Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually 9780567659125, 9780567331250, 9780567330086

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

587 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

READING ECCLESIASTES INTERTEXTUALLY

Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury, T&T Clark and the Diana logo are a registered trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2014 Paperback edition first published 2016 © Katharine Dell and Will Kynes, 2014 Katharine Dell and Will Kynes have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi¿ed as Editors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the authors.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this books is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: 978-0-56733-125-0 PB: 978-0-56766-790-8 ePDF: 978-0-56733-008-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this books is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) Printed and bound in Great Britain

CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations List of Contributors

ix xi xv

INTRODUCTION Katharine Dell and Will Kynes

xvii Part I

ECCLESIASTES IN DIALOGUE WITH THE HEBREW BIBLE EXPLORING INTERTEXTUAL LINKS BETWEEN ECCLESIASTES AND GENESIS 1–11 Katharine Dell FOLLOW YOUR HEART AND DO NOT SAY IT WAS A MISTAKE: QOHELETH’S ALLUSIONS TO NUMBERS 15 AND THE STORY OF THE SPIES Will Kynes

3

15

“BETTER THAT YOU SHOULD NOT VOW THAN THAT YOU VOW AND NOT FULFILL”: QOHELETH’S USE OF TEXTUAL ALLUSION AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF DEUTERONOMY’S LAW OF VOWS Bernard M. Levinson

28

QOHELETH AS SOLOMON: “FOR WHAT CAN ANYONE WHO COMES AFTER THE KING DO?” (ECCLESIASTES 2:12) Tremper Longman III

42

QOHELETH AND ISAIAH IN DIALOGUE Richard L. Schultz

57

vi

Contents

POLYPHONIC NARRATION IN ECCLESIASTES AND JONAH Mary Mills

71

OF SNAKES AND SINNERS: AN INTERTEXTUAL READING OF BA !AL HA-LASHON IN ECCLESIASTES 10:11 IN LIGHT OF ISH LASHON IN PSALM 140:12[11] Tova Forti

84

“AND THEY HAVE NO COMFORTER”: JOB AND ECCLESIASTES IN DIALOGUE Thomas Krüger

94

INTERTEXTUALITY AND ECONOMICS: READING ECCLESIASTES WITH PROVERBS Milton P. Horne

106

SEEKING AND FINDING IN ECCLESIASTES AND PROVERBS Daniel J. Estes

118

SOLOMON, WISDOM, AND LOVE: INTERTEXTUAL RESONANCE BETWEEN ECCLESIASTES AND SONG OF SONGS Brittany N. Melton

130

THE INNER-TEXTUALITY OF QOHELETH’S MONOLOGUE Stuart Weeks

142

Part II ECCLESIASTES IN DIALOGUE WITH TEXTS THROUGHOUT HISTORY ECCLESIASTES IN THE INTERTEXTUAL MATRIX OF ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN LITERATURE William H. U. Anderson

157

ECCLESIASTES AMONG THE COMEDIANS John Jarick

176

A REASSESSMENT OF SIRACH’S RELATIONSHIP TO QOHELETH: A CASE STUDY OF QOHELETH 3:15 AND SIRACH 5:3 Bradley C. Gregory

189

Contents

vii

INTERTEXTUAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON AND QOHELETH Lester L. Grabbe

201

WISDOM, APOCALYPTICISM AND INTERTEXTUALITY: THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES AND THE SOCIOLECT OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Matthew Goff

214

THE INTERTEXTUALITY OF ECCLESIASTES AND THE NEW TESTAMENT Craig G. Bartholomew

226

QOHELETH’S ISRAEL IN JEROME’S COMMENTARIUS IN ECCLESIASTEN Jennie Grillo

240

ECCLESIASTES, AUGUSTINE’S UTI/FRUI DISTINCTION, AND CHRIST AS THE WASTE OF THE WORLD Susannah Ticciati

253

EXAMPLES OF INTERTEXTUALITY IN ECCLESIASTES RABBAH: AN EXAMINATION OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS IN ECCLESIASTES RABBAH WITH METHODOLOGICAL NUANCES Michail Kitsos

268

REMEMBERING IN ONE’S YOUTH: KIERKEGAARD READING ECCLESIASTES AS AN EDIFYING DISCOURSE Hugh S. Pyper

283

ECCLESIASTES IN DIALOGUE WITH MODERNITY: A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH Daniel J. Treier

295

Index of References Index of Authors

309 323

1

PREFACE Having edited Reading Job Intertextually, the editors felt compelled to answer that book’s incessant, though implicit, call for a similar book on Ecclesiastes. The editors had seen the fresh insight that a group of scholars bringing a range of intertextual approaches and scholarly specialties could offer on a text as entangled in the intertextual web of the Hebrew Bible and world literature as Job. It was as if Àoodlights were aimed at the book from a series of new angles, illuminating elements that had long been obscure even while casting unfamiliar shadows, which enlightened in their own way. Job is often read solely in the context of a cordoned-off Wisdom Literature, but this intertextual approach brought it into a broader conversation, one the editors were pleased to share with their fellow contributors. It is hoped that this book will do the same for Ecclesiastes, a book that offers similar possibilities for intertextual illumination, though joining them with its own distinctive challenges. Both the book of Ecclesiastes and its contribution to the intertextual dialogue in the Hebrew Bible and beyond are different to that of Job. Though the two books are often considered together as “skeptical” or “secondary” Wisdom Literature, they each contribute a unique voice to the broader canonical conversation. The editors hope that this book, like the earlier one on Job, will enable scholars and students of Ecclesiastes to hear this voice. To the contributors, who have created their own intertextual dialogue in the pages that follow, the editors would like to express their gratitude. They would also like to thank the SBL International Wisdom Literature group for hosting a section on intertextuality in Ecclesiastes in July 2012, at which several of the papers to follow were initially presented. Finally they would like to thank Andrew Mein and Claudia Camp at Continuum/ T&T Clark International for their continued support of this project. Katharine Dell Will Kynes

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABR ACCS ACW AEL AnBib ANET AntOr AOTC ASTI ATANT AUSS BASOR BBC BBR BC BCOTWP BDB BET BETL Bib BibInt BIS BJS BKAT BN BRev BTCB BZ BZAW CBET CBQ CBR

Anchor Bible Australian Biblical Review Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Ancient Christian Writers. 1946– Ancient Egyptian Literature. M. Lichtheim. 3 vols. Berkeley, 1971–80 Analecta biblica Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3d ed. Princeton, 1969 Antiguo Oriente Apollos Old Testament Commentary Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute in Jerusalem Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Andrews University Seminary Studies Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research Blackwell Bible Commentaries Bulletin of Biblical Research Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblical Interpretation Series Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Biblische Notizen Bible Review Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research

xii CC CCSL CFTL COS CSHB DBWE DCH DJD DSD EdF EHS ErIsr ETL EvQ ExpTim FOTL GAP HAT HBM HBS HS HSS HTKAT HTR HUCA ICC JAJSup JAL JBL JBQ JD JHS JJS JLT JNSL JPS JQR JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS JTSA KAT 1

Abbreviations Continental Commentaries Corpus Christianorum: Series latina Clark’s Foreign Theological Library. 4th series The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden, 1997–2003 Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. 8 vols. Shef¿eld, 1993–2011 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Erträge der Forschung Europäische Hochschulschriften Eretz-Israel Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Forms of the Old Testament Literature Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Handbuch zum Alten Testament Hebrew Bible Monographs Herders Biblische Studien Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Studies Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Journal of Ancient Judaism: Supplement Series Jewish Apocryphal Literature Series Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly Jian Dao Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Literature and Theology Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Publication Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies The Jewish Theological Seminary of America Kommentar zum Alten Testament

Abbreviations KJV

LCBI LCL LHBOTS LW LXX

McNR MdB MLR MT

NAC NAS

NEchtB NICOT NICNT NIDOTTE NIV NRSV

NSKAT NZSTh OLA OLZ OTE OTG OTL OTM PhL PL PTL QC RB RevExp RevQ RNBC SBAB SBLDS SBLEJL SBLit SBTS SC SEǖ

xiii

Kings James Version Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation Loeb Classical Library Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Luther’s Works Septuagint McNeese Review Le Monde de la Bible Modern Language Review Masoretic Text New American Commentary New American Standard Bible Neue Echter Bibel New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis New International Version New Revised Standard Version Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar, Altes Testament Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Old Testament Essays Old Testament Guide Old Testament Library Oxford Theological Monographs Philosophy and Literature Patrologia latina [= Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina]. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–64 PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature Qumran Chronicle Revue biblique Review and Expositor Revue de Qumran Readings—A New Biblical Commentary Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Studies in Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Sources Chrétiennes. Paris, 1943– Svensk Exegetisk ǖrsbok

xiv SemeiaSt SJOT SJT StAC STDJ SUNT TBN TDNT

ThH THL TOTC TrinJ TS TynBul UBW VT VTSup WBC WLAW ZAW ZDMGSup ZDPV

1

Abbreviations Semeia Studies Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Scottish Journal of Theology Studies in Antiquity and Christianity Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Themes in Biblical Narrative Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–76 Théologie historique Theory and History of Literature Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Trinity Journal Texts and Studies Tyndale Bulletin Understanding the Bible and its World Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wisdom Literature from the Ancient World Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft: Supplementbände Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Dr. William H. U. Anderson, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Concordia University College of Alberta Professor Craig Bartholomew, H. Evan Runner Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Religion and Theology, Redeemer University College and Principal of The Paideia Centre for Public Theology Dr. Katharine Dell, Reader in Old Testament Literature and Theology, University of Cambridge and Fellow of St Catharine’s College, Cambridge Dr. Daniel J. Estes, Distinguished Professor of Old Testament, Cedarville University Dr. Tova L. Forti, Senior Lecturer, Department of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Dr. Matthew Goff, Associate Professor, Florida State University Professor Lester L. Grabbe,Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism,͒University of Hull Dr. Bradley C. Gregory, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, Catholic University of America Jennie Grillo, Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Duke Divinity School Dr. Milton P. Horne, Professor of Religion, William Jewell College Dr. John Jarick, Departmental Lecturer in Old Testament Studies, University of Oxford

xvi

Contributors

Michail Kitsos, PhD Student in Rabbinics; Jewish History of Late Antiquity, University of Michigan Professor Dr. Thomas Krüger, Professor of Old Testament Studies and ancient Near Eastern History of Religion, University of Zurich Dr. Will Kynes, Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Whitworth University Dr. Bernard M. Levinson, Berman Family Chair of Jewish Studies and Hebrew Bible, University of Minnesota Tremper Longman III, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies, Westmont College Brittany N. Melton, PhD Candidate in Old Testament, University of Cambridge Professor Mary Mills, Honorary Research Professor of Biblical Studies, Liverpool Hope University Professor Hugh S. Pyper, Professor of Biblical Interpretation, University of Shef¿eld Professor Richard L. Schultz, Blanchard Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College Dr Susannah Ticciati, Senior Lecturer in Systematic Theology, King’s College London Dr. Daniel J. Treier, Blanchard Professor of Theology, Wheaton College Professor Stuart Weeks, Professor in Old Testament and Hebrew, Durham University

1

INTRODUCTION Katharine Dell and Will Kynes

Whilst this volume was conceived as a companion to the volume on Job, and though we have taken a similar method,1 it has been interesting how an intertextual approach has shown up many key differences between the two books. This in turn feeds into the discussion of whether they should indeed be paired together as “wisdom in revolt,” both displaying skeptical tendencies, or whether in fact they demonstrate how different socalled wisdom books can be. Whilst Job seemed to lend itself very naturally to intertextual comparison, on a diachronic level with its pages being full of clear quotations, parodies and echoes of other texts, and on a synchronic level being an approachable subject matter with which a wide range of texts resonate, Ecclesiastes, like the author of its pages, has proved more elusive. Part I of the book has Ecclesiastes in dialogue with the Hebrew Bible, not in its entirety but where useful parallels can be found. But our ¿nding is that these allusions are more subtle and limited in scope than we found in Job, though they continue to illuminate the text in valuable ways. The volume begins with consideration of the most widely cited intertext with Ecclesiastes, Gen 1–11, and the parallels are looked at afresh. Indeed Katharine Dell’s ¿nding is that, whilst many scholars have waxed lyrical over the connections, a more rigorous investigation ¿nds the criteria used in such scholarship as ill-de¿ned and often overstated. Dell calls for a more focused set of criteria for judging such intertextual links and for caution in overstating the connections that can indeed be found. In relation to Ecclesiastes the quest for intertextual links has often related to one or two verses only, as in Will Kynes’s essay on Eccl 11:9 and its links with Num 15:39, a link noted by the rabbis as a potential 1. For further reÀection on the intentional mix of “diachronic” and “synchronic” intertextual approaches we have encouraged our contributors to explore, see the introduction to the Job volume (Dell and Kynes 2013, xv–xxiii).

xviii

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

contradiction and pursued by early translators who made verbal changes to bring the texts into agreement. Kynes looks at the wider context of the allusion by considering the wider story of the spies to which the Numbers text itself alludes and draws our attention to an important corrective to the idea that intertextuality is simply about “source-hunting.” Rather the contextual meeting-point should be of key concern with this method, and this applies to both texts, which leads Kynes to draw our attention to a second intertext with Num 15 in Eccl 5:5. This and the other allusion to Num 15 in Eccl 11:9 suggest that that chapter and the closely connected spies story Àow as an undercurrent below Qoheleth’s turbulent message. Consideration of ch. 5 of Ecclesiastes leads us on to Levinson’s essay on “allusion” (a term he prefers to “intertextuality”) to Deuteronomy. He argues in detail that Eccl 5:3–4 deliberately reworked Deut 23:22–4, providing a clear diachronic connection between these two texts. It was not simply a matter of citation or proof-texting for the author, rather the reworking was a critique and a personal ownership of the issue in a wisdom context. Again the rabbis had got there long before us and it is interesting to reÀect on how they used “harmonization with torah” as an important criterion for canonizing this book. Another type of intertextual connection is made in Ecclesiastes between the ¿gure of Solomon as he is indicated in the book and this same ¿gure in the wider canon of scripture. This issue is addressed by Tremper Longman III, focusing on the intertextual relationship between 1 Kgs 1–11 and Ecclesiastes and on the traditional identi¿cation of Qoheleth as Solomon and hence on Solomon as the author of this book. He employs both a diachronic and a synchronic reading to reveal the literary strategy of deliberate association of the two ¿gures of Qoheleth and Solomon, but not identi¿cation, and to explore the case of mistaken identity between the two that characterized early midrashim, again bringing us back to the rabbis. The following essay by Richard Schulz puts Qoheleth into dialogue with the prophet Isaiah, ¿rst on a diachronic, authorial level in which he questions, as Dell did with Genesis, some of the eager quest for author-intentional parallels, and secondly from a more “readerly” angle asking whether reading Isaiah through the lens of Qoheleth’s worldview might stimulate fresh understanding of the prophetic text. He focuses in particular on the connection between Eccl 10:16–17 and Isa 5:22, but broadens out to other texts from across the canonical Isaiah, including the fascinating servant song connections. From a major prophet, we move on to a minor one in the form of Jonah. In a Bakhtinian consideration of polyphonic narration as a helpful method for unlocking both texts from a readerly synchronic approach, 1

DELL AND KYNES Introduction

xix

Mary Mills draws our attention to the narratival identity of each text through the narrative voice and its conversation(s) within the self. She writes, “Qoheleth’s reÀections demonstrate how paradox takes shape as inner voices compete to control meaning while Jonah 3 utilises internal and external voices to create a message about the paradoxical nature of urban community.” Her ¿ndings are that each author employs different narrative conversations and each contains opposing voices. Our task is to hear them afresh. Drawing us back to a very speci¿c parallel is Tova Forti’s essay comparing Eccl 10:11 with Ps 140:12 on the topic of the snake charmer. Again the wider context of each verse is important. She argues for an unintentional intertextuality that links the fool and the wicked through the imagery of the snake. Whilst the snake charmer who prevents his snake from biting is a “fool,” the wicked are also like snakes, spreading venom and poison with their tongues. The most obvious partners for intertextual comparison are perhaps the other “wisdom” books of Job and Proverbs, and in this context Thomas Krüger tackles the comparison with Job. Whilst he prefers a diachronic approach, he recognizes that authorial intent is hard to prove and prefers to use the language of “a sidelong glance.” He considers key sections of Ecclesiastes, such as 4:1–3; 5:12–6:6; 6:10; 7:15–20 and 8:10–15, showing at each point how Job could be a key example of a wider principle. It is interesting to compare this essay with that in Reading Job Intertextually by Schultz that looked at texts from Job and their partners in Ecclesiastes and note some overlap between the two studies, but by no means exactly the same examples or approach, with Schulz’s essay focusing more on verbal association than thematic resonance and only mentioning thematic concerns brieÀy at the end, whilst Krüger’s takes that as a main focus. This not only shows the subjectivity of intertextual approaches but also indicates that one’s “Vortext” inÀuences one’s selection from the second text (or more) under consideration. Arguably the closest and most signi¿cant “inspiration” for Qoheleth and his book was the book of Proverbs, the mainspring of the wisdom enterprise. There are two essays that cover this connection, the ¿rst by Milton Horne. He considers the Solomonic link between Ecclesiastes and Proverbs as enshrined in the superscriptions to both books, but then goes further to consider Solomon’s other reputation for “wealth” and the musings of both books on that topic and on economic matters. He draws a fascinating comparison with the Aristotelian notion of “use value versus exchange value,” opening up a fresh synchronic angle on the reading of both texts and ¿nding a particular echo in Qoheleth’s sentiment

xx

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

that the real value of wealth comes from the ability to enjoy it. A rather different angle is taken by Daniel Estes, who focuses on the vocabulary of “seeking” and “¿nding” in both books. He notes how intertextual links can vary from extensive allusion to just an echo and explores connections at both extremes of the spectrum. He argues for diachronic links with deliberate textual allusions of Proverbs from the author of Ecclesiastes, with some reversals of idea that supplement rather than subvert. Another book with a Solomonic link to Ecclesiastes is the Song of Songs, and Brittany Melton explores that link in relation to the literary recalling of the Solomonic persona in the context of Solomon’s reputation for both wisdom and love. She looks at the exhortation to pursue wisdom in both books and at the use of the language of “the lover” in that context. Finally she considers the speci¿c intertext of Eccl 9:9 with various sentiments concerning wisdom and love in the Song of Songs, preferring to use the language of “resonance” to describe such intertextual connections. The ¿nal essay in Part I is a more introspective one, looking at the “inner-textuality” of Qoheleth’s book, which Stuart Weeks sees as essentially a “monologue” rather than a “dialogue.” It is a monologue, though, with “contradictions,” as identi¿ed by the rabbis, and tensions abound that are deliberately set up and not resolved by the author. Weeks argues that Qoheleth often uses allusions in the service of his monologue, allusions across his own work that are often self-referential and repetitious. This forms an interesting antidote to our quest for intertextual allusions across the rest of the Hebrew Bible and raises the question of how far Ecclesiastes relied on such wider allusion to make his points. Weeks argues that the book is self-suf¿cient and self-sustaining. This links back to the opening reÀection on how Ecclesiastes rather differs from Job—one wonders just how self-suf¿cient, in literary terms, the author of Job really was. In other words, whilst Ecclesiastes tends to look inwards, Job is a more outward-looking, eclectic text. This may lead to a questioning of the pairing of the two both within the “wisdom” corpus and under its umbrella as a whole. However, the essays in Part I also demonstrate that Ecclesiastes is by no means an isolated text without key conversation partners. This reveals another tension about the book that adds to its conundrums. Part II concerns the wider dialogue of Ecclesiastes with a wide variety of texts across many historical periods. It opens with a comparison with ancient Near Eastern literature by William Anderson. Because of the likelihood of actual historical and literary links, a diachronic approach is favoured here which is not simply comparative but looks at the Àuidity 1

DELL AND KYNES Introduction

xxi

of ideas between comparable texts. Egyptian texts are considered, such as The Dispute between a Man and his Ba, the Instruction of Amenemhet, and the Song of Intef, along with the Babylonian Councils of a Pessimist and Dialogue of Pessimism. The multi-cultural Epic of Gilgamesh also provides a clear literary parallel, and the conclusion is drawn that there is allusion from the author of Ecclesiastes to other texts and also echoes that suggest that these texts breathed a shared cultural air. Turning to the Greeks, John Jarick offers a look at Hellenistic cultural parallels through the refreshing lens of comedy, rather than that of skepticism or pessimism. This is essentially a synchronic intertextual comparison that sets the question of dependence aside. Jarick looks at comic poets, notably Aristophanes and Menander, plus other fragments in the light of which Qoheleth’s “words of pleasure” (Eccl 12:10) may acquire a comedic tone that differs so markedly from the usual evaluation of this author as gloomy and pessimistic. Extra-canonical material forms the subject of the next two essays on Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, companion wisdom books. Bradley Gregory looks in general terms at the relationship between Ecclesiastes and Sirach and at scholarly arguments for and against some degree of dependence, and then in depth at Eccl 3:15 and Sir 5:3, widely considered a case of textual allusion, but for Gregory revealing little more than an echo. He calls for a careful look at methodology when drawing such parallels and stresses the importance of context. Grabbe takes a more thematic approach to connections between Ecclesiastes and the Wisdom of Solomon and notes their opposing views. The Solomonic link comes into view again along with key themes of wisdom literature—the contrast between the righteous and the wicked and the importance of knowledge. The question of a possible afterlife is a key difference, though both texts air ideas of the “soul.” The pious attitude to wisdom versus the skeptical is also quite different between the two books. The consideration of links between Ecclesiastes and these early Jewish texts invites an examination of relevant Dead Sea Scrolls, notably those connected with the sapiential tradition. Although the evidence for any kind of connection is sparse, in fact a study of the thematic differences in outlook between Qoheleth and the world view of the Dead Sea sectarians is instructive. It is related to wider scholarly theories about the link between wisdom and apocalyptic—did one develop into another? Goff suggests that an intertextual reading opens up possibilities of engagement with the text of Ecclesiastes amongst the “sociolect” of the Qumran community. Consideration of Qumran leads naturally into reÀection upon the New Testament, and Craig Bartholomew handles this issue in an essay

xxii

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

on inter-Testamental intertextuality. He airs the possible quotation from Eccl 7:20 in Rom 3:20, which is a starting point for a dialogue between the two works. More thematic links follow and Bartholomew calls us to develop a “literary sensibility” towards the riches that can be gained from an open intertextual approach. The history of interpretation now opens up new vistas of understanding for the rest of Part II. Jennie Grillo (née Barbour) looks at Jerome’s Commentarius in Ecclesiasten and at his inherently “intertextual” method of interpreting the biblical book. She focuses on texts where Jerome speaks of Israel through Qoheleth’s eyes and on his intention to bring this into line with the larger textual picture of the biblical Israel, both its landscape and cities. Augustine is the subject of Susannah Ticciati’s essay on a dialogue between Ecclesiastes and an Augustinian tradition of the afterlife expressed both in De Civitate dei and De Doctrina Christiana. Her work also draws on intertexts from the Gospels to shed light on concepts of hebel and pneuma and on readings of Christ’s death through the lens of Ecclesiastes. Turning from Christian to Jewish sources, Michail Kitsos considers the midrashic text Ecclesiastes Rabbah and in particular its extensive use of citation of the Psalter to interpret Ecclesiastes. He also reÀects at some length on method, making a distinction between monoform intertextuality and multiform intertextuality, both of which have sub-forms which he applies to this text and its psalmic allusions. We end Part II by moving to modern times with Hugh Pyper’s essay on Kierkegaard and Ecclesiastes, which aims to shed light on both by the intertextual comparison. As he writes, “To read Kierkegaard reading Ecclesiastes, then, is to juxtapose one set of inherited interpretive traditions…to another...and observe their intersection.” Even Kierkegaard’s use of pseudonymity is paralleled in the Qoheleth/Solomon pseudonym. Pyper focuses on an “Upbuilding Discourse” that Kierkegaard bases on Eccl 12:1, which forms a clear precursor to intertextual methods. The ¿nal essay by Daniel Treier takes us into the realm of modern literature, focusing on Goethe’s Faust and Heidegger’s Being and Time and suggesting a Bakhtinian “polyphonic” theology of intertextuality as a means of bringing the ancient and modern texts together. It is our hope that this volume, whilst showing the very different character of Ecclesiastes in comparison to its Joban companion, still demonstrates the endless freshness and variety of interpretation that intertextual approaches, of both diachronic and synchronic kinds, can unveil. It has revealed a web of interconnections that often take us from comparing 1

DELL AND KYNES Introduction

xxiii

two texts to comparing three or more and can span different cultures, ages and a host of different presuppositions. It is also our hope that continued reÀection on the intertextual method itself will generate further responses to this most elusive of biblical books. Bibliography Dell, Katharine, and Will Kynes. 2013. Introduction. Pages xv–xxiii in Reading Job Intertextually. Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. LHBOTS 574. New York: T&T Clark.

Part I

ECCLESIASTES IN DIALOGUE WITH THE HEBREW BIBLE

EXPLORING INTERTEXTUAL LINKS BETWEEN ECCLESIASTES AND GENESIS 1–11 Katharine Dell

It seems to be a given of scholarship that there are clear links between Ecclesiastes and Gen 1–11, the so-called Primeval History. As William Anderson writes, admittedly in a footnote, “In fact, I have not come across a single scholar who denies Qoheleth’s use of the Genesis material” (1998, 99 n. 2). Older scholars, such as H. Hertzberg, argued that Qoheleth actually had Gen 1–4 in front of him as an inspiration when writing his book. He wrote, “Das Buch Qohelet ist geschrieben mit Gn 1–4 vor den Augen seine Verfassers; die Lebens anschauung Qohelet’s ist an der schöpfungsgeschichte gebildet” (1963, 230), and Norbert Loh¿nk (2003) argued that Qoheleth had “reread” the tradition enshrined in these early chapters of Genesis. Perhaps most famously, Charles Forman stated the case in detail in an article entitled “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” in which he wrote the concluding words, “It is my contention that the early chapters of Genesis represent the most important single inÀuence in the ideas of Ecclesiastes regarding the nature and destiny of man, the character of human existence, and the fact of God” (1960, 263). Turning to commentaries on both texts, most commentators on Ecclesiastes mention it.1 Roland Murphy, for example, mentions the connection, but actually states that intertextual wisdom connections are more signi¿cant in the book (1992, xlii). Genesis commentators mention it less frequently, possibly because Genesis seems to have so many interesting intertexts both within the Bible and in the wider ancient Near East, but some do, such as Claus Westermann (1998). Also, Genesis is widely regarded as the earlier text, so that diachronic inÀuence from Ecclesiastes to Genesis is not considered an option, which limits the signi¿cance of literary links between them for the interpretation of Genesis. There are a few voices that speak out against the eager linkings of the two texts with one another, notably Crenshaw in his commentary on Ecclesiastes. He writes, “Although Forman’s claim (1960) that he 1. Krüger (2004) is one example among many.

4

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

[Qohelet] worked with Genesis 1–11 in hand surely exaggerates things, Qohelet’s observation about creation may reÀect familiarity with the priestly narrative” (1987, 38).2 This opens up another question about whether by the time Ecclesiastes was ¿nalized, the Priestly material of the Pentateuch, and even the entire Torah, was a well-known and wellused text whose thought-world inÀuenced later texts such as this one. So what is the nature of these links? Does it amount to clear citation of an “earlier” text, or are we really talking about thematic similarities? The present study is part of a larger volume on intertextuality, and it seems to me that a problem arises when we start to try to de¿ne the nature of an “intertext.” Is thematic similarity enough on its own, or do we need clear evidence of linguistic connections, citation and common words, literary characteristics in common and so on? I would suggest that, following Kynes (2012) and others, that intertextual connections are best identi¿ed by a combination of these features. Furthermore, do we have to restrict ourselves to a diachronic scheme whereby there has to be evidence of authorial citation, or are we able to point synchronically to interesting thematic similarities that may or may not have been meant, but are interpretively illuminating nonetheless? I have said elsewhere that combining diachronic and synchronic approaches can provide greater insight than either taken separately (Dell 2013a). As Kynes writes, “the interpretation of allusions best lies in the interface between diachronic and synchronic approaches” (2012, 29). The main discussion among scholars in this case, however, seems to have been a diachronic one. Did the author of Ecclesiastes, however he is de¿ned,3 have the text of Gen 1–4 in front of him, as Loh¿nk maintained? Or are we actually merely speaking of a shared realm of thought? The diachronic argument for the possibility of inÀuence is that Ecclesiastes is widely agreed to be the later text, which would suggest its author is here reacting to existing ideas. Can this be found in his treatment of Genesis-type themes? We know from his use of the wisdom tradition and his citation then reinterpretation techniques that his tendency is to challenge received wisdom and traditional ideas (Gordis 1939–40). In some ways, as a later text, one might expect to ¿nd more direct quotations,4 but in fact there is a certain restraint here on Qoheleth’s part in doing that, rather preferring the sound of his own, albeit pessimistic, voice. 2. See also Michel 1990. 3. There is, of course, major discussion regarding whether the book is composite. I follow the usual view that the Epilogue (12:9–14) was probably added by a later hand, but that the rest of the book is the product of one mind. 4. Cf. the book of Jonah as a later text full of citations. See Dell 1996.

DELL Exploring Intertextual Links

5

Theological parallels are always interesting, but are we placing the search for those over a strictly intertextual method? Anderson prefers to use the term “theological criticism” when speaking of links between these two texts. He de¿nes this as “the science and art of discerning possible theological concepts and motifs of the Bible in relationship with each other” (1998, 100 n. 3). Maybe this is a more appropriate term for describing what appears to be going on here, if indeed the main parallels are found to be thematic, although this term too suffers from being very broad. Once thematic parallels are acknowledged and prioritized in this way, the Àood gates are open for parallels. The themes are large overarching ones of God as creator, of concern with humanity as a whole. The criteria for links becomes increasingly broad, and so we need to ask whether these are simply related theological ideas that might arise in a canon of texts whose main concern is with God, the world and humanity, or whether there are echoes between these two texts in particular. Some have gone as far as to classify Gen 1–11 as a wisdom text on the basis of parallels with the wisdom world view (Alonso-Schökel 1976; Anderson 1998). I do feel this is overstated, and it of course depends on where one places the boundaries of de¿nition, but it shows that considerable linkage of ideas has been found. The question is, then, how to evaluate this whole substructure of the Primeval History on which Qoheleth might have been building for his worldview. What would have been Qoheleth’s motive in drawing on this text? Is there a broader link here with Torah and the authority it had already gained by the time of the author/redactor, as has been suggested (see below), and indeed with the canon as a whole? Was the author simply drawing on tradition, or an accompanying sense of irony at the wisdom endeavour (Sharp 2004), or even a liminal ¿gure on the edge of the wisdom tradition.5 All kinds of suggestions of motive have been made. Following Kynes (2012, 30), I believe it is helpful to subdivide the notion of intertextual links into three categories—that of quotation (explicit, intentional reference), allusion (implicit, intentional reference) and echo (implicit, unintentional reference). Since none of the potential links between Genesis and Ecclesiastes are explicit, I will attempt to determine which of the latter two categories they fall into.

5. Chia 1995, 32: “Qoheleth may well be a liminar or liminal intellectual practicing a liminal theology.” I am grateful to my former Ph.D. student, Simon Cheung, for looking up Chia’s article for me in Hong Kong, there being no copy of the relevant journal accessible in the UK.

6

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

The ¿rst hint of a connection with Genesis is sometimes found in the second verse of Ecclesiastes, and then repeated 38 times—the use of the word =39, “vanity, vapour, breath.”6 The link is with the name of the second son of Eve, Abel, from the same root, referenced in Gen 4.7 Even the name Cain is also paralleled in the use of 9?B in Eccl 2:7. And maybe Seth (from E, “to place, put,” suggesting substitution) is “that youth” who replaced his older brother in Eccl 4:15. Let us look more closely at this view. The main proponent of this connection is Radisa Antic (2006) in an article entitled “Cain, Abel, Seth, and the Meaning of Human Life as Portrayed in the Books of Genesis and Ecclesiastes.” She offers a theological/philosophical viewpoint on these links. She argues that the characteristics of the three characters of Gen 4 reappear in Ecclesiastes. She reads a good deal into the meaning of the names, relating Cain (*JB) philologically to 9?B (“to acquire, gain, possess”) and emphasizing his many possessions but lack of relationship with God; and Abel to =39 (“vanity, vapour, breath”), with its sense of transience and worthlessness and emphasizing Abel’s lack of role, despite his obedience to God. Seth’s name suggesting substitution and Eve’s description of him as a “gift of God” makes him the third person in the triangle. Antic explores the link of =39 in Ecclesiastes and in Eccl 12:11; the term “shepherd” deliberately, she thinks, echoes Abel’s occupation. She points to 9?B in Eccl 2:7 indicating the character of Cain. She writes, “After having described the mentality of Abel in Eccl 1 and that of Cain in ch. 2, the author expresses one of the most puzzling dilemmas in human existence: ‘Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve [the mentality of Cain], everything was meaningless [the perception of Abel]’” (210). She links Seth with expressions about “the gift of God” in Eccl 2:24; 3:13; 5:1 (only “gift”), 19 (“from the hand of God”) and 9:9 and she ¿nds an allusion to Seth in Eccl 4:15, with the “second son” standing in the place of the ¿rst. But the linkage of Seth to her discussion of the other two sons of Adam is strained at best. She argues that there may not in fact be any linguistic connection between Gen 4 and Ecclesiastes, but there is de¿nitely a thematic one. She speaks of beginnings and endings of the book—everything is =39 at the beginning, and at the end, in 12:13, “the whole of man” is addressed. She writes, “By stating that ‘everything is Abel’ and by concluding with ‘everything is Adam,’ the author of Ecclesiastes speaks about the only

6. The meaning of=39 is much debated. See the discussion in Seow 2000. 7. See Neher 1951; Ellul 1990.

DELL Exploring Intertextual Links

7

possible solution and hope for humanity, that is, the new-birth or newcreation experience that comes from God. The new world and the new man must be put in place of the present one” (Antic 2006, 211). While Antic’s argument is a cumulative one, and while the synchronic aspect of this reading discovers some rather fascinating and clever connections, I fail to be convinced by this example. The whole edi¿ce is really based on the =39/Abel connection, which amounts to little more than one small echo. Beyond that the parallels are weak and the only real link is a rather tenuous theologizing that lacks compelling diachronic evidence of authorial intent.8 Anyway, we need to look at more examples. Moving onto more solid theological ground, Eccl 1:5–8, 12, with its idea of cycles of nature in the overall context of the created order, seems a more likely contender for a theological link. Forman cites this as forming a link with the establishment of “order” after the Àood (Gen 8:21). However, the difference with Genesis is that creation is not portrayed in such a cyclical way—an order is established by God in a cyclical pattern in Gen 1, and the sun and wind mentioned (and streams in Gen 2:6), but the created order itself is not presented as cyclical. Further, in Ecclesiastes there is no mention of God’s role in the cycle; rather, a different point is being made about things remaining the same from one generation to another not necessarily in a negative context (Dell 2009). Forman sees a difference in perspective between the positive appraisal of the order of Genesis and the negative rejection of it in Ecclesiastes, arguing for “meaningless repetition” as the key to interpretation of these verses in the context of the wider unit, 1:3–11 (cf. Eccl 1:15; 7:13), but I have argued elsewhere vv. 4–7 should not simply be relativized by vv. 8 and 9, and that these cycles are to be primarily understood in the context of the permanence of the earth in v. 4. This interest in nature, linking up with creation, could however form part of a bigger theological picture, but actual allusion or even echo is lacking. Ecclesiastes 2:4–6 has come up for discussion in connection with Gen 1–2, notably the story of the Garden of Eden. An article by Arian Verheij states the case clearly.9 He argues that in the “royal experiment” section in Eccl 1:12–2:26 Qohelet not only poses as a king, Solomon, but for a moment as God. He argues 2:4–6 is a paraphrase of the planting of the 8. Compare, Sharp, who contrasts “apparent newness and the inescapable reality of sameness” as characterizing the beginning of Qoheleth and “cosmic and anthropomorphic images of disintegration” (2004, 37) in 12:2–6 as the ending, which rather indicates that such statements are rather subjective. 9. Verheij 1991; cf. Sharp (2004), in a highly theological/philosophical comparison.

8

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

Garden of Eden, with Qohelet himself as subject in the place of God. So we read, “I planted vineyards for myself; I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees” (NRSV). There is of course vocabulary here reminiscent of Gen 1–2, notably (to cite Verheij) ? (“to plant,” Gen 2:8), *8 (“garden,” Gen 2:8, 9, 10, 15, 16), #/=4 (“to sprout,” Gen 1:7, 16, 25, 26), 9 (“to work or make,” Gen 1:7, 16, 25, 26, 31; 2:2, 3, 4, 18). Verheij admits that these are indeed common words in Biblical Hebrew, but that the combined occurrence of them here and in Genesis “establishes a ¿rm link between the texts” (1991, 114).10 Verheij notes that the outcome of this gardening is very different in the two cases—Eden is part of the “good” creation and is a positive outcome of the creative work; for Qoheleth, however, it is ultimately a worthless task. Once again, I feel with this example that the case has been overstated. This is indeed common vocabulary, and the echoes are spread all over Gen 1–2. The words are not especially distinctive; indeed, they are common enough to make the case for intentional allusion weak. Ecclesiastes 2:22–23, with its emphasis on the strain of toil, might owe something to Gen 3:17, where the man is cursed and his punishment is to toil the ground (in contrast to the light tilling of Gen 2:15). Forman notes that Qoheleth “converts the physical toil of Genesis into mental toil” (1960, 262), and so is able to cite Eccl 1:13; 3:11; 6:7 and 8:17 as corroborating verses. But this alignment seems a stretch to me. Anderson sees Qoheleth’s attitude to the hardship of work as an “exposé” of Gen 3:17–19, which, in the way it goes beyond the toil of Gen 2:15, is clearly the kind of toil to which Qoheleth refers. However, I believe Anderson overstates his case here, when he concludes “allusion to Gen. 3:17–19 by Qoheleth helps prove his thesis that ‘everything is absurd’” (1998, 106). Indeed, this example amounts to little more than a shared motif—an echo maybe but little more than that. The main evidence has to be in Eccl 3:9–20, especially the link of 3:9– 10 with Gen 3:17–19; of 3:11 with Gen 1:31 and Gen 1–3; and of Eccl 3:19–20 with Gen 2:7; 3:19. Clemens writes that “Virtually all commentators recognize that E 3:20 and 12:7 allude to Gn. 3:19” (1994, 8 n. 8).11 Let us look at this. Ecclesiastes 3:9–10 speaks again of toil, ¿rst of its pointlessness in terms of “gain,” and second of its being intrinsic to human nature. In some ways Qoheleth sees toil here in more positive 10. Citing Hertzberg 1963. 11. See also Müller 1992.

DELL Exploring Intertextual Links

9

terms as part of the human condition than Genesis does in seeing it as a punishment. Ecclesiastes 2:22–23, cited above, relates more closely to this Genesis text. Ecclesiastes 3:11 expresses thoughts on time (see Bundvad forthcoming) and God’s direction of “suitable times.” God is said to have given man a sense of past and future, but then there is the point that God has not revealed his larger “time plan” (cf. Eccl 8:7–8). The link with Gen 1:31 is not compelling—this text summarizes the goodness of God’s creation, which, of course, within Gen 1, has included creation of the luminaries, light and day, seasons and other factors associated with time. Ecclesiastes does not explicitly state the goodness of creation. Then there is Eccl 3:19–20 and Gen 2:7 and 3:19. Here we have musings from Qoheleth on the nature of humanity—that humans and animals ultimately die, share the same “breath” (IHC) and are born of “dust” (CA) and “return” (3H) to it. Of course, in Gen 2:7 we are ¿rst told of the creation of “man” ()5 ) from the “dust” (CA) and the breathing into his nostrils of the “breath” (E>?) of “life” (IHC is not used here). The animals are not yet mentioned, but come along later without an emphasis on the “life-breath.” In Gen 3:19 we have a reiteration of the dust theme and here there is very similar language used between the two texts: “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return (3H) to the ground (9>5 ), for out of it you were taken; you are dust (CA), and to dust you shall return.” Here the nature of humanity as “dust” is a punishment rather than a fact of life, as in the earlier Genesis text (2:7), and forms part of the fall of man. We read in Eccl 3:20: “All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.” Clearly the language is similar, especially CA (“dust”) and 3H (“return”) but here Qoheleth is speaking of humans and animals and the following verse actually raises the possibility that “dust” is not the end but that a spirit (IHC) of humans may go up and that of animals may go down, although no one actually knows. So I would argue that the context here is rather different, although transferring an allusion to a new context and giving it a new interpretative slant is not uncommon. Maybe we are starting to get onto ¿rmer allusive ground with this last proposal. The related question is raised: Is the author of Ecclesiastes aware of a fall or in any way basing his presentation on such an event? Whybray comments that the most compelling evidence of a link is “the similarity between the depiction of the fallen state of man in Gen. 3–11 and Qoheleth’s picture of humanity as he knew it” (1989, 60). I would argue instead that what the author is actually describing is the given nature of the human condition. He never mentions the concept of a fall; rather, he presupposes a post-fall world without using that language. For the

10

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

Genesis text, by contrast, the fall is the punishment for sin that leads to the human condition, and is an aetiology of the inherently sinful nature of humanity. So, of these three comparative examples, the ¿rst two amount to little more than echoes of the language of Genesis. The strongest allusion in relation to linguistic connections is probably Eccl 3:20 with Gen 3:19, but the primary association is a theological one that mainly speaks of the human condition. Can we build a whole theory of intertextual resonance around this? But before we leave the idea of a “fall” being echoed in Ecclesiastes we have to consider Eccl 7:20, 29; 8:11 and 9:3, all of which suggest that while God made human beings CJ (“straightforward/upright,” 7:29), sin and evil was always knocking on the door, and indeed is not always punished as it should be. Is this sense of the evil in human nature an echo of the fall, as Forman (1960, 258) suggests? I would suggest not, in that again the author of Ecclesiastes is expressing givens about the human condition. The word )5 is frequently used in this text (49 times), as in Gen 1–11—though this is hardly surprising given its subject matter! Even if human scheming is against God’s true intention for humankind (7:29), it is still presented here as a fact of life. Elsewhere (e.g. 7:13), there is the feeling that God’s purpose cannot ultimately be changed— “who can make straight what he has made crooked?” This verse suggests that even evil can be attributed to a divine cause (cf. 7:20) and here there is an interesting link with Gen 8:21 which suggests that, even after the Àood, “the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth,” and now that fact is not going to deter God’s purpose. Qoheleth, though, struggles with the evident point that evil does not seem to be punished as it should be, and that prolonged lack of “sentence” leads to more evil (8:11). Indeed, that the same fate comes to all is seen by Qoheleth as an evil in itself (9:3). Schuele (2007, 165) airs the idea that this verse is a quotation from the story of the Àood (notably Gen 8:21) and makes the point that there is no perspective in either text that God will rectify the natural evil quality of the human heart, in comparison with ideas of a new heart as found in early postexilic prophecy. There are clear thematic links here, but the lack of other connections suggests that these are echoes rather than direct quotation or allusion in my view. The theme of good and evil comes up a few times in Ecclesiastes—is this a deliberate allusion to the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden? The fear of the Lord is seen as the ultimate standard for judging good and evil (Gen 8:12–13; cf. Eccl 12:13), and one might compare Gen 6:5 with its clear reason of human wickedness for the punishment that was the Àood (cf. Eccl 9:3), but Qoheleth vacillates on the ef¿cacy of this principle (cf. Gen 4:7, where

DELL Exploring Intertextual Links

11

the failure of the same principle leads to Cain’s murderous intentions). Knowledge and wisdom, also fruits of the “tree of knowledge,” are seen as slippery acquisitions (cf. Eccl 8:16–18). I would argue for echoes of Genesis here, but very little in the way of a direct allusion; none of these quotations come from the Garden of Eden story itself either. Two other prominent themes of Ecclesiastes are sometimes pointed to as having links with Genesis—one is the theme of women and the other that of a preoccupation with death. Clearly Qoheleth is ambivalent about women, in that he commends enjoying life with “the wife whom you love” in 9:9, but he may be saying some negative things about women in 7:26 in the description of the woman “who is a trap” and in 7:28 in the elusive “one woman in a thousand” passage.12 A link with Genesis in the creation of woman and the description of Eve as “helper” seems tenuous at best. Perhaps a closer parallel is with Eve’s sin and the negativity of Qoheleth towards the quest for a woman to compare with the one man that he has found. But even this seems a stretch of interpretation. On death there is the repeated refrain in Ecclesiastes that death comes to all, but then also that life is ultimately better than death—“a living dog is better than a dead lion” (Eccl 9:4). The comparison could be made with the loss of the possibility of immortality, as enshrined in the barring of the way to the tree of life, although it is not clear that immortality was the expected reward before the fall. All we are told is that eating of the tree of knowledge will lead to death (Gen 2:16), but then of course that does not happen. After the fall the curse is death (Gen 3:19), but it was arguably always so because of the nature of man as from dust (Gen 2:7). Forman (1960, 262) comments that Ecclesiastes, like Genesis, “rejects the hope of immortality,” but I would disagree with this statement and say rather that of the two, Qoheleth’s hope of some kind of afterlife existence is actually more explicit (Eccl 3:21), although he states de¿nitively in 12:7 that death follows old age with the same cyclical predictability as he ¿nds in all human processes. Ecclesiastes 12:7 is the other often-cited parallel text to Gen 3:19 (with Gen 2:7) (see Verheij’s comment cited above): “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath returns to God who gave it.” This verse, along with Eccl 3:20, arguably forms the strongest evidence of an intertextual allusion, but still is this enough to speak of a rich tapestry of intertextual relationship even to the extent of an author writing with the Genesis text on his desk?

12. Although see my attempt to “retrieve” this passage (7:23–8:1) in Dell 2013b.

12

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

So, my evaluation of this evidence is that linguistic links are few. Literary genre connections are also not really there—even if there is an overtone of the wisdom worldview in Gen 1–11 (which I would refute), the author of Ecclesiastes tends to reinterpret and challenge tradition rather than simply cite it anyway. Echoes are more prevalent than actual allusions. The evidence is cumulative and echoes of thematic links with the Primeval History are clearly there. However, once one starts looking for major theological themes such as the nature of God, a concern with God’s order in nature and creation, the centrality of humans, whose nature is to err, a recognition of the facts of hard toil and death, they are clearly shared in common but not with the kind of verbal resonance that one might expect with intentional allusions from the author. Of course Ecclesiastes, like the early chapters of Genesis, is not concerned with Israelite history per se,13 but with the human condition, but this is a very general statement for comparison. Furthermore, the idea of a general familiarity with Torah is not proven by this set of examples, though it might be more convincing as a cumulative case with other books. Kruger looks at the connections brieÀy and makes the point that “Qoheleth does not appeal expressly to Genesis 1–11, nor does it substantiate them in a different way; rather it presupposes them as commonly known and relevant. It receives the Torah not as a ‘canonical’ text, but as a ‘classical’ work” (2004, 25). This seems to me, though, to be an awkward distinction—it is in effect saying that the links are not so close as to claim a strong relationship, but that it is enough to cite a “tradition.” The trouble is we have little evidence of the processes of such a transmission of tradition even though we might expect it to be the case. Schuele makes a similar suggestion in seeing Qoheleth as a book which “presupposes that the addressees listen to the Torah…otherwise it could not play so clearly upon the opening chapters of Genesis” (2007, 175). I fail, however, to be convinced that this is necessarily the case, based on this particular evidence alone. In conclusion, a purely diachronic intertextual approach that seeks clear intertextual allusion seems to me to offer very limited fruits. Reading the two texts together clearly inÀuences our reading of each and is an enriching exercise. I like Anderson’s idea of “theological criticism” as a category which depends on a synchronic intertextual comparison of the texts, but I feel that it is on the whole too broad. It is a parallel term to “intertextual echo” in this case, although it gets across the more theological dimension of the quest for parallels. The comparison is an interesting synchronic exercise, but I have to come down on the side, 13. Though see Barbour 2012.

DELL Exploring Intertextual Links

13

ultimately, of reservation when it comes to strong intentional intertextual allusions. The strongest evidence of the language of “dust,” “return” and “spirit” is found in the link between Ecclesiastes 3:20 and 12:7 and Gen 2:7 and 3:19, but scholars have tended to build a higher edi¿ce upon this evidence than I believe the comparison really deserves. Bibliography Alonso-Schökel, L. 1976. Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Gen 2–3. Pages 468–80 in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Edited by James L. Crenshaw. New York: KTAV. Anderson, William H. 1998. The Curse of Work in Qoheleth: An Exposé of Genesis 3:17–19 in Ecclesiastes. EvQ 70:99–113. Antic, Radisa. Cain, Abel, Seth, and the Meaning of Human Life as Portrayed in the Books of Genesis and Ecclesiastes. 2006. AUSS 44:203–11. Barbour, Jennie. 2012. The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bundvad, Mette. Forthcoming. Time in the Book of Qohelet. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chia, Philip P. 1995. Wisdom, Yahwism, Creation: In Quest of Qoheleth’s Theological Thought. JD 3:1–32. Clemens, David M. 1994. The Law of Sin and Death: Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1–3. Themelios 19:5–8. Crenshaw, James L. 1987. Ecclesiastes: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster. Dell, Katharine J. 1996. Reinventing the Wheel: The Shaping of the Book of Jonah. Pages 85–101 in After the Exile: Essays on Biblical History and Interpretation in Honour of Rex Mason. Edited by John Barton and David Rymer. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press. ———. 2009. The Cycle of Life in Ecclesiastes. VT 59:181–89. A revised version appears in Dell 2013b:59–67. ———. 2013a. “Cursed be the day I was born!”: Job and Jeremiah Revisited. Pages 106– 17 in Reading Job Intertextually. Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. LHBOTS 574. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. ———. 2013b. Interpreting Ecclesiastes: Readers Old and New. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Ellul, Jacques. 1990. Reason for Being. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Forman, Charles C. 1960. Koheleth’s Use of Genesis. JSS 5:256–63. Gordis, Robert. 1939–40. Quotations in Wisdom Literature. JQR 30:123–47. Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. 1963. Der Prediger. KAT 17. Gütersloh: Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn. Krüger, Thomas. 2004. Qoheleth: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kynes, Will. 2012. My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms. BZAW 473. Berlin: de Gruyter. Loh¿nk, Norbert. 2003. Qoheleth, a Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress. Michel, Diethelm. 1990. Untersuchung zur Eigenart des Buches Qohelet. Berlin: de Gruyter.

14

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

Müller, Hans-Peter. 1992. Weisheitliche Deutungen der Sterblichkeit: Gen 3.19 und Pred 3.21; 12.7 im Licht antiker Parallelen. Pages 69–100 in Mensch, Umwelt, Eigenwelt: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Weisheit Israels. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Murphy, Roland. 1992. Ecclesiastes. WBC 23A. Dallas: Word. Neher, André. 1951. Notes sur Qohelet (L’Ecclesiaste). Paris: Minuit. Schuele, Andreas. 2007. Evil from the Heart: Qoheleth’s Negative Anthropology and Its Canonical Context. Pages 157–76 in The Language of Qohelet in its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by A. Berlejung and P. Van Hecke. Leuven: Peeters. Seow, Choon-Leong. 2000. Beyond Mortal Grasp: The Usage of hebel in Ecclesiastes. ABR 48:1–16. Sharp, Carolyn. 2004. Ironic Representation, Authorial Voice and Meaning in Qohelet. BibInt 12:37–68. Verheij, Arian. 1991. Paradise Retried on Qohelet 2:4–6. JSOT 50:113–15. Westermann, Claus. 1988. Genesis. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Whybray, R. Norman. 1989. Ecclesiastes. OTG. Shef¿eld: JSOT.

FOLLOW YOUR HEART AND DO NOT SAY IT WAS A MISTAKE: QOHELETH’S ALLUSIONS TO NUMBERS 15 AND THE STORY OF THE SPIES* Will Kynes

1. Introduction Ecclesiastes 11:9 is a microcosm of the interpretive problems that plague the interpretation of the book. Put more positively, the voices which clash in this verse are the same which call readers inexorably back to be lost in their seemingly endless dialogue.1 First, Qoheleth’s joy declares, “Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Follow the inclination of your heart (ĝĔğ) and the desire of your eyes (ĝĜģĜĥ)” (11:9a).2 Immediately, Qoheleth’s piety responds, “But know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment” (11:9b). But is this Qoheleth’s voice, or that of a pious redactor? Either way, in the juxtaposition of permissiveness and piety, we hear Qoheleth’s pessimism, as well. How can the young enjoy their lives if they know they will be judged for those very actions? Though Qoheleth does not declare it so, surely this is hevel as well. As joy, piety, and pessimism all meet in Eccl 11:9, Qoheleth’s clamorous internal dialogue draws in a canonical bystander, Torah, in the form of Num 15:39, which states, “You have the fringe (ĭĩĜĩ) so that, when you see it, you will remember all the commandments of the LORD and do them, and not follow after your heart (ĠĞĔĔğ) and your eyes (ĠĞĜģĜĥ), which you follow after unfaithfully.”3 Since, however, Qoheleth seems to endorse precisely the pursuit of personal pleasure that the * I wish to thank Philip Yoo for his helpful comments when the present study was in its formative stages. 1. The view that different voices clash in Ecclesiastes has a long history. See Delitzsch (1891, 217) for a discussion of nineteenth-century views on the issue. For a more recent review of some prominent attempts to account for the voices in the text see Sharp 2004, 48–51. 2. Unless otherwise noted, all biblical references are from the NRSV. 3. My translation.

16

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

fringe, or tsitsit, is intended to prevent, and since Numbers presents this libertarian behavior as the alternative to remembering and doing all the commandments of the Lord, it is little surprise that the rabbis pointed to this intertextual conÀict as an indication of Ecclesiastes’ questionable canonical status.4 Some early translators even corrected the apparent contradiction with small alterations of Qoheleth’s words,5 and Ben Sira appears to reject them explicitly: “Do not follow your inclination and strength in pursuing the desires of your heart” (Sir 5:2).6 Can these voices—joy, piety, and pessimism; Qoheleth and a purported redactor; Ecclesiastes and the canon—be brought into harmony, or should they be left to sing discordantly on? Interpreters often suggest later additions, unattributed quotations, and harmonizations (of which purported implied ironic intentions are the most sophisticated) for the contradictions that make reading the book, at once, so frustrating and fascinating.7 However, recently intertextuality has arisen as a fourth reading approach to attempt to make sense of Ecclesiastes.8 Intertextuality itself is liable to its own measure of frustration and fascination. Though the approach has gained broad popularity in biblical scholarship over the past twenty years or so, its basic de¿nition continues to be disputed, with the hermeneutical signi¿cance of authorial intent at the heart of the debate. I have made my own contributions to this debate elsewhere and will not recount them here.9 Suf¿ce it to say that, though I see value in both “diachronic” or “author-centered” and “synchronic” or “reader-centered” intertextuality, I believe an approach that attends to authorial intent and focuses its efforts on identifying and 4. “R. Samuel b. R. Isaac said: The Sages sought to suppress the Book of Koheleth because they discovered therein words which tend towards heresy. They declared, ‘This is the wisdom of Solomon that he said, REJOICE, O YOUNG MAN, IN THY YOUTH! Now Moses said, That ye not go about after your own heart (Num. XV, 39), whereas Solomon said, WALK IN THE WAYS OF THY HEART! Is restraint to be abolished? Is there no judgment and no Judge?’ But since he continued, BUT KNOW THOU, THAT FOR ALL THESE THINGS GOD WILL BRING THEE INTO JUDGMENT, they exclaimed, ‘Well has Solomon spoken’” (Midrash Rabbah on Eccl 11:9; translation in Cohen 1951, 295–96). 5. Some LXX manuscripts read “walk in the ways of your heart blamelessly and not in the sight of your eyes…” The Targum reads: “walk in humility with the ways of your heart and be careful with what your eyes see that you do not see evil…” See Seow 1997, 349–50. 6. Wis 2:6 also may imply a rejection of Eccl 11:9a when it puts a similar sentiment in the mouth of the “ungodly” (1:16) (Barton 1908, 185). 7. For a summary of these approaches, see Fox 1989, 19–28. 8. See, e.g., Tita 1996; Schoors 2000; Fidler 2006; Barbour 2012. 9. See Kynes 2012, 17–60 and 2013. 1

KYNES Follow Your Heart and Do Not Say It Was a Mistake

17

interpreting allusions, which are a particular type of the broader concept of intertextuality that I de¿ne as “intentional implicit reference[s] to an earlier expression” (Kynes 2012, 31), offers the greatest insight into biblical texts. However, this approach has most value when it considers the broader interplay opened up between those texts—the “current of sense” running between them—by the allusions that solder them together.10 I will refer to this below as the “intertextual context” of an allusion. This broader interplay may be indicated by recurring allusions to the same text, since “allusions often radiate out to contiguous allusions” (Alter 1996, 118). Intertextuality thus transcends earlier approaches, such as “source-hunting,” which merely seeks to identify the allusions, or “inÀuence,” which considers primarily the effect of earlier texts on later writers, by instead considering how, through their allusions, later writers interpret earlier texts and incorporate them into their rhetorical aims. Understood in this way, intertextuality has several advantages over the other approaches previously employed for explaining the contradictions in Ecclesiastes. Unlike positing and removing later additions, it offers more text to interpret rather than less. Unlike unattributed quotations, it provides context for the external voices intervening in the text. Unlike harmonization, instead of leveling hills and ¿lling in valleys, it offers, often, an even more diverse terrain to traverse. However, like both later additions and unattributed quotations, it considers the text a clash of different voices, though unlike the former, and like the latter, it considers those voices (largely) under the author’s control. Like harmonization, it ¿nds the solutions to the problems in the text in a space outside of it, though instead of in a higher level of abstraction, as is often the case, it looks to other texts. Thus, instead of removing voices from the choir that makes up Ecclesiastes as later additions, positing hypothetical singers, or minimizing tonal differences, an intertextual approach invites new actual members into the performance. The allusions to Num 15 in Ecclesiastes encourage us to listen to this text more closely to see if, by joining the chorus, it may resolve some of the dissonant chords in the book without making them into simple monotone, which would still fall short of harmony. 2. Follow Your Heart: Ecclesiastes 11:9 and Numbers 15:39 When scholars note what Thomas Krüger (2004, 196) calls the “provocative allusion” to Num 15:39 in Eccl 11:9, they rarely comment on the nature of the allusion beyond observing, like the rabbis, the way it 10. Kynes 2012, 55–56, quoting Johnson 1976, 586.

18

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

“blatantly contradicts” Numbers.11 The rabbis’ concern does seem to be with a potential contradiction in meaning and not necessarily Qoheleth’s direct allusion to and rejection of the Numbers text. One midrashic reading even justi¿es the necessity of the apparently self-evident command in Num 15:39 to choose “the right way” over “any way [one] likes” by arguing that it serves as a corrective to Eccl 11:9.12 The lexical connections between the two verses are indeed rather limited. “Heart” and “eyes” are common terms.13 However, even though the allusion is subtle, when combined with the strong thematic link, it is certainly recognizable, as its recognition by the rabbis and numerous scholars demonstrates. It appears the author of Ecclesiastes had Num 15:39 in mind when he wrote and that he wanted his readers to recall the verse as well. Observing this contradicting allusion to Num 15:39 often leads into an interpretation of 11:9b as a correcting gloss intended to nullify Qoheleth’s skepticism.14 This gloss is then connected with 12:13–14 in the epilogue, with which it shares an emphasis on God’s judgment, as the ultimate correcting gloss to the skepticism of the entire book.15 However, like so many passages in Ecclesiastes, an alternative, almost completely opposite, interpretation has been proposed. In this view, the vav in 11:9b is seen as consecutive instead of adversative, so that the clause offers a motivation for 11:9a instead of moderating its joy-enjoining imperative.16 11. Salters 1975, 341. For those who address the issue, the author of Ecclesiastes is generally assumed to be alluding to Numbers without any further discussion, perhaps due to assumptions about the relative dates of the two texts. Though the commonly accepted dates for both would indeed place Ecclesiastes (from the early Hellenistic or perhaps late Persian period) after Numbers (with a late date for P reaching the mid- to late Persian period), the continuing debate on the dates of both texts suggests this is Àimsy ground for determining dependence. For more on recent attempts to date Ecclesiastes, see Tremper Longman’s contribution to the present volume. For Numbers, particularly arguments for a later date, see Römer 2008. The unlikely reference of the legal instruction to its negation more strongly supports this conclusion, though the possibility that Numbers is alluding to Qoheleth’s libertinism in order to curtail it cannot be de¿nitively denied. 12. Midrash Sifre Numbers 15:39. See Hirshman 2001, 94–95. Thanks to Scott C. Jones for pointing this out to me. 13. Both “heart” (Ĕğ or ĔĔğ) and “eyes” (ĠĜģĜĥ) appear together with secondperson suf¿xes in eleven other verses in the Hebrew Bible. 14. It is questionable how effective 11:9b is as an “orthodox correction,” given that the LXX and Targum translations mentioned above (n. 5) that alter 11:9a to make it more orthodox also include it (Krüger 1996, 116). 15. See, e.g., Salters 1975, 341; Loh¿nk 2003, 12–13. 16. E.g. Gordis 1968, 336–37; Seow 1997, 371; Krüger 2004, 197; Lee 2005, 76. 1

KYNES Follow Your Heart and Do Not Say It Was a Mistake

19

The verse would then be translated, “Follow the inclination of your heart and the desire of your eyes, and know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment.” This would agree with the talmudic dictum: “Everyone must give an account before God of all things one saw in life and did not enjoy” (y. Qidd. 4:12).17 Neither interpretive framework has involved extended reÀection on why Qoheleth would draw precisely this verse from Numbers in to his discussion at this juncture.18 For those who consider 11:9b a moderating response to the imperative, Num 15:39 is merely seen as a prooftext against pursuing one’s passions, which Qoheleth rejects. For the motivating interpretation, the connection with Numbers is more problematic because it would mean Qoheleth has called God in to support his apparent rejection of the Torah. As a result, perhaps, some who suggest this interpretation, such as Robert Gordis (1968, 335–37), pass the allusion by without comment. C. L. Seow (1997, 350) downplays the conÀict between the two passages by using Egyptian parallels to argue that Qoheleth is using an idiom that “has nothing to do with how one makes ethical decisions (i.e., whether one follows one’s heart or obeys divine orders).” Eunny Lee (2005, 76), however, claims the “intertextual conversation” elicited by the similarity of Qoheleth’s language to Num 15:39 indicates that he “deliberately counters” the opposition between the desires of the human heart and the divine will in that passage. Thus, Lee claims, Qoheleth is making a statement about how ethical decisions are made: “gladness in the human heart redeems that inner space (cf. 5:19), making it and its desires an appropriate vehicle of moral agency.” This contributes to her larger argument that, in contrast to the age-old interpretive assumption, enjoyment and piety need not be pitted against one another, but that Qoheleth argues “enjoyment of life is a matter of religious duty” (2005, 125). However, though this changes the nature of the opposition between Ecclesiastes and Num 15:39, putting it to a positive instead of pessimistic purpose, a contradiction still remains, as does the treatment of Num 15:39 as little more than an isolated prooftext.19

17. See, e.g. Seow 1997, 371 (emphasis his). 18. The exploration of this question here is based on the intertextual method developed in Kynes 2012. 19. Ironically, given this scholarly proclivity toward reading Num 15:39 in an isolated fashion, Krüger (2004, 24–25) argues that in Qoheleth’s allusion to Num 15:39 he is opposing a “legalistic” obedience to the Torah, instead contributing to a broader understanding of Torah that does not see it “as a collection of individual commandments and prohibitions.”

20

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

a. “A Land that Flows with Milk and Honey”: Numbers 15:39 and the Spies Narrative Reading Num 15:39 in isolation is unfortunate because the verse itself invites a broader intertextual context. Jacob Milgrom (1989, 117) argues the tsitsit passage (15:37–41) is included at the end of the “miscellany of diverse laws” in ch. 15 to form a verbal inclusion with the spies narrative in Num 13–14. He writes, “In ‘scouting’ (tur, 13:2, 25; 14:34), the spies whored (zanah, 14:33) after their eyes and brought a false report. So by wearing tsitsit, Israel would be prevented from ever again ‘scouting’ (tur, 15:39) and ‘whoring’ (zanah, 15:39) ‘after their heart and eyes’” (1989, 127). In his view, the verse puts obedience to God’s commandments in opposition to following after one’s heart and eyes, and the spies narrative reinforces this lesson. Thus, Tzvi Novick (2008, 3–4), picking up on further lexical connections between the verse and the spies narrative, observes that seeing the tsitsit serves as “an antidote to the sin of the spies, who, having scouted out the land (ėĭē īĘĭğ), and having seen (ĘģĜēī) tall men compared to whom they seemed, in their own eyes (ĘģĜģĜĥĔ) as grasshoppers, discouraged the Israelites, who strayed (ĠĞĜĭĘģę) from God and were punished (Num 13:32–33; 14:33).” Novick’s comments, however, introduce a new dynamic into the interplay between the legislation in Num 15:39 and the spies narrative in chs. 13–14. The passage he refers to from the story is the spies’ “bad report” of the land given to discourage the people from entering it, in which they exaggerate its inhabitants’ size while minimizing its fecundity, calling it “a land that devours its inhabitants” (Num 13:32–33). Joshua and Caleb, however, claim, “The land that we went through as spies (īĘĭ) is an exceedingly good land (Ėēġ Ėēġ Ĩīēė ėĔĘě)…a land that Àows with milk and honey” (Num 14:7–8), while assuring the Israelites its people are nothing to fear. Thus, Moses’s command to “spy out” (īĘĭ) the land and “see” (ėēī) what it is like (13:17–18) leads to two contradictory conclusions. It does not appear that “spying” after “your eyes” necessarily opposes remembering God’s commandments (after all, which other eyes could Joshua and Caleb use?). If the other spies are intentionally distorting the goodness of the land, which they also saw, to dissuade the people from invading in 14:32–33, it may even be Joshua and Caleb and not the other spies who are truly following their eyes. Joshua and Caleb’s emphatic description of the attractiveness of the land is, then, a rhetorical appeal to the people’s hearts. In fact, though the connection is not as close in the Hebrew as it appears in the NRSV translation, God declares that Caleb follows him with a different type of internal devotion than the rebellious people: “But my servant Caleb, 1

KYNES Follow Your Heart and Do Not Say It Was a Mistake

21

because he has a different spirit (ĭīĚē ĚĘī) and has followed me wholeheartedly (ĜīĚē ēğġĜĘ), I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it” (Num 14:24). This may explain the signi¿cance of the relative clause at the end of Num 15:39, ĠėĜīĚē ĠĜģę ĠĭēČīŘē (“which you follow unfaithfully after”), which George Buchanan Gray ¿nds “a very pointless addition to the preceding,” apparently because he assumes that following one’s eyes and heart is naturally opposed to following God’s commandments.20 However, this relative clause may be necessary to distinguish the type of following after one’s eyes and heart that is in opposition to obedience to God’s commandments, the type practiced by the other ten spies and not Joshua and Caleb. b. The Broader Intertextual Context of Ecclesiastes 11:9 With this context in mind, we can see Qoheleth’s use of Num 15:39 with new eyes. The Israelites’ sin was that they did not pursue the joy offered them in the promised land of Canaan, “an exceedingly good land…a land that Àows with milk and honey.” It was for this that they were judged. This provides support for the motivating interpretation of 11:9b without it countering Num 15:39. Pursuing pleasure and obeying God need not be opposed to one another. This agreement would also be an argument for the authenticity of this reference to God’s justice in the context of pursuing joy.21 Like the motivating interpretation of Eccl 11:9, in the spies narrative, the Israelites must give an account for the good they had seen and did not enjoy. This interpretation receives support from two phenomena elsewhere in the book. The ¿rst is Qoheleth’s widespread use of subtle intertextual allusions to both the law and history of Israel. For example, just in 4:17– 5:6 [Eng. 5:1–7], which Anton Schoors (2000, 48) calls “a pericope which seems to present the most explicit example of intertextuality” in the book, links have been proposed with several passages. The nearly verbatim citation of the law on paying a vow in Deut 23:22 in Eccl 5:3 is 20. G. B. Gray (1903, 185) also claims this usage of ėģę has here “an altogether exceptional use” because it normally refers to “some illegitimate cult or superstition of those who practice it,” but he is overlooking its use in Num 14:33, where it does not refer to the cult, but to the “faithlessness” of the wilderness generation, as he acknowledges in his comments on that verse (1903, 163). This shared unusual use of ėģę further strengthens the connection between the legal and narratival passages. 21. Thus Stuart Weeks (2012, 84) argues that in Ecclesiastes “the pursuit of pleasure is not an alternative to moral or ethical behaviour, but an option open, in effect, only to those who please God.”

22

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

the most striking,22 but connections have also been noted with 1 Sam 15:22 (cf. 4:17) and the broader Saul narrative,23 the Solomon narrative in 1 Kgs 3–11,24 the Jacob–Bethel tradition (Gen 28:10–22; 31:13; 35:1, 7, 14),25 Deut 4:39 (cf. 5:1),26 Lev 5:4 (cf. 5:5),27 and the shegaga or unintentional sin legislation in Lev 4 and Num 15:22–31. 3. Do Not Say It Was a Mistake: Ecclesiastes 5:5 and Numbers 15:22–31 Once again, we encounter Num 15, which provides the second support for my interpretation of Qoheleth’s sophisticated interaction with that passage in 11:9. The intertextual connection in 4:17–5:6, “a sapiential handbook of religion” (Fidler 2006, 8), is as follows. In 5:5, Qoheleth declares, “Do not let your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the messenger that it was a mistake (ēĜė ėĕĕŘ ĜĞ); why should God be angry at your words, and destroy the work of your hands?” That Hebrew phrase is repeated exactly in Num 15:25, and only there, where it contributes to legislation on sacri¿ces for unintentional sin: “The priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the Israelites, and they shall be forgiven; it was unintentional (ēĘė ėĕĕŘČĜĞ).” Once again scholars who note the connection have been content to treat the passage in Numbers as an isolated law. The fact that it is placed in Num 15, not only the same chapter to which Qoheleth alludes later, but also the chapter following the spies narrative in Num 13–14, has been overlooked. However, this context is again illuminating for the interpretation of this passage. a. An Unintentional Rebellion? Numbers 15:22–31 in Context The legislation in Num 15:22–31 addresses three related situations: (1) unintentional communal sin (vv. 22–26); (2) unintentional individual sin (vv. 27–29); and (3) intentional individual sin (vv. 30–31) (Novick 22. Recognition of this connection is widespread. Otto Kaiser (1995, 90) argues the fact that Qoheleth “cites” Deut 23:22 is evidence “he can hardly have broken altogether with the scriptural faith and legal piety of his people—an important insight into the writer.” Similarly Fischer 1997, 48. See also Bernard Levinson’s contribution to the present volume. 23. Barbour 2012, 98–104. 24. Tita 1996. See also Barbour 2012, 94–98. 25. Fidler 2006. 26. Perdue 1977, 183; Schoors 2000, 51. 27. Hertzberg 1963, 122; Gordis 1968, 44. Gordis discusses several examples of Qoheleth’s “creative use of traditional material” (43–45). 1

KYNES Follow Your Heart and Do Not Say It Was a Mistake

23

2008, 6). Intentional communal sin is not mentioned, likely because, as Novick notes, the rebellion of the community transgresses the bounds of any legislation. Three of those possible categories of sin are at play in the spies narrative. The ten spies who give a “bad report” are guilty of intentional individual sin, for which they die (14:36–37). The community’s level of culpability, however, is unclear. God declares the congregation “wicked” (ėĥīė ėĖĥė) and sentences the entire generation to death in the wilderness (14:35). The deity declares they will bear their “iniquity” forty years (14:34), using the same word ĢĘĥ, which the legislation in ch. 15 uses to describe the guilt associated with intentional individual sin (15:31). This all points to the seriousness of their transgression. But, on the other hand, the legislation only offers “pardon” (ĚğĤ) for unintentional sin (15:25–26, 28), and “pardon,” again using the same word as in the legislation, is what Moses, playing the role of the interceding priest in the legislation (15:25), requests for the people and what God grants (14:19–20). Moses reports these things, presumably both the punishment and the pardon, to the people (14:39), and their response indicates an understandable confusion. After initially mourning (14:39), they admit they have “sinned” (ĘģēěĚ, 14:40), perhaps reÀecting the “sin offering” (ĭēěĚ) still required of those who commit an unintentional sin (15:25, 27), but then they set off to invade Canaan as if the episode had never happened, only to face defeat (14:44–45). As 15:30–31 declares, an intentional sin leads to being cut off from the community and God’s promises. This is the punishment God declares on that generation. By attempting to enter the promised land, the generation acts as if their sin was only an unintentional shegaga. Their defeat demonstrates they are wrong. And yet, God does not immediately destroy them as he at ¿rst threatens. As Novick observes, the intentional communal sin pushes past the limits of the legislation; it enters an arena where God’s holy wrath and his merciful commitment to his people collide. b. The Broader Intertextual Signi¿cance of Ecclesiastes 5:5 This broader context sheds new light on Qoheleth’s allusion to the shegaga legislation. Qoheleth warns his listeners not to let their mouths lead them into sin (5:5a). The sin of the congregation in the spies narrative was one they were lead into by their mouths, as the bad report of the spies led the people to grumble. Qoheleth then advises not to say before the “messenger” (ĝēğġ), likely a priest,28 that one’s action (the vow from 28. See Salters 1978, 99–100. Graham Ogden (1987, 79) even bases his argument for understanding ĝēğġ as priest here on the parallel with Num 15:22–31. Fox (1999, 232), however, following the LXX and Syriac, thinks the text originally read “God.”

24

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

the previous verse?29) is a shegaga (5:5b), supporting his admonition with a rhetorical question: “Why should God be angry at your voice (ĝğĘĪ), and destroy the work of your hands?”30 Some ¿nd the divine destruction Qoheleth threatens out of proportion with the purported sin of failing to ful¿ll a vow (see Barbour 2012, 104), but when the people cry out with a loud “voice” (ğĘĪ) upon hearing the spies’ bad report (14:1), and then later attempt to pass off their sin as a mere pardonable shegaga to Moses, perhaps playing the role of ĝēğġ, they do indeed face destruction.31 Thus, Qoheleth concludes in the following verse, “Fear God” (5:6).32 4. Conclusion Compared to Num 15, Qoheleth’s two allusions appear to contradict one another. In 11:9 Qoheleth appears to take Num 15:39 in a more lenient direction, while in 5:5 he takes the law on unintentional sin in a more restrictive one, denying its allowance for shegaga. However, if the connections between these laws and the narrative which precedes them are taken into account, then Qoheleth consistently encourages his audience to reject the disobedience of the spies and the people who follow them and instead embrace the joys of the land promised by God. Like the spies narrative, he presents both the dangers of disobedience and the bene¿ts of obedience. It is little surprise, then, that in both passages where Num 15 is alluded to, retribution is also mentioned. The mention of God’s retribution brings us back once more to the epilogue. It has been argued that the summarizing statement in 12:13, “Fear God, and keep his commandments (ĘĜĭĘĩġ); for that is the whole duty of everyone,” must be from a later hand because in the body of the text Qoheleth never joins the fear of God and obedience to his commandments together (Wilson 1984, 178; Murphy 1987, 454). However, here, one ¿nal time, the connection with Num 15 is illuminating. If Qoheleth wanted to evoke the spies narrative, why didn’t he just allude 29. For this reading, see, e.g. Fox 1999, 55, 84, 232–33. 30. My translation. 31. Thus Krüger (2004, 25) believes, “Qoh 5:5 speaks against a playing down of guilt as a ‘mistake,’ as could be suggested by the cultic requirements in Leviticus 4– 5 and Num 15:22–31,” but, in fact, Num 15:22–31 in its canonical location after the spies narrative already provides some protection against this lenient interpretation. 32. The rabbis also connect Eccl 5:5 with a narrative in Numbers, though it is Miriam’s slander against Moses in Num 12. They also see Moses playing the role of “messenger” based on Num 20:16, which refers to God sending a ĝēğġ to deliver the people from Egypt. See Cohen 1951, 133. 1

KYNES Follow Your Heart and Do Not Say It Was a Mistake

25

to it directly rather than through the medium of Num 15? While the spies narrative does not mention ĭĘĩġ once, Num 15 repeats the word four times.33 Two instances come in 15:39 and the following verse, which is connected logically to it.34 The other two are found in the verses which introduce and conclude the shegaga legislation in vv. 22–31. Subtly, once again, Qoheleth has joined the fear of God and the obedience of God’s commandments,35 even as he has joined the laws of Israel and the nation’s history. This allusive incorporation of Israel’s history into Ecclesiastes would be a further example of the phenomenon Jennie Barbour (2012) argues is pervasive in the book. Qoheleth’s two allusions to Num 15 encourage further reÀection on the connections between his book and not only that chapter, but also its broader intertextual context in the spies narrative in Num 13–14, with which Num 15 is connected, redactionally, lexically, and thematically. When this is taken into account, Qoheleth does not appear to be rejecting Numbers but reinterpreting it, and perhaps even doing so along the lines intended by those responsible for the ¿nal form of Numbers, who placed the laws in Num 15 immediately after the narrative in Num 13–14.36 Qoheleth takes these communal laws and this national narrative and applies them to the individual. This reinterpretation suggests he does not see the pursuit of joy and the obedience of God’s commandments as in opposition with one another, but that he believes God has in fact commanded his people to pursue joy, offering them a ¿gurative land of milk and honey, which they turn away from to their peril. He takes on the role of the spies as he “seeks out,” using the same verb, īĘĭ, employed to describe the spies’ activity, the good God offers in the world (Eccl 1:13; 2:3; 7:25), and, like they do, he reports on what he has “seen” (ėēī).37 33. Intriguingly, the word only appears one other time in the entire book, the ¿nal verse (Num 36:13), which also has a summative function. 34. “So you shall remember and do all my commandments (ĜĭĘĩġ), and you shall be holy to your God” (Num 15:40). 35. Barbour (2012, 171–72) also notes the conÀuence of fear of God and obedience to God’s commandments in 4:17–5:6 and similarly concludes, “This example opens up the possibility that the postscript of 12:13–14 is truer to the words of Qohelet than many allow.” Therefore, the connection of the two is not “rather jarring” (Wilson 1984, 183, 189) when one encounters it in the epilogue. 36. Olivier Artus (2008, 136) claims connections between Num 13–14 and 15 are the best illustration of the way the book uses legislative elements as keys to the interpretation of the narratives juxtaposed with them. 37. Eccl 1:14; 2:13; 3:10, 16, etc.; cf. Num 13:32–33. Thus Ogden (1984, 31) connects Qoheleth’s encouragement to follow one’s observations of life (ĝĜģĜĥ Ĝēīġ) in 11:9 with the sage’s own methodology in 1:12–3:22.

26

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

However, among the spies, he is a Caleb or Joshua. He does not reject the law and history of Israel, but, demonstrating an awareness of both,38 he draws them subtly in to support his call to invade a promised land Àowing with joy. And yet, when death and meaninglessness loom large like Nephilim, we hear the other ten spies in Qoheleth, as well. Consistent with his general approach, he ¿nds and exploits tensions in the Numbers text to draw his listeners into deeper contemplation of what living out this pursuit of joy motivated by God’s judgment means. Bibliography Alter, Robert. 1996. The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age. New York: W. W. Norton. Artus, Olivier. 2008. Le problème de l’unité littéraire et de la spéci¿cité théologique du livre des Nombres. Pages 121–43 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Edited by Thomas Römer. BETL 215. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Barbour, Jennifer. 2012. The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural Memory. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barton, George A. 1908. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Cohen, A. 1951. Ecclesiastes. Vol. 8 of Midrash Rabbah. Edited by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon. London: Soncino. Delitzsch, Franz. 1891. Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. CFTL 54. Translated by M. G. Easton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Fidler, Ruth. 2006. Qoheleth in “the House of God”: Text and Intertext in Qoh 4:17–5:6 (Eng. 5:1–7). HS 47:7–21. Fischer, Alexander A. 1997. Skepsis oder Furcht Gottes? Studien zur Komposition und Theologie des Buches Kohelet. BZAW 247. Berlin: de Gruyter. Fox, Michael V. 1989. Qohelet and His Contradictions. JSOTSup 71. Shef¿eld: Almond. ———. 1999. A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gordis, Robert. 1968. Koheleth, the Man and His World: A Study of Ecclesiastes. New York: Schocken. Gray, George Buchanan. 1903. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. 1963. Der Prediger. KAT 17/4–5. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn. Hirshman, Marc. 2001. Qohelet’s Reception and Interpretation in Early Rabbinic Literature. Pages 87–99 in Studies in Ancient Midrash. Edited by James L. Kugel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies. Johnson, Anthony. 1976. Allusion in Poetry. PTL 1:579–87.

38. Gordis (1968, 43) and Hertzberg (1963, 46) both agree that Qoheleth had access to the Pentateuch in its ¿nal form. Barbour (2012, 171) has made an extensive study of Qoheleth’s “exercises in wisdom at work reading history.” 1

KYNES Follow Your Heart and Do Not Say It Was a Mistake

27

Kaiser, Otto. 1995. Qoheleth. Pages 83–93 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krüger, Thomas. 1996. Dekonstruction und Rekonstruction prophetischer Eschatologie im Qohelet-Buch. Pages 107–29 in “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit”: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit. Edited by Anja Angela Diesel et al. BZAW 241. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2004. Qoheleth: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Translated by O. C. Dean. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kynes, Will. 2012. My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms. BZAW 437. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2013. Intertextuality: Method and Theory in Job and Psalm 119. Pages 201–13 in Biblical Interpretation and Method: Essays in Honour of Professor John Barton. Edited by K. J. Dell and P. M. Joyce. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lee, Eunny P. 2005. The Vitality of Enjoyment in Qohelet’s Theological Rhetoric. BZAW 353. Berlin: de Gruyter. Loh¿nk, Norbert. 2003. Qoheleth: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Sean E. McEvenue. Minneapolis: Fortress. Milgrom, Jacob. 1989. Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Murphy, Roland E. 1987. Religious Dimensions of Israelite Wisdom. Pages 449–58 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Jr. Edited by P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. Novick, Tzvi. 2008. Law and Loss: Response to Catastrophe in Numbers 15. HTR 101:1– 14. Ogden, Graham S. 1984. Qoheleth XI 7–XII 8: Qoheleth’s Summons to Enjoyment and ReÀection. VT 34:27–38. ———. 1987. Qoheleth. Readings, A New Biblical Commentary 1. Shef¿eld: JSOT. Perdue, Leo G. 1977. Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East. SBLDS 30. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. Römer, Thomas, ed. 2008. The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. BETL 215. Leuven: Peeters. Salters, R. B. 1975. Qoheleth and the Canon. ExpTim 86:339–42. ———. 1978. Notes on the History of Interpretation of Koh 5:5. ZAW 90:95–100. Schoors, Anton. 2000. (Mis)use of Intertextuality in Qoheleth Exegesis. Pages 45–59 in Congress Volume: Oslo 1998. Edited by A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø. VTSup 80. Leiden: Brill. Seow, C. L. 1997. Ecclesiastes. AB 18C. New York: Doubleday. Sharp, C. J. 2004. Ironic Representation, Authorial Voice, and Meaning in Qohelet. BibInt 12:37–68. Tita, Hubert. 1996. Ist die thematische Einheit Koh 4,17–5,6 eine Anspielung auf die Salomoerzählung? Aporien der religionskritischen Interpretation. BN 84:87–102. Weeks, Stuart. 2012. Ecclesiastes and Scepticism. LHBOTS 541. New York: T&T Clark International. Wilson, G. H. 1984. “The Words of the Wise”: The Intent and Signi¿cance of Qohelet 12:9–14. JBL 103:175–92.

“BETTER THAT YOU SHOULD NOT VOW THAN THAT YOU VOW AND NOT FULFILL”: QOHELETH’S USE OF TEXTUAL ALLUSION AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF DEUTERONOMY’S LAW OF VOWS* Bernard M. Levinson

1. Introduction Any examination of the intertextuality of Qoheleth in relation to Deuteronomy must deal with two issues. The ¿rst is a question of literary history: Was there a literary connection between Qoheleth and Deuteronomy such that textual dependence exists, and, if so, in which direction does that dependence run? The second question centers on hermeneutics: What is the nature and intent of the textual reuse? If there is evidence for rewriting, what function and signi¿cance did it have? Methodologically, I prefer the technical term allusion to intertextuality, because it speci¿es the idea of an author consciously interacting with one or more literary sources, as I believe is the case with Qoheleth.1 In this chapter I will argue that Qoheleth (5:3–4) knew and reworked pentateuchal law, speci¿cally Deuteronomy’s law of vows (23:22–24 [LXX 23:21–23]), with a remarkable degree of autonomy: updating its language; engaging it theologically and introducing a new spirit of theological independence and critique; and even identifying a possible interpolation and seeking to reorder and correct the text. Qoheleth’s reworking of Deuteronomy’s law of vows offers an excellent case study to address the larger issues of this volume.

* In honor of Norbert Loh¿nk, SJ, on the occasion of his 85th birthday (July 28, 2013). 1. Providing valuable criteria to distinguish textual dependence from simple sharing of common language, and thus distinguishing between allusion (as intentional reuse) and intertextuality (which technically considers the questions of intention and dependence irrelevant), see Sommer 1996; 1998, 6–72. For additional discussion, see Schoors 2000 and Levinson 2008, 151–52.

LEVINSON “Better That You Should Not Vow”

29

2. “For There Is No Delight in Fools”: Qoheleth Rewrites Deuteronomy’s Opening Admonition to Ful¿ll Vows There is striking correspondence between the laws of vows in Qoheleth and Deuteronomy, as is evident in Figure 1:2 Deuteronomy 23:22–24a CI E = (J9= 9H9J= C5? C5E J< H>== (>> (J9= 9H9J H?C5J C5 J< I (3 9J9H I (3 9J9J = C5?= =5IE JE (JEA 4H> If you make a vow to Yahweh your God, you must not delay to ful¿ll it, for Yahweh your God shall surely require it of you and it shall count against you as a sin. But if you refrain from vowing, it shall not count against you as a sin. What has gone forth from your lips you must take heed to perform.

Qoheleth 5:3–4 CI E = )J9= = C5? C5E C == )J=JD== CI E = (J9= 9H9J= C5? C5E J<  H>== CI E =  )J9= =  C5? C5E C > (J9= 9H9J H?C5J C5 J< )= C5E C E )J=JD C5E = C 3H If you make a vow to Yahweh your When you make a vow to God, God, do not delay to ful¿ll it, you must not delay to ful¿ll it, (A) (A) for Yahweh your God shall surely for there is no delight in fools. require it of you and it shall count against you as a sin. But if you refrain from vowing, What you vow, ful¿ll. it shall not count against you as a sin. (Cƍ) (B) What has gone forth from your lips Better that you should not vow you must take heed to perform. than that you vow and not ful¿ll. (C) (Bƍ) Figure 4. Qoheleth’s Reordering of Deuteronomy’s Law of Vows

The speci¿c techniques employed by Qoheleth for revising the law of vows in Deuteronomy warrant attention. In addition to inverting the order, Qoheleth paraphrases Deuteronomy’s “What has gone forth from your lips you must take heed to perform” (C), yielding a more terse: “What you vow, ful¿ll” (Cƍ). Qoheleth also replaces Deuteronomy’s alternative or negative condition, “But if you refrain from vowing it shall not count against you as a sin” (B), with a “better that” saying: “Better that you should not vow than that you vow and not ful¿ll” (Bƍ). In the process of inverting the order of Deuteronomy, Qoheleth yields a more logical and coherent sequence.22 Qoheleth reorders the law of vows so that the encouragement to refrain from vowing (B) no longer disrupts the 22. Armin Lange (1991, 133) valuably shows the change of emphasis in the citation, from a focus on vowing to a focus on not vowing. He does not, however, investigate the techniques identi¿ed here, including the inversion of sequence, which were employed for achieving the transformation.

38

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

continuity between the two verses concerned with ful¿lling vows once they are made (A and C). Instead, the admonition to abstain from vowing concludes the unit, thus receiving the emphasis.23 4. Conclusion Qoheleth did not simply cite Deuteronomy as some sort of proof text or as an immutable authority to back his own agenda. Instead, Qoheleth revised and reworked the law of vows, while providing a rethinking and critique of Deuteronomy’s theological rationale for ful¿lling vows. The degree of transformation should be stressed: the law of vows is not cited as divine command or as Torah legislation, but rather as the instruction of Qoheleth himself. Similarly, breach of the teaching is no longer presented as a sin that mandates divine punishment (as in Deut 23:22) but as foolishness that is merely displeasing to God. In that way, the Torah’s absolute prohibition (using the prohibitive in Deut 23:22) is relativized by Qoheleth to a mere transgression against wisdom and good sense. Strikingly, although Qoheleth maintains that it is better not to vow than to vow and not ful¿ll, he never addresses whether it is better to incur divine favor by vowing and paying or to avoid vowing altogether and thereby remain free of the slightest risk of incurring divine displeasure. This is the issue addressed by the rabbinic discussion in the Sipre Deuteronomy. Qoheleth’s exegetical response to Deuteronomy’s law of vows also suggests the recognition of the disordered sequence of its legal content. After Qoheleth rewrites Deuteronomy’s opening general admonition to ful¿ll vows, he proceeds to invert the sequence of the second part of the law in order to restore a more logical order to Deuteronomy’s text. In the process of reformulating the law, Qoheleth actually strengthens the point that Deuteronomy’s interpolator intended to make: better that one should not vow than vow and not pay. Yet Qoheleth departs from Deuteronomy 23. One of the referees for the present study raised an intriguing question regarding an alternative model of textual history: Could it be possible that the order in Deuteronomy was originally ACB, but this was later dislocated to ABC, and that Qoheleth is aware of the earlier form of the text? While theoretically possible, the textual evidence does not permit such a scenario. First, the order of the MT of Deuteronomy’s law of vows is reÀected in both LXX Deut 23:21–23 and the Temple Scroll (11QT 53:11–14), which represent two mutually independent ancient witnesses (see Levinson 2013, 32–34, 51–52). Second, from the vantage point of historical linguistics (as shown above), it seems clear that Qoheleth is revising and reworking Deuteronomy in these verses (given the change of conditional; the change of the negative command form; and the elimination of the Tetragrammaton). 1

LEVINSON “Better That You Should Not Vow”

39

by placing the theological rationale for not vowing on wisdom, rather than on the threat of divine punishment. This study shows that the nature of intertextuality in Qoh 5:3–4 is one in which the author consciously engages and reworks a literary source. Qoheleth reworked Deuteronomy’s law of vows through the use of linguistic updating, the rewriting of its motive clause, and the reordering of the law’s sequence. In its use of textual allusions to debate the wisdom of vowing, Qoheleth introduces a new spirit of theological autonomy and critique. Contrary to Weinfeld’s proposal, noted earlier, there is no need to posit an underlying, shared wisdom tradition to explain the connections between Qoheleth and Deuteronomy’s laws of vows. Direct literary allusion and reworking provides a better explanation of the evidence. Bibliography Barton, George Aaron. 1908. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. ICC. New York: Scribner’s Sons. Reprinted and cited according to Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1959. Baumgarten, Joseph M. 1996. Qumran Cave 4.XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266– 273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon. Brekelmans, Christianus. 1993. Wisdom InÀuence in Deuteronomy. Pages 123–34 in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy. Edited by Duane L. Christensen. SBTS 3. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Carr, David M. 2011. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press. Delitzsch, Franz.1875. Biblischer Commentar über die poetischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Vol. 4, Hoheslied und Koheleth. BC. Leipzig: DörfÀing & Franke. ———. 1891. Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Translated by M. G. Easton. Commentaries on the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Reprinted and cited according to Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1950. Fidler, Ruth. 2006. Qoheleth in “the House of God”: Text and Intertext in Qoh 4:17–5:6 (Eng. 5:1–7). HS 47:7–21. Fischer, Alexander A. 1996. Skepsis oder Furcht Gottes? Studien zur Komposition und Theologie des Buches Kohelet. BZAW 247. Berlin: de Gruyter. Fox, Michael. 2004. Ecclesiastes: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation and Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Gordis, Robert. 1955. Koheleth: The Man and His World. JTSA 19. New York: Bloch. Kaiser, Otto. 1995. Die Botschaft des Buches Kohelet. ETL 71:48–70. Krüger, Thomas. 1997. Die Rezeption der Tora im Buch Kohelet. Pages 303–25 in Schwienhorst-Schönberger 1997. Reprinted and cited as pages 173–93 in Thomas Krüger, Kritische Weisheit: Studien zur weisheitlichen Traditionskritik im Alten Testament. Zurich: Pano, 1997. ———. 2000. Kohelet (Prediger). BKAT 19. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener. ———. 2004. Qoheleth: A Commentary. Translated by O. C. Dean Jr. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.

40

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

Lange, Armin. 1991. Weisheit und Torheit bei Kohelet und in Seiner Umwelt. EHS 23/433. Frankfurt: Lang. ———. 1998. In Diskussion mit dem Tempel: Zur Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kohelet und weisheitlichen Kreisen am Jerusalemer Tempel. Pages 113–59 in Schoors 1998. ———. 2000. Eschatological Wisdom in the Book of Qoheleth and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Pages 817–25 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Conference, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, James C. VanderKam, and Galen Marquis. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. [This is an abbreviated English summary of Lange 1998.] Levinson, Bernard M. 2008. Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2013. A More Perfect Torah: At the Intersection of Philology and Hermeneutics in Deuteronomy and the Temple Scroll. CSHB 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Levinson, Bernard M., and Molly M. Zahn. 2002. Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of J< and ) in the Temple Scroll. DSD 9:295–346. Lieberman, Saul. 1942. Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II–IV Centuries C. E. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Loh¿nk, Norbert. 1989. Kohelet. NEchtB. Stuttgart: Echter. ———. 1998. Warum ist der Tor unfähig, böse zu handeln [Koh 4,17]. Pages 113–20 in XXI. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 24. bis 29. März 1980 in Berlin: Ausgewählte Vorträge. Edited by Fritz Steppat. ZDMGSup 5. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1983. Reprinted and cited according to pages 82–94 in Norbert Loh¿nk, Studien zu Kohelet. SBAB 26. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ———. 2003. Qoheleth: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Sean McEvenue. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress. Michel, Diethelm. 1988. Qohelet. EdF 258. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ———. 1998. “Unter der Sonne”: Zur Immanenz bei Qohelet. Pages 93–111 in Schoors 1998. Pinker, Aron. 2010. Intrusion of Ptolemaic Reality on Cultic Practices in Qoh 4:17. JHS 9 (2009): 2–30. Reprinted and cited according to pages 455–87 in Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures VI. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias. Qimron, Elisha. 1986. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. HSS 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Rofé, Alexander. 1978. The “Angel” in Qoh 5:5 in Light of a Wisdom Discussion Formula. ErIsr 14 (Ginsberg Volume, 1978): 105–9 (Hebrew). ET: The Wisdom Formula “Do Not Say…” and the Angel in Qohelet 5.5. Pages 364–76 in Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J. A. Clines. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum and H. G. M. Williamson. JSOTSup 373. London: Shef¿eld Academic, 2003. Rudolph, Wilhelm. 1959. Vom Buch Kohelet: Vortrag, gehalten anlässlich des Rektoratsantritts am 12. November 1958. Münster: Aschendorff. Schiffman, Lawrence H. 2008. The Laws of Vows and Oaths (Num. 30, 3–16) in the Zadokite Fragments and the Temple Scroll. RevQ 15 (1991): 199–214. Reprinted and cited according to pages 557–72 in idem, The Courtyards of the House of the Lord: Studies on the Temple Scroll. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 75. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1

LEVINSON “Better That You Should Not Vow”

41

Schoors, Antoon. 1992. The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth. OLA 41. Leuven: Peeters & Department of Oriental Studies. ———, ed. 1998. Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. BETL 136. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters. ———. 2000. (Mis)use of Intertextuality in Qoheleth Exegesis. Pages 45–59 in Congress Volume: Oslo. Edited by André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø. VTSup 80. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2004. The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth, Part II: Vocabulary. OLA 143. Leuven: Peeters & Department of Oriental Studies. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger, ed. 1997. Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Struktur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theologie. BZAW 254. Berlin: de Gruyter. ———. 2004. Kohelet. HTKAT. Freiburg: Herder. Seow, C. L. 1996. Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet. JBL 115:643–66. ———. 1997. Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18C. New York: Doubleday. Sommer, Benjamin D. 1996. Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger. VT 46:479–89. ———. 1998. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Spangenberg, Izak J. J. 1998. A Century of Wrestling with Qohelet: The Research History of the Book Illustrated with a Discussion of Qoh 4,17–5,6. Pages 61–91 in Schoors 1998. Taradach, Madeleine, and Joan Ferrer. 1998. Un Targum de Qohélet: Ms. M–2 de Salamanca, Editio princeps—Texte araméen, traduction et commentaire critique. MdB 37. Geneva: Labor et Fides. Tov, Emanuel. 1999. Glosses, Interpolations, and Other Types of Scribal Additions in the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Pages 38–57 in Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr. Edited by Samuel E. Balentine and John Barton. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Reprinted and cited according to pages 53–74 in Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill. Weinfeld, Moshe. 1972. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon.

QOHELETH AS SOLOMON: “FOR WHAT CAN ANYONE WHO COMES AFTER THE KING DO?” (ECCLESIASTES 2:12) Tremper Longman III

1. Introduction The relationship between 1 Kings and the book of Ecclesiastes centers on the portrait of Qoheleth. Qoheleth is ¿rst introduced by the frame narrator (see below) in 1:1: “The words of Qohelet, son of David, king in Jerusalem.”1 Qoheleth introduces himself and initiates an autobiographical section in 1:12: “I, Qohelet, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.” Traditionally, and not without reason, Qoheleth has been associated with or even identi¿ed as Solomon, whose story is found in 1 Kgs 1–11.2 Solomon is not only the biological son of David who ruled over Israel from his capital in Jerusalem, but he also ¿ts the description of a king who exhibits great wisdom (1:16) and possesses great wealth (2:4–9). Early examples of the identi¿cation of Solomon and Qoheleth come from both the Jewish Targum on the book3 and from the early Christian interpreter Gregory Thaumaturgos.4 Such readings arise as interpreters recognize the intertextual relationship between 1 Kgs 1–11 and Ecclesiastes. Such recognition occurs naturally even outside an explicit use of what is recognized today as an intertextual study, similar to what Frevel noted in the study of the relationship between the Psalms and Job: “In analyzing the relations between the Psalms and the book of Job, more and more scholars explicitly employ concepts of intertextuality, while others operate with premises of intertextuality in a merely implicit way.”5 1. Translations of Ecclesiastes are taken from Longman 1998. Other biblical texts are from the NRSV. 2. As well as 1 Chr 29:21–2 Chr 9:31, though below I will comment on why Ecclesiastes’ portrait of Qoheleth is closer to that found in Kings. 3. Levine 1978. 4. Jarick 1990. 5. Frevel 2013, 157. Note also Miller 2011, 284–5.

LONGMAN Qoheleth as Solomon

43

On the surface, the connections between Ecclesiastes and 1 Kings are obvious and led many past readers not only to see Qoheleth as Solomon, but also to the conclusion that Solomon was the author of the book. The purpose of this chapter is to explore further the intertextual relationship between the two books, then to ask about the nature of the connection between Solomon and Qoheleth, reÀecting on how the book’s message is furthered by the relationship between the two. As is well known, scholars conduct intertextual studies diachronically, synchronically or with some combination of both approaches.6 In terms of a diachronic analysis, the question becomes how did a later text utilize the material found in an earlier one? Of course, to conduct such a study, the interpreter must establish the relative dates of composition, a frequently dif¿cult task in biblical studies where such issues are contested. In the case of 1 Kings and Ecclesiastes, however, it is possible to put forward relative dates that will be widely, though not universally, accepted by scholarship to conclude that the picture of Solomon we read in 1 Kings predated the portrait of Qoheleth in Ecclesiastes. Reading Ecclesiastes in the light of the earlier 1 Kings will help us delineate the purpose of the strategy of using Solomon as the model for the ¿gure of Qoheleth. After a diachronic reading, we will consider reading the two books synchronically, that is, side by side. How does such a reading affect our understanding of Solomon and is such a move legitimate? 2. Dates of Composition For the purpose of a diachronic reading as well as an informed synchronic reading, it is helpful to establish the relative dates of composition of the two books. Of course, as we discuss the date of composition, we must be mindful of the history of composition. After all, most biblical books were not written at one sitting. Even so, for our purposes, the most important conclusions concern the date of the ¿nal composition of the books. a. Ecclesiastes Traditionally, the book of Ecclesiastes has been dated to the time of Solomon (ca. 965–928 B.C.E.), based on the identi¿cation of Qoheleth and Solomon. In the ¿rst place, however, this dating arises from a 6. See Miller 2011 for one of the best surveys of the use and issues associated with intertextuality, as well as Kynes 2012, 13–60. I ¿nd myself in agreement with the argument of Nogalski (2013, 129), contrary to Miller, that intertextuality remains an appropriate term not only for synchronic, but also diachronic, studies.

44

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

dubious connection between the historical background of the book and the date of composition. The same mistake has been made with Job by some who argue that Job is an early book since the historical background to the story appears to reÀect a (pre-)patriarchal setting. Second, and related, the exact relationship between Qoheleth and Solomon is the subject of this chapter and will indicate just how dubious it is to approach the dating of the book in this way. In recent years, scholars have examined three characteristics of the book in order to determine the date of composition of the book: the language, socio-economic background, and thought-world of the book. There is broad consensus that the language of the book is post-exilic. Even the conservative nineteenth-century commentator F. Delitzsch recognized this as he stated, “if the book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language.”7 The language of the book ultimately leads him to conclude that the book is “a product of the post-exilian period, and, at the earliest, of the time of Ezra–Nehemiah.”8 Indeed, that the language of the book points to a late date is virtually the consensus at the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-¿rst century.9 For many years, scholars have pointed to the relationship between the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes and Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew, both considered indicators of Late Hebrew.10 While there is widespread agreement to date the language of the book to the post-exilic period, scholars disagree over a more speci¿c date. Perhaps the best argument to date the book more precisely comes from C.-L. Seow, who argues that certain words in the book have a meaning that is limited to the Persian period rather than the Greek period. However, his argument is weakened by the fact that the words he so identi¿es may not have the meaning that he posits for them.11 Scholars have also used the socio-economic conditions alluded to in Ecclesiastes to identify a more precise dating. The book appears to reÀect a time period when there was international peace but considerable internal tension between the rich and the poor (Eccl 5:7–8 [ET 8–9]). Business is thriving (2:4–11; 4:7–8; 5:10–11), but justice is lacking (3:16). There are also indications that coinage had been introduced into 7. Delitzsch 1975 (1872), 190. 8. Delitzsch 1975 (1872), 197. 9. An exception is Fredericks 1988, but see Schoors 1992. 10. The presence of Persian loan words (pardes [2:5] and pitgam [8:11]) have also played a role in this discussion. More controversial is whether there are any Greek loan words in the book. 11. For a speci¿c critique, see Longman 2013, 95–96.

1

LONGMAN Qoheleth as Solomon

45

the society (5:9 [ET 10]; 7:12; 10:19). While these societal characteristics seem to point to the post-exilic period, they are not helpful to determine a more precise dating, as is demonstrated by those who use the same evidence to date it to the Persian12 and the Greek period.13 Lastly, scholars have used the thought-world of the book as a barometer of the time period of composition. Perdue and Rudman have made arguments that Qoheleth’s “under the sun” philosophy reÀects Greek philosophy. However, while Perdue connects Qoheleth’s thinking to Hellenistic and Egyptian skeptical philosophy of the third century B.C.E.,14 Rudman rather identi¿es a relationship with the thought of a Stoic philosopher like Cleanthes, which would suggest a more speci¿c date between 250–225 B.C.E.15 While Perdue and Rudman’s arguments are plausible, it is also possible to ¿nd Qoheleth’s thinking reÀected in other time periods.16 In conclusion, though there are attempts to identify the time of composition more precisely, we can at least with some measure of certainty date the book to the post-exilic period. For the purposes of the present chapter, such a general dating will suf¿ce to determine the relative relationship with 1 Kings. b. Kings There are a number of different theories of the history of composition of the book of Kings. The modern discussion of the date of the composition of Kings usually begins with M. Noth, who in 1943 laid out his view that Kings (along with Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel) was written by an anonymous author, whom he called the Deuteronomist, since the author’s theological perspective reÀects that of the book of Deuteronomy. The book of Kings can thus be dated to the time when the last mentioned event (the release of Jehoiachin from prison during the reign of Evil-Merodach [Amel-Marduk], 562–560 B.C.E.) took place. The purpose of the book of 1 Kings (along with Joshua through 2 Kings) was to explain why Judah experienced defeat and exile at the hands of

12. Seow 1997, 21; Kugel 1989. 13. Burkes 1999, 39; Perdue 2008, 221. 14. Perdue 2013. 15. Rudman (1999) develops this idea originally proposed in an article by Gammie (1985). 16. Indeed, many commentaries have pointed to the ale-wife Siduri’s speech in the Gilgamesh Epic (dated to the pre-exilic period) as a parallel to the pessimistic thinking of Qoheleth.

46

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

the Babylonians.17 A different opinion was put forward by F. M. Cross, Jr.18 He forwarded the idea that Kings was the result of a double redaction. The ¿rst edition of the book was Josianic. The sin of Jeroboam is a major theme of the book and Josiah is both the anticipated (1 Kgs 13) and the actual person who brings Jeroboam’s sin to an end (2 Kgs 23:15). Josiah is the ideal king, a king in the image of David. Thus, the ¿rst edition of Kings (and the entire Deuteronomistic History [Deuteronomy through Kings]) promotes Josiah as an ideal king.19 The remainder of the book of Kings (after 2 Kgs 23:15) was added during the exile. The Gottingen Old Testament scholar Rudolph Smend offers a more “layered” approach to the question of the ¿nal form of the Deuteronomistic corpus, including Kings. He argues that there is a Deuteronomistic historian who dates to the exile as well as a prophetic Deuteronomist who adds prophetic speeches and, further, a nomistic (or law-oriented) Deuteronomist who accentuates the importance of the law either at the end of the period of the exile or the beginning of the post-exilic period.20 These do not exhaust the theories of the composition of the book of Kings. However, for the purposes of this chapter, what is clear is that the picture that Kings presents of Solomon is likely dated no later than the exilic period, and thus predates the book of Ecclesiastes. 3. Reading Ecclesiastes in the Light of 1 Kings a. Search for the Meaning of Life Since we can be fairly con¿dent that 1 Kings predates Ecclesiastes, we begin with a diachronic (author-oriented) approach by reading Ecclesiastes in the light of 1 Kings, particularly chs. 1–11, which present the life and reign of Solomon. While linguistic connections are largely lacking (and thus perhaps weakening the case for an intertextual connection), close examination suggests that the ¿gure of Qoheleth is modeled on the ¿gure of Solomon in 1 Kings. First, the description of Qoheleth as the “son of David, king in Jerusalem” and the assertion by Qoheleth that he has been “king over Israel in Jerusalem,” certainly draws a connection with one of the twenty Davidic descendants who ruled between Solomon and Zedekiah (931– 586 B.C.E.).

1

17. 18 19. 20.

Noth 1991. Cross 1973, 274–89. With some variation, see also the work of Cross’s student, Nelson 2005. Smend 2000.

LONGMAN Qoheleth as Solomon

47

The strongest indication that the speci¿c referent is Solomon is Qoheleth’s connection with wisdom. Qoheleth tried to ¿nd the meaning of life in wisdom in which he excelled according to Eccl 1:16: “I have surpassed in wisdom everyone who ruled Jerusalem before me.”21 Indeed, Qoheleth’s search for meaning is cast as a wisdom project: “I devoted myself to search and to explore wisely all that is done under heaven” (1:13). In this regard, we should also note the extensive use of proverbs in Ecclesiastes 7 and 10. First Kings presents Solomon as the recipient of the gift of wisdom from God (1 Kgs 3:1–15). His wisdom amazed the queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10:1–13) and found practical application in his role as royal judge in 1 Kgs 3:16–28. His wisdom surpassed even the wisest sages of Israel and the rest of the world (1 Kgs 4:29–31). He was also a prodigious producer of proverbs (1 Kgs 4:32–34). Behind Qoheleth’s wisdom is the memory of Solomon’s superior wisdom. Qoheleth also sought the meaning of life in wealth. According to Eccl 2:8, Qoheleth says “I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces.” According to Kings, given a choice, Solomon asked for wisdom above any other thing, and God was so pleased that he also gave him “wealth” (1 Kgs 3:13). Indeed, 1 Kgs 10:14–29 describes Solomon’s splendor and the tremendous revenue that his kingdom received to the point that “King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth” (10:23). A third area in which Qoheleth sought to ¿nd meaning was pleasure, pleasures of all kinds. For instance, he gathered a harem (“many concubines—the pleasure of humankind,” Eccl 2:8). Of course, Solomon was famous for his numerous wives and concubines according to 1 Kings: “He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines” (1 Kgs 11:3). Furthermore, according to Eccl 2:1–11, Qoheleth found pleasure in things other than women that connect him to Solomon. His prodigious building activities, for instance, are reminiscent of Solomon’s. He built houses for himself just as Solomon constructed a palace (1 Kgs 7:1–12). Qoheleth gathered numerous slaves for his pleasure (Eccl 2:7) and Solomon “conscripted the descendants of all these people remaining in the land—whom the Israelites could not exterminate—to serve as slave labor” (1 Kgs 9:20). Qoheleth examined work or toil as yet another place where he might ¿nd meaning in life. Now, granted, the speci¿c word for toil used in Eccl 2:17–23 is not found in 1 Kings in connection with Solomon. However, 21. Below I will consider how this verse also distances Qoheleth from the historical Solomon.

48

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

reading Ecclesiastes in the light of 1 Kings makes one think of Solomon and his son Rehoboam. Ecclesiastes has Qoheleth ultimately denying that meaning can be found in toil because, in spite of all the successful effort that he might put forth, he will ultimately die and the fruits of his efforts will go to someone who comes after him, and, as he says, “who knows whether that person will be wise or foolish? But he will control all the toil for which I so wisely toiled under the sun” (Eccl 2:19). The book of Kings informs us that Solomon turned over his kingdom intact to his son Rehoboam; however, his foolish treatment of the northern tribes led them to secede from Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12).22 b. Qoheleth Above we mentioned that there were no obvious linguistic links between Ecclesiastes and 1 Kings, but perhaps there is one signi¿cant, though subtle, exception. The name Qoheleth (Eccl 1:1, 2, 12; 7:27; 12:8 [with de¿nite article], 9, 10) is an obvious nickname or pseudonym, not a real personal name, and one wonders where it comes from. The name Qoheleth is clearly derived from the root qhl, “to gather together, assemble,” and its form is that of a feminine singular participle, which functions as a professional designation. A possible literal translation is “Assembler” in the sense of “one who assembles a group.” The Greek (ekklesiastes) and Latin translations (ecclesiastes) that give the book its name are extended meanings of the root that ask what kind of group this ¿gure is addressing. The answer given in the meaning of the Greek and Latin words is “Preacher,” a rendition preserved in older English translations like the KJV, as well as at least one modern translation, the ESV. Many modern translations give a different answer to this question by translating “Teacher” (NIV; NLT; NRSV). The translations “Preacher” and “Teacher” give no obvious connection to the ¿gure of Solomon in 1 Kings, but the rendition “Assembler” may well hint at an association with that king since the root qhl in various forms occurs a number of times in relationship to Solomon while he dedicates the newly built Temple (1 Kgs 8:1, 2, 14, 22, 55, 65). Thus, it appears that “Assembler” (Qoheleth) may be an intertextual reference to 1 Kgs 8 and a subtle hint that Solomon is the referent. When read together, there are certainly enough connections between Qoheleth in Ecclesiastes and Solomon in 1 Kings to recognize Solomon in the picture of Qoheleth. Both are Davidic descendants who rule Israel in Jerusalem. Both are incredibly wise and immensely wealthy. Both had 22. Of course, Solomon’s actions at the end of his life created the ¿ssures between the north and south that Rehoboam’s actions caused to completely break. 1

LONGMAN Qoheleth as Solomon

49

large harems and sought pleasure in their building projects. Finally, a case can be made that the nickname Qoheleth attempts to make an association with Solomon. That said, other aspects of the portrait of Qoheleth do not ¿t the Solomon of 1 Kings. Indeed, Qoheleth occasionally speaks as if he is not even a king. Take, for instance, the following passages: Then I turned and observed all the oppression that is done under the sun, and oh, the tears of the oppressed! There is no one to comfort them. Power is in the grasp of the oppressors. There is no one to comfort them. (Eccl 4:1) If you see oppression of the poor and deprivation of justice and righteousness in the province, do not be surprised concerning the situation. For one of¿cial watches out for another, and there are of¿cials over them. The pro¿t of the land is taken by all; even the king bene¿ts from the ¿eld. (5:7–8 [ET 8–9]) Moreover, do not curse the king even in your thoughts; do not curse the rich even in your sleeping chamber, for a bird might carry the message or some winged creature may tell the matter. (10:20)

These statements sound awkward coming from the mouth of a king,23 and in particular a king like Solomon. In the case of the ¿rst and second passages, Solomon had the power to comfort the oppressed and to reverse an exploitative royal policy. Neither text sounds like advice coming from a king. Such statements might be made about Solomon, but not by Solomon. In a different sense, Eccl 1:16a sounds strange if we imagine Solomon speaking these words: I said to myself, “I have surpassed in wisdom everyone who rules Jerusalem before me.”

After all, when Solomon reigned, David was his only precursor, whereas this statement makes it sound like there were multiple previous Israelite rulers centered in Jerusalem. While this statement has made some think that perhaps Qoheleth is Hezekiah rather than Solomon,24 it seems better to conclude that the author of Ecclesiastes is intent on associating Qoheleth with Solomon rather than claiming that Qoheleth is Solomon.

23. The idea that this is a veiled threat by a king is possible, but not likely in my opinion. 24. Shepherd 2008.

50

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

4. What is the Relationship Between Solomon (1 Kings) and Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes)? To summarize, we have observed features of the portrait of Qoheleth that echo the picture of Solomon given in 1 Kings, but also other descriptions that distance the two. Even the nickname Qoheleth associates and distances. If Qoheleth were Solomon, as ancient tradition and some modern conservatives insist, then why not simply use the name Solomon? Why bother with a nickname? The best answer to this question as well as the best explanation of the overall relationship between Qoheleth and Solomon is that the author of Ecclesiastes wants the reader to associate Qoheleth with Solomon but not identify the two. Below, we will consider the purpose of such a literary strategy for the message of the book of Ecclesiastes. Excursus: Qoheleth as a Pastiche of Israel’s Kings In a recent, provocative study, Barbour has argued that the book of Ecclesiastes has a tighter connection with Israel’s historical traditions than usually acknowledged.25 As part of her thesis, she explores the historical background to the ¿gure of Qoheleth. She acknowledges that Solomon is the foundation of the depiction of Qoheleth, but believes that “the speaking king [Qoheleth] is cast not as Solomon alone but as a pastiche of Israel’s kings, and that he sees from the viewpoint of an insider within the whole historical story told in the Hebrew Bible.”26 She establishes her point by correctly noting that a number of kings that follow Solomon share the qualities and experiences that are used to describe Qoheleth. For example, other Judean kings (think particularly of Hezekiah and Josiah) are known for their building projects, their riches, their treasuries, and their association with singers. She even argues that the title Qoheleth is not only related to Solomon by virtue of the root qhl, but also Rehoboam, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and even David. The purpose of such a composite picture is to “rebuke the kings in the mould of Solomon who have presided over that [Israel’s troubled] history” that led to its downfall.27 At ¿rst sight, Barbour’s thesis is a compelling one and almost persuasive. Certainly the postexilic origins of the book would allow for the possibility of such a composite picture. In the ¿nal analysis, however, I remain unconvinced, because it is Solomon and only Solomon whom the historical books, and in particular Kings, associate with wisdom, perhaps the most important characteristic of the depiction of Qoheleth. In addition, 1:12 describes Qoheleth as “king over Israel in Jerusalem,” which would exclude the following Judean kings who did not rule over a united Israel.28 For these reasons, I remain convinced that Qoheleth is modeled exclusively on Solomon, and the Solomon of Kings, not Chronicles (see below).

1

25. 26. 27. 28.

Barbour 2012. Barbour 2012, 10. Barbour 2012, 36. My thanks to W. Kynes for this insight.

LONGMAN Qoheleth as Solomon

51

5. The Purpose of the Intertextual Relationship Between Solomon and Qoheleth Above, we described the intertextual relationship between the books of Ecclesiastes and Kings, as the former book produced its portrait of Qoheleth at least in part from the ¿gure of Solomon in the latter. But why? What is the author’s purpose in constructing the ¿gure of Qoheleth in association with King Solomon? To answer this question, we must ¿rst explore the message of the book of Ecclesiastes, and to do that successfully we must ¿rst recognize that there are two speakers in the book, not one. While Qoheleth’s voice is found in the ¿rst person speaker in 1:12–12:7, a second, unnamed wise man speaks to his son about Qoheleth in 12:8–14. Thus, to understand the message of Ecclesiastes, we have to ask two questions: What is the message of Qoheleth? And then, what is the message of the second wise man? The latter will be the message of the book. Ecclesiastes is thus like Job in having many speakers, with only one, the voice of Yahweh, expressing the message of the book.29 We must begin with Qoheleth’s message since the frame narrator’s advice to his son (the implied reader) interacts with it. In a word, Qoheleth’s message is that life is dif¿cult, and then one dies. He searches for meaning in work, wisdom, pleasure, status, and wealth, but consistently concludes that “everything is meaningless.” He speaks of three factors that render life meaningless. The ¿rst is death. At best, Qoheleth is agnostic about the afterlife (3:18–22), but more likely he is certain that death brings existence to an end (12:1–7). In either case, death nulli¿es the purpose of life. We can see his reasoning displayed as he considers wisdom (2:12–16). He acknowledges the relative advantage of wisdom over folly in this life, but once this life ends, then the bene¿ts of wisdom dissipate. Thus, why grow wise? The second factor that makes life meaningless is injustice. That the wicked are rewarded in this life and praised even after death while the righteous struggle and die young is offensive to Qoheleth (8:9–14). If nothing guarantees reward now and there is no afterlife, why bother (7:15–18)? Life is meaningless. Finally, as a wisdom teacher, Qoheleth knows that the right action and the right words are a matter of timing. The wise person knows when to say the right thing and when to do the right thing. Such is the fundamental nature of wisdom and the teaching of a book like Proverbs. In perhaps 29. Contra much recent Job scholarship (e.g. Newsom 2003). See Longman 2012.

52

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

the best-known passage in the book, Qoheleth makes it clear that he understands that God “makes everything appropriate in its time” (3:11a). After all, “For everything there is a season, and a time for every activity under heaven” (3:1, see the following explication in vv. 2–8). That said, God does not allow people to discern the right time, “no one can discover what God is doing from beginning to end” (3:11b). This situation frustrates Qoheleth and thus contributes to his sense that life has no meaning. These three factors lead Qoheleth to conclude that life is meaningless. Work, wisdom, pleasure, status, and wealth cannot provide life with purpose. The best a person can do is to enjoy life (carpe diem, 2:24–26; 3:12–14, 22; 5:17–19 [ET 18–20]; 8:15; 9:7–10). In this way, one can momentarily forget the harsh reality that life is dif¿cult and then one dies. With Qoheleth’s message in mind, we can now see why the author of the book chose Solomon as his prototype for the ¿gure of Qoheleth. Indeed, in Eccl 2:12, the author speaking through the persona of Qoheleth tells us as much: “For what can anyone who comes after the king do but that which has already been done?” In other words, if the king, and in particular Solomon, could not ¿nd life’s meaning in work, wisdom, pleasure, status, and wealth, then no one can. Those who hear or read Qoheleth’s speech might be able to live under the illusion that they might be able to ¿nd meaning in these areas if only they had more. Take money, for instance. One can always live with the idea that money would bring purpose and satisfaction in life, if only one had more. Solomon, though, had incredible wealth, but did it bring him purpose? How did he end his life? Not well. He committed apostasy, and at his death, the kingdom was divided. Solomon was the richest person of his day, but even so, it did not bring him contentment. Thus, what can anyone else with fewer resources do to ¿nd that contentment? One cannot persist in the idea that contentment would come if one had more. The same may be said about the other areas in which Qoheleth (Solomon) tried to ¿nd meaning. No one was more wise (1 Kgs 4:29–34), had more pleasure (think of his wives and concubines, 1 Kgs 7:3), worked harder or attained a higher status than Solomon.30

30. As is well accepted (except by Barbour), the association between Solomon and Qoheleth is largely limited to the ¿rst few chapters of the book where Qoheleth is searching for the meaning of life. 1

LONGMAN Qoheleth as Solomon

53

To complete our picture of the book of Ecclesiastes, we will brieÀy describe the message of the second wise man as he speaks to his son (12:12) about Qoheleth and his message. That a second wise man is now speaking is signaled by the shift from Qoheleth speaking in the ¿rst person (“I Qoheleth”) to another speaker referring to Qoheleth in the third person (“he Qoheleth”). The second speaker begins by summarizing Qoheleth’s basic conclusion: “Completely meaningless. Everything is meaningless” (12:8). He then speaks respectfully about Qoheleth by referring to him by his professional designation, wise man (hakam). He af¿rms that he is a good technician at his craft (“He heard, investigated, and put in good order many proverbs,” 12:9). He then surprisingly tells his son that Qoheleth “wrote honest words of truth” (12:10). The implication is that Qoheleth was correct to say that life is dif¿cult and then one dies as long as one limits one’s perspective to “life under the sun” (2:20, 22; 3:6; 4:1, 3, 7, etc.). Qoheleth’s message is important to hear, but it is also painful (“like goads…like ¿rmly implanted nails,” 12:11) and one should not spend too much time dwelling on such teachings (“Furthermore, of these, my son, be warned! There is no end to the making of many books, and much study wearies the body,” 12:12). The second wise man concludes by turning from Qoheleth’s message (“The end of the matter. All has been heard,” 12:13a) to instruct his son in what is truly important. “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of humanity. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether good or evil” (12:13b– 14). Though short, in these ¿nal two verses the father urges his son to establish a good relationship with God by fearing him, maintain that relationship by obeying his commandments, and living in the light of the future judgment. Perhaps too, we have, in this very late book, an allusion to the three parts of the Hebrew canon, starting with the Writings (“Fear God”), then the Torah (“keep his commandments”), and the Prophets (“God will bring every deed into judgment”). 6. Why Not Chronicles? Of course, Kings is not the only book that gives us a portrait of King Solomon. Could Chronicles also have contributed to Ecclesiastes’ depiction of Qoheleth in the book of Ecclesiastes? Chronicles presents a much more positive depiction of the kings of Judah. While Kings addressed an exilic audience answering the question why they were in exile, so Chronicles is addressing a postexilic audience

54

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

which had different questions: “What is our connection to the past? How do we behave now?” The Solomon of Chronicles is a much more positive ¿gure. His apostasy (1 Kgs 11:1–13) is not as directly tied, for instance, to the split between the northern and southern tribes. Qoheleth’s anguished search for meaning under the sun ¿ts better with the beleaguered and oppressive king in the book of Kings rather than the successful prosperous monarch who at the end of his life “rested with his ancestors and was buried in the city of David his father” (2 Chr 9:31).31 7. Reading Kings in the Light of Ecclesiastes As mentioned above, intertextual studies can be diachronic, synchronic, or both. Our approach to the relationship between Kings and Ecclesiastes has been diachronic, reading the picture of Qoheleth in the light of the portrait of Solomon. A synchronic reading, combined with a misunderstanding of the rhetorical strategy (and genre) of Ecclesiastes, led earlier interpreters, and continues to lead some readers, to believe that Qoheleth is the historical Solomon and that the book of Ecclesiastes provides additional information about his life. The Midrash Rabbah, for instance, talks of the three main contributions of Solomon—Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes—as belonging to three phases of his life, with the explanation that “when a man is young he composes songs; when he grows older he makes sententious remarks; and when he becomes an old man he speaks of the vanity of things.” The view that Solomon is Qoheleth and that the frame narrator is the voice of Solomon after his wandering from God gives rise to the idea that Solomon repented at the end of his life. Such a view is represented in early Jewish legends of Solomon (Midrash Numbers 11.3; Midrash Song of Songs 3.7.5).32 As Solomon grew debauched through his many wives and excessive wealth, God removed him from the throne and he was replaced by Asmodai, a demon. After his wandering looking for meaning, Solomon eventually repented. In my opinion, such a reading is misguided and demonstrates that not all intertextual readings are equally valid.

31. Though there are hints of the harder end of Solomon’s life in Rehoboam’s interaction with the northern tribes at Shechem in 2 Chr 10. 32. See Christiansen (2007, 92–93), who cites Ginzberg (1968, 4:165ff.) and Holm-Nielsen (1976). 1

LONGMAN Qoheleth as Solomon

55

8. Conclusion The anonymous author of the book of Ecclesiastes presents his message through the persona of the frame narrator who speaks to his son (the implied audience) as he quotes and evaluates the teaching of Qoheleth. Qoheleth could be a real person, but more likely he is a literary construct that represents a school of thought that the author wishes to critique. As part of his rhetorical strategy, the author constructed the ¿gure of Qoheleth in part from the portrait of Solomon as presented in 1 Kings. The purpose of such an association is to show that, because of death, injustice, and the inability to discern the proper time, life lacks meaning if one tries to ¿nd it in wealth, work, wisdom, pleasure, or anything other than God. If Solomon, who had all these in abundance, could not discover the meaning of life in these areas, then how could anyone else? After all, “what can anyone who comes after the king do?” (Eccl 2:12) Bibliography Barbour, J. 2012. The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boda, M. J., T. Longman III, and C. G. Rata, eds. 2013. The Words of the Wise Are Like Goads: Engaging Qohelet in the 21st Century. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Burkes, S. 1999. Death in Qohelet and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Christianson, E. S. 2007. Ecclesiastes Through the Centuries. BBC. Oxford: Blackwell. Cross, Jr. F. M. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Delitzsch, F. 1975. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. Translated by M. G. Easton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [German original, 1872]. Dell, K., and W. Kynes, eds. 2013. Reading Job Intertextually. LHBOTS 574. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Edenburg, C. 2010. Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations. JSOT 35:131–48. Fredericks, D. 1988. Qohelet’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date. Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen. Frevel, C. 2013. Telling the Secrets of Wisdom: The Use of Psalm 104 in the Book of Job. Pages 157–68 in Dell and Kynes 2013. Gammie, J. 1985. Stoicism and Anti-Stoicism in Qoheleth. HAR 9:169–80. Ginzberg, L. 1968. The Legends of the Jews, vol. 4. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. Holm-Nielsen, S. 1976. The Book of Ecclesiastes and the Interpretation of It in Jewish and Christian Theology. ASTI 10:38–96. Jarick, J. 1990. Gregory Thaumaturgos’ Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes. SBLSCS 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

56

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

Kugel, J. 1989. Qohelet and Money. CBQ 51:32–49. Kynes, W. 2012. My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms. BZAW 437. Berlin: de Gruyter. Levine, E. 1978. The Aramaic Version of Qohelet. New York: Sepher-Hermon. Longman III, T. 1998. Ecclesiastes. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2012. Job. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker. ———. 2013. Determining the Historical Context of Ecclesiastes. Pages 89–102 in Boda, Longman, and Rata 2013. Miller, G. D. 2011. Intertextuality in Old Testament Research. CBR 9:283–309. Nelson, R. D. 2005. The Double-Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case Is Still Compelling. JSOT 29:319–37. Newsom, C. A. 2003. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nogalski, J. D. 2013. Job and Joel: Divergent Voices on a Common Theme. Pages 129– 41 in Dell and Kynes 2013. Noth, M. 1991. The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic. Perdue, L. G. 2008. The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2013. The Book of Qohelet “Has the Smell of the Tomb about It”: Mortality in Qohelet and Hellenistic Skepticism. Pages 103–16 in Boda, Longman, and Rata 2013. Rudman, D. 1999. A Note on the Dating of Ecclesiastes. CBQ 61: 47–52. Schoors, A. 1992. The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study in the Language of Qohelet, vol. 1. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek/Uitgeverij Peeters. Seow, C.-L. 1997. Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18C. New York: Doubleday. Shepherd, J. E. 2008. Ecclesiastes. Pages 253–365 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Revised Edition, vol. 6. Edited by T. Longman III and D. E. Garland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Smend, R. 2000. The Law and the Nations: A Contribution to Deuteronomistic Tradition History. Pages 95–109 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville. SBTS 8. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

1

QOHELETH AND ISAIAH IN DIALOGUE* Richard L. Schultz

1. Introduction There was a time in Hebrew Bible scholarship, in part through the inÀuence of Gerhard von Rad,1 when the independence rather than the interdependence of prophetic and wisdom traditions was emphasized, along with the distinctive bases of authority of sage and prophet within ancient Israel (as expressed in Jer 18:18, for example). To be sure, there are those who emphasize wisdom inÀuence in the prophets,2 but this is usually limited to the use of speci¿c forms and terminology rather than common thematic emphases and concerns. More often, the salvationhistorical roots of prophetic thought are contrasted with wisdom literature, which is portrayed as drawing extensively on the wisdom thought of non-Israelite neighbors. Nevertheless, both Hebrew prophet and sage share a number of common concerns and emphases, including the shape of the life that either pleases God or provokes divine wrath and the effort to account for divine actions as well as the uncertainties of human existence. In the present study I will place the canonical voices of Isaiah and Qoheleth in dialogue with each other, noting thematic commonalities and differences without assuming any direct borrowing or inÀuence. (I acknowledge, however, the likelihood that the numerous and mostly nameless individuals who contributed to the composition and editing of * All biblical citations are the NRSV except where noted. When the Hebrew versi¿cation differs from the English translations, the English verse reference will be noted in brackets. 1. Von Rad (1972, 309) contrasted the prophets, through whom “God gave speci¿c messages to man,” and wisdom, in which “man was in search of himself and took things into his own hand,” though he noted (1972, 23) that, by the time of Sirach, the ideal scholar and teacher also displayed “competence in the law” and “a concern with prophecy.” 2. Wisdom in Ancient Israel (Day, Gordon, and Williamson 1995) contains essays on Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah that both reÀect and critique this emphasis.

58

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

the books that ultimately were included in the Hebrew Bible were familiar with and drew on some of the Israelite traditions and texts in circulation in their day.) I will begin, however, with an author-focused approach, examining several texts in Ecclesiastes in which some scholars have recently claimed to identify the inÀuence of, or even the dependence on, a general category (or genre) of texts or a speci¿c passage within the book of Isaiah, in an effort to assess the likelihood and hermeneutical implications of these claims.3 In the majority of the essay, however, I will adopt a reader-focused approach, considering in several textual examples how reading various Isaianic texts through the lens of Qoheleth’s worldview and rhetoric might affect how we understand Isaiah. In particular, I will be looking at texts in Isaiah that employ prominent terms and themes from the book of Ecclesiastes that, in turn, are less prominent in the prophetic work. I could reverse the direction, and occasionally will, thereby intensifying the resultant dialogue. This is an equally legitimate approach, since I am not presupposing the prophet’s knowledge of Ecclesiastes, especially since some of the authors consulted assume that the sage has, in fact, been inÀuenced here by the prophet.4 2. Claimed Dependence of Ecclesiastes on Isaiah Interpreters of Ecclesiastes occasionally have noted verbal and thematic parallels with texts in Isaiah, suggesting that the former depends on the latter. a. Incompetent Rulers Although the subject is treated much more extensively in Isaiah, both books describe the effects of poor and good leadership. Of particular interest is the pejorative use of the word ĠĜīĥģ (“boys/the youth”) in Isa 3:4–5 and Eccl 10:16–17. In Isa 3:1–3, an imminent divine judgment is announced which will include the removal of all categories of quali¿ed and inÀuential societal leaders, with “boys” (ĠĜīĥģ) being divinely installed as their new “princes” or “of¿cials” (ĠėĜīĬ) and “the youth” (īĥģė) then acting insolently toward the “elder” (ĢĪę). In fact, at that time 3. I summarize my methodology in Schultz 2013, 191–92 and refer there to my lengthier methodological discussions in earlier publications. 4. Accordingly, there is no need to take up the disputed issue of the compositional history of either book before engaging in this dialogue, since this is primarily a “readerly” exercise. I give a methodological justi¿cation for this approach in Schultz 2013, 201–2 and also use a dual approach to intertextuality in that essay. 1

SCHULTZ Qoheleth and Isaiah in Dialogue

59

nearly any common man will qualify to be a leader (Isa 3:6). A similar description occurs in a combined woe/blessing statement in Eccl 10:16– 17: unfortunate is the country whose king is a īĥģ (“servant,” or “a child,” v. 16), rather than a “nobleman” (ĠĜīĘĚČĢĔ, v. 16).5 Ecclesiastes 10:16–17 proceeds to describe this land as one in which its of¿cials (ĝĜīĬ) take up feasting already in the morning, resulting in drunkenness and, ultimately, in the collapse of the “house” of state (10:18). Such rulers are prone to “errors” in judgment (ėĕĕĬ, Eccl 10:5), with “folly” (ğĞĤė) installed in “high places” (10:6).6 These parallel descriptions of immature and self-indulgent of¿cials lead Thomas Krüger (2004, 188) to suggest another Isaiah connection here, namely that the remark about the princes’ “eating and drinking customs” in Eccl 10:16b and 17b “perhaps alludes to the reproaches in Isa 5:11, 22.”7 Isaiah 5:11 similarly pronounces a “woe” (with ĜĘė, whereas Eccl 10:16 uses ĝğČĜē), here not on the land of the indulgent leaders but on those “who rise early in the morning (īĪĔĔ) in pursuit of strong drink,” the same time of day when the of¿cials take up feasting according to Eccl 10:16 (cf. Isa 5:12, ĠėĜĭĬġ ĘĜĜĘ). In Isa 5:11–12, these individuals are not explicitly described as of¿cials, but they clearly enjoy afÀuence and leisure, and Isa 5:13 does refer to “nobles” (ĖĘĔĞ). Clearer in this regard is the “woe” which begins in Isa 5:22 against those “who are heroes in drinking wine” and who also (or as a result, see Isa 28:7) “acquit the guilty for a bribe” (5:23). The combination here of four features (a woe, leaders, feasting and drinking, and a setting inappropriately early in the day) offers a suf¿cient basis for claiming an allusion here, although it would be dif¿cult to demonstrate that Ecclesiastes is the borrower, unless one concludes on the basis of composition-historical grounds that Ecclesiastes is later than the Isaiah text. Nevertheless and not surprisingly, both books bemoan the state of the nation plagued by such leaders, and Isaiah even describes them as placed in of¿ce as a divine judgment against the nation.

5. Regardless of how one translates ĠĜğĘğĥĭ in Isa 3:4 (“babes,” NRSV, or “capricious children,” NASB), it appears that Isa 3 contrasts the ages of the leaders, while Eccl 10 contrasts their previous social statuses. 6. Fredericks (in Fredericks and Estes 2010, 221, 224–26) also notes the parallels here between Ecclesiastes and Isaiah, even stating that, “[i]n a prophetic voice, Qoheleth’s answer is the same as Isaiah” (2010, 224), but sees no relationship of dependence here. 7. See also Bartholomew (2009, 326), who additionally cites Isa 21:5 and Prov 31:4–9.

60

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

b. Eschatological Imagery There is greater consensus among recent commentators on Ecclesiastes concerning the source of the description in Eccl 12:2 (“before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars are darkened and the clouds return with the rain”). According to Michael Fox (2004, 77), Eccl 12:1–7 presents two events—“the end of a world and the end of a person”— which “resonate in each other.” Fox does not go beyond claiming that “motifs in the poem resemble the disastrous day of judgment described in the Prophets and called ‘the day of the LORD’ and equivalent terms,” but others do. Seow (1997, 376), for example, argues that the threat here is “far more cosmic and universal” than an approaching rain storm: “The imagery is eschatological.”8 Among the prophetic texts Seow lists here in support are Isa 5:30 and 13:10. Isaiah 5:30 (“And if one looks to the land—only darkness and distress; and the light grows dark with clouds”) is an unhelpful parallel since clouds are not mentioned in any other eschatological texts and rain is normally viewed as a covenantal blessing unless explicitly described as torrential and accompanied by other destructive meteorological phenomena, as in Ezek 13:11, 13. Furthermore, it is questionable whether Isa 5:30 should be described as eschatological, since it forms a literary bracket with Isa 8:22 around Isa 6–8 and, in light of its immediate context, more likely refers to the imminent invasion of the Assyrian army. (Compare Isa 5:26–29, which leaves the invaders unidenti¿ed, with Isa 8:7–8, which identi¿es them as Assyria.) Isaiah 13:9–10 offers a much closer parallel: “See, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and ¿erce anger, to make the earth a desolation, and to destroy its sinners from it. / For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.” If Eccl 12:2 is understood eschatologically, Isa 13:9 would offer a good parallel to Eccl 12:14 (“For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.”), a connection that most commentators would be disinclined to make, since they commonly attribute Eccl 12:9–14 to one or more later editors. Apart from the imagery of Eccl 12:2, however, nothing else in 12:1–7 clearly points to an end-of-theworld scenario; instead, the closest parallel is found in Eccl 11:1–8, which similarly refers to “disaster” (v. 2), “clouds” (vv. 3, 4), “rain” (v. 3), “light” (v. 7), “sun” (v. 7), and “darkness” (v. 8), all of them

8. Seow develops this claim more fully in the essay, “Qoheleth’s Eschatological Poem” (1999). See also Bartholomew 2009, 348. 1

SCHULTZ Qoheleth and Isaiah in Dialogue

61

occurring in a non-eschatological context.9 Although Ecclesiastes may draw on prophetic “day of the LORD” imagery in these verses, there is no compelling reason to view the coming “days of trouble” (ėĥīė ĜġĜ, Eccl 12:1; cf. 11:2) as end-times events.10 c. New Creation Interpreters of Ecclesiastes also have claimed the inÀuence of Isaiah in the formulation of the opening poem in Eccl 1:9–11. Jennie Barbour (2012, 51–54) develops this claim most fully, noting a conÀuence of three terms here in Ecclesiastes which occur repeatedly in Isa 40–66: “the new” (ĭĘĬĖĚ/ĬĖĚ), “the former things/persons” (ĠĜģĬēī/ĭĘģĬēīė), and “remembrance/remember” (īĞę/ĢĘīĞę), and, accordingly, seeing here a “deliberated allusion,” even an “exegetical relationship between Eccles. 1:9–11 and the prophets, predominantly the book of Isaiah.” Based on his dating of both Ecclesiastes and Isa 65–66 to the third century B.C.E., Krüger (2004, 54) opines that it is “hardly conceivable that a Jewish theologian of the third century B.C.E. could support his thesis [Qoh 1:9] without a side glance at the contemporaneous historical ideas of postprophetic eschatology and apocalypticism.” More generally, Seow (1997, 116) concludes that “the words of Qohelet in 1:9–11 echo the protoapocalyptic proclamations of Deutero-Isaiah that new things were about to happen, which would be unlike the former things (Isa 42:9).” Since new things are coming, the exiled Israelites are no longer to remember the former things, presumably referring to the prophetic words issuing in the divine judgment of destruction or exile (see Isa 41:22; 42:9; 43:9, 18; 46:8–9; 48:3; 65:16–17). The speci¿c content designated by the emphasis of the words “new,” “former,” and “remember” in Isa 40–66 is disputed; furthermore, it is not uniform throughout these chapters, whether or not this reÀects the compositional complexity of the book. For example, in 46:8–9 the addressees are expressly encouraged to remember rather than to forget “the former things” as in 43:18, and in 65:17 the scope of the “former things” is broadened to encompass the whole cosmos as the ¿rst creation.

9. Both Ecclesiastes and Isaiah make abundant use of the imagery of “light” (īĘē) and “darkness” (ĝĬĚ) to portray positive and negative events and experiences, respectively, often pairing these two words, but such ¿gurative language is too prevalent through the Bible to conclude that there is any relationship of dependence here. 10. Barbour (2012, 152–53) argues that the imagery of Eccl 12:2–7 more closely resembles city laments than prophetic “day of the LORD” language.

62

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

Although not agreeing on all details, these interpreters see Qohelet engaging here in a critical dialogue with proto-apocalyptic thought, as developed most fully in Isa 40–66. With the claim that “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl 1:9), Qoheleth is “clearly distancing himself from a hopeful expectation that something new means something better,” making the “anti-eschatological point”11 that the allegedly new “has already been, in the ages before us” (Eccl 1:10). More signi¿cant for Barbour (2012, 52, 53) is Qoheleth’s repeatedly expressed “skepticism” regarding “historical memory.” In her view, according to Qoheleth, the “former things” do not recede into the background amidst the glory of the eschatological “new things” (as in Isaiah), but rather simply fade away, just as everything under the sun is condemned to do. Thus Qoheleth’s ĠĜģĬēīğ ĢĘīĞę ĢĜē in 1:11 (“The people of long ago are not remembered”) functions “as a concessive quotation” of ĭĘģĬēīė ėģīĞęĭ ēğĘ in Isa 65:17 (“the former things shall not be remembered”; cf. also 43:18; 65:16). The conÀuence of these three terms is indeed intriguing, as is the suggestion that the book is framed by “eschatological” allusions in 1:9– 11 and 12:1–7. Together they would imply that the author does not reject the idea of a cosmic meltdown and divine judgment at the end of the age, but only the illusory hopes vested in a new, improved world to follow. The problem here is not in the contrasting claims of the protoapocalyptic prophetic and the critical wisdom voices in these texts, but rather in the very different referents and emphases related to the three terms in these two books. As admitted by the interpreters just cited, “former” and “latter” in Ecclesiastes most likely refer to people, both to generations as well as to individuals and their achievements, whereas in Isaiah they refer to eras or events resulting from divine actions. Furthermore, “new” in Eccl 1:9 probably refers to progress and innovation through human activity (“and what has been done is what will be done,” cf. 2:17) in light of the reference to speaking, seeing, and hearing in 1:8 (cf. 2:17).12 A stronger case could be made for a deliberate contrast in Eccl 1:10 between an eschatological hope of something radically new and the claim that the seemingly new “has already been, in the ages

11. Barbour 2012, 51. Seow (1997, 116) sees “a polemic against apocalypticists” here, while Krüger (2004, 53) sees in Eccl 1:3–11 “a countermodel” to Trito-Isaiah’s “eschatological ethics.” 12. The verb “to do/make” (ėĬĥ) occurs 43 times in Ecclesiastes in 37 verses, 14 of them in the Niphal stem, as in 1:9, 13, 14, and most of them clearly referring to human actions. (But see 8:17 and 9:3, which may refer indirectly to divine action.) 1

SCHULTZ Qoheleth and Isaiah in Dialogue

63

before us” (Ęģģħğġ ėĜė īĬē ĠĜġğĥğ ėĜė īĔĞ ēĘė), although the horizon of reference here is more likely staked out by the initial verse of the passage, 1:4: “A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever” (ĭĖġĥ ĠğĘĥğ ĨīēėĘ ēĔ īĘĖĘ ĝğė īĘĖ). When Ecclesiastes speaks of not remembering (1:11; 2:16; 5:19 [20]; 9:5, 15), it always refers to remembering humans and their deeds; conversely, in Isa 40–66 (43:18; 44:12; 46:8–9; 54:4; 63:10; 65:17) the emphasis is on remembering or not remembering divine actions. In sum, Ecclesiastes and Isaiah express different perspectives regarding continuity and discontinuity in the natural and human worlds, but it is dif¿cult to demonstrate that this results from a deliberate dialogue (i.e. verbal and conceptual dependence) between the two books. 3. Reading Isaiah through Qoheleth’s Eyes: Intertextual ReÀections In the preceding section, I discussed three examples in which scholars have claimed that the author of Ecclesiastes is aware of or responding to Isaianic texts or concepts, and I have concluded that direct literary dependence is likely only in the allusion involving Eccl 10:16–17 and Isa 5:11–12, 22–23. In the following pages I will offer a few examples in which a prominent word in Ecclesiastes occurs one or more times in Isaiah, noting how the latter uses the term in similar or distinct ways and sketching the shape of the ensuing canonical dialogue between these two books, without claiming any direct dependence in either direction.13 a. ğĔė and the Brevity of Life The word ğĔė occurs 38 times in Ecclesiastes, thus constituting the most distinctive term in the book. Whether translated more negatively as “senseless” or “meaningless” or, more neutrally, as “transient” or “ephemeral,” which is my preference, the fact that everything under the sun is touched by ğĔė casts a shadow over every human effort and achievement. ğĔė occurs only three times in Isaiah. First, in 30:7 it characterizes the inadequacy of Egypt’s offer to assist Judah, presumably against the advancing Assyrian army, with Egypt’s futility echoing the repeated conclusion in Ecclesiastes. In Isa 57:13, trusting in idols is

13. Since the focus here is on the Isaianic expression of themes from Ecclesiastes, their expression and development in the latter cannot be fully developed. For a discussion of some of the themes, see Schultz (2000, 211–15) and especially Fox (1999).

64

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

contrasted with relying on God; the former will be carried away by a “wind” (ĚĘī) and a “breath” (ğĔė). These two words also occur together in several verses in Ecclesiastes (1:14; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 16; 6:9; cf. 3:19, the former typically in the phrase “a chasing after wind,” ĚĘī ĭĘĥī). Most interesting is Isa 49:4, in which the servant of the LORD complains, “I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity” (ĜĭĜğĞļĜ ĚĞļ ğĔėĘ ļĘėĭğ ļĜĭĥĕĜļ ĪĜīğ), an assessment that easily could have come from the mouth of Qoheleth, for example in 2:18–19, 22–23. The resolution in Eccl 2 is found in eating and drinking and ¿nding enjoyment in one’s toil as (Àeeting) gifts from the hand of God (Eccl 2:24–26), while in Isa 49:4 the resolution lies in relying on God to adjudicate one’s cause (ĜěħĬġ) and reward one’s efforts (Ĝĭğĥħ), a conviction that is also expressed in Ecclesiastes (e.g. Eccl 3:17; 12:14). Though less prominent in Isaiah than in Ecclesiastes, the usage of the word ğĔė in the former is clearly similar to the emphasis in the latter. b. ĭĥ and Proper Timing Another prominent theme in Ecclesiastes is time (ĭĥ; 40 times in 18 verses), especially with respect to the “catalogue of the times” in Eccl 3:1–8. I have argued elsewhere14 that Qoheleth is not simply presenting here a doctrine of divine determinism which humans are unable to discern, inÀuence, or align their actions with (as suggested by 9:10–11), but rather teaching that a wise individual is expected to know when and how to act (8:5–6; 10:16–17), neither acting too quickly nor too slowly (5:1, 3 [2, 4]; īėġ/īĚē). There may be a “suitable” time to die (3:2, 11), but one can also die “before one’s time” by acting wickedly (7:17). Isaiah (ĭĥ; 11 times) expresses a largely contrasting perspective. Rather than emphasizing a repeated cycle or rhythm of polar times, Isaiah focuses on speci¿c times, especially the before of oppression and judgment and the after of Israel’s salvation and deliverance (Isa 8:23 [9:1]; 17:14; 33:2; 49:8; 60:22).15 Rash actions will cease (īėġ; Isa 32:5; 59:7; also 28:16 with ĬĘĚ) and God’s actions will be carried out quickly, as requested in Isa 5:19 (likewise īėġ; 49:17, reading ĝĜģĔ as “your children”; 51:19; also 60:22 with ĬĘĚ), and without delay (īĚē; 46:13). This very different development of the theme of time in Isaiah makes it unlikely that Ecclesiastes is taking over apocalyptic motifs from the prophet, as discussed above.

1

14. See Schultz 2005. 15. See also Isa 13:22 regarding Babylon’s coming doom.

SCHULTZ Qoheleth and Isaiah in Dialogue

65

c. “Weal and woe” This is not to imply, however, that Ecclesiastes and Isaiah represent divergent views concerning God’s sovereign control over the human condition. Note, for example, the similar claims made in each book: Eccl 7:14: ĠĜėğēė ėĬĥ ėęČĭġĥğ ėęČĭē Ġĕ ėēī ėĥī ĠĘĜĔĘ ĔĘěĔ ėĜė ėĔĘě ĠĘĜĔ

In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider; God has made the one as well as the other. Isa 45:7: ėğēČğĞ ėĬĥ ėĘėĜ Ĝģē ĥī ēīĘĔĘ ĠĘğĬ ėĬĥ ĝĬĚ ēīĘĔĘ īĘē īĩĘĜ

I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the LORD do all these things.

Ecclesiastes is commonly viewed as a wisdom book that, along with Job, wrestles with the problem of theodicy, but this theme is also not absent from Isaiah. Ecclesiastes, on the one hand, addresses the observed inequities of life in which the righteous are not always rewarded (immediately) or the wicked punished, either by God or his delegated governmental agents, as well as the sense of futility resulting from the mysteries of life (i.e. that which cannot be known or discovered) and the fact that little or nothing that is accomplished “under the sun” will last or be long remembered. In response, Ecclesiastes emphasizes the certainty of future judgment along with the value of enjoying God’s everyday creation gifts (Eccl 3:16–17; 8:9–15). Isaiah, on the other hand, focuses on the Israelites’ arrogant expectation that, as God’s covenant people, they should be immune from judgment, or, having been exiled, their concern that they have been permanently “divorced” from God, as well as their objections to God’s choice of agents of judgment (Assyria) and deliverance (Cyrus).16 Ecclesiastes 7:14 concludes a discourse (7:1–14) in which a series of contrasting items are juxtaposed (e.g. “the day of death” and “the day of birth,” v. 1) in such a way as to demonstrate that the less pleasant experiences often will be the more bene¿cial. The verse is immediately preceded in 7:13 by the charge to “consider the work of God” and the rhetorical question, “who can make straight what he has made crooked?” which involves the theological transformation of a proverb used previously in 1:15. God has “made” both the pleasant (ėĔĘě) days and experiences as well as the unpleasant (ėĥī) ones, such as those described in the preceding verses. The exact function of the phrase ĭīĔĖČğĥ in the 16. See, e.g., Schroeder 2001.

66

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

following clause (“so that mortals may not ¿nd out anything that will come after them”) is unclear, but it is translated as “because” in Eccl 8:2 and thus may indicate that we should reÀect on the fact that both good and bad days come from God and serve God’s sovereign purposes although we as humans cannot foreknow anything about the future or, more speci¿cally, how both ultimately will serve our best interests. Isaiah 45:7, though similarly af¿rming God as the originator of both “weal and woe” (using the same verb, ėĬĥ, as Eccl 7:14), gives less attention to the speci¿c human experiences in order to make broader theological—and historical—claims. Preceded by an allusion to God’s original creative actions (“I form light and create darkness”), which correspond symbolically to “weal and woe,” God is here emphasizing in a ¿rst-person monologue his unrivaled control of history, since “besides me there is no other god” (Isa 45:5). Thus he can “anoint,” “grasp,” “open doors before,” and “call” Cyrus to “subdue nations” for “the sake of…Israel my chosen” (45:1, 4). Accordingly, “woe” (ĥī) here is paired with “weal” (ĠĘğĬ, 30 times in Isaiah, cf. Eccl 3:8), which is always a divine gift and less dependent on human subjective assessment than “good” (ĔĘě, as in Eccl 7:14). Here again, an intertextual comparison between two similarly formulated claims of divine sovereignty serves to distinguish the differing emphases of Ecclesiastes and Isaiah while highlighting their shared assertions. d. Eating and Drinking as a Source of Everyday and Eschatological Joy One of the prominent features of Ecclesiastes is the refrain-like call to eat and drink (Eccl 2:24; 3:13; 5:17 [18]; 8:15; 9:7; cf. “eat” only in 2:25; 5:18 [19]). This theme progresses from an initial “nothing better than” af¿rmation in 2:24 to an imperatival charge in 9:7 and is explicitly linked with enjoyment (ėĚġĬ/ĚġĬ) in 8:15 and 9:7 and in the near context in 2:26; 3:12; 5:19[20]. Interpreters offer diverse assessments of this theme. On the one extreme, it has been viewed as an encouragement of hedonism and, on the other, as a minimalistic source of pleasure in the midst of an otherwise miserable existence. A more balanced view results from noting that these everyday pleasures are portrayed as a “gift of God” in Eccl 3:13 and 5:18 [19] (see also 2:24–25) and therefore “¿tting” (ėħĜ, Eccl 5:17 [18]; also in 3:11) to enjoy.17 Eating and 17. Given the traditional association of Ecclesiastes with Solomon, the striking verbal parallel between Qoheleth’s refrain and 1 Kgs 4:20 (“Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea; they ate and drank and were happy”) suggests an association here not merely with creational abundance but also with covenantal ful¿llment. 1

SCHULTZ Qoheleth and Isaiah in Dialogue

67

drinking are similarly mentioned together in Isa 21:5; 22:13; 29:8; 36:12, 16; 62:9; 65:13, and they are explicitly linked with enjoyment in 22:13 and 65:13. The repeated encouragement in Ecclesiastes to eat, drink, and enjoy one’s labor—and one’s wife (9:9)—offers a helpful corrective to ascetic tendencies to the contrary. Qoheleth also warns of the deleterious consequences of eating too much (5:11 [12]), amidst emotional turmoil (5:16 [17]), and, most problematically, as discussed above (see section 2a), self-indulgently at inappropriate times rather than pursuing one’s assigned tasks (10:16–17). According to Eccl 10:19, these unrestrained individuals follow the motto “Feasts are made for laughter; wine gladdens life, and money meets every need” (Eccl 10:19), which, if pursued by one’s leaders, can lead to a collapse of the national infrastructure (Eccl 10:18). A similar attitude is reÀected in Isa 22:12–13, although clearly under more threatening circumstances: “In that day the Lord God of hosts called to weeping and mourning, to baldness and putting on sackcloth; / but instead there was joy and festivity, killing oxen and slaughtering sheep, eating meat and drinking wine. ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’” (also quoted in 1 Cor 15:32). The “LORD of hosts” labels this attitude an unforgivable iniquity (22:14). Reading Ecclesiastes intertextually in light of Isa 22:13 could support the view that the call to eat and drink in the former is advocating hedonism, but, unlike Isa 22:13, the stance in Ecclesiastes does not originate in a time of foreign military invasion. In contrast to Isa 22:14—and the condemnation of drunkenly dysfunctional of¿cials in Isa 5:22–23 and 28:7 (cf. 28:1, 3)—the book of Isaiah also portrays eating and drinking positively as a covenant blessing, in that the Israelites will eat what they harvest rather than losing it to foreign invaders (Isa 62:8–9; 65:21; cf. Deut 28:30, 33, 51), and as the privilege of God’s faithful servants among the people but withheld from the rebellious (Isa 65:13).18 More remarkable is the portrayal of an endtimes meal on Mt. Zion: “On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, of rich food ¿lled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear.” Here we can see the culmination of Qoheleth’s encouragement to enjoy eating and drinking as divine gifts (Eccl 9:7–8) in a multi-national eschatological banquet.

18. See also the Assyrian commander’s deceptive offer in Isa 36:12, 16.

68

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

e. Reading the “Fourth Servant Song” in Dialogue with Ecclesiastes There are additional parallel themes within Ecclesiastes and Isaiah which could be examined here, but I will conclude by looking more closely at the intertextual connections between Ecclesiastes and a speci¿c Isaianic text. A close reading of Isa 52:13–53:12, commonly labeled the “Fourth Servant Song,” by one steeped in the language of Ecclesiastes reveals some striking linguistic parallels. These go beyond the fact that at least sixty words from Isa 52:13–53:12 also occur in Ecclesiastes, since a signi¿cant number of these words are distinctive or uncommon terms in the latter, including (in alphabetical order) ĜğĚ, ĪğĚ, ĨħĚ, ĔēĞġ, ěħĬġ, ĥĕģ, ğĔĤ, ğġĥ, ėģĥ, ĥĕħ, ĪĜĖĩ/ĪĖĩ, ėēī, ĥĬī, ĥĔĬ, and ĠĘğĬ. Moreover, some of these words have very different connotations in the two books (compare, e.g., ĥĕģ in Eccl 8:14; 12:1 and Isa 53:4, 8, or ĥĕħ in Eccl 9:11 and Isa 53:6, 12). Reading intertextually, one notes how the situations observed or experienced by Qoheleth and those experienced by the “servant” are described in similar ways. Both speak of sickness and pain (ĜğĚ, ĔēĞġ; Eccl 1:18; 2:23; 5:16[17]; Isa 53:3–4), with the righteous often suffering what the wicked deserve (ĪĜĖĩ/ĪĖĩ, ĥĬī; Eccl 7:15; 8:14; Isa 53:5, 9, 11–12), thereby being deprived of “justice” (ěħĬġ; Eccl 3:16; 5:7[8]; Isa 53:8). The deprivations and dif¿culties of the servant of Isa 52–53 are portrayed using two terms that also occur in Ecclesiastes. The word “anguish” or “toil” (ğġĥ, Isa 53:11; 35 times in Ecclesiastes as noun or verb) in Ecclesiastes is frequently used to characterize the human condition as consisting of wearisome and often futile labor. It is less clear that the word “afÀict” (ėģĥ, Isa 53:7, 8; Eccl 1:13; 3:10; 5:19[20]) is derived from the same Hebrew root in both books, since in Ecclesiastes it presumably is related to the noun ĢĜģĥ (NRSV: “business, work, cares, venture”; 8 times). Aarre Lauha (1978, 38, 62) understands the word to mean “to afÀict” in 1:13 and 3:10 (German “plagen”), supported by the Vulgate’s use of “adÀictionem” in Eccl 3:10. A key repeated term in Ecclesiastes is ĨħĚ (3:1, 17; 5:3, 7; 8:3, 6; 12:1, 10), which also occurs twice in Isa 53:10 in a climactic context. In both books the common gloss of “delight” or “pleasure” for ĨħĚ is sometimes ¿tting, as in Eccl 5:3[4]; 8:3; 12:1, 10; and Isa 1:11; 13:17; 56:4; 58:2, 13; 62:4; 65:12; 66:3, 4. Elsewhere, however, the connotation of “conforming to one’s desire or will” ¿ts better, as reÀected in the traditional KJV translation of “purpose” in Eccl 3:1, in comparison with which NRSV’s “matter” is rather colorless. Krüger (2004, 76, 77) understands the word here as referring to “‘intentional’ human activity,” a person’s “plan”), which is supported by its pairing with ėĬĥġė (“work” 1

SCHULTZ Qoheleth and Isaiah in Dialogue

69

or “deed”) in 3:17. Ecclesiastes 3:2–8 proceeds to list a series of polar (i.e. on the surface desirable or undesirable) human experiences and actions, each of which God has made “suitable for its time” (Eccl 3:11). This implies that humans possess at least a limited capacity to discern and align their activities with an overarching divine purpose, if there is a proper “time for every activity under the heavens” (NIV).19 Similarly, in Isa 53:10, though the LORD’s “will” or purpose involves crushing pain, it will result in that “will” prospering through the servant and, ultimately, in the servant’s “satisfaction” (Isa 53:11). One ¿nal series of contrasts is worth noting. Whereas Eccl 3:3 and 8 merely assert that there is “a time” for healing and wholeness (ēħī, ĠĘğĬ), Isa 53:5 af¿rms that the servant’s suffering procures these bene¿ts for others (“us”). Whereas Ecclesiastes asserts that gain is to be found in passively accepting one’s “portion,” whatever it may be (ĪğĚ, Eccl 3:22; 5:17–18[18–19]; 9:9), God will “allot” the servant, as his reward, “a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong” (using the verbal form of the same root twice). And whereas Qoheleth recounts in detail his—and the common human—struggle to achieve a degree of lasting “satisfaction” (ĥĔĬ, Eccl 1:8; 4:8; 5:9[10]; 6:3), in the end the servant will “see” (ėēī, another word commonly used in Ecclesiastes for experiencing pleasure) and “¿nd satisfaction” (ĥĔĬĜ, Isa 53:11). To summarize, reading the “Fourth Servant Song” in dialogue with Qoheleth is not simply a pleasant “readerly” exercise, but rather it can serve to highlight the extent to which Isaiah’s servant shares the common human experience of toil, pain, and injustice as well as the ways in which his task and rewards are unique. 4. Conclusion Although on the surface the books of Ecclesiastes and Isaiah have little in common, an intertextual comparison of the two reveals some striking overlaps in vocabulary as well as parallel expressions and motifs. Reading Ecclesiastes in light of Isaiah (the approach in the ¿rst section of the essay) and Isaiah in light of Ecclesiastes (the approach in the second section of the essay), in each case, helped to identify themes in the former that otherwise might escape the interpreter’s notice. The resultant “dialogue” between Ecclesiastes and Isaiah underscores both the similarities in and differences between the emphases of each.

19. See a fuller defense of this claim in Schultz 2005.

70

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

Bibliography Barbour, Jennie. 2012. The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bartholomew, Craig G. 2009. Ecclesiastes. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker. Day, John, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson, eds. 1995. Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, Michael V. 1999. A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2004. Ecclesiastes ĭğėĪ. JPS Bible Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Fredericks, Daniel C., and Daniel J. Estes. 2010. Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. AOTC 16. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP. Krüger, Thomas. 2004. Qoheleth. Hermeneia. Translated by O. C. Dean, Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress. Lauha, Aarre. 1978. Kohelet. BKAT 19. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener. Rad, Gerhard von. 1972. Wisdom in Israel. Translated by J. D. Martin. Nashville: Abingdon. Schroeder, Christoph O. 2001. History, Justice, and the Agency of God: A Hermeneutical and Exegetical Investigation on Isaiah and the Psalms. BIS 52. Leiden: Brill. Schultz, Richard L. 2000. Ecclesiastes. Pages 211–15 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Leicester: IVP. ———. 2005. A Sense of Timing: A Neglected Aspect of Qoheleth’s Wisdom. Pages 257–67 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2013. Job and Ecclesiastes: Intertextuality and a Protesting Pair. Pages 190–203 in Reading Job Intertextually. Edited by Katherine Dell and Will Kynes. LHBOTS 574. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Seow, Choon-Leong. 1997. Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18C. New York: Doubleday. ———. 1999. Qoheleth’s Eschatological Poem. JBL 118:209–34.

1

POLYPHONIC NARRATION IN ECCLESIASTES AND JONAH Mary Mills

The present study brings two individual biblical books—Ecclesiastes and Jonah—into alignment under the heading of inter-textual reading. It does so by engaging both works with the theories of Mikhail Bakhtin concerning polyphonic narration. Each book is explored via this reading lens under a single set of topics which is applied to both works. This methodology leads the reader to reÀect on the use of heteroglossia and polyphony as a literary vehicle for addressing paradoxical experiences. In this context both books are viewed as having a narratival identity. This is uncontroversial in the case of Jonah; with regard to Ecclesiastes, this approach follows on from my treatment of Qoheleth in Reading Ecclesiastes.1 My focus here is on the ambiguities of meaning which emerge from polyphonic narration wherein the narrator manages several interwoven and even opposing performances of identity. In Ecclesiastes this variety is constituted by the “Qoheletic selves” who assume the identity of the single “I,” a human being who narrates a series of experimental approaches to the meaning of life and the nature of the human condition.2 In Jonah it is the pro¿le of the great city Nineveh as a moral self which is explored via a story-teller who embeds the utterances of deity, prophet and city within a tale of judgment and mercy.3 Examining the two books jointly emphasizes the manner in which the narrative voice constructs meaning through conversations. The use of conversations within the self in Ecclesiastes makes the tensions between doubt and certainty accessible to the reader. Reading Jonah through the 1. Mills 2003. 2. This phrase was used in my 2003 treatment of Ecclesiastes to develop the view that the biblical book provides a multi-faceted approach to self-identity when examined from the angles of narrative construction and history of interpretation. 3. This comment picks up the approach I put forward in my 2012 work, where I argued that the city is identi¿ed in Jonah by three voices, of prophet, deity and population.

72

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

conversational perspective reveals that the narrator reports conversations whose content is shaped to give the reader the appearance of transparency while information which ultimately unsettles reader complacency is withheld. The application of aspects of Bakhtinian dialogical analysis to the narrative mechanisms of Jonah and Ecclesiastes reveals the signi¿cance of polyphony in their construction of meaning, emphasizing as it does the value of paradox as a vehicle of communication. Qoheleth’s reÀections demonstrate how paradox takes shape as inner voices compete to control meaning while Jon 3 utilizes internal and external voices to create a message about the paradoxical nature of urban community. The concept of paradox, which in Ecclesiastes tends towards pessimism, doubt and experiential ignorance as a more reliable understanding of the human condition than simple, clear one-dimensional teachings, is Àeshed out in Jonah through the radical opposition of vengeance and mercy. 1. Narrative Voice The fundamental tool by which books construct meaning is that of the narrative voice; writers/editors shape meaning by a conscious organization of content which produces sometimes a visible narrator within the text and sometimes a distant, anonymous ¿gure lying behind the text.4 With regard to examining narrative works, Mieke Bal argues that the “narrator is the most central concept in analysis.”5 The role of the narrative voice, she argues, is to focalize meaning in a story by drawing the reader’s attention to given aspects of plot, characterization and setting. Following Bal’s approach entails taking seriously the way in which inside the editorial outer frame of Ecclesiastes the material is controlled by an embedded narrator, the preacher, whose overall pro¿le is that of a man who engages in self-reÀection about the pro¿tability of life and answers himself pragmatically, relying on a subjective experience of the world.6 Moving from this embedded, visible narrator 4. The role of the narrator has been massively explored by literary critics and the present study draws upon pre-existing discussions in the writings of G. Genette (1980), S. Chatman (1978), and also, more speci¿cally on narrative in Ecclesiastes, E. S. Christianson (1998). 5. Bal 1999, 19. 6. The stereotype of the book is that the speaker raises an issue, looks at what happens in individual cases, then reÀects in the heart, the site of human selfconsciousness and intellectual endeavour. This structure is clearly visible in Eccl 2:3, 10–11, 12, 15. This motif has been labelled “the programmatic question” by, e.g., Graham Ogden (1987, 28–30). 1

MILLS Polyphonic Narration in Ecclesiastes and Jonah

73

to narration in the book of Jonah leads the reader to focus on the narrator, to be sensitive to the authoritative voice of a narrator who, though anonymous and external, controls the production of meaning as robustly as in a more obviously individualistic narrative style. The narrative pro¿le of a book is never neutral, but works to communicate speci¿c viewpoints, as Bal argues: “whenever events are presented they are always presented from a chosen point of view.”7 On the surface the shift from third-party comment to ¿rst-person speech in Ecclesiastes provides an example of rhetorical persuasion through an intimacy in which the audience accesses the speaker’s private space. By contrast, Jonah’s narrator demonstrates the rhetoric of deceit, where readers think that they know what is meant only to realize that their beliefs are misplaced. In the ¿rst style, the narrative voice overtly engages the audience with the paradoxes of living; in the second, the reader is connected with paradox indirectly through the heightened tension caused by the gap between narration and motive. Taking the two styles together, however, nuances the apparent open access between text and reader in Ecclesiastes, since it suggests that the use of a self-interrogating narrator also channels the delivery of information according to a pre-existing intent. Meir Sternberg’s study of biblical poetics suggests that Hebrew Bible narratives demonstrate a sophisticated construction of meaning which relies on devices such as temporal chains, gaps of information and ambiguous situations.8 As an instance of this narrative style Sternberg discusses the use of temporal discontinuity in the book of Jonah: only in Jon 4:2 does the reader discover the terms of Jonah’s conversation with God in ch. 1. Sternberg argues that this textual construction reveals the narrator in Jonah as the focus of knowledge dissemination. When this viewpoint is measured against the way in which the embedded narrator in Ecclesiastes functions, it can be clearly seen that in order to access meaning in texts it is vital consciously to evaluate narrators as actors within the story, focalizing many viewpoints on the line from cosmic to communal to personal.9 Reading across the two books, then, narration can produce paradoxical teaching both by intimacy and by distance between narrator and reader.

7. Bal 1999, 142. 8. Sternberg 1987, 122. 9. Sternberg 1987, 129–30.

74

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

2. Mikhail Bakhtin’s Theories of Voice The nature of speci¿cally polyphonic narration is that it uses plurality of utterance to perform a literary dynamic of point and counterpoint in the production of paradoxical interpretations of daily life. To explore this issue further, it is helpful to draw upon aspects of the dialogic theories of Mikhail Bakhtin with an emphasis on conversation. In Eccl 2–6 and in Jonah, the narrative voice is Àeshed out through conversations inside and between characters concerning the problems of everyday life. Thus, in Eccl 9:1, Qoheleth describes how his observation of society provides material for interior dialogue and, in Jon 4:1–4, the wrestling over meaning is conducted by question and reply between prophet and deity. Barbara Green states that Bakhtinian perspective mirrors the human experience of living in a world whose “pattern is multiple centres, not simply one whose hub ‘we’ inevitably inhabit.”10 Conversational narration underlines the moral signi¿cance of the interplay of multiple voices since no one viewpoint can claim the narrative space. In both biblical books, conversational styles work to demonstrate the paradoxical value of not closing off debate. Open-ended searches for meaning lead to questioning the ¿xity of professional pro¿les: whether an intellectual is permitted to lack knowledge and a prophet to resist conversion. The focus on conversational narrative emerges from Bakhtin’s critical method—the “study of verbal art [which] can overcome the gap between abstract formal and ideological approaches” and his view that “verbal discourse is a social phenomenon.”11 For him, narratives are constructed from “a diversity of social speech types and a diversity of individual voices.”12 They use multiple forms of narrative voice to play out their themes—whether these are authorial speech, narrators, inserted genres, speech of characters.13 In this context conversations can be viewed as a tool for the dialogical development of individual and corporate selfknowledge. Green argues that “I cannot see my whole self. I start with some degree of self-consciousness and bring that into relation with another.”14 Conversation provides a literary tool for the self-authoring which is the “key action of human existence, I author myself and am co-responsible 10. Green 2000, 31. 11. Bakhtin 1998, 259. The selection of opinions used in the present study comes from the essay, “Discourse in the Novel.” 12. Bakhtin 1998, 262. 13. Bakhtin 1998, 263. 14. Green 2000, 35. 1

MILLS Polyphonic Narration in Ecclesiastes and Jonah

75

for the shaping of others with whom I interact.”15 The self is authored in Eccl 2:1–11 through internal conversations about human attempts to maximize pleasure and in Jon 3 through the city’s growth in selfknowledge, as the alien prophetic voice tells her how she appears to a city-state which she has oppressed.16 In these passages, the use of conversation to depict alternative opinions provides the literary poetics by which paradoxical viewpoints are demonstrated within the narrative. As Bakhtin notes, “the novelist does not acknowledge any unitary, singular, naively indisputable language.”17 Bakhtin’s theories cross-reference the unity of purpose imposed on a series of events by the novelist with the manner of telling the story, an act which results in the balancing of complexity against a surface unity. In Jonah, the implied roles of God as judge and prophet as mouthpiece of divine retribution in ch. 1 are critiqued by narration which shifts the divine pro¿le to mercy while leaving Jonah as the voice of doom. In Eccl 2–6, the inter-action of multiple personas produces a polyphony which demonstrates the complex paradoxical manner in which human beings work towards social and cultural values. The reader’s ethical perspectives are shaped through the act of listening to these conversational passages; “our ideological development is an intense struggle within us for hegemony among various available verbal and ideological points of view.”18 This approach turns conversation into an ethical tool by which the stylistics of statement and response serve the purpose of exploring opposing verdicts on the morality of human activity, whether personal or corporate.19 3. Narration and Heteroglossia In Eccl 2–6, heteroglossia are produced by a single actor who speaks the parts of other people, from that of the wealthiest man imaginable (Eccl 2:1–11) to the one with the most sons (6:3). One man narrates both the situation and the likely views of the subject whose life he describes. By this means the narrator brings a range of human expectations of bene¿t into dialogue with his own search for experiential knowledge. His 15. Green 2000, 33. 16. See my chapter on moral geography in Jonah in Mills 2012, where I developed the view that the city can be read as a major character in the book, with her identity voiced by citizens and ruler, capable of self-reÀection and of reform. 17. Bakhtin 1998, 332. 18. Bakhtin 1998, 346. 19. Bakhtin 1998, 272–82.

76

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

¿ndings endorse his conclusions that there is no obvious long-term gain from much human labour and that everything moves towards hebel.20 The preacher hereby constructs himself as a conversation site, the space in which the voices of humans who hope to improve their portion of life’s bene¿ts can speak and where his own voice can reply—demonstrating that heteroglossia are vital for human development. In Jonah, the narrator stands apart from his three main characters who voice competing views on the nature of cities. The value of urban life is a paradoxical affair since the concept of power is set against weakness in this conversational narration. In the ¿nal chapter, adversarial dialogue challenges a static human morality which is nuanced by the dialogue of deity, prophet and city in Jon 3, where a developmental ethic is proposed. When these heteroglossia come into contact with each other tension arises about the value of cosmic justice. The deity is accused of seeming to be strong while in fact being weak; the prophet is accused of clinging to brutality as a means of gaining retribution. Reading Jonah from an Ecclesiastes viewpoint leads to an even greater emphasis on the signi¿cance of other voices for the growth of a healthy subjectivity. In both books narration functions through the performance of contesting voices, a style which produces a deeper discernment of act and consequence. The preacher and his arsenal of personas illustrate the paradox that what is life-giving may initially appear as death-dealing. The boundaries of human life as metaphors for its value are re-ordered; in Eccl 7:2 it is better to go to a funeral than the celebration of a birth, for instance. The ¿erce debate between Jonah and his God in ch. 4 challenges the reader to face the moral paradox that justice may still be achieved when punishment is remitted. 4. Narratival Conversations Bakhtin’s analysis of rhetorical structures in the novel suggests that stories function as conversation sites. His argument that “the word in living conversation is oriented to a future word—it provokes an answer” leads the reader to search for the questions and answers which shape meaning.21 In Ecclesiastes, this search identi¿es Qoheletic conversation

20. This is clearly a central term in the book and its meaning is much discussed among scholars. Ogden (1987, 17–22) and Christianson (1998, 92–95) discuss the organizing role the term plays, while Daniel Fredericks (1993) explores the ideology of time and ¿nality. 21. Bakhtin 1998, 280. 1

MILLS Polyphonic Narration in Ecclesiastes and Jonah

77

as inherently self-contradictory.22 A conversation constituted by opposing voices is an artistic tool which delivers a sophisticated stylistic, comparable with the tensions and ambiguities of daily life. This conversational mode becomes robustly polyphonic when the narrator takes on the pro¿les of other social actors on whose experience the book draws. One example of this method is found in Eccl 2, where it is royal experience which is at stake.23 The royal persona utters its voice through the construction of vast buildings and the acquisition of a large number of servants and goods in vv. 4–8; all these activities provide pleasure and a ful¿lment built upon freedom to act in any way desired, as indicated in v. 10. 24 A gap is then introduced between the king and the reÀective observer, in v. 11. The voice of one who surveys the completed scene of material acquisition analyzes the value of doing by virtue of the end product. Freedom of action is contrasted with the truth that achieving entails goal-setting, which acts in a deterministic manner to shut down the range of possibilities. The strategy of creating conversations which explore value by looking holistically at the reality that goals have large aims which material gain cannot satisfy means paradoxically that the word of hopeful search for fresh meaning beyond known horizons has to engage with the word which cannot escape from human ¿nality. The book of Jonah can be explored in a similar way. The narrator introduces each of the major characters of the book as part of a dialogic relationship by recording divine utterance which requires a reply. The divine word heard by the prophet produces Àight as the silent reply. The city is held within this conversational structure, described by God as ready for destruction in Jon 1:2 but excluded from further discourse by Jonah’s voyage to elsewhere. The word of the deity has provoked an answer other than the one requested, but this leaves unful¿lled the space of an appropriate act of engagement on Jonah’s part—a move which allows for the re-starting of the conversation in ch. 3 with the same words as in ch. 1. Whereas the conversational style of Eccl 2 suggests that human ful¿lment develops from rejecting material gain as a primary goal in life, Jonah’s use of dialogue implies that humans, whether individuals or groups, bene¿t most through receptivity to divine authority. Although the 22. Historical critics have suggested that the complications of the text are caused by layers of redaction. See, for instance, Seow 1997, 36–46. 23. Loh¿nk 2003, 50. Loh¿nk notes the world-conquering pro¿le thus provided for the narrator. 24. Loh¿nk 2003, 51. Loh¿nk discusses the term “portion” as due bene¿t for humans as against the wider concept of pro¿t.

78

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

meaning which conversational method produces is different in each book, there are parallels within narrative style. Both books have in common the technique of engaging in conversation personas which are inherently unbounded: the king and the deity serve within respective conversations the function of allowing global themes of pro¿t and loss to emerge from narrower boundaries of human experience. 5. Self and Others Bakhtin’s approach to the novel is to note that it is a social product, “a dialogically organised representation of an ideologically freighted discourse.”25 The voices of self and others carry the ideological content as well as critiquing each other’s perspective. Ecclesiastes evaluates the elite ideology that wealth collection is itself enough to make a man happy. Ecclesiastes 4:8 sets out the pro¿le of the ambitious man who focuses on using his energy to get ever more material possessions. He has no family to bene¿t from this; as a social loner he toils for his bene¿t alone.26 In this pro¿le the concept of amal—labour or toil—becomes synonymous with personal identity: “yet there is no end to all their toil, and their eyes are never satis¿ed with riches.” The text becomes dialogic as the preacher-narrator envisages this man interrogating himself as to the reasons why he has become identi¿ed with ceaseless effort with the implied response that there is no value in this, before adding his own view to the conversation to endorse the negative value of work per se. The passage continues to be dialogically organized in that the narrator then introduces proverbial style as a comment on such a stance. A companion can pick up a friend who falls down, and bodily warmth is provided when two bodies join together. Mutual relations between humans produce a form of material bene¿t which provides greater chances for survival than the efforts of one human being to carve out a future. Here the narrative voice operates dialogically to express a preference for social interaction as the foundations for existence; the ¿nal evaluation of the man alone is that he has missed out on a vital aspect of human growth. By juxtaposing the driven man with wisdom teaching in which two-ness is de¿ned as better than singularity, Qoheleth argues for the adoption of a viewpoint which sets itself against subjective investment in self-referential bene¿ts. Paradoxically, focusing on the self does not enhance life-chances. 25. Bakhtin 1998, 333. 26. Loh¿nk (2003, 71) treats this as indicating a deep empathy with the character described. 1

MILLS Polyphonic Narration in Ecclesiastes and Jonah

79

Jonah 3 provides a parallel example of the “driven man.” The prophet’s actions show that he is both driven and self-reliant. His refusal of service to a divine other makes him a solitary ¿gure, isolated from fellow mariners, the subject of interrogation as to his identity. By distancing himself from his transcendent dialogue partner the prophet loses himself also, to the point of death by drowning. Equally, Jonah’s story supports the value of two-ness. Even though Jonah has rejected God, the deity still needs his servant to act as divine messenger. Jonah’s acceptance in 1:12 that he needs to be sacri¿ced to save the ship is balanced by the divine command to the great ¿sh to swallow him up (v. 17). This story is ideologically weighted to reveal the deity as tirelessly concerned about the human being as essential for the completion of divine aims within the created world. Human identity is here shown to be paradoxically de¿ned by engagement with an opponent. Whereas Ecclesiastes focuses on the compatibility of companionship, Jonah has a less easy approach to mutuality. Two players need each other to see the plot through, but this is an uneasy alliance, as reÀected in the scene of the storm with its requirement of sacri¿ce. Reversing the reading trajectory, it can be asked whether Qoheleth’s argument that companions provide life-giving support is a somewhat idealistic view of relationship since it leaves out the reality that giving energy to the support of others has inherent costs to the giver. Yet Ecclesiastes may have a point since the sacri¿ce of human goals to transcendent critique leads ultimately to gaining life in Jonah. 6. Hybridity “Every novel, taken as a totality of all the languages and consciousnesses of language embodied in it, is a hybrid,” says Bakhtin.27 Hybridity is a concept which is essentially dialogic since it denotes the engagement of two or more cultural realities within a single space and which also implies degree of volatility, of liminality, of standing at the margins.28 The narrative voice in Jonah models the prophet as a hybrid ¿gure whose identity is de¿ned by marginal acts. He is sent to a foreign place but opts to go to a different foreign city. He lies down in the heart of the ship but his silent sleep offers a marginal response to the storm. In the belly of the ¿sh he is drowned but lives still. When he ¿nally speaks his part in the

27. Bakhtin 1998, 366. 28. This term is heavily freighted in the ¿eld of postcolonial studies. See, for instance, Bhabha 1994.

80

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

city-drama his short proclamation has a major impact. Rejecting his inÀuence, he retreats to the edge of cultivated land but is forced into dialogue by the deity. In seeking to escape loss of his independence, the prophet becomes a symbol of a hybridity which deconstructs the power of the individual to control personal destiny: a topic which ¿nds a parallel in family affairs discussed in Ecclesiastes. In Eccl 6:3–7 the narrator explores the human attempt to escape loss by the generation of many sons.29 The father is portrayed as a hybrid ¿gure whose value is narratively balanced between the symbols of living sons and a dead child. Kinship bonds are the way in which the father imagines pro¿ting beyond death. This is balanced against the response of descendants who fail to honour the family code of parental respect. The narrator undermines the value of descendants as a cushion against loneliness and annihilation, pushing a man’s desire for life to the margins by comparing it negatively with a stillborn child—itself a metaphor of hybridity, for although death de¿nes the child, it is better off than the father of unpro¿table lives.30 The image stresses the intimate connection between life, death and pro¿t. The reader is led to doubt the strength of the moral bonds between family members by the excessive nature of apparent gain (a hundred sons) set against total loss: a technique which exempli¿es Bakhtin’s comment that “ethical positions can be fused with a speci¿c character pro¿le” and that it is this move which helps to persuade the reader that a given point is valid.31 Reading Eccl 6 from the angle of Jon 1 emphasizes how unrealistic human insistence on self-reliance proves to be. Fatherhood is de¿ned by the existence of sons, as sons cannot exist without parenthood. But this is not really a symbol of unity or symbiosis; the image is hybrid since fathers and sons turn out to have separate and opposing voices. The result is that fatherhood moves to the edge of society just as Jonah moves to the edge of the city. Viewing the prophet through a Qoheletic stance, as a “stillborn child,” gives greater edge to Jonah’s plight as all shelter is removed from him in 4:8. Narrative hybridity here moves into the domain of pathos.

29. The text allows for differences of translation here. Loh¿nk takes the meaning to be that however many sons one has, it is never enough since the grave still awaits (2003, 87). Seow (1997, 225–26) adopts the meaning that the focus is on the failure of living sons to bury their father properly. 30. Seow (1997, 225–26) points out the commonality of thought here with that of Job 3:16. 31. Bakhtin 1998, 347. 1

MILLS Polyphonic Narration in Ecclesiastes and Jonah

81

7. Pathos In technical terms there is a degree of pathos in the character pro¿le of a man who, despite the pain it causes him, insists on his interpretation of theodicy. If Jonah chooses to die in the desert, would he be heroic because of his refusal to abandon his personal Quest? Or is this character pro¿le meant to reveal the stupidity of an inÀexible insistence on traditional morality, regardless of changing international situations? At the centre of this debate is the pathos of a prophet who faces the collapse of a worldview in which he has deeply invested.32 Bakhtin suggests that “pathos in a novel works to restore a genre which has lost its base in reality.” In Jonah, the prophetic genre has lost its moral compass because the prophet will not relent. The narrator uses the language of distance to highlight the pathos; Jonah and his task stand dialogically opposed by the last chapter of the book. The conversation in ch. 4 leads the reader to examine the pathos of the paradox that a prophetic desire to reform unethical societies can include an unwillingness to believe that social groups can indeed be reformed. If Jonah struggles with his very nature as prophet, Qoheleth struggles with the uselessness of the human intellect as a medium for producing wisdom since it does not enable enhancement of life. As a sage, he admits in 9:11–12 that strength and speed do not have the power to win wars or races: “the race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong… time and chance happens to them all.” Neither wisdom nor intelligence guarantees nurture or material gain; pathos rests in the failure of wisdom to predict when evil events are on the way. While the book of Jonah leaves the issue of prophetic persona unresolved, Qoheleth does ¿nd a means of owning himself as a sage and thinker. His use of the fable of a poor wise man in Eccl 9:13–15 restores value to wisdom as an aid to social survival.33 Qoheleth’s insistence on knowledge as a greater advantage than material wealth in v. 17 embodies the pathos of the sage who remains committed to the search for meaning even when that meaning includes the negation of traditional teaching (v. 18). As narrated, both prophetic and scribal pathos highlight the ambivalent pro¿le of a set mode of being which embraces commitment to tradition as against the challenge to interrogate it.

32. The book functions within a picture of stereotypical prophetic activity. See Allen (1976, 202–3) regarding the tradition of prophetic persona. 33. Seow (1997, 322) notes that the narrator here takes up the role of omniscient narrator, arguing for the probability of the story he tells.

82

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

8. Paradoxical Polyphony Conversational narrative in the books of Ecclesiastes and Jonah produces meanings which are essentially experiential, rooted in everyday problems. Qoheleth contributes to the philosophical discussion of the value of being alive by playing through a series of small case studies of speci¿c social pro¿les, a technique which aligns the reader with a narrator who has a dual role. Standing outside life, he has a ringside view of what human beings achieve overall, but at the same time he plays the part of an actor engaged in one speci¿c goal in life.34 It is through this dual role that the narrator operates conversations which balance universality with pragmatics. The book of Jonah separates the roles of narrator and character on the surface level of text while allowing conversations about one city reported by the narrator to serve the over-arching quest for knowledge about the potential for harmony within the created world. Bakhtin’s view that “all forms involving a narrator signify to one degree or another by their presence the author’s freedom from a unitary and singular language” encourages close analysis of narrative style. It validates the view that an individual voice can be radically internally discrepant while remaining coherent (Ecclesiastes), and queries the value of radically self-sustaining belief (Jonah). Seow notes that Ecclesiastes provides a narrative which debates the major gifts sought by humans from their deities in the ancient Near East—gifts, wealth, progeny and longevity.35 In a parallel manner, Jonah examines the bene¿ts of city-life lived under divine patronage and comments on the boundaries of urban power and authority so-produced. In both cases the literary poetics used to make these explorations is that of conversations which provide hybridity of meaning by having within them opposing voices. The bottom line for both explorations is the explanation of value and value turns out to be a bene¿t which it is not easy to de¿ne—a paradoxical topic which the books demonstrate through their polyphonic narrative styles.

34. Seow (1997, 150–51) argues that the technique tends to be deconstructive, pointing out that the wise king motif is not used here to produce a superhero—unlike the usage of the books of Kings. 35. Seow 1997, 225–26. 1

MILLS Polyphonic Narration in Ecclesiastes and Jonah

83

Bibliography Allen, L. 1976. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bakhtin, M. 1998. The Dialogic Imagination. Translated by M. Holroyd. Austin: University of Texas. Bal, M. 1999. Narratology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bhabha, H. 1994. The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge. Chatman, S. 1978. Story and Discourse. London: Cornell University Press. Christianson, E. S. 1998. A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes. JSOTSup 280. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic. Fredericks, D. 1993. Coping with Transience: Essays in Brevity of Life. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic. Genette, G. 1980. Narrative Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Green, B. 2000. Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Loh¿nk, N. 2003. Qohelet. Minneapolis: Fortress. Mills, M. 2003. Reading Ecclesiastes. Aldershot: Ashgate. ———. 2012. Urban Imagination in Biblical Prophecy. LHBOTS 560. New York: T&T Clark International. Ogden, G. 1987. Qoheleth. Readings. Shef¿eld: JSOT. Seow, C.-L. 1997. Ecclesiastes. New York: Doubleday. Sternberg, M. 1987. Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

OF SNAKES AND SINNERS: AN INTERTEXTUAL READING OF BA!AL HA-LASHON IN ECCLESIASTES 10:11 IN LIGHT OF ISH LASHON IN PSALM 140:12 (11) Tova Forti

Introduction The saying about the snake charmer in Eccl 10:11, which closes a series of cautions regarding the danger attendant upon routine activities (vv. 8– 10), raises a number of hermeneutical problems. The present study seeks to elucidate how this verse bridges the units preceding and following it (vv. 8–10 and vv. 12–15) by suggesting a new understanding of the epithets ĬĚğ ēĘğĔ and ĢĘĬğė ğĥĔ. An analysis of the description of the “wicked” in Pss 58:4–5 and 140:4 and the ĢĘĬğ ĬĜē in Ps 140:12 (11) indicates that Qoheleth represents the fool as a venomous snake. Ecclesiastes 10:11 can thus be read as linking the two units by portraying the snake charmer both as the fool who fails to prevent his charge from biting and the “wicked man” whose tongue spreads venom. The Hebrew Bible generally regards the art of enchantment as a form of wisdom, the practitioners of various sorts of magic being called ĠĞĚ (“wise”), ĠĞĚġ (“cunning,” Ps 58:6), ĠĜĬīĚ ĠĞĚ (“skillful magician”) and ĬĚğ ĢĘĔģ (“expert enchanter,” Isa 3:3).1 God’s greatness is demonstrated by his capacity to annul the esoteric wisdom of magicians and soothsayers: “Who annul[s] the omens of diviners, and make fools of the augurs; who turn sages back and make nonsense of their knowledge” (Isa 44:25 [NJPS]).2 It is thus rather surprising to ¿nd a verse referring to 1. Cf. also the ĠĜīĩġ ĜġěīĚ (“magicians of Egypt,” Gen 41:8), ĠĜħĬĞġ (“sorcerers,” Exod 7:11), and ĠĜħĬē (“enchanters,” Dan 2:13, 27), who are regarded as ĠĜġĞĚ (“wise”). These appear to represent a professional class of magicians, diviners (Isa 3:3; 19:11), miracle performers, and dream interpreters—as well as statesmen and political counselors (Jeffers 1996, 40–44; Sefati and Klein 2004, 171– 90). The source of the biblical translations is indicated in each particular instance. 2. The translation “diviners” reads probably ĠĜīĂ şĆ instead of ĠĜĖĂ şą (from the Akkadian bƗrû, “sorcerer, omen interpreter”). See also Isaiah’s use of the terms ėġĞĚ, ĭĥĖ, and ėĩĥ (“wisdom, knowledge, and counsel”) in the oracles of doom against Babylon (47:9–13) and Egypt (19:3).

FORTI Of Snakes and Sinners

85

this craft juxtaposed with cautions regarding the potential risk of quotidian activities: “If a snake bites before it is charmed (ĬĚğ ēĘğĔ), there is no advantage to the snake charmer (ĢĘĬğė ğĥĔ)” (Eccl 10:11). I would like to suggest that an intertextual reading of Qoheleth reveals the relation between the thematic setting of the dangerous routine tasks and the following sayings concerning folly and wisdom—the juxtaposition of these thematic units shaping the dialectic discourse regarding these two values and the tension between life and ideology/faith. Not claiming a deliberate allusion on the part of the author of Qoheleth, I rather suggest that he was familiar with the traditional use of the snake to signify the fool as wicked, in speech and/or deed. I thus examine the expressions ĢĘĬğė ğĥĔ and ĬĚğ ēĘğĔ and the way in which they contribute to our understanding of the verse in Qoheleth. The use of traditional patterns, genres, or motifs arouses associations drawn from the stock of literary convention, the interplay between image, semantic values, and verbal representation leading the reader or listener to form an intertextual association when s/he recognizes a “code word” and recalls other uses of it (Tull 2000, 63; Hebel 1989, 8; Edenburg 2010, 138). In contrast to intentional allusion, which deliberately adduces identi¿able elements from other sources—preceding or contemporaneous, textual, or extra-textual—intertextuality is unintentional, neither author nor reader being aware of the connections which arise from reading a text in light of its other parts or other sources.3 Intertextuality is a vague and Àuid term, covering all types of textual associations—those unconsciously evoked by authors as well as those that go unrecognized by the target audience. Biblical intertextuality acknowledges both “diachronic” and “synchronic” aspects of the biblical texts, the former—frequently identi¿ed with an “author-oriented” approach—asserting that texts undergo historical development, the latter being linked with “reader-oriented” theories that maintain that the biblical texts read and write one another, blurring the borders—for the modern reader/exegete—between “primary” and “secondary” sources and disciplinary boundaries alike.4 The unity and structure of Qoheleth has long been the subject of academic debate. Some scholars regard it as a carefully constructed composition (A. G. Wright 1968 and 1980; Rousseau 1981; Loh¿nk 1980). Others argue that it is comprised of loosely related units 3. For “allusion,” see Perri 1978, 289–307; Miner 1986. According to Carr (2005, 159), biblical intertextuality is based on the memorization of texts that are patterned upon or evoke other texts. 4. See Miller 2011; Kynes 2012, 24–28; J. Barton 2013. For the problematic methodological application of the theoretical term, see Beal 1992.

86

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

addressing diverse themes (Bickell 1884; Galling 1932; Delitzsch 1960, 188), adducing the use of polarities (Loader 1979, 112), chiastic patterns inÀuenced by the philosophical diatribes of the Cynics (Loh¿nk 1980, 10), and the strategic placement of key phrases, catchwords, and numerological patterns (A. G. Wright 1968 and 1980).5 Both ancient and modern readers have also proposed various theories to explain the logical and dogmatic discrepancies in the book regarding existential issues, normative patterns of behavior, and moral values. Some have suggested multiple authors or “glossators” who revised the work of the “original Qoheleth” (Siegfried), others a dialogue between diverse worldviews (McNeile 1904; G. Barton 1908; Podechard 1912), the inner workings of a disturbed soul (Galling), or a set of discussions led by a scribe-teacher (Kaiser 1995; see Forti 2005, 235–37). In my view, Michael Fox is correct in contending that Qoheleth does not so much contradict himself as observe inconsistencies in the world that appear to him to be antinomies—two equally valid but dichotomous principles. Without attempting to resolve them, he describes these anomalies, bemoans them, and suggests how to live in such a refractory world. This system does not produce an incoherency but rather serves as a powerful cohesive force, awareness of which brings the book’s central concern into focus: the problem of meaning in life. “The book of Qohelet is about meaning: its loss and its (partial) recovery” (1999, 3 [original italics]). With respect to the passage we are addressing here, Ginsberg (1955, 138–49) posits that 10:5–11 addresses the “¿ckleness of fate,” thus attributing this unit to the circle of sayings in 6:10–12:8 that treat fatalistic actions and ambiguous ends or unpredictable results (e.g. “rich men sat in low estate” [10:6b] or “I have seen slaves on horseback, and nobles walking on the ground like slaves” [10:7]). Seow (1997, 324) alternatively delineates the literary unit as 10:5–15, classifying it under the theme of “problems large and small.” The former refers to the breakdown of social order caused by corrupt rulers and favored servants (“I have seen slaves on horseback” [10:7a; cf. Prov 30:22a: “a slave when he becomes king”]), the latter to the daily chores performed by individuals (10:8–9). In his view (1997, 306), 10:5–15 forms part of a larger unit (9:11–10:15), to which he gives the label “The world is full of risks.” Krüger (2004, 176, 185) proposes that 10:8–11 constitutes a sub-unit

5. See A. G. Wright 1968, 314–20; Bartholomew 1998, 68–74; Seow 1997, 43– 46; Fox 1997, 18–20. The book also gives expression to diverse voices—the author’s ¿rst-person voice and a third-person persona. 1

FORTI Of Snakes and Sinners

87

within a larger context devoted to the “strengths and weaknesses of wisdom” (9:13–10:20), Crenshaw (1987, 168–73) similarly suggesting that 10:1–20 comprises a collection of sayings pitting folly against wisdom.6 As noted above, Eccl 10:8–11 deals with a series of potentially dangerous daily tasks: (8) He who digs a pit will fall into it; he who breaches a stone fence will be bitten by a snake. (NJPS) (9) He who quarries stones will be hurt by them; he who splits wood will be harmed by it. (NJPS) (10) If the iron is dull and he has not sharpened the blade, then he must exert more force. But the skilled (man) has the advantage of wisdom. (Fox) (11) If a snake bites before it is charmed, there is no advantage to the snake charmer. (my translation)

The following section—vv. 12–15—consists of a collection of proverbs relating to the wise man and the fool. Although the two units appear to be independent in both content and style, a close reading of v. 11 reveals the thematic continuity between them—a link apparently deliberately created by the author. The four activities detailed in vv. 8–10—digging a pit, breaching a fence, quarrying stones, and splitting wood—are all formulated as indicative sentences composed of a similar grammatical and rhythmic structure. The four verbs are participles (“he who…”), the outcome of the action being denoted by a verb in the future tense (“will…”). Verses 8–9 exhibit the correlation between the act and its consequence without adducing any moral element or reference to the ethical character of the person performing it. Herein, they resemble the “act–consequence nexus” paradigm of sayings in Proverbs, such as: “He who digs a pit will fall in it, and whoever rolls a stone, it will roll back on him” (Prov 26:27; cf. Ps 7:16). As Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir) notes somewhat ironically: “Qohelet sets out to reprove a person by stating that if he already has a craft, he should not pursue one that may cause him to fail” (quoted in Japhet and Salters 1985, 115). While the following verse (v. 10) similarly describes a dangerous activity, it draws speci¿c attention to the behavioral aspect of pre-deliberation: “If the iron is dull and he has not sharpened the blade, then he must exert more force.” Our verse then follows: “If a snake bites before it is charmed, there is no advantage to the snake charmer.” 6. For a comprehensive survey, see A. G. Wright 1968, 315–16.

88

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

The ¿rst half of each of the sayings in vv. 10–11 is formulated as a conditional sentence—“if…”—the second part adducing the advantage of proper preparation. Both thus promote the value of forethought: just as the woodchopper must ensure that he has sharpened his blade if he wishes to save energy, so the snake charmer must take care to avoid being bitten if he wishes to work his magic. This principle is customarily extrapolated from the second part of v. 10: ėġĞĚ īĜĬĞė ĢĘīĭĜĘ (“Thus the advantage of a skill [depends on the exercise of] prudence” [NJPS]). The inconsistency in verbal forms and dif¿culty in determining whether the word ĠĜğĆĂ Ĝ ĀĚ constitutes the subject or object, however, make this clause dif¿cult to interpret. Some scholars propose that ĠĜğĆĂ Ĝ ĀĚ should be emended to Ġ ĆğĜĚă —i.e., “their strength.” Serving as the direct object of the pronoun ēĘė, the text is thus read as signifying that the woodchopper must exert all his might (cf. Nachmanides). Others suggest that it constitutes the subject as an abstract noun (i.e. the force will be increased).7 Despite their syntactical divergence, the sense remains similar: in both cases, a dull axe demands extra strength, the woodchopper thus doing well to whet it properly before he commences his task.8 Rather than relating to daily human activity, v. 11 refers to the more esoteric craft of snake charming. In the context, the phrase ĬĚğČēĘğĔ is customarily understood as signifying “before the snake has been charmed”—no advantage accruing if the snake bites before the snake charmer can work his magic.9 While no principle is appended to this verse, it appears to form a further example of the “forethought” necessary in practicing one’s profession. The question that arises is thus: how are the ordinary activities in vv. 8–11 related to the proverbs in vv. 12– 15 which contrast the wise man and the fool. The verses in question read: (12) The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious, while the lips of the fool consume him. (my translation) (13) The words of his mouth begin in foolishness and end up in wicked madness. (my translation) (14) Yet the fool talks and talks! A man cannot know what will happen; who can tell him what the future holds? (NJPS) (15) The fool’s toil exhausts him because he does not even know how to get to town. (Fox)

7. For a detailed philological discussion of this passage, see Forti 2008, 45–47. 8. ğęīĔ signi¿es the head of an axe used to cut stone and wood (cf. Deut 19:5; 27:5; Josh 8:31; 2 Kgs 6:5, 6; Isa 10:34). 9. Cf. the idiomatic phrases ĘġĘĜ ēğĔ “before his time” (Job 15:32) or ĝĭĥ ēğĔ (“before your time,” Eccl 7:17). 1

FORTI Of Snakes and Sinners

89

Despite the syntactic disparity between vv. 8–9—indicative sentences demonstrating an act and its consequence—and vv. 10–11—conditional sentences illustrating the advantage of forethought—the two sets are linked both structurally and substantively. The groupings of linguistic similarities/repetitions and semantic antonyms in vv. 12–15 create a thematic unity based on denunciation of the fool’s behavior.10 Thus, for example, the snake charmer is described as the “master of the tongue” and the “words of the wise man” contrasted with the “fool’s lips” in v. 12 (Fox 1999, 307). Seow (1997, 318–28) appeals in this respect to the Akkadian expression bƝl lišƗni (“master of the tongue”), which may refer to a polyglot—the term lišƗnu on occasion also denoting spells/prayers. The snake charmer may thus be adduced here as someone “who is conversant with snake incantations (cf. KJV: ‘a babbler’), perhaps incantations against snakebites” (1997, 319). I propose that the typology of the wicked man in the Psalms can help us understand why the author of Qoheleth chose this particular epithet to describe the snake charmer—as well as elucidate the way in which this saying serves to link the two literary units (vv. 8–11 and 12–15). Psalm 58:6 employs the phrase ĠĞĚġ ĠĜīĔĚ ĜīĔĘĚ ĠĜĬĚğġ (“skillful enchanters”) in reference to corrupt judges: “O mighty ones, do you really decree what is just? Do you judge mankind with equity?” (v. 2 [NJPS]).11 Rather than seeking justice, they mete out unfair sentences and biased judgments, refusing to listen to the truth: “The wicked are de¿ant from birth; the liars go astray from the womb” (v. 4 [NJPS]). In order to demonstrate just how “venomous” they are (v. 5), the psalmist likens them to the viper that spurns the voice of its charmer (v. 6). The author of Ps 140 speaks of the schemes of similar men—the wicked (ĥī ĠĖē), evil (ĥĬī), and lawless (ĠĜĤġĚ ĬĜē) (v. 2)—in similar language, comparing them to poisonous snakes: “They sharpen their tongues like serpents and under their lips is the venom of vipers” (v. 4 [my translation]). In the continuation, he utters his own “spell” as an imprecation: ĨīēĔ ĢĘĞĜČğĔ ĢĘĬğ ĬĜē (“Do not let the slanderer be established in the land,” v. 12; cf. Kraus 1993, 522–23). The phrase ĢĘĬğ ĬĜē in reference to the evildoer appears to derive here from the snake’s 10. For the former, cf. Ĝħ ĜīĔĖ, ĘėĜħ ĜīĔĖ; ğĜĤĞ, ĭĘğĞĤ, ğĞĤ, ĠĜğĜĤĞ; ĠĖēė ĥĖĜČēğ, ĭĞğğ ĥĖĜ ēğ;

for the latter, cf. ĭĜīĚē/ĭğĜĚĭ and ĘĜīĚēġ ėĜėĜ īĬē/ėĜėĜĬČėġ.

11. Deut 18:11 alludes to īĔĚ īĔĚ in association with those who inquire of the ĔĘē and the ĜģĥĖĜ—apparently a sorcerer who recites incantations. In Western Semitic languages, the root ī"ĔĚ signi¿es “association, company” (derived from the idea of “binding”) and secondarily “spell” (cf. Hos 6:9; Prov 21:9; 25:24). See Finkelstein 1956; Jeffers 1996, 31–35.

90

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

“venom”—its poisonous, noxious, insidious, baleful toxin being that which lies on the tongue of those who seek to trap and ensnare the psalmist. This description closely resembles the depiction of the evildoer in Proverbs: ĠĜĞĞĭ ĬĜē (“oppressive,” Prov 29:13), ĬĜē ğĥĜğĔ ĠĖē ėħ ĭĘĬĪĥ ĝğĘė ĢĘē (“a scoundrel, a villain, crooked of mouth,” Prov 6:12), īĪĬ Ėĥ (“a false witness,” Prov 6:17–19). Ben Sira also employs the phrase ĢĘĬğ ĬĜē in relation to the pugnacious and belligerent person: “Strive not with a man that is full of tongue, and heap not wood upon his ¿re” (Sir 8:3 [A]). The fool is frequently portrayed as sharing the qualities of the wicked, speci¿cally in the wielding of his tongue to hurt others. Proverbs, for example, represents him as quarrelsome and contentious because his “lips lead to strife [and] his mouth calls for blows” (Prov 18:6 [Murphy 1998]). His speech is his “ruin,” his words “a snare for his life” (v. 7 [Murphy 1998]), descending into the chambers of the belly like “delicacies” (v. 8 [Fox 2009]).12 Proverbs 10:18 similarly states that “Deceitful lips cover up hatred, while the slanderer is a dolt” (Fox 2009), Qoheleth contrasting the favour the wise man’s words instill with the fool’s incautious and destructive tongue: “The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious, while the lips of the fool consume him” (10:12 [Fox 2009]). As a “worthless” person, the fool’s utterances are vain and futile: “The words of their mouths begin in foolishness and their talk ends in wicked madness” (10:13 [NRSV]). As noted above, in the context of potentially dangerous routine activities (vv. 8–9) and the exercise of wisdom (vv. 9–10), the epithet ĢĘĬğė ğĥĔ refers to the craft of snake charming. The person who fails to prevent his snake from biting is thus a “fool.” When we read this verse in light of Pss 58 and 140, however, we can also recognize that he himself is also the “snake,” spreading venom and poison with his tongue.13 This understanding suggests that the expression ĬĚğ ēĘğĔ in v. 11 may not just allude to the charm’s timely utterance (“before the snake bites”) but also to the “deaf viper” who shuts his ears to the charmer. As scholars have noted, this usage corresponds to the Akkadian expression ÑƝri la 12. This couplet recurs in Prov 26:22. Fox (2009, 640–41) compares ĠĜġėğĭġ (“delicacies”) with the Arabic cognate lahima (I and VIII) signifying “devour greedily” (HALOT, 521a). For the Ģĕīģ (“slanderer” or “gossiper”), cf. Prov 16:28; 26:20. For the root Ģ"ĕī as denoting an “infectious” form of grievance and complaint, cf. Deut 1:27; Ps 106:25. 13. The ancients considered the snake’s venom as issuing from its forked tongue rather than its hollowed teeth. Zophar employs the metaphor of “venom under the tongue” to signify the schemes of the evildoer: “Though evil is sweet to his taste, and he conceals it under his tongue” (Job 20:12 [NJPS]). See Forti 2006, 339–41. 1

FORTI Of Snakes and Sinners

91

šiptim (a “charm-less snake”—Seow 1997, 318).14 The snake that is impervious to charms is mentioned explicitly in Jeremiah: “I will send serpents against you, adders that cannot be charmed (īĬē ĠĜģĥħĩ ĠĜĬĚģ ĬĚğ ĠėğČĢĜē)” (Jer 8:17 [JPS]). Both Jeremiah and the psalmist speak of the (inevitable) punishment of the wicked/fool in terms of a snake bite against which there is no effective charm. On this reading of Eccl 10:11, the verse is formulated as a rhetorical question rather than an indicative statement: if a snake against whom there is no charm bites, is there any advantage to the snake charmer? Or put positively: Surely the snake against whose venom there is no charm is effective! Its meaning is then elucidated in the following saying: “The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious, while the lips of the fool consume him” (v. 12). In other words, no spell exists that can counter the damage inÀicted by the fool. In its dual role, this verse serves to link the two literary units, whose themes are dangerous activities and destructive folly respectively. In the context of performing potentially dangerous routine tasks, the epithet ĢĘĬğė ğĥĔ refers to the snake. In the framework of folly, it alludes to the fool’s venomous tongue. The choice of this particular phrase—and its preference over other prevalent expressions ([ĠĜ]ĬĚğġ, ĠĜīĔĚ īĔĘĚ and ĬĚğ ĢĘĔģ)—is clearly not coincidental.15 The author evidently presumes his readers’ familiarity with conventional knowledge regarding snakes, his metonymic reference to the snake’s venomous tongue thereby immediately calling to mind the evildoer/fool (ĢĘĬğė ĬĜē/ğĥĔ).16 Both the wicked and the fool wield their tongues to sow destruction in the lives of those around them. This intertextual reading of ĢĘĬğė ğĥĔ of Eccl 10:11 in light of ĢĘĬğ ĬĜē in Ps 140:12 (11) and in relation to the motif of the foolish snake charmer/venomous snake that cannot be charmed, epitomizing the wicked (Ps 58:4–6) and the fool (Eccl 10:11), contributes to the 14. Sumer 13, p. 93, lines 1, 3. See also Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld, Version A, line 42: “At its roots, a snake immune to incantations made itself a nest, the Anzud bird settled its young” (Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature [ETCSL translation: t.1.8.1.4]). 15. Sir 12:13 [A] relates the ­ôbƝr (“snake charmer”) with the wicked, playing on the root ī"ĔĚ (“to associate”) in cautioning against becoming involved with sin. Neither the wicked nor the snake charmer are to be pitied when bitten: “Who pities a snake charmer when he is bitten (ĝĘĬģ īĔĘĚ ĢĚĘĜ {Ĝ}ėġ).” See Beentjes 2003, 39; Di Lella and Skehan 1987, 243, 248. 16. Metonymy plays a signi¿cant role in the intertextual enterprise. According to Barthes, “The logic regulating the text is not comprehensive…but metonymic; the activity of associations, contiguities, carryings-over coincides with a liberation of symbolic energy” (1977, 58).

92

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

understanding of the interrelation between the two clusters of sayings— vv. 10:8–11 regarding the risky activities and vv. 12–15 concerning the fool. In this particular case, “snake charming” appears to constitute the epitome of intertextuality—or, alternatively, intertextuality the embodiment of “snake charming.” Bibliography Barthes, R. 1977. Image–Music–Text. Translated by S. Heath. New York: Hill & Wang. Bartholomew, C. 1998. Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Barton, G. A. 1908. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. New York: Charles Scribner. Barton, J. 2013. Déjà lu: Intertextuality, Method or Theory? Pages 1–16 in Reading Job Intertextually. Edited by K. Dell and W. Kynes. LHBOTS 574. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Beal, T. K. 1992. Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production. Pages 27–39 in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by D. N. Fewell. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Beentjes, P. C. 2003. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill. Bickell, G. 1884. Untersuchungder Wert: Koheleth’s Untersuchung über den Wert des Deseins. Dem internationalen Orientalisten Congresse zu Wien uberreicht. Innsbruck: Wagner. Carr, D. M. 2005. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crenshaw, J. L. 1987. Ecclesiastes: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster. Delitzsch, F. 1960. Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Translated by M. G. Easton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [German original, 1891]. Di Lella, A., and P. Skehan. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday. Edenburg, C. 2010. Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations. JSOT 35:131–48. Finkelstein, J. J. 1956. Hebrew and Semitic. JBL 75:328–31. Forti, T. 2005. The Fly and the Dog: Observations on the Ideational Polarity in the Book of Qoheleth. Pages 235–55 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox. Edited by R. L. Troxel et al. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. ———. 2006. Bee’s Honey: From Realia to Metaphor in Biblical Wisdom Literature. VT 56:327–41. ———. 2008. The Charm of the Snake Charmer and the Snake with No Charm: Towards the Meaning of ĢĘĬğė ğĥĔ in Ecclesiastes 10:11. Shnaton 18:43–56 (Hebrew). Fox, M. V. 1999. A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Reading of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ———. 2009. Proverbs 10–31. AB 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press. Galling, K. 1932. Koheleth-Studien. ZAW 50:276–99. Ginsberg, H. L. 1955. The Structure and Contents of the Book of Koheleth. Pages 138–49 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. VTSup 3. Edited by M. Noth and D. W. Thomas. Leiden: Brill. 1

FORTI Of Snakes and Sinners

93

Hebel, U. J. 1989. Intertextuality, Allusion, and Quotation: An International Bibliography of Critical Studies. New York: Greenwood. Japhet, S., and R. B. Salters, eds. 1985. The Commentary of R. Samuel Ben Meir (Rashbam) on Qoheleth. Jerusalem: Magnes. Jeffers, A. 1996. Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. Leiden: Brill. Kaiser, O. 1995. Qoheleth. Pages 83–93 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by J. Day, R. P. Gordon, and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kraus, H. J. 1993. Psalms 60–150: A Continental Commentary. Translated by H. C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Fortress. Krüger, T. 2004. Qoheleth. Translated by O. C. Dean, Jr. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kynes, W. 2012. My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms. BZAW 437. Berlin: de Gruyter. Loader, J. A. 1979. Ecclesiastes: A Practical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Loh¿nk, N. 1980. Qoheleth. Minneapolis: Fortress. McNeile, A. H. 1904. An Introduction to Ecclesiastes: With Notes and Appendices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, G. D. 2011. Intertextuality in Old Testament Research. CurBS 9:283–309. Miner, E. 1986. Allusion. Pages 10–11 in The Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms. Edited by A. Preminger. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Murphy, R. E. 1998. Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Perri, C. 1978, On Alluding. Poetics 7:289–307. Podechard, E. 1912. L’Ecclésiaste. Paris. Rousseau, F. 1981. Structure de Qohélet I 4–11 et plan du livre. VT 31:200–217. Sefati, Y., and J. Klein. 2004. The Law of the Sorceress (Exodus 22:17[18]) in the Light of Biblical and Mesopotamian Parallels. Pages 171–90 in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Edited by C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, and S. M. Paul. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Seow, C. L. 1997. Ecclesiastes. AB 18C. New York: Doubleday. Tull, P. K. 2000. Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures. CurBS 8:59–90. Wright, A. G. 1968. The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth. CBQ 30:313–34. Repr. as pages 245–66 in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Edited by J. L. Crenshaw. New York: KTAV, 1976. ———. 1980. The Riddle of the Sphinx Revisited: Numerical Patterns in the Book of Qoheleth. CBQ 42:38–51. Wright, C. H. H. 1883. Book of Koheleth. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

“AND THEY HAVE NO COMFORTER”: JOB AND ECCLESIASTES IN DIALOGUE* Thomas Krüger

1. Introduction Intertextuality1 is a rather broad concept. In a sense, all of our thinking is intertextual. It is shaped by oral or written texts that we remember consciously or unconsciously. And it translates into new oral or written texts that we produce. Or should I say, rather, that we are the vehicles by which texts reproduce, vary and evolve themselves? All authors work in a complex network of texts that shape their thoughts, enabling them to express themselves and challenging them to produce new texts. Authors assume that their readers know certain texts, so they can allude to these texts for a broad range of purposes, from recalling cultural knowledge to supporting their ideas to noting an opposing point of view. Readers may follow suggestions of this sort more or less strictly. If some time has elapsed between the production of a text and its reception, readers will probably no longer know all the texts the author knew. Instead, they will know other texts the author did not know. Some of these texts might have been inÀuenced by the text in question. For biblical texts, the different canons of Jewish or Christian religious communities are intertextual networks. What a particular text says is not immediately important for the community but must be assessed in comparison with all other texts in their respective canons, as well as with extra-canonical texts, such as creeds or theological treatises. The latter is true at least of most religious communities. However, the fact that we know numerous texts in addition to the canons and classics of our respective traditions impacts our readings of the biblical texts, even if we try to focus only on their historical and canonical meanings.

* I would like to thank Sarah Shectman for improving my English and for her valuable comments on my work. 1. Compare, e.g., Carr 2012; Allen 2000.

KRÜGER “And They Have No Comforter”

95

In this study I will read and interpret several passages from Ecclesiastes in light of passages from Job, and vice versa.2 I believe that these passages from Ecclesiastes were written with Job in mind and that the author wanted his readers to interpret these passages with an eye to Job. However, this is dif¿cult to prove,3 and so I will con¿ne myself to showing how a reading of Ecclesiastes in light of Job, and vice versa, may deepen our understanding of these passages and inspire reÀections that may lead us beyond their contents and meanings. 2. Ecclesiastes 4:1–3 Let us begin with Eccl 4:1–3. The passage starts with an observation of widespread oppression: “And I returned and saw (or: I saw again?) all the oppressions that are done under the sun, and look: the tears of the oppressed, and they have no comforter ()I?>)9=*J H), and in (lit.: from) the hand (i.e., on the side?) of their oppressors there is power, and they have no comforter ()I?>)9=*J H)” (v. 1).4 That the oppressed have no one to comfort them—which would include not only consolatory words but also helpful deeds—makes their situation desperately hopeless. It is not clear whether humans alone are in view here as potential comforters or whether God is as well. This is the only occurrence of the root )I? and its derivatives in Ecclesiastes. In Job, however, the verb )I?, together with the nouns 9>I? and )I?E, is a keyword.5 It frames the book, appearing in Job 2:11 and 42:11, which relate that Job’s three friends and his brothers, sisters and acquaintances come to comfort Job, just as he used to comfort the mourners before his life was ruined by God (29:25). But the friends fail to comfort Job (16:2; 21:2, 34), even though they think they do (15:11). Instead, they rebuke Job with increasing intensity, thus pushing him to call on God—the very one who ruined Job’s life and allows him to ¿nd no comfort in his sleep (7:13) or in his death (6:10). Eventually, God does speak to Job and Job says that he is comforted (42:6).

2. For a more detailed and comprehensive explanation of my understanding of these two books, compare Krüger 2004 and 2010. 3. However, there is a broad scholarly consensus that the so-called wisdom books of the Old Testament are part of a broader debate within Second Temple Judaism and that within this debate Ecclesiastes is by and large later than Job and takes the discussion further. Compare, e.g., Saur 2012. 4. Translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 5. Compare Krüger 2007.

96

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

Read with this sidelong glance at Job, Eccl 4:1 points to the fact that Job is not the only person without a comforter. Whereas he was eventually comforted and restored by God, the multitude of oppressed people are less lucky. Ecclesiastes 4:1 also throws a critical light on Job’s claim that he delivered the poor who cried out (29:12), broke the jaws of the wicked (29:17), comforted the mourners (29:25), wept for those who were in trouble and grieved for the poor (30:25). Job himself admits that there were also people whom he would have disdained to put among his sheep dogs, because they had lost their vigour and thus were no longer of any use to him as workmen (30:1–2). Now, his life ruined, Job feels oppressed by God (10:3). This complex and inconsistent picture of Job creates doubt as to whether it is always as easy as Eccl 4:1 suggests to distinguish oppressors and oppressed, those who should be comforted and those who should comfort others. Oppression (B and its derivatives) is another term shared by Ecclesiastes (4:1; 5:7; 7:7) and Job. In Job 10:3, Job asks God whether he considers it good to oppress people, to despise the work of his hands and to shine upon the counsel of the wicked. In Job 35:9, Elihu states that the oppressed cry for help but forget to praise God, their creator. Therefore, God does not listen to or answer them. Reading Eccl 4:1 with these two passages in mind, we may ask whether it is only humans who oppress others, failing to console them, or if it is not also (or perhaps even primarily) God. Ecclesiastes 4:2–3 draws a conclusion from the preceding observation: “And I praised the dead, who have already died, more than (or: instead of) the living, who are still living, and more (lit.: better) than both of them (I praised him) who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil work (i.e.: works or events?) that is done (or: happening) under the sun.” This statement is reminiscent of Job’s lament in Job 3.6 Here, Job curses the day of his birth, saying that it would have been best had he not been born (3:2–10) or had he died immediately after his birth (3:11–12). Now that he is alive, it would be better for him to die (cf. 6:8–10; 7:15– 16; 13:15; 17:13–16), since all trouble comes to an end in the netherworld (3:13–19). Thus, Job presents a clear ranking: better to be dead than to be alive, and even better not to have been born at all.

6. This is noted by virtually every commentator. C. G. Bartholomew (2009, 186– 87) rightly points out that there is no indication in this text that Ecclesiastes is less concerned about the oppressed than is Job, as is often alleged by commentators. Indeed, one might ask whether Job, by the end of the book, has forgotten his concern with the situation of the oppressed, so vehemently expressed in Job 24. 1

KRÜGER “And They Have No Comforter”

97

Ecclesiastes 4:2–3 expounds the same ranking, adding one small but important detail: the best is not to have not been born, but to have not yet been born. In other words, it is better to start one’s life than to be ¿nished with it. Or, as Eccl 9:4–6 has it: For him who is joined (with Qere) to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better off than the dead lion. For the living know that they will die; but the dead don’t know anything, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have already perished; they will never again have a share in anything done (i.e.: happening?) under the sun.

This text does not deny that life is full of trouble—at least for some people. But life is nevertheless better than death. This contradicts the lament in Job 3. However, in the course of Job’s discussion with his friends, Job changes his former views on life and death. Thus, in chs. 14 and 17, Job paints a picture of the netherworld that is much grimmer and bleaker than the one in ch. 3. And by the end of the dialogue, Job wants not to die but to live and to be as he was before disaster befell him. Already in ch. 3 Job not only criticizes God, who gives humans a miserable life, but also people who cherish life in spite of the trouble it entails. They are fathering, bearing and fostering children or building houses and palaces. Even those who—according to Job—are longing for death do not kill themselves, just as Job does not. Obviously, their longing for death is not as strong as their desire to live. In sum, Eccl 4:2–3 may be read as a critical commentary on Job 3, reasoning in line with the book of Job as a whole. 3. Ecclesiastes 5:12–6:6 Let us now turn to a longer passage from Ecclesiastes, the reÀections on wealth and poverty in 5:12–6:6. The passage may be subdivided into three parts. The ¿rst, 5:12–16, shows that poverty is bad because the poor lack the means for eating, drinking and enjoying life. The third part, 6:1–6, shows that wealth is worthless if the rich are not able to eat, to drink and to enjoy life. The middle part, 5:17–19, af¿rms that it is good for all humans to eat, to drink and to enjoy life, be it in recompense for their labour or made possible by their wealth. Ecclesiastes 5:12–14 relates how a rich man lost all his wealth: There is a sick (or: unique?7) evil I have seen under the sun: riches kept by (or: for) their owner(s?) for his evil (i.e.: for bad times). Those riches perished by an evil business. He begot a son, and there was nothing (left) 7. So DCH 3:229, s.v. 9=I v.

98

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually in his hand. As he came forth from his mother’s womb, naked he had to return, to go as he came, and he could not take anything for his labour, which he could carry away in his hand.

There is a shot of irony in this story. A man saved his wealth for bad times—but the bad times brought about the loss of his wealth. Now he has nothing left and cannot bequeath anything to his son. This loss is evil, but even more evil are its consequences, depicted in vv. 15–16: “This also is a sick (or: unique?) evil: just as he (or: one) came, so shall he (or: one) shall go. And what pro¿t has he that labours for the wind? All his days also he eats in darkness, and he has much sorrow and sickness and wrath.” Having lost all his wealth, the former rich man (as well as his son) has no means to enjoy life. He has to live like every poor man who “labours for the wind.” But because he saved his wealth for bad times, he was already living in this manner when he was rich. Thus wealth makes enjoyment possible but does not guarantee it. It is not wealth that makes people happy but enjoyment, which is made possible by wealth. A rich man who does not enjoy his wealth has no better life than a poor person. The repeated statement that the rich man who has lost his wealth has to go (as naked) as he came is reminiscent of Job’s dictum in Job 1:21: “Naked I came out of my mother’s womb, / and naked I shall return there. / The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; / blessed be the name of the LORD.” This does not mean that Job does not consider the disaster that has befallen him to be something evil. Indeed, Job 2:10 spells out the contrary: “Shall we receive good at the hand of God, / and shall we not receive evil?” Thus, Job and Ecclesiastes agree that a man’s loss of his wealth is something evil. Furthermore, for Job as for Ecclesiastes, a part of this evil is that one cannot eat, drink and enjoy life.8 Sorrow, sickness and wrath, which characterize the life of the poverty-stricken in Ecclesiastes, are also characteristic of the impoverished Job, even if only one of the Hebrew words used for these in Ecclesiastes, D, Job 3:10). Thus, for Job, growing old, with many children and great riches, appears to be valuable only if one is free of trouble. Ecclesiastes is a bit more modest. For Qoheleth, trouble (=>) is a part of life. In that respect he agrees with what Eliphaz says in Job 5:7: “man is born to trouble” (5=HJ=>=)5 ). What makes life good is not freedom from trouble but the possibility of eating, drinking and enjoying life alongside, or despite, one’s trouble. Wealth and honour, a great family and a long life can help people to achieve this goal, but they cannot guarantee it. This is what gives these things relative value. In contrast to the negative examples in 5:12–16 and 6:1–6, Eccl 5:17– 19 says that it is good to eat, to drink and to enjoy good things alongside, or despite, one’s labour (or: in return for one’s labour, depending on the interpretation of the preposition 3 in H=>3) and that it is a gift of God for a rich man to be able to enjoy his wealth, For he will not much think about the days of his life, when God answers (or: keeps occupied?, or: provides ?) with the joy of his heart. (v. 19) 11. This appears to be the main lesson of God’s speeches at the end of the book. Compare also Job 42:7–9.

100

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

If in the last sentence the verb ėģĥ means “to answer,”12 it could be read as an allusion to Job 33:13–30, where Elihu explains to Job that God may answer humans in dreams and visions but also by letting them experience pain and sickness. Ecclesiastes 5:19 would then contradict Elihu, claiming that God answers not by letting people suffer but by letting them rejoice.13 If we prefer to emend the text, following the ancient versions (compare BHQ), then the passage notes that people tend to think about the limitations and the downsides of life when things are going badly for them but not so much when they are doing well. Job is a good example of just such a phenomenon. 4. Ecclesiastes 6:10 Ecclesiastes 6:10 makes a clear statement about the human condition: “That which has been was named long ago, and it is known what man is and that he cannot argue with him who is mightier than he.” The ¿rst clause may refer to the creation of all things—including humans—by God, at which point he also determined the distinctive quality of every creature—including humanity. But it may also be no more than a reminder that there is nothing new under the sun (cf. Eccl 1:9; 3:15), so that history teaches what is possible in the present and in the future. The second clause af¿rms that what the ¿rst says is also true for humanity. This is illustrated by the third clause in reference to the limits of the human ability to argue with God (who appears to be the one who is mightier than humans). So, what the text wants to say is that humans have to accept their natural (or creational) limits in relation to God—as they would have to accept their social limits according to Sir 8:1: “Do not contend with a powerful man, lest you fall into his hands” (RSV). Ecclesiastes 6:10 is reminiscent of the discussion between Job and his friends as to whether Job can argue before God that he was innocent and did not deserve such calamity.14 Job knows from the outset that it is impossible to put God on trial: …how can a man be just before God? If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times. He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength—who has hardened himself against him, and succeeded? (Job 9:2–4 RSV)

12. Compare Loh¿nk 1990; Schwienhorst-Schönberger 2004, 341–42. 13. So Levy 1912, 99. 14. This connection is noted, e.g., by L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger (2004, 364), who points to Job 9:4, 12, 19, 32 (as well as Jer 12:1; 20:7). 1

KRÜGER “And They Have No Comforter”

101

Nevertheless, Job tries to achieve the impossible, culminating in his ¿nal speech in Job 31. And God eventually accepts the challenge, speaking to Job out of the whirlwind. The message of this ¿nal part of the book of Job is far from clear and is perhaps even self-contradictory.15 God demonstrates that Job cannot argue with him. But he also admits that Job is right and his friends are wrong. Finally, he restores Job, doubling his wealth—like a thief who has to pay back double what he has stolen (Exod 22:3). Thus, according to the book of Job it is true that humans cannot argue with God, but this is only part of the truth—and arguing is always worth a try. Accordingly, Eccl 6:10 may be understood as a restatement of an opinion that is criticized by the book of Job. However, Eccl 6:10 may also be read as a clari¿cation of another possible understanding of Job’s message. When Job ¿nally gets his health and his wealth back, it is not an endorsement of his claim against God but rather a kind of ex gratia payment, perhaps occasioned by the special circumstances of his case. As Job states in his last speech, 42:1– 6, he understands that his charges against God were wrong, since he misunderstood his calamity as a sign of divine disfavour. In line with this, Ecclesiastes advises his readers to accept misfortune as a part of the human condition: “On a good day enjoy good things, and on a bad day consider that God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl 7:14). 5. Ecclesiastes 7:15–20 Accepting misfortune as a part of human life is probably easier for Qoheleth than for Job, since Ecclesiastes has a less positive picture of human morality. The book of Job leaves no doubt—at least for its readers—that Job is righteous and innocent, “blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil” (Job 1:1 RSV). In the view of Ecclesiastes, in contrast, “surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (Eccl 7:20 RSV). This view is widespread in the ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Bible (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 8:46; Pss 14:1; 53:2; 143:2). Job and his friends also agree that nobody is perfect:16 “Can a mortal be righteous before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker?” (Eliphaz—Job 4:17 RSV; cf. 15:14; 25:4). “How can a mortal be just before God?” (Job—Job 9:2; cf. 14:4).

15. See Dell 1991, 184–212. 16. Compare Schwienhorst-Schönberger 2004, 391.

102

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

Whereas Eccl 7:20 seems to argue that humans cannot be righteous, Eccl 7:29 apparently says that they could be righteous if only they wanted to be: “God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes” (NKJV). Be that as it may, Ecclesiastes makes it dif¿cult, if not impossible, to imagine a case of completely undeserved misfortune, as is related in Job. However, Qoheleth appears to relate comparable cases himself. For example, in Eccl 7:15 we read: “I have seen everything in the days of my futility (i.e.: during my futile life): there is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man who prolongs (his life) in his maliciousness.” From this, Ecclesiastes draws the lesson: “Be not righteous overmuch, nor pretend to be wise excessively! Why do you want to ruin yourself? Be not wicked overmuch, nor be foolish! Why do you want to die when it is not your time? It is good that you hold on to this. But also from that do not withdraw your hand! Who fears God will avoid both” (vv. 16–18). Job is a good example of “a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness,” since he suffers not although he was righteous but rather because he was righteous, as we know from the prologue. In view of Job’s fate, Ecclesiastes’ warning, often perceived as cynical, makes sense: “Be not righteous overmuch…! Why do you want to ruin yourself?” In view of the insight in Eccl 7:20 that no human being is completely righteous, this warning is not cynical at all but rather realistic. Like the parallel CEHJ)), “wisdom” (9>= E=9B B3 #AIJC35). Whether Qoheleth’s operation of gathering sayings is parallel to that proposed in Proverbs’ prologue is challenged, though, by the epilogist’s ensuing words. In Eccl 12:11 we read that “The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails ¿rmly ¿xed are the collected sayings that are given by one shepherd.” There can be no doubt that the equation of sayings of the wise to ox-goads is an evocation of the painfulness of such acquisition of knowledge. This judgment might offer a reÀective comment upon the opening nine chapters of the book of Proverbs: while gathering wisdom aims to lead to satisfaction of desire, living by wisdom yields unexpected pain, a point not missed by those sayings in Proverbs that provide justi¿cations for wisdom’s limits.2 3. “Gain” Invites Intertextuality Between Texts and Contexts The Solomonic reputation is not only for wisdom, but wealth, too (e.g. 1 Kgs 3:13). Thus in Eccl 1:3 Qoheleth quali¿es his motto on hebel to yet a more purposeful question on the prospect of pro¿tability. The question is raised in reference to human toil: “What do people gain from all the toil at which they toil under the sun?” With this opening query readers encounter intertextuality that leans in both directions of referentiality, social as well as textual. In the latter case, as we have already alluded above, readers recall that the opening language of Proverbs is concerned with gaining (EIB=) instruction (Prov 1:3), and increasing/acquiring (,DHJ, 9?BJ) learning and skill (Prov 1:5). Perhaps less likely, readers will recall the opening of the second collection of sayings which reÀects negatively upon the ultimate pro¿tability of treasures (EHC4H ) if gained (H=JHJ) through wickedness (Prov 10:2). This image is but one among many similar images in Proverbs for gaining an economic advantage.3 2. E.g. 16:1, 2, 9; 19:21. 3. E.g. 1:9; 3:10, 13–14; 10:16; 11:16.

110

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

Most familiar in Proverbs is the ¿nal poem of the book. There the closing images of the book of Proverbs reÀect upon how the household gains from the work of the =JIE , the “valorous woman” (Prov 31:10– 31). This acrostic poem begins with images that evoke two ideas related to Qoheleth’s notion of economic prosperity (Yoder 2003). The ¿rst is simply that the woman of the house, the wife, brings prosperity to her household, initiating her husband’s trust (CDIJ ===). The word translated “gain” in this context is actually ==, “plunder.” The term is used a total of three times in the book of Proverbs, two of which depict the illegal and violent achievement of prosperity (Prov 1:13; 16:19). In the context of this poem, though, the word seems more to convey an idea similar to that in Ps 119:162, “I rejoice at your word like one who ¿nds great spoil.” The second image is perhaps more interesting in that we hear the poet seeking to reÀect upon the value of such a woman, and value is at the heart of any kind of economic thinking. The opening verse of the poem considers her scarcity, suggesting that she cannot be found ( 4>JJ>). Her relative value is expressed in the noun meaning “merchandise” or “price” (C) and is as NRSV translates, “more precious than jewels.” The root C means “to sell” and occurs frequently throughout the Pentateuch. Of course, the poet does not go on to reÀect upon the type or quantity of jewels he is talking about, so it is not suf¿cient as an exact point of comparison for establishing the value of such a woman. It is interesting further that wisdom itself is compared favorably above jewels, silver and gold in other places in Proverbs (e.g. 3:15; 8:11; 20:15), making this woman of Prov 31 look a lot like woman wisdom herself (McCreesh 1985, 25–46). In this case the metaphoric assessment being offered in this poem would also be upon the value of wisdom, too. Either way there seems to be a well-established process evident in Proverbs of establishing the value of things as well as persons in general, no doubt deriving from the economic wisdom inherent in the thinking of the sages. The second idea concerns Qoheleth’s reÀections upon the value of either women in general or woman wisdom in particular, if indeed the topic of woman wisdom is one possible inference to be drawn from a reading of Prov 31:10–31. Qoheleth explores the possibility of assessing such value. First, Qoheleth considers whether there may be a kind of woman who yields bene¿t. In 7:28 he states that he has not found a woman among a thousand who does so. The question for readers concerns the identity of this woman. Is he speaking of women generally, or does he have a speci¿c woman in mind who might be so exemplary? 1

HORNE Intertextuality and Economics

111

Scholars differ in their understandings of these verses (Seow 1997, 263– 65; Fox 1999, 271–73), but two things become clearer through an intertextual reÀection upon this text. Seow’s understanding of the woman as Woman Folly (e.g. Prov 1–9) is signi¿cant against Qoheleth’s insistence that wisdom itself, and thus Woman Wisdom, offers only a relative, not any kind of ultimate, gain. Qoheleth concludes in 2:13 that wisdom prospers a person only in a more immediate, not an ultimate, sense, since both the fool and the wise are subject to death (2:14). And secondly, Qoheleth reaches this conclusion through a process of seeking to ¿nd the sum of things (*H3I, 7:25, 27; 9:10), a task Fox suggests aptly describes the work upon which Qoheleth is reporting throughout the entire book. In 7:27 Qoheleth says he is adding one thing to another (EI =EI ) to ¿nd the sum. Thus, applied to his evaluation of this unnamed woman in 7:28, he is reÀecting to determine whether she “adds up.” Turning to the possible social signi¿cance of such imagery, one of the distinctive interpretations of Qoheleth comes from Seow’s treatment of Ecclesiastes’ economic references (e.g. to gain, to accounting, and the adding of sums) against a social context that he claims was more economically aware than others that preceded in Israelite history. In this case, the interpretive interest moves beyond the mere synchronic signi¿cance of such language to the diachronic. His method is instructive, though. Seow’s dating of Ecclesiastes’ composition to a Persian time frame rests largely upon his philological analysis of its Hebrew, and the referentiality it shares with ideas related to the economic realities of that day (Seow 1996 and 1997). On the strength of the philological analysis Seow then proceeds to argue that “Ecclesiastes presumes an audience that is deeply concerned with economic matters” (Seow 1997, 22). More important is his judgment that “Ecclesiastes reÀects a monetary and commercial economy, an environment that is different from the largely subsistence agrarian culture of pre-exilic Judah,” noting in following that “[i]n the ¿fth century, commerce was democratized and privatized; it was no longer primarily a royal enterprise” (Seow 1997, 23). The distinctive vocabulary of Qoheleth not only contributes to the dating of the book’s composition, according to Seow, but reÀects this preoccupation with economic circumstances. For example, the word for “gain,” “advantage” or “surplus” (*HCEJ), occurs seven times and only in Ecclesiastes. It is “related to an Aramaic term ytrn, which is found on an accounting document dating from the late 5th century” (Seow 1997, 22). Likewise, *H3I, noted above, is a commercial term for accounting and also is found among Aramaic documents from the Persian period. Other distinctive words of Qoheleth further clarify the economic environment

112

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

from which the author of the book may be borrowing. Clearly, Seow’s interpretive interests move well beyond the kinds of referentialities that exist at the level of texts and readers alone, to those that might exist within the con¿nes of a particular hypothesized historical context of the writer and the immediate and intended audience (see also Weeks 2012). The typical dangers of circular historical reasoning are well known (Eslinger 1992, 51–52). In Seow’s case, his appeal to the Persian period draws upon some rather straightforward linguistic referentiality between datable Aramaic texts emerging from the ¿fth century B.C.E. and the language of Ecclesiastes (Seow 1997, 11–20). What is not nearly so convincing, though, is that this ¿fth-century context was more concerned about economic realities than other audiences at other time periods in which biblical texts were composed. Can we really suppose that economic realities were not inÀuential at all periods during which other biblical materials were written, compiled, and edited, especially upon the various collections of sayings in Proverbs? Seow’s view of Jerusalem as a thriving economy might equally apply to seventh-century, pre-exilic Jerusalem, which was also under the domination of a foreign empire’s overwhelming economic inÀuence (Faust and Weiss 2005). Demands for goods for the purpose of tribute would have intensi¿ed the production of commodities indigenous to the region and may have increased the requirement for standardization of weights and the use of a monetary system long before Persian inÀuence (McNutt 1999, 162–64). While the collections of sayings in Proverbs defy dating—and to a great extent the idea of a saying is to transcend historical boundaries, anyway—one need not con¿ne economic awareness to the ¿fth century B.C.E. and may continue to think of the book’s origins in terms of the traditional thirdcentury dating. 4. Use Versus Exchange Value Seen in Ecclesiastes and Proverbs One of the earliest texts depicting the economic questions of the period comes from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and his Politics. He, too, was writing in a time corresponding to the late Persian period, although as a resident of the city of Athens, Greece. And, one could hardly say that his aim was to write a treatise on economics, since his references to the topic are couched within larger treatments of justice generally. Still, it is instructive for our third category of intertextuality to consider how Aristotle seems to problematize a set of interrelated topics that stand at the heart of ancient economic thought of his day and locale. 1

HORNE Intertextuality and Economics

113

Of interest here is the framing of Aristotle’s notion of use value versus exchange value. In his Politics, he presents these topics within the context of the business or ordering (OP NPK) of households or families. Aristotle holds the family, or household (PJ>LPK), to be the basic unit of a community (Meikle 1995, 44–45). Families consist of husbands and wives, fathers and children, and masters and slaves. These all make up the natural units of the polis and thus the origins of our word economics: the order of households. One of the important quali¿cations Aristotle makes in his treatment of economics, or PJLPOPNJLI , is that between the gathering of wealth to satisfy the needs and desires of the household versus that for the purpose of merely accumulating. He says, But there is another kind of acquisition (ktêtikê) that is specially called wealth-getting (chrêmatistikê), and that is so called with justice; and to this kind it is due that there is thought to be no limit to riches and property. Owing to its af¿nity to the art of acquisition of which we spoke, it is supposed by many people to be one and the same as that; and as a matter of fact, while it is not the same as the acquisition spoken of, it is not far removed from it. One of them is natural, the other is not natural, but carried on rather by a certain acquired skill or art. (Quoted in Meikle 1995, 46–47)

Meikle elaborates that this distinction in types of action, a distinction derived from different outcomes (e.g. one for the family and therefore natural, and the other for mere accumulation, and therefore unnatural) is a development of the distinction Aristotle has set out in his Ethics, between value that derives from the use of a thing and value that derives from the exchange of a thing (Meikle 1995, 47). Natural accumulation of wealth aims at obtaining things useful for the household; unnatural accumulation of wealth aims at trade. In this way Aristotle begins to determine criteria by which he places greater value upon wealth that aims toward some kind of good that contributes to well-being within the context of the household. While no one would argue that Qoheleth is inÀuenced by Aristotle, it is clear that Qoheleth is striving to distinguish between the mere accrual of wealth and prosperity from that which contributes to some kind of good. So, in reÀecting upon Qoheleth’s use of the word “gain” (*HCEJ), we might consider the idea that he is himself asking about the relative value of one’s toil in gathering wealth when considered against some ultimate good. There is no question that he concludes through the persona of the king that merely gathering wealth is pointless (=39, see 2:11), especially if the point of all of one’s gathering is simply to leave

114

Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually

an inheritance to that one who comes after one is dead (2:18; 6:2). What is good, then, is for the one to gather for one’s own use; in an Aristotelian sense, to ¿nd the value in using one’s wealth for oneself and one’s family (2:24–26). This idea seems to be anticipated by Qoheleth’s several conclusions on enjoyment (2:24; 3:12; 5:18; 6:2; 8:15; 9:7–8). In 6:2–6 Qoheleth develops the interesting notion that the value of one’s wealth rests in one’s ability to use it. In these verses the speaker sets out the circumstance of one who lacks for nothing and yet is unable to eat from it (H?>>=< =). Eating obviously means more than simply consuming food, because the problem considered here is that another person, a stranger (JC