CHAPTER VI.

OF THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTICUS, OR THE WISDOM OF JESUS
THE SON OF SIRACH.

$249. Age of Jesus the Son of Sirach.

THERE is no sufficient evidence to determine who Jesus the son of Sirach was; but the age in which he lived may be inferred from the age of the Greek translator, who in his preface declares himself his grandson, telling his readers that in the thirty-eighth year he had translated the Hebrew book of his grandfather into Greek, in Egypt, under Ptolemy Euergetes. There were, however, two Ptolemies surnamed Euergetes, the first of whom reigned from 246 B. C. to 221, and the other from 145 to 116. The common opinion is, that the latter, who was also called Physcon, and Kakergetes, is the one intended, since Jesus the son of Sirach praises a Simon, whom they suppose to be Simon the Second, the son of Onias II. This would make Jesus to have written under or just after this Simon II., who was high priest from 217 to 195 B. C., and hence it would follow that his grandson must have translated his book under Ptolemy Physcon.-The " thirty-eighth year," refers to the age of the translator, not, as many suppose, to the reign of the monarch under whom he wrote; for Euergetes I. reigned only twenty-four years, and Euergetes II. only twenty-nine. The notices occasionally given by Jesus of his condition, and of the vicissitudes which he had undergone, agree well enough with the age of Simon II. But this date is rendered doubtful by the praises which are bestowed upon Simon, in

c. I. 1-21., where he is said to have been a most prudent and graye man, which was not the character of Simon II. but of Simon I., surnamed the Just, a very celebrated man, who is said to have completed the Canon, and exercised the office of high priest from 300 B. C. to 292 B. C. This would make Jesus the son of Sirach to have published his book in the interval of time which elapsed between 292 B. C. and 280. This age agrees not only with all that the author says in relation to himself and his various fortunes, but also with his use of the Hebrew language, and the ignorance of Grecian affairs which the work exhibits. -The grandson, therefore, must have translated the book into Greek under Ptolemy Euergetes I., sometime between 246 and 221 B. C. The interval of time between this date and that in which his grandfather wrote, answers exactly to the two generations which intervened between the grandfather and his grandson. Comp. Germ. Introd. P. II. Sect. IV. § 249. p. 927-932.

1. The additional preface to this book which is printed in the Complutensian Polyglot, and has been republished by LINDE, in his edition of the Sentences of Jesus the son of Sirach, 1795, Gedan, seems to be a fragment of the synopsis of the Pseudo-Athanasius, and contains nothing more than a conjecture respecting the name of the translator, and a notice of the subjects treated of in the work itself.

2. Ben Sira, the author of the Hebrew Sentences published by Fagius, is not our Jesus the son of Sirach. This appears plainly from the difference of the style, and of the sententious sayings, which although sometimes the same in our book as in that under the name of Ben Sira, are yet more generally different.[a]

[a) See DE WETTE, Einleit. 319, for a fuller discussion of this subject. Tr.]

§ 250.

Contents of the Book of Ecclesiasticus.

The son of Sirach has imitated the Proverbs of Solomon, at the same time adding many things which are not to be found there, and always treating his subject in a more diffuse manner, yet without exhausting it.[a] His sententious observations, like those of Solomon, are drawn from experience. They are not indeed to be ap

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 occurred, 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, do 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 comprehend 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. He notices a particular resemblance between c. i-ix. xxiv. and Prov. i-ix. Tr.]

[b) This arrangement receives the approbation of DE WETTE, Einleit. 317. anm. d), who rejects the hypothetical division of EICHHORN, B 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, (D',) and was joined with

Ecclesiastes and Canticles.

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.]

[6) Sabatier, Bibl. Lat. Vers. antiq. T. II. p. 390.; BENGEL, über die muthmassliche Quelle der aften 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.]