CHAPTER I

The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus

[LITERATURE.—Fritzsche, _Die Weisheit Jesus Sirachs erklärt und übersetzt_ (1859); Edersheim, in Wace, II, pp. 1-239; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, I. pp. 230-475; Schechter, _Studies in Judaism_ (Second Series), pp. 55-101 (1908); Hart, _Ecclesiasticus_ ... (1909); Oesterley, _Ecclesiasticus_, in “The Cambridge Bible” (1912); Box and Oesterley, in Charles, I, pp. 268-517.]

I. THE TITLE OF THE BOOK

“Ecclesiasticus,” the name with which we are most familiar, gives no indication as to the contents of the book; it has, however, been the title whereby the book was known in the Western Church ever since the third century. St. Jerome retained the familiar title in his Latin Version of the Bible, and it has continued in the Church ever since. On account of its manifold instruction in conduct of life it was much used in the early Church, especially in the case of catechumens; the title, therefore, of “Ecclesiasticus” was probably given to it because it was the ecclesiastical or Church book _par excellence_. What the original title was we do not know; but in most manuscripts of the Greek Version the title given is: “Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach”; in the Syriac Version it is: “Wisdom of Bar Sira.”[344] Both these were translations from the Hebrew, so that we shall not be far wrong in believing that the original title ran: “The Wisdom of Ben-Sira,” or, “The Wisdom of Jesus Ben-Sira.”[345] The Greek translator, in the Prologue to the book, speaks of his grandfather “Jesus” as the author. In the Talmud the book is referred to as: “The Book of Ben-Sira”; the name “Jesus” would have been omitted by the Rabbis for obvious reasons.

II. THE AUTHOR AND HIS BOOK

In the Prologue to the Greek Version the writer says that he is about to translate his grandfather’s work; in the Hebrew text the author gives his name, as we have seen; this is also given in the subscription; moreover, in the Talmud the author is given as Ben-Sira. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that the author was Ben-Sira; and this is universally acknowledged. That he wrote the whole of the book does not admit of doubt; unity of authorship is stamped upon the work throughout. Further, that the Greek translation represents substantially the author’s book which his grandson had before him is also practically certain. On the other hand, it may be doubted whether the book represents the final form which the author intended it to have; whether he was interrupted in his work, or whether he died before he was able to sift and arrange his material, a careful study of the book leaves the impression that the author left it in an incomplete state. The main reasons for this belief are three: firstly, in many parts of the book the material seems to be thrown down in a somewhat chaotic state, whereas a little obvious sifting would put things right; for example: in one section (xiv. 20-xvi. 23) the following subjects are dealt with in this order—the blessedness of seeking Wisdom which is only obtainable by those who fear God; human free-will; the curse of ungodly children; God’s righteous anger against the wicked; it is madness to imagine that one can avoid the notice of God and therefore escape judgement because a man is but an atom in a boundless creation. It is clear enough that here we have some subjects which would follow upon one another logically, only the sequence is broken by the intrusion of other subjects which belong to a different _milieu_. A similar state of affairs occurs in various parts of the book, while in many other parts, on the contrary, we have sections in which there is a perfect sequence of thought. Secondly, the same subject is treated in different parts of the book; but in a well arranged scheme one would naturally expect the different items of teaching on a given subject to be gathered together into a consistent whole; this _is_ often done in the book, so that where we find the contrary the natural supposition is that those parts in which the contrary occurs have not assumed their final shape. Examples of this are: on the curse of ungodly children, xvi. 1-5, xxii. 3-6; on lending and becoming surety, viii. 12, 13, xxix. 1-20; on friendship, vi. 5-17, vii. 18, xii. 8-18, xxii. 19-26, xxxvii. 1-6; concerning the tongue, v. 9-vi. 1, xxiii. 7-15, xxviii. 13-26; on independence, xxix. 21-28, xxxiii. 19-23; and a number of other examples could be given. Thirdly, there is inconsistency of teaching on one or two cardinal points of doctrine; this is especially so in the case of the doctrine of Sin; but as we have already dealt with this in an earlier chapter[346] it will be unnecessary to say anything further here. For these reasons, therefore, we are led to the conclusion that the book in its present form is not that which the author intended it to have finally.

Ben-Sira was not only an orthodox Jew, but he was also a scribe, and a teacher. His grandson tells us in the Prologue that his grandfather had devoted his life to the study of “the Law, the prophets, and the other books of our fathers,” and that his object in doing so was that he might, by teaching, help others to a knowledge of the Law, as well as in carrying out its precepts. Ben-Sira’s own words bear out the truth of this, for he is evidently speaking from personal experience when he says: “Leisure increaseth wisdom to the scribe” (xxxviii. 24); moreover, his very intimate knowledge of the Old Testament is just what one would expect of a scribe; this knowledge is evident on every page of his book, which is saturated with the thoughts of the Old Testament Wisdom Literature, almost the very words of which occur again and again; in the concluding chapters of his book (xliv.-l. 24) he sings the praises of all the great ones of Israel, and shows how he has his Old Testament at his fingers’ ends. Bearing in mind what is said in the Prologue, it is highly probable that Ben-Sira is referring to himself as the true scribe in writing the words in xxxviii. 24-xxxix. 3; here he passes in review various callings in life, and declares that it is not possible for men to acquire wisdom if their time is taken up in earning their livelihood by these means; in describing, then, the manner in which he “who meditates in the Law of the Most High” goes about his work Ben-Sira sets forth the mental activity of the scribe in such a way as to make it certain that he is imparting the secrets of his own practice. He says of such an one that he

Searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients, And is occupied with the prophets of old; He heedeth the discourses of men of renown, And entereth into the deep things of parables; He searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs, And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables ... (xxxix. 1-3).

Obviously no true man who had given himself so whole-heartedly to the study and acquisition of holy learning would be content to keep it to himself, and so Ben-Sira gives us clearly to understand that he was a teacher earnestly desirous of imparting to others what he himself had learned of Wisdom; so he cries:

Turn in unto me, ye unlearned, And lodge in my house of instruction; How long will ye lack these things? And how long shall your soul be athirst? I open my mouth and speak of her, Acquire Wisdom for yourselves without money ... Hearken to my teaching, though ye be but few, And much silver and gold shall ye acquire thereby (li. 23-28).

The similes used by Ben-Sira regarding himself as a successor to teachers of Wisdom who had gone before are interesting as showing that he claimed to be a link, though a humble one, in the great chain of Israel’s inspired writers. He says, for example, in one place:

And as for me, I was as a stream from the river, And I came forth as a conduit into a garden; I said: “I will water my garden, I will abundantly water my garden beds”; And lo, my stream became a river, And my river became a sea ... Yet again will I pour forth doctrine as prophecy, And leave it for eternal generations. Look ye (and see) that I have not laboured for myself only, But for all those that diligently seek her (xxiv. 30-34).

In another passage he says:

I, indeed, came last of all, As one that gleaneth after the grape-gatherers; I advanced by the blessing of God, And filled my wine-press as a grape-gatherer. Consider that not for myself alone have I laboured, But for all that seek Wisdom (xxxiii. 16-18).

And once again:

Yet again will I fix my thoughts and make my doctrine to shine forth, As the full moon on the twelfth day. Hearken unto me, ye pious ... (xxxix. 12 ff.).

All these passages show that Ben-Sira reckoned himself as following in the line—though the last in the succession—of the wise men such as the writers of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and that therefore his claim to be a teacher in Israel was justified. While quoting freely from the Old Testament writers, and thereby acknowledging his indebtedness to them, he often expands a quotation, especially from Proverbs, thus making the proverb into a little essay; so that although he does not show great originality of thought, he nevertheless has his own ideas which he sets forth in his own way.

Some further details concerning the author may be gathered from his book; if, as seems reasonable, the words of xxxix. 1-3, quoted above, are taken as referring to the writer himself, then the same must be said of the words which follow in the text, viz.:

Who serveth among great men, And appeareth before princes; Who travelleth through the lands of the peoples, And testeth good and evil among men (xxxix. 4);

from these words we may gather that Ben-Sira had at one time been in the service of some influential person, and that he had spent some time in travel; of that he speaks more than once, for he says in xxxiv. 10-12:

He that is without experience knoweth little, But the well-versed man hath skill. In my journeying I have seen much, And many things have befallen me. Often was I in danger even unto death, But was preserved because of these things (i.e. experience and knowledge of the world).

In another passage (li. 13) he refers to the time before he had commenced his travels. The danger of which he speaks in the passage just quoted was owing to the fact that he had been the victim of some slanderous tongue, if one may be guided by his words in li. 1-12, where he thanks God in saying:

Thou didst preserve me from the scourge of a slanderous tongue, And from the lips of them that turn aside to lies; Thou wast on my side in the face of those that rose up against me, Thou didst help me, according to the abundance of Thy mercy, Out of the snare of them that watch for my stumbling, And from the hands of those that seek my life ...

The book contains a very large number of moral maxims and wise counsels for help and guidance in the every-day affairs of life; but the earnest piety of the writer which so frequently finds expression shows that his aim was not merely to write a handbook on ethics, but far more to be a spiritual adviser, wisdom in its manifold forms being, according to him, so many illustrations of godliness. Finally, “the mass of information which the book contains regarding Jewish religion, thought, and ethics, during a period for which we do not otherwise possess much knowledge, marks it out as a work of high importance. The writer evidently intended to offer to his people a kind of text-book to which men and women might have recourse for guidance in almost every conceivable circumstance of life. He does this, however, with the primary object of setting in clear light the superior excellence of Judaism over Hellenism. In a sense, therefore, Ecclesiasticus may be regarded as an apologetic work, inasmuch as it aims at combating the rising influence of Greek thought and culture among the Jews.”[347]

III. THE DATE OF THE BOOK

In his Prologue to the Greek translation of the book Ben-Sira’s grandson tells us that “in the eight and thirtieth year under Euergetes the king, having come into Egypt and continued there, I found opportunity for no small instruction. I, therefore, deemed it most necessary myself to devote some zeal and love-labour to (the task of) translating this book; devoting, indeed, much watchful care and skill during the time at my disposal in order that, having completed the book (i.e. its translation), I might publish it for the benefit of those who in the land of their sojourning were desirous to learn, being already prepared in respect of their moral culture to live by the Law.” Those words enable us to fix the date, approximately, of the translation of the book; for there was only one Egyptian king of the name of Euergetes to whom the translator’s words could apply, namely Euergetes II, surnamed Physcon, who reigned altogether fifty-four years; first he was joint-ruler with his elder brother, Philometor (B.C. 170-145), and then he reigned alone (B.C. 145-116).[348] The thirty-eighth year of his reign would be B.C. 132; soon after this date, therefore, the Greek translation was made. Having got this date it is not difficult to fix an approximate date for the original work; it would be about fifty or sixty years earlier. At the end of chapter xlix. and beginning of l., according to the Hebrew of our book, it says:

Great among his brethren, and the glory of his people Was Simeon, the son of Jochanan, the priest.

This Simeon, the second of the name, was high-priest from B.C. 219-199; Ben-Sira was clearly a contemporary of his (see l. 1 ff.), but the way in which he writes about him suggests that Simeon must have been dead some time when Ben-Sira wrote; we shall, therefore, not be far wrong in assigning the year B.C. 180, or thereabouts, as the date of the composition of the book in its original form. It is, however, certain that the book was in preparation for some years before this; for since, as we have already seen, Ben-Sira had his own house of instruction where he gave lectures to his pupils, we may justly assume that the contents of his book represent the pith of these lectures.

IV. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK; THE RECENTLY FOUND HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS

Apart from the fact that a large portion (about two-thirds) of our book has in recent years been found in Hebrew, which very often gives the original form, the following considerations made it certain, even before this was found, that the original language was Hebrew: in his Prologue to the book the translator says: “Things originally spoken in Hebrew have not the same force in them when they are translated into another tongue; and not only these, but the Law itself, and the Prophecies, and the rest of the books, have no small difference when they are spoken in their original form.” Although he does not actually say so, it is pretty obvious that Ben-Sira’s grandson implies here that he translated his grandfather’s book from Hebrew. In the second place, in St. Jerome’s time it would appear that Hebrew manuscripts of the book existed in Palestine, for in his preface to the Books of Solomon he says that he found the book of Jesus the son of Sirach in Hebrew. Then, again, in later times Saadiah (A.D. 920) speaks of the existence of copies of the Hebrew text, and he says that the vowel-points were added, which was, as a rule, only done in the case of canonical books.[349] And lastly, in a number of cases the renderings of the Greek necessitate the assumption that they were translated from Hebrew.

But all doubt, where such existed, was set at rest by the discovery (1896-1900) of a number of fragments of the Hebrew text. Those to whom this important find, or rather series of finds, is due are Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, Cowley and Neubauer, Schechter and Taylor, G. Margoliouth, Levi, Adler, and Gaster. Altogether about thirty leaves were found; they are fragments belonging to four different manuscripts, and they all came from the Genizah of a synagogue in Cairo. As all these manuscripts are written on paper and not on vellum they cannot be earlier than the ninth century A.D., for paper was not introduced until this century[350]; they all belong probably to the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century.[351]

The question arises as to whether the Hebrew of these manuscripts is not a translation from the Greek or Syriac forms of the text which had been in existence for a number of centuries previously; and, further, it must be asked that even supposing Hebrew to have been the original language of the book, do these fragments present the original Hebrew, or a later form of this? The answer to these questions involves a detailed study of the text in its various forms, and a comparison of these with the Hebrew text; clearly a technical discussion of this kind would be out of place here; we can only give a _résumé_ of the results of such study. “As a general rule a text which is a translation betrays the fact by certain indications which are almost infallible; idiomatic expressions in the original, misunderstandings of words in the original and consequent mistranslation which interfere with the sense of a passage, clumsy diction owing to difficulties in giving a proper rendering of the original; these and other signs of the non-originality of a writing are almost certain to show themselves; but the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus does not present signs of this kind. Its whole style stamps its language as the original one; the symmetry of the Hebrew, in the main, points in the same direction; moreover, there are a number of instances which could be given which exclude the possibility of translation from either Greek or Syriac; there are also many cases in which the Versions have no equivalent for the Hebrew; and lastly, the Hebrew often contains a text so obviously superior to that of the Versions that its originality cannot be disputed. When we add to this that both the Greek and Syriac frequently exhibit the well-known indications of translation, it may be taken as certain that the Hebrew was the original language in which Ecclesiasticus was written.”[352]

But while it is thus evident that Hebrew was the original language in which our book was written, it does not necessarily follow that the recently found manuscripts contain the original form of the Hebrew; indeed, there have not been wanting scholars who have stoutly denied this, and who maintain that this Hebrew is a translation of a Persian rendering of a Syriac text[353]; or that it is, at any rate in part, a translation from the Greek and Syriac.[354] Here, again, in order to prove our point that, in the main, the Hebrew of the recently found manuscripts does represent the original form, numerous details of a technical character would be required[355] which would be out of place here; it must suffice to say that “the text of the Hebrew, though it is disfigured by scribal errors and corruptions, and—in some places—by the presence of glosses, is yet essentially independent of the Greek and the Syriac; the hypothesis of retranslation breaks down, at best a plausible case for the influence of such a factor can only be made out for an insignificant number of verses, where, however, an alternative—and, on the whole, more probable—explanation is possible.”[356]

V. THE AUTHORIZED AND REVISED VERSIONS OF ECCLESIASTICUS

In comparing the Authorized and Revised Versions it will be seen that, apart from differences of rendering, there is this fundamental difference between the two: the Authorized Version contains a large number of verses which are omitted in the Revised Version. These omissions are noted in the Revised Version, for in the margin one constantly comes across the words: “Verse ... is omitted by the best authorities.” The reason of this difference between the two Versions is that for the Revised Version only the great uncials of the fourth century A.D. were used; whereas for the Authorized Version a number of cursive manuscripts belonging to a much later time were used. The procedure of the Revisers is justified on the grounds of textual criticism, for as authorities the great uncial manuscripts of the fourth century are far superior to the cursives of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; on the other hand, the Authorized Version is not only supported by early patristic authority, but also by that of the Old Latin Version which contains many really ancient elements.[357] There is, of course, a great deal of matter common to the uncial and cursive manuscripts as represented by the Revised and Authorized Versions; but the difference between this common matter and that which is peculiar to the cursives is very marked; the additions, numbering a hundred and fifty lines or more, besides many verbal additions (and it is more than probable that both amounted to many more originally), must have been added for some special reason, and that reason, whatever it was, must have existed at a very early date, for as we shall see, the additions have existed since pre-Christian times.

As to these additions, what is their character, and why were they added? The right answer to these questions was first given by Mr. Hart, who holds that they are “fragments of the Wisdom of a Scribe of the Pharisees, and contain tentative Greek renderings of many of the technical terms and watchwords of the Sect. As Jesus Ben-Sira dealt with the earlier Scriptures, so some unknown disciple dealt with his master’s composition. He received the deposit and added to it.”[358] Mr. Hart works out this theory on pp. 275-320 of his book; following his lead, we have studied the matter independently, and have found that the more it is studied, the more firmly is his theory substantiated. Before coming to deal in some detail with this subject, it will be well to put the question: Why should a Pharisee have felt it incumbent upon him to make these additions? The answer, proof for which will be offered in a moment, is that Ecclesiasticus in its original form represents the “Sadducæan”[359] standpoint, and at the close of the Maccabæan struggle, when Pharisaism appeared as an active movement and the Pharisees became the dominant party in Israel, it was no doubt considered essential that a book like Ecclesiasticus, which was greatly in vogue (for, as far as it went, it was orthodox) should bear on the face of it the marks of Pharisaic orthodoxy, and thus become a vehicle for the propagation of Pharisaism.

We shall now first seek to show that Ecclesiasticus in its original form represented the traditional Sadducæan standpoint, and that the additions reflect the teaching of the Pharisees. We have already dealt with the specific doctrines of these two parties, so that what is now to be said should be read in the light of what has been written in Chapter VII.

VI. THE “SADDUCÆAN” DOCTRINAL STANDPOINT IN ECCLESIASTICUS

In considering first in what respects Josephus’ account of the teaching of the Sadducees is reflected in Ecclesiasticus it must be borne in mind that the book in its original form was written before the distinctive doctrines of Pharisaism had become formulated, and therefore before anything in the nature of antagonism between Sadducæan and Pharisaic teaching had arisen; “it is not to be supposed that the two parties were from the first sharply divided, still less that they acquired distinctive names. It is historically more probable that the divergence increased gradually, and was intensified, and at last definitely realized in the religious revival of Maccabæan times.”[360] The evidence which Josephus gives is late; in his time the opposition between the two parties had fully developed, and, as so often happens between opposing parties, their respective tenets tended to become exaggerated. Of this there is naturally no sign in Ecclesiasticus. Cowley rightly points out, in speaking of the Sadducees during the period that succeeded the Maccabæan struggle, that “in their political relations they show a sympathy with foreign influences which was strongly reprobated by the nationalistic Pharisees. Thus we find them accused, perhaps justly, of tolerating Greek religious practices, and even of adopting them. This is the less surprising if it be considered that the Judaism which they professed can have had (to use a modern phrase) no religious hold on them. It was rather the machinery by which a certain political system was worked, and when circumstances changed it could be adapted to new conditions.”[361] So that when we speak of the Sadducæan doctrinal standpoint in Ecclesiasticus it will be understood that this is somewhat different from that which was developed more than a century later owing largely to opposition to Pharisaic teaching. Ben-Sira represents traditional Judaism of a high type,[362] and in so far is to be regarded as standing for conservative Sadducæanism; but in many respects, and especially in that which regarded devotional religion, which is such a prominent feature in Ecclesiasticus, Pharisaism was identical with the best that traditional Judaism offered; so that, from this point of view, it may be said that Ben-Sira also represented “Pharisaism,” though to use this term in speaking of the time of Ben-Sira would, of course, be an anachronism.

We shall now take in order the doctrines of the Sadducees, so far as we know them, and see in what ways they are illustrated in our book. The utterly un-Jewish doctrine that God takes no interest in the world of His creation and that He is not concerned in men’s doing or not doing what is evil was certainly not held by the “Sadducees” in pre-Maccabæan times; its adoption must have been due to Greek influence if Josephus is to be relied upon at all here. Ben-Sira’s book is full of very different teaching; indeed, in one striking passage he seems to be combating something similar to the very doctrine with which Josephus credits the Sadducees; in xvi. 17-23 he says:

Say not: “I am hidden from God, And in the height who will remember me? I shall not be noticed among so illustrious a people, And what is my soul among the mass of the spirits of all the children of men?... In truth, unto me He will not have respect, And as for my ways, who will mark them? If I sin, no eye beholdeth it, Or if I deal untruly in all secrecy, who will know it? My righteous dealing, who declareth it? And what hope is there, for the decree is distant.” They that lack understanding think these things, And the man of folly thinketh this.

Positive teaching on the close relationship which should normally exist between God and men is given again and again in the book. Ben-Sira’s doctrine of sin is inadequate,[363] it is true; but that is in spite of, not in consequence of, his exalted teaching concerning God.

Regarding the teaching on human free-will Ben-Sira sometimes reflects a thoroughly Sadducæan standpoint; nothing could be more uncompromising, for example, than this:

God created man from the beginning, And placed him in the hand of his _Yetzer_.[364] If thou so desirest, thou canst keep the commandment, And it is wisdom to do His good pleasure. Poured out before thee are fire and water, Stretch forth thine hand unto that which thou desirest. Life and death are before man, That which he desireth shall be given him (xv. 14-17).

With this may also be compared xxxvii. 17, 18:

The roots of the heart’s deliberations Bring forth four branches: Good and evil, life and death, But the tongue ruleth over them altogether.

On the other hand, assertions regarding the action of Divine grace are not wanting; perhaps the most pointed of these is that contained in the words of xxxiii. 13-15:

As the clay is in the power of the potter, To fashion it according to his good pleasure; So is man in the power of his Creator, To make him according to His ordinance. Over against evil stands the good, and against death life; Likewise over against the godly the sinner. Even thus look upon all the works of God, Each different, one the opposite of the other.

On the subject of immortality and resurrection the teaching is entirely that of the Sadducees; a few passages will illustrate this:

When a man dieth he inheriteth Worm and maggot, lice and creeping things (x. 11).

It is callous counsel which Ben-Sira gives to a mourner, for after telling him to mourn for “a day or two,” and to be moderate in his sorrow because “sadness of heart prostrateth vigour,” he concludes as follows:

And let him no more occupy thy thoughts, Dismiss the remembrance of him, and remember (thy) end. Remember him not, for he hath no hope; Thou canst not profit him, while thou harmest thyself. Remember his doom, for it is the doom of thyself; His yesterday, and thine to-day! When the dead is at rest, let his memory rest; And be consoled when his soul departeth (xxxviii. 16-23).

The same dreary belief, or rather non-belief, occurs in xli. 3, 4:

Fear not death, it is thy destiny, Remember that the former and the latter share it with thee. This is the portion of all flesh from God, And how canst thou withstand the decree of the Most High! Be it for a thousand years, for a hundred, or for ten that thou livest, In Sheol there are no reproaches concerning life (cp. xvii. 27, 28).

There are various other passages to the same effect, while none occur which show the slightest advance on the teaching which these contain.

Regarding the attitude towards the non-Jewish world, Ben-Sira is distinctly tolerant; it was the Maccabæan struggle which hardened the Jews towards the Gentiles; nevertheless, Ben-Sira has no doubt about the superiority of his own race. The attitude which is more in accordance with that of the Sadducees may be seen in the whole passage xviii. 8-14, where he speaks of man generally, and teaches that God’s mercy is extended universally:

The mercy of man is exercised upon his own kin, But the mercy of God is extended to all flesh, Reproving, and chastening, and teaching, bringing them back as a shepherd his flock (verse 13).

The same universalistic spirit is exhibited in xxxvi. 17:

Thou wilt hear the prayer of Thy servants, According to Thy good favour towards Thy people; That all the ends of the earth may know That Thou art the eternal God.

A striking passage containing similar teaching is xxxvi. 1-5:

Save us, O God of all, And cast Thy fear upon all the nations. Shake Thy hand against the strange people, And let them see Thy power. As Thou hast sanctified Thyself in us before them, So glorify Thyself in them before us; That they may know as we also know, That there is none other God but Thee.

The only passage (in the original form of the book) of a particularistic character is that in which Wisdom is described in having taken up her abode in Israel (xxiv. 6-16), but here it has to be remembered that one of Ben-Sira’s great objects in writing his book was to show the superiority of Israel’s wisdom over that of the Greeks. This, however, is quite different from the later Pharisaic spirit of active hostility to all the Gentile world.

There are a few passages which seem to be uttered against the Oral Law. It is true, the _data_ we possess regarding the beginnings of the formation of the Oral Law are very scanty; but it may be safely asserted that, in its technical sense, this was, to some considerable extent, in existence for at least half a century before Ecclesiasticus was written; it is, therefore, probable that Ben-Sira uttered the following words as a protest against what he considered a dangerous innovation:

He that seeketh out the Law shall gain her, But the hypocrite shall be snared thereby. They that fear Jehovah discern His judgement, And elicit guidance from the darkness. The man of violence wresteth reproofs,[365] And forceth the Law to suit his necessity (xxxii. 15-17).

In this connection it is worth noting that although Ben-Sira approves of the laws concerning the sacrificial system “because it is commanded,” he does not regard their literal observance as binding; he teaches the equal efficacy of spiritual sacrifices in a way which would not have received the approval of the Pharisees, at any rate as long as the Temple was standing; thus, in xxxiv. 18-26 he says:

The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering, And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless. The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly, Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices.... He who washeth after contact with a dead body and toucheth it again, What hath he gained by his washing? So a man fasting for his sins, And again doing the same, Who will listen to his prayer? And what hath he gained by his humiliation?

Then he continues, in xxxv. 1-3, to advocate spiritual sacrifices, though in the verses that follow he urges men not to appear with empty hands in the presence of the Lord; his words in xxxv. 1-3 are as follows—

He that keepeth the Law multiplieth offerings, He sacrificeth a peace-offering that heedeth the commandments; He that practiseth kindness offereth fine flour, And he that doeth mercy sacrificeth a thank-offering....

Another fact which is worth emphasizing is that there is no mention of angels or demons in the book; this is more or less in accordance with Sadducæan theology. Finally, on the general subject of the Sadducæan standpoint of the book, we may quote some important words of Dr. Taylor.[366] He says: “We have no authentic remains of Sadducee literature, but it has been suggested with a certain plausibility that the book Ecclesiasticus approximates to the standpoint of the primitive Caduqin (Sadducees) as regards its theology, its sacerdotalism, and its want of sympathy with the _modern_ Soferim (Scribes). The name of Ezra is significantly omitted from its catalogue of worthies. ‘It remains singular,’ remarks Kuenen, ‘that the man whom a later generation compared, nay, made almost equal, to Moses, is passed over in silence.... Is it not really most natural that a Jesus ben Sirach did not feel sympathy enough for the first of the Scribes to give him a place of honour in the series of Israel’s great men?’” Dr. Taylor mentions also the important fact that in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 100_b_) the Books of the Sadducees and the Book of Ben-Sira are placed side by side on the “Index expurgatorius.” All that has been said receives confirmation from the further fact that in the Hebrew text of the Canticle[367] which follows l. 12, these words occur—

Give thanks unto Him that gave the sons of Zadok to be priests, For His mercy endureth for ever.

Enough has now been said to show that our book in its original form represented the Sadducæan standpoint. We have now to deal with the Pharisaic additions.

VII. THE PHARISAIC ADDITIONS TO ECCLESIASTICUS.

The brief reference to specific Pharisaic doctrines given in chapter VII, § iii. (_a_) above, will enable us to form an opinion regarding the character of the additions to Ecclesiasticus. That these additions[368] were made by a Pharisee, or Pharisees, has already been asserted; but we must now seek to substantiate the assertion. We cannot do more here than give a few illustrations out of a large number; and in order not to weary the reader we will merely quote the addition in each case without specifying in which manuscripts or Versions it occurs.

In illustration of what has been said about the Pharisaic teaching concerning God and man’s relations to Him the following examples will be found instructive. In xvi. 19 occurs this addition:

The whole world was made, and existeth, by His will.

A stronger assertion of the divine governance of the world is added to xviii. 2:

Who guideth the world in the hollow of His hand, And all things are obedient unto His will; For He is the King of all kings, and they are in His power; He separateth among them the holy things from the common.

An example of the intimate relationship existing between God and men is the addition to xxiii. 27:

To follow after God is great glory, And length of days it is for thee to be accepted of Him.

And again in the addition to xxiv. 23:

Faint not, but be strong in the Lord, And cleave unto Him that He may strengthen you. Cleave unto Him, the Lord, the Almighty; He is the one and only God, and beside Him there is no Saviour.

Although not explicitly stated it is men of Israel who are meant in these quotations, but sometimes Israel is specially mentioned; so, for example, in the addition to xvii. 17:

Whom [i.e. Israel] He brought up as His first-born With severity, yet loving them, Imparting to them the light of love; And He forsook them not.

This teaching of the Divine governance of the world, involving as it does man’s dependence upon God, is balanced by the doctrine of human free-will; an example of this may be seen in the addition to xx. 31:

Better is persistent endurance (_lit._ patience) in seeking the Lord, Than a driver (_lit._ charioteer) of his own life without a master.

In this couplet the Pharisaic doctrine of man’s free-will is maintained, while the Sadducæan denial of providence is combated.

Turning now to the teaching of the Pharisees concerning the future life, the following addition is found after xix. 17:

... The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is life-giving instruction, And they who do the things that are pleasing unto Him shall pluck the fruit of the tree of immortality.

The teaching of reward hereafter for the righteous may be instanced from xviii. 22 and the addition to this verse. The original text runs:

Delay not to pay thy vow in due time, And wait not till death to be justified.

Death is here regarded as a means of atonement, as in the later Rabbinical literature; but from the Pharisaic point of view these words seemed inadequate, so the following words were added:

For the reward of God abideth to eternity.

It has been stated above that _repentance_ was one of the watchwords of the Pharisees; for the Sadducees, with their cold doctrine of God, repentance could have had but little meaning; not that Ben-Sira did not teach the need of repentance (see xviii. 21; but in xliv. 16 the Greek text is corrupt), but it occupies an extremely modest place in his book, and therefore we shall not be surprised to find that it is insisted upon several times in the additions; thus after the words of the text of xvii. 22:

The righteousness of men is to Him as a signet, And the mercy of man He preserveth as the apple of an eye,

the following addition is made:

Granting repentance to his sons and daughters.

Again, after xx. 2 this addition occurs:

How good it is when he who is reproved manifesteth repentance, For thus wilt thou escape wilful sin.

As regards the Pharisaic teaching concerning the Law much stress cannot be laid on the few examples of its mention in the additions, for at the time when these were made[369] it is improbable that the antagonism between Pharisees and Sadducees on this point had fully developed; if it had, we should rightly expect to find it more strongly reflected in the additions; whereas, as a matter of fact, quite a few examples of the mention of the Law (or the commandments) occur in the additions; nevertheless, since the Law played such a very important part in Pharisaic teaching, its mention in the additions would naturally point to the hand of a Pharisee. In the addition which has been put in after xi. 14, the Law is referred to as a divine gift, and therefore (so it is implied) he who observes it by walking uprightly is making use of a Divine gift; on the other hand, to live without the Law is folly and darkness which is characteristic of sinners:

Wisdom and insight and discernment of the Law Come from the Lord; Love and upright ways Come from the Lord; Folly and darkness have been formed for sinners, And as for evil-doers, evil abideth with them.[370]

Again, in xxix. 19, after the first clause:

The sinner falleth in his suretyship,

occurs the addition: “Transgressing the commandments of the Lord.”[371]

The reference is to evil men who, as the second line of the verse shows, are ruined because they become surety for evil purposes, i.e. for the sake of usurious practices; the addition was, therefore, made in order to emphasize the fact that this was a transgression of the Law.

Finally, what Josephus says about the asceticism of the Pharisees is illustrated by the addition to xix. 5. The original text here runs:

He that hath pleasure in wickedness shall be brought to destruction;

an ascetic tendency is clearly discernible in the Pharisaic addition which says:

And he that averteth his eye from pleasures crowneth his life.

These examples will suffice, it may be hoped, to substantiate the contention that the numerous later additions which have for the most part been preserved in the cursive manuscripts mentioned above are the work of a Pharisee, or Pharisees.

That these additions are post-Maccabæan goes without saying; but closer indications of date are not forthcoming, so that we cannot do more than say that they belong in all probability to the last century B.C.

VIII. THE VALUE OF THE BOOK FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The main value of the books of the Apocrypha for the study of the New Testament—it may be said here once for all—lies in their doctrinal teaching. This we have already dealt with in the last chapter of Part I. But there are some other ways, also useful, though of less importance, whereby these books can be utilized for New Testament study. Some of them, and above all Ecclesiasticus, throw much light on the customs and manner of life of the Jews which helps us in a number of particulars to understand the Gospels better; others, such as Judith, illustrate the intensely national feeling of the Jews which helps to explain much that we read in the Acts, especially St. Paul’s treatment by the Jews; or, again, the early part of Baruch gives us some insight into the long prayers which were in vogue among the Jews; Wisdom shows us, among other things, the Hellenistic spirit whereby not a few Jews, especially those of the Dispersion, were animated; this is important for the understanding of much that we read in the Pauline epistles. Other points will suggest themselves to thoughtful readers of these books. It is not, however, with matters of this kind that we can deal here, for space would not permit of it. What we intend to touch upon briefly in the final section of each of these introductions to the Apocryphal books, when called for, is chiefly (though not exclusively) their use for the study of the New Testament from a literary point of view, the main purpose being to try and show that the writers of the New Testament books had read and studied those of the Apocrypha; not, of course, that these writers were as familiar with them as with the canonical books of the Old Testament, but that they valued them and utilized them, some more than others. This is to be expected from the outset, both because the Old Testament they used contained these books as integral parts of the “Scriptures,” and because the early Church Fathers held them in high estimation; this latter is not likely to have been the case unless that attitude towards these books had been handed down.

There are, firstly, a few examples, among many, of parallel thoughts between Ecclesiasticus and the Gospels which may be pointed out:

Ecclesiasticus. St. Matthew.

xxviii. 2. Forgive thy neighbour vi. 14. For if ye forgive men the injury done to thee. their trespasses, your heavenly And then, when thou prayest, Father will also forgive you. thy sins will be forgiven.

St. Luke.

xlviii. 10. [Speaking of Elijah] i. 17. And he shall go before his ... To turn the heart of face in the spirit and power fathers unto the children. of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children.

The verbal identity between the two passages here suggests either direct influence, or else that a current saying (from Mal. iv. 6) has been adopted in each.

xi. 19. What time he saith, I xii. 19, 20 ... And I will say have found rest, to my soul, Soul, thou hast And now will I enjoy my much goods laid up for goods,— many years; take thine ease, He knoweth not what lot eat, drink and be merry. shall befall; But God said unto him, He shall leave them to others, Thou foolish one, this and die. night is thy soul required of thee; and the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be?

Cp. also Ecclesiasticus xxxi. 3 with the Lucan passage last quoted.

Examples of other small details illustrative of the usefulness of Ecclesiasticus for this purpose are i. 1-20, which offers an interesting commentary on Matthew xi. 19: “Wisdom is justified by her works” (cp. the various reading in Luke vii. 35). The visitation of the sick referred to in Matthew xxv. 39 is illustrated by Ecclesiasticus vii. 35:

Forget not to visit the sick, For thou wilt be loved for that.

Evidently this was a duty laid upon all good Jews. And, once more, the custom of wagging the head in sign of mockery mentioned in Matthew xxvii. 39 is also referred to in Ecclesiasticus xii. 18. Numbers of similar, small but interesting, points offer themselves to students of the book.

But the most striking fact in this connection is that of the many parallel thoughts and passages between Ecclesiasticus and the Epistle of St. James; these are of such a nature as to justify belief in the direct influence of the former on the latter. A few examples are appended[372]:

Ecclesiasticus. St. James.

i. 26. If thou desire Wisdom, i. 5. But if any of you lacketh keep the commandments, Wisdom, let him ask of God, And the Lord will give her Who giveth to all liberally freely unto thee. and upbraideth not; and it shall be given unto him.

xv. 11-13. Say not, From God i. 13, 14. Let no man say when is my trangression, he is tempted, I am tempted For that which He hateth of God; for God cannot be made He not. tempted with evil, and Say not, It is He that made He Himself tempteth no me to stumble. man; but each man is For there is no need of evil tempted, when he is drawn men. away by his own lust, and Evil and abomination doth enticed. the Lord hate, And He doth not let it come nigh to them that fear Him.

v. 11. Be swift to hear, i. 19. But let every man be But with patience make reply. swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

vii. 35, 36. Forget not to visit i. 27. Pure religion and undefiled the sick, before God and Father For thou wilt be loved for that. is this, to visit the fatherless In all thy doings remember and widows in their thy last end, affliction, and to keep himself Then wilt thou never do unspotted from the corruptly. world.

A large number of other examples could be given; among them the following will be found instructive:

Compare Ecclesiasticus xiv. 1, xix. 16, xxv. 8 with James iii. 2 ” ” v. 13, 14, viii. 3, xxviii. 11 ” ” iii. 5, 6. ” ” xxviii. 16-18 ” ” iii. 8. ” ” xxviii. 12 and context ” ” iii. 10. ” ” iv. 1-6, xxxiv. 22 ” ” v. 4. ” ” vi. 19 ” ” v. 7. ” ” iv. 26 ” ” v. 16. ” ” xlviii. 3 and context ” ” v. 17.