Mark Sneed, «A Note on Qoh 8,12b-13», Vol. 84 (2003) 412-416

This note argues that the popular, scholarly opinion that Qoh 8,12b-13 is the citation by the author of a traditional saying that he then counters in v. 14 or relativizes is incorrect. Rather, this unit represents the author’s own sentiment and signifies that he does not absolutely reject the deed/consequence connection. This unit counsels against the common misconception by the wicked that delayed consequence means no consequence. Thus, vv. 12b-13 do not conflict with what precedes or follows and do not conflict with the author’s typical questioning of the validity of the deed/consequence connection.

specifically because "they do not stand in fear before God." This means they do not reckon with the possibility of delayed consequence and, thus, assume a life of reckless behavior. Semantically, then, in vv. 11-13, the concepts of wickedness/sinfulness and God-fearing/non-God-fearing are not synonymous but rather contiguous. They are related in that both are ethical categories, but the nuances are distinct. God-fearing, then, according to Qohelet, is a superior alternative to the traditional notions of righteousness and wisdom¹⁴.

        If vv. 14-15 make no reference to God-fearing, how can they contradict vv. 11-13? Both the categories and topic of discussion are technically distinct. There is no clash. Why scholars are quick to recognize the distinctiveness of Qohelet’s use of God-fearing in other passages (3,14; 5,6; 7,18) and yet inconsistently assume that in 8,12b-13 God-fearing is equated with the traditional notion of righteousness is baffling.

        Nowhere else in the book does Qohelet criticize the dichotomization of God-fearing/non-God-fearing. In 9,2, Qohelet deconstructs all the traditional dichotomizations of his time: the righteous and the wicked, the good and the evil, the clean and unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not, the good and sinner, and those who vow and those who do not. Conspicuously absent is the God-fearing / non-God-fearing dichotomization. This is a significant factor never considered by scholars. It appears that in the book Qohelet does positively offer a particular ethical position: God-fearing, a via media that he never evaluates negatively because it represents his own ethical position. As the earlier scholar J. Pedersen stated regarding the significance of 8,12-13 in its context, "What counts is neither being pious nor evil, but fearing God and knowing how ‘to guard oneself against him’"¹⁵.

        Viewing vv. 12b-13 as a traditional saying understands r#) yn) (dwy ("I know that" [v. 12b]) in an unnatural way. Qohelet expresses the first person common singular usage with the root (dy ("to know") in two ways. Four are with the conjugation of the perfect form (1,17; 2,14; 3,12.14) and one is with the active participle with the independent pronoun yn) ("I"). B. Isaksson argues that Qohelet only uses the perfect form when he wants to connote something he believes in, while the sole instance of participial usage (8,12b) is Qohelet’s way of expressing what is traditional or commonly accepted¹⁶. However, with the four perfect usages it is clear that the context is dominated by perfect forms, which are appropriate for Qohelet’s autobiographical narrative (with experiments and observations). The perfect forms of (dy reflect Qohelet’s conclusions to his experiments / observations and are closely connected with a preceding, perfect form, yty)r ("I saw"). The context of vv. 11-13 is different. It is not an experiment or observation from which Qohelet draws conclusions. Rather, Qohelet is explaining why the wicked of his day are enticed to continue in the folly of sin, with an attached warning. The present, continued action expressed in the participial is appropriate. The participial form is dominant for this unit (eight participles to four