It is a bit frustrating reading through Ecclesiastes

[GrandizerII]

Sorry for the clickbait title, couldn't help.

You guys all know about Ecclesiastes, how it is considered a favorite among atheists because it sort of reads like a work from an ancient Israelite Nietzsche. And actually, I would consider the Teacher (the author of the core message in Ecclesiastes) to be like a proto-Nietzsche. The guy is cynical as fuck and loves pointing out how everything is meaningless. And the philosophy itself is interesting and engaging.

But what is annoying is seeing what appear to be injections by later scribes who may have found the message valuable enough to include in the canon (as it speaks to the suffering of the Jews and such) but nevertheless too "unorthodox" to leave untouched. So they basically had to insert their commentaries into the text and fuck with its intended core message: that everything is meaningless and you should just enjoy your life.

Thus, you get stuff like this:

Ecclesiastes 4:

The Teacher:
And I saw that all toil and all achievement spring from one person’s envy of another. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
The naughty scribes:
Fools fold their hands and ruin themselves.

The Teacher:
Again I saw something meaningless under the sun: There was a man all alone; he had neither son nor brother. There was no end to his toil,yet his eyes were not content with his wealth. “For whom am I toiling,” he asked, “and why am I depriving myself of enjoyment?” This too is meaningless—a miserable business!
The naughty scribes:
Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

Notice how they fuck up the original points.

The Teacher is deriding hard work and accomplishments, pointing out how it's all meaningless. The editors then had to add that laziness is not good either; better to be neither lazy nor a workaholic.

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.

Another example in Chapter 3:

And I saw something else under the sun: In the place of judgment—wickedness was there, in the place of justice—wickedness was there.
I said to myself, “God will bring into judgment both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time to judge every deed.”

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait, the Bible is not God's unedited word?!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

 It is a bit frustrating reading through Ecclesiastes

Then don't.

Boru

[Belacqua]

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. 

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.) 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

[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.

[Belacqua]

I'm ok with books containing contradictory views and riddles, especially by design.

I apologize if I came across as though I was scolding you earlier. I know you are serious about your study, and far more open-minded than many people we hear from. 

It's the easy claim that "there are contradictions in the Bible!!!", as if that proves something, that gets me annoyed. It's one of the cliches of the anti-religion crowd. I know that's not what you're after here. 

I do think that in terms of literature, hermeneutics, thoughts about meaning, etc., people are getting dumber. Heidegger argued this years ago -- that the shift in culture to technological thinking has shut down many of the more human ways of being in the world. It works against finding meaning and understanding ourselves. The need for literal, easy interpretations seems to me to be part of this. 

The richness of literature, which is the richness of human thought, is seriously under attack. There was a study done recently in two midwestern colleges, in which several English majors were asked to read and interpret a page from a Dickens novel. Despite having access to their phones in order to look up unfamiliar language, more than half of them were unable to comprehend what they were reading. Obvious Bible allusions were missed, and most couldn't distinguish between literal and figurative language. 

Every week there's news of another university shutting down its humanities department. Tulsa had built up a splendid classics department in recent years, and despite its popularity it was shut down earlier this year. No explanation was offered; it seems the trustees just think classics is a waste of time. The women's college on the other side of the mountain from me has ended all its literature classes so it can focus on job preparation. Another women's college here in town -- the really expensive one -- approached me about a job, but I discovered that the head of the department that teaches English specializes in the study of the tourism industry, and I backed out. (Their previous English lit teacher was fired for sleeping with students.) 

Obviously, people should read what they want and enjoy themselves. But culture is important, and its loss is a loss for everyone. And I'm taking it out on you, because I think you're one of very few who would care about that.

[Paleophyte]

It's the easy claim that "there are contradictions in the Bible!!!", as if that proves something, that gets me annoyed. It's one of the cliches of the anti-religion crowd.

Also, it's just a factual statement that's the tiniest bit important given the preponderance of imbeciles currently passing legislation based on whatever their interpretation of their scriptural absurdity is today. If you don't care for critiques of that hodgepodge of myth that you've mistaken for meaning then I suggest that you (1) stop morons from basing law on it, and (2) not hang out on atheist forums. Seriously, you don't see me hanging around your church whining about all the Bible passages in the sermon.