The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies)

The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology

Edited by Angelo Passaro Giuseppe Bellia

Walter de Gruyter

The Wisdom of Ben Sira

≥

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Edited by

Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, Tobias Nicklas

Volume 1

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

The Wisdom of Ben Sira Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology Edited by

Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia

Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI 앪 to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The wisdom of Ben Sira : studies on tradition, redaction, and theology / edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. v. cm. ⫺ (Deuterocanonical and cognate literature studies) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-019499-9 (alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Ecclesiasticus ⫺ Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Passaro, Angelo. II. Bellia, Giuseppe. BS1765.52.W57 2008 2291.406⫺dc22 2008007365

ISBN 978-3-11-019499-9 ISSN 1865-1666 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. 쑔 Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover Design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin

Preface By contrast with the good reputation of its gentle and prudent author, the Book of Sirach shows itself to be laden with not a few concerns and pervaded with many enquiries as a result of the great number of questions which it continues to raise: philological, exegetical, literary, historical, theological and even confessional – from the moment when its reception among those texts which ‘defile the hands’ not only divided, as it continues to divide, the Christian tradition from the Rabbinic, but also, within those very confessions, has separated the judgement of synagogues and churches. It has been the cause of division even from the remotest times, if it is true that the book, which was not received into the Hebrew canon, was nonetheless already read at Qumran, two centuries before the so-called turning point of Jamnia. In the Christian tradition, the text is already present in the ancient Vetus Latina but, some centuries later, it would not be accepted by the fiery Dalmatian (St. Jerome) who refused to include it among the other inspired books. In the more recent history of interpretation, there is no doubt that the encumbrance of Luther’s belittling estimation (Est sicut talmud ex variis libris collectus) has weighed down on our book. His words have been transmitted to the present day as if as a platitude, consistently on the part of commentators, even if in more recent years help has come with a slow reversal of the tendency, something which has made the book the object of rigorous and specialist studies which have brought to light aspects and themes of great interest. The question of canonicity, however, could be one of the keys to reading the many problems which the text poses, starting from the fact that it is precisely our book which is among the most certain and authoritative witnesses for the tripartite architecture of the sacred books of the incipient Hebrew canon (Law, Prophets and other Writings). This witness is transmitted not only on the part of the grandson-translator, as we read in his Prologue (1, 8 and 23), but of the complex structure of the work as intended by his sage-ancestor (38:31–39:1) which seems to represent the ideal order of the library of the Greek-speaking diaspora of Alexandra. Already, at that time, the Jews of that city were employed in intense literary activity translating the prophetic books with the aim of helping those members of the community who were no longer familiar with the Hebrew language and so had need of reliable and authoritative versions in order to get to know their own tradition and to live according to the customs of the Fathers. More than for other books, an exegesis for Ben Sira is necessary which takes account of the canonical tradition but does not allow itself to be ensnared by the romantic ideal of the original document, being able to read transversely and objectively the different textual traditions so as to avoid falling

VI

Preface

into those conjectural reconstructions which, after all, are supported only by extra-textual presuppositions In the judgement of many, however, the principal means of access for the understanding of this book remains the critical awareness of the methodological and hermeneutical problems that are bound to the text. To understand what function the organising structure performs in a book like ours, which manifests complex and elegant compositional strategies, it would help to have a clearer perception of the cultural and theological context in which that cultural and theological process that goes under the name of the “sapientialisation” of Scripture begins. It is a current of thought running through the entire sapiential Pentateuch, which proclaims the indisputable self-identification of the Book of the Torah with Wisdom. This is a problematic and disputed identification which requires a demanding leap of degree at the theological level, imposing a bold rethinking of the concept of the Law, rather than a revisiting, and the attribution and predication to Wisdom of new characteristics, unheard-of as far as the existing sapiential tradition was concerned. A truly complex book, then, and one wholly discounted, situated on the edges of the canon, as we have said, one which puts more than one question, not only concerning the complicated state of affairs connected with its troubled textual transmission, but also precisely because of the multiplicity of texts recognised as “inspired”. A scribal work, composed of several compositional strata and several theological aims, which, in the end, challenges us with the radical and explosive question of the canonicity of the sacred books and, therefore, of the fundamental question of inspiration. However, the difficult theological questions, with their seriousness and contemporary relevance, cannot make us forget the questions, which are still open and involving, posed by the book because of its more exact systematisation within the whole of the sapiential literature. The tradition of the wise scribes of Israel had, for a long time, gained a connotation of judicious and practical enquiry, concerned with grasping the thread of the presence of God hidden beneath the transitory nature of the every-day, without neglecting to engage with the high questions of speculative theology. For this reason, more than one question vital for the faith of Israel had remained open and unsolved within its heritage. In the face of these theological problems, which touch the heart of the religious identity of a people, the work of Ben Sira has been interpreted and judged in quite diverse ways: it has been read as a book of synthesis which attempts to make up for the replies that had never been given to the realistic challenge of Job and the corrosive criticism of Qoheleth, trying to renew the threads of traditional wisdom around the leading theme of the fear of the Lord; or it has been seen as the careful interpretation of an enlightened conservative who, in a time of change, still not marked by the traumas of

Preface

VII

the Maccabean crisis, is seeking without too much trouble to draw the heritage of his own tradition towards the new one emerging from the Jewish diaspora in the Hellenistic world. Many claim that we are faced with a text of an apologetic nature because it displays the characteristics of a book written in the office, a sort of “curial”, and, therefore, predictably conservative, product, preoccupied with the religious behaviour of the younger generation. Is it, in the end, a work which, in the grooves of the Jerusalem and Temple tradition, pursues the aim of restoring the truth of the faith against the autonomous enquiry of human wisdom, or is it just an honest and clever attempt at dialogue between the legitimate reasonings of the world and the wisdom given in the Law of Israel? And again: what are the true motives for its incomprehensible exclusion by the Rabbinic tradition, seeing that the hebraica veritas has been shown to be a specious and inconsistent justification. On the other hand, what are the more convincing reasons for its different reception into the Christian canon on the part of the great churches? To better understand the sense and the significance of these questions and, rather than conclusive answers, to offer an attempt at shared reflection which makes it possible to guarantee some firm points concerning the results shared by criticism and so to advance the work of research, there have been collected in this volume contributions aimed at specialists in the material with evident skills, organised according to a now acclaimed multidisciplinary viewpoint which develops around composition, tradition and theology. In connection with the making of this book, there are the advice, the help and the collaboration of those who deserve our gratitude. Without their discreet availability and their generous and disinterested support, this labour could not have seen the light. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Michael Tait for his sensitive work of translation; to Dr. Salvatore Tirrito for his expert support with IT; to Giusy Zarbo and Francesco Bonanno for their generous assistance; and to the understanding colleagues and students of the Department of Biblical Studies of the Theological Faculty of Sicily at Palermo. Grateful thanks are also due to Dr. Donato Falmi, the Editor-in-Chief of Città Nuova Editrice, Rome, who has given permission for the publication of this edition in English; to Prof. Dr. Vincenz Reiterer who suggested this book for the inauguration of this new series (DCL.St); and to Dr. Albrecht Döhnert and the publishing house of de Gruyter for accepting it. Palermo, April 2008

Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia

Contents Preface................................................................................................................

V

Abbreviations ..................................................................................................

XI

MAURICE GILBERT Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis on the Book of Ben Sira ..........................................

1

JEREMY CORLEY Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira. An investigation of beginnings and endings ..........................................

21

GIUSEPPE BELLIA An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira ................................................................................

49

ÉMILE PUECH Ben Sira and Qumran ..................................................................................

79

NURIA CALDUCH-BENAGES The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text? ..............................................................................................

119

PANCRATIUS C. BEENTJES “Full Wisdom is from the Lord“. Sir 1:1-10 and its place in Israel’s Wisdom literature ............................

139

ANGELO PASSARO The secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21-24 ......................................................................

155

SILVANA MANFREDI The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr) ........................

173

JAN LIESEN A common background of Ben Sira and the Psalter. The concept of hr"AT in Sir 32:14–33:3 and the Torah Psalms ................

197

X

Contents

FRIEDRICH VINCENZ REITERER The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira ......................................................................

209

ALEXANDER A. DI LELLA Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue. An intertextual and synchronic analysis..................................................

233

ANTONINO MINISSALE The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach ....................................................

253

GIOVANNI RIZZI Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach ......................

277

ROSARIO PISTONE Blessing of the sage, prophecy of the scribe: from Ben Sira to Matthew ..........................................................................

309

ANGELO PASSARO – GIUSEPPE BELLIA Sirach, or the metamorphosis of the sage ................................................

355

Authors .......................................................................................................... Index of Modern Authors .......................................................................... Index of References ...................................................................................... Index of Subjects............................................................................................

375 377 383 409

Abbreviations AnBib AncB ATA ATD BASOR BBB BEAT BeO BET BEThL BFChTh Bib BiKi BibOr Bijdr. BJSt BK BN BUL BZ BZAW BZfr BZNW CBC CBQ CBQ.MS CRB CSB CStP DB DBS DCLY DJD DSD EHAT EJ ErIs EstB EtB EThL FNT FRLANT

Analecta Biblica Anchor Bible Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Alte Testament Deutsch Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bibbia e Oriente Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Biblica Bibel und Kirche Biblica et Orientalia Bijdragen Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar Biblische Notizen Biblioteca Universale Laterza Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Biblische Zeitfragen Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Cambridge biblical commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Monograph series Cahiers de la Revue Biblique Studi Biblici (Bologna) Collectània Sant Pacià Dictionnaire de la Bible Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook Discoveries in the Judean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Encyclopaedia Judaica Eretz Israel Estudios biblicos Études bibliques Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Filologia Neotestamentaria Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

XII FzB HALAT HBS Hen HThR HUCA ITS JBL JJS JNWSL JQR JSHRZ JSJ JSJ.S JSOT.S JSP JSPE.S JSSt JTSt KuI LCL LeDiv LHVT LoB MoBi NCBC NCCHS NEB NTA.NF OBO OrChr OrSuec OTL PIBA PSV PWCJS QD RAC RB RBén RdQ RHPhR RivBib

Abbreviations Forschung zur Bibel Baumgartner, W. (ed.), Hebräiches und Aramäiches Lexicon zum Alten Testament, Leiden 1967-1990 Herder Biblische Studien Henoch Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College annual Indian theological studies Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic languages Jewish Quarterly Review Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman period Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman period. Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha. Supplement Series Journal of Semitic studies Judaistische Texte und Studien Kirche und Israel Loeb Classical Library Lectio Divina Zorell, F., Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Romae 1984 Leggere oggi la Bibbia Monde de la Bible The new century Bible commentary Newsletter. Congregational Christian Historical Society Neue Echter Bibel Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen. Neue Folge Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Oriens Christianus Orientalia Suecana The Old Testament Library Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association Parola Spirito e Vita Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies Quaestiones disputatae Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Revue Biblique Revue bénédictine de critique, d’histoire et de littérature religieuses Revue de Qumran Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Rivista Biblica

Abbreviations RStB RTL Sal. SBF.CMa SBFLA SBL SBL.DS SBL.EJL SBL.MS SBL.SCS SCSt Sem. SSS StBi STDJ StPB StTh SubBi TDNT ThWAT TSAJ TU VT VT.S VuF WMANT WUNT ZAW ZKTh ZThK

XIII

Ricerche Storico Bibliche Revue théologique de Louvain Salesianum Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio maior Studii Biblici Franciscani liber annuus Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation series Society of Biblical Literature. Early Judaism and its Literature Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph series Society of Biblical Literature. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Septuagint and Cognate studies Semitica Semitic study series Studi Biblici (Brescia) Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia Post-biblica Studia theologica. Scandinavian Journal of Theology Subsidia biblica Kittel, G. – Friedrich, G. (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum. Supplements Vorträge und Forschungen Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für katolische Theologie Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis on the Book of Ben Sira MAURICE GILBERT 1. One text or, better, several texts 1.1 In Hebrew May 13, 1896 marks the starting point of modern exegesis of the book traditionally called in the West “Ecclesiasticus”. On that day, in Cambridge, Solomon Schechter identified the Hebrew text of Sir 39:15b–40:8 on a sheet of ancient paper, shown to him in that morning by Agnes Smith Levis and her twin sister Margaret Dunlop Gibson. They had bought it shortly before in the Middle East and later il would be known that this text had come from the geniza(deposit) of the Qaraite synagogue in Cairo. At that time, in Hebrew, only the rabbinic quotations of Ben Sira were known. This discovery made in Cambridge prompted others in Oxford, in London, in Paris; then in 1901, all the Hebrew texts of Ben Sira until then discovered were published in facsimiles.1 The era of the first scientific works on the Hebrew book of Ben Sira had already begun and continued until the first World War, with commentaries and critical editions by I. Lévi (1898-1901),2 N. Peters (1902, 1905, 1913),3 and R. Smend (1906),4 to mention only the most valuable. These were convinced of the authenticity of the rediscovered Hebrew texts, but the definitive confirmation was still lacking. That came when the excavations at Qumran and Masada brought to light, in 1962-1964, some ancient Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira’s book:5 these new texts were similar enough to those discovered more than half a century before to convince everybody that truly, after so many centuries, the original text of the book of Ben Sira had been recovered. But this book was not complete in Hebrew. Already with the fragments of the four medieval manuscripts coming from the Cairo geniza, identified at the end of the 19th century, almost two third

1 2 3 4 5

Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew, Oxford-Cambridge 1901. L’Ecclésiastique; The Hebrew Text. Der jüngst Wieder aufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus; Liber Iesu Filii Sirach; Das Buch Jesus Sirach. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. BAILLET – MILIK – DE VAUX, Textes des grottes de Qumran, 75-77; SANDERS, The Psalms Scroll, 79-85; YADIN, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada.

2

Maurice Gilbert

of the book were published, and the later discoveries will not change the case: in 1931, a fragment of a new manuscript (Ms E) came to light,6 as in 1982 another from a sixth one (Ms F),7 and in 1958-1959, two fragments of Ms B were also recovered.8 In fact the discovery of the Masada text launched a renewal of studies on Ben Sira. Here are mentioned works of new pioneers: Y. Yadin (1965),9 A. A. Di Lella (1966),10 J. Haspecker (1967),11 J. Hadot (1970),12 H. P. Rüger (1970),13 J. Marböck (1971),14 O. Rickenbacher (1973),15 G. L. Prato (1975).16 To these names we may today add others, among whom some who still pursuing research are present in this congress. This short historical survey should not mislead us about the reliability of the Hebrew texts of Ben Sira now available. The first problem concerns the edition of these rediscovered texts. In addition to the critical editions made at the beginning of last century, there are today two others, one published in 1973 by the Academy in Jerusalem17 and the other edited in 1997 in Leiden by P. C. Beentjes.18 Asimple comparison between these two reveals many different readings of the manuscripts. Moreover, if a present-day scholar has at his disposal the Facsimiles edited in 1901, or those of manuscripts discovered later, he will often feel that he lacks confidence in the material offered. Today, at least a common agreement on the readings of these manuscripts is surely desirable, and I whould wish to see one day soon new facsimiles, the most accurate possible. A second problem arises when, for a specific text, we have two or three witnesses in different manuscripts. These often give divergent texts. How to choose the original reading? Two scholars tried to answer this question. H. P. Rüger (1970)19 tried to show that, in these manuscripts, it is possible to suppose the confluence of two successive editions of the text, the first one (Hb I) being the only one assigned to Ben Sira. A. Minissale (1995)20 proposed a reconstruction of ten Hebrew passages of Ben Sira for which 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MARCUS, A Fifth Ms of Ben Sira, 223-240. DI LELLA, The Newly Discovered, 226-238; BEENTJES, A Closer Look, 171-186. DI LELLA, The Recently, 153-167. Cf. note 5. The Hebrew Text of Sirach. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Penchant mauvais. Text und Textform. Weisheit im Wandel. Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira. Il problema della teodicea. The Book of Ben Sira. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew; ID., Errata et corrigenda, 375-377. Cf. note 13. La versione greca.

Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis

3

we have at least two manuscripts, but clear and solid principles do not appear for choosing this reading instead of that. Here we can perceive the perplexity of scholars, who are often tempted to turn towards the ancient versions in Greek or in Syriac in order to resolve textual problems of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira. The critical choices made by P. W. Skehan (AncB, 1987)21 or by G. Sauer (ATD, 2000),22 not always similar, unfortunately prove the genuine complexity of the problem. However it seems to me that three theses can be accepted, over and above the global authenticity of the rediscovered texts: 1. These texts are not totally reliable. Often they propose doublets, which give two or even more different readings of the same passage. A critical analysis is therefore necessary in these cases, but not only in these. 2. The hypothesis of A. A. Di Lella (1966),23 according to which there are Hebrew retroversions from the Syriac version, should not underestimated. For the Hebrew text of Sir 51:13-30 in Ms B, this fact is evident. 3. The thesis of a second edition of the Hebrew text (Hb II), thesis assumed by many scholars, is also secure. The proof appears, for instance, in Ms A for Sir 11:15-16 and 16:15-16, which are additions known by some Greek manusripts as also by the Latin and Syriac versions. In conclusion, a hope may be expressed in form of a question: Shall we have one day a Hebrew text of Ben Sira (Hb I), on which a majority of scholars can agree?

1.2 In Greek There are two forms of the Greek version. The first one is transmitted by the great manuscripts written with uncial or capital letters, principally the Vaticanus, the Sinaiticus and the Alexandrinus. Their text gives the so called short text (Gr I). But there are other Greek manuscripts which transcribed a revised Greek version, extended with about 135 lines (Gr II): mainly the codex Venetus, written with uncial letters, and some manuscripts where the letters are no longer uncial, but minuscule, that is to say cursive. In 1909, J. H. A. Hart had published with a commentary the Gr II text of Ms 248.24 It is worth mentioning another very useful edition made by O. Wahl in 1974, in which he collected, verse by verse, the witnesses of the Greek text of the Sacra Parallela;25 this is again a Gr II text, but with some21 22 23 24 25

With SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira. Cf. note 10. Ecclesiasticus. Der Sirach-Text der Sacra Parallela.

4

Maurice Gilbert

thing new: it contains in Greek ten additional verses known previously only in Latin. Today, for the Greek version, the critical edition prepared by J. Ziegler (1965)26 is without doubt the best. For its correct use, some characteristics of it must be borne in mind. First of all, the very rich critical apparatus must be carefully consulted. For instance, one can see in it that sometimes Ziegler proposes conjectures which have no basis in the Greek manuscripts, but are an attempt to improve the Greek text by using readings of the Hebrew. In addition, Ziegler inserts in their place with smaller letters 135 lines taken from the Gr II manuscripts; but, from this Gr II text, he does not retain, except in his critical apparatus, all the other minor changes. Lastly, Ziegler restores the original order of the chapters: in all the Greek manuscripts, Sir 33:16b – 36:13a was put before Sir 30:25 – 33:16a; this mistake was made after the translation of the Greek text, a Gr II text, into Latin, and this Latin version, in agreement with the Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac Peshitta version, kept the original order of these chapters. In his study of the Greek version, Gr I, A. Minissale27 showed that this version is not literal, but is analogous to the manner of translating Hebrew in the midrashim and targumim. Therefore, one cannot use this Greek version without discernment to reconstruct or to correct the original text in Hebrew. It is enough to compare the Hebrew text of Sir 51:1-12 with the Greek version to observe that the latter, addressing God throughout in the second person singular, disrupts the originality of the Hebrew text; for this one, in its first half, addresses God directly, and speaks about him in the second half. The same procedure appears in Sir 4:11-19, where the Greek version changes the direct speech of Wisdom, according to the Hebrew text and the Syriac version, into a description of Wisdom’s action. About Gr II, the long version, my opinion is that it mainly depends on a Hebrew enlarged text. For instance, it happens that a verse of Gr II is only understandable if translated into Hebrew. This is the case for the Greek text of Sir 1:10cd; Minissale translates this Greek addition as follows:28 “Loving the Lord is wisdom giving glory; he imparts her to those to whom he reveals himself so that they see him”; but the second line is obscure. Therefore, I proposed in the Bible de Jérusalem (1998) that this Greek version embodies a confusion between the two Hebrew verbs to see and to fear, both in the infinitive qal with suffix, and my translation is: “to those who fear him, he imparts her”.29 The same problem arises for other traditional translations of additions in Gr II, but not only there, where mistakes are unceasingly 26 27 28 29

Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Cf. note 20. Siracide (Ecclesiastico), ad loc. Voir ou craindre le Seigneur?, 247-252.

Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis

5

repeated without realizing the misunderstanding. The famous Greek addition in Sir 24:18cd is commonly translated: “I spread myself in all my sons, elected by him from eternity”, but I explained that a correct translation must be: “I give myself with all my fruits, always at his commands”.30 Again a last note: an addition of Gr II is sometimes considered as the translation of an authentic text of Ben Sira; this happens for Sir 1:21, but recently I tried to show the weakness of such an assumption.31

1.3 In Latin The ancient Latin version, called Vetus latina, of Ecclesiasticus was made before the 3rd century AD from a Greek extended text (Gr II). Today this Latin version, which was studied in 1899 by H. Herkenne (he already saw in Sir 1:21 an authentic text of Ben Sira),32 do not interest scholars very much, except those who propose critical editions. These are two. The first was established by the Benedictine monks of Saint Jerome Abbey in Rome (1964)33 and gives the text as it was at the time of its insertion in the Vulgate. The second gives the Vetus latina text and is published at Beuron, Germany; W. Thiele, who was the editor for Sir 1–24, began in 1987 and concluded his part in 2005;34 for Sir 25–51, another editor is awaited. For research, it is useful to consult the edition of the Latin version prepared by J. Gribomont and G. D. Sixdenier for the multi-language edition of Ben Sira (badly) published by F. Vattioni in 1968:35 these two editors have marked with special signs the parts of the version which they considered not original but as later revisions of this Vetus latina version, in order to make it conform more closely to the Greek text. Such an hypothesis, which comes from D. De Bruyne (1928),36 has been disputed by Thiele,37 who thinks that most of the Vetus latina doublets were already in the Greek text used by the Latin translator. There remains another problem not yet studied: several times the Vetus latina of Ecclesiasticus does not correspond to the Greek texts at our disposal, but rather to the Hebrew manuscripts. J. Ziegler, in his critical apparatus of the Greek version, mentioned a good number of cases. How can 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Les additions grecques et latines à Siracide 24, 196-199. L’addition de Siracide 1,21, 317-325. De veteris latinae Ecclesiastici capitibus I-XLIII. Sapientia Salomonis. Liber Hiesu filii Sirach. Sirach Ecclesiasticus. Ecclesiastico, LIII-LIV. Étude sur le texte latin. Sirach Ecclesiasticus, 103-122.

6

Maurice Gilbert

we explain them? Were they in the Greek text used by the Latin translator? Lastly, it must be remembered that the Vetus latina of Ecclesiasticus preserves some additions unknown in Greek, like Sir 24:31VL, at the end of the Wisdom’s speech: Qui elucidant me vitam eternam habebunt.

1.4 In Syriac Unfortunately a critical edition of the Syriac Peshitta version of the book of Ben Sira, promised for decades, is still lacking, as well as any full analysis of that version. Meanwhile, one can use the edition of the codex Ambrosianus recently published with both English and Spanish translations by N. Calduch-Benages, J. Ferrer and J. Liesen (2003).38 Concerning this Syriac version, there are different opinions. According to H. P. Rüger, the translator used the enlarged Hebrew text (1970),39 but for M. D. Nelson (1988), who studied only Sir 39:27–44:18, the translator used the original text of Ben Sira (Hb I), while consulting the enlarged Hebrew text (Hb II) and also the two Greek versions (Gr I and Gr II).40 A complete study of the Peshitta version, compared with Hebrew and Greek texts, is still desirable. Meanwile, let us mention some characteristics of this Peshitta. As with the Greek version, the Peshitta does not translate literally, but after the manner of the targumim (N. Calduch-Benages e.a.),41 with omissions and also additions. One addition, only known by the Peshitta, appears instead of Sir 1:22-27 (N. Calduch-Benages, 1997,42 and T. Legrand, 1998) 43 but this Syriac addition seems to many scholars44 to translate a Hebrew text (Hb II), except that N. Calduch-Benages and her collaborators45 think that it was written by the Syriac translator himself. Moreover, the Syriac translator sometimes alters the Hebrew text he has to translate: a good example is the prayer of Sir 51:1-12, where he omits all references to calumny, which is in fact in Hebrew the main reason which provoked the prayer; doing so, the Syriac translator composed a prayer which can now be used for any kind of thanksgiving when the Lord has saved anybody from some unspecified mortal danger.

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

La sabiduría del escriba. Cf. note 13. The Syriac Version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira. La sabiduría del escriba, 24-27 and 48-51. Traducir-Interpretar. Siracide (syriaque) 1,20c-z. Cf. KEARNS, The Expanded Text, 191. La sabiduría del escriba, 26-27 and 50-51.

Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis

7

1.5 Conclusion The book of Ben Sira is not the only one in the Bible for which there is a plurality of texts. For our book, the basic fact is that they were two editions. The first one in Hebrew was translated into Greek (Hb I – Gr I), and the second, originally also in Hebrew (Hb II), is found in some Greek manuscripts (Gr II) and in the old Latin version. The Syriac Peshitta version seems to reflect both the first and the second Hebrew editions.

2. One author or, better, several authors The problem to be faced here is that of the variety of hands which touched the book of Ben Sira from the time of his writing till the transmission of the book during Antiquity.

2.1 The main author, Ben Sira Is it possible to hear the voice of Ben Sira, to read his message directly from his text; to read it, of course, on a copy – or on a copy of copy – of his own text? Today, after the discovery of his Hebrew texts, the answer is without any doubt positive, though with serious reservations. The name of this wise man is Ben Sira. This is sure, but, in Hebrew, Ms B gives a more developed name which does not correspond with that of the Greek manuscripts. Those specify that the author was from Jerusalem, a detail which, in Hebrew, Ms B does not give (Sir 50:27). About the date of his book, a majority of scholars acknowledges today that it must be fixed during the first quarter of the 2nd century BC; that means between years 200 and 175 BC, therefore before the Maccabean crisis under Antiochus IV. Ben Sira was a wisdom master. He taught young disciples: this is evident after reading in Hebrew some undisputed texts like the following ones. Before explaining that God takes care of all, Ben Sira writes: Hear me and receive my mind, to my words apply the heart. I will spread with measure my spirit and with modesty I will indicate what I know (Sir 16:24-25, Ms A).

When he advises eating temperately, he says:

8

Maurice Gilbert Hear, my son, do not despise me: at last you will understand my words (Sir 31:22, Ms B).

Calling the disciple to praise the Lord for all his works, even the most mysterious, “with songs of lyre and zither and so with great voice” (Sir 39:15cd, Ms B), the master concludes: Now, with all heart, rejoice and bless the name of the Holy one (Sir 39:35, Ms B).

Or before giving his teaching on true and false shame: Hear the instruction on shame, sons, and be ashamed according to my mind (Sir 41:14a.16a, Mas and Ms B).

Two other autobiographical texts in Hebrew concern the composition of his book: Therefore, from the beginning, I was convinced and I reflected and I put in writing: All the works of God are good, for every need, in proper time, he supplies (Sir 39:32-33, Ms B).

And this one, which perhaps marks the end of a stage of the book’s redaction: Even myself, the last, I stayed awake and, like a gleaner after [vintagers], with the Lord’s blessing, even myself I arrive first and, like a vintager, I filled up the wine-press! Look! I am not tired only for myself, but for all those who search [for instruction] (Sir 33:16-18, Ms E).

These autobiographical quotations come from four different Hebrew manuscripts and they are more or less similar in the Greek version, as well as in the Syriac one, except Sir 41:14a.16a (the Peshitta omits almost the whole chapter). There are two other autobiographical texts of Ben Sira, but each presents difficulties. Two of them are in Sir 51, the last chapter of the book, which, in spite of the first colophon of Sir 50:27-29, is more and more considered authentic, except for the Hebrew addition in Ms B between Sir 51:12 and 51:13. Now, this chapter 51 comprises in its first twelve verses a thanksgiving prayer, and in Sir 51:13-30, a final text on the search for wisdom. The prayer, well preserved in the Hebrew Ms B, was seriously mod-

Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis

9

ified in Greek and in Syriac.46 The final text on Wisdom is incomplete in the Qumran Hebrew manuscript but, with the help of the Greek and Syriac versions and of the Hebrew retroversion of Ms B, it is possible to recombine it, in a necessarily hypothetical way.47 What shall we do then with Sir 24:30-34, where Ben Sira describes his function as master in relation to Wisdom? This passage has not yet been discovered in Hebrew. Can we trust the Greek version or the Syriac one? It is true, these versions are very similar, but they are not identical: Sir 24:34 is lacking in Syriac, without mentioning here other discrepancies between the two versions. Saying that, I want to make clear the difficulty exegetes of Ben Sira must resolve when they try to understand the autobiographical texts of Ben Sira. J. Liesen48 did much work on these characteristic texts of our wise man, who can present himself as a master precisely because he is full of Wisdom, or better: because Wisdom coming from God fills him to overflowing; to his disciples, he is able to pass on this Wisdom overflowing from himself to them. He is only a mediator of Wisdom. Never in Israel had a wisdom master spoken of himself like that. Now, the main themes of his teaching are the following. It is beyond doubt that he endeavoured to offer a synthesis of the heritage of his people. If he insists more than his predecessors on the fear of the Lord as the basic behaviour of a man who intends to be open to Wisdom offered by God, Ben Sira was also the first to show the coherence of the whole action of God. According to our wise man, Wisdom, continuously offered by God, has her best expression in the Torah and the one who truly fears God puts into practice the precepts of the Torah. Along the same lines, one can perceive why Ben Sira is interested in the biblical history recounted in the Pentateuch and in the prophets, even if he does not see, for his time, any hope for the future but in the faithfulness of the official priesthood. And this hope does not mean that Ben Sira was a priest, as H. Stadelmann (1980) claimed.49 More serene than Qohelet, Ben Sira puts his trust in the tradition of his people. He discerns the danger, not yet dramatic, of the invading Hellenism; he has doubts about the first pretentions of the incipient apocalyptic. A spiritual man, he trusts God and prayer, for him, is part of the observances of a truly wise person. Better still, Ben Sira thinks that only a wise man, contrary to a sinner, can praise the Lord (Sir 15:9-10), realizing therefore the primary vocation of the living man (Sir 17:9-10.27-28); the last ten chapters of his book (Sir 42:15–51:30) are first of all a hymn to the Lord, an invitation 46 47 48 49

On the Hebrew text, cf. GILBERT, L’action de grâce de Ben Sira. Cf. GILBERT, Venez à mon école, 283-290. Strategical Self-References, 63-74. ID., Full of Praise, especially 95-187. Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. Cf. review of G. L. Prato: Greg 63 (1982), 560-565.

10

Maurice Gilbert

to praise him for his work in the world and in history, in which Ben Sira himself is conscious of being an example for his disciples.50

2.2 The Ben Sira’s grandson, his translator into Greek The are two documents which help to understand the part of the first translator of the book of Ben Sira: the prologue of this version and the translation itself, the short one (Gr I) transmitted in the main uncial manuscripts. The prologue, which is transmitted by these manuscripts,51 is the only text in which the translator speaks of himself – Ben Sira was his grandfather – and of his task of translator. With the majority of scholars, I take this prologue as authentic. The grandson of Ben Sira arrived in Egypt in 132 BC and during his stay there he discovered his grandfather’s book. This book seemed to him so useful for those who, outside the land of Israel, wish to be instructed, to reform their ways and to live according to the Torah, that he decided to translate it from Hebrew into Greek. Such an undertaking was not carried quickly, not only on account of the length of the book, but also because it is never easy to render into Greek what is expressed in Hebrew: the grandson insists on this challenge, which should excuse him. Moreover, putting his work in the frame of the Torah, of the prophets, and of the other Jewish books, in Hebrew as well as in the Greek Septuagint version, he probably hoped, perhaps following his grandfather himself (cf. Sir 24:32-34), that his translation would one day be officially accepted among the books which were gradually forming the future canon of the Scriptures.52 About the translation itself, B. G. Wright (1989)53 is right when he says that, when comparison with the Hebrew text is possible, it is certainly not mechanical, but that the grandson wanted first of all to deliver the message of his grandfather, its content rather than its literal words. A. Minissale (1995)54 specified that the targumic method was already applied by the grandson. It can be added that the Hebrew copy of Ben Sira’s book used by the grandson was not excellent and also that he had sometimes difficulty in understanding what his grandfather had written. We realize therefore why he tried to apologize for the quality of his translation, which altogether is not so bad. 50 51 52 53 54

Cf. GILBERT, Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira, 117-135. On this prologue, cf. PRATO, Scrittura divina, 75-97; MARBÖCK, Text und Übersetzung, 99-116. Cf. RÜGER, Le Siracide, especially 67-69. No Small Difference. Cf. note 20.

Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis

11

Lastly, in Sir 50:23-24, the grandson modified the text of his grandfather: it was no longer possible to speak of the lineage of the priest Simon and of Aaron, when political interests had put an end, decades before, to the heredity of the main priestly office in Jerusalem.

2.3 The authors of the second edition One may think that a second edition became necessary for two reasons, the success of the book and theological progress after the grandson’s time. However it is still very difficult to give precise indications based on textual proofs. The main reason is that we do not have this complete second edition. I mean that changes and additions in it appear in Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in a rather chaotic way: one manuscript conveys some modifications and another, others. This signifies, it seems, that there was no “second edition” as we would understand it, but a slow and progressive evolution of the text of Ben Sira, due to many hands, each scribe choosing such or such modification. These modifications, which mainly bring the book’s eschatology up to date, seem to have been done between years 80 B.C. and 80 A.D. Some of them already appear in Hebrew, others more numerous in Greek manuscripts, where copyists were free to make their choice. Who were the authors of these changes, retouchings and additions? It seems that some distinctions have to be made. Modifications developing new eschatological perspectives, even without ever using the words “resurrection” and “immortality”, come from people who followed the path of Dan 12:1-3 and of 2 Macc 7. At the beginning of the last century, Hart (1909) thought they were Pharisees;55 but he had only compared some Greek additions with authors writing in Greek, Philo, Paul and Josephus. In 1951, C. Kearns, in his thesis presented to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, unpublished up to now, gave a new direction to the research, especially towards the apocalyptic literature ascribes to the Essenes.56 But – and this remark is important – Kearns was unable to compare the additions of the book of Ben Sira with the Qumran texts which were published after his thesis. It is true that, from 1951 till today, many scholars have studied several points of Ben Sira’s book vis-à-vis the Qumran writings. It is also true that a few scholars have compared the additions of the book of Ben Sira with the Qumran literature (Philonenko, 1986; Legrand, 1996; Rossetti, 2002-2003).57 But an 55 56 57

Ecclesiasticus, especially 272-320. The Expanded Text. PHILONENKO, Sur une interpolation, 317-321; LEGRAND, Le Siracide: problèmes textuels et théologiques de la recension longue; ROSSETTI, Le aggiunte ebraiche e greche, 607-648.

12

Maurice Gilbert

exhaustive comparison between both is still lacking. In any case, an Essenian origin of the multiform second edition of the book of Ben Sira, or at least of a part of it, should not astonish us, when one remembers that Qumran provided fragments of the book; as also if we accept the hypothesis of Di Lella,58 according to whom the Hebrew manuscripts found in Cairo originate from Qumran. However Qumran does not explain all the additions. G. L. Prato59 showed that the three lines of Sir 17:5 probably depend on the school of Aristobulus, who was under Stoic influence. A plurality of origin of the second edition is therefore corroborated.

2.4 Latin and syriac translators There is no reason, it seems, to doubt that the Vetus latina of Ecclesiasticus was made by a Christian. Probably he was a member of a community in Roman Africa. His translation was done before the middle of the 3rd century A.D., for Cyprian of Carthage quoted several passages of it. This is all that can be said. About the author of the Syriac Peshitta version, recently there have been contrasting opinions. In 1977, M. M. Winter60 tried to prove that he was an Ebionite Christian living during the 3rd century or at the beginning of the 4th; among other things, he was opposed, said Winter, to sacrifices and priesthood; his translation would have been revised at the end of the 4th century by an orthodox Christian who inserted allusions to Jesus and to John the Baptist. In 1989, R. J. Owens61 rejected the hypothesis of an Ebionite and proposed for the date of the Peshitta of Ben Sira, with its Christian allusions, about the year 300, because already in 337 Aphrahat quoted it from memory. Lastly, in 1999, in his posthumous introduction to the Peshitta version of the Old Testament, M. P. Weitzman,62 finding in the Chronicles translation the same characteristics assigned by Winter to an Ebionite, considered that the translation of Ben Sira must have been made by a Jew of the 3rd century, a supporter of rabbinism and opposed to cultic matter, a Jew who, later, became a Christian.

58 59 60 61 62

Qumran and the Geniza Fragments of Sirach, 245-267. La lumière interprète de la sagesse, 317-346. The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac, 237-253 and 494-507. The Early Syriac Text, 39-75. The Syriac Version, especially 216-226.

Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis

13

2.5 Conclusion So many hands have touched the book of Ben Sira. For centuries it remained open to modifications, not always casual, but very often intentional, generally made by unknown authors. Already the grandson of Ben Sira adapted his grandfather’s text for his time; moreover he translated it into Greek as targumists did in Aramaic for the Hebrew Torah. After him came those who felt compelled to bring the text up to date, according to theological progress of their time, and those who inserted some philosophical explanations, which were still Jewish, but coming more from Hellenistic thought than from the Bible. The first probably were Essenes and the others, people of the Aristobulus school. Later, in the Latin church, the Vetus latina version preserves texts which are found nowhere else. And the Peshitta version, based again on the already extended Hebrew text of Ben Sira, comprises, as far as we see, some typically Christian echoes. Facing such a plurality of texts, it is by all means reasonable to search with the help of criticism the words and the thought of Ben Sira himself. But then, what will we do with the witnesses that came later? Will they have only scientific interest for scholars or will they have a purely historical and cultural value?

3. Human words or also Word of God From the hermeneutical point of view, it is impossible to avoid the fact that the book of Ecclesiasticus was acknowledged as inspired and canonical by the Catholic church, which definitively confirmed its statement in 1546 during the council of Trent. On the other hand, Protestant and Anglican Reform considers this book as one of the “Apocrypha”, and the Orthodox church does not take a common and clear position. Reason and origin of these discrepancies go back to the establishment of the scriptural canon, you might say, of the Hebrew Bible by Jewish rabbis: they never put the book of Ben Sira among the sacred books. As a result, during the patristic age,63 mainly in the 4th century and at the beginning of the 5th, most of the Church Fathers in the East, perhaps more conscious of the Jewish position, showed hesitation about the canonical value of the books which are not in the Hebrew Bible but are included in the Septuagint; among these is the book of Ben Sira. The main exception was John Chrysostom who, without any reluctance, quoted many times the Greek version of

63

Cf. GILBERT, Jesus Sirach, 878-906.

14

Maurice Gilbert

Ben Sira. The stance taken by Jerome in Bethlehem was the most radical: his explicit refusal of the canonicity of Ben Sira’s book had an impact for centuries. However, usually, the Greek Fathers and also Jerome in Latin (after 404) often quoted the book of Ben Sira as Scripture.64 In the West, there was no discussion on the matter, so that at the end of the 4th century, under Augustine’s influence, the councils of Hippo (393) and of Carthage (397) put the book of Ecclesiasticus into their canonical lists, and in 405 Innocent I did the same in the name of the church of Rome. Now, apart from this question about the canonicity of Ben Sira’s book, there is another more complicated question. Is there an official position in the Catholic church about the variety of the texts assigned to Ben Sira? As it was explained above, we find a variety of languages: texts in Hebrew, in Greek, in Latin, in Syriac, and a variety of texts forms: either short or long, i.e. either without or with additions. For twenty years I uphold the thesis that the Catholic church never adopted a position regarding this matter.65 Neither did it declare in which language a book is said to be canonical, or according to which edition. The only statement in this matter is still that made by the council of Trent, which declared canonical the books listed in the canon, as taken as an whole and with all their parts, as they are traditionally read in the Catholic church and found in the Vulgate. Now, it does not appear that the council wanted to show a preference for the long text of Ecclesiasticus in the Vulgate. Of course, excluding it is impossible, but, as the same council had requested from the pope a correct edition of the Septuagint, the Vaticanus manuscript was chosen for this purpose, and this manuscript gives the short Greek version of Ben Sira. Such freedom in the Catholic church is not new and still exists until today. During Christian antiquity, Greek churches read either the short version done by Ben Sira’s grandson, as also Jerome when he quoted Ecclesiasticus in Latin, or the extended one, as frequently did Chrysostom and the Sacra Parallela. Latin churches read the long version of the Vetus latina – as did Ambrose and Augustine – and Syriac churches also used their enlarged version. For each of them, the text they used to read was for them sacred and canonical. Such freedom is the practice of the Holy See today. John Paul II authorized the publication of two Bibles: in 1979, the New Vulgate which for Ecclesiasticus resumes, with a few corrections, the version of the Vetus latina, i.e. the long text; in 2000, the Bible called after Blaj, a roumanian version made in 1795 by Samuil Micu who, for the book of Ben Sira, usually translated the short Greek version, with only very few additions.66 64 65 66

Cf. GILBERT, Jérôme et l’oeuvre de Ben Sira, 109-120. Cf. GILBERT, L’Ecclésiastique. Quel texte? Quelle autorité?, 233-250. Biblia de la Blaj. 1795. For instance, Sir 1:5 (Ziegler) is translated, but not Sir 1:7.10cd;

Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis

15

However the Hebrew text of Ben Sira and its second enlarged edition were never used by Christians, at least as far as we know. Never that is, until the discoveries done from 1896. These Hebrew texts were only read in Judaism, at Qumran and in the medieval sect of the Quaraites. With what status? As a sacred book? Doubts may be raised. In fact Greek and Syriac churches never read the Old Testament in Hebrew. The Latin church, until the Renaissance, had indirect access to it through the translation of Jerome, but not for Ben Sira’s book, because the hermit of Bethlehem refused to translate it into Latin. On the other hand, instead of the Greek version, from the time of the discoveries of the Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira’s book, some renowned Catholic biblical scholars did not hesitate to translate them as they are: these are, for instance, A.Vaccari in 1925, L. Alonso Schökel in 1968, P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella in 1987.67 From these facts, I infer some hermeneutical consequences: 1. The research of the original Hebrew text of Ben Sira (Hb I) is comparable with the principle of the hebraica veritas which prompted Jerome to translate the Hebrew Bible into Latin.68 For a Catholic, desire of hearing the authentic word of Ben Sira leads to an acknowledgement of his inspiration and of the canonical value, even if not exclusively of course, of his book in Hebrew. When at the end of the Second Vatican council, Paul VI decided to have the Vulgate corrected in the light of the original texts, he in fact renewed the principle of Jerome; I think this principle is also valid for the book of Ben Sira. Of all those who took this book in hand, he is the first whom we should call an inspired author. 2. The Septuagint has been for twenty centuries the Bible of the Greek churches and some Fathers held that this version was inspired. For the book of Ben Sira, in any case, even after the Hebrew fragments’ discoveries, the short Greek version of the great uncial manuscripts remains the complete text which allows a secure enough access to Ben Sira’s thought. It is therefore not astonishing to find this version in modern Western translations in the principal Bibles. However there are two remarks to keep in mind: - Modern Bibles in different languages often correct the grandson’s version which the great uncial manuscripts give, not so much to restore what he really should have written but to give understanding to the words of his grandfather himself, according to the Hebrew fragments. Compared with the grandfather, the grandson is less interesting.

67 68

11:15-16; 16:15-16; 24:18.24. On the contrary Sir 26:19-27 (Ziegler) was added to this edition, but was not in the great majority of the copies of the 1795 edition: cf. critical note p. 2419. VACCARI, I libri poetici della Bibbia, 331-408; ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Eclesiástico, 141-332; SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Among the recent scientific works going in this direction, cf. CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching.

16

Maurice Gilbert

- On the other hand, present-day scholars working on the Septuagint tend to respect this version in itself. One concludes then that both Hb I of Ben Sira and Gr II of his grandson deserve respect, without detriment to either. 3. The second edition, with changes and additions, especially in the matter of eschatology, comes from Judaism and was a great success among Christians. Witnesses of this are some Greek manuscripts and various Greek patristic texts; then the Vetus latina version, usually read in Western churches before the New Vulgate, and also the Peshitta version read over centuries in Christian communities speaking Syriac, give the same witness. For all of those who, in every part of the church, used and still use one of the enlarged version of Ecclesiasticus, it is evident that they have or have had a sacred book in hand. Therefore, some consequences follow: - This second edition, in all its different forms, keeps its theological value, i.e. each of these forms can be said, in my opinion, inspired and canonical. - Therefore, theologically, the texts peculiar to this second edition cannot be relegated to footnotes as having only an informative value. - Lastly, as much as possible, the principle of coherence of each version of this second edition of Ben Sira’s book deserves to be applied, in the same way as scholars today insist they must do for the Septuagint. In fact, what I intend to lay stress on is a necessarily wider concept of canonicity and therefore of inspiration. The authors of the second edition, multi-form though it may be, play a part in the charism of inspiration; I say that for similar reasons I used to affirm the inspiration of the original author, Ben Sira. These authors, through their translators, were received as inspired by the church. These translators, in so far as they deliver to us the second edition, are very often the only ones who give us access to it. Their translations therefore must be respected, not only from the scientific, historical and cultural point of view, but also for theological reasons: they too transmit the word of God.

4. Conclusion More than a century has passed after the discoveries of the Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira’s book, and modern research on textual criticism, history of the texts and theology has not simplified the manner of presenting the problems, many of which have not yet received adequate answers. Ecclesiasticus remains one of the most difficult books of the Bible in its interpretation and if one day we succeed in recovering the Hebrew parts of the book which are now missing, the situation would only be partly clar-

Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis

17

ified. The real problem will still be the relation between Hebrew texts and ancient versions. Meanwhile, with the means at our disposal, research carries on and must proceed. If it is true that all the problems raised about this book cannot be resolved in one go, then let us proceed step by step, conscious that only a part of this mysterious book will become better known to us. More precisely, trying to reconstruct the Hebrew text written by Ben Sira is a necessity which appears today as a priority and which is related to Jerome’s principle of the hebraica veritas; other problems identified today will remain, but they must not be underestimated in the search for a correct understanding of Ecclesiasticus. Numerous researchers are therefore welcome. There is room for more.

18

Maurice Gilbert

Bibliography ALONSO SCHÖKEL, L., Eclesiástico (Los libros sagrados 8,1), Madrid 1968. BAILLET, M. – MILIK, J. T. – DE VAUX, R., Textes des grottes de Qumran (DJD 3), Oxford 1962. BEENTJES, P. C., A Closer Look at the Newly Discovered Sixth Hebrew Manuscript (MS F) of Ben Sira: EstB 51 (1993), 171-186. BEENTJES, P. C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VT.S 68), Leiden 1997. BEENTJES, P. C., Errata et corrigenda, in: EGGER-WENZEL, R. (ed.), Ben Sira’s God (BZAW 321), Berlin – New York 2002, 375-377. Biblia de la Blaj. 1795. Editie jubiliara, Roma 2000. CALDUCH-BENAGES, N. – FERRER, J. – LIESEN, J., La sabiduría del escriba. Wisdom of the Scribe (Biblioteca Midrasíca 26), Estella (Navarra) 2003. CALDUCH-BENAGES, N., Traducir-Interpretar: la versión siríaca de Sirácida 1: EstB 55 (1997), 313-340. CORLEY, J., Ben Sira’s Teaching on Frienship (BJSt 316), Providence 2002. DE BRUYNE, D., Étude sur le texte latin de l’Ecclésiastique: RBén 40 (1928), 5-48. DI LELLA, A. A., The Newly Discovered Sixth Manuscript of Ben Sira from the Cairo Geniza: Bib 69 (1988), 226-238. DI LELLA, A. A., Qumran and the Geniza Fragments of Sirach: CBQ 24 (1962), 245267. DI LELLA, A. A., The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in Hebrew: Bib 45 (1964), 153-167. Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew, Oxford – Cambridge 1901. GILBERT, M., Voir ou craindre le Seigneur? Sir 1,10d, in: CAGNI, L. (ed.), Biblica et semitica. Studi in memoria di Francesco Vattioni (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici, Series Minor 59), Napoli 1999, 247-252. GILBERT, M., Les additions grecques et latines à Siracide 24, in: AUWERS, J.-M. – WÉNIN, A. (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert (BEThL 144), Leuven 1999, 196-199. GILBERT, M., L’addition de Siracide 1,21. Une énigme, in: COLLADO BERTOMEU, V. (ed.), Palabra, Prodigio, Poesía. In Memoriam P. Luis Alonso Schökel, S.J. (AnBib 151), Roma 2003, 317-325. GILBERT, M., L’action de grâce de Ben Sira (Si 51,1-12), in: KUNTZMANN, R. (ed.), Ce Dieu qui vient. Mélanges offerts à Bernard Renaud (LeDiv 159), Paris 1995, 231242. GILBERT, M., Venez à mon école (Si 51,13-30), in: FISCHER, I. – RAPP, U. – SCHILLER, J. (eds.), Aus den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. Festschrift für Johannes Marböck anlässlich seiner Emeritierung (BZAW 331), Berlin – New York 2003, 283-290. GILBERT, M., Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira. Function and Relevance, in: EGGER-WENZEL, R. – CORLEY, J. (eds.), Prayer from Tobit to Qumran (DCLY 2004), Berlin – New York 2004, 117-135. GILBERT, M., Jesus Sirach: RAC 18 (1996), 878-906.

Methodological and hermeneutical trends in modern exegesis

19

GILBERT, M., Jérôme et l’oeuvre de Ben Sira: Muséon 100 (1987),109-120. GILBERT, M., L’Ecclésiastique. Quel texte? Quelle autorité?: RB 94 (1987), 233-250. HADOT, J., Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la sagesse de Ben Sira (L’Ecclésiastique), Bruxelles 1970. HART, J. H. A., Ecclesiasticus. The Greek Text of Codex 248. Edited with a Textual Commentary and Prolegomena, Cambridge 1909. HASPECKER, J., Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach (AnBib 30), Rom 1967. HERKENNE, H., De veteris latinae Ecclesiastici capitibus I-XLIII, Leipzig 1899. KEARNS, C., The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus. Its Teaching on the Future Life as a Clue to its Origin, Diss. Pontifical Biblical Commission, Rome 1951. LEGRAND, TH., Siracide (syriaque) 1,20c-z. Une addition syriaque et ses résonances esséniennes, in: AMPHOUX, CH.-B. – FREY,A. – SCHATTNER-RIESER, U. (eds.), Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain (Histoire du texte biblique 4), Lausanne 1998, 123-134. LEGRAND, TH., Le Siracide: problèmes textuels et théologiques de la recension longue. Unpublished thesis of the Protestant Faculty of Theology of Strasbourg, Strasbourg 1996. LÉVI, I., L’Ecclésiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. Texte original hébreu édité, traduit et commenté (BEHE.R 10,1-2), 2 vol., Paris 1898-1901. LÉVI, I.,The Hebrew Text of Ecclesiasticus (SSS 3), Leiden 1904, 19512. LIESEN, J., Strategical Self-References in Ben Sira, in: CALDUCH-BENAGES, N. – VERMEYLEN, J. (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert (BEThL 143), Leuven 1999, 63-74. LIESEN, J., Full of Praise. An Exegetical Study of Sir 39,12-35 (JSJ.S 64), Leiden 2000. MARBÖCK, J., Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (BBB 37), Bonn 1971; (BZAW 272), Berlin – New York 19992. MARBÖCK, J., Text und Übersetzung – Horizonte einer Auslegung im Prolog zum Griechischen Sirach, in: VONACH, A. – FISCHER, G. (eds.), Horizonte biblischer Texte. Festschrift für Josef M. Oesch (OBO 196), Freiburg/Schweiz – Göttingen 2003, 99-116. MARCUS, J., A Fifth Ms of Ben Sira: JQR 21 (1931), 223-240. MINISSALE, A., La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib 133), Roma 1995. MINISSALE, A., Siracide (Ecclesiastico) (Nuovissima versione della Bibbia 23), Roma 1980. NELSON, M.D., The Syriac Version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira Compared to the Greek and Hebrew Materials (SBL.DS 107), Atlanta 1988. OWENS, R.J., The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat: JSSt 34 (1989), 39-75. PETERS, N., Der jüngst Wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus unter sucht, herausgegeben, übersetzt und mit kritischen Noten versehen, Freiburg im Breisgau 1902. PETERS, N., Liber Iesu Filii Sirach sive Ecclesiasticus Hebraice, Friburgi Brisgoviae 1905. PETERS, N., Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25), Münster 1913. PHILONENKO, M., Sur une interpolation essénisante dans le Siracide (16,15-16), in OrSuec 33-35 (1984-1986), 317-321. PRATO, G. L., Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini (AnBib 65), Roma 1975.

20

Maurice Gilbert

PRATO, G. L., Scrittura divina e scrittura umana in Ben Sira: dal fenomeno grafico al testo sacro: RStB 12 (2000), 75-97. PRATO, G. L., La lumière interprète de la sagesse dans la tradition textuelle de Ben Sira, in: GILBERT, M. (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BEThL 51), Leuven 19902, 317-346. RICKENBACHER, O., Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO 1), Freiburg/Schweiz – Göttingen 1973. ROSSETTI, M., Le aggiunte ebraiche e greche a Sir 16,1-16: Sal 64 (2002), 607-648. RÜGER, H. P., Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach (BZAW 112), Berlin 1970. RÜGER, H. P., Le Siracide: un livre à la frontière du canon, in: KAESTLI, J.-D. – WERMELINGER, O. (eds.), Le canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire (MoBi), Genève 1984, 47-69. Sapientia Salomonis. Liber Hiesu filii Sirach (Biblia sacra iuxta latinam Vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidei XII), Città del Vaticano, 1963. SANDERS, J. A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4), Oxford 1965. SAUER, G., Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira übersetzt und erklärt (ATD.A 1), Göttingen 2000. SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. SMEND, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin 1906. STADELMANN, H., Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter (WUNT 2,6), Tübingen 1980. The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, Published by The Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem 1973. THIELE, W. (ed.), Sirach Ecclesiasticus (Vetus Latina 11/2), Freiburg 1987-2005. VACCARI, A., I libri poetici della Bibbia, Roma 1925. VATTIONI, F., Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca, Napoli 1966. WAHL, O., Der Sirach-Text der Sacra Parallela (FzB 16), Würzburg 1974. WEITZMAN, M. P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. An Introduction (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56), Cambridge 1999. WINTER, M. M., The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac: VT 27 (1977), 237-253 and 494-507. WRIGHT, B. G., No Small Difference. Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text (SBL.SCS 26), Atlanta 1989. YADIN, Y., The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, Jerusalem 1965. YADIN, Y., The Hebrew Text of Sirach. A Text-Critical and Historical Study (Studies in Classical Literature 1), London – Paris – Den Haag 1966. ZIEGLER, J., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2), Göttingen 1965.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira. An investigation of beginnings and endings JEREMY CORLEY Introduction One of the problems awaiting full resolution in Ben Sira studies is the question of the book’s structure. The problem has been touched on in the major commentaries, including those by Rudolf Smend (1906), Norbert Peters (1913), and Moshe Segal (third edition 1972), as well as in the combined work of Patrick Skehan and Alexander Di Lella (1987).1 In addition, there have been several important shorter studies, particularly in recent years.2 Already in 1980 Wolfgang Roth proposed a plausible redactional history for the book. More than a decade later, in his article of 1993, John Harvey sought to move “Toward a Degree of Order in Ben Sira’s Book”. Then, in a lecture published in 1997, Johannes Marböck considered “Structure and Redaction History of the Book of Ben Sira: Review and Prospects”. In the same year, Hans-Winfried Jüngling published an essay on the structure of the Book of Sirach. In 1999 Georg Sauer published his thoughts on the thematic construction of Ben Sira’s book. Furthermore, the topic has received treatment in the course of several monographs, including Josef Haspecker’s pioneering study (1967) and recent works by Lutz Schrader (1994), Jeremy Corley (2002), and Otto Mulder (2003).3 Afew scholars believe that the book lacks a deliberate structure planned by the author. For instance, Schrader sees little organized structure in Ben Sira’s composition and cites “the complete lack of connection between the individual segments, the absence of linking passages, the tensions existing within the contents, as well as the many repetitions”.4 Accordingly, Schrader believes that a student put the collection together from the author’s notes 1

2

3 4

See SMEND, Die Weisheit, xxx-xli; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, xxxix-xlii; SEGAL, Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, introduction, 13-16; SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, xiiixvi, 21-30, 40-45, 73-74. See ROTH, On the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom; HARVEY, Toward a Degree of Order; MARBÖCK, Structure and Redaction History; JÜNGLING, Der Bauplan des Buches Jesus Sirach; SAUER, Gedanken. See HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht, 119-25; SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 62-68; CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 22-26; MULDER, Simon the High Priest, 25-59. SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 67 (translation mine). Schrader (p. 68) sees similar cases of contradictions in the poetry of Theognis. However, contradictions do not necessarily negate the possibility of one author or editor: see Prov 26:4-5.

22

Jeremy Corley

after his death.5 However, Marböck makes a pertinent observation: “Questions to be put to Schrader are why the extensive arrangement of the book could not be attributed to the Siracid himself, and whether the literary and thematic shape of separate sections, or rather their connections, is not even more intensive than expected (as in 1:11–2:18)”.6 As I discuss some of these points, it will become apparent that my analysis differs from Schrader’s. The existence of many studies indicates that the question of the book’s structure is of interest, yet not fully resolved. Hence perhaps the present treatment may shed further light on the topic. One particular contribution of this article is an examination of the significance of beginnings and endings within Ben Sira’s work, both in the book as a whole and in the individual sections. In the first part of this discussion I will consider possible structural models provided by sapiential works within or outside the Bible (including the Book of Proverbs), with special reference to the openings and closings of these writings. I will then consider Ben Sira passages of special structural significance, particularly the book’s beginning and ending. Thereafter I will outline an eightfold division of the book, according to a widely accepted pattern. Next I will treat stylistic features that indicate delimitation of longer and shorter units within Ben Sira’s book, whereby the openings and closings of sections are marked. Finally, I will conclude with a brief discussion of possible redactional stages.

1. Structural models provided by other sapiential books Previous investigations into the structure of Ben Sira’s book have generally given little attention to structural models for the work, apart from the Book of Proverbs. Thematic links between Ben Sira and sapiential works from Egypt and Greece have often been suggested, without much consideration of structural features.7 This section will consider some links, both structural and thematic, that exist between Ben Sira and five works: Proverbs, Job, the prototype of Papyrus Insinger, the poetry of Theognis, and the preMaccabean sections of 1 Enoch.8 5 6 7 8

Ibid., 303. Schrader acknowledges, however, that the compiler of Ben Sira’s teaching notes acted according to a plan, based on the Book of Proverbs (p. 68). MARBÖCK, Structure and Redaction History, 79. See MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung; SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom . A comparison could also be made with 4Q Instruction (a Qumran text from the second or first century BC), where similar themes are treated: care of parents (Sir 3:1-16; 4Q416 2.iii.15-19); wariness in social dealings (Sir 11:29–12:6; 4Q417 1.i.7-10); an encouragement to seek wisdom (Sir 6:18-37; 14:20–15:10; 4Q417 2.i.6-13); an admonition to respect one’s wife (Sir 26:1-4.13-18; 4Q416 2.iii.19-iv.13); caution in regard to loans and guarantees (Sir 29:1-20; 4Q416 2.ii.4-7; 4Q417 1.ii.21-23).

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

23

1.1 The Book of Proverbs Some clear similarities between Proverbs and Ben Sira occur in features of structure and form.9 The first significant aspect to observe is a general resemblance in the theological poems opening the two books. While Proverbs begins with a six-line introduction (Prov 1:1-6), Ben Sira opens with an eightline preamble (Sir 1:1-10). Thereafter, the statement of Prov 1:7 (“The fear of Yhwh is the beginning of knowledge”) is adapted, under the influence of Prov 9:10, to become the topic sentence of Sir 1:11-30: “The beginning of wisdom is to fear the Lord” (Sir 1:14 Gr).10 For this poem on the fear of the Lord in Sir 1:11-30, Ben Sira copies the twenty-two-line pattern of Prov 2:122, which also refers to the fear of God (Prov 2:5). A second clear resemblance may be noted: Sir 24:1-34 has many similarities with Prov 8:1-36.11 Thus, Lady Wisdom’s first-person speech in Sir 24:3-22 is reminiscent of her first-person speech in Prov 8:4-36, with the introductory use of yna (“I”) in Prov 8:12.17 being echoed in the occurrence of evgw, (“I”) in Sir 24:3.16. Wisdom’s presence at the origin of creation is stated in Prov 8:22-31 and Sir 24:3-6. The saying in Prov 8:22 (“Yhwh created me at the beginning of his way”) finds an echo in Sir 24:9 Gr: “Before eternity, from the beginning he created me”. So too, the declaration in Prov 8:27 (“When he established the heavens I was there, when he marked a circle on the surface of the abyss”) is echoed in Sir 24:5 Gr: “The vault of heaven I circled alone, and in the depth of the abysses I walked”. Moreover, a warning against missing the opportunity of gaining wisdom appears in both passages, in each case at the end of wisdom’s speech. While Prov 8:36 declares: “One who misses me injures himself”, Sir 24:22 Gr asserts: “Those working with me will not miss the mark”. These examples show that Sirach 24 is heavily modeled on Prov 8. The most distinctive resemblance, however, is the use of an alphabetic acrostic at the end of both books (Prov 31:10-31; Sir 51:13-30), where significant verbal links enhance the structural similarity.12 The saying in Prov 9

10

11 12

SEGAL, Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, introduction, 16; MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung, 78-84; SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 43-45, 576; SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 68; SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 3-12. The biblical translations are mine unless otherwise indicated. Note the abbreviations: Hb = Hebrew; Gr = Greek; S = Syriac; L = Latin. The Hebrew manuscripts: Mas = Masada Ms (Mas 1h); HQ = Qumran Cave 11 MS (11Q5 = 11Q Psa); Ms A, Ms B = geniza Mss A and B. Cf. GILBERT, L’Éloge de la Sagesse; SKEHAN, Structures in Poems on Wisdom; SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 331-338. PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, xl and 437; SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 576. The vocabulary shared between the two acrostic poems includes four words at the start of bicola: ~mz (“consider”: Prov 31:16; Sir 51:18 HQ); dy (“hand”: Prov 31:19; Sir 51:19

24

Jeremy Corley

31:26 (“She opens her mouth with wisdom”) is expanded in Sir 51:25 Ms B: “I opened my mouth and spoke of her: ‘Acquire for yourselves wisdom without price’”. Most important perhaps is the reversed use of two keywords (“give” and “deeds”) in the last line of each poem. While Prov 31:31 concludes: “Give her some of the fruit of her hands, and let her deeds praise her at the gates”, Sir 51:30 Ms B ends: “Do your deeds with righteousness, and he will give you your reward in its time”. Thus, in a learned allusion to Prov 31, Ben Sira concludes his book by presenting Lady Wisdom as the truly “capable wife” whom his young male students should seek.13

1.2 The Book of Job The Wisdom of Ben Sira exhibits several structural resemblances to the Book of Job, especially at the beginning and the end. Both works open with two chapters about a God-fearing person who has to face trials.14 While Job 1:1 depicts the hero as “fearing God” (cf. Job 1:8-9), Sir 1:11-30 offers a discourse on the fear of the Lord. The immediate arrival of trials upon Job (Job 1:6–2:10) is matched by the way Sir 2:1-18 quickly warns of the testing that can afflict anyone wishing to serve God. The deliverance from trials narrated at the end of the older book (Job 42:7-14) is matched by Ben Sira’s hymn of thanksgiving for deliverance from distress (Sir 51:1-12). Moreover, God’s two lengthy speeches, proclaiming his unfathomable glory revealed in creation (Job 38:2–39:30; 40:7–41:26), correspond broadly with Ben Sira’s long poem on the divine glory in creation (Sir 42:15–43:26), while Job’s humble admission of his lack of understanding of God’s “wonders” (Job 42:2-6) matches Ben Sira’s similar confession of the limits of human powers in the face of

13

14

HQ); @k (“palm”: Prov 31:20; Sir 51:20 HQ); hp (“mouth”: Prov 31:26; Sir 51:25 Ms B). On the text of Sir 51:30 see the discussion below. The authenticity of Sir 51:13-30 has been questioned on paleographical, textual, and thematic grounds (see, for instance, MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung, 118-25; SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 75-82). Paleographical doubt on its authenticity has been cast because it occurs in the Cave 11 Qumran Psalms Scroll, though this may have been a liturgical collection of biblical psalms together with hymns of diverse origin. The textual reason is that later texts (geniza Hebrew, Greek, Syriac) alter the wording from the earliest text form in the Qumran Psalms Scroll; but there are many cases of textual corruption in the book, and the use of romantic language could account for many of the sapientializing changes. The thematic ground concerns the perceived use of the language of romantic love in the poem; yet such language in connection with wisdom appears elsewhere (Sir 15:2-3). I owe this insight to Renate Egger-Wenzel. On the connections between Sirach and Job see MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung, 75-78; SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 47-48 and 79-80. Note that both Sirach and Job are Hebrew wisdom books, and Sir 49:9 Ms B mentions Job briefly.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

25

the Lord’s “wonders” (Sir 43:27-33). One other significant resemblance lies in the positioning of an important poem on wisdom at the heart of both books. Job 28 is a sapiential poem that (like Sir 19:20) equates wisdom with the fear of the Lord (Job 28:28), whereas Sirach 24 is a sapiential poem that identifies wisdom with the Law of Moses (Sir 24:23). Although these similarities are not absolutely decisive, they do suggest that the Book of Job may have had some influence on the general structure of Ben Sira’s work.

1.3 The Prototype of Papyrus Insinger Although the actual copy of the demotic Egyptian wisdom writing known as Papyrus Insinger seems to date from the first century AD, its prototype from the Ptolemaic era may have served as one of the structural models for Ben Sira’s book. Jack Sanders observes four general similarities: the grouping of sayings on a particular topic into a thematic unit; the placing of warnings and exhortations into a series; the collecting of observations that begin with “there is” (or “there are”); and the use of refrains to indicate the end of a passage.15 Unfortunately the demotic text begins halfway through the sixth instruction (out of twenty-five), so we do not know how it began. Nevertheless, attention has been drawn to a similarity in order for two important passages. Early in Papyrus Insinger there is a section on respect and care for parents, particularly in their old age (1.19–2.20), a passage that strongly resembles part of Sir 3:1-16. Moreover, toward the end of Papyrus Insinger there is a lengthy celebration of the wonders of nature (30.18–33.6), which has a general structural resemblance to Ben Sira’s poem on creation in 42:15–43:33. In fact, building on the resemblances observed by Sanders for the whole of Ben Sira, we could produce a list of eight comparable passages in the same order (noting clusters of the most similar sayings): Sir 3:4-12 // P. Insinger 1.19–2.7 (care of parents); Sir 9:2-9 // P. Insinger 8.2-14 (controlling desire for women); Sir 13:9-13 // P. Insinger 10.12–11.3 (caution before a noble); Sir 33:20-30 // P. Insinger 14.3-11 (disciplining slaves); Sir 35:2-13 // P. Insinger 16.3-13 (generosity to the poor); Sir 38:18-21 // P. Insinger 19.19–20.7 (accepting bereavement); Sir 42:15-18 // P. Insinger 30.18–31.1 (praising God for his works); Sir 43:6-33 // P. Insinger 32.2-18 (marvels of God’s creation).

15

The connections noted here develop the observations of SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 69-103, esp. 88-91.

26

Jeremy Corley

Although this list is impressive, it ignores other similar passages that do not fit the sequence (e.g., Sir 14:3-19 // P. Insinger 17.4-10 against miserliness; Sir 30:1-13 // P. Insinger 8.21–9.20 on disciplining sons; Sir 27:22–28:7 // P. Insinger 33.7-13 on forgiveness). Thus, at best the resemblance in order is incomplete. A curious similarity exists between Sir 51:30 and the end of P. Insinger (35.11). The penultimate didactic saying in the Egyptian text concerns a divinely given reward for the sage: “The heart of the wise man, its reward is the eye of the god”.16 This saying has a similar theme to Sir 51:30 (where the versions offer a different wording). According to the geniza Hebrew text, Sir 51:30b promises a repayment given by God to the persevering seeker of wisdom: “He will give you your reward in its time”.

1.4 The poetry of Theognis The elegiac poetry of Theognis may have served as a model for some passages in Ben Sira’s book.17 The theological poems opening Ben Sira’s book (Sir 1:1–2:18) have a role faintly similar to the prayers (addressing Apollo, Artemis, and the Muses) opening the sayings of Theognis (lines 1-18). However, the most significant parallels with Theognis concern a few themes: caution in friendship (Sir 6:5-17; Theognis 61-82 and 115-28); discrimination in social relations (Sir 12:1-18; Theognis 93-114); the divine determination of fortune (Sir 11:10-19; Theognis 165-72); and proper behavior at banquets and sensible wine drinking (Sir 31:12–32:13; Theognis 467-510).

1.5 The pre-maccabean sections of the Book of Enoch Unlike the sapiential books of Proverbs, Job, Papyrus Insinger, and Theognis, 1 Enoch is usually placed in the category of apocalyptic literature. Nevertheless, 1 Enoch 92:1 (here 4Q212 ii.23) calls Enoch avwna ~yk[x] (“[wis]est of men”), and a related text from the Book of Giants (4Q203 8.4) dubs the patriarch avrp rps (“distinguished scribe”).18 Hence, because of the importance of the theme of wisdom in the Enochic writings (cf. 1 Enoch 32:3, 6; 82:2-3; 99:10), and because Ben Sira may be reacting against some of the preMaccabean Enochic texts, a brief discussion is included here.19

16 17 18 19

Translation from LICHTHEIM, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 213. MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung, 13-24; SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 29-38. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ – TIGCHELAAR, The Dead Sea Scrolls, I, 442-443 and I, 410-411. Many connections between both works are explored by ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

27

While the Enochic corpus was surely incomplete in Ben Sira’s day, preMaccabean sections probably include most of the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36) and the Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72-82), plus parts of the Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 92-105). While Randal Argall has made thematic comparisons between Ben Sira and 1 Enoch, it is also possible to detect some general structural similarities.20 In the first place, the opening poem of Ben Sira’s book has a faint echo of the start of the Book of the Watchers. While Ben Sira begins his work with the statement: “All wisdom is from the Lord” (Sir 1:1), 1 Enoch 1:2 reports Enoch’s declaration: “‘[The vision of the Holy One of heaven was revealed to me, and I heard] it all from the words of [the Watchers] and the Holy Ones [and because I heard it from them, I knew and understood everything]”.21 Then Enoch’s call to observe heaven and earth and the rain (1 Enoch 2:1-3) has a general similarity to Ben Sira’s questioning whether any human being can fathom heaven or earth or the number of raindrops (Sir 1:2-3).22 Similarities to Enochic literature also occur in the closing sections of Ben Sira’s book. Thus, the poem glorifying God for astronomical and meteorological wonders (Sir 42:15–43:33) deals with similar phenomena to the Astronomical Book (1 Enoch 72-82), although in a different style. Moreover, the Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks employs a pattern of ten weeks for Israel’s history from Enoch to the final age (1 Enoch 93:1-10; 91:11-17), while Sir 44:17–45:26 has a pattern of seven covenants from Noah to Phinehas.23 Finally, the close of the Epistle of Enoch is slightly similar to the last verse of Ben Sira’s book, where the geniza manuscript ends the final sapiential poem with the words: “Do your deeds with righteousness, and he will give you your reward in its time” (Sir 51:30 Ms B). The Ethiopic text of 1 Enoch 105:1 also speaks of a reward associated with wisdom: “Reveal it [= truth] to them with your wisdom, for you are their guides; and (you are) [or: there will be] a reward upon the whole earth”.24 20 21

22 23

24

For instance, ARGALL observes a resemblance between Sir 42:15-17 and 1 Enoch 14:20-23 (1 Enoch and Sirach, 161-62), as well as between Sir 24:13-22 and 1 Enoch 32:3-4 (ibid., 93). GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ – TIGCHELAAR, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1.399. The reading of 4Q201 i.2-3 has been completed with reference to the Ethiopic text. A Qumran manuscript of 1 Enoch 93:2 (4Q 212 iii.22) puts a comparable declaration on the lips of Enoch: “I have come to know everything” (ibid., 1.443); cf. 1 Enoch 19:3; 81:2. Moreover, Sir 1:1-10 resembles 1 Enoch 93:11-14 in affirming human ignorance of the mysteries of the world; cf. CORLEY, Wisdom versus Apocalyptic, 275-280. There may be a polemical note here in Ben Sira’s writing. If we discount the mention of Enoch in Sir 44:16 as a later gloss, the beginning of the Praise of the Ancestors with Noah may be Ben Sira’s response to the Book of the Watchers and the Apocalypse of Weeks, with Ben Sira stressing the Noachic covenant rather than Enochic revelation. Translation by ISAAC, 1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch, 86 (compare the fragmentary text in 4Q204 frag. 5, col. i).

28

Jeremy Corley

As expected, our consideration of structural models for Ben Sira’s work has found the closest parallels in the Book of Proverbs. However, we have noted that Ben Sira’s book also exhibits some structural similarities with other writings, such as the Book of Job, the prototype of Papyrus Insinger, the poetry of Theognis, and even some pre-Maccabean parts of 1 Enoch.

2. Passages of special structural significance 2.1 The opening Wisdom poem (Sir 1:1-10) The sapiential poem that begins Ben Sira’s work (Sir 1:1-10) sets the tone for the whole book. Special structural significance belongs to the opening phrase (“all wisdom”), which is played upon later in the book, and which may echo a phrase from the Book of Kings and even the Epic of Gilgamesh. Admittedly, the exact phrase “all wisdom” (Sir 1:1; cf. 19:20) occurs only once in the MT in Dan 1:4 (Daniel and his three companions were skilled “in all wisdom”), but that text was probably written a few years after Ben Sira’s death. More significantly, 1 Kgs 10:4 speaks of the Queen of Sheba observing “all the wisdom of Solomon”, granted to him by God in response to his prayer at Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:9). Since the Book of Proverbs claims to contain Solomon’s wisdom (Prov 1:1), Ben Sira may be presenting his work as a new Book of Proverbs. In addition, the later author may be wishing to suggest that his book contains “all the wisdom of Ben Sira”, given to him by God in answer to his prayer (Sir 39:5-6; 51:13-14).25 The opening phrase (“all wisdom”) seems to have a structural function in the book. The second main section (4:11–6:17) begins with a bicolon that mentions both “wisdom” (4:11a Ms A has the rare form twmkx) and “all” (4:11b Ms A has lk).26 Moreover, while in most Greek Mss the opening poem of section VI ends with the phrase “all those seeking instruction (paidei,an)” (33:18 G), a few Mss read “all those seeking wisdom (sofi,an)”, which would be a play on the phrase “all wisdom” in 1:1. Furthermore, when seen as a whole, 1:1–43:33 exhibits an inclusio, whereby Sir 1:1 begins with the phrase “all wisdom” (pa/sa sofi,a), while 43:33 divides the phrase to give “everything” … “wisdom” (pa,nta ... sofi,an). In addition, Sir 19:20–20:31 (a sub25

26

Possibly Ben Sira may have wished his work to be known as the book of “All Wisdom,” just as the first word of each of the five books of the Torah serves as the Hebrew title. Similarly, the ancient title of the Epic of Gilgamesh was taken from its opening words; cf. PRITCHARD, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 72. For the eight main sections of Ben Sira’s work see the discussion of “Major Divisions of Ben Sira’s Book” below.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

29

unit in section IV) begins with the declaration that employs the significant phrase twice: “The fear of the Lord is all wisdom, and the practice of the law is in all wisdom” (19:20 Gr). Finally, the author’s signature in 50:27-29 Gr concludes with mention of one who “will become wise” (50:28b: sofisqh,setai) in connection with “everything” (50:29a: pa,nta). It is curious that the opening of Ben Sira, which develops biblical teaching on wisdom’s origin from Israel’s one God (Prov 2:6), exhibits some resemblances to the start of the ancient Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. Indeed, the opening phrase of the book (“all wisdom,” Sir 1:1) echoes the phrase “complete wisdom” (I.i.4) near the beginning of the Gilgamesh Epic.27 The epic opens by presenting Gilgamesh (I.i.1-6): [Of him who] found out all things, I [shall te]ll the land, [Of him who] experienced everything, [I shall tea]ch the whole. He searched (?) lands (?) everywhere. He who experienced the whole gained complete wisdom. He found out what was secret and uncovered what was hidden, He brought back a tale of times before the Flood.28

Ben Sira opens his book with a distant echo of the start of the Babylonian text. Whereas the epic opens by speaking of Gilgamesh as one who had “found out all things” and “experienced everything” and “gained complete wisdom”, Ben Sira speaks of “one [who] is wise”, the one who “created [wisdom] and saw and enumerated her” (Sir 1:8-9). Moreover, whereas the epic says that Gilgamesh “found out what was secret and uncovered what was hidden” from before the Flood, Ben Sira inquires to whom the root of wisdom has been revealed (Sir 1:6).29

2.2 Self-References (Sir 24:30-34; 33:16-18; 39:12) The sage’s three major references to his own activity occur at the start of sections V and VI and VII of the work, as indicated below in the discussion of “Major Divisions of Ben Sira’s Book”. These passages not only provide 27

28 29

This Mesopotamian text may not be so remote from Judaism around 200 BC, since links have been observed between the epic and the Enochic literature; cf. VANDERKAM, Enoch, 137 and 175. In fact, the name Gilgamesh occurs in the Qumran Book of Giants (4Q 530 ii.2; 4Q 531 17.12), while Qoh 9:7-9 (possibly written in Jerusalem in the century before Ben Sira) quotes Gilgamesh (X.iii.6-14 [Meissner Tablet]). Epic quoted from DALLEY, Myths from Mesopotamia, 50. On the opening lines of the Epic of Gilgamesh see TOURNAY, “Début de l’épopée de Gilgamesh”, 5-7. Nevertheless, later in his book Ben Sira will acknowledge that he traveled in order to discover wisdom (Sir 34:10-12; cf. 39:4), just as Gilgamesh gained wisdom through his experiences of searching lands (I.i.2-4).

30

Jeremy Corley

markers of the book’s structure, but also offer glimpses into the author’s intentions.30 The most plausible theory to explain these three self-references has been proposed by Wolfgang Roth: “After Sirach had composed his first book of wisdom (1:1–23:27 and 51:1-30), he found himself compelled three times to add a section to his original book (24:1–32:13; 32:14–38:23; 38:24–50:29)”.31 Each supplementary section is prefaced by a sapiential poem: “24:1-29 precedes the first additional section as prologue, 32:14–33:15 is the prologue to the second addition, and 38:24–39:11 introduces the third”. Roth also declares that in each of these additional sections, “an autobiographical note intervenes between prologue and body of the section”– a reference to 24:30-34, 33:16-18, and 39:12. Here I will consider these three passages. The longest authorial self-reference occurs in 24:30-34, at the end of the wisdom poem introducing Part V of the book. Since the Hebrew text is unfortunately lost, the following translation will be based mainly on the Greek. I also issued forth like a channel from a river, and like a water trench into a garden. I said: I will irrigate my plantation, and I will saturate my garden plot. And behold, the channel became for me a river, and my river became a lake. Again I will make instruction shine out like the dawn, and I will show it forth even to a distance. Again I will pour out teaching like prophecy, and I will bequeath it to everlasting generations. See that not only for myself have I toiled, but for all those seeking it.

Although in this autobiographical passage Ben Sira attributes to himself a prophetic role (24:33), elsewhere he indicates that he views himself not as one of the earlier “canonical” prophets, but rather as a gleaner who gathers the fruits left behind by previous harvesters (33:16-17). It is presumably intentional that the sage’s words in 24:30-34 echo the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. Speaking in close proximity to the temple (24:10-11), Ben Sira sees his role as bringing forth water in a stream that grows from a rivulet into a large river (24:30-31). In this way, Ben Sira himself brings about what was announced for the new temple by the prophet Ezekiel

30 31

JÜNGLING, Der Bauplan, 97; cf. LIESEN, Strategical Self-References, 63-74; PRATO, Il problema della teodicea, 84-86. ROTH, On the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom, 60. The next two quotations are also from p. 60.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

31

(Ezek 47:1-12). Then Ben Sira promises that his teaching will go forth like light from his base adjacent to the temple (24:32; cf. 24:27). This declaration echoes God’s statement that the divine word would go forth from Jerusalem (Isa 2:3), with the invitation to Israel to walk in the light of the Lord (Isa 2:5). The second major autobiographical section (33:16-18 Ms E) occurs at the end of the sapiential poem (32:14–33:18) introducing Part VI of the book.32 I also have been vigilant as the last person, and like a gleaner after the grape harvesters. By God’s blessing I also have advanced, and like a grape harvester I have filled my wine vat. See that not only for myself have I toiled, but for all those seeking instruction.

Here Ben Sira asserts that in his ministry of the word he has been vigilant (Sir 33:16), just as God declares at the call of Jeremiah that he is watchful over his word to perform it (Jer 1:11-12). Immediately afterward, Ben Sira employs the imagery of the vintage harvester (Sir 33:17), which echoes Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard planted on the fertile hill of Zion (Isa 5:1-7). In fact, the sage’s toil has not been simply for his own benefit, but to help his students, and indeed for everyone seeking wisdom (51:23-28). As a concluding refrain, 33:18 G matches the Greek text of 24:34. Evidently Ben Sira at the start of Part VI has deliberately echoed his words at the start of Part V, to show that he is adding another section to his book. At the opening of Part VII of the book, the author’s third major self-reference occurs in 39:12 G, at the end of the poem praising the scribe (38:24–39:12), and just before the passage on theodicy (39:13-35). Having reflected, I will again make a declaration, and I am full like the full moon.

Since he is filled with illuminating things to say (like Elihu in Job 32:18), Ben Sira compares himself to the full moon (cf. Sir 50:6). Elsewhere he expresses his fullness with images of water (24:30-33) and harvest (33:17). There is also an echo of the scribal reader of earlier prophecies (39:1), who “will be filled with the spirit of understanding” (Sir 39:6 Gr), rather like the Spirit-filled prophets Elijah, Elisha, and Micah (Sir 48:12 Gr; Mic 3:8).

32

For the lacunae in 33:16-18 Ms E I have followed SEGAL, Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, 207.

32

Jeremy Corley

2.3 Notice of Authorship (Sir 50:27-29) The view taken here is that the notice of authorship in 50:27-29 is the work of Ben Sira himself.33 According to some scholars, the mention of the author’s own name marks a new stage in the history of Israel’s wisdom tradition. Martin Hengel asserts that among Jewish teachers, “Ben Sira was the first to venture to emerge clearly as a personality (50:27). Here is the beginning of a new development, for the stressing of the personality of the individual teacher derived from Greek custom”.34 Influence from Greek culture is certainly possible; for instance, Theognis declares his authorship of his poetry near the start of the collection of his sayings (cf. Theognis 19-23). However, Ben Sira may also have been adapting a usage found in the Book of Jeremiah, where the prophetic words end with the statement: “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah” (Jer 51:64; cf. Job 31:40). Indeed, the author’s view of himself as a prophet whose teaching flows out like water (according to the reconstructed text of 50:27cd below) echoes his declaration at the end of the great sapiential poem opening Part V of the book (Sir 24:30-33).35 A reconstructed Hebrew text of 50:27-29 (adapted from Segal’s edition) follows:36

arys !b rz[la !b [wXyl ~ynpwa ylXmw lkX rswm twnwbtb [ybh rXaw wbl rwtpb abyn rXa ~kxy wbl l[ !twnw hghy hlab Xya yrXa ~yyx yyy tary yk qzxy lkl ~hXw[ yk Instruction in prudence and fitly spoken proverbs by Jeshua son of Eleazar son of Sira, which he prophesied in the interpretation of his heart, and which he poured forth with insights. Happy the man who meditates on these things, and one who places them in his heart will become wise. 33

34 35 36

So SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 559; SEGAL, Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, 350; HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht, 87-89 (cf. 72-75); HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 79 and I, 131. For the view that 50:27-29 is inauthentic, see SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 66. There are also diverse scribal notes identifying the author in the various manuscripts after 51:30, but these probably do not derive from Ben Sira himself. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 79. Scribal notices often occur at the end of Egyptian sapiential writings, but the reference is generally to the copyist rather than to the author. SEGAL, Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, 350 (including his retroversion of 50:29a from the Greek). I have made three changes from Segal’s text. First, in 50:27a I read ylXmw (“and proverbs”), where Ms B has the strange form lXwmw (“and likeness” or “and dominion”); cf. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 556-557. Second, in 50:27b I correct Ms B from Gr for the author’s name; cf. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, ibid. Third, in 50:27c I read abyn rXa (“which he prophesied”), where Ms B has the form [byn rXa (“which was poured forth”); cf. SMEND, Die Weisheit, 493-494.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

33

For one who does them will be strong for everything, for the fear of Yhwh is life.

This notice (expanding Prov 15:33a) is reminiscent of phrases occurring earlier in Ben Sira’s book. Most significantly, the terms “he will become wise” (~kxy, 50:28b Ms B) and “for everything” (equivalent to lkl, 50:29a) create an inclusio with “all wisdom” (equivalent to hmkx lk) in the opening of the book (1:1), while the concluding equation of the fear of the Lord with life (50:29b) is reminiscent of the opening poem on the fear of God (Sir 1:12; cf. Prov 14:27; 19:23).37 Moreover, Sir 50:27-29 recalls 6:37 (the end of the opening poem of Part III of the sage’s writing), with shared vocabulary including the Hebrew root !yb (“understand”, 6:37ac; 50:27d), the notion of hary (“fear”, 6:37a; 50:29b) directed toward God, the verb hgh (“meditate”, 6:37b; 50:28a), the noun bl (“heart”, 6:37c; 50:27c.28b), and the verb ~kx (“be wise”, 6:37d; 50:28b). In addition, the vocabulary of Sir 50:28 echoes the start of Part IV (14:20-21), with a particular similarity existing between 14:20a and 50:28a: 14:20a Ms A: hghy hmkxb Xwna yrXa happy the mortal who meditates on wisdom; 50:28a Ms B: hghy hlab Xya yrXa happy the man who meditates on these things.

Thus, the notice of authorship serves to emphasize important themes in the sage’s work, especially wisdom and the fear of God.

2.4 Close of the Final Acrostic Poem (Sir 51:30) According to the geniza manuscript, the acrostic poem that concludes Ben Sira’s book ends with the words: “Do your deeds with righteousness, and he will give you your reward in its time” (Sir 51:30 Ms B). We have already seen that these words exhibit a resemblance to the conclusion to the Book of Proverbs (Prov 31:31), and also to the end of P. Insinger (35.11). In fact, the geniza manuscript differs slightly from the ancient versions. On the basis of Gr and S, we may reconstruct the original Hebrew thus: wt[b ~krkX !tyw t[ alb ~kyX[m wl[p Perform your deeds before the due time, and he will give your reward in its [or: his] due time.38 37 38

Furthermore, within the Syriac version Sir 50:29 echoes 25:12 and 40:26. For the expression “before the due time” (Sir 51:30 Gr and S) see Qoh 7:17; Sir 30:24. For the phrase “in its due time” compare Deut 11:14; Ps 1:3; Prov 15:23; Qoh 3:11; Sir 4:23; 31:28; 39:16.33.34.

34

Jeremy Corley

If this reconstructed text is correct, its first two words form an inclusio with the ending of Part III (14:19) and the opening of the great hymn on creation (42:15cd). Moreover, the mention of “deeds” and “reward” echoes Sir 16:14, the last line of 15:11–16:14.39 In addition, the opening and conclusion of Ben Sira’s final acrostic have a curious resemblance to lines 73-76 of the Akkadian poem (also an acrostic) known as the Babylonian Theodicy, though Ben Sira’s affirmations oppose the scepticism of the Mesopotamian sufferer:40 When I was young I sought the will of (my) god, I sought my goddess with humility and prayer, and yet I had to do forced labour without reward, instead of riches my god decreed poverty for me.

We may compare the start of Ben Sira’s final poem: “I was a youth before I went wandering, and I sought her [= wisdom]” (51:13 Mas). In 51:28b Ms B (where the Greek differs slightly) Ben Sira promises riches to the seeker for wisdom: “Silver and gold you will acquire through me”. Lastly, the Hebrew sage affirms that there will indeed be a reward in due time for one who performs his allotted tasks (51:30).41

3. Major divisions of Ben Sira’s Book Leaving aside the appendices (50:25–51:30) and the grandson’s prologue to the Greek version, the bulk of Ben Sira’s book (1:1–50:24) may be divided up into eight main sections.42 Each of the eight parts starts with a sapiential poem, while the appendices end with a wisdom poem:43 39 40 41

42

43

According to PRATO (Il problema della teodicea, 231), Sir 15:11–16:14 is the first half of a long passage on human sin and divine mercy in 15:11–18:14. The Babylonian text is quoted from BEYERLIN, Near Eastern Religious Texts, 135. One other point deserves consideration: the concluding of Ben Sira’s book with two poetic hymns (excluding Sir 51:12i-xvi, attested only in one geniza Hebrew manuscript). The books associated with Moses and with David both include near their end two different poetic hymns: near the end of Deuteronomy are the Song of Moses and his last blessings of the tribes (Deut 32:1-43; 33:2-29), while near the end of Second Samuel are David’s thanksgiving psalm and his last words (2 Sam 22:2-51; 23:1-7). One view is that the structure of Ben Sira (two parts of four sections each) serves to match the four major parts of the Book of Proverbs (chaps. 1-9; 10-24; 25-29; 30-31); see SEGAL, Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, introduction, 16. Alternatively, leaving aside the concluding acrostic poem in 31:10-31, the Book of Proverbs could be divided into eight sections, all except two introduced by a superscription (1:1-9:18; 10:1–22:16; 22:17–24:22; 24:23-34; 25:1–29:27; 30:1-14; 30:15-33; 31:1-9); cf. SCHRADER, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 65. I have adapted the following structure from SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira,

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

35

Part I, 1:1–4:10: “Understanding Wisdom“, begun by wisdom poem (1:1-10); Part II, 4:11–6:17: “Applying Wisdom Personally“, begun by wisdom poem (4:11-19); Part III, 6:18–14:19: “Applying Wisdom Socially“, begun by wisdom poem (6:18-37); Part IV, 14:20–23:27: “Applying Wisdom to Speech and Thought“, begun by wisdom poem (14:20–15:10); Part V, 24:1–32:13: “Applying Wisdom to Household Life“, begun by wisdom poem (24:1-34); Part VI, 32:14–38:23: “Using Wisdom to Make Good Decisions“, begun by wisdom poem (32:14–33:18); Part VII, 38:24–43:33: “Demonstrating the Results of Wisdom“, begun by wisdom poem (38:24–39:12); Part VIII, 44:1–50:24: “Wisdom in History“, begun by wisdom poem (44:1-15); Appendices, 50:25–51:30, ended by wisdom poem (51:13-30).

The same refrain delimits the end of the wisdom poems opening Parts V and VI (24:34 Gr = 33:18 Gr). Similarly, another refrain occurs near the conclusion of the sapiential poem opening Part VII and at the end of the introduction to Part VIII (39:10 Gr = 44:15 Gr). Ben Sira links each of the parts together more or less immediately by means of a catchword or mot crochet:44 Part I (4:10c Ms A): !b (“son”); Part II (4:11a Ms A): hynb (“her sons”). Part II (6:16b Ms A): ~gyXy (“he will attain them”); Part III (6:18b Ms C): gyXt (“you will attain”).

44

xiii-xvi. See also HARVEY, Toward a Degree of Order, 61, whence I have taken the titles of Parts I-IV, VI-VII (on p. 53 Harvey calls 32:14–33:18 a wisdom poem). The section divisions correspond to the analysis of SEGAL (Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, introduction, 16), who ends the seventh section with 43:33 and starts the eighth section with 44:1 (on this point I alter my earlier view; cf. CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 23). For different outlines of Ben Sira’s book see SMEND, Die Weisheit, xxx-xxxiv; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, xli-xlii; MARBÖCK, Structure and Redaction History”, 66-68; JÜNGLING, Der Bauplan, 104-5; SAUER, Gedanken, 61; MULDER, Simon the High Priest, 37. Unless indicated in this footnote, all the catchwords listed occur in a Hebrew manuscript (except for the reference to the Greek in chaps. 23-24). In 4:10d and 4:12a the Greek text has a further mot crochet with the verb À avgapa,w (“love”). In 6:16b, where the text of Ms A reads ~gyXy (“he will attain them”), a singular object (“him,” as in Gr) fits the context better, so the original reading may have been wngyXy (“he will attain him”). A further mot crochet links Parts IV and V in the Syriac, which has the term “earth” in 23:27a and in 24:3b. The readings of 32:12 and 32:16 follow MINISSALE, La versione greca, 68 and 79. The verb in 38:20a follows the margin of Ms B. In 43:33b, where the Hebrew text has a lacuna, the reading ~ydysxlw (“and to the devout”) is Segal’s retroversion from the Greek (Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, 290). In addition, the untranslatable accusative particle ta in 43:33a Ms B and in 44:1b Mas serves as a further link between Parts VII and VIII.

36

Jeremy Corley Part III (14:19ab Ms A): wyrxa … lk (“all … after him”); Part IV (14:22ab Ms A): lkw … hyrxa (“after her … and all”). Part IV (23:24a G): evkklhsi,an (“assembly”); Part V (24:2a G): evkklhsi,a (“assembly”). Part V (32:12b Ms B): la ... taryb (“in the fear of God”); Part VI (32:16a Ms B): yyy ary (“one who fears Yhwh”). Part VI (38:20a Ms B / Bm): bl … tyXt la (“do not set [your] heart”); Part VII (38:26b Ms B): tyXy bl (“he sets [his] heart”). Part VII (43:33b Segal): ~ydysxlw (“and to the loyal”); Part VIII (44:1a Ms B): dsx yXna (“men of loyalty”).45

Moreover, many of the parts of the book are united by inclusiones: Part II, 4:11–6:17: 4:12 Ms A: ~yyx wbha hybha (“her friends love life”); 6:16 Ms A: hnwma bhwa ~yyx rwrc (“a faithful friend is a bundle of the living”). Part III, 6:18–14:19: [stylistic inclusio with non-alphabetic acrostics] 6:18-37 = 22-line poem; 13:24–14:19 = 23-line poem. Part IV, 14:20–23:27: 14:20 S: atwntlwksbw (“and on understanding”); 23:27 S: !wlktsnw (“and they will understand”). Part VI, 32:14–38:23: 32:16 Mss BEF: aycwy (“he will bring forth”); 38:23 Ms B: tac (“going forth”). Part VII, 38:24–43:33: 38:24 Gr: sofi,a (“wisdom”); 43:33 Gr: sofi,an (“wisdom”). Part VIII, 44:1–50:24: 44:1 Ms B and Mas: dsx (“loyalty”); 44:1 Ms B: twmym (“from the days”). 50:24 Ms B: wdsx (“his loyalty”); 50:24 Ms B: ymyk (“like the days”).

4. Delimitation of Ben Sira’s poetic units Although Ben Sira sometimes uses other genres (e.g., hymn, prayer, encomium), most of his book consists of didactic poems.46 In much of the work, therefore, no difference of genre indicates the start and finish of the individual units. Hence, in order to clarify the architecture of his book, Ben Sira employs several stylistic markers to delimit longer or shorter units. Three 45

46

Elsewhere Ben Sira often makes use of a catchword or mot crochet to link adjacent passages; see 12:18/13:1 (hand); 13:23/24 (rich/poor); 15:9/11 (from God); 19:17/20 (law); 49:16/50:1 (glory). Hymnic compositions include Sir 18:1-7; 39:13-35; 42:15–43:33; 51:1-12; prayers include 22:27–23:6; 36:1-22. The Praise of the Ancestors in 44:1–50:24 uses the form of an encomium, according to LEE, Studies, 206-239.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

37

of these markers occur frequently: inclusio, non-alphabetic acrostic, and opening/closing rhyme.47 The presence of inclusio can be a strong indicator in delimiting a passage. Examples of Ben Sira’s pericopes delimited by means of inclusio include the following eight passages: 7:18-36 (on social duties); 13:1-23 (on caution in dealing with the rich); 14:20–15:10 (on wisdom); 37:27–38:23 (on health, sickness, and death); 42:15–43:33 (on God’s glory in creation); 44:1-15 (preamble to the Praise of the Ancestors); 49:1-16 (on Israel’s early and late heroes); 50:1-24 (on Simeon the high priest).48 7:18 Ms A: bhwa (“friend”); 7:35 Ms A: bhat (“you will be loved”). 13:1 Ms A: [gwn (“one who touches”); 13:23 Ms A: w[ygy (“they make … reach”). 14:20 Ms A: hmkxb (“on wisdom”); 15:10 Ms A: ~kx (“a wise person”). 37:27 Mss BD: $vpn (“your soul/self”); 38:23 Mss BD: wXpn (“his soul/life”). 42:15a Ms B and Mas: la yX[m (“the works of God”); 43:32b Ms B: wyX[mm (“of his works”). 44:1 Ms B: hllha (“I will praise”); 44:15 Ms B and Mas: ~tlhtw (“and their praise”). 49:1 Ms B: ~X (“name”); 49:16 Ms B: ~X (“Shem”). 50:1 Ms B: wymybw (“and in his days”); 50:24 Ms B: ymyk (“like the days”).

We have already mentioned the final alphabetic acrostic describing Ben Sira’s search for wisdom (51:13-30), in imitation of the alphabetic acrostic on the “capable wife” that concludes the Book of Proverbs (31:10-31).49 Apart from Sir 51:13-30, elsewhere the sage often uses non-alphabetic acrostics of either twenty-two or twenty-three lines. The commentary of Patrick Skehan and Alexander Di Lella provides a listing: “1:11-30 (the opening poem of the book); 5:1–6:4; 6:18-37 (the opening poem of Part III); 12:1-18; 13:24–14:19 (the closing poem of Part III); 21:1-21; 29:1-20; 29:21–30:13; 38:24-34; 49:116”. In addition, the twenty-two lines in Lady Wisdom’s speech in Sir 24:317.19-22 (omitting 24:18 as a later gloss) match the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Besides these eleven non-alphabetic acrostics, we may suggest three more: 28:8-26 (23 bicola on the harm caused by a quarrelsome 47

48

49

On Ben Sira’s use of the devices of inclusio, acrostic, and rhyme, see SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 63-74. On these stylistic features in the Hebrew Bible see WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 282-287 (inclusio); 199 (non-alphabetic acrostics); 229-234 (rhyme). Other examples of poems united by inclusio include Sir 1:1-10; 1:11-30; 6:18-37; 10:19–11:6; 27:16-21; 29:14-20; 32:14–33:18; 36:1-22; cf. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 73-74. Outside Ben Sira, inclusio occurs in biblical texts such as many Psalms (see Psalms 8; 21; 103; 104; 139; 150). On alphabetic acrostics in the Hebrew Bible see SOLL, Psalm 119, 5-34; WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 190-200. Biblical examples of non-alphabetic acrostics include Lam 5:122 (22 bicola); Ps 33 (22 bicola); Prov 2:1-22 (22 bicola); 7:6-27 (23 bicola). A list of nonalphabetic acrostics in Ben Sira appears in SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 74, from where the following quotation comes.

38

Jeremy Corley

tongue); 36:26–37:11 (23 bicola on discernment in choosing associates); 40:18–41:4 (23 bicola on life and death). Ben Sira’s text also has at least four double non-alphabetic acrostics: 22:27–23:27 (44 bicola on control of the tongue and of the passions); 25:13–26:27 (46 bicola on good and bad wives); 41:5–42:14 (45 bicola on shameful persons and actions); 42:15–43:26 (45 bicola on God’s glory in creation). The presence of a non-alphabetic acrostic, however, is not always conclusive in delimiting a pericope. On occasions, such an acrostic may highlight part of a wider pericope (e.g., 24:3-17.19-22 within 24:1-34; or 36:26–37:11 within 36:23–37:15; or 38:24-34 within 38:24–39:12). At other times, a non-alphabetic acrostic may serve to unite several smaller units (e.g., 5:1-8; 5:9–6:1; 6:2-4 within 5:1–6:4; or 29:1-7.8-13.14-20 within 29:1-20; or the units in 49:1-16). Opening and closing rhyme can also serve to delimit a passage. Here are four examples, taken from the pericopes previously mentioned in connection with inclusio (7:18-36; 13:1-23; 14:20–15:10; 37:27–38:23): 7:18a Ms A: ryxmb (“for a price”) // 7:18b Ms A: rypwa (“Ophir”); 7:35a G = bawk (“sick”)50 // 7:35b Ms A: bhat (“you will be loved”). 13:1a Ms A: wdy (“his hand”) // 13:1b Ms A: wkrd (“his way”); 13:23c Ms A: wrmay (“they will say”) // 13:23d Ms A: whwpdhy (“they will push him down”). 14:20a Ms A: hghy (“he will meditate”) // 14:20b Ms A: h[Xy (“he will gaze”); 15:10a Ms A: hlht (“praise”) // 15:10b Ms A: hndmly (“he will teach it”). 37:27a Mss BD: $Xpn (“your soul/self”) // 37:27b Mss BD: hl (“to it”); 38:23a Ms B: wrkz (“his memory”) // 38:23b Ms B wXpn (“his soul/life”).

Indications of the opening of a passage can be given in various other ways. First, there may be an initial call to attention, often with a command to “hear” (e.g., 23:7; 31:22; 33:19; 39:13; 41:16 Ms B and Mas [= 41:14 Gr]). Second, the author may use the address “my child” or “children” (though this may also occur within the body of a poem). We can consider the example of 37:27–38:23, a poem of four subunits dealing respectively with health (37:27-31), medicine (38:1-8), sickness (38:9-15), and death (38:16-23); in this poem, each of the four subunits except the second begins with the term “my child” (ynb) in the geniza manuscript. Third, there may be an illustrative observation from the natural world: see 3:25 (opening 3:25-29); 3:30 (beginning 3:30–4:10); 5:9 (opening 5:9–6:1); 9:10 (beginning 9:10-16); 13:1 (opening 13:123); 22:19 (beginning 22:19-26). Fourth, Ben Sira may employ a numerical proverb to begin a unit: compare 23:16 (opening 23:16-27); 25:1-2 (beginning 25:1-6); 26:28 (opening 26:28–27:7). And fifth, in the Praise of the Ances50

On this reading (a retroversion from Gr) see CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 220.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

39

tors there may be a play on the Hebrew name of the character: 44:19 (Abraham); 44:23g (Moses); 46:1 (Joshua); 46:13 (Samuel); 47:13 (Solomon); 47:23 (Rehoboam); 48:17 (Hezekiah).51 In addition, several common themes often serve to mark the opening of a poem or a section of a poem, though some of them can be used at other points in the poetry. One theme is the “fear of God”: 1:11 (opening 1:11-30); 10:19b Gr (beginning 10:19–11:6); 19:20 (opening 19:20–20:31); 21:11 (beginning 21:11-21). Another theme is the “beginning”: 29:21 (opening 29:21-28); 37:16 (opening 37:16-26). The conclusion of a passage can often be marked by means of a biblical allusion. Here are several examples: Sir 2:18 (ending 2:1-18) echoing 2 Sam 24:14; Sir 5:8 (concluding 5:1-8) echoing Prov 11:4; Sir 6:17 (ending 6:517) echoing 1 Sam 25:25; Sir 7:17 (concluding 7:1-17) echoing Job 25:6; Sir 10:18 (ending 9:17–10:18) echoing Job 14:1; Sir 13:23 (concluding 13:1-23) echoing Job 20:6; Sir 14:19 (ending 13:24–14:19) echoing Job 21:33; Sir 19:17 (concluding 19:4-17) echoing Lev 19:17; Sir 30:13 (ending 30:1-13) echoing 1 Kgs 12:14; Sir 40:16 (concluding 40:1-17) echoing Job 8:12; Sir 40:27 (ending 40:18-27) echoing Isa 4:6. In addition, refrains can frequently serve to indicate the conclusion of a passage (as in Psalms 46 and 67). Instances of refrains include the following: 6:4a Ms A = 19:3b Ms C (ending 5:1–6:4 and 18:30–19:3); 20:30-31 Gr = 41:14-15 G (concluding 19:20–20:31 and 41:5-15); 24:34 Gr = 33:18 Gr (ending 24:1-34 and 32:14–33:18); 31:11b Ms B = 39:10b Gr = 44:15b Ms B and Mas (concluding 30:14–31:11 and 38:24–39:12 and 44:1-15). A further refrain found in the Syriac seems authentic: 2:18d S = 6:17b S.52 There are also several themes that frequently mark the closing of a literary unit. One of Ben Sira’s favorite concluding themes is the fear of God: 1:30 (ending 1:11-30); 6:16 (concluding 6:5-17); 6:37 Ms A (ending 6:18-37); 9:16 (ending 9:10-16); 23:27 (ending 22:27–23:27); 25:6 (ending 25:1-6); 25:1011 (concluding 25:7-11); 32:12 Ms B (ending 31:12–32:13); 40:26-27 (ending 40:18-27); 50:29 (concluding 50:25-29). A second favorite concluding theme is the term “Law” or “commandments”: 6:37 (ending 6:18-37); 9:15 Gr (concluding 9:10-16); 19:17 Gr (ending 19:4-17); 23:27 (ending 22:27–23:27). Another frequent concluding theme (compare Ps 111:10; Prov 31:31) is “praise”: 15:9-10 (concluding 14:20–15:10); 31:11 Ms B (ending 30:14–31:11); 39:9-10 (concluding 38:24–39:12); 39:35 (ending 39:13-35); 44:14-15 (concluding 44:115). Furthermore, a phrase that sometimes appears at the end of a passage 51 52

On these wordplays in Sirach 44-50 see SMEND, Die Weisheit, xlii. Compare the refrain in Isa 9:11.16.20 and 10:4; or Cant 2:7; 3:5; 5:8. On refrains in biblical Hebrew verse see WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 295-299. On Ben Sira’s use of refrains see SMEND, Die Weisheit, xliii note 1. Occasionally a refrain will not mark an ending (e.g., Sir 5:6c Mss AC= Sir 16:11c Ms A).

40

Jeremy Corley

is “all the living”: 42:1d (ending 41:16–42:1d); 42:8 (concluding 42:1e-8); 44:23 (ending 44:17-23); 49:16 (concluding 49:1-16). Lastly, words associated with finality or death often fittingly close Ben Sira’s poems. Sometimes the term “end” appears: 7:36 (concluding 7:18-36); 11:27-28 (ending 11:7-28); 21:10 (concluding 21:1-10); 34:8 (ending 34:1-8); 43:27 (introducing 43:27-33 which concludes 42:15–43:33).53 More commonly, there is a mention of death (or the grave or worms): 7:17 (ending 7:1-17); 7:36 (concluding 7:18-36); 9:9 (ending 9:1-9); 11:28 (concluding 11:7-28); 14:19 (ending 13:24–14:19); 19:3 (concluding 18:30–19:3); 28:7 (ending 27:22–28:7); 39:11 (concluding 38:24–39:12); 44:14 (ending 44:1-15).54 When taken individually, the above-mentioned indications of delimitation may be more or less probative. However, in combination the cumulative force of these features is weighty. Several pericopes are clearly delimited by a combination of the above-mentioned stylistic features. For instance, Ben Sira employs inclusio together with a non-alphabetic acrostic to delimit several poems (1:11-30; 29:1-20; 29:21–30:13; 49:1-16). Perhaps the most clearly delimited passage is the sapiential poem in 6:18-37, which can serve to illustrate five of these points (non-alphabetic acrostic, inclusio, opening and closing rhyme, opening motif, favorite closing theme). The poem is a non-alphabetic acrostic of twenty-two lines. The composition is marked off by an inclusio: the noun hmkx (“wisdom”) is the last word of 6:18 Ms C, while the verb $mkxy (“he will make you wise”) is the last word of 6:37 Ms A. Moreover, there is significant opening rhyme: hmkx (“wisdom”) in 6:18b; hyla (“to her”) in 6:19a; htawbt (“her produce”) in 6:19b; hyrp (“her fruit”) in 6:20b. There is also closing rhyme: $bl (“your heart”) in 6:37c and $mkxy (“he will make you wise”) in 6:37d. Furthermore, the poem opens with the standard sapiential address “[my] child” (6:18 Gr), which can often (though not always) indicate the beginning of a new poem. Finally, the poem ends with two favorite closing motifs, the Law (6:37 Hb, Gr, S) and the fear of God (6:37 Hb, S; not in Gr).

53

54

In the declaration: “The end of the matter: he is the all” (Sir 43:27), Ben Sira may perhaps be reworking a saying in the epilogue to Qoheleth: “The finish of the matter: everything is heard. Fear God and keep his commands” (Qoh 12:13). Other biblical authors end pericopes with mention of death (or similar terms); see Prov 5:23; 7:27; 8:36; 9:18; Isa 22:13; Ps 137:9 (cf. Ps 55:24; Job 7:21; 8:22; 32:22). On closure in biblical poetry see WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 65.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

41

5. A plausible reconstruction of redactional stages In our earlier discussion of Ben Sira’s self-references, we noted Roth’s hypothesis concerning redactional stages in the book.55 According to Roth, the first edition of the book consisted of 1:1–23:27 and 51:1-30. Thereafter, three new editions cumulatively added supplements (24:1–32:13; 32:14–38:23; and 38:24–50:29). In each case, the supplement began with a wisdom poem (24:1-29; 32:14–33:15; 38:24–39:11) followed by an autobiographical note (24:30-34; 33:16-18; 39:12). In general, this theory offers a good understanding of the material. With two major changes, let us see if this proposal can be developed to make sense of the structure of the book. The first major change, following Segal,56 is to divide the last section into two supplements: 38:24–43:33 and 44:1–50:29 (but unlike Segal, to separate 50:25-29 as two postscripts). The second major change is to see the thanksgiving hymn in Sir 51:1-12, not as part of the first edition, but as a supplement to 38:23. This investigation will note literary indications to support the view that each new section represents a further redactional stage within Ben Sira’s book. Admittedly, this hypothesis of redactional stages does not explain everything about the structure, but is offered tentatively as a theory explaining as many aspects as possible. 1. First Edition (Original book = 1:1–23:27 and 51:13-30): 1:1-10, Sapiential prologue to whole book (somewhat like Prov 1); 1:11-30, Twenty-two-line poem on fear of God (like Prov 2); 2:1–23:27, Body of original book; 51:13-30, Alphabetic poem on Lady Wisdom (like Prov 31:10-31).

Note the inclusio for 1:11–23:27, with the phrase fo,boj kuri,ou (“fear of the Lord”) in 1:11 matching the similar phrase fo,bou kuri,ou (“than fear of the Lord”) in 23:27. If the original book ended with Sir 22:27–23:27 (control of tongue and of passions) before 51:13-30 (acrostic on Lady Wisdom), there is some similarity with Proverbs 30-31, namely: Prov 30:5-6 (words); 30:18-20 (adultery); 31:2-3 (adultery); 31:8-9 (words); 31:10-31 (acrostic on capable woman). Because Proverbs 30-31 lacks anything corresponding to the thanksgiving in Sir 51:1-12, it is better to see the thanksgiving as having been inserted for the third edition (see below).

55 56

ROTH, On the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom, 60. SEGAL, Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, introduction, 16.

42

Jeremy Corley

2. Second Edition (1:1–32:13 and 51:13-30), including a supplement on “Applying Wisdom to Household Life” (24:1–32:13): 24:1-29, Sapiential prologue; 24:30-34, Autobiographical note; 25:1–32:13, Body of first supplement.57

An inclusio for 25:1–32:13 is provided by the Semitic root ~lX (“be complete/be at peace”), since the term !ymlX (“at peace”) in 25:1 S (where the Hebrew text is lost) matches the verb ~lXw (“and fulfil”) in 32:12 Mss BF. 3. Third Edition (1:1–38:23 and 51:1-30), including a new supplement on “Using Wisdom to Make Good Decisions” (32:14–38:23) plus a thanksgiving psalm (51:1-12): 32:14–33:15, Sapiential prologue; 33:16-18, Autobiographical note; 33:19–38:23, Body of second supplement;58 51:1-12, Psalm of deliverance (like 2 Sam 22 near end of book of Samuel).

There is a semantic inclusio for 33:19–38:23, whereby the injunction in 33:2021 not to give power to other living persons before one’s death (33:21, “living”) is balanced in 38:20-23 by the recommendation of moderate mourning by the living after another person’s death (38:23, “dead”).59 There are several reasons for suggesting that the hymn in 51:1-12 may have been added at this stage. First, it relates to the saying of 34:13: “I have often been in danger of death, but have escaped because of these experiences” (NRSV). Second, the thanksgiving for deliverance from death in 51:112 could smoothly follow the treatment of death in 38:16-23. Third, because Proverbs 30–31 has nothing corresponding to this hymn, it does not match the concluding parts (22:27–23:27 and 51:13-30) of the first edition according to the pattern presented above. 4. Fourth Edition (1:1–43:33 and 51:1-30), including an extra supplement on “Demonstrating the Results of Wisdom” (38:24–43:33): 38:24–39:11, Sapiential prologue; 39:12, Autobiographical note; 39:13–43:33, Body of third supplement.60 57 58 59 60

Note the opening feature of numerical proverbs (25:1-2), and the closing motif of praise of God (32:13). Observe the opening motif of the call to attention (33:19), as well as the closing motif of death (38:23). There is also a verbal inclusio: 33:21 Ms E has $dw[ (“you still”), while 38:20 Ms B has dw[ (“still”). Note the opening call to bless God (39:14c-15), as well as the closing motif of praise of God (43:27-33).

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

43

We can suspect an inclusio of four Hebrew words for 39:13–43:33: 39:14cd Segal: wyf[m lk l[ yyy … wnt 39:14cd Gr: dia,dote … ku,rion evpi. pa/sin toi/j e;rgoij (“Give … the Lord for all that he made”); 43:33 Segal: !tn … yyy hf[ lkh ta 43:33 Gr: pa,nta … evpoi,hsen ov ku,rioj , … e;dwken (“The Lord made everything, … he gave …”).61

Note that 42:15–43:33 consists of a double non-alphabetic acrostic of 45 bicola (42:15–43:26) followed by a sapiential doxology of 8 bicola (43:27-33). The longer section (42:15–43:26) is unified by inclusiones of the Hebrew root l[p, “do,” and the noun !wcr, “will”: 42:15 Mas: wncr l[pw (“and the doer/doing of his will”); 43:26 Ms B: !wcr l[py (“it does [his] will”).

The conclusion (43:27-33) is unified by the word lkh (“everything”) in 43:27 Ms B and 43:33 Ms B, while its length of 8 bicola matches the length of the book’s opening poem (1:1-10), which also mentions “all” in its opening and closing lines (1:1 and 1:10). Furthermore, the ending “he has given wisdom to the devout” (43:33b Gr) loosely echoes the ending of the book’s first poem, “he has lavished it [= wisdom] on those who love him” (1:10b Gr). A few references in the latter part of the book suggest that the author had had to face up to his own mortality, since 40:1–41:13 deals respectively with life’s miseries (40:1-17), death (41:1-4), and a concern for honorable descendants (41:5-13). Earlier passages also had suggested that Ben Sira was ageing: the trials of ill health (30:14-17); keeping possessions till one’s deathbed before distributing them (33:20-24); dealing with sickness (37:27–38:15); mourning the dead (38:16-23). 5. Fifth Edition (1:1–51:30), including the last supplement on “Wisdom in History” (44:1–50:24), plus a further numerical proverb (50:25-26) and the author’s signature (50:27-29): 44:1-15, Sapiential prologue; [This preamble to the Praise of the Ancestors replaces the autobiographical note;] 44:17–50:24, Body of fourth supplement; 50:25-29: Numerical proverb and author’s signature.

There is an inclusio for 44:17–50:24, with the word wtyrbbw (“and by his covenant”) in 44:17 Ms B matching tyrb (“covenant”) in 50:24 Ms B.

61

See SEGAL, Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, 260 and 290.

44

Jeremy Corley

The Praise of the Ancestors (44:1–50:24) is the most highly structured portion of Ben Sira’s book.62 Five aspects of the structuring deserve attention here. First, 44:1–45:26 and 46:1–50:24 both end with a similar doxology (45:25e-26; 50:22-24), with each doxology being preceded by a lengthy description of priestly activity (45:6-25d; 50:1-21).63 Second, the caesura between 45:26 and 46:1 marks the canonical division between the Torah segment (44:17–45:26) and the Prophets segment (46:1–49:16).64 Third, the Torah section consists of a description of seven persons (from Noah to Phinehas) with whom God made a covenant.65 Fourth, several poems consist of eight or sixteen or thirty-two lines: Moses is allocated 8 bicola (45:1-5), both David and Solomon receive 16 bicola each (47:2-11 and 47:12-22), and Aaron is given 32 bicola (45:6-22). Fifth (as already noted), Ben Sira often introduces his characters with wordplay on their Hebrew names (Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Solomon, Rehoboam, Hezekiah).

6. Conclusion While we cannot solve every problem of the structure of Ben Sira’s book, comparison with other sapiential writings indicates that to some extent Ben Sira followed existing models. The greatest similarity is with the Book of Proverbs, but there are lesser structural resemblances with the Book of Job, the prototype of Papyrus Insinger, the poetry of Theognis, and the pre-Maccabean portions of 1 Enoch. Consideration of opening and closing features has led to some interesting observations. Special structural significance belongs to several key passages. In the book’s opening (Sir 1:1-10), the author sees “all wisdom” as a divine gift available for those who love him (possibly a contrast with the opening of the Epic of Gilgamesh). The three main authorial self-references (24:30-34; 33:16-18; 39:12) attest to Ben Sira’s consciousness of being in the tradition of Israel’s prophets, and offer hints about stages in the book’s development. Ben Sira’s third-person signature in 50:27-29 suggests a deliberate authorial conclusion to his work, prior to the appendices in 50:25–51:30. The final alphabetic acrostic indicates an intentional modeling of Ben Sira’s work on 62 63 64 65

Besides LEE, Studies , see MACK, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic; MARBÖCK, Die ‘Geschichte Israels’, 103-123; GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, Ben Sira’s Praise, 235-267. LEE, Studies, 6 and 12-15. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, Ben Sira’s Praise, 241. MARBÖCK, Die ‘Geschichte Israels’, 109-118. Mention of the covenant with David also appears in 45:25. I disregard the reference to Enoch in Mss of 44:16 as a later gloss, since it is absent from the Masada Ms.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

45

the Book of Proverbs, while the last line (51:30) offers an affirmation of the value of perseverance, in a curious contrast to the sufferer’s lament in the Akkadian acrostic poem known as the Babylonian Theodicy. The widely accepted division of Ben Sira’s book into eight major parts (each begun by a wisdom poem) is supported by the presence of catchwords (mots crochets) linking each part to the preceding material. Such internal poetic evidence suggests that the book has been put together carefully and deliberately. To indicate the delimitation of passages, Ben Sira very frequently employs stylistic devices, particularly inclusio, non-alphabetic acrostics of twenty-two or twenty-three lines, and opening/closing rhyme. Sometimes the beginning of a unit is indicated by features such as a call to attention or use of the address “my child”. The end of a unit may be marked by biblical allusions, refrains, or favorite closing themes (such as the fear of God). Indeed, the sapiential poem in 6:18-37 is delimited by five of these stylistic features (non-alphabetic acrostic, inclusio, opening and closing rhyme, opening address, and favorite closing themes). The three major authorial self-references (24:30-34; 33:16-18; 39:12) appear to offer information about the book’s redactional stages. It is likely that the first edition of the book consisted of 1:1–23:27 and 51:13-30. Thereafter, three new editions cumulatively added supplements, each one beginning with a wisdom poem (24:1-29; 32:14–33:15; 38:24–39:11) and an autobiographical note (24:30-34; 33:16-18; 39:12). Since the Praise of the Ancestors (44:1–50:24) is a self-contained unit of its own, it forms the last supplement for the book’s final edition (the fifth). This tentative reconstruction seems to make most sense of the evidence, but cannot be proven. Proposing redactional stages is largely hypothetical, since apart from the self-references in a few passages, we have little direct evidence of the author’s literary intentions. However, the plausible theory of Roth provides the basis for the proposal here, which is admittedly based mainly on circumstantial evidence. This hypothesis is not intended as the last word on the subject, but as a possible way of seeing a literary progression through Ben Sira’s writing. In conclusion, I note that despite the textual problems, many indications of the author’s careful construction of the book become apparent with patient study. I am sure that more aspects remain to be uncovered by future readers.

46

Jeremy Corley

Bibliography ARGALL, R. A., 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment (SBL.EJL 8), Atlanta 1995. BEYERLIN, W., Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, London 1978. CORLEY, J., Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship (BJSt 316), Providence 2002. CORLEY, J., Wisdom versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1,1-10, in: GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BEThL 168), Leuven 2003, 269-285. DALLEY, S., Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford 1989. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. – TIGCHELAAR, E. J. C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 vols., Leiden 1997-1998. GILBERT, M., L’Éloge de la Sagesse (Siracide 24): RTL 5 (1974), 326-348. GOSHEN-GOTTSTEIN, A., Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers: A Canon-Conscious Reading, in: EGGER-WENZEL, R. (ed.), Ben Sira’s God (BZAW 321), Berlin 2002, 235-267. HARVEY, J. D., Toward a Degree of Order in Ben Sira’s Book: ZAW 105 (1993), 52-62. HASPECKER, J. , Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach (AnBib 30), Rom 1967. ISAAC, E., 1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch, in: CHARLESWORTH, J. H. (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, New York 1983. JÜNGLING, H.-W., Der Bauplan des Buches Jesus Sirach, in: HAINZ, J. ET AL. (eds.), Den Armen eine frohe Botschaft, Frankfurt a.M. 1997, 89-105. LEE, T. R., Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50 (SBL.DS 75), Atlanta1986. LICHTHEIM, M., Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 3, Berkeley 1980. LIESEN, J., Strategical Self-References in Ben Sira, in: CALDUCH-BENAGES, N. – VERMEYLEN, J. (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. FS M. Gilbert (BEThL 143), Leuven 1999, 63-74. MACK, B. L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers, Chicago 1985. MARBÖCK, J., Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch, in: FISCHER, I. (ed.), Gottes Weisheit Unter Uns. Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach (HBS 6) Freiburg i.B. – Basel – Wien 1995, 103-123. MARBÖCK, J., Structure and Redaction History of the Book of Ben Sira: Review and Prospects, in: BEENTJES, P. C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (BZAW 255), Berlin 1997, 61-79. MIDDENDORP, TH., Die Stellung Jesu ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden 1973. MINISSALE, A., La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib 133), Roma 1995. MULDER, O., Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50 (JSJ.S 78), Leiden 2003. PETERS, N., Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25), Münster i. W. 1913. PRATO, G. L., Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini (AnBib 65), Roma 1975. PRITCHARD, J. B., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Princeton 1950. ROTH, W. , On the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach: Semeia 17 (1980), 59-79. SANDERS, J. T., Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (SBL.MS 28), Chico 1983. SAUER, G., Gedanken über den thematischen Aufbau des Buches Ben Sira, in: CALDUCHBENAGES, N. – VERMEYLEN, J. (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom, 51-61.

Searching for structure and redaction in Ben Sira

47

SCHRADER, L., Leiden und Gerechtigkeit: Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches (BET 27), Frankfurt a.M. 1994. SEGAL, M. Z., Se¯per ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, Jerusalem 19723. SKEHAN, P. W., Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24: CBQ 41 (1979), 365-379. SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA,A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. ANew Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. SOLL, W., Psalm 119: Matrix, Form, and Setting (CBQ.MS 23), Washington, DC 1991. SMEND, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin 1906. TOURNAY, R. J., Début de l’épopée de Gilgamesh: nouveau fragment cunéiforme: RB 106 (1999), 5-7. VANDERKAM, J. C., Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQ.MS 16), Washington, DC 1984. WATSON, W. G. E., Classical Hebrew Poetry (JSOT.S 26), Sheffield 19862.

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira GIUSEPPE BELLIA The work of Ben Sira is the only book of Old Testament Scripture of which we possess spatio-temporal coordinates recognised by all as accurate and reliable. To set it against the background of its times, however, it is necessary to take up the lesson of annalistic historiography with much more determination. Sirach is an anomalous wisdom text. It was at one time much loved by the ancient generations of Christians who made it the object of public reading in the Church to the extent of changing its name to Ecclesiasticus, according to the explanation passed down by Cassiodorus. Today, by contrast, it does not meet with much of a consensus among the specialists. So as not to slide into the hermeneutic inertia of an exegetic understanding that is perforce repetitive, we must attempt a multidisciplinary reading, making use of new approaches. The problem of historical reconstruction in texts like ours, however, is that of not being able to distinguish satisfactorily, in the weave of the narrative, the literary composition which explains the facts from the truth of what happened. This risks confusing the interpretative witness of the memory passed on with the historical fact narrated and this with the real event.1 According to the now valued and revealing paradigm of reading history proposed by Paul Ricoeur, in order to obtain this separation between the explanatory level of writing history, which should be based on documents and objective, and the interpretative level of historiography, which remains in the sphere of literature, it is necessary to try new ways.2 In order to grasp the historico-social identity which the author shares with his addressees behind the tapestry of the text, we need to make the historicalcritical method work alongside the diachronic contribution offered by the material culture and, above all with the various human disciplines (psychology, sociology, economics, history of thought) which more than others allow us to investigate the cultural universe underlying the work of the author and implicitly shared with his addressees.

1

2

A useful indication with which to recognise the realistic significance of the historical narrative and to distinguish pseudo-explanations from non-ideological arguments, is to be found in HEMPEL, The Function, 241. From the vast production of RICOEUR, one could look at Il conflitto delle interpretazioni; Dell’interpretazione. Saggio su Freud; Tempo e racconto, La configurazione nel racconto di finzione, Il tempo raccontato; and, further, La memoria, la storia, l’oblio.

50

Giuseppe Bellia

In order to avoid a reduction of the hermeneutic solely to the documentary level, as I have already explained in other essays, it seems more productive to consider a Biblical text in its totality and, therefore, as the bearer of multiple memory, of wide range.3 The historico-anthropological approach shows, above all with regard to ancient texts, a reliable flexibility and an adequate competence in introducing a more realistic understanding of the sense and of the true intention of a sapiential writing which, more than others, together with rather complex textual make-up, presents a narrative clothing which is extremely refractory in reflecting a real historical society. This difficulty is increased by the fact that the sapiential tradition of Israel, different from what happened in classical Greece which had learned to distinguish between historiography and mythology, had not elaborated effective criteria of historical criticism.4 In the face of texts that are enigmatic on the documentary level, it seems to me illuminating yet again to make use of the historiographical criterion which F. Braudel borrowed from the thought of H. Bergson, distinguishing the past as “time” and “duration”.5 “Time” is an abstract concept, malleable and inert, easily tamed by historians, and by exegetes, and is a different thing from “duration” which, with its distance, short, medium, and long articulates temporal happenings, defining them as “events”, “trends”, and “structures”. In fact, these times can be distinguished because they are bound respectively: to the event-based history of political and military life with its tumultuous and spectacular happenings; to the more stable organisational sphere of institutional forms, the economic and cultural systems of society, even if these are not always evident; and, finally, to the material and environmental life of the great cultured civilisations in their almost immobile geo-historical stability.6 The historiographical viewpoint of the annalist school, which is not limited to the simple descriptive observation of facts, values and magnifies the mediatory role of the historian, his creative imagination which reconstructs 3 4

5 6

I am referring to my Historical and Anthropological reading of the Book of Wisdom, 83-91. Already, starting from Herodotus, Greek historiography had gradually elaborated adequate criteria and methods to distinguish the spatium historicum from mythical narration, establishing the requirement to base a documented account on the factual truth of the reality narrated. Cf. CANFORA, La storiografia greca, in particular 26-43 and 61-74. Similar processes of distiniguishing have been encountered in the historical literature of the Hittites and of the Old Testament. Cf. CANCIK, Mythische und historische Wahrheit Interpretationen. The “Summa” of this way of understanding history is Civiltà e imperi del Mediterraneo. For Braudel’s vision of history see the critical renewal of it by VOVELLE, Storia e lunga durata, 49-80; it is always useful to consult BRAUDEL (ed.), Problemi di metodo storico. For a balance sheet of the latest tendencies of the third generation of the “Annales”, see BURKE, Una rivoluzione storiografica, 70-102, with a bibliography on 139-157.

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

51

the truth of events, joining them up in an universe of sense in which the past shows its profound disposition to interpret a present which is open to the future.7 Without this mediation, which prepares for a holistic and circular understanding of the real, there is no understanding of the past, no understanding of history. Something similar, as we shall see, must have happened to Ben Sira, the scribe, who, perhaps, the first to find himself faced with the mediation of the “book of the Law”: the written work, with its process of becoming literary tends to give a literary unitary organisation to the knowledge of the past, aimed at transforming the addressee, thus objectivising a tradition and bringing it to an end. This is an action which requires from the sage a difficult task of mediation, demanding at the same time a precise assumption of identity.8 In these pages, following a method which has already been tested, the enquiry will be carried out in three stages: first I shall present, in brief, the historico-literary framework of the book, seeking, in the second phase, to arrive at the culture of the text with a sociological and anthropological investigation; finally, with a historico-anthropological reading, I shall try to discover the real context of the work of Ben Sira.9

1. The historico-literary framework of the book It must immediately be remembered that the work of Ben Sira has reached us by way of a varied and complex process of textual transmission, Greek, Latin, Syriac and, finally, Hebrew. The Hebrew text, which is incomplete, has reached us only in the last hundred years or so during which exceptional archaeological discoveries have restored two thirds of it10 by means of three groups of fragments: the manuscripts of the eleventh century recov7

8 9

10

On the primacy of the mediation of the historian in the work of historiographical reconstruction, see VEYNE, Come si scrive la storia; for more ample coverage, I refer also to BELLIA, La “nuova archeologia biblica”, in particular to pp. 231-252 and 369-385. Cf. BLENKINSOPP, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 9-65; always interesting is the collective work edited by GAMMIE – PERDUE, The Sage in Israel; and the study of LEMAIRE, Scribes. The historico-anthropological reading is an attempt to integrate the historical-critical method with the structural approach of the human sciences, enriched with the diachronical contribution of the material culture: cf. BELLIA, Proverbi: una lettura storico-antropologica, 55-90. It is a question of 1098 distichs compared with 1616 in the Greek text. From the Hebrew text we still lack 1:1–3:5 and 16:28–30:10 (of which we possess about thirty isolated verses). It should be noted that, as well as the first chapters, we are lacking Chapter 24, the eulogy to Wisdom, and the pericope 38:27–39:14, where the portrait of the sage is to be found. Cf. GILBERT, Introduction au livre de Ben Sira, 8-9, and, by the same author, L’Ecclésiastique.

52

Giuseppe Bellia

ered in the geniza of the Qaraite synagogue in Cairo,11 the texts of Qumran (before AD 69),12 and the fragments from Masada (before AD 73),13 together with some citations in the works of the Tannaim, Amoraim and other ancient Jewish authorities.14 Putting together the various pieces of information on the transmission of the text, it can be said that there is a huge consensus for holding that Ben Sira wrote in Hebrew in Jerusalem (cf. Sir 50:27) between 200 and 175 BC, probably in several stages (Hb I), but that text has not come down to us because the work which we possess betrays additions (Hb II) which the specialists date to around 80 or 60 BC (A. A. Di Lella) or, more generally, in the first century BC (G. L. Prato). Towards 132 BC in Egypt, the grandson undertook the translation into Greek for the Jews of the Alexandrine diaspora (Gr I) while between AD 150 and 200 must be dated the translation of Gr II, based on Hb II, which must have taken place before the time of Clement of Alexandria who cites the additions to be found in Sir 1:21a.22a; 19:5b and 26:22.15 The literary dimension of Sirach, closely related to Proverbs, emerges sufficiently clearly from the fact that it does not present the reader with isolated aphorisms of one stich but develops thematic compositions in the form of the short didactic poem, the instruction and the pedagogic exhortation.16 The repetitions of some themes in the different sections probably serve to develop some kind of function in the overall scheme, just as the gaps in the discourse where the worshipper turns to his God must enjoy a strategic position, something which does not seem to be matched in the previous wisdom literature.17 Similarly singular is the reference made in Sirach to the 11

12 13 14

15 16 17

There are six manuscripts classified by the letters of the alphabet: A B C D E F. The first two are the most extensive, while the third is an anthological work. The others contain chapters which help the comparison. 2Q18 with Sir 1:19-20; 6:14-15.19-31; 11QPsa with Sir 51:13.20b.30b. Sir 39:27-32; 40:10-19.26-30; 41:1–44:71. The geniza manuscripts confirm the order of chapters of the Syriac and Latin versions, while the more recent discoveries at Qumran (especially Sir 6:20 -31) and Masada, beyond confirming the authenticity of the Cairo manuscripts also support the antiquity of their presentation in verses of two stichs per line, according to the writing of the manuscripts B and E. One must refer the ancient Syriac translation of the Peshitta to the Hebrew text. As far as the effective utilisation of the work is concerned, however, the Greek translation holds first place and it comes to us in two different recensions: the short recension of the great uncial codices (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus = Gr I); and the long one of miniscule manuscript 248 (= Gr II). With this latter is connected the translation of the Vetus latina, probably carried out in North Africa by Christians in the second half of the second century and later received without change into the Vulgate. The Vetus latina refers to this second edition, even if it presents its own additions. Finally the Vulgate contains passages which could be of Christian redaction. For the didactic poem, cf. 10:6-18; 22:19-26; 27:22-29. For the instruction, cf. 10:26–11:9; 12: 1-7; 13:8-13; 31:12-24 Prayer is found in direct form (in 23:1-6; 36:1-17; 51:1-12), or indirect (39:12-35; 43:27-33; 50:22-24).

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

53

religious history of Israel, especially in that dense treatise (44-50) which presents a fresco focused on the history of salvation. Ben Sira does not demonstrate any outstanding creative originality and does not come across as a sophisticated master of style, and yet he shows himself capable of employing different literary forms with ease, not to say mastery. A careful and enterprising assimilator of the Scriptures, but also a reader not prejudiced by the turmoil brought by Greek culture and by Hellenism itself, he draws on a variety of literary genres from his own religious and cultural heritage. In particular, from the sapiential literature, he is aware of and utilises: short poems and hymns of praise (1:1-10; 18:1-14; 39:12-35; 42:15–43:33), a psalm of thanksgiving (51:1-12), prayers of petition (22:17–23:6; 36:1.22), numerical proverbs (23:16-18; 25:7-11; 26:5-6; 50:25-26), macarisms (26:5-6), autobiographical narratives (24:30-34; 33:16-l8; 39:12; 51:13-15), lists of names and onomastic poems (43:27-28; 43:32-33), didactic narratives (44:11-15) and the extensive didactic poem in Praise of the Ancestors (44:1–50:24). The influence of Hellenistic literary usages can be seen in some formal features of the work such as the headlines of separate sections, the presence of connective transitional formulas from one argument to another.18 The number and variety of literary genres displayed contribute to give Ben Sira’s exposition a certain narratival vivacity and a compositional style that is not short of originality. The content of the book revolves around the central theme of wisdom seen, both in its practical-pedagogic function, which impels it to be concerned with the usual themes of ethical reflection in the sapiential literature, and also in its theoretical and intellectual nature, concerned with philosophical and theological speculation and, therefore, inclined to tackle the great issues of life and history. Not a few scholars have tried to grasp the true structure of the text and of its formation but there is still no agreement in defining the logic of the whole, and there are even some who claim that we are faced with an anthology of texts of different genres which do not follow a coherent pattern and so the work does not display an obviously unitary structure. One group of scholars, taking their cue from the convincing reconstruction by Roth,19 has identified eight sections (thus Skehan and Di Lella), placing the emphasis, above all, on the recurring of the poetic sections devoted to wisdom and on some literary characteristics.20 There are 18 19

20

HENGEL, Giudaismo ed ellenismo, 278. For ROTH, On the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom, the original edition would have comprised 1:1–23:27 + 51:1-30, subdivided in its turn into four sections introduced by a Prologue on wisdom (1:1–2:18; 4:11-19; 6:18-37; 14:20–15:10), and concluded, like Proverbs, with an alphabetic poem (51:13-29). Later, there would have been three further contributions: 24:1–32:13; 32:14–38:23; 38:24–50: 24(29), a scheme shared by NICCACCI, Siracide o Ecclesiastico. Cf. MORLA ASENSIO, Libri sapienziali, 187.

54

Giuseppe Bellia

those who consider significant two large sections, each subdivided into four parts (Peters recognises two symmetrical sections [A, B], structured, in their turn, into five parts), others make out three (Minissale and Bonora), giving a special place to the last: the glory of the works of the Lord in creation and in the history of Israel (42:15–43:33; 44:1–50:29).21 Finally, for yet others, the structuring principle consists of the three basic hymnic sections of 1:1-10 on the divine origin of wisdom, of 24:1-29 on the historical revelation of wisdom in the Law, and of 42:15–43:33 on the praise of God in creation.22 Among more recent attempts at a solution, we should mark the synthetic study of Marböck which helps to organise the work better, pointing out thematic and stylistic unities that are larger and more measured.23 In order to identify the historical and social context closest to our book, I can summarise some commonly agreed observations on the author, date, place, aim and addressees of the work: 1. Ecclesiasticus is the only writing of the Old Testament which is not presented as anonymous or attributed pseudepigraphically to glorious characters from Israel’s past such as David or Solomon. The manuscripts we have, however, show a certain difference with regard to the name of the author. In particular, in 50:27 and in 51:30 (Ms B), we read: «Simon, son of Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sira». In addition, in 51:30, there appears a different ascription: «Simon, son of Jesus, called Ben Sira». In its turn the Syriac colophon indicates him to be «Jesus, son of Simon, called the son of Asira».24 There is now a broad agreement that the name «Simon» should be considered a late and corrupt form; for this reason, the original sequence of the correct name of the author of Ecclesiasticus must have been “Jesus, son of Eleazar, son of Sira”.25 2. For the date of composition, many hold that Ecclesiasticus must have been written shortly before the Maccabean Revolt and base this dating largely on the information provided by two precise passages of the book and by other clues which have undergone critical scrutiny by the historians. In the Prologue, the Greek translator is introduced as the grandson of the author and claims to have reached Egypt in the thirty eighth year of the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes,26 undertaking, after a certain time, the work of trans21 22 23 24 25

26

MINISSALE, Siracide (Ecclesiastico). Cf. MORLA ASENSIO, Libri sapienziali, 186 and note 30. MARBÖCK, Weisheit im Wandel. Asira, «prisoner», is undoubtedly an erroneous reading. As in contemporary cultures, when one “first name” – in our case the patronymic Ben Eleazar – is not sufficient to identify a person, recourse is had to a second, in this case, the patronymic with the name of the grandfather: Ben Sira. The importance of this dating is emphasised by VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XVII-XXVIII.

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

55

lating the book from the Hebrew. Two kings are recorded with the appellation Euergetes (“Benefactor”): Ptolemy III Euergetes I (247-221 BC) and Ptolemy VII Physcon Euergetes II (170-164 and 145-117 BC). Because of the extraordinary length of his reign, it must be a question of Ptolemy VII and, consequently, the arrival of Ben Sira’s grandson in Egypt must be placed around 132 BC. The grandfather would have written in Hebrew in the first decades of the second century and, in any case, before the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes of which there is not a trace in the book. Another indication is the passionate and unrestrained eulogy which Ben Sira composes in honour of the High priest Simon, son of Onias in 50:1-24, as of a personage who, although already dead (50:1), must still enjoy a reputation that is still alive and widespread. Filtering out the information of Flavius Josephus on the two high priests with this name, the older and legendary Simon I, the Just (ca 300 BC), of whom, however, there is no trace in the traditions of the Mishnah and the Talmud, must give way to Simon II who was in office around 200 BC. From these converging pieces of information one can situate the composition of Ecclesiasticus between 195 (the approximate date of the death of Simon II) and 171 BC, the year in which Antiochus Epiphanes deposed Onias III (the last Zadokite high priest) and his brother, Jason, in favour of the Benjaminite, Menelaus. This was such a sacrilegious violation of the priestly law that had the enlightened conservative, Ben Sira, known of it, he could not have passed over it in silence.27 Indirect references and clues to concrete situations are scattered here and there in the book. Above all, they can be discerned in all those polemical passages where the cautious Ben Sira, for all his shrewd and careful language, seems to set himself against a part of the Jerusalem aristocracy, tepid in their observance of the Law and oppressive with regard to the poor (36:9; 41:8-9), or against the intrigues of the sons of Simon (45:26), or, finally, against the inept rule of Onias III (7:47).28 But this is a question of reconstructions which are purely hypothetical and which, therefore, await more detailed proof and confirmation. 3. As for the place of composition, there has never been any serious dispute regarding the traditional attribution of Jerusalem to the author and his book. The different clues that have been gathered about Ben Sira concern his deep roots in the theological traditions of Israel: in the prophetic ones of which he feels himself to be, variously, the sharer (24:33), careful collector (33:1617) and continuer (39:6 Gr; 48:12), but also in the Deuteronomistic heritage 27

28

On the historical context of the work of Ben Sira beside the works dated by SMEND, Die Weisheit, XIV-XXVIII, see HENGEL, Giudaismo ed ellenismo, 276-278; MARBÖCK, Weisheit im Wandel, 9-12; SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 8-16; STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 4-26. HENGEL, Giudaismo ed ellenismo, 280-282 and 310-312.

56

Giuseppe Bellia

towards which he allows a profound bond to shine through his work. Naturally, he is, in his own way, an original spokesman for the older sapiential traditions, but his deeply felt reverence for the great traditions of the Temple together with the emerging Gentile culture and the pleasure in cosmopolitan sensibility, reveal an acceptable Hellenistic influence with a Ptolemaic imprint. All these details combine to confirm a judgement in favour of a cultivated, urban environment for both the work and the author who, it is speculated, is a personage who, if not necessarily a priest, shows himself quite close to the restricted priestly circle of the Temple of Jerusalem, the city to which he expressly declares himself to belong (50:27). 4. The addressees and the aim of the work, as well of the author as of the translator, are identified by the specialists from the indications explicitly formulated in the Prologue with its clear statement of reasons: the grandfather “was led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom in order that, by becoming conversant with this also, those who love learning should make even greater progress in living according to the law” (Sir prol. 12-14). The grandson too for his part puts down an analogous noble intention that is ethical and didactic: “When I found a copy affording no little instruction, it seemed highly necessary that I […] publish the book for those living abroad who wished to gain learning, being prepared in character to live according to the law” (Sir prol. 29-30; 34-36). Concerning the real addressees, however, it must be remembered that the grandfather must have had the aim of instructing the young of the well-to-do class (51:23), but must also have been inspired by a polemical purpose directed at the powerful groups influential in Jerusalem, attracted by deceptive speculations (3:21-24), tempted by superficiality, and with little zeal in the observance of the Law (42:1c-2); or even with renegades and apostates who had abandoned the faith of their fathers (41:8-9). The grandson must have had analogous motives, even if not quite so spectacular, with his translation, as he lets us glimpse from the linguistic adaptation which he makes to the passages just cited, even if concerning his real addressees some differences deserve to be taken into more close consideration.

2. The sociological examination of the text The quarrel of the wisdom texts with history is an old and fundamental question. In all of these books the memory of the past is missing or seems to be viewed from an a-temporal perspective where the theological density always end up by having the upper hand over the requirements of a realistic contextualisation and, therefore, of ancient historiography itself. The

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

57

wise scribe of Israel seems to have a predilection for a dehistoricised form of Scripture and finds himself at home in employing a gnomic language, deliberately detached from particular events and almost alien to any factual connection with persons or events in time. He prefers, in short, a system of reference that is culturally layered and markedly a-temporal which allows values of a universal type to emerge. For this reason, it is not surprising if, in the face of a sociological examination, for our wisdom text too, the particular cultural background of the author is presented in general terms, short of useful details and difficult to identify in its spatio-temporal coordinates since it is not concerned to explain or make understood how much of real historical content is conveyed by its language. This is a state of affairs even more blatant for a work like ours because Sirach, as has been said, not only is the only Biblical author who breaks with the tradition of a whole chain of anonymous or pseudepigraphic Scripture by openly declaring his identity (50:27), or his sympathies for the ancient priestly class (Sir 50),29 but also is the only one who sketches a portrait of the characteristics of the principal characters who, in his opinion, are the heroes of the history of salvation of ancient Israel (44-50).30 Theses are undoubtedly bold and innovative features which represent the changed religious and cultural climate of Jerusalem but which, at the same time, signal a significant discontinuity with the previous theological traditions (3:18-24) though we should not see already in Ben Sira the pernicious influence of Hellenism – something which still awaits better investigation and clarification from within the sapiential tradition itself.31 The text transmits to us a striking picture of the author and of his spiritual progress but does not give us a reciprocally vivid description of the society in which he lived. The sociological reading has to strain to make out the presence and the role of the traditional religious specialists (king, priest, prophet and sage), the leading figures of the social life of the time in an ancient text of wisdom provenance. These socio-religious specialists are all present, in different measure, in our text, but they do not appear as figures equally representative of a real historical dialectic, showing themselves rather as functional elements of the narrative strategy of the author. In fact, in this book, there is no evident trace of that necessary dramatic relationship which is objectively established between public and institutional figures; an ambiguous and flexible relationship which can assume the traits of collaboration or subjection, working cooperation or polemical confronta29 30

31

See in particular OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood. In this encomium or epic poem, the deliberate omission of illustrious persons must also have significance; in this regard, see the explanation of LEE, Studies, 56, on the hymn interpreted as a constitutive document of Second Temple Judaism. So MURPHY, L’albero della vita, 106.

58

Giuseppe Bellia

tion, to the point where we reach those concurrent initiatives which can easily degenerate into forms of conflict.32 The book does not give useful indications concerning the role of king or prophet for us to uncover sure fragments of history or reconstruct the concrete functioning of these institutional figures. In particular, in the Praise of the Ancestors, which more than a record of illustrious men is a history of the covenant and of the mediators concerned,33 although there is a safeguarding the Davidic Covenant (47:11), there is a suggestive criticism of the downward, and now in political terms finished, spiral of the royal dynasty in Israel. From the loaded emphasis on the high position of David, the blessed of God, to the retreat of Solomon, wise to no purpose, into the shadows, from the cowardly and stupid Rehoboam to the treacherous and idolatrous Jeroboam, the royal mediation seems to be consigned to the realms of discreditable memory. It is not without importance, therefore, that Sirach ascribes the title of king to God (51:2), wishing in this way to demonstrate the supreme and absolute divine governance of the world (10:4.8). In fact, the power of the king, is willed by God (46:13) who dispenses it and transmits it to whom he wills (45:25) or sets it aside and divides it at his pleasure (47:21). It is always in God’s power, therefore, to bring down the king (48:6) or raise him up (48:8), to cause powerful tyrants to fall or to raise nobodies to the throne (11:5). Moreover, the Lord has the ability to make the king die (10:10) or to prolong his life (48:3), even giving to whoever is faithful to his covenant a stable and secure dynasty (47:11). However, our author also knows the violent and arbitrary aspect of royal power, often exercised in history by inept and wicked men (49:3), with venal rapacity (8:2) and does not have any doubts about the scant reliability of the monarchical institution when it is in the hands of a king who is dissolute, or, better, inept because «without discipline» (10:3). The author’s distancing himself from the abuse of power, according to his terse and cautious, though firm and resolute, style, is formulated in a cautious and respectful way: “do not oppose those who rule”, and “do not strive with a great man” is his motto – it would be as useless and as dangerous as to go against the current in a river that is full (4:26-27 and 8:1). The only positive note on royalty, so it is said, occurs in the reference to the royal covenant of the son of Jesse (45:25 and 47:11.22), a covenant which is reaffirmed but which seems to remain in the shadow compared with the priestly covenant of Aaron (45: 7.15.25b). Is the Praise of the Ancestors, with its messianic allusions with regard to both the priesthood and to royalty, already preparing the ground 32

33

By contrast, GRABBE, Sacerdoti, profeti, indovini, 212: claims that Sirach tells us “much […] about the society in which he lived”, even if he does not then go on to refer to any of these social and cultural characteristics! MARBÖCK, Die “Geschichte Israels” als “Bundesgeschichte”.

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

59

perhaps for that double expectation of the royal and priestly Messiah peculiar to the theological vision of the Essenes? A similar situation of something faded by time is evident in the paucity of prophetic terminology used throughout the chapters cataloguing the famous ancestors (46-50), giving us to understand that prophetism, though valued by the author with a lively and sympathetic appreciation (24:33; 33: 16-17), is considered with regret as solely a religious phenomenon of the past, now replaced by the sapiential function (39:6 Gr; 48:12).34 Sirach’s admiration is directed rather towards figures venerated by the tradition for their strong personality, like Samuel (46:13.15), or like the prophetic figures of the fiery and terrible Elijah (48:1.8), the unyielding and proud Elisha (48: 12-16) or the great visionary Isaiah (48:22). Finally, only a sober direct mention is reserved for the attractive, if awkward, figure of Jeremiah and his role of judging the destinies of Israel (49:7), while there is not missing a reverent mention of the twelve minor prophets (49:10).35 Interesting from the sociological point of view is the Deuteronomistic concept which associates under the name of prophet all those who perform a work of mediation for the salvation of the people, even if they are public characters like the kings Hezekiah and Josiah. Again, the sociological reading of the book observes the thematic coincidence and the temporal correspondence between the threefold division of the sacred Hebrew books mentioned in the Prologue and the place assigned to prophetism in the celebratory and rationalising recapitulation of our author. In this he seems to reflect the rethinking of the role of prophecy which had taken place in the sapiential school and which had already prepared its own theory to explain the decrease in the ancient role of the prophets and the development of the prophetic function at the time of Ben Sira: the mediation of these respected religious functionaries could now be successfully realised by other and more adequate mediators such as the priests, the scribes, and, naturally, the wise (33:16-17). Sociological observation also helps us to set in its proper light the exceptional work of religious and political mediation performed by the sacerdotal function, based on the majestic liturgy of the Temple and centred on the socio-economic system of blood sacrifices. This delivers us moreover a more nuanced knowledge of the culture of the author which, focusing primarily on scribal wisdom, makes the claim that he belonged to the priestly families very problematic.36 The description – a little over the top – of the mag-

34 35 36

GILBERT, Spirito, Sapienza e Legge, identifies that which Ben Sira preaches about wisdom with what Joel says of the Spirit. Possible references to Jeremiah in Sir 33:16 (Jer 1:11-12) and in Sir 50:27-29 (Jer 51:64). We cannot share the thesis of STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 40-176, who makes of Ben Sira a spokesman for the priestly class; he was probably not even a representative of the aristocratic class of Jerusalem, but a talented scribe who had succeeded in climb-

60

Giuseppe Bellia

nificent figure of Simon, the High Priest, sung in the splendour of the cultic framework of the great and moving celebrations of the Temple in Jerusalem (50:1-21), and the same emphasis on the covenants with Aaron and Phineas (45:7.11.25b) should not deceive us. To the theological valuation of the sacerdotal function, there is no corresponding language in the compositional fabric with regard to the common cultural tradition which would be useful in recognising something of the organisation of Jewish society in that period.37 A hint at a probable administrative function in the Temple is encountered in 45:24; while in 50:1-4, we find a reference to the political role exercised by the High Priest, Simon, under the Ptolemies.38 On the whole, Ben Sira addresses the descendants of Aaron with deference and respect (7:29-31), but uses the technical terms for the various offerings in a vague manner, thus showing his scant attendance, his lack of familiarity, certainly his minimal competence in a matter so characteristic of the specific mediation of the priests which he so exalts.39 Otherwise, apart from the passages just cited which witness to the Jerusalem environment of our author, there is no indication in the text of any other duty proper to the sacerdotal function which he celebrates, in its liturgical function, with an admiring, even ecstatic eye; the priestly role is exalted above all with reference to the august figure of Aaron (45:6-22), the zealous action of Phineas (45:2324) and the contemplation of the cultic ministry of Simon (50:1-21), but is this enough on which to detect a messianic vein in the theology of Sirach?40 The amount of literary space allocated to them should not make us forget that these priestly figures occupy the second and third places in the catalogue of glory and are placed after Moses, the “chosen out of all mankind” for teaching the Law (45:6). The conclusion of the pericope which warns all the descendants of Aaron from separating themselves from the example of the fathers (45:26), according to the opinion of many, seems to allude precisely to the coming dissolution of the family of the Oniads in the time immediately preceding the Maccabean Revolt. In short, even if the priests

37

38 39 40

ing the social ladder, as can be read in 33:16f, according to the interpretation also of ALBERTZ, Storia della religione nell’Israele antico, 644, note 3. There is no reference to the administrative institutions typical of the Ptolemaic period; no hint of the council of elders (gerousi,a) or to the priestly college (to. koino,n tw/n i`erw/n), formed from representatives of the priests, the levites, and the Temple personnel, organised for twba tyb (cf. Neh 2:16; 3:1; 12:1-7; 13:4.28; Ezra 2:36ff.61f.): cf. HENGEL, Giudaismo ed ellenismo, 70-74; ALBERTZ, Storia della religione nell’Israele antico, 513-514 and 639641. Whether or not the High Priest was the competent authority also in financial matters remains controversial: cf. Sir 5:1-4; JOSEPHUS, Ant. 12,158. Cf. DUESBERG – FRANSEN (eds.), Ecclesiastico, 71-81; DAVIDSON, Wisdom and Worship, 98117. The proof is to be had in Sir 50:23-24, where the grandson, no longer being able to recall with honour the descendants of the High Priest, Simon, changes his grandfather’s text.

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

61

are respected and celebrated for their function, they are not proposed to the reader as the central mediators around which to construct the historico-religious development of the future of Israel before the other nations. In this case, they would not have performed a role that was solely cultic, but would have exercised an effective political role. This is a view of power totally absent in our scribe but practised with the result of which we are aware form the history of the priestly family of the Maccabees up to the High Priest Caiphas. The heart of Ben Sira was pulsing towards another, emerging form of mediation: the sapiential function, by now endowed with a theological and moral authority not inferior to that of the other mediators and consecrated by God with his blessing, full of every good, intellectual and moral (39:1-11). From the linguistic point of view and through the thematic and theological content of his mediation, the wise man, compared with Proverbs, is now characterised in a social sense because he is described as a leader (9: 17; 10:1; 37:23), respected by the people and honoured by God (37:24.26), who several times puts forward his personal way of life as instructive testimony of the gift which he has received (24:28-32; 33:16-18; 50:27-29), which even acts as an invitation to those who are without instruction to take up lodging in his house (51:23), with the result that we have the very rich and new figure of the religious specialist described by Sirach. From the initial poem (1:1-10) to the autobiographical confession which concludes his work (51:13-30), by way of the centrality of a wisdom which reveals itself (24:122) to the portrait of the wise scribe (38:24–39:11), everything in Ecclesiasticus is redolent of the absolute good of the fearful knowledge of God, of the knowledge of God which, in faithful prayer, the wise scribe simultaneously receives and gives.41 The task of this religious specialist is to educated and advise the young and doubtful so as to make them know, understand and practise choices of life that are coherent and firm in their witness to the faith in the invasive context of the Hellenistic cultural hegemony which has not yet done irreparable damage. Perhaps it is reasonable to think that among the aims pursued by Sirach, there is also a form of resistance to xenophilic fashions and a disguised condemnation of the arrogant counter-testimony of the Jerusalem aristocracy. The key word in this regard is the term rs'Wm, discipline, translated by the grandson into Greek with paidei,a.42 The very format of the book, composed principally of “instructions” imparted to the young or to the student by the scribe-master allows us to understand, along with the pedagogic intention of the book, the centrality of this 41 42

PRATO, Il problema della teodicea, 102. HENGEL, Giudaismo ed ellenismo, 131, claims that the author is “a master of wisdom with a stable scholastic organisation open to young men, particularly those exposed to the danger of the allurements of Hellenistic civilisation”.

62

Giuseppe Bellia

new kind of mediator. Ben Sira is presented as rpws, scribe (38:24), more exactly as a master who is aware of incarnating the sapiential ideal of the tradition (39:1-11), because he is a religious specialist who: will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be concerned with prophecies; he will preserve the discourse of notable men and penetrate the subtleties of parables; he will seek out the hidden meanings of proverbs and be at home with the obscurities of parables. He will serve among great men and appear before rulers; he will travel through the lands of foreign nations, for he tests the good and the evil among men (39:1-4).

This last trait emphasises for us the versatility of a master who is of traditional stamp but alive to the great lesson of Greek universalism, who seems devoted to the education of the young which he intends to expand by means of a balanced pedagogic system, able to join the religious heritage of the faith of the Fathers with the more acceptable part of the cultural novelty introduced by the Hellenistic schools,43 accepting perhaps a more direct confrontation with the educational world of the Stoa.44 Because of this, he recognises and welcomes in equal measure the oral teaching of the popular traditions passed on by the masters and the written literature: in his view, the living wisdom generated by the people makes whole and completes the teaching of the sacred books (8:8-9). Scripture and Tradition are, therefore, the best fruits of this sapiential mediation of which Sirach remains the most successful witness and the most considerable.45 Notwithstanding the luminous portrait of the sage painted by the author in his presentation of scribal activity (38:24–39:11), still problematic and veiled in mystery is the place in history and the institutional form of these religious specialists, their concrete conditions of work, their entire development. In which schools did the scribes study and how did they complete their religious, theological and intellectual instruction, but, above all, where were they initiated into the problems of public affairs, of national and international policy? Who supervised their educational expeditions among the foreign nations to finish off their education and increase their 43 44

45

GILBERT, Siracide, 1407; cf. by the same author, Il concetto di tempo (‘t) in Qohelet e Ben Sira, in: BELLIA – PASSARO (eds.), Il libro del Qohelet, 69-89. According to MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung, 34, Ben Sira has written “a school book” on the Greek model; he has brought together the philosophical teaching of the Stoics and that of the OT. In this sense, as DUBARLE has written, we find in Sirach “the inventory of a heritage” (Les Sages d’Israël, 147).

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

63

knowledge?46 The Hebrew text of Sirach (51:23) knows of a “house of study” (bet midrash), which the grandson has translated in a figurative sense (house of paideia), while someone has had the good idea of locating it as “a scholastic, dialectic teaching where the master and pupil enjoy reciprocal conversation on the theoretical problems most relevant to existence”.47 In fact we are faced here with a hasty reading which superimposes and confuses understanding on the literary level, which undoubtedly betrays the undeniable formal influence of the Greek school, and the historical and institutional level of the concrete educational system practised in Israel which requires further proofs if one wishes to advance beyond the merely hypothetical. In sum, as far as the text is concerned, even if we are faced with an advanced passage composed from the system of general instruction, nothing much is to be learned about the existence of schools and of teachers, of places of study and of forms of cultural education;48 while we are informed about the fervent religious atmosphere which animated the Palestinian society of the time and about the pre-eminent place afforded in religious formation to meditation and prayer to acquire the supreme benefit of wisdom which would procure, together with divine favours, the possibility of performing a valued and well-paid job among the people and among the nations.49 All in all, with the exception of the emerging figure of the wise scribe, the sociological information does not prove to be of much use, yielding knowledge and information very close to that furnished by the book of Proverbs.

3. From text to society The anthropological examination is not concerned with the macro-social aspects but seeks to point out what there is of the cultural weave of the text, beyond the theological intention pursued by the author, which is really shared by the addressee-reader and, therefore can be read and communicated as the common cultural background in that precise social reality. If we proceed, therefore, from the text to society, we should be able to pick out in the final redaction those day to day characteristics which make up the existence of particular social groups and which, within the social con46

47 48 49

Cf. 39:4 and 34:9-12. It is useful to make a comparison with what PHILO says on the suefulness of journeys for instruction (De Ebrietate 158), cited in MINISSALE, Siracide. (Ecclesiastico), 163f. Cf. PAX, Dialog und Selbstgespräch, 256. For the device of the master-pupil dialogue or the interior dialogue, cf. 5:1-4; 23:18; 27:5.7; 30:23. MORLA ASENSIO, Eclesiástico, 191. On the ideal of the sage according to Sirach, cf. RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen, 176196.

64

Giuseppe Bellia

vention proper to the time, are not only comprehensible in terms of that particular group but also recognisable from other cultural traditions. In our case, the complex state of affairs with regard to the text confronts us with an added difficulty: it is a question of indicating, from time to time, beyond the narrative device adopted by Ben Sira, what kind of effective social organisation is conveyed by the redaction of the Greek text in its long form or by the Hebrew text when it is different. The phenomenon of different textual traditions, short and long, between the primitive Hebrew text and the ensuing Greek version, is known also in other books of the Bible as the inevitable hermeneutic expansion consequent on the transmission of a work through different theological traditions. The development of a system of glosses is still more understandable in a book like Sirach which has been transmitted in the course of many years and, therefore, destined to include redactional expansions which should really be considered as marginal glosses inserted into the text.50 Or else because it is written according to that typical “anthological style” which allows the author to take up and repeat expressions drawn from previous writings of the Bible and its conceptual and figurative vocabulary, adopting their terminology and even their very phraseology, weaving a narrative texture composed of citations, direct and indirect, of references and allusions, of images and symbols gathered from within the great Biblical tradition.51 The particular “anthological composition” of his writing helps us to understand that the originality of an author like Ben Sira, bound with a double thread to the difficult Deuteronomistic heritage and to part of the sapiential tradition, cannot be detected in the innovatory content of his reflection but in the able presentation of the preceding theological patrimony conveyed by means of a shrewd literary strategy which succeeds in uniting and making fluent a discontinuous body of maxims, proverbs and isolated sayings, making it evolve into ordered thematic compositions where the different literary genres adopted are composed into a discursive continuity which at times is even harmonious, a truly surprising outcome!52 This displays incomparable editorial dexterity on the part of an author brought up within a tradition which, for the theologian, clung obstinately to the doctrinal synthesis of the retributionist school,53 “as if Job and Qoheleth had never been written”,54 while without any fuss he adopts here and there responses, criticisms and solutions to them, things which had by now become inevitable or which had already been taken up in the popular her50 51 52 53 54

MURPHY, L’albero della vita, 95. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 21-30. DUESBERG – FRANSEN (eds.), Ecclesiastico, 64-71; MURPHY, L’albero della vita, 99. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 83-87. So again, MURPHY, L’albero della vita, 100.

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

65

itage of the sapiential tradition. Always attentive, from this point of view, to the literary dimension, we must take into account the many repetitions of content which lead our author to re-present and repeat some themes in different sections of his work, without an apparent logical criterion and without any harmonising tendency. There are those who have seen in some of these repetitions a thematic progression and even a theological development bound up with the three hymnic sections.55 With great circumspection, the anthropological reading will be concerned with these reconstructions as evidence of the culture implicitly present in these repetitions in order to organise the data verified according to typologies which need to be compared with those of the previous sapiential texts. The universally recognised compositional and conceptual closeness between Proverbs and Sirach allows us to pick out some notable and obvious anthropological differences between the two books. Both of them breathe the same air of having found faith again in the capacity of man to discover Wisdom by means of a disciplined use of his faculty of reason, but, compared with the socially convulsed and agitated atmosphere of the former, which is marked with those forms of widespread immorality characteristic of metropolitan areas, Ben Sira describes a rarefied urban environment, one would say an almost tranquil provincial city of the great Hellenistic universe; in short, a secure place, liveable in because of the shelter it affords from the incursions of armies, a homogeneous and ideal society where social contrasts and unlawful conduct are all able to be put down to the ordinary weakness of the human being; he certainly does not allude to situations of moral degradation and social ruthlessness typical of the social organisation in areas of advanced urbanisation. A careful anthropological stemmatisation is able to indicate the realism of a written work, showing that there is no question of literary fiction: the pedagogic style of our author, eirenic and optimistic to the last, however much in places it appears taken for granted and mannered, does not distort the reality of the cultural links shared by the scribe with the addressees of his work of mediation. 1. If we pick out in detail the anthropological typologies conveyed by the text, there emerges an urban environment where prosperity and poverty and the inevitable social differences, such as the contrasts between rich and poor, are abundantly and realistically known (vide: 11:10-21; 14:11-19; 31:111; 33:20-24), still able to live together without degenerating, for in the healthy and lively society of Jerusalem there is room for a virtuous solidarity of ancient tradition, practised by one part of the upper classes.56 Upon this cir55 56

Cf. MORLA ASENSIO, Libri sapienziali, 181 and 195-196. The practice of forms of solidarity between the social classes in Jerusalem would go back to the time of the great social and religious crisis which broke out in the late Persian peri-

66

Giuseppe Bellia

cle of wealthy Judaeans, faithful to the social traditions of the fathers (29:9.11), is incumbent the duty of seeking a demanding social justice (4:1-10; 34:2127; 35:14-26), which recognises care of the poor and practises almsgiving (3:29–4:10; 7:32-36; 18:15-18; 22:23; 29:1-3.8-13.14; 35:11–36:17), going so far as to condemn abuse of power, even to threatening the rich with the eschatological judgement (35:13-19); with this attitude, the explosion of graver social conflicts is prevented 13:1–14:10). In the same way, more than bad government, there is an awareness and detestation of the malaise of social injustice caused by the petty pride of the rulers, or, better, of the governing classes (10:1-18) whose political careerism is condemned, with an ironical playing, which is courteous and discreet, on the succession of kings, governments and empires (10:19-25). This acceptance of social life, however, includes awareness of slavery the unhappy existence of which is recorded without particular moral apprehensions (23:10; 33:25-33; 41:25), thus approving the social behaviour widespread at the time and already sanctioned in the Deuteronomic Law (7:20-21; 41:24). In short, a social climate that is not turbulent but also, given the possibility of practising social solidarity, distinct from relative economic well-being allows to emerge the typical traits of an ordinary, comfortable existence. We should mark the human cloeseness of domestic life and family relationships, through their firmness and their infracultural strength (3:1-16; 7:8-28; 30:1-13; 42:9-14).57 Day to day life does not know pervasive forms of moral corruption, but singular and isolated infractions of the Law, such as adultery (23:16-27), greed rather than usury (14:3 -10) and the intemperance of the arrogant which dissipates inheritances and destroys the family name (21:4).58 Indicative in this regard is the condemnatory attitude towards traders whose activity exposes them easly to sin (26:29–27:3) and the negative description of the greedy rich always in search of filthy lucre like a ravenous dog (11:30, from the Hebrew text), while the humble toil of the farmer is declared pleasing to God (7:15; 20:28). There is still room for the beauty of relationships and for the value, and the risks, of friendship in particular.59 The brief list of known vices, all reducible to sensual passion, sloth and garrulousness,60 together with the simple joys of common life (14:11-19; 30:21-25) and of healthy nourishment, not to be separated from good manners at table,61 as well as living soberly and in

57 58 59 60 61

od, as would appear from Neh 5 and from the book of Job according to the reconstruction of ALBERTZ, Storia della religione nell’Israele antico, 580-594; for Jewish charitable organisation, cf. p. 600. For the relationships between husband and wife, between man and woman, and between father and son, cf. 9:1-9; 3:16-27; 23:22-26; 25:13–26:18; 36:21-27; 42:9-14. Cf. HENGEL, Giudaismo ed ellenismo, 309 note 4 and 310 note 1. Cf. 6:5-17; 9:10-18; 11:29–12:18; 19:13-16; 22:19-26; 27:16-21; 37:1-6. Cf. 6:2-4; 18:30–19:3; 21:1–22:15; 22:27–23:6. Cf. 29:21-28; 31:12–32:13; 37:27-31.

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

67

conformity with virtue,62 seems to contribute to the picture of a social setup which is well suited to the Jerusalem of that period and an environment far distant from the social excesses and moral disorders known in other sapiential texts such as Proverbs and Qoheleth.63 2. Of notable anthropological interest in this connection is the comparison between the thematic repetitions and contrasts present in the text. Let us take, for example, the theme of shame which, anticipated in 4:20-31, is then projected on to the double list of true and false shame which goes under the title of “Instruction on Shame” in 41:14–42:8.64 Whereas the Hebrew text of 4:20-31 seems to take aim at the shy behaviour and awkwardness typical of the young who “in the time of plenty” are driven from egoism to insincerity and false restraint and are, therefore, invited not “contradict God”; in the Greek translation, however, for his addressees dispersed in Hellenistic society, the grandson does not scruple to lay down that there should be no human respect and no “opposing the truth”. Remaining with the same theme of shame, the thematic development of 41:14–42:8, summarising the previous teaching expounded by the author, allows him to indicate, along with his own sensitivity, how much of the moral sentiment proper to the Biblical tradition of the Second Temple in social relationships is common and shared with the morality of the other cultures, such as the Stoic, which were present within the Hellenistic civilisation of Alexandria. However, the instruction shows itself to be rather valuable for us because, together with the comparison of values and moral behaviours, it allows to emerge the culture implicit, more or less, and shared by grandfather and grandson. So, for example, we learn that, while in the Hebrew text it is shameful “to commit immorality in front of father and mother” (41:17), in the Greek text, which is aware of the loosening of bonds and parental controls, conditions typical of advanced urban societies, it becomes an object of shame to “prostitute oneself in front of father and mother” (porneías). To be ashamed “before master and mistress” (41:18) in a society that is no longer rural and patriarchal from the strong organisation of the state like Alexandria becomes “in front of judges and rulers”. The intuitive being ashamed of “breaking oaths and covenants” before parents and friends (41:19b) becomes in the land of the diaspora, where family ties are less intense, the «not being ashamed of his covenant”.65 And again: the generic “not to sin 62 63 64 65

Cf. 1:19–2:18; 3:17-28; 4:20-28; 10:26–11:6; 13:25–14:2; 18:19-29; 22:16-18; 30:14-25; 33:25-33; 36:18-20; 40:28–41:4. Cf. BELLIA, Proverbi: una lettura storico-antropologica, 78 and ID., Lettura storico-antropologica di Qohelet, 193f. The pericope has been studied by MINISSALE, La versione greca, 99-109. One can read the Greek text according to the more coherent correction proposed by Grotius, “be ashamed to forget God and the covenant”: ibid., 106. See also the pertinent

68

Giuseppe Bellia

out of human respect” (42:1c) becomes in the Greek text, addressed to those who live in the midst of a foreign people, the more explicit and realistic “do not let partiality lead you to sin”. The specific nature of the cultural environments of the different readers impinges, then, directly on the work of the author and translator, determining the linguistic procedure and the conceptual apparatus, in short, the communicative register to be adopted to succeed in communicating with the respective addressees. At the same time, they bear witness to the substantial reliability of the information given by the grandson on the time and place of writing, of the scribal labour of Ben Sira and of the succeeding translation into Greek. The passage of the Hebrew into the Greek translation involved an understandable transformation of the text, not only because of the progressive maturing which time can bring to bear in the understanding of the faith of each believer, but especially through those right and proper responses which the ideological provocations and the practical anxieties of the Hellenistic diaspora required from every practising Jew – without forgetting the descriptive and thematic variations imposed by that necessary linguistic adaptation, actualising in nature, required by the new social situation.66 The traditional faith, confronted with specific and disconcerting historical and cultural experiences of the world of pagan idolatry was called on to prepare theological and pastoral solutions which were also of a practical and down-to-earth character. The sages had tried to give a faithful explanation, whether by elaborating and re-elaborating rationally what they already knew of God’s revelation to Israel, whether by deepening and conceptualising their personal theological experience. The understanding of the faith must bring to conclusion a double commitment: on the one hand, the wise must face up to what they have received and learned of the historico-salvific traditions which were Israel’s heritage in the Book of the Covenant; on the other hand, they have to accept the encounter with the universal wisdom which comes from sincere human enquiry. The anthropological typologies and the linguistic modifications examined, as also the different indicators, stylistic, historical and theological, as has been seen, converge in crediting as probable the precise information contained in the Prologue. This is the direction in which for years the majority of the historical reconstructions of the exegetes has moved. The first draft of the work, in Hebrew, can be placed, therefore, in Jerusalem before 175 BC, while the Greek translation of the grandson can be dated fifty years afterwards, in Egypt, very probably in Alexandria. Concerning the addressees and the aims of the author and translator the specialists are work-

66

reflections which Minissale makes with regard to the use and the meaning of diatheke in the Greek Sirach, at pp. 109-115. For the techniques of translation in the Alexandrian context, cf. LE DEAUT, La Septante un Targum?, 147-195.

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

69

ing to find agreement, but the approach by means of the human sciences, as we shall see, has something relevant to say, indicating solutions that are better constructed and complimentary.

4. Proposal for an historico-anthopological reading The circular movement which has led us from the Gestalt of the leading religious characters to their anthropological verification in the text of Sirach, and from the compositional stratum of the book to the implicit culture of the author, allows us now to attempt to go beyond the question of the text with an historico-anthropological reading. Our enquiry, however, more than fixing the where and the when of the book, must seek to grasp the intention and the whole sense of the scribal work. In particular, once we have identified the cultural behaviour that is most rooted and the mental forms most representative of the social life con-signed in the book, it must contribute to recovering the profound reasons which led Ben Sira to be the first and only Biblical author to declare his scribal identity in the face of the process of the sapientalisation of the Scripture of Israel and, above all in view of the ancient and majestic history of salvation of which he is aware of being a participant. On this quite banal and still little investigated situation – this self-advertisement of the author is not a futile search of vain originality – it is necessary to offer, without pretensions, some starting point for useful reflection after having given some indications as to the probable readers/addressees. The very complex vicissitudes of the transmission and diffusion of the Hebrew and Greek text and of the various versions do nothing to impugn the validity of the results reached but rather confirm the correctness of the spatio-temporal coordinates discovered and the probable specification of the first readers. For an historico-anthropological enquiry, the distance in time and environment between author and translator is a strong element for clarifying the identity of the real subjects who are the focus of interest and the aim of the work. The geographical and cultural distance between Jerusalem and Alexandria, the time lag and all the tragic and blissful events which took place in that tormented half century would have allowed the grandson to free up a certain stylistic reserve on the part of the grandfather or to elucidate, at least in part, the literary form employed in the Hebrew text. In all those passages where it is possible to identify the polemical targets, the translator, although he has the opportunity, is not preoccupied with defining history or with explaining its make-up.67 Now this is the case either 67

There are many interesting passages; cf. in particular 2:12-14; 3:17-24; 4:19; 10:12-18; 28:23; 41:8-9.

70

Giuseppe Bellia

because the translator is not in a position to recognise these features or because, in his own time and in his different religious and political context, he does not regard them as meaningful any more: undoubtedly he had to concern himself with negative figures of lesser importance but they were no longer topical and significant in the Alexandrian climate. This obvious reflection must lead us to exclude from the addressees the followers of the incipient apocalyptic circles or the putative Enochic groups. From a lexicographical analysis, with is quantitative parameters, it is clear that, beside the vocabulary of hm'kx. -' sofi,a, the semantic field most widespread is that which focuses on the lo,goj.68 They are the fundamental terms of the “book of the law of the covenant of the Most High”: the believer can prepare his heart to be open continually to listen, advancing in the steep and luminous paths of creative wisdom (1:4-5.9-10),69 or shutting himself up in the presumptuous refusal of non-belief, so losing himself in ways that are easy but slippery with violent and arrogant ungodliness or with visionary and vague nonsense. The “fool”, the “ungodly”, the “buffoon“ and the “violent”,70 with their supposed sufficiency, become, therefore, the antithesis of the modest and industrious believer who lives in the protection of the holy fear of God.71 These figures outline a new anthropology which models in an ethico-religious sense the society itself and which, in the particular historical situation, allows to peep through also some negative figures of a turbulent epoch of transition which has already been described as harrowing and distressing.72 As for Proverbs, what unites these two terms is precisely the scribal function.73 Sirach does not step away from that culture 68

69 70 71

72 73

On the thematic grouping of the word or, in figurative language , on the use of the tongue in Sirach, cf. 11:7-9; 19:4-17; 20:1-8.18-26; 23:7-15; 27:11-29; 28:8-26; 34:7-18. The figurative language which revolves around terms like “mouth”, “lips”, and “tongue”, develops the so-called “ethics of the word”: in Sirach, see in particular 4:20-29 e 5:9–6:4; for reference to the theme in Proverbs and in Egypt, see BARUCQ, Le livre des Proverbes, 35 and 137-141. To the vocabulary of the word and its ethics, can be linked connected and traditional themes, such as that of the family, of the woman and of friendship. For an overall view of the practical themes touched on by Ben Sira cf. MINISSALE,Siracide. Le radici nella tradizione, 18-19; on friendship, see CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship, 7-11. “Sapiential custody” is a theme which, from Ben Sira on, will permeate the spiritual life of the ‘anawim: cf. BELLIA, «Confrontando nel suo cuore», 215-228. To these categories of adversaries of “wisdom», HENGEL, Giudaismo ed ellenismo, 309 and the respective notes, has drawn attention. On “fear of the Lord” see the study of HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht, 328-332; also, SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 75-80. On the trajectory which, in Sirach, joins wisdom (1:1-10), fear of the Lord (1:11-30) and growth of the pupil (2:1-18), see CALDUCHBENAGES, Un gioiello di Sapienza. Probably those indicated here are the Oniads and the Tobiads rather then the Seleucid rulers of the time; cf. HENGEL, Giudaismo ed ellenismo, 309-311. For Sirach, as for the final editor of Proverbs, the young man is “innocent”, one “without instruction” (51:23), that is, as one who does not yet have knowledge of the word-

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

71

of the word which is proper to Proverbs, but is conspicuous in that strong role which is assigned to the sage, in an Umwelt where, it is well to remember, the absence of the prophetic function, had now for some time conferred on the scribe the increasing awareness of having become the heir and depositary of it,74 as the grandson himself seems to have been concerned about since he did not hesitate to place his translation in the wake of the most authoritative tradition (24:32-34).75 W. Baumgartner has already seen in Ben Sira the awareness that he had a true prophetic role to perform and speaks of “a singular contamination of wisdom and prophecy”.76 In his writing, the author was moved to assume not only some traits of Biblical prophecy,77 but also the tones of polemical invective against the injustice of the rich (34[31]:24-27), against the moral and religious apostasy of the first Hellenisers (2:3; 3:17-24; 4:19; 10:12; 28:23) and against the haughty pride of the ungodly (41:8-9), all of them typical of the prophetic tradition. In fact, the historico-anthropological approach shows us that Sirach is the witness but also the protagonist of a most impressive, if underestimated, religious and cultural metamorphosis: the slow and definitive passage from the knowledge of the divine will through the mediatory work of judges, kings, prophets and priests to the direct and personal hearing of the Law, more exactly, of the Book of the Covenant. Thus, in the relationship between God and man, there is introduced an objective mediation, bound to the process of Scripture’s becoming literature and no longer dependent on the subjective authority of the mediator.78 The revelation of God is now handed over to the authority of a writing regarded as necessary to mediate the divine will through the subsidiary activity of competent interpreters. Knowledge of the Covenant, as wisdom proceeding from the mouth of the Most

74 75 76

77 78

law and, therefore, does not yet have discipline, education (apaideutos). Received into the heart, the word produces in man the reverent knowing which receives from God the gift of knowledge. On the other hand, whoever does not know how to receive the word in humility, proves the vanity of a knowing which is in fact partial and fallacious. Cf. BELLIA, Proverbi: una lettura storico-antropologica, 85-87. For ALONSO SCHÖKEL – VILCHEZ LINDEZ, I Proverbi, 197: “The word is the principal instrument in the field of wisdom and its opposites”. See in this connection the critical opinion of GAMMIE, The Sage in Sirach, 370-371. Cf. RÜGER, Le Siracide: un livre à la frontière du canon, 67-69. In this connection, always relevant is the study of BAUMGARTNER, Die literarischen Gattungen, 186-189, where he explains that Ben Sira in his work uses a variety of typically prophetic genres. So HENGEL, Giudaismo ed ellenismo, 282. The process of becoming literature is to be distinguished from the passage form oral form into writing, governed by rhetoric; it indicates rather that complex phenomenon of literary organisation of a text in which the cognitive material is not aimed solely at communication but, according to the intention of the redactor, is constructed in view of th transformation of the reader. Cf. PESCE, I limiti delle teorie, 101.

72

Giuseppe Bellia

High, had inundated the earth and finally taken up its dwelling in Jacob, operating by means of all the ancestors as exemplars of the concrete manifestations of this process of historical embedding. Now, at the conclusion of this emptying out, this striking will to deprive itself of power, the wisdom of the Most High, handing itself over to the weakness of a work of men’s hands, becoming “book”, could reach the heart of every believer and every man.79 And the God-fearing scribe was now at the centre of this work of divine grace beacsue he had acquired the awareness of being not only the witness and the careful interpreter of this final kenosis of the divine love, but also of being called to collaborate in this work of illumination by allowing wisdom to complete its work in the depth of hearts, just as in the midst of history. From the days of Nehemiah, the people gathered together, not only for the solemn liturgical celebrations but also to hear and understand “the book of the law” by means of the work of mediators qualified and recognised as they were, to wit, the scribes. These new religious specialists had the task of making “the reading understood” for as many as were “capable of understanding” (Neh 8:3.8). Their job was to translate the text into Aramaic for the uneducated people and so render the sense of the text accessible and persuasive. This innovatory pastoral initiative was destined to modify the organisation of the religious life of Israel because, by involving the community in the hearing and understanding of revelation conceptualised and transmitted by the written text, it handed over a liturgical role to the communal reading of Scripture which was placed in parallel with the Temple cult, thus favouring religious pluralism.80 The promotion through personal hearing/study of a form of religiosity more interior and demanding, led to the desacralisation of an inaccessible language and at the same time to the consecration of the mediatorial function of the scribe/sage who was called to be not only the interpreter and the mediator of the book, but also the vigilant protagonist of this continual and widespread mediatorial process of divine revelation which joined the sapiential tradition with the Yahwistic religion. In this environment there emerges slowly the “community of the book” which will lead to embracing, as the third Canon, the complex of works which go under the name of Writings and constitute an obvious whole made up of books of varying scribal provenance, not having a precise organising centre but which are placed in dialogue with their own 79 80

Cf. GILBERT, L’éloge de la Sagesse, 326-348; ID., Spirito, Sapienza e Legge, 65-69; ID., Lecture mariale, 539-540. According to ALBERTZ, the cultic structure of the synagogue brought together elements of the microcult of private religiosity and elements of the macrocult of official religiosity, allowing the formation of a communitarian theology more rooted in the real, and, at the same time, favouring the process of the theologising of personal religion (Storia della religione nell’Israele antico, 601-602).

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

73

tradition and with their own historico-social context.81 The book of Sirach, as the work of grandfather and his translator grandson, would then be the supreme witness to this wonderful theological fusion between official religion and personal experience which is not frightened of contaminating the culture of the Jerusalem community with that of the community of the diaspora.82 However, just as it was not enough to belong to the priestly class to have “wisdom of heart” (46:26), so it was not enough to be a scribe to have nuptial experience of wisdom; hence the call to quiet listening, to diligent labour in study, to perseverance in the crucible of trial, and, finally, to the humble and trustful prayer which joins the praise of God indissolubly to the sapiential didactic activity itself.83 This explosive transformation of the relationship between the believer and God into a more interior and personal relationship, no longer mediated entirely by the old institutional forms, was not understood in its irreversible religious and social effects by the priestly class and not even by the movement of the Maccabean Revolt which exploited to the full, however, its political possibilities. The transformation in progress was an inevitable tendency which was to have social repercussions of vast cultural importance, as would be shown by the flourishing of the different movements which grew up in the wake of that period and which would contribute to the development of Second Temple Judaism.84 The reason for the centrality of this radical change lies in the fact that it is located historically at “the point of intersection between the Biblical text and the concrete society in which it is ‘actualised’ at the very moment in which there is accomplished an impressive hermeneutical perichoresis in the Scriptural process of Israel”85 which, as P. Beauchamp has said, accepted that “the original interpretations of the Law and the prophets had begun to give place to the same interpreted: the original word of God had generated in the heart of the believer the word to God”,86 becoming also in its turn the word of God. The figure of the sage was at the centre of this process of the Scriptural conceptualisationof the faith of Israel and of the giving of

81

82 83 84

85 86

MORGAN, Between Text and Community, 71, claims that the impossibility of reducing the “Writings” to a systematic unity is the hermeneutical and theological gift which these books have passed on to the Biblical communities which follow (p. 40). ALBERTZ, Storia della religione nell’Israele antico, 607; MORGAN, Between Text and Community, 53. As REITEMEYER, Weisheitslehre als Gotteslob, has shown. For the debate on the movements of the Second Temple, cf. KAMPEN, The Hasideans, 143; also see the judgements of TCHERIKOVER, Hellenistic Civilisation, 196-198; the reconstruction of HENGEL, Giudaismo ed ellenismo, 361-372; ALBERTZ, Storia della religione nell’Israele antico, 345-349; SACCHI, Storia del Secondo Tempio, 142-178. Cf. BELLIA, Proverbi: una lettura storico-antropologica, 86-87. Cf. BEAUCHAMP, Teologia biblica, 235.

74

Giuseppe Bellia

new meaning to the Covenant in a troubled time of epochal change. Ben Sira, the scribe, shows an awareness of this transformation in progress and invites those who have not experienced it to do just that, taking their place in the “house of study” (51:23). The catalogue of the famous ancestors and the trace of his own identity left at the end of the historical fresco perform this function of conscious witness; yes indeed, wisdom, having operated by means of the great figures in the history of Israel, was continuing to act in the present by means of the work of the scribe Joshua ben Eleazar ben Sira.

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

75

Bibliography ALBERTZ, R., Storia della religione nell’Israele antico. 2: Dall’esilio ai Maccabei, Brescia 2005. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, L. – VILCHEZ LINDEZ, J., I Proverbi, Roma 1988. BARUCQ, A., Le livre des Proverbes, Paris 1964. BAUMGARTNER, W., Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: ZAW 34 (1914), 186-189. BEAUCHAMP, P., Teologia biblica, in: LAURET, B. – REFOULÉ, F., Iniziazione alla pratica della teologia. I: Introduzione, Brescia 1986, 197-254. BELLIA, G., Historical and Anthropological reading of the Book of Wisdom, in: PASSARO, A. – BELLIA G. (eds.), The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLY 2005), Berlin – New York 2005. BELLIA, G., La “nuova archeologia biblica”: dalla svolta epistemologica all’antropologia storica: Ho Theológos 15 (1996), 205-252 and 369-419. BELLIA, G., «Confrontando nel suo cuore». Custodia sapienziale di Maria in Lc 2,19b: BeO 25 (1983), 215-228. BELLIA, G., Proverbi: una lettura storico-antropologica, in BELLIA, G. – PASSARO, A. (eds.), Il libro dei Proverbi. Tradizione, redazione, teologia, Casale Monferrato (AL) 1999, 55-90. BELLIA, G., Lettura storico-antropologica di Qohelet, in: BELLIA, G. – PASSARO, A. (eds.), Il libro del Qohelet. Tradizione, redazione, teologia, Milano 2001, 171-216. BLENKINSOPP, J., Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel, Louisville 1995. BRAUDEL, F., (ed.), Problemi di metodo storico. Antologia delle “Annales” (BUL 24), Bari 1982. BURKE, P., Una rivoluzione storiografica, Roma – Bari 19995. CALDUCH-BENAGES, N., Un gioiello di Sapienza. Leggendo Siracide 2, Milano 2001. CANCIK, H., Mythische und historische Wahrheit Interpretationen zu Texten der hethitischen, biblischen and griechischen Historiographie, Stuttgart 1970. CANFORA, L., La storiografia greca, Milano 1999. Civiltà e imperi del Mediterraneo nell’età di Filippo II, Torino 1953. CORLEY, J., Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship (BJSt 316), Providence RI 2002. DAVIDSON, R., Wisdom and Worship, London – Philadelphia 1990. DUBARLE, A. M., Les Sages d’Israël, Paris 1946. DUESBERG, H. – FRANSEN, I. (eds.), Ecclesiastico (LSB), Torino – Roma 1966. GAMMIE, J. G. – PERDUE, L. G., The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake 1990. GAMMIE, J. G. , The Sage in Sirach, in: GAMMIE, J. G. – PERDUE, L. G., The Sage in Israel, 355-372. GILBERT, M., Introduction au livre de Ben Sira, ou Siracide, ou Ecclésiastique, Roma 1985-86. GILBERT, M., L’Ecclésiastique: Quel texte? Quelle autorité?: RB 94 (1987), 233-250. GILBERT, M., Spirito, Sapienza e Legge secondo Ben Sira e il libro della Sapienza: PSV 4 (1981), 65-73. GILBERT, M., L’éloge de la Sagesse (Siracide 24): RTL 5 (1974), 326-348.

76

Giuseppe Bellia

GILBERT, M., Lecture mariale et ecclésiale de Siracide 24,10 (15): Marianum 47 (1985), 536-542. GILBERT, M., Siracide, in: DBS XII, 1389-1437. GILBERT, M., Il concetto di tempo (‘t) in Qohelet e Ben Sira, in: G. BELLIA – A. PASSARO (eds.), Il libro del Qohelet. Tradizione, redazione, teologia, Milano 2001, 69-89 GRABBE, L. L., Sacerdoti, profeti, indovini, sapienti nell’antico Israele, Cinisello Balsamo 1998. HASPECKER, J., Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach (AnBib 30), Rom 1967. HEMPEL, C. G., The Function of General Laws in History, in: ID., Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York – London 1964. HENGEL, M., Giudaismo ed ellenismo. Studi sul loro incontro, con particolare riguardo per la Palestina fino alla metà del II secolo a.C., Brescia 2001. KAMPEN, J., The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism (SCSt 24), Cambridge, MA 1988. LE DEAUT, R., La Septante un Targum?, in: KUNTZMANN, R. – SCHLOSSER, J. (eds.), Études sur le Judaïsme hellénistique (LeDiv 119), Paris 1984, 147-195. LEE, T. R., Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50 (SBL.DS 75), Atlanta 1986. LEMAIRE, A., Scribes: I. Proche-Orient; II. Ancien Testament – Ancien Israël, in: DBS XII, 244-266. MARBÖCK, J., Weisheit im Wandel (BBB 37), Bonn 1971. MARBÖCK, J., Die “Geschichte Israels” als “Bundesgeschichte” nach dem Sirachbuch, in: ZENGER, E. (ed.), Der neue Bund im alten. Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), Freiburg i.B. – Basel – Wien 1993, 177-197. MIDDENDORP, TH., Die Stellung Jesu Ben Sirac zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden 1973. MINISSALE, A., Siracide (Ecclesiastico) (Nuovissima Versione della Bibbia 23), Roma 1980. MINISSALE, A., Siracide. (Ecclesiastico), Cinisello Balsamo (Mi) 1989. MINISSALE, A., Siracide. Le radici nella tradizione (LoB 1.17), Brescia 1988. MINISSALE, A., La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib 133), Roma 1995. MORGAN, D. F., Between Text and Community: The «Writings» in Canonical Interpretation, Minneapolis 1990. MORLA ASENSIO, V., Libri sapienziali e altri scritti, Brescia 1997. MORLA ASENSIO, V., Eclesiástico, Texto y comentario (El mensaje del Antiguo Testamento 10), Salamanca – Madrid – Estella 1992. MURPHY, R. E., L’albero della vita. Una esplorazione della letteratura sapienziale biblica, Brescia 1993. NICCACCI, A., Siracide o Ecclesiastico. Scuola di vita per il popolo di Dio, Cinisello Balsamo (Mi) 2000. OLYAN, S.M., Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood: HTR 80 (1987), 271-286. PAX, E., Dialog und Selbstgespräch bei Sirach 27,3-10: SBFLA 20 (1970), 247-263. PESCE, M., I limiti delle teorie dell’unità letteraria del testo, in: FRANCO, E. (ed.), Mysterium Regni ministerium Verbi. Scritti in onore di mons. Vittorio Fusco, Bologna 2000. PRATO, G. L., Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini (AnBib 65), Roma 1975.

An historico-anthropological reading of the work of Ben Sira

77

REITEMEYER, M., Weisheitslehre als Gotteslob. Psalmentheologie im Buch Jesus Sirach, Bodenheim 2000. RICKENBACHER, O., Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO 1), Göttingen 1973. RICOEUR, P., Il conflitto delle interpretazioni, Milano 1972. RICOEUR, P., Dell’interpretazione. Saggio su Freud, Milano 1967. RICOEUR, P., Tempo e racconto; La configurazione nel racconto di finzione; Il tempo raccontato, 1-3, Milano 1986-1988. RICOEUR, P., La memoria, la storia, l’oblio, Milano 2003. ROTH, W., On the Gnomic-Discursive Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach: Semeia 17 (1980), 59-79. RÜGER, H. P., Le Siracide: un livre à la frontière du canon, in: KAESTLI, J.-D. – WERMELINGER, O. (eds.), Le canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire (MoBi), Génève 1984, 47-69. SACCHI, P., Storia del Secondo Tempio. Israele tra VI secolo a.C. e I secolo d.C., Torino 2002. SKEHAN, P. W., – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. SMEND, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1906. STADELMANN, H., Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter (WUNT 6), Tübingen 1980. TCHERIKOVER, V., Hellenistic Civilisation and the Jews, Philadelphia – Jerusalem 1961. VATTIONI, F., Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca, Napoli 1966. VEYNE, P., Come si scrive la storia, Roma – Bari 1973. VOVELLE, M., Storia e lunga durata, in: LE GOFF, J. (ed.), La nuova storia, Milano 1990, 49-80.

Ben Sira and Qumran ÉMILE PUECH As with the Book of Wisdom, the canonicity of Ecclesiasticus or Ben Sira among the Writings has a long history. Should it be counted into the Greek canon of Alexandria or be excluded according to the shorter list of the Hebrew Biblical books? Before its translation into Greek in Egypt around 130 BC, the book first appeared in Hebrew during the first decades of the second century. What was its original status as a wisdom book before being excluded from the normative books by the Rabbis?1 The Prologue by his grandson, who had taken so much care to translate it correctly, gives a quite precise idea of the utility of the book for a Jewish reader. Following others, M. Gilbert pronounced his belief in the inspiration of both textual forms: the short text or Greek I (= Gr I) from Hebrew I (= Hb I), and its revision, the long text or Greek II (= Gr II) translated from Hebrew II (= Hb II) but with some particular additions.2 The manuscript tradition is still somewhat more complicated, because there exists a Latin translation (VL) of Gk II in the 2nd century AD and a Syriac translation (the Peshitta) around the 3rd ca. of a Hebrew text near to Hb I,3 both of them being witnesses in various places of particular recensions. Therefore, to find the shape of the original text, where it is possible with the help of manuscripts, could be a profitable enterprise so as to examine the cultural milieu of the author and also the reinterpretations of the successive translators. In an excellent status quaestionis M. Gilbert wrote: “Une étude d’ensemble sur les rapprochements entre Ben Sira et Qumrân fait encore défaut. Sur le rôle des Qumrâniens dans l’élaboration d’Hb II, thèse prônée par C. Kearns (...), manque également une étude systématique”.4 The present work attemps to outline some elements of a response, firstly focusing on the generally accepted points as first stated by M. Gilbert.5 We will review the 1

2 3

4 5

See KOPERSKI, Sirach and Wisdom, 261f where the author reports that Talmud and other Jewish writings occasionally quote Ben Sira with the formula “it is written”, formula normally intended for canonical books. LEEMANS, Canon and Quotation, 265-277, shows that the subject is disputed, see further DORIVAL, L’apport des Pères de l’Église, 104-106. GILBERT, L’Ecclésiatique: quel texte?, after particularly GRELOT, La Bible Parole de Dieu, 177. While we are still waiting for a critical edition of the Peshitta, see CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La Sabiduría del escriba, who give an editio princeps of codex Ambrosianus (VIIth century?). GILBERT, Siracide, 1415. See further GILBERT, The Book of Ben Sira, 81-91, and a first approach of the subject by PUECH, Le livre de Ben Sira, 411-426.

80

Émile Puech

Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira which have been found, and the citations, allusions and some common points in the manuscripts of Qumran which permit one to suppose a dependence of the latter on the former, and then we will analyse their respective positions on some important points.

1. The Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira at Qumran, Masada and Cairo Whereas a copy of the Hebrew text had been translated into Greek by his grandson and later on another one into Syriac, the fact that the rabbis who have not greatly regarded the book, excluding it from the canon at Jamnia, have occasionally alluded to it6 and that Jerome had known a copy in the 4th century AD,7 before the book in its original language was forgotten for ever, the recent discoveries from Cairo to Masada, spread over a century, nevertheless give quite a good idea of the Hebrew text for about two thirds of the composition.

1.1 The Cairo manuscripts The six manuscripts recovered in the geniza of the Karaite al-Fustat synagogue in Old Cairo and published between 1896 and 1912 are of three forms: manuscripts B (with marginal glosses), E and F are copied in stichometry, A, C and D are in a continuous script, but C is only an anthology. These copies from the High Middle Age (Xth-XIIth centuries) are not a mere translation from Greek or Syriac, but they derive in their entirety from manuscripts found just before 800 in one of the caves of the Jericho area, very probably from Qumran.8 The continuous or stichometric script was already 6

7 8

See SCHECHTER, The Quotations: 24 citations; COWLEY – NEUBAUER, The Original Hebrew: 79 citations. But only 19 hemistichs in 106 correspond to the terminology of the Cairo Hebrew manuscripts, the 87 others are more or less free paraphrases without a precise conformity of vocabulary, probably because the authors were dependent on an oral tradition or on translations instead of a copy at hand. On the other hand, Saadiyah Gaon quotes 26 hemistichs essentially in the shape of Cairo Ms A and another rather ad sensum, see DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text, 95f, and LEHMANN, 11QPsa and Ben Sira, 242-246, but BEENTJES, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, does not give any mark of that. See the preface of Jerome to the Salomo’s books, Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam versionem, 957. On that discovery, see the Letter of Patriarch Timotheus I to Sergius Metropolite of Elam, in BRAUN, Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I, 299-313, and DUVAL, Une découverte, 174-79. The identification to a cave of Qumran also explains the discovery of two copies

Ben Sira and Qumran

81

that of the scriptorium of Qumran for the literary genre of wisdom texts. Compare for instance on the one hand the latest manuscript of Proverbs, 4QProverbsa (4Q102) in stichometry and 4QProverbsb (4Q103), the earliest manuscript from the middle of the 2nd century BC in a continuous script and, on the other hand, the manuscripts of Ben Sira from Qumrân and Masada in stichometry in the 1st century BC. Finally the manuscripts B and E confirm the order of chapters known from the Syriac and Latin versions.

1.2 The Qumran manuscripts 1.2.1 2Q18 The first Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira at Qumran were identified among the fragments of Cave 2 discovered in 1952, thus reinforcing the hypothesis of the origins of the Karaite copies. The manuscript 2Q18, dated to the third quarter of the 1st century BC,9 has a text in a prosodic arrangement, securely identified on the basis of manuscript A from the Cairo geniza: fragment 2 = Sir 6:20-31. The fragment which belongs to the left side of a sheet (with stitching) shows ink dots for the lines, fixing the remains of 14 lines.10 In spite of the meager final remains of lines 9-10 and 13, the nature of the preserved text confirms the sequence of the verses retained in Greek contra the Cairo manuscript A which intercalates the two stichs of 27:5-6 in place of 6:23-25. Even without preserved written remains, lines 4-6 of fragment 2 must have contained the three verses 6:23-25.11 But compared to Ms A, this fragment attests an unnoticed variant reading in xk[n which is more than a defective orthography, being also a masculine form. Consequently, instead of restoring xk[nayh12 with the Ms A hxwkn ayh, we have to read xk[nawh, in

9 10

11

12

of the Damascus Covenant and of Testament of Levi in Aramaic among those manuscripts and the copy of 26 hemistichs from a Hebrew text of Ben Sira used by Saadiyah Gaon in the Xth ca., whereas that book, no longer handed down by the Rabbanites, was known to them only by paraphrases. On this origin, see also DI LELLA, Qumrân and the Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira, 245-267, who shows well the Qumranic origin of the manuscripts and the scribes at work. See BAILLET, Les ‘Petites Grottes’, 75-77. The place is not necessarily on the left lower corner of the sheet, contrary to BAILLET, Les ‘Petites Grottes’, 75, since, contrary to fragment 1, no trace of a lower margin is preserved, only the reconstruction of the scroll and the number of lines per column would enable one to assert that. With BAILLET, Les ‘Petites Grottes’, ad loc. The transcript of BEENTJES, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, 123 and 133-134, does not give a precise idea of the text arrangement of 2Q18, frg. 2, still with a mistake in the transcript of 6,22: hk[ for xk[, and read hmXk, not hXmk in 22a. BAILLET, Les ‘Petites Grottes’, follows Cairo Ms A. Likewise, SKEHAN, The Acrostic Poem, 400, read two times ayh !k and xk[n ayh.

82

Émile Puech

agreement with the masculine substantive of 22a: awh !k hmXk rswmh yk. The Greek reads sofi,a – a feminine substantive.13 The identification of fragment 1 has been difficult due to the fragmentary state of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira. The editor hesitated between 6:1415 and 1:19-20. In favor of 6:14-15, which he preferred, he notes the material aspect of the fragment, and in favor of 1:19-20 he notes a long interval, at first sight difficult to explain, in the reconstruction of 15a. Some authors give their preference to 1:19-20,14 which is far from certain. The reading !ya is palaeographically secure, if the break and the distension of leather on which is found the stroke of the letter are taken into account and if the thickness of the upper stroke of the letter on the left of the arm along the break for y is noted, compare frag. 2 10. The downstroke is almost of the same length, but in that script the dimensions of letters are variable. Thus the placing of the fragment in 6:14-15 is much more preferable. The irregular disposition of the beginning of verse 15 may be due to the greater dimension of letters, to the variable distance between the words, to a defect of the surface, to an erasure or to a haplography of bhwa at v. 14 and to a supralinear correction. But whatever about the precise restoration of fragment 1 with 6:14-15, fragment 2 assures the identification of the manuscript. 1.2.2 11Q5 (= 11QPsa) XXI 11 – XXII 1 = Sir 51:13-30 Among the scrolls of Cave 11 discovered in 1956, there is a liturgical collection dated to the first half of the 1st century AD, which contains biblical Psalms, apocryphal compositions and the alphabetical poem of Sir 51:1319[...]30 in a continuous script. Only the first half of this poem is preserved, at column XXI 11-18, between Psalm 138 and the acrostic Hymn to Zion: the stichs a-k where many words are missing at line 18 but with remains of stichs, and the last two words of the last stich at column XXII 1. Even once one recognizes the superiority of the Greek over a perturbed transmission 13

14

Since the confusion of w/y is much more difficult in the manuscripts of the Middle-Ages while it is very easy and frequent in a copy of the 1st century BC, it is probable that the mistake of manuscript A originates from a wrong reading of its original (awh > ayh), then involving the correction of a masculine into a feminine form hx(w)kn. For other errors of this genre, see DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text, 97-101. Syriac translating hnplwy “his teaching” (masc.) can also have read a masculine form. See SEGAL, Ben Sira in Qumran, 243; the Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible, 2141; GILBERT, Siracide, 1394; MARTONE, Ben Sira Manuscripts, 82: “much more likely”. This author seems to understand by “in both manuscripts” (p. 83) that the Cairo Ms A is also copied in stichometry, what is not true. FLINT, «Apocrypha», 36, keeps 1,19? and estimates as three the number of chapters found at Qumran. But BEENTJES, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, 123, identifies the fragment with 6:13-14.

Ben Sira and Qumran

83

of the Hebrew of Ms B in its first half,15 the restoration of this latter from the Greek (where the order has been somewhat revised), is not without difficulty. The proposition of Skehan for instance does not take into account the l preserved below the n of !nwbta (l. 17), and it is much too long for the space.16 It would be palaeographically possible to read with the remains of the letters, l. 11 (= vv. 20def): h(n)bz[a ]a[l !k]l Xa[rm hm[ ytynq bl hytacm ]h[rh]j[bw] partially with B and Greek.17 The line 17 (= vv. 19cd-20c) has also given rise to different readings. The editor has proposed: ]Xrp and yt]xtp,18 but the reading ]xtp is certain, with B. Then the reading is: .hyla ytwrbh ypk !nwbta (with 42:18 and Greek) hymr[mbw 19ha[yb h]xtp ydy We would have another indication partially supporting the reading of the Syriac in agreement with B contra the Greek ta.j cei/ra,j mou evxepe,tasa pro.j u[yoj (already line 16). I understand thus this badly preserved passage of 11Q5 XXI:

15 16

17

18

19

Accordingly, many authors agree to see there a pure retroversion of the Syriac text following LÉVI, L’Ecclésiastique, XXI-XXVII, 225-233. SKEHAN, The Acrostic Poem, 388, proposes hbz[a al !k rwb[b. It is the same with hnbzga awl !k rwb[b hlxtm ytynq bl by SANDERS, The Sirach 51 Acrostic, 432. The remains of l belong almost certainly to the second hemistich, not to the first as reconstructed by MURAOKA, Sir. 51,13-30, 176, followed by MARTONE, The Ben Sira Manuscripts, 84, with debatable arguments for the inclusio in 11QPsa (pp. 87f). B: [h(n)bz[a al ]!k rwb[b htlxtm hl ytynq blw hytacm hrhjbw. The last proposition of GILBERT, «Venez à mon école», completes the Greek and Syriac according to B, and reads: ..!k rwb[b hlxtm hl ytynq bl. This solution is not possible, since there is no remain of l in hlxtm whereas there are remains of and of a previous letter, possibly a, then remains of l of !kl instead of !k rwb[b of B; beyond that, the space requests to read hm[ with Greek instead of hl: kardi,an evkthsa,mhn met v auvth/j avp v avrch/j dia. tou/to ouv mh. evgkataleifqw/. The proposition of MINISSALE, La versione greca, especially 137-149, hnbz[a al !k rwb[b htlxtm yl ytynq bl is not convincing; it is followed by DAHMEN, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption, 91 and 242-244; this abridges the stich, and instead of the 27 lines supposed by this last author, I hold to 26 lines for this column XXI (= XXX of the scroll). SANDERS, The Psalms Scroll, 42: ]Xrp hymr[m[... and ?la, and 80-82: hymr[m[w ... yt]xtp and ...la. These readings left traces afterwards. RABINOWITZ, The Qumran Hebrew 175: ?? hyt]lbq ytwkzh ypk !nwbta hymr[m[bw...yt[rp , but ]la ytwrbh of Sanders is certain. MARTONE, Ben Sira Manuscripts, 84, reads: la... hymr[m [...] Xrp, and SKEHAN, The Acrostic Poem, 388: (sic) hymwr[mbw hr[X hxtp and hyla. DELCOR, Le texte hébreu, 31 and 36, reads: hymr[m[w ... yt]xtp, and MURAOKA, Sir. 51,13-30, 176: hymr[m.. ... ...xtp and ...l. MINISSALE, La versione greca, reads: !nwbta hymr[mw hyr[X hxtp ydy. The reading of BEENTJES, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, 125, is incomprehensible: hymr[[ ]tp, as the break in 51:20 which does not take into account the acrostichs with y and k. DAHMEN, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption, 91 reads: ...hymr[m[w yt]xtp, which is excluded. I amend my proposition of the note in the Le livre de Ben Sira, 415. A more contrasted photograph permits us to read a and the likely remains of h for ha[yb (with more difficulty ha[wbm a little too long) excluding hr[X according to B: hyr[X and Syriac h[rt. At l. 18, j seems secure, and excluding !wqn of Skehan which I accepted first. B read: [h]b jybaw rdxa hlw hyr[X hxtp ydy.

Émile Puech

84 j 20ab y 19cd k 20cd l 20ef

I was continually looking for her and I never ceased to exalt her.20 My hand opened her[ ent]rance, and to her secrets I paid attention. I purified my hands for her, [and] in pu[rity I found her. I clung to her from the beginnin]g, th[erefore ]I will ]n[ot abandon her.

Consequently, by means of some adjustments of B for the second half and of 11QPsa for the first, the Hebrew of the original acrostic poem is entirely recovered. But the Hebrew of 11QPsa, which may represent a form of the text quite near the original, does not especially support the exclusive sexual character of images which some authors will wish to find there.21 Whatever it could be, and this must be expected, the pre-Qumrân acrostic has nothing to do with the sublimation of celibacy of the members of the Community, and 11QPsa cannot be a Qumranic rewriting. Finally, compared to 11QPsa, it is clear that B lost a good part of the acrostic arrangement in the first part of the poem and that it could not be a witness of the original for this passage. 1.2.3 The Masada manuscript (Mas1h or Mas) On the 1st April 1964, fragments of a scroll of Ben Sira22 which cover chapters 39:27 to 44:17 were discovered in the ruins of Masada, but with no remains of 39:33 to 40:7;23 40:9-10.22-25, and 43:26-28 and 30-33.24 The manuscript, dated to the beginning of the 1st century BC,25 is stichometrically 20

21

22 23 24

25

The authors do not agree on the reading of hymwrbw of B and several prefer to read hmmwrbw, an infinitive polel instead of a plural substantive hymwr, “his heights”, but this last form could also be understood as an infinitive qal with the feminine singular suffix in an orthography already known at Qumran, for instance in 4Q525 2 ii 2, and the meaning “to exalt” is attested also for qal; there is no reason to correct B. SANDERS, The Psalms Scroll, 83-85; ID., The Sirach 51 Acrostic, 433f; DELCOR, Le texte hébreu, 36f; MURAOKA, Sir. 51,13-30; MARTONE, The Ben Sira Manuscripts, 86f. Thus in that stich, Greek did not need to avoid the much too explicit words in that direction, since Hebrew does not seem to have them! GILBERT, «Venez à mon école», concludes in that way also. Besides, Martone (87f) takes up without new arguments the conclusion of Sanders on the non authenticity of this Psalm in Ben Sira, but see also GILBERT, The Book of Ben Sira, 83, who thinks that this acrostich could be a conclusion of the book as well as the alphabetic composition of Prov 31:10-31 in Proverbs, likewise still GILBERT, «Venez à mon école». For FLINT, «Apocrypha», 36-37, who accepts the erotic interpretation, the copy of this acrostich in 11QPsa could prove its original independence before its insertion in the Ben Sira’s book. YADIN, The Ben Sira Scroll, 151-225 and 227-252. The Yadin edition includes a number of reading mistakes, and line I 23 accurately deciphered belongs to 40:8, not to 40:10, see the review by Skehan: JBL 85 (1966), 260. See MILIK, Un fragment mal placé; BAUMGARTEN, Some Notes; STRUGNELL, Notes and Queries, even if not all the remarks are acceptable, see further SKEHAN, Sirach 40,11-17, and ID., Sirach 30,12, 541f. See YADIN, The Ben Sira Scroll, 4 and note 11, quoting the opinions of F. M. Cross and of N. Avigad. It is difficult to understand the proposition of MARTONE, Ben Sira Manuscripts,

Ben Sira and Qumran

85

arranged, like 4QProverbsa,26 a contemporary manuscript of a comparable genre. Accordingly it is somewhat earlier than 2Q18, a copy of a similar type. Since Ben Sira had not been included in the canon by the Rabbis in the 2nd century AD, it is more probable that the Masada scroll comes from Qumran, like the Shirot ‘Olat ha-Shabbat scroll brought to the resistance network by the last escapees among the refugees of the Judaean Desert.27 One of the indications is the replacement, in a former period, of the tetragrammaton of the original manuscript by ynda (in defective orthography) in 42:15 and 17c (Ms B ~yhla), 42:16 and 43:5 (Ms B yyy and !wyl[ in the marginal gloss in 43:5), 43:10 (Ms B la, Greek a`gi,ou) or by a suffix wytwalpn in 42:17b and already in the Greek Vorlage (Ms B yyy, suffix of a marginal gloss in a supplementary predicate). The scribes of Qumran used the same processes of substitution in their own compositions, compare 4Q521, etc. Accordingly the Masada copy already supposes some revision, at least at this level, but a revision which has apparently not yet occurred in the copy translated by the grandson of Ben Sira.28 The importance of this manuscript is first due to its age, since it dates a century after the original, i.e. a generation after the translation by the grandson. Because of the substantially preserved passages which overlap large portions of Ms B, it is now possible to appreciate to some extent the

26 27

28

88: “...with some early Herodian characteristics ... between 40 B.C.E. and 20 C.E.”! This writing is quite comparable to that of 4Q521, see PUECH, Qumrân Grotte 4. See SKEHAN, Qumrân. IV. Littérature de Qumrân, 818. See also SKEHAN – ULRICH, Qumran Cave 4 XI, 181f. GILBERT, The Book of Ben Sira, 84, sets aside this hypothesis assessing that this discovery would prove that Ben Sira was read also by other Jews. Furthermore this would explain the quotations in the ancient Rabbanite writings. But those quotations could very well come from other copies. The linking of the Masada scroll with Qumran seems very probable. Clearly, would the last non-Essenes opponents have thought to bring scrolls which they thought to be non normative or so unrepresentative in that hiding place? Certainly, the Rabbanite milieu could have held the book as authorized, Babli, Baba Qamma 92, Sanhedrin 100b (rabbi Yoseph), but most often as forbidden, Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin X 1 (rabbi Aqiba). Although little known, Ben Sira is sometimes quoted by the Rabbis, see LEHMANN, 11QPsa and Ben Sira, 243-245. These indications could show that the copies of Cairo Ms B and A were made after a manuscript dated prior to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and partially corrected with another copy somewhat later but in a defective orthography (for example ynda), see BAILLET, Les ‘Petites Grottes’, 75. Indeed, many times the tetragrammaton had not been corrected, see 10:22; 40:26 and 51:1 in the well known expression hwhy tary, except in 40:27, and in Ms A 9:16; 10:12 (~yhla tary), the same in ~yhla ynpl (14:16, Ms A) or yet Ms B in 45:2 ~yhla but yyy in the margin, etc. In 51:15, Ms B reads ynda which is not found again in 11QPsa XXI 13 in another phraseology (see Greek). This would then be a witness of the beginning of that process. For the cases of tetragrammaton retained in Hebrew, see BEN HAYYIM (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira, 157f. The stichometric order would reinforce that remark.

86

Émile Puech

value of the Medieval copies on one hand and, on the other, that of the different translations: Gr I and II, Syriac and Latin. This manuscript confirms quite well the Hebrew text of Ms B and especially the value of the marginal gloss, though one must judge each case individually.29 In a great number of cases, sometimes impossible to evaluate given the difficulty of recognizing the original word among the possible synonyms, the manuscript agrees with the Greek. This agreement is found in the cases where the vv. are missing in manuscript B: 40:12; 41:22; 42:5.18c-d.22; 44:12, or the manuscript agrees with B against the Greek in 42:11e, but the Greek and B are in agreement against the Masada manuscript in 44:16 about Enoch.30 In return, in a number of cases, Mas agrees with Ms B against the Greek in the sequence of the verses, or in other cases with the Syriac against the Greek, thus showing that the Syriac is not dependent on the Greek but on a Hebrew manuscript which has itself been somewhat revised. Thus Mas and indirectly the geniza manuscripts could accordingly claim a Qumranic origin which, with 2Q18 and 11Q5, are then the only remains of the Hebrew text handed down by the Essenes with the exception of the rare more or less literal citations of the Rabbanites who did not include this book in their canon. But the Qumranic origin of the copies explaining the old stichometric arrangement, does not as such point to an Essene book. With a little more than two thirds, circa 68%, of the Hebrew text recovered, the study of the book has been greatly renewed, more especially as the fragments from Qumran and Masada give the state of the text from around 100 BC., and as the copies of Cairo are not late retroversions but copies of a Hebrew text, sometimes certainly revised, originating from Qumran and found a little before 800 AD. Lastly, this Hebrew text, being quite close to that translated by the grandson, substantiates the short Greek text or Gr I before the different revisions31 of the book.

29

30 31

On this subject, see the lists noted by the editor, YADIN, The Ben Sira Scroll, Table 1 (pp. 7-8 of Hebrew part) collects the 51 examples (but 41:12) where the manuscript agrees with the corrections in the margin against Ms B, table 2 (p. 9) the 37 examples (but 42:4 and 22) where the manuscript follows the text of Ms B against the glosses in the margin, and table 3 (pp. 11-13) the 88 examples (but 43:23 and 25) where the manuscript diverges from the text of Ms B and the glosses. On this subject, see YADIN, The Ben Sira Scroll, 38. For an account story of the complexity of the text of Ben Sira and of its transmission and of its revisions, see GILBERT, Siracide, 1407-1412. The marginal Persan glosses of B prove nothing as to the origin of the manuscript at the basis of the copy. The Qaraïtes presence in Palestine and in Babylon is well known, see DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text, 96-97.

Ben Sira and Qumran

87

2. Citations, points of contact and allusions By itself the discovery of Hebrew manuscripts at Qumran proves that the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, composed between 195 and 175 BC, was known among the Essenes there before the book went over to the Jewish community in Egypt in the Greek translation of the grandson, shortly after 132 BC. But other testimonies such as citations, points of contact and allusions strengthen this conclusion.

2.1 Citations The identification of a stich in a wisdom Hebrew manuscript, 4Q525 (4QBéatitudes), is in itself a first proof. On the very badly preserved fragment of 4Q525 25 4, I read and restored with certitude:32 sykb !ya hmw]amw ab[wsw llwz yht la Do not be a glutton nor a dr]unkard when there is [nothing in the purse!

This Hebrew maxim literally preserved by manuscript C of Sir 18:33 found in the Cairo geniza, must be a citation of that book rather than an isolated proverb belonging to the common background of the Wisdom literature. Indeed, there are too many points of contact, as will be shown later on, between Ben Sira and 4Q525, although the latter is badly preserved, for the Essene author33 not to have quoted his predecessor. Consequently, this Hebrew proverb copied in 4Q525 which is an approximately dated composition of around the middle of the 2nd century BC, confirms the antiquity or originality of the formulation of manuscript C contra that of Gr I:

32 33

PUECH, Qumrân Grotte 4, 164-165. With the edition of 4Q525, (cf. my Qumrân Grotte 4, 117-119), I gave arguments in favour of an Essene composition of this wisdom text, underlining particularly the exclusive use of la and ~yhwla, see above and the remarks (n. 28) on the tetragrammaton in manuscript B with its marginal glosses and Mas. But there are many more approaches of Wisdom which meet the Essene points of view known from elsewhere, as also the very probable quotation of 4Q525 11-12, 1-2 in 1QS IV 7-8 where the Spirit of light or of truth takes the place of the speeches of Wisdom (for another point of view, see TIGCHELAAR, «There are the Names of the Spirits of...», 545-546); and for lines 3-4, see PUECH, Qumrân Grotte 4, 141-142, and for further contacts between 1QS and 4Q420-421 [Ways of Righteousness] with 4Q525, see below. The manuscript seems to be the product of the first Esseno-Qumranic generation, maybe of the Teacher of Righteousness teaching his disciples, as a wise teacher, or of a pious man or wise man of the two previous decades before the exile into the wilderness in 152. BROOKE, Biblical Interpretation, 205 note 13, does not view 4Q525 as an Essene composition.

88

Émile Puech mh. gi,nou ptwco.j sumbolokopw/n evk daneismou/ kai. ouvde,n soi, evstin evn marsippi,w|

translated into Christian-Palestinian Aramaic:34 asykb $l [t]yl ~wlkw a[(?)[wlm] !m albws[d] $qlwx bhy !yksm aht al Do not impoverish yourself by borrowing to feast, when there is nothing in the purse!

The translation of Gr I has certainly given the meaning of the first hemistich, but without translating it precisely. It passed from concrete situations to a more moralising generalization. This tendency of Gr I is found again apropos of other more abstract themes.

2.2 Contacts and allusions Besides the citation, several other rapprochments or points of contact have already been underlined,35 but they mostly cover citations common to more than one specific biblical book rather than direct borrowings to Ben Sira. However, the influence of Ben Sira on Qumranic literature, wisdom or otherwise, seems clear, especially in 4Q525, but the question requires to be further explored for the Instruction. 2.2.1 4Q525 The wisdom text 4Q525 2 ii 2 lays a stress upon the search for wisdom like Sir 14:20ff or 51:13-30. In both compositions, Wisdom is identified with the Law or at least is in a very close relationship to the Law, Sir 1:26; 15:1; 19:20; 24:22ff and 4Q525 2 ii 4. Besides, the syntagma !wyl[ trwt is also found in Sir 41:4.8; 42:2 and 49:4 (Hebrew), see further o` no,moj tou/ u`yi,stou in 9:15; 19:17; 34

35

See MÜLLER-KESSLER – SOKOLOFF (eds.), The Christian Palestinian Aramaic, 204, where I propose a restoration. But the sequence ry]t[ [a]l ad[...]l[p which translates 19:1 strengthens the late addition of Gr II at verse 18:33c. See CARMIGNAC, Les rapports. On this subject, GILBERT, Siracide, 1414, writes: “Ben Sira faisait partie, selon Carmignac, de la littérature proprement Qumranienne”. This is not totally exact, since Carmignac sums up his tought (p. 218): “Cela (les différences) empêche au moins d’affirmer de façon définitive que l’Ecclésiastique fasse partie de la littérature proprement qumranienne”, and in note 29: “le dernier chapitre ... si indépendant du reste de l’ouvrage ... offre tant de rapprochements avec les textes de Qumrân, que l’on pourrait plus facilement envisager qu’il ait bel et bien été composé à Qumrân», and lastly «Si les recherches ultérieures confirmaient que l’Ecclésiastique n’a pas été composé au sein de la communauté de Qumrân, ...”. The comparisons at various levels underline first of all in Carmignac’s opinion the proximity of different milieux.

Ben Sira and Qumran

89

23:23; (24:23); (29:11); 38:34; 44:20; add 11QPsa XVIII 14 (= Syriac Psalm II = Ps 154) and Testament of the Twelve Patriarches, Levi 13,1,36 but nowhere else in the Bible.37 The formula Wisdom/Law is to be understood as an innovation of Ben Sira or of the Sages of his generation, taken up in compositions found at Qumran. Among the points of contact, let us quote particularly: - the word of comfort in Sir 3:31b: ![Xm acmy wjwm t[bw (A), “and at the moment of falling he will find support”, taken up and adapted in 4Q525 14 ii 7: ![X]m acmt $jwm t[b, “and at the moment of your falling you will find su[pport”; - the saying about listening and the way of answering in Sir 11:8: rbdt la hxyX $wtbw [mXt ~rj(b) rbd byXt la (A and B), “Do not answer before having listened, and do not interrupt a speech before it is finished”, taken up and adapted in 4Q525 14 ii 22-24:

hkyrbd]b byXt rxaw ~rma [mX ~ynpl hdawm[...l hbyXq]h ~hylm ta [mXt ~rj xyX $wpXt [law, “Do [not ] pour out speech before having listened to their points of view. Pay [attention to...] specially. First listen to their words and then answer with [your words”. This recommendation is also taken up and adapted in the Rule of the Community, 1QS VI 10: rbdl whyxa hlky ~rj wh[r yrbd $wtb Xya rbdy la, “No man may speak during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking”. This same maxim is yet taken over and adapted in the Qumranic composition The Ways of Righteousness, 4Q420 1a-b ii 1-3 – 4Q421 1a-b ii 13-14:38 ]rbd aycwy [dw][w ~gtp byXy ~ypa $rab[ !yby ~tj]b r[bdy awl]w [[]mXy ~rjb byXy awl, “he will not answer before he hears, and will not speak before he understands. With great patience will he give answer and [furthermore] he will utter a word of[...”; - the word on the dangers of the tongue in Sir 22:27: “Who will set a guard on my mouth, and an efficient seal on my lips, to keep me from falling, and my tongue from causing my ruin?”, and in 28:18: “Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but many more have fallen by the tongue”, and 4Q525 14 ii 26-28: 36

37

38

The Testament of Levi in Aramaic has been found at Qumran in many copies and another one among the manuscripts of the Cairo geniza, see PUECH, Le Testament de Lévi en araméen; ID., Notes sur le Testament de Lévi de la grotte 1; and STONE – GREENFIELD , Aramaic Levi Document. Contra DE ROO, Is 4Q525 a Qumran Sectarian Document?, 340 and 345 (the author gives the numbers of fragments and lines after a pirate, faulty and incomplete edition, which are not those of the editio princeps). For a biblical background of the syntagma, see HAYWARD, El Elyon. See ELGVIN, 4QWays of Righteousness, 175f and 188f. The editor would understand it as a Qumranic composition with use of pre-Qumranic sources (p. 173). TIGCHELAAR, More on 4Q264A, understands it as a halakhic composition but not as a sapiential one.

90

Émile Puech

!w]Xlb dxy htXq[wnw] hkytwtpXb dklt !p[..].gb hdawm rmXh !wXl lqtmw hkytpXb, “...]by your lips and from an error of speech refrain mostly in..[..] lest you fall by your lips[ and that you not] be ensnared at the same time by the ton[gue”. The passage of Ps 15:3a wnXl l[ lgr awl is taken up in Sir 4:28d lgrt la $nwXl l[w, in Sir 5:14b [r lgrt la $nwXlbw, also in 4Q525 2 ii 1: wnwXl l[ lgr awlw,“and does not slander with his tongue”, and in 4Q185 1-2 ii 13: h]yl[ lgr alw. The content of stichs 6:36: dymt 39hghy wtwcmbw !wyl[ taryb tnnwbthw (A), 6:18: hmkx ygXt (C), 14:20a: hghy hmkxb Xwna yXra (A), 50:28a: hghy hlab Xya yXra(B) is clearly taken in 4Q525 2 ii 3-4: dymt hghy hb yk ...hmkwx gyXh ~da yXra, “Blessed is anyone who overtakes wisdom...when he thinks over her day and night”. These many points of contact of vocabulary and thought of 4Q525 2 ii with various passages of Ben Sira, in particular on the happiness of one who meditates on the Law and Wisdom and clings to them, are probably also at the origin of the strophic composition of the “eight beatitudes plus one” in this passage of the Qumranic manuscript, a literary genre which the author must have recognized already in Sir 14:20–15:1 and where he has found the inspiration for that particular structure. This last passage of Ben Sira is the first and the oldest known group of eight Hebrew beatitudes, even if there is only one yrXa at the beginning. I have shown elsewhere the text arrangement into two strophes of four stichs or four beatitudes organized in sub-groups, two by two.40 The author has meticulously composed his passage counting the words and ordering them according to a determined order. These two strophes of eight short beatitudes are followed by yk, whereas the other macarisms of Ben Sira are in a usual form: 26:1; 31(34):15 (LXX); 48:11 (LXX); 50:28; 25:(7b).9 (LXX), but only 34(31):8 with a positive hemistich followed by a negative one, 25:8 and 28:19 (LXX) with a positive hemistich followed by three negatives confirm for the first time this structure taken up also in 4Q185 1-2 ii 13-14. The manuscript 4Q525 2 ii 1-6 knows this same structural genre: the short macarisms are composed of a positive hemistich followed by a negative one, whereas the long macarism includes four positive hemistichs after a positive one as an introduction, followed by four other negative ones. As the preserved strophe of four short macarisms with feminine suffixes supposes other macarisms of the same type where Wisdom and the Law, to which theses suffixes refer to, must have been mentioned, a first strophe in the same form must be presupposed. It is remarkable that the strophe of 39 40

Manuscript A reads hghw, which is certainly a mistake in the transcription of y by a scribe of the Middle Ages; hghy is necessary for the parallel structure of the hemistichs. PUECH, 4Q525 et les péricopes des Béatitudes; ID., The Collection of Beatitudes, 357 and 361.

Ben Sira and Qumran

91

four macarisms of short type as well as that with a long macarism, contain each 31 words, 15 in the positive hemistichs and 16 in the negative ones.41 Such a finely formed structure cannot be a product of chance. It is taken up in a passage in Greek in Mt 5:3-12 with its two strophes of four short macarisms and one with a long macarism, each strophe of 36 words. This Greek composition clearly applies the rules of that literary genre, of which the first known example is Sir 14:20-27 comprising two strophes of four macarisms of 23 words each.42 Because of the strong influence of Ben Sira already noted on 4Q525, it is highly probable that the structure of this peculiar passage also depends on it. 2.2.2 4QInstruction Remains of at least seven manuscripts of this wisdom text have been found: 1Q26, 4Q415, 416, 417, 418, 418*, 423.43 Such a number of copies shows a large diffusion among the Qumran Community, compared to the scanty remains recovered of the Book of Ben Sira. Most of those copies are dated to the late Hasmonaean or early Herodian periods, but the composition must precede the installation of the Community in the wilderness and goes back at the latest to the first part of the 2nd century, thus more or less contemporary to the book of Ben Sira.44 It cannot be excluded that this compo41 42

43 44

The same number of 31 words is also found in a strophe of macarisms in the Hymns scroll 1QHa, col. VI, see PUECH, ibid. The copy of Ms A contains faint alterations of the original: addition of lk at v. 22b (absent in Greek, Latin and Syriac) and the infinitive tacl in 22a for the participle (but already an imperative in Gr I which is also not original). Concerning this structure, it is difficult to understand the cautions of FABRY, Die Seligpreisungen, who reproaches us (p. 195) for restoring five (sic) beatitudes in this passage. It is evident that a strophe of 4 took place at the bottom of the previous column where the search of Wisdom and Law was surely present, in order to explain the feminine suffixes in the following lines. It is similarly not possible to accept the conclusions of BROOKE, The wisdom of Matthew’s Beatitudes, who thinks to find a better parallel in the Lukan composition in a more Semitic original (!), nor those of VAN CANGH, Béatitudes de Qumrân, who concludes to the “Lukan original”. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not in Greek, and Matthew did not add anything to restrain Jesus’ message. The “poor in spirit” include also the other categories of poor, seven of which are clarified, whereas Luke has manifestly reworked a previously Semitic structure, a wholly clear Semitic (vocabulary and syntagmas) composition in Matthew. MILIK, Qumran Cave I, 100-102; STRUGNELL – HARRINGTON – ELGVIN, Qumran Cave 4 XXIV; PUECH – STEUDEL, Un nouveau fragment. See STRUGNELL – HARRINGTON – ELGVIN, Qumran Cave 4 XXIV, 21f, and HARRINGTON, Two Early Jewish Approaches, 263. The editors would favour likewise a somewhat earlier datation, while VERMES, The Complete, 402, concludes to a clearly Essene composition (“unquestionably sectarian”), while ELGVIN, 4QWays of Righteousness, 173, considers this sapiential composition in the period of the formation of the Essene movement or just in the previous phase, and that LANGE, Wisdom and Predestination, 341 note 2, places it

92

Émile Puech

sition, largely read and copied at Qumran, comes from Jewish forerunner groups of the Community. In this direction point the numerous points of contact of vocabulary and concepts, particularly the Rules (1QS, CD) and the Hymns, already quoted by the editors but without having retained this possibility.45 The editors did not note the relationship of dependence between the Instruction and Ben Sira, even though both works are similar in form (instruction of a wise man to a disciple called “[my] son” or “O wise child” or “O understanding one”), in the content and in the theological perspective. Both compositions display interest in financial transactions, loans (Sir 8:12; 29:12 and 4Q417 2 ii 21-23), and pledges (Sir 29:14-20 and 4Q416 2 ii 5-7.17-18), in the social and familial relations, the honor due to parents (Sir 3:1-16 and 4Q416 2 iii 15-19), the authority of the husband over his wife (Sir 3,1-16 and 4Q416 2 iii 19 – iv 11 but without the misogyny of Sir 25:14-24; 42:14 because the author links these relations to the mystery to come from which they must not divert 4Q416 2 iii 18-21), vows and votive offerings of the wife annulled by the husband (2 iv 6-13) as displaying patriarchal authority. Rather surprisingly, the Instruction addresses itself also directly to the woman, to honor her father-in-law like her father, to hold fast to her husband and to be the honor of all (4Q415 2 ii 1-9). In both compositions these recommandations are based upon the Law but without mentioning that explicitly: the honor of parents in Exod 20:12 or Deut 5:16,46 and also Gen 2:24 (to become one flesh) and 3:16 (your yearning will be for your husband and he will dominate you), Num 30:6-15 (annulling the vows and votive offerings). The same is true also with the interdiction of mixing species (Lv 19:19; Deut 22:9-11 and 4Q418 103). The sages make clear their counsels on the basis of Mosaic traditions to such a point that Wisdom and Law are not distinguished in Sir 24:23-34 and 4Q525. However, if Sir 24:1-22; 51:13-20 = 11QPsa XXI 11-18, the Hymn to the Creator (11QPsa XXVI 9-15) as well as Lady Madness in 4Q184, know the personification of Wisdom, the Instruction in the present state of the text does not.47

45

46

47

more generally in the pre-Essene movement. Some have proposed to isolate the sapiential parts, which would be the oldest, from the more theological parts of the address where the more Essene wording is found, see ELGVIN, The Mystery to Come, 115. But FREY, Flesh and Spirit, 396f, concludes to a pre-Essene period. HARRINGTON, Wisdom and Apocalyptic, estimates the composition in the 1st century BC at the latest or even before, without any other explanation. STRUGNELL – HARRINGTON – ELGVIN, Qumran Cave 4 XXIV, 22-33, takes up a note of STRUGNELL, The Sapiential Work 4Q415ff; see also HARRINGTON, Wisdom and Apocalyptic, 263. And of the wife based on Deut 13:7 and 28:54.56 for the new custom 4Q416 2 ii 21 and iii 16-19, see STRUGNELL – HARRINGTON – ELGVIN, Qumran Cave 4 XXIV, 108f, but this is controversial. See ibid., 29 and 34.

Ben Sira and Qumran

93

While Ben Sira often invokes the “Fear of God”, !wyl[ / ~yhla / hwhy tary,48 the Instruction, where the use of the divine name hwhy seems taboo, invokes as a Leitmotiv “the mystery to come” or “the mystery of existence”, hyhn zr linked to the knowledge of justice and of impiety, on which the future depends, in order to motivate in this way the present conduct of man. The expression hyhn zr is found again in other Essene compositions (1QS XI 3; 1Q27 [Book of mystery] 1 i 2 and 3)49 but the word zr appears already in Sir 8:18 and 12:11. The cosmology of Ben Sira is biblical and rather traditional, his theodicy articulated in a ”system of pairs” (Sir 33:15; 42:24): God the creator is sovereign but the creation, which is good, can also chastise the wicked by its cataclysms (39:27). If the timid dualism of Ben Sira does not yet invoke an obscure and demoniac power like the Instruction of the two Spirits (1QS III 13-IV or the [Essene?] addition in Sir 15:14b [A-B]: “and he delivered him to the power of his enemy”), the dualism is more marked in 4QInstruction which insists on the divine election with all its moral consequences. God separated the wise from the spirit of flesh: “For He has separated you from every fleshy spirit, then you shall separate yourself from every thing He abominates, and hold yourself aloof from all that a person hates. For He Himself has made everyone and He will make them to inherit each his inheritance and He Himself is your portion and your inheritance among the children of mankind, and that in His inheritance He has set you in authority, then you honour Him...” (4Q418 81-81a 2-3). God will judge the acts of each one and reward or punish consequently (4Q417 1 i 6-8 [see below], iii 9; 2 i 10-11). This is the meaning of the revelation of hyhn zr to the wise man: from creation to ethics and eschatology. The Instruction of wisdom is no longer based on human experience only, the history of Israel, the Law and the creation as in Ben Sira, but also on the dualist doctrine of election. The understanding one (!ybm) must therefore always remember his inheritance and the portion of glory which God ensures him, if he is faithful to the election, he who is able to distinguish between good and evil, as recalled in 4Q423 1-2 i 7, a fragment paraphrasing Gen 2–3. He belongs to the eternal plantation, that which has received election as its inheritance, the immediately preceding word [jm designating the eschatological community as in 1QH XVI 7,11,17,21 (= VIII)50 which takes up the same image; see also 1QH XIV 18 (= VI 15); 1QS VIII 5; XI 8; CD I 7; 1QAp Gn XIV 13-14. This image is found again in 4Q418 81 12-14: “For by you] He has opened the 48 49 50

Sir 6:36; 9:16; 10:22 A-B; 16:2; 32(35):12; 40:26b-c.27; 50:29. For a fresh status quaestionis on this point, see GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, where the author proposes as a preferable translation “the mystery that is to be”. For the new numbering of Hymns, see PUECH, La croyance des Esséniens, 339-346.

94

Émile Puech

fountain for all the Holy ones, and all who are called by His name are holy. [For] during all the periods [are] the brightnesses of His splendour for the eternal plantation, [then, you, search for the fountain of His Truth like a source overflowing and co]vering the world. In it shall walk all those who will inherit the earth. For in hea[ven...”. Clearly the image of the plantation is not unknown from the Bible (Is 5:7; 60:21; 61:3) or other texts like 1 Enoch 93:5.10, etc., where it designates Judah, but 4QInstruction reduces its signification only to the elected ones of the people who are the eternal plantation, as is the case with some Essene texts.51 Only the elect of the last days are really able to distinguish good and evil, whereas in Sir 17:1-14 man, a creature of God, has the ability to do so. Thus eschatology occupies a more important place in the Instruction than in Ben Sira.

2.3 Other Essene compositions Other more or less direct points of contact can be found, at various levels, in typically Essene compositions, as for example: - The reward of the wicked whom God hates in 1QS VIII 6-7: ~lwmg ~y[Xrl b(y)Xhlw, CD VII 9/ XIX 6 and 1QM XI 13f, and 1QS I 4,10, compared to the punishment that God will impose to the wicked in Sir 12:6: ~qn byXy ~y[Xrlw ~y[r anwX la ~g yk, “For God himself detests sinners, and will repay the wicked what they deserve”. - The noisy laugh of the fool in Sir 21:20: “The fool laughs at the top of his voice” seems to be the source of 1QS VII 14: wlwq [ymXhl twlksb qxXy Xraw, “Whoever guffaws improperly, and makes his voice heard, shall be punished for thirty days”. - God as the origin of all, good and evil, life and death in Sir 11:14; 33:1415 is similar to 1QS III 15f. But whereas dualism is very developed in the Essene milieu, evil does not yet depend on the maleficent forces in Ben Sira, cf. a possible Essene addition in Sir 15:14b: “and He had delivered him to the power of his enemy”. - Even if fixed liturgical formulae existed very early, it is remarkable to note parallel formulations between the beginning of the thankgiving Hymn in Sir 51:1-2 and that in 1QH XI 20f (= III 19f):52

51

52

This image associated with that of the fountain demands a certain continuity between the community of the author of 4QInstruction and that of the Teacher of Righteousness (1QHa), probably nearer than that of the author of the Apocalypse of the Weeks (1 Enoch 93). On this, see STRUGNELL – HARRINGTON – ELGVIN, Qumran Cave 4 XXIV, 511f, and STUCKENBRUCK, 4QInstruction, 250-257. See also LEHMANN, Ben Sira, 107 and 109-110.

95

Ben Sira and Qumran 1QH XI 20-21

ynwda hkdwa20 yXpn htydp yk txXm yntyl[h21 !wdba lwaXmw

Sir 51:1-2

yba yhla $dwa1 yXpn twmm tydp yk txXm yrXb tkXx2 yXpn tlch lwaX dymw

If the attribution of authorship of this Qumranic Hymn to the Teacher of Righteousness cannot be excluded,53 then about half a century would separate it from Sir 51. Consequently, the dependence of the phraseology should not be surprising. Finally, these comparisons of vocabulary54 and the indisputable affinities of thought underline at least a proximity in space and time, roughly Palestinian Judaism of the 2nd century BC, and a probable influence of Ecclesiasticus on Qumranic writings55 which then could have involved corrections of copies of Ben Sira, without however resulting in identical positions on a number of important points.

3. Survey of some important points 3.1 The priesthood The Sages, authors of these compositions, come from a literate class, and their belonging to a priestly class cannot be excluded, whether for Ben Sira who favourably views the temple, cult and especially the Aaronic priests,56 or the authors of the Qumranic compositions generally considered as Zadokite.57 Still, Ben Sira does not mention Esdras and Levites, ignoring 53 54

55

56 57

See PUECH, La croyance des Esséniens, 366. For other possible points of contact, see LEHMANN, Ben Sira, who gives a list of words or idiomatic expressions characteristic of the language of Ben Sira and of Qumran: rgs at the nif‘al, #px ynba, bybX, hawXmw hawX, xyrbw ~ytld, ~atp [tp, rare and scattered in one or the other biblical book, and chiefly xwpn rwk, jwm (hitpa‘el), !qz-XyXy, ~yt[bX, bbl ~hy, zr, rwg, txX, hwqm, ~yyx rrc, sam, hgh, dm[m and tlXmm, #q, d[wm in relation with hpwqt. See also IWRY, A New Designation, lydg in 1QS X 4 and Sir 43:5 (Ms B, lwdg Mas); HARRINGTON, Wisdom at Qumran, 146ff; CALDUCH-BENAGES, Trial Motif, 140: the image of the crucible – @rcm for the purification in Ben Sira and at Qumran, etc. An influence of the Qumranic literature on Ben Sira is chronologically out of the question. I noted above that the Instruction could be situated between Ben Sira and the beginning of Qumrano-Essenism on the basis of a strong dualistic and eschatological perspective, see HARRINGTON, Two Early Jewish Approaches. See STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter; OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship; WRIGHT, Fear the Lord,189-222. Concerning 4QInstruction which is not an Esseno-Qumranic composition for the editors, STRUGNELL – HARRINGTON (cf. DJD XXXIV, 20f,) underlines the Aaronic affinities of the

96

Émile Puech

even the Zadokite origin of Simon but cleaving to the sons of Aaron and to the covenant with Phinehas and his posterity (50:24 Hb). In favour of the acting priesthood and its legitimacy, Jesus Ben Sira at least belongs to this socio-religious group, while the authors of Aramaic compositions found at Qumrân, like 1 Enoch and Testament of Levi, openly blame the acting priesthood, praised by Ben Sira, as being much too compromised with the surrounding cultural milieu, and they insist on the priestly legitimacy of the Levitical class.58

3.2 Calendars Our authors diverge completely on this very fundamental point of religious pratice. The Essene Community, as we know, is unique in using a solar calendar of 364 days inherited from the tradition and attested to in particular by the Astronomical Book and the Book of Watchers of 1 Enoch and the Testament of Levi as a revealed calendar, see 1 Enoch 75:1-3; 80:2-8; 82:4-7. On the other hand, in his preamble to the Praise of the Ancestors (42:15–43:33) and in 50:6, Ben Sira underlines the preeminent roll of the moon, which gives the name to the month and determines seasons and feasts, as he deliberately discards the roll assigned to both luminaries in the priestly narrative of creation (Gen 1:14f). This, therefore, is quite clearly a central object of controversy.59

3.3 The Law and the revealed mysteries We have noted above the specificity of the practice of the Law at the core of the search for wisdom in Ben Sira, a practice taken up by 4Q525 and comprising, besides, a quotation of Ben Sira.60 In fact, Ben Sira cautions his disciple against any form of search for what is hidden or would be beyond his own powers (3:21-24), but to observe the revealed Law, to fear God, is all

58

59 60

sage’s authority: scribe, teacher, administrator, judge and priest. See also FLECHTER-LOUIS, All the Glory of Adam, 179. But this point is refuted by others, see for instance TIGCHELAAR, The Addressees of 4QInstruction, 75; GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 22f. Specially sections of the Book of the Watchers, and the Astronomical Book in 1 Enoch and the Testament of Levi (for a new edition of the Aramaic text of the geniza, see PUECH, [cf. note 36]). For a convenient glance of the subject, see WRIGHT, Fear the Lord, 197-201, and OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship, 279f. See WRIGHT, Fear the Lord, 204-207, and for the complexity of the subject, GLESSMER, Calendars in the Qumran Scrolls. This point common to both compositions and the citation strengthen the conclusion of a dependence of 4Q525.

Ben Sira and Qumran

97

that must be sufficient to attain wisdom, because “what you have been taught already exceeds the scope of the human mind” (3:23b). The true basis of wisdom remains the practice of Law (15:1; 24:23; 32:24; 33:3). There is possibly there another reaction of the author to the revelations of mysteries of cosmos and of the eschaton to which Enoch and Levi refer in their compositions so as to discredit the practices of the acting priesthood. And to complete the list, Ben Sira explicitly condemns dreams and visions as means to reach this knowledge: these are only mirages from which it is urgent to turn away, as the Law recommends (Deut 18:10f), unless the vision be sent by the Most High (34:1-8), as was the case with the seer Isaiah who saw the end of times and revealed the hidden things (48:22-25). In his somewhat sharp remark, “dreams give wings to the fool”, Ben Sira could very well be aiming at Enoch in his heavenly journey and Elijah who also had visions at Bethel (4Q213a 1 ii 14-18). However, the Patriarch Enoch is seen as an extraordinary figure in Sir 44:16 and 49:14, based on Gen 5:24.61 On this subject, the author of 4QInstruction writes the reverse, asking his disciple to meditate continuously and to understand the mysteries concerning him, because the eternal rewards or punishments will be dependent on his acts (4Q417 1 i 6-27):62 6[And by day and by night meditate upon the mystery] of existence, and study it continually. And then you shall know truth and iniquity, wisdom 7[and foolish]ness you shall discover in [their] acts. Understand all their ways together with their visitation in all everlasting ages, and the eternal 8Visitation. And then you shall discern between good and evil according to their deeds. For the God of knowledge is the foundation of truth, and in the mystery of existence 9He has laid out all its foundation, and indeed [He di]d [it with wis]dom, and to every one[ with cun]ning He fashioned it, and the domain of its deeds 10for each, it is his reward, and the whole knowledge, all...[ ] He expounded to all his creatures according to their understanding so that they could walk 11in the inclination of their understanding. And He expounded for[...]all[...] and in abundance of understandings were made known the secrets of 12His plan, together with perfect behaviour in all His deeds. These things seek early and continually and meditate all 13their outcomes. And then you shall know about the glory of His might together with His marvelous mysteries and the might of His deeds. But you, 14O understanding one, look for

61

62

Even if the phraseology of 44:16 (Ms B) takes again words of 44:17 (~ymt acmn) and that the verse is missing in Mas, its presence in Greek is in favour of its authenticity, as an inclusion with 49:14. For the attacks of Ben Sira against the esoteric teaching of Jewish groups and against the Greek science, see CORLEY, Wisdom Versus Apocalyptic, especially 275ff. I take back the presentation of my note published in: Apports des textes apocalyptiques, but with some changes, in particular, line 7, read: ...lwkb [!bh ~hy(X[m)]b j[b]t t[lwa], ll. 910, read: Xr[p]...l[w]k t[[d] lwkw hmlX hz l[w]kl10 ...hmr[[b] lklw hm[kxb hX][ hX[w hXwa lwk Xrp and line 14, read: ab[ yk #]qh !wrkzb instead of ab[ yk ~wl]Xh following the editors with a little too long restoration; for the meaning of #q, see 1QS III 15; IV 25; 1QH XIV 32 (= VI 29); 4Q369 1 i 6. There is manifestly there an allusion to the book of memorial which will be opened at the last judgment.

98

Émile Puech your reward in the book of memorial of the en[d, for] it comes engraved {your} the destiny and ordained is all the retribution, 15for engraved is that which is ordained by God about all the iniquities of the children of Seth, and written before Him is a book of memorial 16of those who keep His word. And that is the vision of the meditation on the book of memorial. And He gave it as an inheritance to man together with a spiritual people. For 17according to the pattern of the Holy ones He fashioned him but He had not given the vision to a fleshly spirit, for he knows not the difference between 18good and evil according to the judgment of his spirit. vacat And you, O understanding child, gaze on the mystery of the existence and know 19the [path]s of every living being and the manner of his walking appointed to [his] deeds[... 20Under]stand the difference between the great and the small, and in your counsel[... 21...]your[...]in the mystery of the existence[... 22...]s of each vision know, and in all[... 23and you shall stand always firmly. Do not be contaminated with wickedness[... For every one who is contaminated] 24with it shall not be treated as guiltless. According to his inheritance in it he [shall inheritate... But you,] 25O sage child, understand the mysteries concerning you, and in..[...] 26shall be founded upon you all their[ deeds] together with the reward of[ their...] 27You shall not go astray after your heart or after your eyes[...

While wisdom in Ben Sira is based upon the observation of the organization of the creation and the obedience to the revealed Law (Sir 1:25-27: “If you desire wisdom, keep the commandments”), 4QInstruction further calls upon another facet, the mystery of existence hyhn zr, the meaning of which is to be meditated upon. The mystery is not based on revelations through a medium or an angel like in Apocalyptic literature. This wisdom surpasses the mere search which man could reach by his own power, for his parents have first opened his ears to mysteries of existence, and also because the God of fidelity is He who “from of old disposed all things and instructed the ear of the wise] 15to explain to the just the distinction between good and evil, to make known each judgment[.., for] 16he is a fleshly creature” (4Q416 1 14-16 and 2 iii 14-16 // 418 9 15-17, see also 4Q418 123 ii 3-8). Creation is presented to the elect and the learned as a mystery normally inaccessible to man63 but revealed by the God of knowledge (see also 1QS III 13 – IV), and his meditation shall give him the meaning of existence and encourage him thus “to keep His Word” (see 4Q416 2 ii 8-9: “and the statutes laid down for you do not abandon, but with your secrets take good heed of yourself”). If the word “Law” does not appear in the present state of the Instruction in a comparable way to Ben Sira, the reality is not absent concerning moral conduct in daily practice. The sage insists a lot on the meditation of “the mystery of existence” or “the mystery to come” in order to give a direction to human activity and thus to establish the observance of the commandments which God prescribed for the salvation of the elect and his eternal glory: 63

This idea is found again in 1QH V 18ff (= XIII 6ff), see PUECH, Un Hymne essénien, 67f.

Ben Sira and Qumran

99

[Gaze upon the mystery of] 11existence, and comprehend the birth-times of salvation, and know who is to inherit glory and raising up.64 Is there not[ rejoicing for the contrite of spirit] 12and for those among them who mourn eternal joy? (4Q417 2 i 10-12).

In that way, the meditation of the mystery to come which is revealed only to the elect as spiritual people, encourages them in steadfastness to fulfil the Law in the midst of so many difficulties in their path towards holiness, and prepares them for the future judgment, which the foolish one, the fleshly spirit, cannot understand, he who is not expecting an afterlife. Consequently, this passage is particularly near to the spirituality of “the poor” of the Gospels Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-12 and Lk 6:20-26).65

3.4 Eschatology 3.4.1 Ben Sira The most common position consists in relegating the expectation of a future life solely to the additions to the text of Ben Sira.66 However, bearing in mind that “life and death are before man”, Ben Sira insists on underlining that “the Lord is almighty and all-seeing” (15:17-18). He rewards and punishes: “Do not take pleasure in what pleases the godless; remember they will not go unpunished at death (Hb)/ here to Sheol (Gr) (9:12), and also “Bear in

64

65 66

In DJD XXXIV (173ff and 182f), the editors propose to read lm[w and to understand “and toil”; GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 60, reads l[w][w and translates “and ini[qui]ty”. But the most obvious reading is l[w “and the height/elevation/raising up” (a substantive of the root hl[), as a synonymic parallel to dwbk, as further “the rejoicing for the contrite of spirit” is parallel to “the eternal joy for those who mourn”. Would it be possible to understand [Xy ydlwm as “the genitures/horoscopes of salvation” rather than “the birth-times of salvation”? See above and note 42. See SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 83: “Rewards and punishments in the afterlife were not even considered”, and 86: “The possibility of rewards and punishments in some sort of afterlife receives no mention at all in the original Hebrew Text of Ben Sira”; GILBERT, L’Ecclésiatique: quel texte?, 245: “l’attente d’une vie future apparaît seulement dans les additions”. HARRINGTON, Two Early Jewish Approaches, 269-270: “Although there is no explicit denial of life after death, neither is there much affirmation of it (see 38,2123). The most important form of immortality is the good ‘name’ – the reputation that one leaves behind (41,1-4). The closest thing to an apocalyptic scenario comes in the prayer for God’s people in 36,1-22... But even here Ben Sira’s focus seems to be on some event in the near future (the overthrow of Antiochus III or Seleucus IV?)”. And lastly BURKES, God, Self, and Dead, 87-157 (on Ben Sira and Daniel) keeps the common position. In the citations below, I translate the Hebrew when it is known and differs from Gr I in order to show that the question very much interests the author and that he answers to it in his sentences like a sage.

100

Émile Puech

mind the retribution of the last days, the time of vengeance when God averts His face” (18:24), for “Yet it is a trifle for the Lord on the day someone dies to repay him as his conduct deserves” (11:26-28 Gr). Accordingly, “in everything you do, remember your end, and you will avoid eternal corruption” (7:36 Hb). For nothing is hidden from God and “One day He will rise to reward the just and repay their deserts on their own heads” (17:15-23), but “the meeting of the lawless is like a heap of tow: they will end in a blazing fire. The sinners’ road is smoothly paved, but it ends at the pit of Sheol” (21:9-10). These quotations underline how the end of human life is important for Ben Sira who is haunted by death, on which the fate of man seems to depend. That is to say that death does not introduce an absolute nothingness. Certainly, everyone must die (7:17 Hb; 14:17; 25:24) and he cannot hope to return to life (38:21-23; 41:3-4), children only can perpetuate the name or renown of a father on earth (30:4-6). Consequently, you should do good before dying, enjoy yourself in your lot of happiness, for there are no pleasures in Sheol (14:12-16), and there the dead cannot praise the Most High (17:27-28). These few verses allow us to suppose that ultimately Sheol is not a place which is eternally the same for all. At death it at first clearly defines the final end of every living person who gives back his vital breath, but it will also be the place of punishment at the eschatological Visitation, when the whole creation shall be shaken and God will remember everyone,67 as 16:14.17-23 notes precisely (see also 2:14 and 18:24). If Ben Sira should hope for nothing after death, not even for a divine judgment, then why all his repeated exhortations to observe the commandments until death, to live as a just man and to remember his end: “Remember the last things (ta. e;scata), and stop hating, remember corruption (katafqora,n) and death, and be faithful to the commandments. Remember the commandments... the covenant of the Most High and overlook ignorance” (28:6-7, see 7:36: “In everything you do, remember your end, and you will never sin”)? Since everyone is responsible for his own fate, the transitory character of life shall indeed encourage him to make use of his goods for himself and friends, taking care of his name which shall survive. Do not be too much afflicted by the death of those who belong to you, because it is as useless for the dead as for the living. But this does not mean that everything finishes there; what is after death is God’s matter, He who commands us to live according to His commandments in the present life.68 Such is the opinion of Ben Sira on rewards and chastisements in the afterlife in the book of maxims, where he proceeds by 67 68

An image which recalls the memorandum, the book of memorial on which the names of the wicked and of the justs are inscribed, as the Instruction affirms. See KAISER, Zwischen Athen und Jerusalem, 275-292: „Das Verständnis des Todes bei Ben Sira“.

Ben Sira and Qumran

101

cunning touches or allusions, in agreement with the pious and the sages of his generation. In the Praise of the Ancestors, he is not ignorant that men have been saved from death, escaping the power of Sheol: “No one else has ever been created on earth like Enoch, for he was taken up (before) the Face” (49:14),69 taking over what is said about Elijah “taken up in the whirlwind” (48:9). Elijah who roused a corpse from death (48:5), as well as his disciple Elisha who, even dead, revived a corpse (48:12-14),70 shall come back “to allay God’s wrath before the Day of hwhy to turn the hearts of fathers towards their children and to restore the tribes of Israel (48:10 Hb, see Mal 3:23-24). Elijah will continue his mission in those days, which is why Ben Sira can write: “Blessed, he who will see you before dying, for you will restore him[ to life and he will ]live again” (48:11 Hb).71 The just who will die then, shall come back to live, at least for the messianic times, as a reward for their conversion.72 The Greek recension (Gr I) is yet more explicit about the hope of rewards and punishments in the afterlife in 7:16-17b: “Do not swell the ranks of sinners, remember that the retribution will not delay. Be very humble, since the recompense for the godless is fire and worms”, and in 7:36: “In all your 69

70

71

72

The reading “Enoch” is primitive with the Greek, and for the construction and meaning of the passage, the copyist’s mistake in $ynhk can be easily explained by the scribe of Ms B, in spite of MULDER, Simon the Hight Priest, 90-102, the lectio difficilior is not necessarily to be retained. A translation of ~ynp into “in person” seems to be a tautology after awh ~gw, it is better to keep the meaning of “face” with perhaps a haplography of ynpl. The Hebrew passage seems to say that Elisha filled with the spirit of Elijah performed twice as many wonders, even in death, and that his body will be recreated (resurrected) from his tomb/underground wrXb arbn wytxtmw, see PUECH, La croyance des Esséniens, 7678, as if Elisha would participate in the eschatological times in the company of the just. The Greek reads: “and having fallen asleep, his body prophesied”. This reading is not necessarily the primitive one. In that case Elisha would only be compared to Samuel who, alive or dead, prophesied, but did not give back life to anybody (46:20). The wish that the bones of judges and of the twelve prophets flourish again (46:12 and 49:10) can very well be understood in this way, as a hope of the resurrection at the Visitation, compare 4QPseudo-Ezéchiel, see La croyance des Esséniens, 73f. For this opinion, see also SARACINO, Resurrezione. See PUECH, La croyance des Esséniens, 74-76 where I sum up a previous note explaining the priority of the Hebrew text which is at the origin of the Greek, Syriac and Latin recensions: h[yxyw ~yyx] !tt yk tmw $ar (y)rXa. This reading is also retained by MINISSALE, La versione greca, 225. The exegesis of KEARNS, The Expanded Text, 183f, which limits the eternal life to Elijah only in reading hyxt hwyx yk $(y)rXaw in order to stay to the habitual concept, is palaeographically not acceptable. It is difficult to follow Di Lella (SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 86), declaring that clear allusions to the retribution in the afterlife do appear only with the translation of Gr I in Alexandria after the publication of Dan 12:1-3. The text of Hb I, at the origin of Gr I, which I have presented, is earlier and probably primitive. But Ben Sira does not say clearly how God will reward the just in the eschaton.

102

Émile Puech

words, remember your end, and you will never sin”. Moreover, it extends the hope in the resurrection to all the just in 48:11: “Blessed those who have seen you and who have fallen asleep/have been honored in love, for we too shall certainly have life”.73 Consequently, Ben Sira waits for a judgment at the eschatological Visitation with rewards and chastisements (Sheol then changing meaning to fire and eternal corruption), which he does not explicitly state, and a resurrection for the just is not denied in Hb I, for then God will remember and reward a good way of life. 3.4.2 The Instruction The fear of the divine Visitation already present in Ben Sira is certainly found yet again in 4QInstruction with an eschatological perspective marked out from the first column by a judgment scene from which nothing can escape. The sage’s recommendations and the insistent reminder of study and meditation of the mystery to come in order to orient his life, still keeps the fate of the human condition in its view, the chastisements of the foolish and the rewards of the faifthful elect, who have been informed of the consequences of the universal judgment, the object of the divine plan, 4Q416 1 10-16 // 4Q418 2 2-9:74 Then] 10in Heaven He shall judge the work of wickedness, and all His faithful children will find favour be[fore Him, and wickedness will be coming to] 11its end. And they will be frightened and shaken all who defiled themselves in it, for the heavens shall fear, [earth shall shake from its place,] 12the seas and the depths shall fear. And every fleshly spirit will be destroyed, but the sons of heaven sha[ll rejoice and be glad in the day of] 13his judgment, and all iniquity shall come to an end, whereas the epoch of truth will be perfected forever, and [the spiritual people will sing] praising 14in all periods of eternity. For He is a God of fidelity. From of old, from years of [eternity He has ordered all things and He has opened the sage’s ear 15to explain to the just how to distinguish between good and evil, to make [known] each judg[ment..., for] 16he is a creature of flesh, and [his] understandings[...

(see also 4Q418 123 ii 3-8). The name of the just with all his deeds is written in a memorial book, as well as that of the wicked, but the latter is inscribed among the sons of the Pit (see above 4Q417 1 i 6-19 and //). Another passage of the Instruction sums up well the point of view of the sage on this subject, 4Q418 69 ii:75 73 74

75

Explicited further in Gr II: 2:9c; 16:22c; 19:19, Syriac: 1:12b.20+; 3:1b; 48:11b and Vetus Latina: 18:22b; 21:10b; 24:22b+; 27:8+. I give my readings with some restorations of lacunae in italic: read l. 10: [d[ h[Xr artw ynp]l, line 11: [#ra hmwqmm X[r]t wary, lines 12-13: hjp[Xm13 ~wyb wxmXyw wl]g[y ~]ymXh (with 4Q418 212 1-2), line 13: [xwr ~[ ryXy h]lhtw ~lw[[l t]mah (with the support of 4Q418 2), line 14: l[ykXm !za hlgw lwkh !ykh ~lw[] ynX. DJD XXXIV, 281. For the restoration of the text with the adjoining fragment 60 at lines 4-

Ben Sira and Qumran 4...vacat

103

And now, O you foolish-minded ones, what is good to one who has not been

5created? And what is tranquillity to one who is not come into existence? And what is a

decree to one who has not been established? And what lament shall the dead make over all their [days]? 6You, you were fashioned for Sheol, and to the everlasting Pit shall your return be, when it shall awaken and [expo]se your sin. [And the inhabitants of] 7its cavern shall cry out against your pleading, and all who shall endure forever, who search for the truth, shall rouse themselves to judge you. [And then] 8will all the foolish-minded ones be destroyed, and the children of iniquity shall not be found anymore, and all who hold fast to wickedness shall be shameful/ wither away. [And then] 9at the passing of judgment upon you, the foundations of the firmament will cry out, and all the celestial hosts will thunder forth to separate those who love [righteousness.] 10(vacat) But You, the truly chosen ones, who pursue [understanding and] who seek eagerly for [wisdom, and] who keep vigil 11over all knowledge, how can you say: We are tired of understanding, and we have been vigilant in pursuing knowledge a[lways] and everywhere? 12But nobody becomes weary for all the years of eternity! Does he not take delight in truth forever? And does not knowledge [forever] serve us? And the sons of 13heaven, whose lot is eternal life, will they truly say: “We are tired of doing the works of truth, and we have grown weary 14at all times? Will they not walk in the everlasting light [all in garments of] glory and abundance of splendour with those [who stand] 15in the firmament of [holiness and in] the council of the divine ones, all [the days of eternity? va]cat.”

This passage of the Instruction promises the faithful elect, as rewards, the rising of the dead or resurrection to everlasting life in glory in the company of the angels, but to the foolish ones or wicked, as chastisements, the annihilation in the Pit of everlasting destruction, at the judgment when their sins will be revealed. The eschatological concept is the same as that of Isa 26 and Dan 12 (Hebrew); the just alone will rise for the everlasting life understood as a return to the original condition of man created by God to His image and living before Him, whereas the wicked is fashioned for the everlasting chastisements in Sheol. In 4Q418 69 ii 7 like in 1QH XIV 32, the image is that of “awakening” wrw[y like in Dan 12:2 wcyqy parallel to that of “to rise 5, see PUECH, La croyance à la resurrection des justes, with some corrections in ID., Apports des textes apocalyptiques. I do another correction of line 6, reading hmkajx[b har]tw instead of [l[ twl]lgl, but the meaning is the similar. GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 173, understands “it will awaken [to condemn] you[r] sin”, this restoration is improbable for the remains of letters and for the meaning, because the Pit does not condemn but is to receive and give back what had been entrusted to it, and also the translation of line 7 [173 and 177]: “all who exist forever, those who seek truth, will rouse themselves for yo[ur] judgment” as refering to angels, the same in DJD XXXIV, 286f). At lines 8-9, would it be more difficult to understand w]Xby “shall be shameful” as a defective orthography in this manuscript (see al, l. 12) preferable to “shall wither away” parallel to “will be destroyed”, and then w[wry “shall be shaken” (see already 4Q416 1 11) preferable to w[yry “shall cry out” parallel to “will thunder forth”?, as proposed by CAQUOT, Les textes de sagesse, 21. TIGCHELAAR, Increase Learning, 210f, keeps the reading “be ashamed” because of a parallel with Isa 41:11-12. PUECH, Les fragments eschatologiques, 99 and 102, prefers now “se desséche[ront”, see also now, PUECH, Apports, 90.

104

Émile Puech

again” or “to stand up” ~wqy in Isa 26:19 or Wis 5:1,76 to evoke the fate of the just at the divine Visitation, a motif found many times in other Qumranic texts. The whole creation is included in this divine judgment: heaven, the abyss, and Sheol now described as a place of punishment of the foolish-minded, who will stay in the Sheol-Pit when it will awaken, while the faithful will revive to participate in their judgment. Then their pleading will be useless and their fate is fixed for ever. Accordingly Sheol changes meaning when it will awake for the judgment: from a place of a common abode for all after death, it is transformed into a place of everlasting chastisement for some, while the others receive their reward.77 The meditation of “the mystery to come” had already taught them: “Gaze upon the mystery] 11that is to come, and comprehend the birth-times of salvation, and know who is to inherit glory and raising up.78 Has not [rejoicing been appointed for the contrite of spirit] 12and eternal joy for those among them who mourn?” (4Q417 2 i 1012). It taught them how “to know truth and iniquity, wisdom 7[and foolish]ness, and to recognize every act in all their ways, together with their punishments in all ages everlasting and the eternal 8Visitation” (4Q417 1 i 6-8). To accede to glory and raising up, the just resurrect, awakening at the final judgment,79 and look on the judgment of the foolish who will be anni76

77

78 79

I treated the eschatology of Wisdom in: The Book of Wisdom and the Dead Sea Scrolls, or an updated version in: La conception de la vie future dans le livre de la Sagesse. For the study of Daniel 12, see particularly ALFRINK, L’idée de résurrection , or PUECH, La croyance à la resurrection des justes, 79-85. COLLINS, The Mysteries of God, holds to the soul’s immortality in Wisdom; but an immortality without any kind of pre-existence as in Greek thought, but which is directly linked to the reward of a just way of life, is no longer Greek; furthermore, if immortality enters God’s eternal plan for all mankind, it is before the first fall when Adam was not a mere soul! The proximity of concept with the apocalypses of Daniel 12 and 1 Enoch supports the concept of a personal resurrection in glory in the angels’ company. And all those who will endure forever, those who investigate the truth cannot be the angels who are already living in eternal glory and do not have to search neither to keep vigil and become weary, pace Collins who does not understand there the scene of the last Judgment with the theophany and the shaking of the creation, preferring the entering of the soul into glory at death, as he understands it also in Wisdom. GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 197-204, assesses that this passage does not descibe Sheol as a place of punishment for the foolish-minded: but then why do these intercede at the judgment? Why would they seek to go out of it, since they are now prisoners in it, whereas the others rouse (and consequently escape) from there? If the PitSheol is to be avoided, it is because it will be a place of punishment. See note 64. In 4Q418 69 ii 7, tma yXrwd ~lw[ hyhn lwk opposed to foolish-minded can only describe the just, not the angels, contrary to the opinion of GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 177f (with bibliography), following Tigchelaar and Collins in particular. How could angels awake at the judgment, beings who do not tire themselves but are always servants in the divine council as these lines remind us. Their sleep would mean that they can become tired, but then how can they be said to be a model to imitate? They possess already eternal life as an inheritance and they already walk in the everlasting light. Like all the cre-

Ben Sira and Qumran

105

hilated and will disappear in the Pit where their return is fixed forever, as the text specifies, the Pit which becomes a place of imprisonment from where they shall not escape; then iniquity will be no more (see also 4Q418 126 ii 6-9).80 The reward of the just is glory and raising up in the firmament of holiness in the angels’ company for ever in the everlasting light. That life in the company of the angels is initiated by the just at the resurrection at the last judgment, but not so early as the death of each one.81 This passage is very near to Dan 12:1-3 and 13, where the sages (~ylykXm) will awaken and shine. But if the just can awaken, it is because he benefits also from divine forgiveness at the judgment: “For before His [anger] 16none will stand, and who will be declared righteous when He gives judgment? And without forgiveness how can [any] poor man [stand before Him?]” (4Q417 2 i 15-16). This is an implicit statement that, while waiting for the judgment, Sheol is common to all as a place of the sojourn of (the spirits of) the dead as in 1 Enoch, and that there is no praise of God in Sheol before it awaken (#yqt yk, line 6). But it already has this meaning in Sir 17:27-28. Finally, no more than the other Essene manuscripts, 4QInstruction no longer knows a realized eschatology.82 Since the just aims at the future life and at eternal glory in the company of the angels as the promised inheritance,83 and since he faithfully observes the Word in this life, this proves

80

81

82

83

ation, they assist the judgment giving voice to divide the just (l. 9). TIGCHELAAR, Increase Learning, 211-13, excludes categorically all idea of resurrection, and understands: “and all who exist for ever, who seek the truth, will arise to judge you”. “]6judgment to repay vengeance to the workers of iniquity, and a visitation of re[tribution...] 7and to imprison the wicked but to raise up the head of the poor, [...] 8in glory everlasting and peace eternal and the spirit of life to separate[...among] 9all the children of Eve”. As GOFF asserts, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 206-215 and passim. For the author, the just participates spiritually in the world of angels at death, death which concerns only his body of flesh, his spirit continuing to live in a form of astral immortality without having to wait for the theophany “at the time of wrath” to get his reward. Whereas for the foolish-minded whose body also disappears, his fleshly spirit goes down into Sheol at death. But then why would the sage recall the fear of the judgment? and what to do with the last and universal judgment to which all the creation must participate, even the awakening of the Pit with the rise of the just, but not of the angels? The text does not give material for these extrapolations. Thus ELGVIN, Early Essene Eschatology, 144, partially accepted by GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, and mostly COLLINS,Apocalypticism, 120 and 143-147, or HARRINGTON, Two Early Jewish Approaches, 272: “Indeed, the righteous already participate in the glorious existence of the angels”. See 4Q418 81 1-5: “...Because by the utterance of] 1your lips He has opened a fountain to bless the holy ones, you, as an everlasting fountain, praise [His] n[ame. Because ]He has separated you from every 2fleshly spirit, you, you have to separate yourself from everything that He hates, and hold yourself aloof from that which a soul abominates. Because, He, He has made everyone, 3and that He has made them to inherit each his own inheritance and that, He, He is your portion and your inheritance among the children of men,

106

Émile Puech

that he is not yet living among the divine council, while the sage admonishes him to persevere and not to tire himself for the reward “in all the years of eternity”. In fact, if the just shared in it already even somewhat, he would not have any reason to be discouraged, nor would he find an encouragement in the way he has to follow, since he would already possess partially what shall be eternal and he would be certain to enjoy its full possession without waiting for forgiveness at the judgment. But this is manifestly not the case: the just feels his way in faith hoping that the meditation of the mystery will be fulfilled for him if he succeeds in complying with the sage’s exhortation. This conception of eschatology coincides again perfectly with what is found in 4Q521, Hymns, the Rule (Instruction on Two Spirits), and other Essene texts which I have presented at length elsewhere,84 a concept known already by Ben Sira’s contemporary, 1 Enoch 92:3-5: “3The just will rise from his sleep [...] 4God will forgive the just, He will give him eternal justice [...] and they will walk in the eternal light. 5But sin will disappear forever in the

84

and that in His inheritance He has set you, then you, 4because of that, honour Him by consecrating yourself to Him, because He has appointed you as a holy of holies over all the earth, and that among the [a]n[gels] 5He has cast your lot, He has greatly magnified your glory and He has appointed you for Himself, a first-born among[ the children of Israe]l. [ Because He has said: “I will bless you] 6and my bounty I will give you”, then you, do His good things not belong to you? Likewise in His faithfulness walk continually.[ Because He, He knows all] 7your works, then you, look for His judgments from everyone who blames you in each re[buke. Because He acts with bounty over all ] 8who love Him and with {eternal} loving-kindness and with mercy for all those who keep His Word but (that) His zeal[ is for all who hate Him,] 9but as for you, the insight He has opened and He has established you over His treasure, and a true measure has been entrusted upon you,[ because judgment and righteousness] 10are with you and at your disposal to turn away anger from the men of (His) good pleasure and to punish[ the wicked. Because His favour is always] 11with you, before receiving your inheritance from His hand, glorify His Holy ones, and be[fore finishing it, (you,) bless Him/His name(?). Because] 12He has opened the fountain for all the Holy ones and (that) every one who is called by His name [is] holy[, you, make yourself holy(?). Because] 13the ornaments of His beauty are for all periods for an ever[lasting] plantation, [you then look for the fountain of His learning, such as a spring overflowing] 14and co]vering the world; in it shall walk all those who are to inherit the earth, for in hea[ven a book of memorial is inscribed before Him(?)...”. For the readings, see also now PUECH, Les fragments eschatologiques. The passage indicates what is the glorious inheritance which God has prepared for the elect and the just, in the company of the angels, if he is faithful and accomplishes his duty, but it does not say that the just possesses it already now, since, even being set aside, he shall ratify this choice and live accordingly, separating himself from every evil. This is a strong reasoning in order to admonish to faithfulness, as in 4Q418 69 ii 10-15. See PUECH, La croyance des Esséniens, volume II, or Apports. There is no difference between these concepts of punishments and rewards in the afterlife, merely expositions more or less developed and precise, even if most of the texts are fragmentary, contrary to GOFF, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 213 for example.

Ben Sira and Qumran

107

darkness, and it will not be seen anymore, from that day and forever”. All these expression are found in 4QInstruction (particularly 418 69 ii and 417 2 i 15-16), or 1 Enoch 102-104, where all souls go down to Sheol, but the last Judgment will select everlasting chastisements for some and rewards for others according to what will be found written in the memorial books.85

3.5 Messianism In the eschatological perspective, the Jewish hope waits for the coming of messianic times around the central figures of a king and a priest, as some texts say more precisely. 3.5.1 The priestly covenant and the Davidic covenant In the eulogy of the glory of God in the world (Sir 42:15–43:33) and in history (Sir 44-49), the chronological order is generally followed from Enoch to Nehemiah (Sir 44:16 to 49:13) but it comes back to Enoch, Joseph, Sem, Seth and Adam in 49:14-16 as an inclusion of this vast fresco, finishing with the High Priest Simon, son of Onias, his contemporary (Sir 50:1ff). Yet, the chronology is somewhat disturbed in 45:23-26: running from the priest Aaron to Phinehas, then to David and again to Phinehas and coming back then to the historical ordering with Joshua in 46:1. Ben Sira wants in this way to link the covenant with David dywd ~[ wtyrb and his sons through direct succession to the priestly covenant ~wlX tyrb with Aaron-Phinehas and their lineage,86 while these notions are specified, but specified separately and in their expected place in 45:7 ~lw[ qx for Aaron and in 47:11 wnrq, tklmm qx for David. Several biblical passages have already brought together the covenant of kingship and the covenant of priesthood: Jer 33:17-22 and Zech 6:9-14; compare also 1 Chr 17:14 and 2 Sam 7:16; 1 Chr 29:22 and 1 Kgs 1:39 where the perpetuity of both covenants or institutions is secured in the future. This 85

86

The “Enoch Epistle” of 1 Enoch is identified among the Aramaic and Greek fragments, see MILIK, The Books of Enoch, and PUECH, Sept fragments grecs. TIGCHELAAR, Increase Learning, 208-224 and 247f, estimates that the Instruction is older than the “Enoch Epistle” and that the dependence of the last one is not proven: are they two independent works? According to ELGVIN, The Mystery to Come, 116f, 138, 146, the Instruction should be dependent from the Enoch Epistle. COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom, 115-131, sees there an influence of the Apocalyptic on the writings of wisdom, whereas KNIBB, The Book of Enoch, thinks that the authors of 1 Enoch, 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction are very close to each other. The Hebrew text of 45:26c is corrupt but it is possible to recognize in it the original at the basis of the Greek: wdbl wnbl $lmh tlxn changed into wdwbk ynpl Xa tlxn, see klhronomi,a basile,wj ui`ou/ evx ui`ou/ monou/.

Émile Puech

108

Pre-Maccabean hope87 prepared the double-headed messianic hope of Jubilees 31 and of the subsequent Qumranic texts.88 If the Greek never makes messianic thoughts explicit, kingship having disappeared, on the other hand the Hebrew Psalm inserted after 51:12 testifies to it,89 vv. 12h-j: Praised be he who rebuilds his city and his sanctuary, for His love endures forever. Praised be he who grows a horn to David’s house, for His love endures forever. j Praised be he who chose the sons of Zadok as priests, for His love endures forever. h i

Even if the Psalm which insists on the Zadokite election seems to be an Essenian addition,90 it is inserted itself logically in the sequence of the Ancestors’ eulogy. In the praise of Aaron, with Phinehas and Simon being considered as Aaronic, Ben Sira holds priesthood in high esteem, without however leaving totally aside the covenant with David and his lineage (Sir 45:25; 47:11.12). Thus he writes in 50:24 (Hb): May His mercy be faithfully with Simon and may it keep for him the covenant with Phinehas, so that it will not be broken for him nor for his lineage as long as last the days of heaven.91

87 88

89

90

91

Contrary to COLLINS, The Scepter and the Star, 31-41. For a status quaestionis, see PUECH, Messianisme, eschatologie et résurrection, 265-286, but without the analysis of these passages of Ben Sira, and KNIBB, Eschatology and Messianism. The authenticity and the origin of this psalm modeled on Ps 136 are debated. The Psalm is known only in Hebrew (Ms B). It could be an Essene addition in a copy of the scroll, see DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text, 101-105; ID., Qumrân and the Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira, 263-265, who shows that the Davidic messianism prevailed in the time of Ben Sira, Sir 49:11 taking up Ha 2:23; 45:25 and 47:11.22. See DI LELLA, Qumrân and the Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira; TRINQUET, Les liens ‘sadocites’, 290: “Authentique ou inauthentique, ce psaume par sa présence dans les fragments hébreux de l’Ecclésiastique paraît indiquer qu’au moins ceux-ci furent entre les mains des ‘fils de Sadoq’”. This does not demand a composition prior to 171/0 BC (murder of Onias III), but at the earliest of the last third of that century, see the following note. Is this passage written during the life of Simon (in the past in 50:1-5) or of his offspring (Onias III?) or of his son, Simon III who became High Priest from 159 to 152, probably to be identified with the Teacher of Righteousness (see PUECH, Le grand prêtre), or later? Since this passage would not have a basis after the expulsion of the Zadokites, it is easier to explain that the translator into Greek has reworked it, see SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 569. DI LELLA, Qumrân and the Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira, 265266, did a similar analysis and supposed that, if Ben Sira has not composed this Psalm (adopted position), on the other hand the stich j (and even the whole Psalm) could have been composed by a Qumranite who could have inserted it in the Psalm. This should confirm the Qumranic origin of scrolls copied by Qaraites.

Ben Sira and Qumran

109

The Hebrew Psalm has a directly messianic colouration, whereas the others passages of the book hold to the two covenants. But are they so distant from each other? The accent on priesthood is the predominant accent, as was the case during the author’s life, without forgetting the covenant of kingship.92 Was there not a pierre d’attente of first order for the reception of the book among the Essenes who, once in the opposition camp after the loss of the High Priesthood, could only wait for the coming of the two messiahs? 3.5.2 Elijah In fact, the Essene Community waited for the coming of two messiahs, the messiah of Aaron who had precedence and the Messiah of Israel whom the prophet might accompany (1QS IX 10-11 and 4Q175).93 Qumranic texts, 4Q521 2 iii and 4Q558 51 4 in particular, both referring to Mal 3:23-24, explicitly report Elijah’s return. But the figure of Elijah redivivus, the eschatological prophet, is similarly present in Sir 48:11 (Hb I – Gr I) prior to the additions of Gr II.94 After the praise of the historical prophet comes the mention of the figure of the eschatological prophet who, after his ascent into heaven, must return before the day of Judgment to allay God’s wrath, to exhort to conversion and to restore the tribes of Israel (48:9-10). This passage states that those who will be present at the return of Elijah and should die after having obeyed the preaching of the prophet, will rise for their reward at the day of judgment and of restoration (see above). Thus in the Praise of the Ancestors where his personal sensibility expresses itself more than in the maxims of traditional wisdom, Ben Sira recalls the perpetuity of both priestly and kingly covenants and the preparation of the day of hwhy with the coming of the prophet, as a way towards a twofold messianism, and the belief in the resurrection of the just which both will be taken up by both Essenes and Pharisees.95 92

93

94

95

PRIEST, Ben Sira 45,25 in the Light, 118: Ben Sira is nether a Qumranite nor a proto-Qumranite, but a predecessor or pioneer who knew the Hasîdîm milieu. The reminder of two covenants would certainly prepare the way to messianism in the following generations, therefore the negative answer of CAQUOT, Ben Sira et le messianisme, seems too clear cut. See PUECH, Messianisme, eschatologie et résurrection, 282-286, without adopting the argument of POIRIER, The Endtime Return: the attribution of the eschatological priesterhood to Elijah by association with Phinehas is certainly late. Until there is more information, there is no indisputable remnant in the Qumranic writings. The Aramaic composition 4Q558 is certainly pre-Qumranic; it can be more or less contemporary to the book of Ben Sira, whereas 4Q521 might be dated in the second half of the 2nd century. These conceptions are not especially opposed to Pharisaic thought on eschatology and messianism, as GILBERT seems to say, Siracide, 1415. But they prepare the developments in the Pharisaic milieu which is a little later.

Émile Puech

110

4. Additions of essene origin? As a book read and copied at Qumran, as different discoveries of Hebrew manuscripts show (2Q18, 11QPsa, Mas and the copies of the geniza), it should not be surprising that here and there additions have been inserted. If here is not the place to study all the additions,96 it is at least useful to note the remarks already made on this subject. Some hold the Greek additions as a Pharisaic recension,97 others ascribe them to the school of Aristobulos.98 It has even been proposed that the additions of both stichs of 16:15-16, known in the Greek manuscripts 248 and 106, in the Peshitta and Ms A of Cairo but missing in Latin, comes from the Essene milieu.99 15

God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he did not know Him while His deeds reveal Himself under Heaven. 16 His love shall been made manifest to all creation (Gr)/ His creatures (Syr-Hb) His light and His darkness He shared between the children of Adam/men.

As an explanation of 16:4: “To every man who does righteousness there is reward, and everyone is treated as he deserves”, the addition quotes the example of Pharaoh who did not know the God whose deeds are manifest (Exod 5:2; 7:3), changing the relative proposition into a final one (Greek and Syr, Ms A not precise): “so that he did not know Him”. If 16:15 extends the demonstrative historical part of 16:6-11b, verse 16 takes up again the idea of retribution of 16:11c-14: the pair light-darkness corresponds to the pair mercy-forgiveness and wrath-reproof. The obduracy of Pharaoh’s heart introduces a deterministic note (the copyist of Ms A has changed wkXxw into wxbXw by metathesis), to be compared to the teaching of the Instruction on the Two Spirits in 1QS III 13 – IV 26: He (God) created man for the dominion of 18the world, and He designed for him two spirits in which to walk until the appointed time for His Visitation, namely the spirit of 19truth and of deceit. In a spring of light (walk) the generations of faithful but in a well of darkness the generations of deceit (III 17-19). And He alloted them to the sons of man for the knowledge of good and evil, thus God assigned the lots for every living being according to his spirit for the time of the Visitation (IV 26).

The addition of Sir 16:16 inscribes itself fully in this line of thought, as did 15:14b (Hb) and 4Q418 81 already (see note 83). In the same vein are the antitheses which lengthen 11:4: “Good and 96 97 98 99

See KEARNS, The Expanded Text, note 71. See HART, Ecclesiasticus, 272-320. SCHLATTER, Das neu gefundene, and PRATO, La lumière interprète, 341ff. PHILONENKO, Sur une proposition essénisante.

Ben Sira and Qumran

111

bad, life and death, poverty and wealth come from hwhy” in the addition 11:15-16:100 (Ms A) 15 Wisdom, learning and knowledge of the word come from Yhwh, (sin corruption for) love and path of uprightness come from Yhwh, (Gr/Syr/Lat) 15 Wisdom, learning and knowledge of the word come from Yhwh, love and paths of good deeds come from Yhwh. 16 Madness (Ms A)/ error and darkness are created for the sinners, those who delight in evil grow old in evil.

These dualistic developments, present together in Ms A of Cairo and in the additions of the versions, could apparently come only from an Essene milieu which hold this book in great esteem. But the question is more disputable for the additions of the 12 stichs (a to l) after 1:20 in Syriac instead of verses 1:21-27. If the passage is missing in Gr I, it could have been inserted in another copy by a sage101 familiar with 4Q521, for instance, or with similar compositions at an early date prior to the translation into Syriac, without the Syrian translator having himself enriched the text or introduced new expectations.102 Indeed,”the wreath and everlasting rewards among the angels (c), the rejoicing of angels of God in him (e), the inheritance of life, eternal inheritance and great joy (h), be inscribed in the book of life (i)” are eschatological themes already well known in the 2nd century with Daniel, the Instruction, 4QPseudo-Ezechiel and other Qumranic texts. However, it is difficult to prove an Essene origin of this addition which is known only in the Syriac tradition without any Hebrew witness.103 In conclusion, the book of Jesus Ben Sira, of which several Hebrew copies were found to come more or less directly from Qumran, strongly influenced 100 See PRATO, La lumière interprète, 353f. 101 Following KEARNS, The Expanded Text, 190-201; LEGRAND, Siracide(syriaque), 123-134, collected a number of parallels taken from Jewish apocryphal texts and Qumranic manuscripts which are not all Essene compositions. Some are pre-Qumranic, and the Apocrypha prove nothing. 102 See CALDUCH-BENAGES, Traducir – Interpretar. The author translates atwkz (c) by “une victoire”, but it is better to translate it as in Aramaic “le mérite, la récompense”, see for example 4Q542 1 ii 13. In (e), the translation is “les anges de Dieu se réjouiront/ssent en lui” not “en elle” as the author translates (p. 337 and note 63), see 1 Enoch 104:1-5 for example: the rejoicing of angels envisages man who performs Wisdom and Law of God and who will be judged as deserving eternal life in their company, not Wisdom. This concept is already in 4QInstruction and is well attested elsewhere at Qumran. 103 Contrary to LEGRAND, Siracide(syriaque), 123f and 133. To do that, it must be proven that the translator had access to an Essene copy of the book or that these themes and images are exclusively Essene, which is clearly not the case. KEARNS, The Expanded Text, attributed the additions to the influences of Wisdom and to the Essene milieu but the argumentation could be much disputed.

112

Émile Puech

the Essenes and left traces in their own compositions, specially in the wisdom writings, as well as on other writings found in that same library. Many points of contact, parallels or oppositions have been pointed out, in particular concerning the Aaronic or Zadokite priesthood, the lunar or solar calendars, the central importance of Law or the meditations on mysteries in compositions of the 2nd century, and their respective points of view upon two very fundamental topics in the Judaism of that period – the messianic and eschatological hopes – have been presented. In spite of rather varied literary genres, the points of view are less distant than is often believed, as they both differently reflect the evolution of ideas and beliefs in different milieux of sages in the 2nd century, be it before Qumran or a Qumranic one. Copied and recopied, revisions of Ben Sira became unavoidable in the Essene milieu and later on in the versions of Christian communities who received this book without difficulty.

Ben Sira and Qumran

113

Bibliography ALFRINK, J. B., L’idée de résurrection d’après Dan XII,1-2: Bib 40 (1959), 355-371. BAILLET, M., Textes des grottes 2Q, 3Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, in: BAILLET, M. – MILIK, J. T. – DE VAUX, R., Le ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran. Texte – Planches (DJD III), Oxford 1962, 45-164. BAUMGARTEN, J. M., Some Notes on the Ben Sira Scroll from Masada: JQR 58 (1968), 323-327. BEENTJES, P. C., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VT.S 68), Leiden 1997. BEN HAYYIM, Z. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, Jerusalem 1973. Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam versionem... recensuit WEBER, R., II: Proverbia – Apocalypsis, Appendix, Stuttgart 1969. BRAUN, O., Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I über biblische Studien des 9 Jahrhunderts: Oriens Christianus 1 (1901), 299-313. BROOKE, G. J., Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom Texts from Qumran, in: HEMPEL, C. – LANGE, A. – LICHTENBERGER, H. (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (BEThL 159), Leuven 2002, 201-220. BROOKE, G. J., The wisdom of Matthew’s Beatitudes (4QBéat and Mt. 5:3-12): ScrB 19 (1988-89), 35-41. BURKES, SH., God, Self, and Dead. The Shape of Religious Transformation in the Second Temple Period (JSJ.S 79), Leiden – Boston 2003. CALDUCH-BENAGES, N., Trial Motif in the Book of Ben Sira with Special Reference to Sir. 2,1-6, in: BEENTJES, P. C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255), Berlin – New York 1997, 135-151. CALDUCH-BENAGES, N., Traducir – Interpretar: La versión siríaca de Sirácida 1: EstB 55 (1997), 313-340. CALDUCH-BENAGES, N. – FERRER, J. – LIESEN, J. , La Sabiduría del escriba – Wisdom of the Scribe, Estella 2003. CAQUOT, A., Les textes de sagesse de Qoumrân (Aperçu préliminaire): RHPR 76 (1996), 1-34. CAQUOT, A., Ben Sira et le messianisme: Sem. 16 (1966), 43-68. CARMIGNAC, J., Les rapports entre l’Ecclésiastique et Qumrân: RdQ III (1961-62), 209-218. COLLINS, J. J., The Scepter and the Star: the Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, New York 1995. COLLINS, J. J., Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, London-New York, 1997. COLLINS, J. J., Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, Louisville 1997. COLLINS, J. J., The Mysteries of God. Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon, in: GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BEThL 168), Leuven 2003, 287-305. CORLEY, J., Wisdom Versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1,1-10, in: GARCÍA

114

Émile Puech

MARTÍNEZ, F. (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, 269-285. COWLEY, A. E. – NEUBAUER, A., The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXIX.15 to XLIX.11) Together with Early Versions and an English Translation, Followed by the Quotations from Ben Sira in Rabbinical Literature, Oxford 1897. DAHMEN, U., Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum. Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran, Leiden 2003. DELCOR, M., Le texte hébreu du Cantique de Siracide LI,13 et ss. et les anciennes versions: Textus 6 (1968), 27-47. DE ROO, J. C. R., Is 4Q525 a Qumran Sectarian Document?, in: PORTER, S. E. – EVANS, A. (eds.),The Scrolls and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty Years After (JSPE.S 26), Sheffield 1997, 338-367. DI LELLA, A., The Hebrew Text of Sirach. A Text-Critical and Historical Study, London – The Hague – Paris 1966. DI LELLA, A., Qumrân and the Genizah Fragments of Ben Sira: CBQ 24 (1987), 245-267, DORIVAL, G., L’apport des Pères de l’Église à la question de la clôture du Canon de l’Ancien Testament, in: AUWERS, J.-M. – DE JONGE, H. J. (eds.), The Biblical Canons (BEThL 163), Leuven 2003, 81-110. DUVAL, R., Une découverte de livres hébreux à Jéricho: Revue sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne 10 (1902), 174-179. ELGVIN, T., 4QWays of Righteousness (DJD XX), Oxford 1997. ELGVIN, T., The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation, in: Qumran Between the Old and New Testament (JSOT.S 290), Sheffield 1998, 113-150. ELGVIN, T., Early Essene Eschatology: Judgment and Salvation according to Sapiential Work A, in: PARRY, D. W. – RICKS, S. (eds.), Current Research and Technological Development on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995 (STDJ 20), Leiden 1996, 126-165. FLINT, P. W., «Apocrypha», Other Previously-Known Writings, and «Pseudepigrapha» in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: FLINT, P. W. – VANDERKAM, J. C. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment, II, Leiden – Boston – Köln 1999, 24-66. FABRY, H.-J., Die Seligpreisungen in der Bibel und in Qumran, in: HEMPEL, C. – LANGE, A. – LICHTENBERGER, H. (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, 189-200. FLECHTER-LOUIS, C. H. T., All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42), Leiden 2002. FREY, J., Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts. An inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage, in: HEMPEL, C. – LANGE, A. – LICHTENBERGER, H. (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, 367-404. GILBERT, M., L’Ecclésiatique: quel texte? Quelle autorité?: RB 94 (1987), 233-250. GILBERT, M., Siracide, in: DBS XII, 1389-1437. GILBERT, M., The Book of Ben Sira: Implications for Jewish and Christian Traditions, in: TALMON, SH. (ed.), Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic Roman Period, Philadelphia, 1991, 81-91.

Ben Sira and Qumran

115

GILBERT, M., «Venez à mon école» (Si 51,13-30), in: FISCHER, I. – RAPP, U. – SCHILLER, J. (eds.), Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. Festschrift Johannes Marböck anlässlich seiner Emeritierung (BZAW 331), Berlin – New York 2003, 283-290. GLESSMER, U., Calendars in the Qumran Scrolls, in: FLINT, P. W. – VANDERKAM, J. C. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment, 213-278. GOFF, M. J., The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ 50), Leiden 2003. GRELOT, P., La Bible Parole de Dieu, Paris 1965. HAYWARD, R. C. T., El Elyon and the Divine Name in Ben Sira’s God, in: EGGERWENZEL, R. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin – New York 2002, 180-198. HARRINGTON, D. J., Two Early Jewish Approaches to Wisdom Sirach and Qumran Sapiential Work A, in: HEMPEL, C. – LANGE, A. – LICHTENBERGER, H. (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, 263275. HARRINGTON, D. J., Wisdom and Apocalyptic in 4QInstruction and 4 Esra, in: F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, 343-355. HARRINGTON, D. J., Wisdom at Qumran, in: ULRICH, E. – VANDERKAM, J. (eds.), The Community of the Renewed Covenant. The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Notre Dame 1993, 137-152. HART, J. H. A., Ecclesiasticus: the Greek Text of Codex 248, edited with a textual commentary and prolegomena, Cambridge 1909. IWRY, S., A New Designation for the Luminaries in Ben Sira and in the Manual of Discipline (1QS): BASOR 200 (1970), 41-47. KAISER, O., Zwischen Athen und Jerusalem. Studien zur griechischen und biblischen Theologie, ihrer Eigenart und ihrem Verhältnis, Berlin – New York 2003. KEARNS, C., The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus. Its Teaching on the Future Life as a Clue to its Origin, Rome 1951. KNIBB, M. A., The Book of Enoch in the Light of the Qumran Wisdom Literature, in: GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, 193-210. KNIBB, M. A., Eschatology and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: FLINT, P. W. – VANDERKAM, J. C. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment, II, 379-402. KOPERSKI, V., Sirach and Wisdom: a Plea for Canonicity, in: AUWERS, J.-M. – DE JONGE, H. J. (eds.), The Biblical Canons, 254-264. LANGE, A., Wisdom and Predestination in the Dead Sea Scrolls: DSD 2 (1995), 340354. LEGRAND, TH., Siracide(syriaque) 1,20c-z. Une addition syriaque et ses résonances esséniennes, in: AMPHOUX, CH.-B. – FREY,A. – SCHATTNER-RIESER, U. (eds.), Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain (Histoire du texte biblique 4), Lausanne 1998, 123-134. LEEMANS, J., Canon and Quotation: Athanasius’ use of Jesus Sirach”, in: AUWERS, J.M. – DE JONGE, H. J. (eds.), The Biblical Canons, 265-277. LEHMANN, M. E., Ben Sira and the Qumran Literature: RdQ III (1961-62), 103-116. LEHMANN, M. R., 11QPsa and Ben Sira: RdQ XI (1982-84), 239-251.

116

Émile Puech

LÉVI, I., L’Ecclésiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. Texte original hébreu édité, traduit et commenté (BEHE.R 10,2), Paris 1901. MARTONE, C., Ben Sira Manuscripts from Qumran and Masada, in: BEENTJES, P. C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands, 81-93. MILIK, J. T., Qumran Cave I, Oxford 1955. MILIK, J. T., The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4, Oxford 1976. MILIK, J. T., Un fragment mal placé dans l’édition du Siracide de Masada: Bib 47 (1966), 425-246. MINISSALE, A., La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib 133), Roma 1995. MULDER, O., Simon the Hight Priest in Sirach 50. An Exegetical Study of the Significance of Simon the High Priest as Climax to the Praise of the Fathers in Ben Sira’s Concepts of the History of Israel (JSJ.S 78), Leiden – Boston 2003. MÜLLER-KESSLER, CH. – SOKOLOFF, M. (eds.), The Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period. A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Vol. I, Groningen 1997. MURAOKA,T., Sir. 51,13-30: An Erotic Hymn To Wisdom?: JSJ 10 (1979), 166-178. OLYAN, S., Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood: HTR 80 (1987), 261-286. PHILONENKO, M., Sur une proposition essénisante dans le Siracide (16,15-16): OrSuec 33-35 (1984-86), 317-321. POIRIER, J. C., The Endtime Return of Elijah and Moses at Qumran: DSD 10/2 (2003), 221-242. PRATO, G. L., La lumière interprète de la Sagesse dans la tradition textuelle de Ben Sira, in: GILBERT, M. (ed.), La Sagesse de l‘Ancien Testament (BEThL 51), Leuven 1990, 317-346. PRIEST, J., Ben Sira 45,25 in the Light of the Qumran Literature: RdQ V (1964-66), 111118. PUECH, É., Le livre de Ben Sira et les manuscrits de la mer Morte, in: CALDUCHBENAGES, N. – VERMEYLEN, J. (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert (BEThL 143), Leuven 1999, 411426. PUECH, É., Qumrân Grotte 4. XVIII (DJD XXV), Oxford 1998. PUECH, É., La croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle?, I-II, (EtB 21-22), Paris 1993. PUECH, É., Le Testament de Lévi en araméen de la Geniza du Caire: RdQ 80 (2002), 511-556. PUECH, É., Notes sur le Testament de Lévi de la grotte 1 (1Q21): RdQ 82 (2003), 297310. PUECH, É., The Collection of Beatitudes in Hebrew and in Greek (4Q525 1-4 and Mt 5,3-12), in: MANNS, F. – ALLIATA, E. (eds.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents (SBF.CMa 38), Jerusalem 1993, 353-368. PUECH, É., Apports des textes apocalyptiques et sapientiels de Qumrân à l’eschatologie du judaïsme ancien, in: GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, 133-170. PUECH, É., Un Hymne essénien en partie retrouvé et les béatitudes. 1QH V 12-VI 18 (= col. XIII-XIV 7) et 4QBéat.: RdQ XIII (1998), 59-88 [Mémorial Jean Carmignac].

Ben Sira and Qumran

117

PUECH, É., 4Q525 et les péricopes des Béatitudes en Ben Sira et Matthieu: RB 98 (1991), 80-106. PUECH, É.,La croyance à la resurrection des justes dans un texte qumranien de Sagesse: 4Q418 69 ii, in: COHEN, CH. – HURVITZ, A. – PAUL, SH. M. (eds.), Sefer Moshe. The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism, Winona Lake 2004, 427-444. PUECH, É., Les fragments eschatologiques de 4QInstruction (4Q416 i et 4Q418 69 ii, 81-81a, 127): RdQ 85 (2005), 89-119. PUECH, É., Apports des manuscrits de Qumrân à la croyance à la résurection dans le Judaïsme ancien, in: LEMAIRE, A.– MIMOUNI, S. (eds.), Qoumrân et le judaïsme du tournant de notre ère. Actes de la Table Ronde, Collège de France, 16 novembre 2004, Paris – Louvain 2006, 81-110. PUECH, É.,The Book of Wisdom and the Dead Sea Scrolls: an overview, in: PASSARO, A. – BELLIA, G. (eds.), The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology (DCLY 2005), Berlin – New York 2005, 117-141 (it. Il Libro della Sapienza e i manoscritti del Mar Morto, in: BELLIA, G. – PASSARO, A. [eds.], Il Libro della Sapienza. Tradizione, redazione, teologia [Studia Biblica 1], Roma 2004, 131-155). PUECH, É., La conception de la vie future dans le livre de la Sagesse et les manuscrits de la mer Morte: un aperçu: RdQ 82 (2003), 209-232. PUECH, É., Messianisme, eschatologie et résurrection dans les manuscrits de la mer Morte: RdQ XVIII (1997), 255-298. PUECH, É., Sept fragments grecs de la Lettre d’Hénoch (1 Hén 100, 103 et 105) dans la grotte 7 de Qumrân (= 7QHéngr): RdQ XVIII (1997), 313-323. PUECH, É., Le grand prêtre Simon (III), fils d’Onias (III), le Maître de Justice?, in: KOLLMANN, B. – REINBOLD, W. – STEUDEL, A. (eds.), Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum. Festschrift für H. Stegemann zum 65. Geburtsag (BZNW 97) Berlin 1998, 137-158. PUECH, É. – STEUDEL, A., Un nouveau fragment du manuscrit 4QInst (XQ7 = 4Q417 ou 4Q418): RdQ XIX (2000), 623-627. RABINOWITZ, I., The Qumran Hebrew Original of Ben Sira’s Concluding Acrostic on Wisdom: HUCA 42 (1971), 173-184. SANDERS, J. A., The Sirach 51 Acrostic, in: CAQUOT, A. – PHILONENKO, M. (eds.), Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer, Paris 1971, 429-438. SANDERS, J. A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD IV), Oxford 1965. SARACINO, F. , Resurrezione in Ben Sira?: Henoch 4 (1982), 185-203. SCHECHTER, S., The Quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbinic Literature: JQR 3 (1891), 682-706. SCHLATTER, A., Das neu gefundene hebräische Stück des Sirach. Der Glossar des grieschischen Sirach und seine Stellung in der Geschichte der Jüdischen Theologie (BFChTh 1, 5-6), Gütersloh 1897. SEGAL, M. H., Ben Sira in Qumran: Tarbiz 33 (1963-64), 243-246. SKEHAN, P. W., The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51:13-30: HTR 64 (1971), 387-400. SKEHAN, P. W., Sirach 40,11-17: CBQ 30 (1968), 570-572. SKEHAN, P. W., Sirach 30,12 and Related Texts: CBQ 36 (1974), 535-542. SKEHAN, P. W., Qumrân. IV. Littérature de Qumrân – A. Textes bibliques, in: DBS IX, 805-903.

118

Émile Puech

SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. SKEHAN, P. W. – ULRICH, E., Qumran Cave 4 XI. Psalms to Chronicles (DJD XVI), Oxford 2000. STADELMANN, H., Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vor-makkabäischen Sofer unter Berücksichtigung seines Verhältnisses zu Priester-, Propheten- und Weisheitslehrertum (WUNT 2/6), Tübingen 1981. STONE, M. – GREENFIELD, J. C. , Aramaic Levi Document (DJD XXII), Oxford 1998, 172. STRUGNELL, J., Notes and Queries on the Ben Sira Scroll from Masada: ErIs 9 (1969), 109-119. STRUGNELL, J. – HARRINGTON, D. J. – ELGVIN, T., Qumran Cave 4 XXIV, Sapiential Texts, Part 2 (DJD XXXIV), Oxford 1999. STRUGNELL, J., The Sapiential Work 4Q415ff and Pre-Qumranic Works from Qumran: Lexical Considerations, in: PARRY, D. W. – ULRICH, E. (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (STDJ XXX), Leiden 1999, 595-608. STUCKENBRUCK, L., 4QInstruction and the Possible Influence of Early Enochic Traditions: An Evaluation, in: HEMPEL, C. – LANGE, A. – LICHTENBERGER, H. (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, 245261. TIGCHELAAR, E. J.-C., Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones. Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (STDJ XLIV), Leiden – Boston – Köln 2001. TIGCHELAAR, E. J.-C., «There are the Names of the Spirits of...»: a Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4Q230) and New Manuscript Evidence For the Two Spirits Treatise (4Q257 and 1Q29a): RdQ 84 (2004), 529-547. TIGCHELAAR, E. J.-C., More on 4Q264A (4QHalakha or 4QWays of Righteousnessc)?: RdQ 75 (2000), 453-456. TIGCHELAAR, E. J.-C., The Addressees of 4QInstruction, in: FALK, D. – GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. – SCHULLER, E. (eds.), Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumram: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998 (STDJ 35), Leiden 2000, 62-75. Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible, Paris 19893. TRINQUET, J., Les liens ‘sadocites’ de l’écrit de Damas, des manuscrits de la mer Morte et de l’Ecclésiastique: VT 1 (1951), 287-292. VAN CANGH, J.-M., Béatitudes de Qumrân et Béatitudes évangéliques, antériorité de Matthieu sur Luc?, in: GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, 413-425. VERMES, G., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, London 1997. WRIGHT, B. G., “Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest”. Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood, in: BEENTJES, P. C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996, Soesterberg, Netherlands, 189-222. YADIN, Y., The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, Jerusalem 1965 (reprinted from ErIs 8 (1965), 1-45 ‘ivrît); reprinted in: Masada VI. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 19631965, Final Report, with Notes on the Reading by E. Qimron, and Bibliography by F. García Martínez, Jerusalem 1999.

The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text? NURIA CALDUCH-BENAGES 1. Introduction Ben Sira begins the last part of his book with a hymn of praise to the wisdom of God, manifested in nature (42:15 – 43:33: hymn to the creation) and in the history of Israel (44:1 – 49:16: the Praise of the Ancestors) which concludes with the glorification of the High Priest Simon (50:1-24). With these two compositions in hymnic style, the sage succeeds in harmonising the universal dimension of the creation with the national character of salvation, rooted in Israel (24:1-22). Both the creation which embraces all men and the important characters of the history of Israel – whether they are heroes or anti-heroes – are different manifestations of the same divine wisdom which stimulates its disciples towards the search for God.1 The hymn to the creation, or, if you wish, the hymn to the Creator, can be described as “a composition that is successful on the literary level and poetically inspired”2 in which the sage praises the sovereignty and the supreme wisdom of God diffused in the universe, and invites his hearers/readers to unite themselves to him in this attitude of praise. The majority of commentators on the Book of Sirach as well as those authors who have made a more detailed study of the passage follow this line of interpretation. We now cite them in chronological order. Johannes Marböck, in his by now classical monograph (1971),3 studies Sir 42:15–43:33 as an essential contribution to the theology of creation expressed in the book. Gian Luigi Prato, in his volume on the problem of theodicy in Ben Sira (1975),4 highlights the function of the elements in the contemplation of the creation. Twelve years later, Keith W. Burton, in his Glasgow doctoral thesis of 1987, still unpublished,5 proposes the theme of creation (divided into eight sections) as the structuring element of the book. Sir 42:15–43:33 is the last of the series. In a study on the connection between wisdom and creation, Leo G. Perdue (1994)6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES, L’inno al creato, 54. ZAPPELLA, La contemplazione sapienziale, 41. MARBÖCK, Weisheit im Wandel. PRATO, Il problema della teodicea. BURTON, Ben Sira and the Judaic Doctrine of Creation. PERDUE, Wisdom and Creation, 243-290 (“I Covered the Earth like a Mist”: Cosmos and History in Ben Sira).

120

Nuria Calduch-Benages

concentrates on the metaphor of the divine wisdom as guarantee of the order present in the world (“a world of elegance and wonderment”), a metaphor which, according to him, constitutes the centre of the hymn. Finally, and more recently, George Sauer (2000) has published an article on the Old Testament background of Sir 42:15–43:33.7 In it he points out all the texts of the tradition from which the sage has derived inspiration in composing his poem. As far as the composition of the hymn is concerned, despite the multiplicity of proposals that have been advanced, all agree in identifying an introduction which exalts the power of God in creation (42:15-25)8 and a conclusion which is actually a summons to praise the Creator (43:27-33).9 The central part of the hymn dedicated to the individual works of creation (43:1-26) is more debated: some consider it to be unitary; others divide it into two or even three strophes. In his commentary, Alexander Di Lella suggests instead a division of the entire poem into four strophes, of 15, 14, 16 and 8 stichs respectively: 42:15-25; 43:1-12; 43:13-26; 43:27-33.10 This study does not intend to follow the studies mentioned above. It aims rather to confine itself to the polemical dimension of the hymn and that, obviously, supposes the presence of a group of adversaries who are opposed to the school (51:23: Xrdm tyb) of the sage. It is probable that Ben Sira would have thought of such a group when he taught the hymn to his disciples. To establish the identity of these people (perhaps belonging to one or maybe to different schools of thought) is a difficult undertaking, impossible in practice in so far as, not only in our text, but also in the rest of the book, these people (groups, communities, schools) are never mentioned explicitly. To this we must add the total absence of information or clues of an historical character which could offer precise tracks for research. Perhaps we can catch a glimpse of the adversaries behind the old debate formula (rmat la: “do not say” which Ben Sira employs on nine occasions (5:1-6 [4x]; 11:23.24; 15:11.12; 16:17) and above all in the didactic/hymnic compositions on theodicy (16:24–17:14; 36[33]:7-15; 39:12-35; 42:15–43:33). With the old debate formula is linked the expression “no on can say” repeated three times in 39:12-35 (39:21a: what use is this?; 39:21b: this is worse than that; 39:34: this is bad, what is this?) with which Ben Sira rejects his adversaries’ opinions on the thorny problem of theodicy.According to James Crenshaw – the first to have an inkling of any religious controversy in the work of the sage – behind the formulae just mentioned one can perceive the urgent threat of the anonymous, implicit opponents of Ben Sira and, 7 8 9 10

SAUER, Der traditionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 116-125. CALDUCH-BENAGES, God Creator of All. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 491.

The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text?

121

even if we cannot identify these people or groups for certain, we can at least discern “the basic thrust of their attack”.11 As far as the theme of Sir 42:15–43:33, the creation and the Creator, is concerned, there are three areas which could have inspired polemic in the teaching of Ben Sira. The first is the Jewish sapiential tradition, the second are the Enochic apocalyptic circles, and the third is Greek-Hellenistic culture. In any case, the possible polemic dimension is not the predominant element of the hymn, certainly less evident than in the other three poems on theodicy.12

2. The jewish sapiential tradition As Prato, Di Lella and Sauer, among others, have well noted, Sir 42:15–43: 33 is full of references to other Biblical texts, among which are the priestly account of the creation in Gen 1 (Ben Sira seems, however, not to have known chapters 2-8 and 10-11 of Genesis), Job 28 and 38–41 and a few Psalms (96; 136; 104; 147; 148 to cite only some).13 What is most striking is the original and free use that Ben Sira made of these and other texts. He then avoided them when he considered it convenient.14 Let us record some examples, always with reference to Gen 1. In the introduction to the hymn in 42:15c, we read: “by the word of God his works [were made]”, a clear reference to the creative activity of God as it is presented in the first chapter of Genesis. However, we should observe that at no stage does he allude to the creation in six days, to the first human couple (cf. Sir 17:1-12) or to the Sabbath on which God ceased from his labour. In 42:16, it is suggestive that the sun precedes the moon as if Ben Sira had wished to correct the naïve picture of the Genesis account which presents the creation of the light (1:3) before that of the sun (1:16) which is its principal source.15 In 43:1-10 the creation of the firmament, of the sun, the moon and the stars refers to Gen 1:14-18. Ben Sira follows the same order in the creation of the stars which is found in Genesis. However, he not only devotes much more attention to the moon than to the son; he modifies the meaning of the Genesis text: “And God

11 12 13 14 15

CRENSHAW, The Problem of Theodicy, 47; COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom, 81. CRENSHAW, The Problem of Theodicy, 53: “The final didactic hymn [...] (42,15–43,33) shows a decided advance in the direction of praise over polemic”. Cf. also the Song of the Three Children in the Greek additions to the Book of Daniel and the hymns of Qumran, especially 1QH IX, 10-14. For the midrashic use of Gen 1, cf. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, The Vision of Man, with reference to DE FRAINE, Het Loflied. Cf. MORLA ASENSIO, Eclesiástico, 208.

122

Nuria Calduch-Benages

said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth’”. While here the son and the moon serve to distinguish and fix the times and seasons, in the text of Ben Sira this function is reserved only to the moon. Moreover, it is to be noted that in 43:11, Ben Sira describes the rainbow which embraces the arch of the sky with its splendour, without, however, mentioning either the flood, or Noah, or his covenant with God (Gen 9:12-17). These are not the only differences which surprise us. Besides these, there are other “polemical notes”, to use the words of Crenshaw,16 which seem to be directed against the same sapiential tradition to which Ben Sira is heir. In fact, in 42:21, the sage says to God: “He has established the power of his wisdom, he is the only one from all eternity. There is nothing to be added or taken away, and he has no need of any teacher”. This verse seems to reject the idea of a pre-existent Wisdom which in the role of “counsellor”17 assisted God in the creation of the world (cf. Prov 8:22-31, especially 8:30). According to Crenshaw, this idea would be the fruit of speculation on personified Wisdom from which Ben Sira would be completely distanced in view of the correspondence between Wisdom and Law.18 In the doctrine of the sage, wisdom is present as eternal (1:4.9; 24:9) and pre-existent (1:1b; 24: 9b), but, above all, it is described as created by God (1:4.9; 24:9). In the three verses which precede 42:21, Ben Sira praises the unlimited knowledge of God with regard to space and time and the totality of his wisdom: “He searches out the abyss and the heart; he understands all their secrets. For the Most High knows all that may be known, and foresees the things which happen in the world. He reveals what has been and what is to be, and he reveals the most hidden mysteries. No thought is absent from him; no word escapes him” (42:18-20). These statements seem designed to refute Eliphaz the Temanite, witness of the traditional wisdom, when, in interpreting tendentiously the previous declarations of Job he replies: “And you say, ‘What does God know? Can he judge through the deep darkness? Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, when he walks on the vault of heaven’” (Job 22:13-14). In my opinion, however, in the hymn to creation, Ben Sira is not openly opposing the sapiential tradition of Israel but rather he is reformulating 16 17

18

CRENSHAW, Old Testament Wisdom, 158: “Surprisingly polemical notes can be heard now and again within this hymn”. This would be one of the possible interpretations !wOma; intended as a derivation from the Akkadian ummãnu, “scribe, sage; heavenly scribe” (in Hebrew !M'a)' which the Massoretes vocalised incorrectly. Cf. CLIFFORD, Proverbs, 100-101. CRENSHAW, Old Testament Wisdom, 158.

The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text?

123

it in his own way, emphasising some aspects which he, as teacher, considers useful for the instruction of his disciples in praise.

3. The enochic apocalyptic circles “The classical image which thought him [Ben Sira} to be the representative of Israel against advancing Hellenism, appears, in fact, inadequate to express the complexity of his thought”.19 Thus Gabriele Boccaccini expresses himself at the conclusion of a famous study on the Book of Sirach and its connections with Qoheleth and apocalyptic (1993) in which he takes up again and develops the same ideas which he had already published elsewhere in 1986.20 According to him, Ben Sira, would not have feared to confront directly the instances of the apocalyptic tradition. Such a polemical connection between Ben Sira and 1 Enoch had already been suggested by George W. E. Nickelsburg (1983) – who even sees the poor of the time of Ben Sira as possible authors of the Epistle of Enoch – Saul Olyan (1987) and Lewis J. Prockter (1990).21 The recent studies on the Book of Enoch and, above all, the latest research on the intellectual and sociological characteristics of the group which hides under this literature (cf. Henoch 24[2002]) have demonstrated that Enochic Judaism was, at least in a certain measure, “one of the targets of Sirach’s polemic arrows”.22 Many authors today consider Ben Sira and 1 Enoch not only as two different reactions to the threat of Hellenism, but as the expression of two schools of wisdom that were not only in disagreement but were also rivals (“konkurrierende Schule”). On the other hand, to speak of schools of wisdom in this context opens the way to a further problem, that is, how far do these literary texts allow us to reconstruct those groups of Jews which were hostile to one another?23 Was Ben Sira – per impossibile – the only representative of the wisdom which he promoted in his book, or was he part of a sacerdotal community? Are the authors of the different parts of 1 Enoch able to consider themselves as belonging to a precise social group or community? What was their degree of representativeness in the society of the 19 20 21 22 23

BOCCACCINI, Il Medio Giudaismo, 85. To the authors cited in the note, we add HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 131-175. BOCCACCINI, L’origine del male, 34. NICKELSBURG, Social Aspects, 651; OLYAN, Ben Sira’s Relationship, 279-280; PROCKTER, Torah as a Fence. Cf. also MARBÖCK, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 367. BOCCACCINI, Introduction, 11; NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch, 63: “It is possible that Ben Sira is polemicizing against those in the Enochic camp”. WRIGHT, Sirach and 1 Enoch, 182.

124

Nuria Calduch-Benages

period? All these questions would merit further detailed study. One thing is certain, however: Both in the book of Ben Sira and in 1 Enoch, the identity of the opponents always remains hidden. Despite this, there are some texts in which the antagonism between the two groups is more obvious. For example, in 1 Enoch 98:15, we read: “Woe to you who write lying words of impiety; for they write their lies that men may hear and not forget their folly; and they will not have peace, but will die a sudden death”.24 The text is aimed at those who are opposed to the doctrine of the sages. But who are these people? Could they be the followers of Ben Sira, promoters of another type of wisdom? In 1 Enoch 104:10, the author has in his sights the “many sinners who will alter and distort the words of truth and speak evil words among themselves and lie and concoct great fabrications and write books in their own words“. According to Sir 50:27, Ben Sira has written a book of wisdom. Would he, therefore, be one of these sinners? In 1995, Randal A. Argall published his doctoral thesis which he had defended in 1992 at the University of Iowa under the supervision of George E. W. Nickelsburg on the connection between Ben Sira and 1 Enoch, a study which inaugurated a new seam of research.25 After having examined the literary forms and the theological themes of revelation, creation and judgement in both books, Argall arrives at the conclusion that Ben Sira (representative of traditional wisdom) and 1 Enoch (representative of the apocalyptic tradition) were very close both at the level of form and of content. Both the books share themes, literary forms, oral traditions and large perspectives which are explained as deriving from a common background. In fact, the book of Ben Sira and some parts of 1 Enoch are contemporary. While the majority of scholars are in agreement over the dating of Ben Sira (between 200 and 175 BC), that of 1 Enoch is more disputed. In spite of the difference of opinions on the dating of the different sections of the book, today it is held that the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36) and the Book of Heavenly Luminaries (1 Enoch 71-82) – if not the whole, then a good part of it – already existed in the second century BC. The Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 92-105), on the other hand, presents a later dating. If account is taken of the fact that the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BC is not mentioned in the Apocalypse of Weeks, which is inserted into the Epistle (93:1-10; 91:11-17), one can suppose that Chapters 92-105 are prior 24

25

Basically I cite the Book of Enoch in the edition of SPARKS (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament. For suggestions with regard the english translation of italian edition of SACCHI, Apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento, I am grateful to dr. Michael Tait . English editions/translations may be found in CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha; NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch. ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach.

The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text?

125

to this date.26 We have spoken first of similarities, but clearly there are substantial differences with regard to the content of the wisdom revealed (the doctrine of opposites v. speculative cosmology; temporal judgement for each person v. catastrophic and universal judgement at the end of time) and, as Argall puts it, “such differences are the stuff of the conflict”.27 According to him, each of the traditions – represented by Ben Sira and 1 Enoch respectively – sees the other as a rival to be challenged. In 1997, Benjamin G. Wright published an article28 in which he holds that Ben Sira is responding polemically to the criticisms of certain groups who questioned the legitimacy of the Jerusalem priesthood in their writings and were opposed to the cult in Jerusalem. These writings are the Book of Watchers, the Book of Heavenly Luminaries and the Aramaic Document of Levi which goes back to the third century BC.29 Beyond the priesthood and the cult, there are other points at issue between Ben Sira and the apocalyptic circles: dreams and visions, the use of the calendar (solar, lunar or both) and esoteric knowledge (cosmological speculations, eschatological realities). Both Argall and Wright deepened the argument in the first seminar on Enoch held at Sesto Fiorentino in June 2001.30 To these contributions I would like to add only the study of Gabriele Boccaccini on Zadokite Judaism and sapiential Judaism,31 and that of Martin Ebner which appeared in 2003. The subtitle reveals the viewpoint of the author: Weisheitskonzepte in Konkurrenz.32 Argall’s comparative study has made clear the similarities and differences between the texts of creation in 1 Enoch and in Ben Sira. He distinguishes between the observable aspects of creation (1 Enoch 2:1–5:4; 101: 1-9; Sir 16:24–17:14; 33(36):7-15; 39:12-35; 42:15–43:33) and the hidden ones (1 Enoch 12–36; 93:11-14; 72–80; 82:4-20; Sir 1:1-10; 24:3-7).33 My contribution is of a different nature and clearly more modest. I shall take into consideration only those elements of Sir 42:15–43:33 which, in my opinion, allow us to glimpse a polemical dimension against the apocalyptic tradition. Our presentation follows the order of the text. 1. The presence and the role of the angels. In 42:17, Ben Sira states: “Not even the holy ones of God are sufficient to declare all his marvels. God has made 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Cf. ibid., 5-7. Ibid., 250. WRIGHT, Fear the Lord, which is really an expanded revision of Putting the Puzzle Together. STONE, Enoch, 159, note 2, and KUGLER, From Patriarch to Priest, 222-224. ARGALL, Competing Wisdoms, and WRIGHT, Sirach and 1 Enoch, 179-187. BOCCACCINI, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, 113-150, especially 136-137. EBNER, “Wo findet die Weisheit ihren Ort?„. ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 99-164 (Part II: “The Creation Theme in 1 Enoch and Sirach”).

126

Nuria Calduch-Benages

his hosts strong so that they may stand firm before his glory”. Here “the holy ones of God”, unable to tell of the works of the Creator, are the angels who form the heavenly hosts and have the office of standing before God (cf. Deut 33:3; Zech 14:5: Job 15:15: Pss 89:6.8; 103:21; 148:2). This description of the angels, in part negative and, what is more, unique in the book, contrasts strongly with the significant role they perform in 1 Enoch. From the introduction to the Book of Watchers, we learn that God “has come with 10,000 holy ones (angels)” to do justice for the elect and to destroy the wicked (1 Enoch 1:9). Particular emphasis is given to the figure of Uriel “one of the holy angels” (20:1; 72:1), the angel responsible for all the movements of the stars (75:3). In 1 Enoch 81:5, it is “three holy ones (angels)” who lead Enoch back to earth. Surprisingly, in Sir 42:17, Argall does not discover any trace of polemic (and even believes it appropriate to note this fact) against the role of the angels in the other traditions.34 We, however, taking account of the context, claim that Ben Sira’s observations on the angels are not without motive. 2. The knowledge of God. According to Sir 42:18-20, God is the only being to possess total knowledge (18c: “all that may be known”, pa/san ei[desin)35 of the secrets of the universe, of history and of the hearts of men. This statement of the divine omniscience anticipates the conclusion of the hymn where Ben Sira confesses to having seen only a small part (j[m) of the works of God because many still remain hidden (cf. 43:32). This limited knowledge of his is opposed to the unlimited knowledge of Enoch to whom the angel Uriel showed everything and made everything manifest (80:1). He, in his turn, manifested everything to his son Methuselah so that it was all transmitted from generation to generation (82:1). It is appropriate, moreover, to mark out Enoch’s declaration concerning his own knowledge: “And I, Enoch, I alone saw the sight, the ends of everything, and no man has seen what I have seen” (19:4).36 34 35 36

Cf. ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 144, note 357; differently ALBANI, Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube, 151. For the Hebrew, cf. QUIMRON, Notes on the Reading, [230]: Yadin reconstructs [ ][d and Strugnell, following the versions, proposes to read [t][d lk. Cf. also [205] and [220]. In Sir 44:16 Ms B, Enoch is remembered as a “sign of knowledge“ (t[d twa), while in the Greek tradition he becomes “an example of conversion for the Gentiles” (u`po,deigma metanoi,aj tai/j geneai/j), something that cannot possibly be considered a translation error. Cf. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 221: “G transforms the text to attribute to Enoch, assimilated to Elijah on the basis of their common assumption into heaven, a prophetic preaching before the flood, which might have provoked the repentance of the angel-sinners (1 Enoch 12-13)”. According to ALBANI, the Hebrew text has been modfied for doctrinal reasons: “Mit der Theologie des Sirachbuches ist es unvereinbar, dass ein Irdischer auch nur annähernd in die Nähe der göttlichen Weisheit gelangt” (Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube, 149).

The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text?

127

3. The immutability and obedience of the creation. It is mentioned first of all at a general level in Sir 42:23 (“All these things live and endure for ever; all are necessary and all obey”)37 and then underlined with particular emphasis with regard to the stars in 43:10. (“At a command from God, they occupy their posts and they are untiring in their watches”). In fact, Ben Sira, good master as he is, often makes reference to the obedience of creation to spur his disciples to a similar attitude in their relations with God: 16:24-30; 39:28-31. The idea of the incorrupt nature of the universe contrasts strongly with the apocalyptic tradition according to which, at the moment of creation, some stars refused the post assigned to them, upsetting the order of the universe before the fall of the angels. And so it was their disobedience which allowed the entrance of evil into the world. On his otherworldly journey, Enoch reached a deserted place, without water or birds where he saw “stars like great burning mountains”. The angel Uriel who accompanied him on his journey explained to him that that place was “the prison of the stars of heaven and the heavenly army”. The stars who were turning back and forward over the fire were those who had “transgressed the order of the Lord from the beginning of their rising” because they had not arrived [at their assigned post] at the time [appointed for them] (1 Enoch 18:14-15). In 20:3-6, the seven rebel stars are bound together above the deserted and fearful place to expiate their sin with a punishment that would last ten thousand years. The same idea is found again in the Book of Heavenly Luminaries. After having described with much care “the law of the stars of heaven”, that is to say, all the laws which govern heaven and secure the order and harmony of the universe (79:1-6; 80:1), Enoch notes that this ideal order no longer holds. The whole universe has been upset by the sin of the angels, and so, “in the time of the sinners”, order and harmony will vanish and all the things on earth will be changed and will not appear at their appointed time: “The rain will be withheld and heaven will retain it... And the moon will change its customary practice and will not appear at its proper time... And in those days... [the sun] will shine rather more than the laws of light (permit). And many heads of the stars in command (that is, the angels) will go astray and change their course and their activity and not appear at the times established for them” (80:2-6). “It is the currency of such concepts – Boccaccini claims – that makes Ben Sira so careful to underline the uncorrupted nature of the universe”.38

37 38

With the Hebrew text of Ms B and Gr. According to Mas: “they are kept for every necessity”. Cf. BOCCACCINI, Il Medio Giudaismo, 62. The author notes that death as a consequence of the sin of Adam and Eve (cf. Gen 3) is the only variation which Ben Sira admits to have happened in the movement of creation: “From the woman comes the beginning of sin; because of her, all die” (Sir 25:24).

128

Nuria Calduch-Benages

4. The sun. After having presented in 42:16 the sun as first witness of the glory of God (Ms B and Mas: “the sun which rises manifests himself to all the creation39 and the glory of the Lord is over all his works”), in the central part of the hymn, Ben Sira devotes four other verses to it (43:2-5): 2

The sun at its rising spreads warmth, How marvellous the works of the Lord! 3 At midday it parches the land, who can resist its heat? 4 A blazing furnace smelts metal, as a ray of the sun burns the mountain. The tongue of the sun consumes the inhabited land and its light dazzles the eyes. 5 Since great is the Lord who has made it, And whose word makes his warrior shine.40

The description of the sun is dominated almost throughout (with the exception of vv. 2b and 5ab) by the image of fire and heat (to parch, to blaze, to burn, to consume, to dazzle... warmth, heat, furnace). In fact, this seems to the only characteristic of the sun which is able to arouse the sage’s interest. It is astonishing that Ben Sira does not attribute to the sun any function with regard to the calendar (cf. by contrast Jub. 2:9 where the sun uniquely fulfils this function). In the Enochic tradition, on the other hand, the laws which regulate the course of the sun are of great importance. At the end of 1 Enoch 82, a chapter devoted entirely to the greater star reads: “And thus [the sun] rises and sets; it neither decreases nor rests but runs day and night I its chariot. And its light is seven times brighter than that of the moon, but in size the two are equal” (82:37). In Sir 43:2-5, Ben Sira not only opposes 1 Enoch but also, as we hinted before, the priestly account of Gen 1:14-15. The fact that the cooperation between the sun and the moon as regards the determination of the dates and the flow of the seasons is completely ignored by Ben Sira can be read in a polemic key. Benjamin G. Wright, taking his cue from an article by Alexander Rofé almost ten years before his own,41 thinks that this silence of Ben Sira is deliberate. He is not prepared to make even 39 40

41

In the Gr “The sun which shines sees all from on high”, refers to 42:18ab: “He scrutinises the abyss and the heart; he understands all their secrets” referred to the Creator. Sir 43:5b Ms B (wyryba xcny wyrbdw) is difficult to translate and the scholarly suggestions diverge: “und sein Wort lässt dahineilen seinen gewaltigen Diener” (Smend), “sus órdenes espolean a sus campeones” (Alonso Schökel), “at whose orders it urges on its steeds” (Skehan – Di Lella), “and his words make brilliant his mighty ones” (Perdue). The Greek version reads: kai. evn lo,goij auvtou/ kate,speusen porei,an, “and with his words he speeds it on its way“. ROFÉ, The Onset of Sects, especially 43-44. I quote his conclusion on p. 44: “In my opinion, it becomes clear that Ben Sira is here polemicizing against an adverse tendency we may define as proto-Essenian”.

The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text?

129

an apparent concession to those Jews who, like the author of the Book of Watchers, the Book of Heavenly Luminaries, and the Aramaic Document of Levi, defend the priority of the solar calendar.42 5. The moon. Ben Sira dedicates three verses to the moon. Different form the sun, the function of the moon consists in fixing the seasons, dates and feasts. It is a question of a more complex function because linked to the problem of the calendar: 6

And also the moon watches over the times, regulator of seasons and eternal sign. 7 To it [belong] the solemnities and feasts, and when it wanes it resumes its cycle. 8 The new moon as its name (indicates) is renewed, it is splendid in its phases! Military signal for the heavenly army of the clouds, which covers the firmament with its splendour.

The Jewish calendar to which Ben Sira makes reference in this passage is a lunar calendar which establishes the sacred times of the days and months of the year according to the phases of the moon. The function of the moon, therefore, becomes central because it is it that determines the Sabbath, the feasts of pilgrimage, the times of fasting... that is, the liturgical feasts. It is a very important question because it is linked to the different religious groups that were in conflict with one another. To control the calendar means, in a certain way, to control the feasts and religious observances. The Book of Heavenly Luminaries contains the astronomic and cosmological material which stands behind the solar year of 364 days (1 Enoch 72-82).43 For the author, the solar year is superior to the lunar because only with the solar year can the feasts fall on the days truly fixed with regard to the position of the stars in the sky. “Only a liturgy which had feasts on fixed dates – Paolo Sacchi comments – could be in harmony with the cosmos”.44 More than the intricate explanations of the movement of the stars in heaven, what interest us is those passages which can hide a polemical intention. For example, in 75:2, Enoch mentions “the men who go wrong” in their calculation of the solar year, and in 82:4-7 (cf. 80:2) those who do not accept this calendar are considered sinners: 4 Blessed are all the righteous, blessed are all those who walk in the way of righteous-

ness, and do not sin like the sinners in the numbering of all their days in which the 42

43 44

WRIGHT, Fear the Lord, 207-208 (= Putting the Puzzle Together, 137-138). Also the Book of Jubilees and the group of Qumran followed a solar calendar of 364 days. Cf. ALBANI, Zur Rekonstruktion, and LIORA, The Book of Jubilees. Cf., in connection with this, the study of ALBANI, Astronomie und und Schöpfungsglaube. SACCHI (ed.), Apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento, 597.

130

Nuria Calduch-Benages sun journeys in heaven, coming in and out through the gates for thirty days with the heads over thousands [...] with the four days that are added and which their commanders divide between the four parts of the year. 5Because of them men go wrong in the reckoning of time since they err and do not know them accurately. 6 In fact, they [the epagomeni days] belong in the reckoning of the year and are truly recorded therein [...] and the year (consequently) is completed in three hundred and sixty four days. 7And the account of it is true and the recorded reckoning of it is exact for the lights, the months, the feasts, the seasons of rain and the days Uriel showed me, and he inspired what the Lord of all creation had ordained for me in the power of heaven.

We do not know whether, for the author of these texts, the sinners were Ben Sira and those who followed his teaching. On the other hand, we can observe that Ben Sira attributed the function of fixing and controlling the times solely to the moon while it is probable that he was aware of the solar calendar. In spite of the absence of precise indications, we hold it quite probable that Sir 43:6-8 is a response to the defenders of the solar calendar. 6. The stars. Ben Sira says not very much about the stars. He underlines only their beauty and their unconditional obedience to the Creator: 9

The glory of the stars is the beauty of heaven and their light shines in the heights of the Lord. 10 At a command from God, they take their positions and they never relax in their watch.

This brief allusion to the stars (cf. 44:21d and 50:6) could reflect an attitude of indifference and perhaps also of rejection on the part of Ben Sira towards astrology, a science very widespread in Israel (and also in the pagan world),45 as demonstrated by the Enochic tradition, especially the Book of Heavenly Luminaries. Thanks to the witness of Pseudo-Eupolomes,46 we are aware that the Book of Heavenly Luminaries was also known outside of the group of the elect, that is of the narrowly Enochic circles. In his brief History of the Jews (158 BC), the anonymous author gives an eulogy of Enoch, presenting him as the inventor of astrology: “The Greeks, however, say that Atlantes invented astrology and that Atlantes is to be identified with Enoch. Enoch’s son was Methuselah, he who is supposed to have received all (wisdom) through

45

46

Cf. SAUER, Der traditionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund, 317: “Bezüglich der babylonischen Astrologie ist bekannt, dass Isarel die Macht der Sterne und damit die der durch sie repräsentierten Götter depotenzierte, indem alle diese himmlischen Kräfte unter die Verfügungsgewalt Jahwes gebracht wurden. Der griechisch-hellenistischen Astrologie steht Ben Sira vollkommen ablehnend gegenüber”. Cited in ALBANI, Astronomie und und Schöpfungsglaube, 151.

The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text?

131

the angels of God, and in this way we have learned (everything)”. If we can trust this information, then it appears very probable – in agreement with Matthias Albani – that Sir 42:15–43:33 is Ben Sira’s riposte to the astronomic wisdom which Enoch had received through angelic revelation (1 Enoch 72-82) and to the idea of a universal knowledge bound to it.47

4. The graeco-hellenistic culture 4.1 Astronomy The connection of Ben Sira with Greek literature has been amply studied by Theodor Middendorp48 who has discovered more than a hundred parallels between the word of the sage and Greek literature, the most quoted author being the sixth century (BC) poet Theognis. Middendorp’s thesis according to which Ben Sira would be a mediator between Judaism and Hellenism has, however, been contested by Hans Volker Kieweler.49 As far as the connection with Greek philosophy is concerned, the classical work of Martin Hengel50 and the recent study of Uta Wicke-Reuter51 on Ben Sira and Stoicism offer exhaustive coverage. In this study, we intend to refer to the world of science, and particularly astronomy, a science which was developed in Greece in the second half of the third century BC when the Ptolemies were governing Palestine. The famous names are Aristarchus of Samos (who lived to at least after 264), Archimedes (287-212), Eratosthenes (c. 275-193), the third director of the library of Alexandria and, most famous of all, Apollonius of Perga (262-190) and Conon of Samos, who lived in Alexandria at the court of Ptolemy Euergetes and his wife Berenice. Among these names, there is a figure who moves between didactic poetry and astronomy: Aratus of Soli (Cilicia),52 a poet contemporary with Callimachus (born in 315 or 310 and dead before 240 BC) who wrote hymns, epigrams, elegiac poems, funeral laments, but, above all, works of a scientific character, such as Iatrica, a poem on medicine, the Canon, which deals with the harmony of the spheres, or the Astrica (On the stars) composed in at least five books. All these works have been lost. Luckily we have his main work, the only one remaining. It is a poem of 1154 hexameters, composed 47 48 49 50 51 52

Ibid., 152. MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung. KIEWELER, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism. WICKE-REUTER, Göttliche Providenz. EASTERLING – KENNEY (eds.), The Cambridge History.

132

Nuria Calduch-Benages

at the request of the ruler of Macedonia, Antigone Gonata. The poem is called Phaenomena and is concerned with astronomy and meteorology. Others before him had already written poems on astronomy: Cleostratus of Tenedo, author of an Astrology and Alexander Aetolus, himself too author of a Phaenomena. The poem of Aratus had such a success that many after him composed other Phaenomena without ever reaching his fame. Even many poets wrote commentaries on his poem, which had a great influence on the literature which followed. Aratus was inspired by a treatise in prose by a celebrated mathematician and astronomer of the first half of the fourth century BC, Eudoxus of Cnidus. This work, also called Phaenomena was a precise description of the sky and of the fixed stars with an almanac of their risings and settings, together with temporal prognostications linked to them. Although not a Stoic work, Phaenomena begins with a hymn to Zeus (ll. 1-18) which recalls the famous hymn to Zeus by the philosopher Cleanthes. At the conclusion of the hymn, the poet speaks of having ask the god for “telling about the stars” in an appropriate way and finally he asks him to guide his song to its end. And in fact, the first part of the poem (ll. 19-732) is completely dedicated to the stars which, throughout the year, mark the seasons and scan the work of men. Here are the first verses: “All together, though so numerous and so dispersed, the stars are dragged by the movement of heaven, day after day, without interruption, eternally” (ll. 19-21).53 The second part (ll. 773-1154) treats of the phases of the moon, of the prognostications which start from an examination of the moon and the sun, the atmospheric phenomena and their connection with nature, with the animals and with men. In short, the poem of Aratus is, in substance, not a technical work, a manual of astronomy, but a very fine poetic composition of scientific content. To use the words of Jean Martin, the poem of Aratus is an invitation to discover gradually the presence and the messages of Zeus in the regular movement of the stars just as in the smaller and uncertain events of life on earth.54 Did Ben Sira know the Phaenomena of Aratus or other similar poems? Had he ever read the Astrica, his vast treatise on the stars or other works of astronomy? Were these works to be found in the library of Alexandria? Had Ben Sira ever been to the capital of Hellenism: Had he visited the famous library founded by Ptolemy I? In the face of these questions we find ourselves in great difficulty because we do not know the answer to them. We can move only in the field of hypotheses. We have already seen that in his hymn to the creation Ben Sira dedicates only two verses to the stars (Sir 43:9-10) – that which is already high53 54

ARATOS, Phénomènes, 2. Ibid., LXXXV.

The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text?

133

ly significant by itself55 – without ever making any allusion to notions relating to astronomy or meteorology. On the contrary, the sage’s interest is quite otherwise. He concentrates on two rather different but complementary aspects: the aesthetic (the beauty of the stars) and the spiritual (their obedience to the Creator). As far as appears, the way in which Ben Sira speaks of the heavenly bodies, especially the stars, and of the atmospheric phenomena in 42:15–43:33 does not seem to conceal any criticism of the works of astronomy as such. If, however, we try to read between the lines, perhaps we shall discover a message, or even a warning touch, directed at all those who feel themselves attracted by books which are concerned to explain all the mysteries of the heavens simply by human science. Ben Sira knows that men have always desired to know the secrets of the world and the dangers which this involves when it is does not take account of the Creator and his law (cf. 3:21-24).

4.2 The astral cult In the Biblical tradition, the Law, the prophets and the sages all condemn the astral cult. In Deut 4:19, we read: “And beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven” (cf. Jer 8:2; Ezek 8:16; Job 31:26ff). The astral cult, common in the ancient world, was a widespread practice in the Hellenistic environment of the second century BC, especially at Alexandria in Egypt, cultural capital of Hellenism and seat of a numerous Jewish community. In the Prologue to Sirach, the translator places his literary activity in Egypt, probably in Alexandria, in the thirty eighth year of King Euergetes, almost certainly Ptolemy VII Euergetes Physcon, who reigned in Alexandria in two periods interrupted by a break: from 170 to 164 BC and from 145 to 117 BC. With these dates, we can assume that Ben Sira’s grandson began his translation around 132 BC, finishing it about 117 BC, the year of the king’s death. Between the Hebrew text (Ms B and Mas) and the Greek version of Sir 42:15 – 43:33 there are a few differences which have been studied in a very careful way by Antonino Minissale.56 We would like to confine our attention to some verses of the hymn where the Greek translation avoids the 55

56

In this connection SAUER comments: “Dieses Schweigen [riferito alle stelle] ist bemerkenswert. Spricht sich doch darin eine Nichtachtung der Sterndeutekunst aus, wie sie rings um Israel seit eh und je geübt worden war [...]. Er [Ben Sira] verliert über die Sterne kein Wort” (Der traditionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund, 317). MINISSALE, La versione greca, 116-125 (on 42:15-25).

134

Nuria Calduch-Benages

mythological allusions to the heavens, the sun and the moon: 42:17cd; 43: 6ab; 43:7ab; 43:8ab.57 In 42:17ab, both the Hebrew and the Greek texts speak of the holy ones of God (la yX[w]dq; toi/j agi,oij kuri,ou), that is of his angels who are not able to recount his wonders. In 42:17cd, the two texts differ. While the Hebrew text continues to speak of the angels, using a military metaphor (“God gives strength to his armies/soldiers so that they may stand before him”), the Greek refers to the wonders of God: “the things which the Lord almighty has established so that the universe may be firm through his glory”, thus eliminating the military image of the heavenly army. In 43:5a, the Hebrew and Greek texts coincide: “[For] great is the Lord who has made it” (referred to the sun). Not so in the following stich, 43:5b: “and his word makes his warrior (= the sun) shine” (Hebrew); while the Greek text eliminates the metaphor of the warrior applied to the sun and speaks simply of its course: “with his words he speeds it on its way”. In 43:6ab Hebrew and Greek differ. While the first underlines the dominion of the moon over time and its divisions: “And also the moon watches over the times, regulator of seasons and eternal sign”, the latter eliminates this idea completely: “and the moon has also its importance which is the indication of the dates and an eternal sign”. The same phenomenon is prominent in 43:7ab. The Hebrew text goes: “To it [belong] the solemnities and feasts, and when it wanes it resumes its cycle”, while the Greek has: “from the moon (comes) the sign of the feast; heavenly body which vanishes after its fulness”. The translator restricts himself to laying down that the moon does not control, only indicates, the term of the feast. In 43:8ab, Hebrew and Greek differ once more. The first has: “The new moon (Xdx) as its name (indicates) is renewed (Xdxtm), it is splendid (arwn) in its phases”; the Greek reads: “the month takes its name from it, increasingly marvellously in its phases”. While in the Hebrew the term arwn is attributed to the moon,58 the corresponding Greek qaumastw/j describes the growth of the month. Thus any possible personification of the moon disappears. How are we to understand these modifications? We can speculate, with Minissale,59 that the Greek translator, aware of an anti-idolatrous concern that was more acute in Alexandria than in Jerusalem, wanted to remove 57

58

59

Cf. also Sir 43:25b (Mas): “the might of Rahab” (bhr trwbg) becomes in Gr “the creation of sea monsters” (kti,sij khtw/n). The grandson’s translation avoids the mention of Rahab, one of the names which the OT attributes to the monster of the ocean (cf. Isa 51:9; Ps 89: 11; Job 9:13; 26:12). Cf. SPRONK, Rahab, 1292-1295. On the other hand, it refers 43:8ab to the month (in fact, vd<xo can mean both the new moon and the month), cf. PRATO, Il problema della teodicea, 120. It should be noted that the term proper for the moon is x:ryE " (43:6a), from which derives also xr:y ,, month. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 211, note 79.

The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text?

135

any importance from the sun and the moon for fear that these verses would be read in a mythological key and so promote the astral cult.

5. Conclusion After having studied the polemical dimension of Ben Sira’s hymn to the creation within the sapiential tradition, in comparison with the Enochic literature and with the Graeco-Hellenistic culture, we can hazard some conclusions. Despite there being no clear and explicit references to opponents in the text, there are many indications which make us think of the existence of such a group. How are we to explain this position of Ben Sira ? Perhaps it could be said that the sage is so committed to his own didactic objectives that he leaves no space in his book for the viewpoint of other contemporary schools/groups of thought. Instead of quoting them directly, he hides them beneath his own viewpoint. From the pedagogic point of view, this is a good choice: when one wants to rebut certain ideas (angelic revelations, speculative cosmologies, the solar calendar, intellectual pride, the astral cult) it is better not to attract the attention of one’s disciples directly on to these, but to present one’s own opinion in such a way that they are able to make a free decision. Besides, such a context of freedom is a characteristic of the sage’s school (cf. 2:1; 6:32-33; 15:15-17). To take Sir 42:15–43:33 specifically, there is no doubt that we are presented with a contemplation of nature as the source of joy that is both aesthetic and spiritual. The manifestations of beauty and splendour in creation are seen as reflections of the glory of God. On the other hand, the description which Ben Sira gives of the stars (without at all forgetting his silence on some elements), allows us to glimpse a polemic, certainly veiled, against those who do not share his doctrine, especially those points held by him as fundamental for the young in their time of education. At a general level, although admitting in the sage’s work some traces of polemic against apocalyptic thought and the Graeco-Hellenistic culture/science,60 we would claim that the book of Ben Sirach was not “born with precise polemic intent”.61 The principal aim of the sage was never to debate openly with his adversaries, but to instruct his disciples in true wisdom, that is, the fear of the Lord and the observance of his Law.

60 61

Cf., for example, the study of CORLEY, Wisdom versus Apocalyptic. BOCCACCINI, Il Medio Giudaismo (“Ben Sira tra Qohelet e l’apocalittica”), 85.

136

Nuria Calduch-Benages

Bibliography ALBANI, M., Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube. Untersuchungen zum Astronomischen Henochbuch (WMANT 68), Neukirchen – Vluyn 1994. ALBANI, M., Zur Rekonstruktion eines verdrängten Konzepts: Der 364-Tage-Kalender in der gegenwärtigen Forschung, in: ALBANI, M. – FREY, J. – LANGE, A. (eds.), Studies in the Book of Jubilees (TSAJ 65), Tübingen 1997, 79-125. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, L., The Vision of Man in Sirach 16,24–17,14, in: GAMMIE, J. G. – BRUEGGEMANN, W. A. – HUMPHREYS, L. W. ET AL. (eds.), Israelite Wisdom. Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, Missoula, MT 1978, 235-245. ARATOS, Phénomènes, tome I. Texte établi, traduit et commenté par Jean Martin (Collection des Universités de France), Paris 1998. ARGALL, R. A., 1 Enoch and Sirach. A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgement (SBL.EJL 8), Atlanta, GA 1995. ARGALL, R. A., Competing Wisdoms: 1 Enoch and Sirach: Hen 24 (2002), 169-178. BOCCACCINI, G., Il Medio Giudaismo. Per una storia del pensiero giudaico tra il terzo secolo a.e.v. e il secondo secolo e.v., Genova 1993. BOCCACCINI, G., Roots of Rabbinic Judaism. An Intellectual History from Ezechiel to Daniel, Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, UK 2002. BOCCACCINI, G., L’origine del male, libertà dell’uomo e retribuzione nella Sapienza di Ben Sira: Hen 8 (1986), 1-35. BOCCACCINI, G., Introduction: The Rediscovery of Enochic Judaism and the Enoch Seminar: Hen 24 (2002), 9-13. BURTON, K. W., Ben Sira and the Judaic Doctrine of Creation, PhD thesis (unpublished), Glasgow 1987. CALDUCH-BENAGES, N., L’inno al creato in Ben Sira (Sir 42,15–43,33): PSV 44 (2001), 51-66. CALDUCH-BENAGES, N., God Creator of All (Sir 43,27-33), in: EGGER-WENZEL, R. (ed.), Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin – New York 2002, 79-117. CHARLESWORTH, J. H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I, New York 1983, 5-89. CLIFFORD, R. J., Proverbs (OTL), Louisville, KY 1999. COLLINS, J. J., Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, Louisville, KY 1997. CORLEY, J., Wisdom versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1,1-10, in: GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BEThL 168), Leuven 2003, 269-286. CRENSHAW, J. L., Old Testament Wisdom. An Introduction. Revised and Enlarged, Louisville, KY 1998 (1st ed. London 1982). CRENSHAW, J. L., The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On Human Bondage: JBL 94 (1975), 47-64. DE FRAINE, J., Het Loflied op de menselijke waardigheid in Eccli 17,1-14: Bijdr. 11 (1950), 10-23. EASTERLING, P. E. – KENNEY, E. J. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol. I, Cambridge 1985, 598-602.

The hymn to the creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a polemic text?

137

EBNER, M., “Wo findet die Weisheit ihren Ort?„ Weisheitskonzepte in Konkurrenz, in: FASSNACHT, M. – LEINHÄUPL-WILKE, A. – LÜCKING, S. (eds.), Die Weisheit – Ursprünge und Rezeption. Festschrift für Karl Löning zum 65. Geburtstag (NTA.NF 44), Münster 2003, 70-103. HENGEL, M., Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, I-II, Philadelphia 1974. KIEWELER, H.-V., Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit T. Middendorp (BEAT 30), Frankfurt a.M. 1992. KUGLER, R. A., From Patriarch to Priest. The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBL.EJL 9), Atlanta, GA 1996. LIORA, R., The Book of Jubilees and its Calendar. A Reexamination: DSD 10 (2003), 371-394. MARBÖCK, J., Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (BBB 37), Bonn 1971. MARBÖCK, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, in: ZENGER, E. ET AL. (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament, dritte, neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1.1), Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln 1998, 363-370. MIDDENDORP, TH., Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden 1973. MINISSALE, A., La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib 133), Roma 1995. MORLA ASENSIO, V., Eclesiástico. Texto y comentario (El mensaje del Antiguo Testamento 10), Estella 1992. NICKELSBURG, G. W. E., 1 Enoch. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36 (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2001. NICKELSBURG, G. W. E., Social Aspects of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypticism, in: HELLHOLM, D., (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, Tübingen 19892 (1st ed. 1983), 641-654. OLYAN, S., Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood: HTR 80 (1987), 261-286. PERDUE, L. G., Wisdom and Creation. The Theology of Wisdom Literature, Nashville 1994. PRATO, G. L., Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini (AnBib 65), Roma 1975. PROCKTER, L. J., Torah as a Fence against Apocalyptic Speculation: Ben Sira 3,17-24, in: ASSAF, D. (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, August 16-24, 1989), Division A: The Bible and its World, Jerusalem 1990, 245-252. QUIMRON, E., Notes on the Reading, in: YADIN, Y., The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada with Introduction, Emendations and Commentary – Masada VI. Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Final Reports, Jerusalem 1999, [227]-[231]. ROFÉ, A., The Onset of Sects in Postexilic Judaism: Neglected Evidence from the Sepuagint, Trito-Isaiah, Ben Sira, and Malachi, in: NEUSNER, J. – FRERICHS, E. S. – BORGEN, P. – HORSLEY, R. (eds.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee, Philadelphia 1988, 39-49. SACCHI, P., Apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento, in: ROSSANO, P. (ed.), Classici delle Religioni. II: La religione ebraica, Torino 1981.

138

Nuria Calduch-Benages

SAUER, G., Der traditionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund von Ben Sira 42,15–43,33, in: GRAUPNER, A. – DELKURT, H. – ERNST, A. B. (eds.), Verbindungslinien. Festschrift für Werner Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen – Vluyn 2000, 311-321. SKEHAN, W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. SPARKS, H. F. D. (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament, Oxford 1984, 169-319. SPRONK, K., Rahab, in: VAN DER TORN, K. – BECKING, B. – VAN DER HORST, P. W. (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden – New York – Köln 1995, 1292-1295. STONE, M. E., Enoch, Aramaic Levi and Sectarian Origins: JSJ 19 (1988), 159-170. WICKE-REUTER, U., Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der Frühen Stoa (BZAW 298), Berlin – New York 2000. WRIGHT, B. G., Sirach and 1 Enoch: Some Further Considerations: Hen 24 (2002), 179-187. WRIGHT, B. G., “Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest”. Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood, in: BEENTJES, P. C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255), Berlin 1997, 189-222. WRIGHT, B. G., Putting the Puzzle Together: Some Suggestions Concerning the Social Location of the Wisdom of Ben Sira, in: SBL 1996 Seminar Papers, number 35, Atlanta, GA 1996, 133-149. ZAPPELLA, M., La contemplazione sapienziale di Dio creatore (Sir 42–43): Parole di Vita 48 (2003), 40-44.

“Full Wisdom is from the Lord“. Sir 1:1-10 and its place in Israel’s Wisdom literature PANCRATIUS C. BEENTJES In this paper the text of Sir 1:1-10 will be investigated in six successive steps. As a start, some preliminary and methodological questions will be touched on (I). The next two paragraphs (II-III) are devoted to a close reading of the so-called Greek I, followed by an analysis of the additions to this translation, which constitute the so-called Greek II. Thereafter it is time to pay attention to the function of Sir 1:1-10 within the Book of Ben Sira (IV). Moreover, the focus will be on similarities and differences between the Book of Ben Sira and other sapiential literature of the Old Testament (V). Finally, we will draw some conclusions (VI). My approach of Sir 1:1-10 will be different from the analysis offered by J. Corley some years ago. He started from the position “that Sir 1:1-10 may be read as a veiled critique of the early Enochic literature. Far from ignoring nascent Jewish apocalyptic, Ben Sira engages in a polemic against apocalypticism in Sir 1:1-10 …”.1

1. Preliminary and methodological questions 1. Whereas in the original Hebrew text Sir 1:1-10 in fact was the opening paragraph of the entire book, in the Greek translation this pericope is preceded by the grandson’s foreword in which he explicitly links Ben Sira’s book with “the law, the prophets, and the other writings of our ancestors” (REB).2 “My grandfather Jesus’, he says, … was moved to compile a book of his own on the themes of learning and wisdom, in order that, with this further help, scholars might make greater progress in their studies by living as the law directs” (REB).3 The final words (dia. th/j evvnno,mou biw,sewj) are repeated in a slightly different form at the very end of the grandson’s foreword: “and so train themselves to live according to the law” (evvnno,mwj bioteu,ein).4 Therefore, the reader of the Greek text of Ben 1 2 3 4

CORLEY, Wisdom versus Apocalyptic, 270. Prologos 10. Quotation from the Revised English Bible with Apocrypha. Prologos 7-14. In the Septuagint evnno,mwj is only to be found in Prov 31:25. The three remaining words are hapax legomena; see WAGNER, Die Septuaginta Hapaxlegomena, 120-123.

140

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Sira’s Book cannot refrain from this context and should always bear this aspect in mind. 2. An analysis of the vocabulary of Sir 1:1-10, as well as a thorough investigation into this pericope, to a great extent are hindered by the fact that Ben Sira’s grandson apparently made no or little use of the Greek Bible translation, which later on became known as the Septuagint. He either knowingly did not refer to this translation, or the books he wanted to use simply did not yet exist.5 3. An investigation into the Greek text of the Book of Ben Sira to some degree is hampered by the fact that a great deal of reference books does not refer to the so-called Gr II at all.6 Wagner is one of the few scholars who offer an index of words used in Gr II.7 4. Tempting as it may be, the following analysis will not offer a retroversion of Sir 1:1-10 from the Greek into Hebrew. Just a comparison between Segal’s retroversion of Sir 1:2-3 and other scholarly attempts, mainly in commentaries, is solid proof enough that such an approach is far from being satisfactory.8 5. Recently, Sir 1:1-10 has got a liturgical function. In the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Paul VI, Sir 1:1-10 is lectured on Monday in the seventh week (impair years).9

2. A close reading of Gr I (Sir 1:1-4.6.8-10b) The Greek translation of the Book of Ben Sira as we have it now is in fact a composite text, made up of two Greek text forms.10 The first (Gr I) is to be found in the major uncial manuscripts (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) and can be considered the translation of Ben Sira’s original Hebrew text into Greek by his grandson. The second Greek text form (Gr II) is a more extended translation which is represented by a large group of minuscule manu5

6 7 8 9 10

See especially WRIGHT, No Small Difference: “it is totally unclear which books comprise the group that the grandson calls ‘the other books’”(p. 226); “if the grandson knew Psalms, Job, and Proverbs [in Greek], he did not draw on them very often in his translation” (p. 228); “it seems unlikely that the grandson depended heavily on the OG [Old Greek] for his translation” (p. 229). E.g. HATCH – REDPATH, A Concordance; SMEND, Griechisch-Syrisch-Hebräischer Index; LUST – EYNIKEL – HAUSPIE (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon. WAGNER, Die Septuaginta Hapaxlegomena, 413-416 (“Wortindex zur sog. zweiten Übersetzung [Gr II]”). SEGAL, Se¯fer ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m. In the Coptic Church, Sir 1:1-19 is read during the Morning Office on Monday in the Holy Week. See BURMESTER, The Bohairic Pericopae. See the extensive introduction by ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 7-80.

“Full Wisdom is from the Lord“

141

scripts, especially in the Origenistic / Hexaplaric and Lucianic recensions, and reflects a second Hebrew version of the Book of Ben Sira.11 Since Clemens of Alexandria, who died before 215 CE, is the first author frequently quoting from this second Greek translation, this text form (Gr II) must originate from about 50-150 CE.12 In text editions the layout of Sir 1:1-10 to some degree is a real hindrance to see the basic structure of Gr I. This is completely due to the presentation of v. 9, since it is suggested that we have to do with a tristichon here. However, authoritative authors like N. Peters and O. Rickenbacher categorically deny the existence of such a literary phenomenon in the Book of Ben Sira.13 Even M. Z. Segal who with regard to the Book of Ben Sira accepts a small number of tristichoi – no one of which by the way is accepted by Rickenbacher – considers Sir 1:9 however to be a distichon.14 Scholars almost unanimously agree that ku,rioj, the word that in text editions has pole position in v. 9, in fact is the final word of vs. 8. For ku,rioj at that specific point creates a climax, since all previous rhetorical questions (“Who …, who …, who …?”; 1:2.3.6) are answered now at last: One alone is wise …, / seated upon his throne: the Lord.

It is not by chance, of course, that at this climactic point ku,rioj is used for the second – and last – time within this pericope: “All wisdom / full wisdom is from the Lord” (v. 1a) – “One alone is wise: The Lord”(v. 8a). This observation induces me to emphasize some further characteristic features in these two verse lines. Several scholars hold the view that sofo,j in v. 8 should be deleted, since it is the only occurrence in the Book of Ben Sira where it is said that God is wise, as opposed to 24 occurrences relating sofo,j to human beings.15 I would rather argue the other way round, viz. that just the unique application of sofo,j to God is the centre of attention in the opening passage of the book! Even the objection that neither the Syriac nor the Latin version reflects an equivalent to sofo,j cuts no ice, since just their translations of v. 8 not only are quite complicated in itself, but are also at variance with each other. Bringing out that sofo,j in Sir 1:8 cannot be authentic as this word is missing in Sir 43:29 (fobero.j ku,rioj kai. sfo,dra me,gaj) is an inadequate reason11 12 13 14 15

“G II has about 300 cola not found in G I”: SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 55. RÜGER, Text und Textform, 112 and 115. PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 230; RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen, 130-131. SEGAL, Se¯fer ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, 16 (Introduction, § 22). SMEND, Die Weisheit, 8 (“vielleicht … unecht”); RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen, 9; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 507; ID., Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira, 42.

Pancratius C. Beentjes

142

ing, since the latter verse line forms part of a passage dealing with creation, not with wisdom. That the unique application of sofo,j to God could very well be an authentic aspect of Ben Sira’s presentation indeed is also underlined by the rare expression pa/sa sofi,a in the opening line, which has no parallel in the Old Testament too, as we will discuss later. Having established ku,rioj, pa/sa sofi,a, and sofo,j as constitutive elements of Gr I, time has come now to pay attention to its overall structure (A) and its content (B).

(A) Structure The interplay of two characteristic features (rhetorical questions and statements) builds up a coherent literary structure: 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:6a 1:6b 1:8 1:9 1:10ab

Statement about God and Wisdom Rhetorical question Rhetorical question Statement about the creation of Wisdom Rhetorical question Rhetorical question Statement about God: He alone is wise Statement about the creation and distribution of Wisdom Statement specifying the distribution of Wisdom

(B) Content The statement of v. 1 in the first place functions as the foundation of the opening poem (1:1-10). One should bear in mind, however, that it also serves as the heading of the entire book. In the first pair of rhetorical questions (vv. 2-3) a series of seven (!) elements is mentioned in order to emphasize that God’s wisdom is incomprehensible and unreachable: Wisdom exclusively belongs to God’s domain. In my conviction, there are no cogent reasons to be found in the Greek manuscripts that sofi,an, being the seventh element, should be a gloss or a later correction anticipating v. 6.16 Moreover, the next statement (v. 4) precisely picks up this seventh element! With the help of a chiastic pattern and in a passive voice – maybe a deliberate action to avoid ku,rioj it outlines the privileged position of wisdom: 16

SMEND, Die Weisheit, 4: “Wahrscheinlich … spätere Korrektur”; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 10: “erläuternde Glosse”; MARBÖCK, Weisheit, 19: “spätere Korrektur”. Cf. RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen, 7. Both the structure and the terminology of Sir 42:18 (LXX) could be adduced in favour of the authenticity of kai. sofi,an in Sir 1:3.

“Full Wisdom is from the Lord“

143

“Before all things wisdom was created / and prudent understanding from eternity”.17 Whereas the first pair of rhetorical questions (vv. 2-3) touched upon cosmic phenomena, the second couple of rhetorical questions (v. 6) exclusively deal with wisdom, bringing out two different aspects: “To whom has wisdom’s root been revealed / Who knows her secrets?”. The first one has been put in the passive voice, i.e. only God Himself can reveal the origin of wisdom. The answer to the second rhetorical question will be that it is also impossible to get knowledge of wisdom’s secrets. These two rhetorical questions serve as a direct preparation for the fundamental statement of v. 8, in which sofo,j cannot be missed. There is only one who is in the position to answer all the questions (1:2-3.6) that have been raised: the Lord. In v. 8 this conviction is put to the fore with the help of a twofold description, both elements of which are essential. The first aspect emphasizes God being the source of wisdom: “One alone is wise: The Lord”. The second aspect lays stress upon his sovereignty: “truly aweinspiring sitting on his throne”. It is not by chance, of course, that Ben Sira has connected the attribute “wise” with the attribute “awe-inspiring” (fobero,j), since next to “wisdom” “fear of the Lord” (fo,boj kuri,ou) is one of the most important theological notions in this book, which is abundantly shown in the next poem (Sir 1:14.16.18.20.27).18 God’s unique wisdom and awe for his sovereignty over the cosmos are so pointedly presented in order to emphasize that God is totally different from all a human being can discover and track down. God, however, “has created wisdom, saw her and numbered her; he poured her out upon all his works” (v. 9). With the help of the verb evxariqme,w Ben Sira creates a firm inclusio to 1:2b, emphasizing that wisdom exclusively belongs to God’s domain too. The first colon of v. 10 poses a problem, at least at a grammatical level. The majority of scholars consider wisdom to be the (unsaid) subject of v. 10a.19 Considering, however, the parallel structure of v. 9b (kai. evxe,ceen auvth.n ÅÅÅ) and v. 10b (kai. evcorh,ghsen auvth.n ÅÅÅ), another option should be preferred in which v. 10a is to be considered an apposition to “all his works”. The advantage of this view would be that all three cola (vv. 9b-10b) have the same subject, viz. God.20 Whatever option is chosen, vv. 9b-10ab in any case offer an ascending progression: “all his works”/ “all flesh”/ “those who love him”.

17 18 19

20

One should notice the pattern of aivwn , in the first part of the poem (1:1b.2b.4b). DI LELLA, Fear of the Lord; HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht. E.g. PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 9; RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen, 4; MARBÖCK, Weisheit, 19; SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 507; ID., Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira, 43; MCKENZIE, Sirach, 24. SNAITH, Ecclesiasticus, 9; SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 136 and 139.

144

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Although the Syriac and a few Greek manuscripts which belong to a subgroup of the Lucianic recension have the reading “those who fear him” (foboume,noij) instead of “those who love him”, there is no need to prefer the former one, since in fact it is a reading to facilitate the transition to the next poem (1:11-30) that explicitly deals with “fear of the Lord”. Discussing this text critical problem, scholars mainly rely on Smend, Haspecker, and Marböck who are in favour of the reading foboume,noij.21 Only Haspecker paid attention to Sir 2:15-16, a passage that two times explicitly puts both notions upon a par: oi` foboume,noi ku,rionÅÅÅ (2:15a.16a) / oi` avgapw/ntej auvto.nÅÅÅ(2:15b.16b).22 He, however, holds the view that – although he has several times defined these lines as a synonymous parallelism – “to love the Lord” cannot be equated with “to fear the Lord”. The present author, on the contrary, wishes to emphasize that (a) the notion “to love the Lord” is found in the final line of the opening section of the book (1:10b); (b) that the subsequent passage deals with “fear of the Lord” (1:11-20); (c) that both notions for the first time have been put together at the very end of the first section of the book (1:1–2:18). Taking the entire opening passage (Sir 1:1-10) into consideration, one becomes aware that Ben Sira has established an intriguing literary and theological “arch” between the opening and the end of this pericope. Whereas in the opening line wisdom is “with him”, viz., the Lord, (1:1b), in the concluding verse she is “with all flesh” too (1:10a).

3. The additions of Gr II (Sir 1:5.7.10cd) The expanded Greek translation (Gr II) has three extra bicola, which are also to be found in the Old Latin, but are completely absent in Syriac. Since the Greek text of the Book of Ben Sira as edited by Swete only represents codex Sinaiticus (a), codex Alexandrinus (A), and codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (C), the text of Gr II is not given in this edition.23 Rahlfs in his text edition has printed the text of Sir 1:5 and 1:7 in a note, but does not mention 1:10cd.24 Therefore one always has to consult Ziegler’s edition to be sure of having all textual evidence at hand.25 The author who inserted 1:5 into the text of Gr I has in several ways associated himself with that original passage. The collocation phgh. sofi,aj 21 22 23 24 25

SMEND, Die Weisheit, 9; HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht, 51-53; MARBÖCK, Weisheit, 21. HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht, 282-290. SWETE, The Old Testament in Greek, 644-754. RAHLFS, Septuaginta, 378-471. ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach.

“Full Wisdom is from the Lord“

145

is on a par with collocations such as r`iz, a sofi,aj (1:6.20), avrch. sofi,aj (1:14), plhsmonh. sofi,aj (1:16), and ste,fanoj sofi,aj (1:18).26 The expression “God in the heights” is rather like Sir 26:16 and 43:9. The adjective aivwn, ioj dovetails into the noun aivwn, , which is rather dominant in the preceding lines (1:1b.2b.4b).27 It is not so much the conception as the specific location and timing of Sir 1:5 that is troubling. Its insertion at this particular point has a major theological purpose, since wisdom is linked with “the word of God” and “the eternal commandments”. As both collocations undoubtedly refer to Israel’s Torah, from the very outset wisdom and torah are identified here. In the Book of Ben Sira one finds several passages that offer a clear and direct identification of wisdom and torah (15:1; 17:11; 19:20; 21:11; 24:23; 34:8; 45:5cd) and another dozen of occurrences where an identification of wisdom and torah is presupposed or implied (1:26; 2:15-16; 6:36; 15:15; 19:24; 24:22; 24:3233; 33:2-3; 38:34cd–39:8; 44:4; 51:15cd; 51:30).28 There are at least two reasons, however, why Sir 1:5 cannot belong to the original layer of the book. First, as compared to all above mentioned occurrences in the book where wisdom and torah are identified, Sir 1:5 is so explicit and massive that all subsequent utterances on this topic would lose a great deal of their expressiveness. Second, within the train of thought of the opening passage of the book, the exposition of Sir 1:5 is both premature and to some extent forgets that wisdom is presented as an attribute of God. Sir 1:7 is given little attention in scholarly literature, since this bicolon is said to be a doublet of 1:6.29 At a closer look, however, there are some aspects that ask for further investigation. If 1:7 would be a mere doublet of 1:6 indeed, it is hard to understand why someone added an identical statement as a sequence to 1:6. It also catches the eye that 1:7 has been translated in quite different ways. As far as the first line is concerned, there is difference of opinion relating to the collocation evpisth,mh sofi,aj. Some scholars consider it to be a genetivus subiectivus (“all that wisdoms knows”),30 26 27 28 29

30

The collocation phgh. sofi,aj is only found in Bar 3:12: “You have forsaken the fountain of wisdom”. As to aivwn , see RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen, 22-24. For an overview of evntolh, in the Book of Ben Sira, see ibid., 70-71; 85-87. SCHNABEL, Law and Wisdom, 69-92. “Augenscheinlich Dublette zu v. 6 aus Gr. II”: SMEND, Die Weisheit, 8; “Dublette”: PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 10; “V 7 ist sicher Dublette zu V 6”: MARBÖCK, Weisheit, 20; “Der Vers ist nur eine Dublette von 1,6 und daher hier nicht von Interesse”: RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen, 33; “v 7 merely repeats the ideas of v 6”: SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 137. SNAITH, Ecclesiasticus, 9; REB; “Die Lehre der Weisheit”: MARBÖCK, Weisheit, 20; “Die Kenntnis der Weisheit”: SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 18.

146

Pancratius C. Beentjes

whereas others obviously prefer a genetivus obiectivus (“an understanding of wisdom”).31 Two observations can be adduced in favour of the latter possibility. First, the passive voice of Sir 1:7 suggests that God is the subject of this colon.32 Second, the similar pattern that is found in Sir 19:22 (ponhri,aj evpisth,mh) and can only mean: “to know about wickedness”. With respect of the second colon of Sir 1:7 striking differences can be observed. Whereas the noun polupeiri,a – which is only found in Sir 25:6 and Wis 8:8 – should be rendered as “extensive experience” or a synonymous expression,33 in the German sphere a rendering such as “multiform avenues”appears to be preferred.34 This latter translation has to a high degree been influenced by the rather obscure variant reading poluporei,an, which is to be considered either a harmonisation prompted by porei/ai in 1:5 or a later correction transmitted by just one Greek minuscule (545) based upon the Old Latin (“multiplicationem ingressus”).35 The Greek text of Sir 1:10cd, which in the Vetus latina has been handed down as 1:14-15 and is missing in Syriac, is found in the Origenistic / Hexaplaric recension and in only four minuscles that belong to the Lucianic recension.36 It is M. Gilbert who offers a fine and detailed analysis of Sir 1:10cd in the Vattioni commemoration volume.37 I do share by far the most of his observations, and therefore refrain from repeating them here. I cannot subscribe, however, to his final conclusion that the original text of Sir 1:10b has read “those who fear him”.38 If this should be true, one can hardly explain how and why the author of Gr II made the transition to avga,phsij (1:10c).

31 32 33 34

35 36 37 38

SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 136; “Verständnis für Weisheit”: SAUER, Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira, 42. Both the verb sunie,nai and the verb fanerou/n (1:7; 20:8) are only found in Gr II. “Wealth of experience”: REB; “resourcefulness”: SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 136; “reiche Erfahrung”: PETERS, Ecclesiasticus, 10. “Ihre mannigfachen Wege”: MARBÖCK, Weisheit, 20; SCHREINER, Jesus Sirach, 18; “ihre vielgestaltige Wege”: SAUER, Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira, 42; “ihre vielen Wege”: ID., Jesus Sirach, 507. The noun poluporei,a is not found in the Septuagint and, moreover, according to Liddell – Scott – Jones does not even exist in Greek! Sir 1:10cd is not found, e.g., in minuscle 248, being the most important minuscle relating to the Book of Ben Sira. GILBERT, Voir ou Craindre. Ibid., 251.

“Full Wisdom is from the Lord“

147

4. The function of Sir 1:1-10 within the book Reading the Book of Ben Sira, at least two times the opening paragraph (1:110) will be explicitly brought to mind. The first passage that echoes 1:1-10 is found in Sir 18:1-14, being the conclusion of an extensive and important section of the book, which could be characterized as a “discourse on sin” (15:11–18:14).39 To paraphrase Marböck, it is not too much to say that Sir 18:1-14 can be considered a straight comment upon 1:1-10.40 Both the vocabulary, content, structure and hymnic style of 18:1-14 are solid proof that Ben Sira explicitly harks back to the opening lines of his book. With the help of rhetorical questions, in the first strophe (18:1-7) the eternal and righteous Creator as well as his majesty and inscrutability is praised. The second strophe (18:8-14) lays emphasis upon man’s insignificance as opposed to God’s mercy and forgiveness. Sir 19:20-24, the opening of a new paragraph in the book (19:20–20:31) is another passage that immediately reminds of Sir 1:1-10. Its well-knit literary structure is guaranteed by a twofold inclusio. The first one consists of fo,boj kuri,ou (19:20a) and e;mfoboj (19:24a), the second one has poi,hsij no,mou (19:20b) that antithetically corresponds to parabai,nwn no,mon (19:24b). Within this double framework the author has concentrated, moreover, a range of theological signals. The first one is produced by the opening words pa/sa sofi,a (19:20a), which are identical to the opening line of the book: pa/sa sofi,a para. kuri,ou (1:1a). In a number of Greek manuscripts there even have been made attempts to replace the text of Sir 19:20a by the opening sentence of Sir 1:1a.41 It is my conviction that Ben Sira in every possible way just wanted to construct here a close connection with Sir 1:1-10. This may be documented by the following observations: (a) The collocation pa/sa sofi,a (1:1; 19:20)42 is a remarkable and rare expression; in the Septuagint it is found only once in a similar context (Job 26:3).43 Within the Book of Ben Sira it therefore serves as a special signal towards its readers. (b) One should notice that – for the first time after 1:4 – the noun fronh,sij makes its appearance in this pericope, and … in a 39 40 41 42

43

Adetailed investigation into Sir 15:11–18:14 is offered by PRATO, Il problema della teodicea, 209-299. See also the study of WICKE-REUTER, Göttliche Providenz, 106-187. MARBÖCK, Weisheit, 26. Cf. ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 214. Though this collocation is also found in 37:21, there are strong indications that this verse – and parts of its context – is not genuine. The entire verse line is absent in Hebrew (Ms B), in the Syriac and in the Armenian translation. See especially SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 435. In Ps 106 (107):27 pa/sa h` sofi,a auvtw/n has a complete different meaning: “professional skill”; this is also true for Dan 1:4.

148

Pancratius C. Beentjes

twofold way (19:22a.24b).44 (c) It can hardly be coincidence that su,nesij, which functions in 1:4 too, is also found in 19:24a. These observations justify the conclusion that Sir 19:20-24 harks back to the fundamental opening paragraph of the book. In 19:20 Ben Sira lays emphasis upon his conviction that not every kind of wisdom can be equated with “fear of the Lord”. The Jerusalem Sage wants to make it absolutely clear to his audience that it is just a very specific concept of wisdom, which can be identified with “fear of the Lord”. For this reason pa/sa in 19:20 must be attributed an “elative significance”, such as “full”, “supreme”, “total”, “pure”.45 And it is interesting to ascertain that some recent translations seem to take this view too.46 It is a pity, however, that neither of them has added a further explanation to their rendering. Considering all this, we cannot rule out the possibility that pa/sa sofi,a in Sir 1:1 – being the opening statement of the Book of Ben Sira – has to be translated in the same elative sense: “Full wisdom is from the Lord”.47 Sir 19:20 should be mentioned by the way for another reason too. Only here and in 21:11 “fear of the Lord” and “keeping the law” are explicitly equated with “full wisdom”.48 Would it be far-fetched to assume that this equation has caused the addition by Gr II in 1:5?

5. Similarities and differences between Sir 1:1-10 and wisdom literature of the O.T. Of course, one could bring out all kinds of expressions, collocations and separate verses from all over the Old Testament – and especially from wisdom literature – to show that Sir 1:1-10 shared the line of thought with Israel’s tradition.49 Inventories of this kind have so often been published, both long ago and in recent times, that I refrain from doing so again.50 There is, however, another reason why I decided not to offer a “telephone booklike” conspectus of every possible connection between Sir 1:1-10 and the 44 45 46 47 48 49

50

Apart from these occurrences, the noun fronh,sij is only found in Sir 25:9 and 29:28. REICKE, pa/j, a[paj, 888. “Die ganze Weisheit”: SAUER, Jesus Sirach, 553; ID., Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira, 154; “The whole wisdom … / complete wisdom“: SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 295 See also: BEENTJES, “Full Wisdom is Fear of the Lord”. Sir 15:1 has the nearest approach. “… a more extensive survey of Hebrew Bible references underlying Sir 1,1-10 would show how Ben Sira was steeped in the traditions of biblical wisdom”: CORLEY, Wisdom versus Apocalyptic, 274. EBERHARTER, Der Kanon; GASSER, Die Bedeutung; MARBÖCK, Weisheit, 30-34; SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 137-139.

“Full Wisdom is from the Lord“

149

Old Testament.51 For more and more I carry conviction that research of the Book of Ben Sira should also foster another frame of reference that has been coined “structural use of Scripture” or “structural style”. “Structural use of Scripture” or “structural style” is a phenomenon to the effect that a passage in a Jewish writing to a high degree is structured by elements from one of two biblical texts. It was Daniel Patte who introduced this notion and applied this literary feature exclusively to the structuring of apocalyptic texts.52 He discovered such an application of “structural use of Scripture” just in Jewish writings that can be dated to about the second century BC, being the same period in which Ben Sira composed his book. Elsewhere the present author has argued that this phenomenon of structural style could be very useful for the study of the Book of Ben Sira.53 When applying the method of structural use of Scripture to Sir 1:1-10, two specific biblical texts are brought into prominence: Prov 8 and Job 28. We will amplify this point of view, since on the one hand it will shed light upon the question to what extent Ben Sira did concur with Israel’s traditional wisdom. As a consequence, attention is given to the question at what points Ben Sira introduced new concepts. The concept that the Lord created wisdom before all other things – as found in Sir 1:4 and 1:9 – is hardly ever stated in the Old Testament. In fact, it is found only once, viz. in the famous and repeatedly discussed passage of Prov 8:22-30.54 Scholars are unanimous that “Ben Sira’s dependence on Proverbs can be detected in almost every portion of his book”.55 The passage prior to Prov 8:22 is “a lengthy self-recommendation” of Lady Wisdom in the first person (Prov 8:4-21), “in which she boasts of her power and authority and of the gifts which she is able to bestow. In other words, this is a speech by a supernatural being in praise of herself”.56 Subsequent to this lengthy speech, she continues saying “JHWH created me the first of his works” (Prov 8:22a), a statement that in the following lines is amply illustrated. In order to emphasize that wisdom has gone before all other things, the whole gamut of natural phenomena is recounted: “the earth, the abyss, springs, mountains, hills, the land, uninhabited places, the sky, winds, clouds, springs, foundations of the earth”.57 51

Of course, I do not dispute e.g. the remarkable resemblance of Sir 1:2 (stago,naj u`etou/ ÅÅÅ

ti,j evxariqmh,sai) to Job 36:27 (avriqmhtai. de. auvtw/| stago,nej u`etou/). 52 53 54 55 56 57

PATTE, Early Jewish Hermeneutic, 171. BEENTJES, Jesus Sirach en Tenach; ID., Canon and Scripture, 600-602. See GILBERT, Le Discours de la Sagesse. As to recent literature on Prov 8:22-30, see e.g. MÜLLER, Proverbien 1-9, 232-250. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 43: “Sirach’s primary model was undoubtedly the book of Proverbs”; COLLINS, Jewish Wisdom, 44. WHYBRAY, Proverbs, 119. This enumeration is adopted from Prov 8:22-29 (LXX).

150

Pancratius C. Beentjes

In Ben Sira’s text one also finds such a series of natural phenomena: “the sands of the sea, the raindrops, the height of the sky, the breadth of the earth, the depth of the abyss” (1:2-3). The presentation of it, however, has a different order, function and aim. Here the natural phenomena are mentioned prior to the creation of wisdom. It is quite remarkable to ascertain that the final element of the series is not a natural phenomenon, but wisdom: “who can fathom wisdom?” (1:3b). Another striking difference is the literary form to be found in Sir 1:1-2: two rhetorical questions. The only adequate answer to these rhetorical questions, of course, is: “only the Lord can”. And only then Ben Sira starts to say “wisdom was created first of all” (1:4). Whereas in Prov 8:4-21.22-30 it is Lady Wisdom who highlights herself,58 the centre of attention in Sir 1:1-10 – a text using identical concepts – undoubtedly is on the Lord. This is especially demonstrated by 1:8, being another reason why sofo,j can hardly be secondary. Job 28, the magnificent – and at the same time puzzling – poem on the quest for wisdom, and especially the third strophe of it (28:20-28), has been another substantial source – or mine to sustain the metaphor – underlying the opening paragraph of Ben Sira’s book.59 Sir 1:2-3 Sir 1:6 Sir 1:8 Sir 1:9

Job 28:24-26a Job 28:20 Job 28:23 Job 28:27

Job 28 is dominated by a pertinent question, which by means of a refrain to a high degree structures the poem: “But where can wisdom be found, and where is the source of understanding?” (28:12); “Where, then, does wisdom come from? Where is the source of understanding?” (28:20).60 The first reply to this question is given in 28:14 by the personified “Deep” and “Sea”; it is followed in 28:23 by the answer of the personified “Destruction” and “Death”. The Hebrew text runs: “God understands (!ybh) the way to it, and He knows its place” (NRSV). In the Greek we find a slightly different presentation: “God has well made (sune,sthsen) her way, and He knows her place”. In the subsequent lines (28:25-26) wisdom is on a par with natural phenomena (“wind”, “water”, “rain”), just as is the case in Sir 1:2-3. 58 59

60

In the Greek text of Ben Sira, it is not till Ch. 24 that Wisdom is personified. Both in Hebrew (Ms A) and in Syriac, however, this is already the case in Sir 4:15-19. I like to refer to the Proceedings of a Colloquium on Job 28, organised by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam 2002: VAN WOLDE, (ed.), Job 28. See also: VAN OORSCHOT, Hiob 28. Translation from the Hebrew according to REB. In the Hebrew, vv. 12b and 20b are completely identical, whereas in the Greek this applies to vv. 12a and 20a.

“Full Wisdom is from the Lord“

151

The most striking parallel to Sir 1:1-10, however, is undoubtedly found in Job 28:27: to,te ei=den auvth.n kai. evxhgh,sato auvth.n evtoima,saj evxicni,asen The He saw her and leaded her, He prepared and fathomed (her).

Cf. Sir 1:9: kai. ei=den kai. evxhri,qmhsen auvth,n He saw her and took note of her.61

Also Sir 1:3: kai. sofi,an tij evxicnia,sei* Who can fathom wisdom?

Wisdom cannot be found by human beings and is inaccessible to mortals; only God knows her way. The only manner for human beings to gain wisdom or to have access to her is in an indirect way, viz. through “fear of the Lord” (ynda tary) / “honouring God” (qeose,beia).62 Whereas fo,boj kuri,ou is the current collocation in the Book of Ben Sira,63 it can hardly be coincidence that the rare noun qeose,beia – as used in Job 28:28 – is also found only once in the Book of Ben Sira, viz. in Sir 1:25 and – moreover – offers exactly the same context as does Job 28:28! Iv dou h` qeose,beia, evstin sofi,a to. de. avpe,cesqai avpo. kakw/n evstin evpisth,mh Behold, fear of God is wisdom and to abstain from evil is understanding (Job 28,28);64

E v n qhsauroi/j sofi,aj parabolh. evpisth,mhj bde,lugma de. a`martwlw/| qeose,beia. Among wisdom’s treasures is the model for understanding, but to the sinner fear of God is an abomination (Sir 1:25).65 61 62 63 64 65

For this translation, see SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 136.139. See the stimulating essay on Job 28:28 by CLINES, ‘The Fear of the Lord is Wisdom’. In Gr I fo,boj kuri,ou is found twenty times, in Gr II another five times; the expression fobei/sqai to,n ku,rion appears twenty eight times in Gr I and three more times in Gr II. It is striking that both qeose,beia (Job 28:28) and qeosebh,j as a characteristic of Job (1:8; 2:3) are part of God’s speech. The only exception is in Job 1:1. The reference to Sir 1:24 in HATCH – REDPATH, 648 s.v. qeose,beia is incorrect.

152

Pancratius C. Beentjes

In my view, however, there is too little evidence, both in phrasing and in context, that Ben Sira’s presentation of God pouring out wisdom (1:9b) should be considered a deliberate allusion to Joel 3:1-2. In the first place, the image in Sir 1:9b relates to“all his works” and only thereafter God’s pouring out wisdom is linked to “all flesh”, which in its turn is followed by a restriction: “according to its bounty”(1:10a). And in the second place, it has undoubtedly been the noun o[rasij of Gr II (1:10d), which has effectuated the idea that Joel 3:1-2 comes into play here.66 This, however, would mean that it was not Ben Sira himself, but a later author, who created such an inner-biblical connexion.

6. Conclusions A comparison between Sir 1:1-10 and other sapiential texts relating to the presentation of wisdom results in the following observations: 1. In Sir 1:1-10 the author employs a pattern of reference, which can be characterised as “structural use of Scripture”. 2. Apart from Sir 1:1, nowhere else in biblical wisdom texts it is explicitly said that “all / full wisdom is from the Lord”. 3. Dealing with the notion of wisdom, biblical wisdom texts as a matter of fact take their starting point in human life, in nature, on earth, or in personified wisdom, and use this train of thought as the way to describe wisdom as originating from God at the end. Ben Sira, however, in the opening paragraph of his book goes the other way round. Presenting his view on the origin and activity of wisdom, he starts with God (“All wisdom is from the Lord”…“He alone is wise”) and at God’s place (“seated upon his throne”).67 4. In Ben Sira’s description, the assignment of wisdom by God has a special climactic dimension that is found nowhere else. God has infused wisdom (1) into all his works, especially (2) into all human beings, and most abundantly (3) into those who love him.68 All this justifies the view that in Sir 1:1-10 we have a precious and unique jewel of wisdom theology in front of us.

66 67 68

For more details, see GILBERT, Voir ou Craindre, 250-251. Cf. Sir 24:2 where Lady Wisdom is “speaking in the assembly of the Most High” As to the collocation pa/sa sa,rx (“all human beings”), see RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen, 25-28.

“Full Wisdom is from the Lord“

153

Bibliography BEENTJES, P. C., Jesus Sirach en Tenach, Nieuwegein 1981. BEENTJES, P. C., Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira, in: SAEBØ, M. (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of its Interpretation, Vol. I/2 (The Middle Ages), Göttingen 2000, 591-605. BEENTJES, P. C., “Full Wisdom is Fear of the Lord”. Ben Sira 19,20-20,31: Context, Composition and Concept: EstBib 47 (1989), 27-45. BURMESTER, O. H. E., The Bohairic Pericopae of Wisdom and Sirach: Bib 15 (1934), 451-465. CLINES, D. J. A., ‘The Fear of the Lord is Wisdom’ (Job 28:28). A Semantic and Contextual Study, in: VAN WOLDE, E. (ed.), Job 28. Cognition in Context , 57-92. COLLINS, J. J., Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL), Louisville 1997. CORLEY, J., Wisdom versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1,1-10, in: GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. (ed.), Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Tradition (BEThL 168), Leuven 2003, 269-285. DI LELLA, A. A., Fear of the Lord as Wisdom: Ben Sira 1,11-30, in: BEENTJES, P. C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research (BZAW 255), Berlin – New York 1997, 113-133. EBERHARTER, A., Der Kanon des Alten Testaments zur Zeit des Ben Sira (ATA III, 3), Münster 1911. GASSER, J. K., Die Bedeutung der Sprüche Jesu Ben Sira für die Datierung des althebräischen Spruchbuches, Gütersloh 1903. GILBERT, M., Voir ou Craindre le Seigneur? Sir 1,10d, in: CAGNI, L. (ed.), Biblia et Semitica. Studi in memoria di Francesco Vattioni, Napoli 1999, 247-252. GILBERT, M., Le Discours de la Sagesse en Proverbes 8, in: ID. (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BEThL 51), Louvain 19902, 202-218; 414-415. HASPECKER, J., Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30), Rom 1967. HATCH, E. – REDPATH, H. A., A Concordance to the Septuagint, Oxford 1897. LUST, J. – EYNIKEL, E. – HAUSPIE, K. (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition, Stuttgart 2003. MARBÖCK, J., Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (BBB 37), Bonn 1971. MCKENZIE, R. A. F., Sirach (OTM 19), Wilmington 1983. MÜLLER, A., Proverbien 1-9: Der Weisheit neue Kleider, Berlin – New York 2000. PATTE, D., Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestina (SBL.DS 22), Missoula 1975. PETERS, N., Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25), Münster 1913. PRATO, G. L., Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. Composizione dei contrari e richiamo alle origini (AnBib 65), Roma 1973. RAHLFS, A., Septuaginta, Vol. II, Stuttgart 19658. REICKE, B., pa/j, a[paj, in: TDNT V, 585-595. Revised English Bible with Apocrypha, Oxford – Cambridge 1989. RICKENBACHER, O., Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO 1), Göttingen 1973. RÜGER, H. P., Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach. Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza (BZAW 112), Berlin 1970.

154

Pancratius C. Beentjes

SAUER, G., Jesus Sirach (Ben Sira) (JSHRZ III/5), Gütersloh 1981. SAUER, G., Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira (ATD 1), Göttingen 2000. SCHNABEL, E. J., Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul (WUNT, 2. Reihe 16), Tübingen 1985. SCHREINER, J., Jesus Sirach 1-24 (NEB), Würzburg 2002. SEGAL, M. Z., Se¯fer ben-Sîra¯’ hasˇsˇa¯le¯m, Jerusalem 19582. SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. SMEND, R., Griechisch-Syrisch-Hebräischer Index zur Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1907. SMEND, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin 1906. SNAITH, J. G., Ecclesiasticus (CBC), Cambridge 1974. SWETE, H. B., The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, Vol. II, Cambridge 1930. VAN OORSCHOT, J., Hiob 28: Die verborgene Weisheit und die Furcht Gottes als Überwindung einer generalisierten Chkmh, in: BEUKEN, W. A. M. (ed.), The Book of Job (BEThL 114), Leuven 1994, 183-201. VAN WOLDE, E. (ed.), Job 28. Cognition in Context (Biblical Interpretation Series 64), Leiden – Boston 2003. WAGNER, C., Die Septuaginta Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach (BZAW 282), Berlin – New York 1999. WHYBRAY, R. N., Proverbs (NCBC), Grand Rapids 1994. WICKE-REUTER, U., Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der frühen Stoa (BZAW 298), Berlin – New York 2000. WRIGHT, B. G., No Small Difference. Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text (SCS 26), Atlanta 1989. ZIEGLER, J., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2), Göttingen 1965.

The secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21-24 ANGELO PASSARO The pericope which is the object of this investigation has been studied recently from the point of view of the identification of the addressees behind its polemical intention.1 Alongside these valuable attempts and in dialogue with them, after having given a synoptic view of the Greek text and of the Hebrew present in Mss A and C, I would like to investigate Sir 3:(17)21-24 from the standpoint of the gnoseological problem which it reveals, in which forms already laid down in the preceding sapiential tradition are taken up again, though coming to conclusions and developments that are different and more advanced.

1. Text and hermeneutic The pericope presents a textual situation that is homogeneous but complex and which becomes still more intricate if it is investigated from its beginning in v. 17.2 In fact, compared with the Greek text, the two Hebrew manuscripts A and C present notable differences. The Greek text presents v. 19 (from Gr II, received into the edition of Ziegler to which I refer) which is absent from the Hebrew manuscripts even though (and this is probably the reason for Ziegler’s choice) v. 20b of Ms A seems to be the exact match of the Greek v. 19b: But to the lowest / he reveals his secrets

avlla. prae,sin apokalu,ptei ta. musth,ria auvtou/ And to the humble / he reveals his secret

wdws hlgy ~ywn[l

notwithstanding the singular-plural change (wdws – ta. musth,ria auvtou/). That we are dealing with an addition which amplifies the Hebrew text is to be deduced from the fact that v. 20a of Ms A develops coherently (by means of a causative yk) v. 18b with the theme of the mercy of God: rele1 2

Cf. ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 73-78. On the delimitation of the pericope, cf. ibid., 73 and note 184; SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 164; PENAR, Northwest Semitic Philology, 7-9.

156

Angelo Passaro

vant to this is the obvious repeat of the term ~xr in the plural at vv. 18b and 20a: (v. 18b) ~ymxr acmt la ynplw (v. 20a) ~yhla ymxr ~ybr yk.

The Greek text (Gr I), in fact, insists on the humbling of the disciple and the glorification of the Lord and their relationship of consequentiality as is indicated by the correspondence between the tapeino,w of v. 18a and tapei,noi in v. 20b which almost forms an inclusion: The greater you are, humble yourself (tapei,nou seauto,n) the more (v. 18a) Since (o[ti) […] he is glorified (doxa,zetai) by the humble (u`po. tw/n tapeinw/n) (v. 20b).

Ms C does not present the verses corresponding to v. 19 of the Gr and to v. 20 of the Gr and of Ms A. In fact, it presents only vv. 17-18 and 21-22, lacking also vv. 23-24. This notwithstanding, broadly speaking there are notable affinities between it and the Gr. In fact, in v. 17a, along with Gr, and by contrast with Ms A, it does not mention riches, and reference is made only to the need to direct one’s own actions according to meekness and gentleness. Like Ms C, Ms A insists on modesty (hwn[b), the Gr on meekness. So, even if the two Hebrew manuscripts coincide in the indication of modality, they differ in that of situation. Ms A restricts the imperative to the situation of riches ($rX[b) while Ms C and the Gr paint a more general picture which indicates a status, that of the son-disciple. Also, in the presentation of the consequence (v. 17b), the Gr is in line with Ms C both in the arrangement of the words (complement-subject-verb) – different from Ms A which presents subject-verb-complement – and in the syntagm which seems precisely to reflect !tm Xya. Also in v. 18, Gr and Ms C present a text which is similar both in construction and terminology. Prescinding from the presence in v. 18a of ynb which does not have an equivalent in the Greek – a clear attempt at linking up with v. 17a – the syntactic construction “the more…the more” is identical as is the correspondence between the syntagms !x acmt and eu`rh,seij ca,rin; this contrasts with Ms A which presents the term ~xr as object of the verb acm, but above all links finding mercy before God with humbling “before the great things of the age” (~lw[ tlwdg lkm). In v. 21, Ms C introduces an element which does not find any equivalent either in the Greek or in Ms A: the expression $mm ~y[rw, “that is, what is bad for you” (Ms A $mm hswkm; Gr.: ivscuro,tera, sou) – recalled probably by Ms A in v. 24 with regard to “perverse and seductive thoughts (tw[r twnwymdw)“ –,

The secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21-24

157

moreover in a context in which two identical verbs are employed even if in a different sequence from Ms A and Gr: rqh and Xrd. V. 22 marks the transparent agreement of the Hebrew manuscripts both in the construction of the verse and in the terminology employed: tyXrwh (“what has been handed down to you”); the root !yb in the hithpael imperative (“have understanding”); qs[ (care-thought-effort), but in two different constructions: Ms A emphasises the continuity between the two stichs with a !yaw which could also be read as the consequence of the first stich: “Have understanding of what has been handed down to you / and you will not have concern for secret things”,3 that is, the task of attentive and thorough investigation of what has been handed down will not allow the attention to linger on secret things. Ms C, on the other hand, directs the second stich in the sense of a command, placing qs[ at the beginning of the phrase, followed by a negative imperative in which the verb hyh is marked: “Have understanding of what has been handed down to you / and do not have concern over secret things”. Finally, the two Mss converge in their use of the term twrtsnb. With the use of the term crei,a, the Greek text of v. 22 adds to and underlines the aspect of the absence of advantage in intellectual activity which wishes to enquire into hidden things (ta. kru,pta). It is to be marked that the Gr adopts the construction of the Hebrew of Ms A which does not present the imperative form. In the Greek, this construction confers particular emphasis on the verb dianoe,w, which will be repeated, in a negative context, in v. 24 in substantival form. Vv. 23 and 24, present only in Gr and Ms A, have a text which is essentially homogeneous with regard to content. However, we must mark a textual problem in v. 23a of the Hebrew and a particular nuance in v. 24a. In 23a Hb, the expression rmt la is difficult to understand.4 Di Lella’s proposal which indicates the verbal form qSe[t; t. ,i thus taking up the root qs[ of the preceding verse, seems logical. From a different direction, the Greek text runs on the same lines: mh. perierga,zou, which suggests “a wordplay on true work”.5 In this connection, also suggestive for its interpretative consequences, is the proposal of Crenshaw6 which reads rmat la, from the root rma, “and do not speak of secret things” which would be conducive to interpreting the “secret things” as the sphere of theodicy.7 Moreover, in v. 23b, the Gr recalls the su,nesij, the intelligence of men, 3 4 5 6 7

Cf. in this respect LHVT: non est tibi curandum de. Cf. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 159; also the critical apparatus of LÉVI, The Hebrew Text, 2, critical apparatus letter e; and ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 76. ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 76. Cf. CRENSHAW, Qohelet’s Understanding, 215. Cf. in this respect HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 139.

158

Angelo Passaro

its limit and its desire, already abundantly satisfied, as the motive for not having to wear oneself out with what is too great, while Ms A places the stress, more generically, on the need to know, it too abundantly satisfied. Finally, in v. 24, Gr and Ms A present a construction that is slightly different. The Gr introduces a verbal form (wvli,sqhsen) where the Hebrew reproduces a participle of the root h[t functioning as an adjective. In this way, the Greek text, in stich b, places in relief “the perverse presumption which has led the thoughts of many astray”, creating a parallelism between u`po,leyij and u`po,noia ponera., between speculation and perverse presumption, subjects of the two different verbs: evpla,nhsen and wvli,sqhsen. The Hebrew text, on the other hand, accuses the ~da ynb, in two clauses which can be held to be nominal, “many opinions” and “perverse and seductive thoughts”. Their notable quantity is thus underlined while in Gr the multiplicity is the subject only of stich a. Despite the differences in the three relevant texts, therefore, which attest a constant attempt at reinterpretation – and this refers not only to the translation of the nephew but also to the complex situation of the manuscript tradition – we can affirm that, as far as general lines are concerned, the texts present a clear uniformity of content, with the Greek translation showing itself to be in line both with Ms C in the parts which it presents and with A where C is lacking. This contentual uniformity is joined with as many clear and detailed emphases, special stresses which do not, however, in my opinion, portray alternative or irreconcilable content. In short, the Greek text takes up the Hebrew, expanding the text (cf. the situation with vv. 19-20), welcoming its ideas and reformulating them, even with regard to terminology,8 for an audience and an historico-anthropological context clearly different from that supposed by the Hebrew text. This conclusion allows us, probably, to overcome, from the methodological and hermeneutical point of view, that impasse in which, with reference to our pericope, that exegesis struggles which is interested only in defining, and in alternative terms, the object of the intelligent and discrete polemical intention of the text. By way of example, it is very surprising in fact that, although basing themselves on the Hebrew text, Di Lella and Argall arrive at conclusions that are diametrically opposed: the first writes in his classic commentary: “In vv. 21, 22b, 23a, 24 Ben Sira urges his readers to beware of the inconsistency, the futility of the teaching of the Greeks, their aims and their techniques, while he recalls to them how much the Lord has granted to them. In short, vv. 22 and 23b aim to show that the Law and the traditions of Israel are sufficient for those who believe in order to live fully and well”.9 In his conclusion, a little polemically it appears to me, Argall, 8 9

Cf. the careful study of A. Minissale in this volume. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 160.

The secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21-24

159

who analyses the pericope in the wider context of the search for more or less clear cross-references between Sirach and 1 Enoch, holds that “it is reasonable to conclude that Sirach 3:17-29 is not a polemic against the Greeks learning, as is often asserted by scholars […]. Ben Sira is responding to Jewish groups that propound esoteric teachings. The controversy is fully intellegible as an intra-Jewish debate over the correct interpretation of Torah”,10 and maintains, after having cited the passage of Di Lella just indicated, that this interpretation (against the teaching of the Greeks) can be made to go back to Smend11 “who suggested that the ‘sons of men’ in Sir 3:24 was a reference to Greeks [...]. The view was populararized by Martin Hengel who, with his customary caution, said of Smend, ‘we may perhaps concede he is right’”.12 It can escape no one that, set in these terms, the question becomes insoluble and does not grasp the whole import of the text. I believe that the two viewpoints, against the Greeks and against Jewish groups are present and compatible if we draw on the results of the analysis of the textual situation which reveals a common arrangement and architecture into which are inserted nuances that are necessarily diverse, because the religious and cultural concerns to which the grandfather and grandson were subjected were different; different, therefore, the environment of the scribal work. In this way the texts itself forces the abandonment of compartmentalised interpretation and emits a rich complexity of meaning. On the other hand, as Crenshaw wisely suggests13 even if the occasion is polemic against the astrological or cosmological speculations of the Greeks or against Jewish beliefs on the control of one’s own destiny, the aim remains that of portraying, at the epistemological level, the limits – and I would add, the possibilities – of human knowledge in a very structured discourse which, taking up the interpretative forms already indicated – one thinks of Qoheleth and some Psalms – orients them and develops them starting from that cultural and profoundly theological operation which brings together Wisdom and the Torah.

10 11 12 13

ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 78 and note 195. SMEND, Die Weisheit, 222. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 139. CRENSHAW Qohelet’s Understanding, 223.

160

Angelo Passaro

2. Structure and meaning Vv. 21-24 constitute a unity easily circumscribed with regard to its beginning and its end and coherently structured internally. In fact, v. 20, with a causal clause (yk in the Hebrew, o[ti in the Greek), closes the discourse on humility introduced by the ynb / te,knon of v. 17a. With v. 21a there begins a discourse conducted on the register of synonymous parallelism in which the use of the comparative has a structuring function (calepw,tera, sou – iscuro,tera, sou / $mm twalp – hswkm / $mm ~y[rw // evn toi/j perissoi/j tw/n e;rgwn sou / $mm rtwybw) because it is part of the link between vv. 21 and 23; in this way the motivation of 23b, which is prolonged in v. 24 (the ga,r of the Greek can also be interpreted in a causal sense), is elliptically referable also to the imperatives of v. 21. Moreover, in vv. 21 and 23a, the verbs are all in the negative imperative: do not seek ( Xwrdt la – mh. zh,tei) / do not enquire (rwqxt la - mh. evxe,taze) do not occupy yourself (qs[tt la) – do not weary yourself (mh. perierga,zou)

and the objects are placed in parallel: what is wonderful (twalp) – what is difficult (calepw,tera) / what is hidden [Ms C: bad] / (hswkm [Ms C: ~y[r]) – what is too great (ivscuro,tera) what is greater (rtwyb) – what is too great (toi/j perissoi/j).

Ms C closes at v. 22 (cf. Ms A), but in v. 21 it presents a parallelism between twalp (“what is marvellous”) and ~y[r (“what is bad”). Thus there is anticipated in the object of the search the motivation of the command: whatever is twalp, if investigated, becomes a search for what is bad. Thus is explained, probably, the inversion of the two verbs rqx and Xrd compared with Ms A. It is to be noted that, in consequential manner, in v. 22b, Ms C presents the construction with ’al + the jussive: the discourse, that is, is closed with the command not to concern oneself with secret things (twrtsnb, same term in Ms A; in Gr. the equivalent ta. kru,pta). Moreover, coherently with the absence in the first part of the conclusion of the openness of God to reveal his secrets, there is a complete lack of reference to “what has already been shown and revealed” (v. 22b Gr and Ms A). In this way, in a deliberate fashion, v. 22a becomes central: “Of that which has been handed down to you (Gr: commanded) to you / have understanding (!yb)”. In fact, also in the Greek and in Ms A, in the organisation of the discourse, v. 22 performs a central role. Within a sequence of verbal forms in the negative, it presents the verb in the positive: “have understanding”, and is constructed according to antithetical parallelism. Moreover, the fact that in stich b, by contrast with Ms C, the form of a command is not pre-

The secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21-24

161

sented, showing instead a consequence of what has been said in the positive (qs[ $l !yaw), with a particular underlining in the Greek of the uselessness of this particular enquiry (cf. the use of crei,a), on the one hand emphasises the relationship existing between “having understanding of what has been handed down/commanded” and “the not having concern for secret things”, that is, the enquiry which is open to the understanding of what has been handed down is itself the condition and possibility for not wearying oneself in the enquiry into secret things; there is an indication of pacified sufficiency in the understanding of what has been handed down; on the other hand, it allows the linking of “what has been handed down/commanded” with “what has been shown/revealed” which is specified, along the lines of quantity-possibility, as that which goes beyond the structural possibilities of human knowledge. Thus are joined, in a wonderful manner, the greatness of the gift and the human limitation! To summarise, in Ms C the command, expressed in positive terms: “have understanding of what has been handed down to you” is accompanied by and balanced by the one expressed in the negative: “do not be concerned with secret things”; there is an area of searching not only possible but obligatory, that which has as its object what has been handed down to which there is counterposed another which is absolutely forbidden: here is not the request for a particular quality or intensity in the searching (cf. the term qs[), but the absolute prohibition of an enquiry which wishes to have as its object “secret things”, placed in parallel with “what is recognised as marvellous (= for you)” and “what is bad for you”. In Ms A and in Gr, however, the repeat of this fundamental concept is accompanied by the idea of a necessity, of a need of man, which has already been satisfied, even in a superabundant way, by what has been shown and revealed, submitted to the attention (v. 23b: Ms A har in the hoph.; Gr u`podei,knumi). The expression of v. 23b takes on, therefore, particular relevance and, in the light of the data which has emerged from the analysis of the structure of the discourse, I believe that its significance cannot be limited to a rebuke issued by Ben Sira to his students because they have had access to the teachings of his adversaries.14 Di Lella seems more logical when he refers the verse to the activity of Ben Sira but within an interpretative framework which sees in him one who has explained the Torah to his disciples.15 In effect, the text insists on the parallelism between what is marvellous/difficult, hidden/great, too great for the capacity of human knowledge, secret things, and what has been handed down and commanded. That is, in the face of a reality that is known because it has been revealed, 14 15

Thus ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 74. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 159.

162

Angelo Passaro

there stands out the indication of another reality before which one can only recognise the limits of the capacity of knowledge and, therefore, the uselessness of rational enquiry. As is clear, and has been variously emphasised, Ben Sira is taking up Deut 29:28a: Wnyhela{ / hw"hyl: troTs' N. hI ~l'A[-d[; WnynEbl' W. Wnl' tl{gN> hI w; > taZOh; hr"ATh; yrEbD. -I lK'-ta, tAf[}l; ta. krupta. kuri,w| tw/| qew/| h`mw/n ta. de. fanera. h`mi/n kai. toi/j te,knoij h`mw/n eivj to.n aivwn/ a poiei/n pa,nta ta. r`hm, ata tou/ no,mou tou,tou Secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things which have been revealed are for us and for our sons, for ever, because we practise all the words of this Law

a text which is to be understood in the light of the so-called “canonic formula“ (“The word which I command you”) in which the command is given not to add or take away any of the word commanded, of the Law. In this way, the Law and the complex theological structure of the text which confers on it its sacral character is protected. Now, whether this complex theological structure of the text is constituted by a numerical system which represents symbolically the presence of God,16 such as is established by the logotechnical analysis refined by Claus Schedl and used for the interpretation of some Biblical books by various scholars, is a conclusion which escapes my limited competence. However we can accept in part – because otherwise it would be necessary to enter into the paths of Gematria, something to which I would not wish to condemn Ben Sira –, some conclusions with regard to the text of Deuteronomy: the “secret things” refer to the written text of the Law, they are the hidden and complex innervature of the text, they are “for God”, hw"hyl: , they belong to God, while the “things revealed“, the text of the Law with its commandments are for the people, for the benefit of the people (Wnl') in the measure in which they are carried out.17 Ben Sira takes up, that is, the viewpoint of Deuteronomy, not to deny value to searching but in order to confirm that, through divine decree, there is a limit beyond which one runs the risk of perverse deception because there is a limit to what God himself has revealed,18 in the sense that there 16 17 18

Thus LABUSCHAGNE, Divine Speech, 388-389 (paper presented at Leuven and previously published in LOHFINK, Das Deuteronomium, 111-126). Ibid., 359. Cf. ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 76.

The secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21-24

163

remains a mysterious dimension in the very acting of God which is not reducible to what human knowledge can reach. Ben Sira recognises that the effort of willing to know is destined to failure. Even the rational enquiry which wishes to penetrate what is unknown can have perverse consequences, but that depends once again and ultimately on the object of knowledge. For this, the conclusion of Crenshaw on the text which we are analysing: “this attack on the very essence of rational enquiry… does not depend automatically on the humble recognition that the intellect cannot explain the mystery of life. The necessity of the polemic has driven Ben Sira towards an unsustainable position: some realities are not subject to rational enquiry”,19 seems to me not to pay attention to the “quality” of the reality or realities of which one desires to have knowledge. In my opinion, which is confirmed by the evidence of the vocabulary employed, Ben Sira reuses some of the intuitions of the sage Qoheleth which combine with perspectives which had already been transmitted by the tradition to the hymnology of the Psalms. The reference to Qoh 1:13 ~yImV' h' ; tx;T; hf,[n] : rv,a-] lK' l[; hm'kx. B' ; rWtl'w> vArd>li yBil-i ta, yTitn; w" > AB tAn[]l; ~d"ah' ' ynEbl. i ~yhila{ / !t;n" [r" !y"n[> i aWh kai. e;dwka th.n kardi,an mou tou/ evkzhth/sai kai. tou/ kataske,yasqai evn th/ sofi,a| peri. pa,ntwn tw/n ginome,nwn u`po. to.n ouvrano,n\ o[ti perispasmo.n ponhro.n e;dwken o` qeo.j toi/j ui`oi/j tou/ avnqrw,pou tou/ perispa/sqai evn auvtw/| And I have applied my heart to search and to investigate with wisdom all that is done under heaven: a painful business, which God has given to the sons of men that they may be weary with it.

of which I wish to underline the repeat of the verb Xrd and zhte,w placed in parallel in Sirach in v. 21a Gr and Ms A – refers logically and structurally20 to the conclusions on the inscrutability of the work of God of Qoh 8:16-17 where there occur the verbs acm and Xqb, verbs which, together with those of 1:13, indicate intellectual research aimed at knowledge (cf. the use of [dy) and which Ben Sira in his turn utilises in 51:13ff – a text that also should be read in relation to our pericope for the repeat of the verb !yb (51:19 cf. 3:22a; Gr evpi,noew/dianoe,w which, together with ginw,skw, translates !yb hithp.)21 –, 19 20 21

CRENSHAW, Qohelet’s Understanding, 223. Cf. PASSARO, Le possibili letture, 31-35. Cf. ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 71 and note 180.

164

Angelo Passaro

in which is described the journey which has led the sage Ben Sira to the acquisition of the secret things of wisdom.22 Qoheleth, then, in the retrospective conclusion of 8:16-17, as is indicated by the use of the perfect yttn introduced by rXak, summarises the nature and the result of his searching which, although revealing characteristics of intentionality (bl ta !tn) and intensity (effort by day and night), has to register failure: man like the sage must conclude (this is the sense of the verb har which introduces the apodosis of v. 17) the absolute impossibility of “finding” (repeated three times) the work of God. A conclusion which certainly underlines the gnoseological limit of every man is predicated also of the sapiential search (cf. v. 17), but motivated by the object of the search. In other words, the legitimate aim to know, although arriving at some kind of threshold of understanding of the real, does not come to full knowledge of the object that is being enquired into, but the exercise of rational thought, with all its severe limitations, is always under the control of man. Ben Sira, placing himself on this line which runs transversally and carstically throughout the Old Testament, re-presents in terms of invitation-command what Qoheleth in a disillusioned manner presented as the wise conquest of a sapiential search which would not wish to take refuge or lock itself within itself, deprived of common sense and, basically, of the fear of the Lord, because it recognises that everything is in the hands of the Lord (cf. Qoh 9:2). In this context of meaning, we can place the clear references to Ps 131:1: yn:y[e Wmr"-alw> yBili Hb;g-' al{ hw"hy> yNIMm, i tAal'pn. bI W. tAldogB. i yTikL. h' -i alw> Lord, my heart is not proud, my eyes are not haughty, I do not occupy myself in great matters, which are too hard for me (tAal'pn. bI ). .

and 139:6: Hl' lk;Wa-al hb'Gv> n. I yNIMm, i t[;d: [ha'yliP]. hY"ali P. i Your knowledge is wonderful for me, so high that I cannot attain it.

With the take up of Ps 131:1, Ben Sira recalls and appropriates a law of the religious experience of Israel, a constant law as is indicated by the verbs in the perfect: the recognition that the transcendent greatness of God, the gadôl par excellence, the great and miraculous signs of the Exodic liberation (tAal'pn. ,I 22

For a precise analysis of this text, cf. the essay of S. Manfredi in this volume. Cf. also GILBERT, Venez à mon école.

The secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21-24

165

cf. Exod 3:20; 34:10; Judg 6:13; Jer 21:2; Ps 9:2; etc.) and the secrets of the order of creation, of the universe, cannot be attained by man (cf. the use of the verb $lh).23 In fact, God remains “the wonderful” (Ps 139:6: again the root alp), his thought unattainable by the human mind.24 Certainly repetition and re-presentation signify reformulation and new understanding. There are two points on which Ben Sira develops the preceding positions: the advantage of recognising the gnoseological limit and the necessity of an intervention of revelation. If Qoheleth had concluded that knowledge of the limit is the unique advantage of the sage’s searching, for Ben Sira, by contrast, passionate searching of the book of the Law, conducted with discipline, humility and meekness, leads to the acquisition of wisdom, as is clearly affirmed in Chapter 51 and in particular in v. 20. In the Hebrew text (which combines Ms B and 11QPsa) we read in fact: hyr[X hxtp ydy !bwbta hymr[[m] My hands opened her gates and I understood her bareness25

which the Greek translates ta.j cei/ra.j mou evxepe,tasa pro.j u[yoj kai. ta. avgnoh,mata auvth/j evpe,nohsa I raised my hands towards heaven and I understood its hidden things.

The symbolic language of the Hebrew (formulated, according to Argall, on the register on sexual symbolism) is rendered and interpreted, perhaps also to avoid some form of pruderie, in a manner more consistent with the religious sphere; thus “my hands opened her gates“ becomes “I raised my hands to heaven”, attaining the aim of emphasising the need for a praying disposition for the understanding of that which, in spatial terms, is precisely on high. In any case, it is particularly interesting that “bareness” is rendered by the Greek with ta. avgnoh,mata. The reference is, again, to the hidden things which Ben Sira, the sage, understands by means of prayer (cf. also v. 13). 23 24 25

On the interpretation of tAal'p. in Sir 3:21 as the equivalent of hwhy yX[m, work of God, I refer to the analysis of WRIGHT, Fear the Lord, 209-211. Cf. RAVASI, Il libro dei Salmi, III, 808. Cf. ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 70. One could also look at SANDERS, The Psalms Scrolls, 80-81 and to his later The Sirach 51 Acrostic, 429-438.

166

Angelo Passaro

The new element is the double mediation of the Law and the sage (cf. the verbs in the first person as in Qoheleth), the places where God and wisdom reveal their secrets (cf. 4:18). Without wishing here to enter into questions concerning the “very creative reciprocity” of the language of this chapter,26 its use and its structure reveal, nonetheless, the intention to show that the search conducted into the Torah has led the sage, Ben Sira, to know hidden things and to teach them, has led him to receive wisdom. The equivalence of “hidden things” and “wisdom” is indicated by Ben Sira himself in the splendid text of Chapters 42-43, in 42:19 and 43:33 Gr, verses in which the subject is God, we read: twyhn tpylx hwxm twrtsn rqx hlgmw He […] unveils things past and future and reveals the traces of hidden things

pa,nta ga.r evpoi,hsen ov ku,rioj kai. toi/j euvsebe,sin e;dwken sofi,an The Lord has made all things and has given wisdom to the godly.

As Argall has shown, guided by parallel texts in 1 Enoch, e;dwken sofi,an is a technical expression equivalent to“revealing hidden things”.27 The identification of Wisdom with the book of the Torah (24:23) has allowed Ben Sira to go beyond and develop the teaching of Qoheleth and the standpoint of the Psalms. The sage who has understanding of the Torah (cf. 6:37: “Meditate on the commandments of the Lord, busy yourself always with his precepts. He will make your heart strong, the wisdom that you desire shall be given you”), who possesses it, will obtain wisdom (cf. 15:1: “and he who possesses the Law has wisdom”), and will be able to teach it, and, therefore, to all those who hear him and retain his teachings there will also be given wisdom; they will be shown the hidden things in the Torah. In other words, Ben Sira starts from the reflection of Qoheleth in order to recover the value of the Torah in the search for wisdom, presenting the book of the Torah as the meeting point for two ways: that of wisdom-word which is revealed and dwells in the book and that of the sage who encounters it in the book in order to hand it on. Thus it is in the openness to accept the teaching of the sage who has acquired wisdom and its secrets by means of the humble searching of the book of the Torah that there is the unique and concrete possibility of receiving wisdom.

26 27

ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 69-70. Ibid., 71-72.

The secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21-24

167

This simple but decisive truth, which recognises and accepts that the elusiveness/ineffability of the object sought constitutes the necessary condition of the search because it trusts in the faith of the objectivisation of the revelation handed down in the book of the Law, overcomes the vain argumentation of the sons of men who trust in themselves or in their own rational capacity and so lose themselves in the nonsense of tempting and perverse speculations which distance them from God (cf. v. 24). In the face of this truth, the reality of the humble and modest attitude of the searcher becomes obligatory, not so much as a virtuous act but as the condition of the blessed encounter with revelation: that is wisdom. Vv. 17-20, therefore, perform an important function in the organisation of the discourse because they describe, along the lines of a confidential request (“my son”), the necessary attitude for being introduced into the salvific plan of God (musth,ria sou / wdws). The Greek amplifies the perspective, underlining the link which is established in the humble person between musth,ria and dunastei,a tou/ kuri,ou: it is the humble man, in fact, who allows the full revelation of the greatness of God (v. 20b) in his complete openness to be dependent on Him. An openness which is revealed also in the sincere and full relationship between people: “and you will be loved more than a man who is ready to give” (v. 17b). In the background, there is the text of Prov 19:6 (“Many are the flatterers of a generous man and all are the friends of the man who makes gifts”), recalled by the syntagm !tm Xya to which the Greek (a;nqrwpon do,thn) also seems to be aligned. In Proverbs, it is the deceitfulness of a relationship of interested friendship that is set in relief. Against this background, the comparative introduced by Ben Sira assumes greater emphasis: the accent has shifted from those who seek out of self-interest to the one who is searched for; a modest life and a measured way of acting make up the person more than his readiness to give with great liberality. Thus Ben Sira sketches the anthropological contours of those who seek for wisdom, helping to understand, beyond the particulars of the time, those structural elements which in all ages define the figure of the wise scribe. The pronounced counterposing of the humble of vv. 17-20 and the many who remain anchored to earthly things of v. 24 relates probably to the polemic between the attempt to rationalise the world of the sacred and with that God himself, the risk of that “intellectual pride” (as the happy expression of Di Lella defines it), the “detached critical attitude of Greek ‘wisdom’ which, unleashed from all convention, must have been particularly attractive”.28 The use of the term dia,noia in v. 24 seems to anticipate, in fact, the polemic which later on the book of Wisdom (cf. Wis 4:15: “The peoples see without understanding, they do not reflect on this thing / oiv de. laoi. ivdo,ntej kai. mh. noh,santej mhde. qe,ntej evpi. dianoi,a| to. toiou/to” [i.e. 28

HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, 291.

168

Angelo Passaro

the premature death of the just man], and 14:15) will raise against the process of divinising the young who have died prematurely – a diatribe that refers to educated and unprejudiced circles and refers to a custom well attested in the Greek world from the 4th century BC.29 Reading the Hebrew text of v. 24, however, one grasps the environmental contrast which marks the polemical targets of the charges of Ben Sira differently from the Greek text. One cannot disregard that the grandfather was aiming at part of the Jewish world exposed too much to particular ideological influences or to the sectarian practices of those who thought that they could foresee future events or know the secret forces of the cosmos. Can we be more detailed with regard to these addressees? The attempts made so far, which identify them with apocalyptic circles or with minority groups of priests who were opposed to the official priesthood or with elusive Enochic confraternities, require still further investigation, making use of the contributions of a multidisciplinary research which will furnish elements of knowledge as yet unknown. Beyond the polemical urgency, however, the reading of the sage, Ben Sira, has become the patrimony of Israel since centuries after, commenting on the Book of Job, similar words can be heard: “Do not seek things that are too much for you. Do not try to probe what is far from you; what is more marvellous than you, you can never know; what is hidden from you, do not try to discover. Seek to understand only what God has given you for your inheritance but do not be occupied with mystery” (Midrash on Job).

29

Cf. BASLEZ, The Author of Wisdom.

Son,

21a

21a

What is wonderful for you do not seek (Xrd). bWhat is hidden from you do not investigate (rqx)

abundant is the mercy of God, band to the humble (~ywn[) he reveals his secret (dws)

Things difficult for you do not seek, bthings too great for you do not investigate

20a Because

Humble yourself (X[m) before (lkm) the great things of the age band before God you will find mercy (~xr)

son, in your wealth live (= walk: $lh: hithp.) with MODESTY (hwn[b) band you will be loved more than he who gives presents

17a My

Ms A

Because great is the power of the Lord, band by the humble (tapeino,w) he is glorified

20a

Many are the lofty and famous, bbut his mysteries (musth,ria) he reveals to the humble.

19a

The greater you are, humble yourself the more (tapeino,w), band before God you will find grace (ca,rij)

18a

direct your actions (= act) with meekness (evn prau
17a

Gr

son,

is wonderful for you do not investigate (rqx) and what is bad for you do not seek (Xrd)

21a What

son, the greater you are, the more abase yourself (lpX) band in the eyes of God you will find grace (!x)

18a My

direct your actions (= act) ($lh: qal) with MODESTY (hwn[b) band more than a generous man you will be loved.

17a My

Ms C

The secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21-24

169

and a perverse presumption has led their thoughts (dianoi,aj) astray

b

24a

Many in fact have lost their speculation,

24a

since many are the opinions Of the sons of men band perverse and seductive thoughts (=imagination)

b because

more than is necessary for you has been shown you (tyarh)

With what is greater than you do not occupy yourself (qs[tt)

23a

Of that which has been delivered (handed down) to you have understanding (!yb), b and do not be concerned (qs[) with secret things

22a

Ms A

In what is too great / for your ability do not weary yourself, b because more than human intelligence (understands) has been shown to you (u`pedei,cqh)

23a

there is no profit for you (in the enquiry) into mysterious things

bbecause

What you are commanded this investigate,

22a

Gr

Of that which has been delivered (handed down) to you have understanding (!yb), band do not be concerned (qs[) with secret things

22a

Ms C

170 Angelo Passaro

The secrets of God. Investigation into Sir 3:21-24

171

Bibliography ARGALL, R. A., 1 Enoch and Sirach. A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgement (SBL 6), Atlanta, GA 1995. BASLEZ, M.-F., The Author of Wisdom and the Cultured Environment of Alexandria, in: PASSARO, A. – BELLIA, G. (eds.), The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redaction and Theology (DCLY 2005), Berlin 2005, 33-52. CRENSHAW, J. L., Qohelet’s Understanding of Intellectual Inquiry, in: SCHOORS, A. (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom (BEThL 136), Leuven 1998, 205-224. GILBERT, M., Venez à mon école (Si 51,13-30), in: FISCHER, I. – RAPP, U. – SCHILLER, J. (eds.), Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. Festschrift für Johannes Marböck anlässlich seiner Emeritierung (BZAW 331), Berlin 2003, 283-290. HENGEL, M., Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, Philadelphia 1974. LABUSCHAGNE, C. J., Divine Speech in Deuteronomy, in: CHRISTENSEN, D. L. (ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song. Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, Winona Lake, IN 1993, 375-393. LÉVI, I., The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus (SSS III), Leiden 1904. LOHFINK, N. (ed.), Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BEThL 68), Leuven 1985. PASSARO, A., Le possibili letture di un libro difficile, in: BELLIA, G. – PASSARO, A. (eds.), Il libro del Qohelet. Tradizione, redazione, teologia, Milano 2001, 21-39. PENAR, T., Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira (BibOr 28), Rome 1975. RAVASI, G., Il libro dei Salmi, I-III, Bologna 1981-1985. SANDERS, J. A., The Psalms Scrolls of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4), Oxford 1965. SANDERS, J. A., The Sirach 51 Acrostic, in: CAQUOT, A. – PHILONENKO, M. (eds.), Hommage à André Dupont-Sommer, Paris 1971, 429-438. SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation whith Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. SMEND, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirachs erklärt, Berlin 1906. WRIGHT, B. G., “Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest”. Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood, in: BEENTJES, P. C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255), Berlin 1997, 189-222.

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr) SILVANA MANFREDI To contemplate a work of art is an experience rich with emotions and sensations which it is not always possible to characterise or explain. The same is true for whoever approaches the book of Ben Sira. Here and there spots of colour, lines which intersect and separate, and then return and meet. Flashes of light which appear and disappear. Areas of shadow and contrast. Lightness and heaviness of touch. Original strokes and added brushwork. All this is found in Sirach and makes it a minefield to explore and, at times also, in which to risk losing oneself!1 Just as for a work of art the perspective from which one views the whole is often decisive and altering it changes the play of details and of the light, so again when we approach the book of Sirach. As our optical prism here, our choice has fallen on the concluding pericope, Sir 51:13-30. The reason for our interest is based on the content: the presentation of himself as sage which the scribe offers at the moment when he takes his leave of his readers/hearers. Here we have a passage of personal introspection which is offered as a life-plan and which in some measure takes us back to the experience of the prophets of Israel stimulating a comparison between these great figures and our author. We are well aware that this decision runs up against not a few and not insignificant difficulties.2 Comparison with the Hebrew discoveries tells us that the Greek redaction offers in places a new interpretation also with regard to the Hebrew.3 We must say immediately that, with the support of the by now almost unanimous scholarly consensus, we hold Chapter 51 to be an integral part of the book and therefore decidedly interesting for our study as a summary which embraces and illuminates, or is illuminated by, the other leading passages in the preceding reflections. Taking into account the real difficulty of establishing a purely Hebrew text to which reliable and sure reference can be made, we are opting for a 1 2

3

For the complexity and difficulty of the situation regarding the text and redaction of the book of Sirach, cf. GILBERT, Siracide. We do not intend to enter into the merit of the purely exegetical discussion on the choice of text and its appraisal. All the recent critical work is concentrated in this direction and thus allows us to refer in summary to the recent MULDER, Three Psalms, and GILBERT, «Venez à mon école», and to the bibliography presented there. Very interesting in this respect are the conclusions of MINISSALE, La versione greca, 259-261.

174

Silvana Manfredi

playing field which can be debated if necessary but which appears to us to be legitimate. Our investigation will be carried out on the Greek text in Ziegler’s edition.4 Consequently, all the Scriptural comparisons employed will be not with the Hebrew text but with the Greek of the Septuagint which, even if not completely finished in the second century BC, can render more clearly the correspondences in the Greek language.

1. The internal structure of Sir 51 The Greek text of Sir 51 presents us with two different literary compositions: a hymn of thanksgiving in vv. 1-12; a poem, in personal and paraenetic terms in vv. 13-30. However, the redaction of these two is well organised and such as to stimulate an enquiry which presupposes a literary unity. The Hebrew allows us to catch sight of a third composition, hymnic and laudatory, inserted between these two. It is well suited to the organisation of the concluding chapter and its absence from the Greek text is inexplicable.5

2. Literary presentation of Sir 51:13-50 2.1 Overview of the textual situation of Sir 51:13-30 We may be allowed just a very brief reference to the complex textual tradition of the little poem on wisdom of Sir 51:13-30 on which we are dwelling. In the original Hebrew, our poem takes the form of an acrostic, a typical form for allowing rapid mnemonic memorisation. At Qumran, the kind of language used to praise the beauty of wisdom led to an erotic interpretation of the poem,6 which in all probability actually incorporates ancient elements of this kind which were later re-employed and softened by the pen of Sirach. The Greek translation of Ben Sira’s grandson introduces some variations on the Hebrew text and transforms it into a prayer of intercession which expresses the new perspective of a member of the Jewish diaspora in Egypt in times of great cultural changes. 4

5 6

SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 62: “For the Greek text of G I and G II, J. Ziegler’s definitive Göttingen edition, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (1965), now supersedes all other editions and must be consulted for any serious study of the book”. Cf. the excellent presentation of MULDER, Three Psalms, 171-201. The close examination of such hypotheses is to be found in MURAOKA, Sir. 51,13-30.

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

175

The Syriac translation, with some exceptions, appears to follow the Hebrew text closely. The Vetus latina, for its part, keeps fairly faithful to the Greek text.

2.2 Literary analysis of Sir 51:13-30 Gr If we look at its literary profile, we see that the pericope 51:13-30 is organised as a unit, as a poem on the search for and transmission of wisdom. 2.2.1 The internal structure It is structured basically in two parts each reflecting its own literary genre: the first, vv. 13-22, is a confession of the author concerning his personal experience as a man devoted to the search for wisdom; the second, vv. 2330, assumes the paraenetic traits of an appeal to the hearers-disciples to listen and calling them to reflect on and take to heart the experience of the sage (25:27). The first part is characterised by the strong presence of the “I” who speaks, with the verbal forms of the first person singular. It is full too of personal pronouns of the first person singular. It flows towards its natural outlet, v. 22, which signals a break from the preceding forms: the subject is no longer the sage but the “Lord”, the ku,rioj, and the activity of the “I” is subordinated to him: e;dwken ku,rioj glw/ssa,n moi misqo,n mou kai. evn auvth/| aivne,sw auvto,n The Lord gave me a tongue as my reward, and I will praise him with it.

This second section sees the literary connection between the implied hearers, referred to by the vocative “you”, and the subjective nature of the “I” who does the exhorting. This section too debouches in a passage in the third person singular: dw,sei to.n misqo.n u`mw/n evn kairw/| auvtou/. in his time he will give you your reward.

The echo of v. 22 is clear: the verb “to give”, di,dwmi, which governs the noun “reward”, misqo,j, as predicate of the object in v. 22 and as complementobject in v. 30. In the first occurrence, it is in the aorist, “given”, e;dwken, with reference to the ku,rioj; in the second, it is in the future, “will give”, dw,sei, without an explicit subject, but, in view of the previous pronominal references of v. 29, “in his mercy”, evn tw/| evle,ei auvtou, “when you praise him”,

176

Silvana Manfredi

evn aivne,sei auvtou/, it must refer here also to the ku,rioj since mercy and praise can belong only to the ku,rioj. Furthermore, the two parts correspond quite well through the presence of common lexicographical elements, not unexpected given the intention of the scribe that his personal experience become the common heritage of all who hear him. The following are the lexicographical elements which occur in both the sections: “instruction”, paidei,a, vv. 16b.23b.26b.28a; “receive”, de,comai, vv. 16a.26b; “find”, eu`ri,skw, vv. 16b.20b.27b; “gain”, kta,omai, vv. 20c.21b.25b.28b; “a little”, ovli,gon, vv. 16a.27a; “delight in”, euvfrai,nw, vv. 15b.29a; “be put to shame”, mh. aivscu,nw, vv. 18b.29b; “soul”, yuch,, vv. 19a.20a.24b.26b.29a; “praise (verb and noun)”, aivne,w , /ai;nesij, vv. 22b.29b; “give”, di,dwmi, vv. 17b.22a.30b; “reward”, misqo,j, vv. 22a.30b. 2.2.2 The context The context is the search for wisdom associated with the dimension of prayer as can easily be seen from the inclusion given by the initial vv. 13b-14a: evzh,thsa sofi,an profanw/j evn proseuch/| mou e;nanti naou/ hvxi,oun peri. auvth/j I sought wisdom diligently in my prayer, before the temple I asked for her.

and from the final v. 29b in which it is stated: euvfranqei,h h` yuch. u`mw/n evn tw/| evle,ei auvtou/ kai. mh. aivscunqei,hte evn aivne,sei auvtou/ May your soul rejoice in his mercy, and may you not be put to shame when you praise him,

and again from the presentation in v. 22, central but concluding the first part concerning the self-presentation of the scribe, of the verb “praise”, aivne,w , , corresponding to the substantive, “praise“, ai;nesij, of v. 29b. 2.2.3 The semantic axes Again, we can look at the semantic axes which run in a unitary fashion throughout the entire pericope and which suggest directions of interpretation. a) There is a temporal semantic axis which in the first part assumes the form of a merism, expressing the entire arc of existence of the man who dedicates himself to the search for wisdom:

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

177

from my youth / e;ti w'n new,teroj (v. 13a), evk neo,thto,j mou (v. 15d); to the last / e[wj evsca,twn (v. 14b); from the first / avpV avrch/j (v. 20c).

And in the second part it is presented as entirely oriented towards the future of fulfilment desired for the disciples, coming together in the double mention of the final v. 30: before the appointed time / pro.j kairou/; in his time / evn kairw/| auvtou/.

b) There is also a semantic axis present throughout for whoever reaches the integrity of the lover of wisdom, expressed by means of many physical references: “my heart”, h` kardi,a mou, vv. 15b.20c; “my foot”, o` pou,j mou, v. 15c; “my ear”, to. ou=j mou, v. 16a; “my soul”, h` yuch, mou, vv. 19a.20a; “my hands”, ta.j cei/ra,j mou, v. 19c; “my bowels”, h` koili,a mou, v. 21a; “my tongue”, glw/ssa,n moi, v. 22a; “my mouth”, to. sto,ma mou, v. 25a. To which correspond in the second part physical elements denoting the totality of the person of the hearers: “your neck”, to.n tra,chlon u`mw/n, v. 26a; “your soul”, h` yuch. u`mw/n, vv. 24b.26b.29a; “your eyes”, ovfqalmoi/j u`mw/n, v. 27a. c) there is a spatial semantic axis: before the temple / e;nanti naou/ (v. 14a); draw near to me / evggi,sate pro,j me (v. 23a); in the house of instruction / evn oi;kw| paidei,aj (v. 3b); is near / evggu,j evstin (v. 26c);

d) there is also the hint of a vertical semantic axis; high /pro.j u[yoj (v. 19c) receiving / evdexa,mhn – evpidexa,sqw (vv. 16a.26b),

which speaks of the movement of the gift: the origin in God and the receiving by man and so embraces the high, towards which the hands of the supplicant are extended, and the low, which is the very person of the supplicant, the place of reception, but also of transmission, of the gift. e) we encounter a small/big axis which expresses the paradox inherent in the activity of searching: I inclined my ear a little / e;klina ovli,gon (v. 16a); I found much instruction /pollh.n … paidei,an (v. 16b); I have laboured little / ovli,gon evkopi,asa (v. 27a);

178

Silvana Manfredi I have found much peace / pollh.n avna,pausin (v. 27b); with a large sum of silver / evn pollw/| avriqmw/| (v. 28a); much gold / polu.n cruso.n (v. 28b).

It is precisely these semantic axes which determine the coordinates of the triple relationship: God, the giver of wisdom – the worshipper who searches for wisdom and becomes master of it – the pupil of wisdom.

3. The testimony of the sage (vv. 13-22) 3.1 The dimension of prayer The first part can be still further subdivided into two small sections, articulated by the recurring of the dimension of prayer. In fact, v. 17b takes up the theme: tw/| dido,nti moi sofi,an dw,sw do,xan to him who gives wisdom I will give glory

in which is found twice the verb “give”, di,dwmi, which will return once more at v. 22 which concludes the first part and at v. 30 which ends the second part. However, while these two other occurrences also present further similar terms, such as misqo,j, and both make explicit reference to the verb aivne,w , , in v. 22, and to the corresponding substantive ai;nesij, at v. 29b, here the intensity of the thanksgiving is expressed with do,xan didw/nai. This first part, in its turn, is marked by the centrality of the dimension of prayer. The opening v. 13 says immediately: evzh,thsa sofi,an profanw/j evn proseuch/| mou I sought wisdom diligently in my prayer.

Symbolical numerical value also has its importance. In fact, the entire section devoted to the description of the true sage is measured out by a threefold insistence on prayer and, as in the whole of Holy Scripture, whatever is repeated three times indicates the character of perfection that attaches to a particular element. That shows how decisive the theme of prayer is for the writer. It gives meaning to the educational journey of the sage and is its natural and rightful outcome. It is this perfection of the sage which, through the mediation of teaching, is poured out on the hearers

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

179

who, having become in their turn disciples of wisdom, rejoice in the praise of the Lord. This numerical symbolism leads to the underlining not only of the radical importance of prayer in the search of the sage for wisdom as an individual, but also affirms how perfection is oriented towards the communal sharing of wisdom which ends up in praise of the Most High.

3.2 The formative journey of the sage By means of the analysis of the text in vv. 13-22 it is possible to try to grasp the journey of the wise scribe. First of all, let us confirm that the dimension of prayer is fundamental: evzh,thsa sofi,an profanw/j evn proseuch/| mou I sought wisdom diligently in my prayer (v. 13b);

e;nanti naou/ hvxi,oun peri. auvth/j before the temple I asked for her (v. 14a).

The search for wisdom is based in such an attitude and this implies a journey, a way of life which pervades the whole of a man’s rational activity and does not take allow for any break: “my feet came”, evpe,bh o` pou,j mou, v. 15c; “I followed her steps”, i;cneuon auvth,n, v. 15d; “I inclined my ear”, e;klina ovli,gon to. ou=j mou, v. 16a; “I resolved to practise her”, dienoh,qhn ga.r tou/ poih/sai auvth.n, v. 18a; “I sought the good”, evzh,thsa to. avgaqo.n, v. 18b; “my soul grappled with her”, diamema,cistai h` yuch, mou evn auvth/|, v. 19a; “I was strict in keeping the Law”, evn poih,sei no,mou dihkribasa,mhn, v. 19b. And this, “from my youth up”: the emphasis is placed at the beginning not so much on the gift of God which comes first as on the will and ability of the man, who is already in possession of rational activity, to orient himself to the gift of wisdom with all his strength. The attitude of the sage departs from the humble awareness that wisdom is a gift to request and receive, but also from the certainty that what is involved constantly from the one who seeks is simply openness to the gift. This availability to wisdom in the concrete is actualised in “keeping the Law”. Keeping the Law, however, is inserted into a circular dynamism within wisdom itself: it is wisdom which teaches one to put the Law into practice, but, in its turn, obedience to the Law leads to a fuller acquisition

180

Silvana Manfredi

of wisdom itself. This, again, leads to a life permeated and structured by that prayer which ends up in praise of the Lord. In fact: I spread out my hands on high / ta.j cei/ra,j mou evxepe,tasa pro.j u[yoj (v. 19c)

to acquire the gift; I directed my soul / th.n yuch,n mou kateu,quna eivj auvth.n (v. 20a)

to indicate the decisive orientation; my bowels were stirred in seeking her / h` koili,a mou evtara,cqh tou/ evkzhth/sai auvth,n (v. 21a)

which illucidates the full commitment of the wise man’s love. A first conclusion concerns the life of the writer: my heart delighted / euvfra,nqh h` kardi,a mou (v. 15b); I made progess in her / prokoph. evge,neto, moi evn auvth/| (v. 17a); I will give glory to him who gives wisdom / tw/| dido,nti moi sofi,an dw,sw do,xan (v. 17b).

But the true conclusion to everything is the reply of God: e;dwken ku,rioj glw/ssa,n moi misqo,n mou kai. evn auvth/| aivne,sw auvto,n The Lord gave me a tongue as my reward, and I will praise him with it (v. 22).

It is not difficult to observe something which is held to be true by all, namely how, for Sirach, wisdom is representative of the whole theological patrimony of Israel. In it there meet together elements regarding the cult and the Law according to forms which will be examined in other chapters of this volume. But what, in the superb synthesis offered in Chapter 24, is presented as the self-manifestation of wisdom in the historico-theological realities of Israel – the Temple and its liturgy; the Law and its commandments; the teaching of the prophets – is transformed in this concluding chapter into an exemplification of the life of the individual sage who knows how to value the whole of his preceding heritage and offers it as the mature fruit of the wisdom he has gained.

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

181

4. Exhortation to the search for Wisdom (vv. 23-30) With v. 23 there occurs a change of tone and of literary genre. We pass to the exhortation to receive the teaching of the scribe. The section opens with the invitation of the sage to the ignorant to approach him and lodge in his school (v. 23). It closes with a promise which is consequent on the attitude displayed by the disciple: dw,sei to.n misqo.n u`mw/n evn kairw/| auvtou/, (The Lord) will give you your reward in his own time (v. 30b),

exactly parallel to the conclusion of the first part (v. 22). The paraenetic genre is striking from the abundance of imperatives and verbal forms in the second person plural. Interesting is the new sage-pupil relationship which is articulated by the appearance of some verbal forms and pronouns in the first person singular which are inserted into the paraenetic context as reference point and as a model for imitation: Draw near to me / evggi,sate pro,j me (v. 23a); I opened my mouth and said / h;noixa to. sto,ma mou kai. evla,lhsa (v. 25a); see… I have laboured little and found myself much rest / i;dete… o[ti ovli,gon evkopi,asa kai. eu-ron evmautw/| pollh.n avna,pausin (v. 27).

We have said how the whole pericope is constructed on different semantic axes. They are present also in this second part which invites and exhorts the hearers to profit from the experience of which the author writes: in fact for them too, different parts of the body are put forward to indicate the totality of their being; for them also, here is an opening for the recption of the gift which comes from on high. At a first glance, the temporal and spatial axes are less visible. The temporal axis is that which, in the first part, connotes the whole of the existence of the one who writes: from my youth up / e;ti w'n new,teroj (v. 13a), evk neo,thto,j mou (v. 15d); to the last / e[wj evsca,twn (v. 14b); from the first / avpV avrch/j (v. 20c).

In the second part there is no objective correspondence, probably because the witness of the total experience of the master of wisdom is projected wholly into the future of his hearers and only by representing itself as a significant examination of their time will it embrace past, present and future. More interesting is the new presentation of the spatial semantic axis. In fact, the stress on place:

182

Silvana Manfredi before the temple / e;nanti naou/ (v. 14a),

does not have an explicit echo. But there are other elements which come together to evoke the spatial image and they are these: Draw near to me / evggi,sate pro,j me (v. 23a); in the house of instruction / evn oi;kw| paidei,aj (v. 23b); it is close by / evggu,j evstin (v. 26c).

This last concerns the wisdom which can be found. Now, between the local description of the first part: “before the temple”, e;nanti naou/, v. 14a, and this last affirmation of the closeness of wisdom, is placed the exhortation: “draw close to me”, evggi,sate pro,j me, v. 23a, of the wise scribe who makes of his own person a place of approach and thus assumes a central role between the two other locations, that is between the Temple and the house of instruction or school which leads to wisdom. We can affirm then that the master of wisdom is offering himself to his potential disciples as a place of mediation between the Temple, that is, the presence of God, and wisdom, the gift of God. It seems fair to say that the author is presenting himself – and through himself the figure of the true sage of which he has become the master – as a new locus of mediation, not explicitly liturgical, but certainly prayerful.

5. Literary contacts The line taken by the scribe is in harmony both with previous affirmations scattered here and there throughout the book of Sirach, with other compositions of a sapiential character,7 and with other books of the Scripture of Israel. However, it is not our task at the moment to undertake an exhaustive study of this kind. Others with more competence have offered and will continue to offer precious contributions to the research on the literary contacts of the sapiential literature with the Psalms and the Law.8 It being the property of a sage to know how to recognise his own limits with grace, I will confine myself simply to observing some of the connections between the chief elements of our pericope and other passages of Sirach; then again to noting some of the more significant references to the prophetic literature in general and to one of the prophets in particular. 7 8

Cf. BACKHAUS, Qohelet und Sirach. Cf. SNAITH, Biblical Quotations; BEENTJES, Jesus Sirach en Tenach; SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 40-45 in general, but he is much more detailed in the references which he gives in the comments on individual passages.

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

183

5.1 Echoes of other passages in Sirach Since our pericope is the conclusion, it is not unusual for it to gather together some of the previous matters to which it refers. We can safely say that many of the images and expressions are already present in Sir 6:18-37 passim: 18. te,knon evk neo,thto,j sou evpi,lexai paidei,an kai. e[wj poliw/n eu`rh,seij sofi,an. 23. a;kouson te,knon kai. e;kdexai gnw,mhn mou. 24. kai. eivse,negkon tou.j po,daj sou eivj ta.j pe,daj auvth/j kai. eivj to.n kloio.n auvth/j to.n tra,chlo,n sou. 27. evxi,cneuson kai. zh,thson. 28. evpV evsca,twn ga.r eu`rh,seij th.n avna,pausin auvth/j kai. strafh,setai, soi eivj euvfrosu,nhn. 32. evan . qe,lh|j te,knon paideuqh,sh| kai. evan. evpidw/j| th.n yuch,n sou panou/rgoj e;sh|. 33. evan . avgaph,sh|j avkou,ein evkde,xh| kai. evan. kli,nh|j to. ou=j sou sofo.j e;sh|. 37. dianoou/ evn toi/j prosta,gmasin kuri,ou kai. evn tai/j evntolai/j auvtou/ mele,ta dia. panto,j. auvto.j sthriei/ th.n kardi,an sou kai. h` evpiqumi,a th/j sofi,aj doqh,setai, soi. 18. My son, from your youth up choose instruction, and until you are old you will keep finding wisdom; 23. Listen, my son, and accept my judgement; 24. Put your feet into her fetters, and your neck into her collar; 27. Search out and seek her; 28. At last you will find the rest she gives, and she will be changed into joy for you; 32. If you are willing, my son, you will be taught, and if you apply yourself you will become clever; 33. If you love to listen you will gain her, and if you incline your ear you will become wise; 37. Reflect on the statutes of the Lord, and meditate at all times on his commandments; It is he who will give strengthen your heart, and your desire for wisdom will be granted.

Again, having spoken of the blessing reserved for the wise man who meditates (cf. Sir 14:20-27), the author, in 15:1b, links the praise of the Lord with the observance of the Law and the acquisition of wisdom: o` fobou,menoj ku,rion poih,sei auvto, kai. o` evgkrath.j tou/ no,mou katalh,myetai auvth,n The man who fears the Lord will do this, and he who holds to the law will obtain it (wisdom).

Fully in harmony with the redactional unity of the book, Sir 15:9-10 affirms that: ouvc w`rai/oj ai=noj evn sto,mati a`martwlou/ o[ti ouv para. kuri,ou avpesta,lh evn ga.r sofi,a| r`hqh,setai ai=noj kai. o` ku,rioj euvodw,sei auvto,n A hymn of praise is not fitting on the lips of a sinner, for it has not been sent from the Lord. For a hymn of praise should be uttered in wisdom, and the Lord will prosper it.

184

Silvana Manfredi

Much better known is Sir 24, in which the three components: law, cult, and prophecy, are finally sewn together, weaving a tapestry which, although taking up ancient elements, has something of the novel about it through the new centrality of wisdom which gives meaning to all the rest. Now, in the final part of this great chapter which contains – as is well known – the work of the scribe who becomes master of wisdom (vv. 30-34), the author states: e;ti paidei,an w`j o;rqron fwtiw/ kai. evkfanw/ auvta. e[wj eivj makra,n e;ti didaskali,an w`j profhtei,an evkcew/ kai. katalei,yw auvth.n eivj genea.j aivwn, wn i;dete o[ti ouvk evmoi. mo,nw| evkopi,asa avllV a[pasin toi/j evkzhtou/sin auvth,n. I will again make instruction shine forth like the dawn, and I will make it shine afar; I will again pour out teaching like prophecy, and leave it to all future generations. Observe that I have not laboured for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction.

According to these statements, the master of wisdom claims to be a true heir of the prophets. Instruction takes the place of prophecy and the mediation of the master is substituted for the ancient mediation of the prophets in a way which is quiet but no less effective. Certainly, the theological datum of the mediator recalls, in the Biblical traditions, above all in those of a Deuteronomistic flavour (cf. Deut 18:1518), the figure of the prophet, and, on the other hand, the figure of the prophet is precisely that which is kindled by the words of Sir 24:30-34. Now, the statement of Sir 24:34: i;dete o[ti ouvk evmoi. mo,nw| evkopi,asa avllV a[pasin toi/j evkzhtou/sin auvth,n Observe that I have not laboured for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction.

appears in certain verses close to 51:27: i;dete evn ovfqalmoi/j u`mw/n o[ti ovli,gon evkopi,asa See with your own eyes that I have laboured little.

To be noted is the exact initial form of the appeal i;dete, “see” and the same verb evkopi,asa, “I have laboured” to describe the activity of the writer. Contrary to the classical experience of the prophets of Israel who receive a word from God himself, the emphasis is placed on the labour, that is, on the activity of the sage who is searching for wisdom. Once the fruit of that labour has been obtained, it can and must be shared so as to fill both space and time. The same idea is found again in Sir 33:18 which continues to speak of the experience of the wise scribe:

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

185

Consider that I have not laboured for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction;

katanoh,sate o[ti ouvk evmoi. mo,nw| evkopi,asa avlla. pa/sin toi/j zhtou/sin paidei,an,

while, in the following verse, 33:19, the leaders of the (liturgical?) assembly are invited to listen: avkou,sate, mou megista/nej laou/ kai. oi` h`gou,menoi evkklhsi,aj evnwti,sasqe. Hear me, you who are great among the people, and you leaders of the congregation, hearken.

5.2 Prophetic allusions in general Certainly, as scholars have already observed, some expressions of Sir 5:1330 recall others of a prophetic flavour.9 We intend to confine ourselves here to what is suggested by the text of our pericope, always in the Greek translation. Isa 1:15 reproves thus the sin of the people: o[tan ta.j cei/raj evktei,nhte pro,j me avpostre,yw tou.j ovfqalmou,j mou avfV u`mw/n When you stretch out your hand to me, I will turn away my eyes from you.

The image of the hands stretched out to the Lord in his Temple appears here according to the prophetic style of rebuke to the people for a false attitude to the cult, not following a right way of life. By contrast, a positive tone is assumed in Sir 51:19c, in which the stretched out hands are those of the sage in his prayerful attitude of faithfulness towards the origin of the gift: “the height”: ta.j cei/ra,j mou evxepe,tasa pro.j u[yoj.

Similarly, Isa 55:1 presents one who is invited to take part in the blessings of a new covenant: oi` diyw/ntej poreu,esqe evfV u[dwr kai. o[soi mh. e;cete avrgu,rion badi,santej avgora,sate kai. pi,ete a;neu avrguri,ou kai. timh/j oi;nou kai. ste,ar Come to the water, you that thirst, hurry, you who have no money, Buy and drink without money, and without cost, wine and meat;

and again in vv. 2 and 3, passim: 9

Cf. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 576-580.

186

Silvana Manfredi avkou,sate, mouÅÅÅ prose,cete toi/j wvti,oij u`mw/n kai. evpakolouqh,sate tai/j o`doi/j mou evpakou,sate, mou kai. zh,setai evn avgaqoi/j h` yuch. u`mw/n. Listen to me… incline your ears and follow my ways, Hearken to me, and your soul shall live in prosperity.

Words which recall, allusively, Sir 51:24-25: ti, e;ti u`sterei/te evn tou,toij kai. ai` yucai. u`mw/n diyw/si sfo,dra Why are you still in need of these things While your souls are very thirsty?

h;noixa to. sto,ma mou kai. evla,lhsa I opened my mouth and spoke.

By contrast, these words refer again to Am 8:11: ivdou. h`me,rai e;rcontai le,gei ku,rioj kai. evxapostelw/ limo.n evpi. th.n gh/n ouv limo.n a;rtou ouvde. di,yan u[datoj avlla. limo.n tou/ avkou/sai lo,gon kuri,ou. Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will send forth a famine on the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord.

It is also necessary to say, however, that the terms observed recall not the person of the prophet but those invited by wisdom as personified in Prov 9:3-6, and, above all, in Sir 24:19-22: prose,lqete pro,j me oi` evpiqumou/nte,j mou kai. avpo. tw/n genhma,twn mou evmplh,sqhte to. ga.r mnhmo,suno,n mou u`pe.r to. me,li gluku, kai. h` klhronomi,a mou u`pe.r me,litoj khri,on oi` evsqi,onte,j me e;ti peina,sousin kai. oi` pi,nonte,j me e;ti diyh,sousin o` u`pakou,wn mou ouvk aivscunqh,setai kai. oi` evrgazo,menoi evn evmoi. ouvc a`marth,sousin. Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my produce. For the remembrance of me is sweeter than honey, and to possess me sweeter than the honeycomb. Those who eat me will hunger for more, and those who drink me will thirst for more. Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame.

Sir 51, then, performs a hermeneutical operation on the preceding statements in Chapter 24 and also on the patrimony inherited from Prov 9:3-6: what before was affirmed of personified wisdom who offers her gifts now

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

187

becomes offered by him who has already received wisdom within himself and holds it out to whoever wishes to discover it. He finds fertile ground for this in the experience of the prophets, but it is ground revisited according to the new perspectives of the sapiential reflection.

5.3 Contacts with the Book of Jeremiah Taking a bird’s eye view of Sirach, we perceive many allusions to the book of Jeremiah which could be the starting point for a monograph, in imitation of that already carried out by Beentjes on Isaiah.10 Here, we shall limit ourselves simply to giving a few hints and only with reference to our text, postponing a more complete analysis to another time and place. However, the closeness of Sir 33:15-19 with 51:13-30 and the repeating of some data which we have already observed permits us to take up some suggestions for producing some correspondences and drawing some conclusions. In Sir 33:16, we read: kavgw. e;scatoj hvgru,pnhsa w`j kalamw,menoj ovpi,sw trughtw/n I was watchful to the last, like a gleaner after the grape-gatherers.

The unceasing search for wisdom is expressed with the image of the gleaners behind the grape-gatherers. This expression has the merit of re-presenting the temporal axis which is found in 51:13-30. The use of this metaphor is surprising, surprising because it is found in the oracles of Jeremiah. Jer 6:9 says: o[ti ta,de le,gei ku,rioj kalama/sqe kalama/sqe w`j a;mpelon ta. kata,loipa tou/ Israhl evpistre,yate w`j o` trugw/n evpi. to.n ka,rtallon auvtou/ For thus says the Lord, Glean, glean as a vine the remnant of Israel: turn back as a grape-gatherer to his basket.

However, in the prophetic oracle, the image of the gleaner expresses an idea of divine judgement that is definitive and without appeal. This idea is completely absent from the text of Ben Sira who by contrast makes use of it to speak of the solicitous and vigilant care of the sage. 10

BEENTJES, Relations, 155-159.

Silvana Manfredi

188

Jer 6:10 brings us back to the “speaking-hearing” dynamic which articulates the master-pupil relationship in general and in Sir 51:25: pro.j ti,na lalh,sw kai. diamartu,rwmai kai. avkou,setai ivdou. avperi,tmhta ta. w=ta auvtw/n kai. ouv du,nantai avkou,ein ivdou. to. r`hm/ a kuri,ou evge,neto auvtoi/j eivj ovneidismo,n ouv mh. boulhqw/sin auvto. avkou/sai. To whom shall I speak, and testify, that he may hearken to me? Behold, your ears are uncircumcised, and they shall not be able to hear: behold, the word of the Lord is become to them a reproach, they will not desire to hear it.

In Sir 51:25: h;noixa to. sto,ma mou kai. evla,lhsa. I opened my mouth and I said.

But once again, what is presented in the prophetic ministry with characteristics of rejection, heaviness and judgement is transformed in the existence of the sage into quiet positiveness and a task open to success. Other expressions also in Sir 51:13-30 lead in the same direction, recalling in their own way some of the more famous speeches of Jeremiah the prophet. First of all, the initial v. 13 is itself a clear echo of Jer 1:6.7: e;ti w'n new,teroj for I am a child.

Not in the sense of objection to the word of revelation of God in the prophetic text, but, on the contrary, of radical availability for the search for wisdom. Again, Sir 51:21 says: kai. h` koili,a mou evtara,cqh tou/ evkzhth/sai auvth,n My bowels were stirred to seek her;

an expression semantically close to that present in Jer 4:19: th.n koili,an mou th.n koili,an mou avlgw/ kai. ta. aivsqhth,ria th/j kardi,aj mou maima,ssei h` yuch, mou spara,ssetai h` kardi,a mou ouv siwph,somai o[ti fwnh.n sa,lpiggoj h;kousen h` yuch, mou kraugh.n pole,mou. I am pained in my bowels, my bowels, and the organs of my heart; my soul is in great commotion, my heart is torn: I will not be silent, for my soul has heard the sound of a trumpet, the cry of war.

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

189

The tenor of the content is, however, wholly different: while the prophet expresses the paroxysmal suffering of his whole being before the obstinate rejection of his word by the people and the imminent divine punishment of destruction, the sage takes hold of this lexicographical and semantic heritage to signify the complete and visceral dedication to wisdom. Again, in Jer 5:3 we find: ouvk hvqe,lhsan de,xasqai paidei,an They did not wish to receive correction;

the prophet intending with these words to denounce the blindness of those who should have had a good opportunity to interpret events as wise teaching on the meaning of history guided by God and did not wish to understand. Instead, in Sir 51:16 the sage has welcomed wisdom: kai. evdexa,mhn kai. pollh.n eu-ron evmautw/| paidei,an …I received her, and found for myself much instruction;

and can then exhort his disciples, in their turn, to welcome instruction, in 51:26b: evpidexa,sqw h` yuch. u`mw/n paidei,an let your soul receive instruction.

In Jer 2:20 is present the image of the “yoke” to express the demands to which it is necessary to submit oneself, the relationship of personified Israel to the Lord: o[ti avpV aivwn/ oj sune,triyaj to.n zugo,n sou die,spasaj tou.j desmou,j sou kai. ei=paj ouv douleu,sw. From of old, you have broken your yoke, you have burst your bonds And have said: “I will not serve”.

Similarly, in Jer 5:5 we find the same image with the same semantic value: poreu,somai pro.j tou.j a`drou.j kai. lalh,sw auvtoi/j o[ti auvtoi. evpe,gnwsan o`do.n kuri,ou kai. kri,sin qeou/ kai. ivdou. o`moqumado.n sune,triyan zugo,n die,rrhxan desmou,j I will go to the great men, and will speak to them; for they have known the way of the Lord, and the judgment of God: but, behold, with one consent they have broken the yoke, they have burst the bonds.

190

Silvana Manfredi

Also with regard to the presentation of obedience to the Law as a “yoke”, the prophet’s words serve only to denounce the lack of fulfilment, while in Sirach the tone is deliberately positive and favourable, capable of bringing about great advantages in the future. In Jer 5:7 we find a very strong rebuke expressed with the term oi;koj associated with pornw/n: w;mnuon evn toi/j ouvk ou=sin qeoi/j kai. evco,rtasa auvtou,j kai. evmoicw/nto kai. evn oi;koij pornw/n kate,luon They have sworn by them that are no gods: and I fed them to the full, and they committed adultery, and lodged in harlots’ houses.

It is striking that this text of Jeremiah has some familiarity with the expression of Sirach: kai. auvli,sqhte evn oi;kw| paidei,aj Lodge in the house of instruction

which implies an opposition “instruction” – “prostitution”, certainly not something new as far as the sapiential matrix is concerned, and sees fulfilled in the life of the sage as positive what the prophet denounced in the conduct of the inhabitants of Jerusalem as negative. Again, the image of the hands stretched out in prayer, which already recall Isaiah, is presented in a tragic way in Jer 4:31: fwnh. qugatro.j Siwn evkluqh,setai kai. parh,sei ta.j cei/raj auvth/j the cry of the daughter of Zion who has failed and presents her hands;

in which the prophet stigmatises the uselessness of the supplicatory attitude of Jerusalem personified who hopes thus to avoid the slaughter of her sons. Totally different and wholly positive – as has already been observed in connection with the link with Isa 1:15 – is the readoption of the image on the part of Sirach. But also Jer 17:22b-23 offers the cue for a correspondence which requires interpretation: ouvk h;kousan kai. ouvk e;klinan to. ou=j auvtw/n kai. evsklh,runan to.n tra,chlon auvtw/n u`pe.r tou.j pate,raj auvtw/n tou/ mh. avkou/sai, mou kai. tou/ mh. de,xasqai paidei,an But they hearkened not, and inclined not their ear, but stiffened their neck more than their fathers, so as not to hear me, and not to receive correction.

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

191

Here are “to incline the ear” in the negative, ouvk e;klinan to. ou=j auvtw/n, the use of “neck”, again evoking a negative idea, in this case the hardening, evsklh,runan to.n tra,chlon auvtw/n, and, again, “to receive instruction”, mh. de,xasqai paidei,an, always as something that has not happened. Similarly, in connection with the lack of respect for the law on the liberation of slaves, in Jer 41(34):14b: ouvk h;kousa,n mou kai. ouvk e;klinan to. ou=j auvtw/n But they do not hearken to me and they do not incline their ears.

Again, Jer 42(35):15 e 51(44):5 present the same expression as recapitulation of the lack of attention to the prophets sent by God: kai. ouvk h;kousa,n mou kai. ouvk e;klinan to. ou=j auvtw/n avpostre,yai avpo. tw/n kakw/n auvtw/n and they did not hearken to me and they did not incline their ears to be converted from their evil ways.

All these links can be considered as allusions. In fact, the sacred author makes use of some significant terms to recall other passages of Scripture on which his education has been nourished, which, used in such a different way, open the road to new interpretations. In fact, in the prophetic oracles, all these images and expressions which Ben Sira uses have a totally different value. What is addressed to the people in the prophetic words as a denunciation of their non-fulfilment of the correct way of walking with the Lord, becomes now, in the sapiential presentation, positively realised in the life of the sage who precisely in this way can become the master of others.

5.4 Allusions to the Third Servant Song (Isa 50:4-9) But, as we look at the particular details of our pericope, another observation strikes us. Among all the passages of the so-called Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah it is the third which attracts the attention: Isa 50:4-9. It cannot be denied that here there are mixed together elements that are shared with Sir 51:13-30. Basically, in the Isaiah pericope the subject is the Lord. The activity of the Servant is not equal to that expounded in the concluding chapter of Sirach. Even if v. 22, the last of the section when the scribe describes himself, is concluded by focusing the attention on the gift of the Lord, e;dwken ku,rioj glw/ssa,n moi misqo,n mou, nevertheless the whole of the preceding materi-

192

Silvana Manfredi

al emphasises the central role of the will in the search for and reception of wisdom. For the Servant: ku,rioj di,dwsi,n moi glw/ssan paidei,aj tou/ gnw/nai evn kairw/| h`ni,ka dei/ eivpei/n lo,gon The Lord gives me a tongue of instruction, to know when it is fit to speak a word;

and because of this the Lord: e;qhke,n moi prwi, prose,qhke,n moi wvti,on avkou,ein has appointed for me early, he has given me an ear to hear (Isa 50:4).

The wise scribe: e;klina ovli,gon to. ou=j mou kai. evdexa,mhn kai. pollh.n eu-ron evmautw/| paidei,an I inclined my ear a little and received her, and I found for myself much instruction (Sir 51:16).

The Servant: h` paidei,a kuri,ou avnoi,gei mou ta. w=ta The instruction has opened my ears (Isa 50:5),

kai. e;gnwn o[ti ouv mh. aivscunqw/ and I know that I shall not be ashamed (Isa 50:7).

In consequence of his loving and diligent search for the blessing of wisdom, the sage states: ouv mh. aivscunqw/ I will not be ashamed (v. 18b),

and this too will be the destiny of those who, like him, decide to give a welcome to wisdom: mh. aivscunqei,hte you will not be ashamed (v. 29b).

The Servant challenges his enemies:

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

193

ti,j o` krino,meno,j moi evggisa,tw moi Who is he who judges me? Let him draw near to me (Isa 50:8).

The sage invites his pupils to draw near to him: evggi,sate pro,j me avpai,deutoi Draw near to me, you who are untaught (v. 23a).

Undeniable the link between the two passages, but also profoundly different the adaptation of the material through the sapiential reflection. For now, a kind of match, servant-sage can be established. Both locate their personal activity as a gift of the Lord. Both are concerned with instruction. Both have to do with speaking. Both adopt an attitude of listening. Both have the certainty that their attitude and their behaviour will obtain for them the absence of any form of dishonourable shame. Both convey an exhortation to draw near to them, but the one as a kind of challenge, the other as the better and profitable attitude. The differences are great, above all where the exemplification of the role to perform in obedience to the Lord is concerned . Sirach is completely lacking in any reference to any kind of personal suffering that has to be faced and undergone.

6. Conclusions According to the literary presentation of the Greek text, Sir 51:13-30 is set as a grand recapitulation of the most important themes of the whole of the book of Sirach. In particular, our interest is concentrated on the person of the sage and on the modality of the personal search for wisdom. There appear in a grand synthesis the theological veins which belong to the theological heritage of Israel: the cult, the Law, prophecy, taken up again and actualised in the experience of the scribe who becomes both master and transmitter of wisdom, offering himself as the direct heir of the ancient prophets. Above all, we are struck by the links with the prophets and in particular with Jeremiah and the Third Servant Song of Isaiah. Indeed, our author recalls much that is in Jeremiah and there is a Jewish tradition which would like to make of him a son of Jeremiah.11 From Jeremiah he takes up again the mention of youth. From Jeremiah he assumes different oracular formu11

DAN, Ben Sira; YASSIF, The Tales of Ben Sira.

194

Silvana Manfredi

lae which contain fierce rebukes of the people. But now, the sage transforms everything into a positive key. The heavy, laborious and miserable features that marked the existence of men called to the prophetic ministry becomes instead a joyful and tranquil experience in the life of the sage who for this reason can become the mediator of wisdom. That which the people of Israel was not capable of living and making its own in the historical existence in which it was called to witness to the faith – or better, had realised in a way that was exactly contrary to the demands of God – now reaches fulfilment in the perfect attitude of the sage and of those who follow him and so make him into a transmitter of knowledge and prayer/union with the Lord. It must be asked whether the particular allusions to the Third Servant Song of Isaiah do not go in the same direction. Among all the Servant Songs, the third is that which, without shadow of doubt, in the LXX, lends itself to an individual interpretation.12 On the basis of the references which we have observed, we could speculate that the scribe had the same aim as Jeremiah, a prophet whose vicissitudes and personal sufferings were far from being forgotten and who had become the mediator/intercessor par excellence in the popular imagination (cf. 2 Macc 15:13-16). This could be the reason why the scribe, who makes frequent references to the literary forms of Jeremiah, recalls him also in the personal experience of dedication to the Lord. Elements of suffering are passed over, whether those of the prophet Jeremiah or of the Servant of the Lord because they are no longer relevant to the new times and, therefore, to the new form of motivation. By now the sage has no reason to suffer for the Lord and his labour is small though filled with the abundance of the gift of instruction, that is, of wisdom. The suffering demeanour of the prophet is transformed and transfigured into an equilibrium of peace and harmony which, in prayerful communication with the Lord, pervades the person who searches for wisdom and opens himself with faith to the gift of God. Thus our wise scribe seems to be setting out for and knowing how to direct his pupils to that highway which the Christ-Wisdom of God will point to in fullness: “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old“ (Mt 13:52).

12

Cf. GRELOT, I Canti del Servo del Signore, 43-46 and 92-95.

The true sage or the Servant of the Lord (Sir 51:13-30 Gr)

195

Bibliography BACKHAUS, F. J., Qohelet und Sirach: BN 69 (1993), 32-55. BEENTJES, P. C., Jesus Sirach en Tenach, Nieuwegein 1981. BEENTJES, P. C., Relations between Ben Sira and the Book of Isaiah. Some Methodical Observations, in: VERMEYLEN, J. (ed.), The Book of Isaiah (BEThL 81), Leuven 1989, 155-159. DAN, Y., Ben Sira [Alphabet], in: EJ VI, 548-550. GILBERT, M., Siracide, in: DBS XII, 1389-1437. GILBERT, M., «Venez à mon école» (Si 51,13-30), in: FISCHER, I. – RAPP, U. – SCHILLER, J. (eds.), Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. Festschrift Johannes Marböck anlässlich seiner Emeritierung (BZAW 331), Berlin – New York 2003, 283290. GRELOT, P., I Canti del Servo del Signore. Dalla lettura critica all’ermeneutica (CSB 9), Bologna 1983. MINISSALE, A., La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib 133), Roma 1995. MULDER, O.,Three Psalms or Two Prayers in Sirach 51? The End of Ben Sira’s Book of Wisdom, in: EGGER WENZEL, R. – CORLEY, J. (eds.), Prayer from Tobit to Qumran (DCLY 2004), Berlin – New York 2004, 171-201. MURAOKA, T., Sir. 51,13-30: An Erotic Hymn to Wisdom?: JSJ 10 (1979), 166-178. SNAITH, J. G., Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus: JTSt 18 (1967), 1-12. SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. YASSIF, E., The Tales of Ben Sira in the Middle Ages. A Critical Text and Literary Study (in Hebrew), Jerusalem 1984.

A common background of Ben Sira and the Psalter. The concept of hrAT in Sir 32:14–33:3 and the Torah Psalms JAN LIESEN The occurrence of many psalm-like texts as well as prayers in the Wisdom of Ben Sira together with many hymnic elements in its language make it plausible that there is some connection between the Psalter and Ben Sira. The relationship between the Wisdom of Ben Sira and the Psalter has been investigated in various ways. Theoretically such a relationship could be understood as a dependency in either direction, in fact however, it is usually understood either as a dependency of the Jerusalemite sage on the Psalter or as a sharing a common background. The former approach recently has been followed by e.g. Marböck,1 who investigated especially the relationship of Sir with the beginning of the Psalter, Ps 1, and by Zenger who described in detail the many points of contact between Sir and finale of the Psalter, Pss 146-150.2 Others too have investigated a possible influence from various Psalms on the Wisdom of Ben Sira.3 The search for a common background was initiated by Jansen who ascribed an important role to Ben Sira in the composition of late non-canonical psalms, and this line of thought was carried on more recently by e.g. Reitemeyer,4 who sees the canonical Psalter as a kind of “new Torah” and who suspects that Ben Sira is to be found in the vicinity of the redactors of the Psalter; also Spieckermann5 came to a similar conclusion. The present contribution is to be situated in this search for a common background of the Psalter and Ben Sira. For this purpose the use of the concept of Torah in a selected text of Ben Sira, Sir 32:14–33:3, is compared with certain Psalms of which the content is focalized in Torah (and a series of its synonyms). 1 2 3 4

5

MARBÖCK, Sir 15,9f. ZENGER, “Durch den Mund eines Weisen werde das Loblied gesprochen” (Sir 15,10). E.g. on Ps 104 and Sir, see: HOSSFELD, Schöpfungsfrömmigkeit in Ps 104. REITEMEYER, Weisheitslehre als Gotteslob, 139; see also e.g. 256: “Wer die neue Tora im Gotteslob des Psalters aufsagt, ahmt jede Situation nach, in der die Tora am Sinai offenbart wurde – macht dieses Geschehen in gewisser Weise ‘reproduzierbar’, bejaht also in der Tora die ihr zu Grund liegende Schöpfung und Gott. Das hat theologischen Grund darin, dass die am Sinai offenbarte Tora letztlich in der weisheitlichen Ordnung der Schöpfung gründet”. SPIEKERMANN, Hymnen im Psalter, esp. 152-155: “Das verwirrend bunt erscheinende Traditionsensemble im Psalter erfährt durch die genannten Sirachtexte eine Plausibilisierung im Umkreis des Jerusalemer Tempels – nicht erst für das 2. Jh., sondern ungefähr ab dem 4. Jh” (p. 155).

198

Jan Liesen

1. Torah in the Psalter The word hrwt occurs 36 times in the Psalter and 26 of those occurrences are in Ps 119 alone; other typical Torah-psalms are Pss 1.19.78. Psalm 1 is commonly considered as a kind of late introduction to the Psalter, by which the redactor(s) wanted to give a Torah-colour to the entire Psalter.6 By means of a macarism Ps 1 praises those who want to make the torah the centre of their life. The hw'hy> tr'AT is here not seen primarily as a body of juridical texts, but rather as the perfect expression of God’s will and providence, and Ps 1 wants to induce the reader of the Psalter to obedience and confidence. In the Psalter however, the meaning of torah cannot be established so unequivocally; its semantic spectrum oscillates between two poles. On the one hand, torah can mean “law”, understood not necessarily as the Mosaic Law but rather as the divine guide for life,7 and on the other hand it can mean “instruction”, understood as divine revelation including its historical manifestation.8 In Ps 1 torah appears as something desirable which a person should constantly appropriate in his or her way of life because God-given happiness depends just on this. This outlook on torah not only implies its normative character, but it also seems to imply that torah exists in some written form (Deut 17:19), even when its precise contents remain vague.9 Ps 19 dedicates a well-constructed strophe10 to the torah, Ps 19:8-11, in which it is understood not as a series of commandments ordering or forbidding something, but rather as a life-enhancing revelation of the divine will. Torah is not about obedience but it intends to bring about a personal relationship between God and a human being. In fulfilling the torah a person achieves 6

7

8

9

10

CERESKO, Psalmists and Sages, 209: “a spirituality of the Torah has been inserted into the framework of the Psalter as a whole, and is one of the foremost guidelines of interpretation of the book, a real key to its understanding. One example of the redactional activity that has given this slant to the Psalter is the placing of Psalms 1 and 119, called ‘torah psalms’ because of their emphasis on ‘torah’ or ‘law, instruction’, at pivotal points in the collection” (with reference to: DE PINTO, The Torah and the Psalms, 174). Cf. MAYS, The Place of the Torah-psalms, 11: “Those who were at work in the final shaping and arrangement of the Psalter were completely committed to the torah as the divinely willed way of life”. Cf. e.g. KRAUS, Theologie der Psalmen, 202: “hrwth ist nicht das ‘das Gesetz’, sondern ‘die Weisung’, die gnädige Willensäußerung Jahwes, die dem Menschen begegnet und ihm einen Weg absteckt, der weder zur Rechten noch zur Linken verlassen werden soll”. GARCÍA LÓPEZ, hrwt, 619: “Über deren Inhalt [sc. d. Torah] sind aber nur vage Aussagen zu machen. Man könnte vermuten, daß es sich hier um den Pent. handelt oder um einen größeren Teil at.lichen Schriften. ‘In seiner Eigenschaft als Proömium zum Psalter allerdings schließt der Begriff hrwt auf jeden Fall, und zwar sogar in erster Linie, die Schriftrolle der Psalmen in sich’ (H.-J. Kraus, BK XV/15, 136)”. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Treinta salmos, 98: “una regularidad casi exasperante”.

A common background of Ben Sira and the Psalter

199

his or her true destiny.11 Ps 119 is an complex literary composition in which torah is used along with a series of synonyms (tWd[e, ~ydiWQPi, hw'cm. ,i hr'ma. ,i jp'vm. ,i qAx, rb'd,' xr;a,{ $r,d), . Apart from a short introduction, Ps 119 is a prayer of the most personal kind: “I” and “me” occur in it more than 240 times. With regard to the meaning of torah (always employed in singular!) it is remarkable that not a single pentateuchal law is referred to. Whybray has given a useful description of the characteristics of torah in Ps 119.12 First, it can be deduced from a number of verbs of which torah is the direct object, that it is understood as a written document, for it is e.g. “recounted” (Ps 119:13, rPes)i , guidance is “sought from” it (Ps 119:45.94, vr'D)' , and it is “meditated upon” (Ps 119:15.23.48.78.99, x:yfi). Secondly, another set of expressions portray torah as something which the psalmist is not, or not yet enough, familiar with but which is of great importance to him; e.g. he “waits for” it (Ps 119:43.81.114, lx;y)I and “longs for” it (Ps 119:40.131.174, baey' ba;T)' . A third aspect of torah is encountered in the frequent request of the psalmist that God should ‘teach’ him (Ps 119:12.26.64.66.68.108.124.135.171, dM;l;i 119:27.34. 73.125.130.144.169, !ybih)] : it appears, however, that he is not after superficial or material knowledge but looking for a deeper understanding of something with which he is already familiar. The vocabulary used in these requests speaks of a wisdom piety; the psalmist wants to understand the “way” (Ps 119:27, $r ' WJh;), and what comes from his mouth is specified in Ps 78:2 as a lv'm' and as tAdyxi, both typical wisdom genres. According to Ps 78:4 the contents of this torah uttered by the psalmist are the glorious deeds of the Lord and the wonders that He has done. In Ps 78:5 the psalmist starts to describe these wonders. It turns out that the Lord gave a “torah in Israel”, an expression which is strictly parallel with an “tWd[e in Jacob”, and concerning this torah the Lord ordered the ancestors to teach them (~['ydIAhl., litt. “to make known”) 11 12 13

Cf. GARCÍA LÓPEZ, hrwt, 620. WHYBRAY, Psalm 119, esp. 34-36. Ibid., 36.

200

Jan Liesen

to their children. In other words, the hr'AT of the psalmist consists herein: that the hr'AT of the Lord is an instruction to be passed on from parents to children (according to Deut 4:9). The reason why this instruction should be passed on by parents to their children is that their offspring might not forget and keep the commandments (Ps 78:7 tAc.m)i , for the people’s only appropriate response to God’s saving deeds is to “walk” according to God’s torah (Ps 78:10). In summary: on the basis of the so-called Torah Psalms and wisdom Psalms it can be said that in the Psalter torah is understood as “instruction” in a broad sense, ranging from the torah of God that consists in the Pentateuch, and that becomes then the object of intensive study, to the torah of a human teacher, who is involved in instructing people in the torah of God’s glorious saving deeds.

2. Torah in the Wisdom of Ben Sira In the Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira the word hr'AT occurs 12 times, 9 of which are rendered with no,moj (twice it is translated with evlemo,jÈ and once with fo,boj); and interestingly 6 occurrences of torah are in the pericope of Sir 32:14–33:6 (32:15.17.18.24; 33:2.3; the others are found in Sir 15:1; 41:4.8; 42:2; 45:5; 49:4). Ben Sira’s most famous verse about torah is Sir 24:23. Even when it is not available in Hebrew, both the Greek and Syriac versions leave little doubt as to what the Jerusalemite sage considered here to be the content of no,moj / aswmn. For Ben Sira the no,moj commanded by Moses is “the book of the covenant of the Most High God” and as such it is the perfect embodiment of divine wisdom. This bi,bloj / arps consists of the Pentateuch, as can be argued with the well-known tripartite reference to scripture in the autobiographically styled description of the wise scribe in Sir 38:34cd–39:1. The wise scribe is known for his devotion to the no,moj u`yi,stou / ay\jd aswm, the wisdom of all the ancients, and the prophecies. Even when the formation of the canon is not yet complete at this point, the “law of the Most High” / “law of life” in Sir 38:34d evidently corresponds to the Pentateuch, the books of Moses. For a more systematic evaluation of the extension of the term torah in Ben Sira, the passage of Sir 32:14–33:6 seems suitable, not only because it mentions torah six times, but also because here it is used predominantly in an absolute way.14 The general understanding, however, of this text, is problematic. Sir 32:14–33:6 e.g. has been labelled as “a loosely connected set of 14

Torah is used indefinitely in 15:1; 32:15.17.18.24; 33:2 and definitely in 33:3; 41:4.8; 42:2.5; 49:4.

A common background of Ben Sira and the Psalter

201

sayings on being deliberate in one’s judgments”.15 There is a lack of agreement on the general meaning, which is reflected in the various delimitations proposed for the pericope. Nearly all commentators agree on Sir 32:14 as a beginning but e.g. Peters sees the end in Sir 33:3, Smend, Mack and Minissale in Sir 33:6, Skehan – Di Lella in Sir 33:18 (finding an inclusion on the basis of rs'Wm in 32:14a and 33:18b), and Segal in Sir 33:27. For the purpose of better understanding Ben Sira’s use of torah the problem of delimitation is not so relevant, since all occurrences of this term are here within a section about which all agree that it constitutes a (sub)unity, even when there is little agreement on its meaning.16 The text critical situation, however, offers a more serious problem. Of about 1550 extant verses or fragments of verses only 18 verses are found in three different manuscripts. Most of the pericope that we want to take under examination is among these 18 verses. Sir 32:14–33:6 is found in Ms B, E and F and, in fact, Bm contains so much text that it almost deserves to be reckoned as a fourth manuscript; furthermore, there are also at least 6 extra verses in the Hebrew manuscripts in comparison with the (older) Greek version. Minissale17 and Beentjes18 have studied all these textual data in detail and their analyses have been used for the following reconstruction. rs'Wm xQ;yI lae vrEAD

32:14

hn<[m} ; gyFiy: WhrExv] m; W. hN"qy, piy> hr"AH vrEAD HB' vqeWy" I H;lhe l. t; m. Wi jP'vm. i !ybiy" yyy arEy>

32:15 32:16

ayciAy @v,Nm< i tAlWBx.tw; > txokA; t hJ,y: sm;x; vyai hr"AH %vomy. I AKr.c' rx;aw; >

15

16

17 18 19

32:17

(One) who searches for God accepts discipline and he who arises early to seek Him receives an answer. (One) who searches for TORAH obtains it. but a madman is ensnared by it. (One) who fears the LORD understands judgment and (even) from twilight19 he will produce directions. A violent person perverts corrections and according to his need he stretches [lit. pulls] TORAH.

MACK, Sirach. Annotations, 1580. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 397 gives as heading “The Providence of God” and notes: “There is little else that gives unity to the section, which contains miscellaneous aphorisms and comments about the conduct of the pious (=wise) Jew and the sinful (=foolish) one”. I tend to go with Smend and Minissale, without, however, implying that there is no connection with the hymn on the duality of creation, since there is a marked opposition in 32:14–33:3[6] between the one who studies (the) torah and the sinner. For the purpose of this investigation 33:4-6 need not be considered. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 78-89. BEENTJES, The Hebrew Texts. For the figurative meaning of “obscurity” MINISSALE, La versione greca, 81, refers to Jer 13:16 which is not convincing (describing the impending devastation by the Babylonians the prophet speaks of darkness, twilight, gloom and deep darkness as images of primordial chaos) and to HALAT, 690, which mentions only “(allgemein) Dunkel”.

Jan Liesen

202 lk,fe hS,ky; > aOl ~k'x' vyai hr'AT xQ;yI aOl #lew> dzE

32:18

rb'D" l[;pT. i la; hc'[e aOlB. @C'qt; T. i la; ^yf,[m} ; rx;aw; >

32:19

%leTe la; tvoqA. m %r

32:20

@t,xm' i %r
32:21

rheZh: i ^yt,xro a> bo W. ^v,pn. : rAmv. ^yf,[m} -; lk'B. hw"cm. i rmeAv hz< hf,A[ yKi Avp.n: rmeAv hr"AT rceAn

32:22 32:23

vAbyE aOl yyyB. x;jAe bW [r" [G:py. I aOl yyy arEy> jl;mn. wI > bv'w: yWSynIb. ~ai yKi hr"At anEAf ~K;xy. < aOl ynIAa hr'[S' m. ki . jjeAmt.mwi > rb'D" !ybiy" !Abn: vyai hn"ma' n/ < ~yrIWak. Atr"two >

32:24

33:1 33:2 33:3

A wise person does not conceal insight an arrogant person and scorner does not accept TORAH. Without counsel do not do (any)thing and (thus) after your deeds you will not enrage20 yourself. On a road (full) of snares do not walk and you will not stumble over (a stumbling-) block21 twice. Do not be confident on a road on account of robbery22 but on your paths be warned. In all your doings watch yourself (: be careful) for (the one) who does this observes the commandment. (One) who keeps (the) TORAH watches himself (: is careful) and (one) who trusts in the LORD will not be ashamed. (One) who fears the LORD will not encounter evil except in trial, but he will turn around23 and be saved. (One) who hates (the) TORAH will not become wise but he will be shaken as a fleet by storm-wind. An intelligent person will discern (any)thing24 and his TORAH is secure (believeable) as the Urim.

On the basis of the presence of imperatives in Sir 32:19-23 and participles and/or indicatives in Sir 32:14-18 and 32:24–33:3 we divide this pericope in three strophes of 5 – 4 – 4 verses. In both the first and the third strophe hr"AT

20

21

22 23

24

For the meaning of “to enrage oneself” see Isa 8:21 (the only occurrence of the hithpael of %f[ in Biblical Hebrew); BEENTJES, The Hebrew Texts, 58, suggests “to grieve, to have regrets” following the Greek metame,lomai. Lit. “blow”, but see Prov 3:23 and esp. Isa 8:14 where @g
A common background of Ben Sira and the Psalter

203

is used thrice, whereas in the second strophe it does not occur. The same observation holds true for the divine name and the references to God: they occur only in the first and third strophe. In Sir 32:14 there is a strict parallelismus membrorum: the two participles “searching (for God)” and “arising early (to seek Him)” are equivalent and in the same way the verbs “accepts” and “receives” are synonymous; this implies that the direct object “discipline” is to be understood primarily not as a human achievement but as an “answer”, as something coming from God. This verse makes it evident that in the relationship between God and a human being God is on the giving end. The nature of the gift is specified in 32:15a which starts with the same participle as 32:14a (vrEAD) but which now is connected with torah (grammatically indefinite), while the verb is again a synonym for the verbs in 32:14 and has the same torah for a direct object (as feminine suffix). In other words, the first connotation of torah is: something given by God; the precise meaning of torah, however, remains vague. There are at least two possibilities according to the various meanings of the verb vr:D,' which can mean “to look for” and “to consult or study“.25 If the verb vr:D' is used twice in the same meaning, then it probably has to mean “to look for”, since God is the (first mentioned) object. Torah is then something looked for in the same way God can be looked for, and then it probably means a God-given “instruction”, or “discipline, regulation”. This meaning of torah is well attested in the Psalter and goes well with the grammatical indefiniteness of the expression. If, however, the verb vr:D' is twice taken in the meaning of “consulting”, then torah is understood as something searchable like a database, and then, of course, it would refer to pentateuchal law. Understanding torah as Pentateuch (grammatically definite?) is even more coherent with much of the Old Testament and the Psalter, but it seems problematic to apply the meaning of “consulting” to God! If the verb vr:D' is used twice as “consulting”, then in 32:14a God is considered to be consultable or searchable, and that seems disrespectful. It should be noticed, however, that at the end of the passage under examination, in the difficult verse 33:3b, Ben Sira compares (human) torah to (consulting) the divine oracle, the ’ûrîm. Finally, the contrasting semicolon of 32:15b seems to understand torah (represented by a suffix) as an entity capable of ensnaring a mad person, a meaning which would go well with torah as pentateuchal law but which is also possible with torah as instruction, cf. Ps 78:1 with Prov 6:2. Therefore, in 32:14-15 both meanings of torah seem possible and are, in fact, not so divergent: instruction may be given or obtained through (consultation of) the Pentateuch.26 25 26

See DCH II, 473-474. In Sir 32–33 torah is mostly grammatically indefinite; on account of this fact I prefer to

204

Jan Liesen

In Sir 32:16-18 torah is employed to elaborate a contrast between a Godfearing and wise person on the one hand and a violent and arrogant scorner on the other hand. Their respective character is demonstrated in a chiasm (vv. 16-17) in which jP'vm. i equals torah. The God-fearing wise person understands (and practises: practice makes perfect!) judgment (pentateuchal law) to such an extent that he or she is able to produce clear guidelines (for others) even when bodily eyes cannot discern anything. A violent and arrogant scorner distorts torah to fit his own need and heeds no reproofs (from others). In this chiasm torah is understood as pentateuchal law providing moral guidelines for human beings. The fact that torah can be distorted seems to indicate that it exists in some fixed (literary) form, i.e. as a book that can be studied. The first strophe finishes with a summary. Sir 32:18a summarizes 32:16: the God-fearer is a wise person who is able to provide instructions from what he himself has understood of the pentateuchal law; Sir 32:18b summarizes 32:17: the violent person is arrogant and a scorner who will not apply pentateuchal law, let alone accept corrections from others (cf. Ps 1). In the second strophe the centre (32:20-22) is dominated by imagery of the “road”, “path” and “walking”, “stumbling”, all of which are typical wisdom expressions for one’s moral choices and way of life. The verses before and after the road imagery (32:19.23) express the same reality in terms of “doing”, “deeds” and “working”, and, in fact, constitute a thematic inclusion. “Without counsel don’t …” corresponds with “observing (the)27 commandment”; hc'[e and hw"cm. i both are synonyms for torah (cf. Ps 1:1-2 where avoiding the council [and thus the counsel] of the wicked is synonymous with meditating the torah, cf. also Pss 107:11; 119:24; hw"cm. i is a synonym for torah in Pss 19:9; 119:96). Furthermore, the expression “do (any)thing” seems to correspond with “in all your doings”.28 The fact that the first strophe ended with a remark about not hiding insight and accepting torah, combined with the fact that Ben Sira switches here from third to second person (except for the final semicolon), suggests that he himself is this “God-fearing” (32:16) “wise person” (32:18a) who is now giving directions and not hiding his insight, and who is asking his readership not to be arrogant and to accept his torah! This understanding

27

28

read “instruction” in 32:15a. This reading is corroborated by the fact that the verbal form xQ;yI (he accepts) constitutes a small inclusion for the first strophe and parallels hr'AT with rs'Wm (discipline). Curiously, “commandment” is grammatically indefinite. The combination of rm;v' with hw"cm. i occurs 28 times in Biblical Hebrew and only twice “commandment” is grammatically indefinite, viz. in Prov 19:16 and Qoh 8:5, both of which are content-wise parallels for Sir 32:23. Perhaps the inclusion can even be widened to include also: “not enraging yourself” – “watch yourself”.

A common background of Ben Sira and the Psalter

205

of the shift from third to second person is corroborated by an analysis of the last strophe (see also 33:18-19). The third strophe is connected to the foregoing strophe through a linkword: “watching yourself” (32:23a). Completely in line with the first strophe, which spoke of searching (the) torah (32:15a) and understanding judgment (a synonym for torah; 32:16a), this link-word is now connected with “keeping (the) torah” (cf. Ps 119:34). Aperson, who keeps (the) torah, watches himself and “(the one) who does this observes (the) commandment” (33:23b). (The) commandment stands for divine instructions as recorded in pentateuchal law; keeping it, therefore, is really putting one’s trust in the Lord. This trust in the Lord (and His torah) is not put to shame; however, this does not mean that one will not encounter evil, because that may and indeed will happen (cf. 2:1-6; 51:1-12), but when that happens, it is a trial from which a God-fearing and careful person will be saved. In stark contrast with the God-fearing person there is the one who hates (the) torah and will not become wise, but who instead will be shaken.29 This contrast determines the meaning of torah in 33:2 as a divine instruction, which is an essential part of a personal relationship with God. The third strophe finished with surprise: torah is used with a possessive pronoun that refers to an intelligent person. What an intelligent person is able to discern in a given matter is as dependable as the ’ûrîm! In other words: God cannot be consulted like a book, but you can consult a wise person instead, because he is as dependable as the divine oracle. With the descriptions of the first strophe the reader can fill in the presumption, viz. that such an intelligent person has diligently searched God’s torah and therefore now understands judgment, and will not hide his insight and, in fact, will be able to produce secure guidelines and counsel. In Sir 32:14–33:3 torah covers a wide spectrum of meaning. The first meaning of torah is: divine instruction, consisting in the Pentateuch, and as such it can be searched and taken as a guideline for one’s way of life. The second meaning of torah is: the human instructions which a wisdom teacher has gathered through his diligent study and putting into practice of the divine torah. These human instructions of the wise and intelligent teacher are so much in line with the divine instruction of the pentateuchal laws that they are as dependable as the ’ûrîm. Compared with the concept of torah in the Psalms the congruency is evident: like the psalmist (in Ps 78:1) also Ben Sira speaks of (his) human torah and links it with the divine instruction of the Pentateuch. Does this mean that Ben Sira took his inspiration from the Psalter or do both the Psalter and Ben Sira draw upon some common other source? In 29

The rare hithpolel participle (only in Isa 24:19) is reminiscent of the rare hithpalpel participle in 32:15b (only in Prov 26:18).

206

Jan Liesen

the above there is no conclusive proof for either possibility. The (combination of some) expressions in all three strophes of Sir 32:14–33:3, however, suggest(s) that Isa 8:11-21 may have been a text from which Ben Sira drew some inspiration (see overview).30 vr:d" hr"AT @C'qt; h. i %r
to search for, consult instruction, law to enrage o.s. to walk + on a road snare + (stumbling-) block

Sir 32:14a.15a Sir 32:15.17.18.24; 33:2.3 Sir 32:19b Sir 32:20a (cf. 32:21) Sir 32:20

Isa 8:192 Isa 8:16.20 Isa 8:21 Isa 8:11 Isa 8:14 (cf. 8:15)

The appearance of so much vocabulary of this text of Isaiah in this particular point of Ben Sira’s work is no coincidence. Isa 8:16-18 is one of the classic texts to which reference is made in order to speak of a “school” or “guild” of prophets. In Isa 8:16 the prophet speaks of his disciples and of binding his torah on them! That seems to be the magnet which drew Ben Sira’s attention towards this passage, for he too is in the business of instructing disciples and inculcating in them a way of life based on torah.31 In fact, in his personal testimony in Sir 24:30-34 he connects his own life with the book of the Covenant of the Most High God, the law of Moses, and states that he too will pour out his teaching like prophecy (Sir 24:33). Like the prophets of old Ben Sira has disciples and passes on to them his torah. Sir 32:14–33:3 is another text in the book of the Jerusalemite sage in which we can detect some reference to his personal situation as teacher. One is reminded of the grandson’s prologue: “So my grandfather Jesus, who had devoted himself especially to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors, and had acquired considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that by becoming familiar also with his book those who love learning might make even greater progress in living according to the law”.32 In conclusion: is there a common background for Ben Sira and the Psalter? What we have found is that in Sir 32:14 – 33:3 and in the so-called Torah Psalms torah is used to designate both divine instruction and the teaching of a human teacher. This however, by itself does not prove a common background. The presence of much unique vocabulary from Isa 8, 30

31

32

In Isa 8:16-18 the prophet speaks of his teaching (torah), which will be preserved among his disciples, while Israel remains disobedient (cf. Isa 30:8-11; 30:9 torah). For the allusion to Prov 19:26 in Sir 32:23 see BEENTJES, The Hebrew Texts, 61. This particular use of Scripture, which is neither a quotation nor a simple allusion, but in which one OT text dominates an entire passage, is rather typical of Ben Sira; it has been coined as “structural use of Scripture” by PATTE, Early Jewish Hermeneutic, 171; see also BEENTJES, Jesus Sirach en Tenach, 180-181. In fact, the expression “life in accordance to the law” occurs twice in the prologue: h` evnno,mou bi,oj / evnno,mwj bioteu,ein.

A common background of Ben Sira and the Psalter

207

where the same use of torah occurs in the context of the disciples of the prophet, makes it likely that we are dealing with a structural use of Scripture. By this particular style the Jerusalemite sage indicates that he sees himself as someone like the prophets of old. Even when the prophets have died long ago Ben Sira still shares their view of the world. It has been argued e.g. that the shift from the temple to the Pentateuch as the central religious institution or authority is marked by the new designation “Judaism” replacing the term “Israel”.33 Since no such new designation occurs in Ben Sira and since the book in fact culminates in the glorification of Simon the High Priest and his service at the temple in Jerusalem it follows that for the Jerusalemite sage the torah is still something that has to be formulated and passed on, albeit not only by the priest and the prophet, but also by the wise scribe in a vr'dm. i tyBe (Sir 51:23). Ben Sira is still very much “temple-oriented” (Sir 24:10-11) and ”Israel-minded” (Sir 24:8).

33

STEGEMANN, The Institutions of Israel, esp. 156-161.

208

Jan Liesen

Bibliography ALONSO SCHÖKEL, L., Treinta salmos: poesía y oración, Valencia 1981. BEENTJES, P. C., Jesus Sirach en Tenach, Nieuwegein 1981. BEENTJES, P. C., The Hebrew Texts of Ben Sira 32[35]:16–33[36]:2 in: MURAOKA, T. (ed.), Sirach, Scrolls and Sages. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira & the Mishna held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997 (STDJ 32), Leiden 1999, 53-67. CERESKO, A. R., Psalmists and Sages. Studies in Old Testament Poetry and Religion (ITS, Supplements 2), Bangalore 1994. DE PINTO, B., The Torah and the Psalms: JBL 86 (1967), 154-174. GARCÍA LÓPEZ, F., hrwt in: ThWAT VIII, 597-637. HOSSFELD, F.-L., Schöpfungsfrömmigkeit in Ps 104 und bei Jesus Sirach, in: FISCHER, I. – RAPP U. – SCHILLER J. (eds.), Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. Festschrift Johannes Marböck anlässlich seiner Emeritierung (BZAW 331), Berlin – New York 2003, 129-138. KRAUS, H.-J., Theologie der Psalmen (BK XV/3), Neukirchen – Vluyn 1979. MACK, B. L., Sirach. Annotations, in: The HarperCollins Study Bible. New Revised Standard Version, New York 1993, 1530-1616. MAYS, J. L., The Place of the Torah-psalms in the Psalter: JBL 106 (1987), 3-12. MARBÖCK, J., Sir 15,9f. – Ansätze zu einer Theologie des Gotteslobes bei Jesus Sirach, in: SEYBOLD, I. (ed.), ~yyx rwqm Meqor hajjim. FS G. Molin, Graz 1983, 267-276. MINISSALE, A., La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib 133), Roma 1995. PATTE, D., Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestina (SBL.DS 22), Missoula 1975. REITEMEYER, M., Weisheitslehre als Gotteslob. Psalmentheologie im Buch Jesus Sirach (BBB 127), Berlin – Wien 2000. SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. SPIEKERMANN, H., Hymnen im Psalter. Ihre Funktion und ihre Verfasser, in: ZENGER, E. (ed.), Ritual und Poesie. Formen und Orte religiöser Dichtung im Alten Orient, im Judentum und im Christentum (HBS 36), Freiburg 2002, 135-161. STEGEMANN, H., The Institutions of Israel, in: DIMANT, D. – RAPPAPORT, U. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research (STDJ 10), Leiden 1992, 156-185. WHYBRAY, R. N., Psalm 119. Profile of a Psalmist in: BARRÉ, M. L. (ed.), Wisdom, You Are My Sister. FS R. E. Murphy (CBQ.MS 29), Washington, DC 1997, 31-43. ZENGER, E., “Durch den Mund eines Weisen werde das Loblied gesprochen” (Sir 15,10) – Weisheitstheologie im Finale des Psalters Ps 146-150, in: FISCHER, I. – RAPP U. – SCHILLER J. (eds.), Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen, 139-155.

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira FRIEDRICH VINCENZ REITERER How can one treat topics of the book of Ben Sira? It can be done in three ways: One can investigate Ben Sira from the background of a) its Bible, b) the intellectual history in its time, c) its world view and sense of life found in its theology? The title of this essay already gives in outline the approach to be taken. After this preliminary decision, further methodical questions are to be clarified. a) In order to treat the topic – “The Interpretation of the wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira” – one can select a few central references to be considered. This is the most chosen methodical beginning. With this decision however it is not certain that one represents the Biblical author in the sense, he had wanted it. This is because some references which have a greater importance on close inspection than one sees at first can remain unconsidered. It is certain that the most important places must be treated. b) Otherwise I have to collect all of the materials and present them. One can be guided by the statement, “daß der Autor im Gesamt seines Werkes nur sehr selten vom Gesetz spricht, was nach dem überschwänglichen Lob in 24,23 umso mehr ins Gewicht fällt“.1 However I can follow this statement only with restrictions, because I registered 35 quotations, in which Ben Sira expressly hrwt / no,moj mentioned. Naturally according to the number of references this topic occurs more rarely than topics such as the fear of God, wisdom or creation. But the typical kind of the siracidic argumentation connects several of the different fields very skilfully. That means that one would have to represent a large multiplicity of aspects – with the systematic treatment of all references including topics like the fear of God, wisdom or creation and that is not possible in a small article. One loses the overview because of the amount of material. Finally one must surely be concerned with the question of how Ben Sira combines the topics of the “fear of God”, “wisdom” or “creation” along with others. 1

MARBÖCK, Weisheit, 92.

210

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

It is undisputed that the law plays an important role in the book of Ben Sira. In order to examine this field, I have chosen the following topics. 1. Siracidic thinking contained within the preface. Upon examination, the following result is expected: the grandchild emphasizes the topics, which were the most important for his grandfather. This is the first result that we have. 2. Sira’s own ideas on world-organization and thought patterns. In this section one finds the central starting points, on basis of which Sira treats all other questions. 3. Sira and his ancestors – Respect for the tradition: in this section references are treated, which show, how Ben Sira feels obliged to follow his own Biblical tradition. 4. Sira and his Bible: in this section I examine, how far Ben Sira deviates with the topic “law” from his tradition or how far he follows it. 5. Conclusion.

1. Siracidic thinking: Information of the grandchild In this chapter I want to show that in the eyes of the grandchild and the translator “the law” plays an outstanding role. I take the preface to the Greek translation very seriously. I recognize a deep seriousness in the starting words. Obviously the grandchild wanted to offer a concentrated introduction about the thinking of his grandfather. At the same time the grandchild presents those topics, which were located in the center of his ancestor’s considerations. There one can read that the grandfather, author of the wisdom book, was occupied very intensively with the writings of his ancestors: “My grandfather Jesus, who had devoted himself especially to the reading of the Law (no,moj) and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors, and had acquired considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that by becoming familiar also with his book those who love learning might make even greater progress in living according to the law (Sir prol. 14: dia. th/j evnno,moubiw,sewj)“.2 From here we can see that the grandchild observed with his grandfather that “the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors“ had been the basis for his remarks. It is clear from the parts of the Bible, in which (torâ, nebî’îm, ketûbîm) are mentioned that there is a high level of education and mental training (paidei,a) in Israel. Additionally, practical life was based on these parts of the Bible which 2

The translation: The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version, New York – Oxford 1989.

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 211

the translator calls paidei,a and sofi,a: “Many great teachings have been given to us through the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed them, and for these we should praise Israel for instruction (paidei,a) and wisdom (sofi,a)“. The passivum divinum dedome,nwn points to the source, that both – paidei,a and sofi,a – have their origin in God: they are given gifts of him. The practical life basis is equivalent to: “living according to the law (dia. th/j evnno,mou biw,sewj)“ (Sir prol. 14). The prologue is a short comment on the work of Ben Sira. At the same time it is an interpretation of the grandfather by the grandchild. Ben Sira wanted to place the following basic statements in the centre: Knowledge – based on education, wisdom and law come from God. Educational knowledge, wisdom and law are linked internally with one another. No,moj is on the one hand the first written part of the revelation (Pentateuch), no,moj is on the other hand the general designation of the revealed will of God, which one can summarize as “tora, nebiim, ketubim [TaNaK]”.3 If one wants to follow the grandfather, then – the grandchild writes – he must strive (himself) intensively to acquire the entire revealed will of God and thereafter live according to the divine intention.The goal of the divine intention is achieved only in practical life. The grandchild understands his efforts as contribution that in the Diaspora one can lead a life according to the comprehensive revealed will of God. “It seemed highly necessary that I should myself devote some diligence and labor to the translation of this book. During that time I have applied my skill day and night to complete and publish the book for those living abroad who wished to gain learning and are disposed to live according to the law (evnno,mwj bioteu,ein)”.

2. Sira’s own ideas on the system of the world and his pattern of thought In this chapter I want to show that knowledge and understanding of the order in creation is the starting point to understand the Ben Sira’s type of argumentation. Ben Sira is deeply impressed by the sense and significance of the order in the entire creation. The teacher of wisdom concerns himself with this topic several times. 3

Recently MARBÖCK, Text und Überstzung, 106-107, emphasized the importantness of no,moj within the prolog: “Am häufigsten begegnender Wortstamm in allen 3 Teilen ist no,moj (1.8.14/24/36) als Ursprung bzw. Impuls (1.8.12) und Ziel (14.36) einer großen Bewegung von den Überlieferungen Israels zur Weiterführung im Buch des Großvaters und zu dessen Übersetzung durch den Enkel in Ägypten, von der Tradition bis in die Gegenwart”.

212

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

2.1 Mental modesty4 as a condition (3:17-31) If someone wants to be successful in considering the order in creation, he must bring along indispensable conditions: the most central is modesty. The magnitude of God is overwhelming. Only a person who puts himself in the right position will have deep insights. “The greater you are, the more you must humble yourself ($Xpn lypXt !k: Ms C,5 tapei,nou seauto,n); so you will find favour in the sight of the Lord. For great is the might of the Lord; but by the humble he is glorified” (Sir 3:18.20). Whoever is modest receives the magnificent gift from God to investigate what God has miraculously made in creation. “For great is the might of the Lord; but by the humble he is glorified. […] Reflect (!nwbth; dianoou/) upon what you have been commanded“ (Sir 3:20.22a). The choice of the Verb !nwbth shows that Sira means rational and responsible mental activity. The natural environment is the miracle of the creation in Sira’s eyes. Now it is necessary to investigate creation.

2.2 The miracles of creation (Sir 42:15-25) The miracles of creation are so various that they cannot even be counted by God’s holy ones (Sir 42:17). God is absolutely sovereign, he controls everything, he does not need anybody to instruct him (Sir 42:18a-d.21d). God oversees everything: “No thought escapes him (al lkX wynpm rd[n: Mas; ouv parh/lqen auvto.n pa/n diano,hma)“6 (Sir 42:20a). Ben Sira connects this capability of God with his wisdom (sofi,a; [...] mkx):7 the wisdom is the first of the immaterial creations of God and was established first.8 “He has set (!kt, evko,smhsen) in order the splendors of his wisdom” (42:21a). Creation occured through the word (rmab Mas, rmwab Ms B, evn lo,goij, htlmb; 42:15). The result of the creation is a meaningful entireness locked in itself, it does not need further additions in order to make it work: “How desirable are all his works, and how sparkling they are to see! All these things live and remain forever; each creature is preserved to meet a particular need. All things come in pairs, one opposite the other, and he has made

4 5 6 7

8

Cf. the section “Das Niedrigkeitsmotiv im Sirachbuch“ in WITTE, Vom Leiden zur Lehre, 195-198. Cf. Ms A in 3:18a: ~lw[tlwdg lkm $Xpn j[m; cf. Syr: Kcpn r[Za aml[b Brd tyad Lkb. The terminological proximity between Gr Sir 3:22a dianoe,omai and 42:20a diano,hma is noteworthy. Precisely in this place, the Hebrew text is preserved only fragmentgarily, but the remainder of the words which has preserved and the Greek and Syriac authorities show that hmkx stands in this place both in Mas and Ms B; cf. atmkj. Cf. REITERER, Die immateriellen Ebenen.

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 213

nothing incomplete (kai. ouvk evpoi,hsen ouvde.n evllei/pon, tyalFb ˜ whnm dj arb alw). Each supplements the virtues of the other. Who could ever tire of seeing his glory?“ (Sir 42:22-25).

2.3 Creation and law (18:1-14) The reference above connects God’s creation with his wisdom and stresses the perfection of his work. Each element in this creation has its unmistakable and inexchangeable place. Sira treats also the size and sense of the creation in 18:1-14. Again the author is fascinated by the overwhelming and incomprehensible completeness of the divine work: “Who can measure his majestic power? And who can fully recount his mercies? It is not possible to diminish or increase them (ouvk e;stin evlattw/sai ouvde. prosqei/nai), nor is it possible to fathom the wonders of the Lord“ (Sir 18:5-6). As in 41:15-25 Sira differentiates between the fields for humans and the rest of creation. He asks which role humans have in the entire creation, whereby Sira places the objective condition of the existence of humans as part of creation beside those to the ethical conditions of humans: “What are human beings, and of what use9 are they (ti, h` crh/sij auvtou/)? What is good in them, and what is evil?“(Sir 18:8). Here one can ask whether Ben Sira means the objective basis for the ethical conditions or concrete manifestations of ethical behaviour?: ti, to. avgaqo.n auvtou/ kai. ti, to. kako.n auvtou/ and ˜whtwcyb anmw ˜whtwbf Nmw. The ethical dimension prompts the question concerning the link between act and consequence. The author emphasises the immense difference between the universal divine will of salvation and the small contribution of human goodness: “The compassion of human beings (e;leoj avnqrw,pou; acnrbd a¨mJR) is for their neighbours, but the compassion of the Lord is for every living thing10 (e;leoj de. kuri,ou evpi. pa/san sa,rka) (Sir 18,13a.b)”. Due to the soteriological aspect one can ask, what human beings must do in order to come into the sphere of the love of God. There is a clear answer: “He rebukes and trains and teaches them, and turns them back, as a shepherd his flock. He has compassion (evlea/)| on those who accept his discipline (paidei,an) and who are eager for his precepts (evpi. ta. kri,mata auvtou/)” (Sir 18,13c.d-14). Now Ben Sira takes up the topic, which concerns us also, without using the terms no,moj / hrwt explicitly. The parallelism shows that a close relation9 10

One can ask the question whether Ben Sira would not like to see more strongly the accent emphasized, which one shows with “utility” or “benefit”. The Gr and Syr translations are more precisely shown, if one does not write living thing, but human being.

214

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

ship between these expressions is given. The use in pairs of the Greek words paidei,a and kri,ma is also given in Ezra 7:26; Hab 1:12; Sir 38:33d. In Ezra 7:26; Prov 6:23; Wis 2:12; Sir 39:8 paidei,a and no,moj are parallel. In closely connected thoughts kri,ma and no,moj are placed in Lev 26:46; Deut 4:8; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 17:34.37; 2 Chr 33:8; Ezra 7:10.26; Neh 8:18; 9:13.29; 10:30; Ps 88:31; Sir 42:2; 45:5.17; Hab 1:4. In 1 Kgs 2:3 one reads “the law of Moses” and in Neh 10:30 stands: “God’s law”. In the prologue treated above we saw that two different meanings of no,moj flow into each other: on the one hand no,moj as designation of a part of the Bible and on the other hand no,moj as God’s will used as the basis for practical life. In Sir 18:14 a further thought is added: the individual commandments. The basis of the following argument is that Ben Sira selects poetic expressions very consciously. Therefore one has to be aware that the statements about God in 18:1.2a and 18:14 (the beginning and the end of the literary unit) are connected to theological information: He who lives forever created the whole universe; the Lord alone is just (dikaiwqh,setai)“ (18:1.2a)

and He has compassion on those who accept his discipline and who are eager for his precepts (18:14).

The providential care, love of God and the justice of God (e;leoj [18:13b.14a]; dikaio,w [18:2a]) appear here along with the creation manifestations of the divine will of salvation. Creation and the revelation of the will of God are connected in no,moj. Everyone can see them in concrete education goals (paidei,a) – these are mental and spiritual goods – and in concrete instructions (kri,ma), how someone should live – these are legal and practical goods. This connection is regarded as an indication of the justice of God. In plain language: Whoever wants to live according to the will of God, has universal, clear rules to follow, which are probably not only meant for Israel. God’s work, which reacts to the behavior of humans, is not coincidental or incalculable, but has its rules. These rules point to the loving providential care (e;leoj) of God. Each human can know the rules and behave accordingly. A further important thought was not mentioned up to now. Initially God in 18:1a is referred to as one, “who lives forever (o` zw/n eivj to.n aivwn/ a)”. The last words in 18:14b are “his precepts (ta. kri,mata auvtou/)”. Since Ben Sira, when considering details has the whole picture always in mind, one remembers automatically the law of life (no,moj zwh/j; vgl. Sir 17:11; 45:5). As maintained in the preface, living according to God’s precepts has its roots in no,moj (Sir prol. 14: dia. th/j evnno,mou biw,sewj; Sir prol. 36: evnno,mwj

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 215

bioteu,ein). These cross connections show that God, who lives forever, in his concrete instructions offers the basis that hrwt / no,moj, makes life possible. One can see this concretely that human beings can lead a life according to the law, better: he/she arranges his/her life within the law (= I tried to imitate the Greek word formation e;nnomoj) 2.4 The effort towards wisdom (51:13-30) With deep passion and cordial intimacy the wisdom teacher describes the way in which he acquired wisdom. He is almost drunk from the abundance, which he has been given. He is grateful to his teacher who led him to wisdom: “to him who gives wisdom I will give glory (tw/| dido,nti moi sofi,an dw,sw do,xan; Mas: ydwh !ta ydmlml; Ms B: hadwh !ta ydmlmlw)”. It is not clear whether God11 or another teacher is meant here. Ben Sira knows himself to be merged into a tradition. He owes his successful search for the wisdom of his tradition, which gives figurative like realistically a fulfilled and successful life: “and through me you will acquire silver and gold (kai. polu.n cruso.n kth,sasqe evn auvth/;| similarly Ms B: yb wnqt bhzw @skw” (51:28b). According to Gr, wisdom is not a gift, which one receives without one’s own effort. The disciple has himself to strive for wisdom. Sira struggles for it, as in a war he fights for it: diamema,cistai h` yuch, mou evn auvth/| (Sir 51:19a).12 Wherein now does the violent effort lie? What does the wisdom teacher do, so that one sees that he strives violently? Kai. evn poih,sei no,mou dihkribasa,mhn (NJB: I have been scrupulous in keeping the Law) (Sir 51:19b). Sira keeps the law with great care. Here one sees a close link between wisdom and law. Law is to be understood in the multiple sense: Law is God’s revealed will written down. Law is that to which I align the practice of life. Law is thus the abundance and sum of individual instructions, which stand or could stand in texts of the revealed will of God. Anyhow it is clear for the Greek author and the traditor of 51:19b that concrete fulfilment of the law leads to the acquisition of wisdom. Here the spirituality of the Gr becomes clear. Without doubt the important texts concerning wisdom 1:1-10; 51:13-30 link to the whole book. Wisdom comes from God (pa/sa sofi,a para. kuri,ou; Yh a[rm Mrq Nm am[j Lk), thus Sir 1:1 begins.13 It is the important topic at the beginning. Sofi,a does 11 12 13

SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 577. NJB: “I have been scrupulous in keeping the Law”; NRSV: “my soul grappled with wisdom”. Cf. in the present volume the essay of P. C. Beentjes.

216

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

not remain however with God; cf. Sir 24:1-22,14 particularly vv. 8-11. God planned wisdom for humans: “he poured her out upon all his works, upon all the living according to his gift; he lavished her upon those (a) who love him (toi/j avgapw/sin auvto,n)” (Sir 1:9b.10a-b). In Syr (b) we find in 1:10b: “who esteam / ‘fear’ him”, (Yhwlj|d Lkl hOygsaw). Therefore those who take God seriously acquire wisdom. Only recently Egger Wenzel15 stated that fo,boj qeou/ with Sira includes no aspects of fear. It is another way of expressing respect for God, which shows itself as affectionately delivering to the admired God. With this background it is understandable that the tradition splits up already from the outset into two directions: God gives wisdom to those who (a) love God, or those, who (b) take God very seriously. Sir 51:20.26 affirmed that Sira’s efforts were successful in attaining wisdom. In the same way the efforts of the disciples will be successful: “I directed my soul to her, and through purification I found her. I gained understanding with her from the first, therefore I will not be forsaken“ (Sir 51:20) and “put your neck under the yoke, and let your souls receive instruction; it is to be found close by“ (Sir 51:26). Whoever attains wisdom, has proved himself efficient in life according to no,moj (Sir 51:19b Gr). As this was the case with the author, this will also be the case with those, who fulfill the same conditions. Thus life according to the no,moj will be the way to acquire wisdom. One can describe wisdom as a special form of the presence of God. I would like to try a comparison with human beings: Human beings have “extremities”, which he needs for physical activity. God also has “extremities”, such as wisdom or the word (cf. Sir 42:15c), with which He wants to be active within creation. The no,moj as the rule of life prepares humans so that God can be active.

2.5 Résumé Now I tried to understand the sayings of Ben Sira on the basis of important elements of siracidic thought and come thereby to interesting conclusions. When one adopts a modest attitude one can see that God arranged creation in wonderful co-existence. He achieves this order through his knowledge and wisdom. He also gave wisdom to humans. Wisdom is however no unconditional gift. In order to attain it, humans have to have the right attitude to God. It is through love and the respectful way in which one responds to God. In order to receive God’s gift, one needs to behave correctly. The behav14 15

Cf. MARBÖCK, Structure and Redaction, 61-79.77f. EGGER-WENZEL, Better Faith.

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 217

iour has a basis, i.e. no,moj. Ben Sira establishes close internal references between divine creation,16 the different dimensions of wisdom,17 the love of God for humans, the fear of God and the law.

3. Sira values his ancestors – respect for the tradition In this chapter I want to show that Ben Sira is conscious that he stands in a tradition.

3.1 Observation of the ancestors – God’s wisdom and the ranking in creation (Sir 33:7-19) I maintained above that one can see God’s work in the internal order of the cosmos: this statement is valid for the inanimate world, this applies to human beings. Sira chooses the yearly cycle from the inanimate cosmos as an example of God’s effectiveness. Actually each day is bright because on every day the same sun shines. But each day does not have the same meaning. As one could see in Gen 1:14, the year is structured by the “seasons (holy days)”. The seasons are attributed to God’s will. Therefore Ben Sira ascertains: “By the Lord’s wisdom they were distinguished, and he appointed the different seasons and festivals (evn gnw,sei kuri,ou diecwri,sqhsan kai. hvlloi,wsen kairou.j kai. e`orta,j); some of them he exalted and hallowed, and some of them he made ordinary days” (Sir 33:8-9). Again: the practical knowledge of God and his wisdom caused the differentiation. Also for human beings one may maintain that humans are not to be differentiated as human beings according to their external appearance. “All human beings come from the ground, and humankind was created (rcwn; evkti,sqh) out of the dust. In the fullness of his knowledge (evn plh,qei evpisth,mhj; ahlad htmkjb Mrb) the Lord distinguished them and appointed their different ways” (Sir 33:10.11). Again God helps to find the practical knowledge of the internal structuring. Obviously the same ability of God is meant 16

17

In the book of the Wisdom (Wis 13:5) one will read later: “For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (evk ga.r mege,qouj kai. kallonh/j ktisma,twn avnalo,gwj o` genesiourgo.j auvtw/n qewrei/tai). Particularly it is to be pointed out that it is stressed several times that wisdom was created by God, so that one keeps the central role of creation in view; cf. Sir 1:9; 24:3.8. On this basis one can learn, what wisdom means: Wisdom is seen (a) as created and is at the same time as a pre-created element, (b) as structure of God’s creation and (c) as the ability and the talent of human beings to recognize and check up deep thought and important connections and to make results in practical life.

218

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

in 33:8 and 33:11. The words are: gnw/sij and evpisth,mh. Such examples prove that the alternate use of words with similar meanings may not be overestimated. Ben Sira’s poetic style is shown in the variations used. The alternate use of expressions with a similar meaning is therefore only with restriction a theological differentiation. Knowledge about the order in creation is great, which one sees in its arrangement and ranking, but Ben Sira knows he is not the first who deals with it. He sees himself almost as a descendant of those who had deep insights before him: “Now I was the last to keep vigil; I was like a gleaner following the grape-pickers; by the blessing of the Lord I arrived first, and like a grape-picker I filled my wine press. Consider that I have not laboured for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction (toi/j zhtou/sin paidei,an)” (Sir 33:16-18). He does not want to offer something new, but to offer his acquired knowledge and his acquired education to the people of his time.

3.2 The wisdom of the ancestors (Sir 38:34c.d; 39:1) In 33:16-18 we find a personal confession of Ben Sira; but in the well-known section concerning the scribe – with regard to content similarly – he argues neutrally. “He seeks out the wisdom of all the ancients“ (sofi,an pa,ntwn avrcai,wn evkzhth,sei; Sir 39:1a). If one asks now where the source for this wisdom is to be found, which the scribe wants to investigate, then one discovers the following: Ben Sira emphasizes the contribution of all vocations necessary for a society. If humans want to succeed well in their chosen occupations they are unable to diversify into other areas important for social life: “They do not attain eminence in the public assembly. They do not sit in the judge’s seat, nor do they understand the decisions of the courts; they cannot expound discipline or judgment (paidei,an kai. kri,ma), and they are not found among the rulers. But they maintain the fabric of the world, and their concern is for the exercise of their trade” (Sir 38:33.34ab). Ben Sira compares such work to that of the scribe. He is the actual representative of knowledge necessary for society: “How different the one who devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High (evn no,mw| u`yi,stou)!” (Sir 38:34cd). Syr inserts 38:34c a reference to the respect of God: ahlal Ljdml. Instead of no,moj u`yi,stou Syr says, ayj|d aswmn “law of life”. Two conclusions follow from this: – Ben Sira considers it ideal when a scribe immerses himself in the tradition. There one sees a parallel: As well as God arranged the inanimate and human creation so the tradition of Israel has it’s internal order. – The basis on which a scribe draws his wisdom, is the law of the Most

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 219

High. Here the written revelation is meant, in which we find the guidlines for human behaviour, which is arranged according to the will of God. Whether here we think only about the Pentateuch remains open.

4. Ben Sira and his Bible In this chapter I want to examine how Ben Sira deals with significant elements of his Bible.

4.1 The law of the Most High.18 A new interpretation of the tradition With the statement that the law comes from God (Sir 38:34d), Sira touches a broad stream of protocanonical statements. There are many references for the word connections ~yhila{ / tr;AT (Josh 24:26; Neh 8:8.18; 10:29.30; Ps 37:31; Isa 1:10; Hos 4:6) and hw'hy>-tr;AT (2 Kgs 10:31; 1 Chr 16:40; 22:12; 2 Chr 12:1; 14:3; 31:3-4; 34:14; 35:26; Ezra 7:10; Ps 1:2; 19:8; 119:1; Am 2:4) and once ~h,yhela{ / hw'hy> tr;AT (Neh 9:3). It is however remarkable that none of the references is translated with no,moj (qeou/) u`yi,stou. The word connection qeo,j u[yistoj goes back in the LXX on !Ayl.[, lae. In the protocanonical Old Testament hr'AT is never linked with !Ayl.[, (lae). Ben Sira deviates when using the phrase no,moj (qeou/) u`yi,stou from the usual mode of expression both in the Hebrew and in the Greek Bible. It is obviously a self-coinage, which Sira uses several times: 9:15; 19:17; 23:23; 39:1; 41:8; 42:2; 44:20; 49:4. Unfortunately only a few references, which one reads in Gr no,moj (qeou/) u`yi,stou, are given in the Hebrew version. One can only refer to !wyl[ trwt (Sir 41:8; 42:2; 49:4); cf. also !wyl[ twcm19 (Sir 44:20). The few examples show that one can say that the basic phrase was !wyl[ hrwt.20 The translation in the LXX of the name hwhy with ku,rioj also points to this. This precaution cannot have been obligatory in Palestine such as is the case in later texts, which more or less originate from the same time as Ben Sira. I assume that the use of !wyl[ in place of hwhy was knowingly used by Ben Sira to fulfil a theological intention. Appropriately Kaiser says that Sira 18 19

20

Cf. HAYWARD, El Elyon. The observations above show that within different words of the cognate field the choice of an expression is not decisive. The selection offers a different aspect, not a fundamentally new topic. Consequently: hwcm is in individual cases a stylistic variant to hrwt. Perhaps the reason lies in the fact that one began to avoid the name of God, i.e. hwhy. According to 44:20a hwcm could have been the starting point. That is unusual.

220

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

intends to keep to the fundamental separation between God and the world.21 In this sense !wyl[ / u`yi,stoj points to the siracidic conception of God and is one of the principles in his faith. God is and remains absolutely the most high one. More than in the wisdom and in the creation God goes by means of his (written) hrwt into the valleys of human beings. Humans can keep the hrwt or not. He can even revolt against hrwt. Human being is able “to deal with God” insofar he is present in his law. Inspite of the potential “manoeuverability” by humans, the Deity of God is not affected in any way by human behaviour: the name !wyl[/ u`yi,stoj emphasizes God’s sovereign superiority. To understand the connection to his own tradition we can summarise: Ben Sira deals with the central topic freely. He cannot be understood as a liberal or loose theologian. The reason of the change seems to lie in the intentions found within his chosen terminology. In contrast to the philosophically wide-spread liberalism and relativeness of the importance of the faith Ben Sira places the significance of God into the centre. This God is superior to all human considerations and actions, as the creator is in contrast to his creation; cf. Sir 33:10: “All human beings come from the ground (avpo. evda,fouj), and humankind was created (evkti,sqh) out of the dust (kai. evk gh/j)”, and Sir 18:7: “When human beings have finished (suntele,sh|), they are just beginning (a;rcetai), and when they stopp (pau,shtai), they are still perplexed (avporhqh,setai)”. Because man is limited, he cannot discover the meaning of life by himself.

4.2 The transmission of the hrwt Ben Sira does not tread new ground at all when he writes that hrwt / no,moj are passed on by Moses. 4.2.1 The transmission of hrwt by Moses The criteria are various, as Moses is described as a mediator of the hrwt in the protocanonical Bible. Moses wrote down the hrwt (cf. Deut 31:9), he put it autoritatively like God (cf. Deut 4:44), one can say, that he ordered, instructed her (cf. Num 31:21; Deut 33:4). In the end one can speak of hv,mo tr;AT (Josh 8:31.32; 23:6; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 14:6; 23:25; 2 Chr 23:18; 30:16; Ezra 7:6; Neh 8:1; Dan 9:11.13), because it was brought by Moses (hv,m-o dy:B,. Lev 26:46; 2 Chr 33:8; 2 Chr 34:14; Neh 8:14; 10:30). The transmission by Moses is how-

21

KAISER, Reichtum, 15: “(an) der fundamentalen Trennung zwischen Gott und Welt (ist) unbedingt festzuhalten“.

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 221

ever only possible, because he had a special and uniquely close relationship to God. He is considered as the servant of JHWH (hw'hy>-db,[, hv,m,o Jos 22:5; yDIb[. ; hv,m,o Jos 1:7; 2 Kgs 21:8), as the servant of Elohim (~yhila{ h / -' db,[,, Neh 10:30; Dan 9:11; ) or simply as a man of God (~yhila{ h / -' vyai hv,m,o 2 Chr 30:16; Ezra 3:2). Moses is treated relatively briefly in the praise of the great ancestors (Sir 45:1-5).22 Sira connects some central topics with Moses: God let miracles take place through him, God elected Moses because of his modesty (cf. also above 2.1), God revealed himself to Moses and entrusted the commandments to him. “He allowed him to hear his voice, and led him into the dark cloud, and gave him the commandments (hwcm / evntola,j) face to face, the law of life (~yyx trwt / no,mon zwh/j) and knowledge (hnwbtw/ kai. evpisth,mhj), so that he might teach Jacob the covenant (wyqx / diaqh,khn), and Israel his decrees (wyjpXmw / kri,mata)” (Sir 45:5). The revealing procedure exists in a personal experience and in the fact, that Moses received from God the ~yyx trwt (no,moj zwh/j).23 Now some remarks on the quotation: – in the term hwcm the aspect of obligation to God’s revealed will is contained. Human beings are called to respond to the revelation of God by leading a life pleasing to Him. – God’s revealed will is also called hrwt. Thus God is shown as a teacher24 (cf. hry, to teach). – One specifies more exactly the hrwt now: First it is more closely defined by means of ~yyx. The hrwt obtain the life. One can understand this in two ways: (a) the hrwt is even the source of life, or (b) the hrwt achieves the goal, that whoever keeps hrwt receives life. If the hrwt can be understood as the source of life, then what Deut 30:20 says of JHWH, is attributed to her: “^ym,y" %r,awo > ^yY<x; aWh yKi / really, he is your life, the length of your days”. It is an important theological and soteriological statement! Further hrwt is more clearly defined by hnwbt. In the preface the grandchild praised himself because of that education. It makes Israel an equivalent partner in the choir of the peoples. We have the result – that hrwt is the source for practical and successful life. – hrwt is then also the source for the argumentative reason of life, which orients itself at God. 22 23 24

WITTE, “Mose, sein Andenken sei zum Segen”. Cf. REITERER, Neue Akzente. There are no patterns for these formulations. About the combination of hr"AT, hw"cm . ,i ~yYIx; %r,d,, rs'Wm, tAxk.AT and rs'Wm cf. Prov 6:20.22 (the teaching of the parents). In Prov 13:14 we read, that the ~k'x' tr;AT is a fountain of life ~yYIx; rAqm..

222

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

The syntagm hnwbtw ~yyx trwt realize themselves concretely in the individual commandments, which Moses teaches his people (45:5ef).25 Moses is therefore a teacher of his people used by God, who has to inform them about necessary single rules. These rules lead to knowledge and abundant life. 4.2.2. The transmission of hrwt by Aaron Ben Sira is occupied in more detail with Aaron than with Moses (45:6-22). He describes his clothes, his external appearance and his obligations in the cult, carefully. In the description Ben Sira mentions rather unexpectedly that God lent the authority to Aaron over hrwt: “In his commandments (wytwcm / evn evntolai/j) he gave him authority (whlyXmyw / evxousi,an) and statutes (qwxb / evn diaqh,kaij) and judgments (jpXmw / krima,twn), to teach (dmlyw / dida,xai) Jacob the testimonies (qx / ta. martu,ria), and to enlighten ( - / fwti,sai) Israel with his law (jpXm / evn no,mw|)” (Sir 45:17). He stresses more strongly than in connection with Moses that Aaron and his descendants were equipped with authority, in order to instruct the people about wisdom. We see here that the priests in Ben Sira’s eyes play an important role in the transmission of the divine revelation and take over Moses’ task. It is noticeable that Ben Sira does not use the term hrwt here. I ask whether this fact suggests that in the comprehensive sense only Moses can be named as an intermediary of the divine hrwt. Then do the priests pass on the many differentiated single commandments. 4.2.3 The law which Moses gave us (Sir 24:23) In Sir 24:2326 we read: “All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob (tau/ta pa,nta bi,bloj diaqh,khj qeou/ u`yi,stou no,mon o]n evnetei,lato h`mi/n Mwush/j klhronomi,an sunagwgai/j Iakwb”. Some discuss, whether the tricolon is original in Gr, or whether one must separate bi,bloj

25 26

Cf. REITERER, Neue Akzente 1.1. For the very frequently treated chapter some reference works are to be indicated in alphabetical order: BLENKINSOPP, Wisdom and Law, 130-158; CONTI, Origine divina della Sapienza; GILBERT, L’éloge de la sagesse; GÖTTSBERGER, Die göttliche Weisheit, 18-47; JOLLEY, The Function of Torah, 125-150; LANG, Frau Weisheit, 152-154; MURPHY, Wisdom Literature, 103-106; PIÉ Y NINOT, La palabra de Dios, 147-191; RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen, 111-172; ROGERS, Wisdom and Creation; SANDERS, On Ben Sira 24, 73-78; SCHIMANOWSKI, Weisheit und Messias, 38-61; SCHÜNGEL-STRAUMANN, Die göttliche Weisheit; SEGALLA, La sapienza e la Legge, 38-44; SHEPPARD, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, 19-71; SKEHAN, Structures in Poems on Wisdom; WIED, Der Auferstehungsglaube, 161-168; 309-339.

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 223

diaqh,khj qeou/ u`yi,stou for formal reasons as the later parenthesis.27 There is no time here to discuss the question extensively. My observations show that nowadays we don’t make literarcritical operations with the earlier optimism and we don’t take liberties with the transmitted text.28 The problem of the parenthesis is not crucial for the treatment of the present question about the meaning of hrwt. According to Sir 24:23 it is clear that Moses instructed no,moj. The phraseology contains a frequently expressed thought: the verb evnte,llomai translates almost regularly29 the word hwc. It is completely alike whether JHWH, Moses or another subject – it occurs rarely – gives the instruction (cf. Deut 32:46; 33:4; Josh 1:7; 8:31; 22:5; 2 Kgs 14:6; 17:13.34; 21:8 (twice); 2 Chr 16:40; 25:4; 33:8; Neh 8:1.14; 9:14; Ps 78:5; Mal 3:22; also Jer 32:23). In connection with technical terms of the legal terminology also an ingenious translator, such as the grandchild is, cannot deviate from the fixed mode of expression. The different formulations, with which Moses orders hrwt (hwc; Deut 33:4; Jos 1:7; 8:31; 22:5) or God expresses the obligation (hwc) and nevertheless we read hv,m-o tr;AT or dy:B. hv,mo (2 Kgs 14:6; 2 Chr 25:4; 33:8; Neh 8:1.14; 9:14; Mal 3:22), refer to a very close combination of JHWH and Moses in the context of hrwt. In 2 Kgs 14:6 the internal connection is formulated clearly: hw"hy> hW"c-i rv,a] hv,m-o tr;AT rp,sBe . bWtK', “according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses, where / which the Lord commanded …”. Sira means a written version, which is called hv,m-o tr;AT rp,se (Jos 8:31; 23:6; 2 Kgs 14:6; Neh 8:1; cf. Deut 31:24; 2 Chr 34:14). Due to this observation the singular30 formulation in the Bible, bi,bloj diaqh,khj – if not anyhow original here – is a correct interpretation.31 It is unclear whether no,moj means a special part of the Bible, as occurs in the prologue of Ben Sira. As titles hr"AT can be understood in 2 Chr 2:4: hv,mo rp,sBe . hr"ATB.. bWtK' (“written in the tora, [this is] in the Book of Moses”).

27

28 29 30

31

So ZENNER, Zwei Weisheitslieder, 554; PETERS, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 203; MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung, 59 and 90; RICKENBACHER, Weisheitsperikopen, 124 and 127; MARBÖCK, Gesetz und Weisheit, 8 (= Gottes Weisheit, 59). Cf. REITERER, Gott, 138. For the translation of hwc in Num 19:2; 31:21 the verb sunta,ssw is selected. The uniqueness of formulation calls for caution if one looks for the starting point; it seems, with a bit of difficulty, possible that e.g. an assumption from Bar 3-4 was made, if there is no similar formulation. Correctly Marböck says that the remaining Sirazidic diaqh,kh-references do not mean a written law; cf. MARBÖCK, Die «Geschichte Israels» (= Gottes Weisheit, 103-123).

224

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

4.2.4 Wisdom and law – Gifts for Israel Sir 24:23 begins with tau/ta pa,nta. These words presuppose a preceding context. In Sir 24:1-22 wisdom speaks of itself, about its relationship to God as its creator, of its presence in inanimate objects, about God’s instruction to settle down in Israel: “Then the Creator of all things gave me a command, and my Creator chose the place for my tent. He said, ‘Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance’” (Sir 24:8). The author refers a second time to the relation to Israel and especially to Jerusalem: “Thus in the beloved city he gave me a resting place, and in Jerusalem was my domain. I took root in an honoured people, in the portion of the Lord, his heritage” (Sir 24:11-12). Sirach looks back with the keyword inheritance (Sir 24:8: kataklhronome,w / inheritance; 24:12: klhronomi,a / heritage) into the past and forward into the future: the inheritance was passed on by an ancestor. The inheritance has also a future aspect, since the inheritance comes only then to the goal if it is continued to give again to someone.32 This aspect is important for Ben Sira, since it becomes clear that what happened once with Moses has concrete importance for Ben Sira’s time. With the word inheritance one thinks also of a gift. For the inheritance actually the receiver of the inheritance did nothing, he can deal with it only later, if he got it from the testator. The evenly stated thoughts are summarized by means of tau/ta pa,nta and delivered in the “book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law (no,moj) that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob” (Sir 24:23). This book appears therefore as a model collection of examples planned by God. As a valuable inheritance it is a material, from which one can learn and which one has to retain for future generations. Therefore God’s will (no,moj) passed on by Moses has such importance because it contains the sofi,a / wisdom: “It overflows, like the Pishon, with wisdom, and like the Tigris at the time of the first fruits” (Sir 24:25). I see the comparison with the splendid rivers Pishon33 and Eufrat as a reference to the abundance and the impossibility of such a river drying up. It certainly brings fruits (the time of the first fruits). Sira’s listeners should learn from it, that God offers abundance in theoretical, as well as practical knowledge to those who listen to His word. The water is a reference to the liquid necessary for life. In the same way that water is necessary for life, so too is wisdom found in no,moj (o]n evnetei,lato h`mi/n Mwush/j) necessary. Although one can read in examinations of this passage that an identi32 33

GILBERT, La sapienza si offre. The symbol works, independently of whether someone knows, which river it concerns.

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 225

fication was made here by sofi,a and no,moj,34 I see an important difference. Because of wisdom the law becomes the law of life. With which the next topic is mentioned.

4.3 The law of the life – Perspectives for the future For a long time before Ben Sira connected wisdom and life to a topic these two spheres were combined in a general sense within the book of proverbs.35 4.3.1 The law of life in Sir 17:1136 Besides the already treated reference Sir 45:5 (cf. above 4.2.1.) one reads in Sir 17:11-14 about the law of life: “He bestowed (prosti,qhmi) knowledge (evpisth,mh) upon them, and allotted (klhrodote,w) to them the law of life (no,mon zwh/j). He established with them an eternal covenant, and showed them his judgments (ta. kri,mata). Their eyes saw his glorious majesty, and their ears heard the glory of his voice. And he said to them, ‘Beware of all unrighteousness’. And he gave commandment (evnetei,lato; cf. hwc) to each of them concerning his neighbour”. The mental abilities and the law of life are gifts of God, as the verb klhrodote,w shows. The following keywords summarize the whole procedures. They mean concretely: The “eternal covenant” alludes to the covenant in Gen 17, through which God is bound to his people. God assures descendants. God demands that the people be circumcised as an indication of belonging to God’s community. God gives his people rules (ta. kri,mata). I pointed out already that with trwt concrete rules (ta. kri,mata) for everyday life are given. At this point when one speaks of commandments the question arises of whether the Decalogue is meant here. Rightfully Di Lella says this in his comment.37 The glorious majesty refers to special theophanies, as one sees described in Exod 19:16-19 and 24:16-17. “The glory of the Lord (hw"hy>-dAbK.) settled on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days; and on the seventh day he called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud. Now the appearance of the glory of the

34

35 36 37

Cf. MARBÖCK, Gottes Weisheit, 90; WITTE, Vom Leiden Zur Lehre, 195: “Obwohl in der Identifikation der hm'kx. ' mit der hr'AT gipfelnde Weisheitsschrift des Ben Sira (vgl. 17,11ff; 24,23; 45,5; u.ö) eine den Proverbien vergleichbare optimistische Anthropologie enthält, deren Ethik auf die Erlangung der Gottesfurch ausgerichtet ist, begegnen doch vereinzelt Aussagen, die das Niedrigkeitsmotiv führen und sich auf der Linie von Ps 143,2 mit der Niedrigkeitsredaktion berühren“; KAISER, Covenant and Law, 237. Cf. REITERER, Akzente 3.1.6; 3.2.4 and 3.2.5. Cf. ibid., 1.2.2. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 282.

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

226

Lord (hw"hy> dAbK. haerm> W; ) was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel (laerf' y. I ynEB. ynEy[el). ”. “Moses would speak and God would answer him in thunder (lAqb. WNn<[y] : ~yhila{ h / w' )> ” (Exod 19:19). Di Lella writes that in Sir 17:6 a summary of the two different parts of the Decalogue is made in a way that can be noticed: “‘Beware of all unrighteousness’ is a summary of all the negative commandments, … especially the prohibitions against idolatry, false worship, and work on the sabbat, about which the first part of the Ten Commandments … is concerned. The ‘precepts about [our] neigbours’ (v. 14b) refer to the second part of the Decalogue”.38 The basic rules of life before God and the most important rules among fellow men therefore are no,moj zwh/j. 4.3.2 The fulfilment of the law (Sir 34:8) Ben Sira rejects all kinds of dreams, speculations and other dubious attempts to affect life with manipulations in 34:1-8. I see these words directed against apocalyptic speculations or esoteric doctrines. Through only one sentence Ben Sira disproves temptations of the speculators and dreamers: “Without such deceptions (a;neu yeu,douj) the law (no,moj) will be fulfilled (suntelesqh,setai), and wisdom (sofi,a) is made perfect (telei,wsij) in truthful lips“ (Sir 34:8). Ben Sira strives obviously for truth and honesty. Too easily humans are mislead by deceitful words. With the hint at wisdom and law the author again rejects speculations. He maintains that both law and wisdom are complete. Again Ben Sira’s ideas are contained in the two important keywords: God’s commandments form an objective basis, which one should acknowledge and practice. If one does this, one does not need obscure speculations. Success lies in wisdom. It is the companion planned by God for his people. It is the internal principle of the plan of God and can therefore not fail, but will surely be fulfilled. In practical life law and wisdom prove their worth: “All wisdom (pa/sa sofi,a) is the fear of the Lord (fo,boj kuri,ou), and in all wisdom (evn pa,sh| sofi,a)| there is the fulfilment (poi,hsij) of the law (no,mou)” (Sir 19:20). Whoever is not modest enough to acknowledge God lacks the basis for a correct understanding of wisdom and the law. With these cross connections we arrive again at the beginning point of our investigation. In Sir 34:8 we find the fundamental problem, whether the rather sober and dry model of the wisdom teacher, or the mysteriously seeming and in this way fascinating world interpretation of the apocalyptic enthusiasts give a direction valid for the future? Only the revealing God is able to offer the realistic perspective for the future. He offers the future through wisdom, whose implementation takes place in an outstanding way via the law. 38

Ibid., 282-283.

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 227

5. Conclusion Ben Sira writes his book between 195 and 185 BC.39 He is in the middle of the radical change, which suffers still from the wounds of the many military conflicts between the Ptolemies and Seleucides. The influence of classical religious teachings breaks down. The temptation by the politically powerful (Greek economy, Greek ways of life and Greek philosophy, combined with an arduous promotion of simple religious elements to getting through the own power) and their politics are omnipresent. Here Ben Sira, an imaginative man, looks for a new homeland. For a long time he concerns himself with his own tradition. He recognizes that his own tradition – if one updates it and puts a new slant on it – contains unbelievable treasures and is stronger than all the other messages of salvation together; cf. “hidden wisdom and unseen treasure, of what value is either?” (Sir 20:30; 41:14). Ben Sira contrasts a basic draft of a conception which is based on his faith and worldview to the most central topics of the sense of human existence of his time. Ben Sira concerns himself with the central question about the meaning of faith and revelation for behaviour, everyday life and the meaning of life. He knows the different philosophies and leading trends of his time (Greek philosophy,40 aramaic41 and Egyptian42 wisdom teachings). He takes up elements which he considers positive in a subtle way, but does not follow their whole philosophy. Ben Sira obviously also knows the internal-Jewish apocalyptic conceptions,43 which presuppose a radical new beginning after a cruel turn of an era. In this conception God more or less works alone and humans are witnesses for the world changing spectacle. Ben Sira does not follow this thesis. He knows the “scepticism” within Judaism (Qohelet), he treats many similar topics, but mostly offers different solutions which are settled in the new tradition optimistically. Ben Sira sets against it his model: a deepened view of the activity of God, which is inspired by the internal order of creation with its perfection and beauty. Some theological components play a central role. It does not seem to correspond to the siracidic conception, if one tries to fix individual thoughts in some form of ranking system, except the existence and the action of God: God is superior to everything. Therefore the central elements should

39 40

41 42 43

Cf. KAISER, Reichtum 13. Cf. MARTIN, Judentum und Hellenismus; BERGER, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu; HEGERMANN, Die Vorstellung, 26-47; 67-87; KAISER, Judentum und Hellenismus (= Der Mensch, 135-153); MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung; KIEWELER, Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus; WICKE-REUTER, Göttliche Providenz. WEIGL, „Mein Neffe Achikar” (Tob 1,22). SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom; ID., Ben Sira’s Ethics; ID., On Ben Sira 24. ARGALL, 1 Enoch and Sirach; MARBÖCK, Gottes Weisheit, 91; KAISER, Reichtum, 15.

228

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

be considered equal: Creator and creation, wisdom, fear of God, law, teachings - education, love for God and humans, history of mankind, above all Israel, social behaviour, an arranged society, cult and priesthood, occupation, behaviour within the private sector. Even if I do not wish to evaluate the components, the frequency in which they occur shows that in siracidic argumentation some play a more central role than the others, and some presuppose a functioning of the others: under the condition that the sphere of God and creation is to be separated, it follows: a) From God to humans: Creator and creation, Wisdom as God’s presence and at the same time his instrument for concrete working in His creation. It affects the constitutional structure of the cosmos and human existence in an exemplary way. The law as the gift which enables God’s plan to be realized through human behaviour. b) The central levels of the inanimate creation: the fact of creation of God and his wisdom lead to their synthesis in the meaningful and formcompleted creation. c) On the human factor: Creation of limited humans and wisdom, the course of events, the bestowal of God to humans, particularly the election of Israel, modesty and fear of God. Fundamental correct human behaviour demands the adoption of a loving and reverential attitude towards God (“fear of God”), the human implementation of wisdom, which could be seen in the cosmos and in the human existence, the offer of God in revelation = Law, its arranging role, God’s written revelation, in particular the first books of the Bible and the commandments. There is an internal order: 1. wisdom, 2. creation, 3. law for human beings. I want to sum up the statements about the law: hrwt has theological44 (word of God and word about God) functions, because God reveals himself within it, how He, for example, works within human creation. hrwt has a soteriological function: the law would not have this ability by itself, but because it points in an exemplary way to human examples (history) and in single rules, how as human beings one can align himself to God’s plan. hrwt rules practical life in a formal way; hrwt is the practical rule for everyday life; hrwt is the written document for the instruction of contemporaries; hrwt is the written document for the passing on to future generations.

44

Cf. STUHLMACHER, Das Gesetz.

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 229

Bibliography ARGALL, R. A., 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgement (SBL 8), Atlanta, GA 1995. BERGER, K., Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament. Teil I. Markus und Parallelen (WMANT 40), Neukirchen 1972. BLENKINSOPP, J., Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament. The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism (Oxford Bible Series), New York 1983. CONTI, M., Origine divina della Sapienza e i suoi rapporti col mondo, coll’uomo e col popolo dell’alleanza (Sir 24,3-22), in: BATTAGLIA,V. (ed.), L’uomo e il mondo alla luce di Cristo, Vicenza 1986, 9-42. EGGER-WENZEL, R., Better Faith in God than Fear of God in Ben Sira in Relation to Job. A necessary adjustment in terminology and understanding (CBQ.MS 38), Washington 2004. GILBERT, M., L’éloge de la sagesse (Siracide 24): RTL 5 (1974), 326-348. GILBERT, M., La sapienza si offre come nutrimento (Sir 24,19-22): PSV 7 (1983), 51-60. GÖTTSBERGER, J., Die göttliche Weisheit als Persönlichkeit im Alten Testament (BZfr 9,1/2), Münster 1919. HAYWARD, R. C. T., El Elyon and the Divine Names in Ben Sira, in: EGGER-WENZEL, R. (ed.), Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001 (BZAW 321), Berlin – New York 2002, 180-198. HEGERMANN, H., Die Vorstellung vom Schöpfungsmittler im hellenistischen Judentum und Urchristentum (TU 82), Berlin 1961. JOLLEY, M. A., The Function of Torah in Sirach, Louisville 1993 [Diss.], repr. Ann Arbor, MI 1995. KAISER, O., Covenant and Law in Ben Sira, in: MAYES, A. D. H. – SALTERS, R. B. (eds.), Covenant as Content. FS E.W. Nicholson, Oxford 2003, 235-260. KAISER, O., Judentum und Hellenismus. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem hellenistischen Einfluß auf Kohelet und Jesus Sirach: VuF 27 (1982), 68-86. Repr. in: ID., Der Mensch unter dem Schicksal. Studien zur Geschichte, Theologie und Gegenwartsbedeutung der Weisheit (BZAW 161), Berlin 1985, 135-153. KIEWELER, H.-V., Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Th. Middendorp (BEAT 30), Wien 1992. LANG, B., Frau Weisheit. Deutung einer biblischen Gestalt, Düsseldorf 1975. MARBÖCK, J., Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. Mit Nachwort und Bibliographie zur Neuauflage (BZAW 272), Berlin – New York 1999. MARBÖCK, J., Text und Übersetzung. Horizonte einer Auslegung im Prolog zum griechischen Sirach, in: VONACH, A. – FISCHER, G. (eds.), Horizonte biblischer Texte. FS J.M. Oesch (OBO 196), Fribourg – Göttingen 2003, 99-116. MARBÖCK, Structure and Redaction History of the Book of Ben Sira. Review and Prospects, in: BEENTJES, P. C. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands (BZAW 255), Berlin – New York 1997, 61-79.

230

Friedrich Vincenz Reiterer

MARBÖCK, J., Gesetz und Weisheit. Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes bei Jesus Ben Sira: BZ 20 (1976), 1-21. Repr. in: ID., Gottes Weisheit unter uns. Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach (HBS 6), ed. FISCHER, I., Freiburg – Basel – Wien 1995, 52-72. MARBÖCK, Die «Geschichte Israels» als «Bundesgeschichte» nach dem Sirachbuch, in: ZENGER, E. (ed.), Der neue Bund im Alten. Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (QD 146), Freiburg – Basel – Wien 1993, 177-197. Repr. in: ID., Gottes Weisheit unter uns. Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach, 103-123. MARTIN, H., Judentum und Hellenismus (WUNT 10), Tübingen 19732. MIDDENDORP, TH., Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden 1973. MURPHY, R. E., Wisdom Literature and Psalms. Interpreting Biblical Texts, Nashville 1983. PETERS, N., Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25), Münster 1913. PIÉ Y NINOT, S., La palabra de Dios en los Libros Sapienciales (CStP 17), Barcelona 1972. REITERER, F. V., Die immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira, in: CALDUCHBENAGES, N. – VERMEYLEN, J. (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. FS M. Gilbert (BEThL 143), Leuven 1999, 91-127. REITERER, F. V., Neue Akzente in der Gesetzesvorstellung: ~yyx trwt bei Ben Sira, in: WITTE, M. (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog. FS. O. Kaiser, Berlin – New York 2004, 851-871. REITERER, F. V., Gott, Vater und Herr meines Lebens, Eine poetisch-stilistische Analyse von Sir 22,27-23,6 als Verständnisgrundlage des Gebetes, in: EGGER-WENZEL, R. – CORLEY, J., Prayer from Tobit to Qumran (DCLY 2004), Berlin – New York 2004, 137-170. RICKENBACHER, O., Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO 1), Freiburg – Göttingen 1973. ROGERS, J. F., Wisdom and Creation in Sirach 24: JNWSL 22/2 (1996), 141-156. SANDERS, J. TH., On Ben Sira 24 and Wisdom’s Mother Isis (PWCJS Division A 8), Jerusalem 1982. SANDERS, J. TH., Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom (SBL.MS 28), Chico 1983. SANDERS, J. TH., Ben Sira’s Ethics of Caution: HUCA 50 (1979), 73-106. SCHIMANOWSKI, G., Weisheit und Messias. Die jüdischen Voraussetzungen der urchristlichen Präexistenzchristologie (WUNT 2/17), Tübingen 1985. SCHÜNGEL-STRAUMANN, H., Die göttliche Weisheit in Sprüche 8 und Sirach 24: BiHe 26/103 (1990), 150-153. SEGALLA, G., La sapienza e la Legge (Sir 24,1-23.25-34), in: PRATO, G. L. (ed.), Israele alla ricerca di identità tra il III sec. a.C. e il I sec. d.C. Atti del V convegno di studi veterotestamentari, Bressanone 7-9 settembre 1987 (RStB 1 [1989]), Bologna 1989, 13-65. SHEPPARD, G. T., Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct. A Study of the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (BZAW 151), Berlin – New York 1980. SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation, with Notes, and Introduction (AncB 39), New York 1987. SKEHAN, P. W., Structures in Poems on Wisdom. Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24: CBQ 41 (1979), 365-379. STUHLMACHER, P., Das Gesetz als Thema biblischer Theologie: ZThK 75 (1978), 251-280.

The interpretation of the Wisdom tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira 231 The Holy Bible. New Revised Standard Version, New York – Oxford 1989. WEIGL, M., „Mein Neffe Achikar” (Tob 1,22). Die aramäischen Achikar-Sprüche und das Alte Testament, Wien 1999. WICKE-REUTER, U., Göttliche Providenz und menschliche Verantwortung bei Ben Sira und in der frühen Stoa (BZAW 298), Berlin – New York 2000. WIED, G., Der Auferstehungsglaube des späten Israel in seiner Bedeutung für das Verhältnis von Apokalyptik und Weisheit, Bonn 1967. WITTE, M., Vom Leiden zur Lehre. Der dritte Redegang (Hiob 21-27) und die Redaktionsgeschichte des Hiobbuches (BZAW 230), Berlin – New York 1994. WITTE, M., “Mose, sein Andenken sei zum Segen“ (Sir 45,1). Das Mosebild des Sirachbuches: BN 107/108 (2001), 161-186. ZENNER, J. K., Zwei Weisheitslieder: ZKTh 21 (1897), 551-558.

Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue. An intertextual and synchronic analysis ALEXANDER A. DI LELLA Introduction Without control of the tongue it is impossible, according to Ben Sira, to live a disciplined life. Many sins and faults have their origin in the improper use of the tongue. Though the tongue may sing the praises of the Lord and express the sentiments of the heart in prayer and proclamation, it also can wreak havoc when it utters coarse talk, lies, and calumny, as well as when it calls on the name of the Lord in unnecessary or careless oaths. In the present study I shall examine three of Ben Sira’s principal poems on this subject: 5:9–6:1; 23:7-15; and 28:12-26. In emphasizing the intertextual, synchronic, and other literary features, I hope to show that all three poems approach the discipline of the tongue from related but different perspectives. Unfortunately, only 5:9–6:1 is extant in Hebrew; for the other two compositions we must rely principally on the grandson’s Greek text and the other ancient versions. It is impossible to fully appreciate the teaching of Ben Sira unless we take into account its intertextual connections with the earlier biblical books on which he based much of what he wrote regarding the tongue, lips, and mouth that can be the instruments of life or death, of good or evil, of wisdom or folly. “Lying lips conceal hatred, / and the one who utters slander is a fool” (Prov 10:18, my translation). “A mild answer calms wrath, / but a harsh word stirs up anger. / The tongue of the wise pours out knowledge, / but the mouth of fools spurts forth folly” (Prov 15:1-2). “Death and life are in the power of the tongue; / those who make it a friend shall eat its fruit” (Prov 18:21). “He who guards his mouth and his tongue / keeps himself from trouble” (Prov 21:23). The pious Israelite accordingly said this prayer, “Set a guard, Lord, before my mouth, / a gatekeeper at my lips” (Ps 141:3).1 Accordingly, the psalmist prays, “I will watch my ways, / lest I sin

1

Translation of Psalm texts are taken from The Revised Psalms of the New American Bible. Translation of texts other than Sirach are taken, except where noted otherwise, from The New American Bible. All translations of Ben Sira and of the LXX are my own. Throughout this article I cite the chapter- and verse-numbers in Ben Sira as given in their proper order in the NRSV and in the revised forthcoming edition of the NAB as well as in ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, the edition I used for Gr I and Gr II. For the Hebrew text I used the edition of SMEND, Die Weisheit, the best edition of the geniza Mss available at that time; for an evaluation of the older editions of Ben Sira, see DI LELLA, The Hebrew Text

234

Alexander A. Di Lella

with my tongue; / I will set a curb on my mouth” (Ps 39:2). The prophetic literature also deplores sins of the tongue: “… It is your crimes / that separate you from your God, / It is your sins that make him hide his face / so that he will not hear you. / For your hands are stained with blood, / your fingers with guilt; / Your lips speak falsehood, / and your tongue utters deceit” (Isa 59:2-3). The righteous, who keep watch over their tongue, lips, and mouth, make their own the words of the psalm, “May my lips pour forth your praise, / because you teach me your laws. / May my tongue sing of your promise, / for all your commands are just” (Ps 119:171-172). But, as Ben Sira notes, “Unseemly is praise on a sinner’s lips, / for it is not accorded to him by God” (15:9). Lips, mouth, and tongue can bring forth wisdom or folly. In the perspective of Israel’s wisdom writers, only the righteous are capable of speaking words of wisdom. Fools lack not only good sense but also moral integrity for which they must bear the consequences. “The mouth of the just yields wisdom, / but the perverse tongue will be cut off” (Prov 10:31). “A fool’s chatter is like a load on a journey, / but there is charm to be found upon the lips of the wise” (Sir 21:16). “The fool’s mouth is his ruin; / his lips are a snare to his life” (Prov 18:7). Since fools are enemies of the righteous, the psalmist beseeches the Lord (Ps 5:9-10): “Guide me in your justice because of my foes;/ make straight your way before me. / For there is no sincerity in their mouths;/ their hearts are corrupt. / Their throats are open graves;/ on their tongues are subtle lies”. Liars are to be avoided. “Lord, deliver me from lying lips, / from treacherous tongues” (Ps 120:2). “Those who tell lies to one another / speak with deceiving lips and a double heart. / May the Lord cut off all deceiving lips, / and every boastful tongue, / those who say, ‘By our tongues we prevail; / when our lips speak, who can lord it over us?’”(Ps 12:3-5). The phrase “double heart” (blw bl) finds its echo in Ben Sira who chastises those who tread “the double path”, du,o tri,bouj (2:12), as well as the one he calls “the Master of Two-tongues (~ytv l[b)” in 5:14a.d; 6:1c.

of Sirach, 18. For the Syriac [= Syr], I consulted the facsimile of CERIANI, Translatio Syra Pescitto, as well as DE LAGARDE, Libri Veteris Testamenti apocryphi Syriace; and for the Latin [= Lat], I employed Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam vulgatam versionem. For the concordance work of the MT, LXX, and Vulgate, I used the elegant and powerful Macintosh computer program called Scholar’s Collection-3 CD-ROM with Accordance 5.3; also available from The GRAMCORD Institute. For the concordance of the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, I used BARTHÉLEMY – RICKENBACHER (eds.), Konkordanz.

Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue

235

1. Ben Sira 5:9–6:1 In an earlier study, I have given the text-critical analysis, translation, strophic structure, and intertextual exegesis of 5,9–6,1, a discrete poem in which Ben Sira gives advice about the proper use of the tongue as well as exhortations condemning duplicity in speech.2 I shall summarize the key points I have made there. The full poem is extant in Cairo geniza Ms A; Cairo Ms C has only 5:9-13. The text below on which I base my translation essentially is from Ms A except for 5:9 which is from Ms C that gives a better reading (cf. Addenda, notes 36-42). I

lybX lkl $lt law $rbd yhy dxaw ~gtp bXh xwr $rab $yp l[ $dy ~yX !ya ~aw

xwr lkl hrwz yht la 9 $t[d l[ $wms hyh 10 !yzahl rhmm hyh 11 $[r hn[ $ta Xy ~a 12 ***

ajwb dyb !wlqw dwbk 13

wtlpm ~da !wXlw

*** II

[r lgrt la $nwXlbw ~ytX l[b arqt la 14 ~ytX l[b l[ h[r hprxw tvb harbn bng l[ yk anwX yht la bhwa txtw 6:1 txXt la hbrhw j[m 15 ~ytX l[b [r vya !k Xyrwt !wlqw hprx [r ~X I Do not winnow in every wind, and do not walk in every path. 10 Be steadfast regarding your knowledge, and let your speech be consistent. 11 Be swift to hear, but slow to give answer. 12 If you are able, answer your neighbor; but if not, place your hand over your mouth! 9

13

*** Honor and dishonor through speaking! And a person’s tongue is his downfall. ***

2

DI LELLA, Use and Abuse. While my article was in press, there appeared the study by OKOYE, Speech in Ben Sira, “a revised version of the thesis submitted… at the Pontificia Studiorum Universitas, A S. Thoma Aquinas in Rome” (p. viii). Curiously, even though 5,9–6,1 is extant in the original Hebrew on which I based my study, Okoye did his research on Gr I as his “basic text which, in spite of its corruption, portrays approximately the original work of Ben Sira” (p. 10). The operative word in that sentence is the adverb “approximately”.

236

Alexander A. Di Lella II Do not be called “the Master of Two-tongues”, and with your tongue do not slander a neighbor. Because for the thief shame was created; and sore disgrace, for “the Master of Two-tongues”. 15 In little or in much, do not act corruptly; 6:1 and instead of a friend, do not become an enemy. A bad name, disgrace, and dishonor you will inherit. Thus is the wicked person, “the Master of Two-tongues”. 14

2. Commentary with intertextual analysis First Strophe (5:9-12). The basic theme of this poem is articulated not at the beginning, as one would expect, but rather exactly in the seven words of the middle bicolon (5:13) of the nine bicola in the seventy-eight-word Hebrew composition. This bicolon, which summarizes Ben Sira’s thoughts in the first strophe, divides the poem into two almost equal halves, with 34 words in the first half (5:9-12), which urges the proper use of speech that brings a person honor, dwbk, and 37 words in the second half (5:14–6:1), which warns against abuses of the tongue that bring a person disgrace or dishonor, !wlq. Indeed, as Ben Sira observes so astutely (5:13a): “Honor and dishonor through speaking”! The choice of the vocabulary dwbk and !wlq Ben Sira derived from such texts as Isa 22:18; Hos 4:7; Hab 2:16; and Prov 3:35, the only passages in the MT that contain this formulaic word pair. These three prophetic texts deal with abuses by men in authority: in Isaiah, Shebna, the self-seeking master of the palace; in Hosea, the priests guilty of dereliction of duty; and in Habakkuk, those who degraded the oppressed. Ben Sira’s most likely immediate source, however, was Prov 3:35: “The wise will inherit honor (dwbk), / but stubborn fools (inherit) dishonor (!wlq)” (my translation). LXX Prov 3:35 employs the words do/xa and avtimi/a, respectively, for the Hebrew word pair. The grandson translates this noun pair in 5:13a by the same Greek nouns. This Greek pair recurs in 29:6 (a text not extant in Hebrew), in which Ben Sira warns against making loans without proper caution: “If [the borrower] can pay, his lender will recover barely half, / will consider that a windfall. / If he cannot pay, the lender is cheated of his money/ and acquires an enemy at no extra charge;/ With curses and insults the borrower will pay him back,/ and instead of glory [do,xa] will repay him with dishonor [avtimi,a]”. This passage reminds the student once again that dishonor can come through speaking. Ben Sira’s advice in 5:12 is sound in every age and time: “If you are able, answer your neighbor; / but if not, place your hand over your mouth”! In

Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue

237

such a case, “Silence is golden”, as the old proverb says.3 The theme (5:13) of this poem and of the first strophe probably comes from Prov 18,21: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue;/ and those who love it shall eat its fruit” (my translation). Jesus expresses a similar idea in Mt 12:37: “By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned”. On the uses and abuses of the tongue the Letter of James also has a long section in 3:2-10, which clearly harks back to Sir 5:9–6:1. Second Strophe (5:14–6:1). Here Ben Sira deplores the evils of ~yxX l[b, “the Master of two tongues”, literally, “Master of two (tongues understood)”. This expression recurs in the opening colon (5:14a) and closing colon (6:1c), thus forming a forceful rhetorical inclusio, and a third time in 5:14d. Ben Sira must have coined this phrase, for it never occurs in the MT. The grandson, curiously, translates the first of the three occurrences with the noun yi,quroj, “the whisperer, slanderer, the gossip”, a noun that appears only one other time in the canonical LXX, in Sir 28:13, a verse in which the word di,glwssoj, “the double-tongued”, also recurs: “Cursed be the gossip and the double-tongued, / for they destroy many who were at peace”; this text we shall examine below in the poem in 28:12-26. In the other two instances of ~ytX l[b (5:14d and 6:1c) the grandson employs di,glwssoj, a word that is found outside of the grandson’s Greek only in LXX Prov 11:13a: avnh.r di,glwssoj avpokalu,ptei boula,j, “The double-tongued man reveals plans (or secrets)”. Ben Sira may have coined the phrase ~ytX l[b on the basis of the word di,glwssoj in the LXX of this Proverbs text. The grandson’s use of yi,quroj instead of di,glwssoj in 5:14a may have been deliberate, for the rest of the second strophe deals with slander and its evil effects about which Ben Sira has much to say in 28:12-26. Indeed, the slanderer is a thief for whom “shame was created” (5:14c). The reason is that the slanderer robs others of their reputation–a heinous crime, for reputation or good name is one’s most cherished possession. Prov 22:1 states this idea succinctly: “A good name is more desirable than great riches, / and high esteem, than gold and silver”. Ben Sira rephrases the same truth in 41:12-13: “Have respect for your name, for it will stand by you / more than thousands of precious treasures. / The good things of life last a number of days, / but a good name, for days without number”. But instead of a good name, “the wicked person, the Master of Two Tongues” inherits “a bad name, disgrace, and dishonor” (6:1bc).4 Ben Sira will have more to say about the evils of the slanderer in 28:13-16, discussed below. 3 4

OKOYE, Speech in Ben Sira, 151-163, discusses 20:1-8 on silence and its relationship to 5:12b. Ibid., 81-88, shows the connection between kardi,a and glw/ssa in Ben Sira and the rest of the OT. But it should be noted that Okoye’s analysis is, as I mentioned above, based primarily on the grandson’s Greek even when the Hebrew text is extant.

Alexander A. Di Lella

238

3. Ben Sira 23:7-15 The discrete poem in 23:7-15 forms part of a longer unit on the need for selfcontrol from destructive sins, 22:27–23:27 the first strophe of which (22:2723:1a.c) provides the theme and summary of the poem in 23:7-15: 22:27 ti,j

dw,sei evpi. sto,ma mou fulakh.n kai. evpi. tw/n ceile,wn mou sfragi/da panou/rgon i[na mh. pe,sw avpV auvtw/n5 kai. hv glw/ssa, mou avpole,sh| me 23:1a ku,rie pa,ter kai. de,spota zwh/j mou6, 1c mh. avfh/j| me pesei/n evn auvtoi/j 22:27 Who

will set a guard over my mouth, and an effective seal upon my lips, That I may not fall through them, and my tongue may not destroy me? 23:1a Lord, Father and Master of my life, 1c do not let me fall because of them!

By way of an exegetically significant inclusio, the first word in 23:7-15 is the noun paidei,an (23:7a), and the last word, is the verb paideuqh/| (23:15b); these words clearly indicate the limits of our poem. The poem seems to divide into two discrete strophes. In the first strophe (23:7-11) Ben Sira warns against some of the serious sins of the mouth, especially swearing and calling on the Lord’s name without good reason. The second strophe (23:12-15) deals with two major problems: the crime of blasphemy, which is speech that is punishable by death (23:12); and coarse and abusive language (23:13-15). I 7

9

5 6 7

8 9

paidei,an sto/matoj7 avkou,sate° te,kna° kai. o` fula,sswn ouv mh. a`lw/| evn toi/j cei,lesin auvtou/ (8) katalhfqh,setai a`martwlo,j° kai. loi,doroj kai. u`perh,fanoj skandalisqh,sontai evn auvtoi/jÅ8 o[rkw| mh. evqi,sh|j to. sto,ma sou evpi. matai,w9|

So Gr Mss V 46 as well as Lat and Syr. The remaining Gr Mss have the singular. Gr adds here, mh. evgkatali,ph|j me evn boulh/| auvtw/n, a colon that should be located in 4a, where it appears in Syr and Lat. Hence, I omit kai, in 23:1c: so B-S* O-V 46 679. Gr Ms 705 and some versions dependent on Gr add mou, also found in Syr; this reading means “the instruction of my mouth”, which seems to make little sense in the context. MSS 248-l-157 add alhqinou, “(concerning) the true mouth”. For this colon Syr reads, “and the fool stumbles by his mouth”. 248 These two words come from MSS L´- and is probably original, for it is a clear reference to Exod 20:7 and Deut 5:11.

Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue

239

kai. ovnomasi,a| tou/ a`gi,ou mh. suneqisqh/j| ·10 w[sper ga.r oivke,thj evxetazo,menoj evndelecw/j avpo. mw,lwpoj ouvk evlattwqh,seta° ou[twj kai. o` ovmnu,wn kai. ovnoma,zwn to. o;noma kuri,ou11 dia. panto.j avpo. a`marti,aj ouv mh. kaqarisqh/Å| 11 avnh.r polu,orkoj plhsqh,setai avnomi,aj° kai. ouvk avposth,setai a,po. tou/ oi;kou auvtou/ ma,stix· evan. plhmmelh,sh|° avmarti,a auvtou/ evp av uvtw/°| ka'n u`peri,dh|° h[marten dissw/j· kai. eiv dia. kenh/j w;mosen° ouv dikaiwqh,setai° plhsqh,setai ga.r evpagwgw/n o` oi=koj auvtou/Å

10

II 12

e;stin le,xij avntiparabeblhme,nh qana,tw|° mh. eu`reqh,tw evn klhronomi,a| Iakwb· avpo. ga.r euvsebw/n tau/ta pa,nta avposth,setai° kai. evn avmarti,aij ouvk evgkulisqh,sontaiÅ 13 avpaideusi,an avsurh/ mh. suneqi,sh|j to. sto,ma sou· e;stin ga.r evn auvth/| lo,goj a`marti,ajÅ 14 mnh,sqhti patro.j kai. mhtro,j sou° avna. me,son ga.r megista,nwn sunedreu,eij° me,pote evpila,qh| evnw,pion auvtw/n kai. tw/| evqismw/| sou mwranqh/j| kai. qelh,seij eiv mh. evgennh,qhj kai. th.n h`me,ran tou/ toketou/ sou katara,sh|Å 15 a;nqrwpoj suneqizo,menoj lo,goij ovneidismou/ evn pa,saij tai/j h`me,raij auvtou/ ouv mh. paideuqh/Å| 12 I Listen, O children, to instruction concerning the mouth, for whoever keeps it will not be ensnared. Through his lips (8)the sinner is caught; by them the reviler and the arrogant are tripped up. 9 Do not accustom your mouth to oaths in vain, or make a habit of naming the Holy One. 10 For just as a servant that is constantly being questioned will not be without bruises, So one who swears and names the name of the Lord continually will never be purged from sin. 11 A man of many oaths will be filled with iniquity, and the scourge will not depart from his house. If he swears in error, his sin remains on him; and if he disregards it, he sins doubly. 7

10 11 12

For this colon Syr reads, “and you will not be seated among the judges”– a reference to a court of law for one who swears falsely; see Lev 5:22-23. c These 3 words are in Mss A S b and some other witnesses – a clear allusion to Lev 24:16: ovnoma,zwn de. to. o;noma kuri,ou. For this verse Syr reads: “For the man who learns idle words / will not learn wisdom all the days of his life; / nor does the man receive instruction / who acts impurely in the shame of his flesh”.

240

Alexander A. Di Lella If he swears without reason, he cannot be justified, for his house will be filled with calamities. II There is a manner of speech that is comparable to death; may it never be found in the heritage of Jacob. For all such things will be far from the godly, And they do not wallow in sins. 13 Do not accustom your mouth to coarse stupidity, for in it there is sinful speech. 14 Remember your father and mother when13 you sit among the mighty, Lest you forget yourself in their presence and act foolishly through your bad habits. You will then wish you had never been born and will curse the day of your birth. 15 The person who is accustomed to using abusive language will never become disciplined all his days. 12

4. Commentary with intertextual analysis First Strophe (23:7-11). In the opening verse of the first strophe (23:7) Ben Sira articulates his thesis: one who keeps watch over his mouth “will not be ensnared” whereas “the sinner is caught” and “the reviler and the arrogant are tripped up” by their lips. The first phrase paidei,an sto,matoj of the poem (23:7a) recurs nowhere else in the LXX. The noun paidei,a, “instruction, discipline, training”, recurs a total of 31 times in the grandson’s Greek, starting in 1:27a and concluding in the last chapter, 51:28a.14 This noun usually translates rswm, a noun that recurs often in other biblical books as well (e.g., twice in the Psalms, 4 times in Isaiah; 8 times in Jeremiah, and 30 times in Proverbs). I understand the word sto,matoj as an objective genitive; hence, the translation, “instruction concerning the mouth”. The vocative plural te,kna in Ben Sira recurs only two other times (3:1a and 41:14a); the reason for the plural is not clear.15 Ben Sira insists repeatedly that “instruction, or discipline”, in general, is essential if one wishes to acquire wisdom. Near the beginning of his book

13 14 15

The Greek conjunction ga,r, “for, because”, is probably a mistranslation of the original particle yk, here best translated as “when”; so OESTERLEY, The Wisdom, 154. In LXX Proverbs, Ben Sira’s favorite sourcebook, the noun recurs 26 times. In the rest of the LXX, this vocative plural occurs 7 other times (Tob 10:11 [only in Gr I]; 1 Macc 2:50.64; Bar 4:19.21.25.27) – evidence that suggests it may be a late biblical usage. The usual form in Ben Sira (17 times) is the vocative singular, te,knon (starting with 2:1a and ending at 40:28a).

Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue

241

he states emphatically, “For fear of the Lord is wisdom and discipline” (1:27a). He also states, “Son, from your youth choose discipline, / and with gray hair you will still find wisdom” (6:18). This text is a clear allusion to Lam 3:27, “It is good for a man to bear / the yoke from his youth”; and to Job 12:11-12, “Does not the ear judge words / as the mouth tastes food? / So with old age is wisdom / and with length of days understanding”. Ben Sira develops this idea more fully later in his book, in 25:3-6: “What you have not gathered in your youth, / how will you find in your old age? / How attractive is sound judgment in the gray-haired, / and for the elderly to possess good counsel. / How attractive is wisdom in the aged, / and understanding and counsel in the venerable”! The meaning of 23:7b is that the person who accepts “instruction concerning the mouth” “will not be ensnared” by inappropriate or sinful words that can come out of his mouth–the theme of the first strophe, which then provides instances of such misuse of the tongue (see also Jas 3:5-10). The lips cause many a sinner to be caught, and “by them the reviler and the arrogant are tripped up” or stumble (23:8), an idea Ben Sira derived from Prov 6:2: “You have been snared by the utterance of your lips, / caught by the words of your mouth”. Ben Sira expresses this thought in a different way in 20:18: “A slip on the floor is better than a slip of the tongue; / in like manner the downfall of the wicked will come quickly”. The saying in 20:18a may have its origin in the proverb attributed to Zeno of Citium, the Stoic (335-263 BC): “Better to slip with the foot than with the tongue”.16 In 23:9a, Ben Sira warns against the habit of swearing “in vain”, evpi. matai,w,| a clear allusion, as mentioned in the textual note above, to LXX Exod 20:7 and Deut 5:11, part of the Decalogue. One should not get into “a habit of naming the Holy One” (23:9b). The “Holy One” is one of God’s titles Ben Sira employs also in 4:14; 43:10; and 48:20. This title is often found elsewhere in the OT, with most occurrences in Isaiah,17 but also in other prophets,18 as well as in Bar 4:22.27; Job 6:10; Prov 9:10; 30:3; Pss 22:4; 71:22; 78:41; 89:19; 106:15; and 2 Macc 14:36. The title, however, recurs rarely in the earlier biblical books; in fact, only in 1 Sam 2:2 and 2 Kgs 19:22. The expression in 23:10a, “the (household) servant [or slave] that is constantly being questioned” may have unpleasant, even harsh overtones, for the verb evxeta,zw means “to examine well or closely; scrutinize”, but also “to question, examine by torture”, which is perhaps the sense implied here because of the phrase, “[he] will not be without bruises” (23:10b). See LXX 16 17 18

Quoted by DIOGENES LAËRTIUS, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, vii 26 (third century of our era). Isa 1:4; 5:19.24; 10:17.20; 12:6; 17:7; 29:19.23; 30:11-12.15; 31:1; 37:23; 40:25; 41:14.16.20; 43:3.14-15; 45:11; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 54:5; 55:5; 57:15; 60:9.14. Jer 50:29; 51:5; Ezek 39:7; Hos 11:9; 12:1; Hab 3:3.

242

Alexander A. Di Lella

Deut 19:18 and LXX Esth 12:3.19 In like manner, the one in the habit of swearing “and names the name of the Lord”, kai. ovnoma,zwn to. o;noma kuri,ou, clearly alludes (see textual note) to LXX Lev 24:16, which gives a severe sentence to the perpetrator: ovnoma,zwn de. to. o;noma kuri,ou qana,tw| qanatou,sqw, “Let the one who names the name of the Lord die the death”. Ben Sira rephrases the punishment: “[he] will never be purged from sin”, avpo. a`marti,aj ouv mh. kaqarisqh/| (23:10d), a text that clearly derives from the LXX of Exod 20:7 and Deut 5:11: ouv ga.r mh. kaqari,sh| ku,rioj to.n lamba,nonta to. o;noma auvtou/ evpi. matai,w,| “For the Lord shall never purge the one who takes his name in vain” (see Sir 23:9a above). The adjective poluo,rkoj, “of many oaths” (23:11a), recurs only one other time in the entire LXX, in Sir 27:14: lalia. poluo,rkou avnorqw,sei tri,caj / kai. hv ma,ch auvtw/n evmfragmo.j wvti,wn, “Their oath-filled talk makes the hair stand on end,/ and their fights make one stop one’s ears”. The context of this passage makes it clear that Ben Sira again deplores the misuse of speech, for in 27:13a he writes: dih,ghsij mwrw/n proso,cqisma, “the conversation of fools is offensive”. The rare expression plhsqh,setai avnomi,aj, “will be filled with iniquity”, apparently refers back to LXX Lev 19:29: hv gh/ plhsqh,setai avnomi,aj, “the land will be filled with iniquity”; as well as to LXX Ezek 8:17: dio,ti e;plhsan th.n gh/n avnomi,aj, “for they filled the land with iniquity”; and Ezek 28:16: avpo. plh,qouj th/j evmpori,aj sou e;plhsaj ta. tami,eia, sou avnomi,aj, “from the vastness of your trade you have filled your storehouses with iniquity”. In the LXX no other occurrences of the verb pi/mplhmi in conjunction with the singular noun avnomi,a recur. The expression ouvk avposth,setai avpo. tou/ oi;kou auvtou/ ma,stix, “the scourge [that is, of divine chastisement] will not depart from their house” (23:11b) seems to address the complaint found in LXX Job 21:9, which describes the homes of the wicked who seem to prosper: oiv oi=koi auvtw/n euvqhnou/sinà fo,boj de. ouvdamou/à / ma,stix de. para. kuri,ou ouvk e;stin evpV auvtoi/j, “their houses are prosperous, but fear is nowhere, / and the scourge from the Lord is not on them”. Nowhere else in the LXX do the nouns ma,stix and oi;koj recur in the same sentence. The thought of 23:11b probably harks back also to LXX 2 Sam 12:10, giving the words that the prophet Nathan addressed to David after his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband Uriah: nuvn ouvk avposth,setai r`omfai,a evk tou/ oi;kou sou, “Now the sword will not depart from your house”. In 23:11c, the verb plhmmele,w properly means “to make a false note in music”, but is used chiefly in its metaphorical sense, “to offend, to err, to commit sin, to trespass”.20 Syr renders the thought accurately with a verb and noun phrase: “if he swears in error”, 19 20

However, in Sir 11:7; 13:11; and 18:20, the verb simply means “to question, examine”. LIDDELL – SCOTT – JONES – MCKENZIE, AGreek-English Lexicon; and LUST – EYNIKEL – HAUSPIE (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint.

Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue

243

the meaning I employ in my translation. Ben Sira warns that even if one swears by mistake, presumably without adequate cause, he nevertheless is guilty of sin (23:11c), an admonition made more explicit in 23:11e: “If he swears without reason (dia. kenh/j, literally, in vain], he cannot be justified” (see Lev 5:4). Then if a person disregards his oath, he commits sin “doubly” (23:11d): the first sin is his swearing without reason; the second sin is the failure to fulfill his rash oath. Such irresponsible swearing will result in that person’s house being “filled with calamities” (23:11f). But the one who honors his oath is among those who may abide in the Lord’s “tent” and dwell on his “holy hill” (Ps 15:1); the reason is that “what he has sworn he does not change, even to his hurt” (Ps 15:4, my translation). Second Strophe (23:12-15). Ben Sira begins this strophe by deploring the most heinous sin that the tongue could possibly utter: blasphemy, a crime that was punishable by death (Lev 24:11-16; 1 Kgs 21:10.13; Mt 26:65-66; Jn 10:33). Ben Sira viewed blasphemy with such total horror that he does not even mention the word but rather employs indirect language to describe it: “a manner of speech comparable to death” (23:12a). He prays that blasphemy may “never be found in the heritage [klhronomi,a]| of Jacob” (23:12b). Normally, “the heritage of Jacob” refers to the Promised Land, as in Isa 58:13-14 where the faithful who observe the Sabbath meticulously will be fed “with the heritage of Jacob, your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken”. But here the reference is certainly to the people; in fact, the wording of 23:12b seems to depend on LXX Deut 32:9: kai. evgenh,qh meri.j kuri,ou lao.j auvtou/ Iakwbà scoi,nisma klhronomi,aj auvtou/ Israhl, “and the Lord’s portion is his people Jacob, the allotment of his heritage is Israel”. Blasphemous words will never be found on the lips of the “godly”, euvsebw/n, a term that refers to those who fear the Lord and who “do not wallow in sins” (23:12cd), in sharp contrast to those who speak words of blasphemy (23:12a). The rare verb evgkulisqh,sontai, future passive 3rd masculine plural of evgkuli,w, “to wallow” (23:12d), recurs only two other times in the LXX: Prov 7:18 and Sir 37:3. The even rarer noun from the root of this verb, kulismo,j, a hapax in the NT with no occurrences in the LXX, occurs in 2 Pt 2:22: u-j lousame,nh eivj kulismo.n borbo,rou, “A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire”. In 11:17 Ben Sira describes the destiny and life of the godly: do,sij kuri,ou parame,nei euvsebe,sinà kai. hv euvdoki,a auvtou/ eivj to.n aivwn/ a euvodwqh,setai, “The gift of the Lord remains with the godly;/ and his favor brings success forever”. The word euvsebh,j recurs a total of 13 other times in the grandson’s Greek (11:7.22; 12:2.4; 13:17; 16:13; 27:11.29; 28:22; 33:14; 37:12; 39:27; 43:33). Ben Sira states in 11:22a: euvlogi,a kuri,ou evn misqw/| euvsebou/j, “The blessing of the Lord is the reward of the godly”. In 11:17 and 11:22, the grandson’s use of euvsebh,j renders the original qydc, the term that applies to the faithful person in the OT. Ben Sira explains later why the godly would never

244

Alexander A. Di Lella

be guilty of any blasphemy: dih,ghsij euvsebou/j dia. panto.j sofi,aà ov de. a;frwn w`j selh,nh avlloiou/tai, “The conversation of the godly is always wisdom,/ but the fool changes like the moon” (27:11). And in 43:33, he connects “the godly” with “wisdom” once again: pa,nta ga.r evpoi,hsen ov ku,rioj / kai. toi/j euvsebe,sin e;dwken sofi,an, “For the Lord has made all things, / and to the godly he has given wisdom”. Now Ben Sira mentions another abuse of the tongue that one must avoid at all costs. He urges his students not to accustom their mouths to “course (or gross, foul) stupidity”, avpaideusi,an avsurh/ (23:13a), a caustic phrase that recurs nowhere else in the LXX, the adjective avsurh/j being a hapax in the LXX and the noun avpaideusi,a recurring only in the grandson’s Greek (4:25 and 23:13). The reason why such stupidity, which refers not to abusive language per se but rather implies foul and impure talk,21 must be avoided is that it is “sinful speech” (23:13b), which the wise should turn away from. For as Ben Sira explains elsewhere (20:13): ov sofo.j evn lo,goij (the reading of most Mss) e`auto.n prosfilh/ poih,seià / ca,ritej de. mwrw/n evkcuqh,sontai, “The wise person makes himself beloved by his words,/ but the courtesies of fools are wasted”. Ben Sira provides motivation why the student should avoid all forms of foul language: mnh,sqhti patro.j kai. mhtro,j sou, “Remember your father and your mother” (23:14a), an aphorism that Ben Sira himself apparently coined, for it is found nowhere else in the OT (or even in the NT).22 The point made here is that when a person is seated “among the mighty”, megista,nwn (23:14b), he may inadvertently slip into vile language, forgetting that he is in the presence of important people (23:14c) and has acted foolishly “through [his] bad habits” (23:14d). The grandson’s use of the rare verb mwrai,nw, “to act foolishly” (only four other occurrences in the LXX), calls to mind LXX 2 Sam 24:10 where David repents of his sin in numbering the people and begs the Lord to forgive him: o[ti evmwra,nqhn sfo,dra, “for I have acted very foolishly”. Earlier in his book Ben Sira writes about the deference the wise must show before those in authority (4:7): prosfilh, sunagwgh/| seauto.n poi,ei / kai. megista/ni tapei,nou th.n kefalh,n sou, “Make yourself beloved to the assembly; / and to the mighty bow your head”. But if a person forgets himself and uses vile language, he will wish he had never been born and he will even curse the day of his birth (23:14ef). This bicolon contains clear allusions to Job 3:3: avpo,loito hv hvme,ra evn h-| evgennh,qhn, “May the day perish on which I was born”; and more 21 22

So OESTERLEY, The Wisdom, 153-154. However, in a negative statement the expression occurs in the apocryphal 1 Ezra 4:21:

kai. meta. th/j gunaiko.j avfi,hsi th.n yuch.n kai. ou;te to.n pate,ra me,mnhtai ou;te th.n mhte,ra ou;te th.n cw,ran, “With his wife he ends his life, and he does not remember his father or his mother or his country”.

Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue

245

especially to Jer 20:14: evpikata,ratoj hv hvme,ra evn h-| evte,cqhn, “Cursed be the day on which I was born”. In the final bicolon of this poem Ben Sira summarizes his teaching on the evils of improper language. In 23:15a, he employs the verb suneqi,zw, “to accustom”, for the third time in this brief composition (23:9a.13a); in all cases this verb is followed by a form of speech that must be avoided: oaths in v. 9a; coarse stupidity in v. 13a; and here in v. 15a, lo,goij ovneidismou/, “abusive language”, in general (literally, “words of reproach”). This verb appears in only these three places, and nowhere else in the LXX. The threefold repetition of the verb serves as a superlative to emphasize why one should never acquire the habit of such talk. The explanation Ben Sira gives is that a person with this habit “will never become disciplined”, ouv mh. paideuqh/.| This verb, which recurs a total of 14 times in the grandson’s Greek, is the last word of the poem, and it forms an inclusio, as I noted above, with the very first word, paidei,an (23:7a), “instruction, discipline, training”, a key word in the book.

5. Ben Sira 28:12-26 In studying this rather long poem, I shall emphasize only the intertextual and synchronic relationships to the earlier biblical books and to Ben Sira’s other sayings about the discipline of the tongue.23 The poem divides naturally into two strophes: vv. 12-16 and 17-26. The first strophe deals with “the gossip (literally, the whisperer)”, yi,quroj, and “the double tongued”, di,glwssoj, as well as with the worst of this group “the third tongue”, glw/ssa tri,th. The second strophe warns against various evils of the tongue and urges precautions that the wise should take. I 12

evan. fush,sh|j eivj spinqh/ra° evkkah,setai° kai. evan. ptu,sh|j evpV auvto,n° sbesqh,setai· kai. avmfo,tera evk tou/ sto,mato,j sou evxeleu,setaiÅ24 13 yi,quron kai. di,glwsson katara,sasqe·25 pollou.j ga.r eivrhneu,ontaj avpw,lesenÅ 23 24

25

For a detailed analysis of the poem see LINDER, Lingua tripla. In my opinion, the poem begins in 28,12; see SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 360 and 365. Some Gr Mss (B 253 L and others) read evkporeu,etai, the same verb used in the additional material given in LXX Prov 3:16. This is a tricolon, which is rare in Ben Sira. SMEND, Die Weisheit, 252, writes, however, that a verse of three cola is “unheard of” (unerhört) in Ben Sira, and adds that the first two cola should be read as one colon; but such a colon would be too long to be original. For the imperative, Lat and Syr have the participle, “Cursed”, which I use too.

Alexander A. Di Lella

246 14

glw/ssa tri,th26 pollou.j evsa,leusen kai. die,sthsen auvtou.j avpo. e;qnouj eivj e;qnoj kai. po,leij ovcura.j kaqei/len kai. oivki,aj megista,nwn kate,streyenÅ 15 glw/ssa tri,th gunai/kaj avndrei,aj evxe,balen kai. evste,rhsen auvta.j tw/n po,nwn auvtw/nÅ 16 o` prose,cwn auvth|/ ouv mh. eu[rh| avna,pausin ouvde. kataskhnw,sei meqV h`suci,ajÅ II 17

plhgh. ma,stigoj poiei/ mw,lwpa° plhgh. de. glw,sshj sugkla,sei ovsta/Å 18 polloi. e;pesan evn sto,mati macai,raj° kai. ouvc w`j oi` peptwko,tej dia. glw/ssan° 19 maka,rioj o` skepasqei.j avpV auvth/j o]j ouv dih/lqen evn tw/| qumw/| auvth/j° o]j ouvc ei[lkusen to.n zugo.n auvth/j kai. evn toi/j desmoi/j auvth/j ouvk evde,qh· 20 o` ga.r zugo.j auvth/j zugo.j sidhrou/j° kai. oi` desmoi. auvth/j desmoi. ca,lkeioi· 21 qa,natoj ponhro.j o` qa,natoj auvth/j° kai. lusitelh.j ma/llon o` a[d| hj auvth/jÅ 22 ouv mh. krath,sh| euvsebw/n° kai. evn th/| flogi. auvth/j ouv kah,sontaiÅ 23 oi` katalei,pontej ku,rion evmpesou/ntai eivj auvth,n° kai. evn auvtoi/j evkkah,setai kai. ouv mh. sbesqh/·| evpapostalh,setai auvtoi/j w`j le,wn kai. w`j pa,rdalij lumanei/tai auvtou,jÅ 24a ivde. [Rahlfs; Ziegler i;de] peri,fraxon to. kth/ma, sou avka,nqaij27 25b kai. tw/| sto,mati, sou poi,hson qu,ran kai. moclo,nÅ 24b to. avrgu,rio,n sou kai. to. crusi,on kata,dhson 25a kai. toi/j lo,goij sou poi,hson zugo.n kai. staqmo,nÅ 26 pro,sece mh,pwj ovli,sqh|j evn auvth/°| mh. pe,sh|j kate,nanti evnedreu,ontojÅ I If you blow upon a spark, it turns into flame, if you spit on it, it dies out; yet both come out of your mouth! 13 Cursed be the gossip and the double-tongued, for they destroy many who were at peace. 14 The third tongue has shaken many, and has scattered them from people to people. It has destroyed strong cities, and has overthrown the houses of the great. 15 The third tongue has cast out virtuous women, and robbed them of their toil. 12

26 27

Here and in v. 15a L (also 157 in v. 15a) 547c 755 Sa read dissh,. Ziegler, in his critical edition, established the correct order of these cola, the order found in the Lat.

Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue 16

247

He who heeds it will find no rest, nor will he dwell quietly.

II A blow from a whip raises a welt, but a blow from the tongue will break bones. 18 Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not as many as by the tongue. 19 Happy the one who is sheltered from it, and has not endured its wrath; Who has not borne its yoke nor been bound with its chains. 20 For its yoke is an iron yoke, and its chains are bronze chains; 21 The death it inflicts is an evil death; even the netherworld is preferable to it. 22 It will have no power over the godly, nor will they be burned in its flame. 23 But those who forsake the Lord will fall into it, as it burns among them unquenchably; It will be sent out against them like a lion, and like a leopard, it will tear them to pieces. 24a Look, fence in your property with thorns, 25b but make a door and a bolt for your mouth. 24b Bind up your silver and gold, 25a but for your words make a balance and a weight. 26 Take care lest you slip by it [your tongue], lest you fall victim to one lying in ambush. 17

6. Commentary with intertextual analysis First Strophe (28:12-16). Right at the beginning of this strophe (28:12) Ben Sira employs a graphic image to contrast the extremes that can emerge from the mouth: “If you blow upon a spark, it turns into flame, / if you spit on it, it dies out; / yet both come out of your mouth”! In 5:13a, the central verse of our first poem above, Ben Sira expresses this idea more directly: “Honor and dishonor through speaking”! Now he pronounces his harshest words, declaring cursed “the gossip and the double-tongued” (28:13a); the reason is that “they destroy many who were at peace” (28:13b); in 28:9b, he also deplores the behavior of the one “who sows discord among those who were at peace”. Presumably, Ben Sira is referring here to the peace and tranquility of the home and family that the gossip wantonly destroys. In 19:5-12, he has a whole section, employing graphic images and strong language on the evils of gossip: Whoever gloats over evil will be destroyed, and whoever repeats gossip has no sense.

248

Alexander A. Di Lella Never repeat gossip, and no one will reproach you. Tell nothing to friend or foe; and unless it would be a sin for you, do not reveal a thing. For someone may have heard you and watched you, and in time come to hate you. Let anything you hear die with you; never fear, it will not make you burst! Having heard something, the fool is in labor, like a woman giving birth to a child. Like an arrow stuck in a person’s thigh, so is gossip inside a fool.

Ben Sira’s severest indictment, however, is directed at “the third tongue”, glw/ssa tri,th (28:14a.15a), which is so called because its owner (the third tongue) spreads slander in order to create mischief about the one being slandered (the first tongue), with the one who believes the slander (the second tongue) in order to drive apart two friends.28 Ben Sira coined the expression, which appears nowhere else in the LXX, for the Syr (translated like the grandson’s Greek from the original Hebrew) also has the phrase, as of course does the Lat.29 It is probable that in 28:14 Ben Sira describes in a general manner the deplorable evils that the third tongue can cause. Aparticularly heinous effect of slander, however, is specified in 28:15a: “The third tongue has cast out virtuous women”, a clear reference to the divorce of an innocent and faithful wife, the kind of woman Ben Sira describes in 26:1-4: “Happy is the husband of a good wife; / the number of his days will be doubled. / A loyal wife brings joy to her husband, / and he will complete his years in peace. / A good wife is a generous gift / bestowed upon him who fears the Lord. / Whether rich or poor, his heart is content, / and a smile is ever on his face”. Because of divorce the third tongue has robbed the innocent wife “of their toil”, probably a reference to “the acceptance, praise, and gratitude, which the virtuous woman has a right to enjoy because she has been a good wife and mother; cf. Prov 31:10-31”.30 Ben Sira spells out the further evil effects of the third tongue: “He who heeds it (o` prose,cwn auvth/)| will find no rest, / nor will he dwell (ouvde. kataskhnw,sei) quietly” (28:16). This verse calls to mind the grandson’s version of 4:15b where the same two verbs recur: o` prose,cwn auvth/| kataskhnw,sei pepoiqw,j, “He who heeds her [Lady Wisdom] will dwell secure”. The con28 29

30

See SPICQ, L’Ecclésiastique, 707. Rabbinical literature employs the Aramaic expression yatylt !wvyl for the tongue of the slanderer; OESTERLEY, The Wisdom, 181, writes, “Arachin 15b (Talmud Babli): ‘The third tongue kills three,’ viz. the slanderer, the slandered, and he who believes the slander; on the last of these see v. 16 below”. So SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 365.

Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue

249

trast in meaning between these two verses is striking. Heeding Lady Wisdom brings one security whereas heeding slander brings one the reverse of security.31 Indeed, the one who heeds the slander, or the third one “killed” by the slander, is another victim of the sin.32 Because he listened to the slanderer he is restless and ill at ease, not at all sure whether or not to believe the slander. This verse describes rather graphically the state of mind of the husband whose innocent wife has been slandered.33 Second Strophe (28:17-26). This strophe describes the damage that the unrestrained tongue is capable of. The blow of a whip causes only “a welt” (mw,lwpa). Far worse is “a blow from the tongue”, for it “will break bones” (28:17). The thought comes from Prov 25:15b, “a soft tongue will break bones” (my translation). The Japanese have a similar proverb: “The tongue is more to be feared than the sword”. Prov 15:4 shows the good or baneful effects of the tongue: “A soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse one crushes the spirit”. These texts give the lie to the children’s jingle when they are taunted: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me”. The wording of 28:19a, maka,rioj o` skepasqei.j avpV auvth/j, “Happy the one who is sheltered from it (the tongue)”, probably derives from LXX Ps 31 (30):21b: skepa,seij auvtou.j evn skhnh/| avpo. avntilogi,aj glwssw/n, “You shelter them under your tent from the contention of tongues”. Regarding the tongue’s “wrath”, qumo,j (28:19b), Ben Sira writes in 28:10cd: “The greater a person’s strength, the sterner his wrath(qumo,j), / the greater his wealth, the greater his anger”. The colorful expression (28:19c), “Who has not borne its (the tongue’s) yoke”, o` ouvc ei[lkusen to.n zugo.n auvth/j, derives from LXX Deut 21:3: h[tij ouvc ei[lkusen zugo,n, “[the heifer] that has not borne the yoke”. The tongue’s troublesome and heavy “yoke” is an “iron yoke” (28:20a), an image borrowed from Jer 28:14; and its “chains” are “bronze chains” (28:20b), desmoi. ca,lkeioi, an expression found elsewhere only in 1 Ezra 1:38: “[Nebuchadnezzar] bound him [Jehoiakim] with a bronze chain (calkei,w| desmw/)| and took him away to Babylon”. The death the slandering tongue causes is an “evil death”, for it destroys peace and serenity; and the underworld that alone can release its victims is “preferable (lusitelh,j, a hapax in the LXX) to it” (28:21). Ben Sira engages in wishful thinking when he asserts that the wicked tongue will have no power over “the godly, nor will they be burned in its flame” (28:22). In fact, the godly are also the victims of slander, as he states about the innocent wife in 28:15a. The image of the tongue being like a fire appears also in Jas 3:5-6. In 28:23ab Ben Sira writes that “those who forsake the Lord” will become a target of the 31 32 33

See OKOYE, Speech in Ben Sira, 149. As noted by OESTERLEY, The Wisdom, 182. SHAKESPEARE describes this tragic situation eloquently: “… Back-wounding calumny / The whitest virtue strikes. What king so strong / Can tie the gall up in the slanderous tongue” (“Measure for Measure”, III, ii, 186-188).

250

Alexander A. Di Lella

wagging tongue and be burnt by it, for the ungodly provide ample fuel for the fires of slander. The phrase katalipei,n (to.n) ku,rion, “to forsake the Lord”, recurs elsewhere only in Josh 24:16 and 2 Chr 28:6. As animals in a context of destruction, “the lion” and “the leopard” (28:23cd) appear together also in Jer 5:6. By way of conclusion Ben Sira summarizes the ways to discipline the tongue. The graphic images suggest the great care one must employ. Fencing in property “with thorns” (28:24a) serves the same purpose as barbed wire does today: it keeps wild animals out. And just as every house must have “a door and a bolt” so, too, should the mouth (28:25b) if one is to avoid sin; see also 22:27 (cited above) and Pss 39:2, “I said, ‘I will watch my ways, lest I sin with my tongue; I will set a curb on my mouth’”, and 141:3, “Set a guard, Lord, before my mouth, a gatekeeper at my lips”. Then Ben Sira employs a mixed metaphor to urge utmost caution in guarding your tongue: as carefully as you take the necessary precautions by binding up your “silver and gold” (an image found in the story of 2 Kgs 5:23), so should you “make a balance and a weight (staqmo,j)” with which to weigh “your words” (28:24b-25a). The grandson uses the second noun also in 16:25a, evkfanw/ evn staqmw/| paidei,an, “I shall manifest instruction by weight”; and in 26:15b, ouvk e;stin staqmo.j pa/j a;xioj evgkratou/j yuch/j, “No weight can weigh the chastity (of the modest wife)”. Now Ben Sira makes his final appeal: “Take care lest you slip” [ovli,sqh|j] with your tongue (28:26a). Similar sayings using the same verb recur in the macarisms of 14:1a, maka,rioj avnh,rà o[j ouvk wvli,sqhsen evn sto,mati auvtou/, “Happy the man who does not slip with his mouth”; and 25:8b, maka,riojÅÅÅ o[j evn glw,ssh| ouvk wvli,sqhsen, “Happy … the one who does not slip with his tongue”. Such care will prevent you from falling before one who lies in wait (28:26b), i.e., your adversary. Latin adds an interesting flourish to this verse: et sit casus tuus insanabilis in mortem, “and your case will become incurable unto death”.

7. Conclusion It is not surprising that Ben Sira, being a wisdom writer, offers his students many reflections and exhortations regarding the tongue. In fact, no other book of the Old Testament presents as much material as Ben Sira does on the use and abuse of the tongue or lips or mouth or palate (all organs of speech).34 As we have seen, Ben Sira’s comments and observations clearly reflect the older biblical works, in particular Proverbs, his favorite book. His poem in 5:9–6:1 provides a summary doctrine about the potential of the tongue for good or for evil. Then in 23:7-15, Ben Sira explains in detail why one must keep watch over the tongue at all times if one hopes to attain wisdom by living an exam34

See also 4:23-24; 14:1; 18:15-19; 19:5-17; 20:18-20; 25:8; 28:12-26.

Ben Sira’s doctrine on the discipline of the tongue

251

ined life, the only life worth living according to Socrates as well as Israel’s wisdom writers. Finally, the poem in 28:12-26 excoriates especially the gossiper, the double-tongued, and the meddlesome third tongue. Much of what Ben Sira writes about the discipline of the tongue is reflected in the aphorism of Publilius Syrus: “Speech is a mirror of the soul; as a man speaks, so is he”.35

Addenda I 36lybX

xwr lkl hrwz yht la 9 l[ $wms hyh 10 !yzahl rhmm hyh 11 [r hn[ $ta Xy ~a 12

lkl $lt law $rbd yhy dxaw 38~gtp bXh xwr $rab 39$yp l[ $dy ~yX !ya ~aw

37$t[d

*** 40

ajwb dyb !wlqw dwbk 13

wtlpm ~da !wXlw *** II

[r lgrt la $nwXlbw l[b l[ h[r hprxw anwX yht la bhwa txtw 6:1 42~ytX l[b [r Xya !k 41~ytX

35 36

37 38 39

40

41 42

~ytX l[b arqt la 14 tXb harbn bng l[ yk txXt la hbrhw j[m 15 Xyrwt !wlqw hprx [r ~X

Moral Sayings, 1073 (1st century BC). Reading Ms C; Ms A has tlwbv $rd hnwpw xwr lkl hrwz hyht la. Ms C is obviously the basis of Gr. In the second colon Syr follows the verb in Ms A in which the last two words are corrupt. Curiously, the Gr Mss (except 575) repeat at the end of the verse the text of 6:1c; Lat. has similar addition. Ms C has $rbd. Ms C has hnwkn hn[t hn[ $rabw hbwj h[wmXb !wkn hyh. Reading the second colon as in Ms C and Syr (a reading reflected also in the Sahiditic), as in Judg 18:19 and Job 21:5; see also Mic 7:16 and Job 40:4 (Job 29:9 has @k in the expression instead of dy). Most Gr Mss have e;stw; Codex C, e;stai. Like the reading hpl dy in Prov 30:32, Ms A has no verb here. In the first colon of Ms A had the peculiar reading dwyb instead of the correct dyb of Ms C. As the last word of the bicolon Ms C has wjylpm, a peculiar reading that has no support in any of the version. Reading l[ h[r hrpxw with Gr and Syr; Ms A reads wh[r hprx, an impossible combination in this context, and then omits l[. In 6:1b Gr has a causal clause, o;noma ga.r ponero,nÅÅÅ, thus balancing the causal clause in 5:14cd; Syr makes 6:1bc a negative purpose clause. In Ms A hprx is found after Xyrwt; following the Gr word order, I have placed the noun after [r in 6:1b. So also SMEND, Die Weisheit, 53.

252

Alexander A. Di Lella

Bibliography BARTHÉLEMY, D. – RICKENBACHER, O. (eds.), Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach mit syrisch-hebräischem Index, Göttingen 1973. Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam vulgatam versionem, XII. Sapientia Salomonis, Liber Hiesu filii Sirach, Rome 1964. CERIANI, A. M. (ed.), Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano sec. fere VI photolithographice edita, I-II, Milan 1876-1883. DE LAGARDE, P. A., Libri Veteris Testamenti apocryphi Syriace, Leipzig – London 1861. DI LELLA, A. A., The Hebrew Text of Sirach. A Text-Critical and Historical Study (Studies Classical Literature 1), London – The Hague – Paris 1966. DI LELLA, A. A., Use and Abuse of the Tongue: Ben Sira 5,9-6,1, in: DIESEL, A. A. ET AL. (eds.), “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit …”. Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit. Festschrift D. Michel (BZAW 241), Berlin – New York 1996, 33-48. DIOGENES LAËRTIUS, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, London 1891. LIDDELL, H. G. – SCOTT, R. – JONES, H. ST. – MCKENZIE, R., A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 1953. LINDER, A., Lingua tripla, giogo ferreo e l’oro della parola: Studio esegetico di Sir 28,13-26 in parallelo con testi sapienziali egiziani, Diss. Pontificia Università S. Tommaso D’Aquino, Rome 2001. LUST, J. – EYNIKEL, E. – HAUSPIE, K. (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, revised edition, Stuttgart 2003. OESTERLEY, W. O. E., The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, Cambridge 1912. OKOYE, J. I., Speech in Ben Sira with special reference to 5,9-6,1, Frankfurt a.M. 1995. PUBLILIUS SYRUS, Moral Sayings, Cleveland – Boston 1856. Scholar’s Collection-3 CD-ROM with Accordance 5.3, Altamonte Springs, FL 2002 (= The GRAMCORD Institute, Vancouver, WA). SHAKESPEARE, W., Measure for Measure, London 1969. SMEND, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch, Berlin 1906. SPICQ, C., L’Ecclésiastique, in: PIROT, L. – CLAMER, A. (eds.), La Sainte Bible, VI, Paris 1951. SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, and Introduction (AncB 39), New York 1987. The New American Bible including the Revised New Testament, New York 1986. The Revised Psalms of the New American Bible, New York 1991. ZIEGLER, J., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2), Göttingen 1965.

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach ANTONINO MINISSALE 1. Introduction The study of metaphors is useful to us for understanding not only the style but also the thought of an author. If we are concerned with an author of well defined identity, as is the case with Ben Sira more than in any other book of the Old Testament, the systematic study of a metaphor which runs through all his works will help us to fathom the nature of his personality and the particular sensibility in which his thought is soaked. The action of “falling” indicates first of all a physical fact concerning things or people. But when the idea of falling is used in a transferred sense or as a metaphor, we are introduced in a solid way into the ideal and imaginary world of an author and to the presuppositions of his language. Falling, understood in a metaphorical sense, refers us to the way in which the reality which surrounds us is perceived, to the sense of the mutability of all things and their possible instability, a basic datum of the experience which man has of himself and the world in which he lives. The concepts which can be referred to the semantic area of falling are diverse and take in various aspects such as : slipping, stumbling, staggering, shaking, falling; to set a trap, to plot an ambush or to fall into a snare; and again, in the opposite sense, to find support or assistance. To trace the passages relevant to this semantic area, we begin with the Greek text, which is more complete, and we choose as our starting grid thirteen words which refer to five different roots. They are indicated in what follows together with a generic and conventional translation: 1) pi,ptw “to fall” (11x), ptw,sij “fall” (12x); evmpi,ptw “fall into” (9x), prospi,ptw “fall against” (1x); avnti,ptwma “that which causes falling“ (2x); 2) prosko,ptw “to stumble” (4x), pro,skomma “obstacle, stumbling block” (5x), avpro,skopoj “without obstacles” (1x); 3) ovlisqa,nw “to slip” (7x), ovli,sqhma “tumble” (1x); 4) skandali,zw “to trap, to cause to fall” (3x), ska,ndalon “trap” (2x); 5) ptai,w “to be hindered” (2x).

To be more exhaustive, the enquiry must also take account of the Hebrew vocabulary to cover those passages in which the translator does not employ the Greek words indicated above. We are talking about lpn “to fall”, lvk and

254

Antonino Minissale

lqt “to stumble”, jwm “to stagger”, vqy “trap”, v[r “to shake”, with their cognates, the substantives xp “snare”, tvr “net”, hdwcm “trap”, the antonyms ![v “to be supported” and ![vm “support”. By means of all these terms, both Greek and Hebrew, we have put together seventy two passages of the Book of Sirach which will be the object of our analysis, In the most general way, it should be specified right from the start that “falling” presents a double aspect which can be summed up in two ways in which we commonly speak: to fall into error and to fall into disgrace. In “to fall into error” or into any kind of improper or thoughtless behaviour, what is emphasised is an action for which the individual is responsible in an active sense. On the other hand, in “to fall into disgrace”, what is highlighted is an unpleasant situation which the person undergoes in a passive sense and which falls on his shoulders without his wishing it. In traditional sapiential thought and especially in Ben Sira, it is held that the evil which a man undergoes is the result of a wrong first committed by him. To fall into disgrace, therefore is the result of falling into error.1 A man is the cause of his own disgrace and of his own misfortune, as also of his well being and tranquillity. But given the sententious character of Sirach’s statements, it is not immediately clear whether the “falling” regards the mistaken deed in itself or the consequences of it which have to be borne. In our basic exposition we shall proceed by order of theme which, in fact, offers us a significant sample of the contents of the Book of Sirach in which the most diverse aspects of life and of the corresponding moral conduct are tackled. The passages which were singled out by means of the catalogue of Greek and Hebrew words which we have presented, can be arranged according to these thematic areas: 1) the tongue; 2) woman; 3) enemies; 4) rich and poor; 5) vices and virtues; 6) behaviour at table; 7) God and the theological triad, wisdom, law and the fear of God. Finally we shall consider the cases in which Gr introduces the metaphor presumably because of some aversion to what has been said by Hb (8). After a final table (9), we shall propose in conclusion an hypothesis for the global interpretation of the thought of Ben Sira (10).

1

This is the principal mark of the connection which the ancients perceived between an action and its consequence (Der Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang), illustrated with much subtlety by VON RAD, Weisheit in Israel, 165-181 (“Ursachen und Wirkungen”), who also highlights how the sages, despite the schematic nature of this concept, were aware of the ambiguity (“Mehrdeutigkeit”, p. 165) of the phenomena.

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

255

2. The tongue There are fourteen passages2 which turn on the theme of the tongue, especially its abuse. We shall review them beginning with this impassioned question with which the “Prayer for the Discipline of the Passions” contained in 22:27–23:6 opens: [1]3 “Who will set a guard upon my tongue / and upon my lips a seal suited to all necessities (panou/rgon) in order that I do not fall (pi,ptw) and that my tongue may not destroy me (avpo,llumi)” (22:27 Gr). Ben Sira is aware of the widespread nature of this grave defect because he observes: [2] “Many have fallen (pi,ptw) by the edge of the sword, but not so many as have fallen (pi,ptw) because of the tongue” (28:18 Gr).The misuse of the tongue is deeply corrosive of the reputation of man in society: [3] “Glory and dishonour (are) in the hand of the one who speaks, and the tongue of a man (is that which) makes him fall (hlpm)“4 (5:13 Hb) – “Glory and dishonour (are) in (the way of) speaking, and the tongue of a man (is) for him (the cause of) falling (ptw/sij)” (5:13 Gr). A disorderly use of the tongue is so serious that it is set in direct relationship with abandoning the Lord. Here the compound evmpi,ptw is employed with eivj, in the sense that the “falling on” the tongue ruins its good use, as if crushing it. There follows a kind of retaliation because it burns the one responsible in so far as it destroys him socially: [4] “Those who abandon the Lord will fall (evmpi,ptw) on it (= the tongue), and (it) will burn them and not be extinguished“ (28:23 Gr). According to the logic of the image, when we find slipping and falling as a pair, the fall is preceded by the “slip”, always in the same order: [5] “The slip (ovlisqa,nw) (caused) by the ground (is) preferable to that (caused) by the tongue, so the fall (ptw/sij) of the wicked will occur speedily” (20:18 Gr); “Beware lest you slip (ovlisqa,nw) with it (= the tongue) lest you fall (pi,ptw) before him who lies in wait” (28:26 Gr). But the slip can be evoked on its own and, in this case, it is intended to attenuate the gravity of behaviour which is nonetheless reprehensible: [7] “A person may slip (ovlisqa,nw) but not (moved) by the mind, and who has not sinned with his tongue?” (19:16 Gr); [8] “He who is presumptuous (dunato,j) with his tongue is known from afar, but he who reflects knows that (he can) slip (ovlisqa,nw)” (21:7 Gr); “Blessed is he who lives with an intelligent wife and who has not slipped (ovlisqa,nw) with his tongue” (25:8 Gr). 2

3 4

The Hebrew text (= Hb), the Marginal readings of Ms B (Ms Bm), and the text of Ben Sira Scroll from Masada (Mas), are found in the edition of BEN HAYYIM (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira. The Greek version (= Gr), in the edition of ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. The numbers in square brackets, at the beginning of the passages analysed, indicate the progressive order in which they are placed in my study. Retaining wtlpm (Ms A) against wjylpm, “saves him” (Ms C).

256

Antonino Minissale

The incautious use of the tongue turns out to be particularly risky in front of one’s enemies or, at any rate, people who cannot be trusted: [10] “So my mistakes will not be multiplied and my sins will not abound, I shall not fall (pi,ptw) before my adversaries, and my enemy will not rejoice over me” (23:3 Gr); [11] “The sinner will be entangled with his lips, and the envious and the proud will find a trap (skandali,zw, pass.) in them” (23:8 Gr); “In your presence his mouth is all sweetness, and he admires your words, but later he will twist his mouth and will find a trap (ska,ndalon) in your (own) words” to throw them back against you (27:23 Gr). The admonition [13] “Do not go to law with a great man lest you fall (lpn)5 into his hand (= into his power)” (8:1 Hb), is specified in the translation with recourse to the compound verb: “Do not go to law with a powerful man lest you fall (sheer) into (evmpi,ptw eivj) his hands” (8:1 Gr). We have a more innovative example for Gr in connection with sadness: [14] “Blessed is the man whose mouth has not given him (cause for) sadness (wbc), and ‘has not brought’ on him ‘affliction’6 in his heart” (14:1 Hb) – “Blessed is the man who has not slipped (ovlisqa,nw) with his mouth and who is not afflicted by the punishment for his sin (a`marti,a)” (14:1 Gr). In the fourteen passages examined, we have met these five terms from the starting grid: ovlisqa,nw (6x), pi,ptw (5x), ptw/sij (2x), evmpi,ptw (2x), skandali,zw (1x), ska,ndalon (1x) but the sum of their occurrences is seventeen because a term can be used more than once. In the passages which are given in Hebrew, we twice meet the root lpn, translated by ptw/sij for the substantive hlpm (5: 13) [3], and by evmpi,ptw for the verbal form (8:1) [13]. Gr avoids the repetition of the same concept. The first time he has recourse to our metaphor with ovlisqa,nw. Then he adds the notion of sin and so accentuates the paraenetic value of the sentence. Just as here, so also in all the other cases, the “falling” regards the action of the wrong use of the tongue, not its consequence. Nine of the fourteen passages considered occur within a literary unity devoted to the theme of the tongue: “The Good Use of the Tongue” (5:9–6:1), “Caution with the Tongue” (19:4-17), “Inappropriate and Lying Speech” (20:18-26), “Discipline of the Tongue” (23:7-15), “Speaking Falsely” (27:22-29), “Errors in Speech” (28:8-26).7

5 6 7

lwpt is to be preferred to bwvt, “return” recorded in the duplicate of Ms A itself. hba is corrected to abh and !yd to !wd (cf. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 252). The titles and pericope divisions, are taken from MINISSALE, Siracide. I have used RSV as a basis but translated from the Italian where there is a significant difference.

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

257

3. The woman On several occasions, Ben Sira returns to the theme of the woman, considered under various aspects, but always from the typically masculine point of view of his school. The six passages in which the metaphor of “falling” occurs are found within the units which concern the “Dangerous Women” (9:1-9), “The Treacherous Wife” (25:13-26) and “The Choice of a Wife” (36:26 -31). The traditional theme of the strange woman (Prov 2:16; 5:3.20; 7:5; 22:14; 23:27) is taken up again by Ben Sira in the widest acceptation of this term, which can be interpreted as referring to the woman who is not one’s own wife, and is, therefore, an outsider, or to the woman who prostitutes herself and can be also ethnically foreign; to this latter figure, the courtesan8 whom we meet in the specification given by Gr comes closest: [15] “Do not approach a strange woman (hrz hva) lest you fall (lpn) into her traps (hdwcm)” (9:3 Hb)9 – “Do not approach a woman who is a prostitute (e`tairi,zomai)10 lest you fall (evmpi,ptw) into her snares (pagi,j)” (9:3 Gr). But even a normal young virgin puts Ben Sira on his guard for his pupils: [16] “Do not think too much about a virgin lest you be entrapped (– fqy Ni) in penalties on her account” (9:5 Hb) – “Do not look intently at a virgin lest you be entrapped (skandali,zw pass.) in penalties on her account” (9:5 Gr). Thus the married woman is also taken into consideration. In front of her, one must be aware of the tragic consequences which can derive from a drunken moment (wine: v. 9b) which causes loss of self-control: [17] “... lest you cause you heart to turn (hjn Hi) to her and you (later) have to turn (hjn Q) in blood to the ditch (txv)” (9:9cd Hb) – “... lest your soul be turned (evkkli,nw) to her and you slip (ovlisqa,nw) with your blood into destruction (9: 9cd Gr); here it is Gr who introduces our metaphor, so avoiding the repetition of the same verb which occurs in Hb. In fact, the sage/master is anxious to emphasise not so much the probable malice of the woman as the responsibility of the man: [18] “Do not fall (lpn) before a woman’s beauty and do not desire her for what she possesses” (25:21 Hb)11 – “Do not fall (prospi,ptw) for a woman’s beauty and do not desire a woman”(25:21 Gr); this warning is accentuated by Gr with the use of the compound verb,12 and

8 9 10

11 12

The feminine substantive e`tai,ra is translated by BDAG. So the first distich of the duplicate of Ms A. LUST – EYNIKEL – HAUSPIE (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon, 183, translate this verb with “to be a courtesan”; WAGNER, Die Septuaginta, 207, points out that it is “certainly less suspect and more delicate“ (“der unverfänglichere und feinere Ausdruck”) in so far as it is not porneu,w, the cognate of which po,rnh “prostitute” is used in v. 6. Textual lacuna in Ms A, thus reconstructed by LÉVI, The Hebrew Text; SEGAL, Sefer benSira’ hashalem, and VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico. This is the only time that prospi,ptw occurs in Sirach.

258

Antonino Minissale

further with the repeated mention of the woman who is thus brought more into focus, leaving out what she possesses and so emphasising her danger as a person. In the second pericope devoted to the woman, there is a one-sided observation on the misfortune of a man who lives in a matrimonial situation which does not make him happy: [19] “The woman who does not make her husband happy is the cause of drooping hands and stumbling (!wlvk) knees” (25:23 Hb); Gr simplifies by interpreting the metaphor: Drooping hands and weak (paralu,w) knees (are caused) by the woman who does not make her husband happy (25:23 Gr). But in the end, in the context of the pericope 36:26-31, the importance of the successful choice of a wife is praised because with her the husband does not experience the fall but its opposite, the support which fortifies against the fall: [20] “He who acquires his wife gets his best possession; (she is) ‘help’13 and fortification and pillar of support (![vm)” (36:29 Hb) – “He who acquires a wife begins (the accumulation) of her property: (he has) a help close by14 and a pillar (on which to have) rest (avna,pausij)” (36:29 Gr [v. 24 in Rahlfs]: thus the positive aspect is stressed). In the six passages considered, all present in both Hb and Gr, we should note the double specification employed by Gr who translates with evmpi,ptw for falling into the snares of the strange woman (9:3) and with the stronger prospi,ptw for the attraction that a beautiful virgin can exercise on the man who meets her (25:21). We come across two new verbs relating to the semantic zone of “to fall”: vqy (skandali,zw) and hjn (ovlisqa,nw) and again two antonymic substantives !wlvk (25:23) and ![vm (25:29). This time, by contrast with what we have observed in the topic of the tongue, the metaphor of “falling” indicates more directly the consequence of an error committed with the tongue, except for the case of “falling” when it is occasioned by the beauty of a virgin (25:21).

4. Enemies In Ben Sira, social relationships are pervaded with an attitude so cautious as easily to become suspicious. We have already seen how, inspired by pedagogic concerns directed towards men, this is the attitude with which he deals with the subject of the woman. Now we find it again in the variegated survey of relationships with everyone else. Thus the ten passages in question can be brought together under the label of “enemies”. While Ben Sira 13 14

With Ms B (rz[), against Ms Bm and Ms C (ry[). “A help close by”: the translation by bohqo.n kata. auvto.n is influenced by Gen 2:18 LXX which interprets thus the Hebrew wdgnk rz[ “a help (which may be) as if in front of him”.

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

259

believes, on the one hand, in the importance of friendship, he shows himself, on the other hand, very anxious about the risks which it involves.15 Therefore, it is necessary to take account of false friends in time so as not to trust them naïvely: [21] “As long as ‘you’ stand on your feet, he will not be seen, but if “you” stagger (fwm) he will not stay” (12:15 Hb)16 – “He will stay with you for an hour, but if you stagger (ekkli,nw), he does not hang around” (12:15 Gr). By contrast, the true friend knows how to be a strong support in time of need: [22] “His heart (is in accord with) your heart and if you stumble (lvk), ‘he will sympathise with you’”17 (37:12cd Hb) – “His soul (is) as your soul and if you stumble (ptai,w), he will sympathise with you” (37:12cd Gr). In the face of personal enemies, Ben Sira wishes to be able to see them fall into disgrace: [23] “With nine thoughts I have gladdened my heart, and the tenth I shall tell with my tongue: a man rejoicing in his children who lives to see the fall (ptw/sij) of his enemies” (25:7 Gr). In the final appendix, the sage author raises a song of thanksgiving to the Lord for having actually escaped a mortal danger: [24] “You have helped me according to the abundance of your mercy (to free me) from the trap (vqwm) of those who lie in ambush on the rock ([ls)18 and from the hand of those who make an attempt on my life; you have saved me from many tribulations” (51:3 Hb) – “You have been my help and you have saved me according to the multitude of your mercy and (the greatness) of your name, from the snares (bro,coj) prepared (to make me their) food (brw/ma), from the hand of those who lay in ambush for my life, from the many tribulations which I have had” (51:3 Gr). His own enemies are described as ungodly and for them there is awaited with gladness a kind of misfortune analogous to that which had struck the godly undeservedly, provoking in their adversaries a satisfaction which reveals their knavery: [25] “Those who rejoice in the fall (ptw/sij) of the godly will be caught in a snare (pagi,j), and pain will consume them before their death” (27:29 Gr). Into this framework there fits well what is said in the following sentence, lacking in Gr: [26] “If you stumble (lvk), it is a lasting joy and if you die, (it is) a curse ” (41:9 Hb). Shortly before, having recognised the worth of the physician and his skill, Ben Sira does not succeed in restraining the resentment which opposes him to the sinner, whom he wishes to have to have recourse to the physician. The enemy is thus understood as having been struck with a deserved malady: [27] “He who sins before his 15 16 17 18

CORLEY, Ben Sira’s Teaching, especially 45-50 and 214-217. With the second distich of Ms A, but correcting dm[ to dm[t and jwmn to jwmt (cf. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 245). Variant $b rk[y (Ms Bm), against $yla [ygy “he will come close to you” (Ms B). SEGAL, Sefer ben-Sira’ hashalem, 354.

260

Antonino Minissale

Maker, may he be delivered into the hands19 of the physician” (38:15 Hb); Gr explains in his usual language: “He who sins before Him who has made him, let him fall into (evmpi,ptw eivj) the hands of the physician” (38:15 Gr). Finally, relationships with others are viewed also in their political perspective, where it is important to know how to maintain one’s own independence and detachment in the face of superior powers: [28] “Do not seek to become a governor (lvwm) if you do not have the strength to make insolence cease, lest you be frightened of a powerful man (bydn) and a blow ([cb)20 is inflicted on your integrity” (7:6cd Hb); Gr interprets: “Do not seek to become a judge (krith,j) if you do not have the strength to extirpate injustices lest you show yourself timid in the presence of a powerful man (duna,sthj) and place a trap (ska,ndalon) in (the way of) your integrity” (7:6cd Gr). But it is also necessary to steer clear of a sentence to one’s own harm: [29] “Keep away from him who has the power to kill and (so) you will not incur the fear of death, and if you do come near to him, do not incur any guilt lest he take away your life: know that you are walking among snares (xp) and the you are passing over a net (tvr)” (9:13 Hb); Gr changes the second metaphor, passing from the net which causes one to fall to the battlements from which one can fall: “know that you are walking in the midst of snares (pagi,j) and that you are passing along the battlements (e;palxij) of the city”(9:13 Gr). But it is equally necessary, according to Gr, to maintain the independence of one’s own conscience in the face of a populist temptation: [30] “Do not offend against the multitude of the city and do not make yourself fall (kataba,llw) (too much) in favour of the people” (7:7 Gr); in Hb there is a more neutral attitude: “Do not become ungodly in the meeting at the gate,21 and do not cause yourself to fall (lpn Hi) (by offending) in the assembly“ (7:7 Hb). The new terms included in the theme of “falling” refer to the instruments which cause a fall; xp (pagi,j) and tvr (transformed in Gr into evpa,lxeij po,lewj), both in 9:13 [29]. Given the external nature of the danger in the passages here considered à propos of the enemies, the metaphor of “falling” refers to “falling into disgrace” as a consequence of a previous mistake.

19

20

21

With Ms Bm (ydy l[ rgwtsy) followed by SMEND, Die Weisheit, 342, and PETERS, Das Buch, 314, against ynpl rbgty (Ms B) preferred by SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 443. Here [cb is not being used in the ordinary sense of “unjust gain” but as the equivalent of [cp “guilt, injuries, shame”; so ELWOLDE, Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary, 31, and already LÉVI, The Hebrew Text, 78 (“fault, blemish, discredit”) . r[v is being read instead of la yr[v, expansion due to a dittography with the following law (cf. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 198).

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

261

5. Rich and poor Even if Ben Sira enjoys a prestigious social position which involves close collaboration with the well-to-do classes of the Jerusalem of his day,22 he is critical of the rich and shows himself sensitive in dealing with the dignity and the hardships of the poor. From this point of view, there are five passages which we can now examine, equally attested in Hb and Gr. When one is invited to dinner by a rich man, one must avoid showing excessive familiarity with him and at the same time must act in a way that will inspire respect: [31] “Do not get (too) close (brq Htp) lest you be pushed back, and do not hang back (too much) lest you be despised (anft)”(13:10 Hb); Gr is more precise: “Do not fall (by throwing yourself forward) (evmpi,ptw) lest you be despised, do not stand too far back lest you be forgotten (evpilanqa,nw) (Gr reads hfnt)” (13:10 Gr). The good sense which characterises Ben Sira causes him to observe with regret that when the rich man finds himself in need, he easily finds help by contrast with the poor man: [32] “The rich man (who) staggers23 (jwm) is assisted by his friend whereas the poor man (who) staggers (jwmn) is passed on from friend to friend” (13:21 Hb); Gr makes clear: “The rich man who has (just) been shaken (saleu,w, pass,) is assisted by his friends, whereas the poor man who falls (pi,ptw) is despised even more by his friends”(13:21 Gr: repeats the preceding expression “by his friends”). 22

23

That is emphasised many times, but in a critical sense, by WISHMEYER, Die Kultur, 50: “So, the principal interest of Sirach is in favour of the upper classes of society. It was from here that he recruited his pupils. It is here that he himself is quite at home” (“Dabei gilt Sirachs Hautinteresse den Oberschichten. Hierher rekrutieren seine Schüler. Hier ist er selbst beheimatet”). According to Wischmeyer, this social location explains the conservative and, for his time, largely irrelevant stamp of the teaching of Ben Sira: “The fundamentally conservative and aristocratic understanding of society in Ben Sira is clear right from the start” (“Das konservativ – aristokratische Grundverständnis der sozialen Welt bei Jesus Sirach ist also von Anfang an deutlich”, p. 52). “In fact, Ben Sira was teaching the sons of the upper class. Only these had the time to tackle the prolonged and ambitious education of Ben Sira and were able to afford (the cost of ) this education” (“Denn Sirach unterrichtete Söhne aus der Oberschicht. Nur diese hatten Zeit, sich der langwierigen und ansprchsvollen Erziehung Sirachs auszusetzen und konnten sich diese Bildung leisten”, p. 298). “The ideal of this formation was that of cultivating the spirit in private, something which, despite the pedagogic work of Ben Sira, must have remained the ideal of the more elderly, who could not and did not wish to undertake political action and would have also been hardly suitable for this, if we take account of their mentality formed unilaterally by the national culture of Israel” (“Es war das Bildungsideal der privaten Kultivierung der Seele, das trotz aller pädagogischen Bemühung Sirachs immer das Ideal älterer Männer bleiben mußte, die nicht mehr direkt in das politische Geschehen eingreifen konnten oder wollten und aufgrund ihrer einseitigen Prägung durch die nationale Kultur Israels auch nur sehr begrenzt dazu fähig gewesen wären”, p. 299). Correcting jwm (Ms A) to jwmn, in parallel with the following jwmn, and $msm (Ms A) to $smn (Gr sthri,zetai).

262

Antonino Minissale

The poor man not only finds no help but, with cynicism, he is made to do everything that will worsen his state of hardship: [33] “The poor man speaks. They say: Who is he? If he stumbles (lqt),24 they even push him down to the ground (@dh)” (13:23 Hb); Gr equivalently: “The poor man speaks and they say: Who is he? If he stumbles (prosko,ptw), they push him even to the ground (prosanatre,pw)” (13:23 Gr). This last word provides a nice alliteration with the previous prosko,ptw. In dealings with the poor, not only is sensitivity to his need recommended but also the certainty is nourished that good done to him will find its reward in the eventuality that the benefactor find himself in need in his turn: “He who does good will find it (afterwards) in his ways, and when he staggers (jwm) he will find a support (![vm)” (3:31 Hb); Gr interprets: [34] ”He who repays the favours (avntapodidou.j25 ca,ritaj) (received by God, showing himself later to be generous with the needy) is remembered also afterwards and in the time of (his) fall (ptw/sij), (in need) he will find a support (sth,rigma)” (3:31 Gr). In the sequel, a return is made to the same theme with other words: [35] “And the generosity (of a man towards his neighbour) will never falter (jwm)26 and (his) righteousness (hqdc) (manifested in the help given to the poor) will endure for ever” (40:17 Hb); Gr interprets: “Generosity (is) like a garden (para,deisoj: then also in v. 27 with Hb !d[) (rich) in blessings (evn euvlogi,aij) and almsgiving (e`lehmosu,nh) endures for ever” (40:17 Gr). We observe in conclusion that in the five passages considered the metaphor of “falling”, referring to ascertainable social conditions, indicates the “falling into misfortune”.

6. Vices and virtues The sapiential tradition commonly describes the moral life in a simplified way counterposing the virtues and vices. It also presents a contrast between the wise/righteous and the fool/ungodly. Throughout the Book of Sirach, 24

25

26

The verb lqt, which is not attested in the Old Testament, originates from Aramaic and is present in the Mishnah; so SEGAL, Sefer ben-Sira’ hashalem, 86, who considers it, like JASTROW, A Dictionary of the Targumim, 1691, equivalent to the Hebrew lvk. In fact, it translates lvk in Mal 2:8 but vqy in Deut 7:25; 12:30 (cf. DALMAN,Aramäisch – neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch, 447). lqt is attested at Qumran (cf. BEENTJES, The Hebrew Texts, 58) and occurs in Sir 13:23 [33]; 15:12 [54]; 32:20 [46], while in 31:7 [53] we have the cognate hlqt. The subject understood could be either God or man, as is noted in FRITZSCHE, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s, 27, who did not know the Hebrew, from which the second opinion already preferred by this author has been confirmed. With Ms B (jwmy 3rd masc.), while Mas has trkt (fem.) “she will (not) be destroyed”, despite the fact that the subject dsx is masculine.

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

263

the largest part (1:1–42:14) puts forward teachings which explain how to conduct oneself wisely and in harmony with the Law, animated by the fear of God, in the most diverse circumstances of life. From this perspective too, the metaphor of “falling” provides us with a little sample of the whole book. We shall examine here eleven passages of which two are not found in Hb but only in Gr (1:22; 1:30). At the most intimate level, before even speaking of virtues, the author talks of sentiments, for example the sentiment of hope: [36] “Blessed is he whose desire (vpn) does not leave him unsatisfied and whose hope (tlxwt) has not ceased (tbv)” (14:2 Hb); Gr interprets: “Blessed is he whose conscience does not reprove him and who has not fallen (pi,ptw) (away) from his hope” (14:2 Gr). This lack of hope seems to characterise old age: [37] “O death, how good is your decree for him who is without vigour and is lacking in strength, the man who stumbles (lvk) and bumps (fqy Ni) into everything, who is contrary and loses hope (hwqt)” (41:42 Hb) – “O death, how good is your decree for him who is in need and weakened in strength, advanced in years (evscatogh,rwj) and anxious (perispa,w) in everything and who is disheartened and has lost his patience (u`pomonh,)” (41:2 Gr). In addition to the loss of hope, sadness is also put down as a negative psychological condition: [38] “Do not give your soul to sadness27 and do not stumble (lvk) (absorbed) in your reflection” (30:21 Hb); Gr eliminates the metaphor because he interprets it: “Do not give your soul to sadness and do not afflict yourself (qli,bw) with your reflection (boulh,)” (30:21 Gr). But there are other, less excusable dispositions which are true and proper vices, such as anger and pride: [39] “Unrighteous anger cannot be justified; for a man’s excess of anger will be the cause of his fall (ptw/sij)” (1:22 Gr); [40] “Do not exalt yourself lest you fall (pi,ptw) and bring dishonour upon yourself” (1:30 Gr). This pride should also be opposed with vigour in the education of one’s son: [41] “Discipline your son and increase his yoke lest in his foolishness he exalt himself28 against you” (30:13 Hb); Gr introduces the metaphor, rendering the verse in a more direct manner: “Discipline your son and take pains with him lest you stumble (prosko,ptw)29 (by falling into disgrace) through his depravity” (30:13 Gr). In the specific historical context of Ben Sira, pride assumes a particular religious and cultural connotation in the sense that it can be the means of yielding to the intellectual seduction of Hellenism:30 “Because many are the

27 28 29 30

Reading !wd instead of !yd (Ms B) and preferring $tc[b (Ms Bm) to $nw[ “from your guilt” (Ms B). Reading with Ms Bm l[ty (apocopated form of hl[ty, so Segal) in place of [lty (Ms B), judged “unintelligible” by SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 375. According to SEGAL, Sefer ben-Sira’ hashalem, 184, the translator Gr would have read lqt, which has the same meaning. Cf. SMEND, Die Weisheit, 31.

264

Antonino Minissale

schemes of the sons of men and wicked imaginations have led them astray (h[t Hi)” (3:24 Hb); Gr interprets introducing the metaphor: “Their own presumption has deceived many and wicked illusions have made their thoughts slip (ovlisqa,nw)” (3:24 Gr). This benevolent and yielding tolerance towards the foreign culture will show itself to be harmful to themselves: “Do not be benevolent to your own harm and do not be shamed into (incurring) your own slipping (lwvkm)”31 (4:22 Hb); Gr keeps the metaphor and emphasises it: [43] “Do not be benevolent to your own harm and do not be shamed into (incurring) your own downfall (ptw/sij)” (4:22 Gr). Even in the historical commemoration of the past, the metaphor of stumbling flourishes as the term fot deviation from the correct religious norm: [44] “Jeroboam... who sinned ands made Israel to sin and placed (in front of ) Ephraim a stumbling block (lwvkm)” (47:23ef); Gr interprets the metaphor by eliminating it: “made Israel to sin and instituted for Israel a way of sin (o`do.n a`marti,aj)”. In connection with the limping which in this characterisation of the old man can have an ironic connotation, the author speaks also of shame: [45] “(Do not be ashamed...) to chastise the idiot or the fool, and the limping (lvk) old man who is occupied with obscenity (twnz)“ (42:8 Hb); Gr interprets: “(to correct) the decrepit old man (evscatogh,rwj)32 who competes (with the young) in the act of fornication (pornei,a)” (42:8 Gr). And finally, in a general sense, the metaphor of “falling” is well suited to recommend the caution so dear to Ben Sira; [46] “Do not go on a path (full) of traps (vqwm) and do not stumble (lqt) into (the same) ‘obstacle’33 twice” (32:20 Hb); Gr adds another metaphor: “Do not go on a path (full) of traps (avnti,ptwma) and do not stumble on stony ground (evn liqw,desin)” (32:20 Gr). As in this case, so also in the other examples considered with regard to vices and virtues, we are dealing with personal attitudes which lead to “falling into error”.

7. Banquets and profits The lures of vice are made concrete in a special way in the abuse of food and drink, in particular of wine, and in excessive searching after profit. We can illustrate this theme with seven passages, two of which we find only in Gr (29:19; 29:20). Dealing with “Moderation in Drinking and Eating” 31 32 33

Preferring in stich b $l lwvkml vwbt law (Ms C) to $ylwvkml lvkt law “and do not slide through your sliding” (Ms A). With this same compound adjective, exclusive to Sirach, lvk has already been translated in 41:2 [37]; cf. WAGNER, Die Septuaginta, 206-207. Preferring @gnb (Ms B) to $rdb “in the street” (Ms E) which is a repetition (MINISSALE, La versione greca, 80-81). This reading is also preferred by BEENTJES, The Hebrew Texts, 259.

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

265

(31:12-30), Ben Sira finds the opportunity to advise against greediness in the context of a banquet to which one has been invited: [47] “Finish first for the sake of discipline, and do not be greedy lest you make yourself an object of revulsion (l[g)”34 (31:17 Hb); Gr is specific having recourse to the metaphor: “Finish first for the sake of discipline, and do not be greedy lest you stumble (prosko,ptw)” (31:17 Gr)”. This advice becomes more insistent for the wine: [48] “And also, as for wine, do not play mister big, because wine has made many stumble (lvk Hi)” (31:25 Hb) – “With wine do not play the big man because wine has ruined (avpo,llumi) many” (31:25 Gr: he interprets); [49] “Headache, bitterness and shame (is the result of) wine drunk in irritation and anger (s[k)” (31:29 Hb) – “Bitterness of soul (is the result of) much wine drunk in irritation and in what causes one to fall (avnti,ptwma)” (31:29 Gr; he adds the metaphor); [50] “The abundance of sparkling wine (is) a trap (vqwm) for the fool, it diminishes one’s strength and adds wounds” (31:30 Hb) – “Drunkenness increases the anger of the fool so as (to cause) a trap (pro,skomma) for him. It diminishes his strength and multiplies his wounds” (31:30 Gr). Just as greediness at table is unseemly, so one should disapprove, in a more general sense, of the avarice with which someone claims more than his fair share in the division of an inheritance which has to be shared with others; [51] “For the eye of the one who stumbles (lvk)35 his own share is small, but whoever takes the share of his companion loses his own“ (14:9 Hb); Gr interprets: “The eye of the one who is greedy (pleone,kthj) is not satisfied with his (own) share, but mean injustice withers (his) soul”(14:9 Gr). In the vast area of financial operations, particular attention is devoted the risks which are run by whoever gives guarantees, impelled by the illusion of a profit; but in any case, it is necessary to temper prudence with generosity: [52] “The sinner will fall into (evmpi,ptw eivj) making guarantees and he who follows profits will fall (evmpi,ptw) into (being dragged before) the courts. Be concerned with your neighbour according to your opportunity, but think of yourself lest you fall (evmpi,ptw)“ (29:19-20 Gr). Finally, Ben Sira warns against the lust for gold: [53] “Since it is a stumbling block (hlqt) for the idiot and every fool will be entangled by it (vqy Ni)” (31:7 Hb) – “It is a stumbling 34

35

Taking account of the duplicate provided by v. 16 in Ms B, that which corresponds to v. 16 should be chosen as stich of v. 17b in Hb, because nearer to Gr: l[jt !p j[t law. l[g ‘s being a relatively rare word (Lev 26:11.15.30.43.44; 2 Sam 1:21; Jer 14:19; Ezek 16:45; Job 21:10) and indecent in more than one sense, could have suggested to the translator recourse to prosko,ptw. SMEND, Die Weisheit, 132, basing himself on Gr, would like to read as the Hebrew term corresponding to pleone,kthj (a word exclusive to Sirach, cf. WAGNER, Die Septuaginta, 270-271), [cwb, despite the fact that in Sirach it would have the meaning of “calumniator” and not of “extortionist” (cf. supra, note 19). Therefore, it is better to keep lvk (Ms A).

266

Antonino Minissale

block (pro,skomma) for those who are infatuated with it and every fool will be taken captive (a`li,skw) by it“ (31:7 Gr). If we wish to specify the sense of the metaphor in the passages examined, we can observe that here it is placed half way between a mistaken attitude and its extreme consequences, because it concerns actions which trigger off a negative and dangerous process seen in its totality.

8. God and the fear of the Lord The metaphor of “falling” also occurs in various ways in the more narrowly religious discourse, since the human experience is always considered in the light of God. There are twelve passages which can be referred to here, seven present in Hb and Gr, five only in Gr. Firstly, confirms that the responsibility for evil must not be attributed to God, rather it derives from man: [54] “Do not say: He (= God) has made me stumble (lqt Hi), because he has no need36 of violent men (smx)” (15:12 Hb) – “Do not say: He has deceived me (plana,w); for he has no need of a man who is a sinner (a`martwlo,j)” (15:12 Gr: first he interprets, then he generalises). On the other hand, as far as the godly are concerned, it is stated that they enjoy a particular divine protection: [55] “The paths of the upright will be levelled just as for the strangers they will be cluttered up (with stones) (lls Htp)” (39:24 Hb) – “His (= God’s) paths (are) straight for the godly, just as (they are full of) stumbling blocks (pro,skomma) for the ungodly“ (39:24 Gr substitutes his more habitual metaphor for the one of the stones). Passing on to terminology not included in our starting grid, we recall how, on the level of nature, evoking the scenario of the theophanies, God’s action is perceived by Ben Sira as more direct and impressive: [56] “When he looks at them, even the peaks of the mountains and the foundations of the earth shake (v[r) with fear” (16:19 Hb) – “When he looks at them, even the mountains and the foundations of the earth are agitated (sussei,w) with fear“ (16:19 Gr). As for the personal relationship with God, it can be summarised in particular in the theme of the fear of the Lord,37 which is that which expresses faith in him in the most vital way: [57] “You who fear the Lord, wait for his mercy, and do not turn away lest you fall (pi,ptw)” (2:7 Gr). Immediately afterwards the metaphor is used again with another term to confirm the certainty of the divine reward: [58] “You who fear the Lord, trust in him

36 37

Reading $rwc (Ms A), confirmed by Ms Bm, against #px yl “(I do not receive) satisfaction” (Ms B). Cf. HASPECKER, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach, 337-339.

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

267

and his reward will not find any obstacle (ptai,w)” (2:8 Gr). Paradoxically, falling into the hands of the Lord, one finds in him a strong support which preserves one from falling: [59] “Let us fall (throwing ourselves) into (evmpi,ptw eivj) the hands of the Lord and not into the hands of men” (2:18 Gr); [60] “With the fear of the Lord there is no want and with him there is no need to search for (any other) support (![vm)” (40:26cd Hb) – “With the fear of the Lord there is no want and with him there is no need to search for (any other) help (boh,qeia)” (40:26cd Gr: he interprets the metaphor). This idea is still better condensed thus: “The eyes of the Lord (are) on those who love him: (he is) a defence of (strong) power and support (sth,rigma) of (great) force, shelter from the heat and shade from the midday (sun), guard from stumbling (pro,skomma) and help from falling (ptw/sij)”(34:19a-d Gr). But even concerning the way of return to the Lord, we can recall an aspect of our metaphor: [62] “Return to the Lord and abandon your sins, pray in (his) presence and diminish the stumbling block (pro,skomma)” (17:25 Gr). The forms of the relationship with God are shown by analogy with the relationship which the disciple must establish with wisdom: [63] “And he will rely (Hb: ![v Ni/Gr: sthri,zw, pass.) on her and will not stagger (Hb: jwm /Gr: kli,nw) and he will trust in her and not be disappointed” (15:4 Hb-Gr). Two opposite attitudes are evidenced in relationship to the Law: [64] “He who hates the law will not become wise, but will be beaten (jwm Htp) ‘like a ship in the storm’”38 (33:2 Hb) – “The wise man does not hate the Law, but he who is hypocritical about it (is) like a boat in a storm” (Gr interprets); [65] “He who seeks from the Law will draw (knowledge) from it, but he who is foolish (hlhl Htp) remains trapped (vqy Ni) by it” (32:15 Hb) – “He who seeks from the Law will be filled by it, but he who is hypocritical (u`pokri,nomai) will be trapped (skandali,zw, pass.) by it” (Gr). While he keeps the metaphor, Gr interprets the first, very rare, verb with a more common word.

9. Idiomatic and non-metaphorical use The metaphor of “falling” is encountered also in some idiomatic expressions which in themselves have the same significance in Hb and Gr. First of all, this word is used with reference to fate because in this way there is evoked the procedure of drawing lots by which there is assigned to each his own share by making something like a dice fall: [66] “There is little evil to be compared with the evil of a woman: the lot of the sinner will fall (lpn 38

The final lacuna of Ms B is restored effecting a merging of Ms Bm and of Ms E, corrected according to Gr: h/yna hr[smk.

268

Antonino Minissale

/evpipi,ptw) on her” (25:19 Hb-Gr), in the sense that he who chooses her as his wife deceives himself to his own cost. Elsewhere it is observed that it is not wise to rely on any old counsellor who can seek his own advantage and not that of him who seek is seeking the advice: [67] “For he will take thought for himself (when he is asked): of what (advantage) will this fall to him?” (37:8cd Hb) – “For he will give advice to his own advantage, lest he cast (ba,llw) the lot (klh/roj) against you” (37:8cd Gr: he changes the verb because he adds the complement “lot”). The metaphor is used again in connection with the obligation which is undertaken when making a promise, according to the logic of the image which considers its realisation as a “establishing it” (~wq Hi) and the not keeping of it as the opposite movement: [68] “God has not gone back on his mercy and has not made (any of) his words fall (lpn Hi) to the ground (hxra)” (47:22 Hb) – “The Lord has not gone back on his mercy and has not caused any of his works to perish (diafqei,rw)” (47:22 Gr; he interprets). A last idiomatic use of falling is with reference to dying: [69] “The hint of a malady cheers up the doctor: (one is) king today and tomorrow he will fall (lpn) (dead)” (10:10 Hb); G interprets: “A grave malady causes the doctor to smile: and (one is) king today, and tomorrow he will die (teleuta,w)”(10:10 Gr). Only to indicate the rite of prostration is “falling” used in a nonmetaphorical sense in the final description of the solemn liturgy of the temple: [70] “All flesh will hasten together and fall (lpn) on their faces to the earth (hxra)” (50:17 Hb) – “Then shall all people hasten and fall (pi,ptw) on their faces to the ground (evpi. th.n gh/n)” (50:17 Gr); [71] “(All) started again to fall (lpn) for the second time ‘to receive the blessing’39 from his (= God’s) presence” (50:21 H) – “(The assembly) repeated the prostration (prosku,nhsij) to receive the blessing of the Most High” (50:21 Gr: he interprets using a technical term).

10. Idiosyncrasies of the greek translator After having reviewed all the cases in which the metaphor of “falling” occurs in Hb or Gr, there remain or special consideration six passages in which it seems that the greek translator deliberately transformed the text because of a temperamental or cultural aversion which led him avoid references to violence or nudity.

39

Text supplied by Gr for the lacuna in Ms B, according to SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 547-548 and 554.

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

269

10.1 Violence The metaphor of “falling” is a convenient stratagem to which the translator has recourse to avoid the embarrassment of literal translation. When Wisdom threatens: [72] “If he strays, I will abandon him and hand him over to his assailants (~yddvl)” (4:19 Hb), Gr modifies the violent expression and avoids the direct speech: “If he strays, it will abandon him and hand him over to his downfall (ptw/sij)” (4:19 Gr); [73] “Keep alert and be careful, and you will not go with violent men (smx yvna) (13:13 Hb); this description refers to the danger of plotting with the rich, and Gr modifies it, substituting mechanically with an unnatural and rather clumsy expression: “Keep alert and be careful lest you walk with your own downfall (ptw/sij)” (13:13 Gr), that is, running the risk of falling victim to their knavery. [74] “Do not feel yourself secure from robbery (@txm) on the road, but pay attention to your paths ($ytxra)” (32:21 Hb); here Gr not only avoids the violent idea of robbery, but also changes the key term of the second stich: “Do not rely on a road that seems to be without a trap (avpro,skopoj), but beware also of your children (avpo. tw/n te,knwn sou)” (32:21 Gr); it seems that “sons” are the result of a different reading of the passage from $ytxra to $tyrxa (lit. “your posterity”). The works undertaken under the rule of the High Priest Simon to render Jerusalem more secure had a double purpose: [75] “He concerned himself (to protect) his people from the plunderer (@txm) and fortified his city (as protection) from the enemy (rcm)” (50:4 Hb); Gr eliminates once again the reference to the violent image of the plunderers, which, moreover, could have seemed irreverent towards Jerusalem, and preferred to speak of the capitulation of the city in the face of the external assault of its enemies: “He concerned himself with his people (to protect them) from downfall (ptw/sij) and fortified the city with an urban enclosure (evn poliorkh,sei)” (50:4 Gr).

10.2 Nudity and eroticism Our translator betrays a rather puritan character and has recourse to the preferred metaphor, on two occasions, with the purpose of avoiding any allusion to nudity: [76]: “Like a bird (predator) in a cage (is) the heart of the proud man; and like an a spy (lgrmkw) he will see your nudity (hwr[)” (11:30 Hb), if he is introduced naïvely into the intimacy of your house; Gr has understood the word in the sense of physical nudity but it indicates metaphorically the difficulties of the family which do not appear on the outside but which should remain hidden, and, therefore he uses the metaphor of falling, understood this time in a military sense; from here he also derives the new image of the sentinel: “Pernicious decoy in a cage, so (is) the heart of the proud man: and like a sentinel (kai. w`j o` kata,skopoj) he sees from on high

270

Antonino Minissale

your downfall (ptw/sij)” (11:30 Gr). Also in the second case, the nudity is avoided because it is not understood in a metaphorical sense but in a physical one: [77] “He who does this will not become rich, and he who despises little things (that are lost) will be stripped completely (r[r[ Htp) (of all that he possesses)” (19:1 Hb); Gr modifies: “The worker who gets drunk will not become rich, and he who despises little things (that are lost) in a little (time) will fall (pi,ptw) (into ruin)” (19:1 Gr). The last case is more vague because it speaks of the passion which leads to calumny, namely pride, but Gr thinks of passion in the erotic sense: [78] “Do not fall (lpn) into the power of your passion (vpn) so that (it) expands (hb[tw)40 your (arrogant) energy on to yourself” (6:2 Hb); in Gr the metaphor of “falling” is abandoned and that of the bull introduced: thus a difference is produced to which is added a curious construction: “Do not exalt (evpai,rw) yourself in your own opinion so that your strength is not beaten down like (that of) a bull (i;na mh. diarpagh/ w`j tau/roj h` ivscu,j sou)” (6:2 Gr).41

11. Tabular balance-sheet Taking up again the Greek words of our starting grid, we can now include the equivalents from the Hebrew text where they occur. To indicate the passage, the progressive numeration of our exposition is added in square brackets.

11.1 Starting from the Greek text 1) pi,ptw (11x): 1:30 [40]; 2:7 [57]; 13:21 [32] (jwm); 14:2 [36] (tbv); 19:1 [77] (r[r[); 22:27 [1]; 23:3 [10]; 28:18 [2].26 [6]; 50:17 [70] (lpn); ptw/sij (12x): 1:22 [39]; 3:31 [34] (jwm); 4:19 [72] (~yddv).22 [43] (lwvkm); 5:13 [3] (hlpm); 11:30 [76] (hwr[); 13:13 [73] (smx yvna); 20:18 [5]; 25:7 [23]; 27:29 [25]; 34:19 [61]; 50:4 [75] (@tx); evmpi,ptw (9x): 2:18 [59]; 8:1 [13] (lpn); 9:3 [15] (lpn); 13:10 [31] (brq); 28:23 [4]; 29:19-20 [52]; 38:15 [27] (rgs); evpipi,ptw (1x): 25:19 [66] (lpn);

40 41

hb[ occurs solely in Deut 32:15; 1 Kgs 12:10 / 1 Chr 10:10. Here we have a causative Piel (JOÜON – MURAOKA, A Grammar, 52d). Gr, interpreting vpn not as desire but as “soul“, reads the rare hb[ (see the preceding note) as the Aramaic h[b “to search, to search for food, to graze, to destroy”, with the consequent addition of a new subject, “bull” (MINISSALE, La versione greca, 44).

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

271

prospi,ptw (1x): 25:21 [18] (lpn); avnti,ptwma (2x): 31:29 [49] (s[k); 32:20 [46] (vqwm). 2) prosko,ptw (4x): 13:23 [33] (lqt); 30:13 [41] (hl[); 31:17 [47] (l[g); 32:20 [46] (lqt); pro,skomma (5x): 17:25 [62]; 31:7 [53] (hlqt).30 [50] (vqwm); 34:19 [61]; 39:24 [55] (lls); avpro,skopoj (1x): 32:21 [74] (@tx). 3) ovlisqa,nw (7x): 3:24 [42] (h[t); 9:9 [17] (hjn II); 14:1 [14] (bc[); 19:16 [7]; 21:7 [8]; 25:8 [9]; 28:26 [6]; ovli,sqhma (1x): 20:18 [5]. 4) skandali,zw (3x): 9:5 [16] (vqy); 23:8 [11]; 32:15 [65] (vqy); ska,ndalon (2x): 7:6 [28] ([cb); 27:23 [12]. 5) ptai,w (2x): 2:8 [58]; 37:12 [22] (lvk).

11.2 Starting from the Hebrew text42 * lpn (12x): pi,ptw (50:17), evmpi,ptw (8:1; 9:3), evpipi,ptw (25:19), prospi,ptw (25:21); 6:2 [78] (evpai,rw); 7:7 [30] (kataba,llw); 10:10 [69] (teleuta,w); 37:8 [67] (ba,llw); 47:22 [68] (diafqei,rw); 50:21 [71] (prosku,nhsij); - Hlpm: ptw/sij (5:13). * lvk (8x): ptai,w (37:12); 14:9 [51] (pleone,kthj); 30:21 [38] (qli,bw); 31:25 [48] (avpo,llumi); 41:2 [37] (evscatoge,rwj); 41:9 [26] (only Hb); 42:8 [45] (evscatoge,rwj); - !wlvk (2x): 13:23 [3] (prosanatre,pw); 25:23 [19] (paralu,w); - lwvkm (1x): 47:23 [44] (o`do.n a`marti,aj). * lqt (3x): prosko,ptw (13:23; 32:20); 15:12 [54] (plana,w); - Hlqt: pro,skomma (31:7). * jwm (7x): pi,ptw (13:12) ptw/sij (3:31); 12:15 [21] (evkkli,nw); 13:21 [32] (saleu,w); 15:4 [63] (kli,nw); 33:2 [64] (u`pokri,nomai); 40:17 [35] (evn euvlogi,aij). * vqy (5x): skandali,zw (9:5; 32:15); 31:7 [53] (avli,skw); 41:2 [37] (perispa,w); - vqwm (2x): avnti,ptwma (32:20); 31:30 [50] (pro,skomma); 51:3 [24] (bro,coj). * v[r (1x): 16:19 [56] (sussei,w). * ![v (1x): 15:4 [63] (sthri,zw); - ![vm (3x): 3:31 [34] (sth,rigma); 36:29 [20] (avna,pausij); 40:26 [60] (bohvteia). * jp (1x): 9:13 [29] (pagi,j). * tvr (1x): 9:13 [29] (e;palxij). * hdwcm (1x): 9:3 [15] (pagi,j).

42

The Greek terms underlined refer to the preceding list (cf. 11.1).

272

Antonino Minissale

11.3 The Greek translator The metaphor of “falling” is very frequent in the Book of Sirach as appears from the seventy eight passages considered above. Of these, a good sixty two are attested in Hb as well as Gr. From the comparison which can be made in these cases between Hb and Gr, we are better able to describe the procedure of the translator when faced with his Hebrew Vorlage, distinguishing the cases in which (a) the metaphor is introduced by Gr from (b) those in which it is suppressed and, finally, (c) those in which it is (more or less) retained. The metaphor is introduced by Gr 1) ptw/sij (4x): 4:19 [72] (~yddv); 11:30 [76] (hwr[); 13:13 [73] (smx yvna); 50:4 [75] (@tx); pi,ptw (2x): 14:2 [36] (tbv); 19:1 [77] (r[r[); evmpi,ptw (2x): 38:15 [27] (rgs); 13:10 [31] (brq); avnti,ptwma (1x): 31:29 [49] (s[k). 2) prosko,ptw (2x): 30:13 [41] (hl[); 31:17 [47] (l[g); pro,skomma (1x): 39:24 [55] (lls). avpro,skopoj (1x): 32:21 [74] (@tx). 3) ovlisqa,nw (3x): 3:24 [42] (h[t); 9:9 [17] (hjn II); 14:1 [14] (bc[). 4) ska,ndalon (2x): 7:6 [28] ([cb).

The word which is employed most is ptw/sij already marked by Ziegler as one of the favourite words (Lieblingswörter) of the Greek translator together with ovlisqa,nw.43 The metaphor is suppressed by Gr There are slightly fewer cases (14) in which the metaphor is suppressed by the translator Gr, above all because he interprets: In these the text Hb presents theses characteristic terms: * lpn (3x): 47:22 [68] (diafqei,rw); 10:10 [69] (teleuta,w); 6:2 [78] (evpai,rw); * lvk (5x): 14:9 [51] (pleone,kthj); 30:21 [38] (qli,bw); 31:25 [48] (avpo,llumi); 41:2 [37] (evscatoge,rwj); 42:8 [45] (evscatoge,rwj); - !wlvk (1x): 25:23 [19] (paralu,w); - lwvkm (1x): 47:23 [44] (o`do.n a`marti,aj); * lqt (1x): 15:12 [54] (plana,w); * jwm (2x): 33:2 [64] (u`pokri,nomai); 40:17 [35] (evn euvlogi,aij); * vqy (1x): 41:2 [37] (perispa,w); * ![vm (3x): 40:26 [60] (boh,teia). 43

ZIEGLER, Zum Wortschatz, 284.

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

273

The metaphor is retained by G In the majority of cases (20x), the metaphor is retained by the translator Gr who can also contribute some precisions: 1) lpn (6x): evmpi,ptw (2x): 8:1 [13]; 9:3 [15]; evpipi,ptw (1x): 25:19 [66]; prospi,ptw (1x): 25:21 [18]; ba,llw (1x): 37:8 [67]; kataba,llw (1x): 7:7 [30]; - hlpm: ptw/sij (5:13) [3] 2) vqy (2x): skandali,zw (2x): 9:5 [16]; 32:15; - vqwm (3x): 31:30 [50] (pro,skomma); 32:20 [46] (avnti,ptwma); 51:3 [24] (bro,coj); 3) jwm (2x): 12:15 [21] (ekkli,nw); 13:21 [32] (pi,ptw) 4) lqt (2x): 13:23 [33] (prosko,ptw); 32:20 [46] (prosko,ptw); - hlqt (1x) 31:7 [53] (pro,skomma); 5) lvk (1x): ptai,w: 37:12 [22]; - lwvkm (1x): 4:22 [43] (ptw/sij); 6) ![vm (1x): 36:29 [20] (avna,pausij); 7) xp (1x): 9:13 [29] (pagi,j).

12. Conclusion: “falling” in the theoretical vision of Ben Sira It is said that Ben Sira is the man of tradition which, in his reflection, becomes unified, fused and actualised. We observe that in his work there come together the Law and the prophets, which are rethought and reformulated according to the model of sapiential sentences. We can, therefore, imagine Ben Sira as a man of balance and mediation who again puts forward for his time anchorage in the ancient tradition and its permanent validity, without, however closing his eyes to certain values of Hellenism which he succeeds in appropriating, assimilating and metabolising into the spiritual patrimony of his people.44 He thus takes up the past in a creative manner without crystallising it into a mummified and narrow re-edition which ignores the problems of its time. He is the man of the encounter between past and present, who is placed at the confluence of the different spiritual seams which run through the Old Testament and so becomes the emblematic representative of that Jerusalem which, at the turn of the third and second centuries BC, is the crossroads of different cultural experiences and multiple lifestyles. Located before these different intellectual impulses, he develops his own 44

This positive judgement on Ben Sira can still be given despite the mossagli criticism by Wishmeyer (cf. supra, note 21).

274

Antonino Minissale

vision of reality in which, for the first time in sapiential thought, nature and history are connected with each other as are the individual ethic and the collective and national viewpoint of the more typical thought of ancient Israel. In this vision of the world which is searching for harmony and the overcoming of discord, the metaphor of “falling” takes on a strong symbolic and emblematic force which constitutes an important spyhole through which to penetrate into the heart of his thought and his personality. Through temperament and cultural formation, Ben Sira aspires to that world which is to be harmonious in the cosmological, historical and religious sense. “Falling” is that which breaks and compromises this harmony, because moral violations, the result of man’s ungodliness, damage the equilibrium of the world which is governed by the wisdom of God communicated to man through the Law. It would be facile to impute to Ben Sira a reactionary ideology as if he had retreated into a static vision of the world and was content to contemplate the order of things acquired once for all. He intends in some way to make up for the crisis of thought, expressed in a corrosive and irreverent way by Job and Qoheleth, by re-establishing the unity of the world which, with his two predecessors had become problematic, inhospitable and arbitrary. Thus he works out a theodicy that is logical and tranquil because he knows not to allow reason to overstep its limits, in such a way that, in professing the unity between faith and reason, he succeeds in giving to his own thought a profoundly serene and optimistic stamp which even holds in the face of death, though he has not arrived at the idea of a life after death. He succeeds in observing the present life with a certain rational detachment but postulates justice as its base and trusts in the possible attainment of tranquillity of spirit. For Ben Sira, God is the foundation of the beauty and harmony of the universe, the criterion which regulates the moral life of man, characterised by its freedom. From man he ascends to God and from God he descends to man, encompassing in this relationship, one that for him is obvious and natural, the complexity of the world and of history. In this vision of the world and of man, which is at the same time of a physical and spiritual nature, “falling“ becomes an event that is actually extremely traumatic strength, rock and support as is confirmed so many times in the Psalms.45 45

Cf. Ps 27:1-2: “The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom then shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom then shall I be afraid? When the wicked, even my enemies and my foes, come upon me to eat up my flesh, they will stumble and fall (wlpnw wlvk)”; Ps 118:13-14: “They thrust sore at me that I might fall (lpnl), but the Lord was my help. The Lord is my strength and my song, and he has been my salvation”; Ps 125:1: «He that puts his trust in the Lord shall be even as the Mount Zion: it does not stagger (jwmy), but stands fast for ever”.

The metaphor of “falling”: hermeneutic key to the Book of Sirach

275

Bibliography BEN HAYYIM, Z. (ed.), The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, Jerusalem 1973. BEENTJES, P., The Hebrew Texts of Ben Sira 32[35].16-33[6].2, in: MURAOKA, T. – ELWOLDE, J. F. (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira. Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (STDJ 26), Leiden – Boston – Köln 1997, 53-67. CORLEY, J., Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship (BJSt 316), Providence, RI 2002. DALMAN, G., Aramäisch – neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch, Hildesheim 1967. ELWOLDE, J. F., Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary between Bible and Mishnah, in: MURAOKA, T. – ELWOLDE, J. F. (eds.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira, 17-55. FRITZSCHE, O. F., Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s erklärt und übersetzt (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testaments. V. Lief.), Leipzig 1859. HASPECKER, J., Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30), Rom 1967. JASTROW, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, I-II, New York 1967 (19031). JOÜON, P. – MURAOKA, T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (SubBi 27), Roma 2006. LÉVI, I., The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus (SSS III), Leiden 1969 (19041). LUST, J. – EYNIKEL, E. – HAUSPIE, K. (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition, Stuttgart 2003. MINISSALE, A., Siracide (Ecclesiastico) (Nuovissima Versione della Bibbia 23), Roma 1980. MINISSALE, A., La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib 133), Roma 1995. PETERS, N., Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25), Münster 1913. SEGAL, M. S., Sefer ben-Sira’ hashalem, Jerusalem 19723. SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation, with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. SMEND, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1906. VATTIONI, F., Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca, Napoli 1968. VON RAD, G., Weisheit in Israel, Neukirchen – Vluyn 1970. WAGNER, C., Die Septuaginta – Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach. Untersuchungen zu Wortwahl und Wortbildung des textkritischen und übersetzungstechnischen Aspekts (BZAW 282), Berlin – New York 1999. WISHMEYER, O., Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach (BZNW 77), Berlin – New York 1995. ZIEGLER, J., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2), Göttingen 1965. ZIEGLER, J., Zum Wortschatz des griechischen Sirach, in: HEMPEL, J. – ROST, L. (eds.), Von Ugarit nach Qumran. Fs. O. Eißfeldt (BZAW 77), Berlin 1958, 274-287.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach GIOVANNI RIZZI It is beyond dispute that the direct textual transmission of the Peshitta (Pesh) and the Syro-Hexapla versions of Sirach are only documented in Christian manuscripts. Not only was the Syro-Hexapla version of Sirach unquestionably realized in a Christian environment and was passed down only in Christian manuscripts, but also Pesh Sirach, the first manuscripts (VI-VII centuries) of which are practically contemporary with the first version of the Syro-Hexapla (between 615-617 AD), is undoubtedly a Christian text as far as the direct textual tradition is concerned. The breadth of material and lack of space force us to limit investigation to the Syriac version of Pesh Sirach. Recent criticism has debated whether something more precise can be specified about Pesh Sirach’s Christian origins in the light of some of its internal characteristics, or if the Syriac version, also called linear, should be considered as a translation into Syriac originating in a Jewish context and placed in a Christian environment later. The internal characteristics, seen even more clearly by comparison with the Hebrew text of Sirach1 (HT), and taking into account the direct textual tradition of the Greek text, have been subject to minute analysis, studied in various interpretative and contextual frameworks. One piece of objective evidence is that, even though Sirach does not belong to books which “soil ones hands”, it has a secure indirect textual tradition in intertestamental and also partly Rabbinical Judaism. All this can legitimately lead one to hypothesize that at least the “linear” Syriac version, based on a Hebrew text, could have been originally produced in a Jewish background.

1

Before questions about the accuracy of the method and the merit of the analysis of the internal characteristics of Pesh Sirach, there were problems connected with the direct textual transmission of Sirach in the various versions such as the HT and in particular the objective archetype value of the HT material which has come down to us. However, although taking into account these limitations, one can accept the principle of comparison with the HT as a basis for speculative clarification of Pesh Sir according to one of the current lines of criticism.

278

Giovanni Rizzi

1. The direct textual tradition of Sirach The transmission of the text of Sirach has had one of the most complicated histories of all biblical books. According to R. J. Owens, at least four versions can be indentified: the Hebrew text originally composed by Ben Sira (Hb I);2 a slightly inaccurate version in Greek made by Ben Sira’s grandson (Gr I);3 one or more secondary Hebrew texts containing various expanded readings (Hb II);4 and an expanded Greek text based more or less on Hb II (Gr II)5 reflecting also the Stoic school of Aristobulos in Alexandria.6 Part of current research seems to be directed towards the correction of the Hebrew text, following internal and external criteria, in this case based on comparison with the Greek and the Syriac.7 Along these lines, academics seem to agree that there were two textual forms of Sirach, one shorter and one longer, documented both in the direct textual tradition of the Hebrew and in the Greek.8 In fact the two Hebrew forms (Hb I and Hb II) can be found mixed together in the various manuscripts found at Qumran, Masada and in the Cairo geniza9 and there is debate as to whether all the readings in these manuscripts come from Hebrew models or if in some cases they could be secondary insertions retranslated into Hebrew from other versions.10 There are only around two thirds of the book remaining in Hebrew11 but not in a single manuscript nor in a single type of manuscript;12 the longest manuscript, the so-called B, from the geniza in Cairo, includes parts of 25 chapters.13 Many passages can be found in more than one manuscript. The Hebrew material is made up of 1056 distichs, mostly entire, whilst a further 8 distichs, which are not contained in Hebrew manuscripts from the direct textual tradition, come from Rabbinical quotations, forming altogether 1064 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

This is considered as a textual form rather than a text and closely follows the Hebrew text of Sirach cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 37. Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 39. This is a textual form of the Hebrew tradition which is later than Ben Sira’s grandson’s translation. (cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 37). Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 39 with bibliography at note 1. This approach to textual problems, based on the work of KEARNS, Ecclesiasticus, 546-550, is shared by SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 55. Cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 37-38. Cf. discussion in MINISSALE, La versione greca, 20-22. Cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 37. A brief and reasoned description about the provenance of the Hebrew fragments of Sirach in the order in which they were discovered, can be found in VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico. Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 39. A list of material relating to HTSir in the Hebrew manuscripts of Qumran, Masada and the Cairo geniza can be found in MINISSALE, La versione greca, 29-30. Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 40. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 29.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

279

distichs of the Hebrew text (HT) with respect to the 1616 distiches present in the Greek text. Overall, 26 distichs in Hebrew have no correspondence in Greek, and the Ms B from the geniza in Cairo has a psalm of 16 verses inserted after HTSir 5:12, modelled on TMSal 136.14 The Greek text Gr I is represented in the main uncial manuscripts of LXX, and reflects the original HT version;15 Gr II seems to be the version of a recension of HT,16 which also takes into account Gr I17 and is reflected in Vetus Latina(VL), Peshitta (Pesh), Syro-Hexaplar (Syh), and in the quotations of Clement of Alessandria and John Chrystostom,18 in such a way that some of its readings can be found in the so-called Origenian and Lucianic19 manuscripts, but Gr II has never been represented in its own form.20 The Latin version certainly depends on the Greek, i.e. directly or indirectly from Gr II,21 but it appears that the archetype was not in good condition. Moreover the transmssion of the direct Latin textual tradition of Sirach appears to be confused: variations of direct and indirect textual transmission reflect the uncertainty of the conserved text.22 Jerome incorporated VL into VG without translating it again.23 On the whole the Greek version is the most important of the ancient versions from the original Hebrew: besides being officially accepted by the Church, it is the oldest and in many cases has conserved a form which represents the original HT better than the Hebrew fragments themselves.24 Without doubt the Coptic versions rely on the Greek. The Sahidic version is based on a text linked to the Greek uncials;25 the Ethiopic version is full of paraphrases aimed at explaining the sense of the Greek from which it is translated.26 The Armenian versions are more coherent. The first, besides omitting the “praise to the fathers” as found in the older Latin manuscripts, has various additions and omissions with respect to the Greek and appears to follow both the Greek and the Syriac whilst differing from both. The transla14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26

VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXI. Cf. the classification of Greek codes in VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXIII. Cf. the classification of Greek codes in VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXIII. Cf. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 55. Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXIV. Cf. also SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 56. Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 40. Cf. discussion about the works of Smend and De Bruyne in SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 56. The latest treatment of this problem can be found in the critical edition of VL Sirach edited by W. Thiele (cf. references in CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 38). Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXIV-XXV. Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 40. Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXIV-XXV. Cf. ibid., XXVIII Cf. ibid., XIX

280

Giovanni Rizzi

tor seems to summarize and condense them. The second Armenian version follows the Greek but also conserves elements from the first Armenian version and has some omissions.27 The Arabic version relies on the Syriac but is full of paraphrases and appears to be influenced by the Greek.28

2. Syriac versions of Sirach There are essentially two versions.29 The “linear” Syriac version or “simple” version, known also as Peshitta,30 seems to have been directly translated from a Hebrew text of Sirach, but some scholars maintain that 370 stichs are missing, that it is not particularly accurate, is full of paraphrases, and even the oldest manuscript of its direct textual tradition, dating from 7th century AD,31 contains numerous mistakes which are repeated in later manuscripts.32 The question has been asked whether the original Hebrew of Pesh Sirach had already mixed the two Hebrew recensions of Sirach.33 On the other hand, Pesh Sirach, deriving from the oldest Hebrew textual form, with occasional influences from the longer form, is not without passages which are preferable to the existing Hebrew manuscripts and to the Greek text.34 The Syh Sirach version was derived from a Greek manuscript which was closely related to cod. 253. Besides the excellence of many of its passages, however, there are also, the revisions of a corrector: 20 readings are marked with an asterisk.35 Its importance lies in the fact that it bears witness to the Origenian recension of the Greek version of Sirach36 and that it can be traced back to Hb II37 through Gr II. 27 28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37

Cf. ibid., XXVII-XXVII Cf. ibid., XXVII Of the Christo-Palestinian version of 4th-5th century AD, which is also known as SyroPalestinian, (cf. RIZZI, Fenomeni ermeneutici, 234 note 7) there are only fragments of Sir 12:18; 13:3-4a.7 and 45:25–46:8, largely influenced by Pesh and the Lucianic recension (cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 42). According to ordinary pronunciation it should be “peshitto” but convention and convenience maintain the spelling found in the text. British Museum Code(x) 12142. Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXVI. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 57. Cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 38. Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXVI. Cf. Codex Syro-Hexapharis Ambrosianus. The text of Syh Sir is laid out in two columns: SyhSir 51 is missing, and it occupies half of the first column on the right from f. 80r to f. 96v; the prologue begins in f. 80 of the first column on the right and occupies two thirds of the column; the text of SyhSir 1:1 begins almost at the same height of the first column on the left. Cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 42.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

281

3. The characteristics of Pesh Sir: text and origin of this version The current lack of a critical edition of Pesh Sirach, still under preliminary study at the Peshitta Institute in Leiden,38 leaves questions about the date and character of the original Syriac version wide open as well as questions about whether it has been significantly revised over successive centuries. On the other hand, publication of the manuscripts would not directly resolve all the problems outlined here and anticipated by contemporary criticism because the oldest manuscripts of Pesh Sir do not date back beyond the late 6th or 7th centuries AD. The British Museum Additional Ms 12141, identified in the Leiden material as Ms7h3, has been accessible for over a century in the P. A. de Lagarde39 edition. The Milan Ms B.21 manuscript of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana Inferiore edited by A. Ceriani and identified in the Leiden material as Ms7a1, is now available in an edition edited by N. Calduch-Benages, J. Ferrer and J. Leisen, which is more practical and provided with both English and Spanish translations of the Syriac text. In 1970, a fairly systematic hypothesis about the Pesh Sir version was formulated, based on a Hb II40-type textual form; the archetype may have been modified later with readings from the older Hb I; Pesh Sir would have however retained the exact sequence of chapters from the Hebrew model whilst chapters 30-36 are reversed in Gr I. In 1977 consideration of material relating to the Hebrew text of Sirach led to the hypothesis that a Christian Ebionite translator either from the 3rd century41 or the beginning of the 4th century, had been involved in the origins of Pesh Sir. The reticence towards, or rejection of, references to sacrifices, the priesthood and the monarchy, and prophetic quotations, vegetarian tendencies, poverty and the elimination of anthropomorphisms would have characterized the hermeneutic orientation of the first Syriac translator. Towards the end of the 4th century, another Christian, from the main Orthodox tradition, may have reviewed the translation, introducing changes concerning the personification of Wisdom, the person of Christ and a rather unfavourable attitude to Jewish law.42 Shortly afterwards, in 1981, another hypothesis was put forward which, whilst partly agreeing with the framework of the former, profoundly differed from it. Whilst agreeing that the date of Pesh Sir is around 3rd–4th cen38 39 40 41 42

Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 41. Libri Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi siriace, London 1861. Cf. RÜGER, Text und Textform, 112-115. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 237-253. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 494-507.

282

Giovanni Rizzi

turies, it was proposed that the origin was Jewish, from the Syriac-speaking Jews of the Edessa region, where the Jewish community can be traced back to 40 AD. However, Pesh Sir seems to have reached the Christian community before the middle of the 5th century AD where a reviser made important theological changes regarding life after death, the creation of wisdom, attitudes towards women, the authority of the “fathers” of Judaism and the practice of poverty.43 It can be seen that, with respect to the Hebrew fragments and the Greek revision, the internal characteristics of hermeneutic orientation in the Pesh Sir text are commonly acknowledged. Regarding the question of poverty, it is to be derived from a Christian background whilst the environment of the other elements is rather variable. Questions surrounding the origins of Pesh Sir waver between the idea of a Christian origin in two distinct stages, to a Jewish origin successively arriving in the Christian area, though in the latter case the movement is thought to have taken place towards the 5th century AD. A little later, in 1989, it was possible to propose a revision for the date and provenance of Pesh Sir. Material from the indirect textual tradition of the Syriac text, from the Demonstrations of Aphrahat written between 337 AD and 345 AD, seems to prove that the Syriac version of Sirach was already known in Mesopotamia around 300 AD and perhaps even before then, whilst it originated from a Christian from the common Orthodox tradition.44 The latest stage of the most recent studies (1999) seems to swing between recognition of a theological orientation in Pesh Sir with respect to rejection of sacrifices, a non-conformist attitude to the Judaic halakhah on the subject of Law and an emphasis on the value of prayer and poverty, and the more complex question regarding the origin of these and other peculiarities of Pesh Sir.45 The wider picture46 leads some scholars to postulate a Jewish origin for all the Old Testament Peshitta, including Sirach, to be dated around 300 AD in a background of non-Rabbinic Judaism of a more popular tendency, with the later passage of the Syriac version into the Christian environment.47 Nevertheless, one can make some precise affirmations about the status quaestionis particularly with regard to the development of research in the sequence of works by M. M. Winter, R. J. Owens, and M. P. Weitzman. 43 44 45

46 47

Cf. NELSON, The Syriac Version, 132. Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, , 74-75; another bibliography can be found in CALDUCHBENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 40 note 9. In the posthumously published work by WEITZMAN, The Syriac Version (the author died in 1998), 219, the Ebionite traits of Pesh Sir, as considered by M. M. Winter, are not mentioned as such but seem to fit into the theory that they arise from a form of Judaism which is neither Mishnic nor Rabbinical (about the position of M. P. Weitzman cf. also CALDUCHBENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 41). Cf. bibliography in CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 41. As ibid., 41.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

283

4. The hermeneutical context accompanying the transmission of Pesh Sir Unlike the text of the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach is well-documented regarding its indirect textual tradition in the Jewish environment; starting from its place in the sapiential traditions of the Ancient Near East echoing motifs already known from earlier works, such as Ahiqar48 or the Egyptian scribal literature,49 Sirach has much in common with Tobias, the Enochian cycle, Psalms of Solomon50 and obviously, the Qumran literature.51 The Talmudic tradition does not advise reading it (cf. bSanh 100b; jSanh 28a) so Sirach is counted among the books which are “not Holy Scripture” (Tos. Yad 2,13) and never figured in the list of books belonging to the Miqraot,52 except in bBer 48a where it is cited at least once with the phrase “it is written” which is typical for Miqraot53 books. In any case, Talmudic, Targumic and Midrashic literature, the Hebrew Liturgy itself and medieval Jewish writers quote passages and attribute them to Ben Sira or appear to show traces of his influence.54 In Christian traditions, obviously, as well as direct textual tradition, the indirect textual tradition is also well documented. In the New Testament, though indicating neither the author nor the book,55 Sirach is cited in Mt,56 Luke,57 in Heb58 and Jas;59 the same is true for Sir 4:31 cited in the Didache 4,5 and in the Letters of Barnabas 19,9. Although the Christian traditions of the Patristic epoch in Greek and Latin argued about the canonicity of the book, even when they denied it a place in the canon they quoted Sirach with the introductory formula used for canonical books.60 Ancient Christian traditions in Greek and Latin have important corroborations in the indirect textual traditions in Syriac. In particular, where it quotes in Syriac the text of Sirach, the Demonstrations of Aphrahat provide 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Cf. a catalogue of points in common between the two works in NAU, Histoire et sagesse, 60-64 (cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXX and notes 75, 76). Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXX note 77. Cf. ibid., XXX notes 77, 78, 79. Cf. ibid., XXXII note 86 has a bibliography on the subject. Cf. rabbinical quotations and critical literature ibid., XXXI. CAVALLETTI (ed.), Il Trattato delle Benedizioni, 319-320. Cf. specific bibliography already seen in VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXXI-XXXII. Cf. ibid., XXXI with specific bibliography. Mt 6:14 = Sir 28:2; Mt 6:19 = Sir 29:12; Mt 16:27 = Sir 32:24. Lk 1:17 = Sir 48:10; Lk 10:7 = Sir 29:24; Lk 12:15ff = cf. Sir 31:3. Heb 2:2 = Sir 25:3 Cf. bibliography in VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXXII note 87. Cf. examination and discussion of material from the indirect textual tradition of Sirach in Christian literature from the Patristic era in Greek and Latin in VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, XXXIII-XL.

284

Giovanni Rizzi

evidence of Pesh Sirach before the 7th century manuscripts, the earliest evidence of the direct textual tradition of Pesh Sirach. The body of Demonstrations, parts of which can be precisely dated, 337 AD (Dem 1-10), 344 AD (Dem 11-22) and 345 AD (Dem 23) precedes the Liber Graduum and most probably also the works of Ephraim.61 Research into Syriac quotations of Sirach in Demonstrations is reviewed by R. J. Owen who finds it lacking and requests an examination of the conclusions reached.62 Of Strothman’s work, Owen points out how superficial the study of Ephraim’s corpus was, and also that of the Liber Graduum, so much so that he cannot confirm the affirmation about the absence of any recognisable quotations from Sirach,63 whilst his treatment of material from Aphrahat is insufficient, omitting various important passages. As regards material studied by Winter, Owen emphasizes that Winter’s list of quotations of Pesh Sir in Demonstrations of Aphrahat is incomplete64 as well as being erroneous.65

5. Quotations of Pesh Sir in Demonstrations of Aphrahat as christian hermeneutic in the syriac text The Demonstrations of Aphrahat should be seen as theological essays in which the literary genre of biblical quotations, including Pesh Sir, is contextualized. They can be introduced by the formula “as is written” or “as is stated”, but only rarely is there a citation of the title of the biblical book, from which they are taken. Often there is no introductory formula so that the quotation becomes an integral part of the theological reasoning of Aphrahat, rather than an isolated entry in the manner of pesher, whilst still being proof of the biblical text. Aphrahat uses his quotations casually, almost unconsciously. Just as with the 250 Pentateuch quotations, the “Persian Sage” quotes Pesh Sir from memory, although not always accurately. Paraphrases are sometimes used or shortened quotations, or allusions which more or less conform to the actual biblical text. Often there are lectiones conflatae – two or more similar texts, where paraphrases, conflatio and brief ref61 62 63 64

65

Cf. bibliography and discussion in OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 48 note 21; for the Syriac mss of the Demonstrations, cf. ibid., 48 note 22. Cf. both parts of Winter’s study, and STROTHMAN, Jesus-Sirach-Zitate. Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 49 note 24. PeshSir 1:6.7 in Dem. 14,35; PeshSir 29:18 in Dem. 20,7; PeshSir 32(35):10c in Dem. 20,4; PeshSir 44:14 in Dem. 14,45; PeshSir 44:17 in Dem. 13,5; PeshSir 44:20 in Dem. 12,3; PeshSir 45:1 in Dem. 23,19; PeshSir 45:23 in Dem. 23,4; PeshSir 48:3.4 in Dem. 4,2 (WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac [Part II], 506). PeshSir 28:18 belongs to Dem. 22,7 and not to Dem. 20,7; PeshSir 44:20 cannot be found in Dem. 12,3 (cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 49 note 23).

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

285

erences make it difficult to identify the material in question:66 Altogether there are around ten quotations, (PeshSir 1:6.20a; PeshSir 29:11.12.18; PeshSir 32:12; PeshSir 44:17; PeshSir 45:1.2.3; PeshSir 48:3)67 for which Aphrahat agrees with most or even all the manuscripts of Pesh Sir, never diverging completely from them and in three cases agreeing, contrary to all the other versions or significant readings. Where Aphrahat does diverge from the manuscripts of Pesh Sir (cf. Ps 32:12), he agrees with the marginal reading of Ms B Sir 32:12, although the gloss could also derive from the Syriac. Aphrahat is never in accordance with any other witness against Pesh Sir, which remains his fundamental reference point.68 Aphrahat therefore knew the Book of Sirach and seems to consider it to be part of the Holy Scriptures, quoting it in the same way as other OT and NT texts. Quoting it from memory, he mixes readings with other texts from the Scriptures but his text is essentially that found in the manuscripts of Pesh Sir between 6th-8th centuries AD and also later. It can be seen, in some cases, however, that Aphrahat was not around at the beginning of the developmental history of Pesh Sir. Quotations from the biblical book can be found in Demonstrations starting with the oldest part, 337 AD, up to the most recent, 345 AD. Given the familiarity of Aphrahat with the Syriac biblical text, it seems reasonable to postulate that Pesh Sir was in circulation in Mesopotamia before 337 AD meaning that the basic Syriac text with its Christian characteristics could go back to 300 AD or perhaps even earlier.69

6. Internal examination of Pesh Sir It is acknowledged that Pesh Sir70 diverges notably from HT Sirach and Greek and Latin versions. As far as quantity goes, Pesh Sir adds 74 lines but 66

67 68 69 70

The quotations identified are: PeshSir 1:6 (cf. 16:20), in Dem. 14,35; PeshSir 1:20a + 29:1112 in Dem. 20,4; PeshSir 29:18 in Dem. 22,7; PeshSir 32(35):12 in Dem. 20,4 (twice contiguously); the presence of conflatio PeshSir 37:26 + PeshSir 41:13 + PeshSir 29:11-12 in Dem. 20,4 is discussed; PeshSir 44:17 in Dem. 13,5; PeshSir 44:17 is reflected in Dem. 23,14; PeshSir 45:1 in Dem. 23,19; PeshSir 45:23 in Dem. 14,15 (twice at a short distance); PeshSir 45:23 + PeshEzek 22:30 +PeshPs 106:23 in Dem. 23,4.5; PeshSir 48:3 in Dem. 4,12 (cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 50-72). Depending on the case, there can be convergences or divergences in the Mss of Pesh and also in HT-LXX-Syh-VL Sir (cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 73-74). There does not appear to be a clear reference point for the quotations of Aphrahat among the direct textual transmission manuscripts of Pesh Sir (cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 74). Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 75. There is currently available a new edition of the Peshitta Sirach in the Ambrosian codex

286

Giovanni Rizzi

omits 193 and a half compared to the Gr I with 1616 lines. Compared to HT Sirach, Pesh Sir adds 40 and a half lines but leaves out 169 and a half. Like the HT version, there is a lack of rigour and faithfulness in Pesh Sir due to comments, paraphrases, fanciful translations, summaries, abbreviations of various hemistichs into single ones, additions and developments which diminish its value.71 The relationship to Gr II, a small part of which is present in HT,72 is more complex. Where Pesh Sir and Gr II are comparable, the Syriac text contains 19 lines of Gr II but omits 47; Pesh Sir adds a line in PeshSir 26:26. Of the Gr II material, 43 and a half lines are conserved in VL Sira plus 2 words in VLSir 1:9a of which there is no trace in Pesh Sir. The problem is even more complex as far as the nature of Pesh Sir is concerned because where it has material in common with HT or LXX Sir, there are differences in formulation and meaning. There is a tendency to attribute these discrepancies to an paraphrasing or a free rendition by the Syriac translator who did not understand the sense of the Hebrew. For some scholars, some of these differences are undoubtedly due to a poor understanding of Hebrew, but others think these differences were deliberate in a significant number of cases. If there were originally two versions of the HT Sir, successive textual transmission would have led to the usual display of partial confusion or amalgamation of the two textual forms so that Pesh Sir, in some cases, has faithfully translated a Hebrew form, before the textual forms were mixed up, whilst the Greek translated from the mixed form (cf. HTSir 4:30a). Following this line of research it should be possible to gather a considerable number of differences between HT Sir and Gr. However there is another way to identify the peculiarities of Pesh Sir. They could be considered as desired changes to the text in the course of its translation, attributable to the theological choices of the translator. This would be normal in ancient traditions and can be seen in the Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew texts of the Bible and in Jerome’s Latin version from “Hebraica veritas”.73

71 72 73

originally edited by A. Ceriani. This new edition is by CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba (cf. review of I. Carbajosa: EstB 61 [2003] 133-136). Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 40-41. Cf. PeshSir 3:25 (one line); PeshSir 11:15.16 (two lines); PeshSir 16:15.16 (two lines); PeshSir 30:12d (half a line) and PeshSir 30:20c (half a line). Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 237-238.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

287

7. Interpretative character of Pesh Sir If the translation of Pesh Sir is considered as the worst in the Syriac Bible,74 alongside the many linguistic errors due to various reasons75 there is also a series of changes which the translator seems to have introduced on purpose for theological reasons. Some are of Jewish origin, others of Christian origin thus showing a Midrashic tendency in the translators and revisors, hence making them real interpreters of the Biblical text. Without going into the relationships between the literary genres of Peshitta and the Targum, it is sufficient to recall the classification, proposed or assumed by various scholars, of three types of specific characteristics in Pesh Sir: the substitution, attenuation or elimination of the anthropomorphic expressions of HT or LXX; the biblical quotations reformulated in Pesh; the amplification of a text with parenthetical elements aimed at making it more comprehensible.76 Regarding the anthropomorphisms, in PeshSir 11:21 the syntagm “the word of the Lord” substitutes for the corresponding “the eyes of the Lord” in LXXSir 11:12c (HTSir 11:12 “the eye of the Lord”), eliminating the entire phrase “they looked upon him” (LXXSir 11:12; to the singular in HTSir 11:12). In PeshSir 39:28 “they calm the spirit of the Creator“ reformulates HT-LXX Sir 39:28 “the winds calm the anger of their Creator”; in PeshSir 42:18 “because nothing is hidden from God” reformulates HT77-LXXSir 42:18 “God saw the signs of the age”; in PeshSir 45:2 “he made him (= Moses) great in blessings” greatly reformulates HTSir 45:2 “and made him man of God and strengthened him in greatness” and LXXSir 45:2 “he made him (= Moses) equal in the glory of the saints»; PeshSir 47:20 and PeshSir 48:10 eliminate the syntagm corresponding to “the wrath of God” in HT-LXXSir 47:20 and in HT-LXXSir 48:10. In the quotation of MTMal 3:24, HT-LXXSir 48:10 reprises “to convert the hearts of the fathers towards the sons” and adds “and to re-establish the tribes of Israel”; PeshSir 48:10 reformulates “to lead the sons to the fathers”and changes “to convert the tribes of Jacob“.78 In HT-LXXSir 49:6.7 the quotation of MTJer 1:10 is recalled with the following reformulation: “by means of Jeremiah (6); in fact they were tormenting him yet he had been consecrated79 prophet from the womb80 to uproot, lay bare and destroy, in order to build, plant and restore (7)”; in fact, the reformulation of Pesh74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Cf. SMEND, Die Weisheit, CXXXVII. Cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 48. Cf. ibid., 48-51. The text is mutilated in precisely this syntagm. (cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 229) Cf. the translation by WEITZMAN, The Syriac Version, 244. LXX, literally “sanctified”. LXX, literally “in the womb”; for HT-LXX meaning “of his mother”.

288

Giovanni Rizzi

Sir 49:6-7 completely contracts the text: “to the days of Jeremiah (6), who had been prophet from the womb of his mother (7)”. The formulation of HTSir 49:9 “and also (Ezekiel) made mention of Job, who was steadfast in the ways of justice” recalls MTEzek14:14. In turn, PeshSir 49:9 reformulates: “and also (Ezekiel) said of Job that his ways were ones of justice”. In place of LXXSir 1:22-27, after PeshSir 1:20, the Syriac proposes the largest gloss81 of the whole book, predominantly relative to eschatology82 PeshSir 1:20

Its (=wisdom) roots are eternal life And length of days its flower .

PeshSir 1:*1

Blessed is the man who meditates on it Because it is better for him than all treasures. Blessed is the man who seeks it And attends to its commandments It will prepare an eternal crown for him and eternal victory among the saints. He will rejoice in it and it will rejoice in him and will not abandon him for ever and ever The angels of God will rejoice in it and will tell all the praises of the Lord The whole of this book is full of life; blessed is the man who will listen and fulfil it. Listen to me, you who fear God and pay attention and consider my words. Who is he who longs to inherit life and eternal gain and great happiness? Listen to all my words and fulfil them and you will be written in the books of life Love the fear of the Lord and fix your heart in him and do not fear. Search and do not turn back and you will find life for your spirit. And when you search, (be) like a hero and a champion.

*2 *3 *4 *5 *6 *7 *8 *9 *10 *11 *12

By means of original Midrashic activity, the translator, has undoubtedly developed the language and message of Sirach relative to the relationship between wisdom (PeshSir 1:*1a) and fear of the Lord (PeshSir 1:*10a) or fear of God (PeshSir 1:*7a), the book to observe (PeshSir 1:*6a.b), observance of the Law (PeshSir 1:*9a), listening to the wise man (PeshSir 1:*7b), advantages for the 81

82

PeshSir ignores LXXSir 1:21 and in place of LXXSir 1:22-27 proposes the section 1:*1-*12 (without attestation elsewhere, identified as having Essene affinity, cf. GILBERT, L’addition de Siracide 1,21, 318) to then link up with PeshSir 1:27 (cf. 7a1), corresponding – even if not altogether completely – to LXXSir 1:28 (ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach, 132). Concerning eschatology in Pesh Sir cf. also bibliography in CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 48 note 29.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

289

diligent disciple (PeshSir 1:*8). The translator resorts to the same didactic style of Sirach using macarisms (PeshSir 1:*1a.*2a.*6b), imperatives (PeshSir 1:*7a.b.*9a.*10a.b.*11a), setting out moral teachings about listening (PeshSir 1:*7a.*9a), adding a specific form of eschatological midrash haggadah, equally designed to teach in the style of Sirach. In particular, the eschatological theme is formulated through the language of the eternal crown (PeshSir 1:*3a) and the glory of the saints (PeshSir 1:*3b), rejoicing forever with wisdom (PeshSir 1:*4a.b), the angels of God (PeshSir 1:*5a), inheriting life (PeshSir 1:*8a), eternal gain and great happiness (PeshSir 1:*8b), inscription in the books of life (PeshSir 1:*9b), finding life for the spirit (PeshSir 1:*11b).83 On the other hand, the exuberant development of the eschatological theme in the section of PeshSir 1:*1-*12 has already been introduced in a specific modification of the formulation of PeshSir 1:20a where, instead of the reading in LXXSir 1:20a “the root of wisdom is to fear the Lord”, the Syriac version is “its (= wisdom) roots are in eternal life”. The expression Ml[d ay|J is absent in LXXSir 1:20 but it is exactly parallel to the Greek makrohme,reusij (“length of days”), rendered in Syriac with the equivalent syntagm atm|wyd argwn. If, as is likely, LXXSir 1:20 is the most faithful rendition of the lost HT, the Syriac interpretation “eternal life” has an important cue in “length of days” in opening the successive eschatological development.

8. Specificity of Pesh Sir in continuous sequences of verses The specific characteristics of Pesh Sir, whose hermeneutic phenomena are due to a reformulation by its Syriac translator, emerge both in circumscribed passages and in sequences of contiguous verses. In the case of sequences of contiguous verses, besides the usual range of peculiarity in Syriac relative to omissions, additions, reformulations, philological choices, Midrashic undertakings with respect to the Hebrew or Greek, grammatical and syntactical elements also contribute to outline a trend in the Syriac version, not only as to the “translational” stylistic characteristics from one language to another but also relative to the contents of the Syriac version or reformulation. However, it seems that definitive proof can rarely be had about the religious persuasion of the translator, outside the context of the direct textual transmission of the text, in such a way that the translation clearly shows a precise religious persuasion, with well-defined theological orientation, differing from that of the Syriac Christians transmitted in the text. If one takes the three sequences of PeshSir 35:1-11; PeshSir 45:8-15 and

83

Cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 50-51.

290

Giovanni Rizzi

PeshSir 50:19-22 as sample material for this type of investigation, only PeshSir 35:11 shows, in a convincing way, the adoption of a gospel passage with reformulation partly similar to PeshLk 6:34-35. The remaining material specific to Pesh could, at first sight, be understood as being due to different theological orientations, Jewish and Christian, and indeed this has been the case amongst the critics which have studied it. However, before methodically setting out the analyses, it is important to begin with the undisputed fact that the text has been transmitted in a Christian environment and, as such, adopted and understood. Only in the face of overwhelming evidence, and not just hypothetical supposition, should one dismiss that which is the best documented hypothesis up to now: that Pesh Sir was translated in a Christian environment. The task of identifying and describing with a certain precision any possible Christian tendency, in the Syriac Christian tradition, to which the Pesh Sir version, or part of it, belongs, is far more complicated and here too the findings are just vague indications. In this case it is also better to start from the most obvious hypothesis i.e. that the specific characteristics of Pesh Sir reflect the most common Syriac Christianity current at the time it was translated. According to the oldest attestations of its indirect textual tradition, Pesh Sir is reflected in the same ecclesiastical tradition as Aphrahat, for example. The history of research into the internal characteristics of Pesh Sir seem to demonstrate that moving away from a similar fundamental context has not achieved convincing results. It seems likely that the study of the indirect textual tradition of Pesh Sir, possibly integrated with a study of the indirect textual tradition of Syh Sir, could help to clarify the hermeneutic and theological characteristics of Pesh Sir. 8.1 PeshSir 35:1-11 On the whole, even in the absence of a corresponding HT, comparison of PeshSir 35:1-11 and LXXSir 37:1-10, allows us to highlight a tendency to emphasize the ritual halakhah in the Greek and an opposing tendency to drastically reduce the presence of the ritual halakhah in the Syriac, replacing it mostly with observance of the law, alms-giving, giving to the poor and prayer. But this does not just concern adjustments to small textual segments or isolated lemmata. When LXXSir 37:5 recapitulates the halakhic prescription of the preceding context LXXSir 37:1-6 with pa,nta ga.r tau/ta (“in fact all these things”) explaining the strict connection (ca,rin) to the evntolh/j (commandment), it is precisely at this point that PeshSir 35:5 rigorously suppresses any possible reference to the preceding prescriptions and their connection to the divine command; for the Syriac to observe the commandment means to achieve what is good.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

291

Independently of whether Pesh Sirach and LXXSirach have or have not derived from the same Hebrew text,84 the nature of the two versions differs in an unyielding way. When it is possible to follow HT-LXX-Pesh Sir in synopsis as in the section which follows the preceding one, although this does not necessarily always mean that the HT noted there is the same as that presupposed by both LXX and Pesh, the nature of the Greek version and the Syriac version show tendencies similar to those noted above.85 HTSir86 35:9

~ynp rah $yX[m lkb 87rX[m Xdqh !wXXbw and in all your works show a radiant face and with joy sanctify your tithes

LXXSir 37:11

evn pa,sh| do,sei i`la,rwson to. pro,swpo,n sou kai. evn euvfrosu,nh| a`gi,ason deka,thn and in every gift show a cheerful face and happily give your tithe

PeshSir 35:11

Ky\pa Ny\hn Nwh\n Ktbh\wm lkb Kl [r;p ald Nml pzwa atwdJbw and in all your gifts let your face be radiant and with joy give to him who cannot repay you.

LXXSir 37:11 coincides almost completely with HTSir 35:9 except for the first two words of the first hemistich where in Hebrew the plural is used rather than the singular in Greek. The first hemistich of PeshSir 35:11 coincides with that of HTSir 35:9 whilst the second hemistich of PeshSir 35:11 omits the halakhah to sanctify with joy the tenth of HTSir 35:9b in favour of the invitation to lend to those who cannot repay: critics88 emphasize that the theme in Syriac is similar to PeshLc 6:34-35 also because of the use of Syriac verbs pzy (“lend”) and [rp (“refund”). HTSir 35:10

89dy 90tgXhbw

!y[ bwjb $l 91wtntmk 92wl !t

give to him as he has given to you with goodness of eye and generosity of hand. 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

Considered likely by WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 240. Cf. ibid. Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 185. Cf: variations in Ms Bm “your tithe”, “your works”. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 240. In the margin of Ms B gloss ahw ~a yk twlwmg l[b ymw !wybal !twn yyy hwlm (“lend to the Lord who gives to the poor; and who is the lord of recompense if not Him?”). Ms Bm gloss Xygh[k]bw tgXh[k]bw. Ms Bm wttmk (does not change the meaning). Ms Bm lal (“to God”).

Giovanni Rizzi

292 LXXSir 37:12

do.j u`yi,stw| kata. th.n do,sin auvtou/ kai. evn avgaqw/| o`fqalmw/| kaqV eu[rema ceiro,j Give to the Most High as he has given to you And with good eye as your hand has found93

PeshSir 35:10

anksml bh atbF any{bw Ktbhwmb {yztt alw and with a good eye give to the poor and do not worry about your gifts.

The differences between HTSir 35:10 and LXXSir 37:12 do not lie in the content of the expressions: LXXSir 37:12 “to the Most High” seems to be closer to the marginal variant of Sir 35:10 (Ms B) “to God”, whilst LXXSir 37:12b seems to resort to the translational technique of using the adjective in Greek (“and with good eye”) rather than the Hebrew genitive in HTSir 35:10 (“and with goodness of eye”). LXXSir 37:12 (“according to what your hand has found”) is an interpretation relative to unplanned generosity in HTSir 35:10 (“and with generosity of hand”). PeshSir 35:10 is completely different. It might be thought that Pesh was based on a different HT from that noted in the recorded variants; moreover the sequence of verses in the immediate context of HT-PeshSir 35:10-11 does coincide, and it is reasonable to think that the hermeneutic operation was radical; similar to the development of LXXSir 37:12, PeshSir 35:10 too renders the qualitative genitive of the Hebrew as an adjective “with good eye gives”; the destination of the action is no longer God but “to the poor” which would seem to approach the marginal gloss of Sir 35:10 (Ms B) “lend to the Lord who gives to the poor”, even if in PeshSir 35:10 all references to God or the Lord have disappeared. The last part of PeshSir 35:10 “and do not worry about your gifts” remains without any textual comparison in the context of PeshSir 35:10. The sequence of HTSir 35:11-12 does not have anything corresponding in Pesh Sir, PeshSir 35:12 being absent from the Ambrosian codex, whilst PeshSir 35:11 corresponds to HTSir 35:9. HTSir 35:11

$l

94byXy

~yt[bXw awh twmwlXt hwla yk

In fact God is the one who repays and he will repay you seven times as much LXXSir 37:13

o[ti Ku,rioj avntapodidou,j evstin kai. evptapla,sia avntapodw,ei soi In fact the Lord is the one who continues to repay and he will repay you seven times as much.

93 94

Literally, “how much it found unexpectedly” (cf. LUST – EYNIKEL – HAUSPIE [eds.], GreekEnglish Lexicon, 188b-189a). In Ms Bm there is the variation ~lXy (does not change the meaning).

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

293

In the immediate context of PeshSir 35, the theme of recompense seems to have been absorbed into the formulation of PeshSir 35:11b “and with joy gives to him who cannot repay you”.

8.2 PeshSir 45:8-15 The Syriac text of the Peshitta corresponding to HTSir 45:9-15 is almost completely missing from the Ambrosian codex, producing the sequence PeshSir 45:8-15. The missing part concerns the description of the liturgical vestments of Aaron, mentioning double daily sacrifice. The only common element of this sequence remains PeshSir 45:15 HTSir 45:15

Xdqh !mXb whxXmyw wdy ta hXm alm[yw] ~ymX ymyk w[rzlw ~lw[ tyrb wl yhtw wmXb wm[ ta $rblw wl !hklw trXl and Moses filled his hand and anointed it with holy oil and there was for him an eternal pact like the days of Heaven95 to be servant and priest for him and to bless his people in his name

LXXSir 45:15

evplh,rwsen Mwush/j ta.j cei/raj kai. e;crisen auvto.n evn evlai,w| a`gi,w| evgenh,qh auvtw|/ eivj diaqh,khn aivwn/ oj kai. evn tw/| spe,rmati auvtou/ evn h`me,raij ouvranou/ leitourgei/n auvtw/| a=ma kai. i`erateu,ein kai. euvlogei/n to.n lao.n auvtou/ evn tw/| ovno,mati Moses filled his hands and anointed him with holy oil and eternal covenant 96came to him and his descendants97 in the days of Heaven98 to serve him and together to execute the office of the priesthood and bless his people in the name

PeshSir 45:15

95 96 97

98

hdya acwm yhwl[ Msw acdwqd ajcm hjcmw Ml[d amyql hl twhw aymcd atm|wy Kya h[rzlw hmcb hm[l wkrbmlw wcmcml

Cf. translation by MINISSALE, La versione greca, 214. The Hebrew tyrb is rendered with the Greek diaqh,kh in HT-LXXSir 41:19; HT-LXXSir 44:12.20.22; HT-LXXSir 45:15.24.25. The diaqh,kh – tyrb as a divine commitment-promise (cf. HT-LXXSir 44:22) can be found in relation to the divine “pact (= promissory pact)” with Phineas also in HTSir 45:24; his characteristic is his real persistence, at the time of the writing of Sirach, given that he could not avail Phineas’ descendants (cf. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 114-115). Cf. translation by MINISSALE, La versione greca, 214.

Giovanni Rizzi

294

and Moses put his hand on his hand and anointed him with holy oil and there was for him an eternal pact and for his descendants in the days of Heaven to serve and bless his people in his name

The translations of LXXSir 45:15a “and filled... his hands” presumes a reading in the singular of HTSir 45:15 with collective value, rather than as a technical expression for the ritual of sacerdotal consecration. The passage of LXXSir 45:15cd “and eternal covenant came to him and his descendants in the days of heaven” in so far as its is a translation of HTSir 45:15, contextually emphasizes the involvement of the descendants of Phineas in the “eternal pact”;99 the formulation of LXXSir 45:15d “in the days of heaven” is more generic with respect to that of HT;100 the rendition of HTSir 45:1f is more technical “in his name”, in LXXSir 45:15f “in the name”. The Syriac version of PeshSir 45:15 is completely faithful to HTSir 45:15 except for one point: in the last stich the Syriac does not translate the Hebrew wl !hklw dropping the explicit mention of sacerdotal service.101 LXXSir 45:5, on the other hand, gives a specific emphasis “and together to execute the office of the priesthood”.

8.3 PeshSir 50:19-22 HTSir 50:19

~wxr ynpl hlptb #rah ~[ lk wnryw wyla [ygh wyjpXmw xbzm trXl wtwlk d[ and all the people of the earth cried102 in prayer in front of the Merciful One until he completed his service at the altar and his ritual disposition (and they) besought him103

LXX 50:19

kai. evdh,qh o` lao.j kuri,ou u`yi,stou e[n proseuch/| kate,nanti evleh,monoj e[wj suntelesqh/j| ko,smoj kuri,ou kai. th.n leitourgi,an auvtou/ evtelei,wsan and the people of God Most High104 besought105 him in prayer in front of the Merciful One

99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Cf. translation by MINISSALE, La versione greca, 214 about the cases of interpenetration of the different generations (cf also HT-LXXSir 44:11ab.22a.23de) Cf. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 177. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 243. Cf. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 187. Meaning “to God”; cf. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 203. The Greek presupposes the HT !wyl[ la (cf. cases in HT-LXX Sir discussed by MINISSALE, La versione greca, 212) Cf. MINISSALE, La versione greca,187.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

295

until the worship of the Lord was completed and they had finished his106 service PeshSir 50:22

ahlal a[rad am[ wjbcw and the people of the Earth prayed to God

The modification of LXXSir 50:19 “and the people of God Most High besought him” with respect to HTSir 50:19 “and the people of the earth cried” is part of a wide range of cases in LXX Sirach in which one expression is exchanged for another that is more specific.107 With the “people of God Most High” in reality LXXSir 50:19 renders the technical expression of HTSir 50:19 “people of the earth” as distinguished from the priests.108 The Midrashic rendition of LXXSir 50:19 “until the worship of the Lord is complete and they had finished his service”, with regard to HTSir 50:19 “until he completed his service at the altar and his ritual dispositions (and they) besought him”, belongs to those thematic interpretative phenomena with which, even in LXXSir 50, it is emphasized that the altar, although holy, is below God.109 In PeshSir 50:22 only a trace remains of the first stich of HTSir 50:19 “the people of the earth”. Rather than the divine title “the Merciful One” there is the simpler “God”, and the theme of prayer “they pray” in place of the more passionate Hebrew formulation “they cried”. Any reference to the halakhah of the ritual dispositions about service at the altar is completely missing, whilst present in HT-LXXSir 50:19. HTSir 50:20

larXy lhq lk l[ wydy aXnw dry za rapth yyy ~Xbw wyjpXb yyy tkrbw then he lowered110 and raised his hands111 on the congregation of Israel and the blessing of the Lord (was) on his lips and he rejoiced in the name of the Lord

LXXSir 50:20

to,te kataba.j evph/ren cei/raj auvtou/ evpi. pa,san evkklhsi,an ui`wn/ Israhl dou/nai euvlogi,an kuri,ou evk ceile,wn auvtou/ kai. evn ovno,mati auvtou/ kauch,sasqai then having lowered (them) he raised112 his hands over the congregation of the children of Israel

106 107 108 109 110 111 112

Cf. ibid., 203. Cf. ibid., 185-188. Cf. ibid., 222. Cf. also LXXSir 50:11c.14 in the discussion found in MINISSALE, La versione greca, 203. Cf. discussion on HTSir 50:19. Cf. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 253. Cf. ibid.

Giovanni Rizzi

296

to give the blessing of the Lord from his lips and rejoice in his name.

The translation of LXXSir 50:20 in the part corresponding to the first stich of HTSir 50:20 represents a change of construction but without any real change to the meaning. The introduction of the parataxis in the description of the movement with which the high priest lowers and raises his hands over the assembly and the characteristic rendition of the Hebrew “Israel“ with the Greek “children of Israel”113 is intended to provide greater clarification.114 Moreover, the rendition, slightly more paraphrased in LXXSir 50:20 with respect to the second stich of HTSir 50:20, introduces, with the gloss “to give“, the explanation of the priestly action by which the people were blessed, but the Greek tradition also highlights the parallelism between rejoicing in the name of the Lord and giving the blessing. The complete absence of the part corresponding to HTSir 50:20 in the actual sequence of the Ambrosian codex for PeshSir 50:17.22 does not only regard the ritual halakhah of the priestly blessing but introduces what M. M. Winter calls “the hostility towards the priesthood” by the Ebionite translator.115 HTSir 50:21

wynpm l... tynX lpnl wnXyw and they turned116 to prostrate themselves a second time... in front of him

LXXSir 50:21

kai. evdeute,rwsan evn proskunh,sei evpide,xasqai th.n euvlogi,an para. u`yi,stou and they turned117 a second time in prostration to receive the blessing from the Most High

Although HTSir 50:21 is mutilated, it is quite likely that LXXSir 50:21 reflects its original reading. In any case the clarification in Greek of “Most High” can be noted with respect to the Hebrew pronominal suffix in “before him”. Even in this case, the entire verse, concerning the ritual of priestly blessing, is absent from the formulation of PeshSir 50:22 HTSir 50:22

larXy yhla yyy ta an wkrb ht[ #rab twX[l alpmh wnwcrk whX[yw ~xrm ~da ldgmh now therefore bless the Lord, God of Israel who does wondrous things on earth

113 114 115 116 117

Cf. also HT-LXXSir 47:2b and HT-LXXSir 50:20b (ibid., 222). Cf. ibid., 255. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 242. Cf. discussion on HTSir 50:19. Cf. discussion on LXXSir 50:19.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

297

and makes man grow from the womb118 and deals with him according to his will119 LXXSir 50:22

kai. nu/n euvlogh,sate tw/| qew/| pa,ntwn tw/| mega,la poiou/nti pa,nth| to.n u`you/nta h`me,raj h`mw/n evk mh,traj kai. poiou/nta meqV h`mw/n kata. to. e;leoj auvtou/ and now bless the God of all who does great things everywhere who exalts120 our days from the womb and who acts with us according to his mercy

PeshSir 50:22

a[rab atcyr|p db[d Nwhmad asrk Nm acn|ynb arbd hnybx Kya Nwhl rbdmw who does121 wondrous things on earth who creates122 men from the womb of their mother and who leads123 them according to his will.

With respect to the formulation of HTSir 50:22, that of LXXSir 50:22 clarifies the tendency to specify divine epithets according to context.124 The Hebrew “Lord, God of Israel” is transformed into the more universal formula of the Greek, “the God of all”, so as to invite not only Israel but everyone to bless the Lord and extend even indirectly the range of the priestly blessing. With respect to the Hebrew formulation, LXXSir 50:22 introduces in the last two stichs125 some changes of a Midrashic nature in order to highlight man’s personal freedom.126 These changes are also communicated through the change of construction of the verb “to bless”, firstly construed 118 Cf. MINISSALE, La versione greca, 208. 119 Cf. ibid. 120 The Greek verb corresponding to “to bless” was firstly construed with the dative (“the God of all”) and then with the accusative (“who exalts ... and who acts”). 121 CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 266-267, translate a perfect in the Syriac version in Spanish and English; WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 242, renders it with the present, reading the participle. 122 CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 266-267, translate the Syriac perfect in Spanish whilst in the English translation they turn to the periphrastic formulation “(who) has been guiding”; whereas WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 242, renders it with the present, reading the participle. 123 CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 266-267, translate a perfect in Syriac both in English and Spanish; WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 242, renders it with the present, reading the participle. 124 Cf. numerous examples in HT-LXX Sirach in the treatment by MINISSALE, La versione greca, 212. 125 Cf. ZIEGLER, Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach. 126 Cf. also in the cases of HT-LXXSir 3:28b, HT-LXXSir 33:13 and HT-LXXSir 41:9b in the treatment by MINISSALE, La versione greca, 208.

298

Giovanni Rizzi

with the dative (LXXSir 50:22ab) and then with the accusative (LXXSir 50:22cd). In place of the Hebrew “makes man grow from the womb” the Greek says “from our days in the womb”, and in place of the Hebrew “and deals with him according to his will” the Greek says “and acts with us according to his mercy”. The formulation PeshSir 50:22 in the part corresponding to the last three stichs of the Greek, reflects HTSir 50:22 with some differences; a simplified and non-literal rendition in “who does wondrous things on the earth”, the gloss “of their mother“ and the interpretations of the divine act “who creates ... and who leads them”.

9. Theory about the ebionite christian origin of Pesh Sir The Ebionites seem to have been at the origin of the Syriac version of Pesh Sir. Later, a non-sectarian but Orthodox Christian school may have revised certain points relative to wisdom, Christological hermeneutics and a hostile attitude to Judaic law.127 Overall, M. M. Winter’s research formulates the theory that, as well as the PeshSir 35:1-13 sequence, there are around 42 texts in which the distinctive traits of Ebionite theology can be found. Their theological heredity seems to be present in Pseudo-Clementine literature and is discussed by Epiphanius in his Panarion.128 The reformulation in the Syriac version, with respect to the Hebrew of Sirach, clearly shows ideas which had already been assimilated into literature, such as the reluctance to speak about sacrifices, hostility towards the priesthood and the monarchy, reluctance to quote scriptural prophets, preference for poverty, vegetarian tendencies.129 The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, for example, through the quotation of PeshSir 35:10c in 20,4, reveals that Pesh Sir existed in its Ebionite form130 at the beginning of the 4th century. Apart from this material, there is other material which reveals an origin in a non-sectarian Christian tradition, in this sense orthodox131 accord127 Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II). 128 Cf. patristic sources and general notes on modern bibliography on the Ebionites in WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 251-252; ID., The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 494. 129 For the presence of these characteristic traits of Ebionite theology, cf. bibliographical directions in WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 252. 130 Two quotations from Pesh Sir appear in the Liber Graduum, cf. PeshSir 2:1 in Disc. 19,3 and PeshSir 38:4 in Disc. 7,18. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 506 note 12. 131 Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 494.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

299

ing to the terminology used by M. M. Winter. This material in Syriac, when it varies from HT and Gr I, is very different from the specific characteristics of Gr II. This translator’s Syriac version goes back to a stage of the tradition which has influenced all the direct textual traditions of Pesh Sir.132 It is likely, then, that Pesh Sir had been translated for the first time from Hebrew to Syriac not later than the first part of 4th century in an Ebionite background, whilst a non-sectarian Christian reviser may have revised the existing Syriac version giving it the definitive form of Pesh Sir in the latter part of 4th century.133

10. Theory about traces of an ebionite translator of Pesh Sir The material I have assembled may be an indicator of an overall tendency which would make it difficult to talk of random phenomena although these could, in some cases, be open to a different interpretation. M. M. Winter plainly admits that his arguments cannot go beyond probability, but the theory about the Ebionite origin of the Syriac version seems reasonable.134 Ebionite interest in a book like Sirach, which they did not regard as canonical whilst accepting the Pentateuch, would be due to the merit that the book of Sirach attributes to poverty.135 M. M. Winter is also aware that the general trend of Syriac reformulations of Sirach correspond to a more general orientation in Judaism at the beginning of the Christian era, in particular not giving emphasis to material sacrifices in the Temple and attributing greater importance to a more spiritualized cult. Nevertheless, he claims that the idea that these reformulations of Pesh Sir could be due to some Judaic group is only theoretically possible. In fact he maintains that hostility towards sacrifices in the Temple is a characteristic trait of the Essene editors who have expressed what remains of the Gr II. On the other hand, as the Syriac version of Sirach cannot date back to before 3rd century AD, it impossible to speculate on such a late Essene survival. Moreover, M. M. Winter considers it unlikely that a Syriac translator of a Jewish background would be concerned with a book if it had not been amongst those taken into consideration by the academy of Jamnia, especially when one considers that Sirach was obtaining greater acceptance in the Christian churches.136 132 133 134 135 136

Cf. ibid., 505. Cf. ibid., 507. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 253. Cf. ibid., 252. Cf. ibid., 253.

300

Giovanni Rizzi

Where the Hebrew in Sirach has been lost, the sequences parallel to LXXSir 37:1-10 and PeshSir 35:1-8 show how in the Syriac text there is occasionally a mention of the Law, or the elimination of an anthropomorphism, or a very explicit evocation of the NT.137 In PeshSir 7:31 the Syriac translator has omitted a mention which he may have thought too praiseworthy of sacrifice, with respect to the formulation in HT-LXXSir 7:31. A similar tendency appears in PeshSir 14:11 with respect to HT-LXXSir 14:11 and in PeshSir 38:11 with respect to HT-LXXSir 38:11. In the case of PeshSir 45:21 the deliberate omission of the Syriac text with respect to HT138-LXXSir 45:21 would suggest a vegetarian tendency in the Ebionites who had never accepted the idea of eating sacrifices. The decidedly abbreviated reformulation of PeshSir 50:19.22 can been understood in the sense of an Ebionite origin of at least some parts of the Syriac version of Sirach, with respect to HT139-LXXSir 50:19-22, due to the concepts on sacrifice and the importance of the priesthood and priestly blessing, which the Ebionite would have been unable to accept. As to this latter aspect, in the Syriac translation of the part of Sirach commonly known as “Praise of the Fathers”, there would be well and true hostility towards the priesthood – a distinctive trait of Ebionite theology – to the point where, in PeshSir 45:7, the mention of the eternal pact with Phineas is eliminated with respect to the formulation of HT-LXXSir 45:7. The drastic reduction we see in PeshSir 45:8.15 with respect to HT140-LXXSir 45:9-14 concerning clerical vestments and sacrifice would therefore be radical and consistent as would the reduction of the priestly services of Aaron in PeshSir 45:15. In LXXSir 50:24 the Greek translator has omitted the mention of Simon and the pact with Phineas because, after the fall of Simon’s priestly family such a mention would have sounded like bitter irony. On the contrary, the fact that PeshSir 50:24 has retained the reference to Simon, but eliminated that to the pact with Phineas, seems to show the hostility of the Syriac translator towards the high priesthood and towards the traditions connected to MTNum 25:23 in an age in which the circumstances surrounding the disgrace of Simon’s family would have been much more distant in time.141 The reformulation of PeshSir 19:1 with respect to HT142-LXXSir 19:1 seems to be due to the vegetarianism of the Ebionites. Yet again, the ten137 Cf. ibid., 238-240 (LXXSir 37:1 cf. PeshSir 35:1b; LXXSir 37:3-4 cf. PeshSir 35:2; LXXSir 37:5 cf. PeshSir 35:3; LXXSir 37:6 cf. PeshSir 35:4; LXXSir 37:7 cf. PeshSir 35:5; LXXSir 37:8 cf. PeshSir 35:6; LXXSir 37:9 cf. PeshSir 35:7; LXXSir 37:10 cf. PeshSir 35:8). 138 The HT is mutilated, cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 247. 139 The HT is rather mutilated, cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 273.275. 140 The HT is mutilated, cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 247. 141 Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 243-244. 142 The HT is slightly mutilated, cf. however the reconstruction in VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 95.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

301

dencies of the Ebionites arise from a certain hostility towards the monarchy, shown in the omissions of the reformulation of PeshSir 45:3 with respect to HT143-LXXSir 45:3. On the other hand, the Syriac translator shows special attention to poverty144 in numerous passages compared with the Hebrew. Among these in some cases the differences between the Syriac and Hebrew-Greek are very visible or else HT is too deficient. For PeshSir 29:28 the corresponding Hebrew is missing, but, with respect to LXXSir 29:28, the Syriac adds “give generously to the poor and with what you have in your hand feed him and if he is naked, clothe him, because your flesh covers you and you are lending to God; and He will repay you seven times”. In PeshSir 35:1, HTSir 35:1 is only partly present and the mutilated part145 cannot be reconstructed. With respect to HT-LXXSir 38:21, which are quite similar to each another, PeshSir 38:21 is rather different: “and do not trust in wealth because there is no hope in it; just as a bird in the sky flies and lands, so is wealth for men; is delights one and punishes another”. The reformulation of PeshSir 40:8 “with all men their worry is with them and wealth takes away their sleep”,146 synthesizes and completely transforms the text of HT147-LXXSir 40:8. The gloss of PeshSir 49:12, “those who in their poverty erected an altar”, is significant with respect to HT148-LXXSir 49:12. The characteristic of Pesh Sir of reformulating a text so as to eliminate or at least attenuate the anthropomorphisms149 present in the Hebrew and Greek is as well known in various environments of Judaism as in JudaeoChristian ones and possibly Ebionite.150 The third category of distinctiveness in Pesh Sir with respect to the Greek and Hebrew comes from the modifications introduced in Syriac where Sirach cites other biblical passages or alludes to them in some way: of around 60 cases, among quotations and allusions,151 only three can be recognized as true textual quotations: from MTMal 3:24; MTJer 1:10 and MTEzek 14:14. The reformulation of the quotation of MTMal 3:24 in PeshSir 48:10c, “to 143 For the textual documentation of HT cf. the reconstructions in VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 243. 144 PeshSir 11:14.18.19 cf. HT-LXXSir 11:14.18.19; PeshSir 13:20 cf. HT-LXXSir 13:20; PeshSir 40:28 cf. HT-LXXSir 40:28; PeshSir 45:6 cf. HT-LXXSir 45:6; the quotation of HT-LXX-PeshSir 37:4 in WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 246-247 does not correspond to any critical edition. 145 Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 169. 146 For the translation see CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 247; VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 247, translates “makes their years unstable”. 147 The HT is very lacking: it is completely mutilated in HTSir 40:8 but can be reconstructed for the missing parts of HTSir 40:9. Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 215. 148 For the mutilated part of HTSir 49:12 cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 269. 149 Cf. PeshSir 11:12c.21c; 35:6b.8.13; 39:28d; 42:18; 45:2a. 150 Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 249. 151 Cf. MIDDENDORP, Die Stellung, 35ff.

302

Giovanni Rizzi

lead the children towards the fathers”, may also depend on a previous version of the Syriac translation of the prophet or on its reformulation in the Greek text of the Syriac in Lk 1:17. In the case of the abbreviated reformulation of MTJer 1:10 in PeshSir 49:67 one finds a certain reluctance in the Syriac translator152 to translate the quotation of Jeremiah exactly. The same phenomenon seems to be at the origin of the reformulation of MTEzek 14:14 in PeshSir 49:9 and belongs to Ebionite theology which accepted as prophets only Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Joshua excluding figures such as Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, i.e. specifically the scriptural prophets.153

11. Theory about traces of a non-sectarian christian translator in Pesh Sir Traces of this translator can be found in passages where the Syriac reformulation, with respect to the Hebrew and/or Greek texts, has deleted references which are favourable to Jewish law – a tendency which would have been impossible in a Jew or even Judaeo-Christian or an Ebionite.154 Some passages in the Syriac version belong to this group with respect to the Hebrew and Greek,155 whilst in other cases the suppression of references to the Law in the Syriac version is only comparable with the Greek text.156 Thus a translator or reviser who did not belong to a sectarian environment would have done a comprehensive job.157 This tendency is even more evident in a group of texts which have reformulations in Syriac with Christological references or references to John “the Baptizer”. In PeshSir 18:13 of which there is no Hebrew text, with respect to the Greek there is the reformulation “and leads them as a good shepherd looks after his flock”; in particular the gloss of the adjective “good” in front of shepherd depends upon John 10:11. In spite of having included the quotation of MTMal 3:24 in PeshSir 48:10 in the environment of casuistry relating to an Ebionite translator, M. M. Winter uses the same passage to emphasize that the reformulation in PeshSir 48:10 refers to John “the baptizer”: Lk 1:17, which is alluded to in PeshSir 48:10, is understood by Luke with ref152 153 154 155 156

Cf. discussion in WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I), 250-251. Cf. ibid., 251. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 494. Cf. PeshSir 35:4.15.17.24; 36:2.3. Cf. PeshSir 9:15b (HT completely different); in the following cases the HT has not been handed down to us: PeshSir 19:17b.20b; 28:6b; 29:11a; 31:8a; 38:34d; 39:8b. 157 Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 498.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

303

erence to John “Baptizer” whilst in PeshLk 1:19 the pael of rbs means “to evangelize”158 as in PeshSir 48:10.159 In the passage immediately next to PeshSir 48:11, faced with a HTSir 48:11 which is sketchy and which cannot be reconstructed at the moment,160 in comparison with the Greek, the Syriac reformulation repeats “Blessed is he who saw you and died, although he does not die, but will certainly live”. M. M. Winter would claim that a non-sectarian Christian would have wanted to emphasize that PeshSir 48:11 should be understood as if Christ had seen Elijah, so that the death of Christ could not have been definitive.161 This is an hermeneutic hypothesis which is difficult to apply to a non-sectarian Christian translator. Another group of texts refers to the consequences of the Arian controversy. In some passages of Pesh Sir there is a tendency to delete all mention of the creation of Wisdom, a personification prefiguring the second person of the Trinity, in so far as it might give support to the Arian heresy about the creation of the Son as the work of the Father. Such a tendency is apparent in the reformulation of PeshSir 1:4.9, comparable only with the Greek as the Hebrew is absent. On the other hand, for PeshSir 39:32 and PeshSir 42:20-21 where the Hebrew is still comparable although uncertain and a little lacking,162 the cancellation of the mention of the creation of Wisdom in Syriac is a very doubtful contextual philological interpretation.163

12. The most recent theory about the judaic origin of Pesh Sir before the christian revision Aversion not only to sacrifice but also to the Law is clearly present in Pesh Sir, independently of the interpretative framework of the origins of these specific characteristics. In PeshSir 35, the recommendation of sacrifice is systematically suppressed in favour of prayer and obedience to God’s will. Many other references which are favourable to sacrifice are surely deliberately omitted in PeshSir 7:31; PeshSir 14:11; PeshSir 38:11; PeshSir 45:21 and PeshSir 50:19.22. The promised “pact of Phineas” (PeshSir 50:24) and the account of Simon’s glorious priestly attraction (PeshSir 45:8.15) have also been dropped. Moreover, favourable references to the Law have been sub158 159 160 161 162 163

Cf. PeshLk 2:10; 3:18; PeshActs 8:12.35.40. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 499. Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 263. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 500-501. Cf. VATTIONI, Ecclesiastico, 229. Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 502-504; critique concerning text and philology in OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 43-45.

304

Giovanni Rizzi

stituted with “way” (PeshSir 35:24) or “word” (PeshSir 44:20) or modified differently (PeshSir 41:8) or even eliminated (PeshSir 35:16; 36:2-3).164 But the overall picture of the origin of all those peculiarities in PeshSir is no longer consistent in the eyes of the critics. The fact that sacrifice is supplanted by prayer is clearly established in PeshSir 35:8 and in the immediate following context charity is suggested as a substitute for sacrifice (PeshSir 35:9-10).165 M. P. Weitzman links this trend to a wider picture, characteristic of Pesh 1-2 Chronicles,166 but also present in Pesh Psalms167 Pesh Ezra168 and Pesh Nehemiah.169 Occasionally the Targum Onkelos agrees with the Syriac as in PeshGen 30:8 and in PeshExod 38:8. Tg and Pesh agree on this point with respect to MT1 Sam 1:22. Such a widespread convergence on the subject obviously does not testify in favour of a specifically Ebionite origin about the value of prayer as a substitute for sacrifice in Pesh Sir, as M. M. Winter would have, but it would seem to give strength to M. P. Weitzman’s theory about the existence of a non-observing Rabbinical Judaism at the origin of Pesh Sirach with spiritualist characteristics as mentioned even by Winter, although his conviction is that it is the specific peculiarities of Pesh Sir taken together which place single passages in an Ebionite origin. In this sense, while M. P. Weitzman also accepts the underlining of the theory of poverty in Pesh Sir according to the evidence gathered by M. M. Winter,170 emphasizing how PeshSir 37:4 also refers to the evanescent “wealth of the world” in accordance with similar expressions in Pesh1Chr 29:28,171 in this same context he is eager to recognize that poverty is recommended in other movements, pointing out Qumran 1QH 10,22-30 or 1 Enoch 94:8 and for the NT, Mt 5:3. In the light of these precise specifications, it can be understood how M. P. Weitzman substantially distances himself from the theory of an Ebionite origin for a first draft of PeshSir and seems to accept the criticisms of R. J. Owens, underlining how both concur, although in different ways and for different reasons, about the Christian origin of Pesh Sir.172 Without going into M. P. Weitzman’s theory about the initial Jewish 164 Cf. WEITZMAN, The Syriac Version, 219 note 40 cites the work of Winter (pp. 494-498). 165 Cf. WEITZMAN, The Syriac Version, 217 notes 31 and 32 cites the work of Winter (pp. 237253; 494-507). 166 Cf. WEITZMAN, The Syriac Version, 212-216. 167 Cf. PeshPs 37:7; 71:14 168 Cf. PeshEzra 6:21; 10:14. 169 Cf. PeshNeh 9:17 170 Cf. WEITZMAN, The Syriac Version, 226 note 49, cites the work of Winter (pp. 245-249). 171 Cf. also the discussion about the role of wealth in the sin of Uzziah according to Pesh2Chr 26:16 in WEITZMAN, The Syriac Version, 226 note 51. 172 Cf. ibid., 226.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

305

stage of the Syriac version of part of MT,173 followed by a successive Christian stage which extended throughout the Christian OT, it must be said that he has to supply a very broad picture, made up of various suggestions about the origins of a large part of the Syriac Peshitta of the Old Testament against a background of non-rabbinical Judaism, i.e. of Jewish communities with a very informal attitude to halakhic observance which then moved on to Christianity. For Pesh Sir, one fairly similar theory had already been put forward by M. D. Nelson174 in which the first draft of Pesh Sir would have been made in a Syriac-speaking Jewish environment around Edessa between 3rd-4th centuries. It would then have been revised in a Christian background before the middle of the 5th century with important theological reformulations about faith in the hereafter, the creation of Wisdom, behaviour towards women, the authority of the fathers of Judaism and the practice of poverty.175

13. A jewish, ebionite or, more simply, christian context? In fact, R. J. Owen points out that in PeshSir 35:1-13 there are absolutely no traces of any Ebionite origin. Not only is the reference of PeshSir 35:11 to PeshLk 6:34-35 simply Christian,176 given that there is nothing typically Ebionite in Luke’s gospel, but also the comparison between LXXSir 37:1-13 and PeshSir 35:1-13 does not work in the way M. M. Winter suggests. In reality, the Syriac seems to differ from the Greek and the Hebrew in two ways: by emphasizing the priority of morality over religious practice and spiritualizing the concept of sacrifice (PeshSir 35:8) and also following the model of LXXSir 37:2-4 highlighting moral observance as being equal or superior to religious practice (cf. PeshSir 35:2-4.7). Rather than deleting references to the sacrificial cult, PeshSir 35:2-4.8 mentions it again but the substitution of offerings and sacrifices at the Temple with alms-giving (cf. PeshSir 35:9-13) is a Christian passage and not typically Ebionite.177 The suggested theory of an anti-Arian reformulation in some passages of Pesh Sir, which would eliminate or at least attenuate the original idea of HT and the biblical tradition about the creation of Wisdom, would require that the Syriac translator had intended these reformulations to be a theological argument about the divinity of Jesus Christ, rather than the more 173 174 175 176 177

Cf. ibid., 244-246. NELSON, The Syriac Version, 132. Cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 40. Cf. OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 60. Cf. ibid., 63.

306

Giovanni Rizzi

specifically Arian interpretation.178 However, in this sense, the validity of evidence concerning the reformulation of PeshSir 42:12a with respect to HTLXXSir 42:12a comes down to a particular syntactical-grammatical Syriac reading and the scansion of the text,179 whilst in the case of PeshSir 39:32a it comes down to uncertainty in the reading of the text.180 PeshSir 1:4 “of all these things, wisdom is greater and faith is stronger than all the preceding things” is a reformulation with respect to LXXSir 1:4.181 Within the context, the nature of Wisdom is the same as the things mentioned as belonging to creation, although PeshSir 1:4a no longer has the formulation of LXXSir 1:4a “before all, wisdom was shaped”.182 Perhaps here in Syriac the more significant reformulation is “and faith183 is stronger than all the preceding things” with respect to LXXSir 1:4b “and the understanding of intelligence from eternity”; in fact, while in LXXSir 1:4b the second stich can be compared with the first, Pesh Sir 1:4b seems to have introduced the concept of atw|nmyh which can be translated as “faithfulness“184 or even “faith”.185 Not even the Syriac reformulation in PeshSir 1:9 “and186 investigated187 it (= Wisdom) and saw it and counted it and distributed it in all his works” compared with LXXSir 1:9 “and the Lord himself (Ku,rioj auvto,j) moulded it (e;ktisen auvth,n) and saw and counted it and lavished it on all his works”, with its substitution for the verb “to mould” with the divine action of “investigates”, can be considered as an attempt to deny or attenuate the biblical concept of the creation of Wisdom by God. In reality, the Syriac reformulation puts itself into context with a rhetorical question from LXX-PeshSir 1:6 b-7 and with the profession of faith in God, sage par excellence, of LXXPeshSir 1:8; in fact the reformulation of PeshSir 1:9 “and investigated it” seems to look to passages such as PeshJob28:27 with which it has in common the verbs expressing divine actions “investigate” (qdb) and “see” (azj).188 In reality it is impossible to show that there was an “anti-Arian Christian revision“ in the reformulations of Pesh Sir, discussed above, because 178 179 180 181 182 183

184 185 186 187 188

Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 501-505. Cf. discussion in OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 43-44. Cf. ibid., 44-45. The HT has not reached us. Cf. discussion in OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 45. The reading is from the Ambrosian manuscript (cf. 7a1); but atmkj conforms better to the parallel style in Greek (7h3, cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 67). Cf. WINTER, The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part II), 501. Cf. CALDUCH-BENAGES – FERRER – LIESEN, La sabiduria del escriba, 66-67. God is the subject implied here. Or “examined”. Cf. discussion in OWENS, The Early Syriac Text, 46-47.

Christian interpretations in the syriac version of Sirach

307

such a revision would not have had any impact on the Christian communities which would have read in that book the formulations of PeshSir 24:8b “and he who made (yndb[d Nmw) me (= Wisdom)” and PeshSir 24:9 “before eternity (aml[ Mdq Nm) was created”, which reprises the terminology used in PeshProv 8:22.189

14. Conclusion Although we have reviewed some essential traits from the most recent discussions about the specific characteristics of Pesh Sir through a sample of sections and passages of the Syriac version of Sirach, definitive or general conclusions cannot be drawn from this. All the same, it seems useful, from a methodological point of view, to have ascertained that the theories about the origins of Pesh Sir coming from a Jewish background are unconvincing as are current suggestions about an Ebionite Christian sectarian context. Even notions about a Christian revision following the Ebionite cannot be confirmed. In reality, many of those specific characteristics which suggested an Ebionite background as well as those which could have been attributed to a Jewish environment which did not observe the biblical and mishnico-rabbinic halakhah, seem to emerge from the more obvious framework of a Christianity of Syriac language and tradition, which was familiar with Judaism and its exegetic and haggadic traditions, and with its literary genres too, as were also Ephraim and Aphrahat. From the beginning of the 4th century AD, Pesh Sir has been witness to a reformulation which has been, at times a very markedly and, from my point of view, also explicitly Christian treatment of the biblical text. The history of modern research into the specific characteristics of Pesh Sir has touched not only so-called “targumisms” but also tendencies in the halakhah and the haggadah including the eschatological themes. From the methodological point of view, it might have been more useful to give a general framework compatible with the hermeneutic and theological characteristics of Pesh Sir and to start with the more obvious and, up to now, best documented supposition that even this Syriac version of Sirach was created around the beginning of 4th century AD in a Christian background, in accordance, for example, with that shared by Aphrahat.

189 Cf. ibid., 47-48 with essential indications about the exegesis of LXX-PeshProv 8:22-30 in the Syriac-speaking Christian churches.

308

Giovanni Rizzi

Bibliography CALDUCH-BENAGES, N. – FERRER, J. – LIESEN, J., La sabiduria del escriba / Wisdom of the Scribe. Ediciòn diplomatica de la version siriaca de Ben Sira segùn el Codice Ambrosiano, with Spanish and English translation (Biblioteca Midràsica 26), Estella 2003. CAVALLETTI, S. (ed.), Il Trattato delle Benedizioni del Talmud Babilonese, Milano 1992. Codex Syro-Hexapharis Ambrosianus photolithographice editus et adnotante A.M. Ceriani. Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, Mediolani MDCCCLXXIV. GILBERT, M., L’addition de Siracide 1,21. Une enigma, in: COLLADO BERTOMEU, V. (ed.), Palabra, prodigio, poesia. In memoriam P. Luis Alonso Schökel, SJ. (AnBib 151), Roma 2003, 317-325. LUST, J. – EYNIKEL, E. – HAUSPIE, K. (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition, Stuttgart 2003. KEARNS, C., Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach: NCCHS (1969), 546-550. MIDDENDORP, TH., Die Stellung Jesus ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus, Leiden 1973. MINISSALE, A., La versione greca del Siracide. Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico (AnBib 133), Roma 1995. NAU, F., Histoire et sagesse d’Ahiqar l’assyrien, Paris 1909. NELSON, M. D., The Syriac Version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira Compared to the Greek and Hebrew Materials (SBL.DS 107), Atalanta, GA 1988. OWENS, R. J., The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat: JSSt 34 (1989), 39-75. RIZZI, G., Fenomeni ermeneutici nella traduzione di Pesh Sapienza, in: BELLIA, G. – PASSARO, A. (eds.), Il Libro della Sapienza. Tradizione, redazione, teologia (Studia Biblica 1), Roma 2004, 233-269. RÜGER, H.-P., Text und Textform im hebraischen Sirach. Untersuchungen zur Textgeshichte und Textkritik der hebraischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairorer Geniza (BZAW 112), Berlin 1970. SKEHAN, P. W. – DI LELLA, A. A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction, and Commentary (AncB 39), New York 1987. SMEND, R., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Berlin 1906. STROTHMANN, W., Jesus-Sirach-Zitate bei Aphraat, Ephraem und im Liber Graduum, in: FISCHER, R. H. (ed.), A Tribute to Arthur Voobus. Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environments, Primarily in the Syrian East, Chicago 1977, 154-155. VATTIONI, F., Ecclesiastico. Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca, Napoli 1968. WEITZMAN, M. P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. An Introduction, Cambridge 1999. WINTER, M. M., Peshitta Institute Communication XII. The Origins of Ben Sira in Syriac (Part I): VT XXVII (1977), 237-253; (Part II): VT XXVII (1977), 494-507. ZIEGLER, J., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2), Göttingen 1965.

Blessing of the sage, prophecy of the scribe: from Ben Sira to Matthew ROSARIO PISTONE 1. A fairly widespread teaching The fate of the work of Ben Sira is one of those cases in which the result aimed at seem to have been achieved but certainly in a way rather different from that foreseen or desired by its author. Translated into Greek by his grandson, it was assured a such a circulation in the Alexandrian diaspora as to give rise to a complex and close-knit series of interactions among the later editions of the text in one or the other language. It was known and utilised at Qumran while an exemplar has been found among the remains of the rebels at Masada, kept with the other scrolls in the synagogue of the fortress. Similarly, centuries later, what remained of obsolete copies was placed reverently in the Cairo geniza and from there brought to light by the archaeologists. Learned masters and rabbis, meanwhile, in those collections which flowed together to form the Talmud made no light reference to it as to a work exquisitely Jewish, pervaded with love of Wisdom finally identified with the Torah. However, the result of Ben Sira’s labours was not considered such as to defile the hands despite the fact that different generations of believers had drawn on it in great measure. To this day, the reasons for its exclusion from the Jewish canon escape us. Among so many explicit references to Sirach, the New Testament authors constitute no small quantity.

1.1 Links with the NT The 27th edition of Nestle-Aland indicates in the apparatus1 at least 108 places in the NT where the text of Ben Sira turns out to be present by means of quotation or allusion. Of these, at least 24 are found in Matthew’s Gospel. The Bible de Jérusalem2 refers from Sirach to Matthew’s Gospel in 17 cases which are not in the work just mentioned. In at least two of these occurrences, the sapiential text is matched with two different Gospel citations.3 To these can be joined further Sir 31:8, which, in the Greek version, pro1 2 3

802-803. French original, Paris 1984. From now on, BJ. Sir 10:6 & Mt 5:21-24; 18:21-22; Sir 29:8-13 & Mt 6:19-21; 19:21.

310

Rosario Pistone

nounces blessed the rich man who is without corruption while the Hebrew text speaks of “wealth”, mammon, a point of comparison with Mt 6:24 according to which wealth is in opposition to God: “You cannot serve God and mammon”4 (ouv du,nasqe qew/| douleu,ein kai. mamwna/)| . Similarly, Sir 31:9, with its mention of the ekklesia which proclaims the elee¯mosynas of the rich man who is not corrupt can be held to allude to Mt 18:17.33, both for the mention of ekklesia, and for the adoption of the theme of mercy (cf. the verb evle,ew) with which the king forgives an enormous debt to a slave who is later punished for not having acted in the same way in his turn (v. 33: ouvk e;dei kai. se. evleh/sai to.n su,ndoulo,n sou( w`j kavgw. se. hvle,hsa). Again: Sir 33:12: [...] some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them he made holy and brought near to himself; but some of them he cursed and brought low, and he turned them out of their place

evx auvtw/n euvlo,ghsen kai. avnu,ywsen kai. evx auvtw/n h`gi,asen kai. pro.j auvto.n h;ggisen avpV auvtw/n kathra,sato kai. evtapei,nwsen kai. avne,streyen auvtou.j avpo. sta,sewj auvtw/n,

even if referred to Lk 1:51-53 by BJ, it can easily evoke the images of eschatological judgement according to the Matthean formulation in 25:34.41: Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you [...] depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels

deu/te oi` euvloghme,noi tou/ patro,j mou( klhronomh,sate th.n h`toimasme,nhn u`mi/n basilei,an [...] 41 poreu,esqe avpV evmou/ oi` kathrame,noi eivj to. pu/r to. aivwn , ion to. h`toimasme,non tw/| diabo,lw| kai. toi/j avgge,loij auvtou/.

Beyond the clear links of vocabulary (euvlo,ghsen / euvloghme,noi; kathra,sato / kathrame,noi), the action of blessing and bringing near expressed by Ben Sira can be detected in Matthew’s commendation: “Inherit the kingdom...”, while the “turning out of their place” seems to be loosely fulfilled in the consignment to eternal fire. Ben Sira describes the divine action in the third person while in the Gospel the eschatological judge speaks in the first person. A careful reading which considers the point of contact between the two books, the citation or the allusions, must take into account also the intentional changes of the author. In the case of Matthew, the existence of parallel texts such as Luke and/or Mark can help us to understand possible allusive references or indirect quotations. It appears to me possible to take as an example Sir 4:10 which is adopted in Mt 5:48 // Lk 6:35:

4

For the Hebrew text, cf. BEENTJES, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, 55.

Blessing of the sage, prophecy of the scribe: from Ben Sira to Matthew

311

Sir 4:10: gi,nou ovrfanoi/j w`j path.r kai. avnti. avndro.j th/| mhtri. auvtw/n kai. e;sh| w`j ui`oj. u`yi,stou kai. avgaph,sei se ma/llon h' mh,thr sou Mt 5:48: e;sesqe ou=n u`mei/j te,leioi w`j o` path.r u`mw/n o` ouvra,nioj te,leio,j evstin Lk 6:35: [...] kai. e;sesqe ui`oi. u`yi,stou( o[ti auvto.j crhsto,j evstin evpi. tou.j avcari,stouj kai. ponhrou,j

Luke’s formulation, which speaks of “sons of the Most High” takes up that of Ben Sira explicitly; Matthew, on the other hand, has preferred to refer to “your heavenly Father”.5 Have we to conclude that there is no connection with the sapiential text? Or that the true link with Jewish precedent is to be attributed to Q on which Mt and Lk depend? To this last suggestion is to be opposed the fact that Matthew has a conspicuous number of references of his own to Sirach for which it would be excessive to exclude the direct compositional activity of the evangelist by referring everything to a further source of his own (M). From that there would result the colourless image of a gleaner less creative by far than Ben Sira himself. Rather, in this specific case, we must think of an adaptation by the evangelist who has already used the explicit formula “sons of God” in 5:9, taking it up again later, with a synonymous expression, “your Father who is in heaven”, in 5:16 and 5:45. Mt 5:48 merely extends this process. U [ yistoj is used only in the greeting to Jesus during his triumphal entry into Jerusalem where it appears within a (composite) quotation of Psalms 117:25-26 and 148:1 (aivnei/te auvto.n evn toi/j u`yi,stoij) and indicates, simply, heaven. It is probable that in this precise example (5:48) Matthew preferred to distance himself from the text of Ben Sira in respect of which the teaching of Jesus constitutes a radical surpassing at most levels. In the first place, the recipients of loving benevolence are no longer orphans and widows but enemies and persecutors. Secondly, the idea of comparison (“like sons of the Most High”, w`j ui`oj. u`yi,stou): the relationship with God is one of real filiation (“sons of your Father who is in heaven”: 5:45), while, for Ben Sira, the taking over of the function of paterfamilias for the disinherited, would have attracted the divine attention. The text of Mt 5:48 shows its literary proximity to Ben Sira by retaining the comparative w`j in connection with “perfection”: it is a question of being perfect like your heavenly Father.6 The Gospel saying 5

6

Luke employs a vocabulary not dissimilar from that of Ben Sira: avca,ristoj, which does not occur in Mt, turns up again as an adverb or in an adverbial phrase in Sir 18:18 and 29:25. In the form of a substantivised adjective in Sir 29:16; cf. also a;carij in 20:19. u[yistoj has a particularly high frequency in Ben Sira (more than 40 cases), where it turns out to be the term most used after ku,rioj for the divine name. Of the nine cases in the NT in which u`y , istoj is referred to God, seven are to be found in the work of Lk. Almost certainly, Lk has kept u`y , istoj, adding crhsto,j to his text because more useful to his aim of multiple reference. As many hearers of pagan background as others of Jewish formation would have been able to grasp a reference to their culture of origin. Already DODD, The Bible and the Greeks, 12-13, observed that in the Hellenistic

312

Rosario Pistone

broadens the understanding of the sage towards an unexpected communion with God himself. Among the points of major contact between the two works, we should not neglect to note the invitation to take on the yoke, of wisdom or of Jesus himself, as a characteristic element of those who wish to obtain rest (Sir 6:18-37; 51:13-20 and Mt 11:28-30). That immediately imposes the necessity of examining within the first gospel the mode in which the reality of discipleship is presented7 and its connections with wisdom. Is the disciple of Jesus, perhaps, an aspiring sage who sees in him (alone) an excellent teacher? Will he too become a master in his turn? Is, therefore, the blessing which Ben Sira pronounces on those who search for wisdom relevant to him? Or is he also a prophet, a messenger, quite separately, of the secrets of God? Research can only be strongly stimulated to study these matter in depth.

7

period in the cities of the near East, the most important divine beings assumed the title of Zeus or Most High God. Such a procedure was not unprofitable for Judaism which maintained that the one unique Deity had come to be venerated under different names (cf. Letter of Aristes § 16). It happened to the extent that its frequency in the inscriptions of the Hellenistic period often makes it difficult to establish if we are faced with a Jewish or pagan text. A Jewish listener would have been able to hear in the third evangelist an echo of Ben Sira. Per crhsto,j with an ethical sense, cf. Rom 2:4 or Eph 4:32 (crhstoi,( eu;splagcnoi) where the aspect of reciprocal mercy is laid down on the model employed by God himself. The reference to the divine mercy appeared already in Ps 68:17; 108:21 (“...since crhsto,n is your mercy”), but it is said of God himself, in an absolute sense or linked with mercy, in Pss 24:8; 33:9; Wis 15:1; Na 1:7; Jer 40:11; Dan 3:89; 1 Pt 2:3. Cf. also the Psalms of Solomon 2,36; 5,2.12; 10,2.7; Matthew defines as crhsto,j the yoke which Jesus calls men to take on in 11:30. The self-definition as “meek and lowly of heart” is a direct explanation of it, perfectly understandable in the light of Sir 37:11 which, by contrast, warns against consulting those who are not endowed with mercy (avneleh,monoj) in connection with kindness (peri. crhstohqei,aj). Different approaches try to see the background to Christian discipleship according to Matthew in the light of the contrast with the synagogue; DEUTSCH, Hidden Wisdom, 1618, considers the Matthean community as a more or less dissident Messianic group, similar to Qumran, and the circles recognisable in 1 Enoch or in the Psalms of Solomon, which, however, did not completely sever its links with Judaism as such. STANTON, A Gospel for a New People, 85-107 and 146-168, makes of it a group with sectarian characteristics opposed to both the cultic and family environment. SALDARINI, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 1-10 and 107-123 perceives a deviant group within Judaism; he does not change tack in his later The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict. CARTER, Households and Discipleship, and Matthew 4:18-22, insists on the marginal and ambivalent aspect of the link with Jesus: on the one hand, it is separated form social bonds and, on the other, is continues to share in the current socio-economic structures (within its own group; here, 58-61), but by now definitively separated from the Judaism of the synagogue.

Blessing of the sage, prophecy of the scribe: from Ben Sira to Matthew

313

1.2 The disciple between wisdom and prophecy For many years now, scholars have directed their attention to the shape of the teaching of Jesus and of the group of disciples which came to be constituted around him as also to the different ways in which the evangelists crystallise and transmit, together with the words of the master, the selfunderstanding of the community within which and for which their writings came to life. For Matthew’s Gospel the existence of a kind of scribal school has been hypothesised, a group of specialists, that is, in the torah and wisdom of Israel, as it could have existed in the period straddling the first and second centuries AD. Fully sharing in the Jewish culture, it would have left abundant traces in the first canonical gospel. The chief characteristics of Matthean discipleship appear already in the first discourse of Jesus which opens with the most extensive series of beatitudes which can be found in either the New or the Old Testament (Mt 5:3-12). Further on, differently from what happens in Mark, the disciples understand Jesus’ speaking in parables. Not only are “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 13:11) revealed to them but, at the end of the parables’ discourse, the master compares their statement of understanding to the image of the scribe who has become a disciple and of his changed hermeneutical perspective. The value of his treasure is now increased by the novelty of the teaching which he has received according to which he (re)structures the knowledge he already possessed (Mt 13:51-52). “Prophets, wise men and scribes” are defined by Jesus as those he has sent to Israel (23:34) in his apostrophe to the scribes and Pharisees. These latter are castigated, in their total, sevenfold, shutting out of the will of God and of the wisdom that leads to the kingdom, so hindering the access to it of those who would wish to enter (cf. Mt 23:13: Ouvai.

de. u`mi/n( grammatei/j kai. Farisai/oi u`pokritai,( o[ti klei,ete th.n basilei,an tw/n ouvranw/n e;mprosqen tw/n avnqrw,pwn\ u`mei/j ga.r ouvk eivse,rcesqe ouvde. tou.j eivsercome,nouj avfi,ete eivselqei/n. Also Wis 6:20: evpiqumi,a a;ra sofi,aj avna,gei evpi. basilei,an). For those sent out by Jesus (avpestalme,nouj), the scribes and Pharisees of Israel, referred to summarily under the collective designation of “Jerusalem”, reserve the fate of death (cf. Mt 23:34.37). What is important to take on board here are the qualifications with which the disciples of Jesus are now presented: they are successors to the ancient prophets, they are the true wise men and scribes in contrast to the wicked.8 Their task will 8

Not a few authors have emphasised the particular Matthean presentation of the disciple in the form of a scribe or sage; I refer only to BURNETT, The Testament, à propos of Mt 23:34; SUGGS, Wisdom, 120-127; ORTON, The Understanding Scribe, above all, cap. 6. NAUCK, Salt as a Metaphor, reads Mt 5:13-15 in the light of rabbinic texts where “to be salted” corresponds to “to be wise”: “Jesus calls his disciples the real teachers, the true wise men in opposition to the Jewish wise men”; here, p. 177. For a survey on the role and functions

314

Rosario Pistone

be that of “making disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe” all that Jesus has commanded (Mt 28:19-20). Such a description could not lead us better into the sapiential environment. The preaching activity of the disciples of Jesus is profiled against a “magisterial” (dida,skontej, 28:19) and scribal background which the text also highlights with the use of the verb maqhteu,w in 28:19. The missionary mandate accounts for the existential shift required of future believers: it is not unlike that required of the scribe who becomes a disciple of the kingdom of heaven in Mt 13:52 and, at the same time, the “new”, drawn out from the scribe’s own treasure together with the “old”, has to do with the proclaimed message, that is, with the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom, with all that Jesus commanded. The Sermon on the Mount, addressed to the first (four) called as the “type” of the disciple, or to those who had already begun to follow Jesus,9 acquires additional light if confronted with the statements just recorded. Between Chapter 5, with its macarisms and the identification with the ancient prophets on account of the same fate (cf. 5:12), and Chapter 23 which describes them explicitly as prophets, wise men and scribes in the guise of those who have been “sent”, there is established a strong link of reciprocal reference. It is a question of the same characters, of the same sort of rejection, as Mt 23:29-31.35 confirms, where the wicked scribes and Pharisees bear witness against themselves in two complementary ways which allow of no equivocation: they separate themselves from their fathers who persecuted the prophets, erecting monuments to the victims, but they persecute the prophets sent by Jesus in the same way. It is from the generation of his listeners-adversaries that there will be required the blood of the prophets from Abel to Zechariah (cf. Mt 23:35-36). This announcement of clear eschatological flavour is particularly important because it is placed in a sequence which has already mentioned the disciples of Jesus, prophets, wise men and scribes in v. 34, while in vv. 35-36, the only category mentioned is that of prophets to which should be ascribed a clear resumptive and cumulative value: for Matthew, Christ-

9

of the Twelve in relation to their “little faith”(Mt 14:31-33 and 16:5-12), I refer to BROWN, The Disciples, 3-37. “Jésus s’assied, indice d’une certaine intimité. Il eût fallu être debout pour parler à une foule. Nouvel indice, les disciples s’approchent comme pour former son auditoire. Les disciples ne sont pas seulement les quatres appelés (iv, 18-22) et n’a pas été encore question des Douze. Ce sont donc les disciples en general ...”: LAGRANGE, Évangile selon Saint Matthieu, 81-82; the italics are mine. Insofar as they are counterposed to the crowd, the disciples “represent the Church [...] stand for the faithful; they are transparent symbol of believers. So the sermon on the mount is spoken directly to Matthew’s Christian readers”. So DAVIES – ALLISON, The Gospel, 1, 425. Of different opinion, DUMAIS, Le Sermon sur la Montagne; WICK, Volkspredigt contra Gemeinderegel?.

Blessing of the sage, prophecy of the scribe: from Ben Sira to Matthew

315

ian wise men and scribes are in a certain way interchangeable and identifiable with prophets. There thus comes about a very strong redactional contact with the text of the beatitudes, the series of which ends with the affirmation: “for so men persecuted the prophets which were before you” (5:12). The text, however absorbs in prophecy the wise disposition which marks the scribe and sage. The conclusion of the parables discourse, again addressed solely to the disciples, has the progress of a piece of teaching the climax of which coincides with the presentation of the disciples in the guise of well-instructed scribes. The disciples, therefore, are at the same time prophets, proclaimed blessed, and wise men. If we join to this the final text of the gospel which extends the teaching activity of these scribe-prophets to the end of time and through all the nations, we obtain a sufficiently complete framework of the particular perception of discipleship enjoyed by Matthew, the scribe.10 Such a characterisation is not at all surprising and sinks its roots precisely in the self-presentation of Ben Sira,11 in whose opinion his own teaching assumes the path of prophecy (24:30-34): 30

kavgw. w`j diw/rux avpo. potamou/ kai. w`j u`dragwgo.j evxh/lqon eivj para,deison ei=pa potiw/ mou to.n kh/pon kai. mequ,sw mou th.n prasia,n kai. ivdou. evge,neto, moi h` diw/rux eivj potamo,n kai. o` potamo,j mou evge,neto eivj qa,lassan 32 e;ti paidei,an w`j o;rqron fwtiw/ kai. evkfanw/ auvta. e[wj eivj makra,n 33 e;ti didaskali,an w`j profhtei,an evkcew/ kai. katalei,yw auvth.n eivj genea.j aivwn , wn i;dete o[ti ouvk evmoi. mo,nw| evkopi,asa avllV a[pasin toi/j evkzhtou/sin auvth,n 31

30

And I went forth like a canal from a river and like a water channel into a garden. I said, “I will water my orchard and drench my garden plot”; and so, my stream became a river, and my river became a sea. 32 Again, “I will make instruction shine forth like the dawn, and I will make it shine afar”; 33 And again “I will pour out teaching like prophecy, and leave it to all eternal generations”. 34 Observe that I have not laboured for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction. 31

The image adopted is that of the stream which grows, transforming itself little by little into a river and finally even into the sea. Further on (33:16-19), the images change their semantic ambit: no longer do we have the water that irrigates and brings fertility but the world of agriculture at the moment of the harvest. The sage is compared to the one who follows in the wake of the grape-gatherers. He is one of the gleaners; he gathers what is left.

10 11

Cf. MINEAR, The Good News. The texts in the first person are not exempt from difficulties as far as the link between the self-presentation of Ben Sira and the discourses of Wisdom personified are concerned ; cf. LIESEN, First-Person Passages.

Rosario Pistone

316

Notwithstanding this, he has filled his basket and gone on to lay down, as in Chapter 24, that his toil will be useful for many: 16

kavgw. e;scatoj hvgru,pnhsa w`j kalamw,menoj ovpi,sw trughtw/n evn euvlogi,a| kuri,ou e;fqasa kai. w`j trugw/n evplh,rwsa lhno,n 18 katanoh,sate o[ti ouvk evmoi. mo,nw| evkopi,asa avlla. pa/sin toi/j zhtou/sin paidei,an 17

16

I was the last on watch; I was like one who gleans after the grape-gatherers. By the blessing of the Lord I excelled, and like a grape-gatherer I filled my wine press. 18 Consider that I have not laboured for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction. 17

What Ben Sira gathers is Wisdom now identified with the Torah itself. What he pours out is a teaching, a vital distillation of the Torah, which assumes the very nature of prophecy. However, the conclusion of the book of Hosea already anticipated in sapiential terms the understanding of the prophetic discourse just put forward, with an arrangement which could recall very closely a maxim of wisdom thanks to its referring to the right ways of the Lord in which the righteous proceed smoothly while the ungodly wear themselves out:12 ti,j sofo.j kai. sunh,sei tau/ta h' suneto.j kai. evpignw,setai auvta, dio,ti euvqei/ai ai` o`doi. tou/ kuri,ou kai. di,kaioi poreu,sontai evn auvtai/j oi` de. avsebei/j avsqenh,sousin evn auvtai/j (Hos 14:10); Who is wise, and will understand these things? or prudent, and will know them? for the ways of the Lord are straight, and the righteous shall walk in them: but the ungodly shall fall therein.

A text such as that of Sir 24:33 shows that the author intends his own teaching as prophecy, that is to say as endowed with the same characteristics as prophetic speech: inspired by God and for the benefit of the many.13 After all, it is typical of the wise man to gather the words of the Law as “an oracle worthy of faith” (Sir 33:3: a;nqrwpoj suneto.j evmpisteu,sei no,mw| kai. o` 12

Sofo,j translates here ~kx which in Hos 13:13 is rendered by fro,nimoj, while the unique occurrence of suneto,j, renders the equally unique occurrence of !Abn". Mt will take up fro,nimoj as one of his preferred adjectives, as if a background against which to project discipleship in its dimension of being realised in daily practice, referring it, together with

pisto,j, to the watchful disciple, worthy of being set over the household by his master,

13

to distribute to all what is necessary in expectation of the return of the Lord, (cf. Mt 24:45). It describes the watchful cunning of the serpent in Mt 10:16, which does not, however, harm the simplicity of the dove; the use in Mt 25:2.4.8.9 takes us back to watchfulness. It is used for shrewdness in Mt 7:24. Sofo,j, on the other hand, is referred to the disciples in 23:34, while in 11:25 it indicates the wise (of Israel) in contradistinction from the nhpi,oij. SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 338.

Blessing of the sage, prophecy of the scribe: from Ben Sira to Matthew

317

no,moj auvtw/| pisto.j w`j evrw,thma dh,lwn). In Ben Sira’s perspective, we can affirm a kind of functional equivalence between the Torah and prophecy, something which leaves a trace in the saying of Mt 11:13: “For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John (pa,ntej ga.r oi` profh/tai kai. o` no,moj e[wj VIwa,nnou evprofh,teusan)”.14 The inverted order prophets-Law, compared with the more usual “the Law and the prophets” (Lk 16:16; Mt 5:17; 22:40) can be explained precisely with reference to the expression of Sirach, who sees it, as a whole, as prophetic manifestation. So, on the other hand, Matthew had presented the Law in 5:18 as a prophetic corpus: “truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not a jot, not a tittle, will pass from the law until all is accomplished”. Mt 5:17 can be read from the same viewpoint: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them”. If, for Ben Sira, the Law has a prophetic import it is equally true that in 39:1 he understands the prophecies as a corpus now available for consultation and study, in the same way as the Law and the wisdom of the ancients: On the other hand he who devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High. Will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be concerned with prophecies.

Prophecy is one lot of information among others, one part of that heritage of knowledge which can be defined comprehensively as “wisdom”. For this reason, whoever devotes himself to acquiring it can later make it flow from himself like prophecy (Sir 24:32). In short, the sage who studies the prophecies could repeat their content in sapiential mode, that is, with the aim of guiding human action according to the divine will. Thus he will achieve the same aim as the prophet, and his teaching will be able to be described as prophecy. Matthew, even if his slant is not identical, seems to hold to a similar equivalence when he assigns to as many as receive a prophet or a righteous man, in their capacity as prophets and righteous men, the same reward as that reserved for these categories (cf. Mt 10:40-41: “Whoever welcomes a prophet because he is [eivj o;noma] a prophet will receive the reward 14

Cf. also Mt 5:17 and 22:40. GREEN, Matthew, Poet of the Beatitudes, 96, holds that, in all three cases, Mt would have inserted the reference to the Law in a text which spoke only of the prophets. In this way, he obtains for Mt 11:13 a text which, corresponding to the previous verse on the Baptist, would form a kind of strophe. However, despite the graphic treatment and the explanation on p. 97, it is difficult to comprehend the concentric structure of the verse about John. The unity of the poem reconstructed by Green is rudely disturbed by the introduction of Mt 11:13 with amen, as he himself recognises. Only by suppressing it (Green puts it in brackets) and by making the mention of the Law disappear, although it is present in the textual parallel in Lk 16:16, does he succeed in obtaining a text that is any way coherent, though purely hypothetical, which ended up being lost in the present redaction because of the Christological reflection of Mt who was responsible for the insertions in question. Cf. ibid., 97-98 and Appendix B, 300-305, particularly p. 303.

Rosario Pistone

318

of a prophet, and he who receives a righteous man because he is [eivj o;noma] a righteous man will receive the reward of a righteous man”). At the same time, at the opening of the book, Ben Sira had stated that wisdom consists in the observing of the commandments: Do you desire wisdom? Keep the commandments and the Lord will grant it to you (1:26).

The search for wisdom, then, moves along such coordinates: it is a studious activity in the wake of a tradition that was by now consolidated, and a daily practice in the life of the believer.

1.3 Wisdom sought and secrets revealed We can well understand how and why, from this viewpoint, there is no room for possible revelations or mysteries or any other kind of esotericism:15 Sir 3:21-24: 21

calepw,tera, sou mh. zh,tei kai. ivscuro,tera, sou mh. evxe,taze 22 a] proseta,gh soi tau/ta dianoou/ ouv ga,r evsti,n soi crei,a tw/n kruptw/n 23 evn toi/j perissoi/j tw/n e;rgwn sou mh. perierga,zou plei,ona ga.r sune,sewj avnqrw,pwn u`pedei,cqh soi 24 pollou.j ga.r evpla,nhsen h` u`po,lhmyij auvtw/n kai. u`po,noia ponhra. wvli,sqhsen dianoi,aj auvtw/n

21

Seek not what is too difficult for you, nor investigate what is beyond your power. 22 Reflect upon what has been assigned to you, for you do not need what is hidden. 23 Do not meddle in what is beyond your tasks, for matters too great for human understanding have been shown you.24 For their hasty judgment has led many astray, and wrong opinion has caused their thoughts to slip.

In fact Ben Sira explains the content of revelation stating that it is the law handed over in the theophany of Sinai (Sir 45:5), itself now the object of interpretation by the wise (Sir 39:1.6-11), and, at the same time, Wisdom personified which comes forth from the mouth of the Most High (Sir 24:3). Wisdom being, therefore, the revealed Torah (Sir 24:22) is within the reach of man to be carried out and fulfilled. The evangelist Matthew would certainly have been able to subscribe to this last aspect which requires form the human being the fulfilment of the divine will. Inserting the proclamation of the Torah into the work of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, he starts by making the well-known statement according to which not only one, not even the least, commandment of the Law is to pass away, but the complete fulfilment of the commandments16 becomes there the criterion for 15 16

Cf. in this regard CORLEY, Wisdom Versus Apocalyptic, 275ff. Perhaps even in an extended sense; cf. Jas 2:10: “Whoever keeps the whole law but fails

Blessing of the sage, prophecy of the scribe: from Ben Sira to Matthew

319

determining the status of the believer in the kingdom: “[...] whoever does (the least commandments) and teaches them to men shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:19). However, Matthew would not have shared in the avoiding of revelation and of mysteries, and would certainly not have limited revelation to the understanding of the Torah. Beyond the statement of the parables discourse, according to which it is to the disciples and not to any old listeners that the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted (Mt 13:11), so much so that they can be described as wise scribes (cf. Mt 13:52), it will be necessary to recall the eulogy of 11:2530 concerning the revelation to babes (nhpi,oi), and Mt 16:17, with the macarism for Peter who had been made the object of a revelation concerning the identity and mission of Jesus on the part of the Father. It was on him that Jesus founded his ekklesia. Thus we have located a reference to Ben Sira and at the same time a taking of distance owing to the fact that Jesus, and not the Torah, is the presence of God among his people. He is the Emmanuel (Mt 1:22-23; cf. 28:20: “I am with you until the end of time...”) and it is in his power to pronounce the heart of the Law, the real will of God, without referring to further mediation (cf. Mt 5:21-48).17 This explains the nearness and at the same time the distance of a saying which can be ascribed to Q, and perhaps more easily able to be linked with Ben Sira in the form transmitted by Luke rather than in that employed by Matthew. It is the matter of Wisdom’s being justified: Sir 4:11: h` sofi,a ui`ou.j auvth/j avnu,ywsen kai. evpilamba,netai tw/n zhtou/ntwn auvth,n Mt 11:19: kai. evdikaiw,qh h` sofi,a avpo. tw/n e;rgwn auvth/j Lk 7:35: kai. evdikaiw,qh h` sofi,a avpo. pa,ntwn tw/n te,knwn auvth/j Sir 4:11: Wisdom exalts her sons and gives help to those who seek her. Mt 11:19: ...yet wisdom is justified by her deeds. Lk 7:35: ... yet wisdom is justified by all her children.

The reading of the LXX differs somewhat from the Hebrew text which reads hynb hdml twmkx, setting up in the rest of the verse a play on words between “her sons” and “those who understand her” (hynb // ~ynybm), leaving it under-

17

in one point has become guilty of the whole of the Law”, but also Did 4,13; Barn 19,11. BETZ, The Sermon on the Mount, 187-188, perceives in the “least-light commandments” a form of irony: the observance of the commandments of Jesus, considered light by the Pharisees, makes one great in the kingdom of heaven, in contrast to the Pharisaic teaching on “heavy” observances, rejected by Jesus himself. For an introduction to and discussion of the “antitheses” cf. DAVIES – ALLISON, The Gospel, 1, 505-509. RÖHSER, Jesus – der wahre ‘Schriftgelerhte’.

320

Rosario Pistone

stood that only those who understand wisdom can be called her sons.18 Matthew’s formulation, “the works of wisdom” (11:19) should be read in the light of the expression “works of Christ” (11:2). What we have here is an echo in the form of an inclusion in the strength of which Jesus is that wisdom whose (his) very works justify, starting with the reponse given to the Baptist when the latter was astonished to see him presenting himself for baptism (cf. 3:15: “[...] Let it be so now: for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness”), and passing through miracles performed (ai` plei/stai duna,meij), indicators of his messianic identity, notwithstanding which, however, the cities of the coast have refused to believe (cf. Mt 11:20-24). This last text cited immediately precedes the pericope of blessing the Father for the revelation to the “babes”. For the evangelist, “these things” that God reveals are “the works of Jesus”: that is to say the very works of wisdom, according to the link which we have thrown into relief. It is not improbable that the evangelist also retains the reference of Sir 3:19 to the wisdom which reveals the mysteries of God to the humble.19 We can gather, therefore, that the exaltation indicated by LXX Sir as care of wisdom for her sons must be recognised, at least in a certain way, in the action of the Father who reveals the identity of Jesus. Such a reading seems to be confirmed by the recurrence of ta. krupta,, the secrets, the hidden things, as well in the course of the brief poem of Ben Sira (Sir 4:18), as in the form of verb in Matthew’s text. In fact, in the first case, it is stated that wisdom will 18 19

SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 170-171. The witness of the Hebrew and Greek Mss for Sir 3:19-20 is not univocal. For the relevant discussion, cf. again SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 158-159, in whose opinion, the reading of Gr II, Ms A and the Peshitta “he reveals his secrets to the humble” (wdws hlgy ~ywn[l), would not be original but would turn out to have depended on Am 3:7. However, it can be argued that Ben Sira is making a change of an interpretative type. If the mysteries revealed to man in cap. 3 have to do with the Law, and the sage is the one who applies himself to it with his study and his life, the making equivalent becomes immediately comprehensible: the term wdws, “secret” in the HT of Ben Sira, features again in Am 3:7, which, however, the LXX renders with paidei,a. The polysemy of this last term makes further links possible. Sir 1:27 states, for example, that wisdom and paidei,a consist in the fear of the Lord, while his euvdoki,a consists of fidelity and meekness: here paidei,a does not indicate the divine plan or mystery, but rather discipline and learning. Other prophetic texts, in the translation of the LXX, link humility with the observance of the Law, cf. Zeph 2:3: “Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, who do his commands; seek righteousness, seek humility”. Humble / humility render the root wn[ / tapein* in the Greek text, which, however, omits “seek humility”. In short, both the prophet of Am 3:7 HT, and the humble man of Sir 3:19-20 Gr are made the object of the same revelation (wdws). The humble man, that is to say, he who lives according to the Law, is now the addressee of revelation. The contacts in vocabulary by means of the term paidei,a and the adaptation of themes, explain better why the Greek text of Sirach could come to an equivalence between prophet and humble man, without us being obliged to suppose a confusion between hlg and ldg (contra SKEHAN – DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 159).

Blessing of the sage, prophecy of the scribe: from Ben Sira to Matthew

321

reveal her secrets to whoever shows himself worthy of her trust, abandoning the one who does not follow her (Sir 4:17-18); in the second it is said that the Father has kept secret, hidden (e;kruyaj tau/ta) from the wise what he has revealed to babes (Mt 11:25), that is, to those who have believed in Jesus.20 The evangelical saying of wisdom being justified by her works or by her children (Mt 11:9 // Lk 7:35) can be read, therefore, as a repeat and reelaboration of Sir 4:11-18 where the activity of wisdom who teaches her sons (Sir 4:11 Hb) or exalts them (LXX) culminates in the revelation of her secrets (Sir 4:18).

1.4 Further on secrets revealed or about the scribe-prophet Like Ben Sira, Matthew too assigns to the scribes a big space in his community. In both cases we are concerned with spiritual guides but also with points of intellectual reference. In this, Matthew is inserted perfectly into the situation which precedes him: also in his times, the scribes are distinguished citizens (cf. Sir 38–39; Mt 23:1-7).21 The Christian scribes, however, are able to teach because they have understood the teaching of Jesus and have “become disciples of the kingdom of heaven”, that is to say they are in a state which allows the movement from new to old. We are not far from the truth if we think of a differentiation with regard to the existing scribal schools within whose tradition a master of wisdom is registered and becomes recognised. In Mt 13:51-52, the criterion appears to be the new state of affairs capable of re-reading and re-presenting the old (“‘Have you understood all this?’ They replied: ‘Yes’. He said to them: ‘Therefore , every scribe who is trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old’”). If we do not encounter the oldnew juxtaposition in Sirach, yet the sage is seen as one who formulates his own words after having enquired of the wisdom of the ancients (cf. Sir 18:29; 21:15; 24:30ff. etc.). And just as Ben Sira proposes his model of the wise man within a community, so Matthew sees him inserted in a not dissimilar context, as the image of the householder, responsible for catechesis, suggests.22 20

21 22

The identification of the nepioi poses some difficulties. In the LXX, although the literal sense of little one, babe is attested, there is no lack of examples, if limited to the Psalms, of an almost technical use,“the just”: Ps 18:8: “the Law of the Lord is perfect, it revives the soul; the testimony of the Lord is faithful and gives wisdom to the little ones (nh,pia; ytp); Ps 114:6: “The Lord preserves the simple (ta. nh,pia): I was humbled and he helped me”; Ps 118:130: “The revelation of your words gives light and understanding to the little ones (nhpi,ouj; ~yytp)”. The use could refer to the ~yytp of Qumran; cf. 1QpHab 12:4; 4QpNah 3-4; 3:5.7. Cf. also JOSEPHUS, Ant. XX, 264. Cf. GNILKA, Il vangelo di Matteo, 1, 742. Cf. also Mt 10:25.46 for the identification of the master of the house, the servants and their relationships.

322

Rosario Pistone

This characteristic form of teaching is projected on to the Twelve, portrayed as the first repositories and tradents of a succession in which the missionary and didactic elements are closely linked with and referred to the authority of the risen Messiah (Mt 28:18-20: “Then, Jesus came and said to them: ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And so, I am with you always, even to the end of the world’”). Ben Sira, on his part, wished to make his teaching shine as far as possible (evkfanw/ auvta. e[wj eivj makra,n, Sir 24:32), and to pour out his prophetic doctrine on all generations, for ever (“eternal generations”: didaskali,an w`j profhtei,an evkcew/ kai. katalei,yw auvth.n eivj genea.j aivwn, wn, Sir 24:33), with a temporal viewpoint, therefore, not too far from that of the evangelist, compared with whom, however, he lacks the eschatological expectation. In fact, the class or group of scribes of the first gospel are certainly thought of in contradistinction from the scribes of Israel, as appears from Mt 23:34ff. To this group and its activity, the text of Mt appears to assure a duration which will cease only with the change of the era (cf. 28:20), in perfect harmony with the divine plan. The parable of the wicked tenants, with its concluding prophecy of the kingdom given to others who will make it fruitful (Mt 21:43), is introduced as a reply to the “chief priests and elders of the people” (Mt 21:23), represented at the conclusion as the “chief priests and Pharisees” (Mt 21:45). The scribes are not mentioned here. They will appear, however, shortly afterwards, as the recipients of a very powerful rebuke. More than the universalistic announcement of the entry of the Gentiles into the blessing of Abraham, we can see in the saying about the kingdom given to others, the substitution for the ruling class of Israel by the Christian scribes, prophets and wise men. The importance of the scribe could not be better delineated.23 The first evangelist is, however, the bearer of a message with clear eschatological content. If a certain type of revelations and mysteries is held at a distance by Ben Sira, the Christian scribe does not do likewise. On his shoulders he has not only the statements of Sirach about the wisdom which reveals her mysteries, but a consolidated tradition of sages who are the bearers of mysteries. We speak, of course, of the authors of the books that go 23

Probably Matthew himself belonged to a school of scribes after their adhesion to Jesus; so DAVIES – ALLISON, The Gospel, 1, 240. Cf. also STENDHAL, The School of St. Matthew; ZUMSTEIN, La condition du croyant, 156-163; COPE, Matthew – A Scribe; BROWN – MEIER, Antioch and Rome, 59. For a presence of Christian scribes in Matthew’s community, cf. VAN TILBORG, The Jewish Leaders, 128-141; LUZ, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1, 6061. GNILKA, Il vangelo di Matteo, 1, 740ff understands Mt 13:52 as a portrait of the Christian scribe and even of the evangelist himself. For the employment of scribal techniques, cf. WILLS, Scribal Methods.

Blessing of the sage, prophecy of the scribe: from Ben Sira to Matthew

323

under the name of Enoch (1, 2, 3 Enoch, as also 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, who are presented as scribes in their turn.24 Characteristics similar to those of the scribe and the prophet simultaneously can be traced in Ben Sira’s presentation of Moses in the Praise of the Ancestors. The statement according to which God “showed him part of his glory... led him into the thick darkness and gave him the commandments face to face” (Sir 45:3.5), could well be matched with apocalyptic texts or the revelation of mysteries,25 while exquisitely scribal is the teaching activity to Jacob and Israel (Sir 45:5c: “to teach Jacob the covenant and Israel his judgements”). For Ben Sira, the root of Moses’ activity rests on the sanctifying action of God: “He made him glorious among the saints [...] he sanctified him through faithfulness and meekness; he chose him out of all mankind” (Sir 45:2.4; cf. 1:27).The action of sanctifying/consecrating can only recall, among others, the famous text of Jeremiah, consecrated from his mother’s womb, with a radical choice which touched his very origins, marking his entire existence. Similarly, Moses is separated out from all mankind. His prophetic charisma is noted starting from the Deuteronomistic relecture which makes the liberator solemnly predict that a prophet will arise like him to whom heed must be paid (Deut 18:18). To recall these characteristics is not superfluous given the insistence of not a few scholars on a Wisdom Christology in Matthew.26 His interest in Moses, in the light of which many hold that there is elaborated a presentation of the Messiah-as-Moses,27 does not conflict with that of the Messiahprophet or the Davidic Messiah.28 In the Jewish tradition Moses is simultaneously prophet and scribe.29 A possible point of contact with the figure of Moses, understood thus from the starting point of the eulogy of Ben Sira, 24 25

26

27

28

29

Cf. Ezra 7:11; 1 Enoch 12:3-4; 15, 1; 4 Ezra 14:1.5.26; T. Abr. B 11,3; 2 Enoch 64:5. Cf. the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness, with relevant differences. For the emphasis on meditating on mysteries in order to obtain the eschatological reward, cf. PUECH, Apports des textes apocalyptiques. Cf. GENCH, Wisdom in the Christology of Matthew, and the bibliography cited there. On the different aspects concerning Wisdom in the Synoptics, cf. the documented survey of WINTON, The Proverbs of Jesus, 13-29, above all pp. 20-27 on the sapiential Christology and the identity of Jesus as “sage”. DAVIES – ALLISON, The Gospel, 1, 272. Ascribed by many scholars to the source Q even before the evangelist himself. For DEUTSCH, Lady Wisdom, 81, Matthew rereads the metaphor of Lady Wisdom, transferring its content to Jesus. Already at Qumran, David is regarded as one who speaks under prophetic inspiration. Cf. 11QPsa 18. For HENGEL (The Charismatic Leader, 48), in whose opinion the sage Ben Sira expresses himself as a prophet, that could apply also in the case of Jesus without any difficulty, and one aspect would not disturb the other, rather “the reverse is true: each conditions the other, the unheard-of, revolutionary content of Jesus’ message sought the stamp and polish of an established form”. For Moses, as scribe par excellence, cf. the still valid contribution of VERMES, Scripture and Tradition, 44-55.

324

Rosario Pistone

can be established by the reference to “meekness”. Of the commander saved by the waters it is said that the sanctifying action of God consisted for him evn pi,stei kai. prau