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)

"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)

Stoicism

Are there any reliable sources that link this book with stoicism? Bearian (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)