Ecclesiastes

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2000 by Enns, Peter

Ecclesiastes. By C. L. Seow. AB 18C. New York: Doubleday, 1997, xxiv 419 pp., n.p.

Seow's work serves to fill a glaring gap in the Anchor Bible series by replacing the slim 257-page commentary by R. B. Y. Scott (AB 18, 1965). In fact, Scott's volume included commentary on both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes and consisted simply of a series of exegetical notes to his translation. Seow's commentary stands in stark contrast. It is creative, detailed, and subtle. It not only fills the gap in the Anchor Bible series but will no doubt take its rightful place as one of the standard academic commentaries on Ecclesiastes. It is a stimulating and penetrating piece of scholarship.

The general contents of the commentary are as follows: introduction (pp. 3-69; title, canonicity, texts and versions, language, socioeconomic context, authorship, message, Qohelet among the wise); bibliography (pp. 73-92; texts and versions; commentaries; articles, monographs, special studies; ancient Near Eastern sources); translation, notes, and comments (pp. 95-396); indexes (pp. 397-419; authors; subjects; Scriptural and other references; foreign words).

Seow's treatment of standard introductory issues provides many of the highlights of the commentary. His discussion of versions is very helpful in that, among other things, it brings the reader up to date on the fragments found at Qumran. His summary of the language of Ecclesiastes is very handy. He notes pardes (2:5) and pitgam (8:11) as evidence of Persian influence (p. 12). Moreover, Seow argues that the number of terms in Ecclesiastes that are paralleled only in Aramaic texts of the Persian period strongly suggests that the book stems from this period (ytrn "surplus"; htrn "deficit"; hsbn "account"; nksyn "assets"). He notes a number of other Aramaisms as well. His argument on the whole serves as a balanced rejoinder to D. Fredericks's important observation that Aramaisms in Ecclesiastes are not in and of themselves evidence of a postexilic date (Qoheleth's Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date). It is in Seow's estimation the sheer abundance of Aramaisms that speaks to the contrary.

To support further a postexilic date for Ecclesiastes, Seow elaborates on observations made as far back as Delitzsch's commentary of 1875, that there are a number of hapax legomena and expressions in Ecclesiastes that likely reflect the development of Hebrew in the postexilic period. Seow comments on six phenomena: the frequency of se-; exclusive use of 'ani; the use of 'et/'et; the feminine demonstrative zoh; the amp pronominal suffix for feminine plural antecedents; and the negation of the infinitive with 'en. Seow's application of this evidence to the dating issue is quite fair. He does not overplay the evidence, and he is clearly aware of the ambiguities involved. Nevertheless, he clearly sees these linguistic phenomena as supporting a late date for Ecclesiastes. Any arguments to the contrary will have to account for these phenomena as Seow has presented them.

Perhaps most stimulating is Seow's discussion of the possible socio-economic context of Ecclesiastes (pp. 21-36). On the basis of the recurring uses of economic terms (he lists 18 on p. 22) and a number of very suggestive and inviting parallels between Ecclesiastes and a spectrum of Persian period texts, Seow draws the conclusion that Qohelet's language "reflects the volatile economy of his time" (p. 32; see also p. 31). Such an understanding of Qohelet's social backdrop, although certainly not exhaustive of Ecclesiastes as a whole, provides a valuable perspective from which to view this ancient book. Qohelet's words, Seow posits, suggest that he "taught at a time when the average citizen felt vulnerable and powerless before the rich and the political elite" (p. 35). Qohelet's conclusion for his audience is that wealth cannot conquer death. "Wealth is to be enjoyed in the present and people cannot bring their wealth with them when they die" (p. 36).

Seow organizes Ecclesiastes, excluding the superscription and epilogue, according to a two-part scheme, each containing a "reflection" of Qohelet followed by an "ethical" section. Hence: IA, Reflection: everything is ephemeral and unreliable (1:2-4:16); IB, Ethics: coping with uncertainty (5:1-6:9 [Eng]); IIA, Reflection: everything is elusive (6:10-8:17); IIB, Ethics: coping with risks (9:1-12:8). This structure, although suffering the same fate as any attempt to bring order to Qohelet's thought, is sufficiently broad enough to avoid the charge of over-organization. At the same time it is thoughtful enough to be a helpful heuristic tool.

As for the theology of Ecclesiastes, two of the perennial issues are the meaning of hebel and the relationship between the epilogue and the words of Qohelet. As for the former, Seow suggests that hebel "does not mean that everything is meaningless or insignificant, but that everything is beyond human apprehension and comprehension" (p. 59). No English word, however, is adequate to convey the nuances of the 38 occurrences of hebel in Ecclesiastes, so Seow opts for the traditional term "vanity" for all its occurrences (see p. 102). Seow is correct in attempting to use one English word to translate the word hebel, since it forms the Hauptleitwort of the book, but it should be questioned whether "vanity," particularly with its connotations for modern ears, does adequate justice to the concept it conveys. (I am more convinced by Fox's translation and defense of the word "absurd" in Qohelet and His Contradictions, pp. 29-51.)