Ecclesiastes[a] (/ɪˌkliːziˈæstiːz/ih-KLEE-zee-ASS-teez) is one of theKetuvim ('Writings') of theHebrew Bible and part of theWisdom literature of the ChristianOld Testament. The title commonly used in English is a Latintransliteration of the Greek translation of the Hebrew wordקֹהֶלֶת (Kohelet, Koheleth, Qoheleth orQohelet). An unnamed author introduces "The words of Kohelet, son of David, king in Jerusalem" (1:1) and does not use his own voice again until the final verses (12:9–14), where he gives his own thoughts and summarises the statements ofKohelet; the main body of the text is ascribed to Kohelet.
Kohelet proclaims (1:2) "Vanity of vanities! All is futile!" The Hebrew wordhevel, 'vapor' or 'breath', can figuratively mean 'insubstantial', 'vain', 'futile', or 'meaningless'. In some versions, vanity is translated as 'meaningless' to avoid the confusion with the other definition of vanity.[1] Given this, the next verse presents the basicexistential question with which the rest of the book is concerned: "What profit can we show for all our toil, toiling under the sun?" This expresses that the lives of both wise and foolish people all end in death. In light of this perceived meaninglessness, he suggests that human beings 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. The book concludes with the injunction to "Fear God and keep his commandments, for that is the duty of all of mankind. Since every deed will God bring to judgment, for every hidden act, whether good or evil."
According to rabbinic tradition, the book was written byKing Solomon (reignedc. 970–931 BCE) in his old age,[2] but the presence ofPersian loanwords andAramaisms points to a date no earlier thanc. 450 BCE,[3] while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE.[4]
Ecclesiastes is a phonetic transliteration of the Greek wordἘκκλησιαστής (Ekklēsiastēs), which in theSeptuagint translates the Hebrew name of its stated author, Kohelet (קֹהֶלֶת). The Greek word derives fromekklesia ('assembly'),[5] as the Hebrew word derives fromkahal ('assembly'),[6] but while the Greek word means 'member of an assembly',[7] the meaning of the original Hebrew word it translates is less certain.[8] AsStrong's Concordance mentions,[9] it is a femaleactive participle of the verbkahal in its simple (qal) paradigm, a form not used elsewhere in the Bible and which is sometimes understood as active or passive depending on the verb,[b] so that Kohelet would mean '(female) assembler' in the active case (recorded as such byStrong's Concordance),[9] and '(female) assembled, member of an assembly' in thepassive case (as per the Septuagint translators). According to the majority understanding today,[8] the word is a more general (mishkal,מִשְׁקָל) form rather than a literal participle, and the intended meaning ofKohelet in the text is 'someone speaking before an assembly', hence 'Teacher' or 'Preacher'. This was the position of theMidrash[10] and ofJerome.[11]
Ecclesiastes is presented as the biography of "Kohelet" or "Qoheleth"; his story isframed by the voice of the narrator, who refers to Kohelet in thethird person and praises his wisdom but reminds the reader that wisdom has its limitations and is not man's primary concern.[3] Kohelet reports what he planned, did, experienced, and thought, but his journey to knowledge is, in the end, incomplete; the reader is not only to hear Kohelet's wisdom but to observe his journey towards understanding and acceptance of life's frustrations and uncertainties: the journey itself is important.[15]
TheJerusalem Bible divides the book into two parts: Ecclesiastes 1:4–6:12 and chapters 7 to 12, each commencing with a separate prologue.[16]
Few attempts to uncover an underlying structure to Ecclesiastes have met with any widespread endorsement. Among them, the following is one of the more influential:[17]
Title (1:1)
Initial poem (1:2–11)
I: Kohelet's investigation of life (1:12–6:9)
II: Kohelet's conclusions (6:10–11:6)
Introduction (6:10–12)
A: Humankind cannot discover what is good for it to do (7:1–8:17)
B: Humankind does not know what will come after it (9:1–11:6)
Concluding poem (11:7–12:8)
Epilogue (12:9–14)
Despite the acceptance by some of this structure, there have been many criticisms, such as that of Fox: "[Addison G. Wright's] proposed structure has no more effect on interpretation than a ghost in the attic. A literary or rhetorical structure should not merely 'be there'; it mustdo something. It should guide readers in recognizing and remembering the author's train of thought."[18]
Verse 1:1 is a superscription, the ancient equivalent of a title page: it introduces the book as "the words of Kohelet, son of David, king in Jerusalem."[19]
Most, though not all, modern commentators regard the epilogue (12:9–14) as an addition by a later scribe. Some have identified other statements as further additions intended to make the book more religiously orthodox (e.g., affirming God's justice and the need for piety).[20]
It has been proposed that the text is composed of three distinct voices. The first belongs to Qohelet-as-prophet, the "true voice of wisdom",[21] which speaks in the first person, recounting wisdom through his own experience. The second voice is of Qoheleth-the-king (of Jerusalem), who is more didactic and thus speaks primarily in second-person imperative statements. The third voice is that of the epilogist (i.e., thewriter of theepilogue), who speaks proverbially in the third person. The epilogist is most identified in the book's first and final verses. Kyle R. Greenwood suggests that Ecclesiastes should be read as a dialogue between these voices following this structure.[21]
The ten-verse introduction in verses 1:2–11 are the words of the frame narrator; they set the mood for what is to follow. Kohelet's message is that all is meaningless.[19] This distinction first appeared in the commentaries ofSamuel ibn Tibbon (d. 1230) andAaron ben Joseph of Constantinople (d. 1320).[22]
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
After the introduction come the words of Kohelet. As king, he has experienced everything and done everything, but concludes that nothing is ultimately reliable, as death levels all. Kohelet states that the only good is to partake of life in the present, for enjoyment is from the hand of God. Everything is ordered in time and people are subject to time in contrast to God's eternal character. The world is filled with injustice, which only God will adjudicate. God and humans do not belong in the same realm, and it is therefore necessary to have a right attitude before God. People should enjoy, but should not be greedy; no one knows what is good for humanity; righteousness and wisdom escape humanity. Kohelet reflects on the limits of human power: all people face death, and death is better than life, but people should enjoy life when they can, for a time may come when no one can. The world is full of risk: he gives advice on living with risk, both political and economic. Kohelet's words finish with imagery of nature languishing and humanity marching to the grave.[23]
The frame narrator returns with an epilogue: the words of the wise are hard, but they are applied as the shepherd applies goads and pricks to his flock. The ending of the book sums up its message: "Fear God and keep his commandments for God will bring every deed to judgment."[24] Some scholars suggest 12:13–14 were an addition by a more orthodox author than the original writer[25][26] (that the epilogue was added later was first proposed bySamuel ibn Tibbon);[22] others[who?] think it is likely the work of the original author.[27]
King Solomon in Old Age byGustave Doré (1866), a depiction of the purported author of Ecclesiastes, according to rabbinic tradition
The book takes its name from the Greekekklēsiastēs, a translation of the title by which the central figure refers to himself: "Kohelet", meaning something like "one who convenes or addresses an assembly".[28] According to rabbinic tradition, Ecclesiastes was written byKing Solomon in his old age[2] (an alternative tradition that "Hezekiah and his colleagues wroteIsaiah,Proverbs, theSong of Songs and Ecclesiastes" probably means simply that the book was edited under Hezekiah),[29] but critical scholars have long rejected the idea of apre-exilic origin.[30][31] In Ecclesiastes, the author never says the name "Solomon, but he does say that he is the son of David, who is the king in Jerusalem, and that he is fantastically rich and wise. In other words, he is claiming to be Solomon without using his name."[32] According to Christian tradition, the book was probably written by another Solomon (Gregory of Nyssa wrote that it was written by another Solomon;[33]Didymus the Blind wrote that it was probably written by several authors[34]). The presence ofPersian loanwords and numerousAramaisms points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE,[3] while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when the Jewish writerBen Sira quotes from it.[4] The dispute as to whether Ecclesiastes belongs to thePersian or theHellenistic periods (i.e., the earlier or later part of this period) revolves around the degree ofHellenization (influence of Greek culture and thought) present in the book. Scholars arguing for a Persian date (c. 450–330 BCE) hold that there is a complete lack of Greek influence;[3] those who argue for a Hellenistic date (c. 330–180 BCE) argue that it shows internal evidence of Greek thought and social setting.[35]
Also unresolved is whether the author and narrator of Kohelet are identical. Ecclesiastes regularly switches between third-person quotations of Kohelet and first-person reflections on Kohelet's words, which would indicate the book was written as a commentary on Kohelet's parables rather than a personally-authored repository of his sayings. Some scholars have argued that the third-person narrative structure is an artificial literary device along the lines ofUncle Remus, although the description of the Kohelet in 12:8–14 seems to favour a historical person whose thoughts are presented by the narrator.[36] It has been argued, however, that the question has no theological importance;[36] one scholar (Roland Murphy) has commented that Kohelet himself would have regarded the time and ingenuity put into interpreting his book as "one more example of thefutility of human effort."[37]
Ecclesiastes has taken its literary form from the Middle Eastern tradition of the fictional autobiography, in which a character, often a king, relates his experiences and draws lessons from them, often self-critical: Kohelet likewise identifies himself as a king, speaks of his search for wisdom, relates his conclusions, and recognises his limitations.[15] The book belongs to the category ofwisdom literature, the body of biblical writings which give advice on life, together with reflections on its problems and meanings—other examples include theBook of Job,Proverbs, and some of thePsalms. Ecclesiastes differs from the other biblical Wisdom books in being deeply skeptical of the usefulness of wisdom itself.[38] Ecclesiastes in turn influenced thedeuterocanonical works,Wisdom of Solomon andSirach, both of which contain vocal rejections of the Ecclesiastical philosophy of futility.
Wisdom was a popular genre in the ancient world, where it was cultivated in scribal circles and directed towards young men who would take up careers in high officialdom and royal courts; there is strong evidence that some of these books, or at least sayings and teachings, were translated into Hebrew and influenced the Book of Proverbs, and the author of Ecclesiastes was probably familiar with examples from Egypt and Mesopotamia.[39] He may also have been influenced by Greek philosophy, specifically the schools ofStoicism, which held that all things are fated, andEpicureanism, which held that happiness was best pursued through the quiet cultivation of life's simpler pleasures.[40]
Though many earlier theologians, including Augustine and John Calvin, raised no concerns regarding Ecclesiastes' position or consistency within the canon,[41][42] the book's presence in the Bible has been considered a puzzle to some modern scholars. One argument advanced in earlier times was that the name of Solomon carried enough authority to ensure its inclusion; however, other works which appeared with Solomon's name were excluded despite being more orthodox than Ecclesiastes.[43] Another was that the words of the epilogue, in which the reader is told to fear God and keep his commandments, made it orthodox; but all later attempts to find anything in the rest of the book that would reflect this orthodoxy have failed. A modern suggestion treats the book as a dialogue in which different statements belong to different voices, with Kohelet himself answering and refuting unorthodox opinions, but there are no explicit markers for this in the book, as there are (for example) in the Book of Job.
Yet another suggestion is that Ecclesiastes is simply the most extreme example of a tradition of skepticism, but none of the proposed examples match Ecclesiastes for a sustained denial of faith and doubt in the goodness of God. Martin A. Shields, in his 2006 bookThe End of Wisdom: A Reappraisal of the Historical and Canonical Function of Ecclesiastes, summarized that "In short, we do not know why or how this book found its way into such esteemed company".[44]
Scholars disagree about the themes of Ecclesiastes: whether it ispositive and life-affirming, or deeplypessimistic;[45] whether it is coherent or incoherent, insightful or confused, orthodox or heterodox; whether the ultimate message of the book is to copy Kohelet, "the wise man," or to avoid his errors.[46] At times, Kohelet raises deep questions; he "doubted every aspect of religion, from the very ideal of righteousness, to the by now traditional idea of divine justice for individuals".[47] Some passages of Ecclesiastes seem to contradict other portions of the Hebrew Bible, and even itself.[45] TheTalmud even suggests that the rabbis consideredcensoring Ecclesiastes due to its seeming contradictions.[48] One suggestion for resolving the contradictions is to read the book as the record of Kohelet's quest for knowledge: opposing judgments (e.g., "the dead are better off than the living" (4:2) vs. "a living dog is better off than a dead lion" (9:4)) are therefore provisional, and it is only at the conclusion that the verdict is delivered (11–12:7). On this reading, Kohelet's sayings aregoads, designed to provoke dialogue and reflection in his readers, rather than to reach premature and self-assured conclusions.[49]
The subjects of Ecclesiastes are the pain and frustration engendered by observing and meditating on the distortions and inequities pervading the world, the uselessness of human ambition, and the limitations of worldly wisdom and righteousness. The phrase "under the sun" appears twenty-nine times in connection with these observations; all this coexists with a firm belief in God, whose power, justice, and unpredictability are sovereign.[50] History and nature move in cycles so that all events are predictable and unchangeable, and life, without the Sun, has no meaning or purpose: the wise man and the man who does not study wisdom will both die and be forgotten: man should be reverent (i.e., fear God), but in this life it is best to enjoy God's gifts simply.[40]
In Judaism, Ecclesiastes is read either onShemini Atzeret (byYemenites,Italians, someSephardim, and the mediaeval French Jewish rite) or on theShabbat of theintermediate days ofSukkot (byAshkenazim). If there is no intermediate Shabbat of Sukkot, Ashkenazim too read it on Shemini Atzeret (or, in 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 and to carry over the happiness of Sukkot to the rest of the year by telling the listeners that, without God, life is meaningless.
The 20th-century Catholic theologian and cardinal-electHans Urs von Balthasar discussed Ecclesiastes in his work on theological aesthetics,The Glory of the Lord. He describes Qoheleth as "acritical transcendentalistavant la lettre", whose God is distant from the world, and whosekairos is a "form of time which is itself empty of meaning". For Balthasar, the role of Ecclesiastes in the Biblical canon is to represent the "final dance on the part of wisdom, [the] conclusion of the ways of man", a logical end-point to the unfolding of human wisdom in the Old Testament that paves the way for the advent of the New.[55]
The book continues to be cited by recentpopes, includingJohn Paul II andFrancis. John Paul II, in his general audience of October 20, 2004, called the author of Ecclesiastes "an ancient biblical sage" whose description of death "makes frantic clinging to earthly things completely pointless".[56] Pope Francis cited Ecclesiastes in his address on September 9, 2014. Speaking of vain people, he said, "How many Christians live for appearances? Their life seems like asoap bubble."[57]
The thought and language of Ecclesiastes bears certain similarities to that of theDaode Jing, the foundational text ofDaoism, traditionally attributed to the 5th century BCE.[58]
Ecclesiastes has had a deep influence on Western literature. It contains several phrases that have resonated in British and American culture, such as "eat, drink and be merry", "nothing new under the sun", "a time to be born and a time to die", and "vanity of vanities; all is vanity".[59] American novelistThomas Wolfe wrote: "[O]f all I have ever seen or learned, that 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."[60]
Leo Tolstoy'sConfession describes how the reading of Ecclesiastes affected his life.
The historical novelThe Egyptian byMika Waltari serves as the narrator's autobiographical meditation on the inherent meaningless of existence and the constancy of human nature akin to the Ecclesiastes. Numerous passages and forms of figurative speech from the biblical book are paraphrased across the novel, such as Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 and 1:18.[68]
Robert Burns' "Address to the Unco Guid" begins with a verse appeal to Ecclesiastes 7:16.
The title ofEdith Wharton's novelThe House of Mirth was taken from Ecclesiastes 7:4 ("The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.").[71]
The title ofLaura Lippman's novelEvery Secret Thing and that ofits film adaptation come from Ecclesiastes 12:14 ("For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whetherit be good, or whetherit be evil.").[75]
The title and theme of George R. Stewart's post-apocalyptic novelEarth Abides is from Ecclesiastes 1:4.
In the dystopian novelFahrenheit 451,Ray Bradbury's main character,Montag, memorizes much of Ecclesiastes and Revelation in a world where books are forbidden and burned[79][80]
The opening quote in the moviePlatoon byOliver Stone is taken from Ecclesiastes 11:9.
The essay "Politics and the English Language" byGeorge Orwell uses Ecclesiastes 9:11 as an example of clear and vivid writing, and "translates" it into "modern English of the worst sort" to demonstrate common failings of the latter.[81]
^abGreenwood, Kyle R. (2012). "Debating Wisdom: The Role of Voice in Ecclesiastes".The Catholic Biblical Quarterly.74 (3):476–491.ISSN0008-7912.JSTOR43727985.
^ab"פרוש כתובים לשמואל אבן תבון (קהלת)".www.nli.org.il. Retrieved2022-08-20. Also cited byזא"ב; see (1878)Binyamin ze'ev yitrof: Notes from various authors on Psalms, Job, the Megilloth (except Ruth) and Ezra. Amsterdam: LevissonNLR Ms. EVR I 596;Mivhar Yesharim ed. Firkovitch (1835) ad loc.
^Augustine, Saint, City of God, Book 20, Chapter 3.
^Calvin, John, "Chapter 5," in Institutes of the christian religion: Book second, edited by Henry Beveridge (Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2017), 210.
^von Balthasar, Hans Urs (1991).The Glory of the Lord. Volume VI: Theology: The Old Covenant. Translated by Brian McNeil and Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis. Edinburgh:T&T Clark. pp. 137–143.
^Heard, R. Christopher. 1996. "The Dao of Qoheleth: An Intertextual Reading of the Daode Jing and the Book of Ecclesiastes." Jian Dao: A Journal of Bible & Theology, Volume 5: 65-93.
^Printz, John Robert. "The Relevance of Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes to the Theme of 'The Waste Land' (T.S. Eliot)." American University ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, ProQuest, 1968. Accessed December 11, 2024.
^Booth, Allyson. "And the dead tree gives no shelter": Ecclesiastes." Reading The Waste Land from the Bottom Up. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2015.
^Alkafaji, Saad Najim. "The Use of Allusions in T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land."Alusatath Journal for Human and Social Sciences, vol. 1, 2018, p. 81.
^Diane, D'Amico.Christina Rossetti: Face, Gender, and Time, pp. 80–85, Louisiana State University Press. 1999.
^Envall, Markku (1994).Suuri illusionisti: Mika Waltarin romaanit (in Finnish). Porvoo Helsinki Juva: WSOY. pp. 184–185.ISBN978-951-0-19650-2.
^Faulstick, Dustin. "Wharton, Hemingway, Ecclesiastes, and the Modernist Impulse." Wharton, Hemingway, and the Advent of Modernism, edited by Lisa Tyler, et al, Louisiana State University Press, 2019, pp. 189–208.
^Byrd, Scott. "The Fractured Crystal In 'Middlemarch' and 'The Golden Bowl.'"Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, 1972–73, pp. 551–554, JSTOR,https://www.jstor.org/stable/26278841. Accessed 6 Jan. 2025.
^Bradbury, Ray.Fahrenheit 451. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1979: (144). Print..
^Frenning, Henric. Burning the Good Book: Religion and ideology in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Lund, Sweden: lup.lub.lu.se, 2018 (8). Web.
^Mahan, Kevin Paul. "It Was and It Isn’t: A Rhetorical Exploration of Simulacra in Emerging Church Vintage Worship." Scholars Crossing, May 2008,https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/17/. Accessed 7 Jan. 2025.
Diderot, Denis (1752). "Canon".The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Translated by Susan Emanuel.hdl:2027/spo.did2222.0000.566. Trans. of "Canon",Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol. 2. Paris, 1752.
Seow, C. L. (2007)."Ecclesiastes". In Coogan, Michael D. (ed.).The New Oxford Annotated Bible (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-528880-3.
.png)
