Papers by Martin Shields
Tyndale Bulletin, 2010
Readers of the Book of Job often believe that the prologue reveals the entire reason for Job's lo... more Readers of the Book of Job often believe that the prologue reveals the entire reason for Job's loss and suffering and so the full background for all that transpires throughout the remainder of the work. Many readers find that this raises significant problems about God's character as depicted in the book. There are, however, subtle indications both in the structure of the prologue and the content of the entire book which suggest that the exchanges between Yahweh and the Satan do not offer to the reader the complete rationale for Job's suffering. Furthermore, it appears that the author of Job has deliberately created a riddle which, left unsolved, traps the reader into believing-as Job's friends believe-that a full reason for Job's suffering is at hand. Solving the riddle, however, entwines the reader in Job's ignorance and thus the book's insistence that there is some wisdom only Yahweh holds.
This paper has now been published online at JESOT:
http://jesot.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/M... more This paper has now been published online at JESOT:
http://jesot.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/M.-Shields-JESOT-3.2.pdf
Synopsis:
The status of the enigmatic character Elihu within the book of Job has long been a point of contention among scholars. He appears from nowhere, addresses Job and his friends, then disappears as the whirlwind approaches, never to be mentioned again. Some see great insight in his words — finally breaking free from the captivity to the doctrine of retributive justice which bedevilled the friends’ counsel. Others see little more than a recapitulation of the arguments of the friends. One significant consideration in determining the status of Elihu’s arguments is the fact that the prologue provides for the reader an insight into the heavenly court and the exchange between Yhwh and the Satan. Elihu never hints that such an event may have contributed to Job’s suffering, and so there appears to be just cause for dismissing Elihu’s arguments along with the other three friends in spite of Yhwh’s failure to condemn Elihu in the epilogue.
This paper examines the consequences of the reader's ignorance regarding the full reason for Job's suffering (refer to http://shields-online.academia.edu/MartinShields/Papers/310657/malevolent_or_mysterious_gods_character_in_the_prologue_of_job) on our interpretation of Elihu's contribution to the book of Job.
Readers of the Book of Job often believe that the prologue reveals the entire reason for Job’s lo... more Readers of the Book of Job often believe that the prologue reveals the entire reason for Job’s loss and suffering and so the full background for all that transpires throughout the remainder of the work. Many readers find that this raises significant problems about God’s character as depicted in the book. There are, however, subtle indications both in the structure of the prologue and the content of the entire book which suggest that the exchanges between Yahweh and the Satan do not offer to the reader the complete rationale for Job’s suffering. Furthermore, it appears that the author of Job has deliberately created a riddle which, left unsolved, traps the reader into believing—as Job’s friends believe—that a full reason for Job’s suffering is at hand. Solving the riddle, however, entwines the reader in Job’s ignorance and thus the book’s insistence that there is some wisdom only Yahweh holds.
4009 8 47/8 3 47/07 94 70;0, 90 1,:70 41 90 8,08 ,3/ ,73 907 574850.9;0 89:/0398 94 ,/070 94 90 .... more 4009 8 47/8 3 47/07 94 70;0, 90 1,:70 41 90 8,08 ,3/ ,73 907 574850.9;0 89:/0398 94 ,/070 94 90 .422,3/8 41 4/ %0 -44 41 ..08,8908 9:8 1:3.9438 ,8 , 97,.9 /0830/ 94 /8.70/9 90 8/42 24;02039 :83908,0"4009 84347/8347/0794/484 3974/:.943 #0,/078 41 90 / %089,2039 ,;0 43 897:0/ 94 25480 :543 "4009 8 :34794/4 ,3/ 974:-3 .43.:8438 8420 /0700 41 5,,9,-0 4794/4 8947., 90 /423,39 ,5574,. ,8-003 94 5745480 39075709,9438 . :92,90 800 3 "4009 8 47/8 90 90,.3 41 9474: 4794/4 /0,8 ,-09 974: 7,907 :34794/4 20,38 8, -03 98 ,79.0 9 ,3 0,23,943 41 948:.39075709,943841..08,8908,3/98420831.,39 574-028 307039 3 ,3 ,5574,. . ,
Over the last two decades the wisdom literature discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls has receive... more Over the last two decades the wisdom literature discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls has received considerable scholarly attention. This paper examines what the wisdom literature of the scrolls reveals about the evolution of wisdom from the biblical materials (Proverbs, Job, and Qoheleth) through the period of second-temple Judaism, highlighting the apparent bifurcation into apocalyptic wisdom literature as reflected in the sectarian wisdom texts on the one hand and Torah-centered wisdom as reflected in Sirach on the other.
The paper focuses specifically on the place Qoheleth occupies within this evolutionary framework, and the relationship of Qoheleth with the sectarian wisdom (and non-wisdom) literature in light of Tov’s observation that 4Q109 (4QQoha) is written in the “Qumran practice” — a distinctive orthography, morphology, and set of scribal practices which are also features of almost all of the sectarian texts — and the apparent enmity that exists between the apocalypticism of this sectarian wisdom literature and Qoheleth’s own antipathy to apocalyptic presuppositions.
Through the ages, the book of Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) has elicited a wide variety of interpretati... more Through the ages, the book of Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) has elicited a wide variety of interpretations. Its status as wisdom literature is secure, but its meaning for the religion of the Hebrew Bible and its heirs has been a matter of much debate. The debate has swung from claiming orthodoxy for the book to arguing that the message intended by its author is heterodox, in its entirety. There are a number of passages in the book that present difficulties for any comprehensive approach to the work. Martin Shields here fully acknowledges the heterodox nature of Qoheleth's words but offers an orthodox reading of the book as a whole through the eyes of the author of the epilogue. After a survey of attitudes regarding wisdom in the Hebrew Bible itself, which serves as an orientation to the monograph as a whole, Shields provides a detailed study of the epilogue (Qoh 12:9-14), which he believes is the key to the reading of the remainder of the book. He then addresses various problematic texts in the book in light of this perspective, arguing that the book could originally have functioned as a warning to students against joining a wisdom movement that existed at the time of the book's composition. Qoheleth is presented as a true adherent of this movement, and the divergence of his words from the theism presented in the rest of the Hebrew Bible becomes the basis of the epilogue's critique.
Finally, Shields proposes a historical context in which just this scenario may have arisen, showing that the desire of the writer of the epilogue is to correct a wayward wisdom tradition.
Gilgames̆ and the world of Assyria: …, Jan 1, 2007
In spite of their quite different literary forms, readers have long recognised a strong thematic ... more In spite of their quite different literary forms, readers have long recognised a strong thematic parallel between the Epic of Gilgameš and the words of Qohelet. Both abhor death and endorse the enjoyment of life, extolling the reader to seize the day for there is no hope in the future and no escape from death. Beyond this, however, there is another parallel between the two works which is less frequently noted—both use the motif of failure as a method of conveying meaning. Qohelet seeks answers but fails to find them, and Gilgameš seeks eternal life but fails to find it. In both texts the main characters fail to achieve their goals, yet the authors of these works succeeded in using these failures to convey their messages to their audiences.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Jan 1, 1999
Malachi 2:10–16 is probably best known for the words “‘I hate divorce,’ says the LORD, the God of... more Malachi 2:10–16 is probably best known for the words “‘I hate divorce,’ says the LORD, the God of Israel” which ubiquitously appear in English versions of the Bible, but do not appear in the Hebrew manuscripts nor in any of the ancient versions. This, however, is only one of the problems associated with this text. Indeed, scholars have long regarded Malachi 2:10–16 as the most difficult passage in the book of Malachi, and the diverse interpretations of this passage which have been put forward stand as testimony to the problems associated with understanding this text. This paper presents a new interpretation of the text as a warning against syncretism and divorce.
Thesis Chapters by Martin Shields
My MTh (hons) dissertation examining gender issues in Genesis 1–3.
Uploads
Papers by Martin Shields
http://jesot.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/M.-Shields-JESOT-3.2.pdf
Synopsis:
The status of the enigmatic character Elihu within the book of Job has long been a point of contention among scholars. He appears from nowhere, addresses Job and his friends, then disappears as the whirlwind approaches, never to be mentioned again. Some see great insight in his words — finally breaking free from the captivity to the doctrine of retributive justice which bedevilled the friends’ counsel. Others see little more than a recapitulation of the arguments of the friends. One significant consideration in determining the status of Elihu’s arguments is the fact that the prologue provides for the reader an insight into the heavenly court and the exchange between Yhwh and the Satan. Elihu never hints that such an event may have contributed to Job’s suffering, and so there appears to be just cause for dismissing Elihu’s arguments along with the other three friends in spite of Yhwh’s failure to condemn Elihu in the epilogue.
This paper examines the consequences of the reader's ignorance regarding the full reason for Job's suffering (refer to http://shields-online.academia.edu/MartinShields/Papers/310657/malevolent_or_mysterious_gods_character_in_the_prologue_of_job) on our interpretation of Elihu's contribution to the book of Job.
The paper focuses specifically on the place Qoheleth occupies within this evolutionary framework, and the relationship of Qoheleth with the sectarian wisdom (and non-wisdom) literature in light of Tov’s observation that 4Q109 (4QQoha) is written in the “Qumran practice” — a distinctive orthography, morphology, and set of scribal practices which are also features of almost all of the sectarian texts — and the apparent enmity that exists between the apocalypticism of this sectarian wisdom literature and Qoheleth’s own antipathy to apocalyptic presuppositions.
Finally, Shields proposes a historical context in which just this scenario may have arisen, showing that the desire of the writer of the epilogue is to correct a wayward wisdom tradition.
Thesis Chapters by Martin Shields
http://jesot.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/M.-Shields-JESOT-3.2.pdf
Synopsis:
The status of the enigmatic character Elihu within the book of Job has long been a point of contention among scholars. He appears from nowhere, addresses Job and his friends, then disappears as the whirlwind approaches, never to be mentioned again. Some see great insight in his words — finally breaking free from the captivity to the doctrine of retributive justice which bedevilled the friends’ counsel. Others see little more than a recapitulation of the arguments of the friends. One significant consideration in determining the status of Elihu’s arguments is the fact that the prologue provides for the reader an insight into the heavenly court and the exchange between Yhwh and the Satan. Elihu never hints that such an event may have contributed to Job’s suffering, and so there appears to be just cause for dismissing Elihu’s arguments along with the other three friends in spite of Yhwh’s failure to condemn Elihu in the epilogue.
This paper examines the consequences of the reader's ignorance regarding the full reason for Job's suffering (refer to http://shields-online.academia.edu/MartinShields/Papers/310657/malevolent_or_mysterious_gods_character_in_the_prologue_of_job) on our interpretation of Elihu's contribution to the book of Job.
The paper focuses specifically on the place Qoheleth occupies within this evolutionary framework, and the relationship of Qoheleth with the sectarian wisdom (and non-wisdom) literature in light of Tov’s observation that 4Q109 (4QQoha) is written in the “Qumran practice” — a distinctive orthography, morphology, and set of scribal practices which are also features of almost all of the sectarian texts — and the apparent enmity that exists between the apocalypticism of this sectarian wisdom literature and Qoheleth’s own antipathy to apocalyptic presuppositions.
Finally, Shields proposes a historical context in which just this scenario may have arisen, showing that the desire of the writer of the epilogue is to correct a wayward wisdom tradition.