Debating Wisdom: The Role of Voice in Ecclesiastes

3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 476 Debating Wisdom: The Role of Voice in Ecclesiastes KYLE R. GREENWOOD Colorado Christian University Lakewood, CO 80226 QOHELETH FAMOUSLY STATES, “of the making of many books there is no end” (12:12).1 Authors often cite this phrase to apologize sheepishly for the publication of yet another volume on a given topic. The same may be said about the structure and content of the very book that produced the renowned quotation. On the discussion of the purpose and structure of Ecclesiastes, there seems to be no end. The very fact that such a large number of proposals have been posited suggests that none has been thoroughly satisfying. Over forty years ago, Addison G. Wright observed, “The results have been quite disparate, and this lack of agreement has been viewed by many as the final and conclusive evidence if more were needed that there is indeed no plan in the book to begin with.”2 A consensus has yet to be reached with respect to the structure, composition, and message of Ecclesiastes, or even its perspective. Whereas the debate once revolved around the issue of authorship, the current nature of the discourse surrounding Ecclesiastes concentrates on its literary structure. A natural consequence of this shift has been many fruitful discussions regarding voice and perspective. Before turning to a proposed new interpretation of the structure of the book, it will be useful to review briefly a few of the ideas that have received a significant (though varied) degree of attention. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Rocky Mountain–Great Plains region of the Society of Biblical Literature in Omaha, Nebraska, April 9, 2010. 1 Throughout the essay the term “Qoheleth” is used in reference to the author(s), while “Ecclesiastes” refers to the book itself. 2 Addison G. Wright, “The Riddle of the Sphinx: The Structure of the Book of Qoheleth,” CBQ 30 (1968) 313-34. 476 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 477 THE ROLE OF VOICE IN ECCLESIASTES 477 I. Overview of Scholarship In 1968, George R. Castellino addressed the inherent problems with committing to either a positive or a negative view of the Book of Ecclesiastes.3 He asserts rightly that proponents of each side could adequately defend their positions. Ultimately, Castellino avers that recognizing the tensions within the book is vital for understanding it within its wisdom context. Castellino observes the brief change of person in 4:17 (Eng. 5:1) from narrative to direct speech. As a result, he concludes that Ecclesiastes is best divided into two parts—part 1 (1:1–4:16) and part 2 (4:17–12:12)—and that “Part II can rightfully be considered as the answer to Part I.”4 The same year Wright challenged Castellino’s thesis on two counts. First, he points out that there is no clear break at 4:17. Second, he cites insufficient evidence of objective data.5 Wright looks for, and finds, his requisite objective evidence in three key phrases: (1) “(all is vanity and) a chase after wind”; (2) “not find out/ who can find out”; and (3) “do not know/no knowledge.”6 His conclusion based on the literary structure is that “[t]he only advice offered is to find enjoyment in life and in the fruit of one’s toil while one can, . . . to venture forth boldly in spite of the uncertain, . . . to fear God, . . . to not work feverishly, . . . not to put all the eggs in one basket, . . . and not to waste words trying to puzzle things out.”7 Wright’s own conclusions were met with mixed reviews, as he himself acknowledged in a later essay.8 The large disparity in terms of the literary structure of Ecclesiastes is immediately evident with a glance at Thomas Krüger’s Hermeneia commentary, in which he outlines eight separate representations.9 As is clear from Castellino and Wright, the heart of the debate is the opposing viewpoints within the book. This debate is carried out not only in the arena of literary structure but also in the very person of Qoheleth. Eric J. Christianson best summarizes the various opinions in this way: To Fox he is a seeker of truth eager to communicate his experiences. To Frye he is a realist embarked on a critique of the way of wisdom. To Patterson he is a journal3 George R. Castellino, “Qoheleth and His Wisdom,” CBQ 30 (1968) 15-28. Ibid., 22. 5 Wright, “Riddle of the Sphinx,” 320. 6 Ibid., 325-26. The phrase “all is vanity” is found in 1:12-15, 16-18; 2:1-11, 12-17, 18-26; 3:1–4:6; 4:7-16, 4:17–6:9; “not find out” occurs in 7:1-14, 15-24, 25-29; 8:1-17; “do not know” is found in 9:1-6, 7-10, 11-12; 9:13–10:15; 10:16–11:2, 11:3-6. 7 Ibid., 334. 8 Addison G. Wright, “The Riddle of the Sphinx Revisited: Numerical Patterns in the Book of Qoheleth,” CBQ 42 (1980) 38-51. 9 Thomas Krüger, Qoheleth: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 5-8. 4 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 478 478 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74, 2012 keeping humanist. To Whybray he is a distinctly Jewish philosopher. To Zimmerman he is a melancholy storyteller. To each of them Qoheleth is a character who (according to Ecclesiastes) interacted with the world and left it with his consequent thoughts and judgments. In each instance the tendency is to assume the presence of a cohesive narrative character at the heart of Ecclesiastes.10 The diversity of opinion on the nature, persona, and character of Qoheleth is broad, indeed. Christianson approached the issue of Qoheleth’s character by investigating the use of ‫“( לב‬heart”[?]) and noting the semantic precision with which it is utilized throughout the book. He notes that ‫ לב‬is “Qoheleth’s intellectual centre, and it is from here that all of his observations flow.”11 Qoheleth’s ‫ לב‬is the voice by which Qoheleth frames his narrative and tells his tale. According to Christianson, when Qoheleth speaks in or by his ‫לב‬, the audience gains special insight into the character of Qoheleth. Robert D. Holmstedt has likewise recognized the technical use of ‫ לב‬in Ecclesiastes but arrives at a different conclusion. Rather than seeing Qoheleth’s ‫ לב‬as an “internal monologue,” “the ‫ לב‬here is personified as an experiment partner distinct from himself: two investigators can pursue different, even opposing, lines of inquiry better than one, thereby strengthening the conclusions that are ultimately drawn.”12 Holmstedt concludes that Qoheleth and his ‫ לב‬are two distinct personalities who work in conjunction with each other to express the full range of the theoretical and theological spectrum. Others have opined that dual personalities are expressed within the book as well. T. Anthony Perry identifies two voices: “K, for Kohelet, the wise and disenchanted sage and king; and P, for the (more orthodox and perhaps tolerant!) Presenter.”13 According to Perry, the book is a continuous back-and-forth dialogue between K and P. In his analysis, K posits a statement to which P replies. For example, K says in 1:4a, “A generation goes forth, only to die!” P responds in 1:4b, “But the earth endures forever.” Michael V. Fox argues that Ecclesiastes “uses interplay of voice as a deliberate literary device for rhetorical and artistic pur10 Eric S. Christianson, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup 280; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 21. See also Michael V. Fox, Qoheleth and His Contradictions (JSOTSup 71; Sheffield: Almond, 1989) 93; Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (Toronto: Academic Press Canada, 1982) 123; John Patterson, “The Intimate Journal of an Old-Time Humanist,” Religion in Life 19 (1950) 245-54; R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) 7; Frank Zimmermann, The Inner World of Qohelet (New York: Ktav, 1973) ix. 11 Christianson, Time to Tell, 195. 12 Robert D. Holmstedt, “‫לבִּי‬ ִ ‫ ֲאנִי ְו‬: The Syntactic Encoding of the Collaborative Nature of Qoheleth’s Experiment,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures vol. 9, art. 19 (2010) 1-27, here 14. 13 T. Anthony Perry, Dialogues with Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes. Translation and Commentary (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993) 53 n. 1. 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 479 THE ROLE OF VOICE IN ECCLESIASTES 479 poses.”14 For Fox, the epilogist is a voice who frames the narrative of the remainder of the book (Qoheleth’s voice) in order to “put a certain distance between the author and the views expressed in his work.”15 Tremper Longman III terms these voices “personae.” In Longman’s view, the first voice is Qoheleth impersonating Solomon, who ultimately could not find satisfaction or meaning in life. Having given up on this quest for meaning, Qoheleth drops the Solomon persona, whereby the second voice is heard.16 II. Thesis In light of Craig G. Bartholomew’s assessment that “[t]he way forward is to focus on the different voices in Ecclesiastes, inquiring after the perspective of the implied author,”17 I attempt to do just that by identifying the voices according to their literary characteristics. I will argue here that there are three distinct voices in Ecclesiastes that serve three distinct functions. Although these voices are in dialogue with each other throughout the book, it is the primary goal of Qoheleth to persuade the readers that ultimate meaning in life lies not in its passing fancies but in the imperative derived from conventional wisdom, “Fear God and keep God’s commandments.” Each voice has distinct characteristics, which can be traced throughout. TABLE 1 QP QS QFN second first third optimistic pessimistic pessimistic THEOLOGY theistic deistic neutral RECURRING PHRASES “fear God” “I have seen” “this too is vanity” “under the sun” “vanity of vanities” “says the Preacher” DISCOURSE METHOD didactic skeptical soliloquy proverbial PERSON PERSPECTIVE 14 Michael V. Fox, “Frame-Narrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet,” HUCA 48 (1977) 83-106. 15 Ibid., 103. 16 Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 6-8. 17 Craig G. Bartholomew, “Ecclesiastes,” in Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament: A Book by Book Survey (ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008) 179-85, here 181. 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 480 480 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74, 2012 Voice 1 (QP) is that of Qoheleth, the Preacher. QP is the true voice of wisdom. QP speaks with authority and dispenses nuggets of practical theology, primarily in second person imperatives. Voice 2 (QS), by contrast, is that of Qoheleth speaking as Solomon. Serving as Qoheleth’s foil, QS speaks in the voice of the great and wise king as a means of reflecting on Solomon’s misguided wisdom. Solomon, who was allegedly the most wise man in the history of Israel (Eccl 1:16; 1 Kgs 4:29-34), failed to find ultimate meaning in life “because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel” (1 Kgs 11:9).18 The two voices together seemingly mock Solomon as one who should have been content with everything under the sun but was not because he did not fear God. A third voice may also be heard on two brief, but prominent, occasions. This voice (QFN) serves as the “Frame-Narrator,”19 to borrow Fox’s parlance, and is found in the third person narrative sections of chaps. 1 and 12. QFN not only speaks about Solomon but also for Solomon. In the subsequent analysis, I contend that the voices heard in Ecclesiastes are identifiable and structured. The following literary structure provides the framework by which the internal data will be assessed. QFN 1:1-11 “Vanity of vanities”: Introducing Solomon’s worldview QS 1:12–4:16 “This too is vanity, a striving after wind” QP QS 5:8–6:10 QP QS QP See (‫ )ראה‬God’s works “This too is vanity” 11:9–12:7 12:8-11 Fear (‫ )ירא‬God “This too is vanity, a striving after wind” 7:1-14 7:15–11:8 QP QFN 4:17–5:7 Remember (‫ )זכר‬your Creator “Vanity of vanities”: Concluding Solomon’s worldview 12:13-14 Fear (‫ )ירא‬God 18 I am not suggesting here that the author of Ecclesiastes was necessarily in conversation with the Deuteronomist. Since Solomon was a key figure in Israel’s history, however, it stands to reason that the author was aware of this figure, both for good and for ill. 19 The “Frame-Narrator” terminology is adopted also by Naoto Kamano (Cosmology and Character: Qoheleth’s Pedagogy from a Rhetorical-Critical Perspective [BZAW 312; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2002]). According to Kamano, “[t]he frame-narrator utilizes Qoheleth’s character or personal ethos, as reflected in his first-person speeches, to exemplify pedagogically the human inability to earn lasting profit and perfect wisdom and to serve as the rationale for Qoheleth’s reply to the thematic question posed in 1:3” (p. 25). 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 481 THE ROLE OF VOICE IN ECCLESIASTES 481 III. Methodology Analyzing literary features is an imprecise task. In his Reading Biblical Narrative, J. P. Fokkelman points out that stories are told from different perspectives.20 These perspectives are divulged to the reader sometimes with subtlety and sometimes overtly. Although it is true that the Book of Ecclesiastes is not true narrative, its trajectory employs a narrative strategy.21 Because of this narrative strategy, one should be able to discern the voices in the narrative based on distinct characteristics. Those that are most evident in Ecclesiastes are (1) person, (2) perspective, (3) theology, (4) discourse method, and (5) recurring phrases. Since the voices of Qoheleth are not identified outright, it is necessary to look at the composite sketch of each to ascertain which voice is speaking at which points in the narrative. If there are distinct voices in Ecclesiastes, then it stands to reason that each voice will behave with a certain degree of consistency, allowing for the occasional exception that proves the rule. The argument, at times, may appear to lapse into circularity. For example, if QP is optimistic, then all optimistic passages must belong to QP . The logical fallacy is readily apparent. The criterion by which a passage is assigned to a particular voice is subject to the premise that a particular voice contains that criterion. Yet the allocation of passages to one of the three voices in this study was not executed arbitrarily. My thesis began with the observation that all three grammatical persons are employed, but with concentrated distribution within the book. After identifying the narrative blocks in which each person is clustered, I noted various patterns and themes within these sections. I then determined that the aforementioned distinctive characteristics fit within the framework of the three persons. Admittedly, certain elements of the process are inevitably influenced by the conclusion. Nevertheless, insofar as possible, the argument presented here is derived from the text itself. Thus, I began this study by assessing individual elements, evaluating those data collectively, formulating a thesis based on those data, and then appraising suspect data in light of the thesis. IV. Voice Characteristics A. Person It is well known that all three persons of Hebrew verbal forms are utilized in Ecclesiastes, each in the singular form. In a loose narrative structure such as in 20 J. P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 140. 21 Christianson, Time to Tell, 50. 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 482 482 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74, 2012 this book, the change of grammatical person might also serve to aid in the identification of change in voice. As a rule, modern critical scholarship has identified the third person accounts as being owed to the hand of a later editor. Fox argues against the necessity to credit an editor for these third person segments. He maintains that “the epic situation of the third-person voice in the epilogue and elsewhere is that of a man who is looking back and telling his son the story of the ancient wise-man Qohelet, passing on to him words he knew Qohelet to have said, appreciatively but cautiously evaluating his work in retrospect.”22 According to Fox—and followed by others— the third person narratives are found in the phrase ‫“( אמר )ה(קהלת‬says [the] Teacher”),23 in 1:2; 7:27; 12:8; and 12:10.24 The second person passages occur in the form of masculine singular imperatives. There are twenty-nine such forms in Ecclesiastes.25 Eighteen of the twentynine instances (52 percent) are found in the QP passages. Among the remaining passages, one is in the voice of QFN and thirteen are in the voice of QS. TABLE 2 QP QS 4:17 (Eng. 5:1) 2:1 (2x) 5:3, 6 7:27, 29 7:13, 14 (2x) 8:2 11:9 (3x), 10 (2x) 11:1, 2, 6 12:1, 12, 13 (2x) 9:7 (3x), 9, 10 QFN 1:10 Although the majority of second person passages occur in the QP section, there are sufficient exceptions to give one pause regarding their exclusive distribution in the QP passages. Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes apparent 22 Fox, “Frame-Narrative,” 91. See, e.g., Franz Delitzsch, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (vol. 6 of C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (10 vols.; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996) 739; Choon-Leong Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 18C; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 264. All major modern translations follow the proposed variant. 24 The inclusion of 7:27 is based on the view that the MT has undergone minor corruption at this point. The details of the debate, as well as a rationale for defending the MT as it stands, are addressed under the discussion of perspective below. 25 See Eccl 1:10; 2:1 (2x); 4:17; 5:3, 6; 7:13, 14 (2x), 27, 29; 8:2; 9:7 (3x), 9, 10; 11:1, 2, 6, 9 (3x), 10 (2x); 12:1, 12, 13 (2x). 23 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 483 THE ROLE OF VOICE IN ECCLESIASTES 483 that it is only in the QP sections that the imperatives assume a theistic, didactic function. In both 2:1 and 8:2 the imperatives are self-directed, as evidenced by the first person pronoun ‫ אני‬in each case. A similar situation occurs in 1:10, in which the imperative “See!” occurs in the direct speech of a hypothetical third party. Five of the remaining imperatival forms appear in 9:7-10, which concludes with the recurring phrase “under the sun.” Although the forms appear to be didactic, their function in this passage is not to instruct one in godly living but to pursue hedonistic ventures. Likewise, the second person forms in 7:27-29 are best understood not as theistic didacticism but as skeptical soliloquy.26 The final three occurrences are in the first six verses of chap. 11. In each case, the imperative is followed by the phrase “you do not know,” implying a degree of futility that is fully evident in QS’s closing verse, “everything that is to come will be futility” (11:8). In each of these exceptional cases, then, one does not find any elements of the God-fearing instruction that is indicative of the QPP voice. These data alone are insufficient to prove any direct correlation between the second person passages and any one particular voice. When perspective, theology, and method are taken into consideration, however, one recognizes that the imperatives of QS are in the context of pessimistic, deistic, skeptical sections of the book. In other words, these imperatives are not the message of QP. From the mouth of QS, the imperatives are edifying words of faith. From the lips of QS, they are cynical ramblings of a pessimistic hedonist, seeking to get the most from life, because that is all that is worth pursuing. Both Christianson and Holmstedt have contributed much to the discussion of the first person constructs. Christianson has compiled data of all the first person verbal forms, pronouns, and suffixes, with the following results:27 TABLE 3 Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Percentage 28 80 32 38 9 17 22 41 21 10 0 0 According to Christianson, the decline in frequency of first person speech can be attributed to the narrative shift from experience to advice.28 According to my analysis, this shift is not due to the experience/advice narrative flow; rather, it is attributed to the voice Qoheleth is projecting. 26 Admittedly, this interpretation is not patently obvious. A defense of this reading may be found also in the following discussion of perspective. 27 Christianson, Time to Tell, 41. 28 Ibid., 244. 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 484 484 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74, 2012 The first person distribution pattern is evident also in Ecclesiastes’ peculiar use of ‫ אני‬with finite verbs. Holmstedt lists the number of occurrences per chapter as follows:29 TABLE 4 Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Occurrences 1 10 2 4 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 It is no surprise that Holmstedt’s data complement Christianson’s. As previously mentioned, however, Holmstedt makes the astute observation that these first person pronouns are associated with Qoheleth’s ‫לב‬, and the ‫ לב‬of Qoheleth represents not internal dialogue but the introduction of another character. According to Holmstedt, “The ‫ לב‬here is personified as an experiment partner distinct from himself.”30 In light of this observation, it is interesting to note that this grammatical feature is found only in the QS sections. In summary, all three persons of the Hebrew verb forms in Ecclesiastes are utilized. The voice of QFN is found in the third person accounts with the function of introducing and concluding the context of QS. The imperatives are used by QP to teach wisdom. Finally, the voice of QS is heard through the first person speeches of the book’s skeptic. B. Perspective and Recurring Phrases It has long been realized that Ecclesiastes contains elements of both optimism and pessimism. The debate lies, however, not in whether it is simply one or the other but in which takes precedent. Does the optimism outweigh the pessimism, or vice versa? Indeed, the identification of pessimistic features in not a wholly objective exercise. To paraphrase former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, one knows pessimism when one sees pessimism.31 It is a fair assumption that a pessimistic person might make some of the following statements: “In much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain” (1:18).32 “I said of laughter, ‘It is madness,’ and of pleasure, ‘What does it accomplish?’” (2:2). “The wise man’s eyes are in his head, but the fool walks in darkness. And 29 “Syntactic Encoding,” 4 n. 4. Ibid., 14. 31 Stewart famously remarked, “I know it when I see it” in reference to the definition of obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). 32 Translations are taken from the NASB (1995). 30 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 485 THE ROLE OF VOICE IN ECCLESIASTES 485 yet I know that one fate befalls them both” (2:14). In short, these statements reflect futility, the finiteness of human existence, and the reality of injustice. The pessimistic perspective is found in the voices of both QFN and QS. For QFN, the pessimism frames the speeches of QS. That is, QFN introduces the worldview of QS in 1:1-11, and then recapitulates that worldview in 12:8-11. It is the voice of QS, however, that carries the banner of negativity for Qoheleth. The pessimism of QS is best summarized in the recurring phrases “this too is vanity,”33 “under the sun,”34 and “I have seen,”35 which are generally followed by some egregious flaw in the world. From the perspective of QS, when the empirical evidence has been gathered and evaluated, there is nothing of value beyond the temporal sphere and there is nothing new to give hope that something with such value may ever arise. The pessimism of QFN, on the other hand, is best encapsulated in the phrase “vanity of vanities.” This phrase is found in only two verses, 1:2 and 12:8. Not surprisingly, these verses are also the only the places in which the phrase ‫אמר‬ ‫ )ה(קהלת‬occurs. One possible exception is in 7:27. Following 12:8, the critical apparatus of BHS for 7:27 reads ‫ אָמְרָה קֹהֶלֶת‬as ‫אמר הקהלת‬.36 In fact, R. N. Whybray states, “All commentators agree that this is an error due to wrong word-division.”37 The suggestion is well founded, and the perceived error—different conceptions of word division—is a common one.38 There is sufficient reason, however, to maintain the MT orthography. From a grammatical standpoint, the text as pointed in 7:27 may be read as a qal perfect third person feminine singular. Likewise, maintaining the consonantal text but repointing it as ‫ אֹמְרָה‬yields a feminine singular participle. Although ‫קהלת‬ is technically feminine singular in form, elsewhere in Ecclesiastes it is treated consistently as a masculine singular noun. The inclination to emend the text to maintain consistency is defensible but not necessary, especially if one adheres to the rule of lectio difficilior, in which the more difficult reading is preferred.39 If one fully considers the masoretic notation, however, it is apparent that a third grammatical option is available for 7:27. Given that the accent is placed on the final syllable, the form may well be a qal imperative masculine singular, long 33 Eccl 2:15, 19, 21, 23, 26; 4:4, 8, 16; 5:9 [10]. Eccl 1:3, 9, 14; 2:11, 17, 19, 22; 3:16; 4:1, 3, 7, 15; 5:12 [13], 17 [18]; 6:1, 12; 8:9, 15, 17; 9:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 10:5. 35 Eccl 1:14; 2:24; 3:10, 16, 22; 4:4, 15; 5:12 [13], 17 [18]; 6:1; 7:15; 8:9, 10; 10:5, 7. 36 The suggestion is based on the LXX, Vg, Peshitta, and the Targum of Qoheleth, which read the verb in 7:27 as a qal perfect third person masculine singular. The Qumran scroll of Qoheleth ends at 7:20. 37 Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 126. 38 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 252. 39 Ibid., 302. 34 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 486 486 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74, 2012 form. Rather than indicating direct speech, perhaps ‫ אָמְ רָה קֹהֶלֶת‬is actually part of the direct speech, in which QS engages QP in this ongoing wisdom debate. Thus, 7:27 might best be translated, “See, I have discovered this—admit it, Preacher!— one way or another to find an explanation.” This, then, is not the voice of QFN, but the voice of QS, commanding QP to follow the logic and be convinced of the argument. In contrast to the negative perspective of the world expressed by QFN and QS, QP promotes optimism. This is not to say that QP refrains from the use of particles of negation, but they are framed in the context of edification and godly instruction. A sampling of QP’s words demonstrates this: “Guard your steps as you go to the house of God and draw near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools” (4:17 [5:1]). “Patience of spirit is better than haughtiness of spirit” (7:8). “Yet you know that God will bring you to judgment for all these things” (11:9). “Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth” (12:1). The perspective of QP is not one of futility but one of hope, not in that which is finite but in that which is infinite, not in the reality of injustice but in humanity’s responsibility to seek justice and in God’s obligation to uphold it. Because of the nature of the method, QP does not utilize recurring words or phrases to the same extent as QFN and QS. Nonetheless, the imperative “fear God” occurs in only two verses, both of which are in the QP sections (5:6[7]; 12:13). In both cases, the wording is ‫ את־האלהים ירא‬and concludes its respective section. The phrase does not appear in the second and third QP sections (7:1‫־‬14; 11:9–12:7); however, the instruction in the second section ends with ‫ראה את־מעשׂה האלהים‬ (7:13), an imperative not to “fear” (‫ )ירא‬God but to “see” (‫ )ראה‬God.40 In short, QFN conveys a pessimist outlook and employs the key phrases “vanity of vanities” and “says the Preacher.” QS, likewise, speaks with a negative perspective on life, using the recurring phrases “I have seen” and “this too is vanity.” QP, by contrast, expresses a positive, edifying message, imploring the audience to “fear God.” C. Theology In terms of theological presuppositions, the Preacher is concerned with how the audience relates to God and how God relates to humanity. In addition to the recurring phrase “fear God,” QP invokes the name of God on several occasions. In the first sermon, QP gives instruction on what to do when one approaches the temple, ‫( בית האלהים‬4:17 [5:1]), and the importance of following through on vows to God (5:3 [4]). In the second address, QP reminds the audience that God “is able to 40 Likewise, Eccl 7:14 reads ‫ראה גם את־זה לעמת־זה עשׂה האלהים‬. The atnach in the MT appears under the imperative ‫ראה‬, but the idea conveyed is parallel to that of 7:13. This is evident not only in the imperative, but also in the fact that the object of the verb is the work(s) of God. 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 487 THE ROLE OF VOICE IN ECCLESIASTES 487 straighten what is bent” (7:13). Furthermore, in language similar to that of the first commandment, humans should not look to anything other than God (7:14), regardless of social status.41 In the Preacher’s third section, QP reminds the audience that God is the maker of all things (11:5), that God judges all things (11:9), and that life’s breath is a gift of God (11:10). QP concludes this sermon by reiterating God’s role as universal judge (12:1-7). Of the forty occurrences of ‫)ה(אלהים‬, “God,” twenty-six are found in the QS sections. One might object that such a ratio would preclude QP from holding a monopoly on the theistic perspective. However, the mere mention of God does not necessarily imply a theistic perspective. On the contrary, the conversations QS has about God are not theistic but deistic, in which God exists but is disinterested and incapable of interacting with humanity in any meaningful way. In five separate blocks, QS reflects on God, but nearly always in a negative sense. First, in 2:24-26, QS would like God to be equitable in dealing with humanity, but “this too is vanity.” In the second section (3:10-19) it initially appears that what is presented is an orthodox view of God’s relationship with humanity. Labor is the gift of God (3:13); humans should fear (‫ )ירא‬God (3:14); and God will judge all humans according to their righteousness (3:17). Note, however, that with respect to labor and fear, QS paraphrases the proverb used by QFN in 1:9 to introduce the worldview of QS: That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by. In other words, there really is nothing new under the sun, even with respect to God’s dealings with humanity. Moreover, the section concludes, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts” (3:18). This view is more in line with Enuma Elish than with conventional Israelite wisdom. When Marduk heard the speech of the gods, He made up his mind to perform miracles. He spoke his utterance to Ea, And communicated to him the plan that he was considering. “Let me put blood together, and make bones, too. Let me set up primeval man: Man shall be his name. Let me create primeval man. The work of the gods shall be imposed (on him), and so they shall be at leisure.”42 41 Ecclesiastes 7:14 reads ‫שׁלא ימצא האדם אחריו מאומה‬, “so that man will not find anything after him,” while Deut5:7 reads ‫לא יהיה־לך אלהים אחרים על־פני‬, “you shall have no gods before me.” In both cases, God is the ultimate treasure above whom nothing takes precedence. 42 Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (rev. ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 260–61. 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 488 488 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74, 2012 The view of QS and Enuma Elish stands in direct contrast to Psalm 8 and Gen 1:2627, in which humanity is the pinnacle of God’s creation. Similarly, the third section (5:17 [18]–6:2) intimates toward a wisdom view of retribution. God rewards hard workers with riches and wealth. But this spark of optimism is quickly quelled by the conclusion, “Yet God has not empowered him to eat from them, for a foreigner enjoys them. This is vanity and a severe affliction” (6:2). In the fourth section (7:15-29), whatever God might accomplish for the righteous is undermined by the fact that humans do as they please (7:29). Finally, 8:11–9:7 can be summarized by 8:17, which says, “I saw every work by God, I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, ‘I know,’ he cannot discover.” QS has no theological interest in pursuing God. Unlike QP, who preaches “fear God,” QS refers to the fear of God as something that applies only to others (7:18; 8:12, 13). God may be sufficient for others, but for QS God is both indifferent and inactive. As suggested in the overview of scholarship, some—perhaps many—would object to the argument that there are competing theological positions in Ecclesiastes. One recent objection revolves around Qoheleth’s view of death and material possessions. According to Matthew S. Rindge, “the perception of goods as divine gifts underscores both the appropriateness of enjoying them and the fragility of such enjoyment.”43 Although it is true that in Ecclesiastes possessions are cause for joy in light of impending death, is it necessarily the case that “Qoheleth considers meaningful living to be dependent on one’s ability to face, and reflect on, one’s mortality”?44 Rather, is it not the case that Qoheleth considers meaningful living to be dependent on one’s ability to “fear God and keep God’s commandments”? Whereas QP finds meaning in the fear of God, QS can find meaning only in death and possessions, since that is all God has permitted QS to enjoy. The Frame-Narrator makes no reference to ‫אלהים‬, although many commentators understand ‫ רעה‬in 12:11 as a reference to God, as in Psalm 23.45 This understanding is reflected in some modern translations with the capitalization of “Shepherd” (ESV [English Standard Version], NASB, NIV, NKJV). As Krüger cau- 43 Matthew S. Rindge, “Mortality and Enjoyment: The Interplay of Death and Possessions in Qoheleth,” CBQ 73 (2011) 265-80, here 268. 44 Ibid., 279. 45 See, e.g., Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes (TynOTC; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009) 154; J. A. Loader, Ecclesiastes: A Practical Commentary (Text and Interpretation; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 134; Robert Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and His World (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 19; New York: Boch, 1962) 344; Roland E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A; Dallas: Word, 1992) 125; Whybray, Ecclesiastes, 172. James L. Crenshaw (Ecclesiastes: A Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1987] 191) allows for the interpretation of shepherd as “God” but also suggests Solomon as a viable candidate. 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 489 THE ROLE OF VOICE IN ECCLESIASTES 489 tiously notes, however, “The statement simply continues the comparison of v. 11a: As one and the same shepherd employs in his work both ‘ox goads’ and ‘nails,’ . . . so one and the same wise man works with both (oral) ‘words’ and (written) ‘collections.’”46 If one follows the interpretation of Krüger—which is shared, in its essence, by Fox, C. L. Seow, and Longman—then QFN is silent on divine matters.47 D. Discourse Method The Frame-Narrator (1:1-11; 12:8-11) establishes the framework for QPS by strategically implementing proverbs. This strategy is evident in 1:1-11 by the cluster of seven distinct proverbs embedded within the inclusio formed by the phrase “under the sun” (‫ )תחת השׁמשׁ‬in 1:3 and 1:9. What advantage does man have in all his work Which he does under the sun [‫?]תחת השׁמשׁ‬ A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again. Blowing toward the south, Then turning toward the north, The wind continues swirling along; And on its circular courses the wind returns. All the rivers flow into the sea, Yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, There they flow again. All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing. That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun [‫]תחת השׁמשׁ‬. Likewise, the Frame-Narrator concludes with two final proverbs in 12:11-12. The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails.48 46 47 Krüger, Qoheleth, 211. Fox, “Frame-Narrative,” 102; Seow, Ecclesiastes, 388; Longman, Book of Ecclesiastes, 279. 48 The proverbial nature of 12:11 is more apparent in the Hebrew: ‫דברי חכמים כדרבנות‬ ‫וכמשׂמרות נטועים בעלי אספות‬ 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 490 490 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74, 2012 The writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body. As is generally the case with proverbs, these maxims communicate a universal truth in language that is recognizable, repeatable, and recyclable. That is, they are applicable in a variety of contexts. In this case, the universal truth is not necessarily promoting the viewpoint of QFN, but that of QS. The proverbial introduction and conclusion, then, are vital for summarizing the realities of life as promulgated by QS in the body of the book. Thus, QFN may speak about the pessimism of QS without personally adopting it. It should be noted that the QFN sections are not the only sections in which proverbs appear in Ecclesiastes.49 Yet their dense distribution in these fourteen verses indicates a particular narrative strategy. These proverbial proclamations do not occupy a great deal of written space, but they allow QFN to reflect on the rigorous pessimism of QS without imposing that worldview as officiously as QS. The discourse method of QS might best be understood as skeptical soliloquy. Not concerned with debate, dialogue, or didactic discourse, QS is merely interested in presenting a personal view of reality. When raising questions (e.g., 2:22) or problems (e.g., 4:1), QS does not wait for an answer or the solution. Rather, QS simply resolves that it is “vanity and chasing after wind.” QS does not seek the counsel of others but engages in introspection. This is evident in phrases such as “I set my mind” (1:13, 17; 8:9), “I said to myself” (1:16; 2:1, 15; 3:17, 18), “I explored with my mind” (2:3), “I directed my mind” (7:25), and “I discovered” (7:26). QS is not interested in opposing viewpoints. QS knows about these matters through personally experiencing them.50 Implicit in the discussion on QS is the fact that discourse method and person are closely related categories. This factor is even more demonstrable with respect to QP. As has been demonstrated, QP communicates primarily in the second person. QP’s use of the imperatival verbal forms is symptomatic of a didactic pedagogy. The imperatives should be construed in the context of orthodox wisdom instruction. These direct allusions to the wisdom tradition, in conjunction with the imperatival method, serve to highlight the primary function of wisdom literature—to teach. As James L. Crenshaw has aptly stated, “Wisdom is a particular attitude toward reality, a worldview. . . . It asks what is good for men and women, and it believes that all essential answers can be learned in experience, pregnant with signs 49 For an extensive (though not exhaustive) list of proverbs in Ecclesiastes and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, see Robert R. Gordis, “Quotations as a Literary Usage in Biblical, Oriental and Rabbinic Literature,” HUCA 22 (1949–50) 157-219. 50 It is interesting that this is the same tactic employed by Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu in Job. They are unwilling to accept Job’s alternate viewpoint because their proof lay in the physical evidence of Job’s suffering. 3greenwood_CBQtemplateR 5/3/2012 8:29 AM Page 491 THE ROLE OF VOICE IN ECCLESIASTES 491 about reality itself.”51 Thus, QP seeks to distill wisdom by teaching wisdom principles. Just as it takes wisdom to discern the appropriate application of proverbs, so too is wisdom required to “fear God and keep God’s commandments.” V. Conclusion In this article I have argued for the presence of three distinct voices in Ecclesiastes: QFN, QS, and QP. QFN is the Frame-Narrator. Speaking in the third person, QFN introduces and concludes the skeptic’s words and worldview via proverbial reflections. The trademark phrases of QFN are “vanity of vanities” and “says the Preacher.” QPS is the voice of Qoheleth taking on the persona of Solomon. Speaking in the first person, QS is Qoheleth’s foil, the skeptic whose views will ultimately be defeated by QP, the Preacher. If even Solomon, the richest and wisest man in ancient Israel, could find life meaningless, how much more would that be the case for the hoi polloi? Despite the futility of Solomon’s endeavors, QP teaches students to fear God, keep God’s commandments, and consider the works of God, because “God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (12:14). Ecclesiastes is a complicated and complex book, one that has perplexed interpreters for centuries and will likely continue to do so. Many strides have been made, however, toward a better understanding of the book when the emphasis is shifted to the issue of “voice.” An eye toward each respective characteristic reveals layers in the text that are due not to the hand of a later editor but to the hand of a clever author who employed various voices to articulate how true wisdom stands up to intense skepticism. 51 James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (rev. and enl. ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) 10.