Concordia Theological Monthly 35 (1964)
148-57.
Cited with permission.
A Study of Ecclesiastes
Anson F. Rainey
[EDITORIAL
NOTE: Dr. Anson F. Rainey (
University,
and Accadian language
courses at the extension school of the
Among
the books of the Bible Qoheleth1 has the distinction of
being the most distrusted by the pious but best liked
by the skeptic.
It
is disturbing to acknowledge that a sacred book has pleased the
agnostic or the pessimist more than it has
edified the saint. The
range of opinion regarding origin and purpose of the
book is vast.
Indeed,
to recount and evaluate even the major theories would
require a separate study.2 The
following is an attempt to present
only one interpretation of Qoheleth
and his world.
DIALECT
Qoheleth employs cenain
grammatical and lexical features which do
not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament. The use of
the absolute
infinitive followed by a personal pronoun to
express a past action
is shared in the Bible only with Esther, but it is
a common feature
in Ugaritic and Phoenician.3
The phrase “shadow of silver”
1
The
writer’s title, Qoheleth, has been used throughout
because
it more closely approximates a personal cognomen.
References
to the book, however, use the tide familiar to
English readers, Ecclesiastes.
2 Cf. the introduction by O. S. Rankin,
The Interpreter’s Bible
(Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1956), V, 3-14.
3 Always with a past
meaning.
Eccl.4:2 (d. Esther
Phoenician
examples: Kilamuwa I, 7 f.; Azitiwadi
I, 13, 17, 18, 20;
148a
A Study of Ecclesiastes 148b
occurs in Ugaritic also,
thus obviating the supposed Aramaism.4
The
person who collects religious revenues is called “angel,”
or simply “messenger.” Dahood
has observed that in Phoenician
this term is a correlative of “priest.”5
These and many other cogent parallels to
Phoenician and
Ugaritic passages have been collected by Dahood.6
Those based on
precise correspondences (without emendation of
the text) carry the
conviction that Qoheleth’s
dialect is closer to the “Canaanite” than
most of the other Biblical books.
The major textual variants are ascribed by Dahood to errors
in copying from a Vorlage
which lacked all matres lectionis. Since
he assumed that the book was written in the “fourth-third
century
B.
C.,” he believed that the original must have followed the Phoenician
pattern of orthography, which was the only
Canaanite system
II,
18, et al. Ugaritic: Text 49:1, 25; II, 13; text
52:68-71. ct. J.
Friedrich,
Phiinizisch-Punische Grammatik (
Institute,
1951), p.133, n.1; C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Manual (
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1955), p.64.
4 Ecd.
Studies
in Koheleth (
on Post-exilic Hebrew,”
5 Phoenician Ma’asub insc., 2, 3. G. A. Cook, A Textbook of
North Semitic
Inscriptions (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1903), p. 48. Cf.
also Mal. 2: 7 , where kohen is parallel to mal’akh. M. J. Dahood,
“Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth,” Biblica, XXXIII (1952), 207.
6 Ibid., pp. 201-21.
Rainey, Ecclesiastes 149a
of that period lacking vowelletters.7 However! most of his
examples
involve plural subjects with singular verbs, a
matter of final vowels.
But
these may be due simply to a syntactical peculiarity.8
It
is interesting to note that the relative pronoun most used in
Phoenician
at this time almost always had a prothetic alef,
which is absent in Qoheleth.9 If he lived and wrote in
it is strange that such a commonplace detail of
Phoenician
morphology would escape him. Qoheleth’s
form also occurs
in Joshua, Judges,
Canticles,
and in a few other passages, all of which might be
ascribed to North Israelite origins.
Dialectically, Qoheleth has a strik-
ing tie-in with Esther; to
wit, the absolute infinitive plus personal
pronoun to express the past tense.10
At any rate, the parallels
to U garitic and
Phoenician show quite decisively that Qoheleth’s
book is not a translation from Aramaic.11
Gordon has suggested, on the basis of these
linguistic
similarities among several post-exilic
books, that they represent the
dialect of the northern Israelite tribes,
carried by them to
Mesopotamia
and
at a later date. The books of this period which
reflect strong Canaanite
affinities are Chronicles, Esther, and Qoheleth.12
The chronicler no
doubt lived in
7 Ibid., p. 43.
8 Cf. E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew
Grammar, trans. and rev.
A.
E. Cowley, 2d
9 Phoenician ‘s, Old Hebrew sa (Genesis, Judges),
otherwise se
(also Moabite) =
10 Esther
11 Cf. Ginsberg, pp.16-39.
12 Gordon, IEJ, V, 87, 88.
Rainey, Ecclesiastes 149b
unknown author of Esther reveals an intimate
knowledge of the
Persian court and customs. Since neither of these
linguistically similar
writings came from
Qoheleth did either. The Canaanitisms
may be northern Hebraisms
and permit an alternative suggestion if other
evidence should
warrant it.
MILIEU
The commercial atmosphere which pervades Qoheleth’s work
is amply demonstrated by Dahood.
He lists 29 of the most prominent
business terms used in the book. To these should be added two
interesting nouns from
occur in parallelism in Ugaritic.13 Therefore, he is doubtless cor-
rect in rejecting the
existence of a noun lhg in this context.14
Taking
a cue from him, one may render the verse: “Of
making many accounts
there is no end, and much reckoning (checking
ledgers?) is weariness
to the flesh.” The Septuagint rendering accords well with
this interpretation.15
Margoliouth had observed long ago that certain
Neo-Hebraisms,
including the term for “business,” do not occur in
Qoheleth.16 Therefore he felt the book must
have been written before
250 B. C.
Some of the mercantile expressions in
13 Kret, 90, 91: “hpt troops which
are without counting; tnn
troops which are without reckoning.
14 Dahood, p. 219.
15 sefarim = biblia, which means “accounts” in Hellenistic
papyri. Cf. J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the
Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, Ltd., 1930),
p. 110. lahag = melete, “practice,
consideration.”
16 D.
Encyclopaedia, V,
32.
A Study of Ecclesiastes 150a
Qoheleth have striking Akkadian
prototypes. For example, Gordon
has noted that ‘amal, a key word in the sage’s
discourse, has the same
usage as Akkadian nemelu, viz., “profit,
property, substance,” rather
than “labor” as in the English versions.17 This is clear in
‘amal
is something that can be left to someone else.
It must signify
tangible stuff. The idiom “Money answers everything”18
appears
strange in a Hebrew context but corresponds
perfectly with
Mesopotamian usage. The Akkadian
word meaning “to answer”
also signifies the act of paying for something, that
is, satisfying a
financial obligation.19 The possible Hebrew cognate for the
Akkadian indefinite pronoun, meaning “something,”
is used to signify
(with the negative) a man’s loss of all his property20
in an expression
which carried an Akkadian
flavor.21 Another term for “prop-
erty,” used twice by
Qoheleth22 (and only twice more in the Hebrew
Old
Testament),23 must be Mesopotamian in
origin because it is
apparently a Sumerian loan word.24 The
word is also known in Bib-
17 Gordon, IEJ, V, 87.
18 Eccl.l0:19.
19 Cf. Codex
Hammurapi, apalu, “to
answer,” col. XXI, line
98; XXIII, 71, et al.
20 Eccl.
21 Cf. Br. Mus.
text 84-2-11, 165: mimma ina qatiya la mussura,
“Nothing
at all has been left in my hand,” cited by M. Muss-Arnolt,
A Concise Dictionary of
the Assyrian Language
(
Reichard,
1905), p. 564b. Codex Hammurapi, col. VII, 1, 2; XII,
32,
43; et aI. Cf. also Deut.
24: 10.
22 nekhasim;
Eccl.
23 Joshua 22:8; 2 Chron.
l:11f.
24 nik(k)as(s)u, from Sumerian NIG.SIT, “account,” i. e.
NIG,
“property,” plus SIT, “to count,” according to G. R.
Driver and J. C.
Miles,
The Babylonian Laws, II, 196.
A Study of Ecclesiastes 150b
lical Aramaic25
and other related dialects.26
One Phoenician occurrence
in the feminine gender is cited by Harris.27
In Eccl. 2: 8
Qoheleth uses a common Semitic term for royal “wealth”
which,
though used internationally, occurs in the Old
Testament
only with reference to
of this passage and one other post-exilic reference.28
Special note must be taken of yithron, which appears in
Qoheleth alone of the Hebrew Old Testament books.29
Its root
is Common Semitic, meaning “to remain, be left
over,” and the
Akkadian (also the Aramaic) adjective signifies
something “ex-
traordinary.”30 It was pointed out long ago by Genung that this word
expresses a pivotal idea of the whole book.31
The customary English
rendering, “profit,” fails to reflect Qoheleth’s conception. In 1: 3
25 Ezra 6:8;
26 W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti
Libros, ed.
L. Koehler (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1951), p. 1100.
27 Corpus
Inscriptionum Semiticatum,
3783, “And any man
who steals a gift that is the property of Tanit the face of Baal,”
cited
by Z. S. Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language (New
Haven:
American Oriental Society, 1936), p. 124.
28 segulla, 1 Chron. 29:3;
Koehler, s. v. Note Deut. 14:2, et al.,
where
potamian context sugullu is
usually a herd of cattle or horses.
29 Eccl. 1:3; 2:11,13; 3:9; 5:8,15; 7:12; 10:10,
11.
30 Aramaic yattir, Dan.2:31;
31 J. F. Genung, Words of Koheleth
(
Mifflin and Co., 1904), pp. 20, 214f.
Rainey, Ecclesiastes 151a
it is contrasted with ‘amal (usually translated “toil”),
which has
already been shown to mean “profit,” His
question is: “What
is the real
profit in profit? Is there a reward in
life which exceeds the
mere accumulation of material substance? Perhaps “benefit” would be
a better rendering. His meaning is clearly seen in
is no “benefit” to be derived from snake charming
if the viper has
already struck. One obscure passage for which an explanation
may be
ventured is 5:9. In spite of many injustices in government, “There
is a
benefit in all of this, a king is served for the
field.” People served the
king, and in turn the king maintained law and order.
The central
authority regulated the water supply and other
aspects of agriculture
which made it possible for the peasant to till his
land unmolested.
This
is typical of Mesopotamian society,32 and this
pithy maxim was
probably often uttered by the farmers.
Other details of the social order have Mesopotamian
affinities.
Qoheleth alone of all the Biblical writers used
the term “villein,”33
Dahood noted its occurrence as a proper name in
Phoenician, but it is
far more prominent as the designation of a distinct
social class in
Akkadian society.34 Besides bureaucracy,35
which would aptly
32 Cf. Henry Rawlinson,
The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
of a
matNamar, “for extraordinary assistance of the governor
of Namar,”
cited by Delitzsch, pp.
249, 281.
33 misken, Ecd.4:13; 9:15f.
34 muskenu, a person of less than full citizenship whose legal
status is specifically defined, e. g., Codex Hammurapi,
references in
Driver, II, 391b.
35 Eccl. 5:8, 9.
Rainey, Ecclesiastes 151b
describe some aspects of life under the Persians,
another type of
political structure existed as well, viz.,
feudalism. The Great King was
served by local kings, who in turn were surrounded by
warrior nobles
and paid for their services in grants of arable
land. This institution of
ilku, known under the
Hellenistic monarchs as the cleruchy, existed
for over two millenia in the
ancient Near East. Those who held a land
grant in exchange for ilku were required “to go” (alaku) on the missions
and expeditions of their liege lord.36 An intensive participle of the
cognate Hebrew verb, “to go,” occurs only twice
in the Old
Testament. The first passage defines it by parallelism
as “an armed
man.”37 The second, in Qoheleth,
is admittedly obscure.38
Nevertheless,
on the basis of the foregoing, it might not be idle to
hazard the following interpretation of the passage and
its context:
Better is a wise peasant youth than an old and
foolish king
who can no longer be advised;
because he (the youth) had come
36 Note Enuma Elish, IV, 69, where ilani resulu = aliku idisu,
“the gods, his helpers, going at his side”; and Sennacherib (
Prism),
VI, 26, alikut idisu, “those
who go at his side,” viz., the junior
allies. Cf. W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch
(Wies-
baden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1959), p. 32.
37 is magen,
Prov.6:11. Cf. Ugaritic hlk in Kret,
92, where it is
parallel to tlt, hpt, tnn, and
hdd, all of
which apparently describe
various types of soldiers. The service rendered
by the ilku
holder was
apparently corvee or
financial rather than military (The
Assyrian Dictionary
[
Note
Aramaic halakh,
Ezra 4:13,20; 7:24; Driver ltr.
8:5, frag. 8: 1, which
is vocalized as though it were an Akkadian infinitive. (G. R. Driver,
Aramaic Documents of the
Fifth Century B. C. [
Press, 1957], p.70).
38 Eccl. 4:15; note context vv. 13-16.
A Study of Ecclesiastes 152a
out of prison to rule, since he had been born poor
in his own
kingdom. I saw all the living, the vassals,
under the sun with that
youth, the successor who would stand in his (the king’s)
place,
over all of whom he was in leadership.39
Yet succeeding; generations
will not rejoice in him.
Could
this be a parody of Darius’ usurpation? He was of less than
royal rank, may have been in jeopardy under the Magian due to his
loyalty to Cambyses,
and could not have gained the throne without
the: aid of the feudal lords. Gaumata
was more: popular than the
Behistun inscription would have one believe, and
Darius was later
tagged “the huckster” for his oppressive fiscal policies.40
Thus Qoheleth would
appear to be rooted in the commercial
tradition of Mesopotamian society. Large numbers
of Israelites were
settled there by the Assyrians, and the captives
from
over a century later. Jeremiah told them to settle
down and contribute
to the prosperity of their new home.41
Many Jewish names are known
in the Murashu tablets from
Nippur.42 The clients of the sons of
Murashu comprised a diverse mixture of ethnic
elements. Though
it is not certain
39 Cf. Sennacherib
(Chicago Prism), IV, 2, anaku . . .panussun
asbat, “I took the lead (in front
of them).”
40 For a complete discussion of the problem
with references,
cf.
A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian
Empire (
of Chicago Press, 1948), pp.107-10.
41 Jer.29.
42 H. V. Hilprecht
and A. T. Clay, Business Documents of Murasu
Sons of
series, and his Light
on the Old Testament from Babel (
The Sunday School Times Co., 1907), pp. 404 ff.
A Study of Ecclesiastes 152b
that the illustrious proprietors of that business
house were Jewish,
their transacting business on Jewish holidays does
not preclude that
possibility. Consider the Jerusalemites who were
willing to trade with
Phoenician
merchants on the Sabbath.43 One can make a good case
for ascribing the Babylonian banking house of Egibi to Jewish
origin.44
References to sacrifice and
construed as evidence of a Palestinian provenance
for Qoheleth.
However,
the exiles of Ezekiel’s day were equally concerned with
things ritual, and during the restoration wealthy.
Jews of
sent a delegation to
cause.46 The Jewish colony at
of the
before the invasion of Cambyses.47
The Code of Hammurapi
provides a convenient, though not
exclusive source for Mesopotamian illumination of Qoheleth.
Its
special relevance to the Persian period consists in the fact that it
had been carried off to
known in
ancient Persian sources indicate that the code received
a new lease on
life from Darius.
43 Neh.13:15-22; d. T.
Fish, “The Murashu Tablets,” Documents
from Old Testament Times, ed. D. W. Thomas (
and Sons, 1958), p.96.
44 Egibi = Jacob
(?); Olmstead, p. 192.
45 Ecd.5:1-7.
46 Zech.6:9-15.
47 A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B. C. (
Clarendon Press, 1923), No. 30, line 13.
Rainey, Ecclesiastes 153a
When
he codified the laws for his empire, Hammurapi’s
spirit pervaded
his edicts.48
DATE AND AUTHORSHIP
The Persian loanword for” decree”49 and
the absence of any Greek
influence in the vocabulary both serve to support the
supposition of an
eastern origin.50 Even the expression “under the
sun,” though often ascribed to Greek or Phoenician
influence,51 has
been found to be typical of Elamite
also.52 There is much in favor and
nothing against the assumption that Qoheleth wrote his book in
Achaemenian
Mesopotamia before Alexander the Great. Beyond his
familiarity with the business climate of that area
and his enigmatic title,
Qoheleth, nothing can be said about his identity.53 But
it is his
attitude to that world that is the permanent
value of his work.
LITERARY CHARACTER
Qoheleth is rightly classed
among the Wisdom writers of the
Ancient East. Affinities with the Egyptian branch of that literature
are manifold.54 His disgust with a topsy-turvy
society is anticipated by
Ipu-wer (ca.
2100 B. C.).55 That God is
48 Olmstead, pp. 120-28.
49 pithgam, Eccl.
50 Gordon, IEJ, V, 87.
51 Greek u[f ] h[liou; Phoen.
Tabnit, 7 f.; Esmunezer,
12.
52 J. Friedrich, “Altpersisches
und Elamisches,” Orientalia,
XVIII, 28, 29.
53 Qoheleth, qal fem. pt., from the root qhl, “to
assemble:’
54 Cf. Rankin, pp. 15 f.
55 Eccl. 9:11; 10:7; “The Admonitions of Ipu-wer,” trans. J. A.
Princeton University Press, 1950), pp.441ff.
Rainey, Ecclesiastes 153b
the author of a man’s financial state is affirmed
by Ptah-hotep (ca.
2400 B. C.).56 If the passage in Eccl.12:3-7 be construed as an
allegory on old age, then a more concrete
description of the same
thing from Ptah-hotep
should also be compared.57 Man’s
confrontation with the life-death mystery,
so frequently pondered by
Qoheleth,58 seems to echo the sad refrains of the Harpist’s
lament.59
The inscription on the
tomb of Petosiris (ca. 300 B. C.)60
reflects sentiments like those in Eccl.9:7-9.
Here is a formula for
facing life. A
man must accept the present, the future is in the
hands
of God. The most impressive literary parallel to this
same passage
is the advice of the barmaid to Gilgamesh.61
Mesopotamian affinities
are also seen in the admonitions towards reverence
of a king,62 which
bear a notable similarity to a passage in the sayings
of Ahiqar.63
This
latter text is all the more interesting because Ahiqar,
though
appearing in Aramaic in the earliest preserved
manuscript, gives many
indications that it was originally written in
Akkadian.64
56 “The Instruction of the
Vizier Ptah-hotep,” trans. J. A.
57 Ibid., p.412.
58 Ecd.2:24;
59 Trans.
60 G. Lefebvre, Le tom-beau de Petosiris (Le Caire:
Imprimerie de l’InstitUte Francais d’ Archeologie
Orientale, 1924), I, 161.
61 “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” trans. E. A. Speiser, Ancient
Near Eastern Texts, p.90.
62 Ecd.8:2-4.
63 “The Words of Ahiqar,”
trans. H. L. Ginsberg, Ancient
Near Eastern Texts, pp.428, 429. 64
Cowley, pp. 205-7.
A Study of Ecclesiastes 154a
It should not be thought freakish that a book
with Qoheleth’s
apparent “secularism” should arise among the
exiles of
At
the Elephantine garrison the Jews never make a reference to the
Law
of Moses, nor do they seem to have possessed copies of the
Sacred
Scriptures.65
Yet they did have a copy of Ahiqar’s proverbs.
So
it would seem that for many Jews of the Persian diaspora international
wisdom books were the main religious literature.
The work must now be considered as a book. As to
those
who would dissect it into several pieces and assign
each fragment
to an author of a special temperament (pessimist, pietist, moralist,
etc.),
Genung has challenged them to prove the soundness of
their method
by entering the literary workshop and creating a
great masterpiece
by this means.66 Naturally a literary
masterpiece has many
antecedents. How else could it touch the chords of
human existence
and thus survive the tests of time? That would be especially true of
wisdom literature, which consisted of short, pithy proverbs
that were
passed from mouth to mouth throughout the world, In
the hands of
literate sages, these sayings were often collected
and grouped
according to subject matter. Sometimes the
proverbs on a theme
supplemented one another, They often
gave contrasting aspects of the
same topic.
In Qoheleth’s work can
be seen an attempt to weave together
into a connected whole the sage’s observations about
life. In much of
the book he is successful at writing prose
discourse, but in some pas-
sages, especially the later chapters, he finds
65 Ibid., p. xxiii.