Qohelet the Skeptic?
In any discussion of Qohelet, one needs to quickly decide how the epilogue is to be understood because, in a way, this will inevitably drive the interpretation of the entire book. Because of the seemingly unorthodox character of Qohelet, many commentators have proposed the recognition of glosses that either contradict or soften his “unorthodoxy.” Murphy says that
the tendency today, however, is to recognize such a procedure [contradicting and sugar-coating glosses] as arbitrary; the “contradiction” may well lie in the interpreter’s understanding of the text, rather than with Qoheleth. Hence it seems better to take the book as all of one piece, despite the difficulties. This allows for tensions that would have existed within the author himself, and it attempts to explain the book as it stands (52).
I recently heard a preacher say that the end of Ecclesiastes is really all that matters. The implication is that most of the book contains little that will be of ultimate value. I have become quite intrigued by the difficulty that most of us have in reading Qohelet. But I have to admit that part of the problem is the interpretation of the book and that this interpretation, as Murphy says, “began with the editing of the book itself” (59).
Murphy proposes certain areas as central to Qohelet’s thoughts. The themes are connected with certain “key words” repeated over and over in the book. They are:
1. Vanity. Hebrew hebel means “vapor,” “breath,” hence something insubstantial and ephemeral—a vain, futile thing.
2. Joy. Murphy says that many “scholars have evaluated the book in a positive way as inculcating enjoyment of life (the leitmotif, some would say); and one has even entitled Qoheleth ‘preacher of joy’” (54). But he later on concludes that “he [Qohelet] knew only too well, and indicated explicitly, that this [joy] was severely conditioned by the fact of death, and by the inscrutable ways of the Almighty. This hardly merits for him the title of ‘preacher of joy’” (55). I think this is extremely important to keep in mind. If Qohelet invites us to “seize the day,” it is important to ask “why” he does that. We need to keep death close at hand when reading Qohelet’s call to joy.
3. Wisdom. It is a commonplace that Qoheleth goes against traditional wisdom, that with him (and the Book of Job) wisdom has entered a “crisis situation.” Here he concludes, “the ancients (and especially the editor of his book in 12:9-12) were not as ‘shocked’ as modern readers are who consider Qoheleth to be in revolt against everything in the tradition. Yes, his was a deeply critical and even strident voice that did not sing in tune with the others; but the ancients made room for him among the sages” (54).
4. Fear of God. Here Murphy takes a hard line, “how could Qoheleth have said this [Fear God and keep his commandments]? These are not his words. They belong to the epilogist or editor of the entire book, who gave a hermeneutical direction to the book that is in line with Ben Sira’s teaching on fear of God and Torah observance” (55).
He then quotes W. Zimmerli approvingly who says
Fear of God here is not travelling in paths of light which secure for those who walk therein the harvest of life’s fruits and honors. Fear of God here means walking under a heaven that is mysteriously closed, walking without the assurance that lightning might not suddenly shoot out and strike you as you go—at every step relying upon the free gift of God, but with every step also summoned to suffer the riddle and oppression that God can inflict (56).
He realizes that 8:12b does use the expression God-fears in the traditional sense but believes Qohelet is quoting a tradition that he himself does not adhere to.
5. The treatment of the just and the weak.
6. God. Who is the “God” of Qohelet? For Murphy, the description of God (Elohim and never YHWH) in Qohelet is a “grim picture of the divinity” (58). Qohelet’s view of God is something that still puzzles me. My question is, does Qohelet fundamentally have a different view of God or is he only focusing on an aspect of God that has been there all along? Is there a hermeneutical way to paint of picture of God in Qohelet that is not so “grim?”
I will finish with an insightful remark that Murphy makes about Qohelet and interpretation.
This sketch of Qoheleth’s thought should be weighed against the interpretations given to the book throughout its history. The history of biblical exegesis points up the presuppositions that always accompany interpretation. It also makes us aware of our own presuppositions in approaching the book. (59)
Well said.
Bibliography
Murphy, Roland E. The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Literature. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002.
