A Commentary in Simple English on Ecclesiastes

Notes

[0.1] The commentary by Tremper Longman III (1998) in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series is valuable and clears up some difficult passages. But his view - based partly on parallels in other ancient writings - that the Teacher is not Solomon but someone using his name as a literary convention is not satisfactory. He seems to answer the arguments for a late date, and then accept it.

It seems to me that much of the material in the book could easily be much older than the time of Solomon. The attitude to death is much gloomier than in the book of Proverbs. Could it be that the teacher’s proverbs were extracted from the book of Proverbs?

[0.2] ‘Qoheleth’ by Graham Ogden is a rather technical commentary written by someone who is acquainted with Chinese ‘wisdom’. Longman is often critical of Ogden.

There are times when you wonder whether you should not read Ecclesiastes from the end to the beginning. Some things only make good sense in the light of what follows.

[1.1] (1:1) ‘King in Jerusalem’ is a little strange. One would expect King of Israel or King of Judah. Jonah’s king was ‘King of Nineveh’ rather than King of Assyria.

[1.2] (1:2) So G G Findlay.

[1.3] (1:10 and 11) It has to be admitted that it is usual to include these verses in the poem.

[1.4] (1.14) See also 1:17; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4; 6:9. The same word is used in Hosea 12:1. ‘To strive’ and ‘To desire’ are among other possible meanings for the word.

[3.1] (3:11) See the discussion in Longman, pp 120-121 and Vines Expository Dictionary pp 72 on ‘Olam’.

Longman mentions as possible translations here eternity, world, course of the world and knowledge or ignorance. The human mind cannot reach beyond the present time into the ‘ages’ to see as God does.

Vine’s defines ‘Olam here as the capacity to remember yesterday, plan for tomorrow and consider abstract principles but this is less than divine knowledge.

[3.2] (3:15) This is proposed by Ogden, pp 58. See also Longman pp 124.

[4.1] (4:14) See Ogden, pp 72. The Hebrew word is used again in 10:16, 17, and 20, where it can mean something less than king.

[4.2] (4:10) Coined money only came into use in the Persian period, some hundreds of years later. From this point of view, it would be better to translate ‘silver’. There is the interesting question as to why silver rather than gold was used as a medium of exchange.

[7.1] (7:7,8) Longman discusses the suggestion that something has dropped out between verse 6 and verse 7. For the second line of verse 8 he suggests: -

‘Better long patience than soaring pride’.

[7.2] (7:16,17) These two verses may, of course, be advising moderation. Like so much in the book the argument is obscure. Yet it seems best to assume that these two verses do not represent the Teacher’s own views, whereas verses 15 and 18 do.

[7.3] (7:26) This suggestion by Ogden is described by Longman as ‘bizarre’.

[8.1] (8:1) I have to admit that this is my own interpretation. In my limited resources I have found no support for it. The REB makes no break between verses 1 and 2, and this is the nearest I can find.

8.2] (8:11) This meaning seems to be that of the Hebrew. If anything, it makes for an easier flow of thought than we expect in this book. There are all sorts of other views. The ‘Holy Place’ may be the Temple. The idea of the dead man’s work being ‘praised’ rather than ‘forgotten’ has of course a good deal to commend it.

[9.1] (9:1) Longman takes the opposite view.

[9.2] (9:2) As our English versions show, in the Hebrew text there is nothing to balance ‘the good’. It is usual to supply something. Ogden prefers to ignore it.

[9.3] (9:18) Longman’s translation - pp 236.

[10.1] (10:12) But the meaning may be that what the wise man has said is swallowed up by the fool’s talk.

[12.1] (12:1) So Ogden. Frankly, most of the essays on this book which I have read have been of no value. One exception is Fredericks in JSOT 52 pp95. He interprets the whole passage as a description of a disastrous storm.

[12.2] (12:6) Presumably the bowl is only gold-plated. Gold is a soft metal and if the golden bowl fell it should not come to much harm. In Zechariah 4:2-3, the meaning ‘lamp’ for this word is clear.

[12.3] (12:9) This view is suggested by Eaton in the Tyndale Commentary and I find it attractive. It is not eagerly taken up by other writers.

[12.4] (12:10) In his comments on this last section, Longman suggests that the Writer is mildly critical of the Teacher or at least he is giving him only faint praise. In effect, he says to his son: ‘Qohelet’s thinking is dangerous material - be careful’.