 |
 |
 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
 |
Canonicity of Ecclesiastes: An Historical Survey
Joel S. Gillespie
for I.B.S,
December 12, 1980
Introduction
The book of Ecclesiastes is part of the third group of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the "kethubhim", or Writings, though its rightful place in the canon has not always been taken for granted. Readers throughout the ages have been divided as to whether the basic message of the book stands in contrast or in agreement with the rest of the Scriptures, and thus have debated whether the book did or did not belong in canonical Scripture. This paper will address the issue by way of a brief historical analysis of the evidences for and against canonicity, limiting itself to the period between approximately 200 B.C. to 300 A.D. It will bypass crucial discussions concerning the nature of canonicity, inspiration, and authority, assuming the reader has some familiarity with these issues, which are essential for any serious study of the questions of canonicity. The purpose of this paper is basically to lay the historical groundwork for understanding the acceptance of Ecclesiastes into the Hebrew Canon.
The book of Ecclesiastes is not alluded to directly in any other O.T. Canonical writing(1). Not until the writings of Ben Sira, c. 200-180 B.C., is there found clear use of the book in Hebrew literature(2). McNeile(3) and Barton(4) agree that not only was Ben Sira heavily dependent upon
Ecclesiastes in matters of language and theology, but that Ben Sira also had available the book of Ecclesiastes in its completed form, and that he regarded the book with favor. Whether or not Ben Sira viewed Ecclesiastes as canonical - as Sacred writings - cannot be proven simply from the fact that he quoted from it and agreed with it. Yet the possibility that he viewed it as such can be shown by examining the words of Ben Sira's grandson, who translated Ecclesiastes into Greek around 130 B.C. In his prologue he explains his grandfather's reasons for writing:
Whereas many great teachings have been given to us through the law and the prophets and the others that followed them, on account of which we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom; and since it is necessary not only that the readers themselves should acquire understanding but also that those who love learning should be able to help the outsiders by both speaking and writing, my grandfather Jesus, after devoting himself especially to the reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers, and after acquiring considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, in order that, by becoming conversant with this also, those who love learning should make even greater progress in living according to the law(6).
As mentioned before, Ecclesiastes normally is placed as the third group or division of the Scriptures. It's place here would fall within “the others that followed them” and the “other books of our fathers.” This group is not given a well defined name, such as “the writings” to denote a definite closed set of writings, though it does seem to refer to a definite collection. And, in Ben Sira’s prologue, this third group is given equal status with the law and prophets. So, where Ben Sira's use of Ecclesiastes does not prove that he viewed it as Scripture per se, it is a clear possibility that cannot be ruled out.
The Book of Wisdom (c. 100 B.C.) too lends insight into the early view toward Ecclesiastes. According to McNeile(7) and Barton(8) and G. Addison Wright(9), the author of Wisdom did not agree with the teachings of the Preacher, but put the Preacher's words into the mouths of the ungodly in order that he might thus oppose the attitude expressed in these words. To McNeile, this shows how the pious - represented by the author of Wisdom - looked at Ecclesiastes(10). Williams, however, does not think that this is an attack on Ecclesiastes, but that the author of Wisdom borrowed passages out of context in order to refute the worldly-wise of his day(11).
Another piece of important evidence was the finding of fragments of two manuscripts of Ecclesiastes at Qumran which can be dated to about 150 B.C.(12). According to Eybers, though there is no direct evidence that Ecclesiastes was regarded as divine word at Qumran, there is no evidence at all to the contrary(13).
Two Talmudic stories written in the third to fifth centuries also A.D. give insight as to the possible standing of Ecclesiastes before the time of Christ. One of these stories in Talmud Jerusalem, Perakoth IIb (vii. 2), refers back to the reign of King Janneaus (104-78 B.C.):
“The king (Janneaus) 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 the protection of money.’” (14)
This "it is written", a catch word for the designation of the Divine word, refers indirect quotation here to Ecclesiastes 7:12, the speaker thus considering Ecclesiastes to be authoritative Scripture.
The other Talmudic story with a setting in the first century B.C. is in Baba Bathra 4. In the story, King Herod, who had put many members of the Sanhedrin to death, though putting out only the eyes of Baba ben Buta, visits ben Buta in disguise to try to trick him into cursing the king's tyrannous reign, thereby having grounds for putting ben Buta to death. Ben Buta stands fast, refusing to utter a word of complaint, quoting with the formula "it is written" the three different parts of Ecclesiastes 10:20.
These stories of course only prove that the Talmudic writers themselves viewed Ecclesiastes as potentially authoritative and canonical by the first century B.C.
The New Testament writings themselves nowhere quote directly from the book. However, on two particular occasions, in Luke 24:44 and Luke 11:51 Jesus’ words lend weight to the idea of a closed canon, though this is a question of serious and detailed debate that will not be entertained here.
Perhaps the most striking statement concerning the status of the “Writings” comes from the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, writing at the end of the first century A.D. Comparing the sacred writings of the Jews to those of the Greeks, he says:
It therefore naturally, or rather necessarily, follows (seeing that with us it is not open to everyone to write the records, and that there is no discrepancy in what is written; seeing that, on the contrary, the prophets alone had this privilege, obtaining their knowledge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to God, and committing to writing a clear account of the events of their time just as they occurred) — it follows, I say, that we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time.
Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years. From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.
From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.
We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them. Time and again ere now the sight has been witnessed of prisoners enduring tortures and death in every form in the theatres, rather than utter a single word against the laws and the allied documents (Contra Apionem I 37-43)(15).
The immediate question is where does Ecclesiastes fit into Josephus’ “two and twenty,” and, specifically, the four books of hymns and precepts. Hayes, in his up to date review of the material, states that most scholars assume that the twenty-two books are equivalent to what is contained in later lists of twenty-four books, such as that of Melito, which clearly include Ecclesiastes in the third division of the canon(16). This is also the opinion of McNeile(17) and Bruce (18). A minority of scholars(19) however hold to the view that Josephus’ “two and twenty” did not in fact include Ruth to Judges and Jeremiah/Lamentations as single books (as many say he did - they are combined for instance by Melito), but that his total lacked two books, later to be included in the third division.
Zeitlen, for example, argues that Josephus had in his list just twenty-two books, with Ecclesiastes and Esther added later after the destruction of the temple(20). This view is difficult to maintain in light of conflicts between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, conflicts which rendered discussions of new entrants into the canon highly unlikely(21).
Jack Lewis, in a study concerned with what really happened at the so called council of Jamnia, suggests that this passage from Josephus implies that the canon was already of long standing (22). This is especially clear in the last two paragraphs of Josephus1 statement. Authoritative scripture ceased to come into being when prophetic activity ceased – all before the time of Ataxerxes; and even though a long time had passed, nothing had been changed in the canonical books.
The canonicity of Ecclesiastes was debated throughout the first century A.D. by the schools of Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai, the former normally insisting on its canonicity, the latter disputing it. Before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., these two groups gathered in the house of Hananiah ben Hezekiah to debate several important issues of the day. One issue so discussed was whether Ecclesiastes did in fact "defile the hands ," i.e. whether it was holy and sacred scripture. The Shammaites were in a majority, so the book was "kicked out"(23). However, this meeting was to have little historical significance, especially when compared to the famous debate at the school of Jamnia, held after the fall of the temple around 90 A.D. At this great debate in “the vineyard” at Jabneh, seventy judges resided over discussions of the canon, especially the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, as well as other issues. The one text that speaks of official action at Jabneh comes from the Mishna, which reached its final form around 200 A.D. (24) The section Mishna Yadaim, III 5, reads:
“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 Qoheleth 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’”(25).
Mishna Eduyoth, V 3, states:
Quheleth does not defile the hands according to the school of Shammai, but according to the school of Hillel it does defile the hands(26).
Even after its place in Scripture was recognized and fixed at this council (Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai), debate was to continue. Rabbi Jose, Rabbi Simeon and Rabbi Judah, who held discussions around 150 A.D (27) still were not convinced. According to Williams, the difficulty with these men was “subjective” and personal (28), the matter having been settled. Obviously, the opening statement of this Mishna passage, "All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands," assumes a closed cannon. New entries after Jamnia were no longer possible, says Gordis(29). Lewis, however, implies that scholars that exalt the finality of Jamnia, falsely lighten the weight of these later debates by claiming that they are academic, personal, or speculative(30).
What is clear is that the Mishna account admits debate – “so they differed, and so they concluded” – referring to Jamnia. One Talmud record (T.B. Sabbath, 30 B) explains the reasons why the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs was questioned – each contained apparently contradictory statements – but Ecclesiastes was saved because of its beginning and end(32). Gordis notes that the fundamental problem was theological – that Ecclesiastes "contained matters leading to skepticism and heresy”(33). Jerome, who wrote a commentary on Ecclesiastes in the latter part of the fourth century A.D., explains the difficulty some of the Jews had had with the book:
The Hebrews say that although it would seem that among other writings of Solomon which have become obsolete, and the memory of which has perished, this book ought also to be destroyed, for the reason that the creatures of God are vain, and considers the whole (universe) to be as nothing, and prefers food and drink and passing pleasures to all else, yet it has from this one chapter (XII) acquired the merit as being received as authoritative, so that it should be included in the number of divine Volumes. The reason is that it combines its whole argument, and the whole list of its contents, in this brief recapitulation, and says , that the end of its words is readily heard, and has nothing difficult about it, namely, that we should fear God, and keep his commandments(34).
Whatever Origen may have meant by the "other writings of Solomon,” the authority of the name of Solomon, the traditionally viewed author of Ecclesiastes, carried great weight(35) And too, his supposed authorship placed the time of writing back before the cessation of the prophets, a necessary qualification, as was seen with Josephus. In fact, it primarily was failure to meet this requirement which kept Ben Sira from achieving canonical status(36).
The crucial factor in this whole discussion is that the council at Jamnia was concerned in its debate over Ecclesiastes with a book already considered canonical. Action at Jamnia was affirmation of already established usage(37). Bruce quotes J.S. Wright here, "The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it(38). We have already examined evidences of that public opinion in Josephus and Ben Sira.
Ecclesiastes was quickly accepted as canonical by the Christians, and quite early on is found quoted in extra-N.T. Christian literature - in Hermas, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen(39). In the earliest list of O.T. books that can be dated – that drawn up by Melito, Bishop of Sardis, about 170 A.D. – Ecclesiastes is included as one of the twenty-two canonical books. The book was also included in a list of twenty-two given by Origen (A.D. 185-257), and by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in his Easter Letter of A.D. 367. In fact, in all the debates by the Church over the question of canon, the authority of Ecclesiastes was not debated, but maintained its stable place in the third division of the O.T. scriptures. These debates instead revolved around what we have come to view in Protestantism as the "Apocryphal" books.
In conclusion, though no one piece of evidence in and of itself offers absolute proof as to the fact that Ecclesiastes was considered canonical before Christ, or even prior to the inter-testamental period, the combination of all the evidences definitely leans towards both of these conclusions.
Endnotes
1. A.M. McNeile, An Introduction to Ecclesiastes, University Press, Cambridge, 1904, p. 3.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. George Aaron Barton, The International Critical Commentary; The Book of Ecclesiastes, Charles Scribner and Sons, N.Y., 1908, p. 52.
5. Ibid., p. 56.
6. John H. Hayes, An Introduction to Old Testament Study, Abingdon, Nashville, 1979, p. 21.
7. McNeile, op. cit., p. 38.
8. Barton, op. cit., p. 57.
9. Ibid.
10. McNeile, op. cit., p. 38.
11. A. Lukyn Williams, Ecclesiastes.University Press, Cambridge, 1922, p. XXX.
12. I.H. Eybers, “Some Light on the Canon of the Qumran sect,” 1962, reprinted in Sid Z. Leimen, The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible, KTAV Publishing House, New York, 1974, p. 26.
13. Ibid.
14. Barton, op. cit., p. 3.
15. Hayes, op. cit., pp. 28-29.
16. Ibid., p. 30.
17.McNeile, op. ,cit., p. 8.
18. F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, Fleming Revell, New Jersey, 1950, p. 100.
19. Hayes, op. cit., p. 30.
20. Solomon Zeitlen “An Historical Survey of the Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures,” Sid Z. Leimen, op.cit., p. 173.
21. McNeile, op. cit., p. 7.
22. Jack Lewis, “What Do We Mean by Jabneh,” Sid. Z. Leimen, op. cit., p. 257.
23. Zeitlen, op. cit. p. 175.
24. Barton, op. cit. p. 5.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., p. 6.
27. Jack Lewis, op. cit., p. 260.
28. Williams, op. cit., p. XII.
29. Robert Gordis, Koheleth - The Man and His World, Bloch Publ. Co., New York, 1955, p. 41.
30. Jack Lewis, op. cit., p. 260.
31. Ibid., p. 260.
32. Williams, op. cit., p. XII.
33. Gordis, op. cit., p. 41.
34. Williams, op. cit., p. XI.
35. Gordis, op. cit., p. 41.
36. Zeitlen, op. cit., p. 188.
37. Lewis, op. cit., p. 257.
38. Bruce, op. cit., p. 98.
39. Barton, op. cit., p. 7.
Bibliography
Barton, George Aaron, The International Critical Commentary: The Book of Ecclesiastes (Charles Scribner and Sons, N.Y. 1908), pp. 1-7, 53-58.
Bruce, F.F., The Books and the Parchments (Revell, New Jersey, 1950), pp 95-114.
Eybers, I.H., "Some Light on the Canon of the Qumran Sect," Leimen, Sid Z., The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible (KTAV Publishing House, N.Y.,1974, pp. 23-27.
Gordis, Robert, Koheleth - The Man and His World (Bloch Publ. Co., N.Y., 1955), pp. 41-43.
Hayes, John H., An Introduction to Old Testament Theology (Abingdon, Nashville, 1979), pp. 15-43.
Lewis, J.P., "What Do We Mean By Jabneh, " Leimen, Sid Z., The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible (KTAV Publishing House, N.Y., 1974), pp. 254-261.
McNeile, A.H., An Introduction to Ecclesiastes (University Press, Cambridge, 1904), pp. 3-8,
Williams, A. Lukyn, Ecclesiastes (University Press, Cambridge, 1922), pp. IX - XIII.
Zeitlen, S., "An Historical Study of the Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures," Leimen, Sid Z., The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible (KTAV Publishing House, N.Y., 1974), pp. 164-201. |
 |
|
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
