For other uses, see Ecclesiastes (disambiguation).
The Book of Ecclesiastes, called ( /ɨˌkliːziˈæstiːz/; Hebrew: קֹהֶלֶת, Qoheleth, literally, "Preacher," in the Hebrew, or, in the most literal sense of the Greek, "Member of the Assembly," sharing the root ekklesia with the word for "assembly," or "church," with Qoheleth being derived from a Heb. word of similar meaning, commonly referred to simply as Ecclesiastes (abbreviated "Ecc."), is a book of the Hebrew Bible. The English name derives from the Greek translation of the Hebrew title.
The main speaker in the book, identified by the name or title Qoheleth (usually translated as "teacher" or "preacher"), introduces himself as "son of David, king in Jerusalem." The work consists of personal or autobiographic matter, at times expressed in aphorisms and maxims illuminated in terse paragraphs with reflections on the meaning of life and the best way of life. The work emphatically proclaims all the actions of man to be inherently "vain", "futile", "empty", "meaningless", "temporary", "transitory", "fleeting, or "mere breath", depending on translation, as the lives of both wise and foolish men end in death. While Qoheleth clearly endorses wisdom as a means for a well-lived earthly life, he is unable to ascribe eternal meaning to it. In light of this perceived senselessness, he suggests that one should enjoy the simple pleasures of daily life, such as eating, drinking, and taking enjoyment in one's work, which are gifts from the hand of God.
According to the Talmud, however, the point of Qoheleth is to state that all is futile under the Sun. One should therefore put all one's efforts towards that which is above the Sun. This is summed up in the second to last verse: "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep His commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone" (12:13).
The book is particularly notable for its iconic phrases, "the sun also rises," "[there's] nothing new under the sun" ('nihil novi sub sole' in the Latin Vulgate) and "he who increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow."
American 20th-century novelist Tom Wolfe wrote: “For of all I have ever seen or learned, this book seems to me the noblest, the wisest, and the most powerful expression of man’s life upon this earth – and also the highest flower of poetry, eloquence, and truth. I am not given to dogmatic judgments in the matter of literary creation, but if I had to make one I could say that Ecclesiastes is the greatest single piece of writing I have ever known, and the wisdom expressed in it the most lasting and profound.”
- 1 Etymology
- 2 Authorship and historical context
- 3 Placement in canon
- 4 Influences on other ancient writings
- 5 Traditional Judaism
- 6 Messianic interpretation in Christianity
- 7 Final Verses
- 8 Vanity
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 External links
Part of a series on The Hebrew Bible
and DeuterocanonGenesis · Exodus · Leviticus · Numbers
Deuteronomy · Joshua · Judges · Ruth
1–2 Samuel · 1–2 Kings · 1–2 Chronicles
Ezra · Nehemiah · Esther · Job · Psalms
Proverbs · Ecclesiastes · Song of Songs
Isaiah · Jeremiah · Lamentations
Ezekiel · Daniel · Minor prophetsTobit · Judith · 1–2 Maccabees
Wisdom (of Solomon) · Sirach
Baruch · Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Daniel / to Esther
The Hebrew קהלת is a feminine participle related to the root קהל meaning "to gather." Scholars are unsure whether it means the "one who gathers" or the "one among the gathering." Although the form is a feminine participle, virtually no scholars dispute that the author is a man. Except for one dubious example of a third-person feminine singular verb associated with Qoheleth, the subject always uses masculine nouns and even refers to his wife and women. He says that he has acquired shida we-shidot, an ambiguous phrase that may refer to a harem (shdh or "breasts"); he describes how he could not find a virtuous woman; and he exhorts the reader to enjoy (re'a) life with his wife.
The English title of the book, Ecclesiastes, comes from the Septuagint translation of Qoheleth, Ἐκκλησιαστής. It is related to the Greek noun Ἐκκλησία (originally a secular gathering, although later used primarily of religious gatherings, hence its New Testament meaning of "church"). Greek translators used "ecclesia" to render קהל (qahal) of the same Hebrew root.
The word Qoheleth has found several translations into English, including the Preacher (following Jerome's suggested Latin title concionator and Martin Luther's Der Prediger). In view of the meaning of the Hebrew root ("gather, assemble, convene") one might opt for the translation "Speaker".
Authorship and historical context
In the two opening chapters the speaker describes himself as the son of David, and king over Israel in Jerusalem (1:1, 12, 16; 2:7, 9), presenting himself as a philosopher at the center of a brilliant court. This most likely applies to King Solomon, but may also refer to his successors as the Bible referred to Judah as Israel in Kings/Chronicles for example. Consequently, the traditional Rabbinic and early Christian view attributed Ecclesiastes to King Solomon. The argument used by scholars to promote a later dating of the book is language and style (i.e. the vocabulary and syntax as compared to the late Hebrew and Aramaic, which suggest that the book should be dated later). However, Daniel Fredericks, who has studied all the linguistic inconsistencies used by scholars as evidence, has concluded that they are unconvincing. Instead, a popular theory suggests linguistic updating, which is when “late forms may not in fact have been original to the book but may reflect the updating of vocabulary and grammar by later scribes so their contemporaries could understand the book better.”
Many modern conservative scholars today also suggest that Solomon is an unlikely author. Since this work is found within the Ketuvim, there must be some room for poetical treatment. There are two voices in the book, the frame-narrator (1.1–11; 12.9–14) and Qoheleth (1.12–12.8). Scholars are not unanimous about whether this indicates two authors. Some have noticed the conflicting themes that occur often throughout Qoheleth's thoughts and presented a few theories. One is that the editors edited in a way that the editor believed was language that made the writing easier to understand. It is also possible that it was edited in ways that harmonized the text with already accepted doctrine. Scholars point to Chapter 12 and the frame-editor's summary regarding fearing God and keeping His commandments as evidence of this. Others suggest that it is Qoheleth deliberately using differing wisdoms to portray his point about the "anomalies" of life.
The Babylonian Talmud, while claiming that King Solomon composed the book, says that it was only written down much later (Bava Batra page 14 side B).
According to Longman and Dillard, the book includes two 'characters', Qoheleth/Solomon and the narrator. These scholars argue that the book does not attempt to claim that Qoheleth/Solomon wrote the book, but rather to use Qoheleth/Solomon as the main character in a book of wisdom literature.
R' Nachman Krochmal suggests that the term "son of David" should be interpreted to mean "descendant of David". He posits that it was written by a powerful lord during the Persian Era (possibly during the missing years of Jewish history). The term "king" would not be difficult; since the Persian Monarch was known as the King of Kings, a lesser lord may have called himself a king.
The New Bible Dictionary writes the following:
Although the writer says that he was king over Israel (1:12), and speaks as though he were Solomon, he nowhere says that he is Solomon. The style of the Heb. is later than Solomon’s time. If Solomon was the author, the book underwent a later modernization of language. Otherwise a later writer may have taken up a comment on life that had been made by Solomon, ‘Vanity of vanities, all is vanity,’ and used this as a text to show why even a wise and wealthy king should say such a thing. We cannot tell at what date the book received its present form, since there are no clear historical allusions in it. About 200 [BCE] is commonly suggested.
The Hebrew of Ecclesiastes was not common in the era of Solomon’s reign, and the book contains words borrowed from other languages. For example, the book contains several Aramaic and two Persian words. The influence of Aramaic is characteristic of late Hebrew. Other examples of late Biblical Hebrew include the qetAl pattern form nouns, which would have dated after an Aramaic influence, the frequent use of the relative sh (-ש) alongside asher (אשר), the Ut ending (ות-), the frequent use of the participle for the present (which is later developed in Rabbinic Hebrew), using the prefix conjugation in the future (vs. the older preterite use), and terms that appear to specifically fit a Persian/Hellenistic context (e.g. Shallit). During the time of Solomon and through the 8th century, matres lectionis were not used inside words (except maybe in 'ir (city) in the Lachish letters), and there is no evidence for early orthography. Seow has claimed that there are orthographic inconsistencies in the book. This might imply authorship from different periods, or later additions to the text.
Date of writing
Dominic Rudman  cites the modern commentaries that support dating the book to the 3rd century BCE. "A Note on Dating of Ecclesiastes"  contains a discussion with C. L. Seow. Seow supports a 4th century dating.
"Most current commentators e.g., R. N. Whybray argue for a mid-to-late-third-century date. Others, among them N. Lohfink and C. E Whitley, have suggested an early- or mid-second-century background."[cite this quote]
Michael Coogan supports the statement that authorship was most probably later than the 5th century because it uses Persian "loan words" in the text. "Aramaisms" exist that indicate a period when Aramaic was the official language during the Persian empire. Coogan states that most scholars think authorship was most likely during the Hellenistic period in the third or 4th century BCE.
Some scholars, such as Michael V. Fox, have suggested that Ecclesiastes is influenced by philosophies like Stoicism and Epicureanism. “The boldest, most radical notion in the book is...the belief that the individual can and should proceed toward truth by means of his own powers of perception and reasoning; and that he can in this way discover truths previously unknown…This is the approach of philosophy, and its appearance Ecclesiastes probably reflects a Jewish awareness of this type of thinking among foreign intellectuals…He does not look to revelation or tradition for guidance. He believes that he can discover what is good to do in life by acquiring wisdom and using it to examine and contemplate the world. This is the stance of Greek philosophy…Koheleth’s focus on individual experience, in particular the perception of pleasure, bears a significant resemblance to Hellenistic popular philosophy, whose central purpose was to find the way to individual happiness by the use of the powers of reason. The Epicureans sought happiness through pleasure and freedom from fear. The Stoics thought to find it in the shedding of desires and passions…In 1:4-7 Koheleth mentions that the four elements compromise the totality of the physical world – a notion common to Greek philosophers especially Stoics…These general similarities…support the hypothesis that the author was aware of some concerns and attitudes of philosophical thinking current in the Hellenistic age." 
Other scholars, however, argue that Ecclesiastes was written before the Hellenistic period because of the lack of Greek loan words.
Placement in canon
Name of God
The book of Ecclesiastes uses the expression ha-Elohim, "The God", 32 times, although the Jewish Encyclopedia says that; "The Israelitish name for God is nowhere employed, nor does there appear to be any reference to Judaic matters; hence there seems to be a possibility that the book is an adaptation of a work in some other language".
The more conventional Tetragrammaton (YHWH: a Jewish name for God) is not used, though almost no modern scholars think that the book was written in Aramaic or Phoenician.
Both Judaism and Christianity accept Ecclesiastes as canonical. However, in the 1st century AD, literal interpretation of the work led to debate over whether it was to be included in the Jewish canon. The House of Hillel and the House of Shammai debated its inclusion, with the Hillel school arguing for it. Its inclusion was decided when Eleazar ben Azariah was made head of the assembly.
Based on the contents of the majority of the book, it has perplexed scholars as to why Ecclesiastes was included in the canon of the Hebrew Bible. While there is no hypothesis that is unanimously supported by scholarship, there have been many suggestions offered. One idea is that association with Solomon had lent enough credibility to the book that it was canonized. However, “the difficulty with this justification…is clear: similar pseudonymous attributions in other texts-texts that were more orthodox than Ecclesiastes-proved to be insufficient reason for those texts to be accepted as canonical.”  Another prominent explanation for the canonical status of Ecclesiastes is that the final words redeem the entire book. This view is supported by the discussions at Jamnia, and Rabbi Akiba’s utterances there, “Why did they not withdraw it? Because the beginning and the end of it consist of words of the law” (b. Sabb. 30b) This hypothesis though also has flaws, because of the lack of canonical status for other books that more consistently interpret the laws of Judaism in an orthodox manner.
Death and afterlife
A great portion of the book concerns itself with death. Qoheleth emphatically affirms human mortality, going so far as to say that the dead in sheol know nothing. He mentions no resurrection, which, some may argue, is to be expected seeing that it predates this theology. (This view has been disputed, as Solomon's father, David, expressed a belief in the afterlife upon the death of Solomon's older brother, claiming with certainty that he would see his deceased son again. However, belief in an afterlife, a continued existence in a shadowy realm like Sheol or Hades must not be confused with the belief in a resurrection from the dead of later Christian theology.) In fact, it is the lack of consequences after death that lead Qoheleth to advocate enjoying life while you can. Martin Luther quoted these verses in defense of the doctrine that the soul sleeps between death and resurrection. A meaningless life followed by oblivion is consistent with the purport of much (though not all) of the rest of the Tanakh as to the state of the dead (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10; Genesis 3:19; Psalms 6:5; 115:17). This view that death is oblivion seems to stand in contrast to later descriptions of the afterlife, such as gehenna, the bosom of Abraham, and the resurrection of the dead in the New Testament.
The author of Ecclesiastes appears agnostic on the concept of an afterlife. Indeed, he writes “All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?” (Ecclesiastes 3:20-21).
Nevertheless, the concluding verses are open to God's judgment, and to a perspective that overcomes "futility under the Sun" “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone. For God will bring every deed into judgement, including every secret thing, whether good or evil. ” (Eccl 12:13-14).
Influences on other ancient writings
Ecclesiastes evidently influenced the deuterocanonical works, Wisdom of Solomon and Wisdom of Sirach, both of which contain vocal rejections of the Ecclesiastical philosophy of futility. As an example of this relationship among the books, consider the following pairs of passages:
Ecclesiastes: "For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 6:12). "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. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again" (Ecclesiastes 3:19).
- Wisdom of Solomon: "For the ungodly said, reasoning with themselves, but not aright, Our life is short and tedious, and in the death of a man there is no remedy: neither was there any man known to have returned from the grave" (Wisdom of Solomon 2:1)
Ecclesiastes: "And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith" (Ecclesiastes 1:13). "All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me. That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out?" (Ecclesiastes 7:23).
- Ben Sira: "Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee, neither search the things that are above thy strength. But what is commanded thee, think upon with reverence; for it is not needful for thee to see with thine eyes the things that are in secret. Be not curious in unnecessary matters: for more things are shewed unto thee than men understand" (Sirach 3:21).
In traditional Judaism, Ecclesiastes is read either on Shemini Atzeret (by Yemenites, Italians, some Sepharadim, and the mediaeval French Jewish rite) or on the Shabbat of the Intermediate Days of Sukkot (by Ashkenazim). If there is no Intermediate Sabbath of Sukkot, even the Ashkenazim read it on Shemini Atzeret (or, for Ashkenazim in the Land of Israel, on the first Shabbat of Sukkot). It is read on Sukkot as a reminder to not get too caught up in the festivities of the holiday, as well as to carry over the happiness of sukkot to the rest of the year by telling the listeners that without God, life is meaningless. When the listeners take this to heart, then true happiness can be achieved throughout the year. The final poem of Qoheleth (12:1-8) has been interpreted in the Targum, Talmud, Midrash, Jerome, Rashi, Rashbamand Ibn Ezra as an allegory of old age.
Messianic interpretation in Christianity
Nicholas Perrin has suggested that the framing device of Ecclesiastes was used to point to the Messiah. The book is framed by two sets of verses: 1:1-11, and 12:9-14. Both these sets of verses contain messianic allusions, which makes the entire book a pronouncement of the sage Messiah. Eccles 1:1 reads “The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.” This person has often been identified with Solomon, but Perrin finds this inapt. He points out that “son of David” by itself, is never used in the Hebrew Bible to denote Solomon; when Solomon is intended, he is named. And calling him “king in Jerusalem”, without a reference to his kingdom (e.g. Israel or Judah), is more typical in the Old Testament of the Eschatological Jerusalem than of historical Davidic kings. This opens up the possibility of viewing the figure as the Messiah rather than as Solomon.
In the period Ecclesiastes was written, references to the Davidic Messiah were often found along with wisdom and Jerusalem. In the non-canonical Psalms of Solomon, the Messiah is associated with wisdom; and Ben Sira associates Wisdom with Jerusalem. So in Eccles 1:1 both the (wise) Preacher and Jerusalem are references to the Messiah. The very opening verse of the book presents to the reader a messianic figure.
The closing frame of Ecclesiastes again presents the Preacher, the messianic figure (12:9). The major messianic reference here is the “one shepherd” of verse 11. Most have interpreted the shepherd as God. This lends credence to the entire book, which is the aim of the epilogue. The authority of God and his Messiah are borrowed for the book of Ecclesiastes. The shepherd is also identified with the Messiah by Perrin. He shows that in the Hellenistic time of Ecclesiastes the “one shepherd” was a common messianic trope which is based on the Book of Ezekiel. In chapters 34 and 37, Ezekiel describes the Davidic Messiah as the “one shepherd”: this wording is the same used in Eccles 12:11, and it is unique to these three passages. So the one shepherd is bound up with Nathan’s prophecy of the Davidic covenant of 2 Sam 7. Following the writing of Ezekiel, several works identified Davidic kings as being more than merely kings of Judah (e.g. 1 Chron 28:5) or as shepherd-Messiahs (Zech 11:7, 1 Enoch, Psalms of Solomon). Eccles 12:11 is one part of a messianic tradition spanning from Ezekiel up to Jn 10:16: “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.”
Though a number of early Christian and medieval commentators understood this the text to be essentially eschatological, a portrayal of the end time, this view has received virtually no support among modern critics. However, M.V. Fox has suggested that eschatological images may lie in the background of v. 2.
These are to be the lasting lessons of the book.
Firstly, to “fear God.” This point is made throughout Ecclesiastes (3:14, 5:6-7, 7:18, 8:12), though often with a hint of doubt. Here, it is made quite emphatically, with the idea being that one should have the correct relationship with God, where human is subservient to the deity. To “fear God” means to “respect, honor, and worship the Lord.”
Secondly, the narrator teaches that the reader should “keep [God’s] commandments.” This verse, in following “fear God,” suggests that one must be subservient to the eternal specifically by observing the commandments. The verse ends with two motive clauses, the first being: “for this is the whole duty of humanity” (Hebrew says ki zeh kol-ha’adam literally meaning “for this is the whole of humanity”). Rabbi Eleazar purports that this phrase suggests that, “the commands to fear and obey G-d were the most important things in life.” However, Ecclesiastes ends with a second clause, answering why we should fear and obey God. The answer is because “God will bring every deed into judgment” (12:14). Here, judgment and law are linked for the first time in Ecclesiastes. While judgment has been discussed earlier (3:16-22, 11:9), here it is correlated directly with obeying commandments. While Ecclesiastes had earlier suggested that the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper (7:15-18, 9:1-12), here there is a much more optimistic outlook; if one is faithful according to Qoheleth’s standards, one will be judged kindly.
Qoheleth's stated aim is to find out how to ensure one's benefits in life, an aim in accord with the general purposes of wisdom literature. For Qoheleth, however, any possible advantage in life is destroyed by the inevitability of death. As such, Qoheleth concludes that life (and everything) is senseless. In light of this conclusion, Qoheleth advises his audience to make the most of life, to seize the day, for there is no way to secure favorable outcomes in the future. Although this latter conclusion has sometimes been compared to Epicureanism, for Qoheleth it comes about as the inevitable result of his failure to make sense of existence.
This conclusion is reflected in the refrain which both opens and closes Qoheleth's words:"Utterly senseless" says Qoheleth, "Utterly senseless, everything is senseless"
The word translated senseless, הבל (hebel), literally means vapor, breath, but it could also mean "absurd". Qoheleth uses it metaphorically, and its precise meaning is extensively debated. Older English translations often render it vanity. Because in modern usage this word has often come to mean "self-pride," losing its Latinate connotation of emptiness, some translators have abandoned it. Other translations include empty, futile, meaningless, absurd, fleeting, evanescent, or senseless. Some translations use the literal rendering vapor of vapors and so claim to leave the interpretation to the reader.
Ultimately, the author of Ecclesiates comes to this conclusion in the second to last verse of the last chapter:The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for that is the whole duty of everyone.
"Vanity of vanities" is a Hebrew grammatical construction (idiom) denoting the superlative; that is, it attests to an extreme degree of the quality, similar to "the lord of lords", "the king of kings" or "holy of holies" (used of the inner sanctuary of the Jerusalem temple).
Other translations of Ecclesiastes 1:2 include:
- "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."
- "Futility of futilities, all is futile."
- "Absolutely pointless! Everything is pointless." An American Translation
- "Merest breath, said Qoheleth, merest breath. All is mere breath."
Classic English translation (King James Version) of the last two verses (12:13-14):
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
Books of the
Ketuvim (Hebrew Bible)
Three poetic books Psalms
Five Megillot Song of Songs
Other books Daniel
Ezra – Nehemiah
- Turn! Turn! Turn! by Pete Seeger
- A Rose for Ecclesiastes by Roger Zelazny
- Tripping Billies by Dave Matthews Band
- Wisdom of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
- Q (novel)
- Alter, Robert. The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary. W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.
- Nicholas Perrin, “Messianism in the Narrative Frame of Ecclesiastes?”, Revue biblique 108:1 (2001).
- ^ http://preachersfiles.com/the-true-meaning-to-life-1-a-study-in-ecclesiastes-an-introduction/
- ^ Compare to Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan ch. XXXIX (text).
- ^ Fredericks, Daniel "Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date". E. Mellen Press. 1988.
- ^ Longman, Tremper "The Book of Ecclesiastes". W.B. Eerdmans. 1998. Page 10.
- ^ Perry, T. A. "Dialogues With Kohelet: The Book of Ecclesiastes : Translation and Commentary ". Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993.
- ^ Coogan, Michael D. "A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament - The Hebrew Bible in its Context". Oxford University Press, 2009. page 390.
- ^ "Introduction to the Old Testament", chapter on Joshua, by T. Longman and R. Dillard, Zondervan Books (2006)
- ^ Moreh Nevuchei Ha'Zman—Ch. Chokrei Avot.
- ^ D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary (InterVarsity Press, 1996, c1982, c1962). 288.
- ^ Seow, C.L. Dating, page 645
- ^ Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes (JSOTSup. 316; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, p. 13)
- ^ Catholic Biblical Quarterly vol. 61 no. 1 (1999) pp. 47–53
- ^ "Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet." in JBL vol. 115 (1996), pp. 653–54—
- ^ Ecclesiastes [NCB Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1989] 4–12)
- ^ (Kohelet [NEchtB; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1980] 7)
- ^ (Koheleth: His Language and Thought [BZAW 148; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 1979] 132–46)
- ^ Coogan, Michael D. "A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament - The Hebrew Bible in its Context". Oxford University Press, 2009. page 389
- ^ xi-xii, Michael V. Fox – Ecclesiastes
- ^ Coogan, page 944. THe New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd ed.
- ^ "ECCLESIASTES, BOOK OF". http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp Jewishencyclopedia.com#Online_version. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=26&letter=E#55. Retrieved 2009-01-28.
- ^ . JSTOR 1452552.
- ^ http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/qoheleth_bartholomew.pdf
- ^ http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=26&letter=E
- ^ Shields, Martin A. "The End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes". Eisenbrauns. 2006. page 2.
- ^ Green, William Henry. "General introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon". Scribner. 1899. page 138
- ^ See Intermediate state
- ^ See Christian mortalism >> The Reformation
- ^ Perrin p. 37
- ^ Perrin p. 42
- ^ Choon-Leong Seow, Ecclesiastes: The Anchor Bible, (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 388.
- ^ Perrin p. 53
- ^ Perrin p. 56
- ^ Seow, Eschatological Poem, 209-210)
- ^ (M.V. Fox Qoheleth and his contradictions, 1989)
- ^ Longman, Tremper"The Book of Ecclesiastes". W.B. Eerdmans. 1998. Page 282.
- ^ a b Longman, Tremper"The Book of Ecclesiastes". W.B. Eerdmans. 1998. Page 283.
- ^ http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/preview/BSMProzac.pdf Miles Custis, "Does the Author of Ecclesiastes Need Prozac?" (Bible Study Magazine Vol. 1, Issue 3, Mar-Apr 2009): 45-46.
- Jewish translations:
- Kohelet - Ecclesiastes (Judaica Press) translation [with Rashi's commentary] at Chabad.org
- Christian translations:
- Ecclesiastes: New Revised Standard Version
- Ecclesiastes: Douay Rheims Bible Version Bishop Challoner's Commentaries
- Ecclesiastes at Wikisource (Authorised King James Version)
- Ecclesiastes at United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (New American Bible)
- Ecclesiastes at Bible Gateway (New King James Version)
- A Metaphrase of the Book Of Ecclesiastes by Gregory Thaumaturgus.
- What is Ecclesiastes about?
- Catholic Encyclopedia Ecclesiastes
- Ecclesiastes An Overview - William MacDonald
- Commentary on Ecclesiastes by F.C. Jennings
- Free audiobook of "Ecclesiastes (ASV) — Book 21 of the Holy Scriptures" from LibriVox
- Commentaries on Ecclesiastes at Classic Bible Commentaries
- The Eternal God Is Our Refuge: A Brief Commentary on Ecclesiastes by G. Wolff - err 404:file is missing
Hebrew Bible Succeeded by
Song of Songs
Books of the Bible Principal divisions
Genesis · Exodus · Leviticus · Numbers · Deuteronomy · Joshua · Judges · Ruth · 1-2 Samuel · 1-2 Kings · 1-2 Chronicles · Ezra · Nehemiah · Esther · Job · Psalms · Proverbs · Ecclesiastes · Song · Isaiah · Jeremiah · Lamentations · Ezekiel · Daniel · Hosea · Joel · Amos · Obadiah · Jonah · Micah · Nahum · Habakkuk · Zephaniah · Haggai · Zechariah · MalachiOrthodox
1 Esdras · 2 Esdras · Prayer of Manasseh · Psalm 151 · 3 Maccabees · 4 Maccabees · Odes
Enoch · Jubilees · 1-3 Meqabyan · Paralipomena of Baruch
Matthew · Mark · Luke · John · Acts · Romans · 1 Corinthians · 2 Corinthians · Galatians · Ephesians · Philippians · Colossians · 1 Thessalonians · 2 Thessalonians · 1 Timothy · 2 Timothy · Titus · Philemon · Hebrews · James · 1 Peter · 2 Peter · 1 John · 2 John · 3 John · Jude · Revelation
Subdivisions Development Manuscripts See also Sukkot · סֻכּוֹת RitualsSukkah · Four Species (Lulav • Etrog • Hadass • Aravah) · Simchat Beit HaShoeivah · S'chach Related daysCategories:
- Ancient Middle Eastern wisdom literature
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.