Search Results

Armin Lange

Part of 15 Qohelet - 15.2 Ancient Hebrew Texts Besides mt-Qoh (15.2.2), only two further textual witnesses to the book of Qohelet are known in Hebrew, i.e. 4QQoha (4Q109) and 4QQohb (4Q110).For the descriptions of these manuscripts and their publications, 15.2.1. They will be discussed below. For

Peter J. Gentry

13–17 Five Scrolls 13–17.2 Secondary Translations  13–17.2.4 Late Syriac Translations See 11.4.4 Job, Proverbs, Canticles, and Qohelet in Late Syriac Translations [Job > Secondary Translations]....

Part of 13–17 Five Scrolls - 13–17.2 Secondary Translations - 13–17.2.4 Late Syriac Translations See 11.4.4 Job, Proverbs, Canticles, and Qohelet in Late Syriac Translations [Job ‪>‬ Secondary Translations]....

Part of 13–17 Five Scrolls - 13–17.2 Secondary Translations - 13–17.2.4 Late Syriac Translations See 11.4.4 Job, Proverbs, Canticles, and Qohelet in Late Syriac Translations [Job ‪>‬ Secondary Translations]....

Series:

Jimyung Kim

the first reported discussions of Qohelet” by some early rabbis, the Tannaim, “centers on the book’s contradictions,” and the book was nearly rejected by them for that reason. 6 Indeed according to Graham S. Ogden, Heinrich Heine regarded Qohelet as the “quintessence of scepticism” whereas Franz

Part of 13–17 Five Scrolls - 13–17.1 Primary Translations 13–17.1.1.1 Ruth13–17.1.1.2 Canticles13–17.1.1.3 Qohelet13–17.1.1.4 Lamentations13–17.1.1.5 Esther...

Part of 13–17 Five Scrolls - 13–17.2 Secondary Translations 13–17.2.5.1 Ruth13–17.2.5.2 Canticles13–17.2.5.3 Qohelet13–17.2.5.4 Lamentations13–17.2.5.5 Esther...

Part of 11 Job 11.4.1 Vetus Latina11.4.2 Coptic Translations11.4.3 Ethiopic Translation(s)11.4.4 Job, Proverbs, Canticles, and Qohelet in Late Syriac Translations11.4.5 Armenian Translations11.4.6 Georgian Translations11.4.7 Old Church Slavonic Translations11.4.8 Arabic Translations...

Series:

Jimyung Kim

Most scholars agree that Ecclesiastes has some apparent contradictions, but they have varying opinions regarding the number and nature of Qohelet’s contradictions. For J. A. Loader, for instance, “everything in his [Qohelet’s] book is marked by opposites and tensions—from the broad perspectives of

W. Eugene March

, in Enns’ opinion the linguistic evidence supports the widely held position that the book was written in the postexilic period, and more specifically during the time of Persian dominance (p. 21). The identity of the author is uncertain, but Enns is confident that Qohelet is not a name of an historical