In the Prologue to the Greek Version the writer says that he is about to translate his grandfather’s work; in the Hebrew text the author gives his name, as we have seen; this is also given in the subscription; moreover, in the Talmud the author is given as Ben-Sira. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that the author was Ben-Sira; and this is universally acknowledged. That he wrote the whole of the book does not admit of doubt; unity of authorship is stamped upon the work throughout. Further, that the Greek translation represents substantially the author’s book which his grandson had before him is also practically certain. On the other hand, it may be doubted whether the book represents the final form which the author intended it to have; whether he was interrupted in his work, or whether he died before he was able to sift and arrange his material, a careful study of the book leaves the impression that the author left it in an incomplete state. The main reasons for this belief are three: firstly, in many parts of the book the material seems to be thrown down in a somewhat chaotic state, whereas a little obvious sifting would put things right; for example: in one section (xiv. 20-xvi. 23) the following subjects are dealt with in this order—the blessedness of seeking Wisdom which is only obtainable by those who fear God; human free-will; the curse of ungodly children; God’s righteous anger against the wicked; it is madness to imagine that one can avoid the notice of God and therefore escape judgement because a man is but an atom in a boundless creation. It is clear enough that here we have some subjects which would follow upon one another logically, only the sequence is broken by the intrusion of other subjects which belong to a different _milieu_. A similar state of affairs occurs in various parts of the book, while in many other parts, on the contrary, we have sections in which there is a perfect sequence of thought. Secondly, the same subject is treated in different parts of the book; but in a well arranged scheme one would naturally expect the different items of teaching on a given subject to be gathered together into a consistent whole; this _is_ often done in the book, so that where we find the contrary the natural supposition is that those parts in which the contrary occurs have not assumed their final shape. Examples of this are: on the curse of ungodly children, xvi. 1-5, xxii. 3-6; on lending and becoming surety, viii. 12, 13, xxix. 1-20; on friendship, vi. 5-17, vii. 18, xii. 8-18, xxii. 19-26, xxxvii. 1-6; concerning the tongue, v. 9-vi. 1, xxiii. 7-15, xxviii. 13-26; on independence, xxix. 21-28, xxxiii. 19-23; and a number of other examples could be given. Thirdly, there is inconsistency of teaching on one or two cardinal points of doctrine; this is especially so in the case of the doctrine of Sin; but as we have already dealt with this in an earlier chapter[346] it will be unnecessary to say anything further here.