CHAPTER XII.

TEXTUAL PROBLEMS OF KOHELETH.

I.

According to Delitzsch, the Song of Solomon is the most difficult book in the Old Testament. If so, Ecclesiastes comes next in order. None of the attempts to discover a logical plan having been successful, Gustav Bickell’s new hypothesis (1884) deserves a respectful hearing, since it endeavours to solve the enigma in a most original way, connecting it with the problem of the text. This critic starts from the observation that continuous passages of some extent are suddenly closed by an abrupt transition, and that such passages are pretty equal in length. His explanation of this is a purely mechanical one. The troubles of the commentators have arisen principally from an accident which happened to a standard MS., called by Bickell, ‘die Unfallshandschrift’ (the Accident-manuscript). This MS. seems to have consisted of 21 or 22 leaves, with an average of 518 to 535 letters to a leaf. To speak more precisely, it was composed of fasciculi of four double leaves each; the book began on the sixth leaf of the first fasciculus, and ended on the second, or more probably on the third leaf of the fourth. Through a loosening of the two middle fasciculi, a dislocation took place, and an almost entirely new order arose, though with one exception the leaves which had been placed in pairs remained together. But the story of the fortunes of Ecclesiastes has not yet been told. Three hands, besides the original writer, have worked on this ill-fated book. One of these is considered to have been a downright ‘enemy’ who tampered with the text before the dislocation had taken place. From him proceed ‘the protests against Koheleth’s principles on the obedience due to the king in viii. 1, 5_a_ as well as the offensive expressions in xi. 5, xii. 4, 5, by which he sought to make the book ridiculous and contemptible.’ Subsequently to him, and after the leaves had been thrown into confusion, another writer made ‘well-meaning additions,’ and so brought the book into nearly its present form; among these additions was the Epilogue. His aim was ‘to brighten Koheleth’s gloomy view of the world, partly by emphasising the doctrine of a present retribution, but still more by pointing to a future judgment in which inequalities should be rectified.’ The third hand is that of the so-called pseudo-Solomonic interpolator. He must have gone to work after the Epilogist, for the latter simply knows Koheleth as a wise man skilled in proverbial composition. Bickell also claims to make transpositions on a small scale, and offers many emendations sometimes based on the Septuagint. ‘Habent sua fata libelli.’

I have said that Bickell’s explanation of the want of order in Ecclesiastes is a purely mechanical one. It is not on that account to be rejected. A German reviewer[417] has mentioned a case within his own experience in which the double leaves of one of the fasciculi of an Oriental MS. had been disarranged in the binding, a circumstance which had led to various additions and alterations. It may indeed be urged as an objection that the Septuagint text differs in no very material respect from the Massoretic. But a work like Ecclesiastes had at first in all probability but a very slight circulation, so that an accident to a single MS. would naturally involve unusually serious consequences. Still from the possibility to the actuality of the ‘accident’ is a long step. Apart from other difficulties in the theory, the number and arbitrariness of the transpositions, additions, and alterations are reason enough to make one hesitate to accept it; and when we pass from the very plausible arrangement of the contents (Bickell, pp. 53, 54) to the translation of the text, it is often only possible to make them tally by a violent and imaginative exegesis.

Among the transpositions (to which I have no theoretic objection[418]) are the following:

v. 9-16 placed after ii. 11, viii. 9-14 “ ” iii. 8, vi. 8-12 “ ” x. 1, iv. 9-16 “ ” vii. 20, x. 16-xi. 6 “ ” v. 8, xi. 6 “ ” xi. 3.

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.

Footnote 417:

In the _Theologisches Literaturblatt_, Sept. 19, 1884.

Footnote 418:

Van der Palm first conjectured that passages had been misplaced, and Grätz has adopted the idea (_Kohélet_, pp. 40-43).

Footnote 419:

Comp. Rashbam’s interpolation theory (Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 42).

Footnote 420:

See Budde’s review of Bickell’s work in the _Theologische Literaturzeitung_, Feb. 7, 1885.

Footnote 421:

On Aquila and his theory of interpretation, comp. Renan, _L’Ecclésiaste_, p. 54; and on his artificial vocabulary, Field’s remarks, _Hexapla_, Prolegomena, p. xxii.

Footnote 422:

_Kohélet_, Anhang. Before Grätz, Frankel was already inclined to think that the Septuagint version might be really Aquila’s (_Vorstudien_, p. 238, note _w_). So more positively Freudenthal. Renan inclines to agree with Grätz.

Footnote 423:

Grätz’s _Monatsschrift_, 1873, pp. 168-174.

Footnote 424:

_Hexapla_ (1713), i., Præliminaria, p. 42. Montfaucon indicates vii. 23_a_ as manifestly made up of a genuine version, and one interpolated from Aquila. Comp. Clericus’ note on Eccles iv. 1.