Ecclesiastes Essay links and bibliography

This essay was written for my Old Testament Prophets and Writings class, to answer the question,
"Is the central message of Ecclesiastes one of pessimism or joy? Comment on what you have found helpful from Ecclesiastes for your understanding of the Christian life."

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Bibliography

F. Delitzsch “The Book of Ecclesiastes,” in Commentary on the Old Testament Vol.10 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch eds., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1966 (originally published Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866-1891) p. 629-816

Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III “Ecclesiastes,” in An Introduction to the Old Testament, Leicester: Apollos/InterVarsity Press, 1995, p. 247-255

Michael A. Eaton Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Tyndale/Inter-Varsity Press, 1983)

Peter Enns “Ecclesiastes 1: Book of,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings, Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns eds., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008, p. 121-132

Michael V. Fox “Introduction to the Commentary: Ecclesiastes,” in JPS Bible Commentary: Ecclesiastes (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2004) p. ix-xxxiii http://books.google.com.au/books?id=TX9DuDb9hgQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false0sea%20scrolls%20date&f=false. Accessed 3 Oct 2012.

Daniel C Fredericks and Daniel J Estes “Author and Date,” in Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs Apollos Old Testament Commentary Vol 16, David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham eds. (Nottingham Apollos/InterVaristy Press) p. 31-36

Graeme Goldsworthy “Ecclesiastes and the Confusion of Order,” in The Goldsworthy Trilogy: Gospel and Wisdom Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2011, p. 448-457

Greg Goswell “The Order of the Books in the Hebrew Bible,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51(2008) pp. 673-688 http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-4/JETS%2051-4%20673-688%20Goswell.pdf

Matthew Henry “Ecclesiastes,” in A Commentary on the Whole Bible Vol 3 Iowa Falls, IO: World Bible Publishers, unknown date, p. 980-1052

William Sanford Lasor, David Allan Hubbard & Frederic William Bush “Ecclesiastes,” Old Testament Survey 2^nd ed. William Sanford Lasor, David Allan Hubbard & Frederic William Bush p. 497-509

Tremper Longman III “Ecclesiastes 3: History of Interpretation,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings, Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns eds., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008 p. 140-149

John Piper Think Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010 p. 41-56

R. L. Schultz “Ecclesiastes,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner eds. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press p. 211-215

Howard F. Vos “The Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls” in The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary Merrill F. Unger ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody Bible Institute/Lion Hudson, revised and updated 1988) http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xnjYp_qJNjEC&pg=PT520&lpg=PT520&dq=ecclesiastes+dead+sea+scrolls+date&source=bl&ots=TYjgZFh38f&sig=v5bI-Gmw-fxcTNKmSK_wIrsfg5c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2-hrUI_bIqWkiAfjqoHgDA&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ. Accessed 3 Oct 2012.

Barry G. Webb “Ecclesiastes: Garment of Vexation,” in Five Festal Garments New Studies in Biblical Theology No. 10 Don A. Carson (series ed.) Leicester: Apollos / Inter-Varsity Press, 2000 p. 83-109

S. Weeks “Ecclesiastes,” in An Introduction to the Study of Wisdom Literature London: T. & T. Clark, 2010 p. 71-84

D. M. Welton “The Old Testament Wisdom (Chokma),” in The Biblical World Vol.10#3 Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, Sept 1897 p. 183-189 www.jstor.org/stable/3140110. Accessed 27 Sept 2012.

J. Stafford Wright “Ecclesiastes,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Vol. 5 Frank E. Gaebelein (ed.) Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991 p. 1137-1197

Ecclesiastes Essay part 5

Answering pessimism with optimism

Qohelet refutes his pessimism with optimism. Joy and satisfaction in the simple circumstances, acts and relationships of life are observed to be ‘good’ (5:18) and commendable (8:15), despite the burden of labour and the brevity of life. Qohelet neutralizes the fleeting nature of life with his observation of the one thing that endures (3:12-14):

‘That each of them may … find satisfaction … this is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will endure forever … God does it so that people will fear him.’

Joy is not fleeting, but everlasting, because it is given by an enduring act of God. The number of references to joy in Ecclesiastes is fewer than the instances of hebel. However, for every pessimistic observation, Qohelet indentifies an optimistic rebuttal. Life may be fleeting, but joy endures. Labour may appear futile, but God’s approval grants the experience of joy and his judgment ensures eternal reward, encouraging us to fear God.

Ecclesiastes Essay part 4

Structure and message

Commentators seem unable to interpret the relationship between structure and message in Ecclesiastes far beyond identifying separate voices and significant words.[1] Critics agree that the frame narrator provides an introductory summary to the book (1:1-11[2]), a concluding epilogue (12:8-14[3]), and a lone verse in the centre of the book (7:27a[4]). De Jong further identifies an alternating pattern of observation and instruction[5] in the core. This reader finds a loose extended chiastic (ring) structure in Ecclesiastes, of which the frame is merely one element. Hence it must be understood that Ecclesiastes’ message is not found exclusively within the frame[6], or entirely within the speech. De Jong’s structure[7] is adapted and expanded below:

A 1:1 introductory prologue
B 1:2 motto
C 1:3-11 Song of cycles of nature and society
D 1:12-4:16 observations: wisdom, pleasure, oppression, toil, loneliness, succession: hebel
E 5:1-9 instructions: fear God – listen to God; fulfill vows
F 5:10 - 6:12 observations: wealth; common problem to lack contentment: hebel
G 7:1-22 instructions: keep the end in mind; God’s sovereignty; fear God, not man
H 7:23-8:1 central observations including frame narrator’s voice at 7:27
G’ 8:2-8 instructions: be cautious in relations with king and regarding the future
F’ 8:9-9:6 observations: injustice; common destiny to join the dead: hebel
E’ 9:7-10 instructions: be joyful for God has approved what you do; do what you find to do
D’ 9:11-11:8 observations and instructions: be prudent applying wisdom to overcome hebel
C’ 11:9-12:7 Song of youth and death
B’ 12:8 motto
A’ 12:9-14 epilogue and conclusion

One example must suffice as evidence for these claims of structural parallels, although more could be given if space permitted. In section F, Qohelet observes (6:3),

‘A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he.’

Then in section F’, he observes (8:12),

‘Although a wicked person who commits a hundred crimes may live a long time, I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him.’

These are the only uses of the word ‘hundred’ in Ecclesiastes, distinguishing the parallel sections: the first exposes the futility of long life without joy, the second examines the futility of long life without justice; both consider the effect of death; both provide a ‘better’ option. Significantly, they also provide structural grounds for excluding an overall pessimistic interpretation. In his early observations[8], Qohelet complains of the meaninglessness of a life cut short by death, but here he shows that death is not the real problem: it is a lack of joy or a lack of justice. In his surrounding instructions, Qohelet solves this problem, instructing the reader to find joy in God’s gifts (E’)[9], to be satisfied that there will be a proper time for all judgment (G’), and to fear God and respect his sovereignty (E and G).

This structure helps us interpret the flow of Qohelet’s argument. The beginning, end and central passages of this chiasm serve to define the structure and to emphasize the message. This is vital for understanding the message of Ecclesiastes, because it provides the author’s counsel regarding Qohelet’s words.

The prologue gives the reader a foretaste of Qohelet’s speech[10], beginning with his motto (1:2),

‘ “Meaningless! Meaningless!”

  says the Teacher.’

and the first question Qohelet attempts to answer (1:3),

‘What do people gain from all their labors

  at which they toil under the sun?’

These verses delineate the direction and scope of Qohelet’s speech. He will look for gain obtainable through toil. The following verses typify Qohelet’s observations: the cycles of nature (1:4-7) and society (1:8b-11) are ‘wearisome’ (1:8a). The prologue elucidates his pessimism, but the prologue is not the epilogue: while these verses introduce the content of Qohelet’s speech, they do not show the conclusion.

Sections D through G balance observations of life as futile and fleeting with instructions to take God seriously. We do not go to God’s house to barter with sacrifices, but to listen to his word (5:1). Whatever vows we make to God, we must keep quickly (5:4). We look not for the gain we might get (5:10-12; 6:7, 9) but occupy ourselves with the good we have already been given (5:18-20). Qohelet’s preoccupation with death leads us to fear the sovereign God (7:14). In fearing God we will ‘avoid all extremes’ of Qohelet’s pessimistic observations, ‘grasp’ the point of his condemnation of earthly idols and ‘not let go’ of his recognition of joy’s source (7:18).

A tighter chiastic structure is observed in the central passage (H) immediately surrounding the frame narrator’s comment at 7:27a, elucidating the significance of the seemingly random frame narrator interjection.

A 7:23-24 Wisdom’s explanations are beyond Qohelet’s reach
B 7:25 Qohelet determines ‘to search out … the scheme of things’
C 7:26 Qohelet finds bitterness contemplating the woman who is a snare
D 7:27a Frame narrator quotes Qohelet identifying his discoveries
C’ 7:27b-28 Qohelet searched but did not find, contemplating the lack of upright women
B’ 7:29 Though created upright, men have gone ‘in search of many schemes’
A’ 8:1 Wisdom’s explanations brighten the face of the wise

Qohelet’s discoveries are important, but flawed. The reader is reminded of the ostensible Solomonic authorship with the ensnaring woman, reminiscent of Woman Folly from Proverbs 9:13-18[11]; and with the absence of righteous women, a possible reference to Solomon’s pagan wives (1 Ki. 11:1-6)[12]. The passage warns of corruption, matching Qohelet’s search for the scheme of things with mankind’s search for many schemes. Wisdom has brought frustration to Qohelet but provides a cheery countenance to the wise. Hence, in this climactic passage the frame narrator’s voice draws our attention to Qohelet’s dilemma: embedded in the centerpiece of the book we find criticism of Qohelet and his more negative observations, accompanied by a simple promise of the joyous benefits of true wisdom.

In sections G’ to D’ we find Qohelet’s pessimistic observations decreasing in intensity and frequency (hebel only occurs six times, compared to 21 times in the earlier parallel sections). These negative observations are mitigated by instructions to be prudent in relations with the king (8:2-5) and in making choices regarding the future (2:5-8). They are also allayed in the final carpe diem passage, an instruction: ‘Go… with a joyful heart,’ because ‘God has already approved what you do,’ so ‘always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil’ (9:7-8). Our joy is based in God’s attitude towards us, an expression of our righteousness before God and our holiness through his grace. This beautiful instruction is given, paradoxically, in proximity the refrain, ‘all the days of this meaningless life … under the sun … all your meaningless days’ (9:9). Again we see Qohelet’s negativity with regard to earthly idols. Some critics interpret these enjoyment texts as signs of resignation.[13] However, 9:7-10 is an assurance that joy is possible despite Qohelet’s discoveries, even as one admits their validity (11:8):

‘However many years anyone may live,

  let them enjoy them all.

But let them remember the days of darkness.’

This is confirmed in the song of youth and death (section C’) by the repeated instruction to ‘be happy’ and receive ‘joy’ while young.[14]

Unfortunately, the meaning of the concluding epilogue, particularly 12:9-12, is disputed. Qohelet is described as wise (12:9), his written words are ‘just… right’, ‘upright’ and ‘true’ (12:10). While apparently a positive description, some see this as damning with faint praise, given Qohelet’s earlier self-criticism (7:23)[15]. The above analysis of the central passage provides weight to this negative critique. The ‘words of the wise are like goads’ (12:11);[16] but the simile may be interpreted positively as a motivating incentive[17] or negatively as that which tears the flesh[18]. Qohelet’s speech likewise contains uncomfortable words, but if understood correctly it will motivate us in a godly direction.

The conclusion of 12:13-14 is clear:

‘Now all has been heard…

Fear God and keep his commandments,

  for this is the duty of all mankind.’

These verses cannot be dismissed as the postscript of a pious editor since they conform to the instructions in the first half. According to Delitzsch, the command to fear God is ‘the kernel and the star of the whole book … which mitigates its pessimism.’[19] We must conclude – with the frame narrator’s benediction upon us – that the essential message to take from Ecclesiastes is to live in reverent fear and humble obedience – to enjoy life under God, rather than under the sun. Ecclesiastes teaches us ‘how to enjoy well.’[20] This is ‘positive teaching’[21], an ultimately optimistic, joyous message.

Ecclesiastes 12:14 completes the message with a reminder that God’s judgment, though inscrutable and beyond human wisdom, is sure and final:

‘God will bring every deed into judgment

  … whether it is good or evil.’

This is the same message that Jesus took up in his Parable of the Rich Fool[22], when he warned, “Life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” (Luke 12:15; cf Ecc. 2:25-26; 4:4-6; 5:10-16) and placed Qohelet’s musings into God’s mouth, ‘ “This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” ’ (Luke 12:20; cf Ecc. 1:18-19; 2:26; 5:15-16; 6:12). With the promise of personal[23], divine judgment, proffering both reward and penalty, the frame narrator answers Qohelet’s complaint of the futility of life. Death may seem the end, as Qohelet mused in his final song (C’), but the final judgment of God will show that his sovereignty prevails eternally.

---

[1] Webb is one of the few to utilize structural analysis consistently in drawing conclusions, and this reader will follow his lead.

[2] Enns p. 124-125. Some critics treat only 1:1 as the Frame narrator’s voice.

[3] Delitzsch vehemently opposes the inclusion of 12:8 in the frame (p. 808), and other critics limit the significant verses pertaining to the book’s message to 12:13-14.

[4] Dillard & Longman p. 250, Enns p. 124

[5] Webb p. 86

[6] as with Dillard and Longman’s analysis, where Qohelet’s speech is seen as merely a ‘foil’. (Dillard & Longman p. 254)

[7] Webb p. 87

[8] section A, see Appendix A

[9] Webb states that the ‘enjoyment texts’ are only within De Jong’s observation complexes (Webb p. 88), but this reader identifies slightly different passage boundaries with an instruction discourse regarding joy at 9:7-10.

[10] Enns p. 124

[11] these are the culminating verses of a wisdom passage expressly attributed to Solomon.

[12] Write relates this comparison to 7:26. Wright p. 1177

[13] Enns p. 126, Webb p. 88

[14] Since the picture of old age presented metaphorically in this song (121b-5) is one of extreme frailty, this reader considers most of the average present-day life span to be ‘youth’ in Qohelet’s terms.

[15] Dillard & Longman p. 254

[16] There is some disagreement as to whether this applies to the words of Qohelet contained in Ecclesiastes or those attributed to Solomon elsewhere. Delitzsch p. 809

[17] Eaton p. 154

[18] Dillard & Longman p. 254

[19] Delitzsch p. 814

[20] Welton p. 185

[21] Dillard & Longman p. 253, 254

[22] Luke 12:13-21

[23] Delitzsch p. 816

Ecclesiastes Essay part 3

The key term hebel

Since the frame narrator claims Qohelet chose his words with great care (12:9-10), the particular words used in Ecclesiastes are significant for interpreting the author’s message. The Hebrew term hebel occurs nearly 40 times[1] and, from its primary meaning ‘breath’[2] is translated ‘vanity’ (KJV), ‘meaningless’[3] (NIV), or ‘futility’ (HCSB). The prevalence of this word, together with multiple mentions of death[4], often sees Ecclesiastes labeled pessimistic.

Qohelet observes hebel in earthly situations: pleasure (2:1); achievements and inheritance (2:11, 19, 21, 26; 4:4); wisdom (2:15) and foolishness (7:5-6); work and striving (2:17, 23; 4:4); the fate of death (3:19; 11:8) and the days of life (9:9); loneliness, wealth and discontent (4:7-8; 5:10; 6:2, 9); succession politics (4:16); rash vows (5:7); the unknowable future (6:12; 11:8); injustice (7:15; 8:10, 14); and youth (11:10). Whether hebel means futile[5] or fleeting[6], it is Qohelet’s account of ‘everything’ (1:2; 2:11; 3:19; 12:8). But it is vital to recognize that Qohelet never applies the term to God’s gift of joy nor to fearing God. Rather, his intent appears to be ‘first, to show where happiness could not be found.’[7] Qohelet’s observations here are similar to Isaiah’s comments regarding the futility of idolatry, and may be taken as a commentary on Isaiah 57:13 (also featuring the word hebel[8]):

  ‘Let your collection of idols save you!

The wind will carry all of them off,

  a mere breath will blow them away.’

Certainly this is cynicism in a high degree, but it must also be admitted that Qohelet’s pessimism is limited in scope to specific earthly idols through which people seek meaning. It does not apply to joy found in the simple life lived in fear of God.

---

[1] Schultz p. 212

[2] Weeks p. 79-80

[3] Fox argues for a definition of ‘absurd … counter-rational.’ (Fox p. xix)

[4] Enns p. 127

[5] useless, profitless, without purpose, ‘under the impact of death’ (Webb p. 93), unproductive (Fox p. xix). Goswell relates the ‘futility’ of Ecclesiastes to its reading at the Feast of Tabernacles (Goswell p. 686).

[6] transient, temporary (Fredericks & Estes p. 32; cf Schultz p. 212); transitory, passing, of no lasting significance (Webb p. 93, 95), ephemeral (Fox, p. xix)

[7] Welton p. 186

[8] e.g. Isaiah 57:13, Weeks p. 80-81

Ecclesiastes Essay part 2

Author and voices

Ecclesiastes 1:1 describes the content of the book as ‘the words of the Teacher [Qohelet], son of David, king in Jerusalem’. Qohelet is a noun built from the Hebrew verb qhl, which means ‘to assemble, summon, gather’[1]. Qohelet is understood as a title indicating a person who assembles the people in order to speak to them[2], or perhaps a person who gathers wisdom. Hence, Qohelet is a veiled reference to Solomon.[3]

More recently, an external frame written in the third person has been identified, within which Qohelet’s speech is related in first person. Current consensus accepts that the author, speaking in his own voice as the ‘frame narrator’, uses Qohelet’s voice pseudonymously to build his argument.[4] The extent to which he is the author of Qohelet’s words is unknown,[5] with disagreement about the date of Ecclesiastes’ composition[6]. If a later author adopted the persona of Solomon, then Qohelet’s speech may be criticised for a supposed dependence upon pagan thought;[7] with Qohelet’s pessimism highlighted, and optimistic passages downplayed as orthodox redactions[8]. However, the language of Ecclesiastes is consistent throughout[9], displaying a ‘deep cohesiveness’[10], indicating the text should be studied as a unity, regardless of its date or method of composition.

---

[1] Eaton p. 23

[2] Dillard & Longman p. 248

[3] Solomon summoned the Israelite leaders to the dedication of the first temple (1 Ki. 8:1; Enns p. 123) and gathered proverbs (Prov. 1:11; 1 Ki. 4:32). Hence, King Solomon was traditionally considered the author, with some exceptions (eg Henry p. 980; Luther, per Longman p. 145). This identification ‘made possible’ the inclusion of Ecclesiastes in the Jewish canon (Fox p. xv, cf Lasor, Hubbard & Bush p. 498).

[4] Enns p. 122; Fox p. x

[5] The words may have originally been Solomon’s, passed down orally or in written form (Henry p. 980; Wright p. 1140-1141); they may be the invention of an author using Qohelet as his pseudonymous protagonist (Enns p. 122; Fredericks p. 31; Weeks p. 72); or there may be some combination of textual authorship such as redaction or incorporation of editorial glosses (contra: Eaton p. 41-43).

[6] Dating its composition variously as early as the reign of Solomon, a time of international dialogue and the rise of Chokma (Fredericks & Estes p. 31-36); or as late as the postexilic Persian or Greek eras, views espoused by Delitzsch (p. 637-641; cf Enns p. 124) and Fox (p. xiv) based upon the presence of Persian loanwords and economic terms (Enns p. 124), or perceived Hellenistic references and philosophical reasoning (Fox p. xiv), in the text. Dillard and Longman find the latter arguments ‘unpersuasive’ and ‘dubious’ (Dillard & Longman p. 249).

[7] such as the pessimism literature of Egypt and Babylonia (Eaton p. 34-36). However these end with a recommendation of suicide, a far cry from Ecclesiastes’ commendation of joy and instruction to fear God.

[8] Dillard and Longman p. 249

[9] Eaton p. 42-43

[10] Fox p. xvi

Ecclesiastes Essay part 1

The central message of Ecclesiastes: joy or pessimism?

The central message of Ecclesiastes is joy, not pessimism. Pessimism is Qohelet’s problem, not his solution: cynical observations of the apparently fleeting and futile nature of life ‘under the sun’[1] are grounds for commending prudent, pious joy[2] and satisfaction[3]. This will be demonstrated through a careful examination of the form and content of Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes is not an easy book to understand. There is ‘little consensus’[4] about its interpretation. It at times appears confused[5]; it is certainly complex[6]. For example, Qohelet observes that his ‘heart took delight’ (2:10) in his labour, yet says it was ‘grevious to me’ (2:17). The reader struggles to interpret such vagaries of thought. Furthermore, we ‘cannot assume that any one statement of Koheleth’s expresses the book’s teaching.’[7] In order to construe the message of Ecclesiastes correctly, it is necessary to comprehend three things: the issue of author and voices; the key word hebel; and the link between structure and message.

---

[1] Ecclesiastes 1:3. All Bible quotations, unless otherwise specified, are from the NIV2011.

[2] Ecclesiastes 8:15; 9:7; 11:9.

[3] Ecclesiastes 2:24; 3:13; 5:18.

[4] Weeks p. 72

[5] Dillard & Longman p. 251

[6] Longman p. 147

[7] italics in original. Fox p. xiii

The Patriarchal Narratives

I've just finished writing a book review on Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives for my Old Testament Foundations class, and I'm posting it here as well. It's pretty dense - I had a word limit of 1500 +/- 10%, and managed to get down to 1648 words - and because of that, I didn't get to write much about the significance of the implications of this book. So I'll preface this posting of my review with what I would have included if there had been room.

---

The historical reliability of the stories of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which is the subject of the book, underpins several Christian doctrines:

With respect to the faithfulness of God, there are implications for Christians, who rely upon God's promises of Jesus' return in glory to judge and renew creation. If God really did make and keep the promises to the patriarchs recorded in Genesis 12-50, then Christians have a sound basis for their faith that he will keep the promises recorded in the New Testament.

With respect to the relationship between God and his people, there are implications for Christians, who are God's chosen people today. The sovereign nature of the God who elects his people in mercy is discussed in Romans 9:7-16 with particular reference to the patriarchal narratives as the doctrine's foundation. If God really did choose the patriarchs in order to bless the whole world through them (Genesis 12:3 and 28:14) and to have a relationship with them (Genesis 17:7), then Christians have a sensible reason for trusting in his election of the saints (1 Peter 2:9-10) and in God's provision of the perfect priest through whose sacrifice we are sanctified (Hebrews).

With respect to the relationship between God's people and their home, the implications for Christians apply to both the land of Israel - is it still the land of promise, or does that mean something different since the time of Jesus? - and the eternal land of promise: heaven and the new creation. If God really did grant a land for his people (Genesis 15:18-20), then Christians have a strong foundation for their hope in the reality of a new creation (Revelation 21-22).

---

Now you know why the content of this book is important, you might like to read what I thought of it.

Millard, A.R., and D.J. Wiseman, ed. 1980, Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press).

Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives contains seven essays by seven scholars, examining the archaeo-historical background and literary content of the patriarchal narratives contained in Genesis 12–50. They assess relevant scholarship in various disciplines, and present new analyses of data from their fields, seeking to support the historicity of the biblical accounts of Abraham’s family and their origins in the Ancient Near East (ANE) during the second millennium BC. These essays provide a broad, comprehensive and convincing analysis of studies of Genesis, although it is fairly inaccessible for the novice biblical historian.

The book begins with John Goldingay’s essay, which sets the tone for the entire book. Goldingay exegetes the central theme of the patriarchal narratives as God’s blessing, promised and provided, despite problems and people (pp.12-23). He argues for the examination of the patriarchal narratives in the context of the story arc from Genesis to Kings (pp.25), showing that the theme is derived from God’s blessing of the whole world in the earlier chapters of Genesis (pp.26-27), and extended by Israel’s reliance upon the promises (pp.28-35). Later generations based their faith on the authenticity of the promises and their partial fulfilment as recorded in the patriarchal narratives: ‘Israel … refers to it … in such a way as to make it rather clear that she understands the story to be fundamentally factual’ (p.39-40). Goldingay considers the approaches of T. L. Thompson, G. E. Wright and von Rad (p.35-39) and, finding them lacking, concludes we must take the ‘risk’ of faith, given the inherent credibility of the narratives (p. 40).

The second essay by A. R. Millard, argues that the patriarchal narratives should be studied as ANE texts (p.45), not compared to culturally and chronologically remote texts (such as the Icelandic sagas), and highlights the importance of comparing multiple texts from a range of sources and dates before conclusions are drawn (p.47). He asserts the patriarchal narratives should be considered reliable until proven otherwise, without allowing the religious element to automatically label the text mythical, as would be the case for comparable ANE texts (p.53). Millard promotes a critical but not hypercritical analysis of the text, searching not only for archaeological anachronisms but also for evidence of reliability (p.56), a task his fellow writers strive to undertake.

In the third essay, J. J. Bimson considers possible time frames for the patriarchal narratives. From Genesis 12—38, he distinguishes between sites associated with Abraham’s life and later sites (p.68-69). He then assesses the evidence for dates of occupation from each of the major biblical archaeological sites individually (p.69-79). Bimson argues for a Middle Bronze Age I date for Abraham and Isaac and a Middle Bronze Age II date for Jacob and sons (p.80), which agrees with the majority of the archaeological evidence (with some discussion of possible solutions to conundrums posed by Hebron and Ai [p.80]). He then compares this to intra-biblical dates (p.81-83), achieving a consensus dating Abraham’s life primarily to the 21st century BC (p.84).

The fourth essay, by M. J. Selman, continues the examination of archaeological data, considering parallels that may be drawn between ANE social customs (observed or extrapolated from relevant cuneiform texts) and the practices of the patriarchs. Selman assesses where scholars have overreached in their attempts to draw parallels (p93-102), and where the best balance of support lies from the presently available cuneiform evidence. Granting of birthright privileges to eldest sons, the role of brothers in arranging marriages, and the use of slave girls as surrogates for barren wives (p.126-128) are used as indirect supporting evidence for the historical background of the patriarchal narratives (p.125) and the basis of their content in events of the 2nd and possibly 1st millennium BC (p.128), rather than either solely as a 1st millennium construct of the monarchy to justify its existence, or as an imaginary myth with no basis in actual events.

D. J. Wiseman’s essay rejects the classification of Abraham as primarily a nomad, using the biblical text to show that while he re-located several times, he predominantly settled near populated centres (p.139-142). The meaning of Abraham’s description as a ‘Hebrew’ is discussed and its use in characterising him as a wanderer is discounted (p.143-144). In contrast, it is asserted that Abraham was a ‘prince’ according to the customs of the time, a title of distinction with responsibilities for government (p.144-149). The implications of the nomenclature ‘father’ are considered with respect to the timing of the Abrahamic narratives’ composure and their correspondences to Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts (p.149-153). Evidence for possible origins of the name-type ‘Abraham’ are assessed, emphasising the uniqueness of the name, while acknowledging the renaming process (Gen. 17:5) has Mesopotamian parallels (p.153-154).

‘The religion of the patriarchs’ by G. J. Wenham analyses the uses of various names for God, particularly Yahweh, and El and its derivatives, together with religious practices, across the narratives of each patriarch, as well as between passages attributed by critics to different sources and times (p.159-164). He examines and evaluates the work of A. Alt, F. M. Cross, and C. Westermann in this area (p.164-175). Interpretations of the key passage, Exodus 6:3, are discussed, revealing problems with the application of source criticism (p.179-180). Wenham proposes that the pattern of use of the name ‘Yahweh’ within the Genesis text best fits with ‘the Yahwistic editor’ (p.183) conflating the identities of Yahweh and the God of the patriarchs with careful additions of the Tetragrammaton into earlier text (p.183). The God revealed in Genesis is described in unique ways that would not be appropriate if the text had been composed after Sinai or in the monarchical period (p.184-185).

In the final essay, David W. Baker* considers the connections between parts of the Genesis text, showing that it should not be interpreted merely as a conglomeration of discrete passages, although textual units may clearly be distinguished. He examines lexical endings and beginnings that are indicators of time gaps, and subject and location changes (p.190-195). He also delineates repeated word and phrase forms (such as tôledôt [p.196]) and rhetorical forms (for example inclusio and chiasmus [p.197-199]), which serve to unify certain passages. Baker observes that the use of pronouns as anaphora in the text is sometimes incompatible with the source critics’ document hypothesis (p.200). He states that his analysis cannot be used to determine a definite date for textual composition, although it compares favourably with ANE texts at the structural level (p.201).

The individual arguments are well reasoned, balanced, and flow clearly both within each essay and throughout the order of the book, despite being written by scholars with very different spheres of expertise and interest. Furthermore, coverage of the topic of the historical origins of Genesis 12—50 from a broad variety of perspectives gives weight to the argument as a whole, that there are good archaeological and literary grounds for an acceptance of the patriarchal narratives as based in actual historical events, originally recorded near the time of those events. There is a good balance between comprehensive analysis of previous scholarship and presentation of new attempts to reconcile various data with the Genesis text, as proposed in the preface (p.7).

The authors uphold the significance of the Bible, without seeking to distort or twist data or the text to fit what obviously does not fit. They are unafraid to explain where flawed or hasty methodology has led to failed attempts to prove patriarchal historicity. They also expose several difficulties for the documentary hypothesis.

The analysis of Hebrew and cuneiform is generally clear for the reader who knows no Hebrew. Transliteration of the Hebrew, necessitated by the publication’s formatting style, is particularly helpful.

This book has been written for an academic audience, but its utility in strengthening faith in the face of biblical criticism warrants a wider audience. In order for the essays to be read and easily understood by novices to the arena of biblical archaeology, such as pastors, a map needs to be included to show the sites and approximate dating of relevant archaeological digs, particularly the locations of significant cuneiform finds referred to in the text (such as Nuzi, Mari, Ugarit, Larsa and Akkad).

At present, each essay may be read individually. They do form a combined picture, which is, unfortunately, never clarified although it is hinted at in the preface (p.7). The inclusion of a final essay (perhaps by the editors), drawing together the conclusions of each author, would be valuable if the book is to be read by a wider audience.

It is clear from reading these essays that new archaeological finds or publications of cuneiform texts can change the evidence for or against particular theories very quickly. Hence the age of the work, which is now thirty years old, suggests some of it may be already outdated (However, it is beyond the scope of this review to determine where and how.)

For many people, the only challenge to the veracity and reliability of the Old Testament they are aware of is the Creation/Evolution debate, with its implications for understanding God as Creator. However, the historical reliability of the patriarchal narratives underpins significant theological doctrine: the faithfulness of God in making and keeping his promises; and the relationship between God, his people and their home. In arguing for the veracity of the Genesis record of the patriarchs, this book provides supporting matter for apologetics and biblical theology for Christians, who set their hope in promises of God originating with the promises made to the patriarchs.

This book lays bare the scope of threats to the fundamental historicity of the later chapters of Genesis: from form critics who consider the patriarchal narratives to be the product of oral tradition with little basis in historical events, and from source critics who seek to place the final writing of the Genesis accounts during the monarchy and postulate the existence of multiple source documents from which these accounts were drawn. It also exposes the dangers of over-zealous attempts to reconcile the biblical text with hypothetical constructs of life in particular locations and times within the ANE, without clear and balanced evidence. Fortunately, in its wide-ranging and complex examination of the evidence from seven disciplines, supporting the historicity of the Genesis 12—50, Essays of the Patriarchal Narratives succeeds where those it criticises have failed.

---

* David is my Old Testament Foundations lecturer.