This dissertation investigates the translation technique of the Greek Ecclesiastes and proposes the place of the Translator in the history of the transmission of the Greek text. Chapter 1 defines a text of the Greek Ecclesiastes. Since a Göttingen critical edition of the Greek Ecclesiastes has not been completed yet, Rahlfs' text is adapted as the basis for the analysis. Chapter 2 compares and analyzes the Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes and its Greek translation on syntactical and lexical levels. The result of the study reveals that the Translator is not mechanical but is sensitive to context and to the demands of the target language although his translation is labeled as literal. Chapter 3 deals with the issue of the identity of the Translator. A comparison with the translation techniques of Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and the Kaige tradition betrays that the Translator is none of these. His translation is influenced by them in part but also contains his own distinctive patterns. Finally, chapter 4 concludes that the Translator has most affinity to Theodotion and least affinity to Aquila. A distinctive Symmachian approach suggests the date of the translation as late as the second century.

This study analyses the theological thought of Qoheleth. In the Introduction, a survey of Qoheleth studies in the last hundred years has shown that the literary structure of the book of Qoheleth is still crucial to the understanding of the theological thought of Qoheleth. Thus, Chapter One of this thesis Is devoted to discussing various approaches, i.e. traditional critical, form critical, and modern literary approaches, which have been employed in the study of the structure of the book. Chapter Two analyses the structure of Qoheleth's theological thought, arguing that '7]T (the absurd) and fflri (joy) are the two concepts which make sense of Qoheleth's thought and also form the fundamental structure of his thought. Together with various secondary themes such as portion, profit, wisdom, wealth, death, remembrance and God, they form the total structure of Qoehleth's thought. This is followed by a reading of Qoheleth in Chapter Three, analysing the argument of the book as it develops. Chapter Four examines the position of Qoheleth's theological thought within Israel's theology. The relationships between Wisdom and Yahwism, and Wisdom and Creation are analysed, arguing that the idea that Wisdom theology is essentially Creation theology is not compatible with Qoheleth's thought. The theology of Qoheleth is to be determined by the book itself, and proves to reflect neither conservative Yahwism nor radical anti-Yahwism. The uniqueness of Qoheleth's thought leads to the identification of Qoheleth as a 'liminal intellectual' who may be going through a period of transition, in the process of adopting a new set of beliefs, social norms or status. Thus. Qoheleth's theological thought may be seen as a 'liminal' theology, with 'liminality' as its social setting.

No description available.

This mini-dissertation is an investigation into wealth and poverty, land and class issues. These issues are very topical in the current South African political debate. The land issue, especially, is and will for the foreseeable future remain, a contentious issue especially on the African soil (cf. for instance the Zimbabwe situation, Khoi-San land claims). The question asked is, can the Bible make a valuable contribution to solving these problems? This study investigates whether Qoheleth can make a meaningful contribution to issues such as wealth and poverty, class and land. The book Qoheleth was chosen for its apparent “revolutionary” stance against traditional wisdom. In wisdom literature and tradition, the sages are known to situate themselves between the wealthy and the poor. Forming part of the protest phase of development of wisdom thought, it was necessary to evaluate Qoheleth to determine on whose side he is on, the haves or have-nots? Does he also protest against economic injustice? An ideological appreciation of Qoheleth was done to determine this. It was found that Qoheleth reinscribes the status quo of his time in terms of established hierarchies. He disappoints on the issue of the haves and the have-nots and does not provide a way out of social injustice. He certainly is not much of a voice for the have-nots. Qoheleth’s apparent “revolutionary” stance is rather an intellectual reaction against the doctrine of retribution, but not in a political or social sense. The Old Testament prophets might be far more useful in addressing current issues on social injustice. / Prof. H. Viviers

A number of studies explore temporal vocabulary in the Old Testament generally and Ecclesiastes particularly, yet few attempt a holistic approach of reading Ecclesiastes through its presentation of time. Scholars have long recognized the work’s tensions, but the link that holds the tensions together in a unified reading has received less attention. This unifying idea is the presentation of time. Time is not a singular concept, however, and this project undertakes a sustained engagement with the broad presentation of time both to examine Ecclesiastes’ inquiry after what is good for human beings and its often-identified tensions. As such, this study fills a considerable gap in current Ecclesiastes scholarship. Part One, consisting of chapters two and three, examines terms for time, including ʽEt, yom, dor, ʽolam, shanah, zekher/zikhron, through a close examination of these words in their contexts. It becomes clear that time in Ecclesiastes is a mixture of reflections on the main character’s present, the past, and the passing of time over the course of generations. The project argues in Part Two that approaching time with an awareness of how Ecclesiastes creates, compares, and contrasts time horizons aids the reader to comprehend the contradictions and tensions. Chapter four demonstrates the presence of identifiable and quantifiable horizons in what is widely regarded as the introduction of Ecclesiastes, 1:1-2:26. These horizons, identified as nature’s time, generation time, lifespan time and event time, are juxtaposed in order to point toward the benefit of short-duration thinking for life under the sun. Chapter five examines Ecclesiastes 3:1-12:14 according to the categories of nature’s time, generation time, and lifespan time to ascertain characteristics common to these horizons. Consistently, Ecclesiastes presents these horizons of time as impenetrable and inaccessible to human endeavour. Chapter six examines the same material but from the perspective of what occurs in defined situations, which are designated event time. Ecclesiastes presents event time as partially controllable thereby suggesting proper and improper uses within this horizon. The chapter concludes with a discussion of wisdom and event time, demonstrating that wisdom in Ecclesiastes is not focused on success over one’s whole life (lifespan time), but focuses upon capturing the potential of the present moment to provide rest, companionship, and enjoyment in the short-term. The exploration of time as temporal horizons suggests an opportunity to observe similar phenomena in other works associated with wisdom and in other non-narrative works within the Hebrew Bible.

No description available.

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

This thesis considers the evidence for current assertions that the book of Ecclesiastes is a deterministic work composed during the Hellenistic period. It reviews the linguistic and socioeconomic arguments for its dating either to Persian or Hellenistic times, and concludes in favour of the latter (Chapter 1). An examination of key terms occurring in passages thought to be deterministic follows. The contexts in which these terms are used support the thesis that Qohelet was a determinist, and that this concept is expressed in the catalogue of seasons in 3:1-8 (Chapter 2). Recently, Joseph Blenkinsopp has challenged deterministic readings of 3:1-8 on new grounds: this thesis provides a response to the specific criticisms raised by his article (Chapter 3). Thereafter, it goes on to discuss the question of whether "the work of God" and "the work which is done under the sun" are equivalent, providing fresh evidence is produced to demonstrate that this is indeed the case (Chapter 4), and offering a new explanation as to how Qohelet may have reconciled the concept of determinism with free will (Chapter 5). Thereafter, it considers the activity of God in the sphere of human emotions and concludes that the ultimate decision not just about what human beings do, but about what they feel, rests with God (Chapters 6, 7). Finally, this thesis views the determinism of Ecclesiastes against its Jewish background and possible Stoic sources : it reaches the conclusion that Qohelet's thought and manner of expression is fundamentally Hebraic but that he probably had some knowledge of Stoic determinism as well (Chapters 8, 9). The apparent connection with early Jewish deterministic texts and Stoicism supports the current consensus that the book of Ecclesiastes was composed in the period 250-225 B.C.E.

This thesis is a close reading of Ecclesiastes 1.1-11 in the BHS edition of the MT of Qohelet. Its main contention is that Ecclesiastes 1.3-11 is an exposition of the collocation that ends 1.2, of hakkol hevel, and that consequently, the best way to begin to understand hevel in Ecclesiastes is to understand 1.3-11. Chapter 1 presents the scholarly conversation this project enters while presenting some of the unresolved problems the primary text creates. Answers to these problems are suggested, anticipated contributions enumerated. It has not been shown to satisfaction how the first eleven verses of this book cohere or how its various strands―involving Davidic Israel, Qohelet himself, and all creation―tie together. This thesis aims to help remedy that situation. It shows Ecclesiastes not to be the black sheep of the Hebrew Bible but in line with its whole corpus. Chapter 2 reads Ecclesiastes 1.1 as forming an allusive-inclusio with verse 11 which echoes the regnal history of Israel from David to exile, thereby initiating the process of folding the story of Qohelet and Israel into the creation account which follows. It is thus a primer for the two-word judgment hakkol hevel which is summarised in verse 2 and unpacked in verses 3-11 and which folds all things (hakkol) into one thing (hevel). Chapter 3 is a reading of Ecclesiastes 1.2 that discerns its final two words, hakkol hevel, as encapsulating the verse and determining the verses that directly follow, namely Ecclesiastes 1.3-11. These two words carry the verbal freight of hevel into the creation of 1.3-11 and suggest that if we want to understand hevel we must understand the words that immediately follow and first explain it, verses 3-11. Lastly, the way in which hevel appears in verse 2 suggests what verse 1 did, that Qohelet is drawing on the sordid history of Israel to explain the state of all things in what follows. Chapters 3-6 are a close reading of Ecclesiastes 1.3-11 that traces the dynamic of hakkol hevel as it unfolds within creation, speaking both to the corrupt condition of creation and of Israel, thus tying the two together. Chapter 4 reads Ecclesiastes 1.3-4 as showing man and nature as distinct, connected by man’s painful toil, and thus characterised in their relationship by a subtle animosity. Chapter 5 reads Ecclesiastes 1.5-7 as showcasing nature as something characterised by man’s profitless toil but in its own way, through its endurance as opposed to man’s transience. Chapter 6 reads Ecclesiastes 1.8 as the convergence- point of the prologue, as the place where all creation becomes one, wearying thing and thus succinctly reflects hakkol hevel, whose highly antithetical meaning is something like everything is nothing. Verse 8 also hints at the reason for this cosmic fusion and dissolution: it is man’s idolatry, something hevel often speaks to in the Hebrew Bible. Chapter 7 reads Ecclesiastes 1.9-11 as the consummation of this cosmic fusion and dissolution: in these verses all time and space converge into one, wearying, forgettable and forgotten thing. The process mimics the process of death and tells us about what hevel means, for creation, and through Qohelet, for his people, Israel. This homogenisation of time and space polemicises the Latter Prophets through allusion and counters the hope for Israel and creation they proclaim. This is what hakkol hevel means for Qohelet. It means the end of all things, including Israel, in death, and owing to idolatry. Even so, through echo of the Hebrew Bible and in line with it, this prologue may hold out a glimmer of hope for Israel and all things.

This thesis explores the theme of time in the book of Qohelet. Throughout his work Qohelet depicts the temporal reality as intensely problematic for human attempts to fashion a meaningful existence, even in the present. A tension is established in the book between the temporal realities of the world and human time-experience. This tension becomes especially apparent in relation to the field of human cognition: our ability to understand and respond properly to our temporal conditions is drawn fundamentally into doubt by Qohelet. The lacking correspondence between temporal reality and human experience of time affects every temporal area in our existence. Qohelet does not allow the human being any meaningful access to either past or future because of the reality of oblivion. Unable to appeal to a meaningful human continuity, individual human beings are unable to make sense of their present existence too. In addition to analysing Qohelet’s conception of time, the thesis investigates the consequences which this time-conception has for the author’s own philosophical endeavour. Significantly, Qohelet aims to describe an area of reality which he considers fundamentally inaccessible to the human mind. This results in an ongoing tension between statements of knowledge and statements of ignorance; between wanting to investigate human life in time and being unable to do so. This dichotomy is especially apparent in Qohelet’s discussion of the lost temporal horizons of past and future. Past and future cannot be approached directly, but must either be discussed through an examination of their influence on the present or established negatively, simply by stating their inaccessibility. Qohelet’s three main narrative texts demonstrate this particularly clearly. A final chapter uses the analysis of Qohelet’s time conception to undertake a comparative analysis of Qohelet and early layers of 1 Enoch.