Talk:Ecclesiastes

Untitled

Can I add some information to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apokryphos (talk • contribs) 00:29, 2003 December 17 (UTC)

I've added information to this. ~apokryphos aka Francis G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.210.244 (talk) 22:05, 2003 December 17 (UTC)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaseh1030 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 2006 July 30 (UTC)

What About Canon?

I'm surprised not a single soul has pointed this out so far, but this needs to be pointed out. 1 Kings 3:11-12 (KJV, my personal go-to) (11) And God said unto [Solomon], Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment; (12) Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. It's spelled out very clearly what kind of position Solomon is in. And said position just so happens to be the exact position of the Preacher as he describes himself in Ecclesiastes (see verse 1:16). Even identifies as the son of David. Which raises the question: what scholarly body rejects canon? And on what grounds? It seems clear to me that neither of these questions have been addressed, because I've seen no reference to this verse anywhere on this wiki page. In other words, no judgment was made that had taken into account an absolutely crucial piece of information. The current line of reasoning posted on the page, about the earliest manuscripts discovered using words from such-and-such society/language, seems to base itself upon an assumption. Specifically, that the manuscripts available to us are in the original language, and not a translation. It's quite possible that the copies we possess had gone through a few rounds of translation from the original. Adapted by different societies, different generations, which both change over time, just as English is a changing language even today. Just my two cents. I have a few more things to point out, because Ecclesiastes is a beautiful book.

    Eccl. 1:6 - "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits."
    -  The Coriolis effect, more than two millennia before its discovery by modern society in 1835.
    Eccl. 1:7 - "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again."
    -  The water cycle, though I'm hardly the first to point this one out.
    Eccl. 1:15 - "That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered."
    -  Describes the nature of brittle solids, but more importantly the concept of zero!
    Eccl. 3:14-15 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. (15) That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past."
    -  Continuity in the universe we live in;  not only in terms of the past/present/future, but what can be done with the elements of said universe.  *cough cough* Laws of conservation *cough cough*
    Ecc. 11:1 - "Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days."
    - Ah, the cycle of life.  Biological fuel sources (e.g. the calories in bread) supply nutrients to the organisms around them as they decompose, thus becoming part of another visible form of life.
    Eccl. 11:3 - "If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be."
    -  Gravity!
    Eccl. 11:7 - "Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun:"
    -  hey kids remember to get your daily dose of serotonin.  This ^ action, of looking at the sun for even a couple of seconds, directly corresponds to a serotonin release.

...that's all I have for now. Though even then I'm just scratching the surface. Within this book is advice, knowledge, (& wisdom lol) that can sustainably replace most if not all forms of therapy. I speak from a depth of experience in the matter: learning the central role of the heart in the human experience, and how to keep it in good condition, has changed my life permanently for the better. See for yourself. Mourn, vent, and free your spirit. It's like unclogging water pipes, but instead you're working with life itself (and thus the ability to feel happy in any and every way). Forgetmenaut (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Great comments, I suggest that you edit this article with your canon comment. It is needed. Allos Genos (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:CHOPSY and WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, are you suggesting that someone who believes Ecclesiastes is canon should not edit this page? Please elaborate Allos Genos (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? Of course it is part of the canon of the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament. Nobody denied that.

Also, on the points made above: we cannot accept original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Who is: "WE" in your statement "WE cannot accept?" And why are you directing me to WP:NOBIGOTS - when I referred to Forgetmenaut's canon comment? I would recommend that you do not direct readers to your own page that you created, please stick to directing readers to Wikipedia policy pages (and not your own original content).

I agree that this is a beautiful book, but what exactly is Forgetmenaut suggesting? What edits? Achar Sva (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup, they did not know Netwon's works, but they knew that gravity exists. As far back into the past as you wish, Homo sapiens sapiens still knew that gravity exists.

Also, looking directly at the Sun is not even remotely advisable. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

hevel - does it also mean breath and impermanence?

I remember hearing a derasha where the Rabbi, discussed vapor as meaning breath , and that rather than just insubstantial, it also meant impermanence. Is this backed up? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. This can be traced back to the original Hevel, who was Abel, brother of Cain, whose life was cut short (seemingly without purpose). A theory is this word hevel came from Hevel (Abel) due to his untimely death. Allos Genos (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

As Joel Baden says on YouTube, we no longer know what hevel means, but in the context it has something to do with wetness. The Book of Genesis: An Online Bible Study; Session 1, January 18, 2021 on YouTube, Yale Bible Study.

Maybe I have conflated between ve·'ed and hevel, anyway, you get the idea: these are words which don't appear many times in the Hebrew Bible, so we cannot be very sure of what they mean. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, hebel has a long tradition of having something to do with breath or air, and it's considered almost onomatopoetic, which has always struck me as sort of self-evident when you hear the Hebrew. I am mindful that this is WP:OR, of course, and just wanted to chip in a thought here. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid Very interesting observation on the sound of the word (onomatopoetic). I have not heard that before, but it makes sense. Have a good weekend. Allos Genos (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you have confused the two... ve·'ed is used twice in the Hebrew Bible (also used in Job), and it is difficult to know exactly what it means but we know it is something "wet" due to the context of the passage in Genesis which refers to ve·'ed watering the land. The word hevel, however, is used over 70 times in the Hebrew Bible, so I would not compare its frequency with ve·'ed. Allos Genos (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

To help: The word is 'ed, not ve·'ed, the ve being a prefix meaning "and" which is attached in Genesis. Both examples must by context refer to a water-source, and Assyrian 'edu contributes a number of further examples. This meaning has been consensus/known since antiquity.

Hevel also can be established to mean both literal "air" and figurative "nothingness" by use of parallels like Is. 57:13 ". . . lifted by the wind, taken by the hevel . . ." (maybe also Jer. 14:22) and Prov. 31:30 "Falseness of the allure, hevel of the beauty . . ." (and many other examples and contexts). Also a Qumran reference to "winds of hevel"; Amoraic idiom for "to heat liquid" is "to increase hevel" (steam) and for "to be healthy" is to "to give off hevel in the bath" (sweat). In Aramaic (Talmudic and Syriac) you have "to release hevel" (breathe) and many more examples for both "air" and "nothingness".

In terms of other proposals: Connection to Abel and onomatopoeia IMO very unlikely but who knows. "Vanity" is correct in the original sense of "nothingness" but should not be taken in the modern sense of "excessive pride". Impermanence: seems like a good read of the sense of Ecclesiastes ch. 1. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Great insight GordonGlottal. LXX translates as mataiotes. Rom 8:20 mataiotes is translated as futility or frailty (AMP). Ps 144:4 man (adam) is like hevel (abel). Fleeting, vapor, futile, vain, shadow, breath, all used to describe this word. My choice? "Purposelessness." Way too many letters for translations, and not ever used in discussions, but of all the English single word options, I think it fits the context of mataiotes / hevel in Ecc best. Allos Genos (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Years ago, as an undergrad assignment, I translated all of Qoheleth. My choice for verse 1:2? "Ephemerality of ephemeralities, all is ephemeral!" I stand by it in terms of meaning, but certainly think I could have done better for euphony. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I know that's one traditional Rabbinic read of Ps. 144:4 but I don't find it convincing. It makes perfect sense literally, as

Lord! What is Man that you attend him/

Humanity, that you think of him?

Man is like air/

His life passes like shadow.

You can find exactly the same meaning, using the word neshama instead of hevel, in Is. 2:22,

Desist ye from Man/

Who has breath in his nose.

What is he that you think of him?

Or with ruah in Ps. 103:15,

Man's lifetime is that of grass/

His floruit that of wildflowers.

When wind passes it is gone/

Its place shall know it no more.

Comparing Man to air/breath/wind is a recurring stylistic element in self-deprecatory Biblical-poetic invocations of God, so it's a big stretch to claim a homiletical connection to Genesis.

GordonGlottal (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

GordonGlottal, while I don't disagree, I think the "man is like grass" simile of Psalm 103 is something else. ruach is here clearly not referring to the people themselves--compare Deutero-Isaiah, verse 40:6 et seq (All flesh is grass...). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Well we're way off topic :) I think you can read it both ways. In Is. 40 it's quite clear, here much vaguer. Cf. Job 7:9-10:

A cloud fades away/

So too the moribund will not return.

He will not come home/

His place shall know him no more.

Psalm 37 is similarly vague:

For they will soon be mowed like grass/

Like lush greenery wither away . . .

I saw a powerful villain/

A well rooted and healthy tree.

And he (=He?) passed, and (he?) was gone/

And I sought him, but he wasn't there.

GordonGlottal (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to simply ignore me, as you're right, we're pretty far afield; but I don't understand why you reference Psalm 37:36? It's a funny little verse in the Hebrew, but I don't see an air/wind reference there? Thanks for humoring my old fascinations for so long. Dumuzid (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The language is extremely similar: Man is compared to plants and then something "passed and was gone." If there was an explicit object, like "God passed and the villain was gone" or "The villain passed and was gone" it could provide evidence for Ps. 103. But it doesn't really add information because it's just as vague. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ephemerality is an excellent choice, I have never considered the similarity before. Just as a side note, "ephemeros" is used in James 2:15 which may have been an origin of our current use? Allos Genos (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The use of mataiotes in the NT had nothing to do with wind. It is the futile element that is also found in Ecc. Wind has no context here for hevel (abel)/ mataiotes. No translation uses vapor or wind that I am aware of for Ecc 1:2 For Ps 144:4, I would think most agree with you on this passage, but IMO a play on words is used here (at the very least) that is not understood in our language. The words are still adam is like abel regardless of meaning. No translators translate the original abel (hevel) anywhere in scripture as abel except for Abel son of Adam. But Hebrew readers would have seen this correlation when reading. Allos Genos (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"Christian" Old Testament?

The article states that Ecclesiastes is part of the Wisdom literature of the Christian Old Testament. Isn't that a contradiction? The "old" testament is the Torah and existed prior to Christianity. The word christian should be removed. 2A02:8070:2482:2CC0:CC6E:FEF:F6F:FBE1 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

As opposed to the Jewish Tanakh, where it is in a different section. StAnselm (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a contradiction. The article is correct stating Ecclesiastes is part of the Christian Old Testament, which was the previous covenant before Christ. The article also states that the book is part of the Ketuvim, which is also correct. Allos Genos (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Late to the party, but in case anyone else comes along, this is correct. Jews do not call the Torah the Old Testament, obviously. 32.220.216.27 (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)