The Enigma of Ecclesiastes

By Carl Schultz, Ph.D.
Houghton College, Houghton, NY

 

The book of Ecclesiastes is an enigma. It is a book which is avoided by many, tolerated by some, and devoured by others. Consider your own devotional reading pattern and your own (or your pastor's) preaching pattern. If your Sunday School offers electives, has one of them bee Ecclesiastes? While I have no sustaining statistics, I suspect that there will be more neglect than utilization. This is unfortunate since this book deserves to be read regularly. More attention needs to be given to this book in preaching, teaching, and meditation.

The ambivalence of attitude, ranging from avoidance to absorption towards Ecclesiastes is due at least in part to its difficulty, on one hand and its pertinence on the other hand.

I. Difficulty of Ecclesiastes.

There is no other book of the Bible where an introduction is as critical as it is in the case of Ecclesiastes. Practically every aspect of this book, including date, authorship, and interpretation is subject to a multiplicity of views. Reading this book without an awareness of its purpose and format can be a disturbing experience, resulting in further neglect. It is always dangerous to dabble with any biblical book, but even more so with Ecclesiastes. When studied this book demands to be read carefully.

One should not be misled by its title. The English title comes from the Greek word for church, but the writer, whom we will can by his own chosen Hebrew name, Qoheleth (sometimes spelled Koheleth), is not very ecclesiastical. He not only charges DO NOT BE OVERWICKED but surprisingly urges DO NOT BE OVERRIGHTEOUS (7:16,17). He has been correctly viewed as an iconoclast -- one who destroys gods -- the gods of wealth, power, pride, fame, even religion.

While there are many difficulties in this book, most of them cluster around organization and structure. The book of Ecclesiastes bristles with internal contradiction, not to mention its exceptions to the Law. As one reads through the text, it appears as if the author purposely contradicts himself or is unaware of what he has just written. Briggs argues that

In almost every topic Qoheleth examines, controversy and contradiction abound. He praises wisdom as being profitable: "Wisdom is good with an inheritance, an advantage to those who see the sun" (7:11), yet writes of its lack of value (1:18). Of life in general, he supports both extremes by asserting that the dead are happier than the living and the unborn most fortunate of all (4:2-3), but then declares that life is preferable to death: "Anyone who is among the living has hope -- even a live dog is better off than a dead lion" (9:4).

Various reasons and solutions for these contradictions have been posited. Basically, scholars can be placed at one of two positions concerning the unity of Ecclesiastes: one camp advances that this book contains contributions by more than one author and thus the contradictions are accounted for by multiple authorship, and the other group maintains a single author position, asserting that the apparent contradictions are by the author=s design.

Among the scholars who explain the contradictions as the result of one or more interpolators are Jastrow and McNeile. Jastrow declares that Qoheleth slipped into the Canon only because of the additions of glossators. He writes: "Instead of taking Koheleth as he was, the attempt was made by those who did not approve of his tone and of his attitude to twist his thought to conform to the conventional values and beliefs of the age."2 He asserts if the original Koheleth were ever revealed, over a quarter of the book would be eliminated.3 Depending upon which section of Ecclesiastes is being examined, sometimes the annotator's work exceeds the original work as in the seventh and tenth chapters, while in other areas only a phrase or sentence is "skillfully inserted."4

In the same manner, McNeile posits that Qoheleth was glossed into the Canon by an unknown admirer who could not bare to see the book banished as heretical due to its unorthodox tone.5 Rather than a single editor, however, McNeile suggests at least five contributors to the book of Ecclesiastes: Q1 -- Qoheleth himself, a pessimistic philosopher; Q2 -- first interpolator, an Epicurean Sadducee; Q3 -- second interpolator, a hakim (wise man) who puts high value upon wisdom; Q4 -- third interpolator, a Hasid (a pious Jew), undoubtedly contributing orthodox creed; and Q5 -- miscellaneous interpolators who espouse general moral maxims of proverbial wisdom.6

Other scholars take a less extreme position concerning the number of contributors to Qoheleth. Acknowledging both extremes -- one author as opposed to many authors -- Barton suggests that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.7 Eventually he arrives at the viewpoint that a "Chassid or Jewish orthodox glossator, whose philosophy of life, was that of the Pharisees" inserted orthodox sayings at critical points.8 Likewise, Goodspeed posits that two contributors are responsible for Ecclesiastes: Qoheleth and a sage who responds to Qoheleth's original statements.9 For example, Qoheleth cries, "For whom should I toil and deny myself happiness?" The sage replies, "Two are better than one, for they get a good wage for their toil."10

Bush raises a natural question about multiple authorship: "If Qoheleth caused so many problems to the wise and pious among the Jews, why did they bother to re-work the book with a multitude of glosses?"11

Haupt, in his book written long before Bush's text, attempts to answer this question of motive: Why did those who rejected Ecclesiastes in its original form change it rather than simply discard the work? He suggests that Qoheleth's pessimistic poem may have made such an impact upon the readers of his day that it would have been impossible for the orthodox Jewish religious leaders to suppress it. Therefore, rather than cause an uproar by banning it, these Pharisaic authorities simply diluted its strongly unorthodox tone with less objectionable orthodox material.12

A small consensus of scholars has concluded that Ecclesiastes is simply a compilation of wisdom material and not a philosophical treatise of any type. Rowley writes, "Ecclesiastes is a collection of separate sayings from 2 to 15 lines long just strung together.13 Moulton, too, asserts that Qoheleth is not a continuous argument but "a miscellany of wisdom."14 Even Martin Luther viewed Qoheleth as a compilation produced by Sirach during the time of the Maccabees.15

Concerning this idea of compilation, Bush states that to impose a modern definition of a "book" upon Qoheleth as "a unified, logically argued and constructive whole" is part of the contemporary problem of viewing Ecclesiastes as contradictory. He suggests, "It seems to be more a collection of separate thoughts than a unified argument which can be systematically followed from beginning to end."16 Agreeing, Hendry asserts Qoheleth never intended to write a connected sequence of thought, but rather Ecclesiastes should be compared to Pascal's Pensees which is simply a collection of fragments or jottings.17 Ecclesiastes 12:9 seems to support this view: . . . he imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs.

Other scholars, however, disagree with this loose compilation hypothesis and offer various other theories to preserve single authorship unity. Bradley maintains that Qoheleth's teaching method is one of teaching by contrast.18 Jenson concurs, suggesting that Qoheleth is role playing. First he espouses the view of a purely natural person who exists "without the light of divine revelation" and concludes each of these "natural" offerings with the words "all is vanity." After negating or proclaiming this carnal view as emptiness, Qoheleth then "writes as one to whom God has revealed Himself."19 Thus, the entire book of Ecclesiastes consists of this alternation of perspective between the worldly and spiritual man.

Leidman advances a similar approach. He asserts that Qoheleth would persuade his listeners to accept certain positions whether orthodox or unorthodox and then critically analyze them from a theistic perspective.20 Goodspeed posits Qoheleth used a type of hyperbole (overstatement) as his teaching style. By painting a very dark and gloomy picture of existence, Qoheleth forced his reader to evaluate skeptically his melancholic perspective and eventually, to protest such a gloomy view.21

Delitzsch holds that Qoheleth is "teaching by contrast or contradiction" and provides a two-point explanation of Ecclesiastes' apparent self-contradictions. First, "they are . . . the reflection of self-contradicting facts." These contradictions are the very "ground tone of the book" for Qoheleth advances that everything has its "but" and thus, this constant possibility of "but" forces humankind to the only certainty -- fear of God. Delitzsch suggests that quite often Ecclesiastes "contains contradictions, which consist in contrasts which the author is not in a condition to explain and adjust.22 McKenzie asserts that Qoheleth is attacking conventional wisdom and thus the apparent contradictions between orthodox and unorthodox wisdom can be explained by closely studying the conventional wisdom statements and seeing that they actually "support the themes of anti-wisdom."23 Likewise, Loader maintains that the conventional wisdom contradictions can be eliminated when correctly understood as polar structures which are "part and parcel of Qoheleth's polemic" attack upon conventional wisdom of his day.24

Others hold the unity of Ecclesiastes together by positing the long experiment hypothesis which Qoheleth himself seems to be referring to in chapter two. Hamilton writes, "This 'matter' was a long experiment, which the narrator made in search of the Supreme Felicity, and of which Ecclesiastes records the successive stages."25 The apparent contradictions "possess but a momentary influence as a link in the chain of deductions."26 Thus it is only the final position stated about a topic which is true and all former assertions are neutralized, having performed their duty.

Taking a more moderate standpoint in regard to Ecclesiastes' unity, Feurst suggests Qoheleth is not tied to a "tight scheme for developing what he had to say," but felt at east "to meander among the treasures of his tradition in wisdom." Nonetheless, some pattern can be detected in Qoheleth's writing.27 This position has some merit for it allows a natural, non-rational way; but, on the other hand, it forces the reader to ask whether the author had any convictions or not.

Goldberg attempts to advance a similar perspective to Fuerst's, but ends up with a position less than satisfying. He suggests that the writer, recognizing the gloomy tenor of his work, would often interject elements that tended "to uplift an audience and even give occasion to chuckle and laugh."28 Perhaps authors of other literary works handles difficult subjects in such a manner, but a quick reading of Ecclesiastes does not support such a position. Rather than uplifting the reader, Qoheleth's contradictions seem simply, at first, to cause confusion.

The final theory advanced to support the argument for single authorship and illustrate the unity of Ecclesiastes is to account for the contradictions as the moods of Qoheleth. They are not due to a plurality of minds, but the oscillation of a single mind grappling with the complexities of life. Rowley argues that the contradictions in Ecclesiastes cannot be viewed simply as the signs of a "'dialectic' mode of thought," but also as Qoheleth's vacillation between orthodox tradition and his own unorthodox convictions.29 Similarly, Plumptree explains Qoheleth's moods as the alternation between three voices: "the pessimism of the satiated sensualist," "the wisdom . . . of the Epicurean thinker," and his own "growing faith in God."30

Most scholars who posit this moods explanation do so in reference to Qoheleth's psychological condition. Whitley suggests that some of the unorthodox statements within the book "may represent effusions of Koheleth's thought, uttered in moments of uncertainty regardless of logical consistency."31 Explaining the contradictions as Qoheleth's struggle with doubt, Carstensen asserts that it is not necessary or correct to examine Ecclesiastes through the microscope of modern methods of thinking, but to understand that he is ancient to whom such methods of rationalistic discourse were alien.32

In similar fashion, Alleman suggests that Ecclesiastes is an autobiographical poem, and should not be considered a "series of disconnected essays, but a continued meditation." Rather than being a cold, analytical document, Ecclesiastes is "the portrayal of the preacher's inner life in poetic form."33 Leiman summarizes the "mood" position as an inner struggle "between reason and emotion, between spiritual and the material, between optimism and pessimism."34 If Ecclesiastes is read with this understanding then the apparent contradictions are frequently resolved.

Once again, McNeile and Jastrow argue against the unity of Ecclesiastes. McNeile asserts that the longer and more in depth the book is studied, the clearer it becomes that its inconsistency is due neither to design nor to Qoheleth's moods.35 Jastrow writes:

Additionally, Jastrow points out that the contradictions within the book are usually encountered at "critical points" in the work and it is unlikely that even an author of many moods would "upset his entire theory of life, just after he has scored a strong point in favor of it."37 Therefore, it is much more economical to see the hand of a later editor than explain the work's inconsistencies as the author's moods.

Sandmel suggests that Qoheleth frequently shrank back from where his thoughts were leading.38 Often in literature, writers begin to propose a new religion or weltanshauung and then back off from their proposal in the concluding section. Both Wordsworth and Coleridge would near a type of Pantheism in their writings ("Lines," Wordsworth; "Eolian Harp," Coleridge), only to shrink back or divert the reader's attention to something else, fearful of actually accepting the consequences of their thinking.39 Thus, Sandmel's suggestion does have some support in modern western literature.

Williams espouses the "unity" viewpoint best as he writes:

II. Pertinence of Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes is a captivating book, commanding great interest. Gordis notes: "Koheleth . . . speaks to the modern age . . . with the immediacy of contact of a contemporary.41 It is this pertinence which makes this book so intriguing. There are perhaps four reasons for our fascination with this book:

The climate out of which it grew is present with us today, so much so that it has been called the most modern book of the Bible. Boredom, surfeit, disillusionment, and world weariness characterize our times as it did in the time of Qoheleth. Older certainties and values have crumbled now as in the life of Qoheleth and new purposes to life are sought now as then.

The society which Qoheleth addressed was an earthly one -- a secular one -- one imprisoned by this world. Its view was bounded by the horizons of this world. Even its religion had become secularized as much as our religion today. Such a condition accounts for the frequent reoccurrence of the phrase "under the sun." This was the area of concern for Qoheleth's audience -- even as it is the area of concern today -- and he chose to meet his audience on their own ground to reveal the vanity of a self-contained world -- of a purely secular order. The society which Qoheleth addressed was also a commercial one. Given the above, this follows as no surprise. Certainly Qoheleth was affluent and probably the people being addressed. This provides another point of contact with our time. This book is filled with commercial language, using terms such as advantage, profit, toil, occupation, position, success, money, wealth, owner, lack, and deficit. The familiar verse, CAST YOUR BREAD UPON THE WATERS, FOR AFTER MANY DAYS YOU WILL FIND IT AGAIN (11:1) suggests trade and investment. GIVE PORTIONS TO SEVEN, YES TO EIGHT, FOR YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT DISASTER MAY COME UPON THE LAND (11:2) seems to suggest an uncertain future and is perhaps calling for diversification, i.e., a caution against putting all our eggs in one basket. It would seem that Qoheleth is musing here upon a society dominated by commerce, an acquisitive society. He frequently seems to take aim at these commonly held commercial values:

WHAT DOES MAN GAIN FROM ALL HIS LABOR AT WHICH HE TOILS UNDER THE SUN (1:3)?

YET WHEN I SURVEYED ALL THAT MY HANDS HAD DONE AND EVEN WHAT I HAD TOILED TO ACHIEVE, EVERYTHING WAS MEANINGLESS, A CHASING AFTER WIND. NOTHING WAS GAINED UNDER THE SUN (2:11).

WHOEVER LOVES MONEY NEVER HAS MONEY ENOUGH; WHOEVER LOVES WEALTH, IS NEVER SATISFIED WITH IS INCOME (5:10).

The questions which the book raises are the very questions we are raising. Not only are we acquisitive, we are also inquisitive. Qoheleth raised questions about meaning (1:3), monotony (1:10), destiny (3:21), justice (6:8), nostalgia (7:10), and the future (8:7). It is his ability to give utterance to a deep and universal need -- a need to know the meaning of life -- that makes this book enduringly attractive.

It is appropriate that Ecclesiastes was one of the last books of the Old Testament written -- appropriate because the writer seems to remain open in his assessment. His penetrating questions point clearly in the direction of the answer of the New Testament.

The methods used by the writer to collect his data are amazingly up to date. As with all wisdom literature, of which Ecclesiastes is a vital part, there is an absence of "Thus saith the Lord." Data are gathered from observations. The writer is a man of his eyes. This is not to challenge the inspiration or authority of his words, but simply to recognize that revelation can reach us from the horizontal as well as the vertical. The material in this book could be called "the confessions/the reflections" of Qoheleth. Consider his own words:

I HAVE SEEN (1:14)

I THOUGHT TO MYSELF (1:16)

I APPLIED MYSELF (1:17)

I LEARNED (1:17)

I WILL TEST (2:1)

I TRIED (2:3)

I SURVEYED (2:11)

I TURNED MY THOUGHTS (2:12)

Qoheleth chose to view the world from a natural perspective ("under the sun") -- to meet his audience on its own ground -- in order to show them the utter futility of a soulless and Godless world.

Modern man is also a man of sight, his conclusions about life being based upon what he can see with his own eyes. But he has become so dependent upon his eyes that he is trapped. He can only perceive that which is seen. Failing to see God and to detect his purposes, modern man becomes weary and even disgusted, concurring with Qoheleth's worldly finding -- all is vanity.

The conclusion that Qoheleth arrives at is the same one that modern man reaches today: VANITY OF VANITIES, ALL IS VANITY (1:2). The Hebrew literary for "X of X" indicates the superlative and adds to the intensity of the statement (cf: King of Kings, Song of Songs; Holies of Holies). Not only vanity, but utter vanity.

The phrase emphasizes not only intensity, but also comprehensiveness --ALL IS VANITY. This includes deeds (1:17); pleasure (2:1); wealth (5:9); wisdom (2:13-15); injustice (8:17); and old age (11:8-10).

Ecclesiastes is one of the last books of the Hebrew Bible, if not the last. As Short observes, "Nowhere is the Old Testament as 'old' as it is in this book which forms the doorway to the new."42 The Jerusalem Bible concurs: "By underlining the inadequacies of earlier notions and by compelling reconsideration of the human enigma, Ecclesiastes exposes the need of a new revelation.43 In the words of Short, "Ecclesiastes is the Bible's night before Christmas."44  Qoholeth's purpose seems to be to raise the basic questions of life which only find answers in Christ. While he correctly observes that there is nothing new under the sun (1:9) we as Christians affirm that through Christ there is newness, "A new Commandment I give to you." (John 12:37) "If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation." (2 Corinthians 5:17) "Behold, I make all things new." (Revelation 21:5).

Copyright by author. 

ENDNOTES

 1. Charles A. Briggs, Alfred Plumer, and Samuel R. Driver, ed., The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1947), vol. 17: Ecclesiastes, by George Aaron Barton, pp. 43-44.

2. Morris Jastrow, A Gentile Cynic (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1919), pp. 9-10.

3. Ibid.,p. 10.

4. Ibid., p. 29-30.

5. A. H. McNeile, An Introduction to Ecclesiastes, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904), p. 21.

6. Ibid., pp. 30-31.

7. Briggs, pp. 43-44.

8. Ibid., pp. 44-45.

9. Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Story of the Old Testament ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 160.

10. Ibid.,

11. Frederic William Bush, David Allan Hubbard, and William Sandford Lasor, Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), p. 593.

12. Paul Haupt, The Book of Ecclesiastes (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1905), p. 3.

13. H. H. Rowley, ed., The Old Testament and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), p. 222.

14. Richard G. Moulton, Ecclesiastes and The Wisdom of Solomon (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1905), p. VII.

15. Briggs, p. 21. Original source not available.

16. Bush, p. 590.

17. G. S. Hendiry, Ecclesiastes in The New Bible Commentary, ed. D. Guthrie and J. N. Motyer (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1978), p. 570.

18. George G. Bradley, Lectures On Ecclesiastes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898), p. 10.

19. Irving L. Jensen, Jensen's Survey of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 301.

20. Harold I. Leiman, Koheleth - Life And Its Meaning (New York: Feldman Puglishers, 1978), pp. 14-15.

21. Goodspeed, p. 160.

22. F. Delitizch and C. F. Keil, Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. M. G. Easton (Grand Rapids: MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, no date), pp. 183-184).

23. John L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1976), p. 235.

24. J. A. Loaden, Polar Structures In The Book of Qoheleth (New York: Walter deGruyter, 1979), pp. 132-133.

25. James Hamilton, The Royal Preacher (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1853), p. 19.

26. John Peter Lange, Lange's Commentary: Ecclesiastes, trans. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 5.

27. Wesley J. Fuerst, The Five Scrolls: Ecclesiastes et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 95.

28. Louis Goldberg, Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1963), pp. 26-27.

29. Rowley, p. 224.

30. E. H. Plumptree, The Cambridge Bible for Schools (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Company, 1881), p. 53.

31. Charles F. Whitley, Koheleth (New York: Walter deGruyter, 1979), p. 178.

32. Gustav A. Carstensen, The Relation of Qoheleth To Contemporary Greek Philosophy (New York: Stettiner Brothers, 1903), p. 11.

33. Herbert C. Alleman, The Gist Of The Sermon (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1905), pp. 13-14.

34. Leiman, p. 14.

35. McNeile, p. 27.

36. Jastrow, p. 105.

37. Ibid., p. 106.

38. Samuel Sandmel, The Hebrew Scriptures (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963), pp. 269-270.

39. Lionel Basney, English literature lectures, Houghton College, Houghton, New York, Spring 1984.

40. Jay G. Williams, Understanding the Old Testament (New York: Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1972), pp. 298-300.

41. Robert Gordis, Koheleth - The Man And His World (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), p. VII.

42. Robert L. Short, A Time To Be Born - A Time To Die ( New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1973), p. 100.

43. The Jerusalem Bible (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1966), p. 978.

44. Short, p. 100.

Return to Carl Schultz's Links

 Houghton College Home Page

Email to cschultz@houghton.edu