Demolishing the Book of Ecclesiastes

[phildonnia]

The Bible does have the occasional odd tidbit of truth that even a skeptic could love ("Thou shalt not kill" makes sense), but right there in the middle is an entire book of good stuff.

I can find nothing that offends my often cynical sensibilities in the Ecclesiastes. Some parts would even make a good Byrds song.

Well, if I were really trying to be cynical, I might point out that it does contradict the rest of the Bible in numerous places. In fact it probably is more in harmony with the "Book of the Virtuous Way" discussed in another topic here.

Did the ancient Hebrews (moved by the spirit of God, of course) actually get something right? Or was it bound to happen by pure chance?

[epepke]

Originally posted by phildonnia
The Bible does have the occasional odd tidbit of truth that even a skeptic could love ("Thou shalt not kill" makes sense), but right there in the middle is an entire book of good stuff.

I can find nothing that offends my often cynical sensibilities in the Ecclesiastes. Some parts would even make a good Byrds song.

Well, if I were really trying to be cynical, I might point out that it does contradict the rest of the Bible in numerous places. In fact it probably is more in harmony with the "Book of the Virtuous Way" discussed in another topic here.

Did the ancient Hebrews (moved by the spirit of God, of course) actually get something right? Or was it bound to happen by pure chance?

If it helps any, I've heard that the Book of Ecclesiastes, when burned, makes good ink for prison tattoos.

[sorgoth]

Could you give a link to a couple of lines from it?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by phildonnia

Did the ancient Hebrews (moved by the spirit of God, of course) actually get something right? Or was it bound to happen by pure chance?

There appears to actually have been something of a stink over the inclusion of Ecclesiastes.

The third section of the Hebrew bible, the Writings, probably was crystallized about the end of the first century CE. Many scholars question whether the Council of Jamnia, in which Jewish scholars supposedly set the Hebrew canon, really took place at all.

The evidence for the decisions of the so-called Council of Jamnia is far from clear. From the fragments of discussions that have come down to us, we see that doubts were raised about Ezekiel, Proverbs, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Ezekiel was questioned because its description of ritual regulation differed from those of the Torah. Ecclesiastes was suspect because it appeared to contradict itself (e.g., 4:2, 9:4), and was alleged to contain heretical teaching


From here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Could you give a link to a couple of lines from it?

Here is the enchilada entire:
http://www.bartleby.com/108/21/

[no one in particular]

This (http://www.bartleby.com/108/21/1.html#S1) certainly is a beautiful bit of verse:Ecclesiastes 1.

8 All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
However, I believe John and Paul (http://www.lyrics-4all.net/All_You_Need_is_Love_Lyrics.html) said it better:There's nothing you can do that can't be done. Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made. No one you can save that can't be saved.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown.

[sparklecat]

Interesting that its attributed to the man who is supposed to be the wisest one that ever lived, or will live :D

Here's chapter 6:

1 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun and it is prevalent among men--
2 a man to whom God has given riches and wealth and honor so that his soul lacks nothing of all that he desires; yet God has not empowered him to eat from them, for a foreigner enjoys them. This is vanity and a severe affliction.
3 If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, "Better the miscarriage than he,
4 for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity.
5 "It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.
6 "Even if the other man lives a thousand years twice and does not enjoy good things--do not all go to one place?"
7 All a man's labor is for his mouth and yet the appetite is not satisfied.
8 For what advantage does the wise man have over the fool? What advantage does the poor man have, knowing how to walk before the living?
9 What the eyes see is better than what the soul desires. This too is futility and a striving after wind.
10 Whatever exists has already been named, and it is known what man is; for he cannot dispute with him who is stronger than he is.
11 For there are many words which increase futility. What then is the advantage to a man?
12 For who knows what is good for a man during his lifetime, during the few years of his futile life? He will spend them like a shadow. For who can tell a man what will be after him under the sun?



The usual Christian answer I've heard to why Solomon is saying that everything is meaningless, worthless, it matters not if you sin or don't (There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked; for the good, for the clean and for the unclean; for the man who offers a sacrifice and for the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is, so is the sinner; as the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to swear.), is that he's talking about how life is like for an unbeliever.

And no, I don't think much of that answer.