This thesis is an attempt at answering the question “What can the limited use of Ecclesiastes in the lectionary cycle tell us about the position of the Old Testament in the Church of Norway?” It began with a declaration of appreciation for the book of Ecclesiastes, and an expression of regret that Ecclesiastes and other Old Testament texts which follow a different pattern than those who fit well in with the Christian salvation history narrative seem to be underrepresented and undervalued in the lectionary in the Church of Norway. Ecclesiastes was used as a case study of how the two most recent lectionaries, Kirkeårets tekster (1977) and Tekstbok for Den norske kirke (2012), treat such difficult texts. The vantage point in this endeavour has been what the author called a canonical perspective, which might serve to open up the Church of Norway's view on and use of Scripture, from a narrowly Christocentric focus which always looks for the so-called “dimension of hope” to a deeper appreciation of the diversity of canon. In analyzing the pericopes present in the two lectionaries, and the principles which guided the people who chose them, it was discovered that there has been a fundamental shift these past decades in how the Church of Norway perceives and makes use of even the difficult texts of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, the figures also convey to what extent the distribution of pericopes is still skewed. The three pericopes from Ecclesiastes which are part of the current lectionary all have their qualities, both in themselves and at least one in context. But especially the practice of compilation, which the Subcommittee which made Tekstbok for Den norske kirke (2012) had intended to leave behind altogether, has led to an obscuring of the specifically Ecclesiastian quality which could have fulfilled the principle of representativeness more successfully. After comparing both the principles and results of Kirkeårets tekster (1977) and Tekstbok for Den norske kirke (2012), it is clear that there has indeed been a quiet revolution in the position of the Old Testament in the Church of Norway. What is equally clear to the author is the need for this revolution to become more fully implemented in practice.