Review: Ecclesiastes and the search for meaning in an upside-down world

It took a while but my copy of Russell Meek's "Ecclesiastes and the Search for Meaning in an Upside-Down World" finally arrived, and this afternoon I set aside some time to read it. It's only a short book, coming in at 69 pages, and with three easily digestible chapters.

So what is this book? It's part autobiography, part thematic commentary and part encouragement to live well under the sun. From my internet interactions and observations, Russ has always been one to wear his heart on his sleeve, and he wants to share his own story, not as voyeurism or triumphalism, but to show how Qohelet struggles just like us, to understand real issues in the real world. Qohelet's world is not so different from our own; he simply is not afraid to call it out. 

The first chapter, "The Genesis shape of Ecclesiastes," brings his 2016 article, "Fear God and Enjoy His Gifts: Qohelet's Edenic Vision of Life," to a popular audience, and proceeds to take us through the intertextual links between the opening chapters of Genesis and Ecclesiastes. I'm grateful for how Russ filled this out, as the creation thread in Ecclesiastes is very important for me in understanding how the world, despite everything, remains good. Russ acknowledges that not every link will convince or even be noticed by everyone, but he puts forward a very strong argument, and demonstrates how seeing these links expands our reading of Ecclesiastes.

The second chapter, "Abel and the meaning of 'Vanity,'" reworks a 2013 chapter from "The Words of the Wise are like Goads," and explores the fascinating suggestion that to best understand הבל (vanity) in Ecclesiastes, the link to Abel (also הבל) must be understood. I found his biblical survey enlightening for the use of this term in Ecclesiastes, and this again helps the reader better understand the frustration encountered by Qohelet.

The final chapter, "From here, where? Enjoy God and his Gifts" takes another aspect of his 2016 article, and in particular discusses 12:13-14 as the key to the whole book. Here Russ really builds on the idea of covenant, and shows how the fear of God is a good thing, showing us how to live well in this world, in right relationship with our creator. As a concluding chapter, this was both lighter from a scholarly aspect, but also much more pointed from a theological aspect. 

Ecclesiastes is indeed such a powerful book; it deals with the real world, in an eyes-wide-open kind of way, asking real questions, grappling with real struggles, but always returning to the creator God, the giver of all good gifts, to ground us and give us true hope.

Although I paid for the book myself, I'm still really thankful to Russ for putting this together, and I look forward to commending it to anyone grappling with Ecclesiastes and the questions it raises. 

Review of Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs

GEORGE ATHAS, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2020) pp 400. Hardcover. $45.23.

 

 

With Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, George Athas provides his own contribution to the Story of God Bible Commentary series. Unique to this commentary is situating both Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs in the Greek era; the introductions explain why he believes Ecclesiastes was written under the hopelessness of the Ptolemaic occupation in the 220s BCE, and Song of Songs under the pressures of Hellenisation in the final days of the Seleucid occupation in the 160s BCE. The second part in each section, “Explain the Story”, both tackles important exegetical questions but also shows how the historical context shapes the text and our interpretation of it. 

Athas uses the introduction of Ecclesiastes as well as the “Listen to the Story” sections to spell out his suggestion of a Davidic descendant writing in the 220s under Ptolemaic rule in the context of the chief priest Onias II’s misjudged leveraging of the Seleucid kingdom and the devastating impacts that had on the Jewish people. Athas does not suggest an identity for Qohelet beyond a Davidic descendant, but suggests they were still aware of their royal blood and, while they were not a king, were things to have run differently they might well have been. They write as one who would be king according to God’s promise, yet with no hope of being king because of circumstance. This enables them to evaluate the foreign rulers and local leaders such as Onias and Joseph Tobias and to point out their many failures. The book’s hebel motto thus outweighs any provisional carpe diem statements as God has shown himself unwilling to intervene and help his people. 

The background to Song of Songs are the actions of Jason and Menelaus, along with Antiochus’s response in removing the special religious status of the Jews. The Solomon character represents pressures of Hellenisation, the shepherd boy Yhwh, and the woman Israel who desires to be loyal to Yhwh but is fighting a losing battle against Hellenisation. This historical specificity makes for an engaging reading of the Song as a story, situating it in a time and place of extreme pressures, and also explains the need for oblique allusions to refer to people, places and God. While not all interpreters will agree with this reading, Athas has set a new standard in suggesting and demonstrating the viability of quite a precise dating. 

When it comes to structure, I was disappointed that none of the recent advances in Ecclesiastes studies made any impression on this book (on this, see my own Seeing what Qohelet Saw). He makes brief mention of the frame, which Athas believes to be late, but in agreement with Qohelet. Otherwise he has essentially broken the book up into preaching units, suggesting instead that “[t]here is no clear literary seam between these stages. The whole movement gives a sense of uncontrolled, heavy descent into darkness and oblivion, capturing perfectly Qohelet’s sense of the fate of humanity and, more particularly, the Jewish nation.” (41) In Song of Songs he made a strong case for the different speakers throughout, but this didn’t noticeably impact the structure; the focus remained on the story. 

Evidently however, structure was not his concern; where this commentary breaks new ground is its consistent application of the historical specificity. Dating Ecclesiastes to the Ptolemaic era was foreshadowed in his 2019 Biblica article on 4:13–16, building on Barbour’s 2012 monograph, as well as Schunck’s 1959 article which suggested that it would be natural for details of the era to be hidden within the book. Athas demonstrates how an understanding of the key movers of the second half of the third century BC brings much more clarity to the otherwise ambiguous declarations and descriptions. To approach the book with such specificity is not one taken by any major commentary series I have yet come across, as most take the author and date to be unknowable beyond someone some vague time period within the second temple period, and this will be where future interaction to this book should come in response. What is unclear is whether the jury, who have essentially decided the date cannot be known, will be swayed to reconsider their agnosticism. That is, while this approach to dating seems plausible, the ambiguities and lack of any explicit referents in the text makes it doubtful whether this will be taken up beyond being referred to as a fascinating conjecture.

When it came to the “Live the Story” sections of Ecclesiastes, a dichotomy was drawn between “Qohelet liv[ing] in a ‘BC’ world” (162), and us who “live in an ‘AD’ world” (193). Now, of course this is true, but the way it was emphasised does raise some important canonical questions of what it means to read Scripture on its own terms. Again, this is not to say Christians cannot or should not read the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus, but to draw a distinction in the way Athas has diminishes the testimony of Ecclesiastes on its own. According to this pessimistic reading, Qohelet affirms that life truly is meaningless, but Jesus tells him he is wrong. The way Athas squares this circle is to insist that Qohelet views the world under the sun, whereas Jesus views the world under the heavens (under the heavens being the viewpoint only available to God); Qohelet’s view is provisional, Jesus’ is complete. If we met Qohelet today, “we might wish to point [him] to Jesus” (193). All that being said, this book is unashamedly a Christian reading of Scripture, and demonstrates one way to do so for those (probably the majority) who do read Ecclesiastes pessimistically. 

This new commentary is essential reading for anyone studying Ecclesiastes or Song of Songs as it presents and shows in practice what it looks like to read these books as from a specific time and place; Athas’s wonderful storytelling throughout reveals both Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs to be telling consistent and coherent stories. Reading this book should be an encouragement to all readers to open up Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs again and with fresh eyes.  

Errata

 As I've been going through Ecclesiastes again, I noticed an error in my book. 

On p50 I wrote: 

"in 4:1 there is a fourfold use of עשׁק (to oppress), which occurs four times as a participle, albeit in different forms each time,"

It's clearly only thrice. In trying to understand why I made this error, I think I must have misread נַעֲשִׂים (from עשה) as הָעֲשֻׁקִים (from עשק). It's also possible that my brain was looking for groups of four - in the same paragraph I discuss 4:4 and "four near-synonyms for work." 

If you want to fix it, perhaps the paragraph should read,

This similar formula is seen with את־כל (twice in 4:4), and then patterns of three: in 4:1 there is a triple use of עשׁק (to oppress), which occurs three times as a participle, albeit in different forms each time, while in 4:4 the pattern of three is made up of three synonyms for work, with מעשׂה, ,כשׁרון ,עמל as well as, for a potential fourth, what Qohelet describes as work’s functional equivalent, namely כי הוא קנאת־אישׁ מרעהו (for this is one’s envy over their friend).

I'm not sure how it got through so many readings and readers, but there you go. I also still need to track down the library copy of my MTh and fix a separate typo there (which thankfully I caught before the published version). 

The unfilled eye - Ecclesiastes 1:8; 4:8

I'm working through Ecclesiastes again for a daily devotion thing I'm sending out, and noticed a phrase pop up again which I hadn't previously. It's "the eye(s) is(are) not filled." 

It's an odd phrase because we don't think about eyes being filled, although it's not hard to make sense of it. It's also missed because the two occurrences are translated differently. In 1:8 the NIV has "the eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing." (has enough represents the verb שׂבע.) In 4:8 it comes across a little differently, "there was no end to his toil, yet his eyes were not content with his wealth. (not content represents the verb שׂבע.)

As you can see (no pun intended), the same verb with the same subject represents two different subjects which can never fill one's eyes. In the opening poem, it is the ever-changing world and innumerable experiences which can never fill the eyes. In the observation of the lonely man in chapter 4, it is greed which is the bottomless hole. Of course, it could be that greed for experiences in chapter 1 is what binds the two expressions together. Although it is described as wearying in chapter 1, it could well be that this is the reflection of someone who has spent life trying to experience enough (like Faust, perhaps) and has reached a point when they have lost all desire to learn anything or experience anything new (like the end of The Good Place, perhaps). 

It was also interesting to chase this phrase a bit further. "Not filled" is a phrase which occurs some 20 times in the Old Testament, fairly evenly divided between the prophets and the writings (only once in the Pentateuch, Lev. 26.26). 

Mostly the description of what one cannot be filled with (moving now beyond just the eye) is food as a punishment. "You will eat but not be satisfied" is the common way of expressing this. Usually a punishment, it can also be Yhwh's means of testing - when they realise this, will they turn back to me?

The next most common way this phrase is used is to do with idolatry, as people went whoring after the nations or after greed, but as they did so and were not satisfied, their idolatry was exposed. They pursued something they thought would satisfy their desires but were left nonetheless with a bottomless hole, a gaping pit that could not be filled. 

One interesting unsatisfiable was Sheol/Abbadon, which could not be satisfied with death. I'm not sure if this is negative or nature - if probably depends on the context (eg Prov 30:15-16). There was also one positive, which was Job's conative use, asking whether anyone ever went away from his feasts not satisfied (expecting the answer "no"). 

But for me it's the greed-idolatry one which stands out most clearly. The way God has ordered this world means that serving the god of greed is a service which can never end and never give satisfaction. When greed, the accumulation of wealth is your god, there can never be enough. You will sacrifice friendships to the altar of greed but you will still never the gifts from the hand of God of true friendship, of true security, of shelter in the storm (see Eccl. 4:7-12).

Seeing What Qohelet Saw - Published

Wipf and Stock have been kind enough to publish my revised Master's Thesis on the structure of Ecclesiastes. (I detailed the process here.) You can even pay them lots of money for your very own copy! Here is the link.

I've enjoyed the process of re-reading it several times and think it still holds up as an argument for my my structure of alternating panels of observation and wisdom based around the verb ראה (to see). Here's a pretty PDF of the structure if you're interested in the big picture. The more detailed one is within the book (well, it sort of is the book).

It was especially nice to see a few friends write endorsements for the book:

“Anyone who reads Ecclesiastes finds it hard to discern a clear structure. Amid the tangle of proposed structures, Fyfe outlines a way forward. He argues cogently for alternating observation and wisdom panes, with ‘to see’ marking out the former. Highly recommended for those interested in Ecclesiastes and the structure of biblical books.”

—Peter Lau, Visiting Lecturer in Old Testament, Sydney Missionary and Bible College

Peter has been published a number of times on the book of Ruth (most notably in the NSBT series), and after teaching in Malaysia for a number of years has recently returned to Sydney. He even preached for me recently!

“Like Qohelet himself, Fyfe reports what he has seen. His acute observation of the Hebrew text exposes the rhythms and artistry of Ecclesiastes. In doing so, he clarifies the meaning of this elusive book. Scholars and preachers should read this study and be stimulated ‘to find words of delight’ in the wisdom of the Preacher.”

—Richard J. Gibson, Principal, Brisbane School of Theology

Richard first nurtured my love of patterns in the Bible, and his work on the structure Romans bears many similarities to my structure of Ecclesiastes.

“Fyfe ventures into the enigma of Qohelet’s thought and seeks to wrest a structure from the murkiness of the ancient sage’s rambling. Fyfe argues for a deliberate pattern of alternating observation and wisdom, such that there may indeed be meaning within the apparent meaningless of Qohelet’s monologue.”

—George Athas, Director of Research, Moore College

George supervised my thesis, and is also about to publish a commentary on Ecclesiastes (in the Story of God commentary series).

In the next couple of weeks the book should come out through the well-known trillion dollar multi-national seller and e-book publisher. I should also be able to purchase some copies at author's rates if you'd like a copy at mate's rates - I can even not sign it for you if you'd like a clean-skin.

A timeline of getting a book published

In a couple of months there should be a book by me on the structure of Ecclesiastes that you can buy. It will have the same title as my Masters thesis:

Seeing what Qohelet Saw: 

the structure of Ecclesiastes as alternating panels of observation and wisdom.

I was thinking about how to explain the process of going from zero book to book. In some ways it could go back to my undergrad B.Div (2008-2011) at Moore Theological College, and the foundation that gave me in critical thinking and biblical languages. But I remember before that hearing the book preached at church, and reading Barry Webb's Five Festal Garments, where he works through the megillot, including Ecclesiastes. I remember really enjoying it as my first biblical studies book.

Fast forward to 2016 where I preached through the book at church. As with every series, the first thing I needed to get clear was the structure, and realising (a) that no one agreed on a structure of the book, and (b) that I thought I had seen something no one else had identified, pursuing this for a MTh seemed like a thing to do.

My initial proposal looked nothing like what it ended up as; initially it was looking at the different genres present in Ecclesiastes as revealed by my structure (narrative, poetry, wisdom, the frame narrator) and allowing figures from the past to shape our reading of the book (Lacoque/Ricoeur, Alter, Kierkegaard, Aristotle). The thought was I'd quickly knock the structure out, and then spend more time doing thinking and interacting. It didn't take too long before the structure alone would be more than enough to keep me busy for three years.

Anyway, I applied, was accepted, and started pretty much straight away. I worked very sporadically on it for the first year and a half, which included my supervisor having his long service leave and sabbatical, with another supervisor taking over during that time. So after about a year's break we met again and then I realised I needed to crack on. Rather than occasional days here and there, I asked for and was assigned a desk at college, and spent a day per week getting it done.

Towards the end of the second year, there was a Fellowship of Biblical Studies conference, which I presented my findings at, in a "panel from hell" - a PhD student also presenting on structure, and another author who I'd read and disagreed with. I was a bit worried about how it would go, but in the end it was actually a great experience. The PhD student was actually focussed on another area in Ecclesiastes; structure was just a side project. And after we'd both presented it was fairly evident that he didn't have that much invested in that part of it. The other speaker was actually really nice in person (even though he can be quite acerbic in writing!), and was only encouraging.

It was during the conference that I was again asked to consider converting the Masters to a Doctorate (both supervisors had suggested as much), but after a chat with the USyd head of department (who was very keen), I did some thinking and decided I just didn't have that much left in the topic beyond the 40,000 words required, to double it to PhD length. So at that point I pretty much drove hard to the end, and submitted before the beginning of the 2019 academic year, mostly so that I wouldn't have to pay for a 6th semester!

I had two examiners. One loved it, but seemed to want a little more convincing. The other had pages of things to be fixed (90% because he was used to a different footnoting style; nothing substantial), but nonetheless was very positive about my conclusions. So that was all good - graduation next year!

The next question was what to do with it now. I asked my supervisor which journal to submit to, and he thought for a minute, and then said, "nah, I reckon you should do a book." His point was to cut a 40,000 word argument down to 8,000 or so for a journal would lose a lot. But it would be fine for a smaller book, and would be perfect for people trying to think seriously through the structure of Ecclesiastes.

With his commendation attached, I emailed two publishers in June, 2019. It probably took 8 weeks to get responses (late August). One (Bloomsbury, for their LHBSOT series) wanted PhD level or above, but Wipf & Stock were happy to get on board, I think mostly due to their different publishing model and ability to do small print runs which means they don't risk quite as much as some other publishers. As the author you have to bear some of the costs before it gets to print. There are a lot of surveys to fill out (with both of them), mostly with regards to marketing and potential endorsements. They're as much for me as for them, to ensure that I know what needs to happen if I ever want it to go somewhere.

As we speak (November 2019), the book has been copyedited, and is being typeset, after which I will have to go through the proofs and then it can be printed and hopefully come to a bookshelf and/or library near you. The day when I can actually hold my book in my hand still a ways off, but it's been mostly a good process (although the wait after submission is always stressful). It hasn't been cheap, costing me more than $10 a page, and I doubt I'll ever make that back, but if libraries pick it up then at least people will be able to use it and benefit from it.

Ultimately my prayer is that people who want to think through the structure of Ecclesiastes will find my book accessible and useful. I do hope they will agree with me, but at the very least I hope they see the possibilities in my structure, and might try reading Ecclesiastes afresh according to my structure.

Ecclesiastes is a difficult book to understand, but it need not be impenetrable due to a lack of structure. With my structure, it opens itself up in a new way, such that people can consider its contents and message afresh. Well, that's my hope at least. Stay tuned for the day when you can actually get your hands on it too!

Psalm 127 - a psalm about Solomon

This year we've been working through Acts in school terms and the Psalms of Ascents (Pss 120-134) during the holidays. I took us through Psalm 127 on Sunday, which is most famous for its (mis)use by the "quiver-full movement", yet another uniquely American movement, because of vv3-5:

Look—a possession from Yhwh are children,
a reward is the fruit of the womb.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
thus are the children of youth.
Blessed is the warrior
who fills his quiver with them...

There's a lot to say about how the second half fits with the first half, but what is most intriguing for me with Psalm 127 is that it is a psalm of Solomon (v1a):

A song for going up. For Solomon.

Among the fifteen psalms of ascent, four are David psalms (122; 124; 131; 133), and, apart from this one, the other ten are unnamed. Psalm 127 is one of only two Solomon psalms (along with 72), which is also surprising, as one would think such a prolific writer would have more to his name. That said, Psalm 72 feels more like a psalm by David but about Solomon—the "of" in "of Solomon" probably means "for"in that case.

But Psalm 127 is not a psalm speaking of the hopes for Solomon. Rather, it is the hopes of the pilgrims in light of Solomon. It is his temple they are walking towards (or was—if they are singing after its destruction), and this psalm is an opportunity to reflect and to learn what not to do in light of lessons learned from Solomon—the king who squandered what he could've and should've (and did!) had.


There are several points of correspondence between this psalm and Solomon. Part of that is the life of Solomon, and part of that is the life of the "Salomofiktion" (A. Reinert) in Ecclesiastes:

1. As already mentioned, the songs of ascent are to Solomon's temple.
2. Eccl 1:12—2:26 describe the futility of seeking meaning by, among other things, building.
3. Eccl 3:3b "a time to tear down and a time to build"—even temples as great as Solomon's (described in 1 Kings 8:13; 9:3 as eternal!)—will be torn down.
4. Only the city guarded by Yhwh will stand; Yhwh is the giver of wisdom, and in Eccl 9:14—16 it is only through wisdom that a city will stand.
5. Eccl 4:5—6, 7—12 describe the folly of Ps 127:2 in rising early and staying up late only to eat in toil. Eating with friends and with thanksgiving and joy is what Ecclesiastes counsels.
6. Eccl 5:12 explains that sleep for the labourer is a gift.
7. Yhwh's beloved (ידידו) who are granted sleep is also the name given to Solomon by David in 2 Sam 12:25 (ידידיה)—"beloved of Yah".
8. Eccl 6:1—12 discusses the goodness of children, although it comes to a contrary conclusion, or, at the very least, reinforces that seeking meaning in children is vanity.
9. Although vanity (הבל) in Eccl is a different concept (and lexeme) to things done in vain (שׁוא) in this psalm, in both there is a marked pointlessness to those things done for selfish reasons and not for God.

I don't think it's possible to say there is any dependence one way or the other in this psalm. But it was given the title for a reason. So I think it is fair to say, at the very least, that the person (in 1 Kings) and sometimes implied character (in Ecclesiastes) of Solomon serve as good sounding boards for thinking through the implications of this psalm—a psalm about Solomon. 

Structure of Ecclesiastes PDF

Inspired by Mark Barry's brilliant infographs, I thought I'd do my structure up in a similar style for those wanting something a bit more user-friendly.

Get the pdf here

Preaching Ecclesiastes

I started thinking and writing about Ecclesiastes because I had to preach it. So, hopefully, as I'm on the verge of submitting, I can have a crack at answering the question I began with three years ago: how does one attack a book such as Ecclesiastes and divide it into appropriate sections for preaching to a congregation?

As discussed in previous posts, one instinct can be to systematise the book and preach the teaching of Ecclesiastes on work, joy, wealth, and so on, much as one might do with the book of Proverbs. As my personal approach is to preach systematically through books, this was not really an option for me, so I chose to divide the book into manageable and logical chunks, and it was the things observed through this process that led me to embark on this study.

The way I ended up dividing the book for weekly preaching to a congregation (before beginning this study) was to preach the introduction and opening poem (1:1–11), then 1:12–2:26 as a block, and then 3:1–15 as the wisdom poem and its observation response. 3:16–4:16 was one talk, although I had the opportunity to come back to it at a weekend away I was asked to speak at, where I divided the panel into four talks. I then skipped forward to the next observation section, 5:12–6:12, then the final observation panel. At another weekend away I gave four talks from the fourth observation panel, with the coda (9:11–13) serving as a concluding Bible study. The penultimate talk was the final poem (11:7–12:7) and then finally, also serving as a conclusion to the series, 12:8–14.

All this means I did not spend much time preaching through the wisdom panels, although, if I had my time again, I would endeavour to preach the observation panels with much more reference to the wisdom panels. That also infers that I would not preach from the wisdom panels on their own, but use them, as I have argued is the case for Qohelet, to illustrate and interact with his observations.

Here is what I would recommend for preachers who are persuaded by the structure presented in this paper, with a plan for between seven and sixteen talks:

• 1:1–11 one talk and an introduction to the book as a whole
• 1:12–2:26 one talk or up to three talks (with the coda 2:24–26 hanging over all the talks), illustrated by the wisdom panel 3:1–9
• 3:10–4:16 one talk or up to five talks (dividing the final unit into two), illustrated by the wisdom panel 4:17–5:11
• 5:12–6:12 one talk, illustrated by the wisdom panel 7:1–14
• 7:15–9:13 one talk or up to four talks (with the coda 9:11–13 hanging over all the talks), illustrated by the wisdom panel 9:14–11:6
• 11:7–12:7 one talk
• 12:8–14   one talk, also reflecting on the book as a whole and the role of wisdom in character formation

The use of ראה to structure the Observation Panels

As mentioned in the previous post on this subject, the body of Ecclesiastes can be seen to comprise of four pairs of alternating panels, with the A panels containing Qoheleth's observations, while the B panels contain his collected wisdom.

First-Person Verbs
What stands out in the reading of Ecclesiastes is the proliferation of first-person verbs. The narrative is not the normal type of Hebrew narrative, describing the goings-on of a third person, but are written in the first-person. The first section (1.12-2.26) contains a whopping 42:38 first-:third-person verbs, which gives a ratio of 1.11. Compare this with Ecclesiastes as a whole (which is the highest of all the books with 0.26), or with the canonical wisdom books (0.21), the whole Hebrew Bible (0.18) or, right at the bottom, Ben Sira (0.09).
The point here is that Ecclesiastes is unique in having the narrative being told from a first-person point of view.

You can see there are spikes, with large concentrations of first-person verbs in various sections, while there is a (there are a?) paucity in other places, where the third-person takes over. Add to this that in the observation panels there are other verbs which are virtual first-person verbs, namely where Qohelet speaks to his heart.
Of course, it is not enough to simply point this out; the question is what delineates these first-person observation sections from the wisdom which surrounds them?

Occurrences of ראה 
Looking at just the first-person occurrences of ראה, it becomes evident that there is a regularity to where it is used, but also a rhetorical use of the verb. It begins units, and often ends them, such that four panels reveal themselves:

Observation Panel 1: 1.12-2.26 (four units which begin with first-person use of ראה : qatal 3x, yiqtol 1x)
Observation Panel 2: 3.10-4.15 (four units, four of which begin with a first-person use of ראה, three of which also conclude with first-person use of ראה : qatal 5x, yiqtol 2x)
Observation Panel 3: 5.12-6.12 (three units, each of which begin with the first-person qatal use of ראה)
Observation Panel 4: 7.15-9.13 (five units, each of which either begin or end with a first-person use of ראה, and begin or end with another use of ראה : qatal 5x, imperative 2x, infinitive 3x)

What we see here is the first and third panels begin with ראיתי or אראה, while the second and third are bookended with a use of ראה. For the astute reader you will have noticed there are two further uses of ראיתי, namely in 10.5,7. We maintain this is an 'observation interlude', which forms some symmetry with the 'wisdom interlude' found in the second panel, at 4.4-5.

Internal Structure of the Observation Panels
What remains to be said is that the four panels each contain discrete units, each of which are either begun by, or both begun and concluded by, an observation using the verb 'to see'. Chiasm-crazy as I am, it's hard for me not to see the chiasms present in the individual units, where an observation is made, discussed and conclusions then made. Within each panel the units are linked by a theme, which is most obvious in the first panel (1.12-2.26), but is evident in the other three panels also.

In the next post I want to talk a bit about the Wisdom Panels which form the matching pairs to the Observation Panels. Stay tuned!

Standing on the shoulders of giants

There are three things to come together in constructing the structure I have arrived at. One is what is widely agreed: the bookends. Two is the alternating panels, as discussed earlier. Third is the structural keyword which give shape and boundaries to the sections.

1. Overall Shape
There is widespread agreement to the overall structure of the book. Simply put there is a beginning, a body, and a conclusion. The precise boundaries differ, but my delineation is not especially novel.

1.1 An opening word on Qohelet
1.2 Dilemma: Vanity of Vanities
1.3-11 Opening Poem
1.12-11.6 BODY
11.7-12.7 Closing Poem
12.8 Dilemma: Vanity of Vanities
12.9-14 A concluding word on Qohelet

In my own structure I have included the 'dilemma' with the words on Qohelet although others will separate it out. But it is worth mentioning separately here so the shaping of the book is apparent. Working from out to in, it begins and ends with a word on a Qohelet, then has the 'vanity of vanities' saying, and then a poem with a gnomic perspective (humanity in light of creation, life in light of old age). This shaping of the book's bookends indicates that structure in intrinsic to this book; we should be expecting more structure as we delve further into the book.

2. Alternating Panels
As mentioned in my previous post, this is something that others seem to have been groping towards.  Although the delineation of the passages differ, there are similarities in the way the panels are described.

Author	A Panels	B Panels
de Jong	Observation	Instruction
Seow	Reflection	Ethics
Zimmerli	Treatise	Sentence collection
d5	Observation	Wisdom collection

As suggested earlier what needs to happen next is to ground the delineation of the panels beyond 'the vibe', or de Jong's 'intuition'. Which leads to our next point.

3. Structural Keywords
A host of keywords have been suggested. Wright, among others, suggested multiple thematic keywords, which all work for a section, but only for a short section. But from closely observing the section 1.12-2.26 suggest not a thematic, but a structural keyword.

Seeing similarities in Bauckham's 'brothers and sisters' beginning sections in the book of James, or Gibson and Nichols with the refrain ‘(through) Jesus Christ (our) Lord’ at the conclusion of eight sections of the book of Romans, or even the well known reference to the progress of the word of God in the book of Acts, it is evident that these structures are not necessarily using 'thematic' keywords, that is words which one would suggest at the outset. And in a sense, that is the issue with using 'hebel' to find a structure - it is the keyword one might suggest. But that does not mean the book must use a preconceived keyword to reveal the structure.

Instead, what is evident in Ecclesiastes is the use of the verb ראה (to see) to provide structure to the 'A' panels of the book, and especially the first person qatal use of the verb, ראיתי (I saw/observed), to provide the structure to these panels.

On reflection, and again, much like the other examples, this keyword is perfectly fitting to the style and content of the book. The book is a book in large part of Qohelet's observations, the things he has seen. As one thinks about the structural keywords in James, Romans and Acts, in retrospect they too are fitting. But these are firstly structural keywords, and are revealed by the book, which is different to thematic keywords, which are imposed on the book by others.

In the next post I will show how this works to structure the book.

Recent approaches to the structure of the book of Ecclesiastes

Recent approaches to the structure of Ecclesiastes

Castellino and Wright

Perhaps disheartened by the inimitable Delitzsch, it wasn't until the 1960's that approaches to the structure of Ecclesiastes became a distinct area of study. This focus and the earlier pessimism meant anyone who wanted to assert a structure had to do more than simply state their structure; it had to be defensible. 

In the 1960's two Roman Catholic stablemates identified similar structures and were published in the same CBQ omnibus. George Castellino and Addison Wright both identified a book whose body could be divided in twain. There were questions in the first half and answers in the second. For Castellino it was the imperative שׁמר at 4.17 (5.1 English) which signalled the turning point. This was a pretty neat structure, which drew attention to some clusters of vocabulary limited to one half or the other. 

Unfortunately for him, Wright's structure blew him out of the water. It is not to say it was good, but it grabbed everyone's attention. 'The Riddle of the Sphinx' and his two follow up articles found a bunch of numerical values matching up with verses and structure and so on. He used Ben Sira to show this is what readers would be expecting - a literary work thoroughly worked through with numerical significance. 

While Wright's ideas are fantastical, the thoroughness of his work means his has been the accepted model for half a Century. Occasionally this seems to be for lack of effort (see Murphy's WBC volume which criticises Wright yet uses it nonetheless), but thankfully in the last two decades others have come up with their own approaches.

Nonetheless, these two approaches demonstrated two observations which remain valid regardless of the structure. The first of these is the idea of alternation, two different types of discourse. And the second is the importance of keywords and clustered vocabulary.

Zimmerli and de Jong

Zimmerli wrote a commentary (in German, in Fraktur script, if anyone is interested in reading it) but also an article where he considered two alternatives: Traktat (treatise) oder Sentenzensammlung (a collection of aphorisms). What seemed to be Zimmerli's issue was trying to decide which of these we should decide Ecclesiastes to be, although the question I was asking as I read his article, was 'why not both?' (with apologies to the Old El Paso advert).

De Jong followed his 'intuitions' (really, that's how he described his method) to divide the body of the book into two sets of panels, although he guided his intuitions by grouping together clusters of vocabulary. One half he called 'observation', the other 'instruction', and these sets demonstrated the two types of discourse in the book. Seow had a similar approach, although without focussing so much on the vocabulary, and had two pairs as contrasted with de Jong's four pairs.

These authors built on the slightly crazy in Wright to come up with some truly plausible structures that seek to give credence to the two types of discourse sensed as one reads - the observations of Qohelet paired with the many wisdom sayings throughout. However the question Fox asked remains: what effect does it have on the reading of the book? Most of these structures, when one actually tries to read Ecclesiastes through their filter, as Fox described Wright, amount to no more than a 'ghost in the attic'. 

There is also something to be said for the importance of keywords, as there do seem to be clusters and regularity of phrases, but so far none of the words or phrases (such as הבל hebel (vanity) or 'chasing/shepherding the wind') have really done the job. Perhaps it is not thematic keywords we should be looking for, but structural keywords. Maybe we will do just that...

Past approaches to the structure of Ecclesiastes

As mentioned in my previous post, there are three main unresolved issues in Ecclesiastes studies.

1. Author/Date/Setting
2. Tone
3. Structure

My work is focusing on the third of these, which is a journey I am embarking on because of features I have noticed as I have worked through the Hebrew text. But first it is appropriate to note the shoulders upon which I stand as I take my approach.

The history of Ecclesiastes structure research could be divided into three time periods, namely, the historic (up until the Reformation), from the Reformation until the middle of last Century, and from the 1960's until today. 

Historic

It is fair to say there was not much interest in the structure of the book before the Reformation. The book was simply read as one long monologue (see for example Gregory Thaumaturgus' 'Metaphrase') and not much thought was given to any logical units within.

Some attention of late has been given to the Masoretic markings of the text, and most notably the midpoint marker. However to read anything into this is purely speculative. After all, the Masoretes were also known as the Sopherim (those who count), so it was important to mark off the midpoint of a book so as to aid their counting, ensuring they had not missed (or added) anything in their copying.

Reformation

As Luther preached and taught through the book of Ecclesiastes he drew attention to movements he perceived in the logical argument of the book. He did not (so far as we know) devote any attention to outlining a structure, but one is deducible from his commentary (published, albeit, by his students). 

The generations after the Reformation began to think in higher-critical terms, and began to question how many hands lay behind the book, and the deduction of the different sources would reveal how the work is to be structured (much like the Documentary Hypothesis in Pentateuchal studies). Some effort was made in finding a structure, but these attempts did not lead to any optimism, with no consensus being reached. As mentioned last post, Franz Delitzsch summed up the mood with his 'never have, never will' statement, while one imaginative scholar suggested (anachronistically) that an early scribe dropped the loose-leaf sheets of the book and reassembled them in an incorrect order, which is why we will never be able to find an order (at least without some similarly imaginative reorganising).

In the next post I will take a look at more recent approaches, and will show how they coalesce into a hopeful approach.

The Background to Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes is one of those funny books which everyone likes, but for different and even contradictory reasons. People agree that it's great, that it's strangely contemporary, that it's a great bridge to faith for non-believers, but again, they may not agree on the reasons for saying so.

There seem to be three issues that divide interpreters of the book, and have done for quite some time:

1. Author/Date/Setting
2. Tone
3. Structure

1. Author/Date/Setting

In the past, and with even a few hangers-on today, the book has been ascribed to Solomon. It has been seen as the reflections of an old Solomon, reflecting on his folly and seeking to teach his son a different way. As such, it is viewed as a mini-collection of Proverbs and Song of Songs, although each would reflect a very different period of his life.

This opinion has largely given way to the understanding of 'Solomon' as a royal fiction, whereby the author uses the persona of Solomon for the first couple of chapters to make a point, but by-and-large dispenses with it after that point. Luther pointed this out in his Tischgespräch, although interestingly continued to refer to 'Solomon' rather than 'Qohelet' or simply 'the author' in his lectures, most likely due to the standard convention which still persists for good or ill.

However dispensing with the idea of Solomonic authorship leaves the field wide open, and the majority of modern interpreters have settled on either a Persian or Greek dating. This is usually dependent on whether one thinks the book imbibes Persian or Greek wisdom, or describes a Persian or Greek time period. 

It seems that the idea of Ecclesiastes repackaging Greek wisdom has very little to back it up these days, which would shift it a little earlier (to the Persian era) than perhaps 20 years ago. Some also see the Persian context reflected in the setting of several aphorisms in the book.

2. Tone

Jerome, back in the day, in time when asceticism was elevated (sometimes literally), saw in Ecclesiastes a Contemptus Mundi, where there was nothing good or worthy in the world, and pushed the reader toward a life of divine contemplation rather than enjoyment of this-worldly things.

In Luther a new reading was found - nun-marrying, home-brewing ex-monk that he was. Moving on from Jerome's pessimistic reading a millennium beforehand, Luther took Qohelet at his word when he extolled the wisdom of Carpe Diem. This can be seen to tie in to a strong creation theology evident throughout the book. 

In this new millennium however a third reading has been attempted, most notably by Tremper Longman III, which I have called the 'stolid evangelical approach'. Put simply, the book speaks provisionally, and even incorrectly, in light of the ultimate revelation of Jesus in the Gospels. So anything which Ecclesiastes says which is seen to contradict the clarity of the New Testament (pertaining, for example to the afterlife) supersedes what the book says. All the reader is able to trust with any certainty is the epilogue of the book, which seeks to correct any misspeaking of the author by giving it a covenantal framework: 'God shall you fear, and his commands shall you keep, for this is the duty of everyone.' (12.13)

3. Structure

I won't speak much on this now, except to say no one agrees, except perhaps with Franz Delitsch, who said a long time ago that no one has or ever will find the author's intended structure to Ecclesiastes. And yet... (stay tuned!)

Ecclesiastes 7.15-9.13

This section is again structured based on the occurrence of ראיתי (I saw). There are some difficult decisions to make about when to start and finish sections, complicated further by some English translations and the impact their decisions have on being able to make independent decisions on structure. However when we look at the regularity of occurrence of  ראה (to see) helps make those decisions easier, as they come at the beginning and end of each section.

Passage	7.15-28	7.29-8.9	8.10-16	8.17-9.10	9.11-13
First ראה	7.15 ראיתי	7.29 ראה (imperative)	8.10 ראיתי	8.17 ראיתי	9.11 ראה (infinitive)
Final ראה	7.27 ראה (imperative)	8.9 ראיתי	8.16 (2x) infinitive and participle	9.9 ראה (imperative)	9.13 ראיתי

What is very clear from this is there are 'seeing' (ראה) related bookends to each section. Within each section there is a clear theme, as follows:

7.15-28 I've seen it all

7.29-8.9 I saw that God made people upright; they pursued many schemes

8.10-16 I saw the wicked confused with the righteous

8.17-9.10 I saw how hard it is for people to understand God

9.11-13 I saw there is wisdom in understanding the limits of human perception

This section is the final observation section of the book, and is really his concluding remarks on the things he has seen and continues to see around him. Beginning with the totality of sight experiences, then the depravity inherent in people despite their good creator, leading next to the anti-wisdom practice of the fates of the righteous and wicked being confused, and fourthly the difficulty for people working out the full extent of everything that happens under the sun.

This leads to the terse concluding statement in 9.11-13, far shorter than the other sections, and, as flagged earlier, confused by the translations having a paragraph break after 9.12, where there is no reason to separate 9.13 from what precedes it. This short paragraph begins and ends with discussing what can and can't be discerned under the sun, and for the first time is able to say 'This too I saw [to be] wisdom under the sun, and this was very important [lit. 'great'] for me.' At the end of all this observation, Qohelet has finally understood something. What is that something? That there is great wisdom in understanding where the limits of human perception lie.


* I have some more work to do on this section; at first glance it appears each section will be chiastic. Which I have come to expect from Ecclesiastes, but also because of the way the themes are segmented and there are similarities between the beginning and end of each section, clustered around the verb ראה.

Ecclesiastes Structure in Brief

For those who've been following along, here is where I'm up to in terms of the structure of the book as a whole. It will be interesting to look back in three years to see if this changes dramatically or stays much the same! For the next three years, studying a master's part time, I hope to be thinking more about this, and in particular how the different genres (poetry, observation, wisdom collections) speak uniquely and progress the argument about the search meaning amongst the vain mundanity that permeates all things under the sun.

A 1.1 Frame narrator
      B 1.2 Theme summary: All is vanity
            C 1.3-11 A poem on man's place in the universe
                  D 1.12-2.26 1st person observation (I saw)
            C' 3.1-15 A poem on time
                  D' 3.16-4.16 1st person observation (I saw)
                        E 4.17-5.11 (5.1-12 Eng) Wisdom collection on ethics
                  D'' 5.12-6.12 (5.13-6.12 Eng) 1st person observation (I saw)
                        E' 7.1-14 Wisdom collection on character
                  D''' 7.15-9.13 1st person observation (I saw)
                        E'' 9.14-11.10 Wisdom collection on wisdom and folly
            C'' 12.1-7 A poem on nearing death
      B' 12.8 Theme summary: All is vanity
A' 12.9-14 Frame Narrator

Ecclesiastes 12.8-14

At long last we reach the end of the book, although there are some sections I haven't been able to get to. But I'm sure over the next three years of studies I'll have plenty of time to fill in the gaps.

Structure of 12.8-12
The big picture structure of the book is:

1.1 introduction
      1.2 'all is vanity'
            1.3-12.7 finding meaning amongst vanity
      12.8 'all is vanity'
12.9-14 epilogue

One of the most interesting things I've read on this was from almost twenty years ago: Andrew G. Shead, “Reading Ecclesiastes ‘Epilogically’.” Tyndale Bulletin 48 (1997): 90. Apart from showing the consistency of the message and vocabulary of the epilogue with the rest of the book, he also points to the interaction between 12.8 ('all is vanity') with the message of 12.13-14: fear God the judge of all.

What I've seen as I've looked more closely at this passage is how 12.8 fits really tightly with 12.9-12 as follows:

It was really the 'in addition' that made this stand out to me; the word with the root יתר (ytr) is translated variously throughout the book, but mostly it is translated as gain or advantage (see Eccl 1.3; 2.11, 13,15; 3.9,19; 5.8,15; 6.8,11; 7.11,12,16; 10.10-11), so if you think about money left over after you've paid your bills, you have something that is both 'in addition', 'beyond' (HCSB translation of 12.9,12 respectively), but is also 'gain' and 'advantage' (see ‏Brown, Driver, Briggs, 451).

So we then have, in between the vanity of the rest of the book and the ironic vanity of writing it all down and studying it as both he and we have done, an explanation of the purpose of the book. These were 'delightful' sayings, but they were also 'goads' and 'nails'. They were good in a way that hurts, or they hurt in a way that is good (I guess it depends on whether you're an optimist or a pessimist!).

Ending with 12.13-14
The final two verses have three pointers that tell us this is the end of the book:

1. it literally is the end!
2. 12.13 begins with the word 'end' (סוף)
3. the word 'all' (כל) appears four times

They are also tightly structured and terse, with the word count pattern of:

4 4 2
   כי
4 2 2

In English we might reflect this with a minimum of fudging (don't count my equals sign!) as:

Matter's end, all's heard
Fear God, commands keep
this = man
  for
God judges all works
all secrets
good/bad

Taken as a whole these last two verses of the epilogue give us one last word to restrain the extremes of nihilism or licentiousness that may have been the result of reflecting on life under the sun with Qohelet as our guide. Entrusting ourselves, our efforts and our results to a fair God is ultimately all we can do. Seeking to live faithfully under God (which we do in reverent fear and obedience) is what it is to be a creature rightly responding to our creator.

Ecclesiastes Structure

I know the task of finding a structure of Ecclesiastes is the very definition of vanity, a chasing after the wind. Nonetheless this is what I'm working with and has been updated with links to individual posts as the series has gone on.

Opening
A Frame Narrator (1.1)
  B All is vanity (1.2)

First Poem What is man? 1.3-11

C Question about life under the sun (1.3)

  D paradox of people on the earth (1.4)

     E always moving sun (1.5)

        F untameable wind (1.6)

     E' always moving water (1.7)

  D' paradox of senses (1.8)

C' Statement about life under the sun (1.9-11)

Two ways to live and work 1.12-2.26
G  Introduction and presumptive conclusion (1.12-13)

  H Why be wise (1)? (1.14-18)

      I The pursuit of pleasure (2.1-11)

  H' Why be wise (2)?  (2.12-17)
      I'  The character that matters (2.18-23)

G' Conclusion: two ways to work (2.24-26)

Second Poem Understanding the time 3.1-15
J Statement about time (3.1)
    K Two extremes (3.2)
        L Four extremes (3.3-4)
        L' Four extremes (3.5-6)
    K' Two extremes (3.7)
            M' Two last extremes (3.8)
J' Question about time and what we can know (3.9-15)

Where is justice? 3.16-4.16
N I saw wickedness under the sun (3.16)
     O God will judge even the dead (3.17-21)
N' I saw that it's good to seize the day while you live (3.22)

P I saw oppression under the sun (4.1a)
     Q that power is with the oppressors makes me wish I was dead (4.1b-3)
P' I saw that working out of jealousy is vanity (4.4)

          R wisdom interlude linking sections either side (4.5-6)

S I saw vanity under the sun (4.7-8)
     T It's not good to be alone in this vain world - it's a miserable task (4.9-12)
     T' It's not good to be 'good' if you're not wise (4.13-14)
S' I saw under the sun that you shouldn't follow someone who'll be forgotten (4.16)

Wisdom Collection I 5.1-12
U Better to be obedient, therefore fulfil what you vow (5.1-4)
V Better to not vow, therefore fear God (5.5-7)
W If you see oppression, be assured that the worker can at least sleep well (5.8-12)

Finding good amongst tragedy 5.13-6.12
X I saw a sickening tragedy (5.13a)
     Y The tragedy discussed (5.13b-15)
X' The sickening tragedy (5.16-17)

Z I saw what is good (5.18a)
     a The good discussed (5.18b-19c)
Z' This is a gift (5.19d-20)

b I saw a tragedy upon humanity (6.1)
     c The tragedy and opportunity for good discussed (6.2-11b)
b' Three questions for humanity (6.11c-12)

Wisdom Collection II 7.1-14
d What is good in the midst of death (7.1-6)
e What is good in the midst of fools (7.7-12)
     f  Seeing what God has made will teach us to live wisely (7.13-14)

I've seen it all 7.15-9.13
ghg  I've seen it all (7.15-28)
iji  I saw that God made people upright; they pursued many schemes (7.29-8.9)
klk  I saw the wicked confused with the righteous (8.10-16)
mnm  I saw how hard it is for people to understand God (8.17-9.10)
     opo  I saw there is wisdom in understanding the limits of human perception (9.11-13)


Wisdom Collection III 9.14-11.10


Third Poem Approaching Death 12.1-7
! Statement about the Creator when death is near (12.1)

  @ when the eyes fail (12.2)

     # when the face degrades (12.3)

        $ when the hearing stops working (12.4)

     #' when the stomach degrades (12.5)

  @' when the frame fails (12.6)

!' Conclusion about God when death has come (12.7)

Closing 12.8-14
  B' All is vanity (12.8)
A' Frame Narrator (12.9-14)

Ecclesiastes 12.1-7

The penultimate section of Ecclesiastes is also the third poem of the book, and with a very similar structure.

1.3-11	3.1-9(-15)	12.1-7
Question	Statement	Statement
5 examples	14 pairs of examples	5 examples
Statement	Question & conclusion	Conclusion

The biggest question surrounding this section is the way to read it. If one were to read it literally, then it might well be describing the scene of a town perhaps in the aftermath of a plague. Many have died, this is yet another funeral procession, those looking on know their death is also nigh - the signs are there. 

Another way to look at it is to see past the literal to the metaphorical and ask: what do these signs represent? As such, what we see in 12.1-7 is the description of the effects of old age on the body. This follows on from the discussion in 11.7-10 highlighting the good of youth, yet always with reference to old age being ominously near. 

a Statement about the Creator when death is near (12.1)
  b when the eyes fail (12.2)
     c when the face degrades (12.3)
        d when the hearing stops working (12.4)
     c' when the stomach degrades (12.5)
  b' when the frame fails (12.6)
a' Conclusion about God when death has come (12.7)

To be clear, the language of this section is quite difficult, with words appearing here and here only in the whole Bible, and there are some questions remaining, but overall this appears to be the flow. 

For structure's sake, I would've loved to see verse 2 in the centre of the structure, as sight has been so pivotal to Qohelet's observation throughout, but to frustrate me (pun intended) he leaves it as the first example of the failing body. Qohelet may also be drawing on a Sumerian proverb quoted in Bendt Alster, Studies in Sumerian Proverbs (1975), quoted in Roland E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, Word Biblical Commentary (1992):

My grain roasting fails,

Now my youthful vigor, strength and personal god

have left my loins like an exhausted ass.

My black mountain has produced white gypsum.

My mother has brought in a man from the forest;

he gave me captivity.

My mongoose which used to eat strong smelling things

does not stretch its neck towards beer and butter.

My urine used to flow in a strong torrent.

but now you flee from my wind.

My child whom I used to feed with butter and milk,

I can no more support it.

And I have had to sell my little slave girl;

an evil demon makes me sick.

The Sumerian poem obviously uses different images although there are many similarities, in particular the happy conflation of the literal and metaphorical. 

To conclude, when we note that our poem is bookended with references to God, this is an exhortation to direct our attention to him while we still can. There will be the day (should we live long enough) when our faculties will fail us. Until that day comes we must make every effort to know God and to live the life he has given us to live. For the day will come when joys will be taken, faculties will be taken, and ultimately even our spirit will leave our bodies when the decay has taken over.

Ecclesiastes 5.13-6.12

Again, this is another passage I won't be able to preach this time through, but with 1.12-2.26 and 3.16-4.16 before it, it marks a return to first person narrative and observation with the threefold ראיתי (I saw) structuring Qohelet's observations at 5.13,18 and 6.1. This continues until the second wisdom collection beginning in chapter 7.

Section 1: 5.13-17
5.13 begins with Qohelet seeing a 'sickening tragedy' under the sun, and concludes with the 'sickening tragedy' in 5.16-17. In between  (13b-15) he tells the story of the cruel master wealth.

Section 2: 5.18-20
The bookends to this section are positive, what Qohelet sees to be 'good' (5.18a), the 'gift of God' (5.19d). In between is a description of the good life as received and enjoyed as a gift of God.

Section 3: 6.1-12
This returns to the negative of the first section, with האדם (humanity) bookending the section. The tragedy under the sun which weighs heavily on humanity (6.1) raises three questions about humanity in 11c,12a,c. The discussion in between is one we've heard before in various places, but it is interestingly punctuated by some challenges to enjoy life - to fail to do so is our own problem (6.3b,6,9).

The broader structure of the whole section is A-B-A'; negative-positive-negative. Within them they share that same structure of a-b-a'; I saw x - discussion - x.