Texts of Ecclesiastes
From BibleWiki
HEBREW TEXT.
The text of the book of Ecclesiastes was written in a late form of the Hebrew language — a form which evinces considerable decay from the earlier tongue, and a considerable approach to the language of the Mishna. Aramaic must have been largely employed by the Jews of the period, for there are many Aramaisms both of vocabulary and construction in Ecclesiastes. (See below, §10.)
We do not know whether Ecclesiastes was written in the older Hebrew character, in the square Aramaic character, or in a modified form intermediate between the two. The last is probably the fact, for we know from many documents that the older characters of the Moabite Stone had undergone much modification. It is possible that the square character had come in at the time Ecclesiastes was written. The oldest inscription in the square character is that of Arak-el-Amir, which dates from about 180 B.C. (Cf. Lidzbarski in JE., I, 443.) This was probably slightly later than the date of our book (see below §13). It is possible, therefore, that the square character may have been employed by the author of Ecclesiastes, but it may have been a form intermediate between the old Hebrew and the square character, such as is found in the Jewish papyri recently discovered in Egypt. (See Sayce and Cowley's Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan, London, 1906.) As these papyri are some two hundred years older than Ecclesiastes, the alphabet used by the Jews had probably during the period undergone considerable development towards the square form. (See Br.SHS, pp. 172f.)
A manuscript of the Pentateuch exists in St. Petersburg which some Jewish scholars think was written before 604 A.D., but so far as I know no manuscript is known that contains Qoheleth which is older than the eleventh century. These MSS., of course, contain the text of the Massorets only. They do, however, exhibit some variations.
The Massorets consulted a number of MSS. which are known by name, but which have long ago disappeared, such as Codex Muggeh, Codex Hilleli, Codex Sanbuki, Codex Jerusalami, Codex Jericho, Codex Sinai, Codex Great Mahzor, Codex Ezra, and Codex Babylon. (For description, see Broyde in JE., III, 473ff., esp. Br.SHS, pp. 183-4.)
Many of these MSS. exist in the various libraries of Europe, and have been studied and employed by scholars. Benjamin Kennicott, in his Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus, Oxford, 1776-1780, noted the variants as they appear in several hundred MSS. His text of the Megilloth rests on the collations of 350 of these. Among the texts of Ecclesiastes, edited in recent years, those of Baer, Ginsburg and Driver (the last in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica) rest on a collation of varying numbers of MSS. Driver's text is the fruit of a collation of a considerable number of these, and the kind of variation which they exhibit is well illustrated in his notes.
THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION.
Most important for the history of the text of Ecclesiastes is the Greek version, which, because of the legend that it was translated by seventy-two men, is commonly called the Septuagint. This version is in here designated by G.
The Greek translation of the Old Testament was not all made at one time, or by one hand. The Pentateuch was apparently translated in the third century B.C., and the other parts at various later dates. The Ketubim were naturally translated last of all. It is probable that the Psalter existed in Greek as early as 130 B.C., but there is reason to think that the version of Ecclesiastes now found in G was not made till the end of the first century A.D., and that it was made by Aquila, a native of Pontus, who was a convert first to Christianity and then to Judaism, and who is said by Jerome to have been a pupil of Aqiba. The reasons for this view are that the version of Qoheleth in G exhibits many of the most marked peculiarities of the style of Aquila's version as preserved by Origen in his famous Hexapla — peculiarities which occur to the same extent in the Septuagint version of no other Old Testament book. This view was set forth by Graetz (Geschichte d. Juden, IV, 437, and Kohelet, 173-179). It was opposed by Dillmann in a characteristically thorough paper in the Sitzungsberichte d. kg. preus. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1892, I, 3-16; but Dillman has been ably and successfully answered by McNeile in his Introduction to Ecclesiastes, 115-134. (See Br. SHS, p. 192.)
Jerome mentions twice (Opera, V, 32 and 624) Aquila's second edkion, which the Hebrews call κατ ακÏιβειαν, and Graetz and McNeile have made it altogether probable that Aquila's first edition is that embodied in G. Thus only can one account for the marked approach to Aquila's style and peculiarities, combined with some equally striking differences from the fragments of Aquila, preserved by Origen. Dillman had urged these differences as an objection to the theory that Aquila translated our G, but as McNeile observes, a second edition presupposes differences, and it is difficult to think that a later hand adapted G to Aquila's later work without doing it in a more thorough-going manner.
Whether there had been an earlier translation of Qoheleth than Aquila's first edition is uncertain, but on the whole we conclude that there probably had not been. The work had only recently been approved as canonical beyond dispute (see above §3), and it is probable that shortly afterward Aquila undertook its translation. The translation which we have in G was at all events made from a text which differed a good deal from our present Hebrew, and was therefore made from a text that Aqiba had not revised. Possibly it was, as McNeile thinks, in part, because his first edition was made from a text that Aqiba, his teacher, did not approve, that Aquila undertook his revision which resulted in his "second edition."
If these views are correct, the translation of Qoheleth which we have in Gwas made in the second quarter of the second century A.D.
The text of G for the book of Ecclesiastes has been preserved in five uncial MSS. and in fifteen cursives, which have been studied, though of the cursives three contain only a part of the book. The uncial MSS. are: (i) The famous Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican Library at Rome, usually cited as B, which dates from the fourth century. The labors of Westcott and Hort on the New Testament vindicated the text of this MS. as on the whole the best for that part of the Bible, and the labors of Swete on the Greek text of the Old Testament tend to confirm these results for the older part of the Canon. (2) The famous Codex Sinaiticus, found by Tischendorf on Mount Sinai, 1844-1859, and now preserved in the Library at St. Petersburg. It is sometimes cited by scholars as ×, sometimes as S. It was also written in the fourth century and as an authority for the text falls little short of B. (3) The Codex Alexandrinus, written in the fifth century, now in the British Museum cited as A. (4) Codex Ephraemi, also of the fifth century — a fine palimpsest MS. now in the National Library at Paris, cited as C. (5) Codex Venetus, written in the eighth or ninth century, now in St. Mark's Library, Venice. It is usually cited as V, and often allies itself with B×.
Of the cursive MSS., 68, written in the fifteenth century, one of the treasures of the Library of St. Marks at Venice, deserves especial mention. It often allies itself with B. McNeile considers it especially important when it differs from B, and holds it to be the most important Greek MS. of Ecclesiastes extant (see his Ecclesiastes, 136).
For fuller accounts of the MSS., see Swete's Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 122-170; Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's Novum Testamentum Graece, also his Textkritik des Neuen Testaments, and Scrivener's Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed. by Miller, Vol. I. Br.SHS, p. 195 ff.
It is possible from the extant witnesses to the text of G to detect in its text recensions or types, kindred to those which Westcott and Hort have identified for the New Testament. It is for this reason that often in citing the evidence of G the Symbols of MSS. are affixed as G B, GB×, etc. For analyses of the text of G, see Klostermann's De Libri Coheleth Versione Alexandrina, Kiel, 1892, and McNeile's Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cambridge, 1904, pp. 115-168.
THE GREEK VERSION OF AQUILA.
Aquila was a native of Pontus, and a connection of the emperor Hadrian, who employed a relative of Aquila's to build AElia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem. Aquila accompanied him, and while there was converted to Christianity. As he refused to abandon the heathen practice of astrology, he was excommunicated, and in disgust joined the Jews. He undertook a translation of the Scriptures into Greek in order to set aside the renderings of the Septuagint which seemed to support the Christians. Of Jerome's testimony to his second edition of his rendering of Qoheleth, we have already spoken, and have shown that in all probability the version which Origen preserved as Aquila's was this second edition. This second edition was probably made from the text revised by Aquila, for it differs far less widely than G from the Massoretic Text. If we are right in thinking that there was no Greek version of Ecclesiastes until Aquila's first edition, then both his editions have survived, the first entire as G and the second in fragments as 'A, the symbol by which Aquila is quoted below. These fragments have been collated by Montfaucon in his Hexaplorum Originis qua supersunt, 1713, and by Field in his Originis Hexaplorum qua supersunt, Oxford, 1875, and cover practically the whole book.
For fuller accounts of Aquila's version, cf. Swete, op. cit., 31-42 and 55; McNeile, op. cit., 115-134; Burkitt's Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila, 1897; C. Taylor's Cairo-Genizah Palimpsests, 1900, and Schurer's Geschichte des judischen Volkes, etc., 3d ed., Vol. Ill, 318-321.
THE VERSION OF THEODOTIAN
Another version was made in the second century A.D. by Theodotian, who seems to have lived at Ephesus. His work was known to Irenaeus (d. 202 A.D.), who calls him a native of Pontus, and says that he became a convert to Judaism in mature life. It is thought that in some of these details Irenaeus confused Theodotian with Aquila. It is hardly likely that two different men who learned Hebrew in mature life should make translations of the Scriptures for the Jews in the same century. Irenaeus is, however, probably right in saying that Theodotian lived at Ephesus. Theodotian's version of Daniel seems to have found its way into the Septuagint, as we have supposed that Aquila's first translation of Ecclesiastes did. The work of Theodotian is otherwise known to us only through the Hexapla of Origen, and that has survived only in fragments. Theodotian's renderings do not differ so widely from the Septuagint as do those of Aquila, nor so often from MT. as those of G. But Dr. Swete says: "He seems to have produced a free revision of the Septuagint rather than an independent version." Theodotian's renderings of Qoheleth which have survived afford interesting variants to every chapter of the book. They are contained in the works of Montfaucon and Field cited above.
For a fuller account of Theodotian see Swete, op. cit., pp. 42-49; Gwynn, "Theodotian," in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biog., and Schurer, Geschichte, etc., Vol. Ill, 321—324.
THE VERSION OF SYMMACHUS
A fourth translation of the Hebrew into Greek was made by Symmachus near the end of the second or the beginning of the third century A.D. Eusebius and Jerome say that Symmachus was an Ebionite Christian, but according to Epiphanius he was a Samaritan who embraced Judaism. Epiphanius was a blunderer, however, and the probability is that even if Symmachus was of Jewish or Samaritan parentage, he became an Ebionite. Jerome correctly declares that the aim of Symmachus was to express the sense of the Hebrew rather than to follow the order of its words. His version shows that he aimed to set himself free from the influence of the Septuagint as well as to write good Greek. Swete thinks that Symmachus had before him the three other Greek versions when he made his own, and that he exhibits his independence of them all and sometimes of the Hebrew as well. In spite of this charge it is often true that he has caught the meaning of the Hebrew and correctly expressed it in Greek. His version was employed by Origen as early as 228 A.D., and was so highly regarded by that ancient scholar, that he gave it a place in his Hexapla. His translation of Ecclesiastes affords numerous interesting variants for every chapter of the book. They are presented by Montfaucon and Field in the works cited above.
For a fuller account of Symmachus see Swete, op. cit., 40-53; Gwynn, op. cit.; Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literature, I, 209 ff., and Chronologic der altchr. Literatur, II, 164ff., and Perles, "Symmachus," in JE., XI, 619.
THE COPTIC VERSION.
The Bible is thought to have been translated into the Egyptian dialects before the end of the second century. This translation was made from the Septuagint version, so that the various Egyptian versions — Bohairic, Memphitic, and Sahidic — are in reality witnesses for the text of the Septuagint. Accounts of these versions are given in Swete, op. cit., 104-108, and in the works of Gregory and Scrivener cited above. In S. Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani, edited by Ciasca, 1880, Vol. II, pp. 195-254, the whole of Qoheleth in a Sahidic translation, except 9.4 - 10.3, is included. This text was collated by Euringer for his work Der Masorahtext des Koheleth kritisch untersucht, 1890. These readings usually support the readings of G. This version is cited below as K.
THE SYRIAC PESHITTA.
The origin of this version is involved in much obscurity. Theodore of Mopsuestia declared that no one knew who the translator was. (Cf. Migne, P. G., LXVI, 241.) The version was, however, made during the early centuries of the Christian era. The Pentateuch was translated from the Hebrew, though in Isaiah, the Minor Prophets, and the Psalms the Septuagint has had considerable influence. A study of the Peshitta text of Qoheleth with a view of determining its relation to the Massoretic text on the one hand and the Septuagint on the other was made by Kamenetzky in ZAW., XXIV (1904), 181-239.
Kamenetzky's conclusion, with which my own use of the Peshitta leads me to agree, is that for the most part the Syriac was translated from a Hebrew text which in most places agreed with MT., though in some places it differed from it and at some points it has been influenced by 06. This version is represented in the following pages by the symbol &. Fuller accounts of the Peshitta will be found in the works of Swete, Gregory and Scrivener, already frequently referred to.
THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR VERSION.
This translation was made by Paul of Telia in 616 and 617 A.D. from the Septuagint column of Origen's Hexapla. It is in reality, therefore, a witness for the text of the Septuagint. It is cited below as SH. For a fuller account of it and the literature see Swete, op. cit., 112-116. The standard edition of it for Ecclesiastes is still Middledorpf's Codex Syraco-Hexaplaris, etc., 1835.
OLD LATIN VERSION
The origin of the early Latin version or versions of the Bible is involved in as much obscurity as that of the Syriac or Egyptian versions. It is clear that a translation was made into Latin at an early date, and that by the end of the fourth century there were wide variations in its MSS. Samples of these variations are furnished by Swete, op. cit., pp. 89-91. This early translation appears to have been made from the Septuagint. Our sources for the text of this Old Latin are in large part Patristic quotations of the Old Testament. These were collected with great care and fullness by Peter Sabatier in his Bibliorum sacrorum Latince versiones antiques, Rheims, 1743, which was employed by Euringer and is frequently quoted in his Masorahtext des Koheleth. Sabatier's work, however, was published more than a century and a half ago, and his quotations now need to be tested by later editions of the Fathers. Some readings for Ecclesiastes from a MS. Of St. Gall may be found in S. Berger's Notices et extraits, p. 137 ff. I have attempted to make little use of this version, but it is cited below a few times as L. The works of Swete, Gregory and Scrivener contain discussions of this translation.
THE LATIN VULGATE
The basis of this translation was made by St. Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus) between 383 and 420 A.D. It was Jerome's plan to translate from the Hebrew, but his version was made with a full knowledge of the material which Origen had collected in the Hexapla. His Ecclesiastes was made from a text which generally agreed with MT., though it sometimes departs from it in most suggestive ways. Full accounts of Jerome's work are given in the works of Gregory and Scrivener referred to above, and in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biography. This version is designated by the symbol V.
THE ARABIC VERSION.
In the commentary which follows the Arabic version is sometimes quoted. This is the Arabic version which was published in the London Polyglot of 1656 and the Paris Polyglot of 1630. It is believed to be the translation of Saadia Gaon, who died in 942.
The Hexateuch seems to have been translated from the Hebrew; Judges, Ruth, parts of Kings, Nehemiah and Job from the Peshitta; while the other poetical books and the prophets seem to be dependent on the Septuagint. In Qoheleth the Arabic, where it departs from MT., usually allies itself with G. It is referred to below by the symbol A. Possibly only the Hexateuch was translated by Saadia, as that was made from the Hebrew text. For accounts of the Arabic version, see Swete, op. cit., no ff., and Gottheil, in JE., Ill, 189.
THE TARGUM.
As the Ketubim were not interpreted in the synagogue services, Targumim of them (i.e., interpretations into the Aramaic spoken by the people) were not written as early as the rest of the Bible. That on the Psalter was not made in its present form before the ninth century. No Targum of the Megilloth is mentioned in any work older than the Aruk (Dictionary) of Nathan ben Jehiel, which was completed in 1101 A.D. These Targumim are probably, therefore, in their present form, not earlier than the tenth century, though they may go back to oral interpretations which are much earlier.
The Targum of Qoheleth is a free paraphrase combined with a midrashic interpretation. Occasionally the text is followed closely, but more often the interpretation freely departs from it, for the sake of covering up sceptical expressions which were obnoxious to orthodox Jews. These expressions are often turned so as to commend the study of the law and support the most orthodox doctrines and devout course of life. Solomon is believed to be the author of Qoheleth, and many allusions in it are interpreted to refer to events in his life and that of his son Rehoboam. Nevertheless, the Targum is frequently an important witness to the text, and helps us to correct MT. It is cited as T. In addition to the publication of the Targum of Qoheleth accessible in the Polyglots a recension has recently been published from South Arabic MSS. by Alfred Levy, entitled Das Targum zu Koheleth nach sudarabischen Handschriften, Breslau, 1905. For a more complete account of the Targumim and the literature upon them, see Bacher's article "Targum," in JE., XIIIff.
QUOTATIONS IN THE TALMUD.
The Jewish writers of the first seven centuries of the Christian era frequently quoted the OT. These quotations ought to perform for the text-criticism of the OT. the same service that patristic quotations perform for the NT. Euringer in his Masorah-text, already referred to, has collected these quotations for Qoheleth from the Mishna, and the parts of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds which were made up to the seventh century. Of the 221 verses in Qoheleth, a part or all of 122 are quoted in these Jewish writings, and some of them many times. These quotations have too often been assimilated to MT., to be of much service, but they sometimes present interesting variations from it. Where quoted below, they are designated by the name of the Talmudic tract in which the quotation is made.
RECENSIONS OF THE TEXT.
There are persistent and probably trustworthy traditions that Rabbi Aqiba, who had such an influence in systematizing and perfecting the Jewish oral law and system of hermeneutics, also with the aid of Aquila, his pupil, attempted to fix the text of the Bible. He was the creator in a sense of the Rabbinical Bible. (See Ginsburg's article "Akiba," JE., I, 306.) That the first Greek translation of Qoheleth, commonly called the Septuagint version, was probably made by Aquila, has been shown above, where it also was pointed out that the differences between the Hebrew underlying the Septuagint and the Hebrew text of later times indicates that Aquila made the Septuagint version of Qoheleth before Aqiba had revised the text. McNeile is, therefore, right in holding that by a right critical use of G we can obtain a pre-Aqiban recension of Qoheleth.
Some of the readings which Aqiba adopted in the Hebrew text underwent alterations by later hands, as McNeile has shown (Ecclesiastes, 153-156). In the history of the text of our book, we may then discern three recensions. Leaving out of account the eddies and side currents of corruption and transmission which inevitably manifest themselves in MSS. and versions, these recensions are the pre-Aquilan recension, the Aquilan recension and the Massoretic recension. A careful study of the text on those sane principles which Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort have established for the New Testament, reveals the fact that the text of Qoheleth has been transmitted, on the whole, with great fidelity. These recensions differ from one another far less than one would expect, and affect comparatively few passages.
The best text-critical work hitherto done on Ecclesiastes is that of McNeile in his Introduction to Ecclesiastes, to which reference has several times been made. The more drastic work of Bickell, based on his theory of dislocations, as well as that of Zapletal and Haupt, based on a metrical theory of the book, are in most cases conjectures which rest on unproven premises. A criticism of their metrical theories will be found in §9. Winckler's emendations (Altorientalische Forschungen, IV) (1896), 351-355, are also usually too conjectural.
With the exception of a few interpolations and a very little editorial material (see below, §7), the work of Qoheleth has come down to us modified by design or error far less than is the case with most of the Old Testament books. This is due, undoubtedly, to the fact that it had undergone no long history of transmission and frequent copying before Aqiba set those forces to work which made further serious alterations in the text well-nigh impossible.
