Throughout her commentary, which Wolfe describes as the “first work to provide a thoroughgoing feminist critique” of Qoheleth (lxx), she asks how Qoheleth mattered—and matters—for women. Wolfe highlights Qoheleth's gender fluidity, noting that “Qoheleth” is a feminine participle (lxii), that a feminine verb (“she said,” 7:27) describes Qoheleth, and that Qoheleth addresses a female audience in 7:22 (lxiv). She acknowledges views about “Qoheleth as ‘transvestite’ … or ‘Lady Qoheleth’; or that a strictly female ghostwriter is hiding behind the Qoheleth persona” (lxvii). One can even consider “feminine authorship” of “a book that otherwise contains troubling and historically deadly passages for women” (lxvii).
Despite Qoheleth's “blatantly misogynistic passages” and its “inherent androcentrism” (170; cf. 117, lvi, 152, xlix), Wolfe finds within it ideas that “undermine those very views” (58). Qoheleth's reliance on experience “over traditional doctrine” is an “inspiration for feminist hermeneutics” (14), and Qoheleth's “undermining” of ancient Israelite theology and tradition is “the first step in feminist theology” (139, xliii). Qoheleth's “healthy hermeneutic of suspicion” is a “model for feminist hermeneutics” (170), and Qoheleth offers “tools for the feminist to undermine patriarchy, hierarchy, racism, homophobia, and classism” (xlii).
Women can find meaning in Qoheleth even if the author never intended them as an audience (lxi, 8). Wolfe explores whether the “concubines” Qoheleth acquired in 2:7 were female sex slaves (19). Although the poem in 3:1–8 omits women, its activities “would not have excluded women's experiences” (43). Wolfe cites scores of Hebrew Bible women who engage in these activities. Qoheleth takes for granted “the fruits of women's work” such as “mourning, the making and serving of food, child bearing and rearing,” and possibly brewing beer (157). She asks if Qoheleth would “have advocated that women ‘eat, drink, and enjoy’” (lxi) and whose work (because it seems to be “women's work”) allows for the enjoyment Qoheleth recommends (147). Because of its explicit misogyny, Wolfe gives considerable time to 7:26–29, considering it alongside woman wisdom and the “strange” woman in Proverbs 1–9. She examines the reception of Qoh 7:26 in the fifteenth-century Malleus Maleficarum, a guide to witch inquisitions.
Wolfe aims to “turn Qoheleth's suspicion back on Qoheleth” (14). It is unclear, however, how to characterize her hermeneutic (as one of suspicion or one lacking empathy). Does the remark that people would be better off dead (4:2) “trivialize” people who suffer, and is it cause for raising “concerns about the author's mental health” (64)? Is the note to not be astonished at oppression (5:8) truly apathy (73)? Is Qoheleth's remark (“I hated life,” 2:17) an “offensive conclusion” (30)? Do Wolfe's judgments—such as faulting Qoheleth for privileging “negative emotions” (sorrow, grief, anger, sadness) over laughter (93)—reflect a difficulty identifying with Qoheleth's trauma-induced despair?
Wolfe describes Qoheleth's repeated recommendations to enjoy as “carpe diem” and deems them a “distraction” or “diversion” (liii, 131, 164) rather than a “resolution” for “injustices and contradictions” (137). They offer “very little in the way of hope or mercy” (58) and do not offer “any adequate hermeneutic of recovery” (170). Moreover, Qoheleth's “preferences for death threaten to overshadow the carpe diem passages” (94). For Qoheleth, however, the latter emerge from the former; six of the seven recommendations to enjoy are a direct consequence of Qoheleth's reflections on death. Enjoyment is Qoheleth's hermeneutic of recovery because it is the only fitting response to death's inevitability. Six of the seven recommendations to enjoy include a claim that enjoyment is a divine gift; enjoyment is the principal way of experiencing God. By extolling enjoyment, Qoheleth also indicts any system that prevents poor people from eating and drinking.
For many sections in Qoheleth, Wolfe provides a helpful range of diverse and competing interpretive options. Six comment boxes provide other women's reflections on specific texts, giving others a voice alongside Wolfe's.
Wolfe could give more consideration to European scholars (Braun, Gilbert, Lavoie, Loretz, Schwienhorst-Schönberger). Neglecting Eunny Lee's The Vitality of Enjoyment in Qohelet's Theological Rhetoric (2005) is unfortunate, as is her omission of Lohfink's 2003 commentary. Using Koehler/Baumgartner's lexicon would have enriched the semantic range of various Hebrew words. I also wish Wolfe offered her own translation of Qoheleth, rather than the NRSV.
The book is ideal for professors, doctoral (and advanced master's) students, and pastors.
