![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can someone explain who is depicted in Image:Ecclesiastes.png and why it is in the article? To me, it suggests that "Ecclesiastes" is a person. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I look through any entry here on a book of the bible I always wonder why 80%+ of the article is devoted to technical background information while only a small portion covers the actual content of the book itself. Not to say that material doesn't belong, but shouldn't the "vanity" section be moved to the top and made the focus of the article? I just think most people come here to get some idea of what the book is about, not read up on the minutiae of scholarly debate on its origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.39 ( talk) 08:18, 2005 December 15 (UTC)
Removed portion on Epicurian Heresy. There is reason the Canonicity of the book is questionable, but Epicurianism is not the reason. The theory was never truly strong enough to stand on its own. The similarities to the Epicurians stop with its insistence on simple pleasures and tranquility end before the important part of the heresy, the denial of the afterlife. None of the dogma present in Epicurianism is present in Ecclesiastes (see The International Critical Commentary of Ecclesiastes). Furthermore, the Epicurian Heresy is a development off of an ancient trend in Semite thinking, dating as far back as 2000 B.C.E., with a fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic. (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellscaft, p.8, col. iii, l. 3). I left the fleeting reference to Epicurianism intact, as it was an important development in the study of Ecclesiastes. -- Loki.x.freya 07:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the description of the last two verses from the main description. I feel that presenting this information here might draw unwarranted conclusions about what Ecclesiastes really says. A comment on the verses, and their veracity, is already included under the Vanity section. I think this quote could stay in the top if the top was a better, fuller description, but as it is I do not think it garners that importance. Terry 09:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"The canonicity of the book was, however, long doubtful " The Reform publication Jewish Encyclopedia is as usual incorrect in Talmudic matters. The canonity was not in doubt. Kohelet was agreed to be holy the question is only if the harm of false beliefs people might come to will out do the value. The overwhelming presence of Jewish Encyclopedia causes terrible POV problems weighing toward Reform POV Wolf2191 22:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I added the OJ POV one can stick in citation need since I can't remember exactly where I saw it. "It is clear from Isaiah that Aramaic or Persian was well known to rulers in the Jewish Kingdom" I'm to lazy to look this up, it's where Shavna begs the Assyrian emissary not to speak hebrew making clear that they knew other languages. Certainly King Solomon whose influenced extended the world and was "wisest of all men" would have been familiar with some form of Persian or Aramaic(aramaic is in the bible as well Yigar Sadusa). (I will try to check for my source again and clarify) Look at my article on The Amber Witch to see just how fallible ccholars are in this highly subjective branch of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 2007 April 20 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that any work that researches do is highly doubtful. A book assumed to be ancient can be modern a book assumed to be modern can be ancient. It all depends on which sentences the researcher chooses to highlight and he will very often read the facts to fit a preconceived notion. That's what Meinhold waa trying to do as well. I think the argument I mentioned on the book of isaiah page applies here as well (Late redaction in hezekiah's time acc. to talmud can explain many philogical discrepancies) but I don't have a specific source. Wolf2191 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Just looked at kaufman's wiki. His work sounds like that of Mordechai Breuer of blessed memory (he recently passed away). I think essentially we are in agreement. Meinhold's work wouldn't necessarily disprove Kaufman or Breuer but he would strike a blow to the critics of his day such as welhausen. Do you think The Amber Witch needs to be changed to reflect that? (read the article I mentioned anyway I think you might enjoy it). Best Wolf2191 04:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to find out if this Strauss that Meinhold was after belonged to the weilhausen school and make the change. I trust the article I mentioned gives a good idea why orthodox scholars think the DH a combination of good points and rather silly consclusions. Wolf2191 13:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The article makes many quotes from modern English translations of the Bible. As Far as I know all modern translations are copyrighted and at lest require the translation to be cited. The only public domain translations are: King James Version (except in the United Kingdom), Geneva bible, Bishops' bible, American Standard version, English Revised version, Webster Bible, and Young Literal Translation. I Know that most of the quotes come from non of these. Zginder 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits claim Qohelet is grammatically feminine, so the author is feminine, but the reasoning sounds flawed to me. E.g. in German, the word Mädchen is neuter, and other words in the sentence needs to use the neuter form, but it does not imply the `real object ' referenced by the word, i.e. a girl, is genderless. See Grammatical gender. Can someone back up recent claims of female authorship of the Ecc. by a published book ? Y.t. ( talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I inserted most of the recent edits referred to in the above passage. It will be my intent to express the Literary Failures of Ecclesiastes. These failures are widely acknowledged and published by mainstream Christian authors. To date, I am continuing to refine my edits so that they will reflect the current research addressing the (lack of) Literary Integrity of Ecclesiastes. In answer to your question, there are several books that demonstrate the possibility of female authorship of Ecclesiastes. One interesting book, Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes (Brill Publishing) includes the following on pages 84 and 85: “Either mistakes have crept into the text, as is usually suggested, 'or this is another literary ploy to draw a veil of mystery over the main character of Ecclesiastes' ” Also, “ . . . thus the main speaker in Ecclesiastes could be a man or a woman. . .” While it is not uncommon to attack others who do not hold the same opinion as one's own (and I thought Wikipedia editors were to avoid that), I assure you that I have provided this particular editor with a sample of the citations that will support all of my edits, but they were not shared. You will soon see them because I do not believe that the Targum, as well as Christian biblical scholars and theologians James Strong (and his famous concordance), Joseph Thayer (and his great works) and also J. Crenshaw's published works (among others) are “weasels” Each researcher will speak speak for himself. Remember two great religions, the Christian and Jewish faiths, utilize Ecclesiastes. The current article relegates Christian research to a minority view and then excludes it almost entirely. This encyclopedia must reflect the fact that divergent mainstream opinions exist on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.39.123 ( talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
From the author section " This view has been abandoned by many modern critical scholars, who now assume that Qoheleth is a work in the pseudepigraphical tradition that borrowed weight for a new work by putting it in the mouth of a well-known sage. [..]
Yet many modern conservative scholars today also recognize that Solomon is an unlikely author."
Note the use of "many scholars". For credibility ( WP:NPOV), there should be some names of people who have held this view and of some previous thinkers who have not.
Fred- Chess 01:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, shouldn't there be at least any sources for the authorship section? Those are pretty bold statements to make, and no one can follow up for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.229.254 ( talk) 03:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the Greek translation of 1:2 something like the remarkably alliterative pantaiotes pantaiotatos, panta pantaiotes? Should it be mentioned? -- Error ( talk) 23:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Quote: Ecclesiastes (...) is a book of the Hebrew Bible. The English name derives from the Greek translation of the Hebrew title.
As far as I can tell, this is all wrong. "Ecclesiastes" is a book in the Old Testament, the equivalent of which in the "Ketuvim" ("Scriptures") section of the Hebrew Bible ("Tanakh") is titled "Kohelet", which is Hebrew for "collector".
Could someone more competent than me please comment? Thanks, Maikel ( talk) 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Canonicity
Bible religious scholars often consider Ecclesiastes to be divinely inspired...
I think we maybe could just delete that entire sentence. A 19th c. commentary is not the best source for this sort of thing. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The Contemporary Religious Book Series section was added recently and seems to be basically an advertisement. If no one offers justification for the inclusion of this section I am going to delete it. -- CooliLowe ( talk) 00:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason that when citing a biblical reference it is done directly after the proposition (such as in the Influences on other ancient writings section) rather than in footnote format as is generally standard in Wikipedia? -- CooliLowe ( talk) 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The article makes the claim "Ecclesiastes appears in harmony with other Scriptures where they treat exactly the same subjects." This seems patently false; Ecclesiastes departs radically from other scriptures in its rejection of dogmatism (Ecc. 3.11), rejection of the justice of God (7:15), rejection of holding obedience to commandments as the highest virtue (7:16-17), and most notably, rejection of an absolute meaning to life (the whole freaking book). The last two verses tacked on after what was clearly supposed to be a conclusion ("The end of the matter, all has been heard.") and written in a completely different style than the rest of the book do contradict some of these points, but they cannot be used to invalidate twelve chapters of disgust at religious orthodoxy.
Further, there are no citations provided for this claim, although I know they exist. Still, better scholarly sources will contradict it. See, for example, Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard Anderson, or Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory by Craig Bartholomew. For these reasons, I suggest taking out the section until somebody qualified can rewrite it citing reliable sources. As it stands, it is WP:OR and WP:POV at best, and gives completely the wrong impression of the book at worst. Eebster the Great ( talk) 08:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Since it's not copyrighted I think it would be a good idea to include biblical texts within Wikipedia since talking about something is a bit futile when the text is not in front of you. Maybe it's too big an opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.201 ( talk) 06:55, 2006 March 27 (UTC)
Large public domain documents can be found at WikiSource, as they should not clutter up Wikipedia articles. However, short verses from Ecclesiastes definitely merit inclusion where they can work into the text of the page. Eebster the Great ( talk) 08:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There is some clear bias going on in some portions of this article, stemming from certain evangelical views. The idea that Ecclesiastes was always accepted as cannon, cited by reference to a non-scholarly work written over a hundred years ago, is directly refuted by the subsequent discussion of the chronology of its acceptance into Jewish canon. Furthermore, the statement that it "exactly agrees" with all other discussions of the same subject matter elsewhere in the Bible is highly reductionist and simply not the case. While it does contain many of the basic elements of Jewish and Christian theology, it is rather distinctive for its claims that people are not consistently rewarded based on how righteous or wise they are, and that everything, even being too good, is folly or vanity. Furthermore, the seeming implication that no one knows what will happen to them after they die, and indeed that there is no work or conscience in Sheol, seems very problematic to incorporate from a viewpoint that embraces the theology of an afterlife. At the very least, it is not in certain and exact agreement with all other Biblical texts on this matter. Finally, both the introductory section of this article and the sub-heading 'vanity' are concluded by quoting verse 12:13, which appears in contrast to Qoheleth's emphasis on the vanity of everything (even being too righteous), by saying that the 'whole duty of man' is to fear and obey God. The academic consensus at this point favors the view that this verse was inserted in by a later editor to make the book more orthodox--and that it is not thematically consistent with the remainder of the book. To again conclude the sections of the Wikipedia article with that verse seems to again undercut and distort one's understanding of Ecclesiastes. On the whole, I think there are many relevant and accurate comments on Ecclesiastes in this article, however I think it should be reviewed to instill more of an academic and non-biased rigor in its delivery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.86.161 ( talk) 07:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This shouldn't be bias (which, as a rule, must be if possible eliminated from every page on this website, excepting as the bias in included in source texts and quotations, of course), but rather imperception of continuity. Taking, from a Christian standpoint, for instance, the verses in the New Testament concerning an actual afterlife (e.g., 1 Peter 3:18-20, focus on v.19; and 1 Peter 4:6) into consideration, this book contains some points which to some would be doctrinal inconsistencies and to others explainable. Can it not be considered that this book was written by one man (or woman, according to above arguments) and may or may not be 100% inspired scripture? 99.31.232.61 ( talk) 03:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
In the page on "hebrew bible" we read some remarks about the time of composition of the bible.
[quote] According to traditional Jewish belief, the Hebrew Bible existed as an oral tradition for a long time before it was written, and it was forbidden to be documented in written form. According to that tradition, the date on which permission was given to write down the Bible is considered one of mourning. Contemporary conservative scholars date the origin of the Hebrew Bible between the tenth and seventh centuries BCE, while most contemporary secular biblical scholars date its finalization in the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE).
[/quote]
But this contradicts other information here in the article, that Ecclesiates (and Ijob, by another article) were written at about 250 BCE --Gotti 11:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Druseltal2005 ( talk • contribs)
In Estonian the title of this book has been translated as the Gatherer or the Collector (Koguja). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.93.246 ( talk) 09:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section "Name of God" the following text is given:
And a 1946 by Robert Gordis at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1452552 is cited.
What does Phoenician have to do with this issue? Does anyone suggest that Ecclesiastes was originally a Phoenician work? That would be quite astounding to me. Nevertheless, I did not see any mention of Phoenician in the Gordis piece. And Gordis does argue against Zimmerman that Ecclesiastes was originally Aramaic, but it does not seem to establish the claim that no modern scholars think that the book was written in Aramaic. Indeed, if Gordis is taken as "modern" then why wouldn't Zimmerman be so? Then Gordis would in fact contradict the claim, as the whole premise of his piece is that Zimmerman holds that Ecclesiastes was written in Aramaic. I don't feel comfortable definitively weighing in on these issues as I can't even read the Semitic texts, but perhaps someone can correct and astound me, or just correct the article.-- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 04:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The 'final verses' section was tagged as original research recently. Given that there is a source given for the claims made, I'm not sure that the OR tag applies here. It may be poorly written and/or undue weight, but not OR. Any thoughts? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I am taking issue with the sections that seem to say all modern scholars discount Solomonic authorship and traditional dating for the book fo Ecclesiastes. It's true that many propoents of form criticism and other modern hermeneutical schools hold such a view, but you can't say that there aren't any modern commentators who agree with the traditional view. Could this be cleared up please? Kristamaranatha ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor recently added a large amount of material arguing that Solomon might be the author of Ecclesiastes. This was based on two sources, the first the bible.org website, the second a book by Daniel C. Fredericks, "Qoheleth's Language: Re-evaluating its Nature and Date." I have reverted this because the first source, bible.org, is not a reliable source according to our guidelines, and the second represents fringe view and it's inclusion would be undue weight. That it is a fringe view can be seen from the review in JSTOR, which says that it "goes against the consensus". Our task is to represent the consensus and any important minority views, but Fredericks' book was published in 1988, since when the consensus has remained intact (this can be checked by reading books published since 1988). In other words, Fredericks' book failed to overturn the consensus. PiCo ( talk) 20:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added information regarding the traditional dating view. Originally, this page had such information, but someone has removed it. To contend, as this article has up until now, that "everyone believes" a "late date" is ludicrous. In fact, by sheer numbers, scholars in the field of Biblical studies support the early dating of Ecclesiastes moreso than any other view. To try to lump scholars who hold to a third,fourth, and fifth century viewpoint together into one "late view", group, and then claim that they are the majority view, is just preposterous. Each view (third century B.C.E., fourth century B.C.E., fifth century B.C.E., and tenth century B.C.E. views, respectively), has different arguments in its defense; three of them cannot just be lumped together to discount the fourth view as "fringe."
The article needs balance in its section on dating. There are literally thousands of scholars in this field, who hold to the traditional view. To dismiss that without mention or citation for purely biased reasons, even though scholarly sources can be cited, absolutely violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Havensdad
Pico asked for my comments. I've reverted Havensdad for a variety of reasons. Havensdad, this is your second go at editing an article. You were warned for violations of WP:NPOV the first time and you've done it again. But you are a very inexperienced editor so I wouldn't expect you to understand our policies yet. I've given you a welcome message with links.
Just a reminder that we're meant to focus on what's actually in the article, and improve that. I'll break it into separated bullet points. The article makes four points about date/author:
Now I'll deal with each one on its own:
No editor seems to question this so I'll leave it.
No one has questioned this either.
Coogan says: "The Book of Ecclesiastes, although probably written no earlier than the 4th century BCE..." This is a wrong source - it came about because I was using the existing article, and an earlier editor had used an article in a book of which Coogan was the editor; the actual article is by Seow. So the source should say Seow 2007 p.944. (Click on the link). This is Seow's article "Ecclesiastes" in the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Seow says: "The date of the book is a matter of dispute, although most scholars argue on linguistic grounds that it should be dated to the post-exilic period. The presence of two indisputable Persian loan-words ... point to a date some time after 450 BCE...
I'm not sure this has actually been challenged. If so, I can produce half a dozen other sources saying the same thing. But if the anon user does want to dispute it, he has to do so by producing a reliable source which says the reverse, and it has to be as recent as Rudman (or else it wouldn't be a current consensus).
Just a note on sources in general: As our anon contributor has stated that Fredericks' study is the most recent that has been published on the subject of the dating of Ecclesiastes by its language, it's worth pointing out that this is not so. Seow has published a much more recent study. In addition, Fredericks' book was reviewed by the profession in the years after it came out (in 1988). Schoors (1992) examined his arguments in depth and concluded that he was wrong, the language of Ecclesiastes is Late Biblical Hebrew (i.e., from after the exile); Seow likewise reviewed the debate and concluded that Fredericks was wrong. You'll find an overview in Bartholomew (click the link), who shows how Fredericks' conclusions have been rejected. (Seow is probably the leading contemporary authority on the language of Ecclesiastes).
So in conclusion: adding material citing Fredericks, or his argument, would be undue weight. PiCo ( talk) 22:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this discussion is making any progress. If you genuinely feel that the article is distorted, you should take it to one of the dispute resolution forums. PiCo ( talk) 08:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Now I hate short form citations and would love it if someone were to change all of them as I find them harder to work with, but that's what the article uses and new sources should use the same style, which can be found at WP:SFN. Dougweller ( talk) 16:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As the discussion is getting hard to follow, I'm suggesting we have a different section for each contentious point. The issue here is whether to use Fredericks (I think we should but only because other reliable sources mention him and thus we can consider his view significant within the meaning of WP:NPOV) and how. I believe we should briefly, in no more than two sentences, describe his ideas on the subject, and also briefly and attributed what other reliable sources have said. Dougweller ( talk) 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Havensdad ( talk) 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I put on the NPOV page - putting it here as well in the interests of widest possible discussion:
First, I don't quite agree with
Havensdad's description of the dispute - I don't think it's a POV dispute but rather one about due weight. He wants to include the views of Fredericks, at some length, and I regard that as undue. But let that pass.
Havensdad says there are three views on the date of the book of Ecclesiastes. This is not so: there's only one, really, which is that was composed some time between about 450 and 180 BCE. Havensdad divides this range into two parts, which is sort of ok, as it's true that some scholars say the earlier end of the range (the Persian period) and others the later (the Hellenistic period. Anyway, we have sourced sentences in the article saying this: "On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE,( sourced from Seow|2007|p=944) and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it.(sourced from Fox|2004|p=xiv). Seow actually says that most modern scholars say the post-450 date is right. Seow and Fox are important modern scholars, and I gather that Havensdad doesn't dispute what they say.
So it comes down to whether the idea that the book could have been written before about 450 (the exilic/pre-exilic period) has enough supporters to warrant inclusion in our article.
Havensdad refers to a scholar named Fredericks, who examined the language of the book (it's written in Hebrew) and decided on that basis that it could be, and probably was, exilic or pre-exilic. That was in 1988, almost a quarter of a century ago. Not surprisingly, scholarship has examined his ideas in the interim. The overwhelming conclusion is that he's wrong. I can cite:
In my research for this section of the article I did not come across a single modern scholar (writing in the last 10 years) who would put the book before about 450 BC. On that basis, to mention that date as one supported by modern scholars, even a significant minority, is without evidence; and to mention Fredericks by name, when it seems no modern scholar supports him, is undue weight.
We should also look at what contemporary scholars do actually say about the date:
And they go on and on. Many, many scholars saying postexilic, none saying pre-exilic or exilic. Clearly, Fredericks does not represent a significant body of scholarly opinion, and the inclusion of his name would be undue weight. PiCo ( talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This article has serious POV/neutrality issues. The section under "canonicity" for instance, expresses almost nothing BUT opinion, and does not actually address, in full, the section topic. A section labeled "Canonicity" should provide the reader with the current consensus position among Jewish and Christian sects, regarding its canonicity. I plan to add this (something like, "The Book of Ecclesiastes is universally held to be canonical by nearly every Christian and Jewish sect today).
Further, whether or not the book of Ecclesiastes being in the Canon is a "puzzle," is a completely subjective statement that has no place in a factual Encyclopaedic work. Perhaps some consider it such, but others have waxed long about its beauty, and logical place in the Canon.
I plan on some serious revisions on this section in the coming week. If you would like to add your input/suggestions, please do so here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havensdad ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the new version of the section Canonicity. This is the proposed new wording:
and this is the old wording that I reverted back to:
These are the problems with the proposed new wording:
I don't mind re-writes, but they need to be well sourced, and they need to avoid basic distortions like the idea that Jamnia was where the Jewish canon was decided. PiCo ( talk) 22:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. ... These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion." Havensdad ( talk) 23:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not the book of Ecclesiastes promotes a deterministic or fatalistic worldview is a matter of debate and interpretation. Therefore to summarize 3:10-22 as "God controls all" is a matter of opinion. Not even the linked commentary used as a source says such a thing. What it does point out is that this section deals with the relationship between time and man and God and "time indefinite." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.85.53 ( talk) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There are two 20th-century novelists who could be called "Tom Wolfe": the author of "Look Homeward, Angel", and the author of "Bonfire of the Vanities". The quotation in the first paragraph is more likely to come from the 1st Tom Wolfe (who is usually referred to as Thomas Wolfe), but the link is to the 2nd Tom Wolfe. The reference given in the 1st paragraph leads to a link whose web page doesn't give any further disambiguation, but the linked web page does refer to the author as "Thomas Wolfe".
I think the quotation is good, but we need to make sure that the correct Tom/Thomas Wolfe is linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.3.32 ( talk) 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The quote is from the earlier Thomas Wolfe (1900-1938). It's in his book, "You Can't Go Home Again." Restfulme ( talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
So the "vanities" connection is just a coincidence? How strange. Brianbleakley ( talk) 06:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Ecclesiastes is frequently cited by atheists as their favourite book of the bible. Just wanted to add that here:) -- 80.228.154.61 17:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Christians know the approach taken by Qohelet. He is not addressing life as it is rather life as it would be without God. When man lives life apart from God all his efforts are futile and lead to nothing. When man seeks first the fear of God then God makes those efforts worthwhile eternally. Qohelet has come to that conclusion and makes his readers aware of his findings in life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.198.14 ( talk) 20:35, 2006 October 27 (UTC)
Since this is a book/scroll which shares a common relationship between two faiths, many times people try to seek out textual references that do not offend members on either side of the line. I enjoy trying to foster a multifaceted, multicultural understanding of the Supreme Being (YHWH, in this context), and as most people do not recognize many Scrolls/Old Testament scriptures as making any commentary about an afterlife, consider this. I will analyze:
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 (New American Standard)
1 "Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them.
2 "So I congratulated the dead who already dead more than the living who are still living.
3 "But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.
Anyway, that's my thought on the subject. It's open to discussion. Just try to be scholarly about it. Laotzukrishna ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Considering, however, that the Preacher (Kohelet) is describing things as they are "under the sun" -- therefore according to human, mortal perception, which is limited by the five senses and the limited spiritual connection that the average person has (here we can substitute Kohelet, seeing as (s)he is writing from that point of view) --, consideration must be given that Kohelet's view may be accurate from a point of view, yet not absolutely true. Which makes sense that "the dead perceive nothing", since a corpse receives no input and processes nothing, but rather processes decay and outputs broken-down materials. There is no intelligence (perception, sentience) in a corpse, so to a mortal's point-of-view, is that the dead can do nothing. "... and the dust (physical body) returns to the earth as it came, and the spirit (life-force) to that God which gave it." sounds like the Preacher, though, is perceiving something no average mortal eye does: the observable existence of a spirit. To sum up, Kohelet is an interesting character who wrote interesting things. I sould very much like to meet him/her and discuss this one-on-one. 99.31.232.61 ( talk) 04:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I added a section on atheism that was deleted, with a comment that said the section 'is weird and unnecessary; why not start a section on every Bible article about "atheists who like blank."' That misses the point, since I specifically wrote that atheists cite Ecclesiastes as their favorite book consistently, with several examples, including a summary. Other books of the Bible don't have such support. I've re-added it, pending further discussion. -- GoldCoastPrior ( talk) 19:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ecclesiastes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
This article says that the author of Ecclesiastes may have been influenced by Greek philosophy, and then goes on to suggest both Stoicism and Epicureanism. Since Epicureanism and Stoicism are very different philosophies, I must say that this calls for a little clarification. Vorbee ( talk) 15:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I was searching for information about Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, which seems to perfectly describe the water cycle. Although it is mentioned in The Water Cycle, is there any particular reason it is not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfoe ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Either there’s something I don’t understand, or the (currently) third paragraph of the lead section is a mess. It looks like the sentence
was meant to immediately follow
However the interpolated sentence
makes it look like “this senselessness” is referring to “wisdom”. This is surely wrong.
Going back through the history of the article, I see that the corresponding sentences used to be:
Aside from the spelling of Qoheleth vs. Kohelet, wasn’t this older version of the lead more correct than the current one? 96.22.66.24 ( talk) 02:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The influence section was titled "Influence on Western literature" but this excludes non-written mediums, which I think is a grave disservice to works of art and cinema that make clear reference to the book, considering it's influence on all of Western culture (it's not just literature that's been influenced). I modified the section and have added a film. Malan88 ( talk) 15:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The film is loosely based on the Song of Songs, not on Ecclesiastes. Dimadick ( talk) 14:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The entry in "Influence on Western literature" for Andrei Rublev (film) did not state that the film was based on Ecclesiastes, it stated that the film quotes extensively from Ecclesiastes multiple times. This is a matter of fact, as a viewing of the film will note at least two quotations in the first half of the film that quote from Ecclesiastes at length (i.e., more than three verses). Also, while I did not directly cite the film when adding the statement, that was my reference. More than half of the current entries in the section that have passed edits have no citations whatsoever and have less relevance than Andrei Rublev. Furthermore, I do not understand your reference to Song of Songs. I have neither seen, nor read of, any resemblance of the film to Song of Songs, and you provide no evidence for the statement. Still further, I have seen no rationale for limiting the section to merely written literature, as even the initial paragraph lists entries that are not strictly "literature". I will refrain from modifying the title and re-adding the film, since I am a new editor and will remain cautious, but the section is formatted badly. I am going to convert it to a list. Malan88 ( talk) 18:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, we are talking about different films. I thought you were the one who added The Song (2014 film) to the supposed adaptations. Dimadick ( talk) 19:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
In the scholarly circles of text critics it is well known Ecclesiastes has been redacted and sweetened by adding on mealy mouth sayings from non-original authors (forgers) pretending to be the original author. I would like to see some details about this in the main article. Miistermagico ( talk) 05:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Could User:12.217.230.149 please add some reference for claim that possible translation of Qohelet might be "Catcher"? Never read of it (and I've read quite a bit about Qohelet)... -- mz 16:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In an edit summary, User:Mz says the entry is "definitely not completely npov." Though the expression "npov" often means "not to my taste" at Wikipedia, perhaps we can have some more specific directions as to what we must do to satisfy in this case. It seems quite mainstream to an amateur like me. Not very obnoxious, at any rate. We have been waiting since 14 November 2004 for "at least 3-4 scholarly sources supporting this dating," which will certainly fill out the scanty References section. -- Wetman 12:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Allos Genos Clearly, publicly and unapologetically, Wikipedia is wholly sold out to the academic mainstream. Therefore, inside Wikipedia
propaganda for extremist or marginal ideas is done by trolls, misinformed naives, fools and madmen. Such ideas cannot be appreciated by Wikipedia. Most edit wars arise from a profound incapacity to understand what Wikipedia is. Nobody here gives a *** about what you believe (or about what I believe, for that matter). This encyclopedia is based on knowledge, not belief. Nobody here has a problem with newbies, but we do have a problem with cocky
tendentious editors. You're failing
WP:PROFRINGE and your edits will be hunted down by experienced Wikipedians and admins till you stop pushing
WP:FRINGE POVs. It is clear that you shit on
WP:RS/AC.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
06:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the paragraph that states "According to Orthodox Judaism however, the holiness of Kohelet was never in doubt. The discussion was only if, because of the possibility that a superficial reading will lead to heretical beliefs it would be preferable to keep the book out of the hands of laymen. A similar discussion revolves around the book of Ezekial." The Artscroll Tanach Stone Edition (probably the best representative of mainstream orthodox views) states that "The Sages of the Talmud were so troubled by this blanket condemnation that - even though the author of the Book was King Solomon - they doubt that it should be included in the sacred works of Scripture." I believe that Artscroll also portrays the 'Tumas Yadaim' issue as a debate whether it was part of the canon/written with 'Ruach Hakodesh'. If you can find a significant source otherwise then put it in the article as an alternative view, with citations. -- Rxtreme ( talk) 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
See here:
[4]
"We can therefore understand that everyone agreed that Esther and Ecclesiastes were sacred books that were authoritative and binding on the Jewish people. That is why their verses could be used in halachic arguments. One cannot contradict an uncontested Mishna and, similarly, one cannot dispute a verse in the canonical book of Esther. However, there was a disagreement whether these books were also inspired. If they were, they would render the hands impure."
I will check the artscroll. Wolf2191 ( talk) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Achar Sva I really don't like the use of "conclude" to refer to the penultimate verse. GordonGlottal ( talk) 06:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can someone explain who is depicted in Image:Ecclesiastes.png and why it is in the article? To me, it suggests that "Ecclesiastes" is a person. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I look through any entry here on a book of the bible I always wonder why 80%+ of the article is devoted to technical background information while only a small portion covers the actual content of the book itself. Not to say that material doesn't belong, but shouldn't the "vanity" section be moved to the top and made the focus of the article? I just think most people come here to get some idea of what the book is about, not read up on the minutiae of scholarly debate on its origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.39 ( talk) 08:18, 2005 December 15 (UTC)
Removed portion on Epicurian Heresy. There is reason the Canonicity of the book is questionable, but Epicurianism is not the reason. The theory was never truly strong enough to stand on its own. The similarities to the Epicurians stop with its insistence on simple pleasures and tranquility end before the important part of the heresy, the denial of the afterlife. None of the dogma present in Epicurianism is present in Ecclesiastes (see The International Critical Commentary of Ecclesiastes). Furthermore, the Epicurian Heresy is a development off of an ancient trend in Semite thinking, dating as far back as 2000 B.C.E., with a fragment of the Gilgamesh Epic. (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellscaft, p.8, col. iii, l. 3). I left the fleeting reference to Epicurianism intact, as it was an important development in the study of Ecclesiastes. -- Loki.x.freya 07:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the description of the last two verses from the main description. I feel that presenting this information here might draw unwarranted conclusions about what Ecclesiastes really says. A comment on the verses, and their veracity, is already included under the Vanity section. I think this quote could stay in the top if the top was a better, fuller description, but as it is I do not think it garners that importance. Terry 09:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"The canonicity of the book was, however, long doubtful " The Reform publication Jewish Encyclopedia is as usual incorrect in Talmudic matters. The canonity was not in doubt. Kohelet was agreed to be holy the question is only if the harm of false beliefs people might come to will out do the value. The overwhelming presence of Jewish Encyclopedia causes terrible POV problems weighing toward Reform POV Wolf2191 22:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I added the OJ POV one can stick in citation need since I can't remember exactly where I saw it. "It is clear from Isaiah that Aramaic or Persian was well known to rulers in the Jewish Kingdom" I'm to lazy to look this up, it's where Shavna begs the Assyrian emissary not to speak hebrew making clear that they knew other languages. Certainly King Solomon whose influenced extended the world and was "wisest of all men" would have been familiar with some form of Persian or Aramaic(aramaic is in the bible as well Yigar Sadusa). (I will try to check for my source again and clarify) Look at my article on The Amber Witch to see just how fallible ccholars are in this highly subjective branch of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 2007 April 20 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that any work that researches do is highly doubtful. A book assumed to be ancient can be modern a book assumed to be modern can be ancient. It all depends on which sentences the researcher chooses to highlight and he will very often read the facts to fit a preconceived notion. That's what Meinhold waa trying to do as well. I think the argument I mentioned on the book of isaiah page applies here as well (Late redaction in hezekiah's time acc. to talmud can explain many philogical discrepancies) but I don't have a specific source. Wolf2191 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Just looked at kaufman's wiki. His work sounds like that of Mordechai Breuer of blessed memory (he recently passed away). I think essentially we are in agreement. Meinhold's work wouldn't necessarily disprove Kaufman or Breuer but he would strike a blow to the critics of his day such as welhausen. Do you think The Amber Witch needs to be changed to reflect that? (read the article I mentioned anyway I think you might enjoy it). Best Wolf2191 04:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to find out if this Strauss that Meinhold was after belonged to the weilhausen school and make the change. I trust the article I mentioned gives a good idea why orthodox scholars think the DH a combination of good points and rather silly consclusions. Wolf2191 13:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The article makes many quotes from modern English translations of the Bible. As Far as I know all modern translations are copyrighted and at lest require the translation to be cited. The only public domain translations are: King James Version (except in the United Kingdom), Geneva bible, Bishops' bible, American Standard version, English Revised version, Webster Bible, and Young Literal Translation. I Know that most of the quotes come from non of these. Zginder 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits claim Qohelet is grammatically feminine, so the author is feminine, but the reasoning sounds flawed to me. E.g. in German, the word Mädchen is neuter, and other words in the sentence needs to use the neuter form, but it does not imply the `real object ' referenced by the word, i.e. a girl, is genderless. See Grammatical gender. Can someone back up recent claims of female authorship of the Ecc. by a published book ? Y.t. ( talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I inserted most of the recent edits referred to in the above passage. It will be my intent to express the Literary Failures of Ecclesiastes. These failures are widely acknowledged and published by mainstream Christian authors. To date, I am continuing to refine my edits so that they will reflect the current research addressing the (lack of) Literary Integrity of Ecclesiastes. In answer to your question, there are several books that demonstrate the possibility of female authorship of Ecclesiastes. One interesting book, Ambiguity in Ecclesiastes (Brill Publishing) includes the following on pages 84 and 85: “Either mistakes have crept into the text, as is usually suggested, 'or this is another literary ploy to draw a veil of mystery over the main character of Ecclesiastes' ” Also, “ . . . thus the main speaker in Ecclesiastes could be a man or a woman. . .” While it is not uncommon to attack others who do not hold the same opinion as one's own (and I thought Wikipedia editors were to avoid that), I assure you that I have provided this particular editor with a sample of the citations that will support all of my edits, but they were not shared. You will soon see them because I do not believe that the Targum, as well as Christian biblical scholars and theologians James Strong (and his famous concordance), Joseph Thayer (and his great works) and also J. Crenshaw's published works (among others) are “weasels” Each researcher will speak speak for himself. Remember two great religions, the Christian and Jewish faiths, utilize Ecclesiastes. The current article relegates Christian research to a minority view and then excludes it almost entirely. This encyclopedia must reflect the fact that divergent mainstream opinions exist on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.39.123 ( talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
From the author section " This view has been abandoned by many modern critical scholars, who now assume that Qoheleth is a work in the pseudepigraphical tradition that borrowed weight for a new work by putting it in the mouth of a well-known sage. [..]
Yet many modern conservative scholars today also recognize that Solomon is an unlikely author."
Note the use of "many scholars". For credibility ( WP:NPOV), there should be some names of people who have held this view and of some previous thinkers who have not.
Fred- Chess 01:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, shouldn't there be at least any sources for the authorship section? Those are pretty bold statements to make, and no one can follow up for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.229.254 ( talk) 03:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the Greek translation of 1:2 something like the remarkably alliterative pantaiotes pantaiotatos, panta pantaiotes? Should it be mentioned? -- Error ( talk) 23:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Quote: Ecclesiastes (...) is a book of the Hebrew Bible. The English name derives from the Greek translation of the Hebrew title.
As far as I can tell, this is all wrong. "Ecclesiastes" is a book in the Old Testament, the equivalent of which in the "Ketuvim" ("Scriptures") section of the Hebrew Bible ("Tanakh") is titled "Kohelet", which is Hebrew for "collector".
Could someone more competent than me please comment? Thanks, Maikel ( talk) 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Canonicity
Bible religious scholars often consider Ecclesiastes to be divinely inspired...
I think we maybe could just delete that entire sentence. A 19th c. commentary is not the best source for this sort of thing. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The Contemporary Religious Book Series section was added recently and seems to be basically an advertisement. If no one offers justification for the inclusion of this section I am going to delete it. -- CooliLowe ( talk) 00:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason that when citing a biblical reference it is done directly after the proposition (such as in the Influences on other ancient writings section) rather than in footnote format as is generally standard in Wikipedia? -- CooliLowe ( talk) 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The article makes the claim "Ecclesiastes appears in harmony with other Scriptures where they treat exactly the same subjects." This seems patently false; Ecclesiastes departs radically from other scriptures in its rejection of dogmatism (Ecc. 3.11), rejection of the justice of God (7:15), rejection of holding obedience to commandments as the highest virtue (7:16-17), and most notably, rejection of an absolute meaning to life (the whole freaking book). The last two verses tacked on after what was clearly supposed to be a conclusion ("The end of the matter, all has been heard.") and written in a completely different style than the rest of the book do contradict some of these points, but they cannot be used to invalidate twelve chapters of disgust at religious orthodoxy.
Further, there are no citations provided for this claim, although I know they exist. Still, better scholarly sources will contradict it. See, for example, Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard Anderson, or Reading Ecclesiastes: Old Testament Exegesis and Hermeneutical Theory by Craig Bartholomew. For these reasons, I suggest taking out the section until somebody qualified can rewrite it citing reliable sources. As it stands, it is WP:OR and WP:POV at best, and gives completely the wrong impression of the book at worst. Eebster the Great ( talk) 08:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Since it's not copyrighted I think it would be a good idea to include biblical texts within Wikipedia since talking about something is a bit futile when the text is not in front of you. Maybe it's too big an opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.201 ( talk) 06:55, 2006 March 27 (UTC)
Large public domain documents can be found at WikiSource, as they should not clutter up Wikipedia articles. However, short verses from Ecclesiastes definitely merit inclusion where they can work into the text of the page. Eebster the Great ( talk) 08:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There is some clear bias going on in some portions of this article, stemming from certain evangelical views. The idea that Ecclesiastes was always accepted as cannon, cited by reference to a non-scholarly work written over a hundred years ago, is directly refuted by the subsequent discussion of the chronology of its acceptance into Jewish canon. Furthermore, the statement that it "exactly agrees" with all other discussions of the same subject matter elsewhere in the Bible is highly reductionist and simply not the case. While it does contain many of the basic elements of Jewish and Christian theology, it is rather distinctive for its claims that people are not consistently rewarded based on how righteous or wise they are, and that everything, even being too good, is folly or vanity. Furthermore, the seeming implication that no one knows what will happen to them after they die, and indeed that there is no work or conscience in Sheol, seems very problematic to incorporate from a viewpoint that embraces the theology of an afterlife. At the very least, it is not in certain and exact agreement with all other Biblical texts on this matter. Finally, both the introductory section of this article and the sub-heading 'vanity' are concluded by quoting verse 12:13, which appears in contrast to Qoheleth's emphasis on the vanity of everything (even being too righteous), by saying that the 'whole duty of man' is to fear and obey God. The academic consensus at this point favors the view that this verse was inserted in by a later editor to make the book more orthodox--and that it is not thematically consistent with the remainder of the book. To again conclude the sections of the Wikipedia article with that verse seems to again undercut and distort one's understanding of Ecclesiastes. On the whole, I think there are many relevant and accurate comments on Ecclesiastes in this article, however I think it should be reviewed to instill more of an academic and non-biased rigor in its delivery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.86.161 ( talk) 07:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This shouldn't be bias (which, as a rule, must be if possible eliminated from every page on this website, excepting as the bias in included in source texts and quotations, of course), but rather imperception of continuity. Taking, from a Christian standpoint, for instance, the verses in the New Testament concerning an actual afterlife (e.g., 1 Peter 3:18-20, focus on v.19; and 1 Peter 4:6) into consideration, this book contains some points which to some would be doctrinal inconsistencies and to others explainable. Can it not be considered that this book was written by one man (or woman, according to above arguments) and may or may not be 100% inspired scripture? 99.31.232.61 ( talk) 03:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
In the page on "hebrew bible" we read some remarks about the time of composition of the bible.
[quote] According to traditional Jewish belief, the Hebrew Bible existed as an oral tradition for a long time before it was written, and it was forbidden to be documented in written form. According to that tradition, the date on which permission was given to write down the Bible is considered one of mourning. Contemporary conservative scholars date the origin of the Hebrew Bible between the tenth and seventh centuries BCE, while most contemporary secular biblical scholars date its finalization in the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE).
[/quote]
But this contradicts other information here in the article, that Ecclesiates (and Ijob, by another article) were written at about 250 BCE --Gotti 11:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Druseltal2005 ( talk • contribs)
In Estonian the title of this book has been translated as the Gatherer or the Collector (Koguja). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.93.246 ( talk) 09:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section "Name of God" the following text is given:
And a 1946 by Robert Gordis at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1452552 is cited.
What does Phoenician have to do with this issue? Does anyone suggest that Ecclesiastes was originally a Phoenician work? That would be quite astounding to me. Nevertheless, I did not see any mention of Phoenician in the Gordis piece. And Gordis does argue against Zimmerman that Ecclesiastes was originally Aramaic, but it does not seem to establish the claim that no modern scholars think that the book was written in Aramaic. Indeed, if Gordis is taken as "modern" then why wouldn't Zimmerman be so? Then Gordis would in fact contradict the claim, as the whole premise of his piece is that Zimmerman holds that Ecclesiastes was written in Aramaic. I don't feel comfortable definitively weighing in on these issues as I can't even read the Semitic texts, but perhaps someone can correct and astound me, or just correct the article.-- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 04:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The 'final verses' section was tagged as original research recently. Given that there is a source given for the claims made, I'm not sure that the OR tag applies here. It may be poorly written and/or undue weight, but not OR. Any thoughts? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I am taking issue with the sections that seem to say all modern scholars discount Solomonic authorship and traditional dating for the book fo Ecclesiastes. It's true that many propoents of form criticism and other modern hermeneutical schools hold such a view, but you can't say that there aren't any modern commentators who agree with the traditional view. Could this be cleared up please? Kristamaranatha ( talk) 18:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor recently added a large amount of material arguing that Solomon might be the author of Ecclesiastes. This was based on two sources, the first the bible.org website, the second a book by Daniel C. Fredericks, "Qoheleth's Language: Re-evaluating its Nature and Date." I have reverted this because the first source, bible.org, is not a reliable source according to our guidelines, and the second represents fringe view and it's inclusion would be undue weight. That it is a fringe view can be seen from the review in JSTOR, which says that it "goes against the consensus". Our task is to represent the consensus and any important minority views, but Fredericks' book was published in 1988, since when the consensus has remained intact (this can be checked by reading books published since 1988). In other words, Fredericks' book failed to overturn the consensus. PiCo ( talk) 20:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added information regarding the traditional dating view. Originally, this page had such information, but someone has removed it. To contend, as this article has up until now, that "everyone believes" a "late date" is ludicrous. In fact, by sheer numbers, scholars in the field of Biblical studies support the early dating of Ecclesiastes moreso than any other view. To try to lump scholars who hold to a third,fourth, and fifth century viewpoint together into one "late view", group, and then claim that they are the majority view, is just preposterous. Each view (third century B.C.E., fourth century B.C.E., fifth century B.C.E., and tenth century B.C.E. views, respectively), has different arguments in its defense; three of them cannot just be lumped together to discount the fourth view as "fringe."
The article needs balance in its section on dating. There are literally thousands of scholars in this field, who hold to the traditional view. To dismiss that without mention or citation for purely biased reasons, even though scholarly sources can be cited, absolutely violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Havensdad
Pico asked for my comments. I've reverted Havensdad for a variety of reasons. Havensdad, this is your second go at editing an article. You were warned for violations of WP:NPOV the first time and you've done it again. But you are a very inexperienced editor so I wouldn't expect you to understand our policies yet. I've given you a welcome message with links.
Just a reminder that we're meant to focus on what's actually in the article, and improve that. I'll break it into separated bullet points. The article makes four points about date/author:
Now I'll deal with each one on its own:
No editor seems to question this so I'll leave it.
No one has questioned this either.
Coogan says: "The Book of Ecclesiastes, although probably written no earlier than the 4th century BCE..." This is a wrong source - it came about because I was using the existing article, and an earlier editor had used an article in a book of which Coogan was the editor; the actual article is by Seow. So the source should say Seow 2007 p.944. (Click on the link). This is Seow's article "Ecclesiastes" in the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Seow says: "The date of the book is a matter of dispute, although most scholars argue on linguistic grounds that it should be dated to the post-exilic period. The presence of two indisputable Persian loan-words ... point to a date some time after 450 BCE...
I'm not sure this has actually been challenged. If so, I can produce half a dozen other sources saying the same thing. But if the anon user does want to dispute it, he has to do so by producing a reliable source which says the reverse, and it has to be as recent as Rudman (or else it wouldn't be a current consensus).
Just a note on sources in general: As our anon contributor has stated that Fredericks' study is the most recent that has been published on the subject of the dating of Ecclesiastes by its language, it's worth pointing out that this is not so. Seow has published a much more recent study. In addition, Fredericks' book was reviewed by the profession in the years after it came out (in 1988). Schoors (1992) examined his arguments in depth and concluded that he was wrong, the language of Ecclesiastes is Late Biblical Hebrew (i.e., from after the exile); Seow likewise reviewed the debate and concluded that Fredericks was wrong. You'll find an overview in Bartholomew (click the link), who shows how Fredericks' conclusions have been rejected. (Seow is probably the leading contemporary authority on the language of Ecclesiastes).
So in conclusion: adding material citing Fredericks, or his argument, would be undue weight. PiCo ( talk) 22:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this discussion is making any progress. If you genuinely feel that the article is distorted, you should take it to one of the dispute resolution forums. PiCo ( talk) 08:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Now I hate short form citations and would love it if someone were to change all of them as I find them harder to work with, but that's what the article uses and new sources should use the same style, which can be found at WP:SFN. Dougweller ( talk) 16:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As the discussion is getting hard to follow, I'm suggesting we have a different section for each contentious point. The issue here is whether to use Fredericks (I think we should but only because other reliable sources mention him and thus we can consider his view significant within the meaning of WP:NPOV) and how. I believe we should briefly, in no more than two sentences, describe his ideas on the subject, and also briefly and attributed what other reliable sources have said. Dougweller ( talk) 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Havensdad ( talk) 00:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I put on the NPOV page - putting it here as well in the interests of widest possible discussion:
First, I don't quite agree with
Havensdad's description of the dispute - I don't think it's a POV dispute but rather one about due weight. He wants to include the views of Fredericks, at some length, and I regard that as undue. But let that pass.
Havensdad says there are three views on the date of the book of Ecclesiastes. This is not so: there's only one, really, which is that was composed some time between about 450 and 180 BCE. Havensdad divides this range into two parts, which is sort of ok, as it's true that some scholars say the earlier end of the range (the Persian period) and others the later (the Hellenistic period. Anyway, we have sourced sentences in the article saying this: "On linguistic grounds (the presence of Persian loan-words) the book cannot have been written before about 450 BCE,( sourced from Seow|2007|p=944) and the last possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it.(sourced from Fox|2004|p=xiv). Seow actually says that most modern scholars say the post-450 date is right. Seow and Fox are important modern scholars, and I gather that Havensdad doesn't dispute what they say.
So it comes down to whether the idea that the book could have been written before about 450 (the exilic/pre-exilic period) has enough supporters to warrant inclusion in our article.
Havensdad refers to a scholar named Fredericks, who examined the language of the book (it's written in Hebrew) and decided on that basis that it could be, and probably was, exilic or pre-exilic. That was in 1988, almost a quarter of a century ago. Not surprisingly, scholarship has examined his ideas in the interim. The overwhelming conclusion is that he's wrong. I can cite:
In my research for this section of the article I did not come across a single modern scholar (writing in the last 10 years) who would put the book before about 450 BC. On that basis, to mention that date as one supported by modern scholars, even a significant minority, is without evidence; and to mention Fredericks by name, when it seems no modern scholar supports him, is undue weight.
We should also look at what contemporary scholars do actually say about the date:
And they go on and on. Many, many scholars saying postexilic, none saying pre-exilic or exilic. Clearly, Fredericks does not represent a significant body of scholarly opinion, and the inclusion of his name would be undue weight. PiCo ( talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This article has serious POV/neutrality issues. The section under "canonicity" for instance, expresses almost nothing BUT opinion, and does not actually address, in full, the section topic. A section labeled "Canonicity" should provide the reader with the current consensus position among Jewish and Christian sects, regarding its canonicity. I plan to add this (something like, "The Book of Ecclesiastes is universally held to be canonical by nearly every Christian and Jewish sect today).
Further, whether or not the book of Ecclesiastes being in the Canon is a "puzzle," is a completely subjective statement that has no place in a factual Encyclopaedic work. Perhaps some consider it such, but others have waxed long about its beauty, and logical place in the Canon.
I plan on some serious revisions on this section in the coming week. If you would like to add your input/suggestions, please do so here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havensdad ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the new version of the section Canonicity. This is the proposed new wording:
and this is the old wording that I reverted back to:
These are the problems with the proposed new wording:
I don't mind re-writes, but they need to be well sourced, and they need to avoid basic distortions like the idea that Jamnia was where the Jewish canon was decided. PiCo ( talk) 22:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. ... These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion." Havensdad ( talk) 23:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not the book of Ecclesiastes promotes a deterministic or fatalistic worldview is a matter of debate and interpretation. Therefore to summarize 3:10-22 as "God controls all" is a matter of opinion. Not even the linked commentary used as a source says such a thing. What it does point out is that this section deals with the relationship between time and man and God and "time indefinite." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.85.53 ( talk) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
There are two 20th-century novelists who could be called "Tom Wolfe": the author of "Look Homeward, Angel", and the author of "Bonfire of the Vanities". The quotation in the first paragraph is more likely to come from the 1st Tom Wolfe (who is usually referred to as Thomas Wolfe), but the link is to the 2nd Tom Wolfe. The reference given in the 1st paragraph leads to a link whose web page doesn't give any further disambiguation, but the linked web page does refer to the author as "Thomas Wolfe".
I think the quotation is good, but we need to make sure that the correct Tom/Thomas Wolfe is linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.3.32 ( talk) 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The quote is from the earlier Thomas Wolfe (1900-1938). It's in his book, "You Can't Go Home Again." Restfulme ( talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
So the "vanities" connection is just a coincidence? How strange. Brianbleakley ( talk) 06:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Ecclesiastes is frequently cited by atheists as their favourite book of the bible. Just wanted to add that here:) -- 80.228.154.61 17:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Christians know the approach taken by Qohelet. He is not addressing life as it is rather life as it would be without God. When man lives life apart from God all his efforts are futile and lead to nothing. When man seeks first the fear of God then God makes those efforts worthwhile eternally. Qohelet has come to that conclusion and makes his readers aware of his findings in life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.198.14 ( talk) 20:35, 2006 October 27 (UTC)
Since this is a book/scroll which shares a common relationship between two faiths, many times people try to seek out textual references that do not offend members on either side of the line. I enjoy trying to foster a multifaceted, multicultural understanding of the Supreme Being (YHWH, in this context), and as most people do not recognize many Scrolls/Old Testament scriptures as making any commentary about an afterlife, consider this. I will analyze:
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 (New American Standard)
1 "Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them.
2 "So I congratulated the dead who already dead more than the living who are still living.
3 "But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.
Anyway, that's my thought on the subject. It's open to discussion. Just try to be scholarly about it. Laotzukrishna ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Considering, however, that the Preacher (Kohelet) is describing things as they are "under the sun" -- therefore according to human, mortal perception, which is limited by the five senses and the limited spiritual connection that the average person has (here we can substitute Kohelet, seeing as (s)he is writing from that point of view) --, consideration must be given that Kohelet's view may be accurate from a point of view, yet not absolutely true. Which makes sense that "the dead perceive nothing", since a corpse receives no input and processes nothing, but rather processes decay and outputs broken-down materials. There is no intelligence (perception, sentience) in a corpse, so to a mortal's point-of-view, is that the dead can do nothing. "... and the dust (physical body) returns to the earth as it came, and the spirit (life-force) to that God which gave it." sounds like the Preacher, though, is perceiving something no average mortal eye does: the observable existence of a spirit. To sum up, Kohelet is an interesting character who wrote interesting things. I sould very much like to meet him/her and discuss this one-on-one. 99.31.232.61 ( talk) 04:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I added a section on atheism that was deleted, with a comment that said the section 'is weird and unnecessary; why not start a section on every Bible article about "atheists who like blank."' That misses the point, since I specifically wrote that atheists cite Ecclesiastes as their favorite book consistently, with several examples, including a summary. Other books of the Bible don't have such support. I've re-added it, pending further discussion. -- GoldCoastPrior ( talk) 19:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ecclesiastes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
This article says that the author of Ecclesiastes may have been influenced by Greek philosophy, and then goes on to suggest both Stoicism and Epicureanism. Since Epicureanism and Stoicism are very different philosophies, I must say that this calls for a little clarification. Vorbee ( talk) 15:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I was searching for information about Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, which seems to perfectly describe the water cycle. Although it is mentioned in The Water Cycle, is there any particular reason it is not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfoe ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Either there’s something I don’t understand, or the (currently) third paragraph of the lead section is a mess. It looks like the sentence
was meant to immediately follow
However the interpolated sentence
makes it look like “this senselessness” is referring to “wisdom”. This is surely wrong.
Going back through the history of the article, I see that the corresponding sentences used to be:
Aside from the spelling of Qoheleth vs. Kohelet, wasn’t this older version of the lead more correct than the current one? 96.22.66.24 ( talk) 02:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The influence section was titled "Influence on Western literature" but this excludes non-written mediums, which I think is a grave disservice to works of art and cinema that make clear reference to the book, considering it's influence on all of Western culture (it's not just literature that's been influenced). I modified the section and have added a film. Malan88 ( talk) 15:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The film is loosely based on the Song of Songs, not on Ecclesiastes. Dimadick ( talk) 14:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The entry in "Influence on Western literature" for Andrei Rublev (film) did not state that the film was based on Ecclesiastes, it stated that the film quotes extensively from Ecclesiastes multiple times. This is a matter of fact, as a viewing of the film will note at least two quotations in the first half of the film that quote from Ecclesiastes at length (i.e., more than three verses). Also, while I did not directly cite the film when adding the statement, that was my reference. More than half of the current entries in the section that have passed edits have no citations whatsoever and have less relevance than Andrei Rublev. Furthermore, I do not understand your reference to Song of Songs. I have neither seen, nor read of, any resemblance of the film to Song of Songs, and you provide no evidence for the statement. Still further, I have seen no rationale for limiting the section to merely written literature, as even the initial paragraph lists entries that are not strictly "literature". I will refrain from modifying the title and re-adding the film, since I am a new editor and will remain cautious, but the section is formatted badly. I am going to convert it to a list. Malan88 ( talk) 18:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, we are talking about different films. I thought you were the one who added The Song (2014 film) to the supposed adaptations. Dimadick ( talk) 19:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
In the scholarly circles of text critics it is well known Ecclesiastes has been redacted and sweetened by adding on mealy mouth sayings from non-original authors (forgers) pretending to be the original author. I would like to see some details about this in the main article. Miistermagico ( talk) 05:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Could User:12.217.230.149 please add some reference for claim that possible translation of Qohelet might be "Catcher"? Never read of it (and I've read quite a bit about Qohelet)... -- mz 16:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In an edit summary, User:Mz says the entry is "definitely not completely npov." Though the expression "npov" often means "not to my taste" at Wikipedia, perhaps we can have some more specific directions as to what we must do to satisfy in this case. It seems quite mainstream to an amateur like me. Not very obnoxious, at any rate. We have been waiting since 14 November 2004 for "at least 3-4 scholarly sources supporting this dating," which will certainly fill out the scanty References section. -- Wetman 12:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Allos Genos Clearly, publicly and unapologetically, Wikipedia is wholly sold out to the academic mainstream. Therefore, inside Wikipedia
propaganda for extremist or marginal ideas is done by trolls, misinformed naives, fools and madmen. Such ideas cannot be appreciated by Wikipedia. Most edit wars arise from a profound incapacity to understand what Wikipedia is. Nobody here gives a *** about what you believe (or about what I believe, for that matter). This encyclopedia is based on knowledge, not belief. Nobody here has a problem with newbies, but we do have a problem with cocky
tendentious editors. You're failing
WP:PROFRINGE and your edits will be hunted down by experienced Wikipedians and admins till you stop pushing
WP:FRINGE POVs. It is clear that you shit on
WP:RS/AC.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
06:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the paragraph that states "According to Orthodox Judaism however, the holiness of Kohelet was never in doubt. The discussion was only if, because of the possibility that a superficial reading will lead to heretical beliefs it would be preferable to keep the book out of the hands of laymen. A similar discussion revolves around the book of Ezekial." The Artscroll Tanach Stone Edition (probably the best representative of mainstream orthodox views) states that "The Sages of the Talmud were so troubled by this blanket condemnation that - even though the author of the Book was King Solomon - they doubt that it should be included in the sacred works of Scripture." I believe that Artscroll also portrays the 'Tumas Yadaim' issue as a debate whether it was part of the canon/written with 'Ruach Hakodesh'. If you can find a significant source otherwise then put it in the article as an alternative view, with citations. -- Rxtreme ( talk) 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
See here:
[4]
"We can therefore understand that everyone agreed that Esther and Ecclesiastes were sacred books that were authoritative and binding on the Jewish people. That is why their verses could be used in halachic arguments. One cannot contradict an uncontested Mishna and, similarly, one cannot dispute a verse in the canonical book of Esther. However, there was a disagreement whether these books were also inspired. If they were, they would render the hands impure."
I will check the artscroll. Wolf2191 ( talk) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Achar Sva I really don't like the use of "conclude" to refer to the penultimate verse. GordonGlottal ( talk) 06:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)