By the discovery of the Hebrew text, new questions have been raised as to the name of the author and the integrity of his work. The colophon H. 27) designates as author Simeon. son Jesus, son of Eleazar Ben Sira. The statement is repeated in ehapter li.. and also given in the abbreviated form. "Simeon, son of Jesus. %Om is called Ben Sira." Bon Sira is consequently the family name that might be adcl ed to the proper name of father and son alike.
The best (reek manuscripts eornthorate the statement that Elcazar was the name of the father of desus Ben Sira. If the Hebrew text. is to be trusted, the authorship is consequently not to Jesus, but to his son Simeon (Inc of the editors also maintains that the name of the translator's grandfather was Simeon Ben Sira. 1Mt the name 'Jesus' is too closely asso ciated with the book. both in Jewish and Chris tian tradition—as the superseriptions on the one hand. and the application to the author of the legends of the nativity on the other, show'— to permit such an assumption. Another solu tion suggests itself. Chapters xliv.-1. once formed a separate book. It has been demonstrated that the old Latin version, which .leronie adopted without much emendation. was made by two different men, living in different lands. chapters xliv.-1. not having been translated by the same hand that produced the rest. The unity of this section and its distinct character render it nat ural that it should have circulated separately. It that is the case. the colophon in 1. 27 refers. not to the entire work, but to these chapters. Internal evidence renders it entirely probable that this part was written in the Asmomean period, by the son of Jesus Ben Sint. The ref erence to a transfer of the high-priesthood. and the promise of David to the posterity of Phine has, because of his zeal, in xlv. 23-26, and the description of the high priest Simon in 1. 1-24, seem quite decisive. It is natural that the as sumption of the pontificate by the As/non:cans should have been in need of scriptural support, and the reward promised to Phineltas for his zeal seems to have furnished the necessary proph ecy. Scholars have been divided in regard to the identity of the Simon praised in chapter 1. Some have thought of a high priest, Simon the Just, supposed to have lived in the beginning of the third century; others of a Simon \•ho held the office a century later. There is no record showing that either of these men achieved any of the deeds for which Simon is landed. If Simon the Just really lived in the time of Ptol emy Soler, and if this King's harsh treatment actually included the specific damage presup posed. the high priest may. indeed, have paid attention to the neeessa•y repairs. Ilut Josephus does not scent to have found any mention of this in his sources. since he is able to give no other reason for the title than Sinum's piety toward God and kind disposition toward ilis iieople. His sources, however. appear to have been late and unreliable. Coneerning the Simon vvlio was high priest in the days of Antiochus 111., Josephus has no information to give. ..\s evidence of this King's kind feeling toward the Jews. lie quotes a letter of his to Ptolemy, in which he tells the Egyptian King. from whom he has just taken Palestine. generously he is about to reward the inhabitants of Jerusalem for their hPs in the war. But the letter is manifestly a
forgery; and it is significant, that Josephus can quote no net. only a promise, to show the attitude of .\ntioelins. On the other hand. we know, through I. '11nee. xiii. and NiY., that Simon, the Asmorman high priest, repaired the temple, fortified the holy hill after the capture of the tower. built walls, and strengthened the city against the enemy. The only feature of the deseription in Keel. I. not found in this source is the construction of a eistern; hut if Simon filled up the hollow between the Akra and the temple north of it, lie is quite likely also to have paid attention to the water-supply. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Hebrew colophon. Chapter Ii. is made up of two parts v•rses 1-12 and 13 29. The latter is an acrostic poem, each stichos beginning with a new letter of the alphabet. Between both. the Ilebrew text has a long hymn, probably written in the second cen tury A.D. The whole chapter is late. In the part of the book that in the main is the work of Jesus Ben Sira, the clea• allusion to the death of .‘litio•lms IV. in x. 9. tile reference to Daniel and the whole tenor of the prayer ( xxxi. 1 17), and the fact that chapter xliii. does not scene 1.0 have been extant in the Ilebrew text used by the Syriac translator—apparently point out these sections as later interpolations. Con cerning the time when Jesus Ben Sira lived we have no other evidence than the Greek trans lator's statement that the author was his grand father. This would render it probable that he wrote his work between me. 190 and 170. 10 his theological views he occupies substantially the position of the later Sadducees. 'When he meets with angels in a biblical passage he gets rich of them by a rationalistic interpretation. Ile recognizes no demons. lit' never hints at any hope. lie is convineed that son of man is not immortal." lle honors the law, reveres the prophets, bud knows as yet no canon of Scripture. Ile feels that lie is himself raised up to be a teaelier, even the holy men of old. His moral philosophy is utilitarian and indi vidualistic. The motive is the happiness that a certain line of conduct will bring. The welfare of others is not presented as a eonsideration. The author lays down riches rather than prin ciples. Ile directs how should act in dif ferent situations. 'His work is not, so much a conscious endeavor to tied a basis for morality outside of religion, as rather an earnest attempt to eommend the righteous life for the happiness.: it brings to the wisdom-seeking youth of his t hue, l'ont.totatAmIV. Cheyne, .lob and Solomon 1887) : Die WeiSheit Jesus Siraells (Leipzig• Thr .4porrypha (New York, ISSN ; Edershelln, in the Spraker'S ('ommentary, Apocrypha (London. 180.ti); llys sel, in 4/ad.-rap/wit deN Olen Testaments 1900): Cowley and Neubauer. The Bela-11r of a Portion of Erelesiostiens (Ox ford, 1897) ; Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom of Ben Sira, Portions of ar Book Eerlesiastiens (C'ambridge, 1899) ; Levi, I.
la sayessc dry .1('sus. fits Jr Sira s9g.
1901) ; Schmidt, in the Temple Bible (London. 1902) ; Toy, "Ecelpsiastiens." in En•yelopwrlia Bibli•a (London, 19011: Nestle. "Sirach," in Dietion«•y of flee Bible (New York, 1902).