Ratel

Ecclesiastes stands in sharp contrast with the rest of the Christian Bible and seems to contradict the entire narrative of Christianity. For example, it appears to deny the existence of an afterlife, and contains the idea that man has no real preminence over other animals. Furthermore, it contains a lot of material that actually makes sense. It's written as though the writer is looking at how things are, and drawing conclusions therefrom, rather than ranting about "Thus saith the LORD: blah blah blah etc."

So my question is, is there any record of the process that allowed Ecclesiastes into the canon? Was it debated sharply or was approval a simple procedure?

An apologetic for Ecclesiastes that I have heard is that it is written to imitate "incorrect" thinking in order to hold it in contrast to the proper way of viewing life (according to the Judaeo Christian perspective, of course). I don't find this particuarly convincing, but is it possible a similar argument allowed it to be included in the canon?

Anat

I think the question to ask is how it made it into the Jewish canon. Once there, the Christians inherited it. In Jewish midrash, Ecclesiastes is supposed to be based on sayings of Solomon in his old age, or sayings of his when he was temporarily demoted from his crown by Ashmedai (can't remember if he was supposed to be a father or son of Satan) and was wandering as a beggar in the countryside. (The latter is based on a drash interpretation of Ecclesiastes 1:12 " I Koheleth have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.")

EthnAlln

It's the one book of the Bible that I read with unalloyed pleasure. I compare it to my favorite long poem, the Rubaiyat (Quatrains) of Omar Khayyam, as translated by Edward Fitzgerald. Both present a basically humanist and hedonist view of life.

Actually, I've always thought that the strictness of the ancient Jews is a myth. They were probably polytheistic and cosmopolitan a lot of the time. It's just that their only books were written by a bunch of crabbed rabbis. The same picture would emerge about the Middle Ages if we had only the written documents to rely on. The authors present a history of early purity of worship, gradually corrupted. I don't think the earlier purity existed. I think it was imagined while the Jews were in exile, just as the Muslim communities in the West generate super-pure shariah-mongers in reaction to the cosmopolitan society they are living in.

beorne

The last 2 verses of Chapter 12, places it in the perspective of a theist:

13 The last word, when all is heard: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is man's all;
14
because God will bring to judgment every work, with all its hidden qualities, whether good or bad.

Ecclesiastes always reminds me of Fitzgerald's translation of the Rubaiyat by Omar Khayyam:

12
"How sweet is mortal Sovranty!"---think some:
Others---"How blest the Paradise to come!"
Ah, take the Cash in hand and waive the Rest;
Oh, the brave Music of a distant Drum!


37
Ah, fill the Cup:---what boots it to repeat
How Time is slipping underneath our Feet:
Unborn TO-MORROW, and dead YESTERDAY,
Why fret about them if TO-DAY be sweet!

fta

One apologist assured me that Ecclesiastes was written by a tongue-in-cheek theist imagining himself in the shoes of a foolish unbeliever, i.e. it's actually supposed to satirise the "agnostic" views it proclaims. Is there any scholarly support for this notion?

Anat

EthnAlln, Ecclesiastes isn't promoting hedonism in the usual sense - he is aware of the emptiness that comes from excessive indulgence and praises the life of physical labor and 'just enough' physical reward. He also praises a realistic virtuous life - not making promises one cannot keep, but keeping those promises one makes.

Gavriel

I don't know about Christian canon and what dart game they devised to determine their canon, but speaking from the Jewish POV, there was A LOT of debate if Ecclesiastes should be in the Tanach. This is recorded in the Talmud.

EthnAlln

Yeah, I agree. It's surprising how often people with a reputation as hedonists turn out to be rather Spartan in their taste. Epicurus is another example; he wasn't an epicurean in the modern sense. (But then Newton wasn't a strict Newtonian either.) I enjoy Ecclesiastes and the Rubaiyat, but I too try to live moderately, knowing that it's not worth while getting drunk---the hangover is too high a price to pay---and that it's worth the effort to exercise, eat moderately, get enough sleep, live within your means, deal honestly with other people, and keep faith with your friends and family. The pleasures of the mind are superior to those of the body. (And the perversions of the mind are worse than those of the body.)

But the Rubaiyat has both sound wisdom and poignant emotion:

"Oh threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One thing is certain—this Life flies;
One thing is certain, and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once is blown for ever dies.

Strange, is it not? that of the myriads who
Before us pass'd the door of Darkness through,
Not one returns to tell us of the Road,
Which to discover we must travel too.

The Revelations of Devout and Learn'd
Who rose before us, and as Prophets burn'd,
Are all but Stories, which, awoke from Sleep
They told their fellows, and to Sleep return'd."

******

"Heav'n but the Vision of fulfill'd Desire,
And Hell the Shadow of a Soul on fire,
Cast on the Darkness into which Ourselves,
So late emerged from, shall so soon expire.

We are no other than a moving row
Of visionary Shapes that come and go
Round with this Sun-illumin'd Lantern held
In Midnight by the Master of the Show.

Impotent Pieces of the Game He plays
Upon this Chequer-board of Nights and Days;
Hither and thither moves, and checks and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays."

***********

"Nay, but for terror of his wrathful Face,
I swear I will not call Injustice Grace;
Not one Good Fellow of the Tavern but
Would kick so poor a Coward from the place."

***************

"Ah, with the Grape my fading Life provide,
And wash my Body whence the Life has died,
And lay me, shrouded in the living Leaf,
By some not unfrequented Garden-side."

********

"But see! The rising Moon of Heav'n again
Looks for us, Sweet-heart, through the quivering Plane
How oft hereafter rising will she look
Among those leaves—for one of us in vain!

And when Yourself with silver Foot shall pass
Among the Guests Star-scatter'd on the Grass,
And in your joyous errand reach the spot
Where I made One—turn down an empty Glass!"

Anat

BTW this thread had me reread Ecclesiastes, and it came sounding so much like my grandmother (the secular one) who died at 92 a few years ago. Thanks for the memories.

Chris Weimer

The fragments at Qumran suggest that it was not included in canon, or at least it wasn't nearly as prominent there.