[May 2006 journal entry]
(1) The need/challenge -- beyond realizing the grim realities ‘under the sun’ -- to feel the angst Koheleth expresses for such grim realities (e.g., the ‘grievously wrong’, ‘crooked’, ‘tragic’, . . . references in Ecclesiastes) is most important. In other words, something analogous to Kierkegaard’s appeal to being dizzy or, even more profound, to being nauseated by the grim realities ‘under the sun’ must be felt. Reaching this level of agreement/resonance with Koheleth is all but impossible in a conference/seminar room with a group of individuals who do not know each other very intimately, knowing most of them probably do not yet feel so deeply about the grim realities ‘under the sun’, knowing they cannot simply be told to feel this angst. (2) The distinguishable nuances/meanings for ‘joy’ found/experienced across the continuum from being unaware of to denying to remembering the grim realities ‘under the sun’ need to be clearly developed. This again is a very daunting objective in the context of a conference/seminar room, in large part because doing so presupposes the depth of angst referenced above. (3) For me, the ‘God’ language in Ecclesiastes must be rigorously critiqued. I think the author remains very pre-scientific and pre-modern re ‘God’ language. In other words, I would propose that the author of Ecclesiastes effectively exposes some serious flaws in the prevailing theological paradigm in his/her society, but does not dig far enough into the language problem from which such idolatry continues to develop in ‘religion’.
