Integrity and Structure of Ecclesiastes

At some point I need to write an essay on the structure of Ecclesiastes. I have recently read through the book several times (in English to my shame) and I have only just started to survey the landscape of literature on the topic. I realize that coming up with a clear and detailed structure of the book is not going to be easy. To help me along I thought I would from time to time (though with no promises) post some thoughts on the structure of the book as I am going.

In the discipline of Old Testament studies the discussion of a book’s structure takes place hand in glove with the book’s integrity.[1] In the case of Ecclesiastes, the inner tension and apparent contradictions of the book have caused some scholars to see more than one “hand” in the production of the book. An extreme case is the influential work of C. G. Siegfried, who saw no less than five glossators responsible for various insertions[2]. As the method goes, once one identifies a gloss it can be safely removed and the “pure” text can emerge to be interpreted.

One of the reasons for such an approach was the felt need to do something about this shocking and difficult book. I should mention that this is not just a problem for scholars. This is also something that those who confess that the Bible is God’s Word must grapple with—what do we do with the contradictions in the book! I was reminded of this in a Bible study I was leading last winter. I was identifying some of the contradictions in Qohelet’s sayings and a gentleman in the group stopped me and said something along the lines of, “we seem to be doing a lot of criticizing here—after all this is Holy Writ!”[3]

One of the first mistakes many readers make, and it’s an easy one to make, is equating words of Qohelet with the words of the narrator or author. It is true that the book is made up largely of Qohelet’s first person narration of his own quest to find meaning under the sun—Qohelet’s voice dominates the book. However, his voice is not the only voice in the book. The book clearly has a narrator, whose voice is discernable is several places. The first place is in 1:2 (using the ESV): “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “vanity of vanities! All is vanity.” The words inside the quotations marks are Qohelet’s but the “says the Preacher” is the voice of a narrator. A similar thing takes place in 7:27: “Behold, this is what I found,” says the Preacher… These two examples clearly reveal a voice which is distinct from Qohelet’s. Finally, the conclusion to the book (12:9-14) is an evaluation of Qohelet’s quest and also refers to Qohelet in the third person. Although scholars are divided on this issue, it is reasonable to suppose that the voice in the epilogue is the narrator of the book whose distinct voice pops up in 1:2 and 7:27.

Now, why do I bring all of this up? Recognizing the voice of the narrator makes a big difference as we try to make sense of the book. We are permitted some critical distance from Qohelet once we identify him as a character in the book. We don’t expect Moses or David or Jonah to be perfect and entirely consistent, and a narrator can help us, either explicitly or implicitly, make judgments about people and situations. The friends of Job are given quite a bit of space to make their opinions known but we don’t need 42:7,8 to get the sense that their words are not normative. In light of his intense existential struggle, we don’t even expect (or at least we shouldn’t expect) Job to be perfectly logical and without contradiction.

Like Job Qohelet is also experiencing a kind of spiritual crisis (though of an intellectual and not an existential kind). I have deliberately referred to Qohelet’s experience as a “quest.” There is an overall movement forward in the book so that he ends up in a place of resolution, i.e., the “remember your Creator” (12:1ff) conclusion which is akin to beginning with the “fear of the LORD” (Prov 1:7; 9:10, etc.). However, the movement toward that confession is not consistently linear. Sometimes the most orthodox saying is juxtaposed to a nearly blasphemous saying. Although we need to realize that Qohelet’s struggle is real and painful one (for example we can no doubt relate to his painful realization that what he see around him doesn’t always seem to cohere in a tidy way with what he knows and confesses to be true!), there are things that he says to which we certainly must object. In other words, a contradiction in Qohelet’s thoughts and words do not equate to a contradiction in the book as a whole.

More on Qohelet to come.



1. For a good introduction see Craig Bartholomew, "Qoheleth in the Canon?: Current Trends in the Interpretation of Ecclesiastes," Themelios 24.3 (May 1999): 4-20.

2. Prediger und Hoheslied (HKAT 2:3,2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1898). I am leaning on R. E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC 23A; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992).

3. Qohelet, by the way, is the word which English versions translate as “the Preacher/Teacher.”

Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Catholic Bishops: The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church

Pope Benedict announced earlier this year that the Synod of Bishops would be devoted to The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church. On the occasion of this announcement he urged his listeners:

dear brothers and sisters, I ask you to make your contribution to this ecclesial commitment, witnessing to the importance, especially for those who like you, the Lord calls to a more intimate "sequela", of placing the Word of God at the centre of all things.

He noted further that the mission of the “consecrated life” (by which he is referring basically to clergy and those whose vocation is dedicated to serving the church),

is to recall that all Christians are brought together by the Word, to live of the Word and to remain under its lordship

And he encouraged his audience to,

nourish your day with prayer, meditation and listening to the Word of God.

The National Catholic Reporter (NCR) tells that the Synod is keenly anticipated for several reasons: (1) virtually every facet of the church has been affected by the significant appreciation for Scripture among both academics and the “laity” as a result of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965); (2) the focus on Scripture will have positive implication for ecumenical dialogue with Western Protestantism; and (3) “today's Catholic identity mega-trend has already transformed the way the church translates and interprets liturgical texts, it's reasonable to assume that a similar identity wave is poised to crest in Scriptural translation and exegesis.”

The Pope has designated Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec, to head up the Synod as chairman. The NCR reports that one of the primary qualifications of Cardinal Ouellet is his involvement in the Scripture and Hermeneutics Seminar (SAHS), and devotes a bit of space to describing quite graciously work of the Seminar (I quite like the description in the report of the Seminar’s approach to biblical interpretation as “kneeling exegesis”). Cardinal Ouellet was present at the only SAHS consultation on Canon that I attended in Rome. In response to a question regarding the ecumenical character of the Synod Ouellet responded,

Certainly. Let's hope that it will contribute to the growing closeness between Rome and the other churches and Christian communities. It would be wonderful if that happens, especially since the tragic separation of the Reformation was based on interpretation of Scripture. But it will also be a synod that has as its goal a re-launching of the missionary dimension of the church. The Word of God is intended for all people.

With regard to the study of Scripture in the academy, he beautifully notes,

Faith is a basic principle to the scientific character of exegesis. If we exclude faith, we are not being rigorous, we are misunderstanding the book. This point has to be made in the academy.

This emphasis on Scripture is, in my opinion, something to get excited about. In all of this, I particularly like the emphasis on the centrality of the Word of God, on the implications of the Word of God for all of life, and on the vital importance of the Word of God for the mission of the Church. It will be interesting to follow these developments. For more info see the Lineamenta (working document) of the Synod.

Coming in November

Baker has uploaded the info for the forthcoming book by Mike Goheen and Craig Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview. This is a follow-up volume to their book The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story.

From Baker Academic’s website:

This accessible introduction to Christian worldview explores the question of how Christians can live faithfully at the crossroads of the story of Scripture and postmodern culture.

Ideal for undergraduate students and laypeople, Living at the Crossroads first lays out a brief summary of the biblical story and the most fundamental beliefs of Scripture. The book then tells the story of Western culture from the classical period to postmodernity. Authors Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew next provide an analysis of how Christians live in the tension that exists at the intersection of the biblical and cultural stories. They proceed to tease out the implications for key areas of life, such as education, scholarship, economics, politics, and church. The result is a deeply thoughtful yet approachable text that draws on the rich tradition of reformational thinking but contextualizes it to a postmodern setting for a contemporary audience.

Readers will emerge from their study and reflection of worldview with renewed hope in the gospel and restored fervor to help meet the tremendous need for justice and mercy in the world.

Today I will be attending the retirement party of Al Wolters, who has served Redeemer University College as a professor for some 24 years (and was also one of the founding fathers of the institution). Although he was trained in philosophy (with a dissertation on an aspect of Plotinus’ Enneads) and was an expert in that field he decided mid-career to pursue his love of biblical studies (with an excellent masters thesis on the history of the interpretation of Prov. 31:10-31). His outstanding gift with languages has put him in good stead as a biblical scholar which comes to bear specifically in two of his cherished areas of interest: the history of interpretation (especially pre-modern) and textual criticism. He has scores of articles on a wide range of topics, including among others textual criticism of both OT and NT texts, methods in biblical studies, philosophy, worldview, and his excellent book Creation Regained: Biblical Basis for a Reformational Worldview has been translated into several languages (Dutch, Japanese, Afrikaans, Korean, Slovak, Russian, Portuguese, Spanish).

He is a fine scholar and also happens to be one of the reasons I am pursuing OT studies. He has mentored me and taught me several courses including, ancient and medieval philosophy, the academic study of scripture, biblical hermeneutics, and five courses in Greek. These courses gave me a good foundation for further study. Of course, Al will continue his academic career into retirement, working, among other things, on a commentary on Zechariah.

Yesterday I read the April 1st post, IVP Academic’s Carbon-Offset Program, over at Addenda & Errata (the blog for IVP by Dan Reid). To be quite honest, although I had the clear sense of incredulity while I was reading it, I was actually duped almost to the very end. The “endorsements” are great (I especially like Alister McGrath’s and N.T. Wright’s), and the eco-friendly bracelets with the Revelation slogan was the perfect closer. All around the post was a fine bit of work. Do go and check it out!

Incidentally, Craig Bartholomew’s article on Hermeneutics (of the OT Historical Books) is now available online (see the Biblicaltheology.ca articles page) and is definitely worth reading.

I received a copy of a new commentary on Genesis:

James McKeown, Genesis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

This is the first in the Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary which is edited by Gordon McConville and Craig Bartholomew. The distinguishing feature of this series is a commitment to theological exegesis and theological reflection. The volume on Psalms by Geoffrey Grogan is due out in the next couple of months.

the Book of Judges: fragmented or unified

I am doing some work on Judges 17-18--the story of Micah and the Danites, and I've been coming across some very interesting secondary sources. Here is a quote from Jacobus Marais, Representation in OT Narrative Texts (Biblical Interpretation Series 36; Leiden/Boston/Koln: Brill, 1998), 152-153:

In its ware against historical criticism, the literary paradigm has rightly reacted against the fragmentation of the text. In its place, however, it has again put a unified text, which is the product of Western, Greek-based logic and presuppositions on notions such as causality and chronology. The text of Judges is neither a historically reconstructable patchwork of redactions nor a unified text with a centre and a dogma. It is a Jewish text with perspectival juxtaposition, paradoxes and discentering.