AUTHOR.

1

vaux is, even in its wording, the Christian application to Personified Wisdom

outside the Old Testament perhaps the most interesting, in many respects, is that commonly known as 'The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach,' or Ecclesiasticus.1 It cannot indeed be ranked, like the books of the Maccabees, among the sources of history, though here also it contains indications too often overlooked. But its chief importance lies in this, that it exhibits Jewish thought and religion at a period otherwise almost unknown; that it connects the traditions of the past with questions of the future; and that, while embodying both, it marks the transition from the

one to the other.

The permanent and almost universal interest of the book is to some extent indicated even by the circumstance that it has in a sense furnished the substratum as well as some of the verses for two of the best known hymns of the Church. The

On these designations, see more in the sequel.

Apoc.-Vol. II.

And the Te Deum of Rinckart 2 (about 1648), “Now thank we all our God," is taken from Ecclus. 1. 22-24. But, far beyond this, the special claims of Ecclesiasticus may be thus briefly summed up: It is the oldest known Apocryphon; it

Partially translated in 'Hymns Ancient and Modern,' Nos. 178 (also partly 177): "Jesu, the the present writer, in a small collection chiefly very thought of Thee;" and in its entirety by of Ancient Latin Hymns.

2 The well-known German hymn, "Nun danket alle Gott," translated in Hymns Ancient and Modern,' No. 379.

3 On the contention that Ecclesiasticus is

older than our canonical Daniel, so confidently made by many Jewish and Christian writers (down to Schürer, Gesch. d. Jüd. Volkes,' vol. ii. p. 615), this is not the place to enter. Perhaps the note on Ecclus. xxi. 27 may here be helpful. Comp. (besides the foreign writers in defence of the canonicity of Daniel) Pusey, Lect. on Daniel,' pp. 303, &c.; and, for some aspects of the question, Prophecy and History' (the Warburton Lectures), pp. 291-296. But the date there assigned (p. 294) to the Book of Wisdom' is probably too early.

B

and was written in Hebrew; and it presents a new phase of Judaism. Historically it may be regarded as a continuation and development of those parts of the Old Testament which are known as the "Wisdom-writings." And yet it represents a new stage. We miss the higher tone and the spiritual elements of the canonical "Wisdom-writings." On the other hand, we are in the presence of new questions originating from contact with a wider world; and we find them answered in a manner which in one direction would lead up to Jewish Alexandrian theology, while the book itself is still purely Palestinian. From one aspect therefore it may be described as Palestinian theosophy before Alexandrian Hellenism. From another aspect it represents an orthodox, but moderate and cold, Judaism before there were either Pharisees or Sadducees; before these two directions assumed separate form under the combined influence of political circumstances and theological controversies. In short, it contains as yet undistinguished and mostly in germ all the elements developed in the later history of Jewish religious thinking. But beyond all this, the book throws welcome light on the period in which it was written. If we would know what a cultured, liberal, and yet genuine Jew had thought and felt in view of the great questions of the day; if we would gain insight into the state of public opinion, morals, society, and even of manners at that period we find the materials for it in the book Ecclesiasticus. Lastly, the unique position among the Apocrypha which this book has always occupied, alike in the Synagogue and the Church, constitutes yet another of its distinguishing claims.

But for the critical student Ecclesiasticus must always possess a peculiar interest and importance. This, in the first place, because the Greek translation in which it has come down is both historically and in point of time connected with

1 According to some (though erroneously), in Chaldee or Aramaic. We do not mean that this is the only apocryphal book which originated in Palestine or was written in Hebrew, but that in regard to Ecclesiasticus this has never been called in question.

it.

and hence necessarily reflects light upon But, besides, the Greek is not the only direct translation of the work from its Hebrew original. As will be shewn in the sequel, the Syriac Version of Ecclesiasticus, as well as the Greek, was made directly from the Hebrew. Thus we possess two independent versions of the work, controlling each other, by comparison of which the real text of the Hebrew original can often be ascertained. For in many passages in which the two versions differ, we have only to retranslate into Hebrew to perceive how these differences arose by some simple and obvious misreading, or else misunderstanding of a Hebrew word by the one or the other translator. In such cases it is not difficult to judge which of them rightly apprehended the meaning of the original. In other cases the comparison suggests that there must have been intentional alterations: in the Greek probably chiefly due to the Hellenising spirit of the translator, and in the Syriac to later redactors. the comparison also throws light on some points in regard to the letter of the text which are full of interest. Thus we conclude that a Greek variant represents the better, if indeed not the corrected, reading, when it accords not only with the other version, but with what we judge to have been the underlying Hebrew original. And this in turn reflects light on the various Codices. Lastly, as regards the wider general question of the variations which a Hebrew text may be supposed to have undergone, the student has in Ecclesiasticus the opportunity of comparing, so to speak, three different recensions of a Hebrew text, dating from widely different periods and coming from distant countries: in the Greek, the Syriac, and including the Talmudic quotations from Sirach the Aramaic versions of our book.

But

Concerning the AUTHOR of the work just described, we possess unfortunately only very scanty biographical details. In Ecclus. 1. 27, when subscribing his name according to ancient custom, he designates himself as "Jesus the son of Sirach [in the Vat., Seirach; in the Sin.,

So not only the Alex., but the important MS. 248 [Fritzsche]. The Syr. omits what in