Qoheleth and the Postmodern Mind
Presented to Dr. A.H. Konkel
Professor of Wisdom Literature
Providence College and Seminary
by
David Driedger
box 108
Apr. 30, 2000
Postmodernism has now reached mainstream society. It is likely that no more than five years ago the average person had not been exposed to this term. Today we are inundated with the term "postmodern" in our media and literature. The Church in particular appears to be obsessed with the perceived dangers that lie at the heart of postmodern thought. This paper hopes to outline what has become popular postmodernity in contrast to some of the ideas that articulated its position early in its development. This can prove to be a useful exercise because if we continue to limit ourselves to a popular view of postmodernism we, as the Church, will surely continue to discredit such a movement and, as will be demonstrated, this can and has been done through the application of a popular understanding of Qoheleth. Therefore after navigating towards what will hopefully be a more informed understanding of postmodernism we will look again at Qoheleth and find out if the same application is still valid.
A popular lament over postmodern thought is that it removes any form of stability in our lives and leaves us in despair being beaten by the relentless waves of chaos. A ship caught in a storm with no land in sight and no anchor to hold its position. A popular interpretation of Qoheleth is that Qoheleth saw that "everything under the sun" was meaningless. That is, everything apart from God is meaningless. If these two understandings are indeed present in society then it would appear as though the two could find a perfect fit. The solution would be simple, the postmodernist need only come to a knowledge of God and their struggle for meaning would be over. It must be noted here that this discourse is in no way trying to completely discredit such interpretations, but rather in articulating them we may be able discern their appropriateness in light of other interpretations. This above mentioned understanding is held by many and can be represented by a recent article taken from the Internet. This article is written by John Risbridger who represents an evangelical Christian college organization (UCCF). He begins with the words of Qoheleth in 1:2, "'Meaningless! Meaningless!' says the teacher. 'Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless!'" This he states as the motto of the those known as Generation X. Risbridger proceeds to walk through Qoheleth showing that his search for wisdom was always confined to worldly structures and therefore ultimately meaningless. He continues by showing that once we perceive of God's hand in the world we gain the ability to humbly accept those things which we cannot understand. It is here that Risberger makes a direct connection and application to postmodernists (who he seems to understand as Generation Xers). He writes with a sense of sympathy that "the Teacher is not harsh to Generation Xers. He strongly identifies with our struggles and endorses many of our conclusions. Yet, as he comes alongside us he gently opens up an escape route from the downward spirals of postmodern thinking." (1) He paints a picture that does not allow postmodern thinking to be compatible with true wisdom. He indicates that Qoheleth's mood has somehow changed through the progress of the book and has now come to a new understanding of how to live life. This is an example of what this paper has understood to be a popular rendering of Qoheleth with a popular perception of postmodern thought. We shall now proceed to look at the work of Jean-Francois Lyotard and his influential book entitled The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Lyotard's articulation will be used as criteria of a more nascent and hopefully more pure presentation of what is recognized as postmodern thought.
When doing any amount of reading with regard to the current phenomenon known as "postmodernism" one should very quickly become aware of Lyotard's name. His one line definition of "postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives" (2) is represented by a vast number of scholars when trying present fundamental elements of postmodern thought. It is for these reason that Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition will be used to guide our discussion. It is necessary now to spend considerable time unpacking his statement and his book in order that we can proceed in a more informed manner.
Lyotard shares a great deal with us in his introduction. He helps provide us with a working definition of what modern is. He designates it as "any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse of this kind [referring to legitimation] making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth." (3) Truth appears to be attainable in modernity as long as people agree on the metanarrative and accept the sources of legitimation. It is clear then that this hope of universalization in the form of modernity is lost in his definition of "postmodern as incredulity toward matanarratives." (4) Lyotard begins to unpack this with his discourse on knowledge and its intimate link with language. We need not concern ourselves here with his lengthy remarks on the effects of technology on our understanding of knowledge. We need only take from it that knowledge is becoming a commodity and that the goal of knowledge is now exchange. From there he begins to breakdown knowledge into at least two forms, that of science and that of narrative. He outlines that "scientific knowledge does not represent the totality of knowledge" but also that "narrative knowledge can[not] prevail over science." (5) This understanding then moves us to the problem of legitimacy and by what source and "proof" can one appeal to in order to claim legitimacy. In other words how do you prove the "proof?" Lyotard then introduces us to the important role that "language games" play in all this. Language games being the "terms of rules specifying their [with regards to utterances such as denotive, prescriptive, or performative] properties and the uses to which they can be put- in exactly the same way as the game of chess is defined by a set of rules determining the properties of each of the pieces, in other words, the proper way to move them." (6) At this point it would be wise reiterate these concepts. The first is that knowledge is no longer an end in itself it is becoming a commodity for the purpose of attaining or sustaining power. Knowledge is seen in at least two forms. The first is scientific, which appeals to the idea of a universal system of legitimation, reality then is based on those things that can conform to this system. The second is narrative knowledge which seems to be legitimated by its mere existence and use, it provides us with pragmatic rules enabling social cohesion. This is now where the problem of legitimation comes in, because it appears as though metanarratives are eroding in society and it is extremely important to understand how things are being legitimated. Language games are used because "the social bond is linguistic, but is not woven with a single thread." (7) Languages change and no interpretative lense is the same from one person to the next.
Lyotard gives us the first direct indication that these ideas can be translated into a loss of meaning when he states that "lamenting the 'loss of meaning' in postmodernity boils down to mourning the fact that knowledge is no longer principally narrative." (8) This is of course referring to the challenge that scientific knowledge poses to traditional narrative. It is here that we begin to understand how some perceive this to be the "downward spirals of postmodern thinking." (9) After all who now can decide the conditions of truth? The grand narrative has lost its credibility because it has no greater legitimacy than anything else. However, the postmodernist does not lose heart at this. Rather, "the principle of a universal metalanguage is replaced by the principle of a plurality of formal axiomatic systems capable of arguing the truth of denotative statements." (10) There are too many uncontrolled variables which do not allow us to submit to a Grand Theory. We now have a rise in the credence of knowledge that was once seen as paradox or paralogism. Postmodern science is concerned with things such as "undecidables, the limits of precise control, conflicts characterized by incomplete information, 'fracta,' catastrophes, and pragmatic paradoxes.... It is producing not the known, but the unknown." (11)
Where then does legitimation lie? For Lyotard it is suggested that legitimation lies in paralogy. This is defined in contrast to innovation, which is still under the command of the system. To illustrate this Lyotard explains the power that must be attributed to those new norms or understandings that come along to disrupt the current order of "reason." A statement then finds its worth in its ability to say something that has not been said before. This is not to discard what has already been said and established but rather it embraces and pursues those things which can produce something different. This is also not the denial of a system of "rules." What postmodern thought attempts to do then is to persuade the "players" to accept new rules. The only legitimation that the postmodernist seeks is that there is truly the production of ideas and ultimately new statements.
We can now take a moment to sigh and catch our breath after trying to wade through a book that was short on pages but long on complexity. We turn back now to Qoheleth. It is admitted that comparative studies in literature is a slippery and uncertain task at the best of times. It is therefor the attempt of this comparison to introduce some preliminary remarks that will address ideas presented in both Qoheleth and Lyotard's Postmodern Condition. These comparisons must remain preliminary and rudimentary as there does not appear to be a worn path in this area of discussion (and if postmodernists can help it the path will never get too worn).
As we begin some introductory comments need to be made. Lyotard's Postmodern Condition is an attempt to articulate just that a condition. It goes beyond personal reflection and individual beliefs. Lyotard makes very clear that he is working with a hypothesis that "makes no claims of being original, or even true." (12) He does not give this hypothesis predictive value, but rather he accords it strategic value. Qoheleth on the other hand is intensely personal and appears to be the culmination of a lifetime of experience, experience which he limits to his own. Unless we are mistaken, and there is always that possibility, Qoheleth does ascribe his statements to be in accordance with reality by his claims to have seen and to have tested these things. It is immediately clear that we are dealing with two distinct genres that are distanced in time by over two thousand years. What we ask now is for grace to allow this discussion to continue in order to evaluate the ideas of Qoheleth and find out whether his cry of "meaninglessness" is also that of the postmodern thinker.
Due to the variety of approaches that can be brought to the study of Qoheleth, as outlined in the previous paper, we will use Graham Ogden's discussion on lbh help direct our thought progression. Ogden cites that outside of Qoheleth lbh can be equivalent to 'vanity', 'nothingness' or 'vapour'. This is often done in the context of the uselessness or powerlessness of idols. Ogden's argument is that in the context of Qoheleth lbh it is used to cite an enigmatic situation. We will look at one of the four examples he uses to support this idea. In 3:16-19 Qoheleth depicts how wickedness appears to be in the place where righteousness should abide, that of judgment and justice. Qoheleth begins by offering an orthodox answer, "He [Qoheleth] affirms that God will at some point bring justice to bear." (13) However, Qoheleth does not leave us with only this understanding. Qoheleth also thought of something else. In his second thought Qoheleth allows us to remain with the question unanswered due to the reality that so many appear to die before they could witness God's justice. To this problem Qoheleth employs the term lbh. It cannot be understood. In 1:14 lbh is used in combination with xwr twer. This term is often translated as "a chasing after the wind." Ogden suggests that the phrase is better described as "shepherding the wind." This gives us an impression of the 'vanity' of those trying to control what they cannot.
At this point we may proceed in making some comments with regards to postmodern thought and the concept of lbh. J. Middleton and B Walsh picked up on this concept in a book written to Christians in the Postmodern Age. However they claim that lbh should be understood in contrast to dbk. They appear to see Qoheleth's words as a type of polemic against the Israelite monarchy, in that even Solomon was reduced to lbh. This then becomes our warning against postmodern thought which can result in our becoming 'hollow'. As described by Middleton and Walsh, "this hollowness has been described as the 'unbearable lightness of being postmodern,' which may be seen as the contemporary experience of hebel." (14) This again presupposes that lbh is a state of being, or being under it, and that it must be avoided. This is different then Ogden's idea that lbh is being used to draw attention to the enigmas of the world. If we take this interpretation we can begin to see a new discussion between Qoheleth and the postmodern mind. What we find is that there is a focus on those things which one cannot explain. As was mentioned previously postmodern science appears to be more concerned with things unknown then things known. Qoheleth too is skeptical of those who have things nicely ordered in systematized structure of belief. Robert Gordis paints us a concise picture of the skeptic, as related to Qoheleth. "Essentially, a skeptic is one who refuses to be convinced without proof; concerning the shape of things to come, where such evidence cannot be forthcoming, he remains without faith. The skeptic finds it possible to be suspended in a state of perpetual doubt with regard to the future, because as a rule he finds his lot in the present not unbearable." (15) This can only be directly linked to postmodern thought if Qoheleth indeed has understood that there is no ultimate "proof".
What both minds seem to be left with is the inability to articulate the absolute. Qoheleth wished to know it all, as did modernity. Both resulted with similar thoughts. Lyotard states that "we have the Idea of the world (the totality of what is), but we do not have the capacity to show an example of it." (16) It is Lyotard himself who provides the bridge to the Bible. He cites the commandment of not making any graven images claiming that the Bible also forbids anyone from attempting to present the absolute. Qoheleth too appeared content (how he reached that state my be another story) to acknowledge the ultimate but took no stance in presenting it in any concrete manner.
It is at this point that someone should be raising the issue of metanarratives, claiming that Qoheleth indeed adhered to one, which would put him in stark contrast to the ideas of Lyotard. It does not appear to be generally disputed that the Bible has become for much of society a metanarrative. Brian Ingraffia, when referring to Auerbach, cites that the "biblical text 'seeks to overcome our reality: we are to fit our own reality into its world, feel ourselves to be elements in its structure of universal history.'" (17) If this is generally agreed upon one must ask the next question. Did Qoheleth see himself as fitting into such a narrative? The answer can have a few responses. One is that Qoheleth does a appear to be a part of the wisdom tradition of Isreal. However, this could be like linking the postmodern to academia because s/he will remain in dialogue with them. By the time Qoheleth was written Judaism was establishing for itself specific expressions of its faith. Gordis shows how Qoheleth appears to fit in reference to them. "Koheleth... rejects the older prophetic faith, which expressed itself in such concepts as the End-Time and the Messianic Age. At the same time, he is unable to accept the newer Pharisaic doctrine of life after death or the Apocalyptic faith." (18) Qoheleth appears to stand marginalized among the expressions of Jewish religion. Yes, but one might still say "He believed in God" and that this is what redeemed him from the perils and trappings of life without meaning. However, it could be argued that for Qoheleth to believe in God (incidently he never refers to him as Yahweh) would be like Lyotard believing in Idea. For Qoheleth "the existence of the world was tantamount to the existence of God." (19) Crenshaw echoes this by stating that "for Qoheleth God was a given which not even the skeptic could doubt." (20)
It must of course be admitted that the expressions of these thoughts differ from one another, though not as much as one might like. For Qoheleth it was a return to his love of life and the embracing of pleasure, though with the cloak of naivete removed. For the postmodern we receive a similar emphasis. After describing the fact that man can place the emphasis "on the powerlessness of the faculty of presentation, on the nostalgia for presence felt by the human subject, on the obscure and futile will which inhabitants him in spite of everything.... The emphasis can also be placed on the increase of being and the jubilation which result from the invention of new rules to the game." (21) (emphasis mine). The emphasis was added to show the striking similarity in Lyotard's language to that Qoheleth in his discourses on meaninglessness and joy.
As was mentioned at the beginning, this paper was of a preliminary nature. Criticisms and implications will have to wait for another occasion. It is hoped that the presentation of this material will cause the reader to think twice before readily dismissing the idea of postmodern thought. This paper was not intended to promote postmodern thought per se, but rather to provide a balanced biblical perspective using Qoheleth as a point of connection and reference.
Bibliography
Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.
Gordis, Robert. Koheleth - The Man and his World, 2d ed. New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1955.
Heelas, Paul, ed. Religion, Modernity, and Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998.
Ingraffia, Brian D. Postmodern Theory and Biblical Theology: Vanquishing God's Shadow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1988.
Middleton, J. Richard and Brian J. Walsh. Truth is Stranger than it Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Ogden, Graham. Qoheleth. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.
Risbridger, John. The Search For Meaning. http://www.uccf.org.uk/cus/resource/articles/con_mean.htm
Ward, Graham, ed. The Postmodern God: A Theological Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997.
1. http://www.uccf.org.uk/cus/resource/articles/con_mean.htm
2. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), xxiv.
3. Idib., xxiii.
4. Ibid., xxiv.
5. Ibid., 7.
6. Ibid., 10.
7. Ibid., 40.
8. Ibid., 26.
9. http://www.uccf.org.uk/cus/resource/articles/con_mean.htm
10. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), 43.
11. Ibid., 60.
12. Ibid., 7.
13. Graham Ogden, Qoheleth (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 18.
14. J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh, Truth is Stranger than it Used to Be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 134.
15. Robert Gordis, Koheleth - The Man and his World, 2d ed. (New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1955), 118-9.
16. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), 78.
17. Brian D. Ingraffia, Postmodern Theory and Biblical Theology: Vanquishing God's Shadow (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 2.
18. Robert Gordis, Koheleth - The Man and his World, 2d ed. (New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1955), 119.
19. Ibid., 112.
20. James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 123.
21. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1988), 79-80.
