Canonicity of Ecclesiastes
From BibleWiki
Ecclesiastes is not mentioned in any canonical writing of the Old Testament. Evidence has, however, come to light in recent years which proves quite conclusively that it was known in an edited form to the author of Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, who wrote about 180-175 B.C. This evidence is given in detail below in §11; but Nöldeke's article in ZAW., XX, 90 ff., and McNeile's Introduction to Ecclesiastes, 34 ff., may also be compared. There is no reason to suppose, however, that Ecclesiastes had been canonized at the time of Ben Sira; on the contrary, the very opposite would seem to be the fact, for Ecclesiastes was also known to a later extra-canonical writer, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, who probably wrote in the first century B.C. The author of this last-mentioned book, in his second chapter, sets himself to correct the sinful utterances of certain ungodly men, and there can be no question but that in verses 1-9 he includes among the sayings of the ungodly a number of the utterances of Qoheleth (for details, see below, §12). Whether Qoheleth was known to the author of Wisdom in the Hebrew or in a Greek translation is unknown; and the fact, if known, would have no bearing on the question of canonicity, for uncanonical books were often translated. (See, however, below, §4, (2) and (3). The tone of the attack upon Qoheleth, which is made in Wisdom, indicates that to him the book was not yet Scripture. The earnestness of the attack makes rather the impression that the book was a candidate for canonical regard — that it was so esteemed in some quarters — and that the writer wished to open the eyes of his readers to the true character of its sentiments.
A Talmudic story, to which McNeile calls attention, Talm. Jerusalem, Berakoth, 11b (vii, 2), would, if any weight can be attached to it, indicate that in the first century B.C. canonical authority was by some assigned to the book. The story is concerning an incident in the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (104-79 B.C.). It says, "The king (Jannaeus) said to him (Simon ben Shetach, the king's brother-in-law), 'Why didst thou mock me by saying that nine hundred sacrifices were required, when half would have been sufficient?' Simon answered, 'I mocked thee not; thou hast paid thy share and I mine ... as it is written. For the protection of wisdom is as the protection of money,'" thus making a literal quotation from Eccl 7:12.
Another Talmudic story quoted by Wright (Baba Batra, 4a) relates to the time of Herod. That monarch, having put to death members of the Sanhedrin and deprived Baba ben Buta of his sight, visited the latter in disguise and endeavored to betray him into some unguarded expression with reference to Herod's own tyranny. Ben Buta steadily refused to utter an incautious word, and in his replies he quotes from all three parts of the Biblical canon — from the Pentateuch, Ex 22:27, from the Prophets, Isa 2:2, and from the Ketubim, Prov 6:23, and in three different parts Eccl 10:20 — introducing each quotation with the formula for quoting canonical Scripture. The passage from Qoheleth which is thus quoted is:
Do not even in thy thought curse the king, Nor in thy bedchamber curse a rich man ; For the bird of heaven shall carry the voice, And the owner of wings shall tell a thing.
Wright (p. 21ff.) also gives in full another Talmudic story, to which Bloch had called attention - a story relating to the great Rabbi Gamaliel I. (c. 44 A.D.). According to this tale (Sabbath, 30b), Gamaliel had a dispute with a brilliant pupil, whom Bloch believed to be the Apostle Paul, and in the course of the dispute, the pupil quoted as Scripture twice Eccl 1:9: "There is nothing new under the sun."
If these Talmudic tales came from a contemporary source, they would prove that Ecclesiastes had been admitted into the canon by the first century B.C. In fact, all that the passages prove is that the Rabbis of the Talmudic period — the third to the fifth centuries A.D. — had traditions which they apparently believed to be authentic that Qoheleth had been recognized as Scripture at the dates mentioned.
The New Testament affords us no help in tracing the canonicity of Ecclesiastes. There is in the NT. no quotation from Ecclesiastes. When, however, the character of the book is taken into account, it is not strange that no reference is made to it. This silence cannot fairly be made an argument against the canonicity of our book. (See Br. SHS, pp. 131-132.)
McNeile, however, goes farther than the evidence will warrant when he argues (op. cit., p. 6 ff.) from the New Testament use of the word Scripture), that the canon was definitely so closed to the writers of the New Testament that another book could not find its way into it. As is well known the three divisions of the canon are mentioned in the prologue to the Greek Ecclesiasticus, proving that they existed when that work was translated, c. 130 B.C., and are also referred to in the Gospel of Luke (Lk 24:44). There is absolutely nothing, however, to show us exactly what the New Testament writers had in the third division of their canon. It is quite possible, as McNeile claims, that η γÏαφη meant to them a definite body of writings, but that that body was so fixed that no additions could be made to it, is an unproved assumption, and the "impression that 'Scripture' meant to the Apostolic writers the same body of Old Testament writings that it means to us," if it is to be understood that their canon could not have differed from ours by even one book, rests on no adequate evidence whatever. (See Br. SHS, pp. 124ff., 131.)
Some scholars find quotations from Ecclesiastes in the New Testament. Thus Plumtre thinks that Paul may have had Qoheleth in mind when he wrote "The creation was subjected to vanity" (Rom 8:20); and that the Epistle of James alludes to it: "For ye are a vapor which appeareth for a little time and then vanisheth away" (Jam 4:14). Such parallels are, however, too vague to be convincing. Neither writer may have been thinking of Qoheleth at all. Haupt believes that Jesus alludes to Ecclesiastes with the purpose of combating its sentiments in the parable of the rich man who pulled down his barns to build greater, Lk 12:16ff. He sees in Lk 12:18 an allusion to Eccl 2:4 and in Lk 12:20b, to Eccl 2:18b. Again, the allusions are too vague to be convincing. The view of J. Rendel Harris, that the parable is an elaboration of BS. 5.1ff, is much more probable. Haupt also holds that Lk 12:27=Mt 6:29, (Solomon in all his glory) is "above all" an allusion to Ecclesiastes, but again one must say that the likeness is not convincing. It is quite as probable that the account of Solomon in 1 Kings was in the mind of Jesus.
Philo, like the New Testament, makes no reference to Qoheleth, but, as in the case of the New Testament, no argument is to be drawn from this silence, as he makes no reference to a number of other books — Ezekiel, Daniel, Canticles, Ruth and Lamentations.
The suggestion made above, that Qoheleth was in some quarters regarded as canonical, but was not universally received, receives confirmation from one or two famous passages in the Mishna, which reached its final form about 200 A.D. In the terminology of the Mishna the way of calling a book canonical is to say that it "defiles the hands." In the Tract Yadaim, 3.5, we read: "All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Qoheleth defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says, 'The Song of Songs defiles the hands, but Koheleth is disputed.' Rabbi Jose says, ' Qoheleth does not defile the hands, and the Song of Songs is disputed.' Rabbi Simeon says, 'Qoheleth belongs to the light things of the school of Shammai, but to the weighty things of the school of Hillel.' Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai says, 'I received from the mouth of the seventy-two elders on the day when they placed Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah in the president's chair, that the Song of Songs and Qoheleth defile the hands.' Rabbi Aqiba said, 'Far be it and peace! No man of Israel has ever doubted concerning the Song of Songs that it defiled the hands, for there is not a day in all the world like the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, because all the Ketubim are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy. And if they had doubts, they only doubted concerning Qoheleth.' Rabbi Johanan, son of Joshua, son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Aqiba says, 'so they differed and so they concluded.'"
Again, Eduyoth, 5.3, says: "Qoheleth does not defile the hands according to the school of Shammai, but according to the school of Hillel it does defile the hands." These passages are echoed in the Talmud and in later Jewish writings. Now it seems very clear from these statements that down to the end of the first century A.D. Ecclesiastes was among the "Antilegomena" of the Old Testament canon. Ryle is quite right in saying (Canon, 174), that it would be difficult after the first century B.C., when the antipathy between the Pharisees and Sadducees became so marked and their contentions so virulent, for a new book to be introduced into the canon. It seems clear that, if Qoheleth had not begun to gain a foothold before that in some influential quarter, its chances of canonicity would have been slight, but it seems equally clear that it was not universally accepted as a part of Scripture until after the great council of Jabne (Jamnia), at the end of the first century A.D. (See Br. SHS, p. 130.)
The book probably won its way at last, because as these passages show it had a part of the Pharisaical influence in its favor. It was not a question of Pharisee against Sadducee. The Sadducees would find no fault with the book. The line of cleavage was between the schools of Shammai and Hillel, and ultimately, probably because the work passed under the great name of Solomon, the school of Hillel won and Ecclesiastes became a part of the Scriptures.
The view arrived at above agrees substantially with that of W. R. Smith, OT. in J.C., 2d ed., 185 ff. Wildeboer, Origin of the Old Testament Canon, 147 ff.; and McNeile, Ecclesiastes. For attempts to explain away this evidence, see Ginsburg, Coheleth, 15ff.
The statement of Josephus (Contra Apion, i.22) that the Jewish canon contained 22 books might be significant, if we knew how the 22 books were reckoned. The same is true of the statement in 2 (4) Esdras 14.45f, which, according to the Oriental versions, makes the Jewish canon consist of 24 books. In neither case do we know how the number was made up. Different scholars have their theories, but, as positive evidence, both passages are too indefinite either to confirm or to refute the conclusion we have reached. (See Br.SHS, p. 127ff.) The canonicity of Qoheleth was soon accepted by Christians as well as Jews, for Hermas, Hand., VII, quotes Eccl 12:13 and Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, ch. 6, seems to recall Eccl 12:7. Clement of Alexandria quotes by name, in Stromata, I.13, Eccl 1:16ff, Eccl 7:13; Tertullian quotes Eccl 3:1 three times, (Adv. Marc. 5.4, De Monog. 3, De Virg. Vel, 3); while Origen has several quotations from it.
