What is the book of Ecclesiasticus?

The name given to those Books which were attached to the MSS copies of the LXX, but which do not form a part of the canon of scripture. The term itself signifies, 'hidden,' 'secret,' 'occult;' and, as to any pretence of being a part of scripture, they must be described as 'spurious.' There are such writings connected with both the Old and the New Testament, but generally speaking the term 'Apocrypha' refers to the O.T. (for those connected with the N. Test. see APOSTOLIC FATHERS. The O.T. books are: 1 I. Esdras. 2 II. Esdras. 3 Tobit. 4 Judith. 5 Chapters of Esther, not found in the Hebrew nor Chaldee. 6 Wisdom of Solomon. 7 Jesus, son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus; quoted Ecclus. 8 Baruch, including the Epistle of Jeremiah. 9 Song of the Three Holy Children 10 The History of Susanna. 11 Bel and the Dragon. 12 Prayer of Manasseh. 13 I. Maccabees. 14 II. Maccabees.

The Roman Catholic Church receives as canonical, certain books which are rejected by the Reformers, and called by them The Apocrypha. This word signifies what is concealed, and seems originally to have been applied to those books which were not published and universally known as canonical Scriptures; but were confined to some few heretical congregations, known only to them, and concealed except from the initiated. And then it came to mean, as with us, specially those books sometimes classed as belonging to the Old Testament, but never received by the Jews as such. These books were appended to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, and thence transferred to the Vulgate or Latin translation made from the Septuagint. Some of these books, as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are in every way to be recommended, as containing wise and pious precepts, though not directly sanctioned by Divine authority. The books of Maccabees are good and reliable history. While others are mere extravagant romances, of no value whatever.

Let it be observed that the Roman Church does not deny the fact upon which the Reformers proceeded — viz., that these Apocryphal books were never received as canonical by the Jews. It will be seen, on reference to the preface of the Douay Bible — i.e., the English version of the Bible sanctioned by the Roman Church — that the canonicity of the Apocrypha is made to rest, solely on the dogmatic authority of the Church.

With regard to the Latin, there is the same agreement, and the same independence of transmission. Between Jews and Christians there was a wall of separation which entirely prevented either from borrowing of the other. Amongst Christians themselves there were differences, both in language and theology, sufficient to prevent collusion. The Greek translation was not made from the Syriac; nor the Syriac from the Greek. They are entirely independent one of the other; and yet all present to us, with a few unimportant differences, the same Pentateuch. The Hebrew is that which the Jews received from their fathers. The Greek existed before the Incarnation of the Saviour. The Syriac version was made, as is generally supposed, early in the second century, probably before that time. We have, therefore, four independent witnesses to prove the identity of the Pentateuch which we possess, with that which was known to our Lord. And to these might be added the testimonies of Philo and Josephus, in whose writings sufficient portions of the Pentateuch are found to prove the identity of their copies with ours, and their belief that Moses was the author.

But, from the days of our Lord to the time of the last canonical Hebrew writer, there is a long interval. How can it be known, therefore, that the Pentateuch as then existing was that received from Malachi and his contemporaries? Here again there is a chain of sufficient testimonies. About one hundred and thirty years before Christ, the grandson of Jesus, the son of Sirach, translated the book of Ecclesiasticus into Greek. That book is acknowledged to be genuine, and has so many references to the Law as to prove the identity of the book so called. The first book of Maccabees, also received as authentic by modern critics, carries us nearly fifty years farther back. The mad efforts of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy the book of the Law; and the zeal, not only of the priests, but of the common people, ready to die rather than disobey it, attest the existence of the book, and the popular belief that it was from God. That our Pentateuch existed, and was received as the law of Moses, one hundred years earlier, that is about two hundred and eighty years before Christ, is attested by the fact that it was then translated into Greek by Alexandrian Jews. Their version, commonly known as Septuagint, is that quoted by Evangelists and Apostles, and handed down to us by the Greek Fathers; and of whose agreement with the Hebrew we have already spoken.

Joshua (the Lord's Salvation) comprises a period of from twenty-five to thirty years; the first twenty-two chapters cover a period of about eight years. It has been gathered by some from the frequent use of the third person that not Joshua, but a contemporary and eye-witness was the writer of the book. But it must be remembered that it was not an unfrequent occurrence on the part of an inspired writer, both to speak and write in the third person (see Ezra 7). Jewish tradition ascribes the authorship of the whole to Joshua save the last five verses which were evidently written after the death of the "Saviour" of Israel, as the name Joshua imports. Jesus, son of Sirach, the writer of Ecclesiasticus about 250 B.C., calls Joshua the successor of Moses in prophecies. Probably one of the elders who out-lived Joshua added these supplementary verses, as also the record of certain transactions which occurred some time after the death of Joshua (Joshua 15:16-19 comp. with Judges 1:12-15; Joshua 19:47 with Judges 18).

The Ptolemies — especially Ptolemy Philadelphus — not only patronised Greek learning, and strove to make their metropolis Alexandria the literary, as well as the commercial, centre of the world; but they were also very anxious to cultivate the friendship of the Jews, whose country, consisting of a succession of natural fastnesses, has ever formed an important outpost of Egypt. Both literary curiosity, therefore, and political prudence, conspired in making those kings desirous to possess, in the vulgar tongue, the venerable law of the Jews. Hence Ptolemy Philadelphus (or his father — it is uncertain which) requested of the high priest at Jerusalem, to procure competent scribes for him, who might translate the laws of Moses from the Hebrew into the Greek. The translation, thus effected, became one of the valuable treasures he had collected in his library at Alexandria. Its composition must have been somewhere about the year 280 B.C. It seems to have been gradually followed at different times by translations of other parts of the Jewish Scriptures; and the whole, executed indeed by various hands, was completed sometime before the advent of Christ.

This is the simple account, in substance quoted by one Aristobulus, who is cited by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History; and it is corroborated in the Prologue to the Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, written (as the author there tells us) in the time of Ptolemy Physcon, rather more than 100 years before Christ. From 280 B.C. to 120 B.C. may therefore be safely taken as the period of its execution. And we may be satisfied that the law of Moses was translated by royal command, to which the rest of the book was gradually added.

This Alexandrian or Septuagint version, being thus made in the common speech of the East, was read even in Palestine, where Greek had become the ordinary language of intercourse. It alone is quoted by the philosopher Philo, and the historian Josephus: and (which is of more interest to us), the writers of the New Testament almost constantly refer to it: for at that epoch it stood in the same relation to the Hebrew as our common English version does, and was therefore used by all who wrote books for universal perusal.

The first question that presents itself in this inquiry is, the usual name of the collective revelation of God of which the Old Testament does but form a part. The common designation of the whole of sacred Scripture is 'The Bible,' a name derived from ecclesiastical Latin, and meaning 'The Book.' Plumptre says, 'Mediaeval Latin mistook the neuter plural [Biblia] for a feminine singular,' which appears to have been first used in the thirteenth century. The first portion of this, with which we are now concerned, regularly called 'The Old Testament,' we find in the interval between the close of the Hebrew Canon and the Birth of Christ described by 'The Law, and the Prophets, and the rest of the Books' (Prologue to Ecclesiasticus or Book of Jesus son of Sirach).

The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament was completed with Malachi. Then about 284 B.C. the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Sacred Hebrew Books was begun, and finished about 130 years before Christ. But long after the Old Testament was complete in Hebrew, certain books were written by Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere — dates and names of authors being uncertain — which were bound up with the Septuagint. These books are termed The Apocrypha. They are useful as connecting links of history between the Testaments, but are utterly destitute of Divine authority, nor do the books themselves claim to be inspired. The difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Bible as to character, style, and subjects are patent even to a child.

The Apocrypha was first received as canonical by the Council of Trent, 1545, and is highly regarded by Roman Catholics throughout the world.

The following statements are important to remember: No portion of the Apocrypha was written in Hebrew, but all in Greek, although by Jews, and never formed part of the Hebrew canon. It was written more than a century after the completion of the Old Testament. It was never regarded by the Jews or their writers as possessing the slightest claim to inspiration. Neither the Lord nor Apostles ever cited from, or referred to, the Apocrypha.

You quote Tobias also: that is, the Apocrypha. This is one of the terrible sins of Rome. She has pretended to authenticate as scripture what was never owned as such till the middle of the sixteenth century, and what the very person who made the translation which she declares to be authentic states not to be scripture at all. Over and over again he (Jerome) declares there are twenty-two books, excluding thus the Apocrypha from the canon; and in particular, in his preface to Tobias, says it was not in the Hebrew scriptures. In his preface to the Books of Solomon he says, "As, therefore, the church reads, indeed, Judith and Tobias, and the books of the Maccabees, but does not receive them among canonical scriptures, so also let her read these two volumes, for the edification of the people, not to establish the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas." He refers to Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. Athanasius reckons them up also, twenty-two, both in the Synopsis (if it be his, for some have doubted it), and in the fragment of the Festal epistle, giving them, he says, because some would dare to mix apocryphal books with divine scriptures, and speaking of Tobias and others as read, but not canonical.

121 Origen tells us the same, Eusebius also. But, to be brief, Christ never cites these books, nor are they found in the Hebrew at all. They were never owned by the Jews as part of their scriptures. Josephus is distinct as to what was received, and says there were none after Artaxerxes; that there were others, but not canonical, and that the prophets gave their sanction to books as forming part of the canon. He owned they have no kind of authority whatever; and all authority, Jewish and Christian, declared they were not of the canon till the Council of Trent. Now, the oracles of God are committed to the church, as of old they were to the Jews. The church gives them no authority — it cannot to what God has spoken; but when God had given them, He entrusted them to the church to keep — only watching over it in all His providence — and Rome has proved herself not the church by deliberate unfaithfulness to this, by setting up as scripture what all Jews and the church, and all witnesses, declare with one voice is not. She is self-condemned here. See what is said in Maccabees: "If I have written well, and as befits the story, that is what I wish; if ill, it is to be pardoned me." Why, it is blasphemy to ascribe such words to the Holy Ghost; and of that blasphemy Rome is guilty.

131 The first authority adduced for purgatory is the Jewish church; the quotation to prove it is mistaken. The Lord killeth and maketh alive; He bringeth down to hell, and bringeth up. But what has this to do with purgatory? Hell was Sheol, the invisible place of death, or even the grave. It is a simple statement of the power of God to do what He pleases, to bring down and lift up. Ecclesiasticus, we have seen, is not scripture. The author speaks of the Jewish church believing it, as many portions of the Bible record; but the Jews did not receive this as the Bible at all. That the unbelieving, Christ-rejecting Jews believe in a purgatory is, I believe, quite true; but that is a strange authority for a Christian. They do not know redemption, but boast of being God's people in a fleshly way, but have no real resting-place for their souls. They want a purgatory. The Romanist has the same boast and does not know redemption for his own soul, and he wants a purgatory too. I would not have put their faith on the same ground; the author has thought good to do it. He must know the Lord's judgment of that ground — "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

265 Not only does Josephus present the number of the books of scripture as composing a whole, divided into three parts, and Daniel as one of the most admirable among them, thus assuring us the Old Testament such as we have it was a known volume, but the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, refers to this volume, though not distinguishing the books, in the same threefold division — the law, the prophets, and the other books. That is, he shews the body of scripture complete. Not only so, but he refers to these being translated, declaring that the law, the prophets, and the other books had not the same force in the Greek tongue. That Daniel lived in the time of the captivity, we have proof from Ezekiel, who names him by name, and who wrote at that period. The book of Daniel, moreover, had its place in the Septuagint translation. It is not, indeed, the one we have, which is Theodotian's; but there was one, of which fragments are now extant in the Chisian MS. Now this translation was probably as early as the beginning of Antiochus's reign, that is, B.C. 175, Mattathias's revolt being in B.C. 167. The book of Maccabees, probably from the contents dating about B.C. 130, refers to Daniel. In sum, if we receive the New Testament, we have the authority of the Lord Himself for Daniel's being a prophet. Further, we have (for the historical truth of his existence as a remarkably well-known man at the period the book of Daniel refers to) the testimony of his contemporary, Ezekiel. We have Josephus, thoroughly versed in Jewish lore, bearing witness that Daniel was of special eminence among the prophets, and the complete volume of the books of scripture specifically noticed, saying that they had not a multitude of books, but twenty-two (now made twenty-four by the separation of Ruth from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah); that they were all completed by the reign of Artaxerxes, thus letting in Malachi and Esther, and no more; that there were indeed other books among them, but that they had not the same authority because there were no prophets to authenticate them.

266 Nothing can be simpler than this. Without entering into details which change nothing of the substance, we have, on dear and intelligible grounds, the canonical scriptures and the Apocrypha. The canonical books are divided into three parts: the law, prophets, and hymns; or, as the Lord says in Luke, the law, prophets, and psalms. But this is not all. The first book of Maccabees refers to Daniel, and no doubt to the LXX translation. This book was written some hundred and thirty years before Christ. Jesus, the son of Sirach, refers to the canonical books, by their well-known tripartite division, and to a translation of them; that is, Daniel existed then, and was translated into Greek. The lowest date for this is B.C. 130. Some place the son of Sirach B.C. 200. The Septuagint translation, of which Daniel formed a part, was made from B.C. 280 by degrees. The revolt of Mattathias was more than a hundred and ten years after it commenced to be made. It is supposed by some that Esther was translated in the reign of Ptolemy Philometer, and this would tend to shew that the translation was complete earlier. Now we have no authorities whatever to refer to during the interval between Malachi and the Septuagint translation. But we have the concurrent voice of all the authority we possess that Daniel is authentic; and the fact of its being part of the Septuagint makes it to the last degree improbable that its date could be any later one; while the Jews, who certainly knew their own canon, most undoubtedly received it as the book of the prophet (Josephus also, who was thoroughly versed in the question, giving, not his opinion, but clearly and elaborately the Jews' judgment upon it, and the very intelligible grounds of it). All other authorities agree, not merely as authorities, but refer to these very books as the books known (settled by authority) and received of the nation. We have not an earlier testimony than the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, for none exists; but we have a testimony to the earlier and universal reception of these books as scripture. Hence, it can be proved to have existed earlier, for it was then fully received by all as an authentic book, and translated as a part of scripture, probably some time before the period referred to, certainly then as being fully acknowledged, which is exactly the same thing as to our present question (that is, that it was not written for the occasion, for it was then translated as a well-known book).