Ecclesiastes

A Commentary

James L. Crenshaw

• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
• Year: 1987
• ISBN:
  9781611645033
• Topic: Theologie & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblischer Kommentar

This volume, a part of the Old Testament Library series, explores the book of Ecclesiastes.

The Old Testament Library provides fresh and authoritative treatments of important aspects of Old Testament study through commentaries and general surveys. The contributors are scholars of international standing.

COMMENTARY

The Superscription 1:1

1:1 The words of Qohelet, David’s son, king in Jerusalem.

Like many other books in the Bible, Ecclesiastes bears a superscription that places it within a larger context. The generalized form of the introductory comment calls to mind prophetic books and collections of proverbs. Even the identification of the author lacks precision, for ben-dāwid melek could refer to any number of kings who sat on the throne in Jerusalem, and except for the royal experiment in 1:12–2:26 the book does not adopt a royal perspective.

[1] Similar superscriptions occur in the book of Proverbs: “The words of Agur, Yakeh’s son, the Massaite” (reading hammaśśā’î,¹ Prov. 30:1) and “The words of Lemuel, the Massaite king, that his mother taught him” (Prov. 31:1). In Prov. 22:17 a superscription (“the words of the wise”) seems to have been incorporated in the first line of the text. Although the initial word in Prov. 1:1 is míšlê rather than dibrê, the entire superscription (“The proverbs of Solomon, David’s son, king of Israel”) is remarkably close to Eccl. 1:1. In Prov. 10:1 the short form, “The proverbs of Solomon,” identifies the second major collection within the book, and Prov. 25:1 expands that brief attribution to read: “These also are proverbs of Solomon that the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, transcribed.”

This type of superscription is not restricted to wisdom literature: “The words of Jeremiah, Hilkiah’s son, one of the priests who (lived) in Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin” (Jer. 1:1); “The words of Amos who was among the sheepbreeders from Tekoa …” (Amos 1:1). In the latter case the superscription adds the verb ḥāzāh, the nominal form of which occurs in Isa. 1:1 (“The vision of Isaiah, Amoz’s son, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem …”) and in Obad. 1:1 (“The vision of Obadiah”).

Egyptian Instructions have similar introductions. The Instruction of Ptahhotep begins: “The Instruction of the Mayor and Vizier Ptahhotep, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Izezi, living forever and ever.” Other texts of this type preface the technical word sebayit (Instruction) with the words “The beginning of.” The Instruction for King Merikare, The Instruction of King Amenemhet, The Instruction of Prince Hordedef, and The Instruction of Amenemopet begin with this preface.²

The reference to a book of Solomon’s d^ebārîm (I Kings 11:41) seems to play on the word’s ambiguity. Does the allusion presuppose an account of Solomon’s words or of his deeds? “Now the rest of Solomon’s d^ebārîm—everything he did and (all) his wisdom—are they not written in the book of Solomon’s d^ebārîm?”

The epilogue in Eccl. 12:9–11 virtually equates the respective words, dibrê and m^ešālîm. During his professional life, it observes, Qohelet listened, searched out, and arranged numerous proverbs, all the time striving for felicitous and reliable expressions. This epilogue also uses the expression “the words of the wise” as a broad category into which Qohelet’s m^ešālîm fell.

The name Qōhelet is a feminine Qal participle from the root qhl, meaning to assemble or gather. Because the term has come to designate an occupation, like hassōperet in Ezra 2:55 and pōkeret haṣṣ^ebāyîm in Ezra 2:57 and in Neh. 7:59, a masculine verb follows. In Eccl. 7:27, the feminine verb probably arose through a mistaken division, when ’āmar haqqōhelet became ’ām^erāh qōhelet. This interpretation of the data seems to be confirmed within the book in Eccl. 12:8 (“says the Qohelet”) and outside it in the Septuagint. Twice Qohelet functions as a proper name: in 1:12 (“I, Qohelet, was king over Israel in Jerusalem”) and in 12:9–10 (“In addition to [the fact] that Qohelet was a sage … Qohelet endeavored to discover felicitous words”).

Ben-dāwid (son of David) does not necessarily mean one of David’s children. In Hebrew usage it can refer to grandchildren or simply to a remote member of the Davidic dynasty. Furthermore, the word ben also denotes close relationships of mind and spirit without implying actual physical kinship (sons of the prophets = disciples or guild members; sons of God = servants). Therefore ben-dāwid does not require the identification of Qohelet with Solomon, although that association was probably intended.

The appositional phrase “melek in Jerusalem” refers to Qohelet, not to David. Proposals for repointing this word as “property-holder” (Ginsberg 1950), or “counselor” (Albright; see Lauha 1978, 2), or Ratsherr (Kroeber 1963) have not commended themselves to interpreters. Due to the author’s literary fiction of royal authorship in Eccl. 1:12 (abandoned in 2:26), Qohelet was identified with the king of legendary wealth and wisdom. This identification was logical, inasmuch as the author of Eccl. 1:12 had extracted a suitable pen name from the tradition about Solomon’s assembling of the people for the dedication of the temple (I Kings 8:1, yaqhēl).

The superscription does not come from the author of the book. Although the verse is often credited to the epilogist(s), that unlikely view introduces one difficulty. According to Eccl. 1:1, Qohelet was a king, but in 12:9 he is called a sage, that is, a professional wise man (ḥākām). The purpose of the superscription may have been to strengthen the case for canonical use of the book by attributing its observations to Solomon. The several collections in Proverbs and the Song of Songs bear witness to an effort to enhance the authority of various writings by linking them with Israel’s great king whose wisdom was legendary.

Motto and Thematic Statement 1:2–3

1:2	Utter futility! says Qohelet,
	Utter futility!
	Everything is futile!
3	What does a person profit From all his toil
	At which he works under the sun?

Ecclesiastes opens with a motto and a thematic statement (attributed to Qohelet himself) that brands reality as utterly absurd, transitory, and futile. Consequently, all human toil is wasted effort, completely devoid of profit. The rest of the book justifies Qohelet’s unorthodox teaching and draws significant lessons from the unpleasant fact that there is no lasting advantage for humans.

[2] The word hebel derives from a root that connotes a breath or vapor.³In Ecclesiastes it shows two nuances: temporal (“ephemerality”) and existential (“futility” or “absurdity”). The name Abel connotes the first of these. The earliest Greek translations of the Hebrew rendered the word according to this category: atmis or atmos (breath). Jerome opted for the second category, which he expressed by the Latin vanitas. The Septuagint has mataiotēs.

The first category, breath or vapor,⁴ is reinforced by the image of chasing after or herding the wind (cf. 2:17). Wind, breath, and smoke are insubstantial when viewed from one perspective. Nevertheless, they are very real, even if one cannot see the wind or take hold of any...