Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/313

 ECCLESIASTICUS

2f)7

ECCLESIASTICUS

anj so long as it was baseil only on a more or less sub- jective appreciation of the passage, one can easily understand why many scholars questioned, or even rejected, its correctness. But with the recent discov- ery of the original Hebrew of the passage, there has come in a new, and distinctly objective, element, which places practically beyond doubt the correctness of the inference. In the Hebrew text, immediately after liLs eulogism of the high priest Simon, the writer subjoins the following fervent prayer: "May His [i. e. Yahweh's] mercy be continually with Simon, and may He establish with him the covenant of Phineas, that will endure with him and with his seed, as the days of heaven" (1, 24). Obviously, Simon was yet alive when this prayer was thus formulated ; and its actual word- ing in the Hebrew implies this so manifestly, that when the author's grandson rendered it into (ireek, at a date when Simon had lieen ileail for some time, he felt it necessary to modify the te.xt before him, and hence rendered it in the following general manner: "May His mercy be continually with vs, and may He redeem tts in His days." Besides thus allowing us to realize the fact that Jesus, the son of Sirach, was a contemporary of the high priest Simon, chap. 1 of Ecclesiasticus affords us certain details which enable us to decide which of the two Simons, both high priests and sons of Onias and known in JewLsh history, is the one described by the writer of the book. On the one hand, the only known title of Simon I (who held the pontificate under Ptolemy Soter, about 300 B. c.) which would furnish a reason for the great encomium passed upon Simon in Ecclus., 1, is the surname "the Just" (cf. Josephus, Antiq. of the Jews, Bk. XII, chap, ii, 5), whence it is inferred that he was a renowned high priest worthy of being celebrated among the Jew- ish heroes praised by the son of Sirach. On the other hand, such details given in Simon's panegjTic, as the facts that he repaired and strengthened the Temple, fortified the city against siege, and protected the city against robbers (cf. Ecclus., 1, 1—4), are in close agree- ment with what is known of the times of Simon II (about 200 B. c). While in the days of Simon I, and immediately after, the people were imdisturbed by foreign aggression, in those of Simon II the Jews were sorely harassed by hostile armies, and their territory was invaded by Antiochus, as we are informed by Josephus (Antiq. of the Jews, Bk. XII, chap, iii, .3). It was also in the later time of Simon II that Ptolemy Philopator was prevented only by the high priest's prayer to God, from desecrating the Most Holy Place; he then started a fearful persecution of the Jews at home and abroad (cf. Ill Mach., ii, iii). It appears from these facts — to which others, pointing in the same di- rection, could easily be added — that the author of Ecclesiasticus lived about the beginning of the second century B. c. As a matter of fact, recent Catholic scholars, in increasing number, prefer this position to that which identifies the high priest Simon, spoken of in Ecclus., 1, with Simon I, and which, in consequence, refers the composition of the book to about a century earlier (about 280 b. c).

VI. Method of Composition. — At the present day, there are two principal views concerning the manner in which the writer of Ecclesiasticus composed his work, and it is difficult to say which is the more probable. The first, held by many scholars, maintains that an impartial study of the topics treated and of their actual arrangement leads to the conclusion that the whole book is the work of a single mind. Its advo- cates claim that, throughout the book, one and the same general purpose can be easily made out, to wit: the purpose of teaching the practical value of Hebrew wisdom, and that one and the same method in hand- ling the materials can be readily noticed, the writer always showing wide acquaintance with men aiul things, and never citing any exterior authority f' r what he says. They affirm that a careful e.xamination

of the contents dLscloses a distinct imity of mental attitude on the author's part towards the same leading topics, towards God, life, the Law, wisdom, etc. They do not deny the existence of differences of tone in the book, but think that they are found in various para- graphs relating to minor topics; that the diversities thus noticed do not go beyond the range of one man's experience; that the author very likely wrote at dif- ferent intervals and under a variety of circumstances, so that it is not to be wondered at if pieces thus com- posed bear the manifest impress of a somewhat differ- ent frame of mind. Some of them actually go so far as to admit that the writer of Ecclesiasticus may at times have collected thoughts and maxims that were already in current and popular use, may even have drawn ma- terial from collections of w ise sayings no longer extant or from unpublished discourses of sages; but they, each and all, are positive that the author of the book "was not a mere collector or compiler; his character- istic personality stands out too distinctly and promi- nently for that, and notwithstaiuling the diversified character of the apophthegms, they are all the out- come of one connected view of life and of the world" (Schiirer).

The second view maintains that the Book of Ecclesi- asticus was composed by a process of compilation. According to the defenders of this position, the com- pilatory character of the book does not necessarily conflict with a real unity of general purpose pervading and connecting the elements of the work: such a pur- pose proves, indeed, that one mind has bound those elements together for a common end, but it really leaves untouched the question at issue, viz. w-hether that one mind must be considered as the original author of the contents of the book, or, rather, as the combiner of pre-existing materials. Granting, then, theexistence of one and the same general purpose in the work of the son of Sirach, and admitting likewise the fact that cer- tain portions of Ecclesiasticus belong to him as the original author, they think that, on the whole, the book is a compilation. Briefly stated, the following are the grounds for their position. In the first place, from the very nature of his work, the author was like "a gleaner after the grape-gatherers"; and in thus speaking of himself (x.xxiii, 16) he gives us to under- stand that he was a collector or compiler. In the sec- ond place, the structure of the work still betrays a compilatory process. The concluding chapter (Ii) is a real appendix to the book, and was added to it after the completion of the work, as Ls proved by the colo- phon in 1, 29 sqq. The opening chapter reads like a general introduction to the book, antl indeed as one different in tone from the chapters by which it is imme- diately followed, while it resembles some distinct sections which are embodied in further chapters of the work. In the body of the book, ch. xx,xvi, 1-19, is a prayer for the Jews of the Dispersion, altogether unconnected with the sayings in verses 20 sqq. of the same chapter; ch. .xliii, 15-1, 26, is a discourse clearly separate from the prudential maxims by which it is immediately preceded; chs. xvi, 24; xxiv, 1; xxxlx, 16, are new starting-points, which, no less than the numerous passages marked by the address "my son" (ii, 1; iii, 19; iv, 1, 23; vi, 18, 24, 33; etc.), and the peculiar addition in 1, 27, 28, tell against the literary unity of the work. Other marks of a compilatory pro- cess have also been appealed to. They consist in the significant repetition of several sayings in different places of the book (cf. xx, 32, 33, which is repeated in xli, 17b, 18; etc.); in apparent discrepancies of thought and doctrine (cf. the differences of tone in chs. xvi; xxv; xxix, 21-41; xl, 1-11; etc); in certain topical headings at the beginning of special sections (cf. xxxi, 12; xli, 16;xliv, 1, in the Hebrew); and in an additional psalm or canticle foimd in the newly dis- covered Hebrew text, between Ii, 12. and Ii, 13: all of which are best accounted for by the use of several