Coming to Terms I: קֹהֶלֶת

Far too long after conceiving this project, let's finally get started looking at the terminology that Kohelet uses. Methodologically, we'll take each term that appears to have particular significance in the book in order, and consider its meaning philologically (considering potential ambiguity), contextually in the book, and intertextually within the Biblical corpus, in order to get a clear picture of what the term means for Kohelet. Naturally, any conclusions will be provisional, and may (will!) be revised before we're done. I will pointedly not consider any commentaries or translations at this stage, that we may approach the text as cleanly as possible, on its own terms (or at least on the terms of my encounter with it).

The first term of art is the pseudonym of the author, Kohelet (קֹהֶלֶת). This is clearly not a simple name (certainly we know of no son of David of that name), and the book mentions this "name" several times with apparent conscious meaning. The word appears to be constructed from the root ק.ה.ל in the קל (simple) conjugation (and perhaps feminine, which would itself be surprising as he described him ). The form קֹהֶלֶת is seen nowhere other than in this book. If we examine other forms of the root elsewhere in Tanakh, we see:

• The noun form קָהָל used often to denote a community of people, generally the Jewish People, most commonly with the definite article, הַקָּהָל, or in the construct form as for example קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. 
• As a verb, the root may be used in הִפְעִיל (causative), meaning "to gather the people together", with an individual (usually) as the subject and the people as the object, e.g., in "וַיַּקְהִלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֶת־הַקָּהָל" [Num 20:10]. 
• It is also used in the נִפְעַל (passive simple), meaning "to gather together in a particular location" (often for a specific purpose), with the people gathering as the grammatical subject. Interestingly, this is not the passive form of the causative active voice form we see, but of the simple conjugation.

Considered as a participle, קֹהֶלֶת would be in the קל (simple) conjugation, perhaps meaning "one who gathers the people together", but since the verb is nowhere attested in this conjugation, this would be odd. For this meaning, we would expect מַקְהִילָה or מַקְהִיל, in the causative.

On the other hand, perhaps קֹהֶלֶת is formed from ק.ה.ל via the noun-formation pattern םֹםָםָת. There are just four other nouns in Tanakh that fit this pattern (I give one citation for those that appear multiple times):

1. ספר בראשית פרק לח פסוק כה:
הִ֣וא מוּצֵ֗את וְהִ֨יא שָׁלְחָ֤ה אֶל־חָמִ֙יהָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לְאִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁר־אֵ֣לֶּה לּ֔וֹ אָנֹכִ֖י הָרָ֑ה וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הַכֶּר־נָ֔א לְמִ֞י הַחֹתֶ֧מֶתוְהַפְּתִילִ֛ים וְהַמַּטֶּ֖ה הָאֵֽלֶּה:

Genesis 38:25: As she was being brought out, she sent this message to her father-in-law, “I am with child by the man to whom these belong.” And she added, “Examine these: whose seal and cord and staff are these?”

2. ספר ויקרא פרק ח פסוק טז:

וַיִּקַּ֗ח אֶֽת־כָּל־הַחֵלֶב֘ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הַקֶּרֶב֒ וְאֵת֙ יֹתֶ֣רֶת הַכָּבֵ֔ד וְאֶת־שְׁתֵּ֥י הַכְּלָיֹ֖ת וְאֶֽת־חֶלְבְּהֶ֑ן וַיַּקְטֵ֥ר מֹשֶׁ֖ה הַמִּזְבֵּֽחָה:

Leviticus 8:16: Moses then took all the fat that was about the entrails, and the appendage of the liver, and the two kidneys and their fat, and turned them into smoke on the altar.

3. ספר יחזקאל פרק לד פסוק טז:

אֶת־הָאֹבֶ֤דֶת אֲבַקֵּשׁ֙ וְאֶת־הַנִּדַּ֣חַת אָשִׁ֔יב וְלַנִּשְׁבֶּ֣רֶת אֶֽחֱבֹ֔שׁ וְאֶת־הַחוֹלָ֖ה אֲחַזֵּ֑ק וְאֶת־הַשְּׁמֵנָ֧ה וְאֶת־הַחֲזָקָ֛ה אַשְׁמִ֖יד אֶרְעֶ֥נָּה בְמִשְׁפָּֽט:

Ezekiel 34:16: I will look for the lost, and I will bring back the strayed; I will bandage the injured, and I will sustain the weak; and the fat and healthy ones I will destroy. I will tend them rightly.

4. ספר זכריה פרק ה פסוק ז:

וְהִנֵּ֛ה כִּכַּ֥ר עֹפֶ֖רֶת נִשֵּׂ֑את וְזֹאת֙ אִשָּׁ֣ה אַחַ֔ת יוֹשֶׁ֖בֶת בְּת֥וֹךְ הָאֵיפָֽה:

Zechariah 5:7: And behold, a disk of lead was lifted, revealing a woman seated inside the tub.

In the first case, the noun is the instrument of the action denoted by the root (a "seal"), in the second, an object whose essential quality is denoted by the root (an "appendage" of the liver, something extra), in the third, one affected by the action denoted by the root (one who has been made to be "lost"), and the fourth we will ignore as sui generis, as we do not see ע.פ.ר anywhere as a verbal root.

Thus, reaching somewhat towards the homiletic perhaps, we can take insight from all three patterns for our case, as follows. קֹהֶלֶת is not one who causes gathering, whether of the people as the root directly indicates, or of ideas/parables, as some commentators have understood. Rather, קֹהֶלֶת is one who is an instrument of gathering (used, so to speak, by someone or Someone else), one whose nature is to be a sort of gathering, and one whose state of being is fundamentally affected by the gathering.

Odd as it may be to say, the author of the book is, I believe, conceiving of himself expressing the "national genius" (pace Herder), a king who is the instrument of gathering the people and giving them a unified identity, and then is himself subsumed into that identity to become the voice of that cacophony. He casts himself, therefore, not as a man speaking of his thoughts, experiences, or wisdom, nor as a prophet (as we've already noted), but as the voice of the people as a whole, with all its complexity. This allows him to be self-contradictory, up to a point, as his voice is multiple, though all its streams tend to the same sea. He intends, in this book, to speak for all people.

Well, examining this one word takes up enough space for one post, so I'll stop here for now.

The why and how of Blogging Kohelet

This blog will record my efforts to understand the Biblical book of Kohelet, or Ecclesiastes. I have long loved this book as a deeply inspiring and optimistic one (despite the common perception). It seems to me that Kohelet deals with the biggest of questions regarding how to view and to live life, and does so without resorting to prepackaged pieties or simple answers. The author has an unjaundiced view of life, and yet (I believe) a deeply positive one, and a message that can resonate for believers as well as non-believers as well, as he doesn't rely on metaphysics, theology, or revelation at all.

My goal is to dig deeply to understand the book and elucidate for myself its message, whether in the end of inspiration, or as the popular view has it, of despair. I hope too that this exploration will be of interest to others, and that you will read and also comment, helping me in this work.

Methodology

To honestly approach the understanding and appraisal of such a work seriously, I want to set out in advance my methodological assumptions. Starting from different assumptions can lead to very different understandings of the text. Of course, these assumptions must be tested against the text itself, and I will do my best to seek evidence that will test them fairly (and abandon them if necessary).

1. Kohelet is a work of philosophy, by which I mean it seeks to understand and explain aspects of the world by means of rational demonstration and reference to universal beliefs or experiences, rather than by either metaphysical revelation, ancient authority, or experimental data. 
2. Kohelet is a unified work, meant to be read as a whole. Even if it was composed out of pre-existing fragments, I will not be reading it as a pastiche, and will assume that the relationships of each part to every other part, and the whole, of the work are significant. I will seek the overall theme, meaning, and conclusion of the book as a whole, assuming the work to be internally consistent.
3. Kohelet is wisdom literature, in that much of its style and method of communicating is through metaphor, parable, and other indirect methods. In this, it resembles Proverbs, though unlike most of that book Kohelet has longer coherent sections with narrative arcs, and has an overall coherent (if obscure) structure. As wisdom literature, the book needs to be deciphered to be read.
4. Kohelet is built out of sections, which are coherent and thematically or narratively structured, arranged in a larger overall thematic order. The borders between these sections are not always clear, however. The conventional division into chapters is late and not at all dispositive, so I will mostly ignore it.
5. Kohelet uses many terms of art - many words and phrases are used in the book in idiosyncratic, almost technical ways. One of my goals will be to identify these words and determine what they mean in the context of the book. Understanding these terms, I think, is one of the keys to deciphering the meaning of the book.

Given these assumptions, my method will be to first identify many of the key terms and get a first approximation as to what each means, by examining how it is used in the book. Then I will go through the entire book to divide it into thematically and narratively coherent sections. Once such sections are (tentatively) determined, I will go back from the beginning and work out what each sections seems to say, then work to link the sections together to find the overall sweep of the work, and seek its overall message.

Wish me luck!