Debating Wisdom: The Role of Voice in Ecclesiastes (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, and the Question of God
Journal of Theological Interpretation, 2022
| This essay explores the question of the role and character of God in the book of Ecclesiastes. The essay identifies the places in Ecclesiastes (especially in Qoheleth's discourse) where God appears as a topic of discussion, attempts to classify these passages, and analyzes them in light of the whole. The essay also explores and evaluates the surprising absence of God in Qoheleth's discourse.
Qohelet's Courtly Wisdom: Ecclesiastes 8:1-9
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 2006
ECCLESIASTES 8:1-9 has long posed interpretive problems. William A. Irwin remarked on the views of his contemporaries in 1945, "By common consent we have here a series of more or less disconnected comments, perhaps in some way gathered about the general theme of monarchs and despots." 1 This fragmenting interpretive tendency, undoubtedly facilitated by a text that is among the most difficult in the book, is not merely a thing of the past. Several scholars have more recently expressed doubts about the coherence of the passage, interpreting it as a dialectic between traditional wisdom and contrary, relativizing statements. 2 In addition to these assumptions regarding the role of traditional material, problems in delimiting the scope of the passage and radically different translations of A version of this essay was presented under the title "Visionaries, Kings, and the Rhetoric of Retribution in Ecclesiastes 8:1-9" at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Atlanta, Georgia, in November 2003.1 am grateful for the insights and conversation at that venue and also especially for the comments and criticisms of C. L. Seow. All of the essay's shortcomings are my own. 1 William A. Irwin, "Ecclesiastes 8:2-9," JNES4 (1945) 130-31, here 130. 2 Diethelm Michel ("Qohelet Probleme: Überlegungen zu Qoh 8,2-9 und 7,11-14," Theologia Viatorum 15 [1979-80] 81-103, esp. 87-92) believes that 8:2-5 is a quotation of traditional wisdom that is critiqued in w. 6-9. He is followed by Pane Beentjes, "'Who Is Like the Wise?': Some Notes on Qohelet 8, 1-15," in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (ed. Anton Schoors; BETL 136; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998) 303-15, here 306. Roland E. Murphy {Ecclesiastes [WBC 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992] 82) sees w. 2-4 as modifying v. 1, w. 6-12a as modifying v. 5, and vv. 14-15 opposing vv. 12b-13. Norbert Lohfink (Kohelet [NEchtB; 4th ed.; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1993] 60) also proposes the final two pairs of opposition. Evidence of this tendency is found also in the most recent full-scale commentary on Ecclesiastes by Ludger Schwienhorst-211 212 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 68,2006
Will Kynes (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Wisdom and Wisdom Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press. , 2021
The figure of Qoheleth draws upon the historical figure of King Solomon. Though traditionally dated to that time, linguistic clues within Ecclesiastes have led scholars to consider the work a later composition. The purpose of the fictionalized royal setting of the work is then to concretize effectively its central idea: the futility of wealth, power, and wisdom in the face of the arbitrariness of death. Qoheleth is notable within his literary milieu for exercising independent judgment based on his observed environment. This central feature of the work has led scholars to explore parallels between Ecclesiastes and other ancient philosophical and sapiential literature, though no conclusive evidence of direct influence has been found. The dissonance between Qoheleth's numerous conservative statements and skeptical observations contradicting traditional beliefs is the most characteristic theme of the work.
A Wise Man Reflecting on Wisdom: Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes
Tyndale Bulletin, 2020
This paper looks at Qoheleth's ambivalent attitude towards wisdom and being wise. At times wisdom is his presupposition, his strength, and his benchmark for judging everything; at other times he sees its limitations and relativity in the light of divine unpredictability and human death. This is not contradictory; rather, Qoheleth weighs up proverbs and provides an interpretation of them, fulfilling the description of him in 12:9. Whilst some see the Epilogist as critical of the wise, using Qoheleth's own words to discredit the wisdom movement, I maintain that this is not the case; rather, the Epilogue reinforces Qoheleth's approach to the wisdom task.
Ecclesiastes in Recent Research: Sneed, Barbour, Weeks, Robinson
ETS Northeast Region Annual Meeting, 2014
A number of important books on Ecclesiastes have appeared in recent years, including works by Sneed, Barbour, Weeks, and Robinson. The first two of these began as doctoral dissertations (which usually means a fresh approach). Sneed contributes a thoroughly sociological interpretation of Ecclesiastes, following the theories of Max Weber. Sneed locates Qoheleth as one of the retainer class. He argues that Qoheleth used pessimism as a coping mechanism and survival strategy within the oppressive socio-historical context of Ptolemaic Judah. Barbour's approach is unique because she sees historical allusions in Ecclesiastes, although not in the obvious way that others have seen the presence of some historical situations. Her major contribution is the interpretation of Ecclesiastes 12:1-7 in terms of a city lament. The thesis of Weeks' book is that Ecclesiastes cannot properly be called skeptical. A more important contribution, however, is in his innovative interpretation of several passages, including the identification of rhetorical questions, which other interpreters had always taken as statements. Robinson has done a great service to Ecclesiastes scholarship in his translation and publication of Salmon ben Yeroham's medieval commentary of Ecclesiastes (written in Arabic, using Hebrew characters). The document was previously translated only into Hebrew (in an unpublished dissertation), and Robinson has also provided critical apparatus for most of the available manuscripts. My presentation will introduce and evaluate the new ideas in these four publications on Ecclesiastes. Bibliographical data: Mark R. Sneed, The Politics of Pessimism in Ecclesiastes: A Social-Science Perspective, Ancient Israel and its Literature. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Reviewed by Stephen J. Bennett and Charles Awasu in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 13 (2013). Available online at: http://jhsonline.org/reviews/reviews\_new/review692.htm Jennie Barbour, The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural Memory, Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Reviewed by Stephen J. Bennett in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56/3 (2013) 603-605. Stuart Weeks, Ecclesiastes and Scepticism. LHBOTS 541. New York: T & T Clark International, 2012. Reviewed by Stephen J. Bennett in Vetus Testamentum 63/3 (2013) 510-512. Available online for subscribers at: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/10.1163/15685330-12340011 James T. Robinson, Asceticism, Eschatology, Opposition to Philosophy: The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Salmon ben Yeroham on Qohelet (Ecclesiastes).Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval, Tome XLV. Karaite Texts and Studies, Volume 5. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012. Reviewed by Stephen J. Bennett in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57/1 March, 2014 (anticipated).
Perhaps there is no text from the Hebrew Bible that better speaks to our world’s current situation more than that of Ecclesiastes. The passage considered in this exegesis (Ecclesiastes 8) dives directly into a critique of the political, the powerful, and the limits of knowledge. In this paper, we will look at authorship, setting, genre and structure for the whole of Ecclesiastes, and then move into a detailed analysis of the text-in-focus. Also, through conducting word/phrase study on וְעֹז פָּנָיו יְשֻׁנֶּא perhaps we will see more clearly what this smokiest of biblical texts has to say to us today. For pandemics, protests, misuse of power, and the exposing of frail systems once thought to be sound and secure, Qohelet, through his alternative wisdom, exposes the cracks in Divine causality and “this or that” thinking by offering a “third way” of seeing the world.
Qohelet in his Context: Ecclesiastes 4,13-16 and the Dating of the Book
Biblica, 2019
The enigmatic anecdote of the old and foolish king in Ecclesiastes 4,13-16 is a key text for identifying the specific context of Qohelet. This article argues that the anecdote is not merely proverbial and abstract, but reflects actual political events in the second half of the third century BCE. The old and foolish king, and the two youths who follow him, may be identified with specific figures from the Seleucid Kingdom. This identification is upheld by further clues in the rest of Qohelet’s discourse and provides us with a specific dating of Ecclesiastes in the 220s BCE. The context of the struggles between the Ptolemies and Seleucids demonstrates that the book of Ecclesiastes provides not just abstract philosophical wisdom but also pointed political commentary on developments in Judea during this time.
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ecclesiastes
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ecclesiastes, 2020
There is a significant overlap, of course, between Schoors' 2013 commentary and his earlier works-in particular The Preacher I and II. The commentary became available only after I had finished a significant proportion of my own work, and I have retained existing references to these other studies, but noted places where the views expressed in his commentary differ.
VEkklhsiastou/ ; /heb.,tl, h, ä qo in Ecc1:1) of the book. The Hebrew is the word Qohelet (also spelled Qoheleth, Kohelet, Koheleth) and it is usually referred to as Qohelet in scholarly articles. Qohelet can be used as a name or a title. As a title it seems to mean a ―caller of assemblies, ‖that is, one who calls the assembly together for teaching ―teacher,‖―speaker,‖ or ―Preacher, are all dynamic renderings. Although the word " Qoheleth " is understood as masculine, its form is Qal, feminine participle. Elsewhere the root qhl is always Hip˓il or Nip˓al (causative or reflexive/passive). Perhaps the feminine ending denotes the personification of wisdom.