Happy 2006 everyone! I truly wish everyone the best for this upcoming year.

I was pleasantly surprised (tickled pink, actually) to see Loren Rosson at The Busybody and Christopher Heard at Higgaion interact with my “Happy New Year — Qohelet Style” post.

Loren, in his post “The Wisdom of Ecclesiastes,” translates my post so to speak “in terms to which non-deists can relate,” while Chris — the equally if not even more estimable scholar of the Old Testament Hebrew Bible — offered some excellent critiques of some aspects of my interpretation in his post “On Ecclesiastes.”

While I don’t have the time right now to fully respond to Chris’s comments (new semester starting and all!), I will say that he may have caught me red-handed in a hermeneutical jump in regards to “life under the sun,” but I will maintain that הבל hebel is a terminus technicus of sorts for Qohelet and therefore a specialized meaning within the book is not out of the ordinary.

So, in the words of “The Governator” (who according to this Bible Code will be re-elected in 2006), “I’ll be back.”

As we enter a new year (for those of us following the Gregorian calendar at least!), I would like to wish readers of Codex all the best in the new year.

One of the biblical books that I read at the beginning of every new year is Ecclesiastes (in the Hebrew Bible known as “Qohelet”). I find that this book helps me set my priorities for the upcoming year.

Now those familiar with the book of Ecclesiastes may be asking yourself what does a book that renders everything as hebel or absurd have to say about personal goals and resolutions for the new year? Well, that’s a good question! Especially considering Ecclesiastes 1:9 which says “History merely repeats itself. It has all be done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new.” This verse probably rings true to all of us who have ever made a new year’s resolution year after year only to break it by the time February comes around! If everything is hebel or absurd and if we’re caught in this endless cycle, what’s the point of trying to do things different this coming year? Another good question.

Everything for the Qohelet is summed up by the Hebrew word הבל hebel, absurd: “Vanity of vanities, says Qohelet, vanity of vanity! All is vanity!” This word describes what is visible or recognizable, but unsubstantial, momentary, and profitless (Scott); it connotes that which is absurd in the technical sense, what is not the way it is supposed to be (Fox). It is characterized by chasing after the wind: and no one can catch the wind. It is vanity, meaningless, absurd. One commentator has even translated it as “flatulence!”

The rest of the book elaborates on this pessimistic conclusion. In what seems like an endless cycle of negative verdicts everything is considered hebel: righteous living: absurd!; folly: absurd; pleasure: absurd; wealth: absurd; human toil: absurd!; achievement: absurd; justice and honour: absurd! Everything — absolutely everything — that happens under the sun is absurd, a chasing after the wind.

And it is precisely this pessimistic — or perhaps realistic — conclusion that makes Ecclesiastes especially appropriate at this time of year. Eugene Peterson in his book Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work describes the book of Ecclesiastes as

a John the Baptist kind of book. It functions not as a meal but as a bath. It is not nourishment; it is cleansing. It is repentance. It is purging. [We] read Ecclesiastes to get scrubbed clean from illusion and sentiment, from ideas that are idolatrous and feelings that are cloy. It is an exposé and rejection of every pretentious and presumptuous expectation aimed at God…(pp. 155-156).

At this time of year I believe we need to get scrubbed clean from illusion and sentiment, we need to reject every pretentious and presumptuous expectation that we might have in our lives in regard to God and our faith. We need to refocus and re-orient ourselves as we begin the new year.

But what exactly does Qohelet mean by his absurd verdict? Are all the things he highlights absurd without qualification? Are they in and of themselves bad?

The key to understanding Qohelet’s verdict is found in his perception of reality. For Qohelet, reality is divided into two realms: one the dwelling place of God, the other the dwelling place of humanity (Eaton, 44). “Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before Go. God is in heaven, and you are on earth, so let your words be few” (5:2). “God is in heaven, you are on earth.” This is an underlying assumption throughout the book. And when Ecclesiastes uses the recurring phrases “under the sun,” “under heaven,” or “on the earth” he is talking about the earthly side of reality apart from God. He is talking about life here in this fallen world alienated from God.

It is life “under the sun” that is absurb; Qohelet is saying that wisdom, wealth, work, or anything that leaves God out of the picture is absurd, a chasing after the wind.

So, Qohelet’s verdict of meaningless is pronounced on life “under the sun.” It condemns an autonomous, self-sufficient wisdom that has no place for God. It condemns wealth that is seen as an end unto itself, rather than a blessing from God that has to be used to further his Kingdom. It condemns work that supplants God as the focus and drive of one’s life.

So, not everything is absurd, only everything that is sought apart from God. If we try to find meaning in wisdom, wealth, or work “under the sun,” that is, apart from God, then our search will be futile.

For all my readers it is my prayer that all that we do in the coming year will not be absurd, a chasing after the wind.

For my Christian readers it is my prayer as we begin a new year that we all will use this time to refocus and re-orient ourselves towards the only true source of meaning — the baby whose birth we just celebrated: Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is my prayer that no matter what resolutions we may make — that when in a year we look back at 2006 that we will find meaning and significance in what we have done, because we have done it in the shadow of the cross.

“Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of every person” (12:13).

OK, it’s not April Fool’s Day and it was in the Washington Post, but I still find it difficult to believe! According to the aforementioned newspaper (HT Brad Boydston), the United States of America had battle plans produced in the case that they ever need to attack us! The plans are a 94-page document called “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red,” with the word SECRET stamped on the cover. Here is an excerpt from the article that lays out the plan step-by-step:

First, we send a joint Army-Navy overseas force to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting the Canadians off from their British allies.

Then we seize Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls, so they freeze in the dark.

Then the U.S. Army invades on three fronts — marching from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, charging out of North Dakota to grab the railroad center at Winnipeg, and storming out of the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy seizes the Great Lakes and blockades Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific ports.

At that point, it’s only a matter of time before we bring these Molson-swigging, maple-mongering Zamboni drivers to their knees! Or, as the official planners wrote, stating their objective in bold capital letters: “ULTIMATELY TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL.”

I detect a major weakness in the plans: they haven’t accounted for all of the rednecks living in my province of Alberta who not only have gun racks in their pick-up trucks, but also have guns to put there when necessary!

Bring it on! (Except my good friend Joe Cathey… he has far to many guns to provoke! Nice Joe… Nice Joe…) Just remember what happened last time you invaded us!

I would like to wish all of my readers a merry Christmas (and if you don’t observe Christmas, I wish you a happy holiday season!). Since I will be busy the next couple days cooking Christmas dinner for my extended family (turkey with all the trimmings, cranberry meatballs, cranberry apple pie and pumpkin cheesecake for dessert), I figure I should take the time this morning for a short Christmas meditation.

As Christians it can be difficult not to let all of the good things associated with Christmas distract us from what we would consider to be the “true” meaning of Christmas, i.e., the birth of Jesus Christ.

Not all distractions at this time of the year are good. In particular I’m thinking about the frenzied consumerism associated with the Christmas holiday season. For many Christmas represents a religion of consumerism that reinforces the “ethic of consumption” and ultimately has little to do with the birth of Christ. Movies such as “Miracle on 34th Street” support its mythology; Santa Claus serves as its chief icon; gift-giving and shopping supply its rituals. Together, these symbols inculcate consumer-oriented values that are, in my opinion, less than Christian.

Even within the church I don’t think we realize the full significance of Christmas because we focus too much on a romantic and idealized version of the Christmas story: Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem and not finding any place to stay the night, end up giving birth to baby Jesus in a manger, etc. This quaint and romantic idea is epitomized in the Christmas carol, “Away in a manger.”

Away in a manger, no crib for His bed,
The little Lord Jesus lay down his sweet head.
The stars in the sky looked down where
He lay The little Lord Jesus, asleep on the hay.

The cattle are lowing, the poor Baby wakes,
But little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes;
I love Thee, Lord Jesus, look down from the sky
And stay by my cradle till morning is nigh.

But there is nothing quaint or romantic about the Christmas story as told in the gospels of Luke and Matthew.

Luke’s story highlights how when Jesus was born, how he came to the dregs of society — to the poor, to the outcasts. Jesus was born in a peasant home or perhaps even a cave for animals and was placed in a dirty animal feeding trough. Then to top it off his “healthy beginnings” visit was made by a bunch of filthy lowly shepherds — outcasts of society.

Matthew’s story isn’t a whole lot better! Matthew doesn’t say much about Jesus’ birth, but he does recount how when Jesus is a toddler he was visited by some astrologers who recognized him as a future king. While this was nice and I’m sure Mary and Joseph appreciated the gifts they brought (I doubt if Jesus did… not much fun a two year old can have with gold, frankinsese, or myrrh!), the astrologers also alerted Herod to the existence of a potential challenge to his power — which made Mary and Joseph and Jesus flee to Egypt (anyone who has ever taken a two-year old on a long driving trip knows what fun they must have had along the way!)

Thus, the Christmas story isn’t quaint or romantic. And I think that we have to work hard to make sure it doesn’t become so familiar that it looses its power for us!

The true mystery of Christmas is the paradox of divine condescension; God accommodating Godself; God becoming human.

The Father sends the Son.
The Word became flesh.
God was in Christ.

God came to save us not in his full glory as God but rather as a human; God came as a baby crying in his mother’s arms, a baby that required feeding and changing, a baby that was entirely and hopelessly dependent on others. God hid his glory, he limited himself. Remaining one with and equal to God, he took the form of a slave. By becoming one with us, he was able to share our sorrows, bear our burdens, and ultimately die a criminals death and atone for our sins and unite us to God.

That is the real meaning of Christmas, and it’s my prayer for all of us that this Christmas season, as we get together with friends and family, as we buy presents, as we eat turkeys and hams, as we do all these good things, it’s my prayer that we would also realize that there is much more to Christmas than meets the eye and that the miracle of Christmas is not how much turkey you can eat, but it is that God so loved the world that he was willing to take on human flesh and enter this world as a helpless baby… a helpless baby that would one day die a criminal’s death on behalf of us all.

Merry Christmas!

Kevin Edgecomb has created a new email list for those interested in discussing academic biblical studies called biblicalia. This list is a companion piece to his relatively new blog biblicalia.

For more information about this new discussion list you can read Kevin’s blog entry here; or you can sign-up directly at Yahoo!.

Another good — and at times controversial — email list for those interested in discussing the academic study of the Bible is the Biblical Studies list moderated by Jim West.

The Logos Bible Software Blog has an interesting post on performing syntactical searches in the Hebrew Bible with their Andersen�Forbes Analyzed Text of the Hebrew Bible (A-F) database. Unfortuantly, A-F is only currently available as part of their Logos 3.0 beta version (and I am not sure I want to install a beta version!). Here is the link:

Syntax: VSO, VOS, SVO, SOV, OVS, OSV

It is quite exciting to see a number of new syntactical tools for study of the Hebrew Bible. Now there is not only the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible for Logos (see my blog post here), there is this new Andersenâ€?Forbes database. טוב מ×?ד

Ben Witherington offers some excellent guidance on blog posting etiquette (“blogiquette” anyone? How’s that for a neologism!). He proffers a rudimentary set of rules for bloggers to consider before they post: On Speaking Privately in Public — on Blogs

Here is an excerpt where he states his premise:

Doubtless most of us have been there. You are stuck in an airport waiting for a flight, and at least four or five private conversations are going on around you. Now its one thing when the other person is there and you are talking to them. That’s all fine. But suppose you are in a quiet space, like some airports have set up for laptop users and the like— and someone breaks out the cellphone and begins talking at the top of his or her voice? This is having a private conversation in public, in a manner that is rude and obnoxious, ignoring and being oblivious to the fact that there are others around who might not want to hear what is being said. Though we have all endured this in one form or another, we now have a new form of public rudeness of this sort– on blogs.

Witherington provides some excellent rules of thumb to consider before you click the “publish post” button. That being said, the analogy between overhearing a private conversation in public breaks down since blogs are not really public in the same way as a conversation in a public place. While anyone may read a blog, to do so they have to decide to go to URL to read it. If you don’t like what someone says in their blog, you can just not go there.

Nonetheless, an excellent post for all to consider.

At my wife’s beckoning, I had to take a quick break from my marking (have I mentioned how much I love marking…) to clear the corpse of a mouse from a trap. Mouse number three has felt the cold hard steel of my expandable trigger mouse trap.

This infuses the traditional “T’was the Night before Christmas” poem with new meaning: “all through the house not a creature was stirring living, not even a mouse”!

Stay tuned for some more mouse facts as soon as I finish grading… the end is nigh!

This was recently posted on the ANE list. Good food for thought, IMHO.

I have for some time been concerned about the character of the discussion on [insert academic forum of your choice here] as is typified in this string (and so many others). I’ve spent much of my life hanging around academia. I went to grad school for 20 years at three institutions. I finished two masters degrees and a terminal degree. I put a couple of decades into research. I’ve taught for a decade, and I’ve attended a lot of conferences. Through the years, I’ve met a lot of people with doctorates and lesser degrees. I’ve met a lot of teachers and a few real scholars. One thing that I’ve learned through the years is that real scholars are usually humble and gentle people. They are low key because the evidence drives them to it. Real scholars understand how weak any case is and how limited any grasp of the evidence can be. I’ve also met a great many people who try very hard to make other people think that they are smart. They are wannabees no matter how their resumes may read and no matter what status they may have grabbed for themselves. I’ve seen some wannabees treated with a level of respect that borders on awe because of their sales skills, while I’ve seen some real scholars largely ignored because they don’t try to sell themselves.

– Rodger Dalman (reproduced with permission)

OK, so I’m in the middle of finishing up my semester marking. All in all it is a mundane part of the instructor’s job that I don’t really like. But every once and a while there are bright spots like great essays or exams, etc.

I just finished marking a final exam essay for my introductory Old Testament/Hebrew Bible course where the student incorporated numerous titles to U2 songs throughout the essay! I got quite a chuckle out of that! And it was a good essay to boot! (I make my class aware of my fondness for U2 when we talk about lament psalms and modern laments — I use some U2 songs as examples of modern laments).