<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Qoheleth Qualified
Review: Lohfink creates a hypothetical setting in 3rd century B.C. Jerusalem and Alexandria under the Ptolemids. He represents Ecclesiastes as a textbook for Jews in Jerusalem, exhorting them to utilize the Greek worldview as a stepping stone to success in the increasingly competitive Hellenistic environment. However, he often understands the text's reference to be Alexandria rather than Jerusalem (e.g., 2:3-10; 8:1b-4;10:2-3, 16-17, 20).
Throughout the commentary, Lohfink represents the composition as though the text has been repeatedly manipulated by editors and copyists. Yet, late in the volume, he admits that "no theory attempting to show a variety of hands at work in the history of the book's composition has proven to be convincing" (143). In addition, he treats the autobiographical sections as fiction.
Although there are many problems with Lohfink's commentary, he at least avoids the error of concluding that pessimism is the philosophical core of Qoheleth. He rightly understands the book's theme of living joyfully in spite of one's situation in this life--even in the face of inevitable death.
Ultimately, those who deny Solomonic authorship will have a greater appreciation of this volume than those, like this reviewer, who adhere to Solomonic authorship (see Gleason Archer, "The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of `Ecclesiastes,'" JETS 12 [1969]: 167-81.). Lohfink ignores Archer's seminal essay as well as the best of English commentaries such as Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (InterVarsity Press, 1983), and Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, NAC (Broadman & Holman, 1993)
<< 1 >>
|
