ECCLESIASTICUS, (Lat., from Gk. ImNricriacrriK6s, ekklCsiastikos, relating to an assembly. from /keorda, assembl•). The Latin title of a biblical book called. in the Greek version, The Wisdom of .1( SUN, the Son of Sirach, and, in the original Hebrew. sometimes The Wisdom of Ben Sira, sometimes The Prov e•bs of Ben Sira. Books read in public, or re garded as suitable for that purpose. and therefore kept in places of assembly, were designated as libri eeclesiastici. or 'church books.' by the Latin Christians. \\lien. largely through the influence Of Jerome, books found in the Greek Bible. but not in the generally recognized 'Hebrew canon. began to be looked upon as only deutero-canonieal. or even apocryphal, the term 'church books' was not improperly confined to the works still read and cherished by the Church, though rejected by the Synagogue. Among these. the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Siraeh. being used as a text-book in the instruction of eateelmmens, naturally be came known as the 'church book' par excellence; hence the name Ecc/•Riasticus. The Hebrew orig inal was widely read and greatly revered as a holy book in the days preceding the limitation of the canon. (See the heading Canon of the Bible, in the article BIBLE.) So strongly was it intrenehed that, even after the canon had been reduced to twenty-two or twenty-four books, it still continued to be used and quoted as Scrip ture, particularly by the rabbis of Sora. Patri otic and medireval writers, who, on the ground of its absence in the Hebrew Bible, regarded it as canonical only in a secondary degree, freely appealed to its authority in support of doc trine. Its canonicity was rejected by the Re formers. though it was still printed in their ver sions.
Until 1S96 the Hebrew was known only through quotations in rabbinic literature. Of these there were about eighty, amounting to perhaps one-twentieth of the entire text. Since the year mentioned fragments of four manu scripts have been discovered. All of these have come from the qeniw, or hiding-place for worn out copies of biblieal books and esoteric or for bidden works in the Synagogue of Cairo. They cover about four-fifths of the book, and furnish in some instances two or three witnesses to the text. Numerous marginal notes also supply variant readings and doublets. Probably no one of the manuscripts is older than the eleventh een tury. One was evidently made by a Persian .Test'. who occasionally put into the margin remarks in his own vernacular. There can he no reason able doubt that all these manuscripts in the main represent the Hebrew original. But it is equally manifest that the text has been greatly corrupted. and in some cases has been corrected. or at least shaped, under the influence of either the Syriac version itself or an Aranmie targum closely resembling it. The ancient versions there fore remain of utmost importance. Of these, the Greek and the Syriae were made directly from the Hebrew: the Latin, the Syrollexaplarie, the Ethiopic. and the Coptic are the chief trans
lotions of the Greek. A prologue to the Greet. states that the author's grandson, who translated the work, to Egypt in the thirty eighth year of king Energetes. This can only be Ptolemy Euergetes II.. called Physcim. who was the only Euergetes reigning as long as thirty-eight .vears; the years of his reign are counted from the time when he first assumed the crown in BA% 170. how long after the year n.c. 132 Ben Sira's grandson lived in Emit be fore he was able to undertake the task of trans lating this book cannot be determined. But it is likely that the work was not completed until the time of Ptolemy Soter II., called Lathyrus, the first period of whose reign extended from B.C. 117-107. Another prologue of uncertain authority printed in the cditio prinecps. the Complutensian Polyglot, may not he older than the fourth century A.D., and draws its informa tion from the work itself. Not even its inde pendent statement that the translator's name was Jesus can be accepted on so doubtful author ity. We are far from possessing the original of this translation. The text presented by the great uncial codices is much inferior to that followed by a group of eursives and one late uncial. Particularly the manuscript printed in the Complutensian has preserved an older and better text. Yet no codex has suffered more by interpolations than this very one. A curious displacement is found in all manuscripts. With out a single exception, they pass from xxx. 24 to xxxiii. 16. continue to xxxvi. 11, and then go back to the section xxx. 25-xxxiii. 15. This could not well have found its way into all manu scripts except through the authority and influ ence of some universally recognized codex. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this was Origen's Hexapla. The fact that the Syriac version of Paul of Tella uses the asterisk and obolus to indicate differences from some recog nized original, renders it possible that Origen actually compared the Greek text of his book with a Hebrew copy. The displacement may have taken place before his time, and a different arrangement of his small books forming the vol ume even in this Hebrew copy may have facili tated the error. In sonic places the Latin and in others the Ethiopic has preserved an earlier and better reading than that found in any manu script. The Syriac version is a translation from the Hebrew. Its often startling agreement with the recovered 'Hebrew text corroborates this con clusion. Put it is evident that here and there it has suffered corruption. Originally made in all probability by a .Jew. it subsequently passed through many Christian hands that have left their mark. And occasionally its agreement with the Hebrew seems to he due to the influence it has itself exerted on the latter. Though the facilities for textual criticism have thus been greatly enriched. considerable uncertainty still exists as to the original.