Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, 9:5, 9:10

[caudex]

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might;for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"

How would a Christian interpret these verses? They seem to contradict the ideas about the afterlife found in the Gospels, that most Christians subscribe to.

[Chrawnus]

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might;for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"

How would a Christian interpret these verses? They seem to contradict the ideas about the afterlife found in the Gospels, that most Christians subscribe to.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/proverbiallit.html

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/norez.html

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nopass.html

I think these articles could be of help.

Basically, Ecclesiastes is proverbial in genre, and is written from the viewpoint of how a man with no knowledge of God or the Last Judgement would view the world. So the intent of these verses are not to show that there is no afterlife, it's simply meant to show how meaningless (nihilistic) belief without God is.

[Mountain Man]

Ecclesiastes is about the pointlessness of life without God, so if it appears to contradict Christianity on certain points, it's because it's looking at things from a different perspective.

[caudex]

If it is from the perspective of a man with no knowledge of God, then why does it refer to "God" in practically every chapter? How many non-Christian scholars agree it was written with that intent? For example the Jewish Encyclopedia seems to regard the work as literally meaning what it says. This website too says that "It is clear from the whole of his book that his ideas of the Hereafter coincided with the traditional She'ol belief." The only websites I can find which give your answer are Christian ones, where it's obvious that they have a strong bias in favour of its teachings not being intended to be taken literally.

[Mountain Man]

If it is from the perspective of a man with no knowledge of God, then why does it refer to "God" in practically every chapter?

Who said he had no knowledge of God? Ecclesiastes was written by a Jewish theist contemplating atheism. He's exploring the two options available to any man: on the one hand is service to God and on the other is nihilism. Whatever points appear to contradict traditional Christian beliefs are written from an atheistic perspective.

For example the Jewish Encyclopedia seems to regard the work as literally meaning what it says. This website too says that "It is clear from the whole of his book that his ideas of the Hereafter coincided with the traditional She'ol belief." The only websites I can find which give your answer are Christian ones, where it's obvious that they have a strong bias in favour of its teachings not being intended to be taken literally.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Ecclesiastes is meant to be taken "literally". I suppose it's literally true that life without God is vain and that all our labors under the sun will ultimately prove worthless without Him, but I don't suppose that's what you're referring to.

[caudex]

Who said he had no knowledge of God? Ecclesiastes was written by a Jewish theist contemplating atheism. He's exploring the two options available to any man: on the one hand is service to God and on the other is nihilism. Whatever points appear to contradict traditional Christian beliefs are written from an atheistic perspective.

Why isn't that clear from the text itself? There are an awful lot of references to "God" for the book that you claim is written from an "atheistic perspective".

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Ecclesiastes is meant to be taken "literally". I suppose it's literally true that life without God is vain and that all our labors under the sun will ultimately prove worthless without Him, but I don't suppose that's what you're referring to.

How do you know that when Qoheleth writes that there is no desirable afterlife, that isn't actually what he thinks?

Are there any non-Christian scholars who agree with the this interpretation that Ecclesiastes is intended to be "proverbial", so its Epicurean statements are not reflective of Qoheleth's actual opinion?

[Mountain Man]

This is when I start losing patience with skeptics. You apparently haven't bothered to read my posts with any degree of care and thus have not interacted with any of the points I've raised and in fact continue to ask questions that have already been answered. Care to give it another shot, or are we done here?

[Chrawnus]

Why isn't that clear from the text itself? There are an awful lot of references to "God" for the book that you claim is written from an "atheistic perspective".

Because it's not written entirely from an atheistic viewpoints, it's written with two contrasting viewpoints, namely, a theistic viewpoint, where our actions matter and have everlasting consequences, and the atheistic worldview where, ultimately, life is meaningless and whatever you accomplish will be for nothing in the long run. The writer of Ecclesiastes even gives his own view in the matter at the end, namely, there is a God, and it does matter how you life your life:

(Ecc 12:13-14 NASB)
Ecc 12:13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.
Ecc 12:14 For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.

How do you know that when Qoheleth writes that there is no desirable afterlife, that isn't actually what he thinks?

I'm not sure how this changes anything? I could make up a literary figure that actually thinks the moon is made of blue cheese, but that doesn't mean that I (the writer) has to think that this is the case. My point is that even if Qoheleth (or the Preacher) thinks that there is no "desirable afterlife", it doesn't mean that the writer himself has to believe this, he could simply have made Qoheleth up to prove a point, alternatively, Qoheleth's viewpoint could have been how the writer once thought. That this is not the case anymore we can gleam from the last verses of Ecclesiastes, where the writer sums up his own position (i.e that life does have a purpose, and that we will be judged for how we've lived our lives.)

Are there any non-Christian scholars who agree with the this interpretation that Ecclesiastes is intended to be "proverbial", so its Epicurean statements are not reflective of Qoheleth's actual opinion?

As I said, what Qoheleth's actual opinion is is not important, what's important is the writer's/author's opinion. That being said, there are non-Christian scholars who agree that Ecclesiastes is intended to be proverbial/wisdom literature.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/k-lee7/www...blitgenres.htm

In fact, I'd say that the majority of scholars thinks that Ecclesiastes should be regarded as wisdom literature, as it has been compared to other examples of wisdom literature from the middle-east, such as the "Dialogue of Pessimism" written somewhere around 1000 BC.

[caudex]

This is when I start losing patience with skeptics. You apparently haven't bothered to read my posts with any degree of care and thus have not interacted with any of the points I've raised and in fact continue to ask questions that have already been answered. Care to give it another shot, or are we done here?

I will attempt to give answers to all your points, to the best of my ability, sentence by sentence. If I'm misunderstanding anything, feel free to clarify.

Who said he had no knowledge of God?

Chrawnus said he was writing from that perspective.

Ecclesiastes was written by a Jewish theist contemplating atheism.

Is this the perspective that most Jewish scholars take? What about secular historians and literary experts?

He's exploring the two options available to any man: on the one hand is service to God and on the other is nihilism.

Then why does it seem to be a continuous monologue, with no real clear contrast between the "nihilistic" and the "theistic" parts?

Whatever points appear to contradict traditional Christian beliefs are written from an atheistic perspective.

How do you substantiate this claim? What do you think Qoheleth's actual opinion on the afterlife was likely to be?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Ecclesiastes is meant to be taken "literally".

To take Ecclesiastes literally would be to assume that Qoheleth was writing what he actually thought, rather than from an "atheistic perspective".

I suppose it's literally true that life without God is vain and that all our labors under the sun will ultimately prove worthless without Him, but I don't suppose that's what you're referring to.

I disagree. In the words of Qoheleth, "Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works."

Because it's not written entirely from an atheistic viewpoints, it's written with two contrasting viewpoints, namely, a theistic viewpoint, where our actions matter and have everlasting consequences, and the atheistic worldview where, ultimately, life is meaningless and whatever you accomplish will be for nothing in the long run. The writer of Ecclesiastes even gives his own view in the matter at the end, namely, there is a God, and it does matter how you life your life:

(Ecc 12:13-14 NASB)
Ecc 12:13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.
Ecc 12:14 For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.

I see no reference to eternity anywhere in Ecclesiastes. Ecc. 12:13-14 could easily mean "What goes around, comes around".

I'm not sure how this changes anything? I could make up a literary figure that actually thinks the moon is made of blue cheese, but that doesn't mean that I (the writer) has to think that this is the case. My point is that even if Qoheleth (or the Preacher) thinks that there is no "desirable afterlife", it doesn't mean that the writer himself has to believe this, he could simply have made Qoheleth up to prove a point, alternatively, Qoheleth's viewpoint could have been how the writer once thought. That this is not the case anymore we can gleam from the last verses of Ecclesiastes, where the writer sums up his own position (i.e that life does have a purpose, and that we will be judged for how we've lived our lives.)

So you think Qoheleth is a separate entity from the writer, and the writer is opposed to Qoheleth's philosophy? Interesting.You seem to be picking and choosing: claiming that the parts of Ecclesiastes you agree with are the works of a divinely inspired author, while the more nihilistic parts are Qoheleth's "atheistic" falsehoods.

As I said, what Qoheleth's actual opinion is is not important, what's important is the writer's/author's opinion. That being said, there are non-Christian scholars who agree that Ecclesiastes is intended to be proverbial/wisdom literature.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/k-lee7/www...blitgenres.htm

In fact, I'd say that the majority of scholars thinks that Ecclesiastes should be regarded as wisdom literature, as it has been compared to other examples of wisdom literature from the middle-east, such as the "Dialogue of Pessimism" written somewhere around 1000 BC.

I don't doubt that Ecclesiastes is wisdom literature, but why does that necessitate Qoheleth's philosophy being incorrect?

[Chrawnus]

Chrawnus said he was writing from that perspective.

I did write that, but I didn't mean it to be understood that he wrote only from an atheistic/nihilistic view, with the exclusion of any other viewpoint. I should have clarified that. You'll have to excuse me for any misunderstandings.

I see no reference to eternity anywhere in Ecclesiastes. Ecc. 12:13-14 could easily mean "What goes around, comes around".

Ecc 3:11 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

Even so, the fact that God will judge every act of a person necessitates that God will raise them up from the dead, because one of the points in Ecclesiastes is that justice is not dealt out in this life.

So you think Qoheleth is a separate entity from the writer, and the writer is opposed to Qoheleth's philosophy? Interesting.You seem to be picking and choosing: claiming that the parts of Ecclesiastes you agree with are the works of a divinely inspired author, while the more nihilistic parts are Qoheleth's "atheistic" falsehoods.

I didn't say that it necessarily has to be a separate entity it could just as well have been how the writer himself once thought, or how he envisions life to be apart from God. That being said, I do take it that all parts of Ecclesiastes are divinely inspired and that the conclusion of Qoheleth that life is meaningless is correct, if viewed from a secular viewpoint (that is, atheism willl inevitably lead to nihilism if taken to it's logical conclusion.)

I don't doubt that Ecclesiastes is wisdom literature, but why does that necessitate Qoheleth's philosophy being incorrect?

It doesn't, you have to look at the text itself for that.

[Adrift]

Is this the perspective that most Jewish scholars take? What about secular historians and literary experts?

I don't know that most Jewish scholars think that Koheleth is contemplating atheism exactly, but they do recognize that Koheleth's language in Ecclesiastes is contradictory as he weighs his options. See notable Jewish commentarians like Michael V. Fox on this for instance. Jewish commentator Robert Gordis believes that the goal of Ecclesiastes' type of wisdom literature is to present contradictions, not as a simple truth, but as a subject for discussion or refutation. I don't know any specific views by secular historians on Ecclesiastes. I imagine there aren't many who've actually written comprehensive commentaries of the book, but I imagine they'd be in general agreement that the book is written from contradictory perspectives.

Then why does it seem to be a continuous monologue, with no real clear contrast between the "nihilistic" and the "theistic" parts?

That just seems to be the way Wisdom literature was sometimes written. We recognize the contrast from the author's own contradictory statements throughout the book.

[Mountain Man]

Chrawnus said he was writing from that perspective.

No he didn't. Read what he wrote again.

Is this the perspective that most Jewish scholars take? What about secular historians and literary experts?

I don't know, but it's fairly obvious reading the book that this is, in fact, what it is.

Then why does it seem to be a continuous monologue, with no real clear contrast between the "nihilistic" and the "theistic" parts?

It's not a 50/50 split, but the contrasts are certainly there if you pay attention (which I'm beginning to suspect you don't). For example, Ecclesiastes 2:26, "For to the man that pleaseth him God giveth wisdom, and knowledge, and joy; but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that pleaseth God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind."

How do you substantiate this claim? What do you think Qoheleth's actual opinion on the afterlife was likely to be?

If you're basing this line of questioning on the word "She'ol", you should know that current scholarship is not entirely sure if the word meant a place or simply the indeterminate state following death. Also, the Old Testament does contrast "She'ol" with "heaven" (Psalm 139:7; 2 Kings 2:11), so even believers in the Old Testament had hope in an afterlife that was more than just the darkness of a grave.

To take Ecclesiastes literally would be to assume that Qoheleth was writing what he actually thought, rather than from an "atheistic perspective".

I still don't know what you're getting at. Ecclesiastes represents what the writer "actually thought" regarding two perspectives of life: one in service of Yahweh and one in service of self.

I disagree. In the words of Qoheleth, "Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works."

How about quoting the entire verse:

"Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?"

Doesn't sound nearly so hopeful now, does it?

[Xmansmommy]

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might;for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?"

How would a Christian interpret these verses? They seem to contradict the ideas about the afterlife found in the Gospels, that most Christians subscribe to.

I'm inclined to interpret them as the fate of people who died (either physically or spiritually or both) prior to and who were awaiting, resurrection. At the resurrection, they either would be rewarded by their works and given eternal life (9:3-6) or they would remain dead and forgotten. Praise God that the one who is joined with the living (spiritually) have hope!

[caudex]

How about quoting the entire verse:

"Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?"

Doesn't sound nearly so hopeful now, does it?

You don't know what will come after you, so you should rejoice in what you do now? Not a bad idea.

[Xmansmommy]

You don't know what will come after you, so you should rejoice in what you do now? Not a bad idea.

We may not know much (based on what was revealed at that time) but we do know One who does! One who can show us what comes after us. One who has told us that there is eternal life for those who do well as well as death for those who do wickedly.