Ecclesiasticus

Ecclesiasticus

Deuterocanonical book of the Old Testament.

From its inscription in Greek and Syriac versions it is also known as “The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach,” a title connected with and possibly derived from the subscription occurring in recently discovered (1896 -1900 ) Hebrew fragments, “The Wisdom (Hkhm) of Simeon, the son of Yeshua (Jesus), the son of Eleazar, the son of Sira.” The name Ecclesiasticus (Liber), i.e., a church reading-book is significant of the special esteem in which this book was held for the public instruction of the faithful. It is now evident that the work was written originally in Hebrew to which reference had been made in ancient times (Talmud, Saint Jerome). From the prologue to the Greek version composed by a nephew of the author we learn that the latter was Jesus or Josua (Yeshua), son of Sirach of Jerusalem , who seems to have been a contemporary of Simon II, son of Onias the high priest between 220-205 B.C. The translation seems to have been made about 116 B.C., i.e., after the death of Ptolemy Euergetes Philopator II. Catholic editions are derived from the Vulgate which was prepared by Saint Jerome from the Old Latin compared with the Septuagint text of the book.

Scholars are divided as to the book’s nature. One group regards it as the work of the author whose name it bears having for its purpose an exposition of the practical value of Hebrew teaching (wisdom) concerning fundamental verities: God, law, wisdom. The material may have been derived from oral tradition or older collections of maxims. According to the other theory, the book as we have it in the Greek is a compilation, the final redaction of which was made by the translator though in its major portion it may represent an original composed by the son of Sirach.

This is the longest of the didactic books of the Old Testament, 51 chapters, and is usually divided into two unequal parts: 1 to 42,14; and 44 to 50, 23. After an exhortation to seek wisdom it presents a series of practical precepts for life after the manner of the Proverbs of Solomon. The transition 42, 15 to 43, 28, is a sublime hymn extolling God’s work in nature and contains a beautiful description of creatures. In the second part God is praised in the lives of the heroes of Israel. The conclusion, 50, 24 to 51, 38, is an exhortation to praise God and seek wisdom. Highly prized by the Jews particularly of the Dispersion and the early Christians after the Psalms and the Gospels, it is the most utilized portion of Scripture in the Office and Mass. Besides, being used for the Nocturnes of the fourth and fifth weeks of August, lessons are taken from it for the common of doctors, confessors, virgins, non-virgins; likewise the chapters of these offices as well as those of the Blessed Virgin Mary and; epistles (Mass for the Propagation of the Faith). It embodies clear statements on the nature of God and His attributes, life, eternity, greatness, mercy (43, 29-37). Noteworthy is chapter 24, introducing uncreated wisdom speaking as a Divine person although the idea of distinct subsistence is not expressed. Talmudic and rabbinical literature placed it in the same category as the Ketubim (Sacred Writings) like Psalms and Proverbs. New Testament references, indicative of its divine origin are very numerous, e.g., John 14:23 to Ecclesiasticus 2:18.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Ecclesiasticus

(Abbrev. Ecclus.; also known as the Book of Sirach.)

The longest of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, and the last of the Sapiential writings in the Vulgate of the Old Testament.

I. TITLE

The usual title of the book in Greek manuscripts and Fathers is Sophia Iesou uiou Seirach, “the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach”, or simply Sophia Seirach “the Wisdom of Sirach”. It is manifestly connected with and possibly derived from, the following subscription which appears at the end of recently-discovered Hebrew fragments of Ecclesiasticus: “Wisdom [Hó khmâ ] of Simeon, the son of Yeshua, the son of Eleazar, the son of Sira”. Indeed, its full form would naturally lead one to regard it as a direct rendering of the Hebrew heading: Hokhmath Yeshua ben Sira, were it not that St. Jerome, in his prologue to the Solominic writings, states that the Hebrew title of Ecclesiasticus was “Mishle” (Parabolae) of Jesus of Sirach. Perhaps in the original Hebrew the book bore different titles at different times: in point of fact, the simple name Hokhma, “Wisdom”, is applied to it in the Talmud, while Rabbinic writers commonly quote Ecclesiasticus as Ben Sira. Among the other Greek names which are given to Ecclesiasticus in patristic literature, may be mentioned the simple title of Sophia, “Wisdom”, and the honorary designation he panaretos sophia, “all-virtuous Wisdom”.

As might well be expected, Latin writers have applied to Ecclesiasticus titles which are derived from its Greek names, such as “Sapientia Sirach” (Rufinus); “Jesu, filii Sirach” (Junilius), “Sapienta Jesu” (Codex Claromontanus); “Liber Sapientiae” (Roman Missal). It can hardly be doubted, however, that the heading “Parabolae Salomonis”, which is prefixed at times in the Roman Breviary to sections from Ecclesiasticus, is to be traced back to the Hebrew title spoken of by St. Jerome in his prologue to the Solomonic writings. Be this as it may, the book is most commonly designated in the Latin Church as “Ecclesiasticus”, itself a Greek word with a Latin ending. This last title — not to be confounded with “Ecclesiastes” (Eccl.) — is the one used by the Council of Trent in its solemn decree concerning the books to be regarded as sacred and canonical. It points out the very special esteem in which this didactic work was formerly held for the purpose for general reading and instruction in church meetings: this book alone, of all the deuterocanonical writings, which are also called Ecclesiastical by Rufinus, has preserved by way of pre-eminence the name of Ecclesiasticus (Liber), that is “a church reading book”.

II. CONTENTS

The Book of Ecclesiasticus is preceded by a prologue which professes to be the work of the Greek translator of the origional Hebrew and the genuineness of which is undoubted. In this preface to his translation, the writer describes, among other things his frame of mind in undertaking the hard task of rendering the Hebrew text into Greek. He was deeply impressed by the wisdom of the sayings contained in the book, and therefore wished, by means of a translation, to place those valuable teachings within the reach of anyone desiring to avail himself of them for living in more perfect accord with the law of God. This was a most worthy object, and there is no doubt that in setting it before himself the translator of Ecclesiasticus had well realized the general character of the contents of that sacred writing. The fundamental thought of the author of Ecclesiasticus is that of wisdom as understood and inculcated in inspired Hebrew literature; for the contents of this book, however varied they may appear in other respects, admit of being naturally grouped under the genral heading of “Wisdom”. Viewed from this standpoint, which is indeed universally regarded as the author’s own standpoint, the contents of Ecclesiasticus may be divided into two great parts: chs. i-xlii, 14; and xlii, 15-1, 26. The sayings which chiefly make up the first part, tend directly to inculcate the fear of God and the fulfilment of His commands, wherein consists true wisdom. This they do by pointing out, in a concrete manner, how the truly wise man shall conduct himself in the manifold relationships of practical life. They afford a most varied fund of thoughtful rules for self-guidance in joy and sorrow, in prosperity and adversity, in sickness and health, in struggle and temptation, in social life, in intercourse with friends and enemies, with high and low, rich and poor, with the good and wicked, the wise and the foolish, in trade, business, and one’s ordinary calling, above all, in one’s own house and family in connection with the training of children, the treatment of men-servants and maid-servants, and the way in which a man ought to behave towards his own wife and women generally (Schü rer). Together with these maxims, which resemble closely both in matter and form the Proverbs of Solomon, the first part of Ecclesiasticus includes several more or less long descriptions of the origin and excellence of wisdom (cf. i; iv, 12-22; vi, 18-37; xiv, 22-xv, 11; xxiv). The contents of the second part of the book are of a decidely more uniform character, but contribute no less effectively to the setting forth of the general topic of Ecclesiasticus. They first describe at length the Divine wisdom so wonderfully displayed in the realm of nature (xlii, 15-xliii), and next illustrate the practice of wisdom in the various walks of life, as made known by the history of Israel’s worthies, from Enoch down to the high priest Simon, the writer’s holy contemporary (xliv-1, 26). At the close of the book (1, 27-29), there is first, a short conclusion containing the author’s subscription and the express declaration of his general purpose; and next, an appendix (li) in which the writer returns thanks to God for His benefits, and especially for the gift of wisdom and to which are subjoined in the Hebrew text recently discovered, a second subscription and the following pious ejaculation: “Blessed be the name Of Yahweh from this time forth and for evermore.”

III. ORIGINAL TEXT

Until quite recently the original language of the Book of Ecclesiasticus was a matter of considerable doubt among scholars. They, of course, know that the Greek translator’s prologue states that the work was originally written in “Hebrew”, hebraisti, but they were in doubt as to the precise signification of this term, which might mean either Hebrew proper or Aramaic. They were likewise aware that St. Jerome, in his preface to the Solomonic writings, speaks of a Hebrew original as in existence in his day, but it still might be doubted whether it was truly a Hebrew text, or not rather a Syriac or Aramaic translation in Hebrew characters. Again, in their eyes, the citation of the book by rabbinical writers, sometimes in Hebrew, sometimes in Aramaic, did not appear decisive, since it was not certain that they came from a Hebrew original. And this was their view also with regard to the quotations, this time in classical Hebrew, by the Bagdad gaon Saadia of the tenth century of our era, that is of the period after which all documentary traces of a Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus practically disappear from the Christian world. Still, most critics were of the mind that the primitive language of the book was Hebrew, not Aramaic. Their chief argument for this was that the Greek version contains certain errors: for example, xxiv, 37 (in Gr., verse 27), “light” for “Nile” (xx); xxv, 22 (Gr. verse 15), “head” for “poison” (xx); xlvi. 21 (Gr., verse 18), “Tyrians” for “enemies” (xxx); etc.; these are best accounted for by supposing that the translator misunderstood a Hebrew original before him. And so the matter stood until the year 1896, which marks the beginning of an entirely new period in the history of the original text of Ecclesiasticus. Since that time, much documentary evidence has come to light, and intends to show that the book was originally written in Hebrew. The first fragments of a Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus (xxxix, 15-xl, 6) were brought from the East to Cambridge, England, by Mrs. A.S. Lewis; they were identified in May 1896, and published in “The Expositor” (July, 1896) by S. Schechter, reader in Talmudic at Cambridge University. About the same time, in a box of fragments acquired from the Cairo genizzah through Professor Sayce for the Bodleian Library, Oxford, nine leaves apparently of the same manuscript (now called B) and containing xl, 9-xlix, 11, were found by A.E. Cowley and Ad. Neubauer, who also soon published them (Oxford, 1897) Next followed the identification by Professor Schechter, first, of seven leaves of the same Codex (B), containing xxx, 11-xxxi, 11; xxxii, 1b-xxxiii 3; xxxv, 11-xxxvi, 21; xxxvii, 30-xxxviii, 28b; xlix, 14c-li, 30; and next, of four leaves of a different manuscript (called A), and presenting iii, 6e-vii, 31a; xi, 36d-xvi, 26. These eleven leaves had been discovered by Dr.. Schechtler in the fragments brought by him from the Cairo genizzah; and it is among matter obtained from the same source by the British Museum, that G. Margoliouth found and published., in 1899, four pages of the manuscript B containing xxxi, 12-xxxii, 1a; xxxvi, 21-xxxvii, 29. Early in 1900, I. Lé vi published two pages from a third manuscript (C), xxxvi, 29a-xxxviii, la, that is, a passage already contained in Codex Bl and two from a fourth manuscript (D), presenting in a defective manner, vi, 18-vii, 27b, that is, a section already found in Codes A. Early in 1900, too, E. N. Adler published four pages of manuscript A, vix. vii, 29-xii, 1; and S. Schechter, four pages of manuscript C, consisting of mere excerpts from iv, 28b-v, 15c; xxv, 11b-xxvi, 2a. Lastly, two pages of manuscript D were discovered by Dr. M.S. Gaster, and contain a few verses of chaps. xviii, xix, xx, xxvii, some of which already appear in manuscripts B and C. Thus be the middle of the year 1900, more than one-half of a Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus had been identified and published by scholars. (In the foregoing indications of the newly-discovered fragments of the Hebrew, the chapters and verses given are according to the numbering in the Latin Vulgate).

As might naturally be anticipated, and indeed it was desirable that it should so happen, the publication of these various fragments gave rise to a controversy as to the originality of the text therein exhibited. At a very early stage in that publication, scholars easily noticed that although the Hebrew language of the fragments was apparently classical, it nevertheless contained readings which might lead one to suspect its actual dependence on the Greek and Syriac versions of Ecclesiasticus. Whence it manifestly imported to determine whether, and if so, to what extent, the Hebrew fragments reproduced an original text of the book, or on the contrary, simply presented a late retranslation of Ecclesiasticus into Hebrew by means of the versions just named. Both Dr. G. Bickell and Professor D.S. Margoliouth, that is, the two men who but shortly before the discovery of the Hebrew fragments of Ecclesiasticus had attempted to retranslate small parts of the book into Hebrew, declared themselves openly against the originality of the newly found Hebrew text. It may indeed be admitted that the efforts naturally entailed by their own work of retranslation had especially fitted Margoliouth and Bickell for noticing and appreciating those features which even now appear to many scholars to tell in favour of a certain connection of the Hebrew text with the Greek and Syriac versions. It remains true, however, that, with the exception of Israel Lé vi and perhaps a few others, the most prominent Biblical and Talmudic scholars of the day are of the mind that the Hebrew fragments present an original text. They think that the arguments and inferences most vigorously urged by Professor D.S. Margoliouth in favour of his view have been disposed of through a comparison of the fragments published in 1899 and 1900 with those that had appeared at an earlier date, and through a close study of nearly all the facts now available. They readily admit in the manuscripts thus far recovered, scribal faults, doublets, Arabisms, apparent traces of dependence on extant versions, etc. But to their minds all such defects do not disprove the originality of the Hebrew text, inasmuch as they can, and indeed in a large number of cases must, be accounted for by the very late characrter of the copies now in our possession. The Hebrew fragments of Ecclesiasticus belong, at the earliest, to the tenth, or even the eleventh, century of our era, and by that late date all kinds of errors could naturally be expected to have crept into the origional language of the book, because the Jewish copyists of the work did not regard it as canonical. At the same time these defects do not disfigure altogether the manner of Hebrew in which Ecclesiasticus was primitively written. The language of the fragments is manifestly not rabbinic, but classical Hebrew; and this conclusion is decidely borne out by a comparison of their text with that of the quotations from Ecclesiasticus, both in the Talmud and in the Saadia, which have already been referred to. Again, the Hebrew of the newly found fragments, although classical, is yet one of a distinctly late type, and it supplies considerable material for lexicographic research. Finally, the comparatively large number of the Hebrew manuscripts recently discovered in only one place (Cairo) points to the fact that the work in its primitive form was often transcribed in ancient times, and thus affords hope that other copies, more or less complete, of the original text may be discovered at some future date. To render their study convenient, all the extant fragments have been brought together in a splendid edition. “Facsimiles of the Fragments hitherto recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew” (Oxford and Cambridge, 1901). The metrical and strophic structure of parts of the newly discovered text has been particularly investigated by H. Grimme and N. Schlogl, whose success in the matter is, to say the least, indifferent; and by Jos. Knabenbauer, S.J. in a less venturesome way, and hence with more satisfactory results.

IV. ANCIENT VERSIONS

It was, of course, from a Hebrew text incomparably better than the one we now possess that the grandson of the author of Ecclesiasticus rendered, the book into Greek. This translator was a Palestinian Jew, who came to Egypt at a certain time, and desired to make the work accessible in a Greek dress to the Jews of the Dispersion, and no doubt also to all lovers of wisdom. His name is unknown, although an ancient, but little reliable, tradition (“Synopsis Scripurae Sacrae” in St. Athanasius’s works) calls him Jesus, the son of Sirach. His literary qualifications for the task he undertook and carried out cannot be fully ascertained at the present day. He is commonly regarded, however, from the general character of his work, as a man of good general culture, with a fair command of both Hebrew and Greek. He was distinctly aware of the great difference which exists between the respective genius of these two languages, and of the consequent difficulty attending the efforts of one who aimed atgving a satisfactory Greek version of a Hebrew writing, and therefore begs expressely, in his prologue to the work, his readers’ indulgence for whatever shortcomings they may notice in his translation. He claims to have spent much time and labour on his version of Ecclesiasticus, and it is only fair to suppose that his work was not only a conscientious, but also, on the whole, a successful, rendering of the original Hebrew. One can but speak in this guarded manner of the exact value of the Greek translation in its primitive form for the simple reason that a comparison of its extant manuscripts — all apparently derived from a single Greek exemplar — shows that the primitive translation has been very often, and in many cases seriously, tampered with. The great uncial codices, the Vatican, the Sinaitic, the Ephraemitic, and partly the Alexandrian, though comparatively free from glosses, contain an inferior text; the better form of the text seems to be preserved in the Venetus Codex and in certain cursive manuscripts, though these have many glosses. Undoubtedly, a fair number of these glosses may be referred safely to the translator himself, who, at times added one word, or even a few words to the original before him, to make the meaning clearer or to guard the text against possible misunderstanding. But the great bulk of the glosses resemble the Greek additions in the Book of Proverbs; they are expansions of the thought, or hellenizing interpretations, or additions from current collections of gnomic sayings. The following are the best-ascertained results which flow from a comparison of the Greek version with the text of our Hebrew fragments. Oftentimes, the corruptions of the Hebrew may be discovered by means of the Greek; and, conversely, the Greek text is proved to be defective, in the line of additions or omissions, by references to parallel places in the Hebrew. At times, the Hebrew discloses considerable freedom of rendering on the part of the Greek translator; or enables one to perceive how the author of the version mistook one Hebrew letter for another; or again, affords us a means to make sense out of an unintelligible expressions in the Greek text. Lastly, the Hebrew text confirms the order of the contents in xxx-xxxvi which is presented by the Syriac, Latin, and Armenian versions, over against the unnatural order found in all existing Greek manuscripts. Like the Greek, the Syriac version of Ecclesiasticus was made directly from the original Hebrew. This is wellnigh universally admitted; and a comparison of its text with that of the newly found Hebrew fragments should settle the point forever; as just stated, the Syriac version gives the same order as the Hebrew text for the contents of xxx-xxxvi; in particular, it presents mistaken renderings, the origin of which, while inexplicable by supposing a Greek original as its basis, is easily accounted for by reference to the text from which it was made must have been very defective, as is proved by the numerous and important lacunae in the Syriac translation. It seems, likewise, that the Hebrew has been rendered by the translator himself in a careless, and at times even arbitrary manner. The Syriac version has all the less critical value at the present day, because it was considerably revised at an unknown date, by means of the Greek translation.

Of the other ancient versions of Ecclesiasticus, the Old Latin is the most important. It was made before St. Jerome’s time, although the precise date of its origin cannot now be ascertained; and the holy doctor apparently revised its text but little, previously to its adoption into the Latin Vulgate. The unity of the Old Latin version, which was formerly undoubted, has been of late seriously questioned, and Ph. Thielmann, the most recent investigator of its text in this respect, thinks that chs. xliv-1 are due to a translator other than that of the rest of the book, the former part being of European, the latter and chief part of African, origin. Conversely, the view formerly doubted by Cornelius a Lapide, P. Sabatier, E.G. Bengel, etc., namely that the Latin version was made directly from the Greek, is now considered as altogether certain. The version has retained many Greek words in a latinized form: eremus (vi, 3); eucharis (vi, 5); basis (vi, 30); acharis (xx, 21), xenia (xx, 31); dioryx (xxiv, 41); poderes (xxvii, 9); etc., etc., together with certain Graecisms of construction; so that the text rendered into Latin was unquestionably Greek, not the original Hebrew. It is indeed true that other features of the Old Latin — notably its order for xxx-xxxvi, which disagrees with the Greek translation, and agrees with the Hebrew text — seem to point to the conclusion that the Latin version was based immediately on the original Hebrew. But a very recent and critical examination of all such features in i-xliii has let H. Herkenne to a different conclusion; all things taken into consideration, he is of the mind that: “Nititur Vetus Latina textu vulgari graeco ad textum hebraicum alterius recensionis graece castigato.” (See also Jos. Knabenbauer, S.J., “In Ecclesiaticum”, p. 34 sq.) Together with graecized forms, the Old Latin translation of Ecclesiasticus presents many barbarisms and solecisms (such as defunctio, i, 13; religiositas, i, 17, 18, 26; compartior, i, 24; receptibilis, ii, 5; peries, periet, viii, 18; xxxiii, 7; obductio, ii, 2; v, 1, 10; etc.), which, to the extent in which they can be actually traced back to the original form of ther version, go to show that the translator had but a poor command of the Latin language. Again, from a fair number of expressions which are certainly due to the translator, it may be inferred that at times, he did not catch the sense of the Greek, and that at other times he was too free in rendering the text before him. The Old Latin version abounds in additional lines or even verses foreign not only to the Greek, but also to the Hebrew text. Such important additions — which often appear clearly so from the fact that they interfere with the poetical parallelisms of the book — are either repetitions of preceding statements under a slightly different form, or glosses inserted by the translator or the copyists. Owing to the early origin of the Latin version (probably the second century of our era), and to its intimate connection with both the Greek and Hebrew texts, a good edition of its primitive form, as far as this form can be ascertained, is one of the chief things to be desired for the textual criticism of Ecclesiasticus. Among the other ancient versions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus which are derived from the Greek, the Ethiopic, Arabic, and Coptic are worthy of special mention.

V. AUTHOR AND DATE

The author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus is not King Solomon, to whom, at St. Augustine bears witness, the work was oftentimes ascribed “on account of some resemblance of style” with that of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle of Canticles, but to whom, as the same holy doctor says, “the more learned” (apparently among the church writers of the time) “know full well that it should not be referred” (On the City of God, Bk. XVII, ch xx). At the present day, the authorship of the book is universally and rightly assigned to a certain “Jesus”, concerning whose person and character a great deal has indeed been surmised but very little is actually known. In the Greek prologue to the work, the author’s proper name is given as Iesous, and this information is corroborated by the subscriptions found in the original Hebrew: 1, 27 (Vulg., 1, 29); li, 30. His familiar surname was Ben Sira, as the Hebrew text and the ancient versions agree to attest. He is described in the Greek and Latin versions as “a man of Jerusalem” (1, 29), and internal evidence (cf. xxiv, 13 sqq.; 1) tends to confirm the statement, although it is not found in the Hebrew. His close acquaintance with “the Law, the Prophets, and the other books delivered from the fathers”, that is, with the three classes of writings which make up the Hebrew Bible, is distinctly borne witness to by the prologue to the work; and the 367 idioms or phrases, which the study of the Hebrew fragments has shown to be derived from the sacred books of the Jews, are an ample proof that Jesus, the son of Sirach, was thoroughly acquainted with the Biblical text. He was a philisophical observer of life, as can be easily inferred from the nature of his thought, and he himself speaks of the wider knowledge which he acquired by traveling much, and of which he, of course, availed himself in writing his work (xxxiv, 12). The particular period in the author’s life to which the composition of the book should be referred cannot be defined, whatever conjectures may have been put forth in that regard by some recent scholars. The data to which others have appealed (xxxi, 22, sqq.; xxxviii, 1-15; etc.) to prove that he was a physician are insufficent evidence; while the similarity of the names (Jason-Jesus) is no excuse for those who have identified Jesus, the son of Sirach, a man of manifestly pious and honourable character with the ungodly and hellenizing high priest Jason (175-172 B.C. — concerning Jason’s wicked deeds, see 2 Maccabees 4:7-26).

The time at which Jesus, the author of Ecclesiasticus, lived has been the matter of much discussion in the past. But at the present day, it admits of being given with tolerable precision. Two data are particularly helpful for this purpose. The first is supplied by the Greek prologue, where he came into Egypt en to ogdoo kai triakosto etei epi tou Euergetou Basileos, not long after which he rendered into Greek his grandfather’s work. The “thirty-eighth year” here spoken of by the translator does not mean that of his own age, for such a specification would be manifestly irrelevant. It naturally denotes the date of his arrival in Egypt with a reference to the years of rule of the then monarch, the Egyptian Ptolemy Euergetes; and in point of fact, the Greek grammatical construction of the passage in the prologue is that usually employed into the Septuagint version to give the year of rule of a prince (cf. Haggai 1:1, 10; Zechariah 1:1, 7; 7:1; 1 Maccabees 12:42; 14:27; etc.). There were indeed two Ptolemys of the surname Euergetes (Benefactor): Ptolemy III and Ptolemy VII (Physcon). But to decide which is the one actually meant by the author of the prologue is an easy matter. As the first, Ptolemy III, reigned only twenty-five years (247-222 B.C.) it must be the second, Ptolemy VII, who in intended. This latter prince shared the throne along with his brother (from 170 B.C. onwards), and afterwards ruled alone (from 145 B.C. onwards). But he was wont to reckon the years of his reign from the earlier date. Hence “the thirty-eighth year of Ptolemy Euergetes”, in which the grandson of Jesus, the son of Sirach, came to Egypt, is the year 132 B.C. This being the case, the translator s grandfather, the author of Ecclesiasticus, may be regarded as having lived and written his work between forty and sixty years before (between 190 and 170 B.C.), for there can be no doubt that in referring to Jesus by means of the term pappos and of the definite phrase ho pappos mou Iesous, the writer of the prologue designated his grandfather, and not a more remote ancestor. The second datum that is particularly available for determining the time at which the writer of Ecclesiasticus lived is supplied by the book itself. It has long been felt that since the son of Sirach celebrated with such a genuine glow of enthusiam the deeds of “the high priest Simon, son of Onias”, whom he praises as the last in the long line of Jewish worthies, he must himself have been an eyewitnes of the glory which he depicts (cf. 1, 1-16, 22, 23). This was, of course, but an inference and so long as it was based only on a more or less subjective appreciation of the passage, one can easily undertand why many scholars questioned, or even rejected, its correctness. But with the recent discovery of the original Hebrew of the passage, there has come in a new, and distinctly objective, element, whcih places practically beyond doubt the correctness of the inference. In the Hebrew text, immediatley after his eulogism of the high priest Simon, the writer subjoins the following fervent prayer: May His (i.e. Yahweh’s) mercy be continually with Simon, and may He establish with him the covenant of Phineas, that will endure with him and with his seed, as the says of heaven (I, 24). Obviously, Simon was yet alive when this prayer was thus formulated; and its actual wording in the Hebrew implies this so manifestly, that when the author’s grandson rendered it into Greek, at a date when Simon had been dead for some time, he felt it necessary to modify the text before him, and hence rendered it in the following general manner: May His mercy be continually with us, and may He redeem us in His days. Besides thus allowing us to realize the fact that Jesus, the son of Sirach, was a contemporary of the high priest Simon, chap. 1 of Ecclesiasticus affords us certain details which enable us to decide which of the two Simons, both high priests and sons of Onias and known in Jewish history, is the one described by the writer of the book. On the one hand, the only known title of Simon I (who held the pontificate under Ptolemy Soter, about 300 B.C.) which would furnish a reason for the great ecomium passed upon Simon in Ecclus., l is the surname “the Just” (cf. Josephus, Antiq. of the Jews, Bk.XII, chap. ii, 5), whence it is inferred that he was a renowned high priest worthy of being celebrated among the Jewish heroes praised by the son of Dirach. On the other hand, such details given in Simon’s panegyric, as the facts that he repaired and strengthened the Temple, fortified the city against siege, and protected the city against robbers (cf. Ecclus., 1 1-4), are in close agreement with what is known of the times of Simon II (about 200 B.C.). While in the days of Simon I, and immediately after, the people were undisturbed by foreign aggression, in those of Simon II the Jews were sorely harrassed by hostile armies, and their territory was invaded by Antiochus, as we are informed by Josephus (Antiq. of the Jews, Bk. XII, chap. iii, 3). It was also in the later time of Simon II that Ptolemy Philopator was prevented only by the high priest’s prayer to God, from desecrating the Most Holy Place; he then started a fearful persecution of the Jews at home and abroad (cf. III Mach., ii, iii). It appears from these facts — to which others, pointing in the same direction, could easily be added — that the author of Ecclesiasticus lived about the beginning of the second century B.C. As a matter of fact, recent Catholic scholars, in increasing number, prefer this position that which identifies the high priest Simon, spoken of in Ecclus., l, with Simon I, and which, in consequence, refers the composition of the book to about a century earlier (about 280 B.C.)

VI. METHOD OF COMPOSITION

At the present day, there are two principal views concerning the manner in which the writer of Ecclesiasticus composed his work, and it is difficult to say which is the more probable. The first, held by many scholars, maintains that an impartial study of the topics treated and of their actual arrangement leads to the conclusion that the whole book is the work of a single mind. Its advocates claim that, throughout the book, one and the same general purpose can be easily made out, to wit: the purpose of teaching the practical value of Hebrew wisdom, and that one and the same method in handling the materials can be readily noticed, the writer always showing wide acquaintance with men and things, and never citing any exterior authority for what he says. They affirm that a careful examination of the contents disclosed a distinct unity of mental attitude on the author’s part towards the same leading topics, towards God, life, the Law, wisdom, etc. They do not deny the existence of differences of tone in the book, but think that they are found in various paragraphs relating to minor topics; that the diversities thus noticed do not go beyond the range of one man’s experience; that the author very likely wrote at different intervals and under a variety of circumstances, so that it is not to be wondered at if pieces thus composed bear the manifest impress of a somewhat different frame of mind. Some of them actually go so far as to admit that the writer of Ecclesiasticus may at times have collected thoughts and maxims that were already in current and popular use, may even have drawn material from collections of wise sayings no longer extant or from unpublished discourses of sages; but they, each and all, are positive that the author of the book “was not a mere collector or compiler; his characteristic personality stands out too distinctly and prominently for that, and notwithstanding the diversified character of the apophthegms, they are all the outcome of one connected view of life and of the world” (Schürer).

The second view maintains that the Book of Ecclesiasticus was composed by a process of compilation. According to the defenders of this position, the compilatory character of the book does not necessarily conflict with a real unity of general purpose pervading and connecting the elements of the work; such a purpose proves, indeed, that one mind has bound those elements together for a common end, but it really leaves untouched the question at issue, viz. whether that one mind must be considered as the original author of the contents of the book, or, rather, as the combiner of pre-existing materials. Granting, then, the existence of one and the same general purpose in the work of the son of Sirach, and admitting likewise the fact that certain portions of Ecclesiasticus belong to him as the original author, they think that, on the whole, the book is a compilation. Briefly stated, the following are their grounds for their position. In the first place, from the very nature of his work, the author was like “a gleaner after the grape-gatherers”; and in thus speaking of himself (xxxiii, 16) he gives us to understand that he was a collector or compiler. In the second place, the structure of the work still betrays a compilatory process. The concluding chapter (li) is a real appendix to the book, and was added to it after the completion of the work, as is proved by the colophon in 1, 29 sqq. The opening chapter reads like a general introduction to the book, and indeed as one different in tone from the chapters by which its immediately followed, while it resembes some distinct sections which are embodied in furthur chapters of the work. In the body of the book, ch. xxxvi, 1-19, is a prayer for the Jews of the Dispersion, altogether unconnected with the sayings in verses 20 sqq. of the same chapter; ch. xliii, 15-1, 26, is a discourse clearly separate from the prudential maxims by which it is immediatley preceded; chs. xvi, 24; xxiv, 1; xxxix, 16, are new starting-points, which, no less than the numerous passages marked by the address my son (ii, 1; iii, 19; iv, 1, 23; vi, 18, 24, 33; etc.). and the peculiar addition in 1, 27, 28, tell against the literary unity of the work. Other marks of a compilatory process have also been appealed to. They consist in the significant repetition of several sayings in different places of the book (cf. xx, 32, 33, which is repeated in xli, 17b, 18; etc.); in apparent discrepancies of thought and doctrine (cf. the differences of tone in chs. xvi; xxv; xxix, 21-41; xl, 1-11; etc); in certain topical headings at the beginning of special sections (cf. xxxi, 12; 41:16; 44:1 in the Hebrew); and in an additonal psalm or canticle found in the newly discovered Hebrew text, between li, 12, and li, 13; all of which are best accounted for by the use of several smaller collections containing each the same saying, or differing considerably in their genral tenor, or supplies with their respective titles. Finally, there seems to be an historical trace of the compilatory character of Ecclesiasticus in a second, but unauthentic, prologue to the book, which is found in the “Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae”. In this document, which is printed in the works of St. Athanasius and also at the beginning of Ecclesiasticus in the Complutensian Polyglot, the actual redaction of the book is ascribed to the Greek translator as a regular process of compilation detached hymns, sayings, prayers, etc., which had been left him by his grandfather, Jesus, the son of Sirach.

VII. DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL TEACHING

Before setting forth in a summary way the principal teachings, doctrinal and ethical, contained in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, it will not be amiss to premise two remarks which, however elementary, should be distinctly borne in mind by anyone who wished to view the doctrines of the son of Sirach in their proper light. First, it would be obviously unfair to require that the contents of this Sapiential book should come full up to the high moral standards of Christian ethics, or should equal in clearness and precision the dogmatic teachings embodied in the sacred writings of the New Testament or in the living tradition of the Church; all that can be reasonabley expected of a book composed some time before the Christian Dispensation, is that it shall set forth subsantially good, not perfect, doctrinal and ethical teaching. In the second place, both good logic and sound common sense demand that the silence of Ecclesiasticus concerning certain points of doctrine be not regarded as a positive denial of them, unless it can be clearly and conclusively shown that such a silence must be so construed. The work is mostly made up of unconnected sayings which bear on all kinds of topics, and on that account, hardly ever, if ever at all, will a sober critic be able to pronounce on the actual motive which prompted the author of the book either to mention or to omit a particular point of doctrine. Nay more, in presence of a writer manifestly wedded to the national and religious traditions of the Jewish race as the general tone of his book proves the author of Ecclesiasticus to have been, every scholar worthy of the name will readily see that silence on Jesus’ part regarding some important doctrine, such for instance as that of the Messias, is no proof whatever that the son of Sirach did not abide by the belief of the Jews concerning that doctrine, and, in reference to the special point just mentioned, did not share the Messianic expectations of his time. As can readily be seen, the two general remarks just made simply set forth the elementary canons of historical criticism; and they would not have been dwelt on here were it not that they have been very often lost sight of by Protestant scholars, who, biased by their desire to disprove the Catholic doctrine of the inspired character of Ecclesiasticus, have done their utmost to depreciate the doctrinal and ethical teaching of this deuterocanonical book.

The following are the principal dogmatic doctrines of Jesus, the son of Sirach. According to him, as according to all the other inspired writers of the Old Testament, God is one and there is no God beside Him (xxxvi, 5). He is a living and eternal God (xviii, 1), and although His greatness and mercy exceed all human comprehension, yet He makes Himself known to man through His wonderful works (xvi, 18, 23 xviii, 4). He is the creator of all things (xviii, 1; xxiv, 12), which He produced by His word of command, stamping them all with the marks of greatness and goodness (xlii, 15-xliii ; etc.). Man is the choice handiwork of God, who made him for His glory, set him as king over all other creatures (xvii, 1-8), bestowed upon him the power of choosing between good and evil (xv, 14-22), and will hold him accountable for his own personal deeds (xvii, 9-16), for while tolerating, moral evil He reproves it and enables man to avoid it (xv, 11-21). In dealing with man, God is no less merciful than righteous: “He is mighty to forgive” (xvi, 12), and: “How great is the mercy of the Lord, and His forgiveness to them that turn to Him” (xvii, 28); yet no one should presume on the Divine mercy and hence delay his conversion, “for His wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance He will destroy thee” (v, 6-9). From among the children of men, God selected for Himself a special nation, Israel, in the midst of which He wills that wisdom should reside (xxiv, 13-16), and in behalf of which the son of Sirach offers up a fervent prayer, replete with touching remembrances of God’s mercies to the patriarchs and prophets of old, and with ardent wishes for the reunion and exaltation of the chosen people (xxxvi, 1-19). It is quite clear that the Jewish patriot who put forth this petition to God for future national quiet and prosperity, and who furthermore confidently expected that Elias’s return would contribute to the glorious restoration of all Israel (cf. xlviii, 10), looked forward to the introduction of Messianic times. It remains true, however, that in whatever way his silence be accounted for, he does not speak anywhere of a special interposition of God in behalf of the Jewish people, or of the future coming of a personal Messias. He manifestly alludes to the narrative of the Fall, when he says: “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die” (xxv, 33), and apparently connects with this original deviation from righteousness the miseries and passions that weigh so heavily on the children of Adam (xl, 1-11). He says very little concerning the next life. Earthly rewards occupy the most prominent, or perhaps even the sole, place, in the author’s mind, as a sanction for present good or evil deeds (xiv, 22-xv, 6; xvi, 1-14); but this will not appear strange to anyone who is acquainted with the limitations of Jewish eschatology in the more ancient parts of the Old Testament. He depicts death in the light of a reward or of a punishment, only in so far as it is either a quiet demise for the just or a final deliverance from earthly ills (xli, 3, 4), or, on the contrary, a terrible end that overtakes the sinner when he least expects it (ix, 16, 17). As regards the underworld or Sheol, it appears to the writer nothing but a mournful place where the dead do not praise God (xvii, 26, 27)

The central, dogmatic, and moral idea of the book is that of wisdom. Ben Sira describes it under several important aspects. When he speaks of it in relation to God, he almost invariable invests it with personal attributes. It is eternal (i, 1), unsearchaable (i, 6, 7), universal (xxiv, 6 sqq.). It is the formative, creative power of the world (xxiv, 3 sqq.), yet is itself created (i, 9; also in Greek: xxiv, 9), and is nowhere treated as a distinct, subsisting Divine Person, in the Hebrew text. In relation to man, wisdom is depicted as a quality which comes form the Almighty and works most excellent effects in those who love Him (i, 10-13). It is identified with the “fear of God” (i, 16), which should of course prevail in a special manner in Israel, and promote among the Hebrews the perfect fulfilment of the Mosaic Law, which the author of Ecclesasticus regards as the living embodiment of God d wisdom (xxiv, 11-20, 32, 33). It is a priceless treasure, to the acquistion of which one must devote all his efforts, and the imparting of which to others one should never grudge (vi, 18-20; xx, 32, 33). It is a disposition of the heart which prompts man to practise the virtues of faith, hope, and love of God (ii, 8-10), of trust and submission, etc. (ii, 18-23; x, 23-27; etc.); which also secures for him happiness and glory in this life (xxxiv, 14-20; xxxiii, 37, 38; etc.). It is a frame of mind which prevents the discharge of the ritual law, especially the offering of sacrifices, from becoming a heartless compliance with mere outward observances, and it causes man to place inward righeousness far above the offering of rich gifts to God (xxxv). As can readily be seen, the author of Ecclesiasticus inculcated in all this a teaching far superior to that of the Pharisees of a somewhat later date, and in no way inferior to that of the prophets and of the commendable, too, are the numerous pithy sayings which the son of Sirach gives for the avoidance of sin, wherein the negative part of practical wisdom may be said to consist. His maxims against pride (iii, 30; vi, 2-4; x, 14-30; etc.), covetousness (iv, 36; v, 1; xi, 18-21), envy, (xxx, 22-27; xxxvi, 22), impurity(ix, 1-13; xix, 1-3; etc.).anger (xviii, 1-14; x, 6), intemperance (xxxvii, 30-34). sloth (vii, 16; xxii, 1, 2), the sins of the tongue(iv, 30; vli, 13, 14; xi, 2, 3; i, 36-40; v, 16, 17; xxviii, 15-27; etc.), evil company, (xi, 31-36; xxii, 14-18; etc.), display a close observation of human nature, stigmatize vice in a forcible manner, and at times point out the remedy against the spiritual distemper. Indeed, it is probably no less because of the success which Ben Sira attained to in branding vice than because of that which he obtained in directly inculcating virtue, that his work was so willingly used in the early days of Christianity for public reading at church, and bears, down to the present day, the pre-eminent title of “Ecclesiasticus”.

Together with these maxims, which nearly all bear on what may be called individual morality, the Book of Ecclesiasticus contains valuable lessons relative to the various classes which make up human society. The natural basis of society is the family, and the son of Sirach supplies a number of pieces of advice especially appropriate to the domestic circles as it was then constituted. He would have the man who wishes to become the head of a family determined in the choice of a wife by her moral worth (xxxvi, 23-26; xl, 19-23). He repeatedly describes the precious advantages resulting from the possession of a good wife, and contrasts with them the misery entailed by the choice of an unworthy one (xxvi, 1-24; xxv, 17-36). The man, as the head of the family, he represents indeed as vested with more power than would be granted to him among us, but he does not neglect to point out his numerous responsibilities towards those under him: to his children, especially his daughter, whose welfare he might more particularly be tempted to neglect (vii, 25 sqq.), and his slaves, concerning whom he writes: “Let a wise servant be dear to thee as they own soul” (vii, 23; xxxiii, 31), not meaning thereby, however, to encourage the servant’s idleness or other vices (xxxiii, 25-30). The duties of children towards their parents are often and beautifully insisted upon (vii, 29, 30, etc.). The son of Sirach devoted a variety of sayings to the choice and the worth of a real friend (vi, 6-17; ix, 14, 15; xii, 8, 9), to the care with which such a one should be preserved (xxii, 25-32), and also to the worthlessness and dangers of the unfaithful friend (xxvii, 1-6, 17-24; xxxiii, 6). The author has no brief against those in power but on the contrary considers it an expression of God’s will that some should be in exalted, and others in humble, stations in life (xxxiii, 7-15). He conceives of the various classes of society, of the poor and the rich, the learned and the ignorant, as able to become endowed with wisdom (xxxvii, 21-29). He would have a prince bear in mind that he is in God’s hand, and owes equal justice to all, rich and poor (v, 18; x, 1-13). He bids the rich give alms, and visit the poor and the afflicted (iv, 1-11; vii, 38, 39; xii, 1-7; etc.), for almsgiving is a means to obtain forgiveness of sin (iii, 33, 34; vii, 10, 36) whereas hardheartedness is in every way hurtful 9xxxiv, 25-29). On the other hand, he directs the lower classes, as we might call them, to show themselves submissive to those in higher condition and to bear patiently with those who cannot be safely and directly resisted (viii, 1-13; ix, 18-21; xiii, 1-8). Nor is the author of Ecclesiasticus anything like a misanthrope that would set himself up resolutely against the legitmate pleasures and the received customs of social life (xxxi, 12-42; xxxii, 1 sqq.); while he directs severe but just rebukes against the parasite (xxix, 28-35; xi, 29-32). Finally, he has favourable sayings about the physician (xxviii, 1-15(, and about the dead (vii, 37; xxxviii, 16-24); and strong words of caution against the dangers which one incurs in the pursuit of business (xxvi, 28; xxvii, 1-4; viii, 15, 16).

———————————–

Catholic authors are marked with an asterik (*)

Commentaries: CALMET* (Venice, 1751): FRITZSCHE, (Leipzig, 1859); BISSELL (New York, 1880); LESETRE* (Paris, 1880); EDERSHEIM (London-1888); ZOCKLER, (Munich, 1891); RYSSEL (Tubingen, 1900-1901); KNABENBAUER* (Paris, 1902). Introductions to the Old Testament: RAULT* (Paris, 1882); VIGOUROUX* (Paris, 1886); CORNELY* (Paris, 1886); TRONCHON-LESETRE* (Paris, 1890); KONIG (Bonn, 1893); CORNILL, (Freiburg, 1899); GIGOT* (New York, 1906) Monographs on Ancient Versions: PETERS* (Freiburg, 1898); HERKENNE* (Leipzig, 1899). Literature on Hebrew Fragments: TOUZARD* (Paris, 1901); KNABENBAUER* (Paris, 1902).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT Transcribed by Beth Ste-Marie

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VCopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Ecclesiasticus

one of the most important of the apocryphal books of the O.T., SEE APOCRYPHA, being of the class ranked in the second canon. SEE DEUTEPRO-CANONICAL.

I. Title. The original Hebrew title of this book, according to the authority of the Jewish writings and St. Jerome (Praef. in Libr. Sol. 9:1242), was , Proverbs, or, more fully, , the Proverbs of Jesus, son of Sira, which was abbreviated, according to a very common practice, into Ben-Sira; Siruk, which we find in a few later writers, evidently originated from a desire to imitate the Greek . Hence all the quotations made from this book in the Talmud and Midrashim are under these titles. (Comp. Mishna, Yadaim, 3:15; Chagiga, page 15; Midrash Rabba, page 6, b.; Tanchuma, page 69, a, etc.) The Greek MSS. and fathers, however, as well as the prologue to this book, and the printed editions of the Sept., designate it (v.r. and even ), The wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, or, by way of abbreviation, , The wisdom of Sirach, or simply Sirach; also , or simply , The book of all virtues, because of the excellency and diversity of the wisdom it propounds (Jerome, l.c.; comp. Routh, Reli. Sacr. 1:278). In the Syriac version the book is entitled The book of Jesus, the son of Simeon Asiro (i.e., the bound); and the same book is called the wisdom of the Son of Asiro. In many authors it is simply styled Wisdom (Orig. in Mat 13:1-58, 4; compare Clam. Al. Pad. 1:8, 69, 72, etc.), and Jesus Sirach (August. ad Simplic. 1:20). The name Ecclesiasticus, by which it has been called in the Latin Church ever since the second half of the fourth century (Rufinus, Vers.; Orig. Hom. in Num 17:3), and which has been retained in many versions of the Reformers (e.g. the Zurich Bible, Coverdale, the Geneva version, the Bishops’ Bible, and [together with the other title] the Authorized Version) is derived from the old Latin version, adopted by Jerome in the Vulgate, and is explained to mean church reading-book. Calmet, however, is of opinion (Preface) that this name was given to it because of its resemblance to Ecclesiastes. But as this explanation of the title is very vague, it is rightly rejected by Luther, and almost all modern critics. The word, like many others of Greek origin, appears to have been adopted in the African dialect (e.g. Tertull. De pudic. c. 22, page 435), and thus it may have been applied naturally in the Vetus Latina to a church reading-book; and when that translation was adopted by Jerome (Profe. in Libro Sal. juxta LXX. 10:404, ed. Migne), the local title became current throughout the West, where the book was most used. The right explanation of the word is given by Rufinus, who remarks that “it does not designate the author of the book, but the character of the writing,” as publicly used in the services of the Church (Comm. in Symb. 38). The special application by Rufinus of the general name of the class (ecclesiastici as opposed to canonici) to the single book may be explained by its wide popularity. Athanasius, for instance, mentions the book (Ep. Fest. s.f.) as one of those “framed by the fathers to be read by those who wish to be instructed () in the word of godliness.”

II. Design and Method. The object of this book is to propound the true nature of wisdom, and to set forth the religious and social duties which she teaches us to follow through all the varied stages and vicissitudes of this life, thus exhibiting the practical end of man’s existence by reviewing life in all its different bearings and aspects. Wisdom is represented here, as in Proverbs, as the source of human happiness, and the same views of human life, founded on the belief of a recompense, pervade the instructions of this book also, wherein, however, a more matured reflection is perceptible (De Wette’s Einleitung). It is, in fact, the composition of a philosopher who had deeply studied the fortunes and manners of mankind, and did not hesitate to avail himself of the philosophy of older moralists: Ecclesiastes 12:813:23; 15:11-20; 16:2617:20; 19:6-17; 23:16-27; 26:1-18; 30:1-13; 37:27; 38:15, 24:139:11, etc. (Ib.). It abounds in grace, wisdom, and spirit, although sometimes more particular in inculcating principles of politeness than those of virtue (Cellerier, Introd. a la Lecture des Liv. Saints). It is not unfrequently marked by considerable beauty and elegance of expression, occasionally rising to the sublimest heights of human eloquence (Christian Remembrancer, volume 9). It has been observed of it by Addison (see Horne’s Introd. volume 4) that “it would be regarded by our modern wits as one of the most shining tracts of morality that are extant if it appeared under the name of a Confucius, or of any celebrated Grecian philosopher.”

In addition to the fact that no Palestinian production, whether inspired or uninspired, can be reduced to a logically developed treatise according to Aristotelian rules, there are difficulties in tracing the plan of this book, arising from the peculiar circumstances of the author, as well as from the work itself. Ben-Sira brings to the execution of his plan the varied experience of a studious and practical life, and in his great anxiety not to omit any useful lesson which he has gathered, he passes on, after the manner of an Eastern logic, from the nature of heavenly wisdom to her godly teachings, from temptation in her varied forms to filial duties; he discloses before the eyes of his readers the inward workings of the heart and mind, he depicts all passions and aspirations, all the virtues and vices, all the duties towards God and man, in proverbs and apothegms, in sayings which have been the property of the nation for ages, and in maxims and parables of his own creation, with a rapidity and suddenness of transition which even an Eastern mind finds it at times difficult to follow. Add to this that the original Hebrew is lost, that the Greek translation is very obscure, that it has been mutilated for dogmatic purposes, and that some sections are transposed beyond the hope of readjustment, and the difficulty of displaying satisfactorily the method or plan of this book will at once be apparent, and the differences of opinion respecting it will be no matter of surprise. The book (see Fritzsche’s proleg. in his Commentar) is divisible into seven parts or sections:

1. Comprising chapters 116:21, describes the nature of wisdom, gives encouragements to submit to it, as well as directions for conducting ourselves in harmony with its teachings;

2. 16:2223:17, shows God in the creation, the position man occupies with regard to his Maker, gives directions how he is to conduct himself under different circumstances, and how to avoid sin;

3. 24:130:24; 33:1236:16a; 30:25-27, describes wisdom and the law, and the writer’s position as to the former, gives proverbs, maxims, and admonitions about the conduct of men in a social point of view;

4. 30:2833:11; 36:16b-22, describes the wise and just conduct of men, the Lord and his people;

5. 36:2339:11, instructions and admonitions about social matters;

6. 39:1242:14, God’s creation, and the position man occupies with regard to it;

7. 42:11-1, 26, the praise of the Lord, how he had glorified himself in the works of nature, and in the celebrated ancestors of the Jewish people. Thereupon follows an epilogue, chapter 1:27-29, in which the author gives his name, and declares those happy who will ponder over the contents of this book, and act according to it; as well as an appendix, chapter 51:1-30, praising the Lord for deliverance from danger, describing how the writer has successfully followed the paths of wisdom from his very youth, and calling upon the uneducated to get the precious treasures of wisdom. SEE WISDOM PERSONIFIED.

III. Its Unity. The peculiar difficulties connected both with the plan of the book and the present deranged condition of its text will have prepared the reader for the assertions made by some that there is no unity at all in the composition of this book, and that it is, in fact, a compilation of divers national sayings, from various sources, belonging to different ages (see Davidson, in Horne’s Introd. 2:1013 sq.). Encouragement is sought for these assertions from the statement in the spurious prologue of this book, , , as well as from the remark of St. Jerome: “Quorum priorem [ Jesu filii Sirach librum] Hebraicum reperi, non Ecclesiasticum ut apud Latinos, sed Parabolas praenenotatum, cui juncti erant Ecclesiastes et Canticum Canticorum, ut similitudinem Salomonis non solum librorum numero, sed etiam materiarum genere cosequaret” (Praef. in Libr. Solom.), which seems to imply that the book of Ben-Sira was intended to answer to all the three reputed works of Solomon. So also Luther. Eichhorn can see in it three different books: the first book consists of chapters 123, comprising desultory remarks upon life and morals, and is divisible into two sections, viz. (a) 19, and (b) 33; the second book comprises 2442. 14, begins with a vivid description of wisdom whereupon follow remarks and maxims without any order; and the third book, comprising 42:15-1, 24, is the only portion of Sirach carefully worked out, and contains praise of God and the noble ancestors of the Hebrews (Einleitung in d. Ap. page 50, etc.). Ewald, again, assures us that Ben-Sira made two older works on Proverbs the basis of his book, so that his merit chiefly consists in arranging those works and supplementing them. The first of these two books originated in the fourth century before Christ, extends from chapter 1 to 16:21, and contains the most simple proverbs, written with great calmness. The second book originated in the third century before Christ, extends from 16:22, to 36:22, and displays the excitement of passions as well as some penetrating observations, and has been greatly misplaced in its parts, which Ewald rearranges. The third book, which is the genuine work of Ben-Sira, extends from 36:23, to 51:30, with the exception of the song of praise contained in 39:12-35, which belongs to the author of the second work (Geschichte d. V. Isr. 4:300, etc.; Jahrb. 3:131, etc.). These must suffice as specimens of the opinions entertained by some respecting the unity of this book. Against this, however, is to be urged I. That the difference in form and contents of some of the constituent parts by no means precludes the unity of the whole, seeing that the writer brought to the illustration of his design the experience of a long life, spent both in study and traveling. 2. That this is evidently the work of the author’s life, and was written by him at different periods. 3. That the same design and spirit pervade the whole, as shown in the foregoing section; and, 4. That the abruptness of some portions of it is to be traced to the Eastern style of composition, and more especially to the present deranged state of the Greek translation.

IV. Author and Date. This is the only apocryphal book the author of which is known. The writer tells us himself that his name is Jesus (, , i.e., Jeshua), the son (Sirach, and that he is of Jerusalem (1:27). Here, therefore, we have the production of a Palestinian Jew. The conjectures which have been made to fill up this short notice are either unwarranted (e.g. that he was a physician, from 38:1-15) or absolutely improbable. There is no evidence to show that he was of priestly descent; and the similarity of names is scarcely a plausible excuse for confounding him with the Hellenizing high-priest Jason (2Ma 4:7-11; Georg. Sync. Chronogr. page 276). In the Talmud, the name of Ben-Sira ( for which is a late error, Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. page 311) occurs in several places as the author of proverbial sayings which in part are parallel to sentences in Ecclesiasticus, but nothing is said as to his date or person, and the tradition which ascribes the authorship of the book to Eliezer (B.C. 260) is without any adequate foundation (Jost, ib.; yet see note 1). The Palestinian origin of the author is, however, substantiated by internal evidence, e.g. 24:10 sq. For the various speculations advanced about the personal character, acquirements, and position of the author, we must refer to the article JESUS, SON OF SIRACH SEE JESUS, SON OF SIRACH . That the book should have been ascribed by the Latin Church to Solomon, notwithstanding this plain declaration of the book itself, the discreditable terms in which Solomon is spoken of, the reference to Solomon’s successors, to prophets and other great men who lived before and after the Babylonish captivity, the mention of the twelve minor prophets (49:10), the citation from the prophet Malachi (comp. 48:10, with Mal 4:6), and the description of the high-priest Simon (chapter 1), only shows what the fathers can do.

The age of the book has been, and still is, a subject of great controversy. The life-like description of the high-priest Simon, contained in chapter 1, seems to indicate that the writer had seen this high functionary officiate in the Temple; but there were two high priests of the same name, viz. Simon, son of Onies, surnamed the Just, or the Pious, who lived B.C. cir. 370-300, and Simon 2, son of Onias, who lived in the reign of Ptolemy Philopator, B.C. 217-195 (3Ma 1:2). SEE SIMON. Some interpreters, therefore, are of opinion that Simon 1 is described by Ben-Sira, whilst others think that Simon 2 is intended. The lives and acts of these two pontiffs, however, as well as the esteem in which they were respectively held by the people, as recorded in their national literature, must show to which of these two high- priests the description of Ben-Sira is applicable. 1. The encomiums show beyond doubt that one of Israel’s most renowned high-priests is described, whereas Simon 2 was so little distinguished that Josephus cannot relate a single good thing about him. 2. Ben-Sira characterizes him as the deliverer of his people from destruction; whereas in the time of Simon 2 no deliverance of either the people or the Temple was necessary. 3. In the time of Simon 2, Hellenism, the great enemy of Judaism, which was represented by the sons of Tobias, had made great progress; and if Ben- Sira had written about this time, we should have had some censures from this pious poet of these thoughtless and godless innovations, whereas there is no allusion to these throughout the whole of this book. This appears the more strange when it is borne in mind that Simon 2 himself sided with these faithless sons of Tobias, as Josephus distinctly declares (Ant. 12:4, 11). 4. It is utterly impossible that such a man as Simon 2 should be described in such extraordinary terms in the catalogue of national benefactors, and that Simon 1, the personification of goodness, nobility, and grandeur, whom the nation crowned with the title the Just, the Pious, should be passed over with silence. 5. No Jew, on reading so sublime a description of the high-priest, would ever think, with his national traditions before him, of applying it to any one else but the Simon, unless he were distinctly told that it was intended for another Simon. These considerations, therefore, show that Ben-Sira’s life-like description refers to Simon 1. Now as Simon 1 died B.C. cir. 300, Ben-Sira must have written his work not earlier than 290-280, as chapter 1 implies that this high-priest was dead. (See also infra, section 6).

V. The original Language of the Book. The translator of this work into Greek most distinctly declares in his preface that it was written in Hebrew, and St. Jerome assures us that he had seen the Hebrew original (vide supra, section 3). That by the term is meant Hebrew, and not Aramaean, is evident from the numerous quotations made from this book both in the Talmud and the Midrashim. Compare

Ben-Sira.Talmud and Midrashim.

Chapter 3:20Chagiga, 13; Bereshith Rab. 10.

Chapter 4Sanhed. 10:100; Yebamoth, 63, b; Erub. 65, a.

Chapter 7:34Derek Erets, 19, c. 4.

Chapter 9:8Sanhed. 100, b; Yebamnoth, 63. Chapter 9:12 (Syriac) Aboth, 1:5. Chapter 11:27Je. Berach. 29, a; Nazir, 18, a; Beresh. Rab. 78, b.

Chapter 11:27Sanhed. 100.

Chapter 13:15Baba Kama, 92, b.

Chapter 13:25Bereshith Rabba, 82.

Chapter 13:31Bereshith Rabba, 64, b.

Chapter 14:11Erubin, 54, a.

Chapter 14:17Erubin, 71.

Chapter 15:8Pesachim, 66; Erubin, 55, a.

Chapter 18:23Tanchuma Vayikra, 41, b.

Chapter 25:3, 4Pesachim, 113.

Chapter 25:13Sabbath, 11, a.

Chapter 26:1Sanhed. 100; Yebamoth, 63, b.

Chapter 26:20Nida, 70.

Chapter 27:9Baba Kama, 92, b.

Chapter 28:14Vayikra Rab. 153, a.

Chapter 30:21Sanhed. 100, b.

Chapter 30:25Yebamoth, 63, b.

Chapter 38:1Sanhed. 41; Taanith, 9, a; Shemoth. R, 106, b.

Chapter 38:4, 8Beresh. Rab. S, a; Yalkut Job, 148.

Chapter 38:16-23Moed Katon, 27.

Chapter 40:28Betza. 32, b; Yalkut Job, 149.

Chapter 42:9, 10Sanhedrin, 100, b.

By some writers, however, it is thought that the Sentences of Ben-Sirach, cited in the Talmud (Sanhed. Gem. 11:42; Bereschith Rabba, 8, f. 10; Baba Kama f. 92, c. 2), and published in Latin by Paul Fagius (1542), and in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Latin by Drusius (1597), though so similar to those in Ecclesiasticus, are, upon the whole, a different work (Eichhorn’s and Bertholdt’s Introductions).

Almost all of these quotations are in Hebrew, though the works in which they are found are in Aramaan, thus showing beyond doubt that the book of Ben-Sira was written in genuine Hebrew. Besides, some of the blunders in the Greek can only be accounted for from the fact that the original was Hebrew. Thus, for example, in 24:25 we read, “He maketh knowledge to come forth as light, as Gihon in the days of vintage,” where the parallelism (Gen 2:13), whereby the Nile was designated in later times, which the Sept. also understands by (Jer 2:18), shows that in the first hemistich originated from the translator’s mistaking the Hebrew like a stream, for , like light. Compare also 49:9, which is most unintelligible in the Greek through the translator’s mistaking the Hebrew for Bishop Lowth, indeed, went so far as to assert that the translator “seems to have numbered the words, and exactly to have preserved their order, so that, were it literally and accurately to be retranslated, I have very little doubt that, for the most part, the original diction would be recovered.” The learned prelate has actually retranslated chapter 24 into Hebrew (Hebrew Poet. Lecture 24, Oxford ed. 1821, page 254). This retranslation is also printed by Fritzsche, who has added some corrections of his own, and who also gives a translation of chapter 1.

VI. The Greek and other Translations of this Book. The Greek translation incorporated in the Sept. was made by the grandson of the author ( ), who tells us that he came from Palestine into Egypt in his thirty-eighth year, “in the reign of Euergetes” ( ). But there were two kings who have borne this name Euergetes I, son and successor of Ptolemy II, Philadelphus, B.C. 247-222, and Euergetes II, i.e., Ptolemy VII, known by the nickname Physcon, the brother of Ptolemy VI, B.C. 145-116, and the question is, which of these two is meant? Now, if Ben-Sira wrote B.C. cir. 290-280, when an old man, and if we take to mean great-grandfather, a sense which it frequently has, and that the translator was born after the death of his illustrious ancestor, his arrival in Egypt in his thirty-eighth year would be B.C. cir. 230, i.e., in the reign of Euergetes I. On the other hand, the manner in which the translator speaks of the Alexandrine version of the Old Testament, and the familiarity which he shows with its language (e.g. 44:16, , Gen 5:24; comp. Linde, ap. Eichhorn, pages 41, 42), is scarcely consistent with a date so early as the middle of the third century. Winer (Deutr. Sirac. atate, Erlang. 1832) maintains that Simon the Just is the person referred to, but that it is not necessary to conclude that the author was his contemporary. He thinks that, although the grammatical construction rather requires to refer to the age of the monarch’s reign, Euergetes the Second was the king in whose reign the translation was made, and that the canon could not have been yet closed under the reign of the first Euergetes, as implied in the preface “the law, the prophets, and the other books.” As there appears to be no special reason for the translator’s reference to his own age, the date has been taken to allude to that of the reigning Ptolemy by many critics since Eichhorn, e.g. by Bruch, Palfrey, Davidson, Ewald, Fritzsche, etc. The “thirty-eighth year of his reign,” although not applicable to the first Euergetes, may refer to the second, if his regency be included. According to this, which De Wette conceives the most probable hypothesis, the translator would have lived B.C. 130, and the author B.C. 180. But if, with most interpreters, the chronological datum in question refers to the translator’s own age, then the grandson of the author was already past middle-age when he came to Egypt; and if his visit took place early in the reign of Ptolemy Physcon, it is quite possible that the book itself was written while the name and person of the last of “the men of the great synagogue” was still familiar to his countrymen. Even if the date of the book be brought somewhat lower than the times of Simon the Just, the importance of the position which that functionary occupied in the history of the Jews would be a sufficient explanation of the distinctness of his portraiture; and the political and social troubles to which the book alludes (2:6, 12; 36, sq.) seem to point to the disorders which marked the transference of Jewish allegiance from Egypt to Syria rather than to the period of prosperous tranquility which was enjoyed during the supremacy of the earlier Ptolemies. On the whole, therefore, we may conclude that the book was probably written B.C. cir. 200, and translated B.C. cir. 140.

The present state of this translation, however, is very deplorable; the text as well as the MSS. are greatly disfigured by numerous interpolations, omissions, and transpositions. The Old Latin version, which Jerome adopted in the Vulgate without correcting it, was made from this Greek translation, and, besides being barbarous in style, is also greatly mutilated, and in many instances cannot be harmonized with its original. Even in the first two chapters the following words occur which are found in no other part, of the Vulgate: defunctio (1:13), religiositas (1:17, 18, 26), compartior (1:24), inhonoratio (1:38), obductio (2:2; 5:1, 10), receptibilis (2:5). The Syriac alone is made direct from the Hebrew, and contains a quotation made by Joseben-Jochanan about 150 B.C. (comp. Aboth, 1:5 with Ben-Sira 9:12), which the secondary versions have not, because it was dropped from the Greek. Notwithstanding the ill treatment and the changes which this version has been subjected to, it is still one of the best auxiliaries for the restoration of the old text. The Arabic seems to have been made from the Syriac; whilst the old English version of Coverdale, as usual, follows the Zurich Bible and the Vulgate, the Bishops’ Bible again copies Coverdale; the Geneva version, as is often the case, departs from the other English version for the better. The present A.V. chiefly follows the Complutensian edition of the Greek and the Latin Vulgate. The arrangement, however, of chapters 30:2536:17 in the Vatican and Complutensian editions is very different. The English version here follows the latter, which is supported by the Latin and Syriac versions against the authority of the Uncial MSS. The extent of the variation may be seen in the following table:

Compl., Lat., Syr, A. V.Vat., WSS. “A, B, C.”

Chapter 30:2533:13, , …

Chapter 31, 3234, 35.

Chapter 33:16, 17, 36:1-16.

Chapter 33:10 sq. 30:25 sq.

Chapter 34, 3531, 32.

Chapter 36:1-11, 33:1-13.

Chapter 36:12 sq -36:17 sq.

The most important interpolations are: 1:5, 7; 18b, 21; 3:25; 4:23b; 7:26b; 10:21; 12:6c, 13:25b; 16:15, 16, 22c; 17:5, 9, 16, 17a, 18, 21, 23c, 26b; 18:2b, 3, 27c, 33c; 19:5b, 6a, 13b, 14a, 18, 19, 21, 25c; 20:3, 14b, 17b, 32; 22:9, 10, 23c; 23:3e, 4c, 5b, 28; 24:18, 24; 26:12, 26c; 26:19-27; 1, 29b.

All these passages, which occur in the A.V. and the Compl. texts, are wanting in the best MSS. The edition of the Syro-Hexaplaric MS. at Milan, which is at present reported to be in preparation (since 1858), will probably contribute much to the establishment of a sounder text.

The name of the Greek translator is unknown. He is commonly supposed to have borne the same name as his grandfather, but this tradition rests only on conjecture or misunderstanding (Jerome, Synops. S. Script. printed as a Prologue in the Compl. ed. and in the A.V.).

VII. Canonicity. Though this book has been quoted in the Jewish Church as early as B.C. 150 and 100, by Jose ben-Jochanan (Aboth, 1:5) and Simon ben-Shetach (Nazis, Gen 5:3), and references to it are dispersed through the Talmud and Midrashim (aide sup. section 5), yet these latter declare most distinctly that it is not canonical. Thus Yadaim, c. 2, says the book of Ben-Sira, and all the books written from its time and afterwards, are not canonical. We also learn from this remark that Ben-Sira is the oldest of all apocryphal books, thus confirming the date assigned to it in section 4. Again, the declaration made by R. Akiba, that he who studies uncanonical books will have no portion in the world to come (Mishna, Sanhed. 10:1), is explained by the Jeremiah Talmud to mean the books of Ben-Sira and Ben-Laanah (comp. the Midrash on Coheleth 12:12). It was never included by the Jews among their Scriptures; for though it is quoted in the Talmud, and at times like the Kethubim, yet the study of it was forbidden, and it was classed among “the outer books” , that is, probably, those which were not admitted into the Canon (Dukes, Rabb. Blumenlese, page 24 sq.).

Allusions to this book have been supposed to be not unfrequently discernible in the New Testament (compare, especially, Sir 33:13; Rom 9:21; Rom 11:19; Luk 12:19-20; Luk 5:11; Jam 1:19, etc.; 24:17, 18; Mat 11:28-29; Joh 4:13-14; Joh 6:35, etc.). The earliest clear coincidence with the contents of the book occurs in the epistle of Barnabas (c. 19 = Sir 4:31; compare Const. Apost. 7:11), but in this case the parallelism consists in the thought and not in the words, and there is no mark of quotation. There is no sign of the use of the book in Justin Martyr, which is the more remarkable, as it offers several thoughts congenial to his style. The first distinct quotations occur in Clement of Alexandria; but from the end of the second century the book was much used and cited with respect, and in the same terms as the canonical Scriptures; and its authorship was often assigned to Solomon, from the similarity which it presented to his writings (August. De Cura pro Mort. 18). Clement speaks of it continually as Scripture (Pad. 1:8, 62; 2:2, 34; 5, 46; 8, 69, etc.), as the work of Solomon (Strom. 2:5, 24), and as the voice of the great Master (, Pad. 2:10, 98). Origen cites passages with the same formula as the canonical books (, in Johann. 32, 14; in Mat 16:1-28, 8), as Scripture (Comm. in Matthew 44; in Ep. ad Rom 9:1-33, 17, etc.), and as the utterance of “the divine word” (c. Cels. 8:50). The other writers of the Alexandrine school follow the same practice. Dionysius calls its words “divine oracles” (Frag. de Nat. 3, page 1258, ed. Migne), and Peter Martyr quotes it as the work of “the Preacher” (Frag. 1, 5, page 515, ed. Migne). The passage quoted from Tertullian (De exhort. cast. 2, “Sicut scriptum est: Ecce posui ante te bonum et malum; gustati enim de arbore agnitionis,” etc.; compare Sir 15:17, Vulg.) is not absolutely conclusive; but Cyprian constantly brings forward passages from the book as Scripture (De bono pat. 17; De mortalitate, 9, 13), and as the work of Solomon (Ep. 65:2). The testimony of Augustine sums up briefly the result which follows from these isolated authorities. He quotes the book constantly himself as the work of a prophet (Serm. 39:1), the word of God (Sermon 87:11), “Scripture” (Lib. de Nat. 33), and that even in controversy (c. Jul. Pelag. 5:36); but he expressly notices that it was not in the Hebrew Canon (De Cura pro Maort. 18), “though the Church, especially of the West, had received it into authority” (De Civit. 17:20; compare Speculum, 3:1127, ed. Paris). Jerome; in like manner (Praef. in Sap. Sir. 7), contrasts the book with “the canonical Scriptures” as “doubtful,” while they are “sure,” and in another place (Prol. Galeat.) he says that it “is not in the Canon,” and again (Prol. in Libr. Sol.), that it should be read ” for the instruction of the people (plebis), not to support the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines.” The book is cited by Hippolytus (Opp. p. 192) and by Eusebius (Opp. 4:21, etc.), but is not quoted by Irenaeus; and it is not contained in the Canon of Melito, Origen, Cyril, Laodicea, Hilary, or Rufinus. SEE CANON.

But while the book is destitute of the highest canonical authority, it is a most important monument of the religious state of the Jews at the period of its composition. As an expression of Palestinian theology it stands alone; for there is no sufficient reason for assuming Alexandrine interpolations, or direct Alexandrine influence (Gfrorer, Philo, 2:18 sq.). The translator may, perhaps, have given an Alexandrine coloring to the doctrine, but its great outlines are unchanged (comp. Dahne, Relig. Philos. 2:129 sq.). The conception of God as Creator, Preserver, and Governor is strictly conformable to the old Mosaic type; but, at the same time, his mercy is extended to all mankind (18:11-13). Little stress is laid upon the spirit world, either good (48:21; 45:2; 39:28?) or evil (21:27?), and the doctrine of a resurrection fades away (14:16; 17:27, 28; 44:14, 15. Yet comp. 48:11). In addition to the general hope of restoration (36:1, etc.), one trait only of a Messianic faith is preserved, in which the writer contemplates the future work of Elias (48:10). The ethical precepts are addressed to the middle class (Eichhorn, Einl. page 44 sq.). The praise of agriculture (7:15) and medicine (38:1 sq.), and the constant exhortations to cheerfulness, seem to speak of a time when men’s thoughts were turned inwards with feelings of despondency and perhaps (Dukes, u.s. page 27 sq.) of fatalism. At least the book marks the growth of that anxious legalism which was conspicuous in the sayings of the later doctors. Life is already imprisoned in’ rules: religion is degenerating into ritualism: knowledge has taken refuge in schools (compare Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. 4:298 sq.). Kitto, s.v.; Smith, s.v.

VIII. Commentaries, etc. Special exegetical works which have appeared on the whole of this book are the following, of which the chief are designated by an asterisk prefixed: Rabanus Maurus, In Ecclesiasticuna (in his Opp.); Anon. Beschreib. u. Uebers. (in Lorsbach’s Archiv, 2:11 sq.); Alexander, De libro Ecclus. (in his Hist. Ecclesiastes 3:690); Bengel, Muthmassliche Quelle, etc. (in Eichhorn’s Bibliothek, 7:852-64); De Sacy, L’Ecclesiastique (in his Sainte Bible, 16); Bossuet, Liber Ecclus. (in his OEuvres, 22:1 sq.); Couz, Bemerkangen (in Henke’s Hus. 2:177-243); *Camerarius, Sententiae J.S. (Lips. 1570, 8vo); Sapientia J.S. (Lips. 1570, 8vo); Striegel, in his Libri Sapientiae (Lpz. 15,5, 12mo), page 277 sq.; Drusius, Ecclus. interpretatus (Franecker, 1596, 4to); Hoschel, Sap. Sirachi (Augsb. 1604, 4to; also in the Crit. Sacri, 5); *a Lapide, Commentarius (Antwerp, 1634, 1687, fol.); Stiffer, Homiliae (Lips. 1676, 4to); Calmet, Commentarius (Paris, 1707, fol.; in Latin, ed. Manse, Wirceb. 1792; 8:351 sq.); *Arnald, Crit. Commentary (Lond. 1748, fol., and often since); Koken, Das. B. Sirach (Hildesheim, 1756, 12mo); Teleus, Disquisitiones (Hafn. 1779, 8vo); Bauer, Erlaut. m. Anmerk. (Bamberg, 1781, 1793, 8vo); Onymus, Weisheit J.S. (Wtirtzburg, 1788, 8vo); Sonntag, De Jes. Siracide (Riga, 1792, 4to); *Linde, Sententiae Jes. Sir. (Danz. 1795, 4to); also Glaubens a. Sittenlehre Jes. Sir. (Lpz. 1782, 1795, 8vo); Zange, Denkspruche Jes. Sir. (Amst. 1797, 8vo); Feddersen, Jes. Sir. ubers. (Anst. 1797, 1827, 8vo); BenSeeb, ,etc. (8vo, Breslau, 1798; Vienna, 1807, 1818, 1828); 5Bretschneider, Lib. Jesu Sirae (Ratisbon, 1806, 8vo); Gaab, Diss. exegetica (Tubing. 1809, 4to); Luther, Das Buch J.S. (Lpz. 1815, 1816, 12mo); Anon. Jes. S. bearbeit. (Lpz. 1826, 8vo); Howard, Ecclus. tr. from the Vulg. (Lond. 1827, 8vo); Anon. Sirach, ein Spiegel (Kreuznach, 1829, 8vo); Van Gilse, Commentatio (Gran. 1832, 4to); Grimm, Commentar (Lpz. 1837, 8vo); Gutmann, Weisheits-Spruch J.S. (Altona, 1841, 8vo); Dulk, (Warsaw, 1843, 8vo); Stern, Weisheitsspruche J.S. (‘Wien, 1844, 8vo); Hill, Translation (in the Monthly Religious Mag. Bost. 185253); *Fritzsche, Weish. J.S. erklaut u. ubers. (as part of the Kurtzg. Exag. Handb. z.d. Apokr. Lpz. 1860, 8vo); Cassel, Uebers. (Berl. 1866, 8vo). See also Rabiger, Ethice Apoc. V.T. (Vratislaw, 1838); Bruch, Weisheits- Lehre der Hebraer (Strasb. 1851); Geiger, in the Zeitschr. d. Morgenl. Gesellsch. 1858, page 536 sq.; Horowitz, Das Buch Sirach (Bresl. 1865). SEE APOCRYPHA.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Ecclesiasticus (2)

(1), Any person in orders, whether major or minor.

(2) Isidore of Seville speaks of a clerk occupying his dace position in the hiearchy as an “ecclesiastical clerk,” in distinction from an irregular clerk.

(3) Those who were so connected with a Church as to be unable to leave; its service were called in a special sense ecclesiastical men. They were not slaves.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Ecclesiasticus

ECCLESIASTICUSSee Apocrypha, 13.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Ecclesiasticus

e-kle-zi-asti-kus. See SIRACH.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Ecclesiasticus

Ecclesiasticus [WISDOM OF JESUS, SON OF SIRACH]

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Ecclesiasticus

Ecclesias’ticus. One of the books of the Apocrypha. This title is given in the Latin version to the book which is called, in the Septuagint (LXX) The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach. The word designates the character of the writing, as publicly used in the services of the Church.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary