Comment by ubertaco | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ubertaco | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Just a note: Ecclesiastes is definitely not "a rant by an angry, elderly atheist that through some editorial oversight found its way into the Bible."

Rather, it's a compiled lament by Solomon (Jewish king and son of the Jewish king David) about the futility/emptiness of a life lived apart from devout devotion to his god, and the stuff in the book is described later as "many proverbs" that were "arranged with great care" (Ecclesiastes 12:9), a description that comes after a long paragraph by that supposed-atheist that starts

>Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, “I have no pleasure in them”;

and just before a paragraph ending in

>The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Not exactly "a rant by an...atheist".

Just a note: academic biblical scholars (theists and atheists alike) make strong arguments that the author is NOT Solomon.

The biggest issue is the complicated Hebrew used, much more complicated than earlier writings.

"The presence of Persian loan-words and Aramaisms points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE"

Even bible.org admits: "To accept Solomonic authorship presently puts you in the camp of very few scholars."

Also, there is an argument that the ending was added by a later scribe (perhaps to make the text more acceptable for inclusion in the OT) because the ending goes completely against the rest of the Ecclesiastes.

PS I am not an academic scholar but have read a number of academic books on Ecclesiastes as it is my favorite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/6flp42/wa...

I'm not sure I would call the Hebrew more complicated, just idiosyncratic and inconsistent with earlier dating.

I guess he is paraphrasing Wikipedia: "The presence of Ecclesiastes in the Bible is something of a puzzle, as the common themes of the Hebrew canon—a God who reveals and redeems, who elects and cares for a chosen people—are absent from it, which suggests that Kohelet had lost his faith in his old age."

Certainly some of Ecclesiastes sounds like it could be written by an atheist. Especially the last quote in the article. So it's an entertaining speculation at least.

But then I also think "the truth shall set you free" is crypto-atheism.

Yeah, this put me off from reading the rest of the essay.

This is a shame a) in the specific case of this story, as it's a really interesting read around an important and compelling subject, and b) in the general case as it means your sensitivity around niche subjects may restrict your access to all kinds of information that you'd otherwise enjoy or benefit from.

Everyone’s sensitive around some niche subjects.

Wanted to chime in and say the same thing, so thank you. It really irks me when people with little to no theological or historical background pretend to understand religious texts.

Theological background may indicate King Solomon; but historical and textual criticisms strongly indicate that:

1. Ecclesiastes was written during the Persian period, not during the early Judahite period

2. The coda (which is the only bit which conforms to the theology of canon compilers) is probably a later addition.

3. The author's philosophical viewpoint is strongly reminiscent of Greek Stoicism, and God and his existence is at most a peripheral concern to the author.

I'm pretty sure it was a light-hearted joke, not a serious theological thesis.

Maybe I don't get the joke then. To me, it just seems to be purposefully inflammatory and edgy. As it turns out, it's really off-base, too.

> Maybe I don't get the joke then.

The juxtaposition of a cranky critic or unserious person becoming a near-absolute authority on the thing he's cranky/not serious about is a common comedic trope. E.g., insert joke about Satoshi creating bitcoin to make an ironic joke about the dotcom bubble and accidentally launching the first ICO.

The Mel Books skit is not intended to seriously suggest that there were originally 15 commandments. And Satoshi probably wasn't making performance art about late capitalism. And Ecclesiastes wasn't written by a cranky atheist.

It's a joke.

> To me, it just seems to be purposefully inflammatory and edgy

The commonness of this trope indicates that lots of people find it funny, perhaps especially when it's disconnected from anything that's important to them.

But more importantly, no one is laughing at you, and the intent of this joke isn't to inflame.

The author is using a relevant quote from a source, and leading into that quote with a light-hearted joke. The fact that this joke is about Ecclesiastes has more to do with the fact that the author is using a quote from that book (to make a serious point, and a point that's at least not incongruent with the original intent).

The author is instantiating a common joke template in the context of a quote he's using the lead off a talk.

That's all.

> As it turns out, it's really off-base, too.

No, it's not, because it wasn't a serious premise. You can tell that this is the case by the fact that the 20+ slides that follow this one are not on the subject of theology or christian/jewish history...

Bitcoin as performance art is..just perfect.

Nobody understands religious texts, that's why they all have competing interpretations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com