Rabbinic Ways of Reading Ecclesiastes

Reuven Kiperwasser “Matters That Tend towards Heresy”: Rabbinic Ways of Reading Ecclesiastes The Book of Ecclesiastes has always troubled its readers, be they modern interpret- ers, Second Temple Jews, or late antique rabbis. The most obvious problem with it, in their opinion, is its recurring scepticism.1 Indeed, it seems to question the very possibility that people might be able to shape their future or change their fate through informed action. In fact, the author’s concern would appear to be those problems that arise from this human inability to discern divine action or purpose. Biblical scholars have suggested that Ecclesiastes’s scepticism was in part a reaction to the more confident assertions found in other biblical works such as the Book of Proverbs.2 Against this widespread tendency, Stuart Weeks has concluded that Ecclesiastes’s ideas are not actually sceptical, but rather that they are driven by a sense of disappointment with human nature. It is a feeling that people accept the world naïvely and that they are guided by emotion, which inevitably leads them to misperceive the true nature of the world.3 In this regard, the author of Ecclesiastes seeks “to steer others away from the false expectations and disappointment which he experienced himself, by opening their eyes to the reality of their situation.”4 According to Weeks, “the author has given us a character [in Ecclesiastes] who is not supposed to command assent at every turn from his readers, but whose situation drives him to a provocative, poetic, and sometimes very personal re-evaluation of the world and human priorities.”5 Readers, he continues, are “supposed to en- gage with Qohelet’s ideas, not necessarily to identify with his priorities and con- cerns.”6 Thus, modern readers, according to Weeks, mark Ecclesiastes as a sceptical 1 This has been argued by numerous authors. See, for example, Martin Alfred Klopfenstein, “Die Skepsis des Qohelet,” Theologische Zeitschrift 28 (1972): 97–109; William H. U. Anderson, “What Is Scepticism and Can It Be Found in the Hebrew Bible?”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testa- ment 13, no. 2 (1999): 225–57; James Lee Crenshaw, “The Birth of Skepticism in Ancient Israel,” in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, ed. James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel (New York: Ktav, 1980), 1–19. For criticism of these approaches, see Stuart Weeks, Ecclesiastes and Scepticism (New York: T&T Clark International, 2012), 132–35. 2 See Milton P. Horne, “Intertextuality and Economics: Reading Ecclesiastes with Proverbs,” in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually, ed. Katharine Dell and Will Kynes (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 106–17; Daniel J. Estes, “Seeking and Finding in Ecclesiastes and Proverbs,” in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually, 118–29. See and compare further Werman, “Wisdom Scepticism and Apocalyptic Cer- titude” in this volume. 3 Weeks, Ecclesiastes and Scepticism, 169. 4 Weeks, 169. 5 Weeks, 179. 6 Weeks, 4. Open Access. © 2021 Reuven Kiperwasser, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110671483-003 28 Reuven Kiperwasser text because they are unsure quite how to classify it. Weeks’s point of view deserves a more detailed discussion, although I am more interested here in the rabbinic reception of Ecclesiastes.7 It is curious, however, that in many ways, rabbinic readings of Ecclesiastes, as we shall see, resemble those of modern readers. As if following Weeks’s advice, they engaged too closely with the scriptural verses of Ecclesiastes and were attracted to the work’s unusual tone and content. Similar to modern scholars, who have searched for foreign ideas in this biblical book in order to account for its unconventionality, the rabbis attempted to uncover heretical undertones in this ancient text, but at the same time to counterbalance them with their own readings, thereby rendering it acceptable despite its problematic nature. There is a broad consensus among scholars that rabbinic controversy surround- ed the question of whether to include Ecclesiastes in the biblical canon.8 In this article, I will first consider the early rabbinic discussion of the book, some of which has been taken as evidence of such a controversy. I will then address later rabbinic deliberations, which do indeed express genuine exegetical bewilderment about the book, though still no evidence of canonical controversy. 7 It would be interesting to attempt to explain this unusual nature of Ecclesiastes and the source of its attraction with the help of Umberto Eco and his idea of the open work (opera operta). Eco refines the concept found in aesthetic theory that states that every text is open because it can be read in an infinite number of ways, depending on what the reader brings to the text. For Eco, an open work is a text that is not limited to a single reading or range of readings; it admits complexity and encourages or requires a multiplicity of readings. Eco sees open works as essentially political, as a work that openly expresses a pluralistic worldview. As examples, he cites texts which on the surface are more traditional, although still enigmatic. Thus, in Kafka’s Metamorphosis, the reader relates to the text on the level of metaphor, but without a clear mapping of metaphors (Umberto Eco, The Open Work, trans. Anna Cancogni [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989], 9). There is no fixed symbolism by which to unlock the meaning of Gregor Samsa’s metamorphosis. However, if, in Kafka’s case, we can imagine that the author intentionally left the hidden room of his work open—or, let us say, unfinished—did the author of Ecclesiastes construct his text as an open work, or did some peculiarities of its redaction and reception render it an open work, a text which invites us to interpret it and which expresses a worldview that can be understood as pluralistic? 8 See, for instance, the following: Saul Lieberman, “Notes on Chapter I of Midrash Koheleth Rab- bah” [Hebrew], in Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem, ed. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, Chaim Wirszubski, Gershom G. Scholem, and Ephraim E. Urbach (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,1967): 163–70; Marc Hirshman, “Qohelet’s Reception and Interpretation in Early Rabbinic Lit- erature,” in Studies in Ancient Midrash, ed. James L. Kugel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, Harvard University Press, 2001), 87–99; Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden, CT: Academy, 1970), 51–56, 120–24. “Matters That Tend towards Heresy”: Rabbinic Ways of Reading Ecclesiastes 29 Tannaitic Approaches to Ecclesiastes and Solomon The date and authorship of this very exceptional biblical book has always been a matter of dispute. Modern Bible scholars place the composition of Ecclesiastes in the Hellenistic period (third to second centuries BCE) and regard it both as one of the latest books in the Hebrew Bible and as being of unknown authorship.9 The rabbis, however, assumed that Ecclesiastes was a prophetic work and attributed it to King Solomon along with Proverbs and the Song of Songs.10 Seder Olam, a historiographic tannaitic work dated to the second century CE,11 describes how in old age and close to death, King Solomon repented for his sins, received the “holy spirit,” namely divine inspiration, and composed his three books one after another: Seder Olam 15 והמלך שלמה אהב נשים נכריות וג' מן And King Solomon loved many foreign“ הגוים וג' (מלכים א' יא א-ב), כשתמצא women” etc. “from nations which the לומר כי על אפי ועל חמתי וגו' (ירמיה לב Lord has said.., “You shall not enter לא), אבל לעת זקנת שלמה סמוך למיתתו into marriage with them” etc. (1Kgs שרתה עליו רוח הקדש, ואמר שלשה As you will find it say “The .(2–11:1 ספרים הללו, משלות שיר השירים וקהלת. ”city has aroused my anger and wrath (Jer 32:31). But at the time of Solo- mon’s old age, close to his death, the Holy Spirit rested upon him, and he re- cited these three books: Proverbs, Canti- cles and Qohelet. 12 9 For recent discussion, see Antoon Schoors, Ecclesiastes (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 2–7, and Weeks, Ecclesiastes and Scepticism, 170–79 (and for further discussion on dating Ecclesiastes, see the con- tributions in this volume by Carsten Wilke and Cana Werman). 10 This idea already appears in tannaitic literature (roughly second to early third centuries CE); see also Sifre Deut. 1 (Finkelstein edition, 2). For another example, see, the following passage from Seder Olam, although his name is absent from the long list of prophets in chapters 20 and 21; see Milikowsky’s explanation in his commentary, Seder Olam: Critical Edition, Commentary, and Introduction (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 2:349. For a brief discussion of the attribution of prophetic abilities to Solomon, see Milikowsky’s commentary on Seder Olam, Vol.2, 348–49, and n. 93. The assumption of Solomon’s prophetic powers took further root in the writings of the amoraim: see Marc Hirshman, “The Prophecy of King Solomon and Ruach HaKodesh in Midrash Qohelet Rabbah” [Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1, no. 3 (1982): 7–14. 11 See Milikowsky edition, introduction, Vol. 1, 116–29. The exact dating is problematic, because, as Milikowsky suggests, the prototype of the text was composed before the rabbinic period, but it was accepted by the rabbis and edited during the tannaitic period. 12 Milikowsky edition, 2: 266. The translation is taken from Chaim J. Milikowsky, “Seder Olam:A Rabbinic Chronography” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1981), 2: 492.

Load more