It is a bit frustrating reading through Ecclesiastes

[GrandizerII]

While the Teacher points out how futile it is to have all the wealth a man can have, the later scribes changed this point and made it about how important it is to have friends/companions.

It's frustrating if you want it to be something other than what it is. If you just read it for what it is, and work on that, you don't have to feel that it's failed or messed up in any way.

I've already read it for what it is multiple times before. This round, I am reading through this (and other texts in the Bible) with a more critical eye while reading/watching what other people have to say about these texts. Because why not?

It's also ok to feel frustration about something you read, even when you do enjoy the challenges of reading through it.

Many modern people assume that a good book is going to be composed of unambiguous declarative sentences. On your thread about "good parts" of the Bible, the parts people liked are the ones with unambiguous declarative sentences that they happen to agree with. You correctly pointed out that some very good parts are not so simple -- Job, for example, is a great work of literature, yet has no clear message that can be restated in easy language. (And if someone thinks he CAN restate it in simple language, he is  certainly wrong.)

About Job, there is what appears to be a core message, but like with Ecclesiastes different voices were added to the text so that the message of Job in the final copy that we have is not very clear.

Why can't a book contain editing, contradictory views, and its own puzzlement? If it were really written or inspired by God, why would he have to do it all at once, in simple declarative sentences? People assume that if they were an omnipotent deity they would write a certain kind of text, but in fact they are not omnipotent, and do not know  what such a thingy would do.

I'm ok with books containing contradictory views and riddles, especially by design. It's not that there are two or more different voices in Ecclesiastes that I have a problem with. It's that later editing occurred in order to change the original meaning and make it more "acceptable".

It's part of our own post-Protestant capitalist utilitarian ideology to assume that the better a book is, the clearer and more useful its message. But not everyone in history has felt that way.

I don't want simple clarity in every book. I want books to be more challenging. But I am also allowed to express how I feel about certain texts, even those considered sacred by many.

A good antidote to the simple-minded view is to read William Blake. He comes from the antinomian tradition of negative theology, which asserts that any simple declarative statement made about (or, allegedly, by) God is certainly wrong. Because God is infinite, and excludes nothing, then both the original author of Ecclesiastes and his redactors are telling us important things. The bad news for the simple-minded is that each and every one of us has to use his brain when applying these messages. Perhaps they are not intended to be as simple as a traffic signal, perhaps they are intended as challenges.

His redactors are telling important things, sure. None of this actually addresses my point in the OP.

Blake's own work is famous for contradicting itself -- The Songs of Innocence, for example, state the opposite of the Songs of Experience. And neither reaches a satisfying conclusion. Blake called  the Bible the "Great Code of Art," and he did  the self-contradiction himself, whereas the Teacher had someone else add it for him.

Ok, but what you said is by design, serving as some interesting literary device. I really disagree this is the case with Ecclesiastes and Job. Like I said before, the redactors fixed the message so it was more orthodox in line with the traditional priestly thinking at the time of editing/compilation.

Remember what Wilde said: all bad poetry is sincere. Literature has more ways of teaching than simply stating what the author happens to believe. Its best methods involve more difficulty and more thought, and lead us to do the work ourselves. Look at the lyrics to the Rush song quoted on Rizen's thread about atheist music. There has never been more banal language committed to paper.

Ok ... I'm not really sure what to say here. All bad poetry is sincere ... is just an opinion. And again, I have no issue with working on a text while sharing my honest thoughts about it.

Also maybe you'd want to look into what Umberto Eco called the "open work." Though the text of the Bible is  no longer open to redaction, its meaning remains a collaborative effort.

Sure, I'll have a look when I get the chance. So much stuff to read.