Regarding the final message of Wisdom? You seem to agree that it is Agnosticism. But with some reservations and caveats.

Addressing those stated caveats: there’s an interesting progression of theological conclusions here. To be sure, 1) being agnostic, like Job and the Preacher, not knowing the true, “full” nature of God, 2) gives us a certain amount of “fear” of God. Because we live in a world, under a God, we never fully understand. But – your major caveat? – that would not necessarily make fear of God our final and ultimate theology.

Though it is certainly a very major theme in Wisdom Lit, in fact, 3) the Preacher especially seems to want to moderate a fear-based theology. And prevent it from being the final message. By counterpoising to it a rather Epicurean, joy-oriented, existentialist, “enjoy life.” Fear God … but go on to enjoy what seems good; whether we understand it full or not. (Seconded in the NT by Paul’s command to follow “whatever is good”?).

Incidentally, there is a time, a season, for “everything”; hence, my systematically and loyally interdisciplinary and eclectic methodology. Which finds a reasonably stable synthesis outside this forum, to be sure. Though I’m not so fond of “systematic theology”; which I think, overlooks precisely, the variability and indeed, indeterminate nature of God. As invoked in, say, Ecclesiastes. Or simply, in “Wisdom.” (Though none of us should allow ourselves to be “too wise in our own eyes,” of course.)

Anyway, actually, I think that what we tentatively agree is the main idea here is timely and salable. A quick headline for the news: God allows, approves, agnostics.

On the “agnosticism” thing, this is a major theme in Ecclesiastes—there is in fact an “agnostic” reality to life as we observe it, and this should drive us all the more to fear God out of the existential despair that should bubble to the surface of our awareness if we are rational and acknowledge the constraints of life’s uncertainty, but also of our own depravity and mortality.

Regarding Kent Sparks’ book, I did make a comment above on a notion of inspiration that can embrace all the “sources,” “redactors,” and “those that determine canonical order.” I am neither as “agnostic” nor as “pessimistic” as Kenton appears to be on the reliability of the text as “received.”

Regarding Job, I think you are mistaken. I deal with your question in the book in great detail, so I’ll let the argument speak for itself. The answers come IMO from the flow of the narrative and the argument embedded therein—with the speeches of Elihu comprising the main “prophetic voice” in the book.

In Wisdom lit, various parties suggest that we can’t really understand God fully; his ways are mysterious. They are beyond us. So, God being in heaven, and we merely human beings on earth, “let our words be short”. Which in one reading, and one common theology, suggests that GOd is so complex, that all our mere human words – possibly even inspired gospels – about him, will inevitably be oversimplifications. Hence the “apophatic” prohibition on mentioning his name in public for example.

So that the “unconventional,” or even “alternative” theology I see emerging in Wisdom Lit, the theology that is hard to “harmonize” with corner-church theology and the rest of the BIble, but that is approved by God nevertheless, is in effect, Agnosticism. There is a God out there, Wisdom suggests. But his ways are so far beyond us, that we should never trust simple sermonic pronouncements about him; his ways are all but unknowable.

This very respecful theology, has some unexpected power behind it. It might even allow trained theologians and intellectuals to occasionally ask evangelical televangelists for example, to simply stop preaching; since most of their thoughts, pronouncements for God, are inevitably presumptious and simplistic. And in effect, false. They “speak falsely for God.” They presumptuously claim to know far more things about God than can be reliably known. Just like Job’s opponents. So let their words be few.

Wisdom lit clearly relates a great deal to a simple Existentialism, and an intellectual temper. In that we live in a universe, under a God, whose meaning is never clear; even “absurd” as Camus suggested; all we can do is simply accept life as it is; and in a phrase found several times in Ecc., and also summarize it: “enjoy life.”

Therefore, I support Wisdom Lit as 1) a basis for a God -approved Agnosticism. And as God’s criticism of all mere apologists for conventional theology (like Job friends).

Or for that matter, relating to this: what about 2) Wisdom Lit as in effect, the higher”wisdom” approved of in much of the Bible?

And an escape at last, from being enslaved to the televangelical vote?

And by the way, looking at Wisdom lit, might be a good test case in how we might take the “script” of the Bible, and come up with quite a different kind of reading or “performance” of it, than the program dictated to us in corner churches.

And indeed, perhaps we are granted this latitute by God himself: on the road to Emmaus, disciples see Jesus in effect … in a stranger, a mere human being, it seems. When a mere human being reads scripture rightly, and in his words and spirit assume the true character of Jesus, Jesus is resurrected. Resurrected inside another, merely human being. In simple human beings; who act in “persona Christi” (SP?).

All this gives the mere human being – and a humanistic theology – a central, not peripheral role, in Christian life. And allows some personal freedom, your own individual human involvement, in deciding just exactly what God, Jesus, really said.

(Incidentally, regarding a few minor points in your remarks on Job: be careful about assuming that Job ever makes any mistake at all. GOd from the start called Job “upright” or righteous; and in the end says that Job spoke rightly about God. So that it is far from certain whether Job ever actually makes any mistaken remarks or actions at all; at least regarding his remarks on God himself. THere also seem to be one or two remarks you attribute to Job, that I believe were actually spoken by one of his friends; will double-check on that, later maybe).

In the meantime, thanks for your participation in this forum. Do you have any brief remarks regarding our conversation with Kenton, on his book, a few posts ago?

By the way: if the name of Ecc. means “the preacher”? And if our preachers do in fact often seem rather like Q. – above or outside the simplified theologies they teach, in church? Then Ecclesiastes and Job might might, in describing a post-existential absurdist worship of the mere power (rather like Sartre in Nazi occupied France), also describe the real theology of our own religious leaders and preachers today?

Perhaps, from my experience, the more intellectual among them.

As far as options for your book, I’m not too savvy about Internet options, either, but I do have Unlocking Wisdom on Logos as well, and they have the advantage of regularly updating the text with any changes you make to the MS to keep it current.

Amazon is pretty crucial for the availability it affords to all audiences and the potential (at least) for all-comer reviews; I haven’t looked into the pros and cons of their publishing options, but I understand that Kindle has exploded as the alternative to print media.

As to methodology, after doing this for a bunch of years, I don’t find it at all obtrusive—it keeps me more honest in my harmonization and synthesis. Nor have I at all shied away from the language; in fact, the subtitle of my commentary is A canonical-linguistic exposition of the books of Job and Ecclesiastes (emphasis added). Maybe you should try it.

As to my interpretive results with speech-act in the book of Ecclesiastes, since “conventional” results are all over the map, just about anything I came up with would seem to “compete.” However, I’m convinced that the argument is addressed to anyone tempted to make life work for them out of sheer self-determination. Speech-act helped me see that the author’s “locution” was a life-reflection-based a fortiori argument against self-determination; IOW, the reader who identifies with Qohelet is tempted like him to try to find an “angle” to life’s labor that will result in a worthwhile legacy. Yet Qoh—who has already trumped everyone on every available resource (especially wisdom)—nevertheless comes up empty-handed, especially in the “commodity” of righteousness. So the only viable alternative for the reader is to cultivate the fear of God; in this respect, therefore, the conclusion is “conventional.”

The main result of applying speech-act theory in both Job and Ecclesiastes? The illocutionary force embedded in both texts is the dynamic of disillusionment. The more the reader of either book strives to resist disillusionment, the greater the vicarious sense of futility, as the reflections in both books continue to circle back repeatedly to disillusionment, which thereby becomes the “orienting force” for the reader. When the courageous reader finally “gets it” s/he can relax and embrace disillusionment with the protagonists, such that the fear of God becomes the only—indeed, appealing—telos, as futility is displaced by meaning in perlocutions that serve the previously inscrutable redemptive purposes of God.

If you are interested, I did a short guest post on TF last year on the topic of theodicy and disillusionment in the book of Job.

Might swap books with you, when mine is finished?

I’m currently looking for 1) a good, even free on-line publisher, first, for my own book. Or 2) a POD. Then 3) later on, a print publisher.

I’ve previously published in the print world; one or two academic pubs, and popular writing too. But I’m new to the Internet; any recommendations? I’m writing accessible theology, I think. Hoping for the larger audience.

I see you are using Amazon? Do you recommend them? Is there a better on-line, and/or POD publisher? Maybe Logos for a free source? Can they handle an 700-page, 10 Meg. book?

Regarding Ecclesiastes though, and the (humanistic?) Theology on the Way to Emmaus; I’m pretty committed to seeing it as an unconventional text, critical of the theology of the rest of the Bible. Care to give us any free hints, as to whether you fully intend to “harmonize” it with the rest of the Bible, as conventionally interpreted? Or frankly acknowledge its critical nature?

Is there something in your application of the Speech Act method that leads to unexpected conclusions? Above and beyond simpler methodologies? Above and beyond harmonization?

It seems in the Bible we are given a “script”; but of course there are many different levels, messages, theologies in them. I honestly prefer the reading, even the performance, that does not affirm conventional faith. And I’m currently independent enough, to be rather obvious about this.

To tell the truth too, I’m a little suspicious about heavy methodology; which tends to create its rules, its own turf; thus biasing the result.

I’d rather slug it out in “ordinary language.” With Wittgenstein.