Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/310

 ECCLESIASTICnS

264

ECCLESIASTICUS

his frame of mind in undertaking the hard task of ren- dering the Hebrew text into Greek. He was deeply impressed by the wisdom of the sayings contained in the book, and therefore wished, by means of a transla- tion, to place those valuable teachings within the reach of anyone desiring to avail himself of them for living in more perfect accord with the law of God. This was a most worthy object, and there is no doubt that in setting it before himself the translator of Ec- clesiasticus had well realized the general character of the contents of that sacred writing. The fundamental thought of the author of Ecclesiasticus is that of ivis- dom as understood and inculcated in inspired Hebrew literature; for the contents of this book, however va- ried they may appear in other respects, admit of being naturally grouped under the general heading of " Wis- dom". Viewed from this standpoint, which is inileed universally regarded as the author's own standpoint, the contents of Ecclesiasticus may be divided into two great parts: chs. i-xlii, 14; and xlii, 15-1, 26. The sayings, which chiefly make up the first part, tend di- rectly to inculcate the fear of God and the fulfilment of His commands, wherein consists true wisdom. This they do by pointing out, in a concrete manner, how the truly wise man shall conduct himself in the manifold relationships of practical life. They afford a most va- ried fund of thoughtful rules for self-guidance "in joy and sorrow, in prosperity and adversity, in sickness and health, in struggle and temptation, in social life, in intercourse with friends and enemies, with high and low, rich and poor, with the good and the wicked, the wise and the foolish, in trade, business, and one's ordi- nary calling, above all, in one's own house and family in connection with the training of children, the treat- ment of men-ser\-ants and maid-ser\"ants, and the way in which a man ought to behave towards his own wife and women generally " (Schiirer) . Together with these maxims, which resemble clo.sely both in matter and form the Proverbs of Solomon, the first part of Ecclesiasticus includes several more or less long de- scriptions of the origin and excellence of wisdom (cf. i; iv, 12-22; vi, 18-37; xiv, 22-xv, 11 ; xxiv). The con- tents of the second part of the book are of a decidedly more uniform character, but contribute no less effec- tively to the setting forth of the general topic of Ec- clesiasticus. They first describe at length the Divine wisdom so wonderfully displayed in the realm of na- ture (xlii, 15-xliii), and next illustrate the practice of wisdom in the various walks of life, as made known by the history of Israel's worthies, from Enoch down to the high priest Simon, the writer's holv contemporarv (xliv-1, 26). At the close of the book (1, 27-29), there is first, a short conclusion containing the author's sub- scription and the express declaration of his general purpose; and next, an appendix (li) in which the writer returns thanks to God for His benefits, and especially for the gift of wisdom, and to which are subjoined in the Hebrew text recently discovered, a .second sub- scription and the following pious ejaculation: " Blessed be the name of Yahweh from this time forth and for evermore."

III. Original Text. — Until quite recently the ori- ginal language of the Book of Ecclesiasticus was a mat- ter of consideralile doubt among scholars. They, of course, knew that the Greek translator's prologue states that the work was originally written in "He- brew", {^paurri, but they were in doubt as to the precise signification of this term, which might mean either He- brew proper or Aramaic. They were likewise aware that .St. Jerome, in his preface to the Solomonic writ- ings, speaks of a Hebrew original as in existence in his day, but it still might be doubted whether it was truly a Hebrew text, or not rather a SjTiac or Aramaic translation in Hebrew characters. Again, in their eyes, the citation of the book by rabbinical writers, sometimes in Hebrew, sometimes in Aramaic, did not appear decisive, since it was not certain that they

came from a Hebrew original. And this was their ^^ew also with regard to the quotations, this time in classi- cal Hebrew, by the Bagdad gaon Saadia of the tenth century of our era, that is of the period after which all documentary traces of a Hebrew te.xt of Ecclesi- asticus practically disappear from the Christian world. Still, most critics were of the mind that the primitive language of the book was Hel^rew, not Aramaic. Their chief argument for this was that the Greek ver- sion contains certain errors; for example, xxiv, 37 (in Gr., verse 27), "light" for Nile" ON''); xxv, 22 (Or., verse 15), "head" for "poison" (Jjn); xlvi, 21 (Or., verse 18), "Tyrians" for "enemies" (CIV); etc.; these are best accounted for by supposmg that the tran.slator misunderstood a Hebrew original before him. And so the matter stood until the year 1896, which marks the beginning of an entirely new period in the history of the original text of Ecclesiasticus. Since that time, much documentary evidence has come to light, ami it tends to show that the book was origin- ally written in Hebrew. The first fragments of a He- brew text of Ecclesiasticus (xxxix, 15-xl, 6) were brought from the East to Cambridge, England, by Mrs. A. S. Lewis; they were identified in May, 1896, and published in "The Expositor" (July, 1896) by S. Schechter, reader in Talmudic at Cambridge Univer- sity. About the same time, in a box of fragments ac- quired from the Cairo genizzah through Professor Sayce for the Bodleian Library, Oxford, nine leaves apparently of the same MS. (now called B) and con- taining xl, 9-xlix, 11, were foimd by A. E. Cowley and Ad. Neubauer, who also soon published them (Oxford, 1897). Next followed the identification by Professor Schechter, first, of seven leaves of the same Codex (B), containing xxx, 11-xxxi, 11; xxxii, Ib-xxxiii, 3; xxxv, 11-xxxvi, 21; xxxvii.30-xxxviii.2Sb; xlix, 14c-li, 30; and next, of four leaves of a different MS. (called A), and presenting iii. 6e-vii. 31a; xi, 36d-xvi, 26. These eleven leaves had been discovered by Dr. Schechter in the fragments brought by him from the Cairo genizzah; and it is among matter obtained from the same source by the British Museum, that G. Margoliouth found and published, in 1899. four pages of the MS. B, con- taining xxxi. 12-xxxii. la; xxxvi, 21-xxxvii, 29. Early in 1900, I. Levi published two pages from a third MS. (C), xxxvi, 29a-xxxviii, la, that is, a passage already contained in Codex B ; and two from a fourth MS. (D), presenting in a defective manner, vi, 18-vii, 27b, that is, a section already found in Codex A. Early in 1900, too, E. X. Adler published four pages of MS. A, viz. ^-ii, 29-xii, 1 ; and S. Schechter, four pages of MS. C, consisting of mere excerpts from iv, 28b- v, 15c; xxv, llb-xxvi, 2a. Lastly, two pages of MS. D were discov- ered by Dr. M. S. Gaster. and contain a few verses of chaps, xviii, xix, xx, xxvii, some of which already ap- pear in MSS. B and C. Thus by the middle of the year 1900. more than one-half of a Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus had been identified and published by scholars. (In the foregoing indications of the newly- discovered fragments of the Hebrew, the chapters and verses given are according to the nimibering in the Latin Vulgate.)

As might naturally be anticipated, and indeed it was desirable that it should so happen, the publication of the.se various fragments gave rise to a controversy as to the originality of the text therein exhibited. At a very early stage in that publication, scholars easily no- ticed that although the Hebrew language of the frag- ments wa,s apparently classical, it nevertheless con- tained readings which might lead one to suspect its actual dependence on the Greek and S\Tiac versions of Ecclesiasticus. Whence it manifestly imported to determine whether, and if so, to what extent, the He- brew fragments reproduced an original text of the book, or on the contrary, simply presented a late re- translation of Ecclesiasticus into Hebrew by means of the versions just named. Both Dr. G. Bickell and