[278]. Jos., Ant., xiii. 3, 4.
[279]. See Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge, p. 102; Delitzsch, Zur Gesch. der jüdischen Poesie, p. 204 (comp. p. 20, note 5); Dukes, Rabbinische Blumenlese, p. 67 &c. It should be noticed that among these Talmudic m’shālīm there are some, and even long ones, which do not occur in the Greek Sirach.
[280]. Præf. in libr. Sal. ‘Fertur et πανάρετος Jesu filii Sirach liber et alius ψευδεπίγραφος liber .... Quorum priorem Hebraicum reperi, non Ecclesiasticum, ut apud Latinos, sed parabolas prænotatum, cui juncti erant Ecclesiastes et Canticum canticorum.’ Nowhere since has Sirach been found in this position, nor with this title.
[281]. But is not a strophic division sometimes visible, e.g. ii. 7-17? See Seligmann, Das Buch der Weisheit des J. S., &c., p. 34.
[282]. See especially xlvi. 19, with which comp. the Septuagint of 1 Sam. xii. 3.
[283]. Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (1841), p. 21, note w.
[284]. Wright, Koheleth, p. 48 n.; Strack, art. ‘Kanon des A. T.’ in Herzog-Plitt, Realencyclopädie, vii. 430, 431; Gratz, Kohelet, p. 48.
[285]. Bishop Butler, who is fond of Sirach, quotes this saying in his 4th sermon.
[286]. The ‘many books’ spoken of in xii. 12 were probably less orthodox than Ecclesiastes, but in so far as Ecclesiastes, especially in its uncorrected state, is sceptical, it may be grouped with them.
[287]. In common with most interpreters, I regard Ecclesiastes as a Judæan work.