On the Book of the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, and Its Author

Author: Archpriest Alexander Petrovich Rozhdestvensky

Approximately fifteen years have passed since the first leaves of the long-lost Hebrew text of the Book of Jesus, Son of Sirach, were discovered. During this period, scholars have done much to restore the original text as pure as possible, free from later additions and corrections, to interpret it, and to familiarize contemporaries with it through translations into new languages. I once reported on this discovery and noted its importance for biblical scholarship;1 several other articles and notes dedicated to the same discovery have also appeared in our literature.2 However, we still lack a new Russian translation of the Book of Sirach that takes into account the newly discovered Hebrew text, which is extremely important for restoring the original text. Meanwhile, the book of the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, although non-canonical, deserves our special attention, not only in view of the curious fate of its text, but also because of the importance of its content: it is not for nothing that ancient Christian writers used it with particular love in their works, and the Church offered it, along with other non-canonical books, for the reading and edification of catechumens, newly entering its bosom3.

Book Title

In our Slavic and Russian Bibles, among the didactic books of the Old Testament not included in the canon, after the Book of Wisdom of Solomon, we find a book titled, as in the Greek Bible, “The Book of the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach,” Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ, or abbreviated: Σοφία Σειράχ. This same title is also found at the end of the newly discovered Hebrew text of the book: “The Wisdom of Simon, son of Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sirah.” The book is similarly, only shorter, titled in the Syriac Bible: “The Wisdom of the son of Asher”; and in rabbinic literature, it is called “the book of ben Sira.” In the patristic writings, the name of the book “Wisdom” was sometimes accompanied by the definition ἡ πανάρετος σοφία, or simply ἡ πανάρετος, “all-valiant”—the book of Jesus was considered a guide to virtue and wisdom, a “treasury of virtues”4. The later origin of the latter name, which does not coincide with the time of the book’s composition, is quite obvious and requires no proof; but which of the two names, rooted in Jewish tradition, belonged to the book from the first times of its existence is difficult to say. The books of Solomon, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes (חׇכְמָה סִפְרֵי in Thosaphoth to Bab. Bathr. 14b) were called by the name “Wisdom” among the Jews; It is possible that the book of Jesus son of Sirach is called the “Book of Wisdom” in the Talmudic expression: “After the death of Rabbi Eliezer, the book of Wisdom was hidden (i.e., withdrawn from use),

םפר החכמּה”5. The close affinity of this book with the books of Solomon is also reflected in the fact that all of them are often cited in Christian literature with the name of Solomon, and in some ancient copies of sacred books, there are actually five books of Solomon.6 And the very content of the book of Jesus provides sufficient grounds for assigning it the name “Wisdom”: the writer, who himself drew abundantly from the source of Divine Wisdom (cf. 24:32–37, 51:18–38, etc.), sets forth in his book what wisdom inspired him, and everywhere calls his readers to strive for it. But it’s hardly likely that the author himself, or even his grandson-translator, named the book by this lofty name. It’s more likely that it was originally titled, as Blessed Jerome attests, “Proverbs.” This name also appears in rabbinic literature, where excerpts from Jesus’ book are sometimes cited under the title “parable,” מׇּשׇל, or in Aramaic מַּתְלָא7, and it perfectly corresponds to the form in which the author expressed his thoughts and observations. It’s quite possible that he himself named his book this way, especially since he saw a model for himself in the title of the book of Solomon’s Proverbs.

In the Latin Bible and in Western scholarship, especially in the older, Roman-dependent tradition, the book of Jesus is called Ecclesiasticus, meaning “ecclesiastical.”8 This name was used in the ancient Church for all non-canonical books, and it was obviously opposed to the designation of “divine” or “sacred” canonical books: although not canonical, they were nonetheless “ecclesiastical,” that is, those accepted by the Church as edifying and useful, especially for new members. Among such books, the Book of Sirach enjoyed particular esteem and use—which is why, as a part instead of a whole, it was given the name Ecclesiasticus.9 True, this explanation is not favored by Latin writers, since the Roman Church declared complete indifference between canonical and non-canonical books to be dogmatic, but they too must admit that any other explanation cannot count on any credibility.10

Writer

As we saw above, the newly discovered Hebrew text of the Book of Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach gives the full name of its writer: “Simon, son of Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sira.” This full name is given twice at the end of the Hebrew text:

:סירא בן שנקרא ישוע בן שמּעון דברי חּנה עד

חכמת שמּעון בן ישוע בן אלעור בן סירא:

“Thus far these are the words of Simon, son of Jesus, called ben Sira.” “The wisdom of Simon, the son of Jesus, the son of Eleazar, the son of Sirah.” The same names are given in the Hebrew text earlier, in 50:29, where the book is attributed to לשמּעין סירא בן אלעור בן ישוע בן “Simon, the son of Jesus, the son of Eleazar, the son of Sirah.” In the Syriac translation the title of the book is given at the end of the book differently in different copies, but the name of the writer is read almost in agreement ישוע בר שמעון בר אסירא “Jesus, son of Simon, son of Asher” – the last name, meaning “captive” in Syriac, was undoubtedly a mistake instead of the real name סירא 11. In the Greek translation at the end of the 51st chapter. There is no indication of the author’s name as in the Hebrew text, and in 50:29 this name is read: Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Σειρὰχ Ἱεροσολυμίτις, and in many copies after Σειρὰχ the name Ἐλεάζαρ, or Ἐλεάζαρος, or Ἐλεαζάρου is added. Thus, the name “Eleazar”, which belonged to one of the writer’s closest ancestors, must be recognized as authentic, as confirmed by the Greek translation. But the question arises: where should the name “Eleazar” be placed—before the name “ben Sira,” as in the Hebrew text, or after it, as in the Greek translation? This question must be resolved in favor of the Hebrew reading. Firstly, in the Ethiopic translation, made from Greek, the name of the book’s author reads “Jesus, son of Eleazar,” without the addition “son of Sira”12. This may indicate that in the Greek text, too, the name of Eleazar originally followed the name of Jesus. Secondly, the full name of Jesus ben Sirach, as placed in the Hebrew text, is confirmed by the words of the 10th-century Jewish writer Saadia Gaon, who, in his book הַנָּלוּי סֶפֶר, notes that he compiled the book of proverbs “Simon, son of Jesus, son of Eleazar, ben Sira.” The publisher of Saadia’s book, Harkavy, based on a comparison with the Syriac translation, suggests that this reading is erroneous and should be corrected so that the name “Jesus” appears first: “Jesus, son of Simon, son of Eleazar ben Sira.”13 This suggestion is quite plausible, given that the Hebrew reading of the name “Sirach’s son” is erroneous; however, Harkavy’s suggested transposition of the names cannot be considered the only correct solution to the problem. It is based on the Syriac translation. However, the Greek translation, written by the book’s compiler’s grandson, does not contain the name “Simon” at all. Comparing this translation (in its corrected form) with the Hebrew text, we find that in the former, the writer of the book is considered to be Jesus, the son of Eleazar, the son of Syrus, while in the latter, it is as if the son of this Jesus was Simon, the son of Jesus, the son of Eleazar, the son of Syrus. It is difficult to say what name actually belonged to the compiler of the book. S. Schechter, who discovered most of the Hebrew text and was its first publisher, argues that the original name of the author was Simon, and that he was so named after the high priest Simon, his older contemporary: this was a custom among the Jews from very ancient times; and the fact that the name “Simon” was later supplanted by the name “Jesus” Schechter explains by “the popularity of the latter name in later times.”14 This explanation is insufficient, since both names have always enjoyed equal popularity, and in any case, it is difficult to accept that anyone’s own name was replaced by the father’s name (without the addition of bar or ben), even if it were more popular. Moreover, if such a replacement were accepted, it would have to be acknowledged that it occurred very early: even the book’s compiler’s grandson, its translator from Hebrew to Greek, calls his grandfather Jesus in his preface. Yet he is, of course, the most knowledgeable and reliable witness in resolving the question of his grandfather’s name. This is why most modern biblical scholars do not succumb to the charm of the Hebrew text and accept the older tradition of the name “Jesus” as more accurate. The substitution of the father’s name for the son’s name, common in some Jewish copies of the book, is currently impossible to explain satisfactorily, due to the lack of any data to resolve the issue. One can accept the assumption that Simon, the son of Jesus, was the publisher and distributor of his father’s book, who perhaps completed it in his old age. It could have happened then that some copies of the book were signed not with the author’s name, but with the name of his son, who published the book, while the author’s grandson, well acquainted with the matter, retained the writer’s own name in his translation.

So, the writer of the book was “Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sirah.” “Jesus” is the Greek transcription of the Hebrew name יֵשׁוּעַ, or more fully יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, a very common Jewish name; in post-exilic times, the most famous bearer of this name was the high priest Jesus, who is repeatedly mentioned in the books of Haggai and Zechariah, Ezra and Nehemiah. The name of the writer’s father, “Eleazar,” was also common, in Hebrew אֱלִעֶוֶר; In post-exilic history, Eleazar was the name of, for example, one of the sons of the priest Mattathias (1 Macc. 2:5) and a pious elder who was martyred along with the seven Maccabee brothers (2 Macc. 6:18). Finally, the last name of the book’s author, בֶּן סִירָא, is obviously his family name, his surname: this is evident both from the position of the name at the end of the series of names, and from the indication of the Hebrew text, where a postscript directly states: “who was called ben-Sira.” Moreover, the name “Sira” could have belonged either to the author’s grandfather, Eleazar’s father, or to a more distant ancestor. Similarly, Hezekiah is called the “son” of David in 48:25, and in 50:15, 18, the sons of Aaron are his distant descendants. 16 Therefore, instead of “son of Sira,” it is more convenient to retain the Hebrew form of this family name: “ben-Sira.” Much is said about the etymological significance of this family name, although this question is of secondary interest, especially since family names are often subject to distortion and change within the same gender. They think that the author’s surname is more accurately preserved in the Syriac translation, where, along with bar-Sira, it is read: בַר אַסִירָא, and this form is considered to be an Aramaized Hebrew name Asher or Assir (Ex. 6:24, 1 Chronicles 6:22, 23, 37)17, with the meaning “bound, captive”18. But there are no sufficient grounds for such an assumption, especially since the name sira’, although not found in the Hebrew Bible, can be explained from Hebrew roots, for example, סִיר with the meaning “thorn, needle”, etc.19 The Greek transcription of the name Σειράχ (or Σιραχ) does not at all require the assumption that the ending of the name does not end in aleph, as it does now, but in ge, which could be transmitted through χ (סִירָה), as Halevi thinks20: in the New Testament, the Hebrew name יוסי is transmitted as Ιωσηχ and הֲקֵל רְּמָּא – Ἀκελδαμάχ (Luke 3:26, Acts 1:19), – here, as in the name Σειραχ, the letter χ at the end serves to indicate that the name, as foreign, should not change according to case21.

The Greek text of 50:29 also indicates Jesus’s origin in Jerusalem: ὁ Ἱεροσολυμίτης “a Jerusalemite.” This reading is not supported by the Hebrew text and is likely an addition by the translator, especially since his preface also hints at the book’s origin in Palestine (in the words: “those outside” Palestine “who are engaged in them can profit by word and writing”). Apparently, the author’s grandson, the translator of his book, wished to note his grandfather’s origin in the holy city of the Jews in order to further ingratiate him with Jewish readers living outside Palestine, for whom the Greek translation of the book was intended.

The book itself contains no other data for conjecture regarding the external circumstances of the author’s life, and everything that has been said and is said about this in literature, primarily ancient, bears no trace of truth. The book contains much evidence for judging the author’s extraordinary qualities of mind and heart, and here, of course, any conclusions are both appropriate and logical. Specifically, the book’s entire content clearly demonstrates that its author possessed a subtle, observant mind, that he devoted himself extensively to the study of his native sacred scriptures and knew how to apply the knowledge he gained through this process both in his own life and in communicating it to others. The entire book exudes the balanced wisdom of a man who has experienced much and formed a solid worldview capable of bringing peace of mind and happiness to its owner. The author speaks with the tone of an elder father, wishing well for his children, warning them against infatuations and temptations. The fact that the son of Sirach diligently studied the sacred books is attested to by his grandson’s direct testimony in the preface to the Greek translation: “My grandfather Jesus,” he says, “devoted himself more than others to the study of the law, the prophets, and other patristic writings and acquired sufficient skill in them.” Moreover, the spirit and content of the book clearly indicate that its author was permeated, as it were, saturated with Old Testament teaching. The final section of his book, which contains a song of praise to the Lord, the Creator and Provider of the universe, and to the illustrious figures of Jewish history, through whom the Lord revealed His glory and majesty from the ages (chapters 42-49), constitutes a poetic retelling of the history of the creation of the world and the life of the Jewish people from the earliest times to the latest, all based on the records of sacred books. The author’s diverse practical experience is also revealed throughout the book, which offers numerous instructions useful specifically for worldly well-being, for maintaining peace with people, and for earning their respect. These instructions could not have come from a young or even middle-aged man, who had not yet demonstrated the correctness of his life’s principles in his own life. Evidently, the author of the book was already a very elderly man, even an old man, summing up his life, enjoying the respect of his fellow citizens, serving as living proof of the correctness of his chosen path in life. He had seen the light: his book contains indications that he traveled extensively and received great benefit from this (34:11, 51:18); in doing so, he was exposed to great, mortal dangers, but was saved from all these dangers thanks to God’s help and his own wisdom (34:12, 51:3-10). Undoubtedly, based on his own experience, the author speaks in his book (39:1-5):

“Only he who devotes his soul

and meditates on the law of the Most High—

he searches out the wisdom of all the ancients

and studies the prophecies;

” He listens attentively to the speeches of eminent men

and delves into the subtle turns of parables;

he explores the hidden meaning of sayings

and becomes accustomed to the riddles of parables;

he serves among nobles

and appears before rulers;

he travels through the lands of foreign nations,

experiencing the good and evil among people.”

And the author rightly goes on to say of himself that he is “full” of wisdom, “like the moon at full moon,” so full that pouring out some of it for the instruction of others is his direct duty and an irresistible inner need (cf. 24:32–37, 33:15–18, 39:15, and elsewhere).

Thus, Jesus son of Sirach was undoubtedly a “scholar,” i.e., an expert in Holy Scripture and an experienced observer of the life of the world and people. He could rightfully apply to himself the title sofer, γραμματεύς, “scribe,”—the same title by which he himself calls the scholar in 38:24, and which was also borne by the priest Ezra, “a scribe swift in the law of Moses” (1 Esdras 7:6, cf. 11 Nehemiah 8:1, and others), ספר מהיר, “a skilled scholar.” During the time of the son of Sirach, the venerable title of scholar had not yet been debased by its unworthy later bearers, to whom we are accustomed to apply the term “scribes,” repeatedly denounced in the New Testament (Matthew 23, Mark 12:38-40, Luke 20:46-47). At that time, the study of the law had not yet reached that veneration of its letter, which often obscures its inner meaning, and which gave rise to the Talmudic explanation of the name sofer as “counter,” since later sofers actually counted all the letters of the Torah and determined which letter, which word, and which verse stand in the very center of the Pentateuch (Kidduschin 30a). Ben Sira was a “scholar” in the broad sense of the word, able to find in the sacred books the lofty principles of a wise and pious life, and who verified these principles through his own observations both in his homeland and in the foreign lands he visited during his travels (16:6, 34:11, 51:18).

Later sofers usually had disciples and taught them the law and the traditions of the elders.23 The son of Sirach also sets the aim of his book as teaching people wisdom, repeatedly calling on them to listen to his teaching (6:24, 16:24, 23:6, 33:18, 39:16, 41:19, 51:31–38), often calling his readers “children,” and speaking of “his school,” literally from the Hebrew: “the house of my learning,” בית מּדרשי in 51:31, and “my pulpit,” ישיבתי in 51:37. Does it follow from this that Jesus the son of Sirach was in the proper sense a teacher of the youth, as some think,24 that teaching the law was his main occupation? This question can hardly be answered affirmatively. Of course, the wise man clearly distinguishes himself from those who, overwhelmed by their heavy worldly pursuits, are unable to attain wisdom, and makes it clear that he himself had sufficient leisure for this (38:24–39:14). But this only implies that he had the means to live, allowing him to devote himself to scholarly pursuits without worrying about his daily bread (cf. 13:30–14:20); but that he had no pursuits at all or was only occupied with teaching the youth—this does not at all follow. From his invitation in 51:31 to learn wisdom from him “free of charge” one can conclude that there were teachers in his time who charged for their instruction, and ben Sira distinguishes himself from such teachers. As for the expressions: bêt midrash and yeshûbâ, which later became technical terms for the school and department of sofers, they can be viewed as figurative expressions that are closely related to the author’s book: those seeking wisdom are invited to enter his school, i.e., to read and study his book; in a similar way, he invites those seeking wisdom to enter her “house” (1:17, 4:16, 14:25), i.e., to enter into close communication with her. Therefore, without denying the possibility that the son of Sirach expounded his teaching not only in writing, in his book, but also orally, in conversations with those who turned to him for instruction, we cannot assert that he was, by his very profession, a teacher of youth; he could also have occupied some other honorable position among his people, enjoying material wealth and universal respect. * * *

Notes

1.See “Christ’s Reading,” 1897, October, pp. 526–529; 1898, March, pp. 449–450, and the speech published in “Christ’s Reading,” 1903, March, separate reprint: “The Rediscovered Hebrew Text of the Book of Jesus, Son of Sirach, and Its Significance for Biblical Scholarship,” St. Petersburg, 1903.

2.V.P. Rybinsky, Notes on the Literature on the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament for 1899, “Works of Kyiv. D. Ak.” 1900, II, pp. 289–294; cf. his article on the Book of Jesus from the Syriac in the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia,” vol. VI, St. Petersburg, 1905, pp. 600–601. F. Vigouroux, Guide to Reading and Studying the Bible. Translated by V.V. Vorontsov. Vol. II, Moscow, 1899 ff., p. 999, with facsimile. P.A. Yungerov, Private Historical-Critical Introduction to the Holy Old Testament Books. Issue 2. Kazan, 1907, pp. 230 ff.

3.In the 85th Canon of the Holy Apostles, when listing the holy books, it says: “Let it also be known to you (προσιστορείσϑω), that your young men study the Wisdom of the most learned Sirach.” In the 39th Paschal Epistle of St. Athanasius II, the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach is placed second among those “Ordained by the Fathers for the reading of newcomers and those desiring to be preached in the word of piety.” Almost the same is said in the “Synopsis” attributed to St. Athanasius II. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus calls the Book of Sirach “useful and beneficial.” Rufinus numbers it among the “church” books, etc. St. John of Damascus on the books of the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of the Lord. Jesus son of Sirach notes: “They are good (ἐνάρετοι) and excellent books, but they are not counted (in the canon) and were not placed in the ark” (Migne, Patrologiae s. gr. t. 94, col. 1180). That the book of Jesus son of Sirach was indeed used for reading in Christian assemblies—perhaps in catechism schools—is evident from the notes preserved in some Greek manuscripts, for example: “the second conciliatory word of the same” in 18:30, cf. 20:27, 30:1, “glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee” in 50:31, etc.

4.In the preface to the books of Solomon, Blessed Jerome says, among other things: fertur et πανάρετος Jesu filii Sirach liber, et alius φεοδεπίγραφος, qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur. Quorum priorem hebraicam reperi, non Ecclesiasticum, ut apud latinos, sed Parabolas praenotatum… Migne, Patrologiae s. lat. t. 28, col. 1242. Cassiodorus (De institutione divinarum litterarum, I, 5) gives this explanation of the words blessed. Jerome: quem (librum) propter excellentiam virtutum suarum πανάρετον appellat, i.e. virtutum omnium capacem. Minge, Patrologiae s. lat. t. 70, col. 1117. This name first appears in Eusebius (see Alfr. Schöne, Eusebi Chronicorum libri duo. Vol. II, Berolini 1866, p. 122). Cf. A. Edersheim in Wace’s Apocrypha II, pp. 18–19, not. 7.

5.J. Sota, at the end of 24c, see L. Blau, Revue des Étud. Juives XXXV, p. 21, cf. V. Ryssel in E. Kautzsch’s Apokryphen, I, p. 232.

6.De quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur, says Blessed Augustine of the Apostles, I)e doctr. Christ. II, 8, 13 (Migne, Patrologiae s. lat. 34, col. 41).

7.Midrash Rabba on Exodus 21; Bereschit R. p. 44a; Midraseh Qohelet V; Midrash Tanchuma § 1. See Cowley a. Neubauer, The original Hebrew of Eccli., p. XX.

8.In quotations, abbreviated: Ecclus. or Eccli., in contrast to Eccl. = Ecclesiastes.

9.Rufinus in his Expositio symboli apost. 38 (Migpe, Patrologiae s. lat., 21, col. 374) says: alii libri sunt, qui non sunt canonici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus adpellati sunt, id est, Sapientia quae dicitur filii Sirach, qui liber apud latinos hoc ipso generali vocabulo Ecclesiasticus adpellatur, quo vocabulo non auctor libelli, sed scripturae qualitas cognominata est. Cp. O. Fritzsche, Kurzg. exeg. Handbnch zu d. Apokryphen, V, S. XIX.

10.See B. Cornely, Introductio specialis in Cursus Scripturae S., II, 2, p. 238; J. Knabenbauer, Commentarius in Eccli., ibid. 2, VI, p. 1.

11.Wed. R. Smend, Die Weisheit des J. Sirach, Berlin 1906, S. LVII.

12.Ibid. S. 493.

13.Studion und Mittheilungen aus der Kaiserlichen Oeffentlichen Bibliothek zu St.-Petersburg, von Dr. A. Harkavy, 5-ter Theil, S.-Petersbufg 1891, S. 200 (in Hebrew), cp. V. Ryssel in E. Kautzsch’ Apokryphen, I, S. 233.

14.Schechter a. Taylor, The Wisdom of ben Sira, p. 65.

15.Izr. Levi, L’Ecclésiastique, II, p. 216, N. Peters, Der hebr. Text des B. Eccli., p. 317, R. Smend, Die Weisheit des J. Sirach, p. 492, and others.

16.Cf. the name ben-hadad, which belonged to several kings of Damascus (1 Kings 15:18, 20:1, 2 Kings 6:24, 8:7, 13:3, etc.), or the name benê-khezûr in an inscription on a tomb near Jerusalem, the names Bartholomew and Bartimaeus in the New Testament, the names of the Jewish scholars ben-Asher and ben-Naftali, etc. 17

Not to be confused with the name of Asher, son of Jacob, which is written אָשֵר .

18.Sam. Kraus in “Jewish Quarterly Review” 1898 oct., cp. C. Taylor in Schechter a. Taylor, “The Wisdom of ben Sira,” p. 53.

19.V. Ryssel in E. Kautzsch’ Apokryphen I, p. 234. Jac. Levy, Neuhebr. u. chald. Wörterbuch III, pp. 519–520, gives the word sûra’ the meaning “armor.”

20.Halévy in Journ. As. 1898 no. 2, cf. V. Ryssel in E. Kautzsch’ Apokryphen, I, p. 234.

21.A. Edersheim in Wace’ Apocrypha II, p. 3; E. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, Leipzig 1894, p. 161, Anm. 6.

22.Since in the Syriac Bible the book is signed: “the book of Jesus, the son of Simeon the captive” (אסירא), this gave rise to a tradition among Syriac Christians that this Simeon was precisely Simeon the God-Receiver, who was deemed worthy to live until the coming of Christ. Others (bar Hebraiah) consider Jesus to be the son of the high priest Simon II, Jason; but what is said about the latter in 2 Macc. 4:7 ff., as well as in Josephus Flavius ​​in Jude. 12:5.1, does not at all correspond to the image suggested by the contents of Jesus’ book: it could not have been written by a man who had impurely removed his brother Onias from the high priesthood, sent money for sacrifices to Hercules, and was himself removed from office by Menelaus. It is believed that he was a priest (Linde, Zunz), or a physician (Hugo Grotias): the first opinion is reflected already in the Codex Sinaiticus, where in 50:39, instead of ἱεροσολυμείτης, it was originally written: ἱερεὐς ὁ Σολυμείτης, while the second is based on those passages of the book where the author speaks favorably of physicians, e.g., 38:1–15. Finally, there is an opinion that Jesus was one of the 72 translators of the holy books into Greek (Corn, à Lapide, Calmet, Goldhagen) – this is expressed, for example, in the first edition of the pre-Lutheran German Bible (Mentelin, Strassburg I466), where it reads in the translator’s preface: mein anherr jesus ein sun josedech, der do einer ist von den tulmetzschungen der LXX, des enckelu ist gewest diser jesus ein sun sprach (= syrach). See E. Nestle in the note “Zum Prolog des Ecclus.”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1897, pp. 123–124. Cf. O. Fritzsche, Kurzgef. exeg. Handbook of Apocrypha, V, pp. 10–11, V. Ryssel in E. Kautzsch’s Apocrypha I, p. 234, Edersheim in Wace’s Apocrypha, II, p. 3. The legendary “alphabet of ben Sira,” a work published between the 8th and 11th centuries A.D., contains a fabulous story about the birth and childhood of ben Sira, but the compiler of the story took this name quite arbitrarily, as the name of one of the sages known to him. See Isr. Lévi, “La nativité de Ben Sira,” Revue des Études Juives 1894, vol. 29, pp. 197–205.

23.On the scribes-sophers, see E. Schürer, “Gesсhiсрte des jud. Volkes im Zeitalter J. Сhristi.” 3 Aufl., II B., Leipzig 1898, pp. 312–328.

24.O. Fritzsche, “Kurzgef. exeg. Handbuch zu Apokryphen,” V, pp. 11–12, cf. R. Smend, “Die Weisheit des J. Sirach,” pp. 14–15.

Source in Russian: Rozhdestvensky, A.P., “On the Book of Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach and Its Author” // Christian Reading. 1911. No. 1. pp. 38–49.

Illustrative photo: pexels-suzyhazelwood-1333742