What is Qohelet’s Problem?

Abstract This essay distinguishes various interpretations of Ecclesiastes using heuristic categories that effectively map their divergent readings on the basis of how they primarily construe the central problem posed by the book. We suggest that there are roughly five broad conceptual models used by readers to answer the question, “What is Qohelet’s problem?” namely: as an epistemological, theological/ethical, political/economic, existential, and/or ontological issue. This article provides examples of each approach from both recent scholarship and the history of reception, showing that each brings certain aspects of the text to light, even as they keep other parts of the book in the dark. While we therefore recognize the value of each approach to Ecclesiastes, we especially advocate for the ontological perspective because we find that it is often overlooked or underappreciated in contemporary scholarship and because we think that it is central to a full understanding of Ecclesiastes’ teachings. This perspective sees Qohelet’s key term הבל ( hebel ) as pointing to a fundamental instability or incoherence in the nature of reality itself. We support our advocacy for this approach through readings of key texts, an exploration of relevant themes in Ecclesiastes, and engagement with various receptions of the book in literature, art, music, and film. The aims of this article, therefore, are to provide a conceptual map of the interpretation and reception of Ecclesiastes. We also advocate for the need to understand the book as a response to various problems including ontological contradictions, which may not be prevalent among contemporary interpretations but nonetheless have precedents in the book’s reception history.