Empire in Qohelet

Qohelet is the product of a wisdom tradition that emerges as a response to the traditional wisdom of the Jewish theocracy of the Persian period (198). The skepticism evident in Qohelet was part of a larger movement of protest against conventional traditions across the ANE, which was being overrun by Alexander the Great and Hellenism. Qohelet calls into question two traditional affirmations: retributive justice, and revelation through Torah and apocalyptic visions. In his pursuit of the answer to the perennial question of “what is good to humanity in living” (6:12) in a world where all is temporal and fleeting, Perdue posits the meaning “evanescence” to the key term hevel (203). In his understanding of the cosmos, Qohelet denies any causal nexus between deeds and consequences, which leads to denying that any order permeates reality. Perdue explores ANE parallel literature, pointing out autobiographical characteristics of Qohelet, which suggest the closest parallels are in Egyptian and Greek grave autobiographies and inscriptions (209). These parallels convey the importance of enjoying this present life while it is still possible for those fortunate enough to be alive and read the inscriptions. This is expressed by Qohelet in the Carpe Diem texts. The inscriptions lament the fact that the deceased did not have a chance to enjoy more of life, and express uncertainty that surrounds the afterlife, entreating the wise to take full advantage of the “portion” given to them in this life (218). Perdue bases his dating of Qohelet under the Ptolemaic empire (as opposed to the Persian, which is also a commonly held view), on linguistic and cultural reasons. The language is late biblical Hebrew, and contains several Persian words but also Greek expressions. According to Perdue the social context described in Qohelet supposes an oppressive and unjust hierarchical government (5:7-8), and economical developments of commerce, technology, the cultivation of estates, and high foreign taxation. Pointing out several similarities with Hellenistic paideia-teachers, Perdue estimates that Qohelet “would have been cosmopolitan in outlook, critical of traditional religion, wealthy, and quite probably a teacher of aristocratic youth in a private school that he operated…The worldly Zadokite priests, the cosmopolitan Hasidim, and the sectarian apocalyptic seers would have been his opponents, for he encountered their teachings with a skepticism that reflected some of the Greek and Egyptian thought of the period.” (232).

Advertisement