CutiipL, Lat.^Sijr.,A.r. XXX, 25
m,7»/S5'. "A,B,C." xxxiii, 13, Xafitrpui Kapdia, K, t. \.
xxxi, xxxii xxxiv, xxxv.
xxxiii, 16, IT, >)7pi;7rvno-a xxxvi, 1-16.
xxxiii, 10 sq. 0)9 KaXa/uLiiifj.ei'Ot. XXX, 25 Bq.
xxxiv, XXXV xxxi, xxxii.
xxxvi, 1-11, tpvXt'ii ']aKw/3 .... -xxxiii, 1-13. xxxvi, 12 gq. Kill KaTeKXnpofo- xxxvi, IT sq.
The most important interpolations are : i, 5, 7 ; 186, 21 ; iii, 25 ; iv, 236; vii, 2(56; x, 21 ; xii, 6c ,• xiii, 256; xvi, 15, 16, 22c; xvii, 5, 9, IG, 17a, 18, 21, 23r, 2C6; xviii, 26, 3, 27c, 33c; xix, 56, 6a, 136, 14a, 18, 19, 21, 25c; XX, 3, 116, 176, 32; xxii, 9, 10, 23c; xxiii, 3e, 4c, 56, 28 ; xxiv, 18, 21 ; xxv, 12, 26c ; xxvi, 19-27 ; 1, 296. All these passages, which occur in the A. V. and the Compl. texts, are wanting in the best SISS. The edi- tion of the Sj^ro-Hexaplaric MS. at Milan, which is at present reported to be in preparation (since 1858), will probably contribute much to the establishment of a sounder text.
The name of the Greek translator is unknown. He is commonly sujiposed to have borne the same name as his grandfather, but this tradition rests only on conjecture or misunderstanding (.Jerome, Stjnops. S. Script, printed as a Prologue in the Compl. ed. and in the A. v.).
VII. Canonicity. — Though this book has been quoted in the Jewish Church as earlj- as B.C. 150 and 100, bj' Jose ben-Jochanan {Aboth, i, 5) and Simon ben-She- tach (Xazi?; v, 3), and references to it are dispersed through the Talmud and Midrashim (^cidf sup. sec. v), yet these latter declare most distinctly that it is not canonical. Thus Yadaim, c. ii, says tk" book of Ben- Sira, and all the books written frorn its time and after- wards, are not canonical. We also learn from this re- mark that Ben-Sira is the oldest of all apocryphal liooks, thus confirming the date assigned to it in section iv. Again, the declaration made by R. Akiba, that he who studies uncanonical books will have no portion in the world to come (Mishna, Sanhed. x, 1), is explained by the Jer. Talmud to mean the books of Ben-Sira and Ben- Laanah (comp. the Midrash on Colieleth xii, 12). It was never included by the Jews among their Scrip- tures ; for though it is cjuoted in the Talmud, and at times like the Kethubim, yet the study of it was for- bidden, and it was classed among "/Ae outer books''' D"^:!")! C^TSp), that is, probably, those which were not admitted into the Canon (Dukes, Rabb. Blumenlese, p. 24 sq.).
Allusions to this book have been supposed to be not unfrequently discernible in the New Testament (com- pire, especially, Ecclus. xxxiii, 13; Rom. ix, 21 ; xi, v.); Luke xii, 19, 20 ; v, 11; James i, 19, etc.; xxiv, 17,18; Matt, xi, 28, 29; John iv, 13, 14; vi, .35, etc.). The earliest clear coincidence with the contents of the book occurs in the epistle of Barnabas (e. xix = Ec- clus. iv, 31 ; compare Const. Apost. vii, 11), but in this case the parallelism consists in the thought and not in the words, and there is no mark of ((uotation. There is no sign of the use of the book in Justin Martyr, which is the more remarkable, as it offers several thoughts congenial to his style. The first distinct quotations occur in Clement of Alexandria ; but from the end of the second century the book was much used and cited with respect, and in the same terms as the canonical Scriptures ; and its authorship was often as- signed to Solomon, from the similarity -which it pre-
sented to his writings (August. De Cura pro Mort. 18). Clement speaks of it continually as Scripture {Pad. i, 8, § 62 ; ii, 2, § 34 ; 5, § 46 ; 8, § 69, etc.), as the work of Solomon {Strom, ii, 5, § 24), and as the voice of the great Master (TrrttCaywyoc,-, Pad. ii, 10, § 98). Origen cites passages with the same formula as the canonical books (ytypmrTai, in Johann. xxxii, §14; in Matt. xvi, § 8), as Scripttire {Comm. in Mutt. § 44 ; in Ep. ad Rom. ix, § 17, etc.), and as the utterance of "/Ac dirine v;ord'^ (c. Cels. viii, 50). The other writers of the Al- exandrine school follow the same practice. Dionysius calls its words '"'■divine cracks" (Frag, de Nat. iii, p. 1258, ed. Migne), and Peter Martyr quotes it as the work of " the Preacher''' {Frag.i, § 5, p. 515, ed. Migne). The passage quoted from Tertullian {De exhort, cast. 2, " Sicut scriptum est : Ecce posiii ante te bonum et malum; gustati enini de arbore agnitionis," etc.; com- pare Ecclus. XV, 17, Vulg.) is not absolutely conclu- sive; but Cyprian constantly brings forward passages from the book as Scnpture {De bono pat. 17 ; De mor- taliiate, 9, § 13), and as the work of Solomon {Ep. Ixv, 2). The testimony of Augustine sums up briefly the result which follows from these isolated authorities. He quotes the book constantly himself as the work of a prophet {Serm. xxxix, 1), the word of God {Serm. Ixxxvii, 11), ^'■Scripture" {Lib. de Nat. 33), and that even in controversy (c. Jul. Pelag. v, 36) ; but he ex- pressly notices that it was not in the Hebrew Canon {De Cura pro Mort. 18), "though the Church, espe- cially of the West, had received it into authority" {De Civit. xvii, 20; compare Speculum, iii, 1127, ed. Paris). Jerome, in like manner {Prcf. in Sap. Sir. § 7), con- trasts the book with "the canonical Scriptures" as "doubtful," while they are "sure;" and in another place {Prol. Galeat.) he saj's that it "is not in the Can- on," and again (Prol. in Libr. Sol.'), that it should be read "for the instruction of the people {plebis), not to support the autliority of ecclesiastical doctrines." The book is cited by Hippolytus {0pp. p. 192) and by Euse- bius {Ojip. iv, 21, etc.), but is not quoted by Irenseus ; and it is not contained in the Canon of Melito, Origen, Cyril, Laodicea, Hilary, or Rufinus. See Canon.