Fox, M. V. Ecclesiastes. JPS Bible Commentary. JPS, 2004 (87 pp.). A manageable, phrase-by-phrase commentary on a perplexing book. A particular strength of F is his sensitivity to the textual nuances of Hebrew poetry, so he is very much at home in this part of the OT. Though the treatment is brief and refrains from tedium, it should not be considered a light read. Readers will appreciate the close and careful observations, as well as the interaction with Jewish scholarship. To maximize the commentary's usefulness, a basic knowledge of Hebrew will be required. But even those without may find F's explanations sufficient.

Longman, T. The Book of Ecclesiastes. NICOT. Eerdmans, 1998 (306 pp.). L includes a helpful discussion (most of these commentators do) about the structure of Ecclesiastes, in which there is a frame (1:1-11; 12:9-14) which encloses the deliberations of Qoheleth (1:12-12:8), and how this affects the communication and meaning of the material. However, it might be that he overemphasizes the distinction between the two (the narrator and Qoheleth) as well as the similarity between Qoheleth and other ancient Near Eastern literature, so that the book begins to fragment, and any corroboration between the message we hear from the narrator and the message we hear from Qohelet is compromised. Not overly technical, but good textual discussion.

Murphy, R. Ecclesiastes. WBC. Word Books, 1992 (170 pp.). Similar to Longman in that M's gaze is distracted by the relationship between Ecclesiastes and other ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. Not as attentive as (or perhaps simply stands opposed to) the other commentators here regarding the book's structure and the importance this holds for interpreting its theological content. For M, Ecclesiastes is more like a stream of consciousness than it is a bracketed (and therefore coherent) testimony of measured, intellectual energy. M does work with the text, and it is always helpful to read those who take exception with a consensus, so its value will be in paper writing, where clear expressions of opposing interpretive perspectives make their contribution.

Provan, I. Ecclesiastes/Song of Songs. NIVAC. Zondervan, 2001 (399 pp.). Probably the most readable commentaries reviewed here, and given the complexity of the book, this is certainly a selling point. However, ease comes with a price, and P's is perhaps the weakest exegetically. Conclusions reached by P's readers about this or that theological point in Ecclesiastes must certainly be tempered—either by remaining open to changing one's opinion or by consulting other commentaries (both is ideal). Probably best to be treated as an initiation to the book and followed perhaps by Fox's 2004 study.

Seow, C.-L. Ecclesiastes. AB. Doubleday, 1997 (419 pp.). Perhaps the best exegetical treatment of the lot here. S is a Hebrew grammarian, and it shows in his treatment of Ecclesiastes. His reading pays careful attention not only to textual nuances, but to the mood of the book's rhetoric as well. Anchor Bible's commentaries tend to be fairly thorough, and S's is no exception (some may call it encyclopedic). As such, it serves as a valuable resource for the study of the book, and an excellent exercise in Hebrew exegesis. The trade-off is that the contribution may be lost on those without a good foundation in Hebrew. On the other hand, there is plenty of discussion (even if it is punctuated by transliterations). Those who can't decide should probably go ahead and get it for the library.