plied without any limitation, for many of them express no more than what generally takes place; nevertheless, when properly understood, they are of the greatest utility, and are therefore very often used by the apostle James in his epistle.

The book may be divided into three parts. [b] 1) Chap. i-xliii. contains a commendation of wisdom, and precepts for the regulation of life, which are adapted to persons of all classes and conditions and of every age and sex. The author discusses some topics more frequently than others, and furnishes additional precepts, for he prepared the book during a considerable space of time, in the course of which new observations on the same subject occasionally occurred, as he freely acknowledges. See c. xxx. or xxxiii. 16.- -2) In c. xliv-1. the author celebrates the patriarchs and other distinguished men among the ancients.- -3) In c. li. the work concludes with a prayer or hymn of the author, and an exhortation to the pursuit of wisdom.

1. GOTTL. SONNTAG, in his Commentatio de Jesu Siracidæ Ecclesiastico, non libro sed libri farragine, 1792, has endeavoured to show that the book which we have is an imperfect work, containing only materials for a larger one, and that these have fallen into confusion and disorder. This he attempts to prove from the diversity of the style. But since observations of the kind contained in this work could only have been written during a long course of time, as opportunities of making them oecurred, the author must necessarily have returned to his unfinished work at different times with various feelings, and that this should produce a variety of style is not at all extraordinary.

2. They who censure the author for not mentioning the Messiah, de not consider, that the prayer in c. xxxvi. 13-17, for the accomplishment of the promises, and the hope expressed in c. xliv. 21-23, do both com prehend the expectation of his coming. An express mention of the Messiah in a work relating to morals, would have been irrelative.

[a) The following illustrations of the copious and connected method of treatment in this work, compared with the book of Proverbs, are given by DE WETTE, Einleit. 317. anm. b): c. xii. 8—xiii. 26.; xv. 11-20.; xvi. 26-xvii. 16.; xxiii. 16-26.; xxvi. 1-18.; xxix. 1–19.; xxx. 1-12.; xxxvii. 27-xxxviii. 15.; xxxviii. 24-xxxix. 11. notices a particular resemblance between c. i-ix. xxiv. and Prov. i-ix. Tr.]

He

[b) This arrangement receives the approbation of DE WETTE, Einleit. 317. anm. d), who rejects the hypothetical division of EICHHORN, Einleit. in d. Apok. Büch. S. 50. ff., by which that author endeavours to account for the transposition of c. xxx-xxxiii. in the Vulgate. Tr.]

The Hebrew text of this book was extant in the time of Jerome, for in his Preface to the books of Solomon he tells us that he had seen it, and that it did not bear the name of Ecclesiasticus, as the Latins called it, but that of Parables, (Dhwn,) and was joined with

Ecclesiastes and Canticles.

T:

It is much to be lamented, that Jerome

did not translate it into Latin. Our Vulgate version is more ancient than his time, and was made from the Greek text, from which however it frequently differs, and not only contains some additions, but presents what is included in xxx. 25—xxxiii. 16. after xxxiii. 15, and has thus produced a different arrangement of the chapters.—The Greek text itself contains many proofs that it is a translation from the Hebrew,[a] into which language it may, in consequence, be rendered with the greatest ease. There is no probability in the conjecture advanced by the Pseudo-Athanasius, that the 51st chapter is an addition of the translator. But very considerable differences exist in the Greek Manuscripts, so that it would seem that occasional omissions or additions have been made by the readers or transcribers.——— The Syriac version in the London Polyglot contains sometimes more and sometimes less than the Greek; still it may have been made from it. BENDTSEN, however, in his Exercitationes Criticæ,* contends that it was derived from the Hebrew text and labours to establish this from readings, which could not have arisen except from the Hebrew language. His proofs are not sufficient to settle the point. [b] -The Syriac Hexaplar manuscript which is preserved at Milan, contains the book of Ecclesiasticus in that language, but it has not yet been examined.—The Arabic version in the London Polyglot agrees with the Syriac in some particular readings, and appears to have been made from it.

[Specimen exercitationum criticarum in Veteris Testamenti libros apocryphos e scriptis Patrum et antiquis versionibus, Gottingae, 1788.]

[a) See DE WETTE, Einleit. § 318. anm. a). Tr.]

[b) SABATIER, Bibl. Lat. Vers. antiq. T. II. p. 390.; BENGEL, über die muthmassliche Quelle der alten lateinischen Uebersetzung des Buchs Sirach in EICHHORN's Allg. Bibl. VII. Th. S. 832. ff.; and Bertholdt, S. 2304. ff., agree with Bendtsen. EICHHORN, Einleit. S. 84., and BRETSCHNEIDER, Excurs. I. ad libr. Jes. Sir. p. 699. ss., suppose it derived from a corrupt Greek text. DE WETTE, Einleit. § 320, leaves the matter undecided. Tr.]

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE BOOK OF WISDOM.

§ 252. Contents,

As Jesus, the son of Sirach, imitated in some measure the Proverbs of Solomon, so also the author of the book of Wisdom imitated Ecclesiastes. In this way he even introduces Solomon speaking.

-The book consists of two parts. 1) In c. i-ix. wisdom is recommended to all, and especially to kings, in order that they may labour to acquire it with the more earnestness, in proportion to the facility of securing it, and to the abundance of the recompense with which it rewards those who seek it. Even if they should happen to be oppressed by adversity in the present life, yet in the future, wisdom will render them happy while on the contrary foolish and wicked men are miserable now, and will be more so hereafter. (This is the first time that a future life of happiness or misery is expressly mentioned.) This part may be separated into three sections. In c. ivi. wisdom and folly are represented according to their consequences; in c. vii. and viii. Solomon states the methods by which he had sought and found wisdom; and c. ix. contains a prayer of Solomon for obtaining wisdom.-2) In c. x-xix. the happiness which wisdom imparts, and the wretchedness into which folly, and particularly idolatry plunges its votaries, are illustrated by examples taken from history. In this part two sections are distinguishable; c. x-xii. containing examples of persons remarkable for wisdom or folly; and c. xiii-xix. comprising various observations in praise of the ardent pursuit of wisdom.

§ 253. Language of the Book of Wisdom.

This book was originally written in Greek, for the style, as Jerome has observed in his Preface to the books of Solomon, partakes of the Grecian eloquence. The Hebraisms which occasionally occur, only prove that the author was a Hebrew, and resembled his countrymen, who scarcely ever wrote the Greek language in its purity. The readings which FABER (Programm. 5-8. in Lib. Sap.) has adduced to prove a Hebrew origin can be better explained on other grounds. R. Moses Ben Nachman mentions a Hebrew text which he had seen; but this was nothing more than a Syriac version written in Hebrew letters.[a]

[a) NACHTIGALL, Uebers. des B. Weisheit, S. 24. f. considers the Greek text as a translation from either the Hebrew or the Chaldee.EICHHORN, S. 194. ff., BERTHOLDT, S. 2280. ff., DE WETTE, Einleit. 315, and HASSE, Uebers. des B. Weisheit, S. 192 ff. agree' with Jahn. Tr.]

$254.

The Author and Age of the Book of Wisdom.

The Greek language in which the work is written, and many modern ideas which it contains, show plainly that it is not only much more recent than the time of Solomon, to whom it is ascribed, but also than that of Zerubbabel, whom FABER, in his 8th Program, 1776 -1787, considers as the author, and supposes that, as in the book of Ecclesiastes, [a] Solomon is merely introduced as a speaker. The author of the book is unknown. Jerome indeed tells us, in his Preface to the books of Solomon, that some of the ancients affirmed it to be the production of Philo the Jew. But if they meant the Philo whose works are still extant, they were entirely mistaken for the work is not written in his style; and if they referred to some older writer of the same name, he is altogether unknown to us. There is not sufficient evidence to enable us to determine even the date of the book with accuracy; this only is clear, that in the age in which the author lived the Hebrews were well acquainted with the Grecian philosophy, and therefore it would seem that the book must have been written at the end of the second or the beginning of the first century before Christ. The places which urge wisdom upon the attention of kings,