Ecclesiastes: what some other people reckon

These aren't the perspectives that I promised would be analysed in detail, but just some summaries from commentators.

St Jerome (c. 347 – 420)

Saw the book as a call to embrace the ascetic life in order to escape the vanities of this world. Strangely, he also says "the Hebrews says that ... this book ought to be obliterated, because it asserts that all the creatures of God are vain, and regards the whole thing as nothing, and prefers eating and drinking and transient pleasures before all things." Weird

Crenshaw (1987)

"life is profitless; totally absurd. The world is meaningless. Virtue doesn't bring reward. The deity stands distant, abandoning humanity to chance and death."

Ogden (1987)

"The book's thesis ... is that life under God must be taken and enjoyed in all its mystery."

Like any of these? Why not?

Ecclesiastes: what do you reckon?

Over the next few weeks I'm going to post a few thoughts on Ecclesiastes. Particularly, I'll be using two or three different approaches from different commentators and seeing how they hold up. Which has the best explanatory power for the material found in a book at once so easy to relate to and at the same time so difficult to understand?

I've found Ecclesiastes to have be far better represented in the 'favourite book of the Bible' stakes than the 1/66 chance which probability would afford it. In fact, I've heard more people quote it as their favourite than any other. And all have a strong opinion on its message. And most of them conflicting.

Thus it will be interesting, not to claim to know the answer, but to post thoughts to provoke those who're interested in this multi-faceted book.

So, to kick off, what do you think is the main point of the Teacher?