Ecclesiastes

A few weeks ago I proposed a conversation about Ecclesiastes. It never really took off, but the topic has never been far from my mind. Now I’d like to re-propose. Read the book, and I assure you that you will be confused beyond repair. Let’s join together to vent about this frustrating, vague and contradictory book.

It’s hard to pinpoint what it is about Ecclesiastes that I find so irritating. Perhaps it’s the repeated use of the phrase “under the sun” (I realize it was a stylistic choice of the author, and much is likely lost in translation, but in English it sounds like a highly contrived and trite literary device). Really, the style of the book as a whole is a little mind numbing. At times it seems that the same phrase is being repeated on a loop. Yadda yadda yadda is folly…blah blah is chasing after the wind.

More likely, my annoyance lies in the fact that for the past 2 weeks my obsessive compulsive personality has been entrenched in the dualism and internal illogicality that Ecclesiastes has to offer. Seeking pleasure is meaningless (2:1-11), wisdom (1:18) and folly are both meaningless (2:12-16), toil is meaningless (2:17-19), advancement is meaningless (4:13-16), and riches are meaningless (5:10).

But then we get to chapter 3 (and even the end of chapter 2): “A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God” (2:24, this point is stated again in 3:22). A man can do nothing better than to find satisfaction in his work? I thought we already covered the fact that toil and pleasure are meaningless. 7:11 says “Wisdom, like an inheritance, is a good thing and benefits those who see the sun,” but wisdom is meaningless. Riches are meaningless, but 10:19 says: “A feast is made for laughter, and wine makes life merry, but money is the answer for everything.”

So what’s the point of this book? Or to ask the philosophical question: if this book holds any truth, what’s the point of life? If anything we can possibly work towards in the physical world is “chasing after the wind,” if any pursuit or gain is meaningless, what are we to do? If striving for wisdom leads only to grief, if our work is destined to be forgotten and the fruits of our labor fated to rot away, does purpose really exist?

On the surface Ecclesiastes seems to offer an answer: “A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work.” But for whom is this enough? If we see and understand that we are merely pawns, destined to return to the dust from which we came, what is our daily motivation? If we can’t accomplish anything that hasn’t already been done, why even try?

Maybe it’s so damned frustrating because it’s so true.

Thoughts?

Thanks for reading.

On a side note: Peter Jackson and New Line have ended their dispute over proceeds from LOTR, and he has agreed to become actively involved in the production of The Hobbit. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/movies/19jack.html?th&emc=th

The good news: PJ will executive produce, meaning he will have approval rights on all creative elements.

The bad news: he won’t be writing the script or directing the film.

And, if you read the NY Times article, what’s this about a sequel to The Hobbit (supposedly spanning the 60 years after the Hobbit and before LOTR)? When they inevitably screw this up, I hope Tolkien rises from the grave to seek bloody revenge.