ࡱ> sura 6Gjbjbtt *=EPPPlBBBd d2(`''''''',)R+'B'!BB'!!!BB'!VttJBB'!!Q$BB$ 'x!^i$$ (02(q$,v,!v,$!Bddd$ddThe Ecclesiastes paradox As a book, Ecclesiastes has defied interpretation for more than two thousand years. To the confessional scholar its pessimistic message seems at odds with the rest of the canon. To the redactionist scholar, its inclusion stands in stark contrast to the posited homogenising intention of the redactors. I propose to take an inductive approach to Ecclesiastes, and examine from the point of view of a communicator developing his text. To some extent this has been attempted by previous commentators, but incompletely, since they have remained within the conventional bounds of Old Testament study. When approaching a piece of communication be it a letter to a friend, or a general election campaign, or a research paper for a learned journal four issues must be pinned down. A writer may look at these issues consciously, or they may flow directly from the writer's situation. The issues are: Purpose in writing Audience Message Means of delivery. Logically speaking, the flow is from purpose to audience to message to delivery. However, most authors will work iteratively, reworking the various elements as he moves forward. As critics, we must work backwards, since the means of delivery that is, the form of the words is all that is directly available to us. From this we would usually be able to determine the message completely, thence deducing the audience and thereby the reason for writing. The most straightforward interpretation for Old Testament books is usually that the words as given communicate the message as directly as the author was able to, that the audience were the Israelites of the time of writing, and that the purpose in writing is easily and directly deducible from the message. Therefore, the date and identity of the author (or final redactor) is of great importance, and much effort can be expended in separating out strands of authorship with perhaps different purposes to audiences of different times. Previous Ecclesiastes commentators have carefully examined the purpose, the message and the means of delivery, and have expended considerable energy on placing the author in time and space. However, discussion of the intended audience has really been an adjunct of dating the author, or of describing the form of the book. 'Straightforward' interpretations of wisdom literatureJobProverbsSong of songsEcclesiastesPurposeExplore the 'God of good in a world of evil' paradoxProvide useful advice and develop wisdomCelebrate sexual loveChallenge faith???AudienceSemitic faith communityThe young, those in search of wisdomAdult loversWisdom schools contemporary with authorMessageSuffering does not imply guilt but life is in God's handsMultiple messages, but chiefly to embrace wisdom rather than follyLove is delightfulEverything under the sun is meaninglessMeans of deliveryDramatic poemGnomic verses and some wisdom poemsErotic poemPessimism literature The straightforward interpretations of Job and Proverbs are rarely challenged. The chief interest in critically examining Job is in determining the date, and placing it the context of Mesopotamian and Egyptian theodicies. Proverbs does not even present these challenges, since it makes no claims in regard to uniqueness, and presents itself very deliberately as a compilation compiled over many years and by several authors. Song of Songs presents few problems to the modern critical scholar, but offered many challenges to traditional, especially medieval, scholarship. Since, the 'straightforward' understanding was not acceptable the book was seen as an account of God's love, written for the spiritually advanced, putting forward the message that God's love, rather than physical love, should be the goal of the believer, and being in the form of an extensive allegory. Ecclesiastes, by contrasts, presents serious problems when interpreted 'straightforwardly'. The means of delivery would appear to be in the style of 'pessimism literature'.  The message of Ecclesiastes would seem to be very clearly 'everything under the sun is meaningless'. However, this has been repeatedly challenged or reinterpreted because, otherwise, it would inevitably lead us to the conclusion that the purpose in writing is to sow doubt and despair. For the confessional scholar, this is hard to accept within the context of the rest of Old Testament revelation. For the critical scholar, it is hard to account for why the book was included in the canon when the apparently more orthodox 'Wisdom of Solomon' was excluded, and why it was not re-edited to provide at least a veneer of orthodoxy. Critical approaches have attempted to resolve the issues by, respectively, positing composite authorship, positing multiple levels of redaction, or positing lost or rearranged sections of the text. Confessional approaches have included the claim that the pessimism applies only to life 'under the sun' that is to say, life without God or that the book is included as an inspired example of the intellectual barrenness resulting from apostasy. In this sense, revaluations have depended on challenging the means of delivery, reinterpreting the message, or challenging the status of the author. However, it is generally accepted that none of these approaches 'ring true', and each has more critics than adherents. Consideration of audiences has been limited to dating the book as Solomonic or as post-exilic. However, the importance of the link between purpose and audience has been overlooked. Some alternative interpretations of Ecclesiates'Greek'Multi-authorMedieval allegoricalExtreme evangelicalPurposeFuse Greek and Jewish wisdomMultiple purposes overlaid from author to authorPresent true doctrine through elaborate symbolic means.To present an inspired picture of life without GodAudience2nd century BC Hellenistic schoolMultiple audiences dependent on authorMedieval ChristiansJewish and later Christian believersMessageJewish version of Greek cynicismVarying and contradictory messages'Contemptus mundi''under the sun' life is meaningless, but not life with GodMeans of deliveryGreek-influenced mixture of prose-poetry similar to MenipposRedaction, overlaying and Anagogical or tropological symbolic writing'Ironic' inspirationKey to interpretationAssign conflict in Ecclesiastes to tension in Greek-Jewish thoughtAssign apparent contradictions to differing authors.Use non-literal means to make the book support strict orthodoxyAdjust notion of 'inspiration' to include 'inspired falsehood' A new hypothesis the lecture notes of Solomon The notion that Ecclesiastes is Solomonic is generally discounted by critical scholars. However, the evidence against it is extremely slender. The dialect of Ecclesiastes is unique it does not fit with the posited dialect of the Solomonic period, but neither does it match the post-exilic period. Therefore, this evidence cannot be seen as leaning in either direction. There are two Persian loan words in the text. However, loan word studies in other languages would tend to indicate that, on their own, these could not be seen as substantive evidence especially since there is no apparent Persian influence in the concepts expressed. There is also the question of the apparent shift from a royal perspective in the early chapters to a non-royal perspective in later chapters. However, again, this cuts both ways if a commoner can write as if a king, there is no reason why a king cannot write as if a commoner. Our hypothesis begins with the bold claim in 2 Chronicles 9:23 2Chronicles 9:23 All the kings of the earth sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart. (NIV) Now, it is clear that the writer is speaking figuratively with all the kings of the earth. However, it is equally clear from this and other claims in 2 Chronicles that Solomon was widely known for his wisdom, and that foreigners who had no other contact with Yahwistic religion made their way to Jerusalem in order to hear his wisdom. Supposing that this is true, and supposing that Solomon granted them an audience, what did he tell them? Certainly nothing as unsophisticated as a proclamation of the superiority of Yahwistic monotheism over whatever it was they had come from. If we see Solomon of a man of wisdom, we should accept that he will attempt to take his audience from where they are to where they should be. Solomon, we argue, could assume the following about his visitors: They value wisdom, as defined across the ancient world Their religious background will be polytheistic and probably occult They have heard of his wisdom They have heard (and are now aware) of his wealth They have heard of his majesty and fame They have heard of his reputation as a pleasure-seeker and a lover They assume that these things are the marks of wisdom and power Solomons intention, we maintain, is to take them from these assumptions and expectations to a realisation of the need to know the Living God. We should note that none of the visitors would have been allowed inside the temple, and would not have been permitted to participate in the Yahwistic worship. We can now construct the following table 'Lecture notes theoryPurposeFrom philosophical first principles, to demonstrate the pre-eminence of the Yahwistic worldviewAudienceGoiim non-Jewish seekers after wisdomMessageThe things you have heard about Solomon wealth, wisdom, fame, access to pleasure, great works are incidental. True wisdom is in knowing God.Means of deliveryDiscourses to visitorsKey to interpretationRecognise that the apparent lack of knowledge of Yahweh is an acceptance by the speaker of the state of the audience, rather than a reflection of the authors own state. In contrast with the other views, we find the key to interpretation to be in Solomons intention to lead his audience through a series of steps to the point where he can challenge them to Remember your Creator in the days of your youth, rather than in trying to analyse the state of mind of the apostate Solomon, or the state of mind of a later philosopher. We should also recognise that, if the audience is non-Jewish, then the concept of a Creator will be a fuzzy one. Greek mythology represents Ouranos as the progenitor of Gaia, and from the union of Gaia and Ouranos come the Titans, and thence the Olympians. However, at the same time, Zeus is Dia Pitar, glossed as father of Gods and men. In Babylon, the worship of Anu and Inana appears to predate the worship of Marduk, victorious over Tiamat, but in a very real sense it appears that Tiamat takes over the role of Inana, just as Gaia is mother-earth, but also progenitor of the fearsome Titans. It is not our purpose at this point to debate the multiple redactions of Egyptian, Babylonian and Mediterrannean mythologies, but merely to point out that the notion of a single Creator is a monotheistic notion with which polytheists are uneasy. We should also recognise that the fundamental difference between monotheism and polytheism is not in the number of deities, but rather in the concept of transcendence. For polytheism, men, gods and the earth are all part of the same universe. For monotheists, there is a clear separation between Creator and Creation. Therefore, when the preacher concludes with Remember your Creator, he is not offering a series of platitudes on the lines of lifes rubbish, but you should still be religious because its a good thing, but is in fact making a definitive demand on the part of monotheism something which he was not able to do before the work done by his earlier chapters. This hypothesis also explains the purpose of the early chapters. Rather than as would appear to a Christian or Jew being a depressing account of the equal meaningless of good things (such as wisdom) and bad things (such as the pursuit of pleasure), they are an essential clearing away of false assumptions by the visitors: Solomon is to be imitated in his wealth, in his wisdom, in his pursuit of pleasure, in his great projects. More precisely, Solomon begins with a common thought in ancient wisdom literature that life itself seems without meaning. Since the visitors have come to see him, they clearly expect to discover that he, in his greater wisdom, has detected meaning, and this is exhibited in his wealth, his power, his pleasure, etc. Therefore, he goes out of his way to demonstrate that these things in themselves merely throw meaninglessness into sharp relief. It is my contention that we are apt to overlook how Solomon is arguing because we have little experience of the argument between polytheism and monotheism. From here in Solomon stresses the rhythm of life, in chapter 3, the concept of a single Just Judge, the transcendence of God in Chapter 5, and the overall sovereignty of God in Chapter 7. These sections oscillate with the insignificance, before God, of the human experience. These are all elements of the classic debate between polytheism and monotheism. Polytheism struggles philosophically to account for the apparent unity of the universe, and for the universal human desire to worship a being infinitely greater, more just, more worthy than himself. Monotheism struggles to account for the problem of evil if the universe is entirely under Gods control, and entirely created by Him, how is it that evil can exist? The preacher presents the underlying arguments for monotheism powerfully, but he also represents the problem of evil as being largely in the hands of men unjust judges, meaningless follies. Other evidence New hypotheses suffer from the tendency to organise all snippets of evidence into a tour de force. We shall attempt to resist this. However, we would note that the lecture notes hypothesis neatly accounts for the use only of the general name El and not the divine name Yahweh the contact point between Solomon and his hearers is creation, not covenant. Equally, we would note that, while Song of Songs references many locations within Israel, Ecclesiastes references only Jerusalem itself suitable to travellers who had only encountered the capital city. Likewise, it accounts for the epilogue, which seems to have been written by a third party. In fact, under this hypothesis, there is no reason to believe that the book was written by Solomon at all but is rather a recording of his lectures, much as Ferdinand de Saussures Cours de Linguistique Generale was not written by himself, but compiled by his students after his death. As a sop to the liberal-critical school, we also accept that there is no reason why a much later writer should not have used the same line of reasoning that we have used and written a treatise for Gentiles as if it were written by Solomon, although we ourselves do not recommend such a line of argument. Practical Use Evangelicals suffer more strongly than liberals do from traditional views of Ecclesiastes. At the end of a hard day of theologising, a liberal can throw up hands and say, rather like the preacher, its all meaningless anyway, none of it actually has to make sense. The evangelical is left struggling with all scripture is God-breathed and useful Even where a case could be made for suggesting that Ecclesiastes is under the sun, ie, without God, one is left struggling with the question of how is this actually useful. We would maintain that this book is of the utmost use as an evangelistic tool. Once we recognise that materialism is fundamentally the same as polytheism, in that it does not acknowledge a transcendent creator, simply stating what you can see is all there is, then the same arguments used in Ecclesiastes can form the basis of a powerful evangelistic programme.  This is an assessment which has been accepted perhaps rather too readily by the scholarly community. The school of pessimism literature only seems to have two other extant examples, one Babylonian and one Egyptian, and neither are especially similar to Ecclesiastes. The best Babylonian parallel is known as 'A pessimistic dialog between a master and his servant' (ANET). The so-called 'Babylonian Qoheleth', which is also known as the Babylonian Theodicy, has more in common with the book of Job.  Lohfink's interpretation  Such as it is the corpus of wisdom literature, and especially of pessimism literature is nowhere near as large or as coherent as commentators sometimes imply.  Unless we (properly) accept atheism and materialism as forms of polytheism, since they share the same view that the universe is all there is OP###.*g,5577`>g>>>AACCEEFFFF5G6Gžh<&3h<&36jh<&3h<&30JU h<&3h<&3%h<&3h<&3B*CJOJPJQJph(h<&3h<&3>*B*CJOJPJQJph h<&3H*jh<&30JUh<&3IJpq 2$Ifl iC5G2348AO\$Ifl iYkd$$IflH""04 la\]eYIIIII$Ifl ikd|$$Iflru fWH"04 la3@hYIIIII$Ifl ikd&$$Iflru fWH"04 lahiq+YIIIII$Ifl ikd$$Iflru fWH"04 la+,>Lp|YIIIII$Ifl ikdz$$Iflru fWH"04 la#$YWWWWWWWWWkd$$$Iflru fWH"04 la Ykd$$IflH""04 la$Ifl @dD  =nYIIIII$Ifl @dDkdJ$$Iflru fWH"04 la,@eYIIIII$Ifl @dDkd$$Iflru fWH"04 laefnYIIIII$Ifl @dDkd$$Iflru fWH"04 laQlYIIIII$Ifl @dDkdH$$Iflru fWH"04 la<|YIIIII$Ifl @dDkd$$Iflru fWH"04 la####YWWRWWWWgd<&3kd$$Iflru fWH"04 la##C$D$%%''[''''((P((((**-*.*/*F*$Ifl @dD & Fgd<&3gd<&3F*G*O**$Ifl @dDlkdF$$Ifl0#z0j$4 la****$Ifl @dDlkd$$Ifl0#z0j$4 la***{+$Ifl @dDlkdj $$Ifl0#z0j$4 la{+|+++$Ifl @dDlkd $$Ifl0#z0j$4 la+++f,$Ifl @dDlkd $$Ifl0#z0j$4 laf,g,h,--"1#1a2b233~5566A7B7gd<&3lkd $$Ifl0#z0j$4 laB78888::t;u;;1?a@b@p@ABBCEEFF4G5G6Ggd<&3gd<&3gd<&3(/ =!"#$% z$$If!vh5"#v":V l05"4$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554z$$If!vh5"#v":V l05"4$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55555#v#v:V l0554$$If!vh55z#vz#v:V l0j$5z54$$If!vh55z#vz#v:V l0j$5z54$$If!vh55z#vz#v:V l0j$5z54$$If!vh55z#vz#v:V l0j$5z54$$If!vh55z#vz#v:V l0j$5z54$$If!vh55z#vz#v:V l0j$5z548`8 <&3NormalCJmH sH tH P@P Heading 1$<@&5CJKHOJQJP@P <&3 Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJaJDA@D Default Paragraph FontZi@Z  Table Normal :V 4 l4a _H(k@(No List :@: Footnote TextCJ@&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*O/16ADGDG6A !z!z!z!z!z!z z3 &<Z|"-76A+C5@?xIJpq2 3 4 8 A O \ ] e  3 @ h i q  + , > L p | #$ =n,@efnQl<|CD!![!!!!("P""""$$-$.$/$F$G$O$$$$$$${%|%%%%%f&g&h&''"+#+a,b,--~//00A1B1222244t5u5519a:b:p:;<<=??@@4A7A0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0ـ0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0٠0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ 0ؾй 0ؾ` 0ؾp 0ؾp 0ؾp 0ؾй 0ؾ`0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɠ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ000ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ(0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0`0`0`0ɀ0ɀ0`2 3 \ ] h i + , F$G$$$$${%|%%%f&g&7A 07 @ 073   p;ݠ 07]    07   ! 07i   `$J  07,    @ 7Z  @S  7܈)0[  @S0 7X[܈)  @S\ 7@[ ܈)  @S 7@[  @S 7@\ `S8 6G*2\h+e#F***{++f,B76G+-./0123456789:;<=>?@A5G,e o 3<GOz>AIRL U ##$$$$_(f(((((()B)E)J)O)r)x)))))))**88888888%<'<=====????7A >%C%h2n289<== >7A::::::u نr^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.u          2 3 4 8 A O \ ] e  3 @ h i q  + , > L p |  =n,@efnQl<|".$/$F$G$O$$$$$$${%|%%%%%f&g&=7Aaq1@==J ==#g46A @UnknownGTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial9Palatino3Times;Helvetica"1hskj&3l!4d>I@?<&3The Ecclesiastes paradoxMartin M Turner Martin Turner  Oh+'0x  4 @ LX`hp'The Ecclesiastes paradox1.qPMartin M Turner'QNormalMartin Turnerr5QMicrosoft Word 11.2@@zr@vd@C%3 ՜.+,0  hp  'Martin M Turnerl> The Ecclesiastes paradox Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABDEFGHIJLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`acdefghiklmnopqtRoot Entry F KC%vData C1TableK,WordDocument*SummaryInformation(bDocumentSummaryInformation8jCompObjX FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8