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):
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.
