Bickell’s theory that the passages which assert or suggest Solomonic authorship in i. 1, 12, 16, ii. 7, 8, 9, [12], are due to an interpolator,[[419]] is plausible; it throws a new light on the statement of the Epilogue (xii. 9) that ‘Koheleth was a wise man,’ and a motive for the interpolation can be readily imagined—the desire to obtain ecclesiastical sanction for the book. It is, however, incapable of proof.
II.
There are in fact few books on Ecclesiastes so stimulating as Bickell’s, though it needs to be read with discrimination[[420]] (comp. p. [241]). Putting aside the author’s peculiar theory, it must be owned that he has enabled us to realise the inherent difficulties of the text as it stands, and contributed some very happy corrections. All critics will admit the need of such emendations. The text of Koheleth is even more faulty than that of Job, Psalms, or Proverbs. We cannot wonder at this. Meditations often so fragmentary on such a difficult subject were foredoomed to suffer greatly at the hands of copyists. A minute study of the various readings and of the corrections which have been proposed would lead us too far, interesting as it would be (compare Renan’s remarks, L’Ecclésiaste, p. 53). Cappellus (Louis Cappel) has done most for the text among the earlier critics (see his Critica Sacra, Par. 1650); Grätz has also made useful suggestions based upon the versions. Renan, and (as we have seen) Bickell, have corrected the text on a larger scale; occasional emendations of great value are due to Hitzig, Delitzsch, Klostermann, and Krochmal. The notes in the expected new edition of Eyre and Spottiswoode’s Variorum Bible will indicate the most important various readings and corrections; to these I would refer the reader. The corrections of Bickell are those least known to most students. In considering them, we must distinguish between those which arise out of his peculiar critical theory and those which are simply the outcome of his singular and brilliant insight. Of the latter, I will here only mention two. One occurs in iii. 11, where for אֶת־הָעֹלָם (or אֶת־הָעוֹלָם the Oriental or Babylonian reading), he gives (see below, p. [299]) לְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת־כָּל־הֶעָלֻם, remarking that כָּל־ survived in the text translated in the Septuagint. The fact is, however, that though Cod. Vat. does read σύμπαντα τὸν αἰῶνα, Cod. Alex., Cod. Sin., and the Complutensian ed. all read σὺν τὸν αἰῶνα, and as the verse begins Τὰ σύμπαντα (v. l. Σύμπαντα) it is probable enough that σύμπαντα was written the second time in Cod. Vat. by mistake. At any rate, copyists both of the Greek and of the Hebrew were sometimes inclined to insert or omit ‘all’ at haphazard; thus, in iv. 2, Cod. Vat. inserts ‘all,’ which is omitted in Cod. Alex. and Cod. Sin.
Another, adopted above at p. [220], is in viii. 10. Read וְּבָמקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ ויהַלְּכוּ (or נִקְבָּדִים) כְּבֵדִים. ובאו is a fragment of the correct reading ובמקום which stood side by side with the alternative reading וממקום.
On the question of interpolations, enough has been said already. Probably Cornill’s book on Ezekiel will dispose many critics to look more favourably on attempts to purify Biblical texts from glosses and other interpolations. Grätz’s conclusion certainly cannot be maintained, ‘Sämmtliche Sentenzen gehören streng zu ihrer nachbarlichen Gedankengruppe, führen den Gedanken weiter oder spitzen ihn zu.’
I have still to speak of the Septuagint version. Its importance for textual criticism is great; indeed, we may say with Klostermann that the Massoretic text and this translation are virtually two copies of one and the same archetype. It is distinguished from the Septuagint versions of the Books of Job, Proverbs, and even Psalms by its fidelity. Those versions approximate more or less closely to the elegant manner of Symmachus, but the Greek style of the Septuagint Koheleth is most peculiar, admitting such words as ἀντίῤῥησις, ἔγκοπος, ἐκκλησιαστής, ἐντρύφημα, ἐπικοσμειν, παραφορά, περιουσιασμός, περιφέρεια, περισπασμός, προαίρεσις (in special sense, ii. 17) ἐξουσιάζειν (not less than eleven times), and such abnormal phrases as ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον (i. 3 and often), and especially σὺν, as an equivalent of את when distinctive of the accusative (ii. 17, iii. 10, iv. 3, vii. 15, and nine other passages; elsewhere σύμπαντα or the like). The last-named peculiarity reminds us strongly of Aquila[[421]] (comp. [God created] σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γην, Aquila’s rendering of Gen. i. 1); but it must be also mentioned that in more than half the passages in which את of the accusative occurs in the original, this characteristic rendering of Aquila is not found. This fact militates against the theory of Grätz,[[422]] that the Septuagint version of Ecclesiastes is really the second improved edition of Aquila, and against that of Salzberger,[[423]] who argues that the fragments given as from Aquila in Origen’s Hexapla are not really Aquila’s at all, the one and only true edition of Aquila’s Ecclesiastes being that now extant in the Septuagint (comp. the case of Theodotion’s Daniel). It seems clear that the Septuagint version, as it stands, is a composite one, but it is possible, as Montfaucon long ago pointed out,[[424]] that an early version once existed, independent of Aquila. The question of the origin of this version is of some critical importance, for if the work of Aquila, the Septuagint Ecclesiastes cannot be earlier than 130 A.D. Supposing this to be the first Greek version of the book, we obtain an argument in favour of the Herodian date of Ecclesiastes advocated by Grätz. Upon the whole, however, there seems no sufficient reason for doubting that there was a Septuagint version of the book distinct from Aquila’s, as indeed Origen’s Hexapla and St. Jerome in the preface to his commentary attest, and that this version in its original form goes back, like the versions of Job and Proverbs, to one of the last centuries before Christ.
On the Peshitto version of Koheleth and Ruth there is a monograph by G. Janichs, Animadversiones criticæ &c. (Breslau, 1871), with which compare Nöldeke’s review, Lit. Centralblatt, 1871, No. 49. For the text of the Græcus Venetus, see Gebhardt’s edition (Leipz. 1874). Ginsburg’s well-known work (1861) contains sections on the versions.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE CANONICITY OF ECCLESIASTES AND ECCLESIASTICUS.
I.
It is not surprising that these strange Meditations should have had great difficulty in penetrating into the Canon. There is sufficient evidence (see the works of Plumptre and Wright)[[425]] that the so-called Wisdom of Solomon is in part a deliberate contradiction of sentiments expressed in our book. The most striking instance of this antagonism is in Wisd. ii. 6-10 (cf. Eccles. ix. 7-9), where the words of Koheleth are actually put into the mouth of the ungodly libertines of Alexandria. The date of Wisdom is disputed, but cannot be earlier than the reign of Ptolemy VII. Physcon (B.C. 145-117). The attitude of the writer towards Koheleth may perhaps be compared with that of the Palestinian teachers who relegated the book among the apocrypha on this among other grounds, that it contained heretical statements, e.g. ‘Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth’ &c. (xi. 9). Nothing is more certain than that the Book of Koheleth was an Antilegomenon in Palestine in the first century before Christ. And yet it certainly had its friends and supporters both then and later. Simeon ben Shetach and his brother-in-law, King Alexander Jannæus (B.C. 105-79), were as familiar with Koheleth as the young men of Alexandria, and Simeon, according to the Talmudic story[[426]] (Bereshith Rabba, c. 91), quoted Eccles. vii. 12a with a prefix (דכתיב ‘as it is written’) proper to a Biblical quotation. From another Talmudic narrative (Baba bathra, 4a) it would seem that Koheleth was cited in the time of Herod the Great as of equal authority with the Pentateuch, and from a third (Shabbath, 30b) that St. Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, permitted quotations from our book equally with those from canonical Scriptures. Like the Song of Songs, however, it called forth a lively opposition from severe judges. The schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided on the merits of these books. At first the Shammaites, who were adverse to them, carried a majority of the votes of the Jewish doctors. But when, after the destruction of Jerusalem, Jewish learning reorganised itself at Jamnia (4-½ leagues south of Jaffa), the opposite view (viz. that the Song and Koheleth ‘defile the hands’—i.e. are holy Scriptures) was again brought forward in a synod held about A.D. 90, and finally sanctioned in a second synod held A.D. 118. The arguments urged on both sides were such as belong to an uncritical age. No attempt was made to penetrate into the spirit and object of Koheleth, but test passages were singled out. The heretically sounding words in xi. 9a were at first held by some to be decisive against the claim of canonicity, but—we are told—when the ‘wise men’ took the close of the verse into consideration (‘but know that for all this God will bring thee into the judgment’), they exclaimed יפה אמר שלמה, ‘Solomon has spoken appropriately.’[[427]]