Week Nine: What is hebel and what is its significance in Qohelet?

          Hebel is a Hebrew word which occurs thirty-eight times throughout the book of Qohelet (Perdue 191). The NRSV translates hebel as “vanity” (Eccl 1.2), but Perdue further explores the semantic range of the word. Perdue argues that hebel “contains in this text a restricted semantic range of meaning,” and he goes on to list the common translations of the word: vanity, absurdity, and ephemerality (Perdue 191). Next, Perdue states that “the literal meaning of hebel…is breath” (192). This gave me a new perspective on hebel which focused on its intangibility. For some reason, the word “vanity” had always brought material wealth to mind rather than fleeting intangibility. Perdue argues that “in [his] judgement, Qoheleth uses this metaphor to evoke the imagination to visualize and recognize the experience of ephemerality or evanescence” (Perdue 192). In Perdue’s opinion, the essence of hebel lies in the meaning that I had never before seen! Perdue talks about the importance of understanding all of the interpretations of hebel through the lens of “evanescence,” the fleeting, vanishing reality of breath (192). In addition to hebel being a metaphor for the short-lived human breath, Perdue also emphasized hebel’s use as a metaphor for the human “desire to retain the life-giving breath given them by the Creator” (192). Based on Perdue’s arguments, he puts forth an alternative translation to “vanity of vanities, all is vanity” (Eccl 1.2): “all is breath quickly passing and a desire to retain life’s animating spirit” (192). This alternative translation encompasses both aspects of hebel as breath, as suggested by Perdue.

          So, what is the significance of hebel in Qohelet? Essentially, our understanding of hebel becomes our understanding of the message of Qohelet. Of course, any word that is repeated 38 times in 12 chapters is important to interpretation, but hebel’s importance is related more to its use than its frequency. After all, hebel forms the inclusio in 1.2 and 12.8 that frames the entire book of Qohelet (Perdue 191). In these verses, Qohelet proclaims, “Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher; all is vanity” (Eccl 1.2; 12.8). Because Qohelet proclaims that ALL is “hebel,” our interpretation of the word hebel is applied to Qohelet’s view of everything. Personally, I find Perdue’s argument about the meaning of hebel as breath, fleeting and fading, to be a compelling one. His alternative translation helped me better understand the spirit of the passage. Instead of hearing an argument focused on material wealth (which had been my interpretation based on “vanity”), I began to see the fullness of Qohelet’s argument that as humans, everything we do is short-lived, like the breath we breathe. Further, the double meaning of hebel as a metaphor for our (failed) efforts to “retain the divine spirit” and its life-giving breath served to emphasize the spiritual dimensions, though negative, of Qohelet (Perdue 192). Lastly, studying hebel in the Perdue text helped me realize the wide diversity of semantic range. While the translation of hebel as “breath” does not necessarily rule out the correctness of the translation “vanity,” it painted a very different picture of the passage in my mind. As I saw the many different meanings in just this one verse, I wondered how my understanding of other familiar verses would change if I explored the semantic range of the key words. It is both exciting and overwhelming to think about, but overall it serves as a reminder that the Bible is indeed a living text, shaped by the work of humans along with God— and still being shaped as we do the work of interpretation and application!

Week Eight: How is skepticism connected with Qohelet?

           It is impossible to understand the connection between skepticism and Qohelet without also understanding the historical and social context of the book. Perdue emphasizes this point by saying that “placing Qoheleth within its social world is critical to understanding its teachings, purpose, and relationship to Judaism as a whole” (Perdue 183). According to Perdue, Qohelet was likely “a man of wealth and prominence” (172) living in Jerusalem “in the third century BCE” (181). During this time, there was heavy Greek influence in Jerusalem; as a result, Qohelet “would have had the opportunity to encounter Greek culture and philosophy firsthand” (Perdue 181). Since Qohelet was likely familiar with Greek philosophy as a result of his social and cultural context, it is not surprising that the worldview articulated by Qohelet reflects that of Greek Skepticism (Perdue 184).

          So, what are the characteristics of Greek Skepticism? Of course, we frequently use the word “skeptic” and “skeptical” in conversation, but studying Perdue made me realize that our use of this word is not always in line with the philosophy of Greek Skepticism. In my experience, the word “skeptic” is often used with a negative connotation. For example, if someone is skeptical about something, they likely have a negative feeling toward it. On the other hand, Greek Skepticism is characterized by a radical nonassertion, which “[leads] ultimately to tranquility and the cessation of anxiety” (Perdue 185). Greek Skepticism does not imply a negative assertion, but rather no assertion at all. This is because the original meaning of the Greek word “skeptic” meant “inquirer.” Skeptics, or inquirers, were individuals who “[searched] for what was true” because they were “not satisfied that current knowledge was verifiable.” In the end, this search led the skeptics to believe that nothing was really true (Perdue 183). In the end, this realization liberated them from the responsibility to prove their every statement or belief. This is a foreign concept to me, especially as a student in an academic environment that requires me to both make assertions and prove them! However, in order to understand Qohelet, it is important for me to understand this foreign intellectual and philosophical context.

          As a teacher, Qohelet clearly articulated the philosophy of Greek Skepticism. Perdue explores six parallels between Qohelet and Greek Skepticism, including the beliefs that “justice avails nothing,” “truth cannot be obtained,” “it is impossible to differentiate what is true from what is less true or even false,” “it is impossible to know beforehand the outcome of an action,” “the divine…cannot be known,” and “the human quest to determine the good is doomed” (Perdue 184). As I read this list, it is difficult for me to relate to these statements because they are so different from my theology. However, it is easy to see the similarities between Qohelet and Greek Skepticism. These themes seem negative to me and I have trouble seeing these as liberating beliefs that would lead to “tranquility and the cessation of anxiety” (Perdue 185). Honestly, studying these themes in Qohelet and Greek Skepticism adds to my anxiety!

          Perdue explains that “Qoheleth moves from theological affirmations, which are not self-evident and based on experience and rational reflection, to humanism, in which human qualities, activities, and experiences provide reasonable answers verified empirically to important philosophical questions” (184). This quote helped me understand the shift that takes place in Qohelet from theology to humanism, which fits in well with Greek Skepticism and also explains much of my discomfort with the book. While Qohelet prefers to move the conversation from God-truth to human-truth, my natural orientation is the exact opposite. This explains the internal disagreement I felt as I read Qohelet, and I appreciated Perdue’s insights that helped me identify this difference between Qohelet and myself.

          Even though I disagree with much of what Qohelet has to say, I found it interesting to listen to this voice that is so different from my own. As we have studied wisdom literature this semester, I have enjoyed learning more about the immense diversity of perspective in wisdom literature and in the Bible as a whole. Understanding the Bible as an active conversation rather than a single voice has been a theme in both of my Biblical Studies classes, and I have found this concept to be an empowering one. In embracing the diversity found in the canon, I have found myself more able to hear the voice of Qohelet, knowing that the discomfort I feel is not only acceptable, but welcome in the ongoing conversation that is Scripture.