Loading...In a previous post I began 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 exclamation 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 it will all make sense in the by-and-by. For in fact
Ecclesiastes gives us an intelligent, witty and unusually thoughtful view of life. Join the blog and keep reading! Click here for membership options
Though there does though seem to be a disjunction between the form of the book and its ostensible message.
If Qoheleth is pretending to be Solomon, but isn’t; this in itself is testimony to his confidence that some aspects of acquired Wisdom can endure as discourses of lasting value? Qoheleth clearly believes that the discourses of Solomon’s Wisdom did not dissipate into the wind many centuries before, but continue as material reality into his ‘present’ (whenever that may have been). Otherwise there would be no point in seeking to expand on them in his book.
I think the problem with the idea that “we only have this life so enjoy yourself” is precisely the lack of motivation to restrain our pursuit of personal enjoyment when it inflicts harm on others (or, indeed, on ourselves — that is, short term joy and long-term harm). I suspect that the small interpolation was an acknowledgment of this problem, if not an entirely satisfactory means of doing so. It is fine to say that we should seek to enjoy this life while also trying to do as little harm as we can, but the question is why avoid the harm as long as there is no overt consequence to ourselves? After all, if this life is all there is, and all we (or anyone else) will ever have, why not maximize our joy no matter the cost, especially to others? One obviously needs to avoid ending up in jail, or being totally ostracized by society, but as we can see from our current circumstances, there are lots of genuinely terrible people causing great harm who manage to avoid those fates. Is that okay since they are pursuing their own enjoyment? I hope not.
The motivation to restrain ourselves comes from our ingrained sense of empathy. If we enjoy life to the point that it harms others, harm that we can observe, the consequences to ourselves are feelings of guilt and remorse, feelings which diminish our joy. Of course, some of us are more empathetic than others. It’s one of the “better angels of our nature” that ought to be magnified, taught and cultivated at a young age.
Bart, is there any sense at all of this idea from Qoheleth? If not, that’s too bad. From his point of view, he might have seen empathetic feelings of remorse as an affliction from God for wrongdoings. Today we can recognize it as an evolved trait of human psychology.
“Eat, drink and be merry…”
He never heard Peggy Lee’s “Is That All There Is” or known such as you, Professor Ehrman, who has found a way to make a better world for others (over A MILLION for the homeless!!!).
Ah Peggy Lee. I wonder how many blog members will remember….
Hi Bart,
How on earth was such a book accepted in the canon of Pauline Christianity? Do you think there was any level of embarrassment (and apologetic engagement) among Early Christians or they simply ignored its troubling message of quasi agnosticism?
Ecclesiastes was considered a sacred book before Paul was born. It’s in the OT, not the NT.
Sorry Bart, I am afraid I did not express myself clearly.
I was referring to the reception of the book in Gentile Christianity which adopted Paul as its founder. Pauline theology is completely incompatible with Ecclesiastes. Did it raise any brows among Early Christians at all? Did anyone reject the contents of the book or its sacred status in Christendom? For example, in the middle ages Luther relegated the letter of James to a lesser status in the canon because of its incompatibility with Paul? How on earth could he miss Ecclesiastes? Protestants had no difficulties excluding the so-called apocrypha from the canon because of their problematic content. Why spare Ecclesiastes?
No, we don’t ahve any record of early CHristians taking exception to any of the books of the Jewish Bible. The apocrypha were not included in the Protestant Bible because they are not found in Hebrew; Ecclesiastes would be a different kettle of fish. It was widely assumed to be written by Solomon, so it may have been pessimistic, but it was still seen as Scripture.
If you get stuck in the melancholy of Is That All There Is, listen to Fever.
Count me as one who remembers! CBS “Sunday Morning” did an excellent episode about Peggy Lee, in which “Is That All There Is” featured prominently. Google “Sunday Morning Peggy Lee” to find the video.
Actually, and from my perspective, I like the wisdom literature quite well, even the Ecclesiastes and Job which have profound messages about our being. When it comes to Ecclesiastes, I really do not understand it as this post suggest. The wisdom in this book is to me within the utter framework of Time and Death, everything is a “havel”as the book says, or in other word, temporary, a nature of steam, or smoky, cloudy, shaky, confusing or not easy to understand. Within this “frame of “havel”ness )” we seek to manifest our identity, our goals, our grounding , but it is not there. That’s what I think the author wants through Qoheleth to say, but remind that the goals and trust should be in the Lord.
Qoheleth in 13:13-15 says “God will bring every deed into judgment.” If God is judging our deeds, then doesn’t some kind of result of these deeds necessarily follow? How does a statement that the divine judges our deeds indicate that there’s no afterlife? It seems to me that the statement about a divine judgment of every human’s deeds must imply a result beyond our physical death. Otherwise, Qohelith is saying “enjoy life, and be sure to live with the remembrance that God is judging your deeds, but don’t worry about it because God’s judgment won’t really mean anything because there’s no life after death.” Unless I’m missing something, reading Ecclesiastes as a gospel of nihilism doesn’t seem to work.
Yes, that’s right for those verses. Historical scholars have long argued that the book o Ecclesiastes was edtied by a later author who wanted to moderate its pessimism, and stress more the importance of obedience to God; these verses are part of that later edition.
I read this while enjoying my garden. These passages are very beautiful. Great morning devotional.
TIL that the part of Ecclesiastes that I first thought was the only awkward part in an otherwise excellent book was a later addition. Peace restored!
In the Garden of Eden story God gives Adam and Eve very earthly punishments, says nothing about an afterlife, in fact, drives them from the garden so they won’t live forever. At what point did the Jews begin to adopt the idea of a judgment after death and an afterlife?
Ah, that’s the topic of my book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife. I argue that it became a pronounced issue only with th rise of Jewish apocalyptic thought a couple of centuries before Jesus.
This is fascinating. I have NEVER heard this discussed in any of the churches I was subjected to as a youth. But it resonates true with me.
I never heard it in church either. We can indersramd why a traditional pastor would steer clear.
Hello Bart!
Seems a secular scholar has come out with something sure to make the fundies happy
He argues for early composition of the texts.
Would you 🤔 consider skimming it for any inquiry?
It seems he is radically out of step with modern scholarship
https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Dates-New-Testament-Composition/dp/154096180X
This is the link, rethinking dates of the new testament jonathan bernier.
I can’t believe he’s coming out with such massive revisionism in a…book. why not subject your claims to critique in a blog for years in advance?
I don’t think it’s very surprising that he’s published a book like this. that’s how scholarship works: to make a claim for yourself you publish something contrary to what everyone else thinks. Even on this issue it happens periodically. You may want to look at John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, for another major attempt.
Epicurus sums up Ecclesiastes:
“Death is nothing to us. When we exist, death is not; and when death exists, we are not. All sensation and consciousness ends with death and therefore in death there is neither pleasure nor pain. The fear of death arises from the belief that in death, there is awareness.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1094472-death-is-nothing-to-us-when-we-exist-death-is
Christian believers fantasize, contrary to Epicurus and Ecclesiastes, that they can cheat death by believing that some part of human consciousness survives the death of the body. And that part of consciousness can exist eternally apart from the body in some undefined supernatural realm.
Of course, there’s not a shred of evidence that an invisible, immaterial, immortal human soul exists. As Epicurus says: There is no awareness after death.
By convincing billions of people to believe in that fantasy of the immortal soul, the Christian religion has been able to perpetrate the biggest swindle in history.
Many people believe in an afterlife and judgment who are not Christian. And many would give as evidence communicating with dead people. Now, you can dismiss this as “not evidence” and that’s OK, but they and I do not see it that way.
Science cannot prove or disprove supernatural claims.
I think perhaps framing the question as “what is the point of life?” Is different from “what is our task in this life?” For me the task is to align myself with the Divine and shine that light into the world in whatever small way I can, and in whatever situation I find myself.
From Martin Buber’s The Way of Man According to the Teachings of Hasidism:
“It is said of a certain Talmudic master that the paths of heaven were as bright to him as the streets of his native town. Hasidism inverts the order: It is a greater thing if the streets of a person’s native town are as bright to them as the paths of heaven. For it is here, where we stand, that we should try to make shine the light of the hidden divine life. “
I think there’s a broad spectrum of folks among religions of all kinds around the world who might use different language, but the concept of light and alignment with the Divine are similar.
I like that and have thought about THAT a lot
I hope a boring life isn’t a wasted life.
But, maybe it’s possible I’m living what Heidegger would say was an “ inauthentic “ life
“ Eat, drink and be merry?”
I don’t particularly like eating, I’m 66 and don’t know what beer even tastes like and doing 3×1 mile w/ a half mile recovery has always been what makes me merry.
I bought that Harper Collins Study Bible, finished the gospels and will read Ecclesiastes immediately!!!!!
Just after I check out the Letsrun message board ha
I just started reading the online version of the Harper Collins Study Bible for free on Archive.org. You have to set up your own account to borrow the book.
In Exodus 16 when the Israelites get the bread of heaven they call it manna because they don’t know what/who it is. (“man hu”).
In Matthew/Luke/Mark in the context of the loaves and fishes, where John talks about the bread of life, Jesus asks “who/what do you say I am?” (“manu”) in the pershitta.
Do you think this was intentional and if so that the line was therefore originally composed in Aramaic?
I’m confused by your reference to the Bread of life in Matthew, Mark, and Luke where *John* is talking. What do you mean? ARe you referring to the passae in John 6 but not in the other Gospels?
Yes I meant where the gospel of John has the Bread of Life after the feeding of the five thousand – in the corresponding part of the synoptics they have the Who Am I? section.
Isn’t this an intentional reference to manna in the synoptics? (who/what is it?)
Oh, I see. It’s an interesting idea (though it would require readers to have knowledge of Hebrew I suppose, no?) But I’m not sure that “correponding part” alsways works as a concept in the Gospels if by that you mean “after this episode comes then that episode,” since the Gospel writers change episodes around, and I’m not convinced they knew Johns anyway. But more important, I think, the confession at Casarea Philippi in the Synoptics is not PART of the multiplication of the loaves event, but subsequent to it; in John the Bread of LIfe discourse is PART of the event — just as most of Jesus’ signs are followed by discourses that unpack their meaning.
Bart, what’s your stance on the death penalty?
I think the biases, prejudices, abuses and mind-boggling inequalities in the judicial system make it unjust in the modern context.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think the Bible presents any particular view of the yet unborn/abortion and so on? Have these views changed in Christian history?
On on side, I’ve heard that Christianity was always against abortion. On the other side, coming more from the Hebrew Bible, the view of man is presented as a living being only once God breaths the breath of life in it (cf. Genesis 2:7).
This also explains Jewish myths of things like Golems, mythical creatures that have a walking body, formed out of the clay of the earth, much like Adam, but as opposed to Adam, have not received the breath of life from God.
Yes, I’m thnking about doing a series of posts on the matter. I told my wife I wanted to write a book about it — what the Bible says about abortion — and she informed me, “Oh no you’re not!” …. But yes, as far back as our earliest Christian records on the matter, abortion has been condemned. That’s not to say at all that it’s condemned in the Bible though. It’s simply been the Christian view as far back as we can trace it.
Another win for Sarah IMO. These “hot button” issues are leading to “conflict fatigue”, at least for me. Aside from the fact that it would be a rather short book, danmih may be interested in the John J Collins book, “What Are Christian Values ?”, which gives a brief, yet very well reasoned run through of “abortion” verses in the Bible. In short, there’s not really anything in the Bible that specifically addresses abortion as we moderns understand it, as Bart intimates. Of course, if you talk to a fundy, or do a google search for “Biblical verses against abortion”, you will find plenty of very questionable extrapolations and interpretations. 1/2
Sorry the Collins book is called “What Are Biblical Values ?” Apologies for the error.
Dr. Ehrman,
If you were a Protestant, how would answer a Catholic/Orthodox rhetoric coming at you, saying to you “we created the Bible, we put it all together, you have no claim of interpretation over it, whatsoever” ?
I’d say Protestants and CAtholics did not exist when the Bible was put together.
I’d say Protestants and CAtholics did not exist when the Bible was put together.
Amen preacher !
Work it…do it…learn it…be it
Be all you can be. Sounds lame but so true.
Ecclesiastes 7:5 it is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.”
This is a hard lesson but if we can grasp it I think this is what the Bible is talking about when it says we will be mature.
I also like Ecclesiastes 8:3 Be not hasty to go out of his sight:
Even though I now read the Bible from completely different perspective it still brings me comfort like nothing else can.
Question the word Ecclesiastes to my understanding is the same Hebrew word as teacher and preacher but from the Latin of the Greek of the Hebrew. I like the word Ecclesiastes it sound thought provoking. Any insight as to why use of a different word translation for the book title verses how it’s used in the text?
The Hebrew title for the book is Qoheleth, which means “Preacher.” ASS you probably know, book titles for the biblical books differ depending on whether you are reading it in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, etc. (Example: our book of Genesis is called Berishith in Hebrew, literally “In the Beginning”)
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I just did a “Paul” search of your posts and did not a topic that addressed “The Orthodoxy and Paul’s Letters and Christology” or something to that effect.
The religion of Jesus is different from Paul’s religion about Jesus.
Where may we find your material on this topic and if you have not done a blog on this, might you blog on this topic.
What comes to mind for me are
1) the biographical elements of Jesus missing in Paul, acknowledged by all critical scholars
2) Jesus’ reverence for Hebrew scripture that not one letter … [Matthew 5: 18]
3) Paul not being as word for word with Jesus’ view of the Apocalypse as Paul is word for word with the Last Supper
4) Paul not preserving word for word the ritual of baptism, for example repent and get baptized for the kingdom of God is at hand, for Paul it is more baptism can be a way of dying with Jesus
5) Jesus of the gospels is not an archangel and high priest as found in Paul
6) Jesus does not want us to die with him so we can rise with him as found in Paul
(adding to the question to Dr. Ehrman)
7) Die with Osiris, Rise with Osiris (burial ritual of pharaohs, the term amduat and The Book of the Dead come into play) becomes Die with Christ, Rise with Christ.
Paul uses syncretism with the cult of Serapis (Osiris and Apis) to re-interpret baptism (think John the Baptist baptizing Jesus. John did not baptize Jesus saying, Die with the Son of Man who must be rejected and executed by Rome so you can resurrect after you become the suffering servant.)
If you want to know about Paul’s actual Christology — that is, his theology of who Christ was (as opposed ot his understanding of the historical Jesus), I have an extended discussion in my book HOw Jesus Became God. If you look on the blog for Paul and Jesus you’ll see a number of posts devoted to the issues. (E.g., March 14, 2016 and January 26, 2018)
Thank you. I have begun moving my library, including How Jesus Became God, out of storage. I guess you are talking about Chapter 6: The Beginning of Christology and Chapter 7: Jesus as God on Earth.
No, that is not what I am asking. I am thinking about what was LUKE trying to accomplish by writing about Paul. Did Luke’s version of Paul 1) bring Paul more in line with the orthodoxy of the gospel of Luke, 2) make Paul more accommodating of the Jerusalem Church and the original apostles?
In Paul’s letter, he did not go to Jerusalem right after his conversion–one wold think: I believe in Jesus, let me run to his apostles.
In Luke’s version of Paul’s biography, Paul got to Jerusalem quicker than he did in his letters. There is no trip to Arabia or return trip to Damascus. Paul ran away from lethal danger in Damascus and made it to Jerusalem (Acts 9: 26)
In Paul’s Letter: “I did not rush to Jerusalem to consult with flesh and blood” [of the original apostles]. I went to Arabia, then back to Damascus. –3 years to get to Jerusalem.
Yes, Acts version of Paull is meant to portray him very much in line with the story told of Jesus in the Gsopel of Luke, and yes, also to make him completely sympatico with the other apostles.
The message of Ecclesiastes is very similar to the teaching of the Sadducees!
Ecclesiastes is the book of the Bible that is nearest and dearest to my heart, for all of the reasons you suggest. There is comfort to me, much like with Psalm 42, in hearing an ancient writer pore over the difficult questions that I end up encountering in trying to muddle out something meaningful.
We cannot know the divine, we cannot know our fate, and we have no assurances that our faith or our efforts will provide us anything in this world. Ecclesiastes is troubling, because the world is troubling. I find that immensely comforting.
Absurdism?
Reminds me of Gilgamesh…
“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”
― The Epic of Gilgamesh
Is there any evidence that the final passage was a later addition, other than the fact that it seems to contradict the thesis of the rest of the book?
Yes, that is widely believed. There’s no manuscript evicence since our text comes from a single manuscript; the evidence is based on an internal analysis of the style and perspective, which run contrary to the rest of teh book rather drastically.
Do you have a recommended reference for a discussion of the evidence that this last part was added?
Most scholarly commentaries will discuss the issue. I’m out of town and not near my books, but I’m sure, for example, that Robert Jewett’s commentary will. A book that certainly deals with it is William Walker, Interpolation in the Pauline letters. Unfortunately I looked on line and it is selling for $260. (!?!) Maybe some other blog member can point out a good discussion either online or in an easily accessible book. (I’m sure you can find online discussions pretty easily; if you do, check to see who is writing them. You obviously would prefer someone with established expertise in NT studies)
I like Ecclesiastes because it says there is a time to be born and a time to die. It makes me think about how different my life and beliefs would have been had I been born in Europe during the 2nd or 3rd century instead of now.
Einstein is considered a genius today but if he was born back then, deduced the world is round and revolved around the sun, and told people about it he probably would be called just the opposite and a heretic. The same person, same intelligence and telling the truth. There’s a time for everything.
Beliefs beyond reason have many names such as superstition,
religion, myths. They serve many purposes. They can make a group feel special. They can establish rules of behavior. They
can mitigate the fear of death. They can justify both kindness
and cruelty. They can give meaning to existence. They are
useful tools. The author of Ecclesiasties does not , however,look through
a lens colored by the supernatural or metaphysical , that beyond the limits of reason. He faces rather what he observes unfiltered. He offers profound observations
for the reader to ponder. The writer just may be the bravest as well as wisest character in the Bible, even if his writings do not
support the other books in the Bible.