The integrity of Ecclesiastes
From BibleWiki
It is clear from what has been said in §5 that the most diverse opinions upon this point exist among scholars. Cornill and Genung, on the one hand, maintaining vigorously the entire unity of the work as it stands (Cornill counting the work one of the greatest triumphs of Hebrew faith), while Siegfried and Haupt, at the other extreme, regard the book as the product of so many hands that its original features are entirely obscured. The truth will be found to lie somewhere between these two extremes, and somewhat nearer the former than the latter.
The title, ch. 1.1, "The words of Qoheleth, son of David, king in Jerusalem," may readily be granted without controversy to be the work of an editor. The analogy of the titles to the prophetic books makes this probable. To this same editor we probably owe the words "says Qoheleth" in 1.2 7.27 and 12.8. The writer of the book usually speaks of himself in the first person (see 1.12 2.1,13,18 3.12,16 4.1,4,7 5.18 6.1 7.15,25,26 8.10,16 9.1,11,13 10.5). The words "says Qoheleth" interrupt the rhythm in 1.2 and 12.8, while in 7.27 they actually interrupt a discourse in the first person; we conclude, therefore, that they are probably editorial. Further, ch. 12.9f, which speaks of Qoheleth in the third person and praises his work, is, as a number of recent interpreters have seen, doubtless the work of the editor also. Ch. 12.11f, which praises the work of Israel's wise men in general, and utters a warning against reading other books (i.e., probably books outside the OT. canon), is also from the hand of an editor or glossator. McNeile assigns it to the Hokma glossator, but it seems to me probable that the two are really one. I can see no reason for calling in the aid of another writer at this point. To these we must add the words, "End of discourse all has been heard," at the beginning of 12.13, which marked the conclusion of the book as the Hokma editor left it. (For reasons, see crit. note on 12.13).
If now we remove these editorial words and sentences, is the rest of the book a unity? Are there any utterances so contradictory that they could not have been uttered by the same mind? In answer we must examine the book. Through the first two chapters the thought flows on connectedly, as most interpreters have recognized, until we come to 2.26, when we suddenly come upon a sentiment which is in direct contradiction to most of the statements which have preceded it in the chapter, and which contains the orthodox Jewish doctrine of rewards and punishments. It is inconceivable that a writer should say in the same chapter, that the wise man and the fool have the same fate (2.15f) and that there is no good but eating and drinking and enjoying one's self (2.24), and also say that God punishes the sinner and rewards the good (226). We accordingly are compelled to conclude that 2.26 comes from the hand of a Chasid or Jewish orthodox glossator, whose philosophy of life was that of the Pharisees.
Did this glossator add any other passages to the book? If we find any similar sentiments which interrupt and contradict their context, we must conclude that he did. McNeile holds that ch. 3.14b, "God hath done it that men may fear before him," is such a gloss, but in this he seems to me mistaken. That the mysterious and inexplicable being whom Qoheleth considered God to be should wish men to fear before him, is as consonant to the thought of Qoheleth, as in a different sense to that of the Chasid. Sentiments similar to those of ch. 2.26 are, however, found in 3.17 7.18b-26b,29 8.2b,3a,5,6a,11-13 11.9b 12.1a,13 (from the words "fear God") and 14. All these breathe the same sentiments and either interrupt or contradict the chief teachings of the book, and in most cases do both. As the last of these glosses forms the conclusion of the book, coming after the concluding words of the editor, we conclude that the Chasid glossator's was the last hand to annotate Ecclesiastes as it stands in our canon. To the Chasid glosses thus enumerated, McNeile would add 5.1-7, the passage on rash vows. I see no reason, however, why the whole of this passage, except the two allusions to dreams, may not belong to Qoheleth. His views did not exclude the worship of God altogether, and they would naturally lead him to denounce sham and insincerity in religion. The only real argument against the genuineness of this section is that it interrupts Qoheleth's reflections on political affairs, to which the preceding and following sections are devoted. No ancient Jew, however (except possibly the Priestly Writers in the Pentateuch), least of all Qoheleth, is sufficiently systematic in the arrangement of his sections, so that this argument can really be of weight where, as here, not a single verse but a whole section intervenes, and that section is not on the whole out of harmony with Qoheleth's position. Vv. 3 and 7a however, interrupt Qoheleth's thought, and are cast more in the form of the mashal proverbs. We conclude, therefore, that they were introduced by some writer who was especially interested in wisdom sayings cast in a poetic form.
We must next inquire whether there may not be other proverbial sayings in Ecclesiastes which so interrupt the argument of the book as to make it impossible that they should have been inserted by Qoheleth himself. A careful study of the work convinces us that there are, and that the following passages are such wisdom or Hokma glosses: 4.5 5.3,7a 7.1a,3,5,6-9,11,12,19 8.1 9.17,18 10.1-3,8-14a,15,18,19. To these passages McNeile would add 4.9-12, which Siegfried and Haupt also regard as glosses; but the verses, though proverbs, are so appropriate to the context that I cannot persuade myself that Qoheleth did not quote them. As we have seen above, the editor of the book was much interested in the work of the wise, and it is quite possible that the proverbial glosses just enumerated were introduced by him. There is no necessity, therefore, of supposing that more than two hands have made additions to Ecclesiastes since it left the hands of Qoheleth. One was an editor deeply interested in the Wisdom Literature, and the other who came after him, was deeply imbued with the spirit of the Pharisees. The first edited the book because it formed an important addition to the Wisdom Literature, and possibly, too, because he thought it a work of Solomon (see on 12.9). The second, finding such a work attributed, as he supposed, to Solomon, added his glosses, because he thought it wrong that the great name of Solomon should not support the orthodox doctrines of the time. The material, added by these glossators as catalogued above, is, however, but a small part of the material in the book.
