Ecclesiastes: Its Meaning, Origin and Message
Initially, discovering and understanding the meaning and message of the book of Ecclesiastes can be a particularly onerous task. John Jarick has described the book as “an enigma,” noting that through the centuries “its readers have been unable to agree on who has written these ‘words of the Teacher’ (1:1), what the writer is trying to say, and whether those words ought to be said within the Bible.”[1] The verity of this statement is brought into sharp relief when one examines the multitude of differing interpretations of Ecclesiastes that have been formulated throughout the course of history. A number of biblical exegetes, focusing the text’s protuberant declaration that all is vapor, have postulated that the author of Ecclesiastes is “a consummate pessimist.”[2] Others have argued for an opposite understanding of the book. Observing the fact that the author frequently extols human joy, these scholars assert that the author of the book is “an indefatigable optimist.”[3] This confusion regarding the message of Ecclesiastes appears to have permeated contemporary understanding and interpretation. Several contemporary authors have even argued that the author of the book held a perspective akin to modern Existentialist philosophers, emphasizing the portions of the book which appear to regard the human condition and position in the material world as ultimately absurd.[4] Each of these perspectives appears to be in error in some respect, not being able to totally encapsulate the meaning of Ecclesiastes. Ultimately, this is due to an oversimplification of the conflicts present in its narrative and purpose, along with the commentator’s certitude regarding the singularity of the book’s final meaning. Conflict, tension, uncertainty, and contradiction appear to be central themes of the book and not the byproducts of sloppy redaction or authorial incoherence and confusion. This contradiction is included not to confuse, but to clarify the true state of the human condition. In a manner similar to several renowned postmodern philosophers, the author of Ecclesiastes wants to deconstruct any pretense at certainty, encouraging readers to deal honestly with the actual nature of human existence, which is marked by temporality, transience and uncertainty. Ultimately, the purpose of the text appears to be subversive, meaning that the author intends to subvert and challenge any aspect of human existence that could possibly become the object of idolatry.[5] Nothing is allowed to remain certain outside of the eternal nature of the divine presence and human finitude. Jacques Ellul clarifies this point in his own commentary on the book of Ecclesiastes:
Such contradictions do note represent gross oversights; on the contrary, they may be one of the keys to the book. Sometimes we find an amazing consistency in biblical books written over centuries (as I have tried to show in The Meaning of the City), but at other times we find contradictions. Often these are not due to incompetent or negligent authors, but have the purpose of putting our backs to the wall, so that we must become aware of something different. Few books contradict themselves as much as this one, and I believe one of its main meanings resides precisely in these inconsistencies. They guide us to a point where we must recognize the true character of human existence, and not just its reality: human existence is essentially self-contradictory.[6]
This being the case, most attempts to create a unified understanding, or to glean a simplistic and cohesive message from the text of Ecclesiastes end in error.
The difficulty appears to arise in part out of an ignorance of regarding the historical context in which the book was written. This is problematic because it is impossible to have a clear understanding of the meaning and purpose of any book if one does not have any knowledge regarding the identity of the book’s author, original audience, or milieu. G. A. Klingbeil has noted this in relation to his study of Ecclesiastes stating
No literary text, biblical or extrabilical, exists in a vacuum. Texts, as well as their authors, are subject to influences from the culture that surrounds them. Many elements, such as language, education, religious persuasion, economic factors and political forces, influence the genesis of any written text and impact the worldview of its author.[7]
Subsequently, it would be incorrect to ascribe the views and philosophical principles of Existentialist philosophy[8] (or any other modern/postmodern philosophy) to the author and content of Ecclesiastes. To do this would be to assume that the concerns, beliefs and vocabulary of the author of Ecclesiastes are the same as those of the modern/postmodern period. While vocabulary may be roughly synonymous and human experiences may share certain qualities throughout history, to assume that time is the only point of separation between the modern reader of Ecclesiastes and its original audience is precarious and threatens to taint any insight that might be derived from this text.[9] Recognizing this, it is important that consideration be given to a number of different elements of the text’s original composition in order to develop a better understanding of its initial - and quite possibly its ultimate - meaning and purpose. This will allow a certain amount of differentiation between the actual meaning and purpose of Ecclesiastes and that attributed by contemporary biblical commentaries. Thus it is appropriate to initiate this analysis of Ecclesiastes by examining the historical and cultural context or its authorship and the identity of its author, beginning with the former.
Traditionally, the book has been ascribed to King Solomon of Israel.[10] This tradition extends back to early Talmudic-Rabbinic commentary up to the early modern period.[11] The likely reason for this is the fact that the first verse of Ecclesiastes identifies the author as both “the Teacher (קֹהֶלֶת, Qoheleth), the son of David, King of Jerusalem.”[12] While Solomon does appear to fit this description there are several problems with this designation. First, the exact meaning of the Hebrew word Qoheleth (קֹהֶלֶת) remains ambiguous. While most scholars are certain that the word is a feminine derivative form of the Hebrew root qhl (קהל).[13] While the verb form means “to assemble” and the noun form refers to an assembly or gathering, the actual meaning of Qoheleth remains a matter of conjecture.[14] The biblical scholar Peter Enns indicates that while the traditional interpretation of Qoheleth as “teacher” or “preacher” may in fact be correct, academic study of biblical Hebrew in this instance must remain speculative since “[t]he word is found nowhere outside of Ecclesiastes, nor is it defined in Ecclesiastes.”[15] Since it is difficult to have any certain knowledge of the meaning of Qoheleth, it is also difficult to make any definite connections between Solomon and Ecclesiastes.
Second, the phrase “son of David,” while suggestive of a figure like Solomon, “could simply designate any later Davidic king.”[16] Katherine J. Dell has suggested that the ascription of authorship to Solomon most likely reflects the author’s desire to write in the tradition of Solomon and is not reflective of any historical correlation between Solomon and Ecclesiastes.[17] Recognizing this, the association of the book with Solomon is more likely the result of the author’s desire to lend theological and ideological legitimacy to his work.[18] The likely reason for this will become clear when the issue of the historical and socio-political context is discussed further below.
Finally, a number of distinctive linguistic features provide an indication that Ecclesiastes was authored during a historical period that postdates the reign of King Solomon. Enns has noted “that the language of Ecclesiastes is, by all standards of our knowledge of the historical development of Hebrew, unambiguously of later origin.”[19] The scholar Eunny P. Lee has concurred with this point stating that
Although the book associates Qohelet with King Solomon, the distinctive linguistic features preclude attributing the book to Solomon or to any period before the exile. Indeed, the frequency of late Hebrew forms and grammatical features suggests that the book belongs to the post-exilic period. Scholars continue to debate that date of the book’s composition. However, the socio-economic dimensions of its language seem to fit especially well in the economically and politically volatile context of Persian Empire.[20]
Even though the exact identity of the author of Ecclesiastes remains obscure, the fact that the period of composition is likely during the post-exilic period reveals a great deal. Even more information can be gleaned from the fact that within the post-exilic period, it is likely that Ecclesiastes was written during the period characterized by Persian hegemony. This means that the book and its author existed contemporaneously with the events and personages described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The situations and concerns of the authors of these texts would likely have been the concerns of the author of Ecclesiastes. In Ezra and Nehemiah one of the central concerns is the reassertion of the people of Israel’s unique theological and religious identity in relation to the other people in the ancient near east. The nation of Israel was no longer an independent state or kingdom, but rather was under the dominion of the Persian Empire. Alejandro F. Botta clarifies the significance of this reality stating “[t]he people of God, now constituted as a colony under Persian rule, had to redefine their identity around religious institutions and relegate to a future restoration their dreams of political independence.”[21] There is evidence that a similar struggle is taking place within the language and rhetoric of Ecclesiastes. Enns has noted that existential realities experienced by the exilic and post-exilic Israelite communities shaped the tone and style of Ecclesiastes significantly, as “the Israelites began to struggle to come to grips with their lost glory.”[22]
In several ways the text of Ecclesiastes was shaped by these experiences in a manner distinct from that of Ezra and Nehemiah. Most notably, the subject of Ecclesiastes appears to address singular readers, rather than assuming an audience made up of a community of Israelites. This seems to suggest that in the post-exilic period one of the primary concerns was how the Yahwistic covenant could be applicable with respect to individuals, since the both the nation and royal court of Israel had been dissolved by outside, imperial force.[23] In one substantial way, however, the author Ecclesiastes appears to have been influenced by an impetus similar to that felt by the authors of Ezra and Nehemiah. All three of these texts appear to share the concern of removing the temptation of idolatry. As mentioned above, the authors of Ezra and Nehemiah were concerned with the reassertion of the distinctive nature and praxis of the Yahwistic cult in lieu of a firm and established national identity. This is the significance of the rediscovery of the Torah and the rejection of foreign wives and religious practices,[24] as well as the necessity of rebuilding the Wall of Jerusalem.[25] In Ecclesiastes the author is mainly concerned with demonstrating the temporality of all things outside of human finitude itself. This is the meaning behind the multitudinous declarations that almost every aspect of human life is “vapor.”[26] The term which introduces the book of Ecclesiastes, and is usually translated as “vanity,” is the Hebrew word hebel (הָ֫בֶל), and is more accurately translated as “vapor” or “breath.”[27] Thus, the second verse of Ecclesiastes, which is normally translated to read “Vanity of vanities…all is vanity,” could also be rendered “Vapor of vapors…all is vapor.” Recognizing this, the author of Ecclesiastes appears to be commenting on the temporality, and not the meaninglessness, of human existence and the composite elements of material reality. The main theme of Ecclesiastes then appears to be the “unsubstantiality, fragility, and evanescence,”[28] of the created order. This word is also used elsewhere in the Old Testament “as a stock metaphor for false gods.”[29] It is here that one finds an important and prominent though implicit theme that runs throughout Ecclesiastes. The theme being referred to is that idolatry, or the elevation of any created thing to the positions of ultimate concern is futile, and this extends to self-worship in the face of human mortality. Jacques Ellul provides clarification concerning this point:
Qohelet does not conclude that work or money is vanity based on his reflection alone. He bases his conclusion on his experience, which is his whole self. This discovery leads him to important consequences. If I am vanity, my life has very little importance, and I can by no means consider myself as the center of the world. My work and my experience also amount to wind and a chasing after wind.[30] (emphasis added)
In other words there is no room for idolatry, whether it be idolatry of the self, the products of human labor and intelligence, or of material creation. Temper Longman III supports this reading of Ecclesiastes stating that
In its OT canonical context, one of the chief functions of the book of Ecclesiastes is to serve the purpose of debunking idols. The message is that if one tries to make wealth, wisdom, pleasure, or anything more important than a relationship with God, then one makes that thing an idol, and idols do what they always do, they disappoint.[31]
To conclude, the main unifying theme of the book Ecclesiastes appears to be the subversion of any potential idolatry. As was noted above, the author of Ecclesiastes is not concerned to demonstrate that everything is meaningless, but only that it is temporal and, consequently, to put one’s hope in anything beyond God is meaningless. This is why Qoheleth is able to conclude the book with phrases such as “[r]emember your creator in the days of your youth,” and “[f]ear God and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone.”[32] There is an ultimate meaning and purpose for human existence, but this is found in one’s relationship with God, and this alone.
Sources Cited
Botta, Alejandro F. “An Introduction to the Book of Ezra,” in The People’s Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2009).
Breisach, Ernst Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, Third Edition (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 2007).
Dell, Katherine J. “Ecclesiastes,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: One Volume Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2010).
Ellul, Jacques Reason For Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Press, 1990).
Enns, Peter “Ecclesiastes: Book of,” in The Dictionary of The Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic, 2008).
Jarick, John “Ecclesiastes,” in the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003).
Klingbeil, G. A. “Ecclesiastes 2: Ancient Near Eastern Background,” in The Dictionary of The Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic, 2008).
Kreeft, Peter Three Philosophies of Life - Ecclesiastes: Life as Vanity, Job: Life as Suffering, Song of Songs: Life as Love (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989).
Lee, Eunny P. “Introductory article for the Book of Ecclesiastes,” in The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2003).
Longman III, Tremper “Challenging the Idols of the Twenty-First Century: The Message of the Book of Ecclesiastes,” in the Stone-Campbell Journal 12 no. 2 Fall 2009.
Longman III, Tremper “Ecclesiastes 3: History of Interpretation,” in The Dictionary of The Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic, 2008).
Miller, Douglas B. Ecclesiastes: Believer’s Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 2010).
Schultz, Carl “Ecclesiastes,” in the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1996).
Shuster, Martin “Being as Breath, Vapor as Joy: Using Martin Heidegger to Re-read the Book of Ecclesiastes,” in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament vol. 33.2 (2008): 219 – 244.
Taylor, Charles A Secular Age (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007).
[1] John Jarick, “Ecclesiastes,” in the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 467.
[2] Eunny P. Lee, “Introductory article for the Book of Ecclesiastes,” in The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2003), 929.
[3] Ibid., 929.
[4] For examples of such an interpretation please refer to Peter Kreeft’s text Three Philosophies of Life - Ecclesiastes: Life as Vanity, Job: Life as Suffering, Song of Songs: Life as Love (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), as well as Martin Shuster’s article “Being as Breath, Vapor as Joy: Using Martin Heidegger to Re-read the Book of Ecclesiastes,” in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament vol. 33.2 (2008): 219 – 244.
[5] Tremper Longman III, “Challenging the Idols of the Twenty-First Century: The Message of the Book of Ecclesiastes,” in the Stone-Campbell Journal 12 no. 2 Fall 2009, 207 – 216.
[6] Jacques Ellul, Reason For Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Press, 1990), 39.
[7] G. A. Klingbeil, “Ecclesiastes 2: Ancient Near Eastern Background,” in The Dictionary of The Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic, 2008), 132.
[8] Peter Kreeft, Three Philosophies of Life - Ecclesiastes: Life as Vanity, Job: Life as Suffering, Song of Songs: Life as Love (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 18.
[9] The philosopher and author Charles Taylor has made this point in his book A Secular Age (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), arguing that the premodern and modern/postmodern philosophical perspectives diverge at a number of important points. He argues that this is especially with regard to the premodern and modern/postmodern conceptions of the ultimate purpose, worth, or meaning of human existence.
[10] Katherine J. Dell, “Ecclesiastes,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: One Volume Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2010), 368.
[11] T. Longman III, “Ecclesiastes 3: History of Interpretation,” in The Dictionary of The Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic, 2008), 140 – 147.
[12] All biblical quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version.
[13] Peter Enns, “Ecclesiastes: Book of,” in The Dictionary of The Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic, 2008), 121.
[14] Ibid., 121.
[15] Ibid., 121.
[16] Carl Schultz, “Ecclesiastes,” in the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1996), 434.
[17] Katherine J. Dell, “Ecclesiastes,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible: One Volume Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2010), 368 – 369.
[18] In the ancient world, ascribing a work or a text to a prominent figure was common practice. One need only refer to the example of Herodotus’ “record” of a dialogue between Solon and Croesus. This conversation could never have taken place, due to the fact that both participants lived in entirely different historical epochs. Herodotus authored this counterfeit dialogue, not with malicious intent, but for the purpose of the moral and philosophical instruction of his readers. For more information regarding this and other literary and rhetorical features of ancient historiography please refer to Ernst Breisach’s book Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, Third Edition (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 2007).
[19] Ibid., 123.
[20] Eunny P. Lee, “Introductory article for the Book of Ecclesiastes,” in The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2003), 929.
[21] Alejandro F. Botta, “An Introduction to the Book of Ezra,” in The People’s Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2009), 588.
[22] Peter Enns, “Ecclesiastes: Book of,” in The Dictionary of The Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic, 2008), 127.
[23] Ibid., 127.
[24] See Ezra 6 - 10.
[25] See Nehemiah.
[26] Douglas B. Miller, Ecclesiastes: Believer’s Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 2010), 40 – 42.
[27] Ibid., 40 – 42.
[28] Jacques Ellul, Reason For Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Press, 1990), 49 – 127.
[29] Douglas B. Miller, Ecclesiastes: Believer’s Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 2010), 41.
[30] Jacques Ellul, Reason For Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Press, 1990), 126.
[31] Tremper Longman III, “Challenging the Idols of the Twenty-First Century: The Message of the Book of Ecclesiastes,” in the Stone-Campbell Journal 12 no. 2 Fall 2009, 214.
[32] Ecclesiastes 12:1a; 12:13.
No comments:
Post a Comment