Digital Logos Edition
Biblical scholar Michael V. Fox seeks to address the complexities and so-called “absurdities” of Ecclesiastes, or “Qohelet,” the Hebrew word for the preacher. He focuses not on resolving the contradictions, but on seeing them as part of the overall structure and meaning of the book. Fox gives an in-depth introduction to the historical exegetical studies of Ecclesiastes and explains his own position. He then divides the discussion into five sections:
The first four sections contain the same format, in which Fox names a specific contradiction and terminology. The last section provides Fox’s commentary on the whole of Ecclesiastes, including purpose, key words, language, structure, and translations. Fox also gives a bibliography and indexes of authors and subjects.
“In any case, ‘inclusios’, which the phrases are said to form, do not prove the boundaries of literary units, for an expression (root, word, phrase, etc.) can be repeated within a unit and can recur beyond it. Consequently we can know that a repeated expression is an inclusio only after we find it occurring at the beginning and end of a unit demarcated by other means. Then we may point to the inclusio to show how the author effects closure.” (Page 156)
“As I see it, hebel designates not the mysterious but rather (and this is a fundamental difference) the manifestly irrational or meaningless. To call something hebel is an evaluation of its nature. Whether or not there is meaning beyond the visible surface of events, that surface, which is the world as it presents itself to humans, is warped. Similarly, while hebel is a near-synonym of ‘meaningless’, the terms differ insofar as ‘absurd’ is not merely the absence of meaning, but an active violation of meaningfulness.” (Page 34)
“The teaching of 3:1–9 is rather that the occurrence of all events is beyond human control, for God makes everything happen in its proper time (proper, that is, from his viewpoint). Therefore strenuous labor does not pay off in proportion to its unpleasantness.” (Page 192)
“mt spellings may have nothing to do with the book’s origins (Barr, 1985).” (Page 154)
“Hebel for Qohelet, like ‘absurd’ for Camus, is not merely incongruous or ironic; it is oppressive, even tragic. The divorce between act and result is the reality upon which human reason founders; it robs human actions of significance and undermines morality. For Qohelet hebel is an injustice, partly synonymous with ra‘ah, ‘inequity, injustice’ (see 6:1–2; 9:3; cf. 2:21; 4:8).” (Page 33)
2 ratings
Reuven Milles
3/14/2021
Anthony Sims
10/15/2015