Talk:Ecclesiastes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ecclesiastes is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. Judaism Portal If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week The current Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week is Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. The current Judaism Collaboration of the Week is Ghetto mentality. Translate Please note that in many instances, projects related to Torah study proceed much faster in Hebrew than in English. Mikraot Gedolot (rabbinic bible) at Wikisource in English (sample) and Hebrew (sample). Mishnah at Wikisource - Hebrew text with translation and commentary; there is also a Hebrew version. Shulchan Aruch at Wikisource - Hebrew text with English translation New projects Mikraot Gedolot Project at Hebrew Wikisource Megillot Mikraot Gedolot Eikhah Copyedit: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Rival Biblical views Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help.

Can I add some information to this?

I've added information to this. ~apokryphos aka Francis G.

Contents 1 Qohelet - Catcher? 2 Kohelet 3 Dates and "NPOV" 4 Trivial Comment 5 Priority? 6 The actual text 7 Image:Ecclesiastes.png 8 References 9 Troublesome document

[edit] Qohelet - Catcher?

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)

No response. I googled and found nothing. RV to previous version. Feel free to restore the information, if supported by scholarly reference. -- mz 21:09, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kohelet

Is there a need for Kohelet redirected to Ecclesiastes ? Gangleri 06:03, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Probably. It's the standard spelling in German and at least an uncommon alternative in English. I'm just going to do it. Mpolo 07:02, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dates and "NPOV"

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)

Dominic Rudman. Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes. JSOTSup. 316; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, p. 13 - cites 3 modern commentaries supporting this dating.

You can as well read an article here(although poorly transcribed): Dominic Rudman. "A Note on Dating of Ecclesiastes". Catholic Biblical Quarterly vol. 61 (1999) iss. 1, pp. 47-53 - a discussion with C. L. Seow, "Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet." JBL vol. 115 (1996), pp. 653-54 - Seow supports 4th century dating.

Finally, I am pasting here footnote 5 from Rudman's article: "Most current commentators le.g., R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes [NCB Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1989] 4-12) argue for a mid-tolate-third-century date. Others, among them N. Lohfink (Kohelet [NEchtB; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1980] 7) and C. E Whitley (Koheleth: His Language and Thought [BZAW 148; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 1979] 132-46), have suggested an early- or mid-second-century background." --mz 16:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff. I hate to work your material into the text as if I had found it myself. Could you? --Wetman 22:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivial Comment

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)

We covered it today in my History and Religion of Ancient Israel class; the take-home message was "Qohelet says Why does bad stuff happen under the sun? We'll never know! In the meantime, eat, drink, and be merry!" I can see why atheists would like it, the God of Qohelet is pretty...distant. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not just that—the book makes some very down-to-earth statements that convey a message quite at odds with most modern religious traditions. Take, for example, "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." (Eccl. 3:19, KJV). Or how about "for to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 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." (9:4-5) and "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" (9:10); it's like he's reading a secular humanist manifesto...

Qohelet concludes that God, who knows all and sees all and has a plan for everything will make things right in the end, and that we have no clue what to make of it all. Atheists take it one step further and conclude that there isn't even a God to make anything right. 82.92.119.11 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a trivial comment, and I'm not sure why there is so little on the page concerning the book in relation to the rest of the Tanakh and Bible. I just read through the book, and it's amazing to me that it is in the Bible. I think it's wonderful, but I wonder how Jews and Christians justify it. Terry 04:14, 12 July 2006 (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.

[edit] Priority?

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.

I agree. I went ahead and put author, language, and date all under one heading, to try and allow people to get to the actual commentary on the book. I think there should be more done though. Terry 04:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The actual text

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.

[edit] Image:Ecclesiastes.png

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)

[edit] References

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)

[edit] Troublesome document

Ecclesiastes has been a very confusing and troublesome book in the bible. I'll look into some better info and see what I dig up. I do recall the Catholic church having problems with it and the asumption that Solomon was the author.