(16 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading...I have been talking about the distinctive views of the book of Ecclesiastes, one of the real gems of the Hebrew Bible, a book that refuses to accept easy answers or blithe truisms about life, but faces reality head on. No matter what we do or how we try to explain it away, life is short. Very very short. The author of course had no conception of what we know now about time in relation to lifespan. What would he say if he knew that the world (what we would call the universe — something about which also he had no knowledge) was not a few thousand years old but 13.8 billion?
My guess is that he would say the same thing he already does, but possibly with a few more explanation points. Given how incredibly brief our life is, even if we live to “old” age — what’s the point of it? Is there a point? I think there is. And I find not just value but also hope in his reflections. Here is the final bit of what I say about it in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction (starting right before where I left off yesterday).
*******************************************************************************
The ultimate problem is that no matter how much wisdom you gain, or how many possessions you accumulate, or how many pleasures you enjoy – in the end, you die, and then you are no different from a miserable, impoverished fool: “the same fate befalls all… for there is no enduring remembrance of the wise of or fools, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten” (2:14, 16).
Moreover, Qoheleth finds no comfort in the traditional teachings of positive wisdom. In no small measure this is because in his experience, they simply are not true: “In my vain life I have seen everything; there are righteous people who perish in their righteousness, and there are wicked people who prolong their life in their evildoing” (7:15; see also 8:14); “Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful; but time and chance happen to them all” (9:11-12).
And one should not think that …
The reflections of this ancient speaker of wisdom are well worth hearing today, and anyone who belongs to the blog can keep reading. It is easy and inexpensive to join — free just now for anyone who wants a two-month membership. And for those who are willing to pay the small membership fee, every nickel you pay goes to help the hungry and homeless. So either way, JOIN!
Would you recommend any resource(s) on the concluding addition to the text? I have heard this claim before and I’d love to know what are the markers, other than its dissonance with the full text and tone of what came beforehand, e.g. grammar, vocabulary, textual variants? Thanks in advance Dr Ehrman (and/or any other knowledgeable followers).
I don’t have access to all my books right now, but I would think a good place to look would be James Crenshaw’s commentary on Ecclesiastes. A good general resource on the Hebrew Bible is John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible.
Hey!
I like this Quoheleth fella!
Isn’t that what all those people rebelling against the social distancing and lockdown are doing? Not what the author of Ecclesiastes has in mind, but it’s quite compatible.
It’s a valuable answer, but an incomplete one. One piece of a very large puzzle. We can’t just live for ourselves. We’re not built that way. We aspire to much more. And to deny those aspirations is to deny ourselves.
Very interesting!
Why didn’t the group that added in their final ‘God & Judgement’ focus not also edit the text within the book itself to make it align with their religious convictions? Seems halfhearted?
When would do you think this group added these final words in, compared to the dating of the original text itself? 600 BCE.
I wonder what people would have though if they read two versions next to each other. Fasinating.
Cheers for this blog Bart – I just came across it and am loving it.
Sam – aka When Belief Dies
The original text would have been in the 3rd or 4th c. BCE; the addition? No telling, really. Within a hundred years or so? It’s much easier to add a few lines than edit and entire text, which is probably why that’s they way the scribe did it (same with the book of Amos)
Is there proof that the end was added later like Mark where earlier copies have been found without the add summary? Or, is the added ending a scholarly hypothesis and if yes, is it a consensus within the scholarly community?
There aren’t a lot of manuscripts of the book, of coruse, unlike Mark; but all of them have the ending. The “proof” is internal evidence, not external. Within critical scholarship, yes, this the standard view.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. Could you please point me to which of your writings where you discuss the multiple different copies we have of the Gospel of Mark and the differences between them? Thank you so much!
I don’t have a book devoted to just that question. The closest thing would be Misquoting Jesus, but there I only talk about a few of the important variants in Mark among the mss (I do more in the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture)
Interesting, I literally just asked a Christian friend today if he had ever wondered why the last few verses seemed to so abruptly shift the entire theme of the book. That you posted on this topic today is clearly providence…or is it chance occurrence? Ha, I jest, but on a serious note I would be interested in what evidence would lead us to believe verses 9-14 of the last chapter are redactions. Are there any other scholarly writings on the matter?
Clearly providence! The evidence is the tenor, tone, and contradictory view of the passage. For a brief discussion of the matter see John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and the fuller commentary by James Crenshaw Ecclesiastes (I’ve checked Collins, he defintely makes this argument; I don’t have access to many books just now, so I’m assuming Crenshaw argues the same thing, knowing his scholarship)
I feel like he would have much in common with Epicuros.
This reminds me of the quote from the Epic of Gilgamesh:
“Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man.”
A little internet research reveals no direct reference to Ecclesiastes in the New Testament although Paul mentions the “eat drink and be merry” outlook in I Cor 15:32 and the author of James comes closest in 4:14.
“What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.”
So…what was the attitude of the early church towards Ecclesiastes in the first centuries of its existence?
thanks
We don’t really know. It’s not talked about much. Never was one of the favorite books of Scripture…
In v. 12:7 it says, “the spirit will return to God who gave it.” Is he simply saying that the life force leaves the body, or is this also a possible insertion like vv. 13 & 14? (those verses remind me how the lesson of Job is totally undone by the fairy tale ending added later!)
Yeah, hard to know. Life comes from God and teh breath is what provides the life, so it’s probably not saying that the breath is a defined entity that then goes to live with God, just that God removes it from the person.
In addition to that, in chapter 3 v 21 it implies that the spirit of a man goes up but the spirit of a beast goes down to the earth. I have some difficulties trying to understand this passage. It seems to me that the author is hoping that there is an afterlife for humans. What you think?
He may hope so, but he don’t think so.
To try to keep this succinct, I’ve always read Qoheleth’s answer to the original question, “Is There Any Point To Life?”, to be:
Yes, of course. However, it is not granted externally, from the outside (by God, the universe, etc). Any such “point” (or “meaning”) we create, both as individuals and as a culture. But that doesn’t make it any less real.
What is the evidence of the late inclusion of 13:13-15 to the text other than the change in perspective? Clearly that is a giant about-face from the rest of the work. But is there additional evidence?
The evidence is the tenor, tone, and contradictory view of the passage. For a brief discussion of the matter see John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and the fuller commentary by James Crenshaw Ecclesiastes (I’ve checked Collins, he defintely makes this argument; I don’t have access to many books just now, so I’m assuming Crenshaw argues the same thing, knowing his scholarship)
I’ve always found the last bit of Ecclesiastes discordant and suspected redaction. Now I know. I’m just going to line out that part. Thanks for clarifying!
You said on the Webinar that the Lake of Fire comes from the Book of Revelation. Do we know where he got it from, or was it original to him?
No, he doesn’t tell us. But it was common trope in ancient thought that the wicked would be punished in fire (just as criminals were burned at the stake.)
Hi Bert, thank you for this wonderful post. Ecclesiastes also happens to be my favorite book especially for its sheer raw realism. I am curious about your claim that 13:13-15 is a later edit. Is there some textual criticism to illustrate this or do you say that only because the assumptions in the passage goes against the claims of the preceding passages?
The evidence is the tenor, tone, and contradictory view of the passage. For a brief discussion of the matter see John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and the fuller commentary by James Crenshaw Ecclesiastes (I’ve checked Collins, he defintely makes this argument; I don’t have access to many books just now, so I’m assuming Crenshaw argues the same thing, knowing his scholarship)
I am glad you posted this. This is my favorite book also but I did not know about the
add on at the end.
Hello Professor Ehrman,
My name is Isa, and I have joined your blog for the 2 month free trial which you informed me about, thank you!
I have a question to ask you: Are there any reliable sources which prove the occurrence of Jesus’ crucifixion, other than the canonical gospels?
It is multiply attested outside the Gospels as well, eg., in Paul, Acts, 1 Peter, etc. One of the few things Josephus says about Jesus is that he was executed under Pilate; and it is one of the few things the earliest Roman sources say about Jesus (Tacitus).
Hi Dr. Ehrman, love this commentary on Ecclesiastes, thank you! Isn’t the Testimonium Flavianum in The Antiquities of the Jews of Josephus another analogous case where the scholarly consensus is that it was added much later and not actually what Josephus wrote? I was reminded in how, like you said, Josephus confirms that Jesus was crucified under Pilate, but then suddenly he takes a sharp left turn and testifies that Jesus was actually the Messiah. Just thought that this is another such case of how texts were forged over centuries when the actual contents of the writing no longer jived with the new religious convictions of the people, in this case the triumphant Christians. Thanks!
No, that’s not the consensus, but it’s certainly an important minority view. My sense is that the consensus is that the Testimonium as a whole goes back to Josephus, but that it’s been expanded by a Christian scribe who wanted to insert affirmations of the messiahship of jesus into it.
Looking from an external perspective such claims are relevant,,,,,,,,,,,but from an internal perspective the question makes no sense. From an internal persepctive,,,,,,,,,,yes,,,one might lean on even Quantum physics,,,esoterical traditions (mystics) i.e. the claimed esoteric/”mystic”basis of the Hebrew Bible,,,,,,,that the human spirit and soul were first created in the spiritual world as a part of God. (Adam Kadmon,,,the first man in spirit,,a devine light without a vessel. ) Well,,the Genesis claims, and confirms that human are created in the likeness of God!!!!!!!!!!!!! “likeness”,,,and as devine vessels (Genisis, Psalme 82.6,,,,,,,,,John 10:34),,,and more.
All from a Quantum Physics ,,,from a Jewish mystic who claim originated the Hebrew Bible whom many modern orthodox Jews accept,,,,and from a main stream religion (like Hinduism, example from Pataljanis Yoga Sutra ),,,,,,,and more,,,,,claim our devine heritage ,,our devine essence,,,where our spirit and souls origin.
If they claim that we derive from the devine,,,and we descended through more and more dense counsiousnesses (worlds as the Jewish mystics call it),, and will be on our way back,,,we still “are”! , and the always been.
From such an internal perspective, the question is probably difficult to understand and answer.
Solomon was once a man after God’s own heart. His writing in Ecclesiastes reflects a man who maintained a religious belief but it was now stripped of its living spirit. He had grown darker. He had opportunity, like no other Jew before or since, to see for himself how vain was power and riches.
Solomon’s first book, Song, was very much a physically sensual book. His next book, (probably a compilation of Jewish Proverbs) was about wise living. Such as you could find anywhere.
Solomon never had the relationship with God that his father had. David cried, “Bow down thine ear for I am poor and needy.”
All Solomon could say is, “Bow down thine ear and hear the words of my wisdom.”
Solomon, like Eli the priest, twice ignored warnings by God. Now all he could do in his last book was exhort others to obey – as was his Kingly role. It was an appeal to reason but not to spirit. The love was gone.
Solomon didn’t write Ecclesiastes. (See Bart’s earlier posts in this series.)
On a side note, I enjoyed your talk and Q & A on Heaven and Hell. I learned quite a bit of material I never knew and you defined well the history in the short time you had. Back to the post. So the ending of the book is a later addition to bring God into prominence as you say. Just wondering about chapter 8 ; 16-17, ” When I applied my mind to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done on earth, how neither day nor night one’s eyes see sleep; then I saw all the work of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However much man may toil in seeking, he will not find it out; even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out”. What is he referring to here ? Is the passage saying, God’s work is incomprehensible and as mortals we will not get answers here so keep living the best you can ? Thanks.
I guess he’s saying we have limited knowledge of everything that God is doing.
I don’t read KJV so I do not have a 15 (12:13-15), but I put a note on what I have. On the subject of long life. The early fathers like Mathuselah still feeling the residual of the tree-of-life seemed not able to get humanity beyond goat herding. I guess the practice of getting a lot done in a short time versus getting nothing done in a long time is true. That is why life is short, humanity will just waist a long life. Only in the book “Glory Road” by Robert Heinlein did those with a long life make any progress. In RR Tolkien “Lord of the Rings” the elves lived 3000 years and never got passed bows and arrows.
Sorry, wasn’t “Glory Road”
Fascinating! Agree that’s what Ecclesiates is about. Wanna ask: Are there textual evidence for a later redaction in the ending?
No, it’s found in all the manuscripts.
One of my favorite biblical books. I even wrote a song about it. I’m sure it won’t ever be as big a hit as Pete Seeger’s “Turn, Turn, Turn” [and the Byrds’] but it captures more of the spirit of the book.
https://soundcloud.com/search?q=fefferman%20vanity
Yup. And done in a very timely way, in its time. I swear it’s not too late….
Great lyrics, great music. Cheers
Lovely song, enjoyed it very much. Thanks.
So why should we give to the poor from our resource,s which we could instead use to promote our own happiness?
Apart from the question of the importance of compassion, it is because it is impossible to be truly happy in sight of others who are miserably suffering, if you’re fully human.
Spinoza wrote in “A Theologico-Political Treatise” Ch. 10, “I cannot here pass over in silence the audacity of the Rabbis who wished to exclude from the sacred cannon both the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and to put them both in the Apocrypha. In fact, they would actually have done so, if they had not lighted on certain passages in which the law of Moses is extolled. It is, indeed, grievous to think that the settling of the sacred canon lay in the hands of such men; however, I congratulate them in this instance, on their suffering us to see these books in question, though I cannot refrain from doubting whether they have transmitted them in absolute good faith; but I will not now linger on this point.”
Are Spinoza’s assertions that these two books barely made it into the cannon well attested?
Hmmm… I don’t think there was much of an issue with either one, once they were considered to be by Solomon. At least I don’t know of a record of any debates. Maybe others do? (They weren’t included as early as the Torah or the Prophets, but either were other books of he “Writings”)
Bart: “At least I don’t know of a record of any debates. Maybe others do?”
According to the Mishnah (Yadayim 3:5), there was indeed a rabbinic debate about whether or not Qohelet and/or Song of Songs (not Proverbs) should be considered sacred scripture.
I loved this post, Bart. It made me gain a new appreciation for this oft-ignored book. And the point about the ending being a later addition was the icing on the cake! Thanks 🙂
About the unexpected conclusion, Tremper Longman III suggests it is from a second wise man.
The second wise man provides the “above-the-sun” perspective, where there is God, eternal life, and judgment, and warns his son against the Qoheleth’s “under the sun” perspective, without God, eternal life, and judgment, which leads to a sense of meaninglessness and the futility of wisdom and righteousness.
I’ve the following question about the interesting book Lost Christianities (excuse me if I lost the answer in the book):
I do not see details of first Christianity sect (correct me if I am wrong) Nazareth’s Christians or the people of the Way. As far as I know, it is the first name for the followers of the Jewish rabbi Jesus in Palestine. If the first part is true, is it because we’re missing any scripture or commentary from Pauline Christianity resources or any other good reason(s)?
Regards
Sorry, I’m not sure I understand your question. My book is about Christainity in the second and third century, not the earliest. Our best information about what *earliest* Christainity was like comes from Paul; we obviously don’t have any writings from the first twenty years or so of the movement.
The Book of Ecclesiastes is echoed in the Greek Orthodox funeral service. There, however, the idea is that precisely because everything in this material world is ‘vanity of vanities’, our only hope is in Jesus Christ and the heavenly eternal life he offers. The material world is meaningless, doing God’s will is what ultimately offers meaning and leads one to a place of rest ‘where there is no pain, nor sorrow, nor moaning, but only everlasting life’.
The authors of wisdom literature believed there was a God even though they may not have believed in an afterlife. I know some who like to argue that these writers understood the “truth” about their existence: there is no afterlife. But when they say that, they’re not willing to accept the rest of the truth that was understood: there is a God. It’s not fair to say that the writers were facing reality with one thing while rejecting reality with another. That’s confirmation bias.
Dr. Ehrman:
Although, it seems pretty obvious that many books were expanded upon or the conclusions don’t quite fit the context (as per Ecclesiastes), is there any textual (opposed to contextual) evidence to show the end of Ecclesiastes is an ad-on? Does it use different phrases or words or line-styles etc. Anything you have heard or any variations known? Thank you, for delving into the OT as of late.
There are no manuscripts that lack it. But if your found a paragraph from Adam Smith inserted into Das Kaptial, you might suspect it. It’s that kind of thing. The ideas promoted are the opposite of those found throughout the book.
Ecclesiastes is traditionally chanted in synagogues (in Hebrew, of course) during Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles), a week-long holiday whose most prominent feature is time spent dwelling, or at least taking meals, in a flimsy, non-permanent structure (a sukkah) outside the home. The sukkah, like the book, underscores the transience of life in this world.
Dear Bart, have you made any other posts about what editors did to Isaiah and Amos? I’d be really interested to know what the original intent of Amos was.
Not sure. You could search for the names on the Blog. I certainly deal with the issues at some length in my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction.
The greatest consolation to this short life is realizing what would happen to us if we could live forever and there are a few good books but my favorite is by Andrew Stark “”The Consolations of Mortality:Making Sense of Death” on Amazon. PLEASE READ ! You will have perspectives on what going on and on and on would mean.
Do you have access to early
manuscripts of this book? Any differences between the early manuscripts and later manuscripts?
I’m afraid we don’t have many early mss of any of the Hebrew Bible, almost none outside of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Our earliest full manuscript is from the around the year 1000. But I don’t know of any major textual issues in Ecclesiastes, though I’m sure there are some,maybe a lot. (Hebrew Bible textual criticism is not one of my areas of expertise.)
Dr. Ehrman, this is a specific question to Ecclesiastes, but it parallels vast lack of understanding I have of how we know any of these details of past history; Given this “lack of early manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, with the earliest full manuscript from around the year 1000”, how do we have any idea of when Ecclesiastes was actually written? By the same token how is it we are able to know the detailed mundane daily lives of not just Roman Emperors but just common soldiers? Do we have warehouses full of original Roman “newspapers and government reports and pay slips”? Were Dark Age Monks really sitting around and copying over descriptions of the daily rations of Roman soldiers?
This is fascinating to me how we seem to know some much about this stuff if we don’t have “the Scrolls of Alexandria’s Library” to read through!!
Yup, it’s a complicated matter and there are scholars who devote significant amounts of hard-core research to figuring it out –= not just with Ecclesiastes but will lots and lots of ancient writings. There are several factors to consider. For example, when do you first get a quotation from a book? Whenever that is, the book was written before teh quotation of it! Does the book refer to anything int he past? If so, it was written *after* taht. What kind of language does it use? English like that known to the author of Beowulf? Shakespeare? Dickens? George Bush? In teh case of Ecclesiastes, it appears to be dependent on Greek philosohical traditions that would have been available especially in the third century BCE, so it could not have been written before that and some of the vocabulary the author uses shows his knowledge of Aramaic. So whoever he was, he was living seven centuries or so after Solomon, teh alleged author.
Read Zalmoxis ,the first Mesiah ,by Dan Oltean
Hello Bart!
I have a question – sometimes in your new book Heaven and Hell you write LORD with capital letters and sometimes you don’t. Can you explain why?
Thanks a lot!
That stands for the personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible, Yawweh, (the tetragrammaton, YHWH) as opposed to the Hebrew word for “Lord” (Adonai)
Sir, your works are really appreciated. Its really interesting reading your stuffs, though im commited to the Evangelical faith yet you have help me in to be more commited so. This might shock you. After learning about Heaven and hell from your video….. i am more commited to the believe of aionion life and punishment. God works wonders in me through you who write article on the case against miracle.
Let me go directly to the personal question i have for you, this is personal question and I hope you dont mind. This is my speculation that may be you are agnostic in your mind but still strongly attached to evangelical faith in your heart. Is my speculation true?? It seems to me you have more meaning and life purpose before as a commited Christian than now. Sometime head cannot reason but heart experiences that God so real
No, I’m not connected to evangelical Christianity in my heart. I am conneted to humanism, and the basic requirements that we invest ourselves in making the lives of all around us better, and in so far as that is considered “Christian” I have a Christian view. But not only Christians are committed to it.
Meaning of life:
Every rose has its thorn Just like every night has its dawn Just like every cowboy sings a sad sad song.
Hi Sir,
Apart from the redaction at the end of chap 12, in the previous chapter (11:9) there is a mention of judgement: “Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Follow the inclination of your heart and the desire of your eyes, but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgement.”
Ecclesiastes 11:9 NRSV
Does that prove that the author believed in a day of judgement?
Not necessarily. The editor who added he final chapter appears to have added comparable views here and there (e.g., also, 3:17)
If Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 talk about when we die everything perishes and in Ecclesiastes 12:7 talk about how our body return back to the ground and our spirit return back to giver of life. Should we not suggest that the writer of Ecclesiastes had some idea that there is a God in the universe?
Yes, he certainly did believe in God.
The meaning of life is an empty platitude!
“Since the ultimate meaning of life is elusive, and since death will end it all, there is only one ultimate answer. We should live life to the fullest, as long as we can”
Pretty thin gruel. Sounds deep, means nothing.
I’m open to better options!
Any chance that Qoheleth is actually Saul, the ‘depressed’ king of Israel?
Sorry, my question has no sense, I forgot that in the introduction, he is the ‘son of David’, so it can’t refer to Saul.
No; Ecclesiastes was written about 700 years after Saul had died.
I wasn’t concerned with authorship, but with the figure of Qoheleth. But then I remembered he is called “son of David”.