin and
purpose of the book is vast. Indeed, to recount and evaluate even the major theories
would require a separate study.2 The following is an attempt to
present only one interpretation of Qoheleth and his
world.
DIALECT Qoheleth employs cenain grammatical and lexical features which do not
occur elsewhere in the Old Testament. The use of the absolute infinitive
followed by a personal pronoun to express a past action is shared in the Bible
only with Esther, but it is a common feature in Ugaritic
and Phoenician.3 The phrase “shadow of silver” 1
The
writer’s title, Qoheleth, has been used throughout
because it more closely approximates a personal cognomen. References to the
book, however, use the tide familiar to English readers, Ecclesiastes. 2 Cf. the
introduction by O. S. Rankin, The Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1956), V, 3-14. 3 Always with a
past meaning. Eccl.4:2 (d. Esther Phoenician
examples: Kilamuwa I, 7 f.; Azitiwadi
I, 13, 17, 18, 20; 148a occurs
in Ugaritic also, thus obviating the supposed
Aramaism.4 The person who collects religious revenues is called “angel,”
or simply “messenger.” Dahood has observed that in
Phoenician this term is a
correlative of “priest.”5 These and many other cogent parallels to
Phoenician and Ugaritic passages have been
collected by Dahood.6 Those based on precise
correspondences (without emendation of the text) carry the conviction that Qoheleth’s dialect is closer to the “Canaanite” than most
of the other Biblical books. The major textual variants are ascribed by
Dahood to errors in copying from a Vorlage which lacked all matres lectionis. Since he
assumed that the book was written in the “fourth-third century B. C.,” he believed
that the original must have followed the Phoenician pattern
of orthography, which was the only Canaanite system II,
18, et al. Ugaritic: Text 49:1, 25; II, 13; text
52:68-71. ct. J. Friedrich, Phiinizisch-Punische
Grammatik ( Institute,
1951), p.133, n.1; C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Manual
(Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1955), p.64. 4 Ecd. Studies
in Koheleth ( 5 Phoenician Ma’asub insc., 2, 3. G. A. Cook, A Textbook of North Semitic
Inscriptions (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1903), p. 48. Cf. also
Mal. 2: 7 , where kohen
is parallel to mal’akh.
M. J. Dahood, “Canaanite-Phoenician
Influence in Qoheleth,” Biblica, XXXIII (1952), 207. 6 Ibid., pp. 201-21. Rainey, Ecclesiastes 149a of
that period lacking vowelletters.7 However! most of his examples involve plural subjects
with singular verbs, a matter of final vowels. But
these may be due simply to a syntactical peculiarity.8 It
is interesting to note that the relative pronoun most used in Phoenician
at this time almost always had a prothetic alef, which
is absent in Qoheleth.9 If he
lived and wrote in Canticles,
and in a few other passages, all of which might be ascribed to North Israelite origins.
Dialectically, Qoheleth has a strik- ing tie-in with Esther; to wit, the
absolute infinitive plus personal pronoun to express the past tense.10
At any rate, the parallels to
U garitic and Phoenician show quite decisively that Qoheleth’s book
is not a translation from Aramaic.11 Gordon has suggested, on the basis of these
linguistic similarities
among several post-exilic books, that they represent the dialect
of the northern Israelite tribes, carried by them to at
a later date. The books of this period which reflect strong Canaanite affinities
are Chronicles, Esther, and Qoheleth.12 The chronicler no doubt
lived in 7 Ibid., p. 43. 8 Cf. E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew
Grammar, trans. and rev. A.
E. Cowley, 2d 9 Phoenician ‘s, Old Hebrew sa (Genesis, Judges), otherwise se (also
Moabite) = 10 Esther 11 Cf. Ginsberg,
pp.16-39. 12 Gordon, IEJ, V,
87, 88.
Rainey, Ecclesiastes 149b unknown
author of Esther reveals an intimate knowledge of the Persian
court and customs. Since neither of these linguistically similar writings
came from and
permit an alternative suggestion if other evidence should warrant
it. MILIEU The commercial atmosphere which pervades
Qoheleth’s work is
amply demonstrated by Dahood. He lists 29 of the most
prominent business
terms used in the book. To these should
be added two interesting
nouns from occur
in parallelism in Ugaritic.13 Therefore, he is doubtless cor- rect in rejecting
the existence of a noun lhg in this context.14
Taking a
cue from him, one may render the verse: “Of making many accounts there
is no end, and much reckoning (checking ledgers?) is weariness to
the flesh.” The Septuagint rendering accords
well with this interpretation.15
Margoliouth had observed long ago that certain
Neo-Hebraisms,
including the term for “business,” do not occur in Qoheleth.16 Therefore he felt the book must have been written
before 250
B. C. Some of the mercantile expressions in 13 Kret, 90, 91: “hpt troops which are without counting; tnn troops which are without
reckoning. 14 Dahood, p. 219. 15 sefarim = biblia,
which means “accounts” in Hellenistic papyri.
Cf. J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The
Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, Ltd., 1930), p.
110. lahag = melete, “practice, consideration.” 16 D. S. Margoliouth, “Ecclesiastes, Book of,” Jewish Encyclopaedia, V, 32. A Study of Ecclesiastes 150a Qoheleth have striking Akkadian prototypes. For example, Gordon has
noted that ‘amal,
a key word in the sage’s discourse, has the same usage
as Akkadian nemelu, viz., “profit, property, substance,” rather than
“labor” as in the English versions.17 This is clear in ‘amal is something
that can be left to someone else. It
must signify tangible
stuff. The idiom “Money answers
everything”18 appears strange
in a Hebrew context but corresponds perfectly with Mesopotamian
usage. The Akkadian word meaning “to answer” also
signifies the act of paying for something, that is, satisfying a financial
obligation.19 The possible Hebrew
cognate for the Akkadian indefinite
pronoun, meaning “something,” is used to signify (with
the negative) a man’s loss of all his property20 in an expression which
carried an Akkadian flavor.21 Another term
for “prop- erty,” used twice by
Qoheleth22 (and only twice more in the Hebrew Old
Testament),23 must be Mesopotamian in origin because it is
apparently a Sumerian loan word.24 The word is also known in Bib- 17 Gordon, IEJ, V,
87. 18 Eccl.l0:19. 19 Cf. Codex Hammurapi, apalu, “to answer,” col. XXI, line 98;
XXIII, 71, et al. 20 Eccl. 21 Cf. Br. Mus.
text 84-2-11, 165: mimma ina
qatiya la mussura, “Nothing
at all has been left in my hand,” cited by M. Muss-Arnolt,
A Concise Dictionary
of the Assyrian Language (Berlin: Reuther and Reichard,
1905), p. 564b. Codex Hammurapi, col. VII, 1, 2; XII, 32,
43; et aI. Cf. also Deut. 24: 10. 22 nekhasim; Eccl. 23 Joshua 22:8; 2 Chron. l:11f. 24 nik(k)as(s)u,
from Sumerian NIG.SIT, “account,” i. e. NIG, “property,”
plus SIT, “to count,” according to G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles,
The Babylonian Laws, II, 196. A Study of Ecclesiastes 150b lical Aramaic25
and other related dialects.26
One Phoenician occurrence in the feminine gender is cited by Harris.27
In Eccl. 2: 8 Qoheleth uses a common
Semitic term for royal “wealth” which, though used internationally, occurs in
the Old Testament only
with reference to of
this passage and one other post-exilic reference.28 Special note must be taken of yithron, which appears in Qoheleth alone of the Hebrew
Old Testament books.29 Its root is
Common Semitic, meaning “to remain, be left over,” and the Akkadian (also the Aramaic)
adjective signifies something “ex- traordinary.”30
It was pointed out long ago by Genung that this word expresses
a pivotal idea of the whole book.31 The customary English rendering,
“profit,” fails to reflect Qoheleth’s conception. In 1: 3 25 Ezra 6:8; 26 W. Baumgartner,
Lexicon in Veteris
Testamenti Libros, ed.
L. Koehler (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1951), p. 1100. 27 Corpus Inscriptionum
Semiticatum, 3783, “And any man who
steals a gift that is the property of
Tanit the face of Baal,” cited by
Z. S. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician
Language (New Haven:
American Oriental Society, 1936), p. 124. 28 segulla,
1 Chron. 29:3; Koehler, s. v. Note Deut. 14:2, et al., where
potamian context sugullu is
usually a herd of cattle or horses. 29 Eccl. 1:3; 2:11,13; 3:9; 5:8,15;
7:12; 10:10, 11. 30 Aramaic yattir, Dan.2:31; 31 J. F. Genung, Words of Koheleth ( Mifflin
and Co., 1904), pp. 20, 214f. Rainey, Ecclesiastes 151a it
is contrasted with ‘amal
(usually translated “toil”), which has already
been shown to mean “profit,” His question is: “What is
the real profit in profit? Is there a reward in life which exceeds the mere
accumulation of material substance? Perhaps
“benefit” would be a
better rendering. His meaning is clearly
seen in is
no “benefit” to be derived from snake charming if the viper has already
struck. One obscure passage for which an
explanation may be ventured
is 5:9. In spite of many injustices in
government, “There is a benefit
in all of this, a king is served for the field.” People served the king,
and in turn the king maintained law and order. The central authority
regulated the water supply and other aspects of agriculture which
made it possible for the peasant to till his land unmolested. This is typical of Mesopotamian society,32
and this pithy maxim was probably
often uttered by the farmers. Other details of the social order have Mesopotamian
affinities. Qoheleth alone of all the Biblical
writers used the term “villein,”33 Dahood noted its
occurrence as a proper name in Phoenician, but it is far
more prominent as the designation of a distinct social class in Akkadian society.34 Besides bureaucracy,35 which would
aptly 32 Cf. Henry
Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of
Western Asia ( of
a matNamar, “for extraordinary assistance of the
governor of Namar,” cited by Delitzsch,
pp. 249, 281. 33 misken, Ecd.4:13;
9:15f. 34 muskenu, a person
of less than full citizenship whose legal status
is specifically defined, e. g., Codex Hammurapi, references in Driver,
II, 391b. 35 Eccl. 5:8, 9.
Rainey, Ecclesiastes 151b describe
some aspects of life under the Persians, another type of political structure existed
as well, viz., feudalism. The Great King was served
by local kings, who in turn were surrounded by warrior nobles and
paid for their services in grants of arable land. This institution of ilku, known under
the Hellenistic monarchs as the cleruchy, existed for
over two millenia in the ancient Near East. Those who
held a land grant
in exchange for ilku
were required “to go” (alaku)
on the missions and expeditions of their liege lord.36 An intensive participle of the cognate Hebrew verb,
“to go,” occurs only twice in the Old Testament.
The first passage defines it by parallelism as “an armed man.”37
The second, in Qoheleth,
is admittedly obscure.38 Nevertheless,
on the basis of the foregoing, it might not be idle to hazard
the following interpretation of the passage and its context: Better is a wise peasant youth than an
old and foolish king who can no longer be advised; because he (the youth) had
come 36 Note Enuma Elish, IV, 69, where ilani resulu = aliku idisu, “the gods, his
helpers, going at his side”; and Sennacherib ( Prism),
VI, 26, alikut idisu, “those
who go at his side,” viz., the junior allies.
Cf. W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch (Wies- baden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1959), p. 32. 37 is magen,
Prov.6:11. Cf. Ugaritic hlk in Kret,
92, where it is parallel to tlt, hpt, tnn, and hdd, all of which
apparently describe various types of soldiers. The service rendered by the ilku holder was
apparently corvee or financial rather than military (The Assyrian Dictionary [Chicago:
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956-J, VII, 80). Note Aramaic
halakh,
Ezra 4:13,20; 38 Eccl. 4:15;
note context vv. 13-16. A Study of Ecclesiastes 152a out of prison to rule, since he had been
born poor in his own kingdom. I saw all the living, the vassals, under the sun
with that youth, the successor who would stand in his (the king’s) place, over
all of whom he was in leadership.39 Yet succeeding; generations will
not rejoice in him. Could
this be a parody of Darius’ usurpation? He was of less than royal rank, may have been in jeopardy under
the Magian due to his loyalty to Cambyses, and could not
have gained the throne without the: aid of the feudal lords. Gaumata was more: popular than the Behistun
inscription would have one believe, and Darius was later tagged “the huckster”
for his oppressive fiscal policies.40 Thus Qoheleth
would appear to be rooted in the commercial tradition of Mesopotamian society.
Large numbers of Israelites were settled there by the Assyrians, and the
captives from over
a century later. Jeremiah told them to settle down and contribute to the
prosperity of their new home.41 Many Jewish names are known in the Murashu tablets from Nippur.42 The clients of
the sons of Murashu comprised a diverse mixture of ethnic
elements. Though it is not certain 39 Cf. Sennacherib (Chicago Prism), IV, 2, anaku . . .panussun asbat, “I took the lead (in front of them).” 40 For a complete
discussion of the problem with references, cf. A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp.107-10. 41 Jer.29. 42 H. V. Hilprecht and A. T. Clay, Business Documents of Murasu Sons of The
Sunday School Times Co., 1907), pp. 404 ff. A Study of Ecclesiastes 152b that
the illustrious proprietors of that business house were Jewish, their
transacting business on Jewish holidays does not preclude that possibility.
Consider the Jerusalemites who were willing to trade with Phoenician
merchants on the Sabbath.43 One can make a good case for
ascribing the Babylonian banking house of Egibi to Jewish
origin.44
References to sacrifice and construed
as evidence of a Palestinian provenance for Qoheleth. However,
the exiles of Ezekiel’s day were equally concerned with things ritual, and during
the restoration wealthy. Jews of Babylonia sent a delegation to of
the before
the invasion of Cambyses.47 The Code of Hammurapi
provides a convenient, though not exclusive
source for Mesopotamian illumination of Qoheleth. Its
special relevance to the Persian period consists in the fact that it had
been carried off to known
in ancient
Persian sources indicate that the code received a new lease on life
from Darius. 43 Neh.13:15-22;
d. T. Fish, “The Murashu Tablets,” Documents from Old Testament Times, ed.
D. W. Thomas (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1958), p.96. 44 Egibi = Jacob (?); Olmstead, p. 192. 45 Ecd.5:1-7. 46 Zech.6:9-15. 47 A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), No. 30, line 13. Rainey, Ecclesiastes 153a When
he codified the laws for his empire, Hammurapi’s
spirit pervaded his edicts.48 DATE AND
AUTHORSHIP The Persian loanword for” decree”49
and the absence of any Greek influence in the vocabulary both serve to support the
supposition of an eastern origin.50
Even the expression “under the sun,”
though often ascribed to Greek or Phoenician influence,51 has been
found to be typical of Elamite also.52
There is much in favor and nothing
against the assumption that Qoheleth wrote his book
in Achaemenian Mesopotamia
before Alexander the Great. Beyond his familiarity
with the business climate of that area and his enigmatic title, Qoheleth, nothing can be said about his identity.53
But it is his attitude
to that world that is the permanent value of his work. LITERARY
CHARACTER
Qoheleth is rightly
classed among the Wisdom writers of the Ancient East. Affinities with the Egyptian branch of that literature
are manifold.54 His disgust with a topsy-turvy society is
anticipated by Ipu-wer (ca. 2100 B.
C.).55 That God is 48 Olmstead, pp.
120-28. 49 pithgam, Eccl. 50 Gordon, IEJ, V, 87. 51 Greek u[f ] h[liou; Phoen. Tabnit, 7 f.; Esmunezer, 12. 52 J. Friedrich, “Altpersisches und Elamisches,” Orientalia,
XVIII, 28, 29. 53 Qoheleth, qal fem. pt., from the
root qhl, “to assemble:’ 54 Cf. Rankin, pp.
15 f. 55 Eccl. 9:11;
10:7; “The Admonitions of Ipu-wer,” trans. J. A.
Wilson, Ancient Near Eastern Texts,
ed. J. B. Pritchard ( Princeton
University Press, 1950), pp.441ff.
Rainey, Ecclesiastes 153b the
author of a man’s financial state is affirmed by Ptah-hotep
(ca. 2400 B. C.).56 If the
passage in Eccl.12:3-7 be construed as an allegory
on old age, then a more concrete description of the same thing
from Ptah-hotep should also be compared.57 Man’s confrontation
with the life-death mystery, so frequently pondered by Qoheleth,58
seems to echo the sad refrains of the Harpist’s lament.59 The inscription on the tomb of Petosiris (ca. 300 B. C.)60 reflects
sentiments like those in Eccl.9:7-9. Here is a formula for facing
life. A man must accept the present, the
future is in the hands of God. The most impressive literary parallel to this
same passage is the advice of the barmaid to Gilgamesh.61
Mesopotamian affinities are
also seen in the admonitions towards reverence of a king,62 which bear
a notable similarity to a passage in the sayings of Ahiqar.63 This
latter text is all the more interesting because Ahiqar,
though appearing
in Aramaic in the earliest preserved manuscript, gives many indications
that it was originally written in Akkadian.64 56 “The Instruction
of the Vizier Ptah-hotep,” trans. J. A. Wilson, op.
cit., p.413; cf. Eccl. 57 Ibid., p.412. 58 Ecd.2:24; 59 Trans. 60 G. Lefebvre, Le tom-beau de Petosiris
(Le Caire: Imprimerie de l’InstitUte Francais d’ Archeologie Orientale, 1924), I, 161. 61 “The Epic of
Gilgamesh,” trans. E. A. Speiser, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p.90. 62 Ecd.8:2-4. 63 “The Words of Ahiqar,” trans. H. L. Ginsberg, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp.428, 429. 64
Cowley, pp. 205-7. A Study of Ecclesiastes 154a It should not be thought freakish that a
book with Qoheleth’s apparent “secularism” should
arise among the exiles of At
the Elephantine garrison the Jews never make a reference to the Law
of Moses, nor do they seem to have possessed copies of the Sacred
Scriptures.65 Yet they did
have a copy of Ahiqar’s proverbs. So
it would seem that for many Jews of the Persian diaspora
international wisdom books were the main
religious literature. The work must now be considered as a
book. As to those who would dissect it into several pieces and assign each
fragment to an author of a special temperament (pessimist, pietist,
moralist, etc.), Genung has challenged them to prove
the soundness of their method by
entering the literary workshop and creating a great masterpiece by
this means.66 Naturally a literary masterpiece has many antecedents.
How else could it touch the chords of human existence and
thus survive the tests of time? That
would be especially true of wisdom
literature, which consisted of short, pithy proverbs that were passed
from mouth to mouth throughout the world, In the hands of literate
sages, these sayings were often collected and grouped according
to subject matter. Sometimes the proverbs on a theme supplemented
one another, They often gave contrasting aspects of the same
topic. In Qoheleth’s
work can be seen an attempt to weave together into
a connected whole the sage’s observations about life. In much of the
book he is successful at writing prose discourse, but in some pas- sages,
especially the later chapters, he finds 65 Ibid., p. xxiii. 66 Genung, p. 164. A Study of Ecclesiastes 154b it
necessary to employ the wise man’s old, standby, the proverb.67 In his
concluding remarks he takes occasion to explain his own method.68
He admits that he has painted with
borrowed pigments. He pondered,
analyzed, and set in order69 many proverbs. He sought to bring
some semblance of order out of the chaos. Independent proverbs are
like goads, they prick the mind or conscience at one particular point;
their poignancy serves to drive home one truth. On the other and, when one wise
man, or shepherd, collects these barbs under
logical and pertinent headings,70 they are transformed from goads
into nails. An isolated jab is soon forgotten; a row of nails firmly driven in
is meant to hold fast, to endure in force.
The principle Qoheleth
used in carrying out his work was induction.71
He pursued his quest for the real benefit (yithron) of
life by examining the phenomena of life itself. Genung
has aptly observed
that the book does have, contrary to the consensus of opinion,
a real internal unity of structure. There is a refrain (often mis- understood
as an expression of Epicureanism) which recurs several times,
albeit with variations, throughout the book. This is the admonition to eat and
drink and to see good in one’s ‘amal.72
Using these 67 Ibid., pp.
175-6. 68 Eccl.12:9-12. 69 Note the
typically Akkadian use of tiqqen
= D stem of taqanu,
“to set in order,” the antonym of dalahu, “to disturb.” 70 ba’ale ‘asefoth,
apparendy the sayings which serve as lead line$
to introduce the topic or general trend of the section which follows.
(Genung, p.359) 71 Eccl. l:13. 72 Eccl.2:24-26; Rainey, Ecclesiastes 155a passages
as landmarks, one can see that the material between them usually gathers around
a particular theme, an aspect of life. Genung adopted
the following “outline” to trace the course of Qoheleth’s
thought: 73 Proem, 1:2-11, the fact and the question; (1) an induction of life,
11
to 11: 6, though the division might better be made after v. 8; (7) rejoice
and remember, 11:7-12:7; epilogue, 12:8-14. From time to time
Qoheleth was obliged to rely upon a concatenation of
proverbs to tell
his story. In such instances, for example, 7: 1-13, the total impact of the
series must be emphasized. Two extremes are contrasted in 7: 16,
17; it is their juxtaposition which comprises Qoheleth’s
lesson. When studied in this light, many supposed inconsistencies disappear. PHILOSOPHICAL
CONCEPTS The goal of Qoheleth
was not merely to proclaim “All is vanity (i. e., ephemeral),” though his investigations disclose much
that is. It was
needful first to discount everything in life that possessed no lasting
value in order to answer the real question, “What benefit (yithron) does man
have in all of his profit (‘amal) for which he labors under
the sun?”74 At the very
beginning it is made clear that he does not
intend to permit “otherworldly” speculations to interfere with his study. Man can only know the temporal facts, those
which are “under the
sun.” While 73 Genung, pp.186-9; 209-11. 74 Eccl. l:3. Rainey, Ecclesiastes 155b admitting
the existence of God, he refuses to be other than an agnostic about
immortality,75 at least until he has found the true essence of
mortality. In his first survey, of
a Solomon, all those things which men prize the most: wisdom, pleasure,
wealth, self-indulgence. All of these
are found wanting in permanent
value, though wisdom is deemed superior to folly because through
wisdom the wise man has the power of cognition.76 Yet wisdom and wealth are subject to the same
limitation; they do not solve
the life-death enigma. He concludes by affirming that the true good
for mati is to “see good,” that is, find real
enjoyment, in his ‘amal. This is a gift of God vouchsafed only to those
who please Him.77 Next he confronts man with the essential
temporality of all existence.
There is a time and a season for
everything. In the midst
of it all there is man; and in man there is a spark of life which, though
confined in temporality, seems to answer to something outside of
space and time. Man has “everlastingness” (‘olam) in
his heart.78 Therefore,
his problem may now be defined 75 E. g., Ecd. 3: 18-21. 76 Ecd.2:12. 77 Eccl. 2 :24-26. 78 ‘olam (‘olam), that which
is both prior and subsequent to the created
existence; Psalm 90:2; 103:17; 106:48; Neh.9:5, et al. exception must be taken
to Dahood’s interpretation, p. 206, on the following
grounds: (1) there is already a noun derived from ‘1m, viz., ta’a1uma, meaning “hidden
thing:’ When the verb means “be concealed,”
a passive form is required. ( 2) The Ugaritic form he
cites is
not a verb but the common Ug. noun glm, “lad:’ Text
125:50 refers
to the lad 11[;u and his sister Itmnt; Kret, 19 f. reads: glm ym, “lads
of a day,” i. e., they died prematurely on the day of
birth. A Study of Ecclesiastes 156a in
terms of an “eternal” man in a temporal world. The task of living in this
environment is aggravated because, although man is vaguely aware of an
intangible quality within himself which transcends mortality,
he finds himself trapped in the dimensional world, unable to discover
the work of God from either beginning or end. Because of this
inherent limitation, man is totally deprived of evidence about an after-life.79 So Qoheleth reverts
to his former conclusion, man must seek
enjoyment of his tamal in the here and now. In the third “survey” Qoheleth faces squarely up to life.80 Oppression,
inequality, laziness, overambitiousness, all are
paraded before
the mind and found to be vanity. There are some positive values
noted, for example, a relaxed spirit,81 comradeship,82 wisdom,83
and hard work.84 Finally, the
God-given ability to enjoy one’s
tamal is seen as the only means of triumph over a
crooked world.85 Chapters 6 and 7:1-18 reveal a gradual transition
from those aspects of life which must be rejected as unprofitable for the intrinsic
man,
to those which are beneficial to the upbuilding of
his inner being. After wisdom’s
superiority in certain life situations. Though all men are sinners,86
the “sinner” may still come to a happy end by fearing God87 but the 79 Eccl.3:18-21. 80 Eccl. 4 and 5. 81 Eccl.4:6. 82 Eccl.4:9-12. 83 Eccl.4:13. 84 Eccl. 85 Eccl.5:18-20. 86 Eccl. 87 hote’, Ecd. A Study of Ecclesiastes 156b man
who is wicked through and through,88 who knows no fear of God, will
meet a disastrous end.89 The
section ends with that most widely
paralleled passage in the book,90 which is also the fullest statement
of Qoheleth’s “refrain.” The chief good in life is to
live. Zest,
courage, energy, these are the ingredients sanctioned by Qoheleth. From No
scheme is propounded to explain the events of life. Instead, the uncertainty
is accepted; indeed it is itself confronted. The tyranny of fate
is challenged by a champion, wisdom. He notes
that, regardless of
its reward whether good or ill, wisdom is better than might.91 Wisdom
is a positive benefit to any type of skill; it enabled the woodcutter
to recognize that his axe needed sharpening.92 But in
view of the time and chance factor, wisdom cannot avail if it is not exercised
soon enough. The ability to charm a serpent will not cure snakebite.93
Since one cannot control the fates, he
must take some
risks. Ship your merchandise upon the
waters, that in many days
you may attain its value. Invest a
portion with seven, and even with
eight, because you do not know what disaster will happen on earth.94 88 rasa’, Eccl. 89 This
interpretation was suggested by Mr. Subhi Abu-gosh in
a seminar discussion at 90 Eccl. 9:7-10;
cf. sup., nn. 60, 61. 91 Eccl. 9:16, 17. 92 Eccl. 10: 10. 93 Eccl. l0:11. 94 Eccl. 11: 1, 2.
For this rendering of masa’, cf. masu, “to attain” (Codex Hammu,api, col. XIV, 75; XV, 34). For nathan, cf. naaanu, “to entrust, consign”
(Codex Hammuapi, II, Rainey, Ecclesiastes 157a-b One
must also risk the elements, which are beyond his ken.95 The last section, 11:9-12:8, exhorts one
to rejoice in life now, but to remember one’s responsibility for his acts. The epilogue consists of an explanation and
defense of the author’s method. His final admonition to fear God and obey His directions
for life is placed in opposition to the toilsome life of slavery to
ledgers and “figures.” To declare this passage a later addition, out of
harmony with the main theme of the book, is to misunder-
stand
completely the course of Qoheleth’s thought. He has
declared that
man’s foremost challenge is in this life, not in vain speculation about
“pie in the sky.” He has tested all that men count worthy of esteem
and found it wanting. Only wisdom and the fear of God provide
a true benefit for the essential nature of man; for they enable him
to understand and enjoy his temporal existence, irrespective of his material
status. Qoheleth has been called
skeptic, cynic, and pessimist. He is skeptical of all that is vain, but he is
neither cynical nor pessimistic. He simply rejected stones in search of a loaf.
He has been accused of impiety;
but let him who has never shared the sage’s doubts cast the first
stone. 56ff.).
Note especially paragraphs 236-40 of Codex Hammurapi,
which
regulate liability for accidents causing loss of merchandise being
shipped by riverboat. 95 Eccl. 11:3-6.
||
Pope Shenouda
||
Father Matta
||
Bishop Mattaous
||
Fr. Tadros Malaty
||
Bishop Moussa
||
Bishop Alexander
||
Habib Gerguis
||
Bishop Angealos
||
Metropolitan Bishoy
||
||
The Orthodox Faith (Dogma)
||
Family and Youth
||
Sermons
||
Bible Study
||
Devotional
||
Spirituals
||
Fasts & Feasts
||
Coptics
||
Religious Education
||
Monasticism
||
Seasons
||
Missiology
||
Ethics
||
Ecumenical Relations
||
Church Music
||
Pentecost
||
Miscellaneous
||
Saints
||
Church History
||
Pope Shenouda
||
Patrology
||
Canon Law
||
Lent
||
Pastoral Theology
||
Father Matta
||
Bibles
||
Iconography
||
Liturgics
||
Orthodox Biblical topics
||
Orthodox articles
||
St Chrysostom ||
||
Pope Shenouda
||
Father Matta
||
Bishop Mattaous
||
Fr. Tadros Malaty
||
Bishop Moussa
||
Bishop Alexander
||
Habib Gerguis
||
Bishop Angealos
||
Metropolitan Bishoy
||
||
Prayer of the First Hour
||
Third Hour
||
Sixth Hour
||
Ninth Hour
||
Vespers (Eleventh Hour)
||
Compline (Twelfth Hour)
||
The
First Watch of the midnight prayers
||
The
Second Watch of the midnight prayers
||
The
Third Watch of the midnight prayers
||
The Prayer of the Veil
||
Various Prayers
from the Agbia
||
Synaxarium
A Study of Ecclesiastes 148b
