The Presence Of Genesis In Ecclesiastes

By Matthew Seufert

[Matthew Seufert is a PhD candidate in Old Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.]

Introduction

The context of a piece of literature is almost as important as the literature itself. As with all literature, an understanding of the context(s) of Ecclesiastes illuminates the book. Scholars consistently recognize the importance of Egyptian and Mesopotamian wisdom texts, among others, for the interpretation of the book.[1] This article occupies itself with another of the backgrounds in Ecclesiastes: the early chapters of the Book of Genesis (chs. 1–3).

This last background has not permeated scholarship on Ecclesiastes to the extent of the others. Though all scholars, so far as I know, acknowledge some relationship between the two books, a noticeable portion of them afford Genesis a very small place within Ecclesiastes. Contrary to this tendency, it is the contention of this article that the early chapters of Genesis pervade the Book of Ecclesiastes. While the interpretational influence of this background both for particular verses and the book as a whole deserves its own study, interpretational concerns arise throughout the present article, and the closing offers some brief analysis of the presented material towards an understanding of the influence of the presence of Genesis on Ecclesiastes.

I. Scholarship In Review

As already mentioned, this article is not the first to suggest the use of Genesis in Ecclesiastes. Nearly every commentator recognizes some relationship between the two. The acknowledged presence, though, varies greatly in degree.

On the one side of the spectrum are Diethelm Michel and Elizabeth Huwiler. In Michel’s interaction with Charles Forman and Hans Hertzberg, who both argue for a widespread presence of Genesis in Ecclesiastes, he concedes to a single occurrence where the vocabulary usage in Ecclesiastes is best explained by a Genesis influence.[2] As for the other apparent associations claimed by Forman and Hertzberg, he attributes them to common ideas and vocabulary which any individual of the same religious tradition would share. Thus, the early chapters of Genesis have no essential function for Qoheleth’s content.[3] Huwiler’s brief commentary makes only one Genesis reference (הבל=Abel).[4] For Michel and Huwiler, the presence of Genesis is extremely limited.

Moving slightly towards more Genesis presence, C. L. Seow acknowledges “sporadic allusions” to Gen 1–11.[5] Roland Murphy’s commentary also evidences this position. Murphy adduces four places of connection: Eccl 2:11, 3:19–20, 12:2, and 12:7. Both 3:19–20 and 12:7 “depend on Gen 3:19.”[6] Ecclesiastes 12:7 uses “the images of Gen. 2:7, ” and 2:11 is “perhaps a remembrance” of the evaluation “good” in Gen 1.[7] And he points out that light is a separate entity in 12:2 and Gen 1. For Seow and Murphy, the presence of Genesis is limited.

On the other side of the spectrum are those who see a permeating presence of Genesis in Ecclesiastes. The first, so far as I know, to argue for any extensive interaction between the two books was Duncan MacDonald. In his 1933 monograph The Hebrew Literary Genius, MacDonald asserts, “It is evident that he [Qohelet] had read and pondered deeply the early chapters of Genesis with their philosophy of life.”[8] MacDonald finds agreeable correlations with respect to their views of troublesome work (physical toil for Genesis; mental for Ecclesiastes), nature’s orderliness, the transitory nature of life (Abel; hevel), and man’s composition (body and spirit).[9] He sees competing views of woman (positive for Genesis; negative for Ecclesiastes) and God (revengeful and self-protecting; capricious).[10]

Some of MacDonald’s ideas were picked up by Charles Forman’s 1960 article “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” certainly the most influential and oft-quoted work on the subject to date.[11] In an earlier 1958 article, Forman wrote, “To the S document of Genesis [i.e., chs. 1–11] Koheleth was attracted and heavily indebted.”[12]

In the more-noted 1960 article, he expounds upon and develops this claim by comparing and contrasting various topics common to the two books, alleging, like MacDonald, that “Koheleth obviously knew Genesis and accepted some of its presuppositions while occasionally taking issue with others.”[13] He compares the two authors’ positions on the natural order, man’s composition, evil and human nature, women, human knowledge, vanity, toil, death, and the nature of God. He concludes, “It is my contention that the early chapters of Genesis represent the most important single influence on the ideas of Ecclesiastes regarding the nature and destiny of man, the character of human existence, and the fact of God.”[14]

For both MacDonald and Forman then, the presence of Genesis is widespread. The main influence of Genesis’s early chapters is on the “ideas of Ecclesiastes.” Some compete with those of Ecclesiastes; others Qoheleth embraces and expounds upon.

At about the same place on the spectrum are Hans Hertzberg and William Anderson. Hertzberg thinks that Qoheleth wrote Ecclesiastes with Gen 1–4 before his eyes.[15] He draws various connections between the two books mainly through common phrases and vocabulary.[16] Anderson’s 1998 study is more focused. In it he explores “the possibility that Qoheleth was dependent on the curse of Gn. 3:17–19 for the background to his leitmotif of work.”[17]

Hertzberg and Anderson, like MacDonald and Forman, hold to a widespread presence of Genesis in Ecclesiastes. The presence is both in the realm of ideas and vocabulary, the vocabulary much more so than put forth by MacDonald and Forman.[18]

David Clemens and Bernard Maurer stand at the farthest point on the presence spectrum. Clemens’s 1994 article proposes “that [Ecclesiastes] is best understood as an arresting but thoroughly orthodox exposition of Genesis 1–3: in both texts, the painful consequences of the fall are central.”[19] He supports his proposal by drawing out the parallels between the two’s views on death, toil, knowledge of good and evil, and sin, implementing as well an existing overlap in vocabulary. Similarly Maurer, in his unpublished PhD dissertation, states that “the book of Ecclesiastes is a derash of Genesis 1–4, which means that the author of the book of Ecclesiastes makes significant, conscious, and identifiable references to Genesis 1–4, so much so that the thought of the book is guided and predicated on that particular text.”[20] Maurer’s study is based on “common vocabulary and themes.”[21] For Clemens and Maurer, the presence of Genesis is extremely widespread.[22]

II. Joining The Conversation

The above views on the relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and Ecclesiastes can be classified into four groups: (1) extremely limited (Michel and Huwiler), (2) limited (Seow and Murphy), (3) widespread (MacDonald, Forman, Hertzberg, and Anderson), and (4) extremely widespread (Clemens and Maurer).[23]

The view of the present article is closest to classification 3, a widespread presence.[24] It seeks to reinforce the suitability of this judgment especially over against 1 and 2 by reiterating and enlarging upon the work of others. It is particularly relevant because, as evidenced by a significant number of commentaries, the early chapters of Genesis are not always fixed as an important background for interpreting Ecclesiastes.[25] Even where Genesis has found its way into the study of Ecclesiastes, I do not think it has had as great an influence as it should on interpretation. This article hopes to contribute to changing that situation by compiling, organizing, reinforcing, and adding to previously made Genesis connections.

III. A Note On Method

With any intertextual study, there is an element of subjectivity. What constitutes a valid connection between texts for one person does not necessarily do so for another. That being said, there are several principles that have undergirded this article’s proposed correlations. First, I have relied upon words and syntactical patterns to determine definite places of connection. But once definite (or almost definite) connections were identified, additional places of possible connection became more likely. This is the second principle. If a particular correspondence was questionable and yet I was able to find several places of certain dependence, I was compelled to see a connection unless there was positive evidence to the contrary. This method became even more convincing given the number of questionable correspondences, as the questionable places became mutually supportive. Third, vocabulary/phraseology ties are stronger and more demonstrable than thematic ties, but thematic ties are as likely once the former ties are demonstrated. The thematic proposals towards the end of the article were only convincing to me given the terminology material. Third, if a terminological parallel fits the context and/or explains a passage it is almost certainly valid. Fourth and last, if the overall presence of connections has explanatory power for the book as a whole, then permeating parallels are externally corroborated. This final point is fleshed out at the end of the article.

IV. The Pervasion Of Genesis In Ecclesiastes

I make a case for pervasion in five sections, the combination of which is more persuasive than any individual section or part of a section. Some proposed connections may seem at first to be merely coincidental, but the abundance of similar apparent coincidences argues strongly for purpose. These, combined with the strongest correspondences, make a good case for a pervasive presence.

The five sections are: creational bookends, certain reliance, vocabulary overlap, echoes/allusions, and topical overlap.

1. Creational Bookends

The opening and closing reflections of Qoheleth are involved with creation. Ecclesiastes 1:4–7 describes the earth’s duration, the rising and setting of the sun, the circuits of the wind, and the ever-flowing rivers running into a never-filling sea. The book’s end is similarly occupied with creation. Chapter 12:1 commands the reader to remember the Creator and is followed by the timeframe for obedience: “before the sun and the light, the moon and the stars are darkened, and clouds return after the rain” (12:2).[26] Hertzberg observes a further correspondence, noting, “In Qoh 12:2, exactly like in the creation-account, there is a distinction between light and heavenly bodies (sun, moon, and stars).”[27] Both 1:4–7 and 12:2 obviously have creation in mind. Though 12:1–2 are five verses removed from the final refrain (12:8), the discourse which they initiate lasts until 12:7.[28] Thus, Qoheleth’s creational meditations frame the others.

2. Certain Reliance

There are several verses in the Book of Ecclesiastes which are certainly reliant upon Genesis.[29] Ecclesiastes 3:20b reads, הַכֹּל הָיָה מִן־הֶעָפָר וְהַכֹּל שָׁב אֶל־הֶעָפָר, paralleling Gen 3:19b, אל־הָאֲדָמָה כִּי מִמֶּנָּה לֻקָּחְתָּ כִּי־עָפָר אַתָּה וְאֶל־עָפָר תָּשׁוּב . The preposition מִן, the noun עָפרָ, and the verb שׁוּב all occur in both verses. Ecclesiastes 12:7 is similar: וְיָשֹׁב הֶעָפָר עַל־הָאָרֶץ כְּשֶׁהָיָה וְהָרוּחַ תָּשׁוּב אֶל־ץָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר נְתָנָהּ. Again, both שׁוּב and עָפרָ appear. And the occurrence of עַל־הָאָרֶץ parallels אֶל־הָאֲדָמָה in Genesis.[30] The latter part of the verse, “and the spirit returns to God who gave it,” has no exact correspondence in Genesis, but the idea that God gave man his spirit reminds us of the description in Gen 2:7 of God breathing into man the breath of life, which is further supported by the correspondence of 2:7 with the first part of Eccl 12:7. Genesis 2:7 reads,וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּחּ בְּאַפָּין נִשְׁמַת חַיּים.

For the most part, the studies reviewed above note this connection.[31] As previously cited, even Michel says, “Indeed, the analogies between Qoh 3:20 … and Gen 2:7; 3:19 … seem to be best explained through the acceptance of an influence.”[32]

The next correspondence is found in Eccl 7:29, עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם יָשָׁר וְהֵמָּה בִקְשׁוּ חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת רַבִּים. Forman comments, “Here our author is dealing with one of the central themes of [Gen 1–11]; the entrance of evil into the world.”[33] The correlation of the first half with Gen 1:27 is almost identical, וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם. Further, the corporate term of mankind used in the second half (i.e., הָאָדָם ) followed by the repetitious plurals (i.e., וְהֵמָּה בִקְשׁוּ) is reminiscent of Gen 1:27b:אֱלֹהים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם. That mankind has sought out חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת רַבִּים may recall Gen 6:5: וְכָל־יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ רַק רַע כָּל־הַיּוֹם.34 It certainly looks back to חֶשְׁבּוֹן in Eccl 7:25 and 27, which in these verses is the object of Qoheleth’s search.

In 7:25 חֶשְׁבּוֹןis paired with חָכְמָה as that which Qoheleth sets his heart to know, to spy out, and to seek. In his search to find חֶשְׁבּוֹן and חָכְמָה he puzzlingly introduces the woman who is more bitter than death (7:26; see more on her below). He concludes this search in 7:29 with God’s original creation of mankind as upright and the statement that they sought out חִשְּׁבנֹוֹת. The close link which Qoheleth himself makes between חֶשְׁבּוֹן and חָכְמָה possibly recalls Eve’s desire to become wise in Gen 3:6, the first act of mankind’s rebellion and fall from the uprightness described in 7:29.[35]

Fox and Porten also see “evidence for a connection between [Eccl 7:23–8:1] and the story of the Fall.”[36] The most noteworthy points are: (1) Both use the pair אָדָם and אשִָּׁה for man and woman, rather than the more common אִישׁ (Eccl 7:28; Gen 2–3). Fox and Porten comment, “The use of [אָדָם] to mean vir [Latin for “man”] occurs only in that story [Gen 2–3].”[37] (2) The woman is pictured as a trap for man, as recounted in Eccl 7:26, “And I discovered more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are chains.” This “is in accord with the picture we get in Gen 3, where Adam is trapped into sin by the woman.”[38] Clemens agrees, “The supposed misogyny expressed in 7:26 … which seems at variance with the commendation of 9:9, can be interpreted more harmoniously against the background of the fall.”[39] As Duane Garrett comments, “Verses 26–28, which appear outrageously antiwoman, are incomprehensible [apart from the recognition that] … these verses look back to the early chapters of Genesis.”[40] (3) The connection “helps also to explain the associative link between Qohelet’s search for knowledge (v. 25) and his sudden attack on predatory womankind (v. 26), as well as his statement that God created man ‘straight’ (v. 29).”[41]

These links between the surrounding verses of 7:29 and the early chapters of Genesis, along with the previous observations regarding the verse itself, put the matter beyond doubt; 7:29 is certainly reliant upon Genesis. Thus far then, Eccl 3:20b, 7:29, and 12:7 are all directly dependent upon Genesis. Ecclesiastes 7:26–28, too, while not as explicit, have Genesis as their background, and further, rely upon it for their proper interpretation.

3. Vocabulary Overlap

There is a noticeable amount of overlap between the vocabulary of Ecclesiastes and Gen 1–3, not only with regard to bare statistics (on which see below) but also concerning peculiar usage. We have already seen the peculiar use of the term אָדָם to refer to “man,” juxtaposed to “woman,” in Eccl 7. This is its less common use (typically it refers to “mankind”), and it is reminiscent of Genesis. אָדָם is a favorite of Ecclesiastes and shows up steadily throughout the book, in every chapter except one.[42]

Qoheleth also utilizes the major verbs of Genesis, if not prevalently, at least with a marked significance. For example, בָּרָא appears seven times in Gen 1–3. While it only shows up once in Ecclesiastes, its use is significant.[43] Ecclesiastes 12:1a reads, וּזְכֹר אֶת־בּוֹרְאֶיךָ. Of the seven occurrences in Genesis, three are used in the description of God’s creation of man, וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם. The command in Ecclesiastes to “remember [זכר]” the creator may carry with it the memory of man’s [זכר] creation in Gen 1:27.

The other creational term of Genesis, עָשָׂה (17x; see esp. 1:7, 25, 26; 2:2, 4, 18), also has a marked occurrence in Ecclesiastes. We have already noted its use in Eccl 7:29, עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם יָשָׁר, as directly dependent upon Genesis. In Genesis, God gives man the fruit of the trees to eat (אָכַל; Gen 2:16; cf. 9:3). In Ecclesiastes, too, mankind’s eating is a gift from God (cf. 2:24–25; 3:13; 5:18, 19; 8:15). Genesis usesרָאָה ten times. Seven out of the ten uses in Genesis occur in the common refrainוַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב (1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25) or a variation of it (cf. 1:4, 31). Ecclesiastes 3:22 has וְרָאִיתִי כִּי אֵין טוֹב (cf. 5:17; 6:6). Additionally, the first occurrence in Genesis ofרָאָה is in the account of the creation of light. Genesis 1:4 reads, וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאוֹר כִּי־טוֹב וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין. Ecclesiastes 2:13 says, וְרָאִיתִי אָנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ יִתְרוֹן לַחָכְמָה מִן־הַסִּכְלוּת כִּיתְרוֹן הָאוֹ. Michel notes the sense of רָאָה for Qoheleth as evaluative.[44] This is also its sense in Genesis. The presence of אוֹר and חֹשֶׁךְ in both verses and the certain sustained allusion to Genesis in Eccl 2:4–11 (see below) make this verbal association all the more likely. It is further evidenced by Gen 1:31 and Eccl 1:14 (cf. Eccl 2:11 and 8:17). They respectively read,וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְהִנֵּה־טוֹב מְאֹד andרָאִיתִי אֶת־כָּל־הַמַּעֲשִׂים שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ וְהִנֵּה הַכֹּל הֶבֶל . The ordered words רָאָה, כֹּל, עָשָׂה, and הִנֵה coupled with both subjects (God and Qoheleth) evaluating “all which he had made/all the works” support the verbal link. We can attribute the difference of appraisal (“very good” vs. “vanity”) to sin and the curse (see below).

The verb קָרָא appears eleven times in Genesis. Its only use in Ecclesiastes is a marked instance which certainly recalls Genesis. In Genesis the only two subjects of קָרָא are God and Adam. And ten out of the eleven times the verb appears, they are “calling” things their names. God calls light “day,” darkness “night,” the expanse “heaven,” dry land “earth,” and gathered waters “seas” (cf. Gen 1:5 [2x], 8, 10 [2x]). In Gen 2:19–20, God brings the beasts and the birds to man “to see what he would call (יִּקְרָא) them; and whatever Adam would call (יִקְרָא) a living creature, that was its name (שְׁמוֹ). And Adam called names (וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת) to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field.”[45] Adam also calls his helper “woman,” and his wife “Eve” (וַיִּקְרא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ חַוָּה; cf. 2:23; 3:20). Ecclesiastes 6:10a, the book’s one verse with this verb, reads, מַה־שֶּׁהָיָה כְּבָר נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ. Everything that exists has already been called its name; the implication is that God and Adam did the calling. Without the Genesis background here this verse lies in obscurity. But with it, it makes sense. The coupling of קָרָא with שֵׁם, the Niphal’s silent subject, Genesis’s specific use of קָרָא, and the arguments already rehearsed and to follow concerning the Ecclesiastes-Genesis relationship in general, make a Genesis reference sure.

I argued above that Eccl 7:25–29 directly relies upon Genesis. With this in mind, it is possible that the verb מָצאָ, which occurs three times in 7:28 (8 of 17 uses of this verb are found in Eccl 7:24–29), echoes Gen 2:20 (its only occurrence in Gen 1–3). Ecclesiastes 7:28 concludes, אָדָם אֶחָד מֵאֶלֶף מָצָאתִי וְאִשָּׁה בְכָל־אֵלֶּה לֹא מָצָאתִי. Genesis 2:20, after Adam finishes naming the animals, says, וּלְאָדָם לֹא־מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ. The parallels are not exact (e.g., a helper in Genesis vs. a woman in Ecclesiastes), and I am unsure of the link myself, but it is worth mentioning.

Thus Qoheleth’s use of ברא, עשה, אכל, ראה, קרא, and possibly מצא are traceable to Genesis.[46] Moreover, from a purely statistical vantage point, the majority of the most frequent verbs in Genesis are present in Ecclesiastes, Gen 1–3’s verbs occurring 5+ (10/12); 4+ (12/15); 3+ (17/22).[47] They are: 5+—היה ,מות ,רבה ,נתן ,ברא ,ראה ,קרא ,קרא ,עשׂה ,אכל ,אמר / ,בדל לקח; 4+—זרע ,ידע/רמשׂ; 4+— יצא ,צמח ,עבד ,הלך,שׁמע/צוה ,יצר . For the verbs מות and צמח, see below.

In addition to these marked occurrences, Ecclesiastes contains all of the memorable word pairs of the creation account. שָׁמַיִם and אֶרֶץ (Gen 1:1, 15, 17, 20; 2:1, 4; Eccl 5:1); יוֹם and לַיְלָה (Gen 1:5, 14, 16, 18; Eccl 2:23; 8:16); בֹקֶר andעֶרֶב (Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; Eccl 11:6); אוֹר and חֹשֶׁךְ (Gen 1:4, 5, 18; Eccl 2:13; 11:7–8; 12:2); and טוֹב and רַע (Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; Eccl 7:3; 8:12; 12:14).[48] Each of the word pairs is found in a single verse, and some are found in more than one. That is, it is not as though “day” is found in ch. 1 and “night” is found in ch. 2. Each member of the pair is in both Eccl 2:23 and 8:16, and so on. It is true that these word pairs are somewhat common: שָׁמַיִם and אֶרֶץ (179x in the HB), יוֹם and לַילְָה (56x), בֹקֶר and עֶרֶב (44x), אוֹר and חֹשֶׁךְ (34x), and טוֹב and רַע (52x). However, the only books outside of Genesis and Ecclesiastes which contain all five pairs are Job (42 chapters), Psalms (150 psalms), and Isaiah (66 chapters). That all five appear in the twelve short chapters of Ecclesiastes, and two more than once, further supports a Genesis connection.

There are also several word clusters/phrases which the two books share. שֶׁמֶשׁ, יָרֵחַ, and כּוֹכָבִים are found in Eccl 12:2. Though Gen 1:16 refers to the sun and moon without the same terminology (“greater light” and “lesser light”), it does use כּוֹכָבִים, thus mentioning all three items in a single verse. The עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם of Gen 1:26, 28, 30; 2:19, 20 occurs in Eccl 10:20. Hertzberg also sees overlap here. Though he is aware that the phrase occurs in other places (e.g., Hos 2:20), he still rightly considers it an echo of the creation-history, it being a “stereotypical expression” of the creation account.[49] He also connects Eccl 2:5, which has another overlapping phrase,עֵץ כָּל־פֶּרִי , with Gen 1:11, 12, and 29.[50] Genesis 1:29b, וְאֶת־כָּל־הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ פְרִי־עֵץ , contains all three terms (cf. Gen 2:9, 16). Lastly, the phrase כָּל־יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ appears in Gen 3:14 and 17. There are several variations of this in Ecclesiastes: מִסְפַּר יְמֵי חַיֵּיהֶם (2:3), מִסְפַּר יְמֵי־חַיָּן (5:17), אֶת־יְמֵי חַיָּיו (5:19), מִסְפַּר יְמֵי־חַיֵּי הֶבְלֹו (6:12), יְמֵי חַיָּיו (8:15), כָל־יְמֵי חַיֵּי הֶבְלֶךָ (9:9a), and כּל יְמֵי הֶבְלֶךָ (9:9b); God is said to have given man these days in 5:17, 8:15, and 9:9. Along these lines, Hertzberg evaluates Eccl 5:16, כָּל־יָמָיו בַּחֹשֶׁךְ יֹאכֵל, as a “near paraphrase” of Gen 3:17, בְּעִצָבוֹן תֹּאכֲלֶנָּה כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ.51

Finally, there is a noticeable overlap of a handful of additional terms. They are: אֱלֹהִים (59x Gen; 40x Eccl), אִשָּׁה (17x Gen; 3x Eccl), אִישׁ (4x Gen; 10x Eccl), נָחָשׁ (5x Gen; 2x Eccl), חי (13x Gen; 20x Eccl), נֶפֶשׁ (6x Gen; 7x Eccl), מַיִם (11x Gen; 2x Eccl), יַם (4x Gen; 2x Eccl), בְּהֵמָה (5x Gen; 4x Eccl), עוֹף (8x Gen; 1x Eccl), עֵץ (20x Gen; 5x Eccl), שָׂדֶה (7x Gen; 1x Eccl), פְּרִי (7x Gen; 1x Eccl), זרע (noun and verb; 12x Gen; 3x Eccl), גַּן (13x Gen; Eccl has גַּגָּה once), דַּעַת (2x Gen; 7x Eccl), שֵׁם (6x Gen; 3x Eccl), צָוָָה (3x Gen; Eccl has מִצְוָה twice), עצב/עִצָּבוֹן (3x Gen—verb and noun; 1x Eccl—noun), עָרוֹם/עֵירֹם (4x Gen; 1x Eccl), פָּנֶה (6x Gen; 23x Eccl), עַיִן (3x Gen; 8x Eccl),בָּשָׂר (4x Gen; 5x Eccl), and עָפָר (4x Gen; 3x Eccl). From a purely statistical standpoint Ecclesiastes’s use of Genesis’s most frequent words (not counting verbs) is as follows: 5+ (24/30); 4+ (31/39); 3+ (36/48).[52]

The presence of these terms is hardly compelling by itself. The statistics are merely meant to provide an objective measure for how much of the language in Genesis is used in Ecclesiastes and to supplement the above considerations. The resultant sum of adding these statistics to the marked actions, word pairs, and word clusters argues strongly in favor of an extensive use in Ecclesiastes of the vocabulary in Genesis.[53] The compiled list of God; Adam/man; woman; snake; create; do/make; say; see; eat; die; know; sprout up; call/name; give; multiply; sow; heaven and earth; day and night; morning and evening; light and darkness; good and evil; the sun, moon, and stars; the birds of the heavens; every fruit tree; all the days of your life; life; soul; water; seas; beast; tree; field; fruit; seed/sow; garden; knowledge; name; command; pain; naked; face; eyes; flesh; and dust, in the short span of twelve chapters, is compelling.

4. Echoes/Allusions

The previous two sections on certain reliance and vocabulary overlap have already provided a few examples of what could be considered echoes/allusions: the description in 7:26 and 28 of woman as a snare/trap of אָדָם, each of the word pairs, and each of the word clusters.[54] In addition to these, there are a few other places that echo Genesis.

A common refrain, הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים הַכֹּל הָבֶל, opens and closes Qoheleth’s reflections (1:2; 12:8). The word הֶבֶל occurs consistently throughout the book, an additional thirty times. Not a few scholars have noted the possibility that the author may have had Abel (הֶבֶל) in mind. I think he certainly did.

We have already seen Qoheleth’s affinity for Genesis terminology. Along with this, though the term הֶבֶל permeates the book, outside of the common refrain (1:2; 12:8) there are only two verses that contain the word twice (8:14; 9:9). Only one verse opens and closes with the term. Ecclesiastes 8:14 begins with יֶשׁ־הֶבֶל. The description of this הֶבֶל is, “There are righteous men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked. On the other hand, there are evil men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous.” And he ends the verse reiterating his opening sentiment, שֶׁגַּם־זֶה הָבֶל.

It could be a coincidence that the one verse in the book that is bracketed by this term happens to be a perfect summary of Abel and Cain, but it seems most unlikely. Righteous Abel was murdered, but God spared wicked Cain, even protected him, though each deserved the opposite (cf. Gen 4:1–15). The thought had evidently greatly affected Qoheleth. As Eccl 7:15 similarly reads, “I have seen everything during my lifetime of futility (בִּימֵי הֶבְלִי); there is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his wickedness.” There is good reason to think that Abel epitomized הֶבֶל in Ecclesiastes, making him an appropriate fixed allusion throughout the book.[55]

A sustained allusion is also present in Eccl 2. Commenting on vv. 4–11, Clemens writes, “The language of this section evokes that of God’s creative activity, especially with reference to Eden.”[56] He adduces the following list: “‘make, etc.’: 12 times in Gn. 1–3 of God, 6 times in E 2:4–11 of Q[oheleth]; ‘plant’: Gn. 2:8, E 2:4, 5; ‘garden’: 13 times in Gn. 1–3, E 2:5; ‘tree’: 20 times in Gn. 1–3, E 2:5, 6; ‘fruit’: 7 times in Gn. 1–3, E 2:5; ‘water’: 10 times in Gn. 1 (cf. 2:10–14), E 2:6; ‘to water’: Gn. 2:6, 10, E 2:6; ‘sprout, grow’: Gn. 2:5, 9 (cf. 3:18), E 2:6; ‘gold’: Gn. 2:11, 12, E 2:8.”[57] Arian Verheij, focusing his study on Eccl 2:4–6, also noticed an overlap of terms: עשׂה ,צמח ,להשׁקות ,גן ,נטע, and עץ כל־פרי. He concludes, “In its actual wording this passage is a paraphrase of the planting of the Garden of Eden, with indeed Qohelet himself as subject, instead of God.”[58]

With these lists firmly fixing these verses of Ecclesiastes in Eden, it is more than likely that the phrase “all that my eyes desired I did not refuse them” in 2:10 is meant to evoke Eve’s encounter with the fruit of the tree which “was a delight to the eyes” (Gen 3:6). Further, Qoheleth’s godlike accomplishment of work ends with an evaluation, like Gen 1:31 (see above). In v. 11 he writes, וּפָנִיתִיּ אֲנִי בְּכָל־מַעֲשַׂי יָדַי וּבֶעָמָל שֶׁעָמַלְתִּי לַעֲשׂוֹת וְהִנֵּה הַכֹּל הֶבֶל וּרְעוּת רוּח וְאֵין יִתְרוֹן תַּחַת הַשָּמֶשׁ. He appraises all the works of his hands as הֶבֶל, having no יִתְרוֹן. So he sets himself to evaluate wisdom (v. 12) and finds that there is יִתְרוֹן that belongs to wisdom over foolishness, as there is יִתְרוֹן that belongs to light over darkness (v. 13). The allusion to Genesis lasts from v. 4 to v. 13.

Another passage that echoes Genesis is Eccl 10:8–9, 11. Here, Qoheleth is considering the absurdity of trouble which accompanies common labor. He says, “He who digs a pit may fall into it, and a serpent [נָחָשׁ] may bite him who breaks through a wall. He who quarries stones may be hurt [יֵעָצֵב] by them, and he who splits logs may be endangered by them.… If the serpent [הַנָּחָשׁ] bites when there is no charming, even so there is no profit for the serpent.”[59]

The termנָחָשׁ appears five times in Gen 3 (vv. 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14). Although it is not extremely uncommon outside of Genesis (41x), to find it used twice in the span of four verses is unusual (though, admittedly, not unheard of; cf. 2 Sam 17:25, 27; Isa 27:1).

The root עצב is also present in Gen 3; in two noun forms, עֶצֶב and עִצָּבוֹן. In 3:16, God’s punishment of Eve, the root appears twice, הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים Adam is punished in 3:17, where it occurs again, אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ בְּעִצָּבוֹן תּאֹכֲלֶנָּה כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ. In addition to the lexical overlap, Adam’s punishment is particularly relevant for the present context in Ecclesiastes. It is in pain that he will sustain himself by work. The pain of work is precisely what Qoheleth is contemplating: digging pits, breaking walls, quarrying stones, splitting logs, and their possible dangers. The above-noticed word cluster’s presence at the end of Gen 3:17, כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ, a favorite of Qoheleth’s, makes this echo of Eccl 10:8–9, 11 more convincing.

In summary, the echo of Abel brackets and permeates the book. The allusions to Eden, its fruit, its temptation, and creation checker ch. 2. And the presence of the serpent and painful labor in Eccl 10 alludes to Gen 3. Adding these to Eccl 7’s woman-snare and the word pairs and clusters comprises an impressive lot of Genesis echoes/allusions.[60]

5. Topical Overlap

Ecclesiastes has a perceptible preoccupation with several topics. Taking into consideration the information above, along with Genesis’s own concern with the topics, it is highly conceivable that Qoheleth’s obsession can be attributed to the early chapters of Genesis. They are: toilsome work, death, and knowledge.

Work is rampant in Ecclesiastes. Anderson writes, “The use of ‘ml (22 times) and m‘sh (14 times) totals 36 direct references to work or toil in Qoheleth.”[61] He further observes,

Much of Qoheleth deals with the frustrations of work. These can be either in general (1:3–11; 2:17–23, 26b; 3:1, 2b, 3b, 5a, 7a, 9–15, 22; 5:17–18; 8:15c–16; 9:9d–11), in intellectual pursuits (1:13–18; 7:23–25; 12:9–12), in business and achievements (2:4–26; 4:4–10; 5:9–16; 6:1–9; 11:1–6) or in politics (3:15c–17; 4:1–3, 13–16; 5:6–7; 7:6–9; 8:1–10:20).… The one concept they all have in common is the sheer toilsomeness of their activities ‘under the sun.’ Everything is at utter odds with each other. Even when things work out, fate and death can and do overturn their yithron, i.e., their ‘profit’ or ‘advantage.’[62]

Work’s painful nature originated in Gen 3 (as seen above). The previous section argued for an allusion in Eccl 10 to the pain of work in Gen 3. This gives us textual contact for a link between the two books regarding this topic which goes beyond conceptual likeness. It also gives us reason to think Qoheleth had Genesis in mind for his work ruminations. The meaning of the term Qoheleth uses to refer to toil, עמל (noun and verb), supports this conclusion.

The root עמל shows up forty-one times outside of Ecclesiastes. Its most frequent parallel is אָוֶן (Num 23:21; Job 4:8; 5:6; 15:35; Ps 7:15; 10:7; 55:11; 90:10; Isa 10:1; 59:4; Hab 1:3); trouble, sorrow, wickedness.[63] It also parallels or is closely grouped with שֶׁקֶר (Ps 7:15), חָמָס (Ps 7:17; Hab 1:3), כַּעַס (Ps 10:15), הַוָּה (Ps 94:20), רָע (Hab 1:13), יָגוֹן (Jer 20:18), שָׁוְא (Job 7:3; Isa 59:4), שׁוֹד (Prov 24:2; Hab 1:3), רֵישׁ (Prov 31:7), עֲנִי (Deut 26:7; Ps 25:18), לַחַץ (Deut 26:7), and מַר (Job 3:20), all of which have negative connotations (e.g., vexation, affliction, oppression, etc.). It is used to sum up the trouble that Joseph’s life saw (Gen 41:51), the forced labor of Israel in Egypt (Deut 26:7), and the oppression of Israel under the Ammonites and Philistines (Judg 10:16). In a few places it occurs to describe common labor (Judg 5:26; Ps 105:44; 127:1; Jonah 4:10). Though Qoheleth uses the term to refer to common labor “under the sun” (e.g., 1:3; 2:10–11; 2:21; 3:9; 5:17; 8:15), it is a labor that he ultimately claims to hate (2:18). And though God does give joy through this labor (2:10, 24; 3:13; 5:18–19; 8:15), in the final analysis it is a toil that yields no profit (cf. 1:3; 2:11, 22; 3:9; 5:15) and is vanity and a striving after wind (2:11). Its product is left to someone else in death (2:18, 21). It gives reason for despair (2:20), is less valuable than ease or quietness (4:6), and has the wind as its pursuit (5:16). Qoheleth seems to have merged the two senses of עמל, an afflicted, vexed, sorrowful, troublesome, common labor. In short, Qoheleth’s use of עמל encapsulates the curse of common work recounted in Genesis.

Next, there is a remarkable recurrence of death throughout the book. It shows itself as early as 1:4, “A generation goes and a generation comes.” From here it continually and consistently shows up: 1:11; 2:3, 9, 12, 14–23; 3:1, 3, 18–22; 4:2, 16; 5:15–16, 18, 20; 6:3, 6, 12; 7:1–4, 14–15, 17, 26; 8:8, 10, 13; 9:2–6, 9–10, 12; 10:1, 14; 11:8, 10. At the end of Qoheleth’s reflections is the poem of 12:1–8, which ends with the refrain (12:8) and the most fitting conclusion to his book of death (12:7), “then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.”[64]

As with the topic of painful toil, there is textual contact which links the notion of death in Ecclesiastes with that of Genesis (3:20; 12:7; see above under “Certain Reliance”). This non-coincidentally forged canal supports the plausibility that the superabundant references to death in Ecclesiastes spring from the waters of Genesis. Qoheleth apparently had been disturbed greatly by God’s kept promise that mankind would surely die if they disobeyed him (cf. Gen 2:17; 3:19; 5:1).

The final notable topical correspondence is knowledge. Unlike painful work and death, there is no text, so far as I know, that directly links the two books. Nevertheless, given everything that has been argued thus far, it seems unlikely that the preoccupation with knowledge in Ecclesiastes (יָדַע, 36x; דַּעַת, 7x) has nothing whatever to do with the significant role knowledge plays in Genesis (i.e., the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, 2:9, 17, and the snake’s statement that man will become like God, knowing good and evil, 3:5; cf. 3:22). In support of this, Clemens notes, “The participial form used in Gn. 3:5 (‘knowing’) occurs most frequently within the OT in [Ecclesiastes] (14 times).”[65] If there is a relationship, what is it?

Ecclesiastes 8:16–17 embodies Qoheleth’s attitude towards certain knowledge: “When I gave my heart to know wisdom and to see the task which has been done on earth … I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, ‘I know,’ he cannot discover.” Complete knowledge is elusive. I say “complete knowledge” because, though at times Qoheleth throws his hands up in the air asking “who knows?” (e.g., 3:21; 6:12) and flatly claims that certain things no man knows (e.g., 10:14; 11:2, 5), there are also things he does claim to know (e.g., 2:14; 3:12, 14; 8:12). Still, “the ultimate issues of existence are shrouded in mystery.”[66]

In contrast to man’s limited knowledge of, for instance, what awaits him, is God’s having everything in his hand (cf. 9:1, 12). Perhaps then, if there is an existing overlap, it is in the contrast between God’s and man’s knowledge: “Just as you do not know the path of the wind and how bones are formed in the womb of the pregnant woman, so you do not know the activity of God who makes all things” (Eccl 11:5). Though man may have become like God knowing good and evil (cf. Gen 3:22), he did not ascend to omniscience.[67] The chasm between God’s and man’s knowledge, as intimated in Gen 3:5, is still present, and Qoheleth is aware of it. If there is a link, though I want to stress this as a tentative proposal, it seems to be along these lines.

So then, a strong case can be made that two of the major topics of Ecclesiastes, painful labor and death, stream straight from Genesis. Knowledge too, though more open to criticism, is likely traceable to the same source. All in all, adding these considerations to the existence of creational bookends; the places of certain reliance; shared vocabulary including marked verbs, word clusters, and word pairs; and echoes/allusions, completes the case for the pervasive influence of the early chapters of Genesis on the Book of Ecclesiastes.

V. Some Concluding Analysis

A full analysis of the above material deserves its own article. Nonetheless, I would like to offer some initial thoughts on the matter and express where the data has brought me in my own reading of the Book of Ecclesiastes.

In addition to the particular verses that are unexplainable apart from Genesis (e.g., 7:24–29; see above), there are a handful of connections which have something in common and lead to the conclusion that first and foremost, when it comes to Genesis’s interpretational influence on Ecclesiastes, readers of Ecclesiastes should understand the book as a whole against the background of a cursed world, that is, in light of Adam’s fall into sin and God’s subsequent judgment of death and toil. Basically, Ecclesiastes is doing and evaluating wisdom in the context of a fallen, cursed world. While I am not alone in drawing this conclusion, it is my hope that the evidence presented above serves to further undergird the appropriateness of it.[68]

The quotes of Eccl 3:20 and 12:7 (dust to dust) come from Gen 3:17, Adam’s death penalty. Ecclesiastes 7:29 (“God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices”) recalls man’s first sin (Gen 3). And its surrounding verses (Eccl 7:26 and 28) bring to mind Eve’s entrapment of Adam to sin (cf. Gen 3:17), described as “more bitter than death” (Eccl 7:26). Each of these focuses on death and disobedience resulting in death.

The prominent/recurring allusions/word clusters can be fixed in the same setting. In Ecclesiastes variations on the phrase “all the days of your life” (8x) picks up the curse of man in Gen 3:17. He will eat in toil all the days of his life. Two of the most noticeable parts of the Eden scene in Eccl 2, “tree of every fruit” and “I did not keep back from my eyes all they desired,” bring to mind Eve’s encounter with the fruit of the tree and her transgression. The pain of work and serpent duo of Eccl 10 reminds us of the serpent’s role in Eden and one of the curses of judgment, toilsome labor. The focal points of these echoes are the curse of man’s work (i.e., painful labor), transgression, and death, adding only one new member (painful labor) to the mix.

Two of the obsessions in Ecclesiastes, death and toil, link directly with the fall and its consequences. Their constant recurrence makes an impression on the whole of the book, rather than bits and pieces. That is, the isolated explicit correspondences that take us back to the first sin and the curse (e.g., 3:20, 7:29, and 12:7) have their interpretational influence dispersed by the recurring themes. Death and toil are what occupy Qoheleth’s mind throughout. The particular verses point us back to Genesis and inform us why: because Adam sinned, God cursed man, and that has pervaded everything.

Some additional texts seem to bear out the fall-curse setting. The ending to the epilogue takes on an additional weight when read against this context. “Fear God and keep his commandments.… For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (Eccl 12:13–14). If the absurd death-plagued world of Ecclesiastes is the result of the first man’s disobedience to a commandment of God, then there are very good and tangible reasons to fear him and his pending judgment.

The fact that God has given man עִנְיַן רָע makes good sense in the fall context. As does 7:13, “See the work of God. Who can make straight what he has made crooked?” (cf. 1:15). In short, I think if someone asked Qoheleth the questions—Why is everything הֶבֶל? Why is there a lack of profit to certain things? Why are wisdom’s benefits tempered? Why do good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people? Why death? Why toil? Why trouble?—he would respond: Because God gave Adam a commandment and he disobeyed. And God cursed him and his posterity, and subjected the world to futility.

Notes

1. Others include Babylonian, Persian, and Palestinian Hellenistic backgrounds. For a discussion of various proposed influences, see C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes, AB 17 (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 12-36, 60-69.
2. Concerning Eccl 3:20, he writes, “In der Tat scheinen die Entsprechungen zwischen Qoh 3, 20 … und Gen 2, 7; 3, 19 … am besten durch die Annahme eines Einflusses erklärbar” (Diethelm Michel, Qohelet [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988], 70).
3. “Er mag dann zwar wie jeder Mensch von erlernten Begriffen und Vorstellungen seiner religiösen Tradition abhängig sein und sie in seinem Sprachschatz verwenden—daß sie aber eine wesentliche Funktion für den Inhalt seiner eigenen (philosophischen!) Konzeption hätten, ist nirgends ersichtlich” (ibid., 72). The material presented here significantly enlarges upon Forman and Hertzberg and is not susceptible to the same critique.
4. Ronald E. Murphy and Elizabeth Huwiler, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, NIBCOT 17-19 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999).
5. Seow, Ecclesiastes, 67.
6. Roland E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC 23a (Dallas: Word, 1992), xlvi. See also pp. 37 and 120.
7. Ibid., lxvii, 35.
8. Duncan Black MacDonald, The Hebrew Literary Genius: An Interpretation Being an Introduction to the Reading of the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1933), 200-201.
9. Ibid., 111, 201-3, 207.
10. Ibid., 201, 204-5.
11. Charles C. Forman, “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” JSS 5 (1960): 256-63. At least this is true in the case of American scholarship. Hertzberg has had more influence in German studies.
12. Charles C. Forman, “The Pessimism of Ecclesiastes,” JSS 3 (1958): 336-43.
13. Forman, “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” 256. Forman acknowledges MacDonald’s work on the relationship between the two books but still comments, “The influence of the philosophy of the first eleven chapters of Genesis … has been suggested more than once, but so far as the present writer knows it has never been traced in detail” (ibid).
14. Ibid.
15. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg and Hans Bardtke, Der Prediger/Das Buch Esther, KAT 17/4-5 (Stuttgart: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1963), 230: “Es ist kein Zweifel: das Buch Qoh ist geschrieben mit Gn 1-4 vor den Augen seines Verfassers.”
16. See below. Some of his connections are used and enlarged upon throughout this article.
17. William H. U. Anderson, “The Curse of Work in Qoheleth: An Exposé of Genesis 3:17-19 in Ecclesiastes,” EvQ 70 (1998): 99.
18. Radisa Antic could also be included in this group. His study relies heavily upon the ideas of French scholars, which ideas for the most part are far-fetched and thus excluded from consideration. For further discussion, see below. Antic’s study tries to show “how the characteristics portrayed respectively by Cain, Abel, and Seth reappear in the book of Ecclesiastes” (Radisa Antic, “Cain, Abel, Seth, and the Meaning of Human Life as Portrayed in the Books of Genesis and Ecclesiastes,” AUSS 44 [2006]: 204).
19. David M. Clemens, “The Law of Sin and Death: Ecclesiastes and Genesis 1-3, ” Them 19 (1994): 5.
20. Bernard Maurer, “The Book of Ecclesiastes as a Derash of Genesis 1-4: A Study in Old Testament Literary Dependency” (PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007), ix.
21. Ibid., x.
22. For further brief discussion and evaluation of the relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and Ecclesiastes, see Walther Zimmerli, “The Place and Limit of the Wisdom in the Framework of the Old Testament Theology,” SJT 17 (1964): 155-56; Robert Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and His World (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), 43; Robert K. Johnston, “Confessions of a Workaholic: A Reappraisal of Qoheleth,” CBQ 38 (1976): 22-23; Michael V. Fox and Bezalel Porten, “Unsought Discoveries: Qoheleth 7:23-8:1, ” HS 19 (1978): 33; Hagia Witzenrath, Süß ist das Licht: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung zu Koh 11, 7-12, 7 (St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1979), 40-43; Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 46, 58; Ardel B. Caneday, “Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist or Godly Sage?,” Grace Theological Journal 7 (1986): 30-31, 37-38, 41-44, 51-54; Michel, Qohelet, 68-72; Duane Garrett, Ecclesiastes, NAC 14 (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 278-79; Philip Chia, “Wisdom, Yahwism, Creation: In Quest of Qoheleth’s Theological Thought,” JianDao 3 (1995): 21-24. The comments in each of these works on the Genesis-Ecclesiastes relationship (with the exception of Fox and Porten) mainly depend on a study listed in the body of each work, especially Hertzberg and/or Forman, and for the most part do not go beyond their observations.
23. Some prominent commentators on Ecclesiastes can be classified as follows: (1) Michel, Huwiler; (2) Barton, Lauha, Fox, Seow, Murphy, Longman, Horne; (3) Hertzberg, Eaton, Garrett, Zimmerli, Krüger, Schwienhorst-Schönberger; (4) none (though perhaps Krüger could be properly placed between groups 3 and 4). Fox probably falls somewhere between 1 and 2.
24. Contra Clemens, I do not think Ecclesiastes is an “exposition of Genesis 1-3.” I would also hesitate to affirm without exception Maurer’s statement that “the thought of the book [Ecclesiastes] is guided and predicated on” Gen 1-4. Thus, their conclusions go beyond what this article argues.
25. As mentioned in n. 11 above, it appears that Hertzberg has influenced German scholarship more than American. And though Forman has had some influence in America, it is not to a great extent. Forman’s connections are not as vocabulary-based as Hertzberg’s (they are idea-based), which could account for their lack of persuasion. See Michel’s critique of both in Qohelet, 68-72.
26. Though a reference to God as Creator here has been disputed, the objection is forced. As Fox comments, “Various emendations have been suggested, but they are made unnecessary by the observation of Gilbert (1981:100) that in this context to think on one’s creator is to think of death, for, as 12:7 says, the life-spirit must go back to the one who gave it” (Michael V. Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, JSOTSup 71 [Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989], 300).
27. Hertzberg, DerPrediger, 228: “[es] wird in Qoh 12, 2, genau wie in dem Schöpfungsbericht, zwischen Licht und Himmelskörpern (Sonne, Mond, und Sterne) unterschieden.” Murphy (as noted above) and many others also make this observation.
28. The remainder of the book (12:9-14) consists of an epilogue. Eccl 1:1-3 consists of an authorship ascription (1:1), the refrain (1:2), and an introductory question leading into the initial discourse (1:3).
29. The objection could be raised that both books relied on a third source. Since there is no textual evidence for this source, however, it seems less likely and can only be speculated upon. There is no compelling reason not to assume that the parallels are reasonably accounted for by the reliance of Ecclesiastes on Genesis.
30. So also Hertzberg. “das אל־האדמה der Genesis hat in dem על־הארץ Qoh’s sein genaues Gegenstück” (Der Prediger, 229). For an additional analysis of 12:7 and its correlation with Genesis, see Witzenrath, Süß ist das Licht, 40-42.
31. Anderson goes furthest, promoting the “linguistic dependence” of 3:20 and 12:7 on Gen 3:19 (“Curse of Work,” 101).
32. Michel, Qohelet, 70. Unlike most of the other studies, however, he does not mention Eccl 12:7.
33. Forman, “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” 259.
34. So Thomas Krüger, Qoheleth, BKAT (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 149. Also F. J. Backhaus, as cited by Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Kohelet, HThKAT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004), 407. Fox and Porten comment, “The Midrash (Qoh Rab, 7, §50) and the Targum regard 7:29 as a reference to Gen 3. God made the first man straight, but when Eve joined him, then they sought [חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת] (which Rashi, who follows the Midrash here, interprets as ‘plots and thoughts of sin’)” (Fox and Porten, “Unsought Discoveries,” 33).
35. Gen 3 does not use the word חָכְמָה. The closest association to wisdom there is the root שׂכל.
36. Fox and Porten, “Unsought Discoveries,” 33.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Clemens, “Sin and Death,” 7.
40. Garrett, Ecclesiastes, 324.
41. Fox and Porten, “Unsought Discoveries,” 33.
42. This is not to say that every time אָדָםoccurs in Ecclesiastes a Genesis reference is present. It certainly is not. But it is possible that echoes of Genesis are meant in some cases, as in the case above, and perhaps a faint echo is meant throughout the whole of the book even if the particular instances are not primarily concerned with Genesis.
43. Hertzberg comments on the aptness of the placement of בָּרָא, the “key creation-term,” towards the end of the book as seemingly unmotivated but especially applicable: “Es wird schon begreiflich, dass das scheinbar unmotivierte ‘Schöpfer’ in 12, 1 durchaus berechtigt ist. בראist ja der wichtigste Schöpfungsterminus und für Qoh, wie wir sahen, besonders zutreffend” (Der Prediger, 230).
44. Diethelm Michel, Untersuchungen zur Eigenhart des Buches Qohelet, BZAW 183 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 26.
45. Translations are mine.
46. Not every use of all these terms, but some of all and all of some.
47. That is, there are twelve verbs that appear five or more times in Gen 1-3, and Ecclesiastes has ten of them, etc. Obviously, some of these verbs are too common to be considered significant (e.g., היהand אמר).
48. Eccl 12:2 has the verb חָשַׁךְ with the noun אוֹר.
49. “An die Schöpfungsgeschichte kann in Qoh die Wendung עוף השׁמים erinnern: 10, 20. Allerdings kommt sie auch sonst im AT vor (Hos 2, 20, Dt, Ez u. ö.); aber sie stellt einen stereotypen Ausdruck der Schöpfungsgeschichte dar (Gn 1, 26.28.30; 2, 19.20; vgl. Gn 6, 7; 7, 23; 9, 2; Ps 104, 12)” (Hertzberg, DerPrediger, 228).
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., 229.
52. I have excluded the following items from these statistics: אין ,לא ,טרם ,כל ,את ,כן ,כי ו ,עתה ,הן ,מי ,אי ,פן ,בד ,שׁם prepositions, pronouns, Eden, Pishon, Havilah, Gihon, Cush, Tigris, Euphrates, and Assyria.
53. This section was formulated by observing which of the words in Genesis appear in Ecclesiastes. I am not suggesting that Qoheleth limited himself to the Genesis vocabulary, only that he extensively used it.
54. I use the terms “echo” and “allusion” interchangeably from here on. I have in mind any portion of Ecclesiastes, more than a single word but less than an extended quote, that recalls the early chapters of Genesis.
55. Antic’s study defends this connection more than any other I have seen; see “Cain, Abel, Seth,” 207-9. The French authors he quotes (and Antic himself) certainly go too far in their proposed effect of Cain, Abel, and Seth on Ecclesiastes, but I think he is right to defend the Abel connection. Hertzberg calls the argument of André Neher (Notes sur Qohelet [Paris: Minuit, 1951], 71-79), which Antic picks up, “nichts als geistreiche Spielerei” (Hertzberg, Der Prediger, 229n17). Cf. Jacques Ellul, Reason for Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes, trans. Joyce Main Hanks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 58-60. Ellul, like Antic, promotes Neher.
56. Clemens, “Sin and Death,” 6.
57. Ibid., n. 12.
58. Arian Verheij, “Paradise Retried: On Qohelet 2:4-6, ” JSOT 50 (1991): 114.
59. The translation of v. 11 is difficult. Taking the phrase הַלָּשׁוֹןלְבַעַל as a reference to the נָחָשׁ at the beginning of the verse is not the standard interpretation. But it finds ample support in 10:20, where הַכְּנָפַיִםוּבַעַל clearly refers to birds. In any case, the important point here is the repeated use of נָחָשׁ.
60. There is possibly an echo of Gen 1 in Eccl 3:11. Both James Crenshaw and Hertzberg think the beginning of Eccl 3:11, בְעִתּוֹ יָפֶה עָשָׂה אֶת־הַכּלֹ , recalls “die stereotype Bewertung der Schöpfung,” especially, according to Hertzberg, Gen 1:31, “and God saw everything which he had made, and behold, it was exceedingly good” (DerPrediger, 229-30). Crenshaw thinks it is “undoubtedly reminiscent of Genesis 1” (James L. Crenshaw, “The Eternal Gospel (Eccl. 3:11),” in Essays in Old Testament Ethics, ed. James L. Crenshaw and John T. Willis [New York: Ktav, 1974], 28). The LXX apparently agrees. It has καλός for יפֶָה. For an extended discussion, see Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Kohelet, 263-65.
61. Anderson, “Curse of Work,” 102.
62. Ibid, 106; cf. Clemens, “Sin and Death,” 6.
63. BDB s.v. “און.”
64. For an extended discussion of previous interpretations and the particulars of the poem, see Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 281-310.
65. Clemens, “Sin and Death,” 7n16.
66. Forman, “Koheleth’s Use of Genesis,” 261.
67. The meaning of what it is for man “to know good and evil” (in Gen 3:5, 22) is debated. For detailed treatments, see Robert Gordis, “The Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls,” JBL 76 (1957): 123-38; Herold S. Stern, “Knowledge of Good and Evil,” VT 8 (1958), 405-18.
68. Some commentators (e.g., Eaton) draw the same conclusion seemingly based on Forman’s work alone. But Forman’s work has been rightly criticized by Michel, and many of his connections are tenuous at best. Maurer’s work comes to a similar conclusion, and it is founded upon much better grounds. See his dissertation, “Book of Ecclesiastes as a Derash of Genesis 1-4.”