What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes
Through the ages, the book of Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) has elicited a wide variety of interpretations. Its status as wisdom literature is secure, but its meaning for the religion of the Hebrew Bible and its heirs has been a matter of much debate. The debate has swung from claiming orthodoxy for the book to arguing that the message intended by its author is heterodox, in its entirety. There are a number of passages in the book that present difficulties for any comprehensive approach to the work. Martin Shields here fully acknowledges the heterodox nature of Qoheleth’s words but offers an orthodox reading of the book as a whole through the eyes of the author of the epilogue. After a survey of attitudes regarding wisdom in the Hebrew Bible itself, which serves as an orientation to the monograph as a whole, Shields provides a detailed study of the epilogue (Qoh 12:9–14), which he believes is the key to the reading of the remainder of the book. He then addresses various problematic texts in the book in light of this perspective, arguing that the book could originally have functioned as a warning to students against joining a wisdom movement that existed at the time of the book’s composition. Qoheleth is presented as a true adherent of this movement, and the divergence of his words from the theism presented in the rest of the Hebrew Bible becomes the basis of the epilogue’s critique. Finally, Shields proposes a historical context in which just this scenario may have arisen, showing that the desire of the writer of the epilogue is to correct a wayward wisdom tradition.
264 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 25, 2026
I came to the conclusion that the Book of Ecclesiastes is a secular work of wisdom and should be categorized with the apocrypha. I read Shields work to further my research into the de-canonization of Ecclesiastes.
The thesis of the book rests on the notion that the Epilogist in verses 9-14 is undermining the ‘wisdom’ of Qoheleth as a means to dissuade potential students from entering into the Wisdom Movement(s) of the day. Mr. Shields delegates Chapter 3 to his personal interpretation of the epilogue to convince the reader his interpretation is the correct one. However, I remain unconvinced and find his arguments not very compelling.
Pg 47: “The epilogue has been judged secondary, and interest has focused on the words of Qoheleth.”
Yes, as it should be, the body of a writing is considered chief to the conclusion or summary and has never been the other way around. The only time a conclusion might be consider primary is when its used for the punch-line to a joke or short-story that can upturn the entire proceeding train-of-thought. But punch lines are unambiguous and enjoyable. But the end of Ecclesiastes is no punch-line and shouldn’t be treated as a clincher.
Shields writes, "Sayler is mistaken when he writes: 'As important as the frame is for this book it must not be allowed to replace the portrait it holds. . . An artistic/literary frame is not meant to replace its contents. Having been an artist myself, I cannot imagine a frame being more important than any work of art whose beauty a frame is supposed to augment, not eclipse.” - Pg. 109
Sayler put the argument wonderfully, Shields does not provide substantial argument against this, however. He seems fairly focused on his thesis that he dismisses remarks like this in favor of his interpretation.
Shields claims: “The presumptive vv9-11 offer a positive evaluation of Qoheleth (and indeed of the broader Wisdom Movement) is not as plainly borne out by the text as many suppose.” - Pg. 53
Eccl. 12:9-11 “And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought out and set in order many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find acceptable words; and what was written was upright-words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of the scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.”
Shields translation: “Furthermore, because Qoheleth was a sage, he constantly taught knowledge to the people. He listened to, researched, and corrected many wisdom sayings. Qoheleth sought to find pleasing words, but very honest words of truth were written. The words of the wise are like the goads and like the cattle-prods are [the words of] the master of collections which are used by a lone shepherd.”
He postulates that this translation would be the most proper and provides a negative assessment of the Qoheleth. However, even if his translation is accurate (which I’m not sure it is), the message isn’t too dissimilar from the NKJV.
For example: ‘He set in order many proverbs’. The Hebrew word is understood as ‘Compose’ and Shields cites no less than 6 sources for this. However, to fit his narrative interpretation he appeals to Seow who claims that in post-biblical Hebrew the term had a range of meaning in addition to ‘straighten, repair’; including ‘to fix in place, set in order, prepare, establish, introduce, improve‘. He claims it’s difficult to justify the translation as ‘compose’ and thus a better word is necessary. However, he fails to explain why it’s hard to justify the idea of the Preacher composing proverbs or even ‘setting in order/arranging’. Especially since the introduction leads the reader to believe this is King Solomon (though his name is never mentioned), and we know that Solomon composed 3000 proverbs [1 Kings 4:32].
While his interpretation may be correct, Shields doesn’t do justice to his defense. Various Bible translations have it as ‘set in order’, ‘arrange’, ‘classify’, ‘studied’. The ISV has ‘compose’ while the Young’s and Literal have ‘he made right’-which would be the closest to Shields understanding.
This word change is crucial to part of his thesis, in that, by Qoheleth ‘correcting’ many wisdom saying he was rivaling his contemporaries.
“The epilogist claims here that all of the words of Qoheleth recorded in this book operate in some way to correct the teachings of other sages. . . . Adopting this perspective sheds light on the words of Qoheleth recorded in the contents of the work. Qoheleth’s words are not the result of his isolated reflections but are his truthful correction of the thoughts of other sages. . . . Because Qoheleth deduced that the answers to the questions were not available to the sages, it must be that other sages did offer answers-answers that enticed their students with their pleasing nature.”
For this reason Qoheleth sought to find pleasing words. ‘Although Qoheleth sought to find a pleasing answer, in the end he could not do so and maintain his integrity. . . . Because the text does not simply tell us that Qoheleth found, the epilogist must be insinuating that Qoheleth failed to find pleasing words. . . . The fact that he did not find what he sought indicates not his failure but his integrity-instead of falling back on easy answers and pleasing words, Qoheleth preferred to state the truth.” pg. 65-66
This is entirely speculative ‘the epilogist must be insinuating’. We cannot determine there is any insinuation good or bad in this passage. Shields takes more liberty in interpreting this passage than what is available in the text and so I don’t believe this interpretation holds up under scrutiny.
“The fact that Qoheleth felt the need to correct the work of other sages indicates that there were problems within the wisdom movement.” - pg 68
“By noting that Qoheleth revised the conclusions of other sages, the epilogist has informed the reader that not all of the sages could be trusted and has cast doubt on the integrity of the sages whose conclusions were pleasing. Furthermore by presenting Qoheleth as the foremost sage in the line of Solomon himself, the epilogist has based his criticisms on the observations of the preeminent sage, thereby placing them beyond dispute by other sages. . . . The epilogist has shown that his words cannot easily be dismissed but that in fact they represent the heart of the wisdom movement as opposed to the public face of the wisdom movement.” - pg 107
This again is speculative. But Shields entire thesis is based on the notion that there was a Wisdom Movement, and likely various shades of Wisdom Cults, at the time of Qoheleth which were leading people astray. While it’s a plausible, again we have no evidence that Ecclesiastes is written as a polemic against other Wisdom Cults. And if we take his thesis as true, we do not know what the sages were teaching to determine whether or not their wisdom was problematic.
Qoheleth makes remarks [5:1, 3, 7] against those who offer ‘sacrifice of fools’ and talks negatively against dreamers (also see pg. 163 of End of Wisdom), which Qoheleth is one and the same as Solomon (doubtful), it is a curious thing for him to talk negatively against dreams when God appeared to Solomon twice, 1 Kings 3:5, explicitly stating the God appeared to him in a dream by night.
If Qoheleth is speaking against the wisdom of the day, we can speculate that he would have been critical of any true Prophet of God, or of any Levite or priest as well-especially based on his various remarks that stand in contrast with the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Claiming that there were problems within the wisdom movement is a liberty too far to conclude; the ‘wisdom movement’ could have included the Prophets who spoke the truth.
The argument that the sages were leading people astray (which is subjective. Without views from both sides, how can we agree with Qoheleth or even that Epilogist about the negative portrayal of the Wisdom and or Religious Cult of the day?) as Shields claims is also a particularly weak affair.
“Scrutinized more closely, however, the saying [The words of the wise may hurt; they are not what one choose to hear. Yet in the end, they are better for one’s well-being (compare 7:5 - Seow] is more ambiguous than most acknowledge. If the path set out by the sages is good, then being directed along the path would no doubt also be good. However, the saying is not drawing any conclusions about the worth of the advice of the sages; it certainly does not conclude that the advice is ‘better for one’s well-being’. If the path set out by the sages is not good then this saying must stand as a warning against heeding the wisdom of the sages, lest it direct us down that path. The wisdom of the sages could, according to this saying, be used to manipulate and ultimately lead the student astray!”
“Rather the image here is one of coercion and the sages’ words function as a harsh and painful means to constrain and manipulate the path of the student” - pgs. 83-84
I find his deductive reasoning weak. He spent much time on previous verses going through the linguistics to prove that words like ‘compose’ should actually be ‘correct’ etc. But here he merely offers and alternate view with no linguistic, cultural, historic or cultic foundation to promote his theory and simply bases his thesis on what isn’t said. This type of argument on what isn’t said as oppose to what is said is a very weak stance to take, especially when one is dealing with poetry where words and thoughts are omitted for flow.
The words of the wise are as goads . . .given by a lone shepherd - why use shepherd imagery which is always connected with protection and herding flocks into safe and nourishing places if this is to be negative? I agree with Seow’s claim that the goads are for one’s well-being.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say Martin is correct and this should be viewed negatively, I would like to point out that the words of the wise are given to a ‘lone shepherd’. Martin focuses on the sages but ignores the lone shepherd, who, I argue, should be considered as the possible subject of negativity. This shepherd stands alone; he is outside the circle of elite shepherds or elite sages. Could this then be a call against following unorthodox wisdom from a lone shepherd not part of the cult of sages, whose words could manipulate and lead students astray?
There’s no way to determine this, but my point is that scrutiny of this verse can lead to all sorts of various interpretations none which can be proven with certainty. The lone shepherd may be a positive feature (as shepherds are suppose to be) or perhaps a negative feature (an intruding shepherd not part of the inner elite).
The following verses of admonishment that much study is weary to flesh, is presented as an enveloping feature to not follow unorthodox wisdom of the sages. But this could easily be interpreted as a disparaging comment not to seek truth on one’s own because it’s wearisome. This point Qoheleth makes repeated that one cannot know what is done under the sun.
The epilogue doesn’t appear to me as a negative assessment by an epilogist to the sages or to Qoheleth but rather giving credentials to Qoheleth who was a preeminent sage, spoke words of truth, and thus a way dissuading others from seeking wisdom themselves. It reads rather like, “Trust me, I’m right”, especially with his presentation of a shepherd who cares, protects and nourishes his flock. His words are as goads: painful but beneficial in order to keep one on the 'right' path. I put 'right' in quotations because that is subjective on the part of the sage/Qoheleth.
The epilogue’s conclusions reads more in line with: don’t question the authorities (or the shepherd) because, let's face it, ignorance equals control. It’s a way of preventing outside thought from interfering with the current wisdom movement-if there was even a wisdom movement. For all we know, this could have been circulated during the times of the prophets to dissuade Israelites from listening to Isaiah or Jeremiah. It's possible that Qoheleth was telling the people they only had one shepherd (the sages) and the prophets are not one of them.
All-in-all, I’m unconvinced by his thesis and I still stand with the other scholars who claim 'fear God and keep his commandments’ is a gloss of a pious editor. There is too much speculation on the epilogue to be able to render a definitive conclusion on the matter and so while Mr. Shields offers a valuable perspective and did a wonderful job on his thesis, I think he stills falls short.
Fox aptly put it: "the author of the epilogue basically supports Qoheleth's teachings. Otherwise he could have refrained from writing or transmitting the book." - A Time to Tear Down, 371
I remain unmoved in my position as calling Ecclesiastes secular with a call to remove it from Holy Scripture and relegate it to the genre of apocryphal literature where it belongs.
Despite chapter three falling short, I do recommend chapter four as it covers Qoheleth’s internal contradictions and contradictions with the Hebrew Bible. One can read Shields work here.
The thesis of the book rests on the notion that the Epilogist in verses 9-14 is undermining the ‘wisdom’ of Qoheleth as a means to dissuade potential students from entering into the Wisdom Movement(s) of the day. Mr. Shields delegates Chapter 3 to his personal interpretation of the epilogue to convince the reader his interpretation is the correct one. However, I remain unconvinced and find his arguments not very compelling.
Pg 47: “The epilogue has been judged secondary, and interest has focused on the words of Qoheleth.”
Yes, as it should be, the body of a writing is considered chief to the conclusion or summary and has never been the other way around. The only time a conclusion might be consider primary is when its used for the punch-line to a joke or short-story that can upturn the entire proceeding train-of-thought. But punch lines are unambiguous and enjoyable. But the end of Ecclesiastes is no punch-line and shouldn’t be treated as a clincher.
Shields writes, "Sayler is mistaken when he writes: 'As important as the frame is for this book it must not be allowed to replace the portrait it holds. . . An artistic/literary frame is not meant to replace its contents. Having been an artist myself, I cannot imagine a frame being more important than any work of art whose beauty a frame is supposed to augment, not eclipse.” - Pg. 109
Sayler put the argument wonderfully, Shields does not provide substantial argument against this, however. He seems fairly focused on his thesis that he dismisses remarks like this in favor of his interpretation.
Shields claims: “The presumptive vv9-11 offer a positive evaluation of Qoheleth (and indeed of the broader Wisdom Movement) is not as plainly borne out by the text as many suppose.” - Pg. 53
Eccl. 12:9-11 “And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought out and set in order many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find acceptable words; and what was written was upright-words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of the scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.”
Shields translation: “Furthermore, because Qoheleth was a sage, he constantly taught knowledge to the people. He listened to, researched, and corrected many wisdom sayings. Qoheleth sought to find pleasing words, but very honest words of truth were written. The words of the wise are like the goads and like the cattle-prods are [the words of] the master of collections which are used by a lone shepherd.”
He postulates that this translation would be the most proper and provides a negative assessment of the Qoheleth. However, even if his translation is accurate (which I’m not sure it is), the message isn’t too dissimilar from the NKJV.
For example: ‘He set in order many proverbs’. The Hebrew word is understood as ‘Compose’ and Shields cites no less than 6 sources for this. However, to fit his narrative interpretation he appeals to Seow who claims that in post-biblical Hebrew the term had a range of meaning in addition to ‘straighten, repair’; including ‘to fix in place, set in order, prepare, establish, introduce, improve‘. He claims it’s difficult to justify the translation as ‘compose’ and thus a better word is necessary. However, he fails to explain why it’s hard to justify the idea of the Preacher composing proverbs or even ‘setting in order/arranging’. Especially since the introduction leads the reader to believe this is King Solomon (though his name is never mentioned), and we know that Solomon composed 3000 proverbs [1 Kings 4:32].
While his interpretation may be correct, Shields doesn’t do justice to his defense. Various Bible translations have it as ‘set in order’, ‘arrange’, ‘classify’, ‘studied’. The ISV has ‘compose’ while the Young’s and Literal have ‘he made right’-which would be the closest to Shields understanding.
This word change is crucial to part of his thesis, in that, by Qoheleth ‘correcting’ many wisdom saying he was rivaling his contemporaries.
“The epilogist claims here that all of the words of Qoheleth recorded in this book operate in some way to correct the teachings of other sages. . . . Adopting this perspective sheds light on the words of Qoheleth recorded in the contents of the work. Qoheleth’s words are not the result of his isolated reflections but are his truthful correction of the thoughts of other sages. . . . Because Qoheleth deduced that the answers to the questions were not available to the sages, it must be that other sages did offer answers-answers that enticed their students with their pleasing nature.”
For this reason Qoheleth sought to find pleasing words. ‘Although Qoheleth sought to find a pleasing answer, in the end he could not do so and maintain his integrity. . . . Because the text does not simply tell us that Qoheleth found, the epilogist must be insinuating that Qoheleth failed to find pleasing words. . . . The fact that he did not find what he sought indicates not his failure but his integrity-instead of falling back on easy answers and pleasing words, Qoheleth preferred to state the truth.” pg. 65-66
This is entirely speculative ‘the epilogist must be insinuating’. We cannot determine there is any insinuation good or bad in this passage. Shields takes more liberty in interpreting this passage than what is available in the text and so I don’t believe this interpretation holds up under scrutiny.
“The fact that Qoheleth felt the need to correct the work of other sages indicates that there were problems within the wisdom movement.” - pg 68
“By noting that Qoheleth revised the conclusions of other sages, the epilogist has informed the reader that not all of the sages could be trusted and has cast doubt on the integrity of the sages whose conclusions were pleasing. Furthermore by presenting Qoheleth as the foremost sage in the line of Solomon himself, the epilogist has based his criticisms on the observations of the preeminent sage, thereby placing them beyond dispute by other sages. . . . The epilogist has shown that his words cannot easily be dismissed but that in fact they represent the heart of the wisdom movement as opposed to the public face of the wisdom movement.” - pg 107
This again is speculative. But Shields entire thesis is based on the notion that there was a Wisdom Movement, and likely various shades of Wisdom Cults, at the time of Qoheleth which were leading people astray. While it’s a plausible, again we have no evidence that Ecclesiastes is written as a polemic against other Wisdom Cults. And if we take his thesis as true, we do not know what the sages were teaching to determine whether or not their wisdom was problematic.
Qoheleth makes remarks [5:1, 3, 7] against those who offer ‘sacrifice of fools’ and talks negatively against dreamers (also see pg. 163 of End of Wisdom), which Qoheleth is one and the same as Solomon (doubtful), it is a curious thing for him to talk negatively against dreams when God appeared to Solomon twice, 1 Kings 3:5, explicitly stating the God appeared to him in a dream by night.
If Qoheleth is speaking against the wisdom of the day, we can speculate that he would have been critical of any true Prophet of God, or of any Levite or priest as well-especially based on his various remarks that stand in contrast with the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Claiming that there were problems within the wisdom movement is a liberty too far to conclude; the ‘wisdom movement’ could have included the Prophets who spoke the truth.
The argument that the sages were leading people astray (which is subjective. Without views from both sides, how can we agree with Qoheleth or even that Epilogist about the negative portrayal of the Wisdom and or Religious Cult of the day?) as Shields claims is also a particularly weak affair.
“Scrutinized more closely, however, the saying [The words of the wise may hurt; they are not what one choose to hear. Yet in the end, they are better for one’s well-being (compare 7:5 - Seow] is more ambiguous than most acknowledge. If the path set out by the sages is good, then being directed along the path would no doubt also be good. However, the saying is not drawing any conclusions about the worth of the advice of the sages; it certainly does not conclude that the advice is ‘better for one’s well-being’. If the path set out by the sages is not good then this saying must stand as a warning against heeding the wisdom of the sages, lest it direct us down that path. The wisdom of the sages could, according to this saying, be used to manipulate and ultimately lead the student astray!”
“Rather the image here is one of coercion and the sages’ words function as a harsh and painful means to constrain and manipulate the path of the student” - pgs. 83-84
I find his deductive reasoning weak. He spent much time on previous verses going through the linguistics to prove that words like ‘compose’ should actually be ‘correct’ etc. But here he merely offers and alternate view with no linguistic, cultural, historic or cultic foundation to promote his theory and simply bases his thesis on what isn’t said. This type of argument on what isn’t said as oppose to what is said is a very weak stance to take, especially when one is dealing with poetry where words and thoughts are omitted for flow.
The words of the wise are as goads . . .given by a lone shepherd - why use shepherd imagery which is always connected with protection and herding flocks into safe and nourishing places if this is to be negative? I agree with Seow’s claim that the goads are for one’s well-being.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say Martin is correct and this should be viewed negatively, I would like to point out that the words of the wise are given to a ‘lone shepherd’. Martin focuses on the sages but ignores the lone shepherd, who, I argue, should be considered as the possible subject of negativity. This shepherd stands alone; he is outside the circle of elite shepherds or elite sages. Could this then be a call against following unorthodox wisdom from a lone shepherd not part of the cult of sages, whose words could manipulate and lead students astray?
There’s no way to determine this, but my point is that scrutiny of this verse can lead to all sorts of various interpretations none which can be proven with certainty. The lone shepherd may be a positive feature (as shepherds are suppose to be) or perhaps a negative feature (an intruding shepherd not part of the inner elite).
The following verses of admonishment that much study is weary to flesh, is presented as an enveloping feature to not follow unorthodox wisdom of the sages. But this could easily be interpreted as a disparaging comment not to seek truth on one’s own because it’s wearisome. This point Qoheleth makes repeated that one cannot know what is done under the sun.
The epilogue doesn’t appear to me as a negative assessment by an epilogist to the sages or to Qoheleth but rather giving credentials to Qoheleth who was a preeminent sage, spoke words of truth, and thus a way dissuading others from seeking wisdom themselves. It reads rather like, “Trust me, I’m right”, especially with his presentation of a shepherd who cares, protects and nourishes his flock. His words are as goads: painful but beneficial in order to keep one on the 'right' path. I put 'right' in quotations because that is subjective on the part of the sage/Qoheleth.
The epilogue’s conclusions reads more in line with: don’t question the authorities (or the shepherd) because, let's face it, ignorance equals control. It’s a way of preventing outside thought from interfering with the current wisdom movement-if there was even a wisdom movement. For all we know, this could have been circulated during the times of the prophets to dissuade Israelites from listening to Isaiah or Jeremiah. It's possible that Qoheleth was telling the people they only had one shepherd (the sages) and the prophets are not one of them.
All-in-all, I’m unconvinced by his thesis and I still stand with the other scholars who claim 'fear God and keep his commandments’ is a gloss of a pious editor. There is too much speculation on the epilogue to be able to render a definitive conclusion on the matter and so while Mr. Shields offers a valuable perspective and did a wonderful job on his thesis, I think he stills falls short.
Fox aptly put it: "the author of the epilogue basically supports Qoheleth's teachings. Otherwise he could have refrained from writing or transmitting the book." - A Time to Tear Down, 371
I remain unmoved in my position as calling Ecclesiastes secular with a call to remove it from Holy Scripture and relegate it to the genre of apocryphal literature where it belongs.
Despite chapter three falling short, I do recommend chapter four as it covers Qoheleth’s internal contradictions and contradictions with the Hebrew Bible. One can read Shields work here.
Displaying 1 of 1 review