Literary Expression and Structure 124

Apart from the general wisdom literature characteristics described above, it is worth exploring the more specific medium that Qohelet use for his message. In general, there is not one single genre which describes the whole book; however there is a distinct personal style that the author employs. This is especially highlighted in certain characteristics of the writing and the usage of language that is employed.

One of these characteristics is seen in the tendency of Qohelet to resort to extreme expression of calamity and bliss, as he juxtaposes malediction and benediction (see for example Ecclesiastes 10:16-17). Another example is evident in 4:10, in which Qohelet describes the calamitous result of falling when one lacks compassion. In his style of an autobiographical narrative (1:12-2:16) the author forms a basis for a conclusion about life (2:17-26), however the literary function of the above passage makes it difficult to know exactly how much of this is derived from personal experience, or from very good observation. Another characteristic is that the author converses with his heart (1:16, 2:1, 15; 3:17, 18; 7:23). Again, this is a reflection of an Egyptian literature convention. The language employed often reflects observation and subsequent reflection; for example, “I saw” (1:14, 2:24, 4:1, 6:1, 8:9), “I know” (1:17, 3:12, 8:12), and “there is” (2:21, 6:1, 8:14, 10:5). The author also makes use of antidotes from experience and observation (4:1) (Crenshaw 1988:29-31). This is in keeping with the wisdom function of studied expression of normal, mundane life.

At another point of the book, Qohelet makes use of storytelling technique, as seen in (4:13-16) and (9:14-15). The first story appears to combine typical and actual features that could have been observed (an obscure youth goes from prison to the throne: a rag to riches story). In contrast, the second story may be completely hypothetical, or it could be a recollection of an ancient incident (possibly a legend) in which a poor, wise man (who had been captured?) uses his power of persuasion to rescue a village. The book of Ecclesiastes also consists of a number of profound poems, such as 11:7-12:7. Crenshaw (1988:29-31), understands this poem as a parable. The Qohelet also “... makes use of analogy and simile, synecdoche, hyperbole, personification, and antanaclasis” (cf. Miller 125

1998:444). In all, Qohelet’s unique style and unique employment and merging of different literature conventions provides for a fitting medium for his/her radical message.

In regards to the structure of the book; it has been suggested that Qohelet adopts a Greek rhetorical device known as “palindrome” (cf. Crenshaw 1988:38). This device is a complete ‘balancing of material’ so that, whether one starts from the beginning or from the end, they would still achieve the same result. Lohfink (1980) envisions the structure of the book as:

1:1-2 Frame

1:4-11 Cosmology

1:12-3:15 Anthropology

3:16-4:16 Social Criticism 1

4:17-5:6 Criticism of Religion (poetic) [5:1-7E]

5:7-6:10 Social Criticism 2 [5:8-6:10E]

6:11-9:6 Ideology Critique (Refutation 9:7-12:7 Ethics (poetic at the end)

12:8 Frame

Using this structure as a palindrome, one could see how, after a basic framing, the author looks at cosmology, which is reflected by the ethical poetry at the end. Thus, one can argue that ethical guidelines strongly linked to cosmology and creation are present from the ending and the beginning of the book.

However, as with the author and dating, there are countless differing views on the structure. For example, Bullock (1985:191-192) argues that the structure is

1:2-11 Prologue

1:12-2:26 Section 1

3:1-5:20 Section 2

6:1-8:15 Section 3

8:16-12:7 Section 4

12:8-12:12 Epilogue

Nevertheless, as one has seen, Ecclesiastes in not a typical book and here too there is debate over the structure. Recent critics have emphasised the view/re-view nature of the book. The consideration has been to look at the book in two parts: firstly, a view of the human condition, 1:4-4:3; and secondly, a re-view of the human condition, 4:4-12:7 (cf. Crenshaw 1988:39). It has also been suggested that one consider part one in two parts, (1) the Balance Sheet, 1:4-2:26 and (2) the Destiny of all, 3:1-4:3. The balance sheet contains an objective and a subjective expose, while the examination of human destiny meditates on time and divine justice. The second part includes a paradox (4:4-6:9) and an ethic (6:10-12:7). There are other theories on the structure of the book of Ecclesiastes, so by no means has this subject been exhausted, only that two examples of structure have been provided(cf. Crenshaw 1988:39; Lohfink (1980); Dor Shav 2008).

But apart from a differing usage of literature and structural tools, the major defining element of Ecclesiastes is the usage of a non-conventional wisdom style that goes against the traditional wisdom as found within the Proverbs. At risk of generalising again, it can be argued that the Proverbs provide wisdom that is compatible with a modern worldview; they are easily understood, clearly defined and provide easy guidance to ethics and how life can be controlled and understood. In contrast, the wisdom of Qohelet is very postmodern, especially as the cynical wisdom of Ecclesiastes challenges the neat and the tidy world of that presented in the book of Proverbs and in conventional wisdom (cf. Bandstra 2004:465). Bullock (1985:190) argues that Ecclesiastes provides an appropriate 127

balance to the conventional and practical wisdom that is provided in the book of Proverbs. And so as one attempts to find a new ethic for the treatment of creation within these turbulent times, perhaps one does not have to be so sceptical when approaching a book of the Bible which is often dismissed as being purely pessimistic. Ecclesiastes is “...a document of the absurd, suitable for times of absurdity” (Birch 1999:412). That is a book that can be at home in a postmodern worldview.

Dor Shav (2008:211) also adds the important point that that the use of Solomon’s voice carries a special importance for the ‘modern’ reader. Although he never defines what he means by a ‘modern reader’, one can conclude from his narrative that a ‘modern’ person is one who lives in the overwhelming wealth and prosperity of the Western World—and that he is not referring to the modernistic worldview. And this would be true of a postmodern as much as a modern. In the West, humanity generally does live in a time of unparalleled prosperity, income inequality and corrupt rulers, as the Qohelet would have (cf. Zdanow 2009). And thus, opposed to the quest of Job, “Solomon's search for wisdom did not arise from a desire to make sense of either personal misfortune or national catastrophe.” (cf. Dor Shav 2008:211). Rather, Qohelet sets out on his inquiry for meaning from a perspective of wealth, prosperity, and power. In other words, “Ecclesiastes is not about what God wants of us, but about what we want for ourselves” (Dor Shav 2008:211-212). This approach of the Qohelet should resonate especially strongly with Western readers of today, since few Westerners appreciate doing things simply because they are told, regardless of who does the telling (cf. Dor Shav 2008:211). Qohelet’s purpose is not in presenting a systematic theological argument; rather they are reflections that concern the practical and real issues of life and attempt to offer some 128

advice on how to cope in a world that is utterly beyond human control (cf. Seow 2001:246).