Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974)
Article: Qoheleth’s World And Life View As Seen In His Recurring Phrases
Author: H. Carl Shank

WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 57

Qoheleth’s World And Life View As Seen In His Recurring Phrases

H. Carl Shank

Within the scope of Old Testament ethical problems falls the viewpoint of Qoheleth, or the Preacher, of Ecclesiastes. A superficial reading of the book reveals a man who definitely has a negative viewpoint of life in its many facets. If indeed the book is a unity, composed by one wise man, then the theme of pessimism or cynicism becomes a suggested option. But the ethical questions arising from such an understanding of the book become crucial. Can a thoroughly pessimistic view of life have any place in the canonical books of Scripture? What exactly is the goal of Qoheleth’s ethics? Further, what does the God of Qoheleth really have to do with hi life and standards of conduct? Again, does not the recurring theme of “there is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink and make his soul enjoy good in his labor” (cf. 2:24; 3:12, 13, etc.) denote a sort of Epicurean sentiment ?

A. Qoheleth’s Ethical Perspective: Critical Views

Of course the modern critics of the Bible have seized upon the pessimism-cynicism suggestion with a vengeance. Morris Jastrow has suggested that the book teaches an ethical cynicism, where, in the face of no real goal to life, good humor is still to be maintained.1 A popular view, held until recently, noted the phrase “Vanity of vanities” and attempted to draw certain parallelisms in thought and perspective between Qoheleth’s notion of “vanity” and Heraclitus’s view that “all is flux”.2 However, most critical

WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 58

scholars today reject this argument as unconvincing. The recognized modern critical writer, G. Von Rad, has related the book to a supposed stage in Israel’s religious evolution at which “belief in Yahweh’s action in history grew weak” and Ecclesiastes “fell back on the cyclical way of thinking common to the East.”3 D. Kidner comments that Von Rad’s argument rests on “precarious assumptions”. Along with the questionable premise that the thinking of the Ancient Near East was “cyclical”, the dating of the book still remains too much of an open question to make definite conclusions concerning the strength of belief “in Yahweh’s action in history”.4

R. B. Y. Scott, in the Anchor Bible series, suggests the following concerning Qoheleth’s ethic:

Hi...