The Anticipation of Death as an Incentive for Productive Life in Eccl 9:10

Trevor Peterson May 4, 1999

Contents
1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Approach to This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A Brief Introduction to Ecclesiastes 2.1 Genre of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Identifying the Wisdom Subgenre . . . . 2.1.2 Recognizing Implications of the Genre . 2.2 Authorship of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 The Chronological Setting of the Author 2.2.2 The Significance of Qoheleth . . . . . . 2.2.3 The Reliability of the Author . . . . . . 2.3 Canonicity of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 The Historical Tradition . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 The Significance of Authorship . . . . . 2.4 Theme of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 A Survey of Views . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 An Evaluation of Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 5 6 6 7 10 11 11 17 19 20 20 20 21 21 23 25 25 26 27 28 32 32 33 37 38

3 The Context of Eccl 9:10 3.1 The Argument of Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Major Types of Discourse Used in Ecclesiastes . . . . . 3.1.2 Sections Defined by Discourse Type . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Further Subdivision by Rhetorical Keys . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Futility of Death (8:169:10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 The Relationship of 8:169:10 to Its Preceding Context 3.2.2 The Discourse Flow of 8:169:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 The Rhetorical Structure of 8:169:10 . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Response to Death (9:710) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4 An Exegesis of Eccl 9:10 4.1 The Exhortation to Work . . . . . . 4.1.1 The Object . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 The Prepositional Modifier . 4.1.3 The Main Verb . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Motivation of Death . . . . . . . 4.2.1 The Syntax of the Clause . . 4.2.2 The Semantics of Four Nouns 4.2.3 The Biblical Concept of 4.3 The Meaning of the Verse . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 39 39 40 42 42 42 43 46 48 49 49 49 50 51 52 53 53 54 56 56 56 57 58 58 59 59 59 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 66 66 67

5 A Thanatology of Ecclesiastes 5.1 Wise and Foolish Alike in Death (2:1217) . . . . . . . 5.1.1 The Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 The Translation and Discourse Flow . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Brief Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Man and Beast Alike in Death (3:1421) . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 The Translation and Discourse Flow . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Brief Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Rich and Poor Alike in Death (5:1215) . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 The Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 The Translation and Discourse Flow . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Brief Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Righteous and Unrighteous Alike in Death (7:1317) . . 5.4.1 The Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 The Translation and Discourse Flow . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Brief Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Other Teachings Regarding Death (3:2; 4:23; 7:1; 12:7) 5.5.1 Brief Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusion 6.1 The State of Death . . . . 6.2 The Significance of Death 6.2.1 Summary . . . . . 6.2.2 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A A Survey of Approaches to the Structure of Ecclesiastes A.1 Little or No Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2 Topically-based Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.3 A Four-part Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.4 A Two-part Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.4.1 Independent Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . A.4.2 Proponents of A. G. Wrights Approach . . . . A.4.3 A. G. Wrights Own Analysis . . . . . . . . . . A.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

69 69 70 71 71 72 72 72 73

Chapter 1

Introduction
It is not often in most churches today that Christians have the opportunity to hear sermons or lessons taught out of Ecclesiastes. Probably more people know the gist of 3:18 than recognize where it can be found in Scripture. If the average pew-sitter knows anything about the book, it is the exclamation, Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, Vanity of vanities! All is vanity,1 and the pessimistic sentiment that tends to accompany its saying. Coming as it does immediately after Psalms, one of the most widely read books in the OT, and Proverbs, from which even non-religious people are apt to quote,2 this apparent neglect requires some explanation. It is not the purpose of this study to answer that question fully, but to wrestle with one contributing factor, and hopefully to spark greater interest in this enigmatic, ancient writing.

1.1 Purpose of This Study

At least one obstacle for expositor and audience alike seems to come from the apparent incongruity between the theological perspective of Ecclesiastes and that considered to be more characteristic of Scripture as a whole. One glaring example of this questionable theology is the thanatology of the writer, or his concept of death. Particularly questionable are the state and implications of death as they relate to individual eschatology and the general OT perspective on the prospect of a life after this one. As such, EcEccl 1:2, nasb, differs from the familiar kjv by only the updated form of says for saith and more precise punctuation. See also 12:8 for a slight variation. 2 The Dictionary of Best Known Quotations & Proverbs (New York: Garden City, 1939) 34749, for instance, includes three full pages from the book of Proverbs.
1

clesiastes has become a favorite source of evidence for proponents of soul sleep.3 But an even greater issue at stake is that of inspiration, particularly as the continuity of Scripture is viewed. For proponents of scriptural inerrancy, Ecclesiastes ought to be no less authoritative and no less accurate than any other book. In the progress of revelation it may give an incomplete picture of death, but it cannot endorse a wrong picture or one that contradicts other revelation. This study will, therefore, focus on interpreting Eccl 9:10 as one clear example of the authors perspective on death and the significance he draws from it. Considered within the context of the authors argument throughout the book, this verse will be shown to exemplify a view of human death that provides a valid incentive for productive life without necessarily compromising the larger biblical thanatology.

1.2 Approach to This Study

Since the issues at stake go beyond the exegesis of one verse in Ecclesiastes, this study will be divided appropriately between particular exegesis of Eccl 9:10 and a broad consideration of Ecclesiastes as a whole, first from a structural and thematic perspective, and then with a view to drawing some broad theological conclusions. As such, the second chapter will discuss the introductory issues of genre, authorship, canonicity, and theme. The third chapter will then spiral downward through the broad argument of the book as a whole and successively limiting boundaries to arrive at the immediate context of Eccl 9:10. The fourth chapter will consist of a detailed exegesis of Eccl 9:10, to understand the authors purpose and reasoning. In the fifth chapter, other thanatological passages and statements in Ecclesiastes will be discussed in light of the exegetical conclusions from chapter four, to approach an overarching theology of death for the book. Finally, the sixth chapter will offer some theological conclusions and applicational reflections on the picture of death presented in Ecclesiastes.

3 So M. Luther, Notes on Ecclesiastes, Luthers Works (ed. J. Pelikan and H. C. Oswald; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972) 15:150: This is another passage which proves that the dead do not feel anything. Solomon thought that the dead are completely asleep and do not feel anything at all.

Chapter 2

A Brief Introduction to Ecclesiastes

Although the scope of this study is much narrower than Ecclesiastes as a whole, there are certain issues to be considered before progressing toward the passage in question. A complete study of the introductory issues relating to Ecclesiastes, or even of those particularly relevant to the authors thanatology within this investigation, could easily consume a work of its own. It is not the purpose of this chapter to engage in such a complete study but to survey the issues most immediately pertaining to the question at hand and arrive at some tentative conclusions upon which to progress forward. To a certain extent, the conclusions drawn within this chapter must be viewed as presuppositional to the subsequent discussion, but hopefully the logical basis for adopting such presuppositions will be established, if only in summary form. To such an end, this chapter will present some of the major approaches to the questions of genre, authorship, canonicity, and theme of Ecclesiastes, particularly as they impact the theological relationship between ideas expressed within the body of Ecclesiastes and the whole of biblical revelation.

2.1 Genre of Ecclesiastes

While Ecclesiastes is generally recognized as wisdom literature, there are at least two questions to be answered in light of its genre, both of which will contribute substantially to the view with which the contents of the book will be treated. 6

2.1.1 Identifying the Wisdom Subgenre

The first question to be answered relates to the stubborn problem of subgenre in Ecclesiastes. The unusual form and style of the book have led some scholars to despair of finding any particular genre beyond the general category of wisdom.1 Perdue lists righteous sufferer poem, dialogue of pessimism, and song of the harper as possible suggestions, but he concludes that the two closest forms are grave biographies and royal testaments. Particularly, he finds a connection between Ecclesiastes and later Egyptian grave inscriptions, which tended to be pessimistic wisdom writings in tombs, supposedly addressed from the deceased to visitors. These inscriptions, in turn, he relates to the royal instructions, which are often pseudonymous, autobiographical wisdom teachings by deceased kings.2 But the present concern is not so much to determine what the subgenre might be, as it is to evaluate one suggestion that could drastically affect how the book is viewed. Writing as a conservative, Longman has found a way for Ecclesiastess questionable theology and canonicity to coexist in harmony, by appealing to the structure and subgenre of the book. He states: the most natural reading of the book takes into account the presence of two speakersQohelet, who refers to himself in the first person in 1:1212:7, and a second, unnamed wise person, who describes Qohelet to his son (12:12) in the third person (1:111 and 12:814). In effect, the speech of Qohelet is a quotation, which is framed by the words of the second speaker, who is the narrator/author. Thus, in keeping with the structure of the book, we must examine its theology in two parts. First, Qohelets theology, and then the theology of the frame narrator, which is the normative theology of the book as a whole.3 Part of this perspective hinges on Longmans assessment of the structure. He holds that there are two narrators, one referred to as Qoheleth, and the other an unnamed frame narrator. The latter he sees as having added the
1 So R. E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature (ed. R. Knierim and G. M. Tucker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) 12931. 2 L. G. Perdue, Wisdom & Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 194202. See also J. L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (Atlanta: Knox, 1981) 144. 3 T. Longman, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 3132, emphasis added.

first eleven verses of the book and the last seven, to frame the remarks of the former. He suggests that the narrator uses Qoheleth as a foil, a teaching device, to instruct his son (12:12) concerning the dangers of speculative, doubting wisdom in Israel.4 In this he compares Ecclesiastes with the book of Job, most of which is composed of nonorthodox speeches which are refuted at the end. The remainder of Longmans case rests upon his view of the subgenre as framed wisdom autobiography, which he compares with Akkadian fictional autobiography to find a similar form.5 The particular matter of this views reflection upon the authorship of Ecclesiastes will be addressed in the next major division of this chapter, but it does remain to examine whether Longmans assessment seems plausible, and if so, what it might contribute to the overall interpretation of the book. No genre basis for classifying Ecclesiastes as pseudonymous. The first thing to notice in this regard is that these Akkadian examples are classified as fictional autobiography. Longman emphasizes this point, declaring each of them to be demonstrably later than the pseudonymous narrator whose autobiography it purports to be. This characteristic is significant to his view of authorship, since he concludes that Qoheleth is portrayed intentionally as Solomon but is actually a later wisdom teacher (if he exists at all).6 But even if the genres are similar or identical in form, as remains to be seen, the fact that Longman limits his comparison to fictional autobiography requires that the basis for pseudonymity in Ecclesiastes be found elsewhere. In other words, it must be assumed or proven a priori that Qoheleth is supposed to be Solomon but is not really Solomon, if a valid comparison is to be made with other pseudonymous writings. No structural basis for classifying Ecclesiastes as pseudonymous. The second thing to notice is that the comparison is based not particularly on matter, but on form, which consists of a three-part structure: 1) introduction of the subject, 2) extended personal narration of exceptional acts, and 3) first-person wisdom admonitions, the last of which is unique to the wisdom autobiography subgenre. Longman builds his classification of Ecclesiastes on the same three-part structure, identifying the parts as 1:12, 1:13 6:9, and 6:1012:7, with the exclusion of the frame narrative.7 But how
4 5

Ibid., 38. Ibid., 1720. 6 Ibid., 23. 7 Ibid., 1819.

striking is this correlation? The first-person introduction, which he admits was not always preserved in the texts he examined, should be expected in any first-person writing, particularly if the following division describes personal exploits. In fact, it hardly bears mentioning, since common sense requires the second division to begin with or be preceded by some introduction of the narrator. The length of one verse likewise militates against it being a significant division, especially in light of the logical explanations for its presence. As for the second and third divisions, Longman admits that there is advice in both, and he cites 4:12 and 5:2 as examples. But if he considers these bits of proverbial wisdom to be examples of instructional material, then 1:15, 18; 2:14, 16, 2126; 3:122; 4:36, 916; 5:112, 1620; and 6:39 should probably qualify as well. In fact, while there is a recognizable division between 6:9 and 6:10, there is no radical or even obvious shift from personal narrative to instruction. Furthermore, in 7:15, 2329; 8:910, 1517; 9:1316; and 10:57 Qoheleth continues his catalog of personal experiences, even identifying himself by name. That there is greater development of his personal deeds in the opening chapters, particularly in chap. 2, than in the rest of the book is undeniable and intuitively logical. Any instruction that draws from personal experience is bound to open with a narrative of experiences, if it has any structure at all. Just as so many NT epistles progress from a theological base to practical lessons, the wisdom teacher who learns from life experience must begin by laying the foundation of what he has done and seen. But there is hardly enough distinction between the major divisions that Longman delineates to support such a close association with his Akkadian examples. Open-ended subgenre question. In light of the weaknesses in Longmans approach, it still seems best to exercise caution. While it would be possible to label Ecclesiastes with one subgenre or another, any attempt to do so remains somewhat arbitrary and could be more misleading than helpful. Yes, wisdom autobiography and royal testament are acceptable descriptions, but only as they stand generically for wisdom writings that relate events of the narrators personal experience, in the latter case as king. But presumably the attempt to classify subgenre is motivated by a desire for greater precision and class-identity than this generic designation would allow. The question of pseudonymity will be taken up again under the discussion of authorship, but for the genre question a general treatment of Ecclesiastes as wisdom literature must suffice. 9

2.1.2 Recognizing Implications of the Genre

What bearing then does wisdom genre have on the proper interpretation of the authors theological remarks? While it is tempting to discuss at length the peculiarities of wisdom literature as a whole, the bounds of the present discussion require only a summary of their significance for interpreting Ecclesiastes. Crenshaw defines wisdom as the reasoned search for specific ways to assure well-being and the implementation of those discoveries in daily existence.8 Particularly with regard to Ecclesiastes, he views the primary object of this search as meaning that would enable [Qoheleth] to endure the few days of his empty existence.9 Gordiss perspective on some of the more unusual wisdom writings like Ecclesiastes is intriguing: A few bolder spirits within the schools of Wisdom had been trained to apply observation and reasoning to the practical problems of daily life. They would use the same instruments to solve the more fundamental issues that intrigued them, the purpose of life, mans destiny after death, the basis of morality, the problem of evil. When they weighed the religious and moral ideas of their time by these standards, they found some things they could accept, but much more that they felt impelled to reject as either untrue or unproved.10 While it remains to investigate more closely the theological perspective of Ecclesiastes as it compares with that of other biblical writings, Gordis provides some useful insight into the content of writings like Ecclesiastes. They do not contain divinely revealed truth per se, but that which can be ascertained through human observation and intellect. On some issues, the outcome is virtually indistinguishable, but particularly in the areas Gordis mentions, their perspective will tend to be incomplete at best. von Rads comments shed further light on this issue: With [the Preacher] the Wisdom literature lost its last contact with Israels old way of thinking in terms of saving history and, quite consistently, fell back on the cyclical way of thinking common to the East in this world devoid of all action of Jahweh in history, Ecclesiastes seeks for God.11 von Rad may overstate his case
Crenshaw, Wisdom, 24. Ibid., 63. 10 R. Gordis, KohelethThe Man and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes (third augmented ed.; New York: Schocken, 1968) 28. 11 G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology Volume I: The Theology of Israels Historical Traditions (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962) 455.
9 8

10

as W. C. Kaiser suggests.12 But it is possible to benefit from his remark, in that the pessimism found in Ecclesiastes cannot be divorced from its view of a world without Gods historical self-revelation. But wisdom was not written in a religious or cultural vacuum, and so despite its human faculties and perspective, it clearly reflects a theological background that builds upon the beliefs of its culture. It is in this light that Bullock identifies four theological threads in Israelite wisdom: 1) a sovereign God, 2) a responsible humanity, 3) an orderly universe, and 4) a recognizable immortality.13 Obviously, there is by no means collective agreement on all of them, and it remains for the conclusion of this study to determine whether Ecclesiastes in particular manifests any concept of immortality. But as von Rad states, there should be no thought of the OT wisdom writers as present-day agnostics, who reject every religious presupposition in their pursuit of meaning.14 Therefore, throughout this study the OT, and particularly the Torah, will provide a theological backdrop for viewing and evaluating the themes in Ecclesiastes.

2.2 Authorship of Ecclesiastes

While it would be possible to interpret Eccl 9:10 without knowing exactly who wrote it, the authorship must be considered as it relates to the questions of authority and necessary compliance with other Scripture. The presuppositional motivation for this section is that prophetic authorship was a crucial basis for recognition of canonicity, and as such is therefore instrumental to establishing a perspective on Ecclesiastes in relation to other canonical books.15

2.2.1 The Chronological Setting of the Author

Historically, proponents of Solomonic authorship have dated the book during his reign. Argumentation to the contrary tends to emphasize the apparW. C. Kaiser, Integrating Wisdom Theology into Old Testament Theology: Ecclesiastes 3:1015, A Tribute to Gleason Archer (ed. W. C. Kaiser and R. F. Youngblood; Chicago: Moody, 1986) 198. 13 C. H. Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books (revised ed.; Chicago: Moody, 1988) 5363. 14 von Rad, Theology, 456. 15 ee N. L. Geisler, The Extent of the Old Testament Canon. Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (ed. G. F. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).
12

11

ent lateness of the language used.16 There is, therefore, an intrinsic link between determining the authorship and dating the book. That is not to say that everyone who rejects Solomonic authorship must also date the book considerably later than someone who accepts it. But on the whole there is a correspondence between the two trends, and certainly it could be said that one who accepts Solomonic authorship also dates the book at the time of his reign. Inconclusive linguistic character. In light of this relationship between chronology and authorship, Crenshaws succinct remarks are typical of many who oppose Solomonic authorship: The language of the book resembles the latest Hebrew in the canon; in some respects it comes closest to Mishnaic Hebrew. The preference for participles, use of the relative e , and occasional Aramaic words point to the late third century as the most probable date for the book.17 Similarly, G. A. Barton asserts, The Hebrew in which the book of Ecclesiastes is written exhibits some of the latest developments of that language which appear in the Old Testament. The decadent character of the tongue, as here employed, appears in the use of Aramaic and Persian words, the employment of late words used elsewhere only in the Mishna; in the use of late developments and mixtures of Hebrew forms, the absence or infrequent use of characteristic constructions, such as the waw consecutive, and the frequent employment of syntactical constructions rare in the older books.18 O. Eissfeldt mentions a few specifics of Aramaic influence: to cease from working (xii, 3), time (iii, 1) for example, are pure Aramaic words, and as in the vocabulary so too in the formation of words and in constructions the Aramaising character of the language is everywhere noticeable.19 O. Kaiser adds the Persian loan words pardes, park, in 2.5 and pitgam, decree, in 8.11 as evidence that Ecclesiastes was written no earlier than the
So C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 1112, who writes of the language that the whole topic deserves careful consideration, for despite the difficulties, the linguistic clues remain the most compelling for the dating of the book. 17 Crenshaw, Wisdom, 147. 18 G. A. Barton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908) 52. 19 O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P. R. Ackroyd; New York: Harper and Row, 1965) 496. See also O. Zckler, Ecclesiastes or Koheleth, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (ed. J. P. Lange; 12 vols; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960) 1617.
16

12

Persian period.20 But few scholars expound this argument more fully or are cited more often than F. Delitzsch and R. Gordis. Delitzschs oft-quoted assessment is that, if the Book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language.21 He goes on to list about 100 specific hapaxlegomena, and words and forms in the book of Koheleth belonging to a more recent period of the language, as well as four other linguistic peculiarities betokening a late origin.22 And it is this sheer quantity of evidence that Gordis cites as overwhelming indication of the Persian period or later for the writing of the book.23 But despite the strength so many scholars attribute to the linguistic evidence, some conservatives are more skeptical, even if they reject Solomonic authorship and allow for a later date.24 Longman, for instance, cites opposing linguistic studies and notes that even what late forms are substantiated could reflect updating of vocabulary and grammar by later scribes so their contemporaries could understand the book better.25 He concludes, We do not know the history of the Hebrew language or the foreign languages that influenced it well enough to use Qohelets language as a barometer of the books origin. Are certain features late, or do they reflect vernacular or dialectical peculiarities in Hebrew? We can never be certain.26 M. F. Unger describes the language of Ecclesiastes as unique from later biblical writings or intertestamental Hebrew literature and attributes its peculiarities to the genre, which may have originated in Phoenicia or Canaanite territory.27 But the most notable articulation of this dissenting viewpoint comes from G. L. Archer, who like Unger, appeals to Dahoods study of Canaanite and Phoenician influence on the language of Ecclesiastes. He concludes that the similarity of 15th c. Ugaritic literature to Dahoods data allows for a much
20 O. Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament: A Presentation of its Results and Problems (trans. J. Sturdy; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975) 401. 21 F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes (trans. M. G. Easton; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.) 190. 22 Ibid., 19099. 23 Gordis, Koheleth, 59. C. F. Whitley, in Koheleth: His Language and Thought (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1979) 147, pinpoints the significance of this quantity when he says, However we account for the origin and purpose of this material, it would hardly be incorporated in the book unless Aramaic was intelligible to the people at large. 24 So M. A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983) 1819; and Bullock, Poetic Books, 186. 25 Longman, Ecclesiastes, 10. 26 Ibid., 15. 27 M. F. Unger, Ungers Commentary on the Old Testament: Volume 1 GenesisSong of Solomon (Chicago: Moody, 1981) 106970. As will be seen with G. L. Archer and others, he depends heavily upon the work of M. J. Dahood for this last suggestion.

13

earlier date than Dahood suggests, provided that Phoenician influence can be allowed within the Hebrew culture of that time.28 And on this last point, W. C. Kaiser suggests a plausible consideration: Solomon may have intentionally written Ecclesiastes with an eye to a wider circle of readers than just the Hebrewsperhaps those Aramean and other Semitic nations that were then subject to his government, which would explain at least in part why the language seems to reflect so much outside influence.29 Given the wide spectrum of opinion, it seems best to conclude with Longman that the language of Ecclesiastes is not as helpful as it might be in determining a date for the book. The uniqueness of the book as a whole makes it difficult to correlate with other samples, and the particular genre could very well have originated with and been heavily influenced by neighboring peoples at any point in Israels history. The biblical record, at any rate, seems to indicate that Israel under Solomon was cosmopolitan enough to allow for a more international flavor in content, genre, and language. Decidedly Solomonic internal statements. Aside from the linguistic argument, the best source of information for determining the date and authorship is the internal testimony of Ecclesiastes. And on this matter it should become quite clear that most scholars seem to agree on the portrayal of Qoheleth as Solomon.30 Where they generally disagree is on the authenticity of that portrayal. Gordis, for instance, holds 1:1 to be an added superscription that mistakenly refines Qoheleths identity as Solomon by calling him the son of David. He does acknowledge that the author takes on the guise of the son of David, but only in order to give substance to his
G. L. Archer, The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Ecclesiastes, JETS 12 (1969) 18081. See also G. L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (revised ed.; Chicago: Moody, 1994) 52835. 29 W. C. Kaiser, Ecclesiastes: Total Life (Chicago: Moody, 1979) 32. See also L. Goldberg, Ecclesiastes: Bible Study Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) 2324. 30 See W. C. Kaiser, Ecclesiastes, 2526, for the following apparent correlations between Ecclesiastes and 1 Kings: Kaiser identifies Solomon as the only direct Son of David to rule over Israel in Jerusalem (1:1) and notes the reference to Solomons unsurpassed wisdom in 1:16 (cf. 1 Kgs 3:12), to his unsurpassed wealth (cf. 1 Kgs 5:2732; 7:18), his huge retinue of servants (cf. 1 Kgs 9:1719), and his extensive building operations (cf. 1 Kgs 10:1429) in 2:410, to his recognition of universal sin in 7:20 (cf. 1 Kgs 8:46), to his experience with women in 7:28 (cf. 1 Kgs 11:18), and to his production of proverbs in 12:9 (cf. 1 Kgs 4:32). But while this does show the Solomonic persona to extend beyond chaps. 12, the question is not whether Qoheleth is portrayed as Solomon, but whether the internal evidence of the cultural setting and the position of the author would uphold that portrayal as genuine.
28

14

argument in 1:122:20.31 Murphy explains, Since wisdom is usually associated with royalty, and Solomon had a great reputation for wisdom (1 Kgs 5:912[4:2934]), the adoption of the king fiction is intelligible.32 He goes on to cite one of the major lines of internal evidence raised against Solomonic authorship, namely the authors distant, if not critical attitude toward kingship in 3:16; 4:12; 5:7; 8:24; 10:47, 1617, 20, lending credibility to the claim that he is talking about a situation in a foreign court, and hence about the post-exilic period.33 Zckler adds, the author says i. 12: that he, Koheleth, has been king in Jerusalem, and speaks, vii. 15, of the days of his vanity, as if he had long been numbered with the dead! And again, what he says of himself, i. 16; ii. 7, 9: that he was wiser and richer than all before him in Jerusalem, points, under unbiased exposition, clearly to an author different from the historical Solomon.34 R. K. Harrison remarks that the economic and social background of the book hardly accords with the Solomonic era, for Ecclesiastes reflects a time of misery (Eccles. 1:211) and decline for Israel (Eccles. 3:115), when injustice and violence were rampant (Eccles. 4:13), and normal incentives for living appeared absent (Eccles. 7:1).35 Bullock reminds the reader as well that Solomons name is never actually mentioned, which he considers unlikely if Solomon were the writer.36 H. C. Leupold further objects to the necessary assumption that Solomon repented later in life and finds no evidence to support the notion in the historical books or in Ecclesiastes itself.37 These remarks are not without response, however. If it seems plausible to most scholars that some unknown wisdom teacher would adopt the persona of Solomon as a rhetorical device, it should be equally plausible that Solomon would write more as a wise sage than as a royal propagandist, which goes a long way to explain the apparent distancing from the kingship and the lack of direct mention of his name.38 Regarding the past tense reference to Qoheleths kingship in 1:12, Barton cites Gen 42:11 and Exod
31 32

Gordis, Koheleth, 40. R. E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1992) xx. 33 Ibid., xxi. 34 Zckler, Ecclesiastes, 13, emphasis his. 35 R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 1074. 36 Bullock, Poetic Books, 184. 37 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952) 9. 38 So Unger, Old Testament, 1070; and Archer, Introduction, 533.

15

2:22 as parallel examples in which the speaker uses the Hebrew qatal conjugation to mention something about himself which is true in the present.39 But J. M. MacDonald adds that, writing at the end of his life, Solomon would have been inclined to write as though he were already dead, if he expected later generations to read the book.40 Kaiser mentions at least three Canaanite kings who reigned in Jerusalem before Solomon, and Unger adds the possibility of other wise men being implied, which allows for his reference in 1:16 to all who were before me in Jerusalem.41 A. Cohen, citing 1 Kgs 11:4, 25; 12:4, reminds the reader that circumstances during Solomons reign were by no means perfect and still could have allowed for dissatisfaction and oppression in the lives of Israelites.42 MacDonald supplements this realization with statements in 2:1819 and 4:1316 alluding quite possibly to Rehoboam and Jeroboam, respectively.43 And as Archer mentions, the circumstances described are set in a context that provides general truth, which may be true in the present for individuals or true at various times, but does not necessarily have to address the real, current conditions at the time of the writing.44 As for Leupolds objection to Solomonic repentance, it cannot be shown conclusively that this notion is essential to Solomonic authorship, since it becomes an altogether different matter to identify the particular time in Solomons life at which the book was written. But in addition, Goldberg notes that God raised up enemies against Solomon in 1 Kgs 11:1426, which quite possibly may have resulted in his repentance toward the end of life.45 There is therefore no internal reason that Solomon could not have written the book. And since most scholars acknowledge at least that it is written as if by Solomon, the internal evidence seems to stand in his favor.
39 40

W. C. Kaiser (Ecclesiastes, 28) lists Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18), Adonizedec (Josh. 10:1), and Araunah (2 Sam. 24:23). Of these, Melchizedek in particular would be a very plausible referent, since Genesis mentions his priesthood over Abraham. Unger (Old Testament, 1070) lists Heman, Chalcol, and Darda (cf. 1 Kings 4:31). 42 The Five Megiloth: Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary (ed. A. Cohen; New York: Soncino, 1946) 106107. 43 J. M. MacDonald, Ecclesiastes, 5051. 44 Archer, Introduction, 535. 45 Goldberg, Ecclesiastes, 22.

49.

Barton, Ecclesiastes, 85. J. M. MacDonald, The Book of Ecclesiastes Explained (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1856)

41

16

2.2.2 The Significance of Qoheleth

Until this point, discussion of Solomonic authorship has proceeded under the assumption that, whoever Qoheleth may be, he is understood as the author of Ecclesiastes. But as mentioned in the discussion of genre, Longman takes a unique approach to the authorship question, when he identifies Qoheleth not as the author but as a literary foil, used by the frame narrator to make a point. Longman is not the first to suggest that the opening and closing of Ecclesiastes reveal a separate narrator, and with it perhaps a later hand in writing. But his identification of this other hand as the compiler and therefore as the real author is intriguing, particularly in light of his conservative bent. His view merits some discussion for the present study, since it effectively allows him to see the theology of 1:1212:7 as part of a fallible quote, while the message of the book itself remains inerrant.46 The frame narrator not the author. Ultimately, the question of whether there even is a frame narrator is equivalent to the question of why the book contains third-person references to Qoheleth. But before addressing that issue, Longmans unique view, that it is the frame narrator who should be considered the author, requires some examination. He compares the structure of Ecclesiastes to that of Job, in which the speeches of the various participants are clearly meant to fall short of the truth, which is not revealed until God speaks in the latter portion of the book.47 But is this really a good comparison? One significant difference is that Job is clearly a narrative, containing well-defined dialogue. The fact that different participants are clearly introduced, combined with the realization that they obviously disagree, compels the reader to search for a view among many that is correct. A second difference is that, in this case, it is not so much the narrator as Yahweh Himself that presents the truth of the matter. A third difference is the proportion involved. Whereas under Longmans view, Qoheleths words comprise 91.4% of the total verses in Ecclesiastes, no single voice comprises even a simple majority of the verses in Job.48 Finally, Job is clearly seen to repent, and his friends are chastened, at the end, showing without ambiguity that their dialogue is not authoritative. Thus, Longmans view of Ecclesiastes is unparalleled in Scripture, with such an
Longman, Ecclesiastes, 3132. Ibid., 37. 48 The rough breakdown is as follows: Jobs wife0.1%, Jobs messengers0.6%, Satan0.6%, Bildad4.3%, Zophar4.4%, Narrator6.0%, Eliphaz10.2%, Yahweh 12.0%, Elihu14.6%, and Job47.4%.
47 46

17

overwhelming proportion of the book being no more than a fallible quote to make a brief point in closing. Moreover, it renders Ecclesiastes a book of anti-wisdom, in which the overriding point is to declare the wisdom teaching of Qoheleth an ultimately worthless pursuit.49 The frame narrator unnecessary. How then should the third-person references be viewed? Are they the work of a separate narrator, perhaps of a later hand, adding a prologue and epilogue, or are they Qoheleths own references to himself? Among scholars who accept that there is a second hand at work, there is no real consensus that his prologue extends to 1:11. Unless Longmans view on the subgenre is accepted, there is no more reason to suppose that vv. 311 belong to the frame narrator than there is to suppose that they were penned by Qoheleth himself. V. 1 is some sort of a title, and would be equally appropriate whether written by Qoheleth himself or by another. Because of the strong similarity between 1:2 and 12:8, it seems likely that they were penned by the same hand. But the fact that they refer to Qoheleth in the third person does not seem so shocking as to require another writer. It is always possible for an author or speaker to refer to himself in the third person, and particularly for emphasis on one of his main points, it makes good sense that he would do so here. The epilogue does continue to use the third person in vv. 910. But it is in good keeping with the fact that these verses follow immediately the third-person reference in v. 8, that the same perspective is continued throughout the epilogue. And even an author writing about his personal experience might logically distance himself when he draws the lesson to a conclusion. Furthermore, as W. C. Kaiser points out, the epilogue contains numerous points of thematic and verbal continuity with the rest of the book. He compares 12:14 with 11:9; 3:17; 9:1; and 12:13 with 3:14; 5:7; 7:18; 8:1213, to show that the conclusion of the epilogue is consistent with the overall message.50 He further notes the positive light in which the epilogue casts Qoheleth, as wise and one who taught the people knowlCredit is due to Jonathan Master for raising this last objection. Similarly, T. A. Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993) 4, relates this sort of explanation to the tactics of eighteenthcentury erotic novels which, in order to avoid censorship, had to include arguments in favor of knowing sin in order to avoid it. 50 Indeed, even Seow (Ecclesiastes, 38) remarks, Whether Qohelet is the actual author of the book, or only the persona of the author, as Fox would have it, the perspective of the book is one and the same as the framework. He does except 12:13b14, citing the introduction of eschatological judgment as something foreign to the rest of the book. But see chap. 6 for an alternate position on this issue.
49

18

edge and arranged many proverbs (12:9), and as a writer of delightful words of truth, written correctly (12:10). Finally, he suggests that the description in 12:11 of words of wise men given by one Shepherd may be a recognition of divine revelation as the source of the book.51 Probably the most intriguing passage is 7:27, wherein Qoheleths firstperson statement is interrupted with ( says Qoheleth). It would be more expected if someone other than Qoheleth himself were writing it, but in this context it makes sense for added emphasis. The fact that this is the only place outside of the prologue and epilogue where Qoheleth is referred to in the third person makes it unusual regardless of the author. But also, regardless of the author, its purpose would be to emphasize that Qoheleth has learned this lesson personally. And for that reason it does not seem impossible or even implausible that Qoheleth himself included it. Therefore, there is no clear passage that requires any writer but Qoheleth himself.

2.2.3 The Reliability of the Author

What then can be said about the authorship of Ecclesiastes, as it bears on the present study of 9:10? There is no reason to suppose that the frame narrator is any other than Qoheleth himself. Thus, the message of the book, which seems to be consistent both within and without the epilogue, need not be differentiated between separate writers. Whatever else may be said, the contents of each part are equally authoritative and require equal attention on the part of the reader. Longmans theory is intriguing, but it seems too lacking in objective support to build much of a case at this point. Furthermore, the tradition of Solomonic authorship appears to stand on good footing, which also helps to fix a date of the writing, at least within his lifetime. It stands beyond the scope of this study to investigate the traditions surrounding Proverbs and the Song of Songs, but clearly there is at least an existing tradition that Solomon did write extensively within the wisdom genre. The tradition of Solomonic wisdom gives a certain amount of weight to his writings, even without engaging the question of inspiration. And whether he wrote the other writings attributed to him or not, even the weight of reputation for wisdom that would cause others to compose wisdom in his name ought to provoke attentive consideration of what he has to say in Ecclesiastes.
51

W. C. Kaiser, Ecclesiastes, 1415.

19

2.3 Canonicity of Ecclesiastes

The tradition of Solomonic authorship has had an undeniable relationship to the acceptance of Ecclesiastes as canonical. But the question of the books canonicity tends also to be bound up with the assessment of its theology. Recognizing the relative weight of each factor in the historical views toward Ecclesiastes as Scripture will help to establish further the significance of authorship for such a study as this.

2.3.1 The Historical Tradition

Regardless of the perspective they may take on Ecclesiastess authorship and canonicity, few scholars would deny that the tradition of Solomonic authorship is very ancient. Longman cites Gregory Thaumaturgos (AD 213270) and the Jewish Targum, to which Gordis adds Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabba and B. Bathra as early attestations of the view.52 But as Gordis points out, there was debate between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, particularly regarding the contents of Ecclesiastes, which seems to place most of the weight for its acceptance into the canon upon the august authority of Solomon.53 Clearly, the book was recognized as authoritative, as evidenced by its presence at Qumran; its attestation by the Greek Testament of Naphtali, by Josephus, by Aquila, and by the Mishnah; and its citations in Berakot, Baba Batra, and Shabbat, to which Bullock adds the Christian sources Hermas, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.54 But it seems safe to conclude that much of this acceptance does fall upon the tradition of Solomonic authorship, rather than doctrinal authority.

2.3.2 The Significance of Authorship

On the whole, then, it seems that content was, if anything, a reason to doubt the canonicity of Ecclesiastes. Even after it was accepted into the canon, its theology was debated and continues to be debated until this day.
52 Longman, Ecclesiastes, 23. Gordis (Koheleth, 3941) remarks that undoubtedly, this attitude was the prime factor for the admission of Koheleth to the Biblical canon and its retention there, for Rabbinic sources indicate how many and how strong were the reservations as to its sacred character. 53 Gordis, Koheleth, 41. Longman (Ecclesiastes, 2728) cites Shabbat, the first tractate of the Mishnah, chap. 3, Tosephta Yadayim 2.14, and the Pesiqta of Rab Kahana (Leviticus Rabbah 28.1) as opposed to the orthodoxy of Ecclesiastes, but also affirms that traditional Solomonic authorship probably had something to do with its acceptance. 54 Longman, Ecclesiastes, 2829; Bullock, Poetic Books, 188.

20

Yes, there were ways that the ancients sought to accommodate this questionable material, but something stronger had to motivate their search for reconciliation. And it seems that the strongest tradition that developed in favor of canonicity was in fact the books authorship by Solomon. This conclusion further establishes the weight of identifying Solomon as the author of the book. But more importantly for the present study, it raises the compelling question as to how the books theology can be reconciled with that of other biblical teaching. It also liberates the student to wrestle with these interpretive problems, realizing that the derived authority of the book is grounded in its author, not in a wide consensus on what he meant to communicate. At this point it is possible to proceed with the assurance that whatever conclusions can be objectively drawn from the text will be as authoritative as from any other Scripture, even if human minds struggle to comprehend the complete picture.

2.4 Theme of Ecclesiastes

The last matter of general introduction to be addressed is that of the overall theme of Ecclesiastes. The intent here is not to draw a solid conclusion, but to survey and evaluate the various views on the theme and thereby set the stage for chapter three, which will open with a discussion on the argument of Ecclesiastes.

2.4.1 A Survey of Views

D. R. Glenn, referring to 1:2 and 12:8, identifies the theme that everything is meaningless, including mans toil, wisdom, righteousness, wealth, prestige, pleasure, youth and vigor, life, and the future after death.55 Unger explains this perspective as that which typifies the natural, unregenerate man, as he struggles for meaning without revelation from God and therefore without hope.56 Similarly, D. Kidner views the book as an apologetic against secularism, designed to show the futility of life without God, but sprinkled with hints of the truth throughout.57 R. B. Y. Scott concludes that
55 D. R. Glenn, Ecclesiastes, The Bible Knowledge Commentary (ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck; 2 vols.; Victor, 1985) 1:97677 56 Unger, Old Testament, 107071. Eaton (Ecclesiastes, 45) calls Ecclesiastes an exploration of the barrenness of life without a practical faith in God. 57 D. Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job & Ecclesiastes: An Introduction to Wisdom Literature (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985) 9394.

21

he himself is better than his philosophy of vanity, that Qoheleths practical instruction rises above despair to the joy of life.58 J. S. Wright likewise begins with vanity but adds the conclusion of the epilogue, which speaks of fearing God and keeping his commandments because we must one day give account to him. He therefore finds the point of the book in the idea that man must turn to his Creator to find the meaning that eludes him in life.59 W. C. Kaiser, on a slightly different track, takes his cue from 3:11 and states, God has made the totality of the created order beautiful, all in its proper time and sequence. Furthermore, He has given man a desire and capacity to know the eternity of it all, yet with this one wrinkle, that no one can truly discern anything from A to Zso that all may come to fear God. The divine gift of enjoying all the stuff of life will come, but only as a response to the total revelation.60 Bullock finds that Qoheleths search for happiness and enduring quality of life brought him to a deep conviction in the sovereignty and providence of God and a life of moderation.61 In direct contrast, Crenshaw says that the author of Qoheleth lacked trust in either God or knowledge. He views the book as pure skepticism, which ends in nothing but a search for pleasure.62 J. G. Williams develops this position somewhat, still seeing Qoheleths strong emphasis on the futility of life and inaccessibility of eternity, but tempered with the understanding that, although man cannot gain a profit to hold, he can find a portion in the enjoyment of life.63 Longman also agrees with Crenshaw, but in keeping with his approach to the structure of the book, he sees the epilogue as establishing the real theme of the
R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB; ed. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965) 201204. 59 J. S. Wright, Ecclesiastes, The Expositors Bible Commentary (ed. F. E. Gaebelein; 12 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991) 5:114446. But cf. W. S. LaSor, D. A. Hubbard, and F. W. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 590, who suggest instead that the exhortation of the epilogue refers not to the law of Moses but the counsels of Qoheleth to enjoy the simple things of life as God gives them. 60 W. C. Kaiser, Wisdom Theology, 206; W. C. Kaiser, Ecclesiastes, 1617. Goldberg (Ecclesiastes, 16) similarly identifies the theme from 3:11 in terms of our grasp of eternity and the futility of finding complete answers to life in this world. 61 Bullock, Poetic Books, 182. 62 Crenshaw, Wisdom, 12628, emphasis added. 63 J. G. Williams, What Does It Profit a Man? The Wisdom of Koheleth, Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom (ed. J. L. Crenshaw; New York: Ktav, 1976) 38687.
58

22

frame narrator, in contrast to that of Qoheleth. He states that the frame narrators evaluation of Qoheleth begins with praise and then moves to doubt and finally to criticism. And so, the frame narrator uses Qoheleth as a foil to instruct his son (12:12) concerning the dangers of speculative, doubting wisdom in Israel. The conclusion of the epilogue is therefore set against Qoheleths cry of vanity and establishes an entirely orthodox theme for the book.64

2.4.2 An Evaluation of Views

While Murphy himself does not establish a central theme for the book, his opening remark on its message seems valid: The message of Ecclesiastes has suffered from excessive summarizing (e.g., all is vanity or fear God and keep the commandments).65 What is clear, however, is that most commentators agree on the vanity of human existence as a major part of the theme. What tends to be more questionable is how Qoheleth answers the vanity of life, if at all. Most views could be categorized into broad categories of pessimistic and optimistic, but it would be oversimplifying to say that this distinction encompasses the whole dispute. In fact, it may not even be the right question to ask. There are clearly both pessimistic and optimistic elements in the book, as evidenced in the fact that most commentators find some worthy pursuit that keeps Qoheleth from total despair. The conclusion, therefore, is not to be found in whether the writer achieves ultimate meaning or ultimate despair, but in the particular means he finds for overcoming futility. There is a certain degree of danger in reading Ecclesiastes too much in light of NT teaching. Yes, it may be a fitting example of how the OT paved the way for the NT, but assigning NT categories to its contents may be a misguided tactic to make it fit within the biblical corpus. It is possible that Qoheleth took the perspective of secular humanity for the purpose of showing its philosophical bankruptcy, but his intimate involvement with the subject matter and his ever-present acceptance of a sovereign, albeit at times distant, God weighs heavily against this option. Part of the solution relates to ones perspective on the epilogue, since it may or may not speak in agreement with the rest of the book; but if the former conclusions are correct, or even if the epilogist is taken to express in his own words what Qoheleth actually believed, it must be accepted that Qoheleth finds a pos64 65

Longman, Ecclesiastes, 3839. But cf. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lxi. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lviii.

23

itive, meaningful answer to his quest. Further refinement than that would require a more in-depth survey of the text, which is where chapter three begins.

24

Chapter 3

The Context of Eccl 9:10

With this chapter, the focus begins to narrow rapidly from the whole book of Ecclesiastes to the immediate context of 9:10. It may seem excessive to devote an entire chapter to context, and in some studies that may be a valid assessment. But because 9:10 is just one problem verse out of many on this same topic in Ecclesiastes, and because it is so easy to lose sight of the overall argument of the book, it is crucial to analyze the context at length. Taken alone, 9:10 seems to despair of hope beyond this life, but set against the backdrop of Qoheleths larger message, it is possible to see the process of thinking that produces this statement, as well as the implications that might be drawn from it. This chapter will therefore examine the structure and theme of each successive range of context, working from the broad argument of the book through more limiting boundaries to the immediate context of Eccl 9:10. The intent is not to develop a full outline of Ecclesiastes in any degree of detail, but to develop at least enough structure to hang the verse in its proper place. From that structure it will be possible to examine the verse in question more closely, to determine exactly what Qoheleth meant to communicate by this enigmatic statement.

3.1 The Argument of Ecclesiastes

The largest range of literary context short of the entire genre or corpus in which a book is set is the book itself. Since it is the goal of this study to ascertain Qoheleths meaning in 9:10 and thereby approach his concept of death, there is no need to investigate beyond the bounds of this book. This section will therefore begin the contextual study by analyzing the book as a 25

whole, primarily from a rhetorical perspective, to determine and evaluate the overarching theme and the logical development of that theme throughout. Recognizing, however, that there is a wide range of opinion among scholars on the logical arrangement of the book, an appendix has been provided at the end of this study with a survey of other approaches. Admittedly, the structure of Ecclesiastes is elusive. The temptation certainly is strong to let it stand without any structure at all. On the other hand, there are objective criteria in the text that may reveal some internal relationships. A. G. Wrights suggestion that the use of a chase after the wind indicates the conclusion of each section does seem to provide a division that in many respects fits the logical flow of the book.1 But it also seems that as the book progresses, particularly throughout the second half, there is a lack of such rigid, verbal indicators. As a result, most attempts begin well but resort in the end to a more subjective assessment of the theme at hand. The intent of this study is not to develop a full-blown concept of the outline of Ecclesiastes, but to approach enough of a structure within which to proceed with further analysis. The attempt is to combine some of the best aspects of the varying methods, using as objective criteria as possible to establish individual units, but resorting to some logical construction to develop their relationships and contents. The skeleton for the outline will be derived initially through broad discourse analysis and then modified through rhetorical considerations. The logical arrangement of the divisions should be considered as a working suggestion, not a definitively argued conclusion.

3.1.1 Major Types of Discourse Used in Ecclesiastes

Because his focus is on biblical prose genres, B. M. Rocine identifies five major discourse types: historical narrative, predictive narrative, instructional, hortatory, and procedural discourse.2 To these he later adds brief coverage of expository narrative, which he describes as critical to the subject of Biblical Hebrew poetry, although rare in prose.3 And it is expository narrative that, together with hortatory, makes up a good portion of Ecclesiastes. But these two discourse types are embedded within and surrounded
See A. G. Wrights analysis in the appendix to this study. B. M. Rocine, A New Approach to Learning Biblical Hebrew Using Discourse Analysis (Syracuse, NY: B. M. Rocine, 1997) 1. 3 Ibid., 306.
2 1

26

by a third type that does not seem to fit any of the others. For the purposes of this study, this third type will be labeled as autobiographical discourse. Autobiographical discourse seems to function as a narrative type. It is used in the sections where the writer is relating his own personal experience and observations. But whereas the main plotline of historical narrative is normally carried by verbs with a wayyiqtol form, the main plotline in these sections seems to be supported primarily by independent, clauseinitial qatal and weqatal forms. In fact, there are only two mainline wayyiqtol forms that appear in the entire book of Ecclesiastes (1:17; 4:7). This primary characteristic of autobiographical discourse is extremely helpful for identifying the discourse types throughout the book, since the main plotlines of the three types are carried in three entirely different ways. The main plotline of hortatory discourse is carried by imperatives, jussives, cohortatives, and occasional weqatals. That of expository discourse is carried by verbless clauses and participles. So, while there may be some question on a few verses here and there, most of the divisions between discourse types can be established by noting the clause-initial verbs and tracing the main plotline.

3.1.2 Sections Defined by Discourse Type

These divisions can therefore provide a starting point for defining the logical divisions of the text. Ecclesiastes starts with an autobiographical title verse (1:1) and a statement of the theme (1:2) that do not seem to comprise a true part of the discourse. But starting in v. 3, the main plotline is carried without any clause-initial verbs through v. 11, indicating that these verses are expository discourse.4 The abundance of clause-initial qatals and weqatals (1:13, 14, 16, 17; 2:1, 39, 1115, 17, 18, 20) from 1:12 through 2:26 identifies this next large section as autobiographical discourse. Vv. 18 of chap. 3 are widely recognized as a self-contained poem, and the total absence of mainline finite verbs indicates that the discourse is once again expository. In 3:94:6, the string of qatals and weqatals picks up once again (3:10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 22; 4:1, 4) to show autobiographical discourse, albeit with some embedded expository remarks. 4:716 return to full expository, before the first hortatory section is encountered in 4:175:8.5 The remaining sections, identified similarly, are as follows:
V. 5 does provide two exceptions in and ,but they clearly are anomalous to the flow of the main plotline in this section, which is comprised mainly of participles. 5 Note the mainline imperative in 4:17, as well as the supporting jussives and im perative in 5:1, 35.
4

27

5:97:8 7:922 7:238:1 8:26 8:715 8:169:6 9:710 9:1110:4 10:519 10:2012:7 12:8 12:914

Expository Discourse Hortatory Discourse6 Autobiographical Discourse7 Hortatory Discourse Expository Discourse8 Autobiographical Discourse9 Hortatory Discourse10 Autobiographical Discourse11 Expository Discourse Hortatory Discourse12 Theme Autobiographical Epilogue13

3.1.3 Further Subdivision by Rhetorical Keys

What this broad discourse analysis has not shown are the relationships between the sections, or the possibility of adjacent sections of the same discourse genre. But there are rhetorical indicators that can help to refine the picture achieved so far. The introduction and conclusion. One readily apparent indicator is the mirrored structure of the introduction and conclusion. As Perdue points out, the book opens with an autobiographical title (1:1) and closes with an autobiographical epilogue (12:914). In 1:2, the title is followed by a statement of the theme, and in 12:8, the epilogue is preceded by a nearly identical statement. The pattern continues, as 1:411 and 12:17 form introductory and concluding poems.14 Appropriately enough, the opening
6 Note the mainline imperative in v. 13, as well as the supporting prohibitive commands in vv. 910, 16, 17, 21 and imperatives in v. 14. 7 Note the mainline qatals in 7:23, 25, 27, 29. 8 Note the mainline qatal and weqatal in vv. 14, 15. 9 Note the mainline weqatal in 8:17. The large segments of embedded expository in 8:17b and 9:16b can be somewhat misleading, unless they are properly identified, as will be done more specifically in a later section. 10 Note the mainline imperatives in vv. 7, 9, as well as the supporting jussive in v. 8, prohibitive command in v. 9, and imperative in v. 10. 11 Note the mainline qatal and weqatals in 9:11, 1416. 12 Note the mainline imperatives in 11:1, 2, 9, 10; 12:1, as well as the supporting jussives in 11:8, 9. 13 Note the mainline weqatals and qatals in vv. 911. 14 Perdue, Creation, 204205.

28

poem is expository, stating a case for the cycle of futility, and the closing poem is hortatory, giving a charge to make the most of life. This leaves 1:1211:10 as the main body of the argument. Seven internal sections. It is at this point that the process becomes more tentative. Despite his commendation of Wrights analysis, Perdue parts ways with him in subdividing the two major divisions (1:126:9; 6:10 11:8) that they both acknowledge. Instead of using chase after wind and not find out as structural indicators, he identifies seven sections (2:1 2:26; 3:113, 14-22; 4:15:19; 6:108:15; 8:169:10; 9:1111:8), each of which ends with a carpe diem.15 This analysis seems to be a bit more consistent than that used by Wright, and it is possible to incorporate these further divisions, to arrive at 24 sections: 1:1 Autobiographical Title 1:2 Theme 1:311 Expository Poem 1:122:26 Autobiographical Discourse (Carpe Diem in 2:2426) 3:18 Expository Poem 3:913 Autobiographical Discourse (Carpe Diem in 3:1213) 3:1422 Autobiographical Discourse (Carpe Diem in 3:22) 4:16 Autobiographical Discourse 4:716 Expository Discourse 4:175:8 Hortatory Discourse 5:919 Expository Discourse (Carpe Diem in 5:1719) 6:17:8 Expository Discourse 7:922 Hortatory Discourse 7:238:1 Autobiographical Discourse 8:26 Hortatory Discourse 8:715 Expository Discourse (Carpe Diem in 8:1415) 8:169:6 Autobiographical Discourse 9:710 Hortatory Discourse (Carpe Diem in 9:710) 9:1110:4 Autobiographical Discourse 10:519 Expository Discourse 10:2011:10 Hortatory Discourse (Carpe Diem in 11:910) 12:17 Hortatory Poem 12:8 Theme
15

Ibid., 204205. See Appendix for a summary and brief critique of Wrights analysis.

29

12:914 Autobiographical Epilogue When the divisions of the body are grouped according to the carpe diem statements, the book divides into a total of nine sections, each consisting of an autobiographical remark, sometimes accompanied by other genres as well. And this arrangement makes good sense, since the overall genre and skeleton structure is autobiographical. It remains, therefore, to determine whether these seven divisions of the body can be grouped in any particular arrangement. Interestingly, the breakdown to this point fits not only the two-part model within which Perdue operates, but also Kaisers four-part model. Kaiser includes the prologue and epilogue within his overall structure, but the divisions between his four sections line up with three of the divisions used here within the body of the book.16 It should be noted in this regard that the carpe diem in 9:710, as well as that found in 11:910, does not fit the wording of the others and is somewhat more questionable as a dividing marker. Kaisers division would also minimize the significance of the two carpe diem statements in chap. 3, but even in so doing, the three consecutive autobiographical discourse units (3:913, 1422; 4:16) would merge into one and still fit the pattern of one autobiographical unit per division. No higher level of division. But neither the two-part nor the four-part model seems to account adequately for the groupings. Instead, it seems preferable at this point to let the outline stand with prologue, epilogue, and seven divisions. The first, 1:122:26, relates to the futility of labor and resolves itself in the gift of God, which is to enjoy what one does (2:2426). The second, 3:113, relates to the futility of time and resolves itself in the gift of God, which is to do good with the time one has (3:1213). The third, 3:1422, relates to the futility of justice and resolves itself in the gift of God, which is to enjoy ones work in spite of the uncertainty of the outcome (3:22). The fourth, 4:15:19, relates to the futility of ones position in life and resolves itself in the gift of God, which is to reap a reward from what one does with his position (5:1719). The fifth, 6:18:15, relates to the futility of morality in life and resolves itself in the gift of God, which is to enjoy life in spite of apparent unfairness (8:1415). The sixth, 8:169:10, relates to the futility of ones fate in death and resolves itself in the gift of God, which is to enjoy and be productive in life as long as it lasts (9:710). The seventh, 9:1111:10, relates to the futility of foolishness and wisdom
16

See Appendix for a summary of Kaisers four-part division.

30

and resolves itself in the gift of God, which is to live life with enjoyment, yet prudence, toward ultimate judgment (11:910). The resulting structure is presented graphically below: 1:111 Prologue 1:1 Autobiographical Title 1:2 Theme 1:311 Expository Poem 1:122:26 The Futility of Labor 1:122:26 Autobiographical Discourse (Carpe Diem in 2:2426) 3:-1-13 The Futility of Time 3:18 Expository Poem 3:913 Autobiographical Discourse (Carpe Diem in 3:1213) 3:1422 The Futility of Justice 3:1422 Autobiographical Discourse (Carpe Diem in 3:22) 4:15:19 The Futility of Position 4:16 Autobiographical Discourse 4:716 Expository Discourse 4:175:8 Hortatory Discourse 5:919 Expository Discourse (Carpe Diem in 5:1719) 6:18:15 The Futility of Morality 6:17:8 Expository Discourse 7:922 Hortatory Discourse 7:238:1 Autobiographical Discourse 8:26 Hortatory Discourse 8:715 Expository Discourse (Carpe Diem in 8:1415) 8:169:10 The Futility of Death 8:169:6 Autobiographical Discourse 9:710 Hortatory Discourse (Carpe Diem in 9:710) 9:1111:10 The Futility of Foolishness and Wisdom 9:1110:4 Autobiographical Discourse 10:519 Expository Discourse 10:2011:10Hortatory Discourse (Carpe Diem in 11:910) 12:114 Epilogue 12:17 Hortatory Poem 12:8 Theme 12:914 Autobiographical Epilogue Obviously, each of these sections could be divided further, and probably should be in some cases. But it is enough for the present purpose to let the 31

argument stand in this broad sense, that the author traces his own journey and observations through lifes apparent futility. In each of the seven arenas he concludes that God has provided an answer that requires faith in Him for what mankind cannot understand. Fulfillment is hardly beyond reach, but it is not to be attained through human effort or knowledge.

3.2 The Futility of Death (8:169:10)

Given that this study must focus upon the meaning of Eccl 9:10, the next logical step after establishing the broad argument of the book is to investigate the flow and meaning of 8:169:10. Because the model being used establishes no greater division than the seven arenas in which Qoheleth wrestles with the futility around him, this section must be understood as it carries forward the broad argument of the book.

3.2.1 The Relationship of 8:169:10 to Its Preceding Context

As already noted, each section is comprised of an autobiographical kernel, and in this case it concludes with a hortatory carpe diem (9:710). Not only can it be taken as its own self-contained unit, but in many ways it seems to flow directly out of the thought in the preceding section on morality (6:18:15). Particularly, 8:215 wrestles with the futility of human kings, paving the way for a reliance on the Divine King who always exercises true justice. In 8:9, Qoheleth has observed situations where a man exercises authority over another unto his evil, but in v. 10, he has seen such men dead and buried. To a certain extent, then, he is able to attribute the futility of injustice to mans slowness to judge sin (v. 11). But despite this shortcoming in mans exercise of justice, he refuses to lose faith in the blessedness of those who fear God (v. 12) and in the curse upon evil men (v. 13). Nevertheless, while the futility of this life remains, it is better for each one to find enjoyment and not be bothered by it (vv. 1415). Thus, a tension is established in the preceding context. The righteous man must accept injustice in life because of the shortcoming of human government, but he can find pleasure in the knowledge that God is perfectly just and will settle all scores. Coming out of this conclusion, it is not surprising that he proceeds to wrestle still further with mans inability to observe Gods justice. How can it be a source of comfort in the futility of human existence, if it is beyond mans perception (8:1617)? The best answer he is able to find at this point comes in the closing carpe diem. 32

3.2.2 The Discourse Flow of 8:169:10

Within this section, it is important to see the structure of the discourse used, so that the thrust and flow of the argument can be established before trying to interpret it. The method used continues to follow that cited above, describing as autobiographical the discourse type that carries the flow of Qoheleths own experiences and observations. In the scheme that follows, indentation shows slowing of progress toward the discourse goal. In autobiographical discourse, the goal is to recount personal experience, and as in historical narrative, the progress is generally chronological. Expository discourse argues a point, and hortatory discourse exhorts to action; hence, the flow is logical rather than chronological. For brevity, M will be used to represent the main plotline of the particular discourse: AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL Dep. Clause w/ qatal: 16 When I had been a giver of my heart to know wisdom and to see the task which had been done upon the land17 Participial Clause: for even by day or by night, he has not been seeing sleep with his eyes M: 17 My seeing was of every work of God, EMBEDDED NEGATIVE EXPOSITORY M: that a human cannot find the work which has been done under the sun, Dep. Clause w/ yiqtol: on account of which a human may toil to seek, M: but he does not find; Dep. Clause w/ yiqtol: and even if the wise one should say he knows, M: he cannot find.
The rendering of qatal verbs in this layout was chosen to emphasize the role of the qatal form in assigning an attribute to the subject and to distinguish them from wayyiqtol forms. For more information, see Rocine, Hebrew, 2124.
17

33

X-qatal: 9:1 For it was all this of which my giving was to my heart, and my proving was of all this,18 EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY M: that the righteous, the wise, and their services are in the hand of God. Participial Clause: Indeed love, indeed hate, no human is knowing all before them. M: 2 All is the same for all.19 M: There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked, M: for the good and for the clean and for the unclean,20 M: for the one who sacrifices and for the one who does not sacrifice.
18 Since in many genres it is unusual for a qatal or yiqtol verb form to open an independent clause, X is used to represent any element that precedes the verb in an independent clause. The rendering of such constructions follows that suggested by Rocine (Hebrew, 23) which he in turn has adapted from Talstra, Niccacci, and others, as explained in his own remarks on the subject. It should be understood that an X-qatal or X-yiqtol construction does not actually include Hebrew words equating to It was who (that) , but they are inserted in the translation to show the departure from normal verb-subject word order. 19 The BHS editors emend the text to end v. 1 with and begin v. 2 with ,citing the LXX, Symmachus Greek version, and the Vg as possibly reflecting such a reading in the exemplars. Apparently, they consider the s in and to be scribal confusions of ,or perhaps intentional emendations on the assumption of former confusion, but the evidence is weak at best. The Hebrew tradition is consistent as reflected in the MT. According to the Masoretes, appears eleven times as it does in v. 2. In this instance, the definite pointing would fit the connection with .What external evidence is cited only indirectly supports the emendation, and that from the limited testimony of a few versions. The word order favors the MT reading, in that every one of the six clauses in Ecclesiastes where these two words appear together places them in direct juxtaposition. According to the emendation, and would appear in the same clause but separated by . Since there is no clear grammatical necessity for this separation, it seems odd that the author, for whom is such a beloved phrase, would choose this word order on this one occasion. It does remain to consider more particularly how readings such as that found in the LXX may have appeared, but in any event, the Hebrew text seems best left as it stands. 20 The BHS editors further move to omit from v. 2. Again there is no Hebrew evi dence to this effect, but in this case the versions actually move in a direction opposite to the emendation. Rather than omitting the term in question, the LXX adds (and it seems from the BHS apparatus that the Syriac version and Vg read similarly). Apparently, the omission is based on the notion that the MT stands awkwardly, as evidenced in the response of the versions, and therefore must be the result of a copyists error. The assessment is highly subjective, however, since the more difficult reading is supposedly preferred under normal conditions. What the witness of the versions does suggest is that their exemplars or some preceding generation of the text read exactly as the MT reads today, leading some scribe to the conclusion that the manuscript was in error. But what slip of the pen or

34

M: As it is for the good person; so it is for the sinner; M: as it is for the one who takes an oath, so it is for the one who fears an oath.21 M: 3 This is an evil thing in all that is done under the sun Dep. Verbless: that there is one fate for all. X-qatal: And indeed, it is the hearts of the sons of humanity that are full of evil, M: and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives, M: and afterward they go to the dead. M: 4 For who is it that can choose?22 M: For all who are living there is hope, M: since even a live dog is better off than a dead lion.23
what intention, constructive or destructive, would have brought about the reading of the MT from a prior text which did not include at all? It seems best therefore to allow that the author had his own purposes in mind, and that the MT faithfully preserves what may not always make perfect sense to later readers. The translation above, however, is an attempt to preserve the pattern of contrasting pairs throughout this section. 21 The BHS editors seek to replace with , again citing versions as their only support. Here, the emendation seems almost infantile, since any reader should be able to determine what was apparent to the translators of the LXX, Syriac version, Targums, and Vulgate; namely, that the simile follows in parallel from and is sustained quite adequately by the use of .There is no more reason to suspect the exemplar for a Greek rendering which adds than for an English rendering which adds as it is. 22 The BHS editors favor the Qere reading of in v. 4 over the Ketib of ,citing many Hebrew manuscripts and the versions in support. For uncertain reasons today, the copyists of Codex Leningradensis or of some earlier generation preferred the Qere over the reading in their exemplar. Either reading could be easily explained by a transposition of and ,but if it was an accident, the original reading is more likely to fit better in context, while the altered reading would make some immediate sense. would seem to fit well with the following phrase, as joined to all the living, but it is rarely attested immediately before ( Gen 14:3, where it introduces the location of the joining; and Dan 11:23). The Masoretes themselves seem to have opposed this connection, since they accented with the disjunctive zaqep qaton, indicating a major break before the atnah. See W. R. Scott, A Simplified Guide to BHS: Critical Apparatus, Masora, Accents, Unusual Letters & Other Markings (Birmingham, AL: Bibal, 1995) 28. Did they really expect the verse to be read as For the one who is joined together, for all who are living there is hope? The verse reads noticeably better as two independent clauses, and fits more sensibly at the end of a clause. The LXX rendering, , does follow the Qere reading, but it preserves the interrogative force that should be expected from the fact that the other ten occurrences of in Ecclesiastes introduce interrogative, not relative, clauses (2:25; 3:21, 22; 6:12; 7:13, 24; 8:1, 7; 10:14). For more information, see Seow, Ecclesiastes, 300. 23 B. K. Waltke, and M. OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 21112, consider a use of the emphatic lamed, while GKC, 458, sees it functioning as a casus pendens, the principle subject of a sentence, separated from the context to give greater prominence than would be possible in a simply noun

35

Participial Clause: 5 For those who are living are knowing that they will die, Participial Clause: but none who are dying are knowing anything, M: and they have no more reward, Dep. Clause w/ qatal: for their remembrance is forgotten. X-qatal: 6 Indeed it is their love, their hate, their zeal that has already perished; M: and they have no more portion forever, in all that is done under the sun. HORTATORY M: 7 Go, M: eat your bread with joy, M: and drink your wine with a good heart, Dep. Clause w/ qatal: for God is already pleased with your deeds. X-jussive: 8 It is all the time that your garments should be white, Prohibitive Command: and it is oil upon your head that should not lack. M: 9 See life with the woman Dep. Clause w/ qatal: whom you love, all the days of your meaningless life, Dep. Clause w/ qatal: whom he gives you under the sun, all your meaningless days,24 EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY
or verbal-clause. He also mentions the suggestion of P. Haupt (Johns Hopkins University Circulars, xiii. no. 114; Baltimore, 1894), that this is not a preposition, but an emphasizing particle. But in combination with it seems that it may simply function as a of advantage. 24 The BHS editors suggest that this clause may have been added, since it does not appear in several Syriac manuscripts. As a variation, a few manuscripts of the Targum lack only the last phrase, . It is somewhat redundant, but that actually lessens the reason to think that a copyist might have added the line intentionally, since it contributes nothing to the passage. It is not exact enough to have been a conceivable accident, and the poetic nature of the passage certainly warrants some redundancy. The existence of two variants lends support to the fuller reading as well, since both could easily have been reduced from the original.

36

M: for that is your portion in life and in your toil25 Dep. Verbless: for which you are a toiler under the sun. X-imperative: 10 It is all that your hand finds to do with your strength that you should do, EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY M: for there is no deed or reckoning, knowledge or wisdom, in Sheol Dep. Participle: where you are going.

3.2.3 The Rhetorical Structure of 8:169:10

What can be seen, therefore, is that Qoheleth wrestles with death as a matter of Gods unseen justice. His attempt to find out what God does has resulted in the conclusion expressed through embedded negative expository discourse in 8:17: it is beyond the reach of human perception, no matter how hard one may strive or how wise he may become. Particularly, the conclusion is focused in 9:1 upon the matter of death, that man cannot achieve an understanding of the fate that awaits him. From a human perspective, it looks like everyone meets the same end, regardless of lifestyle, and justice is foiled (v. 2). His psychological response to this perception is to call it an evil thing (v. 3). It frustrates him that there seems to be one fate for all. And it seems that insanity reigns in the hearts of men. In v. 4, introduces his explanation of his response in v. 3. Death is inevitable, and life is always better than death (vv. 4b5). But in the midst of the futility of death, he is still able to find some hope of an answer. And so in vv. 710, the section closes with another carpe dieman exhortation to accept the ignorance of death and make the most of this life while it lasts.
25 While the Eastern Qere agrees with the MT on the pronoun ,its Ketib reads .The most likely reason for this alternate reading is to fix the antecedent as ,in the first line of the verse. The generic masculine pronoun does make good sense, however, referring to the whole preceding idea, not just .The LXX starts the last line of v. 9 as, , but this is a logical enough translation, for you could have a portion only in your life.

37

3.3 The Response to Death (9:710)

The last level of context to be examined is vv. 710, the carpe diem statement in which Qoheleth prescribes a better response to the observed futility of death. This hortatory section consists of three imperatives with various supporting remarks, always including a reason. The first imperative is compound: Go, eat, and drink ! By their close proximity, it seems clear that the three imperatives are to be taken together as one idea, that the reader is to eat and drink with happiness. The stated reason is introduced by :for God is already pleased with your deeds. To this basic im perative is added the pair of X-jussive commands, to let ones garments be white all the time and to have oil always on ones head (v. 8). The second imperative is in v. 9: See life! Particularly, this is to be done with the woman who is described by two dependent clauses: whom you love, and whom he gives you. There may be some question as to whether the second dependent clause describes the woman or the life in which she is loved. But as the text has been preserved, there is a striking parallel between the two clauses: - - - Again, the reason is introduced by :for that is your portion. The third imperative is in v. 10: Do! And as with the others, the reason is introduced by :for there is no . The stage is therefore set for the particular exegesis of v. 10. It is the last of three imperatives intended to provide a better response for mankind to the observed futility of death. Man may find frustration in his own inability to ascertain the work of God in bringing justice to pass, and he may writhe under the pain of not knowing what lies before him. But he can rise above the futility to find a suitable response. He can enjoy the simple pleasures of the life he has been giventhe basic provision of his needs each day. He can engage in worthwhile relationships as a gift from God. And he can apply his efforts to productive work. In the next chapter, this last response will be examined more carefully, with a view to understanding as much as possible how Qoheleth relates death to productive work in this life.

38

Chapter 4

An Exegesis of Eccl 9:10

Until this point, little has been said about the particular content of Eccl 9:10. While context is important, even vital in this particular instance, the meaning of the verse cannot simply be presumed on the basis of the contextual topic. It does remain, therefore, to investigate more thoroughly the meaning of the verse for which this study was undertaken. Since the Hebrew text of this verse is not debated, the primary focus will be on lexical and grammatical, rather than critical, considerations. Where appropriate, the LXX will be consulted, but the ultimate goal is to understand the meaning in the Hebrew. The verse will be considered in its two major divisions already mentionedthe exhortation to work and the motivation of death.

4.1 The Exhortation to Work

Although most of the controversial issues related to this verse pertain more specifically to the second half, the first half is the independent clause and therefore governs the meaning of the second half. But beyond that, there is at least one interpretive problem to be resolved in v. 10a; namely, what is the syntactical function of ( with your strength)? That issue, as well as the overall thrust of the clause, will be dealt with before proceeding to v. 10b.

4.1.1 The Object

For the most part, this first clause is really quite simple. It begins with the object of the action stated by the imperative verb at the end. appears 184 times in the OT and, logically enough, means all that or all 39

which.1 It begs at least an implied verb to follow, and ( finds), as a yiqtol verb, fills the role quite appropriately. In a dependent clause, as here following ,yiqtol forms tend to express non-past background, which is what one might expect in an imperative statement. It is also feminine singular, which makes ( your hand), the next word in the clause and a feminine singular noun, the logical subject. Not only that, but the word order is appropriate for such a relationship, as well as the fact that is definite by virtue of its possessive pronominal suffix. Thus, something on the order of all that your hand finds preserves the ambiguity of the yiqtol form and relates the words considered so far. But having read this much raises an inevitable question, for all that your hand finds is hardly limiting enough to begin to say anything meaningful. It is only as the thing found is further restricted that the sense begins to unfold. And so, the +infinitive construct of to follow brings fur ther clarity to the matter, as it modifies all that your hand finds. Now, it is all that your hand finds to do, presumably for your hand to do, as opposed to anyone or anything else. At this point the modification of could come to an end, with reasonable satisfaction for any reader, and the object would be complete. But the word that follows is somewhat less clear as to its role within the sentence.

4.1.2 The Prepositional Modifier

A significant part of the problem in identifying the syntactical role of is that it falls between two forms of the same verb. Therefore, the semantic range of the verb has nothing to do with the extent to which it is a suitable modifier for either one. Furthermore, both the infinitive construct and the imperative of in this context refer essentially to the same active agent. The implied subject of the imperative is you, and the apparent subject of the infinitive is your hand. Since there is no indication in this verse that the hand is seen as acting in opposition to the individualon the contrary, it is what the hand finds that the individual is commanded to dothey are virtually one and the same, so that there is almost no subjective reason to prefer one connection over the other.2 Since Hebrew word order is so
BibleWorks for Windows (ver. 3.5.051f; CD-ROM; Big Fork, MT: Hermeneutika, 1996) string search '. 2 By this remark, it is meant that either grouping would be logically possible and would end up communicating essentially the same thing. Undoubtedly, the fact that most translations have chosen to connect it with the imperative comes partly from the long tradition of reading it that way in English and in other languages, and partly from the better sound
1

40

tentative, there is really very little, other than tradition, upon which to base a judgment. The Masoretic accenting seems to prefer the relationship chosen here, that belongs with the object, rather than the imperative verb at the end. This judgment is represented by the tiphah on ,which is used to divide units between atnah and silluq, when main division comes on first word preceding atnah or silluq.3 is in fact the first word prior to the atnah on ;thus, it seems that the Masoretes preferred to read it with the preceding words, rather than the following. This assessment is strengthened by the fact that ( to do) is accented with a merka, which tends to link the accented word with the next word accented by a tiphah. The LXX maintains the word order, so that it still fits either connection. But in any event, it seems that the LXX translators may have read ( like your strength) in place of ,since it was translated as . Unless better evidence becomes available, the tradition of the Masoretes is the clearest and ought not be abandoned lightly.4 Furthermore, it would seem that the emphatic function of as a modifier of would be better served if it appeared further forward in the clause, rather than as the second-to-last word.5
of commanding to do something with all ones might. 3 Scott, Guide, 28. 4 Cohen (Ecclesiastes, 171) agrees: The familiar rendering of A. V. and R. V. whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, follows the Targum but is incorrect. Rashi gives the true sense of with thy might, viz. while thou possessest the power; and Ibn Ezra rightly connects the verse with what precedes. Whether one accepts the Masoretic accenting or not, there is value to rendering it quite literally here, if for no other reason than to draw the attention of the reader to the discrepancy between the Masoretic pointing and the usual English reading. It does, however, seem allowable that the word order could have been intended to connect with both adjacent terms, especially since they are really just two forms of the same verb. In any event, the overall meaning of the verse is little affected by the reading chosen. 5 Waltke and OConnor (Syntax, 657) state that there is no clear rule about the placement of constituent adverbs, though temporal adverbs (and adverbial phrases, especially with prepositions) tend to occur initially, emphasis added. Admittedly, this order is not rigidly defined and may even be altered for the purpose of emphasis. But placing the prepositional phrase at the beginning of the clause would much more clearly identify it with the verb, and the final positioning of the imperative would provide the necessary emphatic shift. It may seem awkward to have the infinitive and imperative forms of thus juxtaposed with one another, but in such a construction the infinitive could conceivably be omitted altogether, without altering the meaning. Another arrangement that would probably achieve the same emphasis without confusion is to begin with the prepositional phrase, then the imperative, then the remainder of the clause. As Delitzsch (Ecclesiastes, 364) suggests, If the author meant: That do with all might (Jerome: instanter operare), then he would have said be cholkohhacha (Gen. xxxi. 6). As the words lie before us, they call on him who is

41

4.1.3 The Main Verb

Everything up to this point, therefore, comprises the object of the verb, which comes last in the sentence, creating an X-imperative clause. While such a construction does tend to emphasize the object of the action somewhat above the imperative command itself, in this context there does not seem to be much difference from the force it would carry with a clauseinitial imperative. The literal rendering chosen for the discourse analysis in the previous chapter was, It is all that your hand finds to do with your strength that you should do. But the function of the clause is hardly to limit what one ought to do; on the contrary, it seems to be the very opposite. The exhortation is primary, and the object emphasizes the universality of its fulfillment. Every occupation is fair gamethe reader is encouraged to put his strength to whatever use his hand may find. The reason for the exhortation is then given in the second half of the verse.

4.2 The Motivation of Death

As stated earlier, ( for) introduces the explanation of each of the three imperatives in this section. In this case, it introduces an embedded expository discourse of one, or at the most, possibly two lines. This section of the study will be divided between a consideration of the overall syntax, a semantic investigation of the four major nouns, and a lexical-topical consideration of the OT concept behind ( Sheol). Particular attention will be given to the force of these terms in Ecclesiastes, where applicable, and in other biblical wisdom literature.

4.2.1 The Syntax of the Clause

The dependent clause introduced by begins with ,followed by four nouns. Outside of the dependent clause at the end, there is no explicit verb, which makes this a verbless clause. These four nouns negatively comprise the subject of the clause and can therefore be described in terms of antiexistence: There is no . This statement is clarified by the prepositional phrase, .If there is any question as to the syntactical function of the phrase, it remains only to examine the final dependent clause introduced by .Here, the participle indicates the action of its subject .This use
addressed to come not short in his work of any possibility according to the measure of his strength, thus to a work straining his capacity to the uttermost.

42

seems to be an instance of reference to situations which are in fact future, [which] usually denotes the full range of ideas connoted by the English I am going to , namely, certainty, often with immanencythe so-called futurum instans participle.6 In this construction, could function on its own to indicate where as the relative destination of the participle, but all doubt is removed by the addition of the redundant, directionalized adverb ,toward there. Thus, this closing dependent clause identifies as the destination toward which you are going. It is therefore possible to conclude with certainty that the force of the prefix is locative, as in. The four nouns of the subject are declared to be nonexistent in ,which is the destination toward which the reader is progressing. And it is for this reason that he is exhorted to apply his strength to useful labor.

4.2.2 The Semantics of Four Nouns

The next logical question, then, is what these four things are that do not exist in .It is important to realize the broad semantic range of each term, but of more particular interest is the use to which Qoheleth puts them elsewhere in this book. For each noun, therefore, OT usage will provide the primary data, but the meaning will be refined, first through comparison with other passages in Ecclesiastes, then through examination of the role it plays in this particular context. Deeds done within this life. BDB identifies the root of as .It indicates that modern Hebrew uses the same word with the same meaning.7 Outside of Ecclesiastes, it is used as the cognate accusative of 8,to refer to the work of baking (Gen 40:17; 1 Chr 9:31), the work of farming (Exod 23:16; Judg 19:16), the work of the temple (1 Chr 23:28), the work of the Israelite slaves (Exod 5:4,13), the work of the pre-flood generations (Gen 5:29), ones occupation (Gen 46:33; 47:3; Judg 13:12; 1 Sam 25:2; Ps 33:4), something crafted,9 acts of valor (1 Sam 19:4; Isa 5:19; 54:16),
Waltke and OConnor, Syntax, 627. BDB, 79395. 8 Gen 20:9; 44:15; Exod 18:20; 23:12, 24; 34:10; Lev 18:3; Num 16:28; Deut 3:24; 11:3, 7; 14:29; 27:15; Josh 24:31; Judg 2:7, 10; 1 Sam 8:8; 1 Kgs 13:11; 2 Kgs 23:19; Isa 19:15; 28:21; Jer 7:13; Ezek 16:30; Dan 9:14. 9 Exod 24:10; 26:1, 31, 36; 27:4, 16; 28:6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 22, 32, 39; 30:25, 35; 32:16; 36:8, 35, 37; 37:29; 38:4, 18; 39:3, 5, 8, 15, 22, 27, 29; Num 8:4; 31:20, 51; Deut 4:28; 1 Kgs 7:8, 17, 19, 22, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33; 2 Kgs 16:10; 19:8; Isa 2:8; 3:24; 5:12; 10:12; 17:8; 19:25; 29:16, 23; 37:19; 41:29; 60:21; 64:7; 65:22; Jer 1:16; 10:3, 9, 15; 51:10, 18; Ezek 1:16; 27:16, 18; Hos 13:2; 14:4; Mic 5:13; Hab 3:17; Hag 2:17; Pss 8:4, 7; 19:2; 28:5; 45:2;
7 6

43

general deeds in which Yahweh blesses,10 general deeds which may anger Yahweh,11 and descriptively as eventful (1 Sam 20:19; Ezek 46:1). E. E. Carpenter states that it is a word whose meaning is determined by the function its context assigns to it. In itself it simply indicates activity of whatever kind its context demands, making/doing.12 Within Ecclesiastes, it is used as the cognate accusative of ,)41:1( to refer to Gods unseen activity (3:22; 7:13; 8:17; 11:5), to human projects (2:4, 11, 17; 5:5; 9:7), to evil deeds (4:3, 4; 8:9, 11, 14; 12:14), and to righteous deeds (8:14; 12:14). T. E. McComiskey attributes to this word great significance in the book of Ecclesiastes. He suggests that its tendency is to refer to the events of the world of history observed by Qoheleth most frequently of mans work.13 In the particular context of Eccl 9:10, it may be noteworthy that Qoheleth seems to view it as an activity within this natural sphere. He refers to Gods activity primarily as that which God does in the world and to human endeavors, whether evil or righteous, as the deeds of men within the span of their lives. It seems fitting, then, that he raises the matter of such things ceasing to exist in a discussion of death. The formulation of new ideas. BDB identifies the root of as 41. Outside of Ecclesiastes, this particular derivative appears only in 2 Chr 26:15, where it refers to a man-made device or engine. Within Ecclesiastes, it refers to formulated conclusions (7:25, 27) and to human schemes (7:29). Its low usage requires that any conclusion be tentative, but from what examples are available in Scripture, it seems to be a thought process that begins with observation and interaction with the world around the observer, who then calculates a conclusion or scheme from the information gathered. Presumably, the ability to do so depends upon the ability to take in and process new data, without which the whole matter would cease to exist. In this regard, L. J. Wood says that the basic idea of the word is the
64:10; 66:3; 86:8; 92:5, 6; 102:26; 103:22; 104:13, 24, 31; 106:13; 107:22, 24; 111:2, 6, 7; 115:4; 118:17; 135:15; 138:8; 139:14; 143:5; 145:4, 9, 10, 17; Job 14:15; 34:19; 37:7; Prov 16:11; Cant 7:2; Lam 4:2; 2 Chr 3:10; 4:5, 6; 16:14; 20:37; 32:19. 10 Deut 2:7; 15:10; 16:15; 24:19; 28:12; 30:9; Isa 26:12; 32:17; 57:12; Jonah 3:10; Pss 33:15; 62:13; 90:17; Job 1:10; Prov 16:3; Esth 10:2; 2 Chr 31:21; 32:30. 11 Deut 31:29; 1 Kgs 16:7; 2 Kgs 22:17; Isa 19:14; 29:15; 59:6; 66:18; Jer 25:6, 7, 14; 32:30; 44:8; 48:7; Ezek 6:6; Amos 8:7; Mic 6:16; Hag 2:14; Pss 28:4; 106:35, 39; Job 33:17; Lam 3:64; Ezra 9:13; Neh 6:14; 2 Chr 17:4; 34:25. 12 E. E. Carpenter, ,New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exe gesis (ed. W. A. VanGemeren; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) 3:547. 13 T. E. McComiskey, ,TWOT 2 (1980) 702. 14 BDB, 36263.

44

employment of the mind in thinking activity. Reference is not so much to understanding (cf. bin), but to the creating of new ideas.15 J. E. Hartley ascribes to it two semantic elements: (a) count, compute, calculate, value, credit and (b) plan, think out, devise, invent, scheme. He identifies the noun form more particularly as knowledge that can be expressed in formulas, charts, and diagrams, specifically relating it in Eccl 9:10 to more tangible, as opposed to theoretical, knowledge.16 Again, it seems appropriate that Qoheleth should speak of such a thing as not pertaining to the state of death. Knowledge acquired through the senses. BDB identifies the root of as . It indicates that Ethiopic has a similar root meaning indicate, announce, narrate, and Assyrian, meaning know.17 Outside of Ecclesiastes, it refers to discernment or wisdom,18 skill,19 perception,20 intent (Deut 4:42; 19:4; Josh 20:3, 5), and that which is known.21 Within Ecclesiastes, it seems to refer primarily to knowledge and understanding acquired through experience or observation (1:16, 18; 2:21, 26; 7:12; 12:9). J. P. Lewis says that the root expresses knowledge gained in various ways by the senses particularly that which is of a personal, experimental nature (Prov 24:5).22 T. E. Fretheim concurs, that it means to take various aspects of the world of ones experience into the self, including the resultant relationship with that which is known.23 The term itself has quite a broad range of use, but within Ecclesiastes there is at least some cause for categorizing it with the first two, in that they all require a conscious connection to the present sphere. If knowledge must be acquired for such understanding to continue, anything which might hamper the acquisition of new knowledge
L. J. Wood, ,TWOT 1 (1980) 330. J. E. Hartley, ,New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W. A. VanGemeren; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) 2:303, 309. 17 BDB, 39395. 18 Gen 2:9, 17; Isa 5:13; 11:2; 33:6; 40:14; 44:19; 47:10; 53:11; Hos 4:6; Ps 119:66; Job 34:35; 35:16; 38:2; 42:3; Prov 1:4, 7, 22, 29; 2:5, 6, 10; 5:2; 8:9, 12; 9:10; 10:14; 12:1, 23; 13:16; 14:6, 7, 18; 15:2, 7, 14; 17:27; 18:15; 19:2, 25, 27; 20:15; 21:11; 22:17, 20; 23:12; 24:4, 5; 30:3; Dan 1:4. 19 Exod 31:3; 35:31; 1 Kgs 7:14; Jer 10:14; 51:17; Prov 3:20. 20 Num 24:16; Isa 44:25; Jer 22:16; Hos 4:1; 6:6; Ps 139:6; Job 10:7; 13:2; 21:22; 36:12; Prov 11:9; 22:12; 29:7. 21 Isa 58:2; Mal 2:7; Pss 19:3; 94:10; Job 15:3; 33:3; Prov 8:10; Dan 12:4. 22 J. P. Lewis, , TWOT 1 (1980) 36667. 23 T. E. Fretheim, ,New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W. A. VanGemeren; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) 2:410.
16 15

45

would also affect ones ability to manifest this trait. Death may very well qualify as such a hindrance, so again the connection seems appropriate. Understanding based on experience and observation. BDB identifies the root of as .It indicates that Assyrian has a similar root mean ing know, and Arabic, meaning restrain from acting in an evil manner, judge, govern; make firm, sound, free from defect.24 Outside of Ecclesiastes, it refers to skill,25 understanding,26 and discernment.27 Within Ecclesiastes, it refers to observation (1:13, 16; 7:23, 25; 8:16), discernment,28 and skill.29 Once again, the overall range of meaning is quite broad. In this case, the usage within Ecclesiastes is also quite broad and diverse. There are a certain number of instances, as noted above, where observation is integrally related to this concept. But otherwise, it is difficult to tell the exact nature in the mind of Qoheleth. L. Goldberg does describe it as covering the whole gamut of human experience, which if true would lend further weight to the idea that this is something pertaining particularly to the affairs of this life.30 At any rate, if it is in keeping with the force of the other three terms, it would make good sense that the primary reference is to discerning interaction with the observable world, something again that could be severed by death.

4.2.3 The Biblical Concept of

BDB suggests as the root of ,but it acknowledges the possibility of 13. is used in Scripture to refer to the place of the dead,32 both for
BDB, 31415. Exod 28:3; 31:3, 6; 35:26, 31, 35; 36:1, 2; 2 Sam 20:22; 1 Kgs 7:14; Jer 9:22; 10:12; 51:15; Ps 104:24; Prov 3:19; 1 Chr 28:21. 26 Deut 4:6; 34:9; 2 Sam 14:20; 1 Kgs 2:6; Isa 10:13; 11:2; 33:6; 47:10; Ezek 28:4, 5, 7, 12, 17; Pss 37:30; 49:4; 51:8; 90:12; 107:27; Job 4:21; 11:6; 12:2, 12, 13; 13:5; 15:8; 26:3; 28:12, 18, 20, 28; 32:7, 13; 33:33; 38:36, 37; 39:17; Prov 1:7; 2:2, 6, 10; 3:13; 4:5, 7; 5:1; 7:4; 9:10; 10:23; 14:6, 8, 33; 16:16; 17:16, 24; 18:4; 21:30; 23:23; 24:3, 7, 14; 30:3; 31:26. 27 1 Kgs 3:28; 5:9, 10, 14, 26; 10:4, 6-8, 23, 24; 11:41; Isa 29:14; Jer 8:9; 49:7; Ps 111:10; Prov 1:2, 20; 4:11; 8:1, 11, 12; 9:1; 10:13, 31; 11:2; 13:10; 15:33; 28:26; 29:3, 15; Dan 1:4, 17, 20; 2 Chr 1:10-12; 9:3, 5-7, 22, 23. 28 1:17, 18; 2:3, 9, 12, 13, 26; 7:10-12, 19; 8:1. 29 2:21; 9:13, 15, 16, 18; 10:1, 10. 30 L. Goldberg, ,TWOT 1 (1980) 283. 31 BDB, 98283. 32 1 Sam 2:6; Isa 28:15, 18; Ezek 31:15-17; Pss 30:4; 88:4; 89:49; 141:7; Job 33:18; Prov 5:5; 7:27; 9:18; 15:24.
25 24

46

the righteous33 and for the unrighteous.34 It apparently is a deep place, as it is used to describe the depth of Gods limits (Job 11:8) and anger (Deut 32:22), and in various contexts of the furthest possible depth (Isa 7:11; 14:15; 57:9; Amos 9:2). Consequently, it is insatiable in its desire for men to fill it (Hab 2:5; Prov 27:20; 30:16). It also seems to be characteristically invisible, since Gods omniscience is described to the extreme of seeing within it (Job 26:6; Prov 15:11). His omnipresence is described in that He is present even there (Ps 139:8), and its strength is used to illustrate that of jealousy (Cant 8:6). There are some contrasting images of in Scripture. It is a place of undisturbed sleep (Job 14:3), yet its inhabitants can be stirred (Isa 14:9). There the wicked are silenced (Ps 31:18), yet Jonah cried out from it (Jonah 2:3). It seems to be uniquely for the soul (Ps 16:10), yet God sends some alive into it (Num 16:30, 33; cf. Ps 55:16; Prov 1:12), even carrying their weapons (Ezek 32:21-27), and it is said to consume the form of the foolish (Ps 49:15). It is a place without hope (Job 17:13,16), without thanksgiving (Isa 38:18; Ps 6:6), from which no one can leave (Job 7:9), yet God delivers His people from it (Hos 13:14; Pss 49:16; 86:13; Prov 23:14). R. L. Harris suggests that refers primarily to the grave. In his anal ysis of the various passages, he finds that most are either poetic or could easily refer to the physical locale of the dead, fitting the imagery of Palestinian tombs, and qualifying as an extreme of depth from the standpoint that they had nothing deeper, save the sea, with which to compare.35 If this view is correct, it would explain a great deal. The four things lost would naturally be absent in the grave, and so the emphasis would be on the lack of involvement in this world on the part of the dead, without regard for their state of consciousness, wherever they may be in spirit. But even if Harriss analysis is rejected in favor of a less physical place of the dead, the picture does not change much. Admittedly, the OT reveals little information about the conditions within this state, but whatever we may glean from this passage, the four terms refer most particularly in Qoheleths usage to things characterizing this life and the ability to observe consciously and experience ones surrounding environment. Without such
Gen 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31; 2 Sam 22:6; Isa 38:10; Pss 18:6; 116:3. 1 Kgs 2:6, 9; Isa 5:14; 14:11; Ps 9:18; Job 21:13; 24:19. 35 R. L. Harris, sheol, TWOT 2 (1980) 89293. See also W. C. Kaiser, Ecclesiastes, 102. But Jonah 2:2 is somewhat problematic to this view, since the prophet depicts his former cry as coming from Sheol while he was in the depths of the sea. Clearly, there is no need to call the sea Sheol for purposes of exaggerated depth. And this passage also raises the question of how any death at sea can be understood as pertaining to Sheol.
34 33

47

ability, even if self-consciousness remains, it could fittingly be said that work, planning, knowledge, and wisdom, as defined here, are nonexistent.

4.3 The Meaning of the Verse

In the final analysis, Eccl 9:10 has nothing to say about the consciousness of the dead in particular. Clearly, the context is concerned with the here and now and with the futility of mans anticipation of death.36 It is an inevitable fate that lies before every human, and it plays no favorites, even on moral issues. Whether sooner or later, everyone must meet it. Qoheleth does leave room for Gods ultimate justice, but that lies beyond the scope of human perception, and so he really has very little to say about it. What man can see is that he must die. And in the time that he has left, the best thing to do is to make the most of what God has given him. He should enjoy the fulfillment of his basic daily needs. He should engage in meaningful relationships as a gift from God. And he should do whatever is within his ability. The reason for taking this attitude is quite simple. Once a person dies, his opportunity for life is gone. It is true that Qoheleth does not mention a future resurrection, but he does not eliminate the possibility either. In whatever interval may pass while man lies in Sheol, he has no interaction with the affairs of this life. Therefore, he has no opportunity to perform deeds of any sort. He has no data to calculate. He has no senses with which to acquire knowledge. And he has no experience or observation of the world around him on which to base his understanding. As far as the affairs of this life, the time for productivity has ended, and who can tell by human perception what might come beyond that? The message is not one of hopeless despair but of implicit faith. Rather than follow in Qoheleths footsteps and waste a life trying to find fulfillment and meaning through human effort and ability, the better answer is to trust God for the unseen things. When He is understood to hold the meaning that lies beyond human reach, the believers mind and ambition are set free to live life to the fullest, as long as God may grant him. And in so doing, he is released from the futility of anticipated death.

W. C. Kaiser (Ecclesiastes, 102) compares the exhortation with Jesuss words in John 9:4.

36

48

Chapter 5

A Thanatology of Ecclesiastes
The last topic that remains to be discussed is that of the broader thanatology of Ecclesiastes. While it lies beyond the scope of this study to investigate thoroughly all the other remarks in Ecclesiastes on the topic of death, it is essential to consider Eccl 9:10 outside of its literary context. As with any other statement in Scripture, this verse also occurs within a theological context, both as it draws meaning from other passages and as it imparts meaning to them. This chapter will therefore undertake a summary investigation of four other passages that emphasize equality in death and four intervening remarks on the subject of death, with a view to developing a broad thanatology of Ecclesiastes.

5.1 Wise and Foolish Alike in Death (2:1217)

The first statement regarding death comes in the first section after the prologue, emphasizing the futility of labor. In 2:1217, Qoheleth reflects on his pursuit of wisdom and realizes that his work has been meaningless, since the same fate awaits both wise and foolish in death.

5.1.1 The Context

Starting in 1:12, Qoheleth recounts his exploration by wisdom. But by the end of the chapter, in v. 18, he finds only more pain and grief. As he shifts his approach to the fulfillment of pleasure in chap. 2, he still finds in v. 11 that it is a worthless pursuit. Finally, he despairs at the inevitability of death and the inability to control what will happen after he dies. In vv.

49

2426, he concludes that the best thing to do is to enjoy life as a gift from God.

5.1.2 The Translation and Discourse Flow

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL M: 12 And my turning was to look at wisdom, madness, and folly, EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY M: for what is it that the human who comes after the king will do? M: That which has already been done.1 M: 13 And I was a seer of that which is a profit for wisdom over folly, as the profit of light over darkness.2 EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY M: 14 The wise one has his eyes in his head, Participial Clause: but the fool walks in darkness. M: Yet I was a knower Dep. clause w/ yiqtol: that one happening happens to them both. M: 15 And my saying was in my heart, EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY X-yiqtol: It is like the happening of the fool that it will happen even to me. X-qatal: And why is it then that I have been excessively wise?
1 The text at this point is notoriously difficult. Both Murphy and Seow suggest that it is corrupt, recognizing that even the ancient versions struggled with its rendering. The LXX reads , probably following the Aramaic .Murphy (Ecclesiastes, 20) alludes to the Syriac and Vg as little better in their renderings. Seow (Ecclesiastes, 134) suggests an emendation from the definite article to the interrogative prefix, taking as a verb, rather than a noun. The attempt here is to preserve the Masoretic reading as much as possible in translation. 2 GKC, 42930, identifies this use of as periphrastic expression of the comparative.

50

M: And my speaking was in my heart3 EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY M: that this too is vanity. M: 16 For the wise man, with the fool, has no remembrance forever, Dep. clause w/ qatal: in which all the coming days have already been forgotten. X-yiqtol: And how the wise man dies with the fool! M: 17 And I was a hater of life, EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY M: for the work which had been done under the sun was evil to me, M: for everything is vanity and striving after wind. More and more, it is becoming apparent that this style is characteristic of Ecclesiastes. The whole framework tends to hang upon Qoheleths autobiography, whether detailing his specific personal experiences or recording his observations about life and wisdom. But the book is not merely an autobiography, since it is primarily intended as wisdom teaching. Thus, even though this discourse section may be characterized as autobiographical, its substance is largely filled out by logical remarks and conclusions in the form of expository statements.

5.1.3 Brief Commentary

While it is difficult at times to discern what particular force Qoheleth assigns to terms of wisdom and folly, it seems here that he meant to examine wisdom, madness, and folly as potential courses of action through which he could approach life. He states his motivation for this searching in the latter part of v. 12, by asking and answering the question, What is it that the human who comes after the king will do? The end of the question, while not actually represented in so many words, is inferred from the answer Qoheleth himself gives. His concern, then, is for the outcome of his efforts, since he knows that he can control only what goes on in his own
3

The LXX inserts at this point.

51

life. After he dies, it is inevitable that someone else will continue on. And he expresses little confidence in his answerthat the one who comes after him will simply continue the cycle of futility expressed in the opening poem of the book. It seems, then, that he allows for the possibility of at least attempting to rise above the futility of life. But since the efforts of one individual can easily be undone by the person who follows him, it is of little purpose to go about trying to change the grander scheme of things. Beginning in v. 13, Qoheleth proceeds to expand on this thesis by pointing out that there is something more commendable about wisdom over folly. Specifically, he has seen that wisdom provides sight, while foolishness is blind (v. 14). But again, the futility becomes apparent, since both wise and foolish experience the same fate. He responds to this notion personally with the statement in his heart (v. 15). His excessive wisdom had accomplished nothing in the way of a fate any different from that of the fool. The conclusion that Qoheleth draws from this consideration begins at the end of v. 15, with the assessment of vanity, or futility. As he goes on to explain, there is no special remembrance of the wise man beyond that of the fool. He even exaggerates this statement, saying that the coming dayshere expressing the idea of imminence, that these are future days yet to comehave already been forgotten before they have arrived. And both wise and foolish die (v. 16). Qoheleth, therefore, came to hate life in light of its futility.

5.1.4 Conclusions
In 2:1217, it is easy to see already that Qoheleth finds his struggle with death to be insurmountable. It is the great blocker of justice and fairness, in that no amount of wisdom or striving can ever really bring a person to rise above this one source of futility in life. His focus, as elsewhere, is on the particular implications of death for this life. He pays little attention to what may come afterward, but simply recognizes that all a persons labor may be utterly in vain, since he fails to control what will become of his reputation, possessions, or any other heritage after he dies. Indeed, if there is any durability in view in this passage, it is the legacy of a man which may later be corrupted by his successors. And so, this passage has nothing to say, good or bad, about the personal fate of the individual beyond the actual point of death.

52

5.2 Man and Beast Alike in Death (3:1421)

The second major statement on death comes in the third section of the book, emphasizing the futility of justice. In 3:1421, it appears to Qoheleth that Gods judgment has placed man on a level with animals, since there is no knowledge of a distinction between men and beasts in death.

5.2.1 The Translation and Discourse Flow

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL M: 14 I have been a knower, EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY X-yiqtol: that it is all that God does that will be forever. M: There is nothing to add to it, M: and there is nothing to take away from it.4 X-qatal: And it is God who has been a doer Dep. clause w/ yiqtol: that they would fear from before His face. X-qatal: 15 What is it that has been?5 M: It was already. X-qatal: And it is that which is to be that already has been.6 X-yiqtol: And it is God who seeks that which is pursued. X-qatal: 16 And yet I have been a seer under the sun, EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY M: In the place of justice there is wickedness, M: and in the place of righteousness there is wickedness.
Probably the best understanding of the use of + infinitive constructs in v. 14 is, with Waltke and OConnor (Syntax, 609), as a modal sense, accompanied by to indicate obligation or permission. 5 Waltke and OConnor (Syntax, 325) identify the use of + the relative in v. 15 as indefinite. But there is no clear reason that it could not be rendered here as a question. 6 Probably the best way to take the use of + infinitive construct in v. 15 is, with Waltke and OConnor (Syntax, 610), as an immanent sense.
4

53

M: 17 My saying has been in my heart, EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY X-yiqtol: It is both the righteous and the wicked that God will judge, M: for there is a time for every pleasure and for every deed. M: 18 My saying has been in my heart, EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY M: It is a matter of the sons of humanity that God might test them, M: and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.7 M: 19 For the happening of the sons of men and the happening of beasts have one happening. M: The death of one is like the death of the other, M: and there is one spirit for all; M: and the human has no advantage over the beast, M: for all is vanity. Participial clause: 20 All go to one place. X-qatal: It is all who are from the dust, X-qatal: and it is all who return to the dust. Participial clause: 21 Who knows the spirit of the sons of humanity which itself ascends upward and the spirit of beasts which itself descends downward to the earth?8

5.2.2 Brief Commentary

Qoheleth opens this section in v. 14 with a statement of his understanding about Gods activity. His work is complete, in the sense that there is nothing which needs to be or can be added to it. Likewise, it is enduring, in that
There is no easy way to render this verse. Without any finite verbs yet two infinitives, it is difficult enough. But there are also too many pronouns to be handled simply. Fortunately, the context enables an acceptable comprehension of what the verse was meant to say, even if the wording is uncertain. 8 GKC, presumably by comparison with the versions, advises the emendations to v. 21 noted in BHS, that should read as and as .)574(
7

54

nothing needs to be or can be taken away. And the outcome of this activity has been to provoke fear in man. In v. 15, he states that nothing past or future falls outside the usual pattern of Gods workings. There is always a precedent. But in v. 16, it has appeared to him that in the normal course of earthly life, wickedness appears where one might expect to find justice or righteousness, which implicitly might lead someone to question whether God really is in control.9 For himself, Qoheleth has concluded that there must be a judgment of the righteous and the wicked by God (v. 17). Since everything does come in its proper time, as stands so starkly in the background of this section, he reasons that there must be a time for judgment, even if it is known only to God.10 The last expository portion is the longest, in which Qoheleth continues his reaction to what he observes in this life. In his mind, he can tell himself that God is just and will settle all scores, but it is still a difficult thing to grasp, especially when the world around him fails to reflect such a principle. He therefore ends up comparing men to animals, both of whose lives inevitably end in death (vv. 1819). In the sense that all living creatures were formed from dust and return to dust at death, all go to the same place in the end (v. 20). The closing rhetorical question in v. 21 is a bit awkward to translate, but the purpose is clear enough. On this issue, Qoheleth must conclude in ignorance of exactly what will become of the spirit at death. That the body becomes dust is readily evident. But no human can perceive the fate of either animal or human spirit. It is yet one more thing that must be entrusted to the hands of God.11
Murphy (Ecclesiastes, 36) identifies this injustice as the practice of humans. Ibid., 36: But he never denies that God is a judge (on the contrary, cf. 5:5 [6]; 11:9), even though Qoheleth is unable to see any evidence of it in this world. It can be said that he clings to the biblical belief that God is somehow just and that God does judge, however contrary the evidence may appear to be. Judgment belongs to Gods time, not to human time. Similarly, Seow (Ecclesiastes, 175) states that Qohelet is not asserting the certainty of eschatological judgment. Rather the statement is merely an acknowledgment that whatever will be done is entirely in the hand of God. God will take care of it all. Cf. Longman (Ecclesiastes, 128), who writes that this section is one of a number that indicate to us that Qohelet did not have a conception of the afterlife. Without such, he realizes that there is no place for divine retribution outside the present evil world. In other words, his observation extends beyond under the sun to what takes place in the after life, but he concludes that there is nothing there. But it is difficult to see how Longman can make this assertion when Qoheleth merely places the two concepts in tension and refuses to rule on the issue. Everything else he knows leads him to believe that God will judge, but he does not see it happen in life or in the event of death. But his observation cannot carry him beyond the point of death to see what happens or does not happen in the afterlife. It is for this reason that he ends with a question, rather than a definitive answer. 11 While W. C. Kaiser (Wisdom Theology, 204) agrees with the Masoretic reading as
10 9

55

5.2.3 Conclusions
Here, it would be quite easy to see Qoheleths remarks out of context, as indicating that men are no different from animals in the condition of the afterlife. But as before, his focus on the affairs of this life is evident. God is the only one who is truly durable and whose works will last indefinitely. Indeed, it is here, if anywhere in the book, that Qoheleth may infer something beyond the point of death. Because he operates on the basis of what he observes, he cannot say much about the afterlife. But he knows that God is just, and he sees injustice that goes unresolved in this life. It is on this point that the recognition of a proper time for everything can become a source of encouragement, because it is possible to extrapolate that God has a time for scores to be settled. Even if it is not visible in our earthly experience, there must come a fair and righteous judgment. But Qoheleth would be less than human, if he could simply push aside his desire for justice in light of such an extrapolation. He continues to wrestle with the observation that any judgment of God which may be observed in the outcome of things in this life must put man on an equal plane with animals, since all die. And although he would like to think that the spirit of man does indeed go back to God (as will be expressed in 12:7), he cannot actually observe it himself.

5.3 Rich and Poor Alike in Death (5:1215)

The third major statement comes in the fourth section of the book, emphasizing the futility of position. In 5:1215, Qoheleth recognizes the futility of mans labor, since the position he acquires in life amounts to nothing when he dies.

5.3.1 The Context

This section, comprising four discourse segments, spans chaps. 45. Qoheleth opens with an account of his own observations on the futility of position (4:16). He notices oppression and judges that it is better not to live at all than to live without help or hope of deliverance. Where he finds motivation, it comes from rivalry, and elsewhere he sees only foolish laziness opposed to vain striving. In vv. 716, he explains that companionship
more of a definite assertion than a question, he may carry the certainty too far. To suggest that v. 21 is meant to indicate certainty requires not only that the questioning force be weakened but that vv. 1920 form some sort of counter-argument, rather than Qoheleths own thoughts.

56

stands above all striving and motivation for material gainthat wisdom in poverty is better than kingship in foolishness. In 4:175:8 he cautions the reader about the proper attitude as a subordinate, whether in worship before God or in response to the activities of the king. The last section (5:919) teaches that working is better than havingthat labor is more fulfilling than the possessions it may bring. Finally, he closes chap. 5 with a carpe diem statement (vv. 1719), that the best thing is to enjoy labor and whatever possessions may come, as a gift from God, and in so doing to be unconcerned with the brevity of life.

5.3.2 The Translation and Discourse Flow

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL X-qatal: 12 There is a festering evil I have seen under the sun: Participial clause: wealth being kept by its owner for his evil. EMBEDDED PREDICTIVE NARRATIVE M: 13 That wealth will perish by an evil work. M: And he will father a son, Verbless clause: and there will be nothing at all in his hand. Dep. clause w/ qatal: 14 Just as he has come out from his mothers womb, X-yiqtol: it is naked that he will return to go as he has come. X-yiqtol: And it is nothing that he will carry in his toil which will go in his hand. Verbless clause: 15 And indeed, this is a festering evil: X-yiqtol: It is exactly the way he comes that he will go.12 Verbless clause: And what advantage is there for him who toils toward the wind? The discourse form of this section is a bit different. The autobiographical genre still provides the basic structure, as Qoheleth continues to reflect upon what he has seen under the sun. But this time his remarks take the form of predictive narrative, as he comments on the inevitable outcome of a person who consumes himself with wealth.
12 GKC, 499, describes the construction as expressing exact coincidence of two facts.

57

5.3.3 Brief Commentary

In v. 12, the section is introduced with Qoheleths observation regarding wealth. He will proceed to expand upon his assessment given here, as he discusses the end of this man, probably not meant to be any particular individual, consumed by his wealth in life. V. 13 indicates that the man loses his wealth by an evil work, which is not itself identified more specifically. Apparently, it lies beyond his purpose to explain more fully the nature of this evil work, and indeed, it probably does not matter much. The point is that something happens to the man, whether by intention or by accident, so that his wealth is lost and nothing remains for his son. Likewise, in v. 14, nothing remains for the man, who dies with as little as he had when he entered the world.13 Qoheleth judges this to be an evil thingthat such a man must leave the world just as he came (v. 15). But it does not seem that he makes this judgment simply on the fact that the man lost his wealth. Rather, he observes at the end that he is speaking of a toiling after wind. The mans striving for wealth in the first place was doomed to fail, because he had no real power to hold the wealth that he gained. And as the carpe diem statement for this passage concludes a few verses later, it would have been better if the man had found pleasure in his labor during the short time that he had on earth, than to be consumed with obtaining something he cannot keep anyway.

5.3.4 Conclusions
Of the four passages, this is the least likely to be a general statement of mans fate in death. Qoheleth does little to assert that what he describes here is normative for all mankind. Rather, he is dealing with something that he has seen happen to men who have wealth but lose it all. Even so, the fact that he closes with a more generalized statement about striving after wind probably shows that he intends much of what he says here to apply to the accumulation of wealth in general. The point then would be that one can never be certain in this life of ones ability to maintain the wealth that he has gained. In any event, he will fail to keep his possessions beyond death, but he may not even get to enjoy his final days or the realization of his childrens fate. The futility comes out of mans own foolishness in this case, since he might not have consumed his time and efforts on accumulating
Murphy (Ecclesiastes, 52) indicates that the subject would be the adult, allowing that there may be a deliberate ambiguity in v 14a (15a), but it disappears in v 14b (15b) where the subject must be the adult since toil is mentioned.
13

58

what he could not preserve. As such, death serves to remind man that saving for the future will only accomplish so much, and may accomplish nothing at all.

5.4 Righteous and Unrighteous Alike in Death (7:13 17)

The fourth major statement comes in the fifth section of the book, emphasizing the futility of morality. In 7:1317, Qoheleth observes that a righteous man dies the same as an unrighteous man.

5.4.1 The Context

This section, which covers most of three chapters (chaps. 68), including five distinct discourse segments, begins in 6:1 with an evil assessment of the condition of a person who fails to enjoy what he has. Again, God is affirmed as the one who empowers man to enjoy life, and in this case Qoheleth recognizes that wealth, parenting, long life, and labor may fail to bring a person happiness. He concludes then that it is better to contemplate somber things and the end of life than to waste ones time on empty pleasures. In 7:922, he charges the reader to be wise and cautious, lest the things of life that ought to make him happy be spoiled. But at the same time, he advises that a person not go overboard in striving for excellence, lest he wear out the very thing he sought. In 7:238:1, Qoheleth recounts his own searching and testing, and his conclusion of the great wickedness in humanity. He therefore charges the reader to obey human government, which can keep wickedness under control, and finishes the section by explaining that human intellect cannot comprehend the balance of morality in this life. It therefore remains for an unseen reconciliation to settle all scores, and the best response in this life is to find happiness in what one does.

5.4.2 The Translation and Discourse Flow

HORTATORY M: 13 Look at the deed of God, X-yiqtol: for who is it that is able to straighten that which he has bent? 59

X-imperative: 14 It is on a good day that you must be in good, X-imperative: and it is on an evil day that you must look. EMBEDDED EXPOSITORY X-qatal: Indeed, it is this as well as that of which God has been maker, Dep. clause w/ yiqtol: on account of which the human will not find anything after him. X-qatal: 15 It is all of which I have been a seer in the days of my futility. Participial clause: There is a righteous one who perishes in his righteousness, Participial clause: and there is a wicked one who endures in his wickedness. Prohib. Command: 16 Do not be greatly righteous,14 Prohib. Command: and do not show yourself to be excessively wise. X-jussive: Why would you ruin yourself? Prohib. Command: 17 Do not be greatly wicked, Prohib. Command: and do not be a fool. X-jussive: Why would you die when it is not your time? This section, in contrast with the first three, is hortatory on the whole, with embedded expository in the middle. As such, it is primarily an exhortation, but it does pause briefly, as is so characteristic of Qoheleths style, to comment in more detail on the matter at hand.

5.4.3 Brief Commentary

Qoheleth opens this section by calling the reader to look at, probably to examine or to consider, the deed of God. Clearly, the reason is to see that what God has done cannot be undone by any human effort. Therefore, in v. 14, he exhorts the reader to be in good, most likely the idea of enjoyment or happiness, as is so prevalent throughout this book, but particularly on a good day. And on an evil day, he advises that one look, or consider carefully, probably to attend to his own affairs and motives in light of Gods sovereignty. Again, the reminder is clear that man quite often cannot see the whole picture; but what Qoheleth himself has found, he shares in v. 15.
14

GKC, 426, calls a case of apposition in the wider sense.

60

Although it is the best advice to live in keeping with ones circumstances, there is still the struggle with finding righteous people dying and wicked people living on. And so, he finally exhorts moderationnot to be too righteous, and not to be too wicked (vv. 1617). By this is probably meant that a person may become so caught up in trying to live a certain way that he neglects to enjoy life in the process.15 And clearly that would be out of keeping with what Qoheleth has advised all along.

5.4.4 Conclusions
These remarks on morality should come as no surprise from Qoheleth. It is by no means that he is opposed to morality, but clearly he places a high priority on the enjoyment of life. To the extent that morality will be a great help in that pursuit, he favors it and advocates it on various occasions throughout the book. But when it comes to the problem of how morality and death interrelate, Qoheleths judgment is that it is worthless to spend ones life being so caught up in righteousness that he has no time for enjoyment. Again, context is critical to the discussion, since it is so easy to make Qoheleth into a hedonist who sets pure pleasure at the top of his priority list. But as already seen, he does find advantage to wisdom, and he does advocate obedience, and he does make room in his worldview for God to judge men, even if it must wait until after death. Even when he advocates pleasure, it is controlled pleasure, taken in moderation. And what is life for, if it is not to be enjoyed? This is by no means a concept foreign to biblical wisdom.16 But for Qoheleth, it would probably be fair to say that he sees a life without enjoyment as utterly worthless. It could therefore be said honestly that he would disqualify an approach to life that does not make room for pleasure, regardless of how moral or righteous it may be. Qoheleth makes no serious attempt to explain the problem of the righteous dying and the wicked living on. He clearly acknowledges it as a fact of life, but he does not dwell on it. Instead, he turns to advise against extremes in either direction, since either course may result in life or death. It would be inappropriate at this point to throw out his understanding of Gods justice, for the two are quite compatible. Since God is just, He will settle the score in His timing. Since we cannot see that timing, it is best to enjoy life as it comes and let Him take care of the balance.
See Longman, Ecclesiastes, 19596, for a discussion of the two main options in interpreting Qoheleths exhortation. 16 See Prov 1:33; 3:2, 4, 10, 24; 11:25; 13:21; 14:14, 21; 15:13, 15, 30.
15

61

5.5 Other Teachings Regarding Death (3:2; 4:23; 7:1; 12:7)

Finally, there are four remaining statements regarding death in Ecclesiastes to be considered and evaluated. This section will be relatively brief, merely providing enough coverage of the material to show its relationship with the other statements already considered and to draw some final conclusions.

5.5.1 Brief Commentary

The first smaller statement regarding death to be considered comes in the poem on the futility of time (chap. 3). In it, Qoheleth acknowledges a designated time for each thing to happen, although he later concludes that man ought not concern himself with the particular timing of things or with eternity, which lies beyond his comprehension (vv. 1113). Instead, it is best to allow God to work as He chooses and to enjoy life as it comes. In 4:23, within a context already surveyed above, Qoheleth reflects on the oppression he has seen in life, and expresses his reaction to the sight. He considers the dead better off than the living and the one never born better off still, since he has never seen the oppression which takes place in this life.17 In 7:1, as Qoheleth compares things that are better, he calls the day of ones death better than the day of ones birth. V. 2 sheds some light on the meaning, in that people are inclined to contemplate their lives on an occasion for mourning. Indeed, this whole series seems to point to sad occasions as more conducive to wisdom and careful reflection than happy ones.18 Finally, chap. 12 as a whole could itself consume an entire study
Longman (Ecclesiastes, 134) seems to view this assertion as yet another example of Qoheleths pessimism and unorthodoxy. But cf. Seow (Ecclesiastes, 187), who writes that he does not speak positively of death in the future, but of those who have already passed away. The point is that the living still have to witness the injustices of life, whereas the dead have already done that and no longer have to do so. But [not to have come into existence at all] is, in fact, not an option for the humans, inasmuch as they already are living and have already been witnessing lifes inevitable tragedies. what is really better in this regard is not within the grasp of mortals. 18 Longman (Ecclesiastes, 182) writes, whatever the connection between the two proverbs, the best reading of the second is that it expresses Qohelets relief that life is finally over because death means escape from lifes oppression and meaninglessness. But cf. Murphy (Ecclesiastes, 63), who suggests a plausible association with the first half of the verse: 1b is intended to moderate the meaning of 1a: only with death does the reality of a good reputation exist . At birth one has a whole life ahead, which may or may not yield a good reputation. As always with Qoheleth, life must be looked at from the point of view of death.
17

62

into its imagery and portrayal of old age. But in v. 7, Qoheleth indicates that death results in the return of the dust to the earth and of the spirit to God. It is a very brief statement of death and is best seen as a part of the whole, both as viewed within the context of this poem and as seen in relation to the rest of Qoheleths thanatology. Clearly, the statement is an allusion to Gen 2:7 and 3:19, wherein man is created from the breathing of breath into a body of dust and is cursed by returning to dust. But what the Genesis account leaves implicit, Qoheleth states more clearlythat the components of mans being, the physical and spiritual, are linked only while man lives. In death, they both return to their respective sources.

5.5.2 Conclusions
These brief statements concerning death are quite consistent with what Qoheleth says elsewhere. It is already evident that he maintains a strong sense of Gods control over such things as death. Again, there is no surprise in the fact that he considers it better to be dead or never born than to experience the oppression of life, since such experience falls under the principle of pleasure and enjoyment. Death is constantly a source of contemplation for him throughout the book, so it makes sense that he would expect the same of his readers. And as with 9:10 and 3:1421, Qoheleths remarks in 12:7 really do not say anything about the afterlife per se. Rather, his intent is to portray vividly the way that death undoes this life. As man was created by God breathing into a form of dust, man dies with a return of those two basic components to their sources. His words can no more be construed to indicate a personal, distinct existence in the afterlife than they can be to indicate an absorption into the substance of God. They are images, and as such, they achieve their purpose.19

Leupold (Ecclesiastes, 287) calls this view manifestly unsatisfactory. But it must be questioned where one ought to find criteria for measuring such a view. Should they come from theological preference or from the text itself? He goes on to declare that this verse refers to a coming into judgment, but in the absence of clear evidence to back up his claim, a more tentative position seems appropriate.

19

63

Chapter 6

Conclusion
By no means has this study answered all the questions that might be raised about Ecclesiastes, or indeed about its thanatology. For that matter, the previous chapter has probably succeeded in opening more avenues for further study than it closed. But that is as it should be. No study of Scripture is ever truly exhaustive; rather, it draws the exegete into still deeper questions and shows up so many more issues that span the entire corpus. For the present purpose, this study has drawn near to a better understanding of one particular verse, and in so doing, has hopefully clarified some issues in the interpretation of Ecclesiastes as a whole.

6.1 The State of Death

Probably the most sweeping statement that can be made about the thanatology of Ecclesiastes at this point is that it presents half a picture. Attempts to support one theological position or another tend to fall flat, since they generally read more into the text than they draw out of it. For Qoheleth, death is a barrier. It blocks goals, renders efforts worthless, and frustrates understanding. Crenshaws assessment, that for Qoheleth death is the negation of all good, is probably overstated.1 But it is certainly the end of all good that may come in this life. Whatever lies beyond is out of his reach as an observer. He might speculate, but no speculation will ever give him enough assurance to be satisfied with the answer. Qoheleths focus, therefore, remains on this side of the barrier. Where he does comment beyond the point of death, it is in the world of the living
J. L. Crenshaw, Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel, Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom (ed. J. L. Crenshaw; New York: Ktav, 1976) 298.
1

64

inheritance, progeny, legacy, and the like. These are elements that in every age have been seen as things that could endure beyond the point of death. But where Qoheleths unique perspective lies is in his acute realism about the prospects. He will not be taken in by a nave notion that being wise or living righteously is a virtual guarantee of long life or grand legacy. He speaks and thinks with his eyes open, realizing that justice does not always prevailthe righteous do die young, and the wicked do live on. This realization does not lead him to total despair, but it causes him to focus on how this life can be fulfilling in itself. It would be incomplete, however, to say that Qoheleth gives no thought to anything outside of this life. Clearly, his remarks on the passing of the human spirit at death say something about what happens beyond, even if it is nothing more than an assertion of mans basic elements returning to their sources. And it can hardly be denied that he at least speculates as to the difference in the outcome of death between humans and animals, regardless of how questioning that passage is found to be. But probably the strongest indication that Qoheleth conceived of some sort of afterlife comes from his speculations on Gods justice. He refuses to deny that God is just and will judge. Likewise, he maintains a firm conviction that God controls the proper timing of things, even if man cannot see it. And in his consideration of this lifes injustice, his attention is drawn, however fleetingly, to the notion of an unseen judgment beyond the bounds of this world. Not only is this notion evident in some of the key passages on death, but the entire book closes with it as a parting thought.2 It should come as no surprise that Qoheleth is not any clearer than this in his remarks on the state of death. He is a wisdom teacher and an observer of life, but human reasoning and observation cannot yield the unseen things of God. If a clear picture is to emerge, it must come by revelation which extends beyond mans normal comprehension. There is no reason to fault Qoheleth or to disqualify his writings from canonicity because of his human limitations. Whatever inspiration means, it does not have to result in a full perception of all there is to know. And if his work bears the marks of human limitation in this one area, so be it. In light of the complete picture, his book would probably be less effective for speaking otherwise.
2

See MacDonald, Ecclesiastes, 46.

65

6.2 The Significance of Death

What, then, can be learned from Qoheleths remarks on death, if not the mental state of the deceased? Why does he include it in his discussion? For a failure to learn the intended lesson would be no less heinous a distortion than to find lessons not actually present in the text. From the passages investigated, it can be seen that for Qoheleth, death was the conclusion to his striving after fulfillment, the leveler of positions, and the unfair judge. Yet it was also a relief from lifes sufferings, an opportunity for reflection, and a motivator to productivity. Indeed, Qoheleth faced death with the tension between realistic pessimism and cynical hope that the overall tone of his book requires.

6.2.1 Summary
On the negative side, death explains why accumulation of wealth and reputation is so often a fruitless pursuit. Since whatever he himself might have gained from his lifetime of striving after fulfillment would pass into the hands of another as soon as he died, all his effort could very well be wasted in the end. It would accomplish nothing for him where he was going, and it would accomplish nothing for others if the person who succeeded him proceeded to squander it all. Likewise, the man who worked so hard to accumulate wealth and lost it, leaving his son with no inheritance and himself dying penniless, teaches the same lesson. Here was an individual who had worked hard, but at the end of his life had nothing to show for it. What misfortune did not take away was irrelevant, since death itself would take whatever was left. Worse still, death seemed to accentuate injustice in the world. It would be tolerable to endure suffering and oppression in life, if it could be seen that the wicked oppressor died sooner or more painfully. But so often, exactly the opposite was the case. Death has no preference for the righteous or the wise, and Qoheleth expresses his frustration. Whether righteous or unrighteous, man or beast, it makes no difference. All die in their time, and there is nothing to be done about it. But even these negative aspects of death have their positive counterparts. Qoheleth concludes that it is pointless to pursue wealth or reputation, even to be wise or righteous, if one finds no enjoyment in the pursuit. A future goal, no matter how lofty, if it requires a sorrowful journey to get there, is not worth the trouble, since there is no certainty of the outcome. There is a direct link, therefore, between Qoheleths negative concept of death and his carpe diem exhortations. The key to life is to enjoy the jour66

ney, whatever may wait at the end. And his positive outlook on death helps to support this thesis. For Qoheleth, the experience of death could provoke reflection by others. It was a suitable time to focus on ones own progress in life, but it was also a time when the true reputationthe good nameof a man could be assessed and lauded. Another positive aspect of death was the relief it could bring from lifes sufferings. He does not express it as a death wish or an argument for suicide, but simply affirms that there is advantage even to being dead, in light of the suffering that goes on in this life. Finally, death is a source of motivation. In the closing poem, it is a warning of how fleeting life can be, and how necessary it is to get ones priorities straight early on. Implicit in the negative references is the reminder to consider carefully what one will choose to pursue in life, so that it is not worthless in the end. But most clearly this reminder is seen in Eccl 9:10, where Qoheleth advises the reader to labor as he has been enabledin keeping with his interests, his talents and gifts, and the opportunity God has given him to enjoy what he does in life.

6.2.2 Application
Part of the motivation behind this study has been the resemblance between Ecclesiastes and the attitude of the present Western culture. It would undoubtedly be myopic to suggest that Qoheleths message is more appropriate for 21st century America than it has been for any other generation. But it is much less of a stretch to say that, out of the entire biblical corpus, Ecclesiastes contains some of the most direct lessons for the Church today. Ours is a generation standing on the brink. (Some would say that it has already plunged over.) Having recently emerged from the neat, measurable world of modernism, we find ourselves left with no fixed point, no absolutes, no certainty in anything. As Christians, we might react in horror to the flood of philosophies and perspectives vying for our attention and allegiance, retreat into our fortresses, and wait for it all to go away. But I do not think that is what we have been called to do in this age or in any other. From another angle, this setting is a wonderful opportunity for those who would find it. In the midst of so much uncertainty, some of the greatest things we can offer are hope and a renewed perspective on life. It is here that, surprisingly enough, Ecclesiastes can be such a powerful tool for reaching out to people around us. If there is one major fault of Qoheleth, it is his glaring humanity. He is no less a man than anyone living today. 67

He wrestles no less with the insecurities and inconsistencies of life. He sees injustice and oppression. He wonders about the point of everything. But within the storm, he finds some refreshingly down-to-earth answers. Sometimes strength truly can be seen in our weakness. Sometimes a small, struggling answer can accomplish more than a profound one. Sometimes the common bond of human frailty can be our best testimony for the God on whom we rely. Our friends and neighbors are not looking to us as superhumans. What they need to see is the God who entered their sphere of existence and was touched with their weaknesses. And we have such an important role, as He has chosen us to be His representatives. I cannot help but think that Qoheleth could have done the job as well as anyone. In the face of futility, he tried every human pursuiteverything that could be gained, everything that could be done, everything that could be seen. But in the end, it only brought him more misery. He stared death in the face and collapsed into a withered heap. But in the midst of it all, he found one profound truth that can escape us so easily. He found that happiness comes as a gift from God. Sometimes we are too quick in Christian circles to accentuate the suffering that will often accompany the walk of discipleship. We light up our crosses with neon, for all the world to see. But we must not forget that in the pain and suffering that we bear, there is joy. There is relief from the burden of striving. There is hope in a God we can never fully comprehend. What Qoheleth found in his striving has been one of the hardest messages in the OT to receive. But it is not so very far off from the heart and soul of the Gospelto lay down our efforts to find fulfillment, and receive it as a gift from God instead. It is all that your hand finds to do with your strength that you should do, for there is no deed or reckoning, knowledge or wisdom, in Sheol where you are going. The second half of that exhortation bothers and confuses us. But in the context of Qoheleths overall thanatology, it is a surrender of the burden we can never bear, to find rest in the sovereign, incomprehensible God.

68

Appendix A

A Survey of Approaches to the Structure of Ecclesiastes

As A. G. Wright points out, there is a considerable body of scholarship that rejects any attempt to find a structure to the book of Ecclesiastes and prefers to approach it along the lines of Proverbs, where each section is taken as self-contained, or at best grouped loosely around one major theme.1 On the other hand, his own work in the 1960s and beyond seems to have shifted the balance somewhat in the other direction. R. Murphy, for instance, both in his Wisdom Literature and in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, defers to Wrights analysis to conclude his own discussion of the matter.2 While there is no need to survey all the possible approaches for a study such as this, it is worthwhile to review at least a few alternatives to the analysis presented here. Some evaluatory remarks will be given in the course of this summary, but its purpose is not to perform a critique as such.

A.1 Little or No Structure

As Wright mentions above, there is a sizable contingent of scholars who give Ecclesiastes no more structure than Proverbs, viewing each section as a more or less self-contained unit, without much logical relationship tying them together. Barton, for instance, identifies 14 sections and describes
1 A. G. Wright, The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth, Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom (ed. J. L. Crenshaw; New York: Ktav, 1976) 246. 2 Murphy, Wisdom, 128; Murphy, Ecclesiastes, xxxviiixxxix.

69

them in summary form, but without any real structure. 3 Similarly, R. B. Y. Scott identifies 24 sections and Bullock identifies 23.4 Longman adds somewhat more structure than this, but he still objects to most attempts to give Ecclesiastes too much order. He derives a general outline from his view of the Akkadian genre in which he classifies the book, separating the frame narrative (1:111; 12:814), allowing one verse for an autobiographical introduction (1:12), dividing the quest for meaning into that of the solomonic persona and the remainder (1:132:26; 3:16:9), and finishing with a loose collection of Qoheleths wise advice (6:1012:7).5

A.2 Topically-based Structure

There are also those scholars who prefer to develop their own structure from a topical analysis of the books contents. Among them, Goldberg derives three major sections (1:122:26; chaps. 36; 7:112:8) with prologue (1:111) and epilogue (12:914).6 Eaton also identifies three divisions (chaps. 13; chaps. 410; 11:112:8), but with an epilogue only (12:9 14).7 He derives this structure from 52 minor divisions, arranging them into a progression of thought on the basis of the obvious fact that 1:1 is a title; the observable trend in argument in 1:22:23; the observable turn in the argument at 2:24; the coherence of subject-matter in 4:116; 5:86:12; 9:1110:20, and to a lesser extent in 7:18:1 and 8:29:10; the observable rise of sustained exhortation in 11:112:8; and the obvious fact that 12:914 is an appendage. Of course, the validity of his criteria is open to criticism, particularly since he seems to prefer his own indicators as intuitively derived from reading the text.8 J. S. Wright centers his outline around the resolution of a twofold question: Is the world system
Barton (Ecclesiastes, 4650) identifies 1:111; 1:122:26; 3:115; 3:1622; 4:112; 4:1316; 5:17; 5:86:9; 6:1012; 7:114; 7:1510:3; 10:420; 11:112:8; and 12:914 as sections of the book. 4 R. B. Y. Scott (Ecclesiastes, 209256) identifies 1:12; 1:311; 1:1218; 2:111; 2:1217; 2:1826; 3:115; 3:164:3; 4:416; 5:17; 5:89; 5:1020; 6:19; 6:1012; 7:114; 7:15 22; 7:238:1; 8:29; 8:1015; 8:169:12; 9:1310:1; 10:211:6; 11:712:8; and 12:914 as sections of the book; Bullock (Poetic Books, 191205) identifies 1:1; 1:211; 1:1218; 2:1 11; 2:1217; 2:1826; 3:115; 3:164:3; 4:416; 5:17; 5:89; 5:106:9; 6:1012; 7:114; 7:1525; 7:2629; 8:19; 8:109:3; 9:412; 9:1310:1; 10:211:6; 11:712:8; and 12:914. 5 Longman, Ecclesiastes, 2122. 6 Goldberg, Ecclesiastes, 3133. 7 Eaton, Ecclesiastes, 52. He acknowledges, however, that 3:1621 could belong in either section. 8 Ibid., 5051.
3

70

so subject to frustration that it cannot offer any satisfying key to life? If a believer tries to rise above the world system and wishes to mold his life according to the will of God, how can he do so if he cannot grasp the whole plan? He thus derives eight major sections plus an epilogue (12:914).9

A.3 A Four-part Scheme

Typical of another approach is Archers division of Ecclesiastes into four discourses (chaps. 12; chaps. 35; chaps. 68; 9:112:8) with a prologue (12:914).10 LaSor also adopts a four-part scheme, but recognizes each as a repetition of the same theme, supported with clusters of proverbs. He therefore identifies 1:42:26; 3:14:16; 5:126:12; 8:109:12 as four demonstrations of the theme, prefixed with an introduction (1:1 3), interspersed with words of advice (4:175:11; 7:18:9; 9:1312:8), and followed by an epilogue (12:914).11 Finally, W. C. Kaiser divides the book much the same as does Archer, separating 1:1 as introductory, then arriving at four divisions (1:22:26; chaps. 35; 6:18:15; 8:1612:14), the first three of which climax with the refrain to eat and drink and to realize the benefit of ones labor as a gift from God (2:24; 5:18; 8:15). He cites with approval J. G. Vaihingers statement of purpose: to propound the immortality of the soul, wherein alone the solution of the otherwise inexplicable problems of life are happily to be found; and to encourage us to look forward to a future judgment, amid the discrepancies between the moral nature and fate of man but prefers the modified arrangement from an unsigned article in the 1857 Princeton Review.12

A.4 A Two-part Scheme

As already indicated, the work of A. G. Wright has provoked a sizable body of scholarship that argues for a two-part structure to the book of Ecclesiastes. Not all who adopt a two-part format exhibit much reliance on his methods or conclusions, but many do.
9 J. S. Wright (Ecclesiastes, 1151) identifies 1:12:23; 2:243:22; chap. 4; chaps. 57; chaps. 89; chap. 10; chap. 11; 12:18; and the epilogue in 12:914. 10 Archer, Introduction, 52527. 11 LaSor, Survey, 59092. 12 W. C. Kaiser, Ecclesiastes, 2123.

71

A.4.1 Independent Approaches

There are those who apparently follow no particular tradition of scholarship in their two-part division. For instance, Unger, who aside from the epilogue in 12:914 follows the chapter divisions for his entire outline, has two major points centered around the theme of vanity (chaps. 16) and the application of how to live in a vain world (7:112:8). He further divides each into six parts, according to the 12 chapters of the book.13 Similarly, Leupold establishes two major parts to the book: The Vanity of All Things (1:126:12) and Counsel for Days of Suffering (7:112:7). Instead of Ungers six divisions each, he uses five, but the outcome is nonetheless quite similar.14

A.4.2 Proponents of A. G. Wrights Approach

But others build their case for two major divisions upon the structural analysis of A. G. Wright. Murphys name has already come up as one who follows quite closely Wrights conclusions. Crenshaw, although somewhat less explicitly, likewise adopts the scheme of two major divisions (1:126:9; 6:1011:6), bounded by two poems (1:211; 11:712:8), with a title (1:1) and epilogue (12:914). Characteristic of this position is the recognition that the first major division uses chasing after wind as a refrain, while the second uses who can find out? do not know, or no knowledge.15 Perdue modifies this approach somewhat, attributing the introduction and opening poem, as well as the closing poem and epilogue, to a frame narrator. He also separates 6:19 as an interlude between the two major sections and notes a carpe diem at the close of each section. But the basic pattern and two-fold emphasis on action in the first part and on knowing in the second part is retained.16

A.4.3 A. G. Wrights Own Analysis

In light of this notable influence, therefore, it remains to consider the method used by A. G. Wright in his analysis of Ecclesiastes. It is indeed an attractive approach, if for nothing else, because of its precision and relative objectivity. And that is in fact part of his motivation for the study,
13

Unger, Old Testament, 1073. Leupold, Ecclesiastes, 2527. 15 Crenshaw, Wisdom, 14546. 16 Perdue, Creation, 204205. See also Glenn, Ecclesiastes, 97879.
14

72

since so many analyses have rested upon the subjective impression of the scholar, that one topic has ended and another has begun at a given point.17 Wright therefore identifies a chase after the wind as closing each subsection from 1:12 to 6:9. He further fills in the substance of the sections by linking other key phrases and general themes, to show that these divisions are not arbitrary or illogical, but that they truly do represent continuity of thought. He finds a thread of mans toil throughout this first half, and that thread ends at 6:9, as does the string of indicators. Where they leave off, a new set of markers picks up, focusing on mans knowledge, and using a few varied phrases to mark transitions, as in the first half.18 He concludes the discussion by explaining the roles of the opening and closing poems, which reinforce the themes of the respective halves.19 In a later article, he adds to this analysis further corroborating evidence, mostly based on the numbers of verses in the various sections and the numerical values of certain key words.20 Finally, S. G. Brown adds still more evidence, especially contributing investigation of various chiastic structures throughout the book.21

A.5 Conclusion
As should be apparent from the main discussion on the structure of Ecclesiastes, this study is indebted to A. G. Wrights work, but by no means mimics his conclusions. Whereas his approach to the structure of the first major division is quite consistent and reflects a balanced observation of the natural rhetorical contours created by the author, his analysis of the second division is less conclusive. Of the various approaches considered here, the one that has probably proved most helpful to this study is that of Perdue, who contributes significant elements to the groundwork laid by Wright. His own influence on the structure adopted here manifests itself in the main discussion on structure.

A. G. Wright, Structure, 250. Ibid., 25257. 19 Ibid., 26566. 20 A. G. Wright, The Riddle of the Sphinx Revisited: Numerical Patterns in the Book of Qoheleth, CBQ 42 (1980) 3851. 21 S. G. Brown, The Structure of Ecclesiastes, Evangelical Review of Theology 14 (1990) 195208.
18

17

73

Bibliography
[1] Anderson, W. H. U. Qoheleth and Its Pessimistic Theology: Hermeneutical Struggles in Wisdom Literature. Lampeter, Wales: Mellen, 1997. [2] Archer, G. L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody, 1994. [3] Archer, G. L. The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of Ecclesiastes. JETS 12 (1969) 16781. [4] Barton, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908. [5] Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. [6] Beall, T. S., W. A. Banks, and C. Smith. Old Testament Parsing Guide: JobMalachi. Chicago: Moody, 1990. [7] Bergant, D. What are They Saying about Wisdom Literature? New York: Paulist, 1984. [8] BibleWorks for Windows. Ver. 3.5.051f. CD-ROM. Big Fork, MT: Hermeneutika, 1996. [9] Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990. [10] Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. The New BrownDriver BriggsGesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979. [11] Brown, S. G. The Structure of Ecclesiastes. Evangelical Review of Theology 14 (1990) 195208. 74

[12] Bullock, C. H. An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody, 1988. [13] Carpenter, E. E. .New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. 3:54652. [14] Crenshaw, J. L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Atlanta: Knox, 1981. [15] Crenshaw, J. L. Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel. Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Ed. J. L. Crenshaw. New York: Ktav, 1976. [16] Davidson, A. B. Hebrew Syntax: Introductory Hebrew Grammar. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. [17] Davidson, R. Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. [18] Davis, B. C. Ecclesiastes 12:18Death, an Impetus for Life. BSac 148 (1991) 298318. [19] Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Trans. M. G. Easton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. [20] Devine, M. Ecclesiastes or the Confessions of an Adventurous Soul. London: MacMillan, 1916. [21] The Dictionary of Best Known Quotations & Proverbs. New York: Garden City, 1939. [22] Eaton, M. A. Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1983. [23] Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Trans. P. R. Ackroyd. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. [24] The Five Megiloth: Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary. Ed. A. Cohen. New York: Soncino, 1946. [25] Fox, M. V. Aging and Death in Qohelet 12. JSOT 42 (1988) 5577. [26] Fretheim, T. E. .New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. 2:409414. 75

[27] Fuerst, W. J. The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations: The Five Scrolls. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1975. [28] Gese, H. The Crisis of Wisdom in Koheleth. Theodicy in the Old Testament. Ed. J. L. Crenshaw. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. [29] Glenn, D. R. Ecclesiastes. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. 2 vols. Victor, 1985. 1:9751007. [30] Goldberg, L. Ecclesiastes: Bible Study Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. [31] Goldberg, L. .TWOT 1 (1980) 28284. [32] Gordis, R. KohelethThe Man and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes. Third augmented ed. New York: Schocken, 1968. [33] Harris, R. L. sheol. TWOT 2 (1980) 89293. [34] Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. [35] Hartley, J. E. .New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. 2:303310. [36] Hatch, E., and H. A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books). 2 vols. Graz-Austria: Akademische Druck - U. Verlangsanstalt, 1954. [37] Haupt, P. The Book of Ecclesiastes: A New Metrical Translation. Baltimore: Friedenwald, 1905. [38] Kaiser, O. Introduction to the Old Testament: A Presentation of its Results and Problems. Trans. J. Sturdy. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975. [39] Kaiser, W. C. Ecclesiastes: Total Life. Chicago: Moody, 1979. [40] Kaiser, W. C. Integrating Wisdom Theology into Old Testament Theology: Ecclesiastes 3:1015. A Tribute to Gleason Archer. Ed. W. C. Kaiser and R. F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody, 1986.

76

[41] Kautzsch, E., and A. E. Cowley, ed. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. [42] Kidner, D. The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job & Ecclesiastes: An Introduction to Wisdom Literature. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985. [43] LaSor, W. S., D. A. Hubbard, and F. W. Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. [44] Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952. [45] Lewis, J. P. . TWOT 1 (1980) 36667. [46] Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, and R. McKenzie. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940. [47] Longman, T. The Book of Ecclesiastes. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. [48] MacDonald, J. M. The Book of Ecclesiastes Explained. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1856. [49] MacDonald, W. Chasing the Wind. Chicago: Moody, 1975. [50] McComiskey, T. E. .TWOT 2 (1980) 70102. [51] Merrill, E. H. .New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. 4:67. [52] Murphy, R. E. Ecclesiastes. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1992. [53] Murphy, R. E. Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature. Ed. R. Knierim and G. M. Tucker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. [54] Nida, E. A., J. P. Louw, A. H. Snyman, and J. W. Cronje. Style and Discourse: With Special Reference to the Text of the Greek New Testament. Cape Town: the Bible Society of South Africa, 1983. [55] Ogden, G. S. Qoheleth IX 116. VT 32 (1982) 15869. [56] Osborne, G. R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991. 77

[57] Pelikan, J., trans. Notes on Ecclesiastes. Luthers Works. Ed. J. Pelikan and H. C. Oswald. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972. 15:3187. [58] Perdue, L. G. Wisdom & Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. [59] Perry, T. A. Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. [60] Plumptre, E. H., ed. Ecclesiastes; or, the Preacher, with Notes and Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907. [61] Rahlfs, A. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart, 1935. [62] Rocine, B. M. A New Approach to Learning Biblical Hebrew Using Discourse Analysis. Syracuse, NY: B. M. Rocine, 1997. [63] Rylaarsdam, J. C. The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon. The Laymans Bible Commentary. Ed. B. H. Kelly. Richmond, VA: Knox, 1964. [64] Scott, R. B. Y. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB. Ed. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. [65] Scott, R. B. Y. The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1971. [66] Scott, W. R. A Simplified Guide to BHS: Critical Apparatus, Masora, Accents, Unusual Letters & Other Markings. Birmingham, AL: Bibal, 1995. [67] Seow, C. L. Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1997. [68] Seow, C. L. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Revised ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. [69] Stedman, R. C. Solomons Secret: Enjoying Life, Gods Good Gift. Portland: Multnomah, 1985. [70] Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985. 78

[71] Streane, A. W. Ecclesiastes; or the Preacher. London: Methuen, 1899. [72] Unger, M. F. Ungers Commentary on the Old Testament: Volume 1 GenesisSong of Solomon. Chicago: Moody, 1981. [73] von Rad, G. Old Testament Theology Volume I: The Theology of Israels Historical Traditions. Trans. D. M. G. Stalker. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962. [74] Waltke, B. K., and M. OConnor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. [75] Wardlaw, R. Exposition of Ecclesiastes. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1868. [76] Whitley, C. F. Koheleth: His Language and Thought. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1979. [77] Wigram, G. V. The New Englishmans Hebrew Concordance. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984. [78] Williams, J. G. What Does It Profit a Man? The Wisdom of Koheleth. Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Ed. J. L. Crenshaw. New York: Ktav, 1976. [79] Wilson, G. H. .New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. 2:13034. [80] Wood, L. J. .TWOT 1 (1980) 32930. [81] Wright, A. G. The Riddle of the Sphinx Revisited: Numerical Patterns in the Book of Qoheleth. CBQ 42 (1980) 3851. [82] Wright, A. G. The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth. Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Ed. J. L. Crenshaw. New York: Ktav, 1976. [83] Wright, J. S. Ecclesiastes. The Expositors Bible Commentary. Ed. F. E. Gaebelein. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991. 5:113797. [84] Youngblood, R. F. Qoheleths Dark House (Eccles. 12:5). A Tribute to Gleason Archer. Ed. W. C. Kaiser and R. F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody, 1986. 79

[85] Zlotowitz, M. Koheles: Ecclesiastes. New York: Mesorah, 1978. [86] Zckler, O. Ecclesiastes or Koheleth. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Ed. J. P. Lange. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960.

80