Review in: Interpretation
2005 59: 192
Review door: James
L. CrenshawGevonden op: http://int.sagepub.com/content/59/2/192.full.pdf+html
Ecclesiastes: The JPS Bible Commentary
by Michael V. Fox The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 2004.
87 pp. $34.95 (cloth). ISBN 0-8276-0742-3.
LIKE OTHERS IN THIS SERIES, the commentary by Michael V. Fox
is written for the general public. It consists of a brief introduction, both to
the biblical book and to some of its "major" interpreters, the
commentary, and explanatory notes. Christian readers will be especially
interested in the succinct characterizations of traditional Jewish commentaries
by Abraham ibn Ezra, RASHBAM (Rabbi Samuel ben Meir), Samuel ben Judah ibn
Tibbon, Moses Alsheikh, Moses Mendelssohn, and SHADAL (Samuel David Luzzatto).
They may be somewhat puzzled by the choice of "contemporary"
interpretations (Barton, Ginsberg, Hengel, Murphy, Seow, and Fox). Surely,
Robert Gordis has earned at least honorable mention in this list, to name only one
prominent interpreter. Perhaps, however, Fox merely intends to comment on a
variety of interpretations. The rationale for the selection is by no means
obvious, in any event.
Anyone familiar with modern scholarship on Qoheleth knows that
Michael Fox has made a substantial contribution, first with his emphasis on the
contradictions within the biblical sage's teachings, and second with his
innovative hypothesis that a narrator has framed Qoheleth's teachings as that
of another subject from whom he distances himself in the end. Moreover, Fox has
rigorously insisted that Qoheleth's teaching is radically empirical, that is,
grounded in personal experience rather than revelation or tradition. A
consequence of such empiricism, Fox argues, is inconsistency, specifically contradictory
views within the book, for life seldom resolves the incongruities we encounter.
Every interpreter of Qoheleth, Fox writes, must
give an answer to three questions: what is he negating or complaining about,
what does he affirm or recommend, and what are his underlying reasons for each?
Qohelth's primary complaint, according to Fox, is the irrationality of the
universe; his chief recommendation is to have pleasure insofar as possible; and
his reason seems to be that death renders null and void every effort to achieve
profit, making the present moment crucial.
Qoheleth's investigative procedure
resembles philosophy, according to Fox, specifically the use of reason alone to
arrive at truth. Accepting no external rules, Qoheleth appeals to no tradition
as binding, and refers to no insight that derives from revelation. Instead, he
bases his conclusions on personal experience and his own skill at synthesis. I
have elsewhere expressed reservations about this emphasis on empirical truth,
for Qoheleth says much about God that has no foundation in daily experience
("Qoheleth's Understanding of Intellectual Inquiry," pp. 205-24 in Qohelet
in the Context of Wisdom, ed. A. Schoors [Leuven: University Press, 1998]).
At most, one can say that Qoheleth deduced all kinds of things about a deity
from reality itself.
Perhaps that deductive
process explains Fox's insistence that Qoheleth believed in divine justice in
spite of contravening evidence in daily life. Ever opposed to designating any
outright contradictory statement as a pious correction of unorthodox views, Fox
is left with opposing assertions and denials side by side. Still, one must
surely ask: Is it likely that anyone would leave such a conflicting message?
Over time, and in discrete contexts, probably, but it is highly unlikely that
Qoheleth uttered such contradictions in one and the same breath. A better
solution, in my judgment, is to posit an orthodox gloss. Given the clear
presence of such glosses in other canonical texts, and the controversial nature
of Qoheleth's teachings, this hypothesis has a high degree of probability. That
claim stands even if one accepts Fox's theory about the framing narrator, which
is itself problematized by two epilogues.
Although denying that an orthodox
glossator has touched up Qoheleth's teaching, Fox does not hesitate when it
comes to emending the text. He proposes changes in nine instances.
Astonishingly, he views 2:3 "and to grasp folly" as a possible pious
interpolation. The difficult h'lm (eternity) in 3:11 is rendered h'ml
(toil). In 7:19 "ten" becomes "wealth," and in 7:28
'ä&r ("who") is altered to *i$â ("woman"); in
8:8 relet ("wickedness") becomes "oser ("wealth"),
and in 8:12 meat ("hundred") is changed to mVaz ("from
of old"). The change in 9:2 of hakkôl to hebel and a
different division of verses is definitely an improvement over traditional
readings, as many critics have observed.
Qoheleth's understanding of God has
already been hinted at above. Fox writes that Qoheleth describes the deity as
powerful, unpredictable, autocratic, dangerous, distant, cold but not hostile,
even if at times perverse (3:10-11; 6:2; 7:14). Nevertheless, Fox believes,
Qoheleth ascribes justice to God in the face of its many failures, projecting
that justice into the future (3:17; 11:9b). That claim in no way accords with
Fox's insistence on an empirical basis for Qoheleth's views, for what
experience would confirm such theological dogma?
Not only did
Qoheleth reflect on the deity; he was also remarkably self-reflective. Fox
detects an emerging self-consciousness, one in which Qoheleth initially recoils
from his discoveries and hates life but over time reconciles himself to
disappointments to the point that he commends pleasure. The latter advice is
offered, even though Qoheleth conceded that distractions did not work for him
(6:19). Fox even thinks that Qoheleth engaged in self-directed irony when
posing the rhetorical question, "who knows what is good for a person...
?" (6:12) and when reflecting on woman as a threat in 7:29, indicating
that his calculations have failed miserably. Similarly, Fox lists 8:17 as
self-directed irony, although that text is usually taken as criticism of
sapiential optimism. Above all, Fox contends, Qoheleth exhibits a unity of
consciousness unlike any other sage. It could be argued that Ben Sira rivals
Qoheleth in this regard, for his ego surfaces again and again in his teachings.
The similarities between
Qoheleth's teachings and Stoic philosophy have been noted before, and Fox joins
those who see close resemblances here. He writes: "the only realm of
freedom and control is the human heart—the realm of emotions, thoughts, and
attitudes. We are to enjoy whatever pleasures that God makes possible and avoid
whatever sorrow we can look away from. This, we may note, is Stoic
doctrine" (p. xxxi). He does not link the catalogue of times in
3:1-8 with Stoicism (cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, "Ecclesiastes 3:1-15, Another
Interpretation," JSOT 66 [1995]: 55-64). In discussing the
catalogue, Fox inadvertently misconstrues the Hebrew word hèpes for ma'aseh
in 3:1, a rare mistake for such a meticulous scholar.
Does Qoheleth offer positive counsel? Fox thinks he
does, and he considers the admonition to find pleasure the heart of Qoheleth's
advice. Whoever coined the inclusion in 1:8 and 12:8 did not think so, nor do
the addenda to the exhortations, which stress life's transitory nature and
absurdity, confirm Fox's claim. I doubt, too, that Qoheleth thought the wise
knew when to act, which requires a rational universe. In point of fact, he
decried the unpredictability of all things, even though warning against
outright offense of the deity.
These minor disagreements with Fox's conclusions
pale when compared with our agreements, even on controversial matters: that hokmâ
("wisdom") is not inherently ethical; that 'nh in 3:10
probably means afflict; that wisdom's success brings chagrin; that some things
are worthwhile even without yielding permanent profit; that the book has no
discernible structure; that it dates from the third century; that its
vocabulary and syntax are idiosyncratic; that nitenû in 12:11 means
"affixed"; and that there remain some unresolved issues, among which
are 4:17, "they do not know to do wrong" and 5:8, "and the
advantage of a land in all (regards?) is a king for a cultivated field."
To sum up, Fox has put his own
stellar insights about Qoheleth into the hands of the general public. In him,
they have an able guide.
James
L. Crenshaw
DUKE
UNIVERSITY
DURHAM,
NORTH CAROLINA
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten