ECCIiESIASTICXJS. 618 ECCLESIOLOGY. The best Greek manuscripts corroborate the statement that Eleasair was the name of the father of Jesus Ben Sira. If the Hebrew text is to be trusted, the authorsliip is consequently assigned, not to Jesus, but to his son Simeon. One of the editors also maintains that the name of the translator's grandfather was Simeon Ben Sira. But the name 'Jesus' is too closely asso- ciated with the book, both in Jewish and Chris- tian tradition — as the sui)erseriptions on the one hand, and the application to the autlior of the legends of the nativity on the other, show — to permit such an assumption. Another solu- tion suggests itself. Chapters xliv.-l. once formed a separate book. It has been demonstrated that the old Latin version, which Jerome adopted without much emendation, was made by two diiTerent men, living in dilTerent lands, chai)ters xliv.-l. not having been translated by the same hand that imMluced the rest. Tlic unity of this section and its distinct cliaracter render it nat- ural that it should have circulated separately. If th.at is the ease, 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 Asmonaean period, by the son of .lesus Ben Sira. The ref- erence to a transfer of the high-i)riesthood. and the promise of David to the posterity of Phine- has, because of his zeal, in xlv. 23-2G. and the description of the high priest Simon in 1. 1-24, seem quite decisive. It is natural that the as- sum])tion of the pontificate by the .Vsmonieans should have Iwcn in need of scriptural support, and the reward promised to Phinehas for his zeal seems to have furnished the necessarv' proph- ecy. Scholars have been divided in regard to the identity of the Simon praised in chapter 1. Some have thought of a higli priest, Simon the Just, supposed to have lived in the begiiming of the third ccniury; others of a Simon who held the oflice a century later. There is no record showing that either of these men achieved any of the deeds for which Simon is Lauded. If Simon the Just really lived in the time of Ptol- emy Soter. and if this King's harsh treatment actually included the siwcific damage presup- posed, the high priest may. indeed, liave paid attention to the necessary repairs. P.ut Josephus does not seem to have found any mention of this in his sources, since he is able to give no other reason for the title than Simon's piety toward God and kind disposition toward His people. His sources, however, appear to have been late and unreliable. Concerning the Simon who was high priest in the days of Antiochus III., Josephus has no information to give. As evidence of this King's kind feeling toward the Jews, he quotes a letter of his to Ptolemy, in which he tells the Egyptian King, from whom he has just taken Palestine, how generously he is about to reward the inhabitants of Jerusalem for their services in the war. But the letter is manifestly a forgery; and it is significant that Josephus can quote no act. but only a promise, to show the attitude of Antiochus. On the other hand, we know, through I. Mace. xiii. and xiv., that Simon, the Asmonrean 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 description in Eccl. 1. not found in this source IB the construction of a cistern ; but if Simon filled up the hollow between the Akra and the temple north of it, he is quite likely also to have paid attention to the vatcr-su|iply. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Hebrew colophon. Chapter li. is made up of two ]>arts — ver.ses 1-12 and 1.3-2!). The latter is an acrostic poem, each stichos beginning with a new Idler of the alphabet. Between both, the Hebrew text has a long hymn, probably written in the second cen- tury A.D. The wliulc cha])ter is lale. In the part of the book that in tlic main is the work of Jesus Ben Sira, the clear allusion to the death of Antiochus IV. in x. !1, the reference to Daniel and the whole tenor of t!ve prayer (xxxi. 1-17), and the fact that chapter xliii. does not seem to have been extant in the Hebrew text used by the Syriac translator — ap])arently 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 llie author was his grand- fatlicr. This would render it probable that he wrote his work between is.c. 190 and 170. In his theological views he occupies substantially the position of the later Sadducees. When he meets with angels in a biblical passage he gets rid of them by a rationalistic interpretation. He recognizes no demons. He never liints at any ilessianic ho]>e. He is convinced that "the son of man is not inunorlal." He lionors the law, reveres the ])roj)liets. but knows as yet no canon of Scripture. He feels that he is himself raised up to be a teacher, even as the holy men of old. His moral philosophy is utilil^irian and indi- vidualistic. The motive is the happiness that a certain line of conduct will bring. 'Ihe welfare of others is not presented as a consideration. The author lays down rules rather than prin- ciples. He directs how men should act in dif- ferent situations. His work is not so much a conscious endeavor to find a liasis for morality outside of religion, as rather an earnest attemi)t to commend the righteous life for the happiness it brings to the wisdom-seeking youth of his time. Bini.TOGUAPUY. Cheync, Job and Solomon (London, 1S87): Fritzsche, Die ^ycisheit Jesus Sirachs (Leipzig. 1850) ; Bissell. The Apocnipha (New York, 1880) -. Edersheim, in the Speaker's Commentin-ii. Apucriiphn (L<indon. 1888); Rys- sel, in Apokriiphcn drs alien Trstniiienls (Tii- bingen, 1900) ; Cowley and >feu1)auer. The Oriti- inal IJebreto of a Portion of Berlesiastieiis (Ox- ford, 1897) ; Schechter and Taylor, T)w ^'isdom of Ben Sira, Portions of tli^ Hook Eoel^siastictis (Cambridge, 1899) ; Levi. I/eeclesiimtirine ou In sagesse de Jesus, filn de Sira (Paris. 1898- 1901)'; Schmidt. "Ecclesiasticus," in the Temple Bihle (London. 1902) ; Toy. "Kcclesiasticus." in Enejiclopwdia Bihiiea (London, 1901); Xestle. "Sirach," in Dtciionary of the Bihle (New York, 1902). ECCLE'SIAZU'S^ (Lat.. from Gk. inKX-qai- dfouo-ai. el/.lrsiardii^-ai. women in assembly). An inferior comedy by .Aristophanes, jirodiiced B.C. .S92. His subject is an imaginary national assembly of women, held for the establishment of woman's rights, socialism, etc.. at Athens. The play is aimed at the attempts to restore the State by means of formal constitutions. ECCLESIOL'OGY ( from Gk. iKKr,(rla, ellle- sia, church -f (Ik. Xo7/a, loifia, account, from
