Title PageIntroductionQoheleth in the Hands of Liberal CriticsQoheleth as Vindicated by ConservativesQoheleth RevisitedQoheleth Interpreted: The PrologueQoheleth Interpreted: The Recurring ThemesTheology of CreationElusiveness of MeaningCelebration of LifeQoheleth Interpreted: The EpilogueQoheleth's World and Life View SummarizedConclusionEndGrace Theological Journal 7.1 (1986) 21-56 Copyright © 1986 by Grace Theological Seminary. Cited with permission QOHELETH: ENIGMATIC PESSIMIST OR GODLY SAGE? ARDEL B. CANEDAY The enigmatic character and polarized structure of the book of Qoheleth is not a defective quality but rather a deliberate literary device of Hebrew thought patterns designed to reflect the paradoxical and anomalous nature of this present world. The difficulty of inter- preting (his book is proportionally related to one's own readiness to adopt Qoheleth's presupposition-that everything about this world is marred by the tyranny of the curse which the Lord God placed upon all creation. If one fails to recognize that this is a foundational, presupposition from which Ecclesiastes operates, then one will fail to comprehend the message of the book, and bewilderment will continue. * * * INTRODUCTION The book of Qoheleth,1 commonly known as Ecclesiastes, is per- haps the most enigmatic of all the sacred writings. It is this qual- ity which has been a source of sharp criticism. Virtually every aspect of the book has come under the censure of critics-- its professed authorship,2 its scope and design, its unity and coherence, its theo- logical orthodoxy, and its claim to a place among the inspired writings. A superficial reading of Qoheleth may lead one to believe he is a man with a decidedly negative view of life in its many facets. This negative quality has been disproportionately magnified by liberal 1 Though the meaning of tl,h,qo continues to be much debated, the sense accepted here is connected with the Hebrew verb for assembling (lhaqA), and its form suggests some killed of office-bearer (the feminine ending). Qoheleth was one who assembled a congregation for the purpose of addressing it, thus the Preacher. See H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966) 7. 2 The Solomonic authorship has been widely rejected by scholars, both critical and conservative. Some noted conservatives opt for a post-exilic dating of the book. See, e.g., E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (reprint;22 GRACE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY critics and conservatives alike. Understandably, then, Qoheleth has become the delight of critics and the embarrassment of conservatives. Embarrassment has led to greater perplexity about the book, and perplexity has brought negligent disuse of this valuable book. Certainly the viewpoint of Qoheleth upon the world and life must be included in any discussion of OT ethical problems. If the book is indeed a unity, the composition of a single wise man, what is its theme? Is it pessimistic? Can a completely pessimistic view of life be admitted a place in the canon of Holy Scripture? Does not the recurring theme of "a man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work" (cf. 2:24; 3: 12, 13; etc.) sug- gest an Epicurean influence? Perhaps Stoicism, too, has influenced Qoheleth, for he claims, "All is vanity" (1: 2; etc.). What exactly is Qoheleth's view of the world and of life? What was the source-of his ethics? Is Qoheleth the record of a man's search for meaning gone awry, ending in cynicism? Or, is it the book of a godly wise man who gives orthodox counsel for directing one's path through the labyrinth of life? QOHELETH IN THE HANDS OF LIBERAL CRITICS Modern critics have seized upon the alleged disunity of Qoheleth and upon the presumed contradictions. This alleged antithetical char- acter has led critics to disavow the single authorship of Qoheleth, to discredit the theological expressions, to disclaim its ethics and view of the world and of life, and to displace the book from its authority and position as one of the writings of Holy Scripture. Earlier critics, such as Tyler, postulated a late date (ca. 200 B.C.)3 for the book in order to accommodate the alleged influence of Greek philosophical schools. Tyler sought to explain the discordance within) Qoheleth in terms of conflicting influences from Epicureanism and Stoicism.4 To Tyler the recognition of discontinuity and discordance Minneapolis: James and Klock, 1977) 1-15 and E.J Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952) 339-41. Young suggests that the author, being post-exilic, placed his words into the mouth of Solomon, employing a conventional literary device of his time (p.340). However, in favor of Solomonic authorship see G. L. Archer, "The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of 'Ecclesiastes,'" JETS 12 (1969) 167-81. 3 Thomas Tyler, Ecclesiastes (London: D. Nutt, 1899) 30-32. 4 Tyler (ibid., 54) states, "Our book possesses a remarkable antithetical character, its contrasts not infrequently assuming the form of decided and obvious contradiction. This antithetical character is especially marked in those two great thoughts of the philosophical part of the book-the Stoic, ALL IS VANITY; and the Epicurean, EAT, DRINK, AND ENJOY."CANEDAY: QOHELETH: PESSIMIST OR SAGE? 23 within Qoheleth is an assumed fact without need of proof. Hence, it is of little consequence for Tyler to claim Greek philosophical influence upon a late Hebrew writer, subject to the erosion of the ancient Jewish faith.5 Tyler disallows any attempt to demonstrate a genuine continuity in Qoheleth which would show that it has no real discordant or antithetical character and especially no "obvious contradictions, as for example, that between the Stoic and Epicurean. . . .”6 One might fancy that the author of Ecclesiastes intended that the con- trarieties of this book should in some sort reflect and image forth the chequered web of man's earthly condition, hopes alternating with fears, joys succeeded by sorrows, life contrasting with death. It must not be supposed, however, that we can find an adequate explanation in the hypothesis that the author of Ecclesiastes arranged his materials in a varied and artistic manner?7 The denial of an overall literary plan for Qoheleth and a dislike for its ethical expression, which motivated Tyler's