Content uploaded by Nili Samet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nili Samet on Aug 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
© , , | ./-
() -
brill.com/vt
Vetus
Testamentum
Religious Redaction in Qohelet in Light
of Mesopotamian Vanity Literature
Nili Samet
Bar-Ilan University
nilisamet@gmail.com
Abstract
A popular critical theory suggests that the epilogue of Qohelet, which recommends
discipline and piety, is a later addition aimed at reconciling the unorthodox ideas of
the book with conservative views. While this hypothesis is well-established on the
basis of the text’s style and content, no external evidence to support it has ever been
suggested. This paper seeks to present an empirical model for this redactional theory
from a comparative point of view. It examines the development of the vanity theme in
Mesopotamian literature, and shows that the subversive ideas of vanity literature gave
rise, from the very beginning, to redactional activity focused on re-interpreting it in
light of traditional values. Several examples of this process of conservative redaction
are discussed, including Sumerian, Akkadian, and Akkadian-Biblical cases. The theory
that the nal verses of Qohelet are a later interpolation thus gains credibility in light of
similar phenomena in Mesopotamian literature.
Keywords
Qohelet – Mesopotamian and Biblical Wisdom – Biblical criticism
From its very beginning, the critical research of the Book of Qohelet has had
to deal with the contradiction between the subversive ideas of vanity which
characterize Qohelet’s thought, and several pious or conservative statements
which are scattered throughout the book. In some cases, such conformist state-
ments could be explained as quotes of traditional wisdom, cited by the author
() -
for polemical purposes. In some other cases scholars have preferred to classify
these exceptional passages as editorial supplements or interpolations, added
to the book by a later redactor who sought to reconcile the unorthodox ideas
of the original text with conservative views. The most striking example of such
editorial activity is the epilogue of Qohelet (12:9-14), which concludes the book
on an unmistakable note of discipline and piety.
The idea that the epilogue was composed by later author or authors is based
on both form and content. While in the book itself Qohelet reports his experi-
ments and reections in the rst person, the epilogue refers to Qohelet in
the third person, furnishing the reader with a post-factum appraisal of his life
and intellectual enterprise. The change of tone and message is similarly strik-
ing. This change reveals itself, rst and foremost, in the book’s last two verses,
which include a postscript. The postscript betrays a strict religious agenda
which is foreign to the book’s spirit. The suggestion that fear of God and
fullling of his commandments is the nal and reliable answer to Qohelet’s
existential questions is clearly an afterthought, and is very unlikely to be an
Striking examples include, e.g., Ecc 4:5; 5:9, 11; 7:1-10; 9:17-18; 10:18. For literature on wis-
dom quotations in Qohelet see e.g.: R. Gordis, Koheleth the Man and His World: a Study of
Ecclesiastes (3rd edn, New York, 1968), pp. 95-108; idem, “Quotations in Wisdom Literature”,
30 (1939/40), pp. 123-147; idem, “Quotations as a Literary Usage in Biblical, Oriental and
Rabbinic Literature”, 22 (1949), pp. 157-219; R.N. Whybray, “The Identication and Use
of Quotations in Ecclesiastes”, in: J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Vienna 1980 (VTSup
32; Leiden, 1981); I.J.J. von Spanberberg, “Quotations in Ecclesiastes: an Appraisal”, 4
(1991), 19-35. M.V. Fox, “The Identication of Quotations in Biblical Literature”, 92 (1980),
416-431.
Scholars disagree as to the unity of the passage 12:9-14. Opinions vary from a single editorial
hand to two or three diferent glossators. See e.g.: G.A. Barton, The Book of Ecclesiastes (
19; New York, 1908), p. 199; W. Zimmerli, Das Buch des Predigers Salomo ( 16/1; Göttingen,
1962), pp. 244-247; H.W. Hertzberg, Der Prediger ( 17/4, Gütersloh, 1963), pp. 217-221;
K. Galling, Die fünf Megilloth ( 18; Tübingen, 1969), 124-125; J.L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes
(; Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 189-192; F.J. Backhaus, “Der Weisheit Letzter Schluss! Qoh. 12,
9-14 im Kontext von Traditionsgeschichte und beginnender Kanonisierung.” 72 (1993),
pp. 28-59; C.L. Seow, “The Epilogue of Qohelet Revisited”, in M.L. Barré (ed.), Wisdom, You Are
My Sister, Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., On the Occasion of His Eighteenth
Birthday, (Washington, 1997), pp. 138-140.
Exceptions include the book’s superscription in 1:1-2, which is very likely to belong to the
same hand as the epilogue, and the short comment ‘so said Qohelet’ in 7:27.
In classifying vss. 13-14 as a postscript I follow scholars such as M.V. Fox (A Time to Tear Down
and A Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes [Grand Rapids, 1999], p. 373).
() -
integral part of the book in terms of both structure and message. A similar
conservative tone seems to characterize vv. 9-12 as well, though here the inter-
pretation is less certain, due to the enigmatic language of the passage. The
epilogist seems to apologetically locate Qohelet’s heterodox teachings within
the framework of traditional theology. Qohelet is praised as a prestigious sage
who taught and composed wisdom of the highest esthetic and ethic quality
(12:9-10). The unavoidable discomfort which might be caused to the innocent
reader by Qohelet’s skeptical ideas is, according to v. 11, nothing but a side
efect of a deliberate pedagogical process. Qohelet, says the epilogist, is simply
following the wise who use harsh means for educational purposes, like a caring
shepherd who treats his sheep with a goad for their own good. What may seem
as chaotic, skeptical teaching, is actually a painful but ecient didactic plan,
whose nal goal is proper education. The latter idea is characteristic of tradi-
tional wisdom literature which conceives tough methods such as rebuke or
beating as an immanent part of education. Applying this concept to Qohelet’s
philosophy is however unnatural, to say the least. Qohelet is clearly not using
his unorthodox statements as a sophisticated didactic device aimed at direct-
ing a young listener to the path of righteousness. His skeptical view is essential
and sincere, suggesting no conservative authoritative answer to the problems
of existence. The comparison between Qohelet and the caring herder should
therefore be taken as a creative but apologetic attempt to re-interpret Qohelet
in light of conformist wisdom.
Despite the appeal of the above arguments, the theory as a whole is based
solely on the nal text of the biblical book as we know it. Convincing as it
may seem, there is no external evidence to support this redactional theory.
In fact, several scholars reject this theory altogether, suggesting instead a
single author who speaks in diferent voices. The author, according the latter
hypothesis, deliberately changes perspectives, speaking alternately as a pious
Further evidence for the foreignness of vv. 13-14 to the book is suggested by Seow, “Epilogue”.
Note however that Seow, like others, prefers not to refer to this diference in terms of contra-
diction, but in terms of diferent focus. See further below.
Verses 9-11 entail many exegetical problems, pertaining to vocabulary, syntax and meaning.
The paraphrase presented reects my own understanding of the passage. For a readings sig-
nicantly diferent from the one suggested here see e.g. Fox, A Time to Tear Down, pp. 350-358.
Note also that the current paraphrase of the book’s epilogue does not refer to v. 12. The under-
standing of this verse in its context requires a detailed exegetical discussion, which cannot
nd its place in the present paper.
See e.g. Prov 13:24; Isa 28:23-29.
() -
frame-narrator and as the skeptical Qohelet. The question then naturally
arises, why would the author present us with two incoherent messages. If his
main goal was to urge his reader to fear god and keep his commandments, why
would he confuse the reader with the ideas of vanity which prevail the rest of
the book? Alternatively, if he intended the book to be a pessimistic essay on
the futility of life, why would he choose to conclude it with an extremely con-
servative comment which by no means reects the book’s character and ideas?
Advocates of the single-author theory tried to answer this question by suggest-
ing diferent types of semi-harmonizations. Michael Fox, the most prominent
advocate of this theory, maintained that the message of the epilogist, while dif-
ferent in tone from Qohelet’s teaching, does not undermine it. The same is true
for the postscript, which, according to Fox, does not contradict the book’s main
message, but only takes a cautious stance toward it. Accordingly, he ascribes
the epilogue, the postscript and Qohelet’s words to one and the same author.
The current paper seeks to shed new light on this controversy from a com-
parative point of view. We will show that religious or conservative redaction
of vanity ideas can be traced in various Mesopotamian texts from diferent
periods and places. In fact, this phenomenon is almost as old as vanity litera-
ture itself. The theory that the nal verses of Qohelet are a later interpolation
may thus gain credibility in light of similar phenomena in other Ancient Near
Eastern wisdom texts.
The Theme of Vanity in Mesopotamian Literature:
Recent Discoveries and Developments
The last several decades have witnessed signicant progress in our knowl-
edge of Mesopotamian wisdom literature. One of the most interesting
See e.g. F. Delitzsch, The Book of Ecclesiastes, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten
Volumes, vol. (Edinburgh, 1877, reprinted in 1984), pp. 429-430; M. Fox, “Frame Narrative
and Composition in the Book of Qohelet”, 48 (1977), pp. 83-106; idem, Qohelet and
His Contradictions ( 18; Sheeld, 1989), pp. 311-329. idem, A Time to Tear Down, 363-377.
Ibid., pp. 371-374.
W.G. Lambert, “Some New Babylonian Wisdom Literature”, in J. Day et al. (eds.), Wisdom
in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J.A. Emerton (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 30-42; B. Alster,
Proverbs of Ancient Sumer (two vols., Bethesda, 1997); idem, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer
(Bethesda, 2005); idem, Sumerian Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection (Bethesda, 2007);
A. Annus and A. Lenzi, Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous
Suferer ( 7; Winona Lake, 2010); T. Oshima, The Babylonian Theodicy ( 9;
Winona Lake, 2013); idem, Babylonian Poems of Pious Suferers, Ludlul Bel Nemeqi and
() -
ndings yielded by this newly accumulated body of texts is the recognition of
the importance and antiquity of the theme of vanity in ancient Near Eastern
wisdom tradition. The term ‘theme of vanity’ was coined a decade ago by Bendt
Alster, who noticed the centrality of this motif to several Sumerian works from
the second millennium . Having been reconstructed by Alster, these early
texts can now join a handful of rst-millennium compositions which elaborate
on the idea that all is vanity. Thanks to the work of scholars such as Alster and
Wilferd George Lambert, we are familiar today with at least six cuneiform wis-
dom pieces, originating from diferent periods and places, whose focus is the
vanity of life. These texts typically argue that life is eeting, human deeds and
achievements are worthless, and the only valuable activity is enjoying life to its
fullest as long as it is possible. In some cases, this attitude also involves a bold
negation of traditional values and institutions. While each of these texts has
its own emphases, they generally share a common sentiment of the vanity of
the Babylonian Theodicy (Tübingen, 2014); Y. Cohen, Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age
( 34; Atlanta, 2014); R. Nurullin, “An Attempt at Šimâ milka (Ugaritica , 163 and
Duplicates), Part : Prologue, Instructions , , ”, in L. Kogan et al. (eds.), Babel und
Bibel 7 (Winona Lake, 2014), pp. 175-229.
Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, pp. 265-340. See also Lambert, “Some New Babylonian
Wisdom Literature”, who speaks about ‘the futility theme’.
The following list includes the most important texts which deal with the theme of van-
ity. For each text, only the recent edition is mentioned: ‘Ballad of Early Rulers’ (Cohen,
Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age, pp. 129-150); ‘niĝ-nam nu-kal’ (Henceforth Niĝnam;
Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 264-284); ‘Enlil and Namzitara’ (Cohen, Wisdom from
the Late Bronze Age, pp. 151-164); ‘Dialogue of Pessimism’ (Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom
Literature, pp. 107-109); ‘Counsels of a Pessimist’ (ibid., pp. 139-149); Šima Milka (Cohen,
Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age, pp. 81-128). The vanity motif echoes also in two pas-
sages from Gilgamesh: a series of maxims about the futility of life are integrated
into Gilgamesh and Enkidu’s argument regarding the journey to the cedar forest; and
the famous speech of the alewife, Šiduri, promotes carpe diem. See: A.R. George, The
Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts (2 vols.,
Oxford, 2003), vol. , pp. 200-201, ll. 140-143; pp. 278-279, ll. 1-15. Note however that these
two passages do not include a negation of traditional values or of human deeds in gen-
eral. For further discussion, see below.
This is especially true in the case of ‘Dialogue of Pessimism’, but is also evident in Niĝnam
and probably also in Šima Milka.
Not every text in the list demonstrates all the features mentioned above. For instance, the
‘Dialogue of Pessimism’ negates traditional values but does not include the topos of carpe
diem, while the Ballade of Early Rulers does not express explicit rejection of traditional
values, but rather focuses on the brevity and futility of life, and on the consequent recom-
mendation to enjoy life. Further research is needed to clarify the relationships among the
diferent texts under consideration.
() -
human endeavors, and sometimes even a common phraseology. As will be
shown below, the scribes who were responsible for transmitting such literature
often felt uncomfortable with regard to its message, which posed a challenge
to their traditional worldview. In what follows, I would like to trace the tex-
tual history of several exemplars of the vanity corpus. A careful examination
of their transmission reveals the various techniques used by Mesopotamian
scribes to mitigate the conict between vanity literature and other, more con-
servative, teachings.
Conservative Redaction of Second Millennium Vanity Literature:
The Case of Niĝnam
The Sumerian essay on the futility of life, niĝ-nam-nu-kal (literally, ‘everything
is worthless’), is known from eleven manuscripts which difer signicantly
from each other. Bendt Alster has sorted them into four groups, representing
four diferent versions of the composition. All four versions begin with the
same couplet: “Everything is worthless, but life is good; when a man does not
have wealth—he has wealth”. Following this common bicolon, each version
elaborates diferently on its implications. Version A reads as follows:
Several intertextual links between vanity texts may perhaps point to a common tradition
lurking in the background of some of them. A striking example is the common prov-
erb “even the tallest one cannot reach heaven, even the broadest one cannot encom-
pass earth”, which is quoted in several exemplars of the vanity literature, both Sumerian
and Akkadian. See N. Samet, “The Tallest Man Cannot Reach Heaven; The Broadest
Man Cannot Cover Earth: Reconsidering the Proverb and its Biblical Parallels”, Journal
of Hebrew Scriptures 10 (2010), [www.jhsonline.org], article 18. Note also the strong asso-
ciation of Niĝnam with the ‘Ballad of Early Rulers’: not only do the two works include
intertextual links, they were sometimes copied together on the same Sammeltafel (e.g.
1208; 80184. See Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, pp. 298-299).
Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, pp. 267-269. Alster’s classication is not without prob-
lems, and is being followed here for the sake of convenience. The question of the relation
between the diferent versions of this work requires further study.
Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, pp. 270-271.
() -
[niĝ-nam nu-kal] zi ku-ku-dam
[me-na-am ni]ĝ-tuku lu la-ba-an-tuku
[lu niĝ-tuku] ba-an-tuku
nam-lu?-ulu?-ka?
[...]
sukud-DU an-na-še nu-mu-un-da-la
daĝal-la kur-ra la-ba-šu-šu
kalag-ga ki-a ni nu-mu-un-gid-de
til niĝ-dug ša hul-la šu he-ni-ib-
kar-kar-re
hub-sar ša-hul-la u he-ni-ib-zal-zal-e
e dug lu-ulu e-a-ni til-le-de
[Everything is worthless], but life is good.
When a man does not have wealth—[he]
has [wealth]!
[...]
Even the tallest one cannot reach heaven;
even the widest one cannot cover the
underworld;
Even the strongest one cannot stretch
himself over the earth.
Life should be rescued by happiness and
joy!
Let the ‘race’ (=life) be spent in joy!
A man’s good house—let him live in his
house!
In short, this version suggests the following argument: While everything is
worthless, life is still good. One should enjoy life rather than attempt to discover
its value. Property is useless and therefore there is no diference between hav-
ing it and lacking it. Wisdom is useless since no one can access the extremities
of the universe, that is, no one can understand the cosmos in full. Therefore
one should concentrate on enjoying the good life of the moment, sparing one’s
life from unnecessary philosophical inquiries, and spending life merrily while
still on earth (=‘his good house’).
Version B of Niĝnam conveys a message similar to that of version A, focusing
especially on the uselessness of money. Versions C and D, however, present a
surprising exegetical twist. Version D reads as follows:
On this proverb about human limitations see Samet, “Even the Tallest One”.
That the ‘good house’ here is a metaphor for man’s good but limited life on earth is clear
from the following variant reading: ‘Above is his abundant house (=his house on earth),
below is his eternal house (=his grave)’. This parallel appears in other versions of Niĝnam
and in other Sumerian vanity texts. See e.g. version D below, and cf. further Alster, Wisdom
of Ancient Sumer, pp. 307-308.
Note that several lines are skipped here. For the full version D see Alster, Wisdom of
Ancient Sumer, pp. 276-279.
() -
niĝ-nam nu-kal zi ku-ku-dam
me-na-am niĝ-tuku lu la-ba-an-tuku
lu niĝ-tuku ba-tuku
[...]
an-ta-am e ur-ra-ka-ni
ki?-ta-am e da-ri-ka-ni...
lu niĝ tuku diĝir-ra-ni saĝ-e-eš rig-ga-a
tukum-bi diĝir-ra-ni igi-zi mu-ši-in-bar
ĝeštu-ga-ni ĝal ba-an-taka
lama ĝuruš diĝir-ra-ni su ba-ĝal-[x]
-gin la-a-ni nu-til-le...
lu? sukud- an-še nu-mu-un-da-
[la]
lu daĝal-la kur-re la-ba-šu-šu
til niĝ-dug ša hul-la šu he?-eb-kar-
kar-re
e dug lu-ulu e-a-ni til-le-de
Everything is worthless, but life is good.
When a man does not have wealth—[he]
has wealth!
Above is his abundant house, below is
his eternal house...
Whatever a man possesses is bestowed to
him by his personal god as a gift.
If his god had looked favorably upon him,
his ears are opened,
His protective deities and his personal god
will be present in his body,
His smoke ofering will not cease...
Even the tallest one cannot rea[ch]
heaven; even the widest one cannot cover
the underworld.
Life should be rescued by happiness and
joy!
A man’s good house—let him live in his
house!
This version is clearly an expansion of version A. The opening and closing sec-
tions are identical to those appearing in version A, while the heart of the text
provides us with a new interpretation of the original notion. Instead of carpe
diem, this version promotes religious piety as a solution for the problem of
life’s vanity. The transiency of wealth as presented in the opening couplet is
understood by the author of version D as a sign of its divine source. One’s per-
sonal god is exclusively responsible for one’s nancial state. Hence the answer
for the vanity riddle is religious devotion, or more specically, proper cult.
Thus, Niĝnam version D seems to be the oldest known example of a reli-
gious adaptation of a vanity text. The motives for creating this version were no
The translation ‘abundant’ assumes that ur is a variant for ur here. See Alster, Wisdom of
Ancient Sumer, p. 308.
Open ears in Sumerian literature often serve as a metaphor for wisdom.
It is noteworthy that like the author of version A, the compiler of the current version used
available wisdom materials to compose his religiously-oriented insertion. Similar decla-
rations regarding the personal god as a source for human welfare are found in Sumerian
proverb literature. See J. Klein and N. Samet, “Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb
Literature”, in S. Yonah et al. (eds.), Marbeh okmah: Essays in Memory of Victor Avigdor
Hurowitz (Winona Lake, 2015), pp. 293-319.
() -
doubt connected to an attempt to soften the original message and to adjust it to
conservative values. A similar trend characterizes the much shorter version C
of Niĝnam, which concludes with the following couplet: “For him who gives
[food] to the gods, for him who gives good stuf to the gods, (life is found).”
Conservative Redaction of Second Millennium Vanity Literature:
The Case of the Ballad of Early Rulers
Interestingly, a similar process of adaptation can be traced in the ‘Ballad of
Early Rulers’ as well. The Ballad is a short poem which enumerates glorious
dead rulers of the past, whose grandeur is now forgotten, and concludes that
because no one can escape death and oblivion, one should concentrate on
enjoying the present. Like Niĝnam, the Ballad has several diferent versions;
but unlike Niĝnam, the transmission of the diferent versions was not limited
to Sumerian circles of the Old Babylonian period. The ‘Ballad’ was translated
into Akkadian, and was copied in Emar and Ugrait during the Late Bronze Age.
The versions difer from each other in structure, but they share the same
message: Man’s days are numbered and transient. Even renowned heroes of
the past were not granted eternal life, despite their glorious deeds. It is there-
fore recommended to focus on enjoying the present and on rejecting sorrow
while it is still possible.
One manuscript from Ugarit, however, presents a slightly longer version of
the original composition, to which the following lines are added:
Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, p. 272. The complement “[life is found]” relies on the
identical couplet which appears, in a better state of preservation, in one of the versions of
the Ballad of Early Rulers (see below).
In addition to Cohen’s recent edition which is mention above, see: D. Arnaud, “Les Textes
suméro-accadiens: un orilège”, in: D. Beyer (ed.), Meskéné-Emâr: Dix ans de travaux 1972-
1982 (Paris, 1982), pp. 43-51; Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, pp. 288-320; J. Klein, “The
Ballad about Early Rulers in Eastern and Western Traditions”, in K. van Lerberghe and
G. Voet (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the
Syro-Mesopotamian Realm (Leuven, 1999), 203-216.
For a detailed analysis of the diferent versions’ structure see Klein, “The Ballad about
Early Rulers”.
I present here the Akkadian version as appearing on the tablet from Ugarit. The same
tablet also includes a Sumerian version and a syllabic-Sumerian version of the work, for
which see Cohen, Wisdom of the Late Bronze Age, pp. 134-137. The current tentative trans-
lation follows Cohen’s.
() -
awīlūtu [...] ša ramaāniša lā idû
ēm urriša u mūšiša itti ilī ibašši
adê awīlūti mamma la uadda
apilti awīlūti mamma <la> iqabbi
šēūt enši mamma lā ileqqe
mār hummuri mār lāsimi ibaa
mār šarî ana mār lapni qāssu itarra []
annû isiq šalmi
Humanity does not recognize its own
[life-span],
Decision over its day (=life) and its night
(=death) are with the gods,
None can reveal mankind’s workload
(=life-span),
One should <not> insult others,
One should not scorn the weak,
The cripple may overtake the runner,
The rich may beg the poor,
This is the fate of the sound person.
The above lines have no parallel in other manuscripts of the Ballad, and their
content is not consistent with the work’s general message. While the other ver-
sions embrace enjoyment of the present, this Ugarit version concludes that
one should stick to social norms of justice, and avoid hurting the weak. After
all, man’s lot is unknown: a cripple may one day overtake the runner and the
rich may suddenly become poor, so being a sound person means staying on the
safe side of man’s transient life. Similar ideas are known from classic wisdom
literature.
This creative reinterpretation of the vanity theme seems to serve as a means
for reconciling the subversive ideas of the original text with the more ortho-
dox views of traditional literature. In Niĝnam the adaptation was religiously-
oriented, while here the compiler is more concerned with social justice; but
the conservative agenda is clear in both cases. Unfortunately, it is impossible
to point to the exact place and time where the modication of the text took
place. The tablet under discussion originates from Ugarit, but its content could
have been imported in its entirety from Old Babylonian Mesopotamia.
Conservative Redaction of First Millennium Vanity Literature:
The Case of the Dialogue of Pessimism
The Akkadian text known as ‘Dialogue of Pessimism’ seems to betray traces of
conservative redaction, although here the data is less explicit. The Dialogue
The addition of ‘not’ follows the Sumerian version and is in accordance with the contexts.
See e.g. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, p. 119.
See lately Cohen, Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age, pp. 145-148, with further bibliography.
() -
was probably composed in the eighth or seventh century . It elaborates
on the theme of the vanity of life using a subtle dialogue between a master
and his slave which falls into short stanzas. In each stanza, the master suggests
pursuing a certain course of action, for which the slave provides good reasons.
The master then abruptly changes his mind, proclaiming that he will not take
the action under consideration, and the slave immediately provides equally
good reasons for the new decision. The last stanza concludes that the only
valuable action is committing suicide, but the master and slave cannot come to
an agreement, which of the two should have the owner to take this action rst.
Among other values and social institutions, the dialogue mocks traditional
cult practices:
arad mitanguranni annû bēlī annû
šīšir dikannima mê ana qātēya binamma
niqâ ana iliya lūpuš epuš bēlī epuš
amēlu ša niqâ ana ilišu ippuš libbašu
ābšu
qīptu eli qīptu ippuš
ē arad anāku niqâ ana iliyāma ul eppuš
lā teppuš bēlī lā teppuš
ila tulammassuma kī kalbi arkīka
ittanallak
šumma parī šumma Lātarāk šumma
mimma šanâmma irriška
– Slave, obey me!
– Yes, master, yes!
– Quickly! Fetch me water for my hands
and give it to me, so that I can sacrice to
my god.
– Sacrice, master, sacrice! The man who
sacrices to his god is satised at heart. He
accumulates benet after benet.
– No, slave, I will not sacrice to my god!
– Do not sacrice, master, do not sacrice!
If you accustom the god (to oferings), he
will run after you like a dog. He will ask of
you rites, or ‘Lātarāk’, or anything else!
The analogy of one’s personal god to an irksome dog is undoubtedly one of
the severest blasphemies of the entire piece. It is therefore telling that the rel-
evant line was most probably omitted in the latest manuscript of the Dialogue,
which seems to date from the Seleucid period. It is tempting to hypothesize
For this dating see: W. von Soden, Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testament /1
(Gütersloh, 1990), pp. 158-163; Samet, “The Babylonian Dialogue”, p. 109.
For Lātarāk, a protecting deity, see W.G. Lambert, “Lulal/Lātarāk”, RlA, 8, pp. 163-164.
The dialogue is known to us from ve manuscripts, four of them originate in seventh-
century Assur and Nineveh, and one was found in Babylon. Lambert referred to the latter
as ‘Babylonian’, but it is highly probable that the peculiarities of this manuscript, which
include non-grammatical forms, are due to the tablet’s later date rather than to its dif-
ferent origin. Note that many of the other tablets published by Reisner in the same vol-
ume date from the Seleucid period (see G. Reisner, Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach
Thontafeln griechischer Zeit [Berlin, 1896-], vol. 6, p. 143. I am grateful to Dr. Uri Gabbay for
() -
that the omission of the comparison of the god to a dog is intended rather than
accidental. Thus, this manuscript may be the only surviving witness of a scribal
attempt from the Seleucid period to restrain the dialogue’s message, by delet-
ing the sacrilegious line from the seventh stanza.
Conservative Redaction of Hebrew Vanity Literature:
The Case of Qohelet and Gilgamesh
The classic biblical representative of the ancient near eastern vanity tradition
is the Book of Qohelet. It is not known whether the author had access to vanity
texts from Mesopotamia. While Qohelet does share their themes and spirit,
it is dicult to point to signicant parallels between them, such as specic
similes, idioms or unique terminology. There is however one striking case of
literary connection between Qohelet and Mesopotamian tradition, that is, the
parallels with the epic of Gilgamesh. Two passages from the Old Babylonian
version of this epic clearly echo in the book of Qohelet. The most famous
parallel is found in the speech of Šiduri, the ale-wife, which is reminiscent of
Qohelet 9:7-9. The two parallel passages follow:
sharing with me his insights on this issue). A hand-copy of the relevant tablet, where the
omission could be traced, is available in Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, plate 38.
On a possible literary connection between Qohelet and Mesopotamian vanity literature
see e.g.: Lambert, “New Babylonian Wisdom Literature”, pp. 41-42; Klein, “The Ballad”;
Cohen, Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age, pp. 149-150; J.R. Kelli, “Sources of Contention
and the Emerging Reality Concerning Qohelet’s Carpe Diem Advice”, Antiguo Oriente 8
(2010), pp. 117-134; Samet, “Gilgamesh and Qohelet”. A more cautious stance is presented
by K. Van der Toorn, “Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Book of Qohelet? A Reassessment of
the Intellectual Sources of Qohelet”, in van Soldt et al. (eds), Veenhof Anniversary Volume,
Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (
89; Leiden, 2001), pp. 503-514. See further A. Gianto, “Human Destiny in Emar and
Qohelet”, in: A. Schoors (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom ( 136; Leuven, 1998),
pp. 473-479.
For the rst identication of the parallel between Qohelet and the alewife’s speech
see H. Grimme, “Babel und Kohelet-Jojakhin”, Orientalische Literaturzeitung 8 (1905),
pp. 432-438. For the parallel between Qohelet and the advice of Shamash see N. Samet,
“Gilgamesh and Qohelet”.
George, Gilgamesh, p. 279, iii 6-14.
() -
Atta Gilgameš lū mali karaška, uri u mūši
hitaddu atta. ūmišam šukun hidūtam, urri
u mūšu sūr u melil. lū ubbubū ubātūka,
qaqqadqa lū mesi, mê lū ramkāta, ubbi
ehram ābitu qātīka, mahrītum lihtad-
dâm ina sūnīka, annama šipir [awilūtim]
You, Gilgamesh, let your belly be full;
keep enjoying yourself day and night.
Every day make merry, dance and play
day and night! Let your cloth be clean, let
your head be washed, may you be bathed
in water! Gaze on the little one who
holds your hand! Let a wife enjoy your
repeated embrace! Such is the destiny
[of mortal men].
Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink
your wine with a merry heart,
For God has already approved what
you do.
Always let your garments be white.
Let not oil be lacking on your head.
Enjoy life with the wife whom you love,
all the days of your vain life that he has
given you under the sun,
Because that is your portion in life and in
your toil at which you toil under the sun.
As I have shown elsewhere, this parallel is distinctive enough to point to a lit-
erary borrowing, because the order of components is identical. Both passages
begin with the advice to enjoy dining, continue with the emphasis ‘always’
(so Qohelet) or ‘day and night’ (so Gilgamesh), and then refer to clean cloths,
washed head, and family life. Both passages then conclude with the declaration
that this is human lot. The accumulation of six consecutive components which
appear in the exact same order in both texts, and include specic themes such
as washed hair, cannot be a coincidence. To this we should add the simple
fact that both speeches also present the same philosophical message, that is,
enjoying everyday life as an answer for the problem of mortality. It is therefore
very likely that Qohelet was familiar with, and inuenced by, some version of
the Gilgamesh epic, which included this passage, although it was probably not
identical with any of the Gilgamesh recensions known to us today.
Samet, “Gilgamesh and Qohelet”.
Samet, ibid.
() -
Against the background of these striking similarities, the diferences between
the two texts deserve attention. When closely examined, the Hebrew text
includes an addition of a line which is absent from the original Akkadian text.
‘You, Gilgamesh, let your belly be full’ parallels with ‘Go, eat your bread with
joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart’. But the Hebrew version then adds:
‘For God has already approved what you do’. God is yet again inserted into an
originally non-religious context. The young addressee of Qohelet is urged to
enjoy all that good life may suggest him, but unlike in the Akkadian original,
here he is doing this with God’s blessing. Similarly, ‘all the days of your vain life
that he has given you under the sun’ at the end of the Hebrew passage refers to
God as responsible for human life, a theme which is absent from the Akkadian
source. It cannot be determined who was responsible for these insertions, and
when; it might have occurred in each of the hidden links of a textual chain
beginning in Old Babylonian Gilgamesh and concluding with the later redac-
tors of the book of Qohelet. For the sake of the current inquiry, however, we
may point to another case of a religiously-oriented editorial activity aimed at
softening the problematic message of the vanity motif.
The ‘Counsels of a Pessimist’: A Case of Limited Data
In the examples discussed above, we were able to trace, to some extent, the
redactional process of conservative adaptation which gave rise to the nal
product. Our conclusions were based on a comparative methodology, which,
in turn, became possible thanks to the availability of several versions or manu-
scripts of the same work. This is however not always the case. The following
example involves a single text which, judging from its content, seems to betray
a similar reworking, yet we are not lucky enough to have supportive evidence
which sheds light on the process itself.
The label ‘Counsels of a Pessimist’ was given by Lambert to a small fragment
which is the only extant witness to an unknown wisdom collection. The collec-
tion included, inter alia, the following passage on the vanity of life:
For another diference between the two sources, which is not related to theological issues,
see I. Kislev, “Coping with Death in Qohelet in Light of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern
Literature” (in Hebrew), Beit Mikra 57 (2012), pp. 28-51.
See Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, pp. 107-109; Von Soden, Texte, p. 169, with
improved readings.
() -
[...u]la [...] teppušma
[...] eprumma
[...] igammar
[...] itâr ana ii
[...] girra iqamme
[...ul u]i ana arkāt ūmē
[mimma ša] nišī ibannâ ul isīt ana dāriš
[amēl]ūtum u šipir ibbannû ištēniš iqatt[i]
...rejoice!
...is dust.
...is nished,
...turns to a clay,
...re burns it.
[...does not] continue eternally,
[Whatever] men do does not last forever,
Both mankind and the work that is done
(by it) come to an end!
However, the conclusion from this vanity statement is an unexpected series
of conservative admonitions which recommend religious and social liability:
[at]ta ana ilimma supê šutaqrib
lū kân šagigurûka ana ili bānika
ana ištar ālika lū kanšātama liddinka pira
ana būli kitpad erēša hissas...
[As for] you, ofer prayers to your god,
Let your free-will ofering be constantly
before the god who created you,
Bow down to your city goddess that
she may grant you ofspring,
Take thought for your livestock,
remember the planting...
Judging from its content, the above fragmentary text seems to have gone
through an editorial process similar to what we have seen above. The cur-
rent state of preservation does not enable us, however, to conrm or refute
this theory; the discussion of the ‘Counsels of a Pessimist’ has to await future
discoveries.
Conclusion
Unlike cuneiformists, Biblicists are almost always bound to work with the
nal text alone, reconstructing its literary development on the basis of mere
deduction. The scholarly discussion of Qohelet’s epilogue is a typical exam-
ple of this methodological trap. In absence of external documentation of the
text’s development, the problem of the epilogue’s source remains a question
of personal scholarly judgment. A way out of this vicious circle was suggested
by Jefery Tigay, who, in a series of studies, has developed the methodology
of ‘Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism’. Tigay, in cooperation with other
J. Tigay, “An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis”, 94 (1975), pp. 329-342;
idem, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Eugene, 2005).
() -
scholars, shows how an analysis of extra-biblical material of diferent sorts,
from the Gilgamesh epic to Qumran documents, may support critical assump-
tions regarding the development of biblical texts. He writes:
...(the case studies discussed) have shown that many of the central
hypotheses of biblical criticism are realistic. They do not prove that these
hypotheses are correct, but they show that the processes of literary devel-
opment which critics inferred from clues within biblical literature are real
phenomena, attested in the history of literature from ancient times down
to our own. This conclusion is based on case studies of texts whose earlier
stages are known and do not have to be hypothetically reconstructed; it is
based, in other words, on empirical models.
The ndings presented in the current paper may fulll the same function in
regard to Qohelet’s epilogue. We have shown that vanity texts were com-
posed, edited and transmitted in Mesopotamia and its periphery for two mil-
lennia, in diferent languages and environments. Due to its subversive nature,
however, vanity literature involves an inherent conict with traditional litera-
ture, especially with wisdom. This conict gave rise, from the very beginning,
to redactional activity focused on moderating or even re-interpreting vanity
texts in light of traditional values. Occurring already in the beginning of the
second millennium, these redactional attempts do not reect a specic trend
of a certain period. Rather, they represent a recurring pattern of dialectical
intellectual movement between skepticism and conservatism. We have traced
this pattern in Sumerian, Akkadian and Hebrew literature by comparing dif-
ferent versions of the same passage or composition. Against the background of
these Mesopotamian works, whose textual history is at least partially available
to us, it would be only natural to expect a similar pattern to occur in Qohelet’s
textual history, which is currently hidden from our eyes. As observed by Tigay,
the data presented in this paper cannot be considered a decisive proof for the
epilogue-redaction theory. Yet it supplies us with a crucial external foothold,
which, when added to the other signicant arguments in favor of the redac-
tional assumption, makes it highly probable. In the current state of biblical
studies, this may the best a scholar can hope for.
Tigay, Empirical Models, p. 239.
It should be noted that Michael Fox used a similar comparative methodology to support
his theory as to the unity of the book. See Fox, A Time to Tear Down, pp. 367-371.
