Ecclesiasticus: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.


(Redirected to Sirach article)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sirach, by Ben Sira, also known as Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, or Ecclesiasticus, is a work from the early second century BCE, originally written in Hebrew.

The book is included in the Septuagint and is accepted as part of the biblical canon by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most Oriental Orthodox but not by most Protestants, and is listed in among the Deuterocanonical books in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England[1]. Although it was not accepted into the Tanakh, the Jewish biblical canon, Sirach is occasionally quoted in the Talmud and works of rabbinic literature. The Greek Church Fathers also called it "The All-Virtuous Wisdom," while the Latin Church Fathers, beginning with Cyprian[2], termed it Ecclesiasticus because it was frequently read in churches, leading to the title liber ecclesiasticus (Latin and Latinised Greek for "church book").

In Egypt, it was translated into Greek by the author's grandson, who added a prologue. The Prologue to Ben Sira is generally considered the earliest witness to a canon of the books of the prophets, and thus the date of the text as we have it is the subject of intense scrutiny.


Title and versions

The Book Ben Sira ("ספר "בן סירא) was originally written in Hebrew, and is also known as Proverbs of Ben Sira (משלי בן סירא) or Wisdom of Ben Sira (חכמת בן סירא).

The Greek translation was accepted in the Septuagint under the (abbreviated) name of the author: Sirakh (Σιραχ). The final chi is not to be pronounced; it simply points to the foreign origin of the name and shows that the noun cannot be declined in Greek. Some Greek manuscripts give as title Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirakh or in short Wisdom of Sirakh.

The old Latin versions were based on the Septuagint, and simply transliterated the Greek title in Latin letters: Sirach.

In the Vulgate the book is called Liber Iesu filii Sirach. The neo-Vulgate uses the title given by the early Latin Fathers: Ecclesiasticus, literally (belonging) to the Church, because of its frequent use in Christian teaching and worship.

Today it is more frequently known as Ben Sira or simply Sirach. ("Ben Sirach" should be avoided because it is a mix of the Hebrew and Greek titles.) The name Siracides, of more recent coinage, is also encountered, especially in scholarly works.


Ben Sirah, a Jewish scribe who had been living in Jerusalem, may have authored the work in Alexandria, Egypt circa 180–175 BC, where he is thought to have established a school.[3]

Translation and dating of the work

The Prologue to Ben Sira is generally considered the earliest witness to a canon of the books of the prophets. Thus the date of the text as we have it has been the subject of intense scrutiny.[4][5][6]

The Greek translator states in his preface that he was the grandson of the author, and that he came to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of "Euergetes". This epithet was borne by only two of the Ptolemies. Of these, Ptolemy III Euergetes reigned only twenty-five years (247-222 B.C.) and thus Ptolemy VIII Euergetes must be intended; he ascended the throne in the year 170 BC, together with his brother Philometor, but he soon became sole ruler of Cyrene, and from 146 to 117 held sway over all Egypt. He dated his reign from the year in which he received the crown (i.e., from 170). The translator must therefore have gone to Egypt in 132 BCE.

Considering the average length of two generations, Ben Sira's date must fall in the first third of the Second Century BCE. Furthermore, Ben Sira contains a eulogy of "Simon the High Priest, the son of Onias, who in his life repaired the House" (50:1). Most scholars agree that it seems to have formed the original ending of the text, and that the second High Priest Simon (died 196 BC) was intended. Struggles between Simon's successors occupied the years 175–172 BC and are not alluded to in the book, nor is the 168 BC persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV Epiphanes.[7][8]

Ben Sira's grandson was in Egypt, translating and editing after the usurping Hasmonean line had definitively ousted Simon's heirs in long struggles and was finally in control of the High Priesthood in Jerusalem. Comparing the Hebrew and Greek versions shows that he altered the prayer for Simon and broadened its application ("may He entrust to us his mercy"), in order to avoid having a work centered around praising God’s covenanted faithfulness that closed on an unanswered prayer.[6]

Texts and manuscripts

The work of Ben Sira is presently known through various versions, which scholars still struggle to disentangle.[9]

The Greek version of Ben Sira is found in many codices of the Septuagint.[9] An English version of the Septuagint text can be found here.

In the early 20th century several substantial Hebrew texts of Ben Sira, copied in the eleventh and twelfth centuries AD, were found in the Cairo geniza (a synagogue storage room for damaged manuscripts). Although none of these manuscripts is complete, together they provide the text for about two-thirds of the book of Ben Sira. According to Frederic Kenyon, this shows that the book was originally written in Hebrew. (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. Rev. by A.W. Adams. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1958. 83.) That Sirach was originally written in Hebrew may be of some significance for the biblical canon. The book was accepted into the canon of the Old Testament by Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy but not by Judaism or Protestantism.

In the 1950s and 1960s three copies of portions of Ben Sira were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The largest scroll was discovered at Masada, the famous Jewish fortress destroyed in 73 AD. The earliest of these scrolls (2Q18) has been dated to the second part of the 1st century BC, approximately 150 years after Ben Sira was first composed. These early Hebrew texts are in substantial agreement with the Hebrew texts discovered in Cairo, although there are numerous minor textual variants. With these findings, scholars are now more confident that the Cairo texts are reliable witnesses to the Hebrew original.


Illustration from Ben Sira, c. 1751.

The Book of Ben Sira is a collection of ethical teachings. Thus Ecclesiasticus closely resembles Proverbs, except that, unlike the latter, it is the work of a single author, not an anthology of maxims drawn from various sources. Some have denied Ben Sira the authorship of the apothegms, and have regarded him as a compiler.

The teachings are applicable to all conditions of life: to parents and children, to husbands and wives, to the young, to masters, to friends, to the rich, and to the poor. Many of them are rules of courtesy and politeness; and a still greater number contain advice and instruction as to the duties of man toward himself and others, especially the poor, as well as toward society and the state, and most of all toward God. These precepts are arranged in verses, which are grouped according to their outward form. The sections are preceded by eulogies of wisdom which serve as introductions and mark the divisions into which the collection falls.

Wisdom, in Ben Sira's view, is synonymous with the fear of God, and sometimes is identified in his mind with adherence to the Mosaic law. The maxims are expressed in exact formulas, and are illustrated by striking images. They show a profound knowledge of the human heart, the disillusionment of experience, a fraternal sympathy with the poor and the oppressed, and an unconquerable distrust of women.

As in Ecclesiastes, two opposing tendencies war in the author: the faith and the morality of olden times, which are stronger than all argument, and an Epicureanism of modern date. Occasionally Ben Sira digresses to attack theories which he considers dangerous; for example, that man has no freedom of will, and that God is indifferent to the actions of mankind and does not reward virtue. Some of the refutations of these views are developed at considerable length.

Through these moralistic chapters runs the prayer of Israel imploring God to gather together his scattered children, to bring to fulfilment the predictions of the Prophets, and to have mercy upon his Temple and his people. The book concludes with a justification of God, whose wisdom and greatness are said to be revealed in all God's works as well as in the history of Israel. These chapters are completed by the author's signature, and are followed by two hymns, the latter apparently a sort of alphabetical acrostic.


Influence in the Jewish liturgy

Ben Sira was used as the basis for two important parts of the Jewish liturgy. In the Mahzor (High Holy day prayer book), a medieval Jewish poet used Ben Sira as the basis for a poem, KeOhel HaNimtah, in the Yom Kippur musaf ("additional") service for the High Holidays. Recent scholarship indicates that it formed the basis of the most important of all Jewish prayers, the Amidah. Ben Sira apparently provides the vocabulary and framework for many of the Amidah's blessings. Many rabbis quoted Ben Sira as an authoritative work during the three centuries before the advent of Yavneh.

In the New Testament

Some people claim that there are several allusions to the book of Sirach in the New Testament. These include The magnificat in Luke 1:52 following Sirach 10:14, the description of the seed in Mark 4:5,16-17 following Sirach 40:15, Christ's statement in Matthew 7:16,20 following Sirach 27:6 and James 1:19 quoting Sirach 5:11.[10]

The distinguished patristic scholar Henry Chadwick has claimed that in Matthew 11:28 Jesus was directly quoting Sirach 51:27,[11] as well as comparing Matthew 6:12 "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." (KJV) with Sirach 28:2 "Forgive your neighbor a wrong, and then, when you petition, your sins will be pardoned."[11]

Messianic interpretation by Christians

The catalogue of famous men in Sirach contain several messianic references. The first occurs during the verses on David. Sir 47:11 reads “The Lord took away his sins, and exalted his power for ever; he gave him the covenant of kings and a throne of glory in Israel.” This references the covenant of 2 Sam 7, which pointed toward the Messiah. “Power” (Heb. qeren) is literally translated as horn. This word is often used in a messianic and Davidic sense (e.g. Ezek 29:21, Ps 132:17, Zech 6:12, Jer 33:15). It is also used in the Benedictus to refer to Jesus (“and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David”).[12]

Another messianic verse (47:22) begins by again referencing 2 Sam 7. This verse speaks of Solomon and goes on to say that David’s line will continue forever. The verse ends telling us that “he gave a remnant to Jacob, and to David a root of his stock.” This references Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah: “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots”; and “In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek…” (Is 11:1, 10).[13]

Another way Sirach is interpreted messianically is its use of personified Wisdom. In Sirach Wisdom is personified twice, in chapters one and 24. Wisdom is explicitly said to be eternal: “From eternity, in the beginning, he created me, and for eternity I shall not cease to exist.” (24:9) At Sir 1:4 the genesis of Wisdom is described much as it is at Prov 8:22. Like Prov 8, Sir 24 has many parallels to Col 1:15. Wisdom tells us that she “came forth from the mouth of the Most High, the first-born before all creatures.” (Sir 24:3a) This statement is similar to Christ’s being the Word, and the “first-born of all creation”. (Col 1:15b) At Sir 24:19 Wisdom tells her listeners to “Come to me”, which, it has been noted, is similar to Christ’s saying “Come to me” at Mt 11:28. Like Jesus the Messiah, Wisdom also keeps souls from sin (Sir 24:22).


  1. ^ "Thirty-Nine Articles" Wikisource
  2. ^ Testimonia, ii. 1; iii. 1, 35, 51, 95, et passim
  3. ^ Coogan, Michael (ed.) (2001) "Apocrypha" The New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 100-101, ISBN 0-19-528478-X
  4. ^ Williams, David Salter (1994) "The Date of Ecclesiasticus" Vetus Testamentum 44(4): pp. 563-566
  5. ^ DeSilva, David Arthur (2002) "Wisdom of Ben Sira" Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, p. 158, ISBN 0-8010-2319-X
  6. ^ a b Guillaume, Philippe (2004) "New Light on the Nebiim from Alexandria: A Chronography to Replace the Deuteronomistic History" Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5: Section: 3. The Date of Ben Sira
  7. ^ 1 Maccabees 1:20-25, see "Polyglot Bible. 1 Maccabees.". Retrieved 2009-08-05. 
  8. ^ "How the City Jerusalem Was Taken, and the Temple Pillaged. As Also Concerning the Actions of the Maccabees, Matthias and Judas; and Concerning the Death of Judas" In William Whiston's translation of Flavius Josephus The Wars of the Jews
  9. ^ a b Stone, Michael E. (ed.) (1984) Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, sectarian writings, Philo, Josephus Van Gorcum, Assen, Netherlands, p. 290, ISBN 0-8006-0603-5
  10. ^ Scripture Catholic - Deuterocanonical Books In The New Testament
  11. ^ a b Henry Chadwick, (2001) The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, page 28, ISBN 0-19-924695-5
  12. ^ Skehan, Patrick (1987) The Wisdom of Ben Sira: a new translation with notes (Series: The Anchor Bible volume 39) Doubleday, New York, p. 524, ISBN 0-385-13517-3
  13. ^ Skehan, Patrick (1987) The Wisdom of Ben Sira: a new translation with notes (Series: The Anchor Bible volume 39) Doubleday, New York, p. 528, ISBN 0-385-13517-3


  • Beentjes, Pancratius C. (1997) The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts E.J. Brill, Leiden, ISBN 90-04-10767-3
  • Toy, Crawford Howell and Lévi, Israel (1906) "Sirach, The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of" entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia
  • Amidah, entry in (1972) Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, Keter Publishing, Jerusalem, OCLC 10955972

External links

Preceded by
Book of Wisdom
Roman Catholic Old Testament Followed by
Eastern Orthodox Old Testament
see Deuterocanon


Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From Wikiquote

Ecclesiasticus, a book of the Apocrypha included by some churches in the Bible

  • Verbum dulce multiplicat amicos.
    • Translation: Sweet language will multiply friends.

1911 encyclopedia

Up to date as of January 14, 2010

From LoveToKnow 1911

ECCLESIASTICUS (abbreviated to Ecclus.), the alternative title given in the English Bible to the apocryphal book otherwise called "The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach." The Latin word ecclesiasticus is, properly speaking, not a name, but an epithet meaning "churchly," so that it would serve as a designation of any book which was read in church or received ecclesiastical sanction, but in practice Ecclesiasticus has become a by-name for the Wisdom of Sirach. The true name of the book appears in the authorities in a variety of forms, the variation affecting both the author's name and the description of his book. The writer's full name is given in 1.27 (Heb. text) as "Simeon the son of Jeshua (i.e. Jesus) the son of Eleazar the son of Sira." In the Greek text this name appears as "Jesus son of Sirach Eleazar" (probably a corruption of the Hebrew reading), and the epithet "of Jerusalem" is added, the translator himself being resident in Egypt. The whole name is shortened sometimes to "Son of Sira," Ben Sira in Hebrew, Bar Sira in Aramaic, and sometimes (as in the title prefixed in the Greek cod. B) to Sirach. The work is variously described as the Words (Heb. text), the Book (Talmud), the Proverbs (Jerome), or the Wisdom of the son of Sira (or Sirach).

Of the date of the book we have only one certain indication. It was translated by a person who says that he "came into Egypt in the 38th year of Euergetes the king" (Ptolemy VII.), i.e. in 132 B.C., and that he executed the work some time later. The translator believed that the writer of the original was his own grandfather (or ancestor, lrlurlros). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the book was composed not later than the first half of the 2nd century B.C.,or (if we give the looser meaning to hair ros) even before the beginning of the century. Arguments for a preMaccabean date may be derived (a) from the fact that the book contains apparently no reference to the Maccabean struggles, (b) from the eulogy of the priestly house of Zadok which fell into disrepute during these wars for independence.

In the Jewish Church Ecclesiasticus hovered on the border of the canon; in the Christian Church it crossed and recrossed the border. The book contains much which attracted and also much which repelled Jewish feeling, and it appears that it was necessary to pronounce against its canonicity. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100 b) Rabbi Joseph says that it is forbidden to read (i.e. in the synagogue) the book of ben Sira, and further that "if our masters had not hidden the book (i.e. declared it uncanonical), we might interpret the good things which are in it" (Schechter, J.Q. Review, iii. 691-692). In the Christian Church it was largely used by Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200) and by St Augustine. The lists of the Hebrew canon, however, given by Melito (c. A.D. 180) and by Origen (c. A.D. 230) rightly exclude Ecclesiasticus, and Jerome(c. A.D. 390-400) writes :"Let the Church read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the instruction of the people, not for establishing the authority of the dogmas of the Church" (Praefatio in libros Salomonis). In the chief MS. of the Septuagint, cod. B, Ecclesiasticus comes between Wisdom and Esther, no distinction being drawn between canonical and uncanonical. In the Vulgate it immediately precedes Isaiah. The council of Trent declared this book and the rest of the books reckoned in the Thirty-nine Articles as apocryphal to be canonical.

The text of the book raises intricate problems which are still far from solution. The original Hebrew (rediscovered in fragments and 'published between 1896 and 1900) has come down to us in a mutilated and corrupt form. The beginning as far as iii. 7 is lost. There is a gap from xvi. 26 to xxx. 11. There are marginal readings which show that two different recensions existed once in Hebrew. The Greek version exists in two forms - (a) that preserved in cod. B and in the other uncial MSS., (b) that preserved in the cursive codex 248 (Holmes and Parsons). The former has a somewhat briefer text, the latter agrees more closely with the Hebrew text. The majority of Greek cursives agree generally with the Latin Vulgate, and offer the fuller text in a corrupt form. The Syriac (Peshitta) version is paraphrastic, but on the whole it follows the Hebrew text. Owing to the mutilation of the Hebrew by the accidents of time the Greek version retains its place as the chief authority for the text, and references by chapter and verse are usually made to it.

Bickell and D. S. Margoliouth have supposed that the Hebrew text preserved in the fragments is not original, but a retranslation from the Greek or the Syriac or both. This view has not commended itself to the majority of scholars, but there is at least a residuum of truth in it. The Hebrew text, as we have it, has a history of progressive corruption behind it, and its readings can often be emended from the Septuagint, e.g. xxxvii. II (read Sv rc,'ni for the meaningless 'nr -1,v). The Hebrew marginal readings occasionally seem to be translations from the Greek or Syriac, e.g. xxxviii. 4 (o'c' Nan for EKrraEV 4apµarca). More frequently, however, strange readings of the Greek and Syriac are to be explained as ,corruptions of our present Hebrew. Substantially our Hebrew must be pronounced original.

The restoration of a satisfactory text is beyond our hopes. Even before the Christian era the book existed in two recensions, for we cannot doubt, after reading the Greek translator's preface, that the translator amplified and paraphrased the text before him. It is probable that at least one considerable omission must be laid to his charge, for the hymn preserved in the Hebrew text after ch. li. 12 is almost certainly original. Ancient translators allowed themselves much liberty in their work, and Ecclesiasticus possessed no reputation for canonicity in the 2nd century B.C. to serve as a protection for its text. Much, however, may be done towards improving two of the recensions which now lie before us. The incomplete Hebrew text exists in four different MSS., and the study of the peculiarities of these had already proved fruitful. The Syriac text, made without doubt from the Hebrew, though often paraphrastic is often suggestive. The Greek translation, made within a century or half-century of the writing of the book, must possess great value for the criticism of the Hebrew text. The work of restoring true Hebrew readings may proceed with more confidence now that we have considerable portions of the Hebrew text to serve as a model. For the restoration of the Greek text we have, besides many Greek MSS., uncial and cursive, the old Latin, the Syro-Hexaplar, the Armenian, Sahidic and Ethiopic versions, as well as a considerable number of quotations in the Greek and Latin Fathers. Each of the two recensions of the Greek must, however, be separately studied, before any restoration of the original Greek text can be attempted.

The uncertainty of the text has affected both English versions unfavourably. The Authorized Version, following the corrupt cursives, is often wrong. The Revised Version, on the other hand, in following the uncial MSS. sometimes departs from the Hebrew, while the Authorized Version with the cursives agrees with it. Thus the Revised Version (with codd. K*, A, B, C) omits the whole of iii. 19, which the Authorized Version retains, but for the clause, "Mysteries are revealedunto the meek," the Authorized Version has the support of the Hebrew, Syriac and cod. 248. Sometimes both versions go astray in places in which the Hebrew text recommends itself as original by its vigour; e.g. in vii. 26, where the Hebrew is, Hast thou a wife ? abominate her not.

Hast thou a hated wife ? trust not in her.

Again in ch. xxxviii. the Hebrew text in at least two interesting passages shows its superiority over the text which underlies both English versions.

Hebrew. ver. 1. Acquaint thyself with a physician before thou have need of him.

ver. 15. He that sinneth against his Maker will behave himself proudly against a physician.

In the second instance, while the Hebrew says that the man who rebels against his Heavenly Benefactor will a fortiori rebel against a human benefactor, the Greek text gives a cynical turn to the verse, "Let the man who rebels against his true benefactor be punished through the tender mercies of a quack." The Hebrew text is probably superior also in xliv. 1, the opening words of the eulogy of the Fathers: "Let me now praise favoured men," i.e. men in whom God's grace was shown. The Hebrew phrase is "men of grace," as in v. io. The Greek text of v. 1, "famous men," seems to be nothing but a loose paraphrase, suggested by v. 2, "The Lord manifested in them great glory." In character and contents Ecclesiasticus resembles the book of Proverbs. It consists mainly of maxims which may be described in turn as moral, utilitarian and secular. Occasionally the author attacks prevalent religious opinions, e.g. the denial of free-will (xv. 11-20), or the assertion of God's indifference towards men's actions (xxxv. 12-19). Occasionally, again, Ben Sira touches the highest themes, and speaks of the nature of God: "He is All" (xliii. 27); "He is One from everlasting" (xlii. 2 1, Heb. text); "The mercy of the Lord is upon all flesh" (xviii. 13). Though the book is imitative and secondary in character it contains several passages of force and beauty, e.g. ch. ii. (how to fear the Lord); xv. 11-20 (on free-will); xxiv. 1-22 (the song of wisdom); xlii. 15-25 (praise of the works of the Lord); xliv. 1 -15 (the well-known praise of famous men). Many detached sayings scattered throughout the book show a depth of insight, or a practical shrewdness, or again a power of concise speech, which stamps them on the memory. A few examples out of many may be cited. "Call no man blessed before his death" (xi. 28); "He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled" (xiii. I); "He hath not given any man licence to sin" (xv. 20); "Man cherisheth anger against man; and doth he seek healing from the Lord ?" (xxviii. 3); "Mercy is seasonable. .. as clouds of rain" (xxxv. 20); "All things are double one against another: and he hath made nothing imperfect" (xlii. 24, the motto of Butler's Analogy); " Work your work before the time cometh, and in his time he will give you your reward" (li. 30). In spite, however, of the words just quoted it cannot be said that Ben Sira preaches a hopeful religion. Though he prays, "Renew thy signs, and repeat thy wonders. .. Fill Sion with thy majesty and thy Temple with thy glory" (xxxvi. 6, 14 [19], Heb. text), he does not look for a Messiah. Of the resurrection of the dead or' of the immortality of the soul there is no word, not even in xli. 1-4, where the author exhorts men not to fear death. Like the Psalmist (Ps. lxxxviii. Io, 11) he asks, "Who shall give praise to the Most High in the grave ?" In his maxims of life he shows a somewhat frigid and narrow mind. He is a pessimist as regards women; "From a woman was the beginning of sin; and because of her we all die" (xxv. 24). He does not believe in home-spun wisdom; "How shall he become wise that holdeth the plough ?" (xxxviii. 25). Artificers are not expected to pray like the wise man; "In the handywork of their craft is their prayer" (v. 34). Merchants are expected to cheat; "Sin will thrust itself in between buying and selling" (xxvii. 2).

Bibliography. - The literature of Ecclesiaticus has grown very considerably since the discovery of the first Hebrew fragment in 1896. A useful summary of it is found at the end of Israel Levi's article, "Sirach," in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Eberhard Nestle's article in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible is important for its bibliographical information as well as in other respects. A complete edition of the Hebrew fragments in collotype facsimile was published jointly by the Oxford and Cambridge Presses in 1901. J. H. A. Hart's edition of cod. 248 throws much light on some of the problems of this book. It contains a fresh collation of all the chief authorities (Heb., Syr., Syr.-Hex., Lat. and Gr.) for the text, together with a complete textual commentary.

The account given in the Synopsis attributed to Athanasius (Migne, P.G., iv. 375-384) has an interest of its own. The beginning is given in the Authorized Version as "A prologue made by an uncertain author." (W. E. B.)

<< Ecclesiastical law

Ecgbert >>


Up to date as of January 15, 2010

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

See also Ecclesiastes



Wikipedia-logo.png Ecclesiasticus on Wikipedia.Wikipedia
Wikisource-newberg-de.png Wikisource has an article on “Ecclesiasticus”. Wikisource
Wiktionary has an Appendix listing books of the Bible

Proper noun




  1. (Biblical) A book in the Old Testament and Apocrypha of the Bible. Sometimes abbreviated as Ecclus.




Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address