Greeks, Qohelet and Genesis

7/31/2019 Greeks, Qohelet and Genesis

1/7

There are more things in heaven and earth/than are dreamed of in our

philosophy. Hamlet

The Greeks, Qohelet and the Importance of Beginning Again

Last week we returned to two beginnings, Parashat Bereishitand Homer. We

mentioned in class that some attribute the beginning of Western civilization to

Homers great epics. The Hebrew Bible was no less a starting point of a new way of

looking at the world. During the course of the year, Id like to compare the literature

were studying to the Torah, in order to gain a deeper appreciation of what we Jews

contributed to the world and the role that our religion wants us to play in it.

Because we just wrapped up the chagim and ended them by reading the famous

work Ecclesiastes, Id like to start by talking about that work, because it seems, on

the surface, very Greek. It takes a fatalistic view of the world, insisting that all ofnature is an endless cycle of the same events, and concludes in what could even be

called a tragic mode, proclaiming vanity of vanities, all is vanity (1:2).

The Greeks too saw man as an inexorable part of the natural world, bound to Fate,

moira, unable to break free of the bonds of nature, except in Death, but even in

Death, disintegrating and becoming part of the elements themselves. The Greek

philosophers and the Romans who followed them advised Stoic reconciliation to

Fate, since one could not overcome it, and/or an Epicurean embrace of aesthetic

pleasure as a temporary reprieve from the knowledge of impending decay.

Here is Qohelet, sounding very Hellenic:

One generation passes away, and another generation comes:

but the earth abideth for ever.

And the sun rises and the sun goes down,

and hastens to its place where it rises again.

The wind goes to the south,

and veers to the north;

round and round goes the wind,

and on its circuits the wind returns.

All the rivers run into the sea;

yet the sea is not full;to the place where the rivers flow,

thither they return.

All things are full of weariness;

man cannot utter it:

the eye is not satisfied with seeing,

nor the ear with hearing.

That which has been, is that which shall be;


2/7

and that which has been done is that which shall be done:

and there is nothing new under the sun.

(1:4-9)

Oy. Such depression. Of course we know that one major difference between the

wisdom of Qohelet and the wisdom of the Greek philosophers is that Qohelet rejectshedonism, finding in it the same futility that he sees in being part of the natural

order of life.

It seems strange to end the cycle of the Yamim Noraim in such a pessimistic place,

though we do move straight from the reading of Ecclesiastes on Shabbat ofChol Ha-

moed Sukkotto the holiday ofSimchat Torah. This calendric arrangement makes it

easy for us to understand the attitude the Hebrew Bible wants us to have towards

life.

Bible critics like to assign the last few verses of Qohelet to a different author from

the rest of the work, but doing so entirely misses the point of Ecclesiastes, becausethe bottom line is that no book of the Torah would end in a fatalistic or pessimistic

place. Though Qohelet seems aweary of this great world (as Portia says in The

Merchant of Venice), the Torah rejects that stance as an enduring one.

In the quotation above, Qohelet writes:

All the rivers run into the sea;

yet the sea is not full;

to the place where the rivers flow,

thither they return.

Harold Fisch comments, It is not just that the rivers run into the sea and the sea isnot full, but that such thoughts run back into themselves and never find a liberating

outlet. The thinking itself is trapped, enclosed. When that which has been is that

which shall be, the mind itself becomes oppressed with the monotony of its own

circular movement. . . . In a word Qohelet finds himself in a condition of spiritual

claustrophobia (167).

The Greeks understood the inherent contradiction between mans being a part of

Nature and being able to observe and stand above it, but they never moved passed

this ironic stance. Here is Fisch again:

The ironist beholds his own comic fall as he slips in the mud and he

preserves the delicious contradictions involved; he is both the god who sees

and stands superior to what he sees and the mere shred of protoplasm

overcome by the simple laws of gravity. There is no resolution or synthesis.

Oedipus is both the wisest and most foolish of mortals: though he solves the

riddle of the Sphinx, the chorus rightly terms him a fool. In this he represents


3/7

the absolute form of irony. His only way out is self-mutilation and, ultimately,

death. (170)

Most important for this discussion is an additional point Professor Fisch makes,

which is that the Greeks could not escape from the contradictions inherent in mans

existence because they failed to imagine a dialogue between man and God. Man, theworld, and God remain separate in their isolation from one another (Ibid.).

In Judaism, however, they do not.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (1:1).

No sooner do we finish reading Ecclesiastes than we are thrust into a celebration of

the cycle of the weekly Torah readings. And how do we celebrate that cycle? By

finishing the Torah and immediately beginning it again. Of course, the Torahsbeginning is the very beginning (a very good place to start): Genesis, which tells thestory of the creation of the universe, of the earth and of all of the worlds naturalwonders.

It is in Genesis that we learn that though we have been fashioned like clay by God

the Potter, a notion we just finished enthusiastically singing about on Yom Kippur,

we are not simply dust of the earth made into a somewhat more complicated vessel

than, say, an amoeba or even a gorilla. For as soon as God makes man, He calls him

at once into a fellowship and then a covenant with him, raising him above the

process and order of nature (170).

It is worth noting, as Fisch does, that Ecclesiastes uses the term adam more than 50

times, almost more than any other book of the Torah (172), a literary hint that while

the book may dabble in fatalism, it ultimately swings back into the covenantal

relationship God formed with man in Sefer Bereishit.

Qohelet makes additional and important literary allusions to Bereishitas well as to

other books of the Torah, allusions that are consistent with the message woven into

the text of the Hebrew Bible. In 8:17, Qohelet states he has seen all the work of

God (kol-maaseh haelohim). In Psalms this phrase is a formula for Gods creative

activities, because it makes us think of Genesis 1, which is full of the verb to make

(va-yaas). The first chapter of Genesis is all about Gods going about the creativeprocess that results in the making of all the different parts of the natural world that

Qohelet then so carefully observes. In fact, in contrast to his Greek counterparts,

Qohelet is as sure as any biblical author of Gods being and power, of the fact indeed

of his government of the universe (164).

Though Qohelet may be frustrated by the essential mysteriousness of God (Ibid.), his

literary allusions reveal his connection to the books of the Bible and to their


4/7

message. In fact, in 6:12, Ecclesiastes echoes another Biblical book. Qohelet writes,

For who knows what isgoodfor a man[mah-tob laadam] in this life, for the countof the days of his vain life which he spends like a shadow?for who shalltella man

[yaggidlaadam]what shall be after him under the sun? (6:12).

Qohelets diction in this verse can be viewed as the flip side of one of the mostuplifting affirmations of the Torah, giving us an inter-textual moment that reminds

us, when were singing the Ecclesiastical blues, that we can right ourselves by

recalling the hopeful message of the prophet Micah:

He has told thee, O man, what is good[higgidleka adam mah-tob]

and what does the Lord require of thee,

but to do justly [tzedek] and to love true loyalty [hesed]

and to walk humbly with thy God? [Mic. 6:8] (163)

(1:31) Goodis an important word in the Torah, especially in Bereishitwhere we learn, as

the above verse tells us, that God saw all that he had made and found it good [tob].

Philosophers debate the meaning of the true, the good, and the beautiful, but the

Torah makes it pretty clear from a linguistic angle what it finds good: The word

goodconnects God with creation and man with God as a covenantal partner. What

God wants, what He will findgood, is a humble walking, an intimacy of unbroken

dialogue (163).

Since this course is about words and their power, it would be great to end on the

notion that what God wants from us is unbroken dialogue, but Micahs words seemto include much more. Micah states that God wants us to pursue justice and hesed.

Professor Fischs attractive idea of mans walking closely with God in dialogue ispartly predicated on his translation ofhesedas true loyalty: the intimate relationship

between God and man is created by the troth theyve pledged to each other in asacred covenant.

A translation ofhesedas lovingkindness, a popular interpretation of the word, would

change a reading of the passage. Another translation, ofhesedasgoodness, might

also alter what Fisch understands the passage to mean. And Fischs translation of

tzedekis debatable as well; tzedekcan meanjustice, sure, but it can also mean

charity. How are we supposed to define what it means to have a relationship withGod if we cant define the terms of that relationship?

Lets turn to a literary analysis of genre for an answer:

Qohelet falls under the category of Wisdom Literature, and as we noted the Greek

and Roman wise men, its philosophers, ended their mental reveries by saying the

best way to tolerate the world was to prepare to meet death with dignity and/or


5/7

redeem life by enjoying some keen aesthetic moments. Before Qohelet ends his book

with a reminder that the covenantal relationship the fear of God and the keepingof His commandments are what enable man to redeem life from an otherwise

unbearable nihilism Eccelsiastes writes, The making of books is without limit.And much study is a wearing of the flesh (12:13-14).

The wise man says, Give up books! Give up study! The notion seems inexplicable

coming from the lips of a philosopher, until we remember that Qohelet is not a

philosopher, though he does make some philosophical statements. Qohelet is a

Biblical author and as such embraces the Biblical attitudes about God and the

covenant.

In the same way, Sefer Bereishit, which can be placed in the genre of cosmology

myth, breaks the bounds of that genre when it is compared with the pagan myths.

Pagans do not see their gods as being beyond Nature and so cannot imagine, as the

Torah does, a God who is outside the natural world and who then grants His

creation, man, the freedom to live outside that natural world as well, so that theycan have a relationship with each other and with the world that isgood.

The introspection of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur may lead one to the melancholy

and futility of Ecclesiastes, and so on Shabbat Chol Ha-moed Sukkotwe are allowed

to air our philosophical angst. But those nihilistic depths are not the proper place for

a Jew, and we quickly move out of the mode of futility when we are reminded in

Bereishitthat God spoke the world into existence.

Early on in our morning prayers we are reminded appropriately enough of how

words began the world as well as the process of our dialogue with God,

Blessed is He who spoke and the world came into being.

As we near the end of the prayers, though, we should have embraced our dignified

role in being the one creature on earth who has the power that God has, to use

words, and so we lovingly say,

O Lord, open Thou my lips, and my mouth shall tell Thy praise.

Before the holiest prayer of each day, we remind ourselves of the power God gave us

and of our wish to use that power to dialogue with Him in only positive ways.


6/7

Now prayer seems like a logical and likely way one can have an unbroken dialogue

with God, but it still doesnt help us in our definition of the word, hesed. And Micahalso said we were supposed to pursue tzedek, justice or charity. What happens to the

covenant if were only standing around praying all day?

In the above verse, which is taken from Psalm 51, is a leitmotif word weve beentracking through various books of the Torah: tellya-gid.

God created the world with words, and in doing so showed us that not only does He

want a conversation with us, but that He wants mankind to converse and then

create in particular ways as well.

When we are not engaged in our prayers, in our literal dialogue with God, we are in

the realm of worldly affairs, but we are constantly building with words there as well,

with the relationships and interactions we have, with the things we say and write

and text and tweet and post on a non-stop basis throughout the day. And each of the

statements we make should tell the world ofGods greatness, that is, they should bean actualization of what we know God wants with us when we are walking with Him

and talking to Him and He is telling us what His vision for the world is.

And that vision is one that has man exhibiting justice, charity, andlovingkindness,

because we know those things to be important throughout the works of Tanakh, and

any act which achieves those aims is one that is a telling, a revealing of the covenant

oftrue loyaltythat God has with us. Because our covenant demands that just as God

created the world and saw that it was good, we must create a world that God might

see and say of it It isgood.In short, all the possible meanings oftzedekand hesedare implied when Micah makes his affirmation.

When we engage in close readings of literature, we always show how literary

techniques reveal the thesis of any work. In discussing Qohelet, Genesis and Micah,

weve been focused on diction and on the use of multiply denotative words, such astzedekand hesed, that ultimately reveal the main idea of the work in which they

appear: The aim of the Torah is always to teach us the responsibilities of the

covenant.

Just as the Torah is not a history book, as my Chumash teacher always liked to say, it

is also not a traditional work of literature, though it may employ beautiful language,

use poetic words, and play with genre. But it is not concerned about the boundaries

of those genres, as we saw it explode them with Qohelet and Genesis. Rather it isconcerned with doing what it does best: teaching us the way to live. After all, we do

not call Tanakh myth, or epic, or work of Wisdom Literature. We call it Torah,

the teaching.

Our course will immerse us in the works of the Greeks and others, but the Torah

stands separate from the Western canon in deep and significant ways, giving us the

room to express all of our emotions, even painful and depressing ones, but then


7/7

goading us into seeing the view it wants us to have of the world. And that view is, as

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks constantly says, that we are Gods partners in the world, thatwe have a responsibility not to fall prey to despair but instead to recognize that our

unbroken dialogue with God, our covenant, means that we not only to sing to Him,

but that we busy our hands with creating a world that is worthy of His presence.

Work Cited:

Fisch, Harold. Poetry with a Purpose: Biblical Poetics and Interpretation.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. Print.

Documents

Greeks, Qohelet and Genesis