t)otli with tbe plan of tlie book and the present de- ranged 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 say- ings, from various sources, belonging to different ages (see Davidson, in Home's Introd. ii, 1013 sq.). En- couragement is sought for these assertions from the statement in the spurious prologue of this book, oh uui'ov TU iripijov tmv tt()u uutov avvtrCiv civCpoJv cnra(p9i^l.iara avvf/yaytv, ciWu Kui avTvg I'lUa rii'ci aTrt<pOiyXaro, as well as from the remark of St. Jerome : "Quorum priorem [7rni'ap£7-ov Jesu iilii Sirach librum] Hebraicum reperi, non Ecclesiastiatm ut apud Latinos, sed Parabolas prienotatum, cui juncti erant Ecclesias- tes et Canticum Canticorum, ut similitudinem Salomo- nis non solum librorum numero, sed etiani materia- rum genere co;equaret" {Prcf. in Libr. Solum.'), which seems to imply that the book of Ben-Sh'a was intended to answer to all the three reputed wt>rks of Solomon. So also Luther. Eichhorn can see in it three different books : the Jirst book consists of chaps, i-xxiii, com- prising desultory remarks upon life and morals, and is divisible into two sections, viz. (a) i-ix, and (6) x- xxiii ; the second book comprises xxiv-xlii, 14, begins with a vivid description of wisdom, whereupon follow remarks and maxims without any order; and the third book, comprising xlii, 15-1, 21, is the only portion of Sirach carefully worked out, and contains praise of God and the noble ancestors of the Hebrews {Einlei- tung ill d. Ap. p. 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 cen- tury before Christ, extends from ch. i to xvi, 21, and contains the most simple proverbs, written with great calmness. The second book originated in the third century before Christ, extends from xvi, 22, to xxxvi, 22, and displays the excitement of passions as well as some penetrating observations, and has been greatlj' misplaced in its parts, which Ewald rearranges. The third book, which is the genuine work of Ben-Sira, ex- tends from xxxvi, 23, to 11, 30, with the exception of the song of praise contained in xxxix, 12-35, which belongs to the author of the second work (Geschichte d. V. Isr. iv, 300, etc.; Jahrh. iii, 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 — 1. That the difference in form and contents of some of the constituent parts bj' 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 travelling. 2. That this is evidently the work of the author's life, and was written by him at diff'erent pe- riods. 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 st3de 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 .Tesus (' [ //fTof'r, "Tr^, rT^'ilT', i. e. Jeshua), the son if Sirach, and that he is of ./«-Msa- Icm (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 unwarrant- ed (e. g. that he was a phj'sician, from xxxviii, 1-15) or absolute!}' improbable. There is no evidence to show that he was of priestlj' descent ; and the similar- ity of names is scarcely a plausible excuse for con- founding him with the Hellenizing high-priest Jason (2 Mace, iv, 7-11 ; Georg. Sync. Chrmogr. p. 27(>). In the Talmud, the name of Ben-Sira (NT'D'ia, for which p^"l'^p is a late error, Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. p. 311)
occurs in several places as the author of proverbial sa3ings which in part are parallel to sentences in Ec- clesiasticus, but nothing is said as to his date or per- son, 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 in- ternal evidence, e. g. xxiv, 10 sq. For the various speculations advanced about the personal character, acquirements, and position of the author, we must re- fer to the article 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 Solo- mon is spoken of, the reference to Solomon's success- ors, to prophets and other great men who lived before and after the Babylonish captivity, the mention of the twelve minor prophets (xlix, 10), the citation from the prophet jNIalachi (comp. xlviii, 10, with Jlal. iv, G), and the description of the high-priest Simon (chap. 1), only shows what the fathers can do.