Ben Sira in Conversation with Traditions: A Festschrift for Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday 3110761971, 9783110761979

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
Introduction
Select Bibliography
Contributors
Part I: Ben Sira in Conversation with the Torah
The Creation of Humanity in HebrewWisdom Literature of the Second Century BCE
Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira
Ben Sira’s Portrayal of Aaron and Phinehas (Sir 45:6–25): An Interaction between Tradition and Innovation
“Do Not Defraud the Life of the Poor”: Notes on the Greek of Sir 4:1–10
Part II: Ben Sira in Conversation with the Prophets
Ben Sira and Ezekiel
“Bread to the Hungry and Clothes to the Naked”: A History of a Prophetic- Sapiential Motif from Tobit to the Syriac of Ben Sira
The Metaphor of a Woman Giving Birth: The Book of Ben Sira in the Light of Prophetic Literature
Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea: Intertextual Links between Sir 24:12–23 and Hos 14:5–10
Part III: Ben Sira in Conversation with Wisdom Traditions
“Yet, No One Remembered that Poor Man”: Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor
Living with Wild Animals: A Study of the Imagery in Sir 25:15–16
Keywords: women/wives, animal imagery, metaphors, Ben Sira, anger
Family Ethos and Wise Behavior in Proverbs, Sirach, and Vietnamese Folk Sayings
Part IV: Ben Sira in Coversation with Some of the Literature of the Second Temple
Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira
Wisdom in Disguise and the Heroism of Widows: Ben Sira and Judean Traditions (Sir 4:1–19)
Path Dependence and Institutional Change: The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests in 1 Maccabees
A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception
Part V: Later Authors in Conversation with the Book of Ben Sira
The Book of Ben Sira From a Reception- Historical Perspective: Hubert Frankemölle’s Commentary on the Letter of James
Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger (Jas 1:19 and Sir 5:11)
Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple
“Useful for Instruction”: The Popularity of Sirach in Christian Egypt
M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira
Index of References
Index of Authors

Citation preview

Ben Sira in Conversation with Traditions

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, Tobias Nicklas, and Kristin De Troyer

Volume 47

Ben Sira in Conversation with Traditions A Festschrift for Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday Edited by Francis M. Macatangay and Francisco-Javier Ruiz-Ortiz In Collaboration with Renate Egger-Wenzel

ISBN 978-3-11-076197-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-076218-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-076222-8 ISSN 1865-1666 Library of Congress Control Number: 2021952271 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages, MHSFN

Preface It All Began at Soesterberg in 1996 In Appreciation of Núria Calduch-Benages

Looking at an old photograph of the famous Ben Sira scholars who were invited by Pancratius C. Beentjes to Soesterberg on 28–31 July 1996 to mark the hundredth anniversary of the rediscovery of the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira, I see Núria standing there in the middle of the first row. I remember very well all the important specialists of this book of wisdom literature coming together: Pancratius Beentjes, Christopher Begg, Alexander A. Di Lella, Maurice Gilbert, Johannes Marböck, Antonino Minissale, Stefan C. Reif, Friedrich V. Reiterer, Benjamin Wright … and we, the young generation. Núria began her studies at Barcelona University (Bellaterra). Thanks to her parents’ support and encouragement, she studied philosophy, German, and English philology, finishing her bachelor’s degree in her hometown before she went to Rome to become a theologian. First came another bachelor’s degree at the Pontifical Urban University. In 1991, after her license degree at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Núria was appointed assistant professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University. She completed her doctorate in 1995 with the thesis En el crisol de la prueba. Estudio exegético de Sir 2,1–18 1 at the same Institute under the supervision of Maurice Gilbert and was promptly appointed associate professor at the Gregorian University. Núria was not entirely clear why she received an invitation to the Ben Sira conference in Soesterberg but one afternoon the telephone suddenly rang, and it was Pancratius Beentjes calling to invite her to that Ben Sira Conference in the Netherlands. Of course, English had to be the language of that meeting but Núria’s thesis had been written in Spanish. Núria has a great love and an enormous talent for languages and had, in addition to her mother tongues of Catalan, Spanish, and French, also studied German, Russian, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Latin, Swahili, and Vietnamese. However, she was not yet fluent enough in English to translate with ease an excerpt of her thesis. She therefore asked a fellow student, Jan Liesen, a later ISDCL member and now bishop of Breda, for his assistance. The snag was that he expected it to be a translation into English from Italian, not from Spanish. After an intensive collaboration, a rather nervous young Núria attended the conference and presented her paper brilliantly. This “golden opportunity,” as Núria 1 Núria Calduch-Benages, En el crisol de la prueba. Estudio exegético de Sir 2,1–18, ABE 32, Estella: Verbo Divino, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-201

viii

Preface

told me much later, had occurred because a professor had declined to participate, and she had been invited to fill in at the last minute. That conference in Soesterberg was in many respects also the starting point of our plans at Salzburg University to promote a more intensive study of the deuterocanonical books. Friedrich Reiterer had already started with a Ben Sira research project. In 2002, he initiated a meeting in Salzburg, inviting Pancratius, Núria, and Jeremy Corley to plan further steps. So it was that Núria became one of the founding members of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL) and at the inaugural meeting in 2003 was also elected as a member of the advisory board. At this juncture, we also created two new series at the publishing house, Walter de Gruyter. Núria was invited to become co-editor of the series Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (DCLY) to ensure, together with her colleagues, the highquality publication of the papers read at our international conferences. In 2013, she was duly elected vice-president and holds this position to the present. Meanwhile, Núria built her career in Rome; she became Book Review Editor of the journal Biblica and later also a member of the editorial boards of the journals Estudios Bíblicos, Gregorianum, Storia delle donne, Vetus Testamentum, and its Supplement series. In 2003, she received an appointment as extraordinary professor at the Gregorian University and became full professor seven years later. In 2006, Núria also became an advisor of the Cardinal Bea Centre at the same institution. Since 2016, she serves as an Invited Professor at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. From 2014 to 2019, she was appointed a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, a position that was later renewed until 2025; she serves now as its secretary. In 2016, Núria joined the Papal Commission for the Study of the Diaconate of Women. These many distinguished and important assignments did not prevent Núria from publishing regularly in the field of wisdom literature. Ben Sira is her favored book in which her scholarly expertise is internationally acknowledged and will hopefully be crowned with the conclusion of a commentary after her retirement. She is also interested in biblical anthropology and feminist hermeneutics. Núria’s colleagues hold her in high esteem and her students love her. The editors and contributors of this Festschrift wish Núria strength and health for many more years of productive scholarship and join with the sage in stating, “Praise will come forth from the mouth of the wise and by her will proverbs be studied” (Sir 15:10). We may appropriately conclude by repeating the praise offered by Núria’s Doktorvater: “That lady is fascinating, joyful, dynamic, enterprising and a hard worker.” Renate Egger-Wenzel President of the ISDCL

December 27th, 2021

Contents Preface

vii

Introduction

1

Select Bibliography Contributors

7

13

Part I: Ben Sira in Conversation with the Torah John J. Collins The Creation of Humanity in Hebrew Wisdom Literature of the Second Century BCE 19 Jean-Louis Ska Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira

35

Pancratius C. Beentjes Ben Sira’s Portrayal of Aaron and Phinehas (Sir 45:6–25): An Interaction between Tradition and Innovation 51 Benjamin G. Wright III “Do Not Defraud the Life of the Poor”: Notes on the Greek of Sir 4:1–10 65

Part II: Ben Sira in Conversation with the Prophets Jeremy Corley Ben Sira and Ezekiel

81

Bradley C. Gregory “Bread to the Hungry and Clothes to the Naked”: A History of a PropheticSapiential Motif from Tobit to the Syriac of Ben Sira 95

x

Contents

Paweł Paszko The Metaphor of a Woman Giving Birth: The Book of Ben Sira in the Light of Prophetic Literature 109 Ibolya Balla Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea: Intertextual Links between Sir 24:12–23 and Hos 14:5–10 123

Part III: Ben Sira in Conversation with Wisdom Traditions Tova Forti “Yet, No One Remembered that Poor Man”: Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor 149 Sergio Rotasperti and F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz Living with Wild Animals: A Study of the Imagery in Sir 25:15–16 Friedrich V. Reiterer On the Gifts of the Lord in Ben Sira

165

177

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen Family Ethos and Wise Behavior in Proverbs, Sirach, and Vietnamese Folk Sayings 191

Part IV: Ben Sira in Coversation with Some of the Literature of the Second Temple Francis M. Macatangay and Emilio López Navas Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira

217

Michael W. Duggan Wisdom in Disguise and the Heroism of Widows: Ben Sira and Judean Traditions (Sir 4:1–19) 235 Barbara Schmitz Path Dependence and Institutional Change: The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests in 1 Maccabees 249

xi

Contents

Matthew Goff A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception

267

Part V: Later Authors in Conversation with the Book of Ben Sira Oda Wischmeyer The Book of Ben Sira From a Reception-Historical Perspective: 285 Hubert Frankemölle’s Commentary on the Letter of James Elisa Estévez López Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger (Jas 1:19 301 and Sir 5:11) Maurice Gilbert Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple

321

Juan Chapa “Useful for Instruction”: The Popularity of Sirach in Christian Egypt Stefan C. Reif M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira Index of References Index of Authors

371 381

351

337

Introduction Students attending the lectures of Professor Núria Calduch-Benages at the Jesuitrun Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome who wish to consult the professor have to climb the stairs to the fifth floor of the building where the offices of the lecturers are located. Once there, the student walks down a hallway with no natural light while looking for the proper room number. Upon finding it, the student, accustomed to the magisterial and spacious classrooms of the university, knocks on the door of a surprisingly small office. The student who is welcomed by Prof. Calduch-Benages notices some shelves holding dissertation volumes on the left, a clothes hanger on the right, a desk opposite the door, and a couple of chairs on either side of the desk, and realizes that these items represent the total furniture of the tiny office. The window behind Prof. CalduchBenages draws one’s attention to the only picture on the wall behind her: a finely written Hebrew text on a parchment. Any advanced student of Hebrew soon understands the text and recognizes it as the final verses of the book of Proverbs, the poem on the eshet hayil. At that moment, one considers possible translations: a virtuous woman, a noble woman, an excellent woman, a capable woman, or simply, a good woman, or wife. But perhaps, the simplest and more literal translation may be the best option: “a strong woman, who can find her?” The student begins to appreciate that he or she is sitting opposite such a woman, and is in the presence of a hard-working individual who not only produces exceptional scholarship, as attested in the number of articles and books Prof. Calduch-Benages has edited and published, but also supervises a goodly number of doctoral students. Academically demanding and meticulous, she takes outstanding care of those entrusted to her, encouraging their further development. In a firm yet gentle manner, she meets her responsibilities and shares her impressive scholarship and excellent insights with the students at the university, with colleagues at different academic events, and with the public, by way of her publications, both scientific and popular. Prov. 31:29 continues to describe the woman of substance in this way: “Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.” In many respects, this description is wholly fitting for Prof. Calduch-Benages. She is currently the Chair of the Biblical Theology Department at the Gregorian. She has also been the Book Review editor for Biblica, an esteemed journal in biblical scholarship, and for the Gregorianum, another journal in academic learning, taking the pulse of the current trends in biblical and theological scholarship. She also serves on many editorial boards, including the Vetus Testamentum and https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-001

2

Introduction

its supplements and is presently a Vice-President of the International Society for Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). In 2008, Pope Benedict invited her to serve as one of the experts at the Synod on the Word of God. More significantly, she is counted among the first female members named to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and is the first woman to function as Secretary of that academic advisory board in the Roman Catholic Church. The poem ends with “Let her works praise her in the city gates” (Prov. 31:31). This Festschrift volume bears witness to such praise. Colleagues and former students at various city gates around the globe have authored original studies to honor and celebrate the achievements of an extraordinary woman. The present volume, which follows the honoree’s scholarly interest in Ben Sira, gathers together essays that explore the various relationships between the book of Ben Sira and other mainly Jewish traditions. The word “conversation” in the title of the volume implies an act of engaged listening and interaction. In this case, it means listening to Ben Sira’s text in all its permutations. Doing so also includes hearing, no matter how faintly, some of the other background conversations of the sage’s time; it amounts to discerning Ben Sira’s negotiations with other traditions in light of his own. Ultimately, Ben Sira forms part of a tradition with which later tradents interact. True conversations, of course, often yield insights and delights; it is our hope that this volume offers our honoree and other readers with a storehouse of them. In their description of such conversations, these contributions employ a variety of approaches ranging from the textual, to the literary, to the theological. The collection is divided into four parts. The first part includes four essays that analyze how Ben Sira represents the Torah he received. The second part’s four essays examine Ben Sira’s links with the prophetic tradition. The third part has four essays that consider the work of Ben Sira in light of the wisdom tradition. The fourth part consists of four essays that study the interconnections between Ben Sira and other literature of the Second Temple. The five studies of the final section investigate how other traditions engaged Ben Sira in conversation, or how his work was later interpreted and received. John Collins opens the first part with an essay entitled “The Creation of Humanity in Hebrew Wisdom Literature of the Second Century” in which he argues that, despite the number of reflections prompted by the creation stories in Gen 1–2 and Gen 3, Ben Sira does not view any segment of humanity as having been denied the revelation of good and evil because it had a spirit of flesh, as some Qumran documents assert. The differences within the reflections of the period provide a window into the development of dualistic thought in Hellenistic Judea. In “Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira,” Jean-Louis Ska makes a case for considering Ben Sira’s work as a kind of pedagogical hand-

Introduction

3

book that prioritizes the Torah, in particular, as the highest and most prestigious form of wisdom that may proudly be set alongside the Hellenistic ideals of paideia. Pancratius Beentjes, in “Ben Sira’s Portrayal of Aaron and Phinehas (Sir 45:6–25),” examines how Ben Sira employs scripture in a special way in his portrayal of the priestly families of Aaron and Phinehas in order to underscore continuity in Israel’s history. Finally, Benjamin Wright III looks closely at the Greek translation of Sir 4:1–10, which is considered as Ben Sira’s broad commentary on the covenantal obligations as delineated in Exod 22:22–23, Lev 19:9–10, 23:22 (the poor), Deut 15:7–11 (the poor), and 24:17–22 (widows and orphans), in order to understand how the grandson approached and later represented the thought of Ben Sira on these matters. The second part begins with Jeremy Corley’s essay entitled “Ben Sira and Ezekiel” which explores connections between the two eponymous writers, starting with the brief note in Sir 49:8–9 that refers to Ezekiel’s inaugural vision, the reference to the revival of bones in Sir 46:12 and 49:10, and the motif of water flowing out of the Jerusalem temple in Sir 24:30–31. Bradley Gregory, in his study “‘Bread to the Hungry and Clothes to the Naked’: A History of a Prophetic-Sapiential Motif from Tobit to the Syriac of Ben Sira,” focuses on the prophetic and sapiential motif “bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked,” tracing its interesting trajectory in Tobit, the Sibylline Oracles 1–2, PseudoPhocylides, the Gospel of Matthew, 2 Enoch, and the Syriac version of Ben Sira. In “The Metaphor of a Woman Giving Birth: The Book of Ben Sira in the Light of Prophetic Literature,” Paweł Paszko examines the image of a “woman giving birth” in Sir 19:11–12 and 48:19 in light of the image’s appearance in Isa 42:10– 14, concluding that such an image does not symbolize weakness but illustrates inner confusion and anxiety caused by critical life situations. Finally, in “The Banquet of Life in Sir 24:12–23 and Hos 14:5–10? Allusions in the Book of Ben Sira to the Book of Hosea,” Ibolya Balla analyzes the plant metaphors in both Hosea and Ben Sira as a point of connection and concludes that such images reinforce the notion that it is God who is the only legitimate and ultimate provider who sustains a restored Israel and a Torah-observant individual into life, not Baal or other foreign gods in the case of Hosea, or Hellenistic culture in the case of Ben Sira. The third section examines texts in the book of Ben Sira in connection with the wisdom tradition. In “‘Yet, No One Remembered that Poor Man’: Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor,” Tova Forti engages in a comparative analysis of Qoh 9:13–10:1 and Sir 10:30–11:3, two passages that employ animal imagery in order to address the wisdom of the poor, and argues that the images underscore the pedagogical gap between Qoheleth’s skeptical ambivalence and Ben Sira’s conservative didacticism. Sergio Rotasperti and F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz

4

Introduction

also analyze animal metaphors as they are applied to women in Sir 25:13–26:27 in light of their use in biblical literature, specifically in its wisdom iteration. In his essay “On the Gifts of the Lord in Ben Sira,” Friedrich V. Reiterer examines in light of Hellenistic ideas the action of the Lord as the giver. Finally, Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen, in “Family Ethos and Wise Behavior in Proverbs, Sirach, and Vietnamese Folk Sayings,” reads Ben Sira’s teachings on filial piety and wise behavior with Proverbs in mind and also in comparison with Vietnamese folk sayings on the subject, thus emphasizing Ben Sira’s “interculturality.” The fourth section covers the interconnections between Ben Sira and other literature of Second Temple Judaism. In “Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira,” Francis Macatangay and Emilio López-Navas compare the views of Jerusalem expressed in Tob 13:7b–18 and Sir 36:1–22 and argue that both evince eschatological expectations. And yet, while Tobit envisions a gloriously rebuilt Jerusalem and temple based on his personal experience of God’s mercy, Ben Sira views the restored institutions of his time, such as the rebuilt Jerusalem and temple, where wisdom ministers, as the basis for the hope that God will restore scattered Israel from their exile. Michael Duggan, in “Wisdom in Disguise and the Heroism of Widows: Ben Sira and Judean Traditions (Sir 4:1–19),” proposes Torah-observant widows such as Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, whose story is told in Gen 38, and the mother who suffers martyrdom after witnessing the executions of her seven sons in 2 Macc 7:20–29, as possible “evocative reference points” for contemplating Woman Wisdom in Ben Sira. In “Path Dependence and Institutional Change: The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests in 1 Maccabees,” Barbara Schmitz considers the office of the high priesthood, an element common to Ben Sira and 1 Maccabees, in terms of the socio-political category of path dependence, noting that Ben Sira may be viewed as part of the path dependence that offered a Traditiongeschichte which may have facilitated the legitimization of the Hasmonean high priesthood as portrayed in 1 Maccabees. Matthew Goff closes the section with an examination of yeṣer in Sir 15:14 in his essay “A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception,” arguing that the conceptions of the yeṣer in late Second Temple literature and rabbinic Judaism may have influenced the expansion of the verse to include ‘snatcher’ and so shaped the transmission of the book of Ben Sira. The concluding section of the volume deals with the reception of the book of Ben Sira. In “The Book of Ben Sira From a Reception-Historical Perspective: Hubert Frankemölle’s Commentary on the Letter of James,” Oda Wischmeyer compares passages that deal with the tongue in Sir 28:8–26 and Jas 3:1–12 and, going beyond the tradition-historical approach of Hubert Frankemolle in his commentary on James, argues that the Letter of James modernizes Ben Sira’s ethical teachings on the tongue by employing the literary genre of the ethical

Introduction

5

epistle; it is a literary work of the early imperial period that is to be understood in terms of its cultural context and literary ambitions. In “Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger (Jas 1:19 and Sir 5:11),” Elisa Estévez López employs the personality model with its three interconnected zones: zone of self-expressive speech (eyes-heart), emotion-fused thought (mouth-ears), and purposeful action (hands-feet), representing a hermeneutical entry point for examining the ethics of language and the proper use of the tongue in the book of Ben Sira and the Letter of James. Maurice Gilbert’s essay, “Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple,” examines the two qualities of reliability and gentleness that Ben Sira requires of his students in Sir 1:27b, and points out that these, as it happens, are also the qualities that Ben Sira employs to describe Moses in Sir 45:4a, with its allusion to Num 12:1–10. The essay proceeds to examine these qualities as they are understood in the Gospel of Matthew and the Letter to the Hebrews in light of these previous texts. Juan Chapa, in “Useful for Instruction: The Popularity of Sirach in Christian Egypt,” considers the various surviving Sirach manuscripts from Egypt, both in Greek and in Coptic, and claims that Sirach was used to instruct children and young people. Finally, Stefan Reif completes the volume with his essay “M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira,” which not only looks at the life of Moshe H. Segal and his work on the book of Ben Sira but also provides a useful summary of the main points of Segal’s commentary in Hebrew. At the initial phase of the preparation of this Festschrift volume, the guidance by way of Zoom sessions of Prof. Renate Egger-Wenzel, the President of the ISDCL, was invaluable. Unfortunately, certain circumstances prevented her from continuing her collaborative work with us. We would like to thank her for her kind encouragement and support. There are also many others who deserve our thanks and we will name a few: all the twenty-three scholars who gladly and enthusiastically contributed to the volume; Michael Duggan who always responded graciously to our many editorial queries; Ms. Teresa Stevenson of Las Cruces, New Mexico for assistance with proofreading; and Alice Meroz of Walter de Gruyter for her wholehearted support of this project. Last but not least, we wish to thank our honoree, Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages, for her gentle mentorship, steady friendship, and for her numerous scholarly achievements. As she turns 65, we wish her many more years of good health and insightful scholarship on the Word of God. Francis M. Macatangay F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz

Select Bibliography The writings of Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages extend over 450 entries in a variety of languages (Spanish, Catalan, Italian, English, and German). These writings encompass exegetical and scholarly works as well as popular and pastoral ones. The main interest is the book of Ben Sira. Topics such as metaphors and the role of women are also scholarly concerns. Below, we provide a selection of Prof. Calduch-Benages’s writings:

1 Books 1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

For Wisdom’s Sake. Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. BZAW 499. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2021. Pan de sensatez y agua de sabiduría. Estudios sobre el libro de Ben Sira. Artículos selectos 1. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2019. La Sabiduría del Escriba. Wisdom of the Scribe. Edición diplomática de la Peshitta del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano con traducción española e inglesa. Diplomatic Edition of the Peshitta of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus. With Translations in Spanish and English. Second Edition. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2015. Perdonar las injurias. Colección obras de misericordia 11. Madrid: Publicaciones Claretianas, 2015. Pratiche della cura. Medicina e religione nel mondo antico. Lapislazzuli. Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2014. Los profetas. Mensajeros de Dios. Emaús 98. Barcelona: Centro de Pastoral Litúrgica, 2012. The Perfume of the Gospel: Jesus’ Encounters with Women. Theologia 8. Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2012. Saboreando la Palabra. Sobre la lectura orante o creyente (lectio divina). El mundo de la Biblia. Horizontes 11. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2012. English translation: Savoring the Word. On Prayerful Faith-Filled Reading (Lectio Divina). Estella: Verbo Divino, 2017. With Renate Egger-Wenzel, Anton Fersterer, and Ingrid Krammer. Bibliographie zu Ben Sira. BZAW 266. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. En el crisol de la prueba. Estudio exegético de Sir 2.1–18. ABE 32. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1997.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-002

8

Select Bibliography

2 Edited Volumes 1. 2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

With Guadalupe Seijas de los Ríos-Zarzosa. Mujer. Biblia y sociedad. Libro homenaje a Mercedes Navarro Puerto. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2021. With Michael W. Duggan and Dalia Marx. On Wings of Prayer. Sources of Jewish Worship. Essays in Honor of Professor Stefan C. Reif on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. DCLS 44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2019. With Christl M. Maier. The Writings and Later Wisdom Books. The Bible and Women. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 1.3. Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Wisdom for Life. Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. BZAW 445. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014. With Jan Liesen. History and Identity. How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History. DCLY 2006. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. With Jacques Vermeylen. Treasures of Wisdom. Studies on Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift Maurice Gilbert. BETL 14. Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1999.

3 Essays and Articles 1.

“‘Columnas de oro sobre pedestales de plata …’ (Sir 26.18). Metáforas del cuerpo femenino en Ben Sira.” Pages 143–65 in Mujer. Biblia y sociedad. Libro homenaje a Mercedes Navarro Puerto. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Guadalupe Seijas de los Ríos Zarzosa. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2021. 2. “‘A human being has pity on his neighbour; the Lord on every living being’ (Sir 18:13ab). Mercy in the Book of Sirach.” Pages 73–93 in Theology and Anthropology in the Book of Sirach. Edited by Bonifatia Gesche, Christian Lustig, and Gabriel Rabo. SCS 73. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020. 3. “Las naciones extranjeras en el libro de Ben Sira.” Pages 181–204 in “Sal de tu tierra.” Estudios sobre el extranjero en el Antiguo Testamento. Edited by Guadalupe Seijas de los Ríos Zarzosa. ABE. Monografías bíblicas 76. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2020. 4. “Polarities in Creation (Sir 33:7–15).” Pages 179–200 in Cosmos and Creation. Second Temple Perspectives. Edited by Michael W. Duggan, Renate EggerWenzel, and Stefan C. Reif. DCLY 2019. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2020. 5. “Ben Sira and the Moon.” VT (2020): 2–16. 6. “Ben Sira’s Teaching on Prayer: The Example of the Generations of Old.” Pages 37–54 in On Wings of Prayer. Sources of Jewish Worship. Essays in

3 Essays and Articles

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. 17.

9

Honor of Prof. Stefan C. Reif on the Occasion of His Seventy-fifth Birthday. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages, Michael W. Duggan, and Dalia Marx. DCLS 44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 2019. “Ben Sira’s View of Foreign Nations.” Pages 289–308 in Christentum und Europa. XVI. Europäischer Kongress für Theologie (10.–13. September 2017 in Wien). Edited by Michael Meyer-Blanck. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 57. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2019. “Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira: A Case Study of Sir 21:1–10.” Pages 267–84 in Discovering. Deciphering and Dissenting. Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 years. Edited by James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel, and Stefan C. Reif. DCLY 2018. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2018. “Ester. ¿una reina ejemplar?” Pages 101–14 in Il volto di Dio attraverso il volto dei piccoli. Scritti in onore del prof. Don Massimo Grilli in occasione del suo 70º compleanno. Edited by Maurizio Guidi and Stefano Zeni. AnBib Studia 11. Roma: GBPress, 2018. “Bodily Signs of Penitence in the Book of Baruch.” Pages 197–214 in Various Aspects of Worship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits, József Zsengellér, and Ibolya Balla. DCLY 2016/2017. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017. “Ben Sira 24:22 – Decoding a Metaphor.” Pages 57–72 in Vermittelte Gegenwart. Konzeptionen der Gottespräsenz von der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels bis Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Edited by Andrea Taschl-Erber and Irmtraud Fischer. WUNT 367. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. “The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Bar 3:9–15; 3:32–4:4).” Pages 153– 70 in Studies on Baruch. Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception. Edited by Sean A. Adams. DCLS 23. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016. “The Exodus Traditions in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 117–30 in Exodus. Rezeptionen in deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur. Edited by Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016. “Emotions in the Prayer of Sirach 22:27–23:6.” Pages 145–60 in Ancient Jewish Prayers and Emotions. Emotions Associated with Jewish Prayer in and around the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stefan C. Reif and Renate EggerWenzel. DCLS 26. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015. “Le profetesse d’Israele, messaggere di Dio.” Pages 73–85 in Corpo a corpo. La Bibbia e le donne. Edited by Marinella Perroni. Cantalupa (TO): Effatà Editrice, 2015. “El silencio sobre las heroínas de Israel en el “Elogio de los Antepasados” (Sir 44–50).” Salm 62 (2015): 25–42. “The Name of the Beloved City in Baruch 4:5–5:9.” BN 164 (2015): 51–64.

10

Select Bibliography

18. “Prov 31.10–31 y La Perfecta Casada de fray Luis de León.” Pages 303–15 in “Canterò le misericordie del Signore” (Sal 89.2). Studi in onore del prof. Gianni Barbiero in occasione del suo settantesimo compleanno. Edited by Stefan M. Attard and Marco Pavan. AnBib Studia 3. Roma: GBPress, 2015. 19. “Garment Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 257–78 in The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Markus Witte and Sven Behnke. DCLY 2014/15. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015. 20. “Good and Bad Wives in the Book of Ben Sira: A Harmless Classification?” Pages 109–25 in The Writings and Later Wisdom Books. Edited by Christl M. Maier and Núria Calduch-Benages. The Bible and Women. Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament 1.3. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. 21. “La inspiración en el Sirácida o libro de Ben Sira.” Pages 73–85 in Revelación. Escritura. Interpretación. Estudios en honor del Prof. D. Gonzalo Aranda Pérez. Edited by Fernando Milán. Facultad de Teología. Universidad de Navarra. Biblioteca de Teología 35. Pamplona: Eunsa, 2014. 22. “Ben Sira 23:27 – A Pivotal Verse.” Pages 186–200 in Wisdom for Life. Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert. SJ on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages. BZAW 445. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014. 23. “Polygamy in Ben Sira?” Pages 127–38 in Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Angelo Passaro. DCLY 2012/ 2013. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2013. 24. “A Wordplay on the Term mûsar (Sir 6.22).” Pages 13–26 in Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage. Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel, Karin Schöpflin, and Johannes Friedrich Diehl. DCLS 15. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2013. 25. “L’ispirazione: il problema nel corpus deuterocanonico.” Pages 241–44 in Ogni Scrittura è ispirata. Nuove prospettive sull’ispirazione biblica. Edited by Peter Dubovsky and Jean-Pierre Sonnet. Cinisello Balsamo: GBPress, 2013. 26. “Il Siracide: un libro deuterocanonico molto particolare.” Pages 124–35 in Ogni Scrittura è ispirata. Nuove prospettive sull’ispirazione biblica. Edited by Peter Dubovsky and Jean-Pierre Sonnet. Cinisello Balsamo: GBPress, 2013. 27. “Animal Imagery in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sirach.” Pages 55–71 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira. Transmission and Interpretation. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. JSJSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. 28. “The Absence of Named Women from Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors.” Pages 301–17 in Rewriting Biblical History. Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011.

3 Essays and Articles

11

29. “War, Violence and Revenge in the Book of Esther.” Pages 121–45 in Visions of Peace and Tales of War. Edited by Jan Liesen and Pancratius C. Beentjes. DCLY 2010. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. 30. “Jerusalem as Widow (Baruch 4:5–5:9).” Pages 147–64 in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann Richert. DCLY 2008. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. 31. “The Hymn to the Creation (Sir 42:15–43:33): a Polemic Text?” Pages 119– 38 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. 32. “‘Cut Her Away from Your Flesh’. Divorce in Ben Sira.” Pages 81–95 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books. Shime‘on Centre. Pápa. Hungary. 18–20 May 2006. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008. 33. “Muerte y Mujeres en la Biblia Hebrea.” Pages 39–84 in En el umbral. Muerte y teología en perspectiva de mujeres. Edited by Mercedes Navarro Puerto. En clave de mujer. Bilbao: Desclée De Brouwer, 2006. 34. “Amid Trials: Ben Sira 2:1 and James 1:2.” Pages 255–63 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella. O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. 35. “La mujer en la versión siríaca (Peshitta) de Ben Sira: ¿Sesgos de género?” Pages 686–93 in Congreso Internacional Biblia. memoria histórica y encrucijada de culturas. Edited by Jesús Campos Santiago and Víctor Pastor Julián. Zamora: Asociación Bíblica Española, 2004. 36. “Ben Sira 2:1–18 y los Padres de la Iglesia.” EstBíb 61 (2003): 199–215. 37. “Dreams and Folly in Sir 34(31):1–8.” Pages 241–52 in Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. Festschrift für Johannes Marböck. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer, Ursula Rapp, and Johannes Schiller. BZAW 331. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. 38. “God Creator of All (Sir 43:27–33).” Pages 79–100 in Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference. Durham − Ushaw College 2002. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. 39. “Gli ornamenti sacerdotali nel Siracide: studio del vocabolario.” Pages 1319–30 in Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni. Edited by Simonetta Graziani. Istituto Universitario Orientale. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series Minor LXI. Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 2000.

12

Select Bibliography

40. “Es mejor perdonar que guardar rencor: estudio de Sir 27:30–28:7.” Greg 81 (2000): 419–39 41. “Los títulos griegos y latinos de Sirácida 1–2.” Pages 39–45 in Biblica et Semitica. Studi in memoria di Francesco Vattioni. Edited by Luigi Cagni. Istituto Universitario Orientale. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series Minor LIX. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1999. 42. “Aromas, fragancias y perfumes en el Sirácida.” Pages 15–30 in Treasures of Wisdom. Studies on Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift Maurice Gilbert. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1999. 43. “Fear of the Powerful or Respect for Authority in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 87–102 in Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira. Festschrift Prof. Friedrich V. Reiterer. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Ingrid Krammer. BZAW 270. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. 44. “Trial Motif in the Book of Ben Sira, with Special Reference to 2:1–6.” Pages 135–51 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 29–31 July 1996 Soesterberg. Netherlands. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. 45. “Traducir-Interpretar: la versión siríaca de Sirácida 1.” EstBíb 55 (1997): 313–40. 46. “Las mujeres sabias (2 Sam 14; 20).” Reseña Bíblica 14 (1997): 15–22. 47. “Ben Sira y el canon de las Escrituras.” Greg 78 (1997): 359–70. 48. “Elementos de inculturación helenista en el libro de Ben Sira: Los viajes.” EstBíb 54 (1996): 289–98. 49. “Ben Sira 2 y el Nuevo Testamento.” EstBíb 53 (1995): 305–16. 50. “La sabiduría y la prueba en Sir 4.11–19.” EstBíb 49 (1991): 25–48.

Contributors Ibolya Balla is Associate Professor of Old Testament in the Biblical Institute of Pápa Reformed Theological Seminary, Hungary. A specialist in prophetic, biblical, and deuterocanonical wisdom literature, she teaches introduction to the Old Testament, history of the religion of ancient Israel, exegesis, and Old Testament theology. Pancratius C. Beentjes is professor emeritus of Old Testament, Tilburg University, Netherlands. His publications are mainly related to the Book of Ben Sira and the Book of Chronicles. He is a co-founder of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). From 1993 to 2004, he was vice-president of the New Dutch Bible Translation. Juan Chapa is lecturer of New Testament in the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre (Spain), where he earned a doctorate in theology and where he was Dean of the Faculty (2010–2019). He has a doctorate in Classical Philology from University of Seville (Spain) and a doctorate in classical studies (Papyrography) from the University of Oxford (UK). Alongside his work Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri (1998), he is the author of countless articles and chapters in books. He has also edited several papyri belonging to the collection “The Oxyrhynchus Papyri” (Oxford). John J. Collins is Holmes Professor Emeritus at Yale University. He has written widely on Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism and has been president of the Society of Biblical Literature and the Catholic Biblical Association. Jeremy Corley, Lecturer in Sacred Scripture at St Patrick’s Pontifical University, Maynooth (Ireland), has served as a Vice-President of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. He has written or edited ten books, as well as many articles on biblical topics, especially Sirach. Michael W. Duggan is professor emeritus of religious studies at St. Mary’s University in Calgary, Alberta. Maria Elisa Estévez-López is professor in the Department of Sacred Scripture and History of the Church in Comillas Pontifical University in Madrid, Spain. Her areas of research are the origins of Christianity, the marginality of the Christian communities, authority and leadership of women, role of emotions, and the configuration of identities and belonging in Christian groups. Tova Forti is an Associate Professor emeritus of the Department of Bible, Archaeology and Ancient Near East at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Her research interests focus on wisdom literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, wisdom psalms, and Ben Sira). She has published the following books on faunal images in the Bible: Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (2008) and “Like a Lone Bird on a Roof”: Animal Imagery and the Structure of Psalms (2018).

14

Contributors

She is currently collaborating with Katharine Dell of Cambridge University on a commentary on Ecclesiastes (International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament). Maurice Gilbert is a Belgian Jesuit and emeritus professor who taught Old Testament wisdom literature at the Pontifical Biblical Institute from 1975 to 2011, and at the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem from 1984 to 2017. Matthew J. Goff is Professor of Religion in the Department of Religion at Florida State University. His most recent publication is Sirach and Its Contexts: The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing (2021), co-edited with Samuel Adams and Gregory Schmidt Goering. Bradley C. Gregory is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. (USA). His research focuses on Second Temple Judaism, especially the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Emilio López-Navas earned his doctorate in biblical theology in 2015 at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He is currently a professor at the Málaga Superior Center of Theological Studies and has been an Invited Professor at the Pontifical University of Chile. Francis M. Macatangay is an Adjunct Professor of Sacred Scripture at the University of St. Thomas Graduate School of Theology in Houston, Texas, USA. His research interest is mostly in Second Temple literature, especially the Book of Tobit. He also serves as the pastor of St. Cecilia Church in Houston. D. Anh Nhue Nguyen OFMConv is Full Professor at Pontifical Theological Faculty of St. Bonaventure (Rome) and Founding Director of the Franciscan Institute for Asian Theological Studies (FIATS). He has published on Wisdom Tradition in both the Old and New Testaments and has been recently appointed as Secretary General of the Pontifical Missionary Union. Paweł Paszko obtained his licentiate and doctorate in biblical theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He is currently a lecturer in Scripture and Biblical Theology at the Studium Franciscanum of Cracow (Poland). Stefan C. Reif (OBE; BA, PhD, London; MA, LittD Cambridge; Hon PhD Haifa) is Professor emeritus of Medieval Hebrew and Fellow of St John’s College in the University of Cambridge and honorary research professor at Haifa and Tel Aviv Universities. His lifelong interest in the Cairo Genizah is reflected in his survey volume, A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo (Curzon, 2000). His latest book is his autobiography Bouncing Back – and Forward (Vallentine Mitchell, 2021). Friedrich V. Reiterer is Professor emeritus of Old Testament at the Theological Faculty, University of Salzburg, Austria. He is founder and first president of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL) and is now an honorary president of the Society.

Contributors

15

Sergio Rotasperti earned his doctorate in 2015 from the Pontifical Gregorian University and is an independent scholar. His monograph Metaphors in the Book of Proverbs has recently been published by Brill. F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz is currently lecturer at the Mater Ecclesiae College, St Mary’s University, Twickenham (UK). He is also the Dean of the Faculty of Theology. His research and interests focus on the Hebrew Bible, especially the book of Esther. Jean-Louis Ska SJ taught Old Testament, in particular the Pentateuch, at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome since 1983. He is professor emeritus since January 2016. He published several books in French, English, and Italian. Some of them were translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Croatian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. His main interests are biblical narratives, biblical law, and the influence of biblical literature on western civilization. Barbara Schmitz is Professor of Old Testament at the University of Würzburg, Germany. Her main research areas are in Jewish Literature in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, Septuagint Studies, and Narrative Literature of the Old Testament. Oda Wischmeyer is a professor at the Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Institut für Neues Testament. Her areas of research are Ben Sira, the Apostle Paul, the Gospel of Mark, the Epistle of James, New Testament hermeneutics, and history of biblical hermeneutics. Benjamin G. Wright III is University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Religion Studies at Lehigh University (Bethlehem, PA, USA). His research focuses especially on ancient Jewish wisdom literature, particularly the book of Ben Sira.

Part I: Ben Sira in Conversation with the Torah

John J. Collins

The Creation of Humanity in Hebrew Wisdom Literature of the Second Century BCE Abstract: The creation stories in Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 have been the source of reflection on human nature. One of them comes from Ben Sira who reconfigures the tale and states that humanity was filled with knowledge and understanding. Qumran documents such as 4QInstruction also offer reflections on what was given to humanity, on what was fashioned in the beginning, and on whether humanity has access to wisdom and the potential to know good and evil. These reflections provide a window on the development of dualistic thought in Hellenistic Judea. Keywords: creation, knowledge of good and evil, mystery of existence, fleshly and spiritual people, dualism

The stories of creation in Gen 1 and Gen 2–3 have loomed large in Christian theology. The second creation story, which tells of Adam and Eve and the Fall, has been especially important, beginning with the letters of Paul in the New Testament. It comes as a surprise, then, that they do not enjoy similar prominence in the Old Testament.1 Apart from passing allusions in Qoheleth 3:19–22 and 12:1–7,2 we find no reflection on these foundational stories until the book of Ben Sira in the second century BCE.3 It is noteworthy that the earliest reflections on these chapters are found in sapiential writings. Creation had always been a subject of interest to the sages because of their philosophical or theological interest in the nature of things. Only in the second century BCE, however, do we get sustained reflection on the creation and consequently, the nature of humanity, drawing on the opening chapters of Genesis.4 An obvious problem posed by the text of Genesis concerns the different portrayals of human origins in the priestly account in Gen 1 and the story of Adam and Eve, which is usually attributed to the Yahwist, although some Euro-

1 Collins, “Pre-Christian Adam,” 273–88. 2 García, On Human Nature, 29–35 3 García, On Human Nature, 36–56; Mulder, “Adamic Traditions,” 401–20. Mulder provides a list of Adamic references in Ben Sira on p. 402. 4 Collins, “Interpretation of Genesis,” 157–75; Goff, “Genesis 1–3,” 114–25; Wold, “Genesis 2– 3,” 329–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-003

20

John J. Collins

pean scholars now regard it as “post-priestly.”5 Gen 1 presents an exalted view of humanity created in the image of God.6 In the story of Adam and Eve, the original couple are expelled from the garden for their disobedience.7 The earliest interpretations, however, show great freedom in adapting these narratives.

1 The Two Creation Stories in Ben Sira and in Qumran Wisdom Texts Ben Sira conflates the two creation stories in Genesis but most notably, he denies what modern interpreters take to be the plain meaning of the Adam and Eve story. Rather than prohibiting them from eating from the tree of knowledge, “he filled them with knowledge and understanding and showed them good and evil” (Sir 17:7).8 Death is not a punishment; human beings were allotted a fixed number of days from the start (17:2). In the words of Jean-Sebastien Rey, “what is striking in this text is the way the author grounds its discourse in the Genesis account by radically reconfiguring the tale and writing a new story in a sapiential context.”9 Ben Sira expounds a vigorous doctrine of free will. When God created human beings, “he left them in the power of their inclination. If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice” (15:15). But Ben Sira is not entirely consistent on this point. In Sir 33:11–12, we read that when humanity was created from the dust: In the fullness of his knowledge the Lord distinguished them And appointed their different ways. Some he blessed and exalted, And some he made holy brought near to himself; But some he cursed and brought low and turned them out of their place.

5 See Collins, “Pre-Christian Adam,” 273–74. The attribution to the Yahwist is defended by Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 68. For the “post-priestly” view, see especially Otto, “Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3,” 167–92. See Carr, The Formation of Genesis 1–11, who argues that the bulk of Gen 1–11 was created out of a combination of a Priestly source and an earlier non-Priestly source. 6 See Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness; Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. 7 See especially Barr, The Garden of Eden; Mettinger, The Eden Narrative. 8 The Hebrew of this passage is not extant. See García, On Human Nature, 37–46. This passage has rightly been identified as basic (grundlegende) for Ben Sira’s understanding of humanity by Ueberschaer, Weisheit aus der Begegnung, 137; Rey, “In the Garden of Good and Evil,” 473– 92, here p. 481. 9 Rey, “In the Garden of Good and Evil,” 481.

The Creation of Humanity in Hebrew Wisdom Literature of the Second Century BCE

21

This passage does not relate the rise or fall of humanity to its conduct. Human beings are in the hand of their maker like clay in the hand of the potter. Ben Sira is not known for consistency but he gives a sense of some of the ways that sages thought about human nature in the early second century BCE.10 Ben Sira was not alone in claiming that God had endowed humanity with knowledge and wisdom. The Words of the Heavenly Luminaries (4Q504) also conflates the two creation stories. When God fashioned Adam in the image of his glory, “the breath of life you blew into his nostrils, and intelligence and knowledge.”11 The same interpretation is presupposed in the fragmentary 4QMeditation on Creation (4Q303), which mentions “the knowledge of good and evil” before the creation of Eve.12 Some of these texts, however, acknowledge a prohibition. The Words of the Heavenly Luminaries notes: “you imposed on him not to tu[rn away …].”13 The Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus (4Q422), which runs the two creation accounts together, is more explicit about the nature of the prohibition: “that he shoul[d] not eat from the tree that gives know[ledge of good and evil].”14 Not all texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, attribute the origin of evil to a “Fall.” The Treatise on the Two Spirits in the Community Rule is also an instructional text that directly addresses the creation and nature of humanity.15 This text is strongly deterministic. God established the designs of all things before they came into being and they perform their tasks in accordance with his design. The treatise paraphrases the creation of humanity in Gen 1: He created the human being (‫ )אנוש‬to rule the world, and yet, it continues to expound a doctrine that has no basis in Genesis. God designed two spirits for humanity, one of light and one of darkness.16 At the end of the Treatise, there is an elliptic statement that God allots them (the spirits) to humanity so that they may know good and evil, echoing the language of Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, but there is no Fall here either. The spirits are assigned to humanity by God. The most controversial discussion of creation in a wisdom text, however, is in 4QInstruction, which is preserved in fragmentary form in several manuscripts

10 See further Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 79–84. 11 Chazon, “Creation and Fall,” 15. 12 Lim, “303. Meditation on Creation A,” 152–53; Goff, Discerning Wisdom, 268–70. 13 Chazon, “Creation and Fall,” 16–17. 14 Elgvin and Tov, “Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus,” 421–2; Elgvin, “Genesis Section of 4Q422,” 185. 15 See especially Alexander, “Predestination and Free Will,” 27–49. On the discussion of Genesis, see Schwartz, “Exegetical Character of 1QS 3:13–4:26,” 31–65. 16 This formulation shows clear influence of Persian dualism, although it adapts the tradition in significant ways. See de Jong, “Iranian Connections in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 479–80.

22

John J. Collins

from Qumran.17 4QInstruction does not expound its doctrine of creation directly but alludes to it parenthetically and, partly for this reason, remains highly disputed.18 The key passage is found in 4Q417 i 1. It begins with an exhortation to the “understanding one” (‫ )מבין‬to meditate day and night on the ‫רז נהיה‬, which is variously translated as “the mystery that is to be” or “the mystery of existence,” so that one may know truth and iniquity and their consequences and inherit one’s reward: “because engraved is that which is ordained by God against all the in[iq]uit[ie]s of the sons of Sheth, and the book of remembrance is written before him for those who keep his word.” This book of remembrance is further identified with “the vision of Hagu.” God, we are told, “gave it as an inheritance to ‫ אנוש‬with a spiritual people, for according to the likeness of the holy ones he fashioned him. And moreover, he did not give the Hagu to the spirit of flesh, for it did not distinguish between good and evil according to the judgment of its spirit.”

2 The ‫נהיה‬

‫רז‬

The expression ‫ רז נהיה‬occurs thirty times in this text but elsewhere only in 1QS 11:3–4 and in the Book of Mysteries (1Q27 1 i 3–4; 4Q 300 3 3–4). Despite the influential translation of J. T. Milik as “le mystère futur,”19 it is clear that the phrase can refer to past, present, and future, and entails a comprehensive knowledge of time.20 It can refer to eschatological “visitation” or punishment (‫)פקודה‬, as in 4Q417 1 i 7–8 but it also says that God laid out the foundation of truth by this mystery (4Q417 1 i 8–9). By it, one knows truth and iniquity or deceit (‫ )עול‬and probably, if the editors’ restoration is accepted, also discerns between good and evil (line 8, but the words good and evil are not actually

17 1Q26, 4Q415–418, 4Q423. A reconstruction based on a concordance was published in Wacholder and Abegg, A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, 54–154. Summaries of the major fragments were provided by Harrington, “Wisdom at Qumran,” 137–52. The text was officially published by Strugnell and Harrington, “4Q417,” with an edition of 4Q423 by Elgvin in Qumran Cave 4. 18 Extensive bibliography prior to 2009 can be found in Tigchelaar, “‘Spiritual People,’” 103– 18, especially 102–105. The most recent discussions are those of Wold, 4QInstruction, 95–145 and García, On Human Nature, 251–67. 19 Milik, “‘Livre des Mystères’,” 103; compare 1Q26, on p. 102. Milik’s formulation presumably influenced that of Strugnell and Harrington, “the mystery that is to come.” 20 See the thorough discussions by Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 51–79; Rey, 4QInstruction, 284–92. In an Oxford seminar on February 8, 2021, Arjen Bakker suggested “the secret of time.”

The Creation of Humanity in Hebrew Wisdom Literature of the Second Century BCE

23

preserved). Armin Lange translates the phrase as “the mystery of being and becoming”21 and suggests that it reflects the Greek το μυστήριον τοῦ εἶναι.22 Rey opts for “mystère de l’existence.”23 While Hebrew lacks abstract philosophical terminology, “the mystery of existence” is a reasonable translation in the context. Since ‫ נהיה‬is a verbal form, a sense of temporality is implied and “existence” is preferable to “being.” The duality of truth (‫ )אמת‬and iniquity or deceit (‫ )עול‬is pervasive in the Community Rule and characterizes the two spirits of Light and Darkness in 1QS 3:18–19. It is probably derived from Persian dualism, although 4QInstruction is not so overtly dualistic as the Treatise.24 It is not clear that the mystery is enshrined in any writing. The best analogy in Hebrew tradition is provided by the concept of wisdom, insofar as it entails a comprehensive view of the order of creation. Neither is it clear just how the mystery relates to the book of remembrance or the vision of Hagu. The book of remembrance is derived from Mal 3:16, where it relates to divine provision for the righteous. It seems clear that the vision of Hagu, or Meditation, enables people to grasp the mystery and this in turn is what enables people to distinguish between good and evil and consequently, to live rightly. It contains the record of that which is ordained by God against the sons of Sheth, presumably the eschatological punishment of the wicked.25

3 To Whom was the Mystery Bequeathed? The main point in dispute in the interpretation of this passage is whether this vision is available to all of humanity or only to one type of human being. A key issue for this question is the understanding of the term ‫אנוש‬. The editors allowed that it could refer either to mankind or to the son of Seth, the patriarch.26

21 Lange, “Wisdom Literature and Thought,” 464. In his earlier work in German, Weisheit & Prädestination, 60, he rendered the phrase as “Das Geheimnis des Werdens.” 22 On affinities between 4QInstruction and Greek thought, see also Najman, “Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Period,” 459–72. 23 Rey, 4QInstruction, 291–2; see pp. 286–87 for an overview of proposals. 24 Tigchelaar, “Changing Truths,” 395–415. See also Hultgren, “‫אמת‬,” ThWQ 1:227–37; Newsom, “‫עול‬, ‫עולה‬,” ThWQ 3:47–53. The Persian background was pointed out by Koch, “History as a Battlefield of Two Antagonistic Powers,” 185–99. 25 Tigchelaar, “Reflections,” 107, suggests that the “book of remembrance” may have contained “the acts of all individual persons, or perhaps their names and destinies.” 26 Strugnell and Harrington, “4Q417,” 164.

24

John J. Collins

Armin Lange, followed by Jörg Frey, opted for the patriarch.27 In this, they were influenced by the mention of the ‫ בני שות‬or ‫ בני שית‬in the previous line.28 According to Gen 4:26, people began to call on the name of the Lord in the time of Enosh. Jub. 4 says that Enosh was the first to do so. In contrast, rabbinic tradition associates the beginning of idolatry and the fall of the angels with the wickedness of the sons of Seth.29 Seth himself was sometimes implicated.30 Lange reads “the sons of Seth” here in light of the later rabbinic tradition but we do not read of the wickedness of the sons of Seth in Second Temple writings. Also, as Strugnell and Harrington noted, the patriarch’s name is spelled defectively as ‫שת‬.31 They suggest that the reference is to Num 24:17, where the scepter that comes out of Jacob will smite the Shethites, a group conquered by the Israelites at the time of the conquest. ‫ שת‬is also spelled defectively in the biblical text of Numbers but the passage is cited in the Scrolls with the plene spelling in 1QM 11:6 and 4QTestimonia (4Q175) 13. This suggestion has been widely accepted.32 Enosh was not regarded as a revealer figure in Second Temple Judaism and a reference here is unlikely. The word ‫ אנוש‬is commonly used in the Hodayot in the sense of “humanity” and is also attested in this sense elsewhere in 4QInstruction.33 It is taken in this sense in this passage by Torleif Elgvin34 and Rey,35 and this interpretation has been argued repeatedly by Benjamin Wold.36 Strugnell and Harrington already raised one objection to this line of interpretation. If ‫ אנוש‬refers to humanity in general, then the reference to a spiritual people is tautological, “being only another general name for the same group.”37 The word ‫ אנוש‬is followed by the words ‫ עם עם רוח‬with the second ‫ עם‬inserted above the line. The uncorrected text could arguably be read “he bequeathed it

27 Lange, Weisheit & Prädestination, 87; Frey, “Flesh and Spirit,” 729. 28 The letters yod and waw are notoriously difficult to distinguish in the Scrolls. Strugnell and Harrington transcribed ‫שות‬, but Lange ‫שית‬. 29 Fraade, Enosh and His Generation, 226–27; Schäfer, “Der Götzendienst des Enosch,” 134–52. 30 Fraade, Enosh, 153–54. 31 Strugnell and Harrington, “4Q417,” 163. 32 Goff, 4QInstruction, 158; The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 92; Macaskill, Revealed Wisdom, 80–81 n. 46; Rey, 4QInstruction, 297. Tigchelaar (“Reflections,” 106) suggested a variant spelling of ‫( שׁאת‬devastation, perdition). Wold (4QInstruction, 105) translates “sons of perdition” but takes this as a reference to Num 24:17. 33 4Q418 fr 8, line 12, fr. 55, line 11, fr. 77, line 3. Wold, “‫אנושׁ‬,” ThWQ 1:241–47. 34 Elgvin, “Mystery to Come,” 139–47. 35 Rey, 4QInstruction, 297 36 Wold, Women, Men and Angels, 124–49; Wold, “Universality of Creation in 4QInstruction,” 211–26; 4QInstruction, 104–108. 37 Strugnell and Harrington, “4Q417,” 165; Goff, “Recent Trends,” 385.

The Creation of Humanity in Hebrew Wisdom Literature of the Second Century BCE

25

to ‫ אנוש‬with (a) spirit.”38 The corrected text is usually understood as “with a spiritual people.” This would seem to require a distinction between these people and ‫ ;אנוש‬the spiritual people cannot be included in the generic ‫אנוש‬. To evade this objection, Wold appeals to the suggestion of Cana Werman that reverses the order of “with” and “people,” to read “a people with a spirit.”39 Humanity and the people with a spirit would then be in apposition. He claims support for this interpretation in 1QHa 11:23–24: “you cast for a person an eternal lot with the spirits of knowledge.” However, this is not comparable since the spirits of knowledge are separate beings and not spirits given to humanity. Wold claims that “[a] consequence of the translation ‘humanity, a people with a spirit’ is that our neat division of ‘a spiritual people’ and a ‘fleshly spirit’ disappears. What is left in the vision of Hagu passage is an explanation that a segment of humanity has lost access to revelation.”40 But how does “a people with (a) spirit” differ from “a spiritual people”?41 There are no parallels for either expression. Is the spirit in question the spirit of flesh? The expression ‫רוח בשר‬ occurs three times in 4QInstruction (4Q416 1 12; 4Q417 1 i 17; 4Q418 81 2) and three times in the Hodayot (1QHa 4:37; 5:15, 30).42 In the Hodayot, the expression characterizes humanity as a whole.43 But this is not the case in 4QInstruction. Even Wold says that the fleshly spirit is only “a segment of humanity,” and Rey understands the “spiritual people” and “fleshly spirit” as “un désignation de deux catégories humaines opposées.”44 It is clear that the Hagu is not denied to all humanity. 4QInstruction repeatedly urges the recipient ‫ מבין‬to study it and says that he is separated from every fleshly spirit (4Q418 81 + 81a 1–2). Consequently, the spirit with which the people who are fashioned in the likeness of the angels are associated cannot be the “spirit of flesh.” The use of “a people” in apposition to “humanity” seems very implausible. Rather, the spiritual people, or people with a spirit, stand in opposition to “the spirit of flesh” to which the vision was not given. The people, then, whether we translate “a spiritual people” or “a people with a spirit” is not humankind as a whole but “a special category of humankind.”45 38 Tigchelaar, “Reflections,” 112, citing Strugnell and Harrington, “4Q417,” 164–65. 39 Wold, 4QInstruction, 106; Werman, “What is the Book of Hagu?,” 125–40, here p. 137. 40 Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 10. 41 Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 10: “Humanity is spiritual.” 42 Rey, 4QInstruction, 299–30. 43 Wold, 4QInstruction, 119–27. 44 Rey, 4QInstruction, 298. García, On Human Nature, 262, says that ‫“ אנוש‬is intended, not to depict humanity in toto, but rather a specific elect portion of it.” 45 Tigchelaar, “Reflections,” 113. Compare already van der Woude, “Fifty Years of Qumran Research,” 37, who recognizes two types of humanity: “a spiritual people in the likeness of the holy ones and men of a ‘spirit of flesh’.”

26

John J. Collins

In an article originally published in 1999, I suggested another possible way of understanding ‫אנוש‬.46 In the Treatise on the Two Spirits, we read that God created ‫ אנוש‬to rule the world. In this case the reference is clearly to the first creation story in Gen 1:27–28. A similar reference in 4QInstruction makes excellent sense. The statement in 4QInstruction that ‫ אנוש‬was created “in the likeness of the Holy Ones” is a paraphrase of the biblical statement that Adam was created in the image of God (taking ‫ אלהים‬as the angels or holy ones). In contrast, the statement that the “spirit of flesh” did not distinguish between good and evil points to the second creation story in Gen 2–3. In short, God created two kinds of human beings: the spiritual people represented by ‫אנוש‬/Adam in Gen 1 and those who have a spirit of flesh, as recounted in Gen 2–3. The word ‫יצר‬, “to fashion,” which is used in the second biblical creation story, is used here in connection with the first but it is not used to characterize either kind of human being, as are the allusions to the image of God and to knowing good and evil. This line of interpretation has been elaborated and defended by Matthew Goff and Samuel Adams.47 Wold accepts that fashioning in the likeness of the holy ones is an allusion to Gen 1 but denies that two different kinds of people are created.48 Similarly for Rey, it is distinguishing between good and evil, or the failure to do so, that leads humanity to be divided into two categories.49 Eibert Tigchelaar finds “some form of ambiguity: the text describes two types of humanities, along with their corresponding anthropological distinctions, as founded in some form of double creation; at the same time, this double anthropology seems to be based in behavior.”50 Jeffrey García recognizes the creation motifs but tries to avoid the ontological implications: “the clear creation motifs may simply signal God’s revelatory act towards a specific lot of humanity, on the one hand, and on the other, a denial without any implication to an ontology.”51 However, if creation does not determine ontology, we are left to wonder what is meant by ontology in a Jewish context. Wold objects that ‫ אנוש‬in the Treatise refers to humanity, not just to Adam as an individual.52 Already in Gen 1, Adam represents humanity. Gen 1:27 qual46 Collins, “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones,” 609–18. See also Collins, “Mysteries of God,” 159–80. 47 Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 94–97; Goff, 4QInstruction, 137–68; Adams, Wisdom in Transition, 259–61. 48 Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 7. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 116, also accepts an allusion to Gen 1, despite some quibbles, and takes it as evidence for “angelomorphic humanity,” in contrast to the “spirit of flesh.” 49 Rey, 4QInstruction, 304. 50 Tigchelaar, “Reflections,” 116. 51 García, On Human Nature, 266–67. 52 Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 8; Wold, 4QInstruction, 107. Similarly, Popović, “Anthropology,” 1040.

The Creation of Humanity in Hebrew Wisdom Literature of the Second Century BCE

27

ifies: “male and female he created them” and the NRSV translates ‫ אדם‬as “humankind.” Adam in Gen 1 is an individual who represents humanity metonymically. Consequently, to pose “the first human being” and “humanity” as alternatives is to propose a false dichotomy. The point is that the statement in 4QInstruction is a reference to the first creation story in Gen 1 and the question in dispute is whether the ‫ אנוש‬who is created in the likeness of the angels is all of humanity or only one type of human being. Crucial for Wold is the interpretation of the word ‫ עוד‬in line 17: ‫ועוד לוא‬ ‫נתן הגוי לרוח בשר‬, which he takes in a temporal sense: “and no longer is Hagu given to a fleshly spirit.”53 Strugnell and Harrington commented: “The sense is probably not ‘not yet …’ but rather ‘and no more,’ after being given to Enosh/ mankind was (the power of) meditation given to the ‫ ;רוח בשר‬since the days of Enosh, the fleshly in spirit have not possessed the power of meditation.”54 But this interpretation is not inevitable or universally accepted. ‫ עוד‬can also mean “yet” or “moreover,” and several scholars do not take it in a temporal sense here.55 Tigchelaar, who translates it as “moreover,” notes that “we have no single example of ‫ ועוד לוא‬with either perfect or participle,” and so, Wold’s thesis has no grammatical basis.56 García notes that “there are a large number of examples of ‫ ועוד לוא‬in rabbinic literature, which render ‫‘ ועוד‬furthermore’ or ‘moreover’.” He argues that Wold does not take enough stock of the fact that ‫ עוד‬appears prior to ‫לוא‬, or that ‫ ו‬signals the beginning of a new informative clause.57 Goff allows that “no more” is an interpretive possibility but judges it unlikely, since 4QInstruction displays no awareness of a Fall.58 Even if “no more” is allowed as a possible translation, however, it is not the only possible way of understanding the passage. Its plausibility depends on our understanding of the passage as a whole. Wold’s interpretation requires that the Hagu/meditation was originally given to the spirit of flesh and, indeed, that the spirit of flesh was originally fashioned in the likeness of the holy ones.

53 Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 9. 54 Strugnell and Harrington, “4Q417,” 166. 55 Lange, Weisheit & Prädestination, 53 (“doch”); Rey, 4QInstruction, 281 (“mais”); García, On Human Nature, 257 (“furthermore”); Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 84 (“moreover”). In his commentary, however, Goff translates: “but no more.” Puech, “Apport des texts apocalyptiques,” 138, translates “pas encore,” or not yet. 56 Tigchelaar, “Reflections,” 113 n. 41. He allows that Job 24:20, ‫“ עוד לא יזכר‬he is no more remembered,” provides an approximate parallel. 57 García, On Human Nature, 261. 58 Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 99. See also Goff, “Being Fleshly or Spiritual,” 41– 59, esp. 47 n. 27.

28

John J. Collins

This is difficult to accept, as it undercuts the fundamental dichotomy of the spiritual people (or people with spirit) and the spirit of flesh.

4 A Distinction Based on Behavior Rey argues that “the distinction between the ‘spiritual people’ and the ‘fleshly spirit’ is rooted in an ethical distinction between those who discern between good and evil and those who do not.”59 Wold affirms this conclusion: “Rey’s interpretation is persuasive in that obedience to God through the pursuit of wisdom separates the Mēvîn from those designated as ‘flesh’.”60 It is indeed clear that the ‫ מבין‬who is the addressee of 4QInstruction needs to meditate on the mystery in order to distinguish between good and evil. As Tigchelaar has remarked, the “double anthropology seems to be based in behavior.”61 The addressee is not perfect but has the potential to be like the holy ones. The need for obedience is further emphasized in 4Q423 1, 2, another fragmentary part of 4QInstruction.62 There we are told that the garden (of Eden) contains every tree which is good, pleasing to give knowledge.” God set the ‫ מבין‬in charge of it to till and guard it but it will sprout thorns and thistles if the gardener is unfaithful. There is possibly a fragmentary reference to “[rejecting] the evil and knowing the good.”63 In this case, the garden of the second creation story in Genesis provides the metaphorical setting of the ‫מבין‬. Wold infers that “all of humanity started out in the garden and each person chose to cultivate wisdom or not. The failure to do so results in this privilege being taken away, which is the description found in the vision of Hagu. The spirit of flesh is ‘no longer’ given the vision of meditation because it did not act according to its spirit in order to know good and evil.”64 But as Wold also notes: “4QInstruction is not addressed to the ‘spirit of flesh.’ This is a document directed only to the ‘understanding ones’.”65 As it says explicitly in 4Q417 1 i 17, the Vision of Hagu is not given to the fleshly spirit.

59 Rey, “In the Garden of Good and Evil,” 489. Compare Rey, 4QInstruction, 304. 60 Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 16. 61 Tigchelaar, “Reflections,” 116. 62 Elgvin, “423. 4QInstructiong,” 505–33. 63 Elgvin, “423. 4QInstructiong,” 508; Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 11–15. The mention of good and evil depends on joining two fragments, and is not certain. See Goff, 4QInstruction, 290–91. 64 Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 15. 65 Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 16.

The Creation of Humanity in Hebrew Wisdom Literature of the Second Century BCE

29

Those who have a spirit of flesh, then, do not have the option or capability of meditating on the mystery of existence. As García puts it: “The ‘fleshly spirit,’ unlike the ‘people with a spirit’ – who are formed according to the likeness of the Holy Ones – have a spirit that does not ‘know,’ or better said, cannot know between good and evil.”66 According to 4Q417 1 i 17, God did not give the Hagu to the fleshly spirit because it did not distinguish between good and evil. And yet, what is the cause and what is the effect here? Was the failure to distinguish between good and evil a consequence of the fleshly nature of the spirit? Or was the fleshly spirit only created as a punishment when human beings who had been created with a spirit in the likeness of the holy ones failed to exercise it? It was apparently possible to compromise one’s spirit. 4Q416 2 ii 6 warns the addressee not to exchange it for money for there is no price equal to it. But it is not clear whether one could exchange it for a fleshly spirit. A spirit of flesh is more likely to be an ontological category than a purely ethical one. It may be helpful here to compare the Treatise on the Two Spirits in 1QS. People are assigned to the Spirit of Darkness or assigned a share in it but they are nonetheless held responsible for their actions and subject to punishment.67 In 4Q417 1 i 17–18, we are told that the fleshly spirit failed to distinguish between good and evil “according to the judgment of its spirit.” Wold infers that “the fleshly spirit was ‘spiritually’ capable to distinguish good and evil”68 but this is not necessarily so. The expression is obscure but it may mean that the ‫ משפט‬of the fleshly spirit was such that it could not judge rightly. There is nothing to suggest that the fleshly spirit was only generated by human failure.

5 The Origin of the Spirit of Flesh In my 1999 article, I argued that the two types of humanity in 4QInstruction were attributed to a dual creation and reflected the two creation stories in Gen 1 and Gen 2–3. There is a well-known parallel for such a dual creation in Philo: There are two types of men; the one a heavenly man, the other an earthly. The heavenly man, being made after the image of God, is altogether without part or lot in corruptible and terrestrial substance; but the earthly one was compacted out of the matter scattered here and there, which Moses calls clay.69

66 67 68 69

García, On Human Nature, 266. Collins, “Covenant and Dualism,” 189–92 Wold, “Universality of Creation,” 10. Alleg. Interp. 31; compare Opif. 134–35.

30

John J. Collins

That line of interpretation did not originate with Philo. He discusses other interpretations along the same lines in his Questions on Genesis 1:8.70 Philo understands the two types of humanity in his own philosophical framework, contrasting the spiritual with the earthly. This is different from the way they are understood in 4QInstruction, where the contrast is between (holy) spirit and spirit of flesh. But both distinguish two types of humanity and associate the heavenly type with Gen 1. More than twenty years later, I am less sure of the exegetical basis of the distinction. I think the allusion to Gen 1 is clear. The fashioning of ‫ אנוש‬in the likeness of the holy ones is an interpretive paraphrase of Gen 1:27, where ‫אדם‬ is created in the image of ‫ אלהים‬and ‫ אנוש‬represents one type of humanity. The text does not, however, say how the spirit of flesh was created. It evokes Gen 2– 3 by the failure to distinguish between good and evil but the issue is complicated by 4Q423, which seems to understand the story of Adam in the garden as a metaphor for the situation of the ‫מבין‬. 4Q423 overlaps with 1Q26 and 4Q418 but not with 4Q416 or 4Q41771 and so it is not certain that it was part of the same text as the passage about the vision of Hagu but in light of the other overlaps, it is assumed that it was. At least that passage in 4Q423 seems to imply that the Adam of the second creation story has access to wisdom and the potential to distinguish between good and evil. It simply does not say how the spirit of flesh originated. It is quite possible that the author of 4QInstruction had not thought this through. The origin of evil and the interpretation of the creation stories were matters of debate in Hebrew wisdom circles in the second century BCE. Armin Lange showed clearly that in some respects the Treatise on the Two Spirits is a Weiterentwicklung of the view of creation in 4QInstruction.72 The debate was ongoing, and all the answers had not been figured out.

6 The Relation to Ben Sira Rey has argued that the interpretation of Genesis in 4QInstruction should be compared with that of Ben Sira: “Ben Sira does not distinguish two tales of creation, the man created in the image of God is also the man who received

70 71 72 for

Tobin, The Creation of Man, 108. Elgvin, “4Q423,” 505. Lange, Weisheit & Prädestination, 189, but note the nuanced discussion of Goff, “Looking Sapiential Dualism at Qumran,” 20–38.

The Creation of Humanity in Hebrew Wisdom Literature of the Second Century BCE

31

the revelation of ‘good and evil,’ wisdom and the law.”73 But there is a crucial difference. Ben Sira does not claim that any segment of humanity is denied this revelation because it had a “spirit of flesh.” 4QInstruction may not have provided an explanation of this fleshly kind of humanity but it is quite emphatic that it existed. In that respect, it differs from Ben Sira and provides a window on the development of dualistic thought in Hellenistic Judea.74

Bibliography Adams, Samuel L. Wisdom in Transition: Act and Consequence in Second Temple Instructions. JSJSup125. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Alexander, Philip S. “Predestination and Free Will in the Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 27–49 in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Edited by John M. G. Barclay and Simon Gathercole. LNTS 335. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Baden, Joel. The Composition of the Pentateuch. Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale, 2012. Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Carr, David M. The Formation of Genesis 1–11. Biblical and Other Precursors. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. Chazon, Esther G. “The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 13–24 in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: Collected Essays. Edited by J. Frishman and L. van Rampay. Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster, 1997. Collins, John J. “In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom Text from Qumran.” Pages 609–18 in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Eugene Ulrich. STDJ 30. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Collins, John J. “The Mysteries of God. Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 159–80 in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule. JSJSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Collins, John J. “The Interpretation of Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 157–75 in Pentateuchal Traditions in the Late Second Temple Period. Edited by Akio Moriya and Gohei Hata. JSJSup 158. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Collins, John J. “Covenant and Dualism in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 179–94 in Scriptures and Sectarianism. WUNT 332. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Collins, John J. “The Pre-Christian Adam.” Pages 273–88 in La Vie d’Adam et Ève et les traditions adamique. Edited by Frédéric Amsler et al. Publications de l’Institut Romand des Sciences Bibliques 8. Lausanne: Zèbre, 2018.

73 Rey, “In the Garden of Good and Evil,” 489. 74 It is a pleasure to dedicate this essay to Núria Calduch-Benages, who has enlightened many in the ways of wisdom.

32

John J. Collins

Elgvin, Torleif, and Emmanuel Tov. “Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus.” Pages 417–41 in Qumran Cave 4 VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Elgvin, Torleif. “The Genesis Section of 4Q422 (4QparaGenExod).” DSD 1 (1994): 180–96. Elgvin, Torleif. “423. 4QInstructiong.” Pages 505–33 in Qumran Cave 4. XXIV. Sapiential Texts, Part 2. 4QInstruction (Mûsar lĕMēvîn): 4Q415 ff. With a re-edition of 1Q26. DJD 34. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Elgvin, Torleif. “The Mystery to Come: Early Essene Theology of Revelation.” Pages 139–47 in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson. JSOTSup 290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls. STDJ 42. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Fraade, Steven D. Enosh and His Generation: Pre-Israelite Hero and History in Postbiblical Interpretation. Chico: Scholars Press, 1984. Frey, Jörg. “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts: An Inquiry into the Background of Pauline Usage.” Pages 701–41 in Qumran, Early Judaism, and New Testament Interpretation. Kleine Schriften III. Edited by Jacob Cerone. WUNT 424. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. García, Jeffrey P. On Human Nature in Early Judaism. Creation, Composition, and Condition. JAJSup 34. Paderborn: Schöningh/Brill, 2021. Garr, W. Randall. In His Own Image and Likeness. Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism. Culture & History of the Ancient Near East 15. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Goff, Matthew J. The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction. STDJ 50. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Goff, Matthew J. Discerning Wisdom. The Sapiential Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. VTSup 116. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Goff, Matthew J. “Genesis 1–3 and Conceptions of Humankind in 4QInstruction, Philo and Paul.” Pages 114–25 in Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Craig A. Evans. LNTS 392. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Goff, Matthew J. “Recent Trends in the Study of Early Jewish Wisdom Literature: The Contribution of 4QInstruction and Other Qumran Texts.” CurBR 7 (2009): 376–416. Goff, Matthew J. “Looking for Sapiential Dualism at Qumran.” Pages 20–38 in Dualism in Qumran. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits. LSTS 76. London: T&T Clark International, 2010. Goff, Matthew J. “Being Fleshly or Spiritual: Anthropological Reflection and Exegesis of Genesis 1–3 in 4QInstruction and First Corinthians.” Pages 41–59 in Christian Body, Christian Self: Concepts of Early Christian Personhood. Edited by Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson. WUNT 284. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Goff, Matthew J. 4QInstruction. WLAW. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. Harrington, Daniel J. “Wisdom at Qumran.” Pages 137–52 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Hultgren, Stephen. “‫אמת‬.” ThWQ 1:227–37. de Jong, Albert. “Iranian Connections in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 479–500 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Koch, Klaus. “History as a Battlefield of Two Antagonistic Powers in the Apocalypse of Weeks and in the Rule of the Community.” Pages 185–99 in Enoch and Qumran Origins. New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

The Creation of Humanity in Hebrew Wisdom Literature of the Second Century BCE

33

Lange, Armin. “Wisdom Literature and Thought in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 455–78 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lange, Armin. Weisheit & Prädestination. Weisheitliche Urordnung & Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran. STDJ 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Lim, Timothy H. “303. Meditation on Creation A.” Pages 152–53 in Qumran Cave 4. XV. Sapiential Texts: Part 1. DJD 20. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Macaskill, Grant. Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. JSJSup 115. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Mettinger, T. N. D. The Eden Narrative. A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Milik, J. T. “‘Livre des Mystères’.” Pages 102–107 in Qumran Cave 1. DJD 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Mulder, Otto. “Adamic traditions in the Wisdom Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 401–20 in La Vie d’Adam et Ève et les traditions adamique. Edited by Frédéric Amsler et al. Publications de l’Institut Romand des Sciences Bibliques 8. Lausanne: Zèbre, 2018. Najman, Hindy. “Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Period: Towards the Study of a Semantic Constellation.” Pages 459–72 in Is There a Text in this Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke. Edited by Ariel Feldman, Maria Cioată, and Charlotte Hempel. STDJ 119. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Newsom, Carol A. “‫עולה‬, ‫עול‬.” ThWQ 3:47–53. Otto, Eckart. “Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext.” Pages 167–92 in “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit …” Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit. Diethelm Michel zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Anja Angela Diesel et al. BZAW 241. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. Popović, Mladen. “Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two Spirits Treatise (1QS 3:13–4:26) and Other Texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 1029–67 in Sibyls, Scriptures and Scrolls. John Collins at Seventy. Edited by Joel Baden, Hindy Najman, and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJSup 175 Leiden: Brill, 2016. Puech, Émile. “Apports des textes apocalyptiques et sapientiels de Qumrân à l’eschatologie du judaisme ancien.” Pages 133–70 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. BETL 168. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2003. Rey, Jean-Sebastien. “In the Garden of Good and Evil: Reimagining a Tradition (Sir 17:1–14, 4Q303, 4QInstruction; 1QS 4:25–6, and 1QSa 1:10–11).” Pages 473–92 in Is There a Text in this Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke. Edited by Ariel Feldman, Maria Cioată, and Charlotte Hempel. STDJ 119. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. 4QInstruction: sagesse et eschatologie. STDJ 81. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Schäfer, Peter. “Der Götzendienst des Enosch: Zur Bildung und Entwicklung aggadischer Traditionen im nachbiblischen Judentum.” Pages 134–52 in Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Rabbinischen Judentums. AGJU 15. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Schwartz, Ethan. “The Exegetical Character of 1QS 3:13–4:26.” DSD 27(2020): 31–65. Smith, Mark S. The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. Strugnell, John, and Daniel J. Harrington, “4Q417.” Pages 143–210 in Qumran Cave 4. XXIV. Sapiential Texts, Part 2. 4QInstruction (Mûsar lĕMēvîn): 4Q415 ff. With a re-edition of 1Q26. DJD 34. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999.

34

John J. Collins

Tigchelaar, Eibert. “‘Spiritual People,’ ‘Fleshly Spirit,’ and ‘Vision of Meditation’: Reflections on 4QInstruction and 1 Corinthians.” Pages 103–18 in Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 85. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Changing Truths: ‫ אמת‬and ‫ קשט‬as Core Concepts in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 395–415 in Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016. Edited by Louis C. Jonker, Gideon R. Kotzé, and Christl M. Maier. VTSup 163. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Tobin, Thomas H. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation. CBQMS 14. Washington, D.C: Catholic Biblical Association, 1983. Ueberschaer, Frank. Weisheit aus der Begegnung: Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira. BZAW 379. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Wacholder, Ben Zion and Abegg, Martin G. A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Cave Four. Fascicle Two. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992. Werman, Cana. “What is the Book of Hagu?” Pages 125–40 in Sapiential Perspectives. Wisdom Literature in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins, George E. Sterling, and Ruth A. Clements. STDJ 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wold, Benjamin. “‫אנושׁ‬,” ThWQ 1:241–47. Wold, Benjamin G. Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Document Musar le Mevin and its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions. WUNT 201. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Wold, Benjamin G. “The Universality of Creation in 4QInstruction.” RevQ 102 (2013): 211–26. Wold, Benjamin G. “Genesis 2–3 in Early Christian Tradition and 4QInstruction.” DSD 23(2016): 329–46. Wold, Benjamin G. 4QInstruction: Divisions and Hierarchies. STDJ 123. Leiden: Brill, 2018. van der Woude, Adam S. “Fifty Years of Qumran Research.” Pages 1–45 in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment. 2 vols. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Jean-Louis Ska

Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira Abstract: This essay is an inquiry into the possibility of comparing the book of Ben Sira with Hellenistic projects of paideia. The idea is that Ben Sira wrote a kind of “handbook” for the education of young members of educated families following a Greek model proposed by the Hellenistic world. Ben Sira seems to suggest that it is possible to educate young people in the same way as it is done in the Hellenistic world and that Israel’s traditions, the Torah in particular, contain all the necessary elements for this purpose. “We too,” Ben Sira would say, “have an old and rich educative tradition and we do not have to go to Greece or to Alexandria to find the necessary tools.” Keywords: Ben Sira, wisdom, paideia, Torah, Moses, Hellenism

1

Πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν 2 καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων δεδομένων 3 ὑπὲρ ὧν δέον ἐστὶν ἐπαινεῖν τὸν Ισραηλ παιδείας καὶ σοφίας. 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 and wisdom. (Sir 1:1–3).1

In the prologue to his grandfather’s opus magnum, Ben Sira’s grandson praises Israel in a special way for its “instruction” (παιδεία) and “wisdom” (σοφία). He connects this “instruction” and this “wisdom” to the content of the Law, the Prophets, and the other books. There are many questions about these first lines but Ben Sira’s grandson surely alludes to some authoritative Scriptures and to some tripartite division that will become traditional.2 Moreover, and this will be essential, he praises ancient Israel not for its political achievements, glorious dynasties, the building of magnificent monuments, or for its economic riches. He praises instead Israel’s παιδεία and σοφία. Israel must be proud of these values belonging to the world of knowledge rather than to the world of power or riches. This particular aspect, as we will see, will allow Ben Sira to create

1 The English translation is from the NRSV with some occasional slight modifications for the sake of clarity. 2 On the prologue to Ben Sira, see, for instance, Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 132–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-004

36

Jean-Louis Ska

bridges with another important intellectual culture of his time, that of Hellenism. In this short article dedicated with pleasure to a person who spent much of her life studying Ben Sira,3 we will inquire into the possible relationship between Scriptures, on the one side, and παιδεία and σοφία, on the other. The main part of Jewish Scriptures being Torah, we will concentrate on the function of Torah in this field. We should not forget that the first meaning of Torah in Hebrew is “instruction,” “teaching,” “directive,” although the Septuagint (LXX) did not translate it with words of the same semantic field, such as διδαχὴ, διδασκαλία or παιδεία, but with νόμος (“law”).4 To be more precise, the question is: to what extent does Torah belong to Ben Sira’s teaching and what is the function of Torah in Ben Sira’s wisdom? In recent research, there are, obviously, several ways of understanding the relationship between Torah and Wisdom in Ben Sira. Torah can be seen as a means to an end, a way of reaching wisdom which is the final goal of human life. It is also possible to consider that for Ben Sira, the only true wisdom is to be found in Torah. And it may be also possible to take a middle way by distinguishing universal wisdom and Israel’s particular wisdom found in Torah.5 These solutions do not exclude some more nuanced interpretations of this complex relationship between Torah and Wisdom, and between Jewish wisdom and Greek or international wisdom.6 Moreover, the object of our inquiry is the Greek text of Ben Sira, his grandson’s translation. We will try to discover how the translator may have attempted to create bridges between old Jewish traditions and Greek culture.

3 See, for instance, Calduch-Benages, En el crisol de la prueba. 4 On this point, see Zurawski, “From Musar to Paideia,” 527–50. For a slightly different point of view, see Pouchelle, “Kyropaideia,” 101–34. In this article, he summarizes the main results of his thesis, Pouchelle, Dieu éducateur, 234–43. Pouchelle is less prone than Zurawski to see in the LXX’s translation of Hebrew ‫ מוסר‬as παιδεία a bridge towards Hellenistic ideals of education. The Hellenistic overtones are perhaps more visible in Ben Sira’s Greek translation, as we will see. 5 For a full treatment of this question, see Kwon, “Re-Examining Torah in the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” 93–119 (with bibliography). See also Schipper and Teeter, eds., Wisdom and Torah, esp. the article by Collins, “Wisdom and Torah,” 59–79, esp. 69–74 on Ben Sira. 6 I will use Wisdom with a capital letter only when it designates biblical Wisdom as an inspired and authoritative tradition within ancient Israel.

Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira

37

1 Paideia and Sophia in Ben Sira At first sight, it seems that Ben Sira’s grandson takes paideia and sophia as synonyms or quasi-synonyms.7 This is the case in the first lines and again a little later, when he writes, “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 (εἰς παιδείαν καὶ σοφίαν)” (7–12). When speaking of himself, however, he uses only the word paideia for the education or instruction he received in Egypt, perhaps simply out of modesty (28–29). In the Greek text of Ben Sira, both terms are equivalents in certain contexts, but this does not mean that they are mere synonyms (Sir 4:24; 6:18; 22:6; 50:27; cf. 23:2; 39:8, 10; 41:14; 51:13, 16). Sir 1:27 is a good example of this equivalence,8 σοφία γὰρ καὶ παιδεία φόβος κυρίου καὶ ἡ εὐδοκία αὐτοῦ πίστις καὶ πραότης For the fear of the Lord is wisdom and discipline, fidelity and humility are his delight.

This equivalence is already found in Prov 1:2,

‫ה‬‫י‬ ‫י‬ ‫ין‬ ‫ר‬‫ה וּמוּ‬ ‫ת‬ γνῶναι σοφίαν καὶ παιδείαν νοῆσαί τε λόγους φρονήσεως [The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:] For learning about wisdom and instruction, for understanding words of insight.

Or Prov 15:33,

‫ה‬ ‫בוֹד‬ ‫י‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬‫ה מוּ‬‫ה‬ ‫ת‬ The fear of the Lord is instruction in wisdom, and humility goes before honor.

The Greek translation is perhaps more explicit in this case since it puts παιδεία and σοφία on the same level as synonyms,

7 On the Greek, Hellenistic, and classical concept of paideia, the major work is and remains that of Werner Jaeger, Paideia, with its English and Italian translations. From the same author, see also Early Christianity and Greek Paideia and its Italian translation. One of Jaeger’s main theses is that Christianity could survive and prevail in antiquity only by adopting Greek paideia. 8 On this text and its parallels, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 146.

38

Jean-Louis Ska

φόβος θεοῦ παιδεία καὶ σοφία καὶ ἀρχὴ δόξης ἀποκριθήσεται αὐτῇ The fear of the Lord is instruction and wisdom and the highest honor will correspond therewith.9

Sir 4:24 is another example of this parallel use of both terms, ἐν γὰρ λόγῳ γνωσθήσεται σοφία καὶ παιδεία ἐν ῥήματι γλώσσης For wisdom becomes known through speech, and education through the words of the tongue.

On the other hand, in the LXX, the word παιδεία is the translation most of the time of the Hebrew word ‫מוסר‬, which has a slightly different meaning, namely “rebuke,” “chastisement,” “discipline.”10 In this case, paideia cannot be synonymous with sophia. This original meaning of “discipline” can be found for instance in the Greek text of Sir 4:17,11 ὅτι διεστραμμένως πορεύσεται μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν πρώτοις φόβον καὶ δειλίαν ἐπάξει ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ βασανίσει αὐτὸν ἐν παιδείᾳ αὐτῆς ἕως οὗ ἐμπιστεύσῃ τῇ ψυχῇ αὐτοῦ καὶ πειράσει αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς δικαιώμασιν αὐτῆς For at first [wisdom] will walk with them on tortuous paths; she will bring fear and dread upon them, and will torment them by her discipline until she trusts them, and she will test them with her ordinances.

Or Sir 21:19, πέδαι ἐν ποσὶν ἀνοήτου παιδεία καὶ ὡς χειροπέδαι ἐπὶ χειρὸς δεξιᾶς To a senseless person education is fetters on his feet, and like manacles on his right hand.

The same meaning is present, for instance, in Sir 22:6; 23:2; 33:25; 42:5, 8.12

9 Translation of Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha. 10 See Pouchelle, “Kyropaideia,” 104–107; Zurawski, “From Musar to Paideia,” 529–31. 11 For the textual problems and the translation, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 179. For the interpretation, see also Palmisano, Siracide, 72–73. 12 On Sir 23:2, see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 322, citing Prov 22:15b, ‫ר‬‫ט מוּ‬ ‫נּוּ‬ ‫ה‬‫י‬ – “[Folly is bound up in the heart of a boy,] but the rod of discipline drives it far away.” The Greek translation is, ἄνοια ἐξῆπται καρδίας νέου ῥάβδος δὲ καὶ παιδεία μακρὰν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ – “Folly is attached to the heart of a child, but the rod and instruction are then far from him.”

Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira

39

A third series of texts shows clearly that sophia has more prestige than paideia. The book itself starts with a meditation on the divine origin of sophia, not of paideia (Sir 1:1–10). To add just one more point to the argument, Ben Sira praises sophia and not paideia in 24:1–33 as the first and most important creature of God. On one occasion, he also speaks of the instruction of wisdom – παιδεία σοφίας: “Who will set whips over my thoughts, and the discipline of wisdom over my mind, so as not to spare me in my errors, and not overlook my sins?” (23:2).13 This may mean a discipline or an education that leads to wisdom. In this case, paideia is a way of acquiring wisdom. In a few words, the term paideia can be understood in two main ways, either as a discipline, a learning, or as the content of this learning, i.e., as a doctrine. Thus, the word paideia describes the process of learning and its ideal result, the acquisition of virtue and wisdom. In the latter sense, the meaning of paideia is close to that of sophia. In the first sense, paideia is the usual way to learn wisdom. This is the meaning of the word, for instance, in the expression παιδεία σοφίας, “the discipline of wisdom” or “teaching of wisdom” (23:2) or in the other expression “the house of instruction” – οἴκoς παιδείας, present in Ben Sira’s autobiographical poem (51:23). The Hebrew manuscript A of the Cairo Genizah reads ‫בית־מוסר‬, “house of discipline,” “house of education,” whereas manuscript B has ‫בית־מדרשי‬, “my house of study,” which will become a technical term for the place of the disciples’ formation (cf. Talmud b. Yomah 35b).14 The second meaning of paideia, the result of assiduous learning, is present on several occasions, for instance in Sir 6:18, “My child, from your youth choose discipline, and when you have gray hair you will still find wisdom,” and especially when the term is used as a parallel to sophia (see above). In Sir 6:22, the Hebrew ‫מוסר‬, which is usually translated in Greek as paideia, is even translated as sophia.15 This surely means that these terms can be interchanged in certain contexts,16

‫כי המוסר כשמה כן הוא ולא לרבים היא נכוחה‬ σοφία γὰρ κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς ἐστιν καὶ οὐ πολλοῖς ἐστιν φανερά For wisdom is like her name; she is not readily perceived by many.

13 In this case, it is likely that the word παιδεία retains the denotations and nuances of the Hebrew ‫מוסר‬, “discipline,” “correction,” and “chastisement” (see Pouchelle, “Kyropaideia,” 125–26). 14 On this particular expression, see Palmisano, Siracide, 503. 15 On the wordplay present in this text, see Levi, L’Ecclésiastique, 2:34; Calduch-Benages, “A Wordplay,” 13–26. Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 19; Palmisano, Siracide, 90. 16 For the Hebrew texts of Ben Sira, see Beentjes, Ben Sira in Hebrew.

40

Jean-Louis Ska

In conclusion, we can say that paideia covers a wide range of meanings in the Greek translation of Ben Sira’s grandson. It preserves on several occasions the original meaning of ‫מוסר‬, “discipline,” and even “harsh discipline” as in Hebrew and in many texts in the LXX. But, in other texts, it is closer to a meaning common in Greek and Hellenistic culture, namely “education” or “instruction.”17 This is also the reason why paideia can become synonymous or quasisynonymous with the more prestigious word sophia.18 The next question is how Ben Sira can integrate this ideal into the traditions of ancient Israel. In my opinion, the root of this idea is found in some texts of the Book of Deuteronomy, one of the sources of inspiration used by Ben Sira.19

2 Moses as a Teacher While acknowledging the many discussions about the relationship between Torah and Wisdom in Ben Sira,20 it seems more profitable to focus on the figure of Moses as teacher in Greek Ben Sira in this short contribution.21 As a teacher, Moses is surely associated with the world of paideia and education. The main text that confirms this idea is found in Sir 45:5, 5

ἠκούτισεν αὐτὸν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰσήγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν γνόφον καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κατὰ πρόσωπον ἐντολάς νόμον ζωῆς καὶ ἐπιστήμης διδάξαι τὸν Ιακωβ διαθήκην καὶ κρίματα αὐτοῦ τὸν Ισραηλ

17 See Pouchelle, “Kyropaideia,” 126 n. 89: “As for παιδεία, its whole semantic range seems to be represented, from wisdom (Sir 1:27; see also this association in Prov 1:2) to harsh discipline (Sir 4:17 or 21:19). 18 Se Pouchelle, “Kyropaideia,” 118–19: “Indeed, in Ben Sira, ‫ מוסר‬becomes increasingly a sapiential term.” Cf. also Pouchelle, Dieu éducateur, 109–12. Pouchelle doubts that the Greek ideal of paideia found its way to Jerusalem intellectual elite since the traditional meaning of ‫ מוסר‬is still present in several occurrences of Hebrew Ben Sira. But we contend that the Greek translation is more open to this influence, as we saw. 19 See, for instance, Veijola, “Law and Wisdom,” 144–64; Beentjes, “Ben Sira and the Book of Deuteronomy,” 413–33; Beentjes, “Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage,” 275–96. 20 See, for instance, Schipper and Teeter, eds., Wisdom and Torah (cf. n. 5 above); Hogan, Goff, and Wasserman, eds., Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism; cf. also the exhaustive article by Kwon (cf. n. 5 above). See, the balanced conclusion by Schwartz, Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society, 77: “I would argue that what is primary in the Wisdom of Ben Sira is neither the Deuteronomic-biblical nor the worldly pessimistic element. What is primary is the tendency to adaptation.” 21 On Moses as educator, see, for instance, Palmisano, Siracide, 425.

Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira

41

5

He allowed him to hear his voice, and led him into the dark cloud, and gave him the commandments face to face, the law of life and knowledge, so that he might teach Jacob the covenant, and Israel his decrees.

The Hebrew of the last verses can be found in Ms B:

‫וישם בידו מצוה תורת היים ותבונה ללמד ביעקב הקיו ועדותיו ומשפטיו לישראל‬ This passage contains several difficulties of interpretation, for instance, the exact nature of the “commandments” and the “decrees” or “judgments” given to Moses, or the meaning of the expression “law of life.” There are several publications on the subject.22 The important word is the verb “to teach” (διδάσκω in Greek and ‫ למד‬in Hebrew). Moses has different roles and functions in the Pentateuch but only Deuteronomy makes him a “pedagogue,” a teacher of Israel (Deut 4:1.5.14; 5:31; 6:1; cf. 31:22). Deut 4 is especially important in this respect. Moses introduces himself in the first verse as someone in charge of “teaching” Israel statutes and rules. Now, in this chapter Moses is no longer presented as a mediator of the Law between God and Israel but as an interpreter and teacher of the Law.23 The passage from the function of mediator to that of teacher is found and justified in Deut 5:31,24

‫שׂוּ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ים‬ ‫ה‬‫ל־‬ ‫ת‬ ‫י‬ ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ‫ד‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ן‬ ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ץ‬ But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you the whole commandment and the statutes and the rules that you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land that I am giving them to possess.

This divine discourse clearly distinguishes two different duties assigned to Moses. First, as mediator, Moses stands on Mount Horeb in Deuteronomy to receive all the commandments for Israel. Second, Moses will have to convey all these commandments to Israel. This second mission is characterized by the verb “to teach” (‫)למד‬. There are thus two aspects and two phases in Moses’s mission. He is first a mediator between God and Israel on Mount Sinai/Horeb and second, he becomes a teacher of Israel in the wilderness. This second aspect appears in Deuteronomy with a new vocabulary. We do not find the verb “to teach” in Exo-

22 Cf. the article by Kwon (n. 5 above); Wright, “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira,” 381–86; Beentjes, “The Book of Ben Sira: Some New Perspectives,” 1–19, especially “Ben Sira’s Correlation of Wisdom and Torah,” 11–17. 23 Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 537. 24 Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 762–63.

42

Jean-Louis Ska

dus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Moses is Israel’s teacher especially in Deut 4.25 The chapter is, according to many commentators, a later addition to the Book.26 The LXX translates the verb ‫ למד‬with forms of the Greek verb διδάσκω (“to teach”) in Deut 4:1, 14 and δείκνυμι (“to show”) in Deut 4:5. Moses is already presented at the beginning of the Book of Deuteronomy as a commentator, an interpreter who explains, adapts, updates, and clarifies the Torah to Israel (Deut 1:5):

‫ֹזּאת‬ ‫ה‬‫תּוֹ‬‫ת־‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ה‬ ‫יל‬‫הוֹ‬ ἤρξατο Μωυσῆς διασαφῆσαι τὸν νόμον τοῦτον Moses undertook to explain this law

This verse has been recently the object of quite a few discussions but the use of the same root ‫ באר‬in Deut 27:8, Hab 2:2, and the testimony of ancient translations buttress the translation, “to clarify” or “to explain.”27 Moses’s role of teacher is also that of Ezra, the scribe, according to Ezra 7:10.28 Ezra is sometimes considered as a second Moses,29

‫ט‬‫ק וּ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ד‬‫ת וּ‬ ‫ה‬‫ה‬ ‫ת‬‫ת־תּוֹ‬ ‫רוֹשׁ‬ ‫בוֹ‬ ‫ין‬ ‫א‬ ‫י‬ ὅτι Εσδρας ἔδωκεν ἐν καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ζητῆσαι τὸν νόμον καὶ ποιεῖν καὶ διδάσκειν ἐν Ισραηλ προστάγματα καὶ κρίματα For Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the Lord, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel.

There is surely a certain parallelism between Ezra and Moses in Sir 45:5, Ezra 7:10

Sir 45:5

‫ט‬‫ק וּ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ד‬‫וּ‬

‫ללמד ביעקב חוקיו ועדותיו ומשפטיו לישראל‬

διδάσκειν ἐν Ισραηλ προστάγματα καὶ κρίματα

διδάξαι τὸν Ιακωβ διαθήκην καὶ κρίματα αὐτοῦ τὸν Ισραηλ

and to teach his statutes and judgments in Israel

so that he might teach Jacob the covenant, and Israel his judgments.

25 Moses is the subject of the verb in Deut 4:1, 4, 14. See also Deut 5:31; 6:1. In Deut 31:19, 22, Moses teaches a song. 26 See a summary of the discussion in Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 319–21 (with bibliography). 27 See Otto, “Mose, der erste Schriftgelehrte,” 273–84; Ska, “Le début et la fin du Deutéronome,” 81–96. 28 For some more details on this text, see Becking, Ezra–Nehemiah, 104 (the role of Ezra, the scribe) and 106 (his role as “interpreter” of the Law”). 29 “Had Moses not preceded him, Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Torah for Israel” (R. Yose in b. Sanh. 21b par.).

Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira

43

The same task is entrusted to Moses and to Ezra. Without pushing the comparison too far, we may affirm that both Moses and Ezra correspond to the same ideal in Israel, in the same post-exilic period. The ideal of the skilled scribe, as portrayed in Sir 38:24–39:11, contains similar elements. It is especially the case in Sir 39:8, αὐτὸς ἐκφανεῖ παιδείαν διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν νόμῳ διαθήκης κυρίου καυχήσεται He shall show forth that which he has learned, and shall glory in the law of the covenant of the Lord.

As for Moses and Ezra, one of the main tasks of the skilled scribe is teaching what he has learned. We may notice that in this context the word paideia surely means “instruction,” “learning,” “training” and not “discipline.”30 This tendency to enhance the role of the teacher and the central position of the Torah corresponds to another phenomenon in some of the most recent layers of biblical literature. In a few texts placed in key positions in the canon, the study and meditation of the Torah becomes the most important focus of attention. This is the case, for instance, in Josh 1:7–9 and in Psalm 1, but also in the law of the king in Deut 17:14–20, especially in 17:18, or again in 1 Kgs 2:1–4.31 Josh 1:7–9 is an important oracle, placed in the first chapter of the book, and defining the role of Joshua, the first leader of Israel after Moses. This is a very crucial moment because, for the first time, Moses is no longer there. The main question is a question of authority. Who is to command Israel in the name of God? How will Israel know God’s will and guidance? In the wilderness, Moses was surely the legitimate channel of God’s will. He was God’s authorized and authoritative spokesperson if we can put it so. Logically, Joshua will take this position after Moses’ disappearance but this is not the case. The main authority according to Josh 1:7–8 (MT)32 is not the person of Joshua but Torah: 7

Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. 8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful

30 See Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 452; Palmisano, Siracide, 355. 31 See, among others, Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker,” 494–509; English translation: “The Law and the Nations,” 95–110, introducing in this respect the label ‘nomistic Deuteronomist’; Rofé, “The Piety of the Torah-Disciples,” 78–85; Römer, “Josué, lecteur de la Tora,” 117– 24. On the “nomistic Deuteronomist” (DtrN), see, among others, Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 19–30; Römer, “The Current Discussion,” 43–66, esp. 48–49. 32 The Masoretic text contains the word ‫ תורה‬in Josh 1:7 whereas this word is absent from the LXX. This is underlined by Rofé, “The Piety of the Torah” (cf. previous note).

44

Jean-Louis Ska

to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.

Joshua is subordinated to Torah since it is in the Book of the Law that Israel will find God’s will and Joshua’s authority depends on his obedience to Torah. In other words, the real authority is the Book of the Torah, not the person of Joshua. The same holds true for 1 Kgs 2:1–4. This is again a text placed at a turningpoint in Israel’s history, the first dynastic succession. David is on his deathbed and calls Solomon. King David, the founder of the dynasty, in one of the most solemn moment of his life, declares that the highest authority in his kingdom is not the person of the king, but Torah: 2

I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man, 3 and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn, 4 that the Lord may establish his word that he spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’

The similarities between Josh 1:7–9 and 1 Kgs 2:2–4 in their contexts and in their formulations are unmistakable.33 Two points deserve more attention, however, namely the insistence on “what is written” in the Book of the Law (Josh 1:8 and 1 Kgs 2:3) and the promise of success depending on the obedience to Torah (Josh 1:8 and 1 Kgs 2:3). And what is said by David is, so to speak, anticipated by Moses in the “law of the king” in Deut 17:18–19, since almost the only task of the monarch, according to this text, is to read Torah every day.34 What is said to Joshua or to Solomon, to Israel’s rulers and leaders, is applied to the life of every single pious member of the people in Ps 1. Again, the real center of life is Torah and success in life depends on Torah (Ps 1:2–3).35 All this goes in the same direction and finds a clear echo in Ben Sira. More concretely, Ben Sira establishes a close correlation between Wisdom and Torah. Here again Ben Sira’s reflection is rooted in Deut 4, as we will see presently.

33 On this text, see Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 13–15; Sweeney, 1–2 Kings, 59–61; Nobile, 1–2 Re, 55–56. 34 See Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, 1488, who sees a parallel between the role of the king in Deut 17, Joshua in Josh 1:7–9 and Ezra the scribe in Ezra 7. The king becomes a “doctor of the Law.” 35 See, for instance, Jones, “Psalm 1,” 537–51.

Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira

45

3 The Teacher and the Teaching, Moses, Torah, and Wisdom The Book of Ben Sira belongs to Wisdom literature even if some may argue the usefulness or the precision of this category.36 In many cases, Ben Sira depends on Proverbs albeit the quotations are rarely explicit. The main contribution of Ben Sira, however, is the integration of Torah within the horizon of Wisdom literature. Some years ago, Moshe Weinfeld made a pertinent observation in this regard: Until the seventh century, Law and Wisdom existed as two separate and autonomous disciplines. Law belonged to the sacral sphere, whereas Wisdom dealt with the secular and the mundane. These two disciplines were amalgamated in the Book of Deuteronomy, and the laws of the Torah were now identified with wisdom: ‘… for this is your wisdom and your understanding’ (Deut. 4:6). This identification of Torah with wisdom is indeed somewhat paradoxical, for laws and statutes which were given by God are here regarded as being indicative of the wisdom and understanding of Israel. The verse undoubtedly reflects the difficulties which resulted from the sapiential desire to identify Torah with wisdom. The inherent contradiction was ultimately resolved only by identifying wisdom with Torah, as a result of which both were conceived together as a heavenly element which descended from heaven to take up its abode among the children of Israel (Ben Sira 24).37

Without entering into long discussions about Weinfeld’s identification of Torah with Wisdom, a topic very much debated nowadays, it is clear that Ben Sira establishes a close connection between both. Some prefer to speak of adaptation, or convergence, or interrelationship but this may miss one of the main points of this equivalence or correspondence.38 Let us notice again that the text quoted comes from Deut 4 (4:6),39

‫ים‬‫ל־‬ ‫ת‬ ‫עוּן‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ים‬ ‫י‬‫י‬ ‫ם‬‫י‬‫ם וּ‬ ‫וא‬ ‫י‬ ‫ם‬‫י‬ ‫ם‬‫וּ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫דוֹל‬ ‫גּוֹי‬ ‫בוֹן‬ ‫ם‬‫ם־‬ ‫ק‬ ‫רוּ‬ ‫ֶלּה‬ καὶ φυλάξεσθε καὶ ποιήσετε ὅτι αὕτη ἡ σοφία ὑμῶν καὶ ἡ σύνεσις ἐναντίον πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν ὅσοι ἐὰν ἀκούσωσιν πάντα τὰ δικαιώματα ταῦτα καὶ ἐροῦσιν ἰδοὺ λαὸς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων τὸ ἔθνος τὸ μέγα τοῦτο

36 For more details, see the recent discussion by Collins, “Wisdom as Genre,” 15–32. 37 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 255–56. On Sir 24, a text very much studied and discussed, see the commentaries and, among others, Gilbert, “L’éloge de la Sagesse,” 326–48. 38 See the articles of Beentjes, Collins, Schwartz, and Kwon quoted earlier. 39 On this text in particular, see Krüger, “Law and Wisdom,” 35–54. See also Braulik, “Weisheit im Buch Deuteronomium,” 39–69 (Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium, 225–271); Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel, 57; Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 546–49.

46

Jean-Louis Ska

Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’

In the world of Ben Sira, after the exile and under Hellenistic rule, one of the main problems is that of authority. After reading some pages of Ben Sira, we can formulate a hypothesis. The traditional authority in antiquity was that of the king. For Israel, this king became the representative of a foreign power, first Persian, and then Hellenistic. And we just saw that later texts subordinate kingship to Torah in Israel. But there is another authority which becomes more and more prestigious in Greek and Hellenistic culture, namely wisdom and philosophy. This is the reason why Ben Sira creates a close relationship between Torah and Wisdom. In a new environment and culture, it was important for Ben Sira to give one of the essential elements of Jewish culture and religion, Torah, the prestige of Wisdom, which was highly appreciated in Alexandria as in the Hellenistic world. In simple words, Jews can or must be proud of Torah because Torah corresponds, in Ben Sira’s view, to the most prestigious element of the Hellenistic culture in which they live. They do not have to be envious or feel inferior. Jews have a treasure in their tradition, Torah, and Torah is Wisdom, a Wisdom analogous and probably even superior, to that which is considered one of the highest values in Hellenistic culture, for instance in Alexandria in Egypt.40 In this field, Ben Sira’s work will be prolonged and deepened by Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BCE−50 CE).41

Conclusion If the reflections proposed here have some sense, the thorny question of Sira’s relationship with Hellenism may receive a first element of an answer. Former scholars read in Ben Sira’s work a strong polemical undertone. Rudolf Smend in 1906 already spoke of Ben Sira’s book as “die Kriegserklärung des Judentums gegen den Hellenismus.”42 More recently, Skehan and Di Lella argue along the same line,

40 On Alexandria in Egypt and its culture, see especially Marrou, Histoire de l’éducation dans l’Antiquité or its English translation. For a recent assessment of this work, see Too, ed., Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. See also Harris and Ruffini, eds., Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece; Schwartz, The Ancient Jews from Alexander to Muhammad. 41 See especially Zurawski, “Mosaic Paideia,” 480–505. 42 Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, xxiii.

Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira

47

Ben Sira must have seen the baneful effects of Hellenization on the Jewish people. He must have met many Jews whose faith was shaken by the questions and doubts that Greek philosophy and religion had raised. These Jews had a gnawing, unexpressed fear that the religion of their Ancestors was inadequate to cope with the needs of social and political structures that had changed enormously.43

However, it seems difficult to find clear criticisms of Hellenism or Greek culture in Ben Sira. Recent studies in the field tend to speak of adaptation rather than opposition. Hellenism posed a challenge to Jewish culture, this is certain. And so, Ben Sira proposes an answer, namely, “we too have wisdom and learning, we have sophia and paideia. And this sophia and paideia can be found in one of its highest forms in our Torah.”44

Bibliography Adams, Samuel L. “Reassessing the Exclusivism of Ben Sira’s Jewish Paideia.” Pages 47–58 in Second Temple Jewish Paideia in Context. Edited by Jason M. Zurawski and Gabriele Boccaccini. BZAW 228. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. Becking, Bob. Ezra – Nehemiah. Commentary on the Old Testament 26. Leuven: Peeters, 2018. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Ben Sira and the Book of Deuteronomy.” Pages 413–33 in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2008. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage: A Critical Approach.” Pages 275–96 in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila. BZAW 419. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “The Book of Ben Sira: Some New Perspectives at the Dawn of the 21st Century.” Pages 1–19 in Goochem in Mokum, Wisdom in Amsterdam: Papers on Biblical and Related Wisdom Read at the Fifteenth Joint Meeting of the Society of Old

43 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 16. 44 Cf. Adams, “Reassessing the Exclusivism of Ben Sira’s Jewish Paideia,” 47–58, 58: “His [Ben Sira’s] transitional voice and allegiance to the Torah should not lead us to label him an exclusivist. Arguments to the contrary misinterpret the more receptive understanding of παιδεία in Sirach.” For more details, see, among others, Ueberschaer, “Jewish Education in Ben Sira,” 29–46; Gilbert, “À l’école de la sagesse,” 20–42. See also Zurawski’s unpublished thesis, Jewish Paideia in the Hellenistic Diaspora.

48

Jean-Louis Ska

Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Amsterdam, July 2012. Edited by George J. Brooke and Pierre van Hecke. OTS 68. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Braulik, Georg. “Weisheit im Buch Deuteronomium.” Pages 39–69 in Weisheit außerhalb der kanonischen Weisheitsschriften. Edited by Bernd Janowski. VWGTh 10. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1996. Pages 225–71 in Idem, Studien zum Buch Deuteronomium. SBAB 24. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997. Brenton, Lancelot C. L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. 2nd ed. Companion Texts for Old Testament Studies. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1851. Repr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. Burney, Charles F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings with an Introduction and Appendix. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903. Calduch-Benages, Núria. En el crisol de la prueba. Estúdio exegético de Sir 2,1–18. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1997. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “A Wordplay on the Term mûsar (Sir 6:22).” Pages 13–26 in Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage: Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. DCLS 15. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Collins, John J. “Wisdom and Torah.” Pages 59–79 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. JSJSup 163. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Collins, John J. “Wisdom as Genre and as Tradition in the Book of Sirach.” Pages 15–32 in Sirach and Its Contexts: The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing. Edited by Samuel Adams, Greg Goering, and Matthew J. Goff. JSJSup 196. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Gilbert, Maurice. “L’éloge de la Sagesse (Siracide 24).” RTL 7 (1976):326–48. Gilbert, Maurice. “À l’école de la sagesse. La pédagogie des sages dans l’ancien Israël.” Greg 85 (2004): 20–42. Harris, William V., and Giovanni Ruffini, eds. Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 26. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Hogan, Karina M., Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman, eds. Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. EJL 41. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Jaeger, Werner. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Translated by Gilbert Highet. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Translation of Die Formung des griechischen Menschen. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Jaeger, Werner. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1961. Jones, Scott C. “Psalm 1 and the Hermeneutics of Torah.” Bib 97 (2016): 537–51. Krüger, Thomas. “Law and Wisdom according to Deut 4:5–8.” Pages 35–54 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. JSJSup 163. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Kwon, JiSeong James. “Re-Examining Torah in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: Was Hellenistic Wisdom Torahised?” Pages 93–119 in The Early Reception of the Torah. Edited by Kristin De Troyer et al. DCLS 39. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020. Lévi, Israel. L’Ecclésiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. 2 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1898– 1901. Marböck, Johannes. Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. Mit Nachwort und Bibliographie zur Neuauflage. BZAW 272. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2 1999. Marrou, Henri-Irénée. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated by George Lamb. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press, 1982. Translation of Histoire de l’éducation dans l’Antiquité. 2 vols. Paris: Le Seuil, 1948, 1981.

Torah, Paideia, and Sophia in Ben Sira

49

Nobile, Marco. 1–2 Re. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento. I Libri Biblici – Primo Testamento 9. Milano: Paoline, 2010. Otto, Eckart. “Mose, der erste Schriftgelehrte. Deuteronomium 1,5 in der Fabel des Pentateuch.” Pages 273–84 in L’Écrit et l’Esprit. Études d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en hommage à Adrian Schenker. Edited by Dieter Böhler et al. OBO 214. Fribourg Suisse/ Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 1–11. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau u. a.: Herder Verlag, 2011. Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 12–34. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau u. a.: Herder Verlag, 2016. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. Siracide. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Nuova Versione della Bibbia dai testi antichi 34. Milano: San Paolo, 2016. Pouchelle, Patrick. Dieu éducateur: Une nouvelle approche d’un concept de la théologie biblique entre Bible Hébraïque, Septante et littérature grecque classique. FAT 2.77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Pouchelle, Patrick. “Kyropaideia versus Paideia Kyriou: The Semantic Transformation of Paideia and Cognates in the Translated Books of the Septuagint.” Pages 101–34 in Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff and Emma Wasserman. EJL 41. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Rofé, Alexander. “The Piety of the Torah-Disciples at the Winding-Up of the Hebrew Bible: Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2; Isa 59:21.” Pages 78–85 in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition. Festschrift für Johann Maier zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Helmut Merklein et al. Athenäums Monografien Theologie 88. Frankfurt am Main: A. Hain, 1993. Römer, Thomas. “Josué, lecteur de la Tora (Jos 1,8).” Pages 117–24 in “Lasset uns Brücken bauen …” Collected Communications on the XVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995. Edited by Karl-Dieter Schunck und Matthias Augustin. BEATAJ 42; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1998. Römer, Thomas. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Römer, Thomas. “The Current Discussion on the so-called Deuteronomistic History: Literary Criticism and Theological Consequences.” Humanities 46 (2015): 43–66. Schipper, Bernd and D. Andrew Teeter, eds. Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 163. Leiden, Brill, 2013. Schwartz, Seth. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Schwartz, Seth. The Ancient Jews from Alexander to Muhammad: Key Themes in Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Ska, Jean-Louis. “Le début et la fin du Deutéronome.” Textus 23 (2007): 81–96. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes – Introduction and Commentary. AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906. Smend, Rudolf. “The Law and the Nations: A Contribution to Deuteronomistic Tradition History.” Pages 95–110 in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Translation of “Das Gesetz und die Völker. Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte.” Pages 494–509 in Probleme biblischer Theologie. Festschrift für Gerhard von Rad. Edited by Hans W. Wolff. München: Kaiser, 1971. Sweeney, Marvin A. 1–2 Kings: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.

50

Jean-Louis Ska

Too, Yun Lee, ed. Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Brill’s Companions in Classical Studies. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2001. Ueberschaer, Frank. “Jewish Education in Ben Sira.” Pages 29–46 in Second Temple Jewish Paideia in Context. Edited by Jason M. Zurawski and Gabriele Boccaccini. BZAW 228. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2017. Veijola, Timo. “Law and Wisdom: The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s Teaching of the Law.” Pages 144–64 in Leben nach der Weisung. Exegetisch-Historische Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by Walter Dietrich and Marko Marttila. FRLANT 224. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Wright III, Benjamin G. “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 381–86 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Zurawski, Jason M. “From Musar to Paideia, from Torah to Nomos: How the Translation of the Septuagint Impacted the Paideutic Ideal in Hellenistic Judaism.” Pages 527–50 in XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Munich, 2013. Edited by W. Kraus, M. Meiser and M. N. van der Meer. SBLSCS 64. Atlanta: SBL, 2016. Zurawski, Jason M. “Jewish Paideia in the Hellenistic Diaspora: Discussing Education, Shaping Identity.” PhD diss. The University of Michigan 2016. Zurawski, Jason M. “Mosaic Paideia: The Law of Moses within Philo of Alexandria’s Model of Jewish Education,” JSJ 48 (2017): 480–505.

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Ben Sira’s Portrayal of Aaron and Phinehas (Sir 45:6–25): An Interaction between Tradition and Innovation Abstract: Within his Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44–50), Ben Sira pays special attention to Aaron and Phinehas not only in light of the exceptional length of the Aaron section but also in light of the covenant with David that is now attributed to Phinehas and his descendants. This is done with the help of some specific Pentateuchal passages which are quoted in a special way. Keywords: Phinehas, Aaron, structural use of Scripture, high priesthood, covenant with David, Sir 45, Exod 28, Num 16–18; 25:11–13.

Introduction In the parade of biblical heroes in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors (Sir 44– 50), the portrayals of Aaron and Phinehas catch the eye.1 The exceptional length devoted to Aaron (Sir 45:6–22) and the way the Jerusalem sage has interwoven and combined extant Pentateuchal texts from his own point of view are striking. There are quite a few publications on this Ben Sira passage which deal either with the topic of priesthood or with the text itself. It is nevertheless worthwhile to attempt a detailed description of the interaction that results from Ben Sira’s handling of tradition and innovation.2 This interaction between tradition and innovation that is reflected in the portrayals of Aaron and Phinehas is the focus of this essay.

1 With pleasure and gratitude, I dedicate this contribution to Núria, who together with Friedrich Reiterer and myself, founded the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ISDCL). 2 On the topic of priesthood in the book of Ben Sira, see, for instance, Fabry, “Priestertum,” 265–82; Olyan, “Relationship,” 261–86; Skelton, “Imaginative Theodicy,” 1–12; Wright, “Book of Watchers,” 241–54. For the text in Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and translation of Sir 45:6–25, see Reiterer, Urtext, 142–229; Schmidt, Wisdom, 375–406. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-005

52

Pancratius C. Beentjes

1 Translation of Sir 45:6–22 (Ms B) 45:6a3 45:6b 45:7a 45:7b 45:7c 45:7d 45:7e 45:8a 45:8b 45:8c 45:9a 45:9b 45:9c 45:9d 45:9e 45:10a 45:10b 45:10c 45:11a 45:11b 45:11c 45:11d 45:11e 45:12a 45:12b 45:12c 45:12d 45:13a 45:13b 45:13c 45:13d 45:14a 45:14b 45:15a 45:15b

The Holy One exalted Aaron from the tribe of Levi. He set him as a perpetual ordinance; he gave him authority. He ministered to him in his glory. He girded him with horns of a wild ox, he clothed him with bells. He clothed him with complete beauty, he adorned him with glory and strength, undergarments, tunic and robe. He surrounded him with bells and pomegranates – a multitude around – to give a pleasant noise with his steps, to make his sound heard in the inner sanctuary for the remembrance of the members of his people, sacred vestments, gold, bluish purple, and reddish purple, work of a designer, the breastplate of judgment, ephod, and belt, and crimson yarn, work of a weaver, magnificent jewels on the breastplate, seal engravings in […] [every precious stone] for the remembrance in notched writing according to the number […]rael, a crown of fine gold over the turban and an ornament […] of holiness, official authority as an honor and praise of power […] […] […] an unauthorized person […] for his sons as this and to his sons […] His sacrifice shall be burned as a whole offering, and every day as a tamid-offering twice. Moses ordained him; he anointed him with the holy oil.

3 Adopted from Reiterer, “Polyvalent,” 30–50, with slight modifications.

Ben Sira’s Portrayal of Aaron and Phinehas

45:15c 45:15d 45:15e 45:15f 45:16a 45:16b 45:16c 45:16d 45:17a 45:17b 45:17c 45:17d 45:18a 45:18b 45:18c 45:18d 45:19a 45:19b 45:19c 45:19d 45:20a 45:20b 45:20c 45:20d 45:21a 45:21b 45:22a 45:22b 45:22c 45:22d

53

It became an eternal covenant for him, and for his descendants as the heavens endure, to minister and to serve him as a priest, and to bless his people in his name. He chose him out of all living to present burnt offering and the fat offerings, and to bring incense, a pleasing odor and a memorial, and to make atonement for the Israelites. He gave him his commandments; he let him rule over statute and ordinance. He taught his people the statute and the ordinance to the Israelites. Strangers were angry against him, they attacked him in the wilderness, followers of Dathan and Abiram and the company of Korah in the power of their wrath. YHWH saw it and became furious, and he destroyed them in the heat of his anger; he brought a sign upon them, by the flame of his fire he consumed them. […] to Aaron his glory; he gave him his heritage. […] he gave him as food, […] his portion. Offerings by fire for YHWH they will eat and the gifts for him and his descendants. […] he will not inherit and among them he has no portion of heritage; offerings by fire […] […]

2 Structure While Ben Sira devotes nine stichs to each of the patriarchs (Sir 44:19–23) and to Moses (45:1–5), his portrayal of Aaron takes up no less than thirty-two stichs, a number that is nowhere matched by any figure in the Praise of the Ancestors.4 4 Peters, “Strophik,” 180–93, tries to demonstrate that the Praise of the Ancestors is basically made up of sections each consisting of ten stichoi. His arguments, however, are not convincing.

54

Pancratius C. Beentjes

It can hardly be a coincidence that only the exuberant description of another High Priest, Simon, comes close with thirty lines (Sir 50:1–21).5 A quick analysis of Sir 45:6–22 shows that this passage has two distinct parts of equal length: Sir 45:6–14 and 45:15–22. The following observations confirm that this is indeed its basic structure. Prior to the passage on Aaron, the entire section devoted to Abraham, Isaac, and Moses in Sir 44:21–45:5 is characterized by the phenomenon in which the subject of the verbs is unspecified (‘he’). Without a shadow of doubt, the unspecified subject is God. In the opening section on Aaron (45:6a), however, the subject of the previous lines is now explicitly specified as ‫“( קדוש‬Holy One”). This adjective is used here without the definite article and therefore functions as a proper name, just as ‫ אל‬does.6 The versions of Sir 45:6, however, relate ‫ קדוש‬to Aaron, probably due to the influence of Num 16:5–7 and Ps 106:16.7 As a consequence, the word order had to be changed and therefore looks rather artificial: Greek Syriac Latin

Ααρων ὕψωσεν ἅγιον ὅμοιον αὐτῳ ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ φυλῆς Λευι ‫ܝ‬‫ ܖ‬  ‫ܗܪܘܢ‬  ‫ܬܗ‬‫ ܐ‬‫ܘܐܪ‬ Excelsum fecit Aaron fratrem eius et similem sibi de tribu Levi.8

In order to underline the special position of the passage devoted to Aaron, it is of great relevance to notice that neither ‫ קדוש‬nor ‫ הקדוש‬is found elsewhere in the book of Ben Sira as a proper name referring to God or as part of a parallelismus membrorum in which ‫ייי‬, ‫אל‬, or ‫ עליון‬functions.9 That the passage devoted to Aaron enjoys a special position is also evident from its content.10 Unlike the biblical texts on the investiture of Aaron as High  By way of comparison, Ben Sira devotes eighteen lines each to Joshua and Caleb (Sir 46:1– 10), David (Sir 47:1–12), and Elijah and Elisha (Sir 48:1–15). The portrayal of Solomon has nineteen lines.  In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ קדוש‬without the definite article is found in Isa 40:25; 57:15; Hos 11:9; Hab 3:3; Job 6:10.  Reiterer, Urtext, 143: “Im Rahmen von Num 16, bes. VV. 5. 7, gibt es Anhaltspunkte, die darauf schliessen lassen, dass Aaron der Geheiligte ist.”  It is noteworthy that commentaries on Ben Sira prefer the rendering of the versions to the Hebrew text. Van den Born (Wijsheid, 218) mentions the possibility that ‘the Holy One’ might be the subject. Peters (Jüngst wiederaufgefundene, 409) has “der Hochheilige.” A decade later, he switched to the rendering of the versions without giving a reason (Peters, Das Buch, 387).  In Sir 39:35 ([‫ )שם הק]דוש‬and Sir 50:7 (‫)קדוש ישראל‬, it relates to a status constructus.  It is worth recalling Cecil Roth’s suggestion that the Aaron pericope might have been part of “[t]he primitive ‘Abodah in its original form before it was elaborated by the poets” (Roth, “Ecclesiasticus,” 177).

Ben Sira’s Portrayal of Aaron and Phinehas

55

Priest (Exod 28, 39, and Lev 8), Sir 45:6–13 mentions that the Holy One himself, not Moses, clothes Aaron with the high-priestly vestments. It is not until Sir 45:15 with the mention of Moses’s name that the description of Aaron’s accession to the office becomes consistent once more with the biblical narratives. The name of Moses, which is precisely halfway through the portrayal of Aaron, marks therefore a new phase in the pericope on Aaron; it is to be considered the opening of the second part of the passage (Sir 45:15–22). This two-part arrangement gains cogency with the observation that Sir 45:6–14 and Sir 45:15–22 not only open with a proper name (“the Holy One” and “Moses” respectively) but also consist of exactly the same number of stichs each.11 Additionally, the opening of the first part (Sir 45:6–8) and its conclusion (45:12–14) unmistakably form an inclusio (as the table below shows), in which the central topics of the Aaron passage play a leading part, thereby further confirming the above-mentioned bipartite structure.

‫עולם‬ ‫הוד‬ ‫כבוד‬ ‫לבש‬ ‫כליל‬ ‫עוז‬

Sir 45:6–8

Sir 45:12–14

7a 7b 7c, 8b 8a 8a 8b

13b 12c 12c 13b 14a 12c

3 Ben Sira’s Use of Scripture in Sir 45:6–22 Some observations on the use of Scripture in this passage are significant to the structure of Sir 45:6–22. This use of Scripture will in fact explicitly confirm a bipartite structure. It is worth mentioning in passing that all aggravating and negative aspects related to Aaron, such as those recounted in Exod 32 and Num 12, are nowhere brought up in this Ben Sira passage. The extensive pericope on Aaron bears the clear marks of what Daniel Patte has defined as “structural use of Scripture (or structural style).”12 It is a phenomenon in which a passage in a deuterocanonical or non-canonical Jewish 11 Haspecker has demonstrated that such a numerical approach may never be used as a starting point for a structural analysis but might be welcomed as an additional item (Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 160 n. 83). See also Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 355: “Zahl als Kompositionselement.” 12 Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutics, 171, 189.

56

Pancratius C. Beentjes

writing is largely structured by elements from one or two biblical texts. As an illustration, Patte mentions Sib. Or. 3:8–45, where one can clearly recognize the pattern of Isa 40:18–28, while Sib. Or. 3:62–91 should be read in light of Deut 13.13 Patte’s analysis also included 1 Enoch, as well as Qumran documents such as The Rule of the Community (1QS) and The Hodayot Scroll (1QH).14 It is worth noting that Patte discovered the application of “structural use of Scripture” precisely in Jewish writings that can be dated around the second century BCE, the same period when Ben Sira composed his book.15 The first half of Ben Sira’s portrayal of Aaron (Sir 45:6–14) is a mosaic of reminiscences of Exod 28 whereas the second half (Sir 45:15–22) recapitulates in a nutshell what is narrated in Num 16–18. In fact, at the very end of the passage in Sir 45:22, an extensive parallel to Num 18:20 is included. In my view, it is not appropriate to label Ben Sira’s use of Scripture here as “anthological,”16 since Exod 28 and Num 16–18 are the explicit points of reference in the Hebrew Bible which serve as a framework for integrating other biblical notions.

3.1 Sir 45:6–15 and Exod 28 It is beyond doubt that the description of Aaron’s garments in Sir 45:6–12 stems from Exod 28 and has not been borrowed from the narratives in Exod 39 and Lev 8 which are, to a large extent, to be considered parallels. There are several observations to make for a reasonable case in favor of Exod 28. First, Klaus Koch has demonstrated the narrative of Exod 28 to be more original in relation to Exod 39 and Lev 8.17 Second, John Snaith refers only to Exod 28 without even mentioning the other two narratives in discussing the description of Aaron’s garments.18 Of more importance, however, are some textual data: 1) the curious collocation ‫‘( חשן משפט‬breastplate of judgement’) in Sir 45:10c is found only in Exod 28:15, 29, 30, and not in the other two texts; 2) the ringing of the bells at the hem of Aaron’s outer garment (Sir 45:8–9) is absent in Exod 39 and Lev 9 but is found in Exod 28:35. In this respect, it is notable that Ben Sira dropped the odd motiva-

13 Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutics, 186–89. 14 Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutics, 189–96; 266–77. 15 A methodical investigation into the structural use of Scripture within the Book of Ben Sira yields some surprising results. See Beentjes, “Structural Use,” 57–78. 16 See Snaith, “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love,” 172: “Ben Sira’s anthological style is particularly noticeable in his description of Aaron as high priest.” 17 Koch, Priesterschrift, 41–44; 67–69; 97–103. 18 Snaith, “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love,” 172.

Ben Sira’s Portrayal of Aaron and Phinehas

57

tion found in Exod 28:35 (“so that he may not die”), substituting it instead with the motivation given in Exod 28:12 concerning the two stones on the shoulder straps of the ephod: “for the remembrance of the members of his people;” 3) the combination of the verb ‫”‘( משח‬to anoint”) in Sir 45:15b and the technical term ‫ מלא יד‬in the piel (“to fill the hand”) in Sir 45:15a19 is found neither in Exod 39 nor in Lev 8. The combination of both terms, however, is found in Exod 28:41,

‫והלבשת אתם ואת אהרון אחיך ואת בניו עתו‬ ‫ומשחת אתם ומלאת את ידם‬ ‫וקדשת אתם וכהנו לי‬ Attention should be drawn to the fact that the order of the verbs in Exod 28:41 has been inverted in Sir 45:15. In the Hebrew Bible, all occurrences (Exod 28:41; 29:29; Lev 16:32; 21:10; Num 3:3) have the sequence “to anoint”/“to ordain.” Therefore, this inversion could be considered a deliberate move by Ben Sira. Moreover, it can hardly be a coincidence that this inverted quotation in Sir 45:15 takes place at a crucial point in the passage on Aaron, viz., at the transition of subjects from “the Holy One” in the first part (45:6–14) to “Moses” at the opening of the second part (45:15–22).20 Additionally, this conspicuous inversion makes up the conclusion of the references to Exod 28.

3.2 Ben Sira 45:15–22 and Num 16–18 Moses, who is mentioned in Sir 45:1, is brought up for the second time in Sir 45:15a in the Praise of the Ancestors, playing thus an important role in the second half of the Aaron passage (45:15–22). In the first place, the passage is “in keeping” with the narrative of Exod 28, as it is Moses who ordains Aaron to the High Priesthood. In addition, Moses has a key role in the legitimation of Aaron’s other priestly functions. In Sir 45:17, Moses hands over “statute and ordinance” to Aaron in exactly the same way that it was handed over to him by God in Sir 45:5.21 In so doing, Ben Sira has irrefutably anchored the duties of

19 For the background and meaning of this collocation, see Noth, “Amt,” 311–4; Snijders,

‫מלא‬, 301–306. 20 The literary feature of the inverted quotation is circumstantially described by Beentjes, “Discovering,” 31–50. 21 Both in the Hebrew text and in the Versiones one comes upon attempts to harmonize Sir 45:5 and 45:17 with one another. It is not inconceivable that the legitimation of Aaron in Sir 45:17 was an argument for Ben Sira not to include Ezra into the Praise of the Ancestors, as in Ezra 7:10 it is said about Ezra: ‫וללמד בישראל חק ומשפט‬. See Höffken, “Warum;” Begg, “Ben Sira’s Non-Mention;” In Der Smitten, “Esra,” 69–74.

58

Pancratius C. Beentjes

the high priest in this manner: Aaron has received them from Moses (45:17), who for his part had received them directly from God (45:5). This finds support in the strong resemblance between 45:16a (‫ )ויבחר בו מכל חי‬and 45:4b (‫בחר‬ ‫ )בו מכל‬and in the use of the verb ‫ נגש‬in the hiphil in 45:5b (Moses) and 45:16c (Aaron). Against this background, it is quite understandable why Ben Sira from 45:15 onwards falls back on Num 16, the “classic” narrative about Korah, son of Levi, who brings up for discussion Aaron’s election by God stating that he also is entitled to lay claim to these priestly functions. It is beyond doubt that the death of Korah and his companions by fire is an unequivocal indication that YHWH has allotted the priesthood to Aaron. The intercession by Aaron (Num 17:6–15) and the narrative about the budding of Aaron’s rod (Num 17:16–26) radiate a similar intention. It is true that Ben Sira does not explicitly refer to Num 17 but it is generally accepted that he has recapitulated it in the first half of Sir 45:20: ‫]ויוס[ף לאהרן כבודו‬.22 And ‫ זרים‬at the opening of Sir 45:18a is, of course, a clear reference to Num 17:5: ‫איש זר עשר לא מזרע אהרן‬.23 In Sir 45:20bc–21, Ben Sira formulates a special interpretation of the charge given to Aaron regarding the offerings in Num 18:8–19. This particular passage from Numbers is remotely related to the narratives of Num 16–17 but Ben Sira connects it to these narratives in Sir 45:20bc–21 to explicitly bring forward an extra argument in favor of the special position of Aaron. It is hardly coincidental that the portrayal of Aaron is concluded with a proper reminiscence of Num 18:20, which by the way is the most extensive parallel in the Hebrew Bible found in the book of Ben Sira. Sir 45:22, however, is not entirely identical to Num 18:20. This is due to the nature of the wider context in which this passage has been included, viz., The Praise of the Ancestors (Sir 44–50). This summary and evaluation of the history of Israel is narrated in third person singular. This implies that the text of Num 18:20, in which God directly addresses Aaron in the second person singular, had to be adjusted for Sir 45:22 in order to fit the overall context.24

22 Smend, Weisheit, 434: “Nicht nur das Wunder von Num 17, sondern auch das Gesetz von Num 18 fasst der Verf. als weiteres Genugtuung für die dem Aharon angetane Unbill auf.” 23 Levi, L’Ecclésiastique, 102: “On voit bien ici que ‫ זרים‬signifie ‘laïques’,” 102; see also Ryssel, “Die Sprüche Jesus,” 455: ‘Laien’; Peters, Das Buch, 390: ‘‫ = זרים‬Nicht-aaroniden’; Reiterer, “Polyvalent,” 45: “An unauthorized person.” 24 Exceptions to this overall pattern are Sir 45:25c–26 and its almost identical Sir 50:22–23, as well as the apostrophe on Solomon (Sir 47:14–20) and on Elijah (48:5–10).

Ben Sira’s Portrayal of Aaron and Phinehas

59

3.3 Unique Collocations and their Function in Sir 45:6–22 The first part of the Aaron passage (45:6–14) is dominated by reminiscences of Exod 28 while the second part (45:15–22) is structured by Num 16–18. Each part contains a unique collocation that is highly important for a clear understanding of Ben Sira’s intention. In Sir 45:12, which is still grammatically subordinate to ‫ וילבישהו‬and ‫ ויפארהו‬in 45:8, we find the expression ‫עטרת פז‬, a crown of fine gold, that adorns Aaron. The same collocation is found in Ps 21:4 where, in a parallelism with “rich blessings,” it applies to the king. Before jumping to conclusions as to what meaning might be drawn from this similarity, it would be wise to discuss the other unique combination of lexemes. Sir 45:15d holds the collocation ‫“( כימי שמים‬as heavens endure”) which immediately calls Ps 89:30 to mind. What strikes one most is that this psalm too has an explicit royal purport: God’s covenant with David that his line and his throne will be established “as long as the heavens endure.” Both Sir 45:12a and Sir 45:15d, therefore, hold unique word combinations that refer to Aaron, the High Priest, whereas similar formulations are used in the Hebrew Bible in regard to the king and David. And so, the question presents itself whether in this Ben Sira passages we have parallels to these two biblical texts. First, it should be pointed out that in postexilic times the clothing of the High Priest is in part described similarly to the older royal regalia, as is convincingly demonstrated by Martin Noth.25 Second, the passage about Aaron and its immediate context contains a more direct answer to this question. For that reason, the lines about Phinehas (Sir 45:23–25d) must be taken into consideration.

4 Ben Sira 45:23–25 (The Passage on Phinehas) Just as in the portrayal of Aaron (Sir 45:6–22), the description of Phinehas is characterized by the “structural use of Scripture.” There can be no doubt whatsoever that the passage on Phinehas depends on Num 25:11–13. This is evident not only because of the literal parallel between Sir 45:23f and Num 25:13b (“he made expiation for the Israelites”) but equally from the vocabulary in Sir 45:23–24,

25 Noth, “Amt,” 316–22. There is, however, no mention by him of this Ben Sira passage.

60

Pancratius C. Beentjes

which is adopted from Num 25:11–13 (“to be zealous;” “covenant of peace;” “priesthood forever”).26 Sir 45:23–24 unfolds in a rather remarkable pattern. Each of its five bicola alternately consists of half a verse with vocabulary adopted from Num 25:11–13, followed by half a verse with Ben Sira’s own idiom, or the other way round. No doubt, here we encounter a very special kind of structural use of Scripture: a) b) c) d) e)

Sir 45:23a Sir 45:23b Sir 45:23c Sir 45:23d Sir 45:23e Sir 45:23f Sir 45:24a Sir 45:24b Sir 45:24c Sir 45:24d

Num 25:11a ---------------Num 25:13b ------------------------------Num 25:13b ---------------Num 25:12 ---------------Num 25:13a

“Phinehas, son of Eleazar” “zealous for his God”

“he made atonement for the Israelites” “covenant of peace” “priesthood forever”

A comparison with Num 25:6–15 shows that Ben Sira skipped almost any detail from the biblical text in his portrayal of Phinehas. Both the immediate cause of Phinehas’s action (Num 25:6–10) and its outcome (Num 25:14–16) are suppressed by Ben Sira. In so doing, Phinehas’s action is entirely outlined as a high priestly maneuver that brings about reconciliation for the Israelites. There are several indications that the passage on Phinehas (Sir 45:23–25) has to be read in connection with the section on Aaron (Sir 45:6–22). In particular, the following aspects are of interest: the mention of the name of Aaron in Sir 45:25d creates an inclusio with 45:6a, the opening of the Aaron passage. In the same verses, a second inclusio is built up with the help of the genealogical designations “from the tribe of Levi” (45:6) and “from the tribe of Judah” (45:25). This inclusio is especially emphasized since Ben Sira has deliberately omitted mention of the patronymic of Korah, “son of Levi,” as found in Num 16:1. Furthermore, the expression “(him) and his descendants” in Sir 45:15, 21 in the Aaron passage and 45:24 in the Phinehas section allows Ben Sira to prepare

26 This is increased in Sir 45:24d: “the high priesthood forever”! For various views of Phinehas in the Book of Ben Sira, see, e.g., Hayward, “Phinehas;” Janowski, “Psalm cvi;” Marttila, “Figure;” Fabry, “Pinhas-Bund;” Pomykala, “Covenant;” Funke, “Phinehas;” Don Chang, “Phineas,” 65–79.

Ben Sira’s Portrayal of Aaron and Phinehas

61

gradually and systematically for the climax of the state of flux given in the statement ‫( נחלת אהרן לכל זרעו‬Sir 45:25d). A first glance at the text proves that the passages on Aaron and on Phinehas are interconnected by the topic of “covenant.” In Sir 45:15, a ‫ ברית עולם‬with Aaron and his descendants is mentioned. This theme recurs in Sir 45:24 with the mention of a ‫ ברית שלום‬with Phinehas and his descendants, whereas in 45:25 a ‫ ברית עם דוד‬is mentioned: so that he [Phinehas] and his descendants should possess the high priesthood forever, but even His covenant with David, the son of Jesse from the tribe of Judah.

The fact that within the passage on Phinehas reference is made to the covenant with David is quite remarkable, the more so since Ben Sira in 47:1–12 discusses David at length. In Sir 47:1–12, however, it is noteworthy that David is selectively portrayed. His election is couched in a metaphor taken from the cult: “Like fat taken from the sacred offerings, so David from Israel” (Sir 47:2). The extensive way Ben Sira describes and extols David’s arrangement of the Jerusalem cult in 47:8–10 is quite striking. And in Sir 47:11, which states that “David’s horn has been exalted for ever and his throne has been established over Jerusalem,” the prophecy of Nathan plays no part whatsoever despite the fact that Nathan’s name is explicitly mentioned at the opening of Sir 47:1. The premature mention of David within the Phinehas passage (45:25) must have a special purpose because it is the only time in the Praise of the Ancestors that Ben Sira abandons a strict chronological presentation of Israel’s heroes. Elsewhere I have argued in detail that based on 45:25, Ben Sira has transferred God’s covenant with David to the high priestly family of Aaron, Phinehas, and his descendants.27 That intervention makes clear why Ben Sira “borrowed” some attributes and descriptions from the royal ambience and applied them to the high priest.

Conclusion Both the passage on Aaron in Sir 45:6–22 and the pericope on Phinehas in Sir 45:23–25 demonstrate that for Ben Sira the continuity in Israel’s history is safeguarded by the high priestly family of Aaron and the sacrificial cult. Even

27 Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach, 186–92; Beentjes, “Portrayals of David,” 167–73.

62

Pancratius C. Beentjes

God’s covenant with David has been made subservient to this theocratic pattern. In so doing, David looks more like a high priest than a king (47:1–10). To accentuate the special focus on Aaron and Phinehas, their portrayals are characterized by a special use of Scripture.28

Bibliography Beentjes, Pancratius C. Jesus Sirach en Tenach. Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6–26. Nieuwegein: Selbstverlag, 1981. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Portrayals of David in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature.” Pages 165–81 in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. DCLY 2008. Edited by Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 57–78 in Intertextual Explorations in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Geoffrey David Miller. DCLS 31. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted Quotations and Their Dynamics.” Pages 31–50 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L.J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “With All Your Soul Fear the Lord” (Sir 7:27). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira II. CBET 87. Louvain: Peeters, 2017. Begg, Christopher. “Ben Sirach’s Non-mention of Ezra.” BN 42 (1988): 14–18. van den Born, Adrianus. Wijsheid van Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). Roermond: Romen & Zonen, 1968. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Le vesti di Aronne, simbolo cultuale (Sir 45, 6–22).” Parola, Spirito e Vita 60 (2009): 69–81. Don Chang, Dongshin. Phineas, the Sons of Zadok, and Melchizedek. Priestly Covenant in Late Second Temple Texts. LSTS 90. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2016. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “Jesus Sirach und das Priestertum.” Pages 265–82 in Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. Festschrift für Johannes Marböck. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer, Ursula Rapp and Johannes Schiller. BZAW 331. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiose Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967. Höffken, Peter. “Warum schwieg Jesus Sirach über Esra?.” ZAW 87 (1975): 184–202. In Der Smitten, Wilhelm. Esra. Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte. SSN 15. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973. Koch, Klaus. Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16. FRLANT 71. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.

28 I would like to thank Rev. Dr. Francis Macatangay, University of St. Thomas School of Theology in Houston, Texas, for his generous help with English.

Ben Sira’s Portrayal of Aaron and Phinehas

63

Lévi, Israel. L’Ecclésiastique; ou, La sagesse de Jé sus, fils de Sira. Texte original hé breu. Paris: Leroux, 1898. Noth, Martin. “Amt und Berufung im Alten Testament.” Pages 309–33 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 6. München: Kaiser, 1966. Olyan, Saul M. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” HThR 80 (1987): 261–86. Patte, Daniel. Early Jewish Hermeneutics in Palestine. SBLDS 22. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. Peters, Norbert. “Zur Strophik des Ecclesiasticus.” ThQ 82 (1900): 180–93. Peters, Norbert. Der jüngst wiederaufgefundene hebräische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus. Freiburg: Herder, 1902. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Reiterer, Friedrich V. »Urtext« und Übersetzungen. Sprachstudie über Sir 44,16–45,26 als Beitrag zur Sirachforschung. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 12. St. Ottilien: Eos, 1980. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Aaron’s Polyvalent Role according to Ben Sira.” Pages 27–56 in Rewriting Biblical History. Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Der Pentateuch in der spätbiblischen Weisheit Ben Siras.” Pages 160– 475. Edited by Eckart Otto and Jury Le Roux. Altes Testament und Moderne 20. Münster: LIT, 2005. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “The Influence of the Book of Exodus on Ben Sira.” Pages 100–17 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Ryssel, Victor. “Die Sprüche Jesus, des Sohnes Sirachs.” Pages 230–475 in Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. Vol 1. Edited by Emil Kautsch. Darmstad: Mohr Siebeck, 1900. Roth, Cecil. “Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service.” JBL 71 (1952): 171–78. Schmidt, A. Jordan. Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus in the Book of Ben Sira. DCLS 42. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019. Skelton, David A. “Ben Sira’s Imaginative Theodicy: Reflections on the Aaronic Priesthood under Gentile Rule.” ResQ 51 (2009): 1–12. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Snaith, John G. “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of Liturgy.” VT 25 (1975): 164–74. Snijders, L. A. “‫ מלא‬mālē’.” TDOT VIII: 297–308. Wright, Benjamin G. III. “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors.” Pages 183–207 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime‘on Centre, Papa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJS 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Wright, Benjamin G. III. “Ben Sira and the Book of the Watchers on the Legitimate Priesthood.” Pages 241–54 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005.

Benjamin G. Wright III

“Do Not Defraud the Life of the Poor”: Notes on the Greek of Sir 4:1–10 Abstract: In Sir 4:1–10, a broad commentary on the covenantal responsibilities articulated in Exod 22:22–23, Lev 19:9–10, 23:22 (poor), Deut 15:7–11 (poor), and 24:17–22 (widows and orphans), Ben Sira gives advice on how to treat those less fortunate than his students. The Hebrew and the Greek (also the Syriac and Latin where relevant) provide revealing examples of how they relate to each other. This article analyzes the versions for each verse to see how they understand and represent the thought of Ben Sira. Keywords: Sir 4:1–10, the poor, the afflicted, translation, relationship with parent text

Introduction In this short poem, Ben Sira instructs his charges on how to treat the most vulnerable persons they will encounter: the poor, the hungry and needy, orphans, and widows.1 While Israel’s wisdom traditions certainly paid attention to such people – and we can see vocabulary and ideas in this passage that occur in other wisdom or hymnic contexts, especially in Proverbs and Psalms – the density of the references in this short poem suggests that Ben Sira is commenting more broadly on the covenantal responsibilities of his students to marginalized Jews articulated in passages such as Exod 22:22–23 (widows and orphans), Lev 19:9–10, 23:22 (poor), Deut 15:7–11 (poor), Deut 24:17–22 (widows and orphans).2 Several studies have discussed Ben Sira’s teaching with respect to the social justice and pedagogical/theological implications of Ben Sira’s teaching in these verses.3 In this short essay, I offer some notes on the relationship of the Greek

1 On the delimitation of the poem in 4:1–10, see Zapella, “Povertà,” 233, and Beentjes, “Waisen,” 35–36. For 3:30–4:10 as the boundary, see Jensen, “Social Justice,” 77–78. 2 Some of the Pentateuchal passages also concern the alien or sojourner (‫ גר‬rendered by πάροικος/προσήλυτος); Ben Sira barely mentions them, however (10:22 [‫גר‬/προσήλυτος]; 29:26, 27 [πάροικος, no extant Hebrew, here meaning “guest” rather than “alien/sojourner”]). 3 See especially Jensen, “Social Justice,” ch. 2, and Gregory, Signet Ring, 261–70 and the literature they cite. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-006

66

Benjamin G. Wright III

and the Hebrew (and Syriac where relevant) versions in order to see how the Greek translator, who identifies himself as Ben Sira’s grandson, approached his translation and how he understood his Hebrew parent text.4 Sirach 4:1–10 4:15

‫בני אל תלעג לחיי עני ואל תדאיב נפש עני ומר נפש‬

My son, do not mock the life of the poor, and do not make the soul of the poor languish, nor one bitter of soul. Τέκνον, τὴν ζωὴν τοῦ πτωχοῦ μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς καὶ μὴ παρελκύσῃς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐπιδεεῖς. Child, the life of the poor do not defraud, and do not put off needy eyes.

In 1a, Gk word order is inverted from Ms A, producing an a:b:b:a pattern. Syr follows Heb, which suggests this rearrangement in Gk is stylistic (but see v. 2 where Gk follows the Hebrew in this pattern).6 The grandson does not seem to understand the verb ‫( תלעג‬mock, deride), even though it occurs with some frequency in Hebrew, particularly in Prov 17:5, a passage that has a close resemblance to Ms A.7 The translator of Proverbs has rendered the verb with κατα-

4 I focus here mostly on Gk and Syr, since both are translations of a Hebrew parent text. La was made from a Greek parent text and generally follows it, expanding it frequently. As a result, I will not comment on La with any frequency. This essay also is not a text-critical assessment of the Hebrew but rather one focusing on the Greek translation and the grandson’s approach. I accept the text of Ms A with appropriate corrections and emendations as the putative parent text with the understanding that it likely is not identical to that which the grandson used, since it can be shown not to preserve the parent text in a number of instances. Close examination of Ms A allows us to make some conclusions about what that Greek parent text probably looked like, however. For a similar kind of study and the justification for this approach, see Wright “Sirach 10.1–18.” For a general discussion of the grandson’s approach to his Hebrew parent text, see Wright, No Small Difference. 5 The Greek text comes from Joseph Ziegler’s Göttingen critical edition and the Hebrew text I transcribed from the photographs of Ms A at bensira.org, supplemented from Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira and the transcriptions given on the bensira.org website. For the Syriac text, see Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, La Sabiduría/Wisdom, 76–79. The translation of the Greek comes from my translation of Sirach in Pietersma and Wright, New English Translation. The Hebrew is my own translation. I have translated the Hebrew as it stands in Ms A and not a reconstructed Hebrew text, such as one finds in Jensen, “Social Justice,” 66–7, and Gregory, Signet Ring, 261. Critical notes on any reconstruction or emendations that bear on the Gk parent text will be found in the discussion of each verse. Throughout, I employ the abbreviations Heb = Hebrew of Ms A, Gk = Greek translation, Syr = Syriac translation, La = Latin translation of Gk. 6 La exegetes with “alms” in place of “life.” 7 The verb occurs here and in 31:22, a complex passage in which the verb looks to be part of a doublet and is not translated into Greek.

“Do Not Defraud the Life of the Poor”: Notes on the Greek of Sir 4:1–10

67

γελάω, to mock, deride, or laugh at. Ms A at 4:1b and 2a, which are clearly corrupt as they stand, present a difficult text. For 1b, Gk presupposes something like ‫ואל תדאיב עיני מר נפש‬, which would involve a confusion of waw and yod along with a metathesis of nun and yod.8 If it approximates the parent text, the grandson has taken a contextual stab at ‫ תדאיב‬and has exegetically rendered “needy” for the one who has a “bitter soul.”9 Syr also renders 1b contextually: “and do not vex the poor and dim (? ). 4:2

‫נפ ש‬

10

‫ך‬ ‫וה נפש חסירה אל תפוח ואל תתעלם‬‫ד‬

A faint person lacking breath do not expire, and do not hide from a wounded person. ψυχὴν πεινῶσαν μὴ λυπήσῃς καὶ μὴ παροργίσῃς ἄνδρα ἐν ἀπορίᾳ αὐτοῦ. A hungry soul do not grieve, and do not anger a man in his difficulty.

Sir 4:2a continues the difficulty from 1b. Scholars are divided on whether to read the first consonant of ‫וה‬‫ ד‬as a daleth or resh. An examination of the manuscript makes it clear that it is a daleth.11 Based on both Gk and Syr, however, the word appears to be a corruption that was not in the parent text of either version. Syr follows Ms A closely, ‫ ܕ‬. Gk, then, understands the needy soul as one who is hungry, again rendering contextually, perhaps giving more focus to the person in need of 2b. Gk, followed by La, has read the verb of 1a in a metaphorical sense (cf. Job 31:39).12 Syr renders “cause to suffer” (‫ܒ‬‫)ܬ‬. Both Gk and Syr have a different word order from Ms A in 2b. Rather than having their equivalents for ‫( נפש‬ἄνδρα; ‫)ܪܘ‬, which they interpret differently, at the end of the colon, they both place it as the object directly following the verb. Syr’s “spirit of a broken person” comes closer to Ms A than Gk’s “a person in his difficulty/need.” If Ms A represents the vocabulary of the

 Thus, the text of Ms A can help us approximate Gk’s Vorlage. For a detailed discussion of the Hebrew text, see Gregory, Signet Ring, 296–97.  See 31:4 where the adjective renders ‫צריך‬. Again, La contextually renders, “Do not turn your eyes away from the poor.”  Many commentators read ‫י‬ in Ms A (1r:22) but I agree with Beentjes (“Waisen,” 38– 39) that the manuscript has a final kaph here. This last clause is usually given as v. 4a but since it clearly goes with the two previous clauses, I have presented it as part of v. 3.  See the discussion in Beentjes, “Waisen,” 37–38. See also Rey, “Le manuscript A,” 37, who reads daleth and notes that the segol here is not vocalization but an indication of dittography.  The question is whether Gk read the verb as from the root nun-peh-ḥet or from peh-wawḥet, which would suggest a confusion of yod and waw by a medieval scribe (Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 166).

68

Benjamin G. Wright III

parent text, Gk might not have understood the participle and rendered it based on context.13 4:3 14

‫( אל תמנע מתן ממסכינך‬4a) ‫אל ]תחמיר[ מעי דך וקרב עני אל תכאיב‬

Do not disturb the belly of the oppressed and the entrails of the poor do not inflict with pain. (4a) Do not withhold a gift from your poor. καρδίαν παρωργισμένην μὴ προσταράξῃς καὶ μὴ παρελκύσῃς δόσιν προσδεομένου. An angry heart do not trouble, and do not delay giving to one in need.

The first two clauses in 3a in Ms A transmit a doublet. Which, if either, served as the parent text of Gk? Syr offers no help, since it looks like an amalgamation of both.15 This verse is the only occurrence in Sirach of καρδία, where there is a clear Hebrew equivalent that does not translate ‫לבב‬/‫לב‬. Elsewhere in the extant Hebrew, where either ‫ קרב‬or ‫ מעה‬occurs, the equivalent is κοιλία (40:30, 51:21). Bradley Gregory points out that in the LXX καρδία translates ‫ קרב‬but not ‫מעה‬. His argument that the first clause originated as a marginal gloss and subsequently moved into the text makes sense, and I take the second clause as the presumptive parent text of Gk.16 Even so, if 3b formed the parent text, the grandson has rendered it contextually, abandoning the equivalent of ‫ עני‬with πτωχός of 4:1 and resuming the thought from 2b, so that we have “Do not anger a person in his need. A heart that is angry, do not provoke further,” which are tied together in another a:b:b:a pattern. Gk continues with a general reference to someone who is needy rather than poor, as Heb has it, which also connects the thought of vv. 2–3. Thus, the grandson’s lexical differentiation reflects an exegetical approach that relates these verses to each other. 4:4–5

‫( ולא תתן לו מקום לקללך‬5) ‫( ולא תבזה שאולות דל‬4b)

(4b) And do not despise the requests of the oppressed, (5) and do not give him an opportunity to curse you.

13 Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 163, suggest that the verb παροργίσῃς is an inner-Greek corruption of παρίδῃς (cf. its use in 2:10; 7:10; 8:8) based on the meaning of the Hebrew but I do not see this as necessary in light of the way that the grandson seems to be tying the thought of vv. 2–3 together. This suggestion serves also as part of the explanation for the textual difficulty in vv. 4–5 (see below). 14 The final kaph does not appear in any of the versions and is corrupt in this place. See Gregory, Signet Ring, 299. 15 It reflects vocabulary from both clauses. See Gregory, Signet Ring, 298. 16 See the discussion in Gregory, Signet Ring, 298–99. For a different conclusion, see Jensen, “Social Justice,” 72.

“Do Not Defraud the Life of the Poor”: Notes on the Greek of Sir 4:1–10

(4) (5) (4) (5)

69

ἱκέτην θλιβόμενον μὴ ἀπαναίνου καὶ μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἀπὸ πτωχοῦ. ἀπὸ δεομένου μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς ὀφθαλμὸν καὶ μὴ δῷ ς τόπον αὐτῷ καταράσασθαί σε· A suppliant in distress, do not keep rejecting, and do not turn your face away from the poor. From the one who begs, do not turn away an eye, and do not give him occasion to curse you.

Because Gk has double the cola in these verses compared to Ms A and the resolution involves both verses, I discuss them together. The primary issue for my discussion is which lines of Gk go with the Hebrew of Ms A as the presumed parent text. The problem resides in this case on the Greek side. To begin with, 4b is almost verbatim with Tob 4:7, and it probably intruded into the Greek text as a result of its reflection of Prov 19:17 and Deut 15:7–11.17 V. 5a glosses the thought of 5b, bringing it into close association with Prov 28:27, and also looks to be secondary.18 If we compare 4a and 5b to the Hebrew, in 4a the grandson again reverses the word order of verb and object as he has in other verses, creating another mini a:b:b:a pattern. In Gk of 5b, we see a slight word order shift with the indirect object as compared to Heb. The main difference in these verses comes in the grandson’s rendering of 4a. The verb ἀπαναίνομαι occurs in two other places in Ben Sira: 6:23 for which there is no corresponding Hebrew and 41:4 where it translates the root mem-aleph-sameḥ. On the other hand, the root mem-nun-ayin occurs nine times in the extant Hebrew texts, and the grandson differentiates lexically, translating the Hebrew root by a different Greek verb each time. The same is true of the verb θλίβω, which occurs five times. The adjective ἱκέτης occurs only here in Sirach. As in v. 3, the grandson seems to broaden the focus on the poor in Heb to anyone who is needy or marginalized. This approach epitomizes the grandson’s approach to the entirety of 4:1–10, which breaks into two sections, vv. 1–6 and 7–10. As the grandson has rendered them, both sections begin with the poor and then move to other marginalized or oppressed persons, making the two sections reflect each other

17 See Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 166, and Gregory, Signet Ring, 299–300. 18 Gregory, Signet Ring, 299. Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 163, suggest that these lines “may be two separate attempts to repair the inner-Greek corruption in 2b.” Since I do not think there is an inner-Greek corruption in 2b, I find it more likely that these glosses attempt to bring the text closer to an emphasis on the poor specifically, which begins the section in v. 1. Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 166, note the relationship to Proverbs, although they retain the two extra cola in their translation as authentic. Syr has two cola in agreement with Ms A.

70

Benjamin G. Wright III

structurally.19 Heb does not have that parallel structure; 4:1–6 focuses on the poor, but 4:7–10 starts with the poor then transitions to marginalized and oppressed persons.20 4:6

‫צועק מר רוח בכאב נפשו ובקול צעקתו ישמע צורו‬

The one bitter in spirit who cries out in the pain of his being and in the voice of his cry his Rock will hear. καταρωμένου γάρ σε ἐν πικρίᾳ ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ τῆς δεήσεως αὐτοῦ ἐπακούσεται ὁ ποιήσας αὐτόν. For if one curses you in bitterness of his soul, the one who made him will hear his petition.

Both Gk and Syr interpret ‫ צועק‬as one who curses, intensifying it in keeping with the end of v. 5. Neither version employs the language of Exod 22:22–23 and Deut 15:13–15 as does Ms A, where the poor, widows, and orphans cry out about their mistreatment. Gk and Syr also take different approaches to 6a as a whole. The conjunction in Gk connects v. 6 to v. 5.21 It keeps the addressee as the object of the cursing in keeping with the end of v. 5 and the grandson renders the entire verse as one sentence beginning with a genitive absolute, since 6a in Hebrew has no finite verb. As a result, the grandson does not render, ‫מר רוח‬, the main actor in 6a, perhaps treating it as a doublet of ‫ בכאב‬or simply ignoring it altogether because of his stylistic adaptations. Syr intensifies the entire colon and also seems to combine ‫ מר רוח‬and ‫בכאב‬: “he curses due to the bitterness () of his entire soul.” In 6b, Gk makes “the voice of his cry” a petition to God, who will hear it, in the same vein as Exod 22. Syr follows Ms A. Both Gk and Syr, however, refer to God as creator (ὁ ποιήσας αὐτόν; ) and not “Rock” as in Ms A. Several commentators suggest that Ms A’s ‫ צורו‬was corrupted from ‫יוצרו‬, which is graphically similar, and this seems an easy scribal mistake to make.22

 See the brief comments on literary structure in Zappella, “Povertá,” 232–33.  Jensen, Social Justice, 72, notes that the change in the Hebrew verbs to indicative with ‫לא‬ in 4a is not matched by Gk and that there was a waw-yod confusion in ‫שאולות‬. The grandson does shift the mode of the verb in 4a from the previous subjunctives to the imperative but only once. In 5b, he returns to the subjunctive mode. On structure in Heb, see also Beentjes, “Waisen,” 40.  See Gregory, Signet Ring, 300.  See, for example, Smend, Weisheit, 37, and Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 163. Jensen, “Social Justice,” 73, wants to retain Ms A’s reading, but see the critique in Gregory, Signet Ring, 301.

“Do Not Defraud the Life of the Poor”: Notes on the Greek of Sir 4:1–10

4:7

‫ראש‬

24

‫הכאף‬

23

71

‫האהב לנפשך לעדה ולשלטון עיר‬

Make yourself beloved to the assembly, and to the authority of a city bow (your) head. προσφιλῆ συναγωγῇ σεαυτὸν ποίει, καὶ μεγιστᾶνι ταπείνου τὴν κεφαλήν σου. Make yourself beloved to a gathering, and for a nobleman bow your head.

In 7a, the grandson correctly understands the Hebrew hiphil imperative, but he places the verb at the end of the clause, when it could as easily have come at the beginning.25 He also shows sensitivity to the meaning of the Hebrew ‫נפשך‬ as a reflexive, something he does not evince in other cases. See, for example, 4:22, 9:2, or 9:6, where the grandson renders the same reflexive woodenly as ψυχή σου. It is not immediately clear why he renders some of these cases idiomatically but not others. In light of 7b, συναγωγή likely refers to the assembly of the city. Elsewhere in Sirach, συναγωγή frequently translates ‫ עדה‬in its general sense of “assembly” (see 16:6; 41:18: 45:18: 46:14).26 In 7b, the grandson likely had ‫ עיר‬in his parent text as did Syr, but he chose to broaden the sense to any person of a high social status, creating a general admonition about “political” behavior. The singular μεγιστᾶνι reflects Heb; Syr retains the reference to the city but has the plural “rulers” (‫ ܕ‬̈ ). 4:8

‫הט לעני אזנך והשיבהו שלום בענוה‬

Incline your ear to the poor, and return to him peace with humility. κλῖνον πτωχῷ τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἀποκρίθητι αὐτῷ εἰρηνικὰ ἐν πραΰτητι. Incline your ear to the poor, and answer him peaceably with gentleness.

 An examination of the photograph of Ms A at bensira.org shows the word to be ‫ עיר‬not ‫ עוד‬as some scholars have it. The small blot of ink that makes the resh appear as if it could be a daleth does not look to have been written as part of that letter. How it got there is uncertain. Perhaps a slip of the scribe’s pen? The middle letter is clearly a yod, in my opinion. See also Beentjes, “Waisen,” 39, and Rey, “Le manuscrit A,” 38.  Rey, “Le manuscrit A,” 39, calls the orthography here “surprendre.” He cites Segal, who thinks it either a hiphil of ‫כוף‬/‫ כאף‬or a scriptio plena of a non-attested hiphil of ‫כפף‬.  The reason is not clear since this change does not create the kind of a:b:b:a pattern that we saw above.  I am not convinced that the grandson is referring to “the ethnic assemblies that were becoming centers of Jewish social life, identity, culture, and prayer in Gentile cities,” as Jensen (“Social Justice,” 74) comments. The term is used in a more general sense in Sirach, as I have indicated here.

72

Benjamin G. Wright III

In this verse, the grandson returns to the equivalence of πτωχός for ‫ עני‬with which he began in 4:1. He does not attempt to preserve the word play of the Hebrew ‫ עני‬and ‫ענוה‬. Elsewhere in Sirach where there is a clear Hebrew equivalent, πραΰς and πραΰτης render ‫ענוה‬. The grandson has rendered 8b in a wordfor-word manner, which is not especially characteristic of his method in this section. Some scholars have claimed that ‫ והשיבהו שלום‬should be read as “return a greeting to him” and that the grandson has misunderstood it.27 Pancratius Beentjes argues that the phrase must have a “deeper sense” than simply a greeting, since the usual phrase for a greeting is ‫( שאל שלום‬cf. Sir 6:5; 41:21) and in this context it occurs in combination with the idea of humility, an important theme throughout Sirach.28 I think he is correct in this interpretation since the two clauses in Hebrew act in concert to activate the behaviors of 4:9–10.29 Gregory observes a progression in vv. 8–9: “actively give attention to the needs of the poor (v. 8a), engage him (v. 8b), and come to his aid to deliver him from the oppressor (v. 9a).”30 Whichever sense ‫ והשיבהו שלום‬has, the grandson read and rendered the entire verse in a holistic manner; the addressee listens to the pleas of the poor and then replies to them with “peaceful things” (εἰρηνικά) that express empathy and that motivate the behaviors encouraged in 4:9–10. 4:9

‫הושע מוצק ממציקיו ואל תקוץ רוחך במשפט יושר‬

Deliver the oppressed from those who oppress him, and do not let your spirit loathe just judgment. ἐξελοῦ ἀδικούμενον ἐκ χειρὸς ἀδικοῦντος καὶ μὴ ὀλιγοψυχήσῃς ἐν τῷ κρίνειν σε. Deliver the wronged from the hand of the wrongdoer, and do not be faint-hearted when you render judgment.

For 9a, the grandson has understood the meaning pretty well, although he interprets the Hebrew verb in the sense of “wronged” or “injured” rather than oppressed, an equivalence that also occurs in 35:16. Gk does not retain the possessive pronoun, which it has in 2b and 6a. One might expect the semiticizing phrase ἐκ χειρός to translate the Hebrew prepositional phrase ‫מיד‬, as it does elsewhere in Sirach (27:19; 50:12; 51:13; see also, ἐν χειρὸς or εἰς χειρὸς, which

27 See, for example, Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 167 28 Beentjes, “Waisen,” 41–44 (“tieferen Sinn”). 29 Gregory, Signet Ring, 266, reads the Hebrew as a greeting but also notes, “It is not simply an exchange of pleasantries, but involves an active engagement with the person with the intent to help him.” 30 Gregory, Signet Ring, 266.

“Do Not Defraud the Life of the Poor”: Notes on the Greek of Sir 4:1–10

73

almost always translate ‫)ביד‬. Despite the lack of the phrase in Ms A or Syr – they have the simple preposition – I suspect that the parent text of Gk had ‫מיד‬.31 In 9b, the grandson seems to have stumbled a bit with the overall meaning of “Do not let your spirit loathe just judgment,” particularly the phrase ‫תקוץ‬ ‫רוחך‬.32 The grandson’s rendering of that phrase as ὀλιγοψυχήσῃς appears to have determined how he rendered the second half of the clause, causing him to ignore ‫ יושר‬at the end.33 The verb ὀλιγοψυχέω occurs only one other time in Sirach, at 7:10, where it makes a more contextually appropriate rendering of the root qof-tsade-resh, a similarity that suggests the possibility that he misread his parent text here, if Ms A preserves it. So, although 9b in Gk results in a sensible meaning, it seems to result from the grandson’s struggle with the Hebrew of that colon. 4:10

‫היה כאב ליתומים ותמור בעל לאלמנות ואל יקראך בן ויחנך ויצילך משחת‬

Be as a father to orphans and instead of a husband to widows, and God will call you a son, and he will show favor to you, and deliver you from the pit. γίνου ὀρφανοῖς ὡς πατὴρ καὶ ἀντὶ ἀνδρὸς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτῶν· καὶ ἔσῃ ὡς υἱὸς ὑψίστου, καὶ ἀγαπήσει σε μᾶλλον ἢ μήτηρ σου. Be like a father to orphans and instead of a husband to their mother, and you will be like a son of the Most High, and he will love you more than does your mother.

This verse presents several obstacles to understanding the grandson’s approach to the Hebrew. Gk has four cola where Ms A has five. Vv. 4a and b are relatively straightforward. Heb takes the traditional categories of marginalized persons, orphans and widows, and makes them parallel responsibilities for the student – like a father to orphans and in the place of a husband to widows. Gk takes the two lines as connected with each other in a familial relationship – father, mother, children – and assumes that the widow in Hebrew is the mother of the orphans of 4a. In 4c, Gk and Syr take a different approach to Heb. If the student performs these responsibilities, the Genizah manuscript says, “He [i.e., God] will call you a son.” Both Gk and Syr make a more modest claim, that the student will be “like a son” (Gk, ὡς υἱός; Syr,  ‫)ܐ‬, also address-

 Gregory, Signet Ring, 301, gives this as a possible Hebrew parent text.  Note the nice word play in Hebrew between the root tsade-waw-qof in 9a and qof-wawtsade in 9b.  Jensen, “Social Justice,” 75, thinks ‫ יושר‬is a gloss that came into Ms A via Syr. I think, however, that the grandson’s approach to the verse as a whole can account just as well for its absence from Gk.

74

Benjamin G. Wright III

ing the student as “you.” This agreement in the simile between Gk and Syr and the change of both subject and verb could have resulted from either a different parent text or an independent move on their parts to avoid the directness of Heb. Given that the parenthood of God appears with relative frequency throughout the Hebrew scriptures and, at least theoretically, should not pose a theological problem, I am inclined to think on the basis of the close agreement of the two versions that their parent text differed from Ms A.34 The rendering of ‫ אל‬by ὓψιστος (Syr, ‫ )ܐ‬falls within the grandson’s usual practice for naming God; he employs this term on a regular basis for ‫אל‬, ‫ עליון‬and the tetragrammaton (cf., for example, ‫ אל‬at 7:15, 9:15, 12:6, 33:15, 37:15, 36:2; ‫עליון‬ at 41:8, 42:2, 42:18, 43:2; and the tetragrammaton at 43:2 and perhaps 9:15 in a misreading). The major problem of 4:10 is that all the versions differ in 10d.35 Both Gk and Syr have one less clause than Ms A, neither representing ‫ויצילך משחת‬, which I presume was not in the parent text of either. As it stands, 10d begins with the conjunction and a verb with an object. Syr has “he will have mercy on you” ( ‫)ܘ‬, which could easily be an interpretive rendering of ‫ויחנך‬. In Sirach, the verb ἀγαπάω renders the Hebrew root aleph-heh-bet in the vast majority of cases. In fact, we find only three possible exceptions: 6:33 where Ms A has the verb ‫ תובה‬from the root aleph-bet-heh, which could be corrupt in the Hebrew or was misread by the grandson; 7:21 where Mss A and D have ‫חבב‬ (Ms C has the secondary ‫ ;)אהוב‬and 31:5 where Ms B reads ‫רודף‬. The grandson employs ἀγαπάω four times in 4:12, 14, and perhaps those verses influenced the rendering in 4:10.36 In any case, I agree with Gregory that the verb in Ms A could well have been the grandson’s parent text since there is at least some

 Most commentators take Ms A as the best text, which would make Gk and Syr independent interpretive renderings. Smend, Weisheit, 38, writes that Gk rejects the image of the Heb and rewrites it: “Gr., der an dem starken Ausdruck Austoss nimmt, umschreibt.” Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 163, Gregory, Signet Ring, 303, and Jensen, “Social Justice,” 67, all make it part of their text without much comment. I think the evidence of Syr needs to be brought into the discussion since, like Gk, it not only has the simile but also has the subject and verb change. Beentjes, “Waisen,” 44, does cite Syr but only comments that both Gk and Syr weaken the Hebrew text to the level of a simile.  I take 4:10d to include the entirety of ‫ויחנך ויצילך משחת‬. Commentators are divided on what constitutes the “best” text. See Gregory, Signet Ring, 303, who argues for the Hebrew of Ms A. Skehan and Di Lella, Ben Sira, 163, and Jensen, “Social Justice,” 76–77, accept the text of Gk. My interest here is to determine, if possible, the parent text of Gk in order to understand the grandson’s approach.  Ms A has the root aleph-heh-bet twice in 4:12 but 4:14b is incomprehensible and certainly corrupt. See Rey, “Le manuscript A,” 40.

“Do Not Defraud the Life of the Poor”: Notes on the Greek of Sir 4:1–10

75

overlap in the semantic ranges of the Greek and Hebrew verbs.37 The additional Greek phrase μᾶλλον ἢ μήτηρ σου is baffling. Jensen suggests that the Hebrew parent text of Gk had ‫ מאמך‬and that the phrase perhaps fell out of an early manuscript that would have acted as the parent text of Syr. Later, a scribe tried to repair the problematic Hebrew on the basis of Job 22:24. This reconstruction accounts for the present state of Ms A and both translations.38 It is as good a suggestion as any. Since the grandson of Ben Sira does not tend to add translation elements beyond single words or some clarifications, I presume that he had a Hebrew parent text like ‫מאמך‬.

Conclusion In most cases in Sir 4:1–10, the Hebrew text of Ms A provides the parent text of the Greek, or we can make a reasonable inference of the parent text on the basis of Ms A. As a general rule, the grandson translates at the level of the word or phrase, and yet, 4:1–10 is in no way a simple word-for-word translation. The grandson introduces his own emphases both in the larger structure and in the smaller details, such as lexical choice or word order, and he does not seem bound to follow his parent text closely. So, for example, he creates a parallel set of concerns in vv. 1–6 and 7–10, beginning with concern for the poor and then broadening out to other marginalized or oppressed persons. In his approach to his Hebrew parent text, the grandson illustrates how the translator performs “the crucial role of cultural go-between,” to use the words of Lawrence Venuti.39 The grandson tells us in his prologue that he translates Ben Sira’s Hebrew into Greek “for those living abroad if they wish to become learned, preparing their character to live by the law.” In doing so, he accomplishes the translator’s task as one who creates “an entirely new set of resonances and allusions designed to imitate the source text, while making it comprehensible to a reader who is proficient in the translating language and immersed in the translating culture.”40 To take one example, whereas the phrase ‫ שלטון עיר‬in v. 6 probably refers to a member of the city’s ruler class, the grandson under-

37 Gregory, Signet Ring, 302. 38 Jensen, “Social Justice,” 76. Jensen opts for Gk and reconstructs a Hebrew text accordingly, arguing that the colon presents a feminine image of God, which the grandson would have been unlikely to add on his own. Gregory, Signet Ring, 303, notes that the passage does not really portray God as feminine and opts for Ms A’s text. 39 Venuti, Translation, 110. 40 Venuti, Translation, 110.

76

Benjamin G. Wright III

stood that one needs to show proper deference to anyone of higher social station, and expanded the sense of the colon accordingly. In this he “imitates” his source text, and at the same time introduces “new sets of resonances and allusions.” What his motivation was for crafting these different resonances and allusions we do not know. Perhaps he was addressing the new social and cultural world he found upon his arrival in Egypt or perhaps he simply thought he was making something good even better. Who knows? Before we can try to imaginatively suggest why he translated as he did, we need to describe as best we can what the translator produced and the ways that he re-inscribed his parent text in the target language. Such close examination of Ben Sira and its versions enables us to see more clearly how the grandson transformed the text for those who would read it in a different language in order that they might “become learned, preparing their character to live by the law” (Prologue, ll. 34– 36).41

Bibliography Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Sei den Waisen wie ein Vater und den Witwen wie eine Gatte. Ein Kleiner Kommentar zu Ben Sira 4,1–10.” Pages 35–47 in Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. La Sabiduría del Escriba/Wisdom of the Scribe. Estella (Navarra): Editorial Verbo Divino, 2003. Gregory, Bradley C. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Ben Sira. DCLS 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Jensen, Joseph E. “Ben Sira’s Teaching on Social Justice.” PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, 2005. Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. [NETS] Rendsburg, Gary A. and Jacob Binstein. “The Book of Ben Sira.” URL: bensira.org. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. “Sagesses hébraïques de l’epoque hellénistique. Éditions, traductions, commentaires, perspectives historique et linguistiques. Tome 2. Le manuscript A de Ben Sira. Édition critique, traduction et notes paléographiques et philologiques.” Habilitation diss., University of Strasbourg, 2012. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906.

41 I am honored to be part to this volume honoring Núria Calduch-Benages, a friend of many years who has contributed so much to our knowledge of the book of Ben Sira.

“Do Not Defraud the Life of the Poor”: Notes on the Greek of Sir 4:1–10

77

Venuti, Lawrence. Translation Changes Everything: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2013. Wright, Benjamin G. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text. SBLSCS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Wright, Benjamin G. “Sirach 10.1–18: Some Observations on the Work of the Translator.” Pages 163–88 in Texts and Contexts of the Book of Ben Sira/Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches. Edited by Gerhard Karner, Frank Ueberschaer and Burkard M. Zapff. SBLSCS 66. Atlanta: SBL, 2017. Zapella, Marco. “‘E ti amerà più di tua madre’: Povertà e Sapienza nelle versione di Sir 4,1– 10.” Pages 223–38 in Logos. Corso di studi biblici. IV. Sapientiali e altri. Edited by F. Mosetto. Turin, 1997. Ziegler, Joseph. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. XII/2. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Part II: Ben Sira in Conversation with the Prophets

Jeremy Corley

Ben Sira and Ezekiel Abstract: This essay explores connections between Ben Sira and Ezekiel, beginning with the brief mention of the prophet in Sir 49:8–9, which refers to his inaugural chariot vision (Ezek 1:4–28) and his subsequent mention of Job (Ezek 14:14, 20). Two Ben Sira passages (Sir 46:12; 49:10) mention the revival of bones, which may be an allusion to Ezekiel’s vision of national restoration symbolized by the resuscitation of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1–14). Finally, the motif of water flowing out from the Jerusalem temple in Sir 24:30–31 echoes Ezek 47:1–12 within an authorial self-reference in the sage’s great wisdom poem. Interestingly, the Qumran Pseudo-Ezekiel manuscripts refer to several of the same Ezekiel texts alluded to by Ben Sira. Keywords: Ben Sira, Ezekiel, Job, allusion, inaugural chariot vision, national restoration, sanctification of God’s name, Qumran Pseudo-Ezekiel

This exploration of connections between a sage and a prophet concentrates on Ben Sira’s allusions to five Ezekiel texts: the prophet’s vision of God in the heavenly chariot (Ezek 1:4–28; Sir 49:8); the moral example of Job (Ezek 14:14, 20; Sir 49:9); the displaying of the holiness of God’s name (Ezek 38:16, 23; 39:13, 27–28; Sir 36:4–5); the revival of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1–14; Sir 46:12; 49:10); and the water flowing from the Jerusalem temple (Ezek 47:1–12; Sir 24:30–31). Additional brief sections consider other parallels, as well as the Genizah Hebrew litany with a twofold echo of Ezekiel in its references to Davidic governance and Zadokite leadership (Sir 51:12viii–ix). This study presumes that Ben Sira knew approximately the MT form of Ezekiel, since the Dead Sea Scrolls preserve seven fragmentary copies of portions from the prophetic book, as well as five manuscripts of Pseudo-Ezekiel texts (4Q385–388, 4Q391). Both Ben Sira and Ezekiel were figures who spent time close to the Jerusalem temple, though the prophet ended his days in Babylon. However, it is surprising that the sage’s allusions to the prophet are relatively few, especially in Sir 1–23. One reason may be that some of Ezekiel’s ideas were taken up by apocalyptic circles and developed in ways of which Ben Sira was wary. Another reason may be that Ezekiel’s prophetic messages were mostly lengthy prose sermons while Ben Sira’s wisdom teachings used only poetry. Although Ben Sira focuses positively on wisdom, Ezekiel’s only uses of the root “wise” (‫)חכם‬ refer to the rulers and skilled craft workers of Tyre whom God will bring down (Ezek 27:8–9; 28:3–5, 7, 12, 17). Fear of God is a prominent theme in Ben Sira https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-007

82

Jeremy Corley

but not in Ezekiel. On the other hand, while the last section of Ezekiel’s book outlines a detailed architectural vision for the new temple, this topic is hardly reflected in Ben Sira despite his closeness to the Jerusalem sanctuary. Nevertheless, the motif of water flowing from the new temple (Ezek 47:1–12) supplies the imagery for Ben Sira’s declared intention to teach (Sir 24:30–31).

1 Ezekiel’s Inaugural Chariot Vision (Ezek 1) After mentioning Jeremiah (Sir 49:7), Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors names Jeremiah’s younger contemporary Ezekiel, whose call came through a manifestation of God in a heavenly chariot surrounded by various creatures (Ezek 1:4– 28). The Hebrew text of Sir 49:8 says: “Ezekiel saw a vision (‫)מראה‬, and he declared the sorts of chariot.”1 At the opening of his book, the prophet reports his call, given in a storm theophany (Ezek 1:1): “I saw visions (‫ )מראות‬of God” (cf. Ezek 8:3; 40:2). Later, at the start of Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple, he is told: “Son of man, see with your eyes and hear with your ears and set your mind on all that I am letting you see (‫)מראה‬, because for the purpose of letting you see, you were brought here. Declare (‫ )הגד‬all that you see (‫ )ראה‬to the house of Israel” (Ezek 40:4).2 In earlier biblical tradition, the term for chariot (‫ )מרכבה‬was linked to divine encounters since it occurs in a prophetic description of a theophany (Hab 3:8), while King Josiah destroyed “the chariots of the sun” being used in pagan worship (2 Kgs 23:11). Although this word does not appear in the Book of Ezekiel, it occurs in a Qumran Pseudo-Ezekiel text: “The vision (‫ )המראה‬which Ezeki[el] saw (‫ … )ראה‬the gleam of the chariot (‫ )מרכבה‬and four living creatures” (4Q385 6:5–6/olim 4:5–6).3 The Greek of Sir 49:8 is more expansive than the Hebrew: “Ezekiel who saw a vision of glory (ὅρασιν δόξης), that he [= God] showed to him on the chariot of the cherubim (ἐπὶ ἅρματος χερουβιν).” While the Greek linkage of “glory” with the “cherubim” may be echoing Ezek 10:18–20, the Greek addition of “cherubim” in connection with the “chariot” may be influenced by 1 Chr 28:18, where David gives Solomon “the plan of the golden chariot of the cherubim spreading their wings and covering the ark of the LORD’s covenant.”4

1 In this article, all biblical translations from Hebrew or Greek are mine, including Ben Sira. On Sir 49:8–9, see Hildesheim, Prophet, 206–18; Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 210–13. 2 Egger-Wenzel, “Josiah,” 246. 3 In this article, all quotations of Qumran texts are from García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Scrolls. 4 Egger-Wenzel, “Josiah,” 246. Cf. Hildesheim, Prophet, 212; Marböck, “Traditionen,” 150.

Ben Sira and Ezekiel

83

Whereas Sir 49:8 recalls Ezekiel’s inaugural vision of God’s glory, 1 En. 14– 16 includes echoes of the same theophany, and post-biblical Jewish mysticism often focused on the depiction of God in this chariot vision (m. Hag. 2.1; 3 En. 1:1– 2:4; 6:1–7:1). While this reference could simply be a brief scriptural allusion to an earlier biblical tradition, Johannes Marböck thinks it shows Ben Sira’s interest in the nascent Jewish apocalyptic speculations about the heavenly chariot, comparable to a concern about the primeval giants, Enoch, and Adam’s glory (Sir 16:7; 44:16; 49:14, 16).5 Nevertheless, Ben Sira differs from Qumran texts like the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q405 21–22. 3, 7, 9; 4Q403 15; cf. 1 En. 14:18; 39:2; 71:1– 2; 75:3; 4Q385 6:5–14/olim 4:5–14) by showing no developed interest in the beginnings of Merkabah mysticism. The Mishnah regards speaking about the Merkabah as reserved to the wisest in private (m. Hag. 2.1) and the Talmud (b. Hag. 13a) later quotes Sir 3:21–22 as a warning against Merkabah speculation.6 The word ‫“ זן‬sort” belongs to Late Biblical Hebrew (2 Chr 16:14; Ps 144:13 [bis]; Sir 37:28 HBD) and has an Aramaic cognate (Dan 3:5, 7). These “sorts” probably refer to the four kinds of living creatures linked to the chariot (Ezek 1:5–14).7 In Ezekiel’s vision, the four living creatures are provided with wheels, as described in Ezek 1:15: “And I saw the living creatures, and behold, one wheel (‫)אופן‬ was on the earth beside the living creatures, for its four faces.” Otto Mulder finds a reference to Merkabah speculation in the reference to wheels (‫)אופנים‬, understood as belonging to the chariot (cf. 4Q286 1:2.2; 4Q385 6, 11, 13), in the colophon to Ben Sira’s book: “instruction in prudence and mastery of wheels (‫”)אופנים‬ (Sir 50:27 HB).8 However, since the sage generally shows little developed interest in apocalyptic speculations, it is better to understand the term as denoting “ways” (rather than “wheels”), because of its usage in Prov 25:11: “Apples of gold in engravings of silver – a word spoken according to its ways (‫)אפניו‬.”9

2 Ezekiel’s Mention of Job (Ezek 14) A further declaration about Ezekiel appears in Sir 49:9 HB: “And he also mentioned Job, who maintained all the ways of righteousness.” The Genizah manuscript is damaged after the word “Job,” where Rudolf Smend tentatively reads

5 6 7 8 9

Marböck, “Traditionen,” 149–50; cf. Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 210–13; Mulder, Simon, 243–48. Stadelmann, Ben Sira, 212. Peters, Buch, 420; Segal, Sefer, 338–39; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 544. Mulder, Simon, 243–49; 364–66. Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 783. Cf. Segal, Sefer, 350.

84

Jeremy Corley

the word “prophet” (‫)נביא‬.10 If this reading is correct, Ben Sira could have included Job among the prophets, as did Josephus (C. Ap. 1:8), just as a Talmudic tradition considers him one of the “seven gentile prophets” (b. B. Bat. 15b).11 The sage here refers to the prophet’s statement about Job as one of three exemplary models of virtue: “Even if these three men were in its midst [= the land] – Noah, Daniel (or Danel), and Job – they by their righteousness (‫)בצדקתם‬ would deliver (only) themselves” (Ezek 14:14; cf. 14:20). Ezekiel alludes to Job as an example of an extremely righteous person because he was famous for his endurance (Job 1:21; 2:10; 42:7), persevering in the right path (Jas 5:11). Ben Sira echoes Job’s self-depiction as “righteous” (‫ צדיק‬− Job 12:4).12 The sage’s depiction of Job preserving righteousness also recalls the narrative epilogue in Job 42:7, where God affirms that the long-suffering hero has spoken what was straightforward or right (‫)נכונה‬. In addition, it is reminiscent of Job’s statement: “To my righteousness (‫ )בצדקתי‬I hold fast, and I will not let it go” (Job 27:6), as well as Job’s subsequent declaration: “I put on righteousness (‫ )צדק‬and it clothed me” (Job 29:14).13 According to the Genizah text of Sir 44:13 HB, introducing Israel’s ancestors, Job’s virtue exemplifies “their righteousness” (‫)צדקתם‬, though the Masada scroll instead speaks of “their glory” (‫)כבודם‬.14 Here the phrase “ways of righteousness” (‫ צדק‬− ‫)דרכי‬, matching the Greek, has been reconstructed because of the opening dalet and the closing dalet and tsade.15 Similarly, the Syriac here says: “And he also spoke about Job, that all his paths were righteousness.”16 Interestingly, the identical phrase (rendered “paths of justice”) has been reconstructed in a Qumran text connected with the same prophet, Ezekiel: “I have seen many in Israel who love your name and walk on the paths [‫ ]דרכי‬of [justice = ‫( ”]צדק‬4Q385 2:2–3). Elsewhere in Qumran literature, the Treatise on the Two Spirits describes the predetermined task for the sons of light: “These are their paths in the world: to enlighten the heart of man, straighten out in front of him all the paths of true justice (‫ אמת‬− ‫ צדק‬− ‫ דרכי‬− ‫)כל‬, establish in his heart respect for the precepts of God” (1QS 4:2–3). Furthermore, according to 4Q420 1 ii 5, “(one who is) reliable [or faithful: ‫ ]נאמן‬will not turn away from the ways of righteousness (‫ צדק‬− ‫)מדרכי‬.” By way of contrast, accord-

10 Smend, Weisheit hebräisch, 57. However, this word is rejected by Peters, Buch, 421; Segal, Sefer, 338; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 542. 11 Witte, “Hiob,” 178–79. 12 Calduch-Benages, Crisol, 136. 13 Egger-Wenzel, “Josiah,” 247. 14 Witte, “Hiob,” 177. 15 Smend, Weisheit hebräisch, 57; Peters, Buch, 421; Hildesheim, Prophet, 206. 16 Calduch-Benages, Wisdom, 268.

Ben Sira and Ezekiel

85

ing to another Qumran text, the wiles of the wicked woman are designed “to make the simple rebel against God, to turn their steps off the paths (‫ )מדרכי‬of justice (‫( ”)צדק‬4Q184 1 i 16). In fact, Ben Sira’s mention of “ways” recalls Job’s declaration of innocence before God: “Will he himself not see my ways (‫”?)דרכי‬ (Job 31:4). Applicable to Job would also be Prov 16:31: “A splendid crown is grey hair; it is found in the way (‫ )בדרך‬of righteousness (‫)צדקה‬.” Instead of naming Job, LXX Sir 49:9 refers to enemies because the Greek misunderstood “Job” (‫ )איוב‬as “enemy” (‫)אויב‬: “For he [= God] also remembered his enemies (τῶν ἐχθρῶν) in a thunderstorm (ἐν ὄμβρῳ), and to do good to those making straight the ways.”17 In the Greek, the thunderstorm may echo the battle against Gog in Ezek 38:22: “And I will enter into judgement with him with pestilence and bloodshed. And I will pour down flooding rains and hailstones, fire and sulphur, upon him and upon his troops and upon many peoples that are with him” (cf. Ezek 38:9).18 It may also echo Job 38:1, when God spoke out of the whirlwind to the long-suffering hero. Moreover, Ezek 1:4 mentions “a storm wind coming from the north” (cf. Sir 43:17). The sage’s oblique reference to Job may be because, as one of the “people of the east” (Job 1:3), he was regarded as a non-Jew (b. B. Bat. 15b), and hence, not belonging to “our ancestors” (44:1). In addition, Ben Sira’s mention of Job has a canonical purpose. Because the third section of the Hebrew canon (the Writings) was incomplete in Ben Sira’s day, lacking the Book of Daniel, for instance, the sage includes references in passing within the Prophets section (46:1–49:10). While the praise of David alludes to the psalms (47:8–10) and the poem on Solomon refers to Proverbs (47:17), Ben Sira is able to mention Job here in the context of Ezekiel’s naming of him.

3 Sanctification of God’s Name (Ezek 28 and 38) Within Ben Sira’s nationalistic prayer, the sanctification of God’s name is mentioned in a phrase reminiscent of Ezekiel: “Just as you were sanctified [= displayed your holiness: ‫ ]נקדשת‬in us before their eyes (‫)לעיניהם‬, so be glorified [= display your glory: ‫ ]הכבד‬in them (margin of HB: ‫ )בם‬before our eyes (‫)לעינינו‬. And they will know (‫ )וידעו‬as we know that there is no God apart from you” (Sir 36:4–5 HB).19 Whereas God had already shown his justice by punishing the

17 Calduch-Benages, Crisol, 87; Peters, Buch, 421. 18 Peters, Buch, 421. 19 Palmisano, Salvaci, 169–73.

86

Jeremy Corley

Israelites, so now Ben Sira prays that he will show them his mercy and thereby display his holiness, so that the pagan nations will recognize that the LORD is the one true God. The sage has hope that his petition will be heard because it echoes phraseology from the exilic prophet Ezekiel, and he is conscious that God’s previous promise of restoration from foreign enemies has already been fulfilled. While Ben Sira’s prayer echoes several passages from Ezekiel, the closest links are with the prophet’s oracle against Sidon (Ezek 28:21–26), including this declaration: “Behold, I am against you, O Sidon, and I will be glorified [= display my glory: ‫ ]ונכבדתי‬in your midst, and they will know (‫ )וידעו‬that I am the LORD when I perform judgments in it and am sanctified [= display my holiness: ‫ ]ונקדשתי‬in it” (Ezek 28:22). Utilizing different words to express the same notion as Sir 36:13 concerning the regathering of Israel, Ezekiel’s oracle continues: “When I gather the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and am sanctified [= display my holiness: ‫ ]ונקדשתי‬in them before the eyes (‫ )לעיני‬of the nations, then they shall dwell on their soil that I gave to my servant Jacob” (Ezek 28:25). Whereas the prophecy against Sidon speaks of God being sanctified by Israel’s redemption, Ben Sira thinks of Israel’s punishment as revealing God’s holiness in accordance with the opening of Ezek 36:23: “I will sanctify [= display the holiness of: ‫ ]וקדשתי‬my great name, which has been profaned among the nations – which you have profaned among them – and the nations will know (‫ )וידעו‬that I am the LORD, says the divine LORD, when I am sanctified [= display my holiness: ‫ ]בהקדשי‬in you before their eyes (‫)לעיניהם‬.” Here, God reveals the holiness of his name both by punishing sinful Israel in the exile (Ezek 36:19) and then by showing his graciousness when he restores them (Ezek 36:22–32). Similarly, Ezek 20:41 foresees Israel’s restoration as revealing the divine holiness: “As a pleasing odor I will accept you, when I bring you out from the peoples, and I will gather you from the lands in which you have been scattered, and I will be sanctified [= display my holiness: ‫ ]ונקדשתי‬in you before the eyes (‫ )לעיני‬of the nations.” Furthermore, the sage’s prayer echoes the divine oracle of victory against Gog, king of Magog: “It will happen at the end of the days that I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me, when I am sanctified [= display my holiness: ‫ ]בהקדשי‬in you before their eyes (‫)לעיניהם‬, O Gog” (Ezek 38:16). After a description of the terrible afflictions due to befall the hostile army, Ezek 38:23 declares: “And I will display my greatness and I will sanctify myself [= display my holiness: ‫ ]והתקדשתי‬and I will be known before the eyes (‫ )לעיני‬of many nations, and they will know (‫ )וידעו‬that I am the LORD.” By burying the defeated foes, the Israelites will gain glory: “And it will

Ben Sira and Ezekiel

87

bring them renown on the day that I am glorified [= display my glory: ‫]הכבדי‬, says the divine LORD” (Ezek 39:13). Thus, the victorious restoration from exile will show God’s holiness: “When I have brought them back from the peoples and I gather them from the lands of their enemies, and I am sanctified [= display my holiness: ‫ ]ונקדשתי‬in them before the eyes (‫ )לעיני‬of many nations, then they will know (‫ )וידעו‬that I am the LORD their God” (Ezek 39:27–28). An echo of the same motif concerning Gog occurs in the Qumran War Scroll, promising that God will deliver the poor, “in order to show yourself great (‫ )ולהתגדל‬and holy (‫ )ולהתקדש‬in the eyes of the remainder of the peoples” (1QM 11:15).

4 National Restoration (Ezek 37) Two Ben Sira passages (Sir 46:12; 49:10) echo Ezekiel’s famous vision of national restoration symbolized by the resuscitation of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1–14). The Hebrew text for Sir 49:10 survives: “And also the Twelve Prophets – may their bones (‫ )עצמתם‬be flourishing (‫ )פרחת‬instead of them (‫ תחתם‬or ‫ – )מתחתם‬who caused Jacob to dream, and saved him (= them) by [hopeful faith].”20 The Greek is generally similar: “And [God remembered] the Twelve Prophets – may their bones flourish from their place – for they encouraged Jacob, and they redeemed them in hopeful faith.” Here and in the similar mention of bones in 46:12, it would be strange to interpret the wording as referring to a personal resurrection because elsewhere the sage, writing in a pre-Maccabean context, has no belief in an individual afterlife (Sir 7:17; 10:11; 14:16; 17:27–28; 22:11; 30:4; 38:21; 41:3– 4).21 Hence, rather than referring to a future resurrection, the idiom here refers to renewed earthly descendants, as in Ezek 37:1–14. Discussing Ezek 37:12, John Wevers explains that the prophet is referring to a revival of the nation: “The reference is, of course, not to a physical resurrection, but to a restoration to political existence.”22 To be sure, the prophet’s metaphor of future national restoration was later reinterpreted as a vision of individual resurrection (4Q385 2:5–9; 4Q386 1 i 4–10; cf. 4 Macc 18:17; Liv. Pro. 3:12).23 Within the Qumran Pseudo-Ezekiel text, the righteous speaker pleads with God, in a

20 Segal (Sefer, 336) copies the Greek in 49:10b by adding the initial preposition ‫“( מן‬from”), but Smend (Weisheit hebräisch, 57) follows the Syriac which lacks this initial preposition. The ambiguous Hebrew verb in 49:10c (hiphil of ‫ )חלם‬could mean either “caused to dream” (Jer 29:8) or “strengthened” (Sir 15:20); cf. Egger-Wenzel, “Josiah,” 247 n. 85. 21 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 544; cf. Hildesheim, Prophet, 215 n. 345. 22 Wevers, Ezekiel, 279. 23 Dimant, Qumran Cave 4:XXI, 32.

88

Jeremy Corley

manner akin to Job, because justice has not been visibly rewarded: “I have seen many in Israel who love your name and walk on the paths [‫ ]דרכי‬of [justice = ‫( ”]צדק‬4Q385 2:2–3). The divine response comes quickly: “I will make the children of Israel see and they will know that I am YHWH” (4Q385 2:4). Immediately, the visionary is told in words recalling Ezek 37:4–7: “Son of man, prophesy over the bones (‫ )העצמות‬and say: May a bone [connect] with its bone” (4Q385 2:5). The sage’s mention of the revived bones of the Twelve Prophets directly follows his reference to Ezekiel (Sir 49:9–10). Significantly, the divine oracle in Ezek 37:14 declares that “my spirit” (‫ )רוחי‬will resuscitate the moribund people of Israel. The same word appears in one of the Twelve Prophets: “I will pour out my spirit (‫ )רוחי‬on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy (‫)ונבאו‬, your old men will dream dreams (‫)יחלמון‬, your young men will see visions (‫( ”)יראו‬Joel 3:1 [NRSV 2:28]). A similar sequence appears in Sir 49:9– 10: “saw” (‫)ראה‬, “the prophets” (‫)הנביאים‬, and “caused to dream” (‫)החלימו‬, which may allude to Joel’s promise, thereby attributing the revival of the nation to the action of the divine spirit. Ben Sira’s reference to bones reviving also has an echo of Isa 66:14, speaking of the restoration of postexilic Jerusalem rather than a future resurrection: “And you will see, and your heart will rejoice, and your bones (‫ )ועצמותיכם‬will flourish/bloom (‫ )תפרחנה‬like the grass.”24 Shalom Paul comments on the Isaianic verse: “The redemption of the Lord’s servants shall rejuvenate the desiccated nation and their languishing bones shall flourish, in contrast to their forlorn condition in exile, as described in Ezek 37:11: ‘Our bones are dried up. Our hope is gone. We are doomed’.”25 Hosea also utilizes the verb “flourish” or “bloom” (‫ )פרח‬metaphorically of the people of Israel: “I will be like the dew for Israel; he will bloom (‫ )יפרח‬like the lily” (Hos 14:6 [NRSV 14:5]). Indeed, this first of the Twelve Prophets was one whose bones flourished or bloomed, because he became the father of two sons and a daughter (Hos 1:2–9), and we also hear of two sons of Isaiah (Isa 7:3; 8:3). Moreover, in the context of the prophets (Sir 49:10), we could think of Tobit’s proud declaration to his son Tobiah: “We are the children of the prophets” (Tob 4:12), which combines biological descent with inheriting the prophets’ religious legacy (Acts 3:25).26 Although modern interpreters usually think of the prophetic figures as writers of texts, Ben Sira could also consider them as biological ancestors.

24 Segal, Sefer, 320; Hildesheim, Prophet, 215. 25 Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 622. 26 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 520; Peters, Buch, 398. Here the prophets may be the Israelite ancestors (Ps 105:15), including “Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Tob 4:12; cf. Gen 20:7). In Sir 49:10, we could also think of the preexilic “sons of the prophets,” as in 2 Kgs 2:3; cf. Peters, Buch, 398.

Ben Sira and Ezekiel

89

The sage’s other allusion to Ezek 37:1–14 occurs in Sir 46:12, where the key words about bones are absent from the Hebrew. The Greek uncial Mss of 46:12 enunciate the hope that the bones of the judges may sprout afresh: “May their bones flourish from their place, and may their name be exchanged for the sons of their glorified ones.”27 If we follow Segal’s reconstruction in the lacuna, the Hebrew verse reads: “[May their bones be flourishing instead of them,] and may their name be a renewal for their sons.” Whereas the judges lived in a time when Israelite fortunes were at a low ebb, the sage’s hope is that Ezekiel’s vision of national revival may be fulfilled in their biological and spiritual successors. A further verbal echo of Ezek 37:1–14 appears within the Hymn to the Creation (Sir 42:15–43:33). Here, Sir 43:20cd describes how the north wind can make the surface of a pond freeze, so that it seems to be wearing a breastplate or armor coat (cf. Isa 59:17): “Over every stationing of water he makes a skin (‫)יקרים‬, and he clothes a pool like a breastplate.” The hiphil verb (‫ )יקרים‬uses a root found in the MT only in Ezek 37: “I will place sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover (‫ )וקרמתי‬you with skin … And I looked, and behold, upon them were sinews, and flesh had arisen, and skin had covered (‫ )ויקרם‬them” (Ezek 37:6, 8).

5 The Renewed Temple (Ezek 47) The motif of water flowing out from the Jerusalem temple in Sir 24:30–31 echoes Ezek 47 within an authorial self-reference: “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” (24:30–31).28 The sage continues in 24:31: “Behold, the channel became for me a river (ποταμόν), and my river became a lake/sea (θάλασσαν),” thereby alluding to the prophet’s description of overflowing water from the temple becoming a “river” (ποταμοῦ − Ezek 47:6–7) that flowed into the “lake/sea” (θάλασσαν − 47:8). By echoing Ezekiel, the sage

27 Because the Greek has mistakenly introduced material from the following praise of Samuel (46:13), Ziegler (Sapientia, 343) emends the Greek of 46:12 to bring it closer to the Hebrew. The Syriac also includes material from 46:13: “And their bones will be bright [or perhaps: will bloom] as lilies, and they will leave behind their good name to their sons, and to all the people their praise” (Calduch-Benages, Wisdom, 258). 28 Whereas the Latin identifies the speaker as wisdom (ego sapientia), Ben Sira himself is speaking; Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 215; Peters, Buch, 205; Segal, Sefer, 151; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 337.

90

Jeremy Corley

suggests that wisdom comes from the temple (24:10–12).29 Speaking near the sanctuary, Ben Sira sees his role as bringing forth water in a stream that grows from a rivulet into a large river, and thus symbolically effecting what Ezekiel announced for the new temple. Commenting on the passage, Alice Sinnott declares: “Ezek 47:1–12 is echoed here in the imagery of a meagre watercourse, which grows to be a river and finally overflows like a sea.”30 She adds: “Ben Sira, resident in Jerusalem (Sir 50:27), may be describing himself as spreading Wisdom which he has already located in the Temple at Jerusalem (Sir 24:10).” Moreover, the prophetic motif of fruitful trees growing beside the revived Dead Sea (Ezek 47:12) is reflected in the imagery of the date palm at En-gedi, mentioned earlier in the same poem (Sir 24:14).

6 Other Parallels Ben Sira occasionally echoes the judgment oracles in Ezek 7 and 21. Particularly resonant for Ben Sira is the saying about the futility of wealth in Ezek 7:19 (cf. Zeph 1:18; Prov 11:4): “Their silver and gold cannot save them on the day of the LORD’s wrath” (‫ יהוה‬− ‫ עברת‬− ‫)ביום‬, since Ben Sira teaches that neither gold (Sir 31:6 HB) nor deceptive possessions (Sir 5:8 HA) will be of any use for deliverance “on the day of wrath” (‫ עברה‬− ‫)ביום‬.31 Mention of a “rod of wickedness” (‫ רשע‬− ‫ )מטה‬in Sir 35:23 recalls an obscure saying within the same oracle of doom in Ezek 7:11.32 Ben Sira also echoes the prophet’s depictions in Ezek 7 and 21 of the bodily effects of divine judgment. The sage’s reference to the husband of an evil wife suffering weak hands and failing knees (Sir 25:23) employs an idiom used by the prophet in the context of an enemy attack (Ezek 7:17; 21:12).33 Moreover, Sir 48:19 depicts Hezekiah and his circle in Jerusalem trembling at the threat from Sennacherib: “Then they were melted (‫ )נמוגו‬despite the pride of their heart (‫( ”)לבם‬cf. 2 Chr 32:25), and here the motif of the trembling heart at the Assyrian army attack recalls Ezekiel’s oracle on the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar’s subsequent campaign against Jerusalem: “A sword for great slaughter – it surrounds them; so as to make the heart melt (‫ לב‬− ‫ )למוג‬and many stumble” (Ezek 21:19–20).34

29 30 31 32 33 34

Gilbert, “L’éloge,” 157. Sinnott, Personification, 131–32 (both quotations). Calduch-Benages, Crisol, 58. Smend, Weisheit erklärt, 317; De Zan, Culto, 137. Calduch-Benages, Crisol, 163. Calduch-Benages, Crisol, 172.

Ben Sira and Ezekiel

91

Phrases from other judgment oracles appear occasionally in Ben Sira’s book. For instance, when narrating Elijah’s calling of a prolonged drought in Israel, Sir 48:2 declares: “And he broke for them (‫ להם‬− ‫ )וישבר‬the staff of bread (‫ לחם‬− ‫)מטה‬,” and the phraseology recalls Ezekiel’s warning to Jerusalem that they will serve as a fearful example “when I break for you (‫ לכם‬− ‫ )ושברתי‬the staff of bread (‫ לחם‬− ‫( ”)מטה‬Ezek 5:16).35 While Ezek 16:21 laments the slaughtering of children within pagan rites, Sir 34:24 employs similar imagery to characterize the sacrificing of essential goods stolen from the destitute.36 Moreover, among the precedents for Ben Sira’s image of the crucible of testing (Sir 2:5), Ezek 22:17– 22 develops the metaphor to portray divine judgment on Jerusalem.37 In a contrasting depiction of God’s compassionate love, Sir 18:13 declares: “The Lord’s mercy is toward all flesh, reproving and instructing and teaching, and bringing back (ἐπιστρέφων), as a shepherd [brings back] his flock,” and the sentiment is reminiscent of Ezek 34:16 (among other texts), where the divine shepherd says: “I will seek the lost, and I will bring back (ἐπιστρέψω) the strayed.”38

7 Hebrew Litany (Sir 51:12i–xvi) Following Sir 51:12 in the Genizah MS, there is a Hebrew litany, whose authenticity is doubtful because it is lacking in Greek and Syriac. This Hymn of the Divine Names praises God using various biblical allusions, such as “Shield of Abraham” (51:12x; cf. Gen 15:1). The litany includes a double echo of Ezekiel in its references to Israel’s religious and civil leadership. Sirach 51:12viii praises God as “the one who causes a horn to sprout (‫ קרן‬− ‫ )מצמיח‬for the house of David.” The primary allusion is to Ps 132:17, where God promises that in Zion, “I will cause a horn to sprout (‫ קרן‬− ‫ )אצמיח‬for David,” but there is a secondary allusion to the divine promise in Ezek 29:21: “I will cause a horn to sprout (‫ קרן‬− ‫ )אצמיח‬for the house of Israel.”39 Because the Davidic line no longer held power by the time the litany was composed, the reference in 51:12viii appears messianic. In the next line of the litany, Sir 51:12ix praises God as “the one choosing the sons of Zadok to officiate as priests (‫)לכהן‬.” This declaration matches Ezekiel’s plan for the renewed temple: “But the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the sons of Israel strayed from me – they

35 36 37 38 39

Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 533. De Zan, Culto, 246. Calduch-Benages, Crisol, 83. Segal, Sefer, 110. Segal, Sefer, 356; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 570.

92

Jeremy Corley

shall come near me to minister to me” (Ezek 44:15; cf. 40:46; 43:19; 48:11; CD-A 3:20–4:2).40 The affirmation finds an echo in the Qumran Rule of Benedictions, where the Maskil blesses “the sons of Zadok, the priests whom God has chosen to strengthen his covenant” (1QSb 3:22–23). Whereas the original Ben Sira emphasizes the priesthood of Aaron and his whole line (Sir 45:6–26), the litany suggests a view restricting the priestly office to Zadok’s descendants.41

8 Use of Ezekiel in Second Temple Jewish Texts As we have seen, the Qumran Pseudo-Ezekiel manuscripts refer to several Ezekiel texts alluded to by Ben Sira. The prophet’s vision of God in a heavenly chariot surrounded by various creatures (Ezek 1:4–28) finds a close parallel in 4QpsEzeka: “The vision (‫ )המראה‬which Ezeki[el] saw (‫ … )ראה‬the gleam of the chariot (‫ )מרכבה‬and four living creatures” (4Q385 6:5–6/ olim 4:5–6). While Ezek 14:14 speaks of Job’s righteousness, the Qumran text in a different context parallels Sir 49:9 when it says: “I have seen many in Israel who love your name and walk on the paths [‫ ]דרכי‬of [justice = ‫( ”]צדק‬4Q385 2:2–3). Although the motif of the sanctification of God’s name (Ezek 38:16, 23), which occurs in the sage’s nationalistic prayer (Sir 36:4–5), does not exactly appear, the Qumran text speaks of “many in Israel who love your name” (4Q385 2:2–3; cf. 4Q388 8:4). The prophetic vision of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1–14), echoed in Sir 46:12 and 49:10, appears also in the Qumran Pseudo-Ezekiel text (4Q385 2:5– 9; 4Q386 1 i 4–10). In a comparable fashion, the Enochic writings and the NT Apocalypse both refer to some of the Ezekiel passages to which Ben Sira alludes. The prophet’s vision of God in a heavenly chariot surrounded by the living creatures (Ezek 1:4– 28), referenced in Sir 49:8, finds echoes in 1 En. 14:18–20 and Rev 4:2–8. While Rev 20:8–9 alludes to the battle of Gog against the camp of the holy people (Ezek 38–39) and 1 En. 89:10–12 echoes some of the imagery of Ezek 39:17–18, the motif of the sanctification of God’s name (Ezek 38:16, 23; 39:13, 27–28) occurs in the sage’s nationalistic prayer (Sir 36:4–5). The prophetic vision of the resuscitation of bones (Ezek 37:1–14), reflected in Sir 46:12 and 49:10, finds diverse allusions in 1 En. 90:4 and Rev 11:11. Finally, Ezekiel’s vision of water flowing out from the Jerusalem temple and making trees fruitful (Ezek 47:1–12) finds reminiscences not only in Sir 24:30–31 but also in 1 En. 26:2 and Rev 22:1–2.

40 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 570; Segal, Sefer, 357. 41 Olyan, “Ben Sira,” 274–76.

Ben Sira and Ezekiel

93

Conclusion Although Ben Sira does not use Ezekiel as much as he borrows from other biblical books such as Proverbs, he has several allusions to this prophet. Interestingly, all the main parallels to Ezekiel occur in the second half of Ben Sira’s book (chapters 24–51). These allusions are clearest in the brief mention of the prophet in Sir 49:8–9, referring to his inaugural chariot vision (Ezek 1:4–28) and his subsequent mention of Job (Ezek 14:14, 20). The prophet’s repeated motif of the sanctification of God’s name (Ezek 38:16, 23; 39:13, 27–28) appears within the sage’s vehement petition for the people of Israel threatened by foreign powers (Sir 36:4–5). Two Ben Sira passages (Sir 46:12; 49:10) may allude to Ezekiel’s vision of national restoration symbolized by the resuscitation of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1–14). Finally, after celebrating the arrival of wisdom at the Jerusalem sanctuary (Sir 24:10–12), the sage’s great wisdom poem deploys the motif of water flowing out from the temple (Sir 24:30–31), thereby echoing the theme of Ezek 47:1–12. For the reception history of this prophet, it is noteworthy that the Qumran Pseudo-Ezekiel texts, the Enochic writings, and the NT Apocalypse also refer to several of the Ezekiel passages alluded to by Ben Sira.42

Bibliography Calduch-Benages, Núria. En el Crisol de la Prueba: Estudio Exegético de Sir 2,1–18. ABE 32. Estella, Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1997. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. Wisdom of the Scribe: Diplomatic Edition of the Peshitta of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. 2nd ed. Estella, Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2015. De Zan, Renato. Il culto che Dio gradisce: Studio del trattato sulle offerte di SirGr 34,21– 35,20. AnBib 190. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. Dimant, Devorah. Qumran Cave 4. XXI: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. DJD 30. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “Josiah and His Prophet(s) in Chronicles and Ben Sira: An Intertextual Comparison.” Pages 231–56 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 10–31. AB 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998.

42 I offer this essay in tribute to Núria Calduch-Benages, an expert Ben Sira scholar and a valued friend.

94

Jeremy Corley

Gilbert, Maurice. “L’éloge de la Sagesse: Siracide 24.” Pages 143–64 in Ben Sira: Recueil d’Études – Collected Essays. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. BETL 264. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Hildesheim, Ralph. Bis daß ein Prophet aufstand wie Feuer: Untersuchungen zum Prophetenverständnis des Ben Sira. TTS 58. Trier: Paulinus, 1996. Marböck, Johannes. “Apokalyptische Traditionen im Sirachbuch?” Pages 137–53 in Weisheit und Frömmigkeit. Edited by Johannes Marböck. ÖBS 29. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2006. Mulder, Otto. Simon the High Priest in Sirach 50. JSJSup 78. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Olyan, Saul M. “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood.” HTR 80 (1987): 261–86. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. “Salvaci, Dio dell’universo!” Studio dell’eucologia di Sir 36H,1–17 AnBib 163. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006. Paul, Shalom M. Isaiah 40–66. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster i.W.: Aschendorff, 1913. Segal, Moshe Zvi. Sefer Ben-Sira Hashalem. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 31972. Sinnott, Alice M. The Personification of Wisdom. SOTSMS. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, hebräisch und deutsch. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Stadelmann, Helge. Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. WUNT 2/6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Wevers, John W. Ezekiel. NCB. London: Nelson, 1969. Witte, Markus. “Ist auch Hiob unter den Propheten? Sir 49,9 als Testfall für die Auslegung des Buches Jesus Sira.” KUSATU 8–9 (2008): 163–94. Ziegler, Joseph. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta 12/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21980.

Bradley C. Gregory

“Bread to the Hungry and Clothes to the Naked”: A History of a PropheticSapiential Motif from Tobit to the Syriac of Ben Sira Abstract: The article traces the background and history of the prophetic-sapiential motif “bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked” as it appears in Tobit, the Sibylline Oracles 1–2, Pseudo-Phocylides, the Gospel of Matthew, and 2 Enoch, ultimately finding its way into the Syriac addition in Sir 29:28. It shows that the motif became central to the shared theological and ethical vision in Judaism and Christianity in the early centuries of the Common Era. Keywords: bread to the hungry, clothes to the naked, Tobit, Sibylline Oracles, Pseudo-Phocylides, Matthew, 2 Enoch, Sir 29:28 (Syriac)

Scholars of Second Temple Judaism and the book of Ben Sira in particular are indebted to the many important contributions of Núria Calduch-Benages. Especially valuable has been her collaboration with Joan Ferrer and Jan Liesen to publish a diplomatic edition of Codex Ambriosianus, currently the most widely used edition for the Syriac version of Ben Sira.1 I am delighted to have the opportunity to honor Professor Calduch-Benages in this volume and it seems fitting in light of her expertise and graciousness towards colleagues to explore the way an expression of a prophetic theme about generosity is taken up in a variety of ancient sources, including an important addition to chapter 29 in the Syriac version of Ben Sira.2 The requirement to treat the poor justly and generously is found throughout the Hebrew Bible. Although a concern for the poor and marginalized is es-

1 Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Wisdom of the Scribe. 2 I briefly treated the Syriac addition to Sir 29:28 in my Like an Everlasting Signet Ring, 213– 19. At that time, Gary Anderson alerted me to connections with the Midrash to Psalm 118, to the classic essay by Ephraim Urbach (“Religious and Social Tendencies”), and to the importance of Isa 58 in later discussions of social justice. In this essay, I take up his suggestion to fill out the background of this interesting addition to the Syriac of Ben Sira in greater depth than I was able to at the time. Translations of biblical texts follow the NABRE while translations of pseudepigraphal works are from Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-008

96

Bradley C. Gregory

poused by legal texts as well as wisdom texts, this motif is perhaps most often associated with the prophets, who often use vivid imagery to illustrate social injustice and to commend social justice. In two sixth century BCE prophetic texts, a particular pairing of images for generosity is used to articulate the true nature of righteousness that YHWH desires. In Ezek 18, the prophet takes up the topic of individual responsibility, particularly whether children are accountable for the sins of the parents. In a list of religious and ethical requirements that serve as a barometer of whether a person is just, he says: … if he oppresses no one, gives back the pledge received for a debt, commits no robbery; gives food to the hungry and clothes to the naked; if he does not lend at interest or exact usury … (Ezek 18:7–8, cf. v. 16).

Interestingly, the same pair appears in Third Isaiah in a critique of a religious observance of fasting without an accompanying righteousness: Is this not, rather, the fast that I choose: releasing those bound unjustly, untying the thongs of the yoke; setting free the oppressed, breaking off every yoke? Is it not sharing your bread with the hungry, bringing the afflicted and the homeless into your house; clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own flesh? (Isa 58:6–7)

In both of these texts, giving bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked are emblematic of the intersection between charity and righteousness. Although this specific language is not found in any legal corpus in the Hebrew Bible,3 it is nonetheless clear that neither Ezekiel nor Third Isaiah coined this pairing since it is found in a variety of Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts from all periods and seems to be echoed in two places in Job as well (22:6–7 and 24:10).4 Rather, it is likely that both prophets drew on a wider stock motif that was understood to exemplify moral blamelessness.5 Yet, in the Second Temple period, it seems safe to assume that the pairing of “bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked” would have been most familiar to, and authoritative for, early Jewish and Christian authors primarily due to its presence in these scriptural passages from Ezekiel and Isaiah.6

3 This is often noted by commentators. Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 380. 4 Both are found alongside alms in the Akkadian text Counsels of Wisdom. The references in Egyptian literature are as follows. From the Old Kingdom: Inscription of Nefer-Seshem-Re 2–3; Autobiography of Harkhuf 5; from the New Kingdom: Book of the Dead 125; and from the Late Period: Statue Inscription of Harwa (right side, 6). 5 Rodd, Glimpses of a Strange Land, 56–57. 6 Urbach, “Religious and Social Tendencies,” 20.

“Bread to the Hungry and Clothes to the Naked”

97

1 Tobit The book of Tobit was probably composed during the third century BCE and tells the tale of an exemplary Israelite who lived among the Assyrian exiles. Despite being righteous, many troubles befall Tobit and the story follows the mysterious way divine providence works in the unfolding story of Tobit’s family. Central to Tobit’s righteousness is not just his endogamy (1:9) or his heroic efforts to travel to Jerusalem regularly to worship (1:6) but his commitment to key forms of charity (1:3). As Tobit begins to narrate his story, he singles out three particular deeds of charity: he would give “bread to the hungry,” “clothing to the naked,” and provide burial for the dead (1:17). However, these are not simply incidental examples of Tobit’s righteousness; rather, they set up the fundamental theological problem of the book. Instead of resulting in reward, as expected, these acts of charity come at great risk and cost. When the king hears that he is burying those slain by the Assyrians, his property is confiscated, his life is endangered (1:19–20), and his neighbors begin to mock his misfortune (2:8). The fact that Tobit’s charitable deeds have produced the opposite of what divine justice would suggest prompts his wife to taunt him as well, in a way reminiscent of Job’s wife: “Where are your charitable deeds now? Where are your righteous acts?” (2:14). The rest of the story can be read as a narrative contemplation of how charity is rewarded in unexpected and complex ways. As such, this novella seeks to nuance an understanding of righteousness and reward by moving the reader from a simplistic understanding of justice to one that appreciates the subtle and surprising character of divine providence that is sometimes evident only in retrospect.7 While there is an emphasis in Tob 1–2 on the charitable act of burying the dead, the other two, “food to the hungry and clothing to the naked,” resurface in chapter 4 when Tobit gives a deathbed speech to his son Tobias. In his testament-like instruction, he gives a catalogue of virtuous actions that function as a kind of précis for righteousness (4:5–6). Topics that are standard in both law and wisdom appear, even though some of the specific terms do not: honoring parents, finding a spouse, integrity in business, a formulation of the “silver rule”, and devotion to God. The topic of charity, however, is not only particularly prominent in following directly upon the admonition to keep the commandments but is the only topic that is resumed a second time later in the speech (4:7–11, 16–17). And as Francis Macatangay points out, both the texture of the

7 For this reading of Tobit, see Anderson, Charity, 83–103, and Macatangay, When I Die, Bury Me Well, 29–46.

98

Bradley C. Gregory

narrative and the parallel between almsgiving as salvific in 4:10 and righteousness as salvific in 14:11 suggest that for Tobit almsgiving and righteousness are virtually interchangeable.8 The fact that the resumption of teaching about almsgiving in 4:16–17 is paired with giving “food to the hungry and clothes to the naked” suggests that these images are viewed as paradigmatic acts of charity for those who are truly righteous. The setting of these instructions in a death bed testament heightens the sense of their importance. As John Barton and Manfred Oeming have observed, Tob 4 is an example of an increasing tendency in Second Temple Judaism to distill either the Torah or ethical obligations into lists (often of either 7 or 10 items [as in Tob 4]). Often, as in Tob 4, they draw not only from legal and wisdom texts but also from the prophets, especially Isa 58.9 The use of the prophetic-sapiential motif of “bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked” in a testament-like distillation of ethical obligations in Tob 4 anticipates the repeated appearance of this motif in the early centuries of the Common Era. However, as will be seen, in those later texts the paradigmatic nature of such charity is most often reconfigured to function within an eschatological framework. This trajectory can be seen in the Sib. Or. 1–2, the Gospel of Matthew, and 2 Enoch. However, all three of these texts should be seen as examples of various uses of this motif without necessarily supposing that any of these texts used one another or were specifically appropriating the earlier text of Tobit.

2 Sibylline Oracles 1–2 Sib. Or. 1–2 constitute one unified text which follows a periodized schema that divides history into ten periods from creation to final judgment. Although it has some clear signs of Christian editing and expansion, the base Jewish text is probably from the first century CE. Book 2 concerns the appearance of eschatological signs during the tenth period and in the course of the narrative the author has adapted a lengthy portion of Pseudo-Phocylides (a Hellenistic Jewish instructional work from around the turn of the Era) as part of what is necessary to gain immortality and entrance into the heavenly city (cf. Sib. Or. 2:39–41). After discussing the dictates of justice, the author turns to the topic of mercy and it is illuminating to compare this section with the base text of PseudoPhocylides:

8 Macatangay, When I Die, Bury Me Well, 37. 9 Barton, Ethics in Ancient Israel, 231–35; Oeming, “Ethik in der Spätzeit,” 159–73.

“Bread to the Hungry and Clothes to the Naked”

Pseudo-Phocylides 23b–26 Give alms to the needy

99

Sib. Or. 2:78–87 Give to the poor at once and do not tell them to come tomorrow With perspiring hand give a portion of corn to one who is in need 10 Whoever gives alms knows that he is lending to God Mercy saves from death when judgment comes. God wants not sacrifice but mercy instead of sacrifice. Therefore, clothe the naked. Give the hungry a share of your bread.

Receive the homeless in (your) house, and lead the blind man.

Receive the homeless into your house and lead the blind.

Pity the shipwrecked, for navigation is unsure.

Pity the shipwrecked, for the voyage is uncertain.

Extend your hand to him who falls, and save the helpless one.

Give a hand to one who has fallen. Save a solitary man.

The text in Pseudo-Phocylides combines a general admonition to give alms with a few specific examples of charitable deeds. The mention of receiving the homeless is clearly from Isa 58:7 but this allusion is fleshed out considerably in the use of this text in the Sibylline Oracles. The author incorporates three scriptural texts which were classic texts on charity in Second Temple Judaism. The idea that almsgiving is like lending to God who will repay it in the form of deliverance from death is based on Prov 19:17 as well as 10:2 and 11:4. This dynamic was present in Tob 4 and Sir 29 and appears in several other texts from the Second Temple period; here though, the context suggests that the deliverance

10 The same image of alms in a sweaty hand is found in Did. 1:6, but the two texts employ the image in opposite ways and so they are probably independently drawing on a common saying (Wassmuth, Sibyllinische Orakel 1–2, 319–20). Therefore, this expansion cannot be ascribed to a Christian redaction with confidence.

100

Bradley C. Gregory

is eschatological.11 Second, the author of the Sib. Or. 1–2 has incorporated a citation from Hos 6:6 about God’s preference for mercy instead of sacrifice, a text which was also commonly read in the Second Temple period as referring to acts of charity.12 Third, the allusion to Isa 58:7 has been filled out with the references to feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, though interestingly here the two images are transposed from their normal order. The fact that these scriptural-theological moves are found more widely in both Jewish and Christian texts in antiquity makes it difficult to determine to which stage of composition these expansions belong.13 In either setting, the coordination of standards of charity from Isa 58 and Hos 6 with the understanding of almsgiving as derived from Proverbs was by no means unique. Here, however, the Sibylline Oracles differ from Tobit in embedding their paradigmatic nature not in a testamentary/death-bed instruction but as part of an eschatological discourse regarding people’s eternal destination.14

3 The Gospel of Matthew A similar move to that in Sib. Or. 2 is found in another first century text, the Gospel of Matthew. In chapter 25, the evangelist portrays a judgment scene that is structurally and thematically conventional for the late Second Temple period, except that the Son of Man (i.e. Jesus) appears in the role of divine judge. Particularly strong Jewish parallels, though from a later period, are found in the Midrash to Ps 118 and Avot de Rabbi Nathan 7.15 Interestingly, at this judgment the separation of the “sheep” from the “goats” takes place based on their treatment of the poor and marginalized while issues of faith or confession are left to the side. This is understandable given that compassion towards the poor and suffer-

11 See Anderson, Charity, 53–82; Wassmuth, Sibyllinische Orakel 1–2, 328. Wassmuth argues that Sib. Or. 2:81 is drawing on Tob 4:10. 12 Anderson, Charity, 20, 144. 13 So also Anderson, Charity, 208 n. 2; cf. Urbach, “Religious and Social Tendencies,” 6–7, 20. However, Wassmuth thinks this combination of verses is more likely to come from a Christian redactor, pointing to the similarities with Matthew 25 (Sibyllinische Orakel 1–2, 328–29). 14 It may be noted that these same elements appear again in Sib. Or. 8:404–5, which is probably from the second or third century CE. There the motif is part of a divine speech that denounces idolatry within a larger section that is replete with Christian material. As here, the references in Sib. Or. 8 also assert that charity can substitute for sacrifice and will lead to immortality. 15 See Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3:418–20; Urbach, “Religious and Social Tendencies,” 20.

“Bread to the Hungry and Clothes to the Naked”

101

ing was often understood as a barometer of genuine faith16 and in Matthew it is virtually synonymous with love.17 In any case, the specific criteria that are listed are feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and visiting those in prison (Matt 25:35–36). Ulrich Luz notes that most of these can also be found in a variety of Jewish lists of charitable deeds, especially feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, but visiting those in prison is rather uncommon and may reflect a concern that was particularly important to early Christianity.18 Key to the scene in Matthew is the Jewish idea that God considers acts done to the poor, whether good or bad, as acts done to himself (e.g. Prov 17:5; 19:17; Sir 4:1–10), though again, Jesus stands in the place of God for this theological dynamic. This is, of course, facilitated by the fact that Jesus was poor and marginalized and Matthew even mentioned his hunger earlier in the Gospel (4:2; 21:18).19 It also seems significant in this regard that the Gospel presumes its audience was anxious about these basic necessities since Jesus tells his disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?” (Matt 6:25). But the point to be made here is that outside of the feature of Jesus as judge, this judgment scene was otherwise right at home among other first century judgment scenes.20 This brief discussion shows that while Matt 25 and Sib. Or. 1–2 share several features regarding charity, including the motif of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, this is probably due not to literary dependence but to the fact that these paradigmatic images of righteousness were common in the late Second Temple period throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Because of the prominence of Matthew, subsequent Christian references to feeding the hungry and clothing the naked generally are interacting with Matt 25 and so we turn now to our third and final example of a first century work, 2 Enoch.21

16 See especially Anderson, Charity, 15–112. 17 Luz, Matthew 21–28, 283. 18 Luz, Matthew 21–28, 278. 19 It may also be significant for the theme that Jesus is stripped of his garments before his crucifixion (27:28). My thanks to Jeremy Corley for pointing this out. Of course, the reduction of the victim to public nakedness was not an incidental part of crucifixion but intrinsic to its design to inflict ultimate shame, degradation, and dehumanization. See especially Hooker, Not Ashamed of the Gospel, 9–10. 20 This does not imply that the scene was originally Jewish, only that since Jesus and his earliest disciples were Jewish it is not surprising that this text has much in common with contemporaneous Jewish texts. Luz, Matthew 21–28, 267. 21 For the enormous influence of Matt 25 in early Christianity, see Gray, The Least of My Brothers.

102

Bradley C. Gregory

4 2 Enoch The book of 2 Enoch, whose original form dates from the first century and was probably written near Alexandria, blends the literary features of an apocalypse and of a testament in describing the heavenly journey of the figure of Enoch, his return to report to his family what he had been shown, and then a second ascension back to heaven.22 References to the motif of giving “bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked” appear both in Enoch’s heavenly journey and in his testament to his family. This is not surprising given that care for the poor is one of the most urgent ethical concerns of the book. As such, regardless of how one decides the relationship of the longer and shorter recensions and the possible instances of transmissional growth and interpolations, it is highly likely that admonitions toward charity were part of the first century form of the book.23 More specifically, the fact that the particular motif of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked appears three times in the book and is a theme very much at home in first century Judaism suggests that these are likely to be original as well. In the first section of the book, Enoch is transported on a heavenly journey (2 En. 1–39). While in the third heaven, Enoch sees a vision of paradise, complete with the tree of life, and 300 angels inform him that it is a place prepared for the righteous. In delineating who qualifies as the righteous, the angels list 10 features, which, as seen in relation to Tob 4, is common in ethical summary lists. Here the ten types of righteous concern: those who suffer every kind of calamity in their life, and who afflict their souls, and who avert their eyes from injustice, and who carry out righteous judgment, and who give bread to the hungry, and who cover the naked with clothing, and who lift up the fallen, and who help the injured and the orphans, and who walk without a defect before the face of the LORD, and who worship him only. (9:1)

This “miniature decalogue” appears to be arranged in five groups of two: those who endure suffering, those who pursue justice, those who feed the hungry and 22 Until recently, 2 Enoch was thought to survive only in Slavonic manuscripts, none of which were earlier than the 14th century. However, if it is verified that fragments of the book in Coptic have indeed been discovered, this would strengthen the hypothesis that the book originated in first century Egypt. See Böttrich, “Enoch, Slavonic Apocalypse of (2 Enoch),” 186–87. 23 Cf. Böttrich, “Enoch, Slavonic Apocalypse of (2 Enoch),” 187.

“Bread to the Hungry and Clothes to the Naked”

103

clothe the naked, those who support the weak, and those who worship properly. As with Sib. Or. 1–2 and Matt 25, the central and prominent role of charity is conspicuous and uses the imagery drawn from Isa 58:6–7.24 Also similar to Matt 25 is that in the descriptions of the condemned, the inverses of charity are featured: they are those who steal from the poor, oppress the weak, defraud others, and who “bring about the death of the hungry by starvation; and, when they were able to provide clothing, take away the last garment of the naked” (10:5).25 Interestingly, though, the only three issues featured in both chapter 9 and chapter 10 are feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and proper worship versus idolatry, which gives special prominence to these practices as litmus tests of righteousness.26 Enoch progresses through his heavenly journey and then in chapter 39 he arrives back home to instruct his family before returning to heaven. The urgency is evident from chapter 55 when Enoch speaks to his sons in tears to tell them that upon finishing his instruction the angels are waiting to take him.27 In recounting what he saw and learned, Enoch elaborates righteous behavior by adding a number of elements to the list from chapter 9. Within his teaching, he says: Happy is he who carries out righteous judgment … Happy is he who clothes the naked with his garment, and to the hungry gives his bread! Happy is he who judges righteous judgment for the orphan and widow, and who helps anyone who has been treated unjustly! … Happy is he who sows right seed, for he shall harvest sevenfold! (42:7a, 8–9, 11)

It is notable in this passage that Enoch pairs social justice with charity, using language specifically drawn from the prophets but casting this in the sapiential form of the beatitude and using the proverbial idea of reaping and sowing in abundance. Such things are not only guaranteed a reward but are part of the good life. Furthermore, the notion that charity is repaid many times over, namely sevenfold, also appears in the Syriac version of Sir 29. The notion that charity generally and feeding the hungry and clothing the naked specifically can be expected to produce a full reward from God is stated again in 63:1.

24 Similarly, Barton, Ethics in Ancient Israel, 233. 25 All of the passages quoted from 2 Enoch are from the longer recension but are also present with only slight variations in the shorter recension. 26 So, Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 119; on the connection between refusing alms and idolatry, see Urbach, “Religious and Social Tendencies,” 15. 27 Note that this context parallels the setting of Tobit’s speech in Tobit 4 and, to some degree, the setting of Jesus’ discussion of the sheep and goats in Matt 25:31–46.

104

Bradley C. Gregory

5 The Syriac Version of Ben Sira With this background in mind, we now turn to the Syriac version of Ben Sira, which probably was produced in the third century CE.28 It has features that point to both a Jewish background and a Christian background and may suggest it was the work of a Jewish convert to Christianity.29 Within Sirach, chapter 29 is one of the most important passages on financial generosity in the book. There, Ben Sira places a discussion of almsgiving (29:8–13) within a larger discussion about how lending (29:1–7) and going surety (29:14–20) are commendable and expected of those who obey the Torah.30 Following this, in 29:21 he notes that bread, water, and clothing are among the critical necessities of life. At the end of this chapter in the Syriac version, there are three additional bicola: Give abundantly to a poor person and let him eat from what you have in your hand And if he is naked, clothe him Because (doing so) you are covering your (own) flesh And (doing so) you are lending to God And he repays to you seven times over (29:28c–h).31

The fact that these six lines utilize ideas and language that are often found together in discussions of generosity (e.g. the expansion of Pseudo-Phocylides in the Sib. Or. 1–2, above) suggests that it is a unified block that was added all at once. In light of the discussion above, the allusions to standard biblical texts on generosity and social justice are readily perceived: the combination of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked in 29:28d–e (Isa 58:6–7 and Ezek 18:7– 8; cf. Deut 15:11; Prov 31:30; Sir 7:32) and charity as a loan to God that he will repay in 29:28g–h (Prov 19:17). However, whether this addition was part of the expanded Hebrew text that served as the Vorlage of the Syriac, as Smend thought, or was Syriac in origin is unclear.32 If it arose in the expanded Hebrew Vorlage then it would almost certainly be from a Jewish hand while if it arose either in the Syriac translation or in the transmission of the Syriac, it could be from a Christian hand. In an earlier treatment of this question, I suggested that the adaptation of Prov 19:17 in 29:28g–h to include a sevenfold repayment may presuppose the Hebrew and

28 29 30 31 32

See Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Wisdom of the Scribe, 43–45. Van Peursen, Language and Interpretation, 121–33. See Gregory, Like an Everlasting Signet Ring, 181–200. Translation from Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Wisdom of the Scribe, 194. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, 263.

“Bread to the Hungry and Clothes to the Naked”

105

Greek reading of Sir 35:13, which asserts that God will repay gifts sevenfold, instead of the Syriac which has “ten thousand times over,” though I noted that this still would not decisively settle the question.33 However, now I am less confident that the issue of intertextuality within Sirach is as relevant since 2 En. 42:11 shows that a “sevenfold” recompense for charity may well have been part of the stock imagery for divine reward. This question bears directly on the issue of to which text this Syriac addition is alluding. While most commentators have posited Isa 58:6–7 as the principal intertext, Peters suggested that the Syriac addition was based on Matt 25:36–38, which would virtually require that it arose in the Syriac (and from a Christian) rather than the Hebrew.34 However, the fourth line of this addition, “because (doing so) you are covering your (own) flesh” appears to be an expression of measure-for-measure justice in language adapted from Isa 58:7, ‫ומבשרך‬ ‫“( לא תתעלם‬and not to hide yourself from your own flesh [i.e. kin]”).35 This strongly suggests that the addition is principally a combination of Isa 58:6–7 and Prov 19:17, verses which both individually and together appear in numerous texts regarding charity, both Jewish and Christian, before the third century CE. Where this addition departs from the three first century cases above is that there is nothing in 29:28c–h that requires that the divine reward be considered eschatological in nature, even though the Syriac version of Ben Sira as a whole attests to a belief in a final judgment with rewards and punishments in the world to come.36

Conclusion Among the most popular biblical verses regarding charity and social justice in antiquity were certain verses from Proverbs (e.g. Prov 10:2; 11:4, and 19:17) and the prophetic texts Isa 58:6–7 and Ezek 18:6–7 (as well as Hos 6:6). The use of these verses in combination with each other occurs in both Jewish texts such as Tobit and 2 Enoch and Christian texts such as Matthew. Further, in both traditions their importance is signaled by their conspicuous presence in testa-

33 Gregory, Like an Everlasting Signet Ring, 214–15. 34 Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 242. 35 Similarly, Kearns, Expanded Text, 299. 36 Van Peursen, Language and Interpretation, 35–36. Importantly, the eschatological outlook of the Syriac version can be found in places where the wording emphasizes allusions to the prophets (e.g. Mal 3:24 in 48:10). See Calduch-Benages, Ferrer, and Liesen, Wisdom of the Scribe, 52–54.

106

Bradley C. Gregory

ments and scenes of eschatological judgment (the Syriac of Ben Sira is a notable exception). This means that in texts which appear to have a combination of Jewish and Christian elements or influence, such as the Sib. Or. 1–2 and the Syriac of Ben Sira, it is usually not possible to determine the specific origin of these additions. While the motif of “bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked” can be found in other ancient cultures as well, this concrete propheticsapiential motif about charity became a central part of the shared theological and ethical vision in Judaism and Christianity in the early centuries of the Common Era.

Bibliography Andersen, Francis I. “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” Pages 91–221 in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Anderson, Gary A. Charity: The Place of the Poor in the Biblical Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Barton, John. Ethics in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Böttrich, Christfried. “Enoch, Slavonic Apocalypse of (2 Enoch).” Pages 185–89 in T&T Clark Encyclopedia of Second Temple Judaism. 2 vols. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. London: T&T Clark, 2020. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen. Wisdom of the Scribe: Diplomatic Edition of the Peshitta of the Book of Ben Sira according to Codex Ambrosianus. 2nd ed. Biblioteca Midrásica 26. Estella (Navarra): Verbo Divino, 2015. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. London: T&T Clark, 1988. Gray, Sherman W. The Least of My Brothers: Matthew 25:31–46. A History of Interpretation. SBLDS 114. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Gregory, Bradley C. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Hooker, Morna D. Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Kearns, Conleth. The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus: Its Teaching on the Future Life as a Clue to Its Origin. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. DCLS 11. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 21–28: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Macatangay, Francis M. When I Die, Bury Me Well: Death, Burial, Almsgiving, and Restoration in the Book of Tobit. Eugene: Pickwick, 2016. Oeming, Manfred. “Ethik in der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments am Beispiel von Hi 31 und Tob 4.” Pages 159–173 in Altes Testament: Forschung und Wirkung, Festschrift für Henning Graf Reventlow. Edited by Peter Mommer and Winfried Thiel. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994.

“Bread to the Hungry and Clothes to the Naked”

107

Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus übersetzt und erklärt. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Peursen, W. Th. van. Language and Interpretation in the Syriac Text of Ben Sira: A Comparative and Literary Study. MPIL 16. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Rodd, Cyril S. Glimpses of a Strange Land: Studies in Old Testament Ethics. OTS. Edinburgh: T&T Clark 2001. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Urbach, Ephraim. “Religious and Social Tendencies in Talmudic Concepts of Charity.” Zion 16 (1951): 1–27. [Hebrew] Wassmuth, Olaf. Sibyllinische Orakel 1–2: Studien und Kommentar. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1– 24. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

Paweł Paszko

The Metaphor of a Woman Giving Birth: The Book of Ben Sira in the Light of Prophetic Literature Abstract: This paper deals with a particular combination of two images in the Book of Ben Sira: the symbolic representation of “a woman giving birth” and the idea of “man at war.” The scribe of Jerusalem brings these specific parallel concepts together on two occasions: in Sir 19:11–12 and 48:19. The analysis of these texts against the background of ancient biblical literature, especially the prophetic one, sheds more light on the figure of the woman presented by Ben Sira. In this way, the image of the female does not have to be seen as a pejorative symbol of weakness and powerlessness. Rather, in this specific context, it could serve to illustrate a dramatic inner chaos and anxiety caused by some critical life situations. Keywords: metaphor, narrative context, woman in childbirth, crisis

Introduction In one of her articles, Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages discusses, among other topics, Ben Sira’s indirect allusions to the figure of a woman giving birth.1 In doing so, the scholar identifies two texts of Ecclesiasticus containing the combination of verbs ‫חיל‬/ὠδίνω (“suffer birth pains”) and ‫ילד‬/τίκτω (“give birth”): Sir 19:11–12 and Sir 48:19. Both cases deal with the literary likeness of a woman in childbirth which acts as a metaphor for a specific kind of human experience. Furthermore, when looking at the context of these two particular texts, the same image is related to apparently incompatible life situations: in one case it serves to illustrate the behavior of the fool (Sir 19:11–12), in the other it becomes a figurative way of expressing the immense affliction of people in danger (Sir 48:19). Taking this as a starting point, the present paper takes a closer look at both texts working with this specific metaphor and compares them with analogous

1 Calduch-Benages, “Absence,” 309–10. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-009

110

Paweł Paszko

references present in the prophetic literature. The purpose of this analysis is to offer a deeper sense of the metaphorical representation of a woman giving birth in the Book of Ben Sira.

1 Woman in Childbirth in Ben Sira Many scholars have already demonstrated how the Jerusalem scribe uses the metaphorical language and, more specifically, the figure of simile to better communicate the message of his book.2 Among the many metaphors Ben Sira employs, various images of a woman appear. Admittedly, the general imagery of women in his book seems to have rather negative or derogatory connotations.3 However, there are many texts where the author portrays femininity in a positive or at least in a balanced way. One such case is the imagery of a woman in childbirth. In the Book of Ben Sira, there are three figurative and indirect instances where a woman giving birth is mentioned: (1) in Sir 19:11 where the image of a woman in childbirth is linked with the attitude of a fool, (2) in Sir 34:5 where divinations, auguries, and dreams are compared to the delusions of a woman in the middle of giving birth, and (3) in Sir 48:19 where the figure of a women in labor becomes a metaphor for a situation of mortal danger.4 In two of these cases – the first and the third one – the author combines two significant verbs: ‫חיל‬/ὠδίνω (“suffer birth pains”) and ‫ילד‬/τίκτω (“give birth”). In the second case (Sir 34:5), only the Greek verb ὠδίνω is used.5 For this reason, we are going to consider Sir 19:11 and 48:19 within their close literary context. A cursory look at these passages might suggest that there is no logical connection between these two narrative situations. Yet, as we shall see, in both cases the image of a woman giving birth becomes a simile for another remarkable reality, which is in some way related to war imagery.

2 E.g. Minissale, “Metaphor,” 253; Corley, “Similes,” 94–95; Calduch-Benages, “Animal,” 55– 71; Calduch-Benages, “Garment,” 257–278; Calduch-Benages, “Ben Sira 24:22,” 57–72; CalduchBenages, “Poetic,” 267–84. 3 Cf. e.g. Davidson, “Judgment,” 402; Trenchard, View of Women; Calduch-Benages, “Mujeres.” 4 According to the Codex Alexandrinus and several ancient manuscripts, there is another “childbirth” reference in Sir 43:17a, where the phrase φωνὴ βροντῆς αὐτοῦ ὠνείδισεν γῆν (“the voice of his thunder rebukes the earth”) contains the verb ὠδίνω (“suffer birth pains”); cf. Smend, Weisheit, 176; Calduch-Benages, “Absence,” 309–10; Palmisano, Siracide, 403. 5 The Hebrew and Syriac manuscripts are missing (cf. Calduch-Benages, “Absence,” 309–10).

The Metaphor of a Woman Giving Birth

111

1.1 Sir 19:11–12 The first appearance of the figure of a woman in labor is in Sir 19 in the section on self-control.6 Among other warnings against uncontrollable urges, especially gossip mongering, vv. 11–12 present two parallel images that express the teaching of control of the tongue and the evil of gossip.7 Since the Hebrew text is missing, we can refer to the Greek version only: 11a

11a

11b

11b

ἀπὸ προσώπου λόγου ὠδινήσει μωρὸς ὡς ἀπὸ προσώπου βρέφους ἡ τίκτουσα. 12a βέλος πεπηγὸς ἐν μηρῷ σαρκός, 12b οὕτως λόγος ἐν κοιλίᾳ μωροῦ.

In the face of news, a fool will suffer pangs like a woman in labor in front of a child.8 12a As an arrow stuck in the flesh of a thigh,9 12b so is a piece of news inside a fool.

These two colorful metaphors serve to describe in a meaningful and humorous way the fool’s uncontrolled urge to pass gossip on once it lodges in him.10 Each of vv. 11 and 12 contain very appropriate imagery that depicts the discomfort and pain that the fool feels when he has something inside him – a word/news (λόγος) – that is not allowed to come out. In other words, the fool has to keep silent about what he knows but he cannot stand it. Let us take a closer look at these persuasive images. In v. 11, Ben Sira calls the reader’s attention to a mother’s pain during childbirth. The first image is thus: faced with a word that should be kept secret, the fool goes into labor pains, just like a woman giving birth to her child. The emphasis of the metaphor is on the inevitability of what is going to happen. The meaning of the simile seems obvious: the fool is not able to keep anything to

6 In the Greek and Latin manuscripts, this poem (Sir 18:30–19:12) is entitled “On Self-Control of the Soul” (cf. Di Lella, “Sirach,” 502). There are different opinions among scholars regarding the delimitation of the poem: vv. 5–12 (e.g. Skehan, Wisdom, 292); vv. 4–12 (e.g. Corley, Teaching, 159); vv. 4–17 (e.g. Bussino, et al., “Sir 18,15–19,17,” 130–35). 7 Only these two verses (11 and 12) are considered here, being a clear case of synonymous parallelism of two similes. There are reasons, however, to add as well v. 10 as a kind of introduction to the similes in vv. 11–12. In fact, in Sir 19:10 we find the same concept of a fool’s behavior in the face of gossip, but in imperative form: ἀκήκοας λόγον συναποθανέτω σοι θάρσει οὐ μή σε ῥήξει (“Have you heard the news? Let it die with you. Courage! It will not burst you!”). Cf. Bussino et al, “Sir 18,15–19,17,” 133–34. 8 In Syriac, the simile in v. 11b is even more explicit: “as a woman in labor who is in pain from her child” (cf. Smend, Weisheit, 176; Calduch-Benages, “Absence,” 309). 9 Syriac reads “the man” (ἀνδρός?) instead of “the thigh” (cf. Smend, Weisheit, 176). 10 Kieweler, “Freundschaft,” 62: “[Hier] wird mit starken Ausdrücken das Geschwätz über die Schuld anderer aufgeworfen und in lebendigen, humorvollen Bildern das Thema des vorsichtigen Gebrauchs von Worten in Freund- und Feindschaft entwickelt.”

112

Paweł Paszko

himself, just as a woman in labor cannot stop the process of childbirth.11 As Georg Sauer notes, the primordial character of the natural process is the core of the simile.12 V. 12 brings up the second image, this time related to a battle experience. The enemy’s arrow that is stuck in the flesh of a thigh is a foreign body that must be removed as quickly as possible. So the fool feels compelled to remove from himself the gossip that he has heard since he cannot hold it anymore. Again, the sense of the image is clear: the fool simply cannot refrain from gossiping.13 In order to find an adequate tertium comparationis of the simile, we should ask what these two images and these two life experiences (childbirth and a wound in battle) have in common, from the time when both situations serve to depict how powerful the fool’s urge is to let out gossip once it lodges in his “breast.” In both cases, there is above all an analogous exposure to pain, suffering, and awareness of the inevitability of some situations. Keeping this in mind, let us take a closer look at the second time the figure of a woman giving birth appears in Ben Sira.

1.2 Sir 48:19 The birth pangs metaphor reoccurs in the historical section of the book, well known as the “Praise of the Ancestors” (Sir 44–49). The literary context of using this specific female imagery is the account of the Assyrian invasion and the miraculous salvation of Jerusalem, placed in the section on kings and prophets (Sir 46:1–49:10). Here, the author is presenting the history of the reign of King Hezekiah, strongly intertwined with the activities of the prophet Isaiah (Sir 48:17– 25).14 Ben Sira offers up this story in a condensed way in order to show its most important elements from the point of view of God’s intervention in these events.15 The simile of birth pangs in v. 19 refers to the reaction of the people in the face of Sennacherib’s expedition against Jerusalem and Hezekiah. The Assyrian invasion

11 Cf. Kieweler, “Freundschaft,” 74–75. 12 Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 153: “Die Urwüchsigkeit des Naturvorganges ist dabei der Kern des Vergleiches”. 13 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 293. 14 There are several opinions on the delimitation of the passage: vv. 15e–25 (e.g. Hamp, Sirach, 135–136; Beentjes, “Hezekiah,” 80); vv. 16–25 (e.g. Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 328–30; Goshen-Gottstein, “Praise,” 259); vv. 17–25 (e.g. Oesterley, Wisdom, 329; Wieringen, “Sirach 48:17–25,” 197). 15 Ben Sira uses and adapts to his concept the extensive narratives in 2 Kgs 18:1–20:21; 2 Chr 29– 32; Isa 36:1–39:8; 22:9–11. Cf. Gonçalvès, L’expédition, 331–487; Höffken, “Darstellung,” 162–75.

The Metaphor of a Woman Giving Birth

113

caused panic among the inhabitants of Jerusalem whose suffering and terror Ben Sira compares to labor pains. The Hebrew text (Ms B) differs somewhat from the Greek (LXX); therefore, we need to compare both versions:16

‫]אז נ[ מוגו בגאון לבם‬ ‫ויחילו כיולדה‬ 19a 19b

[Then]17 they trembled in the hubris of their hearts They suffered as one giving birth τότε ἐσαλεύθησαν καρδίαι καὶ χεῖρες αὐτῶν καὶ ὠδίνησαν ὡς αἱ τίκτουσαι

19a 19b

Then their hearts and hands trembled, they suffered as those who are giving birth

The Hebrew text in v. 19a gives the reason for the reaction of the people: ‫בגאון‬ ‫“( לבם‬in the hubris of their hearts”). At first, they felt safe and secure thanks to their city being fortified and having access to water (cf. v. 17).18 It turned out, however, that their confidence gave way to fear when confronted with the attitude of the Assyrian army representatives.19 In contrast, the Greek text seems to exalt the past by modifying the dishonorable behavior shown in the Hebrew text in a simple description of fear: “their hearts and hands trembled”.20 However, it is possible to assign the “hubris” (‫ )גאון‬in v. 19a to the Assyrian general rather than to the Israelites.21 In doing so, the overall meaning of the phrase remains analogous in both versions: the people of Jerusalem were terribly frightened 22 in the face of the Assyrians’ Lord Chamberlain. Such a reaction from the Israelites (v. 19a) is compared in v. 19b to the pain of a woman (women) giving birth.23 In order to understand better the sense of 16 Cf. Box, “Book of Sirach,” 503; Smend, Weisheit, 466; Minissale, Versione greca, 219. 17 Scholars normally suggest putting ‫ אז‬at the beginning of the corrupted text (“then, at that time”; Greek: “τότε”; Latin: “tunc”). Cf. Smend, Weisheit, 466; Calduch-Benages, “Absence,” 309. 18 It can also allude to the description of Hezekiah in 2 Chr 32:25: “his heart was haughty”. 19 Alonso Schökel, Proverbios, 319: “Entonces los que se confiaban, se acobardaron” (“then those who were confident, became dearful”); cf. Calduch-Benages, “Absence,” 309. 20 Cf. Minissale, Versione greca, 219. 21 Peters, Buch Jesus, 415: “Vor seinem Stolze zerschmilzt ihr Stolz” (“in the face of his pride, their pride melts”); Penar, Northwest, 83: “The heart’s presumption in question is not that of the Israelites, but of Rabshakeh;” cf. Marböck, “Jesaja,” 309–310. 22 The fear of the people is articulated by the term ‫ מוג‬in niphal (“melt, dissolve”), which can also describe the idea of an earthquake (e.g. Ps 46:7). In figurative usage, this verb indicates the effect of great fear and panic (cf. Baumann, “‫מוג‬,” 149–52). 23 The Hebrew text has singular ‫“( כיולדה‬as the one giving birth”), whereas the Greek version uses the plural: ὡς αἱ τίκτουσαι (“as those who are giving birth”). The sense of the simile, however, does not change.

114

Paweł Paszko

this metaphor in its historical context, scholars usually refer back to one particular proverbial expression24 found in other biblical narratives: “Today is a day of suffering, of punishment, of disgrace. Children come to birth, and there is no strength to bring birth to them” (2 Kgs 19:3; cf. Isa 37:3). These are King Hezekiah’s words when he described the Assyrian threat, seeing it as a hopeless situation. Here the reference to labor pains evokes the image of a hard and lifethreatening situation, in which the woman is too weak to give birth to her child. This is related to an experience of chronic weakness and seemingly interminable pain. At this point, it is worth comparing the meaning of this metaphor in both texts we are considering.25 The sense of the childbirth simile in the first (19:11) and second text (48:19) seems to be inconsistent with one another. The same image is used, as we have seen, first to depict the situation of the inevitability of childbirth, and then to illustrate the impossibility of bearing a child. In other words, whereas in 19:11 the labor pains signify the very close and imminent birth of a child, in 48:19 they seem to indicate, according to the proverb of Hezekiah, the inability or incapacity to birth a child. In relation to Sir 48:17–25, Pancratius Beentjes notes: “In comparison with the biblical account it appears that Ben Sira for describing that situation has introduced some accents of his own, e.g. wordplay is one of the favorite items.”26 With regard to the metaphor of childbirth (v. 19b), the scholar recognizes here an allusion to another fragment of Isaiah (Isa 13:8) and suggests the presence of a literary topos and phenomenon called “inverted quotation”:27 Whereas the main lines in the description of Hezekiah and Isaiah (Sir 48,17–25) have been adopted by Ben Sira from the story as told in Is 36–39 (= 2 Kgs 18–20), the metaphor of a woman in labour has been derived from quite another section of the book of Isaiah. In Is 13,8 the words kywldh yhyin form part of an oracle against Babylon. Though we have to take into account this metaphor could be a commonplace or “topos”, one cannot exclude the possibility that Ben Sira applies here an “inverted quotation”.28

24 Cf. Demitrów, Oranti, 421–27. For the interpretation of this proverb in its historical context: Darr, “No Strength,” 219–56. 25 “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” (Minissale, “Metaphor,” 253). 26 Beentjes, “Relations,” 155. 27 Cf. Beentjes, “Quotations,” 506–23; Beentjes, “Discovering,” 33; Beentjes, “Canon,” 599. 28 Beentjes, “Relations,” 155–56. The meaning of the inverted quotation in this case is that in Sir 48:19 Ben Sira uses the same two terms as Isaiah does in Isa 13:8, but in reverse order.

The Metaphor of a Woman Giving Birth

115

Following the intuition of Beentjes, in the second part of this paper we are going to look at this particular childbirth metaphor in Ben Sira in the light of the abovementioned “topos” present in prophetic literature and in other texts of the ancient Near East.

2 Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis The use of metaphoric and symbolic language is an unquestionable common heritage of all human cultures. In the case of the image of a woman in labor as presented in our texts, the metaphor is articulated in the form of a simile.29 Many scholars have interpreted this image as a common ancient “topos” that describes the condition of a frightened person whose heart trembles as strongly as the beating heart of a woman in labor. In doing so, the woman giving birth – focusing on the negative aspects of the process of childbirth – becomes a symbol of pain, fear, weakness, and powerlessness.30 However, as we shall see, it is not the only way to read this metaphor.

2.1 The Metaphor of Giving Birth in Prophetic Literature The imagery of a woman in childbirth appears quite frequently in ancient Near East, biblical and post-biblical literature. Within the Hebrew Bible, it became a part of conventional prophetic language.31 It is worth noting though that this particular metaphor is usually found in the context of war and battle. This peculiarity appears often in the Hebrew Bible, especially in prophetic oracles: Isa 13:8; 21:3; 26:17–18; 42:13–14; Jer 4:31; 6:24; 8:21LXX; 13:21; 22:23; 30:6; 48:41; 49:22–24; 50:43; Mic 4:9–10; Ps 48:6. Although childbirth and war are universal experiences, in prophetic texts they have been written through a cultural filter, therefore it makes sense to analyze them as “associated commonplaces.”32 Con-

29 We can define simile as a figure of speech that compares two dissimilar things and is introduced by the word “like,” making a metaphor explicit (cf. Corley, “Similes,” 94–95; Bergmann, “Enemy,” 652–54). 30 Cf. Demitrów, Oranti, 423. It should be noted that “childbirth is an experience that cannot be understood and described in its totality” (Bergmann, Childbirth, 1). 31 Cf. Darr, “Warrior,” 571; Dille, Metaphors, 52–58; Philip, “Woman,” 499–505; Løland, Gender, 115–20. 32 Sarah Dille, studying this association of childbirth and war, outlines the common existential experiences of both situations: “There are a number of ‘associated commonplaces’. First, labor involves actual pain. Soldiers may well sustain wounds that cause physical pain. Second,

116

Paweł Paszko

sequently, the simile of a woman giving birth in the biblical tradition becomes something more than a merely negative illustration of pain and weakness. A particularly significant example of this phenomenon in prophetic literature is the short poem found in Chapter 42 of Isaiah, which directly follows the first of the famous Songs of the Servant of Yhwh (Isa 42:1–9). The passage of Isa 42:10–17 can be divided into two formal parts: vv. 10–13, which consist of an invitation to praise God, and vv. 14–17, which contain Yhwh’s direct speech.33 The center of the poem is vv. 13–14 and offers up an interesting passage, where two apparently incompatible metaphorical images of God are brought together: a “man of war” on the one hand, and on the other, a “woman in labor”:34 The Lord goes forth like a warrior (‫)כגבור‬ like a man of war he stirs up his fury; He shouts out his battle cry, against his enemies he shows his might: 13

14

For a long time I have kept silent, I have said nothing, holding myself back; Now I cry out like a woman in labor (‫)כיולדה‬, gasping and panting.

Although v. 13 paints the image of Yhwh as a valiant warrior preparing for battle, nonetheless v. 14 completely changes this perspective and illustrates God presenting himself as a woman in childbirth.35 At one level, this image directly refers only to the cry that accompanies labor, comparable to the war cry of

labor involves blood, as does war. Third, labor pains are apparently regarded in these texts as comparable to the inner pain of panic, such as a panic attack. Such a panic may also be experienced in battle. Fourth, just as warfare always carried the threat of death, giving birth also carried the potential for the death of the mother and/or the child. Fifth, labor is an inevitable, unstoppable process. Once the labor pains start, birth cannot be stopped. So also, those who face war face events that they cannot stop. They are ‘like a woman giving birth’. Sixth, while a woman in labor is not weak, the time comes when her pains have so ‘seized’ her that she cannot do anything else and so might be seen as vulnerable to her external environment. The use of the terms ‘seized’ and ‘taken hold of’ highlight the sense of vulnerability to powers beyond one’s control. Seventh, the frequent use of the term ‘distress’ or ‘anguish’ conveys a sense of constriction. A commonplace of labor is the imagery of a bolted door. Together these fit the context of a siege” (Dille, Metaphors, 56–57). 33 To consult different opinions on the delimitation and subdivision of the passage, see Darr, “Warrior,” 562. 34 Cf. Løland, Gender, 100–128. 35 Note also the change of verbal forms: while in vv. 10–13 Yhwh is described in the third person, in vv. 14–17 he speaks of himself in the first person.

The Metaphor of a Woman Giving Birth

117

v. 13.36 At a deeper level, however, the same image might be taken beyond that simple comparison and present God as a mother who by giving birth is offering up a new creation. In fact, the following images express the newness of a transformed world (vv. 15–17). It can therefore be seen that in Isa 42:10–17 the Lord, despite being established as a “man of war,” acts miraculously for the salvation of his people by imitating a “woman in labor,” or a woman in a state of extreme weakness, anguish, terror, and pain.37 According to Claudia Bergmann, the metaphor of childbirth in ancient Near Eastern literature, the Hebrew Bible, and the writings from Qumran is often used to depict some types of human crisis.38 These crises might involve historical events, such as battles (“local crisis”)39 or even world-changing events, such as the prospect of the future “day of yhwh” (“universal crisis”).40 On the other hand, some crises might be caused by relatively small events, such as oppression experienced by only one individual (“personal crisis”).41 In all of the texts analyzed, every crisis is imminent and all encompassing. The important thing is that “the emotions and associations evoked by the Birth Metaphor in its different expressions serve as a foil through which to view these events [i.e., different forms of crises], which are otherwise unrelated to birth.”42 Moreover, Bergmann argues that all these ancient texts join both childbirth and military metaphors more commonly than one would expect. This is because of some clearly overlapping elements: Ancient Near Eastern examples show that there was a tradition of comparing women giving birth to warriors in battle. Their experience is similar because both warriors in battle and women giving birth can have experiences on a psychological level (the feeling of chaos and loss of control) and on a physiological level (blood, sweat, and stirring movements back and forth).43

Keeping this in mind, we can now return to Ben Sira which shares the same childbirth metaphor. In doing so, we hope to better understand this particular simile used by the Jerusalem scribe and shed more light on it. 36 Schoors, I Am God, 91: “Yahweh is not presented as a woman in travail. The particle ke here means ‘like’ and tertium comparationis is not the condition of distress but the crying. The woman in travail is only a term of comparison to picture Yahwe’s loud crying. In short, there is no metaphor but a simile.” 37 Cf. Darr, “Warrior,” 571. 38 Bergmann, Childbirth. Cf. Bergmann, “Enemy,” 651–72; Bergmann, “Warrior,” 38–56; Bergmann, “Birth,” 17–34; Bergmann, “Mothers,” 132–44. 39 Cf. Bergmann, Childbirth, 82–114. 40 Cf. Bergmann, Childbirth, 114–26. 41 Cf. Bergmann, Childbirth, 127–63. 42 Bergmann, Childbirth, 56. 43 Bergmann, Childbirth, 139.

118

Paweł Paszko

2.2 Childbirth and Crisis in the Book of Ben Sira Taking into account what has been previously considered, it can be noted that in both of these texts from Ben Sira, the birth metaphor also appears in connection with warfare. While in the first case our simile is juxtaposed with another metaphor related to a fighting and wounded warrior (Sir 19:11–12), the second text is placed in the actual context of a siege and imminent battle (Sir 49:19). Therefore, we can compare these two texts of Sirach with the same literary phenomenon present in other biblical and extra biblical ancient texts. First, Ben Sira’s specific use of “birth metaphor” turns out not to be his own invention or a separate literary phenomenon but it fits perfectly in the entire context of the Hebrew Bible, especially the prophetic books, and even within the widespread literary convention common to many texts of the ancient Near East. Using the same simile in two completely different texts, Ben Sira tells us something not only about his personal literary sensitivity but also about the ancient way of thinking to which he belongs and from which he draws to express his ideas. Undoubtedly, the texts of the Old Testament prophets and their language played a key role as a source of inspiration for the Jerusalem scribe. Second, our metaphor of childbirth used in these two analyzed contexts does not present, as it might seem, a negative image of a woman. On the contrary, it offers a positive expression of struggle and effort required, even if presented from a male point of view. There was as well a literary convention in the prophetic tradition where warriors were mocked by comparing them to women, as attested in Isa 19:16; Jer 50:37; 51:30; Nah 3:13. These are examples of shaming warriors by stripping them of their manhood.44 In our texts, however, the metaphor of a woman in labor evokes the image of an imminent life or death situation from which there is no escape. Even the bravest warriors sometimes have to face this too. Thus, being “like a woman giving birth” should be seen as a badge of honor rather than a sign of weakness. Third, our two Sirach texts have another essential feature in common: they describe some particular kind of human crisis expressed by the metaphor of childbirth. According to Bergmann’s terminology, in Sir 19 we deal with a “personal crisis” related to one person in particular, i.e., the fool, whereas the same metaphor in Sir 48 relates to a type of “local crisis,” affecting all the inhabitants of Jerusalem threatened by an enemy invasion. Both of these crisis types share common characteristics: they are imminent and all encompassing.45 In both

44 Cf. Bergmann, “Enemy,” 664–72. 45 Cf. Bergmann, Childbirth, 126; “Enemy,” 657 n. 17.

The Metaphor of a Woman Giving Birth

119

cases, the language of fear, trembling, and pain dominates and, above all, expresses the feeling of being absorbed and overwhelmed by a critical situation. While the context of the Assyrian invasion logically generates such conditions and feelings, the same experiences, when applied to a fool who cannot keep to himself anything he hears, may assume an ironic overtone. For a wise man, the same situation would be unproblematic while for a fool, it becomes the cause of a mortal crisis and personal drama comparable to a childbirth or to a wound received in battle. Finally, we must acknowledge that the scribe of Jerusalem does represent a typically masculine point of view. One can imagine that the same book written by a woman would have contained completely different images and metaphors. On the other hand, the same childbirth metaphor expressed by a female author would probably have been given another meaning and the framework would have been different, perhaps less dramatic. Consequently, the figure of a woman in labor would have been linked to other situations that are very different from life and death crises.46

Conclusion As we have seen, the use of the simile of a woman in labor is part of the imagery common to the ancient world and can be used to express various crisis situations in the life of an individual or a group of people. The two examined texts with this specific metaphor coupled with the idea of war from the Book of Ben Sira can be better understood in light of some ancient literary conventions. This wider context provided primarily by the prophetic literature of the Old Testament gives our texts an interesting perspective on the image of a female. Instead of seeing women as weak or inadequate, these passages emphasize rather the idea that a woman in labor faces a deadly crisis and mortal danger, making the image apt for other crisis situations. In conclusion, we recall Jeremy Corley’s opinion that the rhetorical functions of similes in Sirach include “making the sayings memorable, intensifying the emotion, provoking thought, expressing ambiguity, and creating beauty.”47 Indeed, the same also applies in relation to this specific metaphor of a woman giving birth in the Book of Ben Sira.

46 Cf. Philip, “Woman,” 502–3. 47 Corley, “Similes,” 94.

120

Paweł Paszko

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, Luis. Proverbios y Ecclesiástico. Los Libros Sagrados 8/1. Madrid: Cristiandad, 1968. Baumann, Arnulf. “‫מוג‬.” Pages 149–52 in TDOT 8. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern.” Biblica 63 (1982): 506–23. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Relations between Ben Sira and the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 155–59 in The Book of Isaiah/Le livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures, unité et complexité de l’ouvrage. BETL 81. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted Quotations and Their Dynamics.” Pages 31–50 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Lénart J. de Regt, Jan de Waard and Jan Fokkelman. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 591–601 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol I.2. Edited by Magne Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Hezekiah and Isaiah: A Study on Ben Sira xlviii, 15–25.” Pages 77– 88 in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament. Edited by Adam S. van der Woude. OTS 25. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Bergmann, Claudia D. “‘We Have Seen the Enemy, and He Is Only a She’: The Portrayal of Warriors as Women.” CBQ 69 (2007): 651–72. [Pages 129–42 in Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad Kelle and Frank R. Ames. SBL Symposium Series 42. Atlanta: Brill, 2008]. Bergmann, Claudia D. Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis: Evidence from the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, and 1QH XI, 1–18. BZAW 382. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008. Bergmann, Claudia D. “‘Like a Warrior’ and ‘Like a Woman Giving Birth’: Expressing Divine Immanence and Transcendence in Isaiah 42:10–17.” Pages 38–56 in Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by S. Tamar Kamionkowski and Wonil Kim. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Bergmann, Claudia D. “Turning Birth into Theology: Traces of Ancient Obstetric Knowledge within Narratives of Difficult Childbirth in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 17–34 in Children in the Bible and the Ancient World: Comparative and Historical Methods in Reading Ancient Children. Edited by Shawn W. Flynn. New York: Routledge, 2019. Bergmann, Claudia D. “Mothers of a Nation: How Motherhood and Religion Intermingle in the Hebrew Bible.” Open Theology 6 (2020): 132–44. Box, George H., and William O. E. Oesterley, “The Book of Sirach.” Pages 268–517 in APOT. Vol. 1. Edited by Robert H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Bussino, Severino et al. “Sir 18,15–19,17: preghiera, passioni e parola.” RivB 63 (2015): 117– 36. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Ben Sira y las mujeres.” Reseña Bíblica 41 (2004): 37–44. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “The Absence of Named Women from Ben Sira’s Praise of Ancestors.” Pages 301–17 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.

The Metaphor of a Woman Giving Birth

121

Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Animal Imagery in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sirach.” Pages 55–71 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. Edited by Jean Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. JSJ Supplements 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Garment Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 257–78 in The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Markus Witte and Sven Behnke. DCLY 2014/15. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Ben Sira 24:22 – Decoding a Metaphor.” Pages 57–72 in Vermittelte Gegenwart: Konzeptionen der Gottespräsenz von der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels bis Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Edited by Andrea Taschlerber and Irmtraud Fischer. WUNT 367. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Poetic Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira: A Case Study of Sir 21:1– 10.” Pages 267–84 in Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting: Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 years. Edited by James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel, and Stefan C. Reif. DCLY 2018. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Corley, Jeremy. Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship. BJS 316. Providence: Brown University, 2002. Corley, Jeremy. “Similes and Sound Patterns as Rhetorical Tools in Two Hebrew Wisdom Books.” Pages 94–128 in Verborgen Lezers. Edited by Archibald L.H.M. van Wieringen. Theologische Perspectieven. Supplement Series Deel 2. Bergambacht: Uitgeverij 2VM, 2011. Darr, Katheryn P. “Like Warrior, like Woman: Destruction and Deliverance in Isaiah 42:10–17.” CBQ 49 (1987): 560–71. Darr, Katheryn P. “‘No Strength to Deliver’: A Contextual Analysis of Hezekiah’s Proverb in Isaiah 37:3b.” Pages 219–56 in New Visions of Isaiah. Edited by Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney. JSOT.SS 214. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996. Davidson, Andrew B. “Sirach’s Judgment of Women.” ExpTim 6 (1894–95): 402–404. Demitrów, Andrzej. Quattro oranti nell’Elogio dei Padri (Sir 44–49): Studio dei testi e delle tradizioni. Opolska Biblioteka Teologiczna 124. Opole: Wydawnictwo Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 2011. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Sirach.” Pages 496–509 in The New Jerome Bible Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. London: Geoffrey Champan, 1993. Dille, Sarah J. Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah. JSOTSup 398. London/New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. Gonçalvès, Francolino. L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dans la littérature hébraïque ancienne. Études Bibliques 7. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1986. Goshen-Gottstein, Alon. “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers: A Canon-Conscious Reading.” Pages 236–67 in Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham – Ushaw College 2001. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: de Gruyter 2002. Hamp, Vinzenz. Sirach. Die Heilige Schrift in deutscher Übersetzung. Echter Bibel 13. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1952. Höffken, Peter. “Jesus Sirachs Darstellung der Interaktion des Königs Hiskija und des Propheten Jesaja (Sir 48:17–25).” JSJ 31 (2000): 162–75. Kieweler, Hans V. “Freundschaft und böse Nachrede: Exegetische Anmerkungen zu Sir 19,6– 19.” Pages 61–85 in Freundschaft bei Ben Sira: Beiträge des Symposions zu Ben Sira, Salzburg 1995. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer. BZAW 244. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996.

122

Paweł Paszko

Løland, Hanne. Silent or Salient Gender? The Interpretation of Gendered God-Language in the Hebrew Bible, Exemplified in Isaiah 42, 46, and 49. FAT II/32. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Marböck, Johannes. “Jesaja in Sirach 48,15–25: Zur Prophetenverständnis in der Späten Weisheit.” Pages 305–19 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid. BZAW 300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Minissale, Antonino. La versione greca del Siracide: Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico. AnBib 133. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995. Minissale, Antonino. “The Metaphor of ‘Falling’: Hermeneutic Key to the Book of Sirach.” Pages 253–75 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Oesterley, William O.E. The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus: In the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912. Palmisano, Maria C. Siracide: Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Nuova Versione della Bibbia dai Testi Antichi 34. Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 2016. Penar, Tadeusz. Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira. BibOr 28. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Philip, Tarja. “Woman in Travail as a Simile to Man in Distress in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 499–505 in Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Simo Parpola and Robert M. Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach: Übersetzt und erklärt. ATDA 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906. Trenchard, Warren C. Ben Sira’s View of Women: A Literary Analysis. BJS 38. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. van Wieringen, Archibald L.H.M. “Sirach 48:17–25 and the Isaiah-Book: Hezekiah and Isaiah in the Book of Sirach and the Reader-Oriented Perspective of the Isaiah-Book.” Pages 191–210 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honor of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm W. M. van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.

Ibolya Balla

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea: Intertextual Links between Sir 24:12–23 and Hos 14:5–10 Abstract: Sir 24:12–23 and Hos 14:5–10 abound in garden and plant metaphors which at first glance may be too general to point to any purposeful link between the two texts. Closer examination shows, however, that the two passages relate to the question of Torah piety and to the problem of adultery. Their image of a banquet reinforces the idea of God as giving life to his people directly (Hosea) or indirectly (Ben Sira). Keeping the Law of Moses means life, fertility, abundance, protection, and an ideal relationship for Israel/the individual with God, while its transgression means death, barrenness, and disgrace. It seems that by depicting God as a “provider” for Israel/the individual, the authors intended their works to be a polemic against foreign (cultic) influence upon Israel by emphasizing that God is a better “provider” than Baal (Hosea) or the Hellenistic culture (Ben Sira). Keywords: Sir 24:12–23; Hos 14:5–10, garden and plant metaphors, banquet, life, God as provider, polemic

Introduction Both wisdom and prophetic literature employ a variety of poetic devices which not only emphasize the message of the author but also reflect the historical, theological, and tradition-historical contexts in which these literary devices were produced. Ben Sira uses personification in wisdom poems placed at strategically important points in his book as well as metaphors and similes. Among Hosea’s literary devices, we find metaphors, including similes, wordplays, and parallelism.1 Sir 24:12–23 and Hos 14:5–10 notably abound in plant metaphors.2 Upon closer examination, these passages reveal an image of God (Hosea) or Wisdom 1 See Dearman, Book of Hosea, 10–16; Kelle, Hosea 2, especially 1–17; Eidevall, Grapes; Kruger, “Prophetic Imagery,” 143–51; Middlemas, “Divine Presence,” 204–206. 2 The examination of these passages is based on the final text. I comment on issues of composition only in a few instances. The translation of the Greek text of Sir 24:12–23 and of the Masoretic text of Hos 14:5–10 is my own, unless otherwise indicated. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-010

124

Ibolya Balla

(Ben Sira) sustaining restored Israel (Hosea) or generally, the God fearers (Ben Sira). Keeping the law of Moses means life, fertility, abundance, and an ideal relationship for Israel/the individual with God, while transgressing it means death, barrenness, and disgrace. The purpose of this paper is twofold: 1) to demonstrate that by depicting God as a “provider,” the respective authors intended the given passage to be a polemic against foreign influence upon Israel and any kind of apostasy in general by emphasizing that God is a better “provider” than Baal (Hosea) or those alluring ways of life and influences that are contrary to Mosaic law (perhaps, Hellenistic ideas, Ben Sira); 2) to point out possible intertextual links between these works and between Hosea and wisdom literature in general.

1 Analysis of Sir 24:12–23 and Hos 14:5–10 and their Significance in their Respective Contexts 1.1 Sir 24:12–23 GI3 12 13 14

15

16

“And I took root among a glorified people, in the portion of the Lord is my inheritance. Like a cedar I was raised up in Lebanon, like a cypress on Mount Aermon. Like a palm tree I was raised up in Aiggada, and like rose bushes in Jericho, like a fair olive tree in a plain, and I was raised up like a plane-tree. Like cinnamon, or fragrant thorn-bush of spices, and like choice myrrh I gave forth a fragrance. Like galbanum and onycha and stacte4 and like the vapor of incense in a tent. I spread out my branches like a terebinth, and my branches were branches of glory and grace.5

3 The Greek text is based on Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. 4 For 24:15bc, see Wright, “Sirach,” 739. 5 For 24:16b, cf. Wright, “Sirach,” 739.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

17 19 20 21 22 23

125

I put forth lovely shoots like vine, my blossoms yield to fruits of honor and wealth. Come to me, you who desire me, and from my produce be filled.6 For the memory of me is sweeter than honey, and the inheritance of me is better than a honeycomb of honey. Whoever eats me will hunger still, and whoever drinks me will be thirsty still. Whoever obeys me will not be ashamed, and those who work with me will not sin.” All these things are the book of the covenant of the Most High God, a law that Moyses commanded us, an inheritance for the gatherings of Iakob.7

Sir 24:1–23 follows 23:22–27, which depicts the adulteress whose punishment involves public shaming in the assembly and starts with Wisdom’s self-praise in the assembly of the Most High. Sir 24:23 is both a climax of Sir 24:1–22 and an introduction to 24:24–34, which contains some of the self-references of the author. Sir 24 is at an important point in the book and among all the wisdom poems.8 Wisdom is personified and depicted as singing her own praises (24:1– 2) and as speaking of her own glory (24:3–22).9 The context of her praise is the earth (“among her own people,” 24:1b), which means Israel, and the heaven (“in the assembly of the Most High,” 24:2a). After the description of Wisdom’s activities in the universe (Sir 24:4–6), she is described as seeking a resting place on the earth (24:7) by the command of the “creator of all” (24:8a),10 and settled “in Jacob” (24:8c). Sir 24:9 emphasizes the antiquity of her origin and 24:12–23 demonstrates that her activity on earth is in the service of the Lord.11 In Sir 24:13–15, Wisdom’s majesty is expressed with a series of similes related to plants, which are associated with famous locations, such as the majestic cedar trees of Lebanon and cypresses on Mount Hermon (24:13), the palms of Engeddi

6 For 24:19, cf. Wright, “Sirach,” 739. 7 Cf. Wright, “Sirach,” 739. 8 Cf. Balla, Ben Sira, 169–218. 9 Cf. Prov 8:4–36. 10 See Prov 8:27–29. 11 The terms “holy tent” (24:10a) and “Zion” (24:10b) are probably references to Exod 25:8–9 and 26:1–37 (the tabernacle), and to the Jerusalem temple (Sir 24:10b); see Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 333.

126

Ibolya Balla

and roses of Jericho (24:14), the olive tree and the plane tree. These plants are important either because of their appearance as the cedar and cypress or because of their use in everyday life as palms and roses employed for making cosmetics. The olive tree is desirable especially for its produce as staple food, for healing and for its splendor. Plane trees can provide shade against the sun. In 24:15 another use of plants is emphasized, since cinnamon, fragrant thorn-bush, myrrh (Exod 30:23–30), galbanum, onycha and stacte have a characteristic perfume, especially when the latter three are blended with pure frankincense to produce the incense for liturgical services in the holy tent (Ex 30:34–35).12 Sir 24:16–21 continues with more similes of plants. The terebinth (24:16) was known for its great size, especially for its large branches. In 24:17, Wisdom, similarly to vine, produces fruits: “honor and wealth.” Riches and honor as wisdom’s gifts are connected with long life (Prov 3:16, cf. Prov 8:18–19, 21).13 Wisdom offers a life of Torah piety, which is confirmed in Prov 3:18; 8:35a; Sir 4:12a. This may include prosperity but also good reputation. Trees, however, can also be symbols of cultic infidelity and idolatry.14 In Sir 24:17, 19–20, Wisdom offers food and drink to those who take hold of her. The connection between wisdom and food/nourishment is a recurring theme in the wisdom poems. Wisdom’s house is full of choicest fruits according to Sir 1:17 and 6:19 implies that her crops and fruits are available for those who cultivate her.15 Prov 9:1–6, 13–18 contains two different invitations, one for the feast of wisdom and one set by folly.16 Sir 24:19–21 implies that Wisdom herself is the food and drink.17 The image of honey appears in 24:20 to describe the sweetness of the relationship with her. While the adulteress in 23:26 leaves an accursed memory, the memory of Wisdom’s love is so desirable that those who tasted intimacy with her will desire more and will never be satisfied (24:21). The love of the adulteress is condemned; the love of wisdom is exalted (cf. 24:22). In Sir 24:23, wisdom and law are juxtaposed.18 The terms “the book of the covenant,” “the Most High God,” when compared with “the law of the Most

12 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 334–35. For an analysis of the terms denoting the various fragrances and their occurrences throughout the book in their relation to the cult, see CalduchBenages, “Aromas,” 15–30. 13 See also Prov 8:10–11. 14 Deut 12:2; 1 Kgs 14:23; Isa 1:29; 57:5; Jer 2:20–21; 17:2; Ezek 6:13 etc. 15 Cf. Sir 15:3; 51:24. 16 See the images in Song 2:3–5, 13; 4:11–5:1; 7:7–9. 17 Cf. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom, 141. 18 Cf. Reiterer, “Verhältnis,” 97–133. Goering, Wisdom’s Root, distinguishes between torah and Torah when interpreting the correlation of wisdom and law using the concept of election.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

127

High” (38:34 = 39:1 in Greek) suggest something other than a general sense of Torah: in it the author finds “a witness to Wisdom which provides the content for Wisdom’s Song.”19 Gerald Sheppard argues that the near demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of 24:23 refers abstractly to the contents of the entire preceding literary unit, drawing attention to it in order to generalize upon it.20 In Sir 24:24–34, the speaker is the author who depicts Wisdom’s knowledge with images of rivers, the sea, and the deep abyss (24:25–29). In 24:30– 34, the author claims to be the channel of wisdom himself by pouring forth instruction, connecting the notion of imparting instruction and prophecy. According to 24:25–33, these life-giving waters became the river and sea of Ben Sira’s instructions, found in his wisdom school and in his writings for later generations.21 With the expression “like prophecy,” he appears as an “inspired mediator.”22 Through the first person references, the author appeals for attention or states the value of his teaching. Similarly to 6:18–37, Wisdom’s personification and first person speech in Sir 24 serve to instruct disciples in a certain way of life.23 In summary, the images used here are complex. They suggest abundance and fertility; the tree imagery especially evokes the memory of the garden of Eden: a place of intimacy and joy.24 Sir 23, an important section preceding wisdom’s self-praise, ends with the passage on the adulteress (23:22–27). Her acts have an effect on her children (23:24b–25) who “will not take root” (23:25a).25 In addition, she leaves an “accursed memory” (23:26). The conclusion in Sir 23:27 is an expression of hope that whoever fears the Lord and keeps his commandments will be saved from sinning in the way described not only in 23:22–26 but also in the entire 23:16–21, 22–26. Since 23:27 also closes the first 23 chapters, it implies that one is only prepared for the praise of Wisdom (Sir 24) when free from sins.26

19 Sheppard, Wisdom, 62. 20 Sheppard, Wisdom, 130. 21 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 60; Balla, “Images,” 178–79. 22 Beentjes, “Prophets and Prophecy,” 225. 23 Liesen, “Strategical Self-References,” 70–71. 24 McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom, 139–40; Gilbert, “Ben Sira,” 93, also takes Sir 24:10–21 as a reference to the tree of life in Gen 2:9 and 3:22. The beginning of Sir 24 resembles the language of the priestly account of creation; see von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 160. 25 A similar image is used in different contexts in Isa 37:31; Mal 3:19 and Wis 4:3–6, cf. Wis 3:16–19. 26 Cf. Gilbert, “Prayer,” 126–27.

128

Ibolya Balla

Núria Calduch-Benages27 points out that Sir 23:27 is a key verse in the context in terms of form and content: instead of the usual distich employed in the greatest number in the book, 23:27 has three stichs; there is a change of subject in 27a; the so-called “better” saying also implies that the sage teaches “those who remain” something very important. She also observes that in the description of the adulterous woman, the sage employs the same images which are applied to Wisdom in chapter 1 and 24 (ῥίζα, “root,” 1:6, 20; 23:25; ἐρρίζωσα, 24:12; ϰλάδοι, “branches,” 1:20; 24:16[3x]; 23:25; ϰάρποι, “fruits,” 1:16; 24:17; [ϰαρπός], 23:25). Wisdom is the positive counterpart of the adulterous woman: the latter is transgressing “the law of the Most High” (23:23) and the former is “the law that Moses commanded us” (24:23); the latter leaves an “accursed memory” and the former leaves a memory sweeter than honey (24:20). Therefore, 23:27 implies that those who fear the Lord and keep the commandments are able to appreciate wisdom. The verse is a hinge between 1–23 and 24:1–42:12: it is both a conclusion and an introduction. The comparison of 23:22–27 and 24:12–23 shows that Torah piety means life, fertility, abundance, protection, and an ideal relationship with God while transgressing it means death, barrenness, and disgrace.

1.2 Hos 14:5–10 5 6 7

8

I will heal their disloyalty; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from him.28 I will be like the dew to Israel; he shall blossom like the lily, he shall strike his roots like Lebanon.29 His shoots will go forth, and his splendor shall be like the olive tree, and his fragrance like Lebanon. They shall again live in his shadow, they shall raise (lit. make alive) grain;

27 Calduch-Benages, “Ben Sira 23:27,” 193–98: 23:27 can be the conclusion of either of the following sections, based on the views of various interpreters: 23:22–27; 23:16–27; 23:7–27; 22:27– 23:27; 19:20–23:27 or 1:1–23:27. 28 Despite the singular “him,” the referent is Israel. 29 Although the expression “he shall strike his roots like Lebanon” seems odd, the emendation from ‫נוֹן‬ (“Lebanon”) to ‫ה‬ (“poplar”) is unnecessary and the Masoretic text should be retained.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

9

10

129

they shall blossom like the vine, his renown will be like the wine of Lebanon. Ephraim, what more do I have to do with idols? I have responded and I will watch for him; I am like a luxuriant cypress, your fruit is obtained (lit. is found) from me. Those who are wise understand these things; those who are discerning know them. For the ways of the Lord are right, and the righteous walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them.

Hos 14 can be divided into three or four parts depending on whether v. 1 is connected with Hos 13 or with Hos 14:2–10.30 V. 1 addresses Samaria’s guilt and punishment while the expression “Return, Israel, to the Lord” (v. 2), a part of an exhortation for repentance in vv. 2–4, marks a new section in the chapter; vv. 5–9 describe Israel’s restoration using images of love and bounty; v. 10, a wisdom saying, is an epilogue of the chapter and of the book. The question of the unity of vv. 5–9 is only marginally relevant and it will be briefly addressed concerning the significance of 14:5–10 within the book of Hosea. Those who consider vv. 5–8 and 9 to be separate sections in terms of composition argue that they are different in the use of the figurative language: in vv. 5–8, restored Israel is portrayed as a flourishing tree nourished by God as dew while in v. 9, it is God who is compared to a fruit-bearing tree.31 However, the complexity of metaphors and similes is characteristic of Hosea. For instance, Israel can be described as a plant and the one who plants, as Hos 8:7 most probably implies: as “a farmer, Israel has reaped what it has sown; as a plant, Israel suffers from the drought that consumes the land.”32 According to 14:5–9, Israel is a plant but God is also described as a plant.33 Even v. 8 does not necessarily imply different origins of vv. 5–8 and v. 9. Rather, v. 8 is a bridge between vv. 5–7 and v. 9 in the use of literary devices (see below). Following the call for Israel to repent and the description of true repentance written in prose (vv. 2–4), the poetic section of vv. 5–9 contains the oracle of assurance

30 For a recent summary of the views on the composition of the passage, see Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 59–65. 31 See Emmerson, Hosea, 46–52, who not only assumes different origin behind verses 5–8 and verse 9 but also considers both of them to be later, Judean, redactions. 32 Simkins, Creator, 157. 33 Oestreich, Metaphors, 228, also notes that in Hosea metaphors sometimes switch around rapidly.

130

Ibolya Balla

(cf. Ps 51:10). Its introductory verse has thematic links with vv. 2–3 because of the various forms of the Hebrew verb ‫“( שׁוב‬turn,” “return,” “turn back,” etc.). While in Hos 11:9, we read in God’s speech that “I will not execute my fierce anger,” using the same term for “anger” as in 14:5, in the overall message of Hosea it is clear that punishment will be carried out for the contemporaries of Hosea and the promises of restoration are for the future generations. It is, however, not always made clear in the salvation oracles how distant a generation is envisioned by the author. Punishment is inescapable but it is not the final word of God. His anger is depicted in terms of covenant language as a precursor for his punishments (cf. Deut 29:19, 22–23, 26, 27; 31:17; 32:22)34 but also in passages describing him as a merciful Lord, “slow to anger” (cf. Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2).35 According to Hos 14:5, it proved futile for Israel to look for healing from gods and idols of foreign nations and their military or political powers. According to the covenant curses in Deut 28:27, 35, God will afflict disobedient Israel with “the boils of Egypt” and “grievous boils” of which they cannot be healed. Repentant Israel, however, will not only experience healing but also the undeserved love of God given freely and generously. The metaphor of illness and healing is central in the book with its explicit references to the terms “illness” and “healing” (e.g. Hos 5:13; 6:1; 7:1, 5; 11:3; 14:4) and their aspects (e.g. Hos 6:2; 7:9, 14; 9:4, 11–12, 14, 16; 13:16; 14:5–7). God’s continuous love for Israel is also an important theme in 3:1. They are connected to the ideas of despair and hope in the life of Israel.36 Following the introduction that combines the language of forgiveness, healing, and love, Hos 14:6–9 contains metaphorical language in the oracle of assurance, using eight similes in four verses. These verses contain a variety of images from the world of nature and plant life familiar from wisdom literature. Page Kelley notes the similarity between the imagery of vv. 6–9 and that of the Song of Solomon.37 V. 6 has God speaking in the first person in the first simile: “I will be like dew to Israel.” Israel’s insincere repentance is compared to dew in Hos 6:4 and her punishment and disappearance is also like dew according to 13:3. These images are reversed here, as dew means neither Israel’s short-lived faithfulness nor punishment on God’s part but as an essential blessing especially in the dry season when it is virtually the only form of precipitation in Palestine. Without it, plants and crops will not grow appropriately or will even die. As a result of God’s blessing, Israel will grow like the lily, a plant that expresses

34 35 36 37

Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 215. Cf. Hos 8:5. This is not to imply the direction of dependence between these texts. Hong, Metaphor; see also Kruger, “Yahweh’s Generous Love,” 27–48. Kelley, “Holy One,” 471.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

131

beauty especially in the Song of Solomon38 but in the present context, its rapid growth is especially relevant in the depiction of the future prosperity of God’s people.39 Within Hos 14, the author refers to Lebanon for the first time at the end of v. 6. Apart from this, vv. 7 and 8 also contain similes in which Lebanon appears. Together these images convey various aspects of what Lebanon meant for Israel. In this context, the notion of striking root (14:6) may refer to either the trees of Lebanon, which were known for their height, splendor, and strength or the belief that the mysterious mountains were fixed (“rooted”) in the depths of the abyss.40 The images of roots, branches, and shoots are often employed in an abstract sense expressing prosperity, long life, remembrance or the lack of them.41 Israel will not only be a land of delight but also an eschatological place of security and prosperity. The term “root” appears in another metaphorical comparison but in the context of destruction in 9:16, where the words “Ephraim,” “root,” and “fruit,” characteristic of Hosea, can be found. Hos 14:6 is therefore a reversal of 9:16a. V. 7 continues the imagery taken from nature, introducing the picture of a lush, evergreen olive tree. The emphasis is on its splendor, not on its produce. Together with the term “shoots,” the splendor of the olive tree and the fragrance associated with Lebanon allude to three aspects of Israel’s future status: stability, visibility, and desirability.42 In addition, since the term splendor (‫ )הוֹד‬is associated with divine majesty (Ps 8:2; 96:6; 104:1; Isa 30:30; Hab 3:3) and human royalty (Ps 21:6; 45:4; Jer 22:18), the metaphoric comparison points beyond fruitfulness when describing Israel as partaking of royal splendor.43 V. 8 is problematic. The Masoretic text reads literally: “They shall turn ║ the inhabitants (those who dwell) ║ in his shadow ║ they shall raise (lit. make alive) grain ║ they shall blossom like the vine ║ his renown will be like the wine of Lebanon.” Alternative translations include: “They shall again live beneath my shadow, they shall flourish as a garden; they shall blossom like the vine, their fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon” (Hos 14:7 in NRSV); “Those who live in his shadow will again raise grain, and they will sprout like

38 Cf. Song 2:2, 16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2, 3; 7:3. 39 See also Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 215. 40 See Czanik, Hóseás, 183. 41 For the image of “root” cf. Isa 37:31; Mal 3:19; Wis 4:3–6; 3:16–19. 42 Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 216; cf. Song 4:11. 43 Dearman, Book of Hosea, 342. Oestreich, Metaphors, 229, argues that one of the most prominent metaphors here is the royal imagery, and the roles of the healer, the father of orphans, the evergreen tree, and the nurturing dew are traditionally applied to kings.

132

Ibolya Balla

the vine; his renown will be like the wine of Lebanon;”44 “Once again those who lie in his shadow will flourish. Like grain they will prosper. Like the vine is his remembrance and the wine of Lebanon.”45 As can be seen, the difficulties are generally caused by the presence of the verb ‫“( שׁוב‬to turn,” ”to return” etc.) alongside the participle form of the verb ‫ב‬ (“to sit,” “to dwell” etc.); the third person singular masculine suffix of the noun ‫ל‬ (“shadow,” “shade”); the piel form of the verb ‫ה‬ (in this stem, it means “to make live/alive,” “to keep alive”). The solutions include understanding the verb “to turn,” “to return” either literally or as an auxiliary term either with “to dwell” or with “to make alive” in the sense of repeating something. In addition, some translators modify “his shadow” to “my shadow,” referring to God as speaker while some translate three similes instead of two, assuming that in the term “they shall raise (make alive) grain,” there should be a ‫ כ‬particle preposition as with the terms “the vine,” and “the wine” in the rest of the verse. Nevertheless, it is possible to understand the Masoretic text without any emendations as follows: “They shall again live in his shadow, they shall raise (lit. make alive) grain; they shall blossom like the vine, his renown will be like the wine of Lebanon.”46 It fits into the context, and even the term “in his shade” need not cause any difficulties. The subject of the verse is repentant Israel, and even without the change to “my shadow,” the referent of “shadow” is God. This way the transition from Israel as a plant to God as a plant begins here and v. 8 is a bridge between vv. 6–7 and 9. The first simile compares Israel to vine and the second one compares his memory to the wine of Lebanon.47 In the Old Testament, to live in someone’s shadow generally means to enjoy one’s protection (about king: Judg 9:15; Lam 4:20; about God: Ps 17:8; 91:1; Isa 25:4 etc.). Sir 6:14 uses the expression regarding humans, e.g. faithful friends. According to Sir 14:26, happy is the man who will put his children in her (i.e. wisdom’s) shade and will lodge beneath her branches and in Sir 34:19 (34:16 in LXX), the author employs the image twice regarding God. In Hos 4:13 idolatrous practice is connected with making offerings in the shade of trees such as oak, poplar, and terebinth. Hos 14:8 continues the description of restoration of the previous verses by listing some of the staple foods of Israel necessary for both everyday life and

44 Dearman, Book of Hosea, 335. 45 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 642. 46 The change between 3rd person singular and plural verb forms and suffixes throughout the passage is characteristic of Hosea’s style and need not cause any difficulties in interpreting it. 47 Cf. Song 1:2, 4; 2:13; 4:10; 6:11.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

133

cultic offerings: grain and wine. On their own, or together with oil and new wine, they occur in the book of Hosea in various contexts, sometimes in the prophetic critique of apostasy (2:10; 7:14; 8:7; 9:1–2) or salvation oracle (2:24). Whereas in the past, God’s people suffered from the loss of grain, the future is characterized by its abundance. Israel is compared to a luxuriant wine in Hos 10:1, where blossoming is connected with idolatry which leads to destruction as the context shows (cf. 10:1–11). Future Israel, however, will enjoy an enduring renown comparable only to the vine that grows especially on the Southern and Western slopes of Lebanon. Hos 14:9 has also attracted much scholarly attention. The Masoretic text reads as follows: “Ephraim, what more do I have to do with idols? I have responded and I will watch for him; I am like a luxuriant cypress, your fruit is obtained (lit. is found) from me.” If the speaker is God, the comment “what more do I have to do with idols” does not make sense, since God has nothing to do with idols, it is Israel who is associated with idolatry throughout the book. The Septuagint renders the first person singular form of the preposition ‫י‬ as αὐτῷ assuming the third person singular form of the Hebrew preposition and translates: “As for Ephraim – what is there any longer between him and idols?”48 Others assume that the prophet or God cites the speech of Ephraim.49 This is the only way the sentence makes sense in the context, since Israel has been rebuked for idolatry in a number of passages (4:17; 8:4; 13:2). There is a clear connection between idolatry and punishment manifested in the lack of God’s blessings on the one hand and between repentance, ceasing apostasy, and the blessings of God on the other.50 Giving up idolatry is a condition of forgiveness and future blessings and it is connected with what follows in the second half of Hos 14:9. As for its translation, some interpreters suggest “I will have responded and I will bless him,”51 while the Septuagint translates, “It is I who humbled him, and it is I who will strengthen him,”52 assuming the verb ‫ה‬ with the meaning “to humble” instead of the verb ‫ה‬ (“to respond,” “to testify”). The latter is widely used in Hosea (2:17, 23–24; 5:5; 7:10) and makes sense in the context. The second verb “to watch” can also be understood to refer to God. The same Hebrew word is employed in an animal comparison in the context of judgment on Israel, ac-

48 Howard, “Twelve Prophets,” 789. See also Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 211, Wolff, Hosea, 233. 49 Czanik, Hóseás, 185. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 643–44, also accept it as a possible solution. 50 See the notion of taking away Israel’s guilt in Hos 14:2. 51 Cf. Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 211, who assumes ‫ר‬ (“to pronounce happy,” “to call blessed” in piel stem) instead of ‫“( שׁור‬to watch,” “to gaze”). 52 The LXX translation is perhaps based on the verb ‫“( שׁרר‬to be strong”).

134

Ibolya Balla

cording to which God will be like a leopard lurking beside the way just as the predator watches its prey (13:7).53 This way the notion of God keeping an eye on Israel for its harm is reversed in Hos 14:9 according to which God keeps an eye on them for their good.54 The simile closing this verse is the only locus in the Old Testament where God is compared to a tree. It is, however, a climax of the passage and, without taking into account the epilogue, of the entire book. Not only does it employ a final wordplay on “Ephraim” and “fruit”55 but it also emphasizes the contrast between Baal, whose cult is connected with trees, abundance, and fertility, and God who is described as a luxuriant cypress. Even though the latter cannot produce fruit, the simile clearly implies in the context that all blessings can be expected only from God: protection and food.56 He is Lord not only of history but also of nature.57 Douglas Stuart considers it possible to connect the image with the tree of life (Gen 3:22; Rev 22:2).58 Bernard Oestreich speaks of the restoration of the relationship between God and Israel in terms of re-creation and points out that Hos 14 uses images that appear throughout the book. For instance, the images of un-creation in Hos 2 and those of the disobedient son in Hos 9 and 11 are reversed in Hos 14 which depicts Israel nurtured as a plant in a paradisiacal garden where God is a luxuriant tree. The creation and the royal aspects of the images imply that God is both king and creator.59 A final question regarding the symbolism of the chapter is to what extent we may see the influence of Canaanite beliefs behind the images of Hos 14. Hosea’s recurring wordplay on the name “Baal” which also means “lord” or “husband” in Hebrew is noteworthy in this context.60 In addition, if we take

53 See the related image in Hos 5:14. 54 See also Gault, “Avenging Husband,” 503–509. He argues that the keys to unlocking the paradox of judgment and restoration in the book are penitence and promise, and the root ‫שׁוב‬ (“to turn”), used frequently in the book, plays a central role in the descriptions of Israel’s repentance and God’s promises. 55 See also Hos 9:16. Hos 14:3 also has “fruit” if we accept the emendation suggested by the critical apparatus of Elliger and Rudolph (Biblia, 1008) and the rendering of the LXX; see also Howard, “Twelve Prophets,” 789. 56 Cf. Isa 27:6; 44:2–4. In Sir 39:13–14, the faithful are described with images similar to those in Hos 14:5–9 (see Sheppard, Wisdom, 54). 57 See also Dearman, Book of Hosea, 344; Czanik, Hóseás, 185. 58 Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 217. 59 Oestreich, Metaphors, 232–34; see also Haddox, Metaphor, 125. Simkins, Creator, 77, also argues that God’s redeeming activity can be compared to elements of creation itself, and points out that “[a]ccording to Hosea, the people are integrally linked to the natural world. The creation will sustain life only if Israel follows the ways of God. Otherwise, Israel will wither away with the rest of creation” (p. 157). 60 See also Halpern, “Brisker Pipes,” 93.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

135

into account trees as symbols of fertility61 and some of the Ugaritic texts that may point to the use of Canaanite death and resurrection images,62 it cannot be excluded that Hosea appropriated the notions of Canaanite fertility religion in order to polemicize against it and to declare that God and not Baal is the true fertility god. All of this combined with the use of marriage metaphor has been an appropriate device in emphasizing his message.63 While the interpretation of another Ugaritic text is problematic, since it is not certain, whether a feast is given in honor of Baal upon his seasonal return to life, or he offers a feast to the one receiving life from him,64 the notion in Hos 14 of God who provides sustenance resembling a covenantal banquet for restored Israel in the context of the prophetic message affirms that the Lord is a better provider than Baal.65 The epilogue of the book is a wisdom saying containing terminology and ideas typical of Israelite wisdom literature (“wise,” “to understand,” “intelligent/discerning,” “to know,” “way/path,” “right/straight,” “righteous,” “walk,” “transgressor,” “stumble”). Wisdom literature often contrasts the righteous/ godly with the transgressor/godless and their respective ways of life (Ps 37:38– 39; Prov 10:24, 29, 30; 11:3; 12:3, 5, 7; Sir 32:16–17).66 The first part of Hos 14:10 contains a synonymous parallelism. Following the statement “For the ways of the Lord are right,” there is an antithetical parallelism: “the righteous walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them.” Many dismiss the verse as the work of a redactor while some argue for its originality.67 If redactional, it would suggest that scribal circles had an important role in the final redaction of the canonical form of the Hebrew Bible. In terms of content, there are points of connection between this verse and Hos 13:13 in which the metaphor refers to Israel’s lack of wisdom at times of national crises; the people are compared to an unwise son: “at the proper time he does not present himself at the mouth of the

61 Cf. Gray, Legacy, 177 n. 1, claiming that “[t]he sacred tree as a fertility symbol is one of the most familiar motifs in native Canaanite art.” 62 See CTA 5 v. ?–17 and CTA 6 iii. 22–iv within The Baʼlu Myth. In the former, the list of Baʼlu’s suite shows that all manifestations (clouds, wind, watering devices, rain) of his powers are to go with him to the underworld, so drought must be the result of his descent; Hallo, Context of Scripture, I: 266–67. According to the latter, the furrows of the fields are dried up while Baal seems to be in the underworld; Hallo, Context of Scripture, I: 271. 63 Emmerson, Hosea, 49–50; Day, Yahweh, 58. 64 Cf. The ʼAqhatu Legend, CTA 17 vi. 30–31, Hallo, Context of Scripture, I:347: “I’ll make you count years with Baʼlu, with the son of ʼIlu will you count months; (You will be) like Baʼlu (who), when he comes (back) to life, feasts: they give a feast to the living one, give him drink.” 65 Coote, “Hos 14:8,” 171–73. 66 See e.g. Prov l:2; 2:2, 6; 3:13, 19; 4:5, 7 for the word-pair “wisdom” and “understanding.” 67 According to Childs, Introduction, 382–83, the verse functions in a redactional role. Nogalski (Literary Precursors, 69) considers it to be the composition of Deuteronomistic circles.

136

Ibolya Balla

womb” (NRSV). Both situations are deadly, the child is unable to be born and those who do not heed the prophet’s teaching may be destroyed.68 Hos 4:6, 14 describe the idolatrous people of God as those “without knowledge” or those “who do not understand/discern,” respectively. In the former, apostasy is connected with rejecting knowledge (‫ת‬),69 a term that is used frequently in wisdom writings but is also important in Hosea. The verbal and nominal forms are used twenty times in the book.70 Apart from the loci cited above and the general statements of Israel’s knowledge of God or the lack thereof, important is the connection between the concept of the knowledge of God and that of seeking Him (6:3).71 In wisdom writings, the godly is usually associated with the wise who undertakes the strenuous work of learning instruction,72 contained especially in the law of Moses and in the teachings of the sages. Wisdom is connected with the fear of God (Prov 9:10).73 On the other hand, “fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov 1:7, NRSV) and do not see the value of learning or understand that wisdom is the source of life (Prov 8:35). Hos 14:10 contains the same term “to stumble” as that used in 14:2. In the latter, it refers to Israel’s sin while in the former, it describes the transgressors in general. It is also used in Hos 4:4–5 concerning priests and prophets and in 5:5, pertaining to Israel, Ephraim, and Judah. It is a leading metaphor for Israel and is employed in the book’s final appeal for repentance (14:2). Hos 14:10 emphasizes that for the pious the ways of God are straight, possible to follow if not easily discernible since they require meditation but the sinners can stumble in them. It is noteworthy, as Sheppard also notes,74 that in this verse the author does not use the usual categories of “righteous” and “wicked” (‫ע‬) but that of “righteous” and “rebel” (from the word “to revolt,” “to rebel”: ‫ע‬), which also appears in Hos 7:13; 8:1. Hos 14:10 suggests that the prophecies contained in the book have become an object of study and guide to life.75 The term “these things” refers to the content of the book and implies that the only way God’s people will live in the future is if they fear God and keep his commandments.76 Hos 14:10 can also be compared to Mal 3:22 but while the latter may be a redac-

68 Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 206. 69 Cf. Sir 6:23. 70 Sixteen times in verbal (2:10, 22; 5:3, 4, 9; 6:3 [2x]; 7:9 [2x]; 8:2, 4; 9:7; 11:3; 13:4, 5; 14:10) and four times in noun form (4:1, 6 [2x]; 6:6). 71 Cf. Sir 15:3. 72 See Sir 6:18–31. 73 Cf. Prov 1:7a. 74 Sheppard, Wisdom, 132. 75 Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 647. 76 Cf. again the role of Sir 24:23.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

137

tional piece reflecting similar purpose (referring also to commandments), the question of the authorship of Hos 14:10 is more difficult to decide. It has a retrospective view, commending the contents of the book, declaring that God’s words are true77 while Mal 3:22 looks to the future: those who are wise enough and keep the ordinances commanded to Moses can hope in salvation at the coming of the Lord.78 Because of the number of wisdom elements contained in Hosea, it cannot be excluded that 14:10 is from the prophet himself but it cannot be proven either. If the material is not Hoseanic, the editor was conscious of the sapiential motifs contained in other parts of the book.79

2 Possible Links between Sir 24:12–23 and Hos 14:5–10 in the Context of the Relationship of Wisdom and Prophetic Literature Some of the useful aspects in comparing the two corpora are those of authority and revelation.80 The statement that prophetic proclamation is grounded in a claim to revelation, whereas sapiential counsel is founded solely in human experience and the observation of creation is tenable only if we rigidly separate secular wisdom from religious or divine wisdom. The ethical concern related to the precepts of God regarding oppression and exploitation of the vulnerable, the significance of keeping God’s commandments or the theme of divine retribution pervades all layers of Proverbs which cannot be divided into parts dealing with only secular or religious issues. This applies to the Book of Qohelet and the Book of Ben Sira. They all have a religious stance and many of their teachings

77 See Deut 32:4; Prov 10:29; 24:16; 30:5; Eccl 12:13. 78 The verse’s position and function is important not only regarding the Book of Hosea but also for the position of the book in the Twelve. See Leuchter, Hosea’s Exodus Mythology, 43– 46. Cf. also Ps 107:43. 79 Cf. Seow, “Hosea 14:10,” 223. 80 Due to the limitations of the present study only the most important points of connection between Sir 24:12–23 and Hos 14:5–10 will be addressed. It is also beyond the scope of this article to survey the relationship of wisdom and prophetic literature, especially because the role of wisdom literature within the Old Testament has been and continues to be a matter of scholarly debate. The literature concerning the relationship of Hosea and wisdom thought is briefly summed up in Macintosh, “Hosea,” especially 124–25; see also Fohrer, Introduction, 419; Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 70.

138

Ibolya Balla

are grounded not in humanism but in revelation.81 Oliver Rankin argues: “We have no reason to assume, in the absence of actual evidence, that at any time there was in Israel a purely secular proverb literature. From the very outset in Israel’s wisdom writings the religious sanction of right conduct, the motive supplied by the idea of God’s blessing and cursing was present.”82 Ben Sira, for his part, presents himself as an authority in interpreting the Torah and imparting knowledge and wisdom. Benjamin Wright also argues that through the form of father-son instruction, the sage’s influence extends over the readers as well.83 Such authority is based upon the will and law of God. The aspects of the election of Israel, salvation history, and covenant are also common in wisdom and prophetic literature. Wisdom literature is concerned with the place of Israel in the universe and her election even when expressed sometimes with terms or concepts different from those describing election in historical or prophetic literature. Such concerns are most apparent in Wis 10–19 and Sir 44–50. In different ways, they both provide an account of the commendable or blameworthy acts of historical individuals or the nation and at the same time demonstrate that God directs both the workings of the universe and the life of the nations, including Israel.84 Sir 24 seems to support the idea of two apportionments of wisdom, one as general wisdom given by God to all human beings while another as special wisdom given to God’s elect, Israel (Sir 24:8).85 Apart from the wonders of creation and nature, the wise are also concerned with the salvation of the people, retribution, admittedly mainly at the level of the individual. Both sage and prophet confess that the beginning and the end are in God’s hands. YHWH is God’s covenantal name and by using this name, the sages appear as teachers within the covenant community. They are the “spokes[persons] for the same God who encountered Israel through Moses and the prophets that succeeded him.”86 The notions of election and Israel’s covenant obligation are connected with ethical concerns. The wise depict God in terms of the original cosmic creation (Prov 3:19–20) and as the One actively working in the social and ethical spheres of that same creation. The vulnerable (Prov 14:31; 17:5; 22:2; 29:13) are the products of his creative acts; he is their protector. The ethical values are significant in Israel’s wisdom literature not only in passages dealing with the fair treatment

81 82 83 84 85 86

Waltke, “Book of Proverbs,” 307. Rankin, Wisdom Literature, 69. Wright, “Generation,” 315–18. See Wis 19:22. See also Goering, Wisdom’s Root. Waltke, “Book of Proverbs,” 305.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

139

of others but also regarding marital relationships. Adultery is condemned in both wisdom and prophetic literature even as it is used in the prophetic books as the metaphor for Israel’s apostasy. According to Wis 14:27–30, God punishes idolatry.87 Although the wise did not initiate the cultus, the correct performance of cultic duties is important for them, especially for Ben Sira. “There is no reason to assume that the sages had in view a religious system differing from the one referred to in the Law and prophets.”88 While Israelite wisdom writings achieved their final form mainly in postexilic times, many of the traditions contained in them existed before the exile. In the formation of wisdom and prophetic books, we can suppose a complex transition from oral to written tradition and the transition to written forms did not put an end to the flexibility of the tradition but reflects different concerns of the communities. In addition, it is probable that instruction in Torah was not confined to a class of officials in Israel as in other parts of the Ancient Near East. As the social and historical background of priest, prophet, and sage influenced all of them, their concerns and language had points of connection and especially in postexilic time, their ministry was not completely independent of each other.89 While Isaiah and Jeremiah scorn the wise men of their time (Isa 5:21; 19:11–12; 29:14; Jer 9:12, 23), they adopt some of the language, forms, and ideas of the wisdom teachers (Isa 28:23–29; Jer 4:22; 10:12).90 Prophets, priests, and the sage were involved in giving instruction concerning ethical issues. Their activities represent a stance with much common background and the overlapping of their themes and language suggests an overlapping of ministry.91 As a principle, both sages and prophets were concerned with the connection between thought and action on the one hand, and action and its consequences on the other. In wisdom literature this applies mainly but not exclusively to the individual and, in the prophets, mainly to the nation. The false perceptions or ignorance of reality can lead to destruction for both the individual and Israel. In exhorting them, the prophets often resort to interpreting history and provide lessons for their contemporaries while the sages mostly observe human character in the context of nature and creation for the same purpose.92

87 See also Wis 13:2–10; 14:8, 11–13; 15:9, 15–17; Sir 46:11. 88 Waltke, “Book of Proverbs,” 306. 89 See Mal 2:6–7. Cf. von Rad, Theology, 430; Rankin, Wisdom Literature, 69. 90 Cf. Lindblom, “Wisdom,” 192–204. 91 Hubbard, Wisdom Movement, 9–10; Rankin, Wisdom Literature, 69; McKenzie, “Knowledge,” 25. 92 Except for Ben Sira, who is concerned with the history of Israel. See also Driver, Introduction, 393; Macintosh, “Hosea,” 125.

140

Ibolya Balla

In Hosea, the author draws special attention to the false perceptions of Israel 93 and in his appeal he uses not only critique and oracles but also wisdom elements, including parables. In the analysis of Hos 4–14, Choon L. Seow94 notes that the word-pair “glory” and “shame” (Hos 4:7) occurs outside of Hosea in Prov 3:35 and Hab 2:16. By their use, the author contrasts human dignity and honor with shame, as reflected frequently in wisdom writings (cf. also Prov 13:18). The author of Hos 4:6–7 may have had the notion in mind that the wise possess “glory” and “honor” while fools have “disgrace,” when claiming that the people without knowledge (4:6) will come to disgrace; those who ignore instruction, including the priests who reject knowledge and Torah, will be punished. In Hos 4:10b–12a, the effects of excessive drinking are connected with the loss of understanding, harlotry, and idolatry. Wisdom writings often condemn drunkenness that is associated with folly (Prov 20:1)95 and, according to Hos 4:14, a people without understanding will come to ruin.96 As noted regarding Hos 14:10, the word “stumble” often appears in wisdom literature. In 5:5–7, it is the keyword to express that even when Israel seeks97 God, he will withdraw himself. According to Hos 7:8b, “Ephraim is a cake not turned.” Such a cake would be raw on the one side and burnt on the other, unfit for human consumption. The image implies a false perception of Ephraim who appears to be potent like risen bread but turns out to be simultaneously burnt and soggy, that is, impotent. Its hoped-for alliances, Egypt and Assyria, will not provide help, they prove to be squishy (Egypt) and burning (Assyria). Hos 7:8 and 7:9 together emphasize that the undiscerning nation’s “strength” is withering away. Strength in this context may mean both power and the produce of the land. While gray hair should entail wisdom, in this context it only affirms loss of virility.98 This theme is continued in 7:11a, which compares Ephraim to a dove, silly and without sense. An expression similar to “without sense” is found in Prov 17:16 in parallel with the fool. The comparison in Hos 7:11a may be based on the assumption that doves are easily allured and trapped. This seems confirmed in Hos 7:12. The term “naive” or “simple” also appears in Job 5:2 and is paralleled with a fool.99

93 94 95 96 97 15; 98 99

Macintosh, “Hosea,” 126. Seow, “Hosea 14:10,” 215–16. Seow, “Hosea 14:10,” 217. Cf. Prov 10:8, 10 for the same notion regarding the babbling fool. Ramirez, “Love,” 111, points out that the term “seeking,” favored by Hosea (e.g. 3:5; 5:6, 7:10; 10:12), appears frequently in wisdom writings (e.g. Job 8:5; Prov 1:28; 8:17; 11:27). Haddox, “(E)Masculinity,” 195–96. Seow, “Hosea 14:10,” 218–19.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

141

Hos 8:7 implies that as “a farmer, Israel has reaped what it has sown; as a plant, Israel suffers from the drought that consumes the land.”100 Since the term “wind” is associated with emptiness and futility (Job 7:7; Prov 11:29; Qoh 1:14), Hos 8:7 suggests that the activity of the people is fruitless.101 Instead of sowing seeds, they were sowing wind, reaping whirlwinds instead of grain.102 The images of Hos 9:7–9 imply that the prophet as a sentinel of Israel corrupted himself and God will set a fowler’s snare on all his ways.103 Together with Hos 13:5–8 that recalls the wilderness wanderings and how God sustained Israel, a comparison is drawn between the previous and the current generation. Hos 12:2 contains a theme familiar from earlier parts of the book. It demonstrates again the futility of seeking political alliances, describing the foolish shepherds of Israel as tending the wind and running after the east wind.104 As noted earlier, the metaphor in Hos 13:13 refers to Israel’s lack of wisdom at times of national crises; the people are compared to an unwise son. Both the child in Hos 13:13105 and those who do not heed the prophet’s teaching (14:10) are in a deadly situation and can face death. It is also noteworthy that wisdom literature places emphasis on knowing the right time of everything (Job 5:26; Qoh 3:1–8).106

Conclusion As seen above, some of the images of Sir 24:12–23 and Hos 14:5–10 are similar. The reason for this similarity is, on the one hand, the fact that the symbolism of vigorous trees and plants is common in the Old Testament 107 and on the other, Hosea’s penchant for images especially favored by wisdom literature. It is apparent that there are links between wisdom literature and Hosea. It is, however, another matter which Hoseanic passages betray wisdom influence upon the author and which reflect later redactional work of wisdom circles who handled the received Hoseanic tradition. Most of the passages listed for their

100 Simkins, Creator, 157. 101 This is confirmed in Hos 8:8–9a. 102 See also Seow, “Hosea 14:10,” 219–20. 103 Sheppard, Wisdom, 133. 104 Seow, “Hosea 14:10,” 221–22. 105 Cf. also Macintosh, “Hosea,” 126–28, who suggests that the consequences of Israel’s guilt are expressed by the metaphor of a woman in labor, whose endeavors are doomed to failure. 106 Seow, “Hosea 14:10,” 222. 107 Sheppard, Wisdom, 53.

142

Ibolya Balla

resemblance of wisdom thought can belong to the first category while 14:10 may indeed be a redactional piece. Hosea knew wisdom traditions and used them and in the case of passages which may be attributed to later authors/redactors, it appears that they were also aware of the sapiential elements in the book. Hosea’s use of sapiential concepts and terminology, however, does not mean that he had to belong to the theological circles of the sages. As tree imagery is often associated with idolatry in the biblical texts, comparing God to a luxuriant tree is significant. Hos 14:9 underscores the message that God is the Lord of nature and true provider. This may be augmented by the notion of the kingship of God. As wisdom is life for those who seek her, seeking God for Israel is the only chance for survival. In conveying this message there are key verses and comments both in Ben Sira and Hosea which demonstrate that the authors were concerned with the history of their people (Sir 44–50; Hos 6:7; 8:1; 13:1 etc.), that their respective lives were intertwined with their message and mission,108 and that they, or in the case of Hosea, the prophet and the later redactors, were passing on important teachings to future generations. The latter conclusion is supported by strategically important verses such as Sir 23:27; 24:23 and Hos 14:10. In this respect their time and historical circumstances are important. Both the 8th and 2nd centuries BCE were turbulent, significant turning points in the history of Israel, even if Ben Sira’s work precedes the upheavals of the Maccabean crisis caused by the desecration of the Jerusalem Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE). The corruption of some members of the Tobiad family, the burden of the taxes imposed by the Romans on the Seleucids at the peace treaty of Apamea (188 BCE), and the five Syrian wars during the previous century have all taken their toll on the life of the residents of Judea both economically and socially. These circumstances are somewhat similar to those of the second half of the 8th century.109 Apart from the similarities, the differences in the Sitz im Leben of Ben Sira and of Hosea must also be taken into account since the former is ultimately a wisdom work while the latter is determined by the main genres of prophecy. Nevertheless, remarkable is the way Ben Sira and Hosea depict God who provides true life and blessings that can be experienced as a new creation as opposed to the “gods” of foreign nations (Hosea) or any idea that can lure the pious away from God, perhaps Hellenistic ideologies (Ben Sira). While idols and apostasy are present, God is absent. The two are irreconcilable.

108 See the important self-references recurring frequently in Ben Sira and the example of Hosea’s life and marriage. 109 Cf. Jagersma, Izráel, 14–36; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 28–29; Hengel, Judaism, 27–28.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

143

It is noteworthy that Wisdom is unfathomable as is the God whose gift she is (Ben Sira) and God is also unfathomable according to Hosea. The quantity and type of metaphors used by the latter imply that God is transcendent and incomparable110 but metaphors bring him closer to humans, as personified wisdom also brings God closer to people. The most important message these literary devices convey is that God is Israel’s and the individual’s true provider but he requires both nation and individual to break away from the old ways of apostasy in order to experience the gifts of his presence in a banquet where God is the ultimate host.

Bibliography Andersen, Francis I., and David N. Freedman. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24. New York: Doubleday, 1980. Balla, Ibolya. Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality. DCLS 8. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Balla, Ibolya. “Images of Imparting Wisdom in Ben Sira and Proverbs.” Pages 173–82 in Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals: Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, 4–6 June, 2013, Budapest, Hungary. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits, József Zsengellér, and Xavér Szabó. DCLS 22. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2014. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Prophets and Prophecy in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 207–29 in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Aromas, fragancias y perfumes en el Sirácida.” Pages 15–30 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies on Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift Maurice Gilbert. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Calduch-Benages, Núria “Ben Sira 23:27–A Pivotal Verse.” Pages 186–200 in Wisdom For Life: Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages. BZAW, 445. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2014. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Coote, Robert B. “Hos 14:8: ‘They Who Are Filled with Grain Shall Live’.” JBL 93 (1974): 161– 73. Czanik, Péter. Hóseás könyvének magyarázata. Budapest/Gödöllő: Iránytű Kiadó, 1996. Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. JSOTSup 265. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

110 Cf. Middlemas, “Hosea,” 205.

144

Ibolya Balla

Dearman, J. Andrew. The Book of Hosea. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Driver, Samuel R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913. Eidevall, Göran. Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models, and Themes in Hosea 4–14. ConBib OT 43. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1996. Emmerson, Grace I. Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective. JSOTSup 28. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Fohrer, Georg. Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968. Gault, Brian. “Avenging Husband and Redeeming Lover? Opposing Portraits of God in Hosea.” JETS 60 (2017): 489–509. Gilbert, Maurice. “Prayer in the Book of Ben Sira: Function and Relevance.” Pages 117–35 in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLY 2004. Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Gilbert, Maurice. “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis 1–11.” Pages 89–99 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Goering, Greg Schmidt. Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJSup 139. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009. Gray, John. The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament. VTSup 5. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Haddox, Susan E. Metaphor and Masculinity in Hosea. SBL 141. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2011. Haddox, Susan E. “(E)Masculinity in Hosea’s Political Rhetoric.” Pages 174–200 in Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes. Edited by Brad E. Kelle and Megan B. Moore. OTS 446. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Hallo, William W., ed. The Context of Scripture. Vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2003. Halpern, Baruch. “‘Brisker Pipes than Poetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism.” Pages 77–115 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by Jacob A. Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Hong, Seok-Hyung. The Metaphor of Illness and Healing in Hosea and Its Significance in the Socio-Economic Context of Eighth-Century Israel and Judah. SBL 95. New York: Peter Lang, 2006. Howard, George E. “The Twelve Prophets: Introduction and Translation.” Pages 777–822 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: University Press, 2007. Hubbard, David B. “The Wisdom Movement and Israel’s Covenant Faith.” TB 17 (1966): 3–33. Jagersma, Henk. Izráel története 2: Nagy Sándortól Bar Kochbáig. Budapest: Református Zsinati Iroda Sajtóosztálya, 1991. Kelle, Brad E. Hosea 2: Metaphor and Rhetoric in Historical Perspective. SBLAB 20. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Kelley, Page H. “The Holy One in the Midst of Israel: Redeeming Love (Hosea 11–14).” RE 72 (1975): 465–72.

Banquet of Life in Ben Sira and Hosea

145

Kruger, Paul A. “Yahweh’s Generous Love: Eschatological Expectations in Hosea 14:2–9.” OTE 1 (1983): 27–48. Kruger, Paul A. “Prophetic Imagery: On Metaphors and Similes in the Book of Hosea”. JNSL 14 (1988): 143–51. Leuchter, Mark. “Hosea’s Exodus Mythology and the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 31–49 in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Liesen, Jan. “Strategical Self-References in Ben Sira.” Pages 63–74 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies on Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift Maurice Gilbert. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Lindblom, Johannes. “Wisdom in the OT Prophets.” Pages 192–204 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Presented to Harold Henry Rowley by the Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum in Celebration of his 65th Birthday, 24 March 1955. Edited by Martin Noth and D. Winton Thomas. VTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Macintosh, Andrew A. “Hosea and the Wisdom Tradition: Dependence and Independence”. Pages 124–32 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: University Press, 1995. McKenzie, John L. “Knowledge of God in Hosea.” JBL 74 (1955): 22–27. McKinlay, Judith E. Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink. JSOTSup 216. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Middlemas, Jill. “Divine Presence in Absence.” Pages 183–211 in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism, Vol. II. Edited by Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster. FAT 61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. London: SCM Press, 1981. Nogalski, James. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993. Oestreich, Bernard. Metaphors and Similes for Yahweh in Hosea 14:2–9 (1–8): A Study of Hoseanic Pictorial Language. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998. von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. von Rad, Gerhard. Wisdom in Israel. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972. Ramirez, Felipe Fruto L. “A Love Like a Morning Mist: Hosea: 5:15–6:6.” Landas 27/2 (2013): 101–35. Rankin, Oliver S. Israel’s Wisdom Literature. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Das Verhältnis der ‫ חכמה‬zur ‫ תורה‬im Buch Ben Sira. Kriterien zur gegenseitigen Bestimmung”. Pages 97–133 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira: Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime̒ on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 127. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008. Seow, Choon L. “Hosea 14:10 and the Foolish People Motif.” CBQ 44 (1982): 212–24. Sheppard, Gerald T. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament. BZAW 151. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980. Simkins, Ronald A. Creator and Creation. file:///C:/Users/Balla%20Ibolya/Downloads/ Creator_and_Creation_Nature_in_the_World.pdf Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987.

146

Ibolya Balla

Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. WBC 31. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988. Waltke, Bruce K. “The Book of Proverbs and Old Testament Theology.” BS 136 (1979): 302– 17. Wolff, Hans W. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea. Translated by Garry Stansell. Hermenia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Wright III, Benjamin G. “From Generation to Generation: The Sage as Father in Early Jewish Literature.” Pages 309–32 in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb. Edited by Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu. JSJSup 111. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2006. Wright III, Benjamin G. “Sirach: Introduction and Translation.” Pages 715–62 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: University Press, 2007. Ziegler, Joseph. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965.

Part III: Ben Sira in Conversation with Wisdom Traditions

Tova Forti

“Yet, No One Remembered that Poor Man”: Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor Abstract: This essay engages in a comparative analysis of Qoh 9:13–10:1 and Sir 10:30–11:3, both of which address the wisdom of the poor. Specifically, in Qoh 10:1 and Sir 11:3, Qoheleth and Ben Sira buttress their respective teachings via a concretizing device drawn from the animal kingdom. Rather than suggesting Ben Sira’s familiarity with Qoheleth, this essay argues instead that it illuminates the pedagogical gap between Qoheleth’s skeptical ambivalence and Ben Sira’s conservative didacticism. Keywords: Qoh 9:13–10:1, Sir 10:30–11:3, wisdom of the poor, ambivalence, didacticism, bee, fly

The question of Qoheleth’s influence on Ben Sira, direct or indirect, continues to be debated amongst scholars.1 While Sirach exhibits some idiomatic similarities with Qohelet (cf. Qoh 3:15b/Sir 5:3; Qoh 8:1/Sir 13:24; Qoh 10:11/Sir 12:13), no direct literary dependence can be conclusively demonstrated.2 Qoheleth presents itself as a didactically oriented wisdom text on a par with Proverbs and Sirach. In contrast to the positivistic viewpoint of the latter and the call to live in accord with the sapiential approach, Qoheleth’s personal observation and reflection prompts him to cast doubt upon aspects of traditional wisdom. This essay is a comparative analysis of Qoh 9:13–10:1 and Sir 10:30–11:3, both of which address the wisdom of the poor. In these passages (Qoh 10:1; Sir 11:3), Qoheleth and Ben Sira buttress their respective teachings via a concretizing device drawn from the animal kingdom. Rather than suggesting Ben Sira’s familiarity with Qoheleth, this is viewed instead as illuminating the pedagogical gap between Qoheleth’s skeptical ambivalence and Ben Sira’s conservative didacticism.

1 I am honored to dedicate this paper to Núria Calduch-Benages in one of the fields of study to which she has contributed so prominently – wisdom literature and the distinctive imagery that characterizes it: see Núria Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery,” 55–71. 2 Herein, Sirach/Qoheleth refers to the book, Ben Sira/Qohelet to the author. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-011

150

Tova Forti

1 Qoheleth and Ben Sira: Teacher and Scribe Ben Sira’s self-definition as a “gleaner following the grape-pickers” (33:16) indicates the regard in which he holds the written biblical traditions. Although he cites Proverbs most extensively, the chronological priority of Qoheleth (third century BCE) makes it highly likely that he was aware of this sapiential source. Any comparative analysis of thematic units common to the two compositions rests on the premise that Ben Sira’s hermeneutical range engages with the inherited tradition.3 As Benjamin Wright concludes on the basis of several case studies, “Ben Sira does not simply reproduce his sources. He manipulates, transforms, and otherwise shapes them to fit his own agenda.”4 Although scholars have adduced Ben Sira’s textual familiarity with and literary dependency upon Qoheleth on the basis of lexical parallels and thematic affinities, the question of Qohelet’s direct and indirect influence upon Sirach remains open.5 The existence of a literate, educated elite in Jerusalem during the late third and early-second centuries makes it unlikely that he lived in an intellectual or spiritual vacuum.6 The two writers also share a professional status inspired by their analogous cultural and social milieus. Providing autobiographical details, both books further give the impression that a real persona lies behind them. Qohelet is framed as an anonymous, third-person, retrospective narrative within which the teacher engages in a monologue, reporting the investigation undertaken by the observer.7 The personal information supplied in the epilogue – “besides being a sage, Qohelet also taught the people knowledge,

3 Gregory, “A Reassessment of Sirach’s Relationship,” 189–200. 4 Wright, “Biblical Interpretation,” 382. 5 See Peters, “Ekklesiastes und Ekklesiasticus,”47–54, 129–50; Barton, Ecclesiastes, 53–56. Backhaus, “Qohelet und Sirach,”32–55, argues for Ben Sira’s awareness of Qohelet’s concept of carpe diem. For a critical approach towards thematic parallels, see Gordis, Koheleth, 46–50. Whitely proposes that the dependency works in the opposite direction (Whitley, Koheleth, 122– 31). Recent scholars have highlighted the intertextual relationship between the two books; see Marböck, “Kohelet und Sirach,” 275–301; Lohfink, Qohelet, 12–13; Gilbert, “Qohelet et Ben Sira,” 161–71; Gilbert, Recueil d’études, 311–29. For idiomatic similarities between the two works, cf. Qoh 3:11a: ‫ את הכל עשה יפה בעתו‬with Sir 39:16b: ‫( וכל צורך בעתו יספיק‬Ms B); Qoh 3:15b: ‫ והאלהים יבקש את נרדף‬with Sir 5:3b: ‫( כי ייי מבקש נרדפים‬Ms A); Qoh 8:1: ‫חכמת‬ ‫ אדם תאיר פניו ועז פניו ישונא‬with Sir 13:25: ‫( לב אנוש ישנא פניו אם לטוב ואם לרע‬Ms A); Qoh 10:11a: ‫ ישוך הנחש ללא לחש‬with Sir 12:13a: ‫( מה}י{ יוחן חובר נשוך‬Ms A); and Qoh 7:28b: ‫ אדם אחד מאלף מצאתי‬with Sir 6:5b: ‫( ובעל סודך אחד מאלף‬Ms A). 6 Harrington, Jesus Ben Sira of Jerusalem, 12; Gilbert, “Qohelet et Ben Sira,” 178. 7 Fox, Qohelet and His Contradictions, 312.

Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor

151

weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs” (12:9) – assigns him to the circle of wisdom teachers and practitioners.8 The use of the vocative ‫בני‬ within the epilogue (12:12) likewise appears more appropriate to a sage-teacher than an editor or collector of sayings. Ben Sira most likely also forged his wisdom teachings in the scribal school he administered in Jerusalem: “when one is wise to his people’s advantage, the fruits of his knowledge are lasting” (37:23).9 Inviting the student to acquire wisdom (51:23–29), he seeks to disseminate this practical advice beyond the confines of his own institution: “Observe that I have not labored for myself alone, but for all who seek wisdom” (24:34).10 Even his praise of the scribe above all other manual laborers – “The scribe’s profession increases wisdom” (38:24) – is a self-reference. The tasks undertaken by the ‫ חכם‬indicates that he was a professional wisdom teacher, defined not merely by his authority to instruct but also by his listening capacity and absorption of others’ wisdom: “When a man of understanding hears a wise word, he praises it and adds to it” (21:15).11 Qohelet and Ben Sira’s distinctive approach towards the “wise poor” is informed by this identity. Exemplified in Qoh 9:13–10:1 and Sir 10:30–11:3, the two units clearly exhibit thematic associations, both employing a concretizing device drawn from the faunal sphere to buttress the teaching conveyed therein (Qoh 10:1; Sir 11:3). At the same time, however, their lack of shared textual and stylistic markers mitigates against direct literary dependency. While the subject matter common to both suggests that Ben Sira may have been familiar with Qoheleth, closer analysis reveals the pedagogic gap between the authors, with Qohelet espousing a skeptical ambivalence that contrasts with Ben Sira’s conservative didacticism.

8 See Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 14. Lohfink, “Der Weise und das Volk,” 405–10, re-examines the labels ‫ חכם‬and ‫( עם‬Qoh 12:9; cf. 2 Chr 17:7–9), concluding that they indicate the existence of professional teachers (cf. Sir 37:23, 26) or the “wise” (cf. Sir 37:22, 24). Unless otherwise indicated, the English translation of biblical citations is mine. Translation of texts from Qoheleth follows Dell and Forti, Kohelet, in progress. 9 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 434. Unless otherwise indicated, the English translation of Ben Sira follows that of Skehan and Di Lella, 227–28. 10 Ben Sira’s grandson outlines his predecessor’s academic preparation and teaching agenda in the Prologue to his Greek translation: see ibid, 8. 11 See Prov 1:5–6; Qoh 12:9–10; Sir 3:29, 6:33–33.

152

Tova Forti

2 Qoh 9:13–10:1 and Sir 10:30–11:3 2.1 Qoh 9:13–10:1 A proper understanding of Qoh 9:13–10:1 rests first and foremost on specification of the unit’s parameters. This determination serves as a platform for assessing the role the figurative aphorism plays within it.12 In the continuation, the unit treats the superiority of the wisdom and counsel of the poor over both military might and foolishness. Despite its thematic unity, it employs a broad range of literary patterns and stylistic features: parabolic narrative (9:14–15), “better than” proverbs (9:16a 17, 18a), introductory formulae (9:13, 16aα), and figurative sayings/lessons (10:1).13 The statement, “This thing too I observed under the sun about wisdom, and it affected me profoundly” (9:13 [NJPS]) introduces the idea that wisdom is a source of great wonder. This is echoed in the parable of the king and the poor man who saves the city through his wisdom. While he overcomes the monarch and his warriors (9:14–15), no one remembers him! Proverbs similarly lauds wisdom over military might: “One wise man prevailed over a city of warriors and brought down its mighty stronghold” (21:22). The cluster of sayings in Qoh 9:16–18 thus appears to be embedded within the contemplative discussion of the value of wisdom in 9:13–10:1.14 While v. 17 extols the gentle mode adopted by the wise (“The words of the wise spoken gently are heard more than the shout of a ruler among fools”), vv. 16 and 18 compare the value of wisdom with bravery on the battlefield in relative terms. While both open by observing the advantages of wisdom, they close with an adversative waw that constricts their scope: 16: So I observed: Wisdom is better than valor; but a poor man’s wisdom is scorned, and his words are not heeded. (NJPS) 18: Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but a single bungler destroys much of value. (NRSV)

The ideational tension between the commendation of wisdom and its limit(ation)s is concretized by juxtaposed antonyms that frame the text as a dialectical 12 For a similar demarcation, see Gordis, Koheleth, 309; Scott, Ecclesiastes, 247. Fox (Qohelet, 261–62) includes the fool sayings in 9:13–10:3. Comparing 9:17–18 and 10:1–4, Ogden identifies numerous thematic and stylistic parallels (Ogden, Qoheleth, 163–64. For the Janus function of 10:1, see Dell and Forti, “Janus Sayings,” 115–28. 13 For a detailed analysis of this section, see Forti, “The Fly and the Dog,” 235–55. 14 See also Prov 20:18, 24:5–6; Qoh 7:19. Proverbs also indicates that it is more praiseworthy to overcome evil impulses than to exhibit bravery on the battlefield (16:32).

Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor

153

literary unit.15 The common device of contrasting wisdom and folly echoes the conceptual variance embodied in the parable of the king’s siege of the town and its rescue by the lay sage. The sage’s soft counsel vs. the ruler’s ranting are thus analogous to the monarch and the poor wise man (vv. 14–15). The opening clause of 18a adduces wisdom’s preeminence over the “weapons of war” (v. 18a). This also evokes v. 17. The second half, “but a single error destroys much of value” (v. 18b), calls the tenet that wisdom always prevails into question, however. The note appended to the story of the wisdom of the lay wise man who saves the city relates to the fate he suffers: “Yet no one remembered that poor man” (15c). Biblical scholars are divided over whether the verse denotes that his wisdom was ignored because of his status or that his role was unappreciated and quickly forgotten.16 Those who seek to make the antithetical stich suit the context – “a poor man’s wisdom is scorned, and his words are not heeded” (v. 16) – read the passage as signifying that the townspeople ignored the poor man’s advice, his wisdom thus being of no benefit to them. Herein, the phrase ‫“ ומלט הוא‬he who saved” is parsed as a hypothetical condition: had they listened to his words he could have saved the city. This sober and realistic analysis restricts wisdom: the wise man does not receive the recompense he justly deserves; he is either cold-shouldered or fades into oblivion. The sayings and the parable of the poor wise man share a dialectical tension, with the force of reality militating against the ideal of wisdom.17 Although the poor wise man should be esteemed despite his socio-economic status, he does not always receive his reward. How does the figurative saying “Dead flies18 turn the perfumer’s ointment fetid and putrid” in 10:1a relate to 9:13–18?19 This conjures up an image of dead 15 See the antitheses: a) in the parable (9:14–15): small city, few men vs. great king, mighty siege works; poor wise man vs. great king; b) in the cluster of sayings (vv. 16–18): wisdom vs. valor; poor man’s wisdom vs. scorned; wise man vs. foolish ruler; softly spoken vs. shouting; wisdom vs. weapons of war; single vs. many; c) in the metaphor of the fly (10:1): fetid, putrid vs. perfumer’s ointment; little vs. heavy/precious; wisdom/honor vs. folly. For this paradigm in Qoheleth, see Loader, Polar Structures, 58–61. 16 The past tense of the verb ‫מלט‬, “saved,” suggests that the city was in fact delivered. 17 “It is a contradiction between the principle and the reality, the rule and the exception” (Seow, Ecclesiastes, 322). 18 ‫זבוב‬,“fly,” is the generic name for the Brachycera species, the onomatopoetic noun mimicking the noise of the insect’s flight. For the zebub in Akkadian, see CAD Z, 155 (zumbu [zunbu, zubbu]). The Aramaic denominative verb dbb (from the noun ‫ דודבא‬/ ‫“ דיבבא‬fly”) expresses the idea of moving and shaking. Isaiah compares the Assyrian armies to flies and bees (Isa 7:18). 19 The asyndeton ‫“ יבאיש יביע‬fetid putrid” creates syntactical – and thus hermeneutical – problems. The suggestion that ‫ יביע‬is the result of dittography is supported by the ancient versions – Symmachus, the Tg., and Vulg. BHS emends to ‫“ גביע‬goblet/vessel.”

154

Tova Forti

insects spoiling a mixture of precious oil and fragrant spices, ‫( שמן רוקח‬cf. Exod 30:25). Although the semantic fields of battle strategy (v. 18a) and the pollution of pure oil appear unrelated, the two sayings are clearly meant to exemplify the same theme. The damage such a small and insignificant creature as a fly causes to high-quality perfumer’s ointment is analogous to that of a little folly inflicted on weighty wisdom. The figurative fly saying is closely associated with the closing stich of the previous verse: “but a single error destroys much of value” (9:18b). It thus functions as a concretizing device that, as both observation and lesson, elucidates the closing stichs of the enveloping sayings. These describe the constraints placed on wisdom by a reality pervaded by folly.20

2.2 Sir 10:19–11:3 Throughout his work, Ben Sira describes Jerusalem’s social structure: the upper class – the governing elite, nobles, scribes, and priestly aristocracy (Sir 10:24, 38:33, 39:11, 50:1–24) and lower class – the larger sector of skilled workers, farmers, and peasants (Sir 21:27–28; cf. the catalogue of professions in 38:24–39:11). This forms the backdrop for his review of social ethics and rich/poor relationships: the discriminatory attitude displayed towards the poor (13:22b), the aid they should be given, and his admonitions against ignoring or ridiculing them (4:1–10, 18:15–18).21 Like Qoh 9:13–10:1, Sir 10:30–11:2 addresses the wisdom of the poor. Although scholars largely agree on the passage’s substantive content, some divide it into sub-thematic strophes.22 Alexander Di Lella, for example, separates the

20 See Dell and Forti, “Janus Sayings.” 21 Rather strangely, Ben Sira’s sympathy does not extend to adducing any professional data – in contrast to the Mebin in 4QInstruction, for example, who, while repeatedly highlighting his lowly status (‫אביון‬, ‫רש‬/‫)ראש‬, engages in various business relationships (see Goff, 4QInstruction, 23–27). 22 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 232. The first edition of the Hebrew text (Ms B) of Sir 10:19–11:6 was published by Schirmann, “Dappim nosaphim,” 125–34 (Hebrew). Segal subsequently added a number of notes on the leaves in the same volume (pp. 313–23). This text was reproduced by Vogt, “Novi textus hebraici libri Sira,” 184–87 and Vattioni, “Nuovi fogli ebraici dell’Ecclesiastico,” 172–73. Comparing the Hebrew and Greek, Syriac, and Latin witnesses, Rüger, Text und Textform, 54–68, seeks to reconstruct the original redaction of Ben Sira (Hb I) and a later secondary, elaborated edition (Hb II). For a comprehensive review of the discovery, reconstruction, and transcription of the Hebrew fragments relating to Sir 10:19– 11:6 from the Cairo Geniza (Ms A [1900] and Ms B [1960]), see Gilbert, “The Wisdom of the Poor,” 107–11.

Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor

155

poem into five strophes on the basis of the symmetrical stanzas.23 Here, I shall focus on his fourth strophe (10:30–11:2), which counsels against judging people based on their appearance, the lowly wise man in particular. Rather than placing the figurative aphorism of the bee at the opening of the fifth strophe (11:3– 6), however, I submit that it forms an integral part of the fourth strophe (10:30– 11:3). The text of Sir 10:30–11:2 is witnessed by both Mss A and B, with slight orthographic variations.24 The following textual and hermeneutic discussion is based on an interlinear model in which the Hebrew textual witnesses for each verse are placed one beneath the other.25 Sir 10:30

:‫יש דל נכבד בגלל שכלו ויש נכבד בגלל עשרו‬ … ‫דל נכבד בגלל שכלו ויש איש עשיר נכבד‬

A B

The poor is honored for his wisdom as the rich is honored for his wealth.

Ben Sira measures honor in terms of social status.26 The poor are recognized for their wisdom, the wealthy because of their money.27 Elsewhere, he reproves those who denigrate the poor: “It is not just to despise a person who is wise

23 Strophe I: the fear of God (10:19–23:5 bicola); strophe II: various classes of people (10:24– 27:4 bicola); strophe III: self-esteem (10:28–29:2 bicola); strophe IV: the honor paid to the poor man vs. that given to the rich (10:30–11:2:4 bicola); strophe V: God’s mysterious ways (11:3– 6:5 bicola). See Di Lella, “Sirach 10:19–11:6,” 157–64; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 229–33. Minissale, La versione greca, 56–65, divides the poem into five strophes on the basis of slightly different subdivisions. Gilbert (“Wisdom of the Poor,” 117–19) suggests a structural thematic division into two principal sections – 10:19–29 and 10:30–11:6. 24 For Ms B, see Di Lella, “Recently Identified Leaves,” 153–67, esp. 153–55. 25 The marginal notes in Ms B are marked by small-fonted asterisks under the text. The synoptic presentation of the parallel Hebrew witnesses (Mss A and B) follows Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, 138–39; see also Ben-Hayyim, The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. (Hebrew) 26 Ben Sira designates the poor via diverse synonyms: ‫( דל‬4:4, 10:23, 30, 11:1, 13:2, 3, 19, 21, 22, 23, 32:16), ‫( אביון‬7:32, 13:20, 32:13), ‫( עני‬4:1–8, 10:14, 34:4), ‫( מסכן‬4:3, 30:14). The Hebrew Mss of Sirach do not witness to the term ‫רש‬, which occurs frequently in Proverbs. The noun ‫מסכן‬, which only appears elsewhere in Qoheleth (4:13, 9:15 [x 2], 16; cf. the abstract noun ‫“ מסכנות‬poverty” in Deut 8:9) in the biblical texts, becomes commonplace in Late Rabbinic Hebrew and the Aramaic Targumim. 27 The lacuna of the causal particle ‫“ בגלל‬because” in Ms B 10:30 in the closing stich (parallel to th ‫ בגלל‬in the opening stich) is reconstructed by most editors (cf. Vattioni, Vogt, Di Lella, Ben-Hayyim, Rüger, Minissale). Several complete the parallelism in accordance with Ms A, enclosing the reconstructed ‫“ בגלל עשרו‬for his wealth” (sometimes marked by upper semicircles) in square brackets.

156

Tova Forti

but poor, nor proper to honor any oppressor” (Sir 10:23). Here, however, the juxtaposition of the “poor” with the “oppressor” (‫ )איש חמס‬identifies the wisdom of the poor with their moral-religious conduct, namely fearing God and keeping his commandments (cf. 10:19–22). Sir 10:30 employs the symmetrical formula “there is X” “and there is Y”: ‫יש‬ ‫( דל נכבד בגלל שכלו ויש נכבד בגלל עשרו‬Ms A).28 This stylistic pattern serves as a common rhetorical device for presenting a wide range of situations, archetypes, and behavioral patterns.29 Here, the comparison adduces antithetical types and conditions of life in order to emphasize the added value of wisdom despite the poor man’s lowly place. Sir 10:31

:‫ נכבד בעשרו איככה ונקלה בעניו איככה‬A :‫ נקלה יותר‬/ ‫ בדלותו בעשרו מתכבד יתר והנקלה בעשרו בדלותו‬/ ‫]…[תכבד‬ :‫ הנכבד בעיניו בעשרו איככה ונקלה בעשרו בעיניו איככה‬B :‫המתכבד בדלותו בעשרו מתכבד יתר והנקלה בעשרו בדלותו נקלה יתר‬ Honored in poverty, how much more so in wealth! Dishonored in wealth, in poverty how much the more!

Various scholars suggest emending ‫“ בעיניו‬in his eyes” to ‫“ בעוניו‬in his poverty” in both stichs of Ms B on the basis of the difficulty in discerning between the ‫ ו‬and ‫י‬.30 Both the a fortiore principle (‫ )קל וחומר‬expressed by the particular interjection ‫“( איככה‬how much the more”) and the dichotomous terms ‫נכבד‬ “honored” and ‫“ נקלה‬dishonored” support understanding this as an antithesis to ‫“ בעושרו‬in his wealth.”31 This view is further reinforced by the second line 28 The opening stich 10:30a of Ms B omits “there is.” Ms A preserves the stylistic pattern. LXX omits ‫ יש‬in both stichs. 29 For the symmetrical use of ‫יש‬, see Sir 4:21, 6:8–10 [x 3], 11:11–12, 18, 20:5, 20:6, 22–23, 37:19–20, 37:22–23, 44:8–9, 48:16. While present in Proverbs, the ‫ יש‬of the choice is only stated therein at the beginning of the proverb, its meaning carrying over to the end of the strophe (cf. Prov 11:24, 12:18, 13:7). In contrast to Ben Sira’s balanced approach, Qohelet uses ‫ … ויש … יש‬as a polemical argument against the dogmatic principle of retribution, stating the opposite of the expected: the righteous receive the reward of the wicked, the wicked that of the righteous (Qoh 7:15b; cf. 8:14). Qohelet’s concretization of the logical reversal is thus deconstructive. 30 See Di Lella, “Qumran and the Geniza Fragments of Sirach,” 259–63; Reymond, “Vav and Yod in the Hebrew Manuscripts,” 115–16. 31 The interrogative particle ‫ איככה‬is regarded as a late biblical form (cf. Cant 5:3 [x 2] and Esth 8:6 [x 2]). For the meaning of “how much so,” cf. ‫ … הנה ואיך‬in 2 Kgs 10:4; Jer 12: 4–5. See Ben-Hayyim, “Brief Notes,” 215–17 (Hebrew). Kister argues that the shift of structure of ‫ איככה‬in the sense of “how much so” (// ‫ )על אחת כמה וכמה‬is peculiar to Sirach (Menahem Kister, “Some Notes on Biblical Expressions,” 160–87, esp. 161–62. The LXX renders ‫ איככה‬as ποσαχῶς “how much more;” Syr: ‫חד כמה‬.

Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor

157

of v. 31 (a, b, c, d) which employs the synonym ‫ בדלותו‬in paraphrasing the first line: “Honored in poverty (‫)בדלותו‬, much more so in wealth, dishonored in wealth, much the more in poverty (‫)בעוניו‬.”32 Ben Sira’s social ethics are shaped by the patriarchal culture in which he lived and its espousal of the principles of honor and shame. Although the intellectual capacities of the poor are not specified, the “poor,” “rich,” and “honor” exhibit a triadic relationship. The economic polarity of wealth and poverty is measured in relation to honor. Ben Sira challenges the social perception of poverty and wealth by addressing the question of who merits honor and who is shamed. The root ‫ כב"ד‬designates power and might, the noun ‫ כבוד‬thus intimating the more abstract attributes of honor, dignity, and majesty.33 Here, however, it signifies social esteem. Ben Sira returns to this theme in his praise of the laborer: ‫“ טוב עובד ויותר הון מ]מת[כבד ]וח[ס]ר[ מתן‬better a working person who produces wealth than a person who glorifies himself but lacks bread” (10:27 [Ms A]). This “better than saying” appear to recast Prov 12:9: “Better a lowly man who serves himself, than one who glorifies himself and lacks bread.”34 As Michael Fox notes, Ben Sira “uses Prov 12:9 as the starting point for a long reflection on the nature of honor and disgrace (Sir 10:19–11:6). He teaches that one who holds himself in low esteem when he is rich will be despised even more so if he becomes poor.”35 Sir 11:1

/:‫חכמת דל תשא ראשו ובין נדיבים תשיבנו‬ :‫חכמת דל תשא ראשו ] [שיבנו‬

A B

The poor person’s wisdom lifts his head high and sets him among princes.

Sir 10:30 is elegantly rephrased in 11:1. The idiomatic expression “to lift up the head” and the inclusion of the underprivileged amongst the noble class high-

32 The LXX and Syr support the amended reading: see Vogt, “Novi textus hebraici libri Sira,” 185; Minissale, La versione greca, 58; Vattioni, “Nuovi fogli ebraici dell’Ecclesiastico.” The rendering of the ellipsis or rather deficient text of the opening line of Ms A 10:31 relies on the paraphrased version of the second line. The repetition of the same idea in the four stichs of the second line in Mss A and B is customarily considered a later secondary addition: see Rüger, Text und Textform, 63. 33 ‫ כבוד‬is closely associated with God’s presence in the tabernacle (cf. Exod 29:43; Lev 9:6; Num 14:10) and various objects such as his throne and crown: see Weinfeld, ‫כבוד‬, TDOT 7:22– 38. 34 The antonyms ‫נכבד‬/‫ מתכבד‬and ‫( נקלה‬cf. Sir 10:19) appear in Prov 12:9. ‫“ ועבד לו‬and owns a servant” therein should probably be read as ‫“ ויעבד לו‬and serves himself” in line with the LXX δουλεύων ἑαυτῷ. The hendiadys ‫ רש ונקלה‬denotes self-abasement in 1 Sam 18:23. 35 Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 550–51.

158

Tova Forti

light the vast range of social conditions in which human beings exist.36 The sentence “The poor person’s wisdom lifts his head high and sets him among princes” further echoes Hannah’s prayer: “He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor” (1 Sam 2:8). Ben Sira appears to have deliberately adopted this liturgical formulaic style to express his hopes and dreams. Sir 11:2

: / ‫ אל תהלל אדם בתארו ואל תתעב אדם מכ] [ במראהו‬A ‫ אל תהלל אדם בתארו ואל תתעב אדם מעזב ב] [ו‬B ‫*אל תתע]ב[ אדם‬ [‫]ר‬‫*מכו‬ Praise not a person for his looks; loathe not a person for his appearance.

This verse addresses the issue of honoring based on external criteria.37 Although corrupt, the second stich in Ms B witnesses to a different version: ‫מעזב ב] [ו‬. The majority of editors amend this to ‫“ במראהו‬for his appearance.”38 While this line does not explicitly relate to the wisdom of the poor, the idea of reputation as based upon outward appearance associates inferiority with cheap clothing/ adornment. The poor person’s intellectual ability is thus eclipsed by his garb.39 This view is informed by the theological doctrine that God alone knows the heart and judges it rather than one’s external appearance (1 Sam 16:7). 36 Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 232–33) interpret the idiom ‫ נשא ראש‬in light of Gen 40:13 and 2 Kgs 25:27, thereby reading the verse as stating that “the poor person’s wisdom” frees him from the (ostensible) confines of his economic status. The term ‫“ נדיבים‬princes/ noblemen” occurs frequently in the Qumran scrolls (CD VI:4, 8; 4Q418 11). Scholars are divided over whether this status is due to their political power or knowledge. However, see Kampen, Wisdom Literature, 75. 37 LXX renders ‫ תאר‬as κάλλος “beauty.” Several orthographic differences between Ms A and Ms B exist in the second stich. The fragmentary word […]‫ מכ‬in Ms A is generally reconstructed as ‫( מכוער‬Pual participle of ‫“ כע"ר‬deformed/ugly/unattractive”) in accordance with Ms Bmg. LXX omits ‫( מכוער‬cf. also ‫[ מכוערין‬Sir 13:22 Ms A]). The root ‫ כע"ר‬occurs in late biblical Hebrew and the Aramaic Targumim (cf. Tg. Nah 3:6; b. Ta’an. 20b). 38 Schirman, “Dapp’im nosaphim,” 130. Ben-Hayyim (The Book of Ben Sira, 14) reconstructs ‫שבר במראהו‬/‫מעזב‬. Di Lella (“The Recently Identified Leaves,” 157): ‫“ משבר במראהו‬deficient/ not perfect in his look/sight.” Rüger (Text und Textform, 64) regards ‫ מכוער‬as a later version, citing Radak’s interpretation of Isa 53:2: ‫“ לא תואר לו ולא הדר‬he has no looks nor splendor” as being displeasing in appearance and different from other people: ‫והיינו רואים אותו ולא‬ ‫היה מראהו יפה אלא כעור ומשונה משאר בני האדם‬. He thus imputes an exegetical nuance to ‫“ אדם מעזב‬abandoned person” in Ms B that indicates its secondary status. The Syr adduces a full dichotomy: ‫“( לא תשבח לברנשא דשפיר בחזוה ולא תגנא לברנשא דסנא בחזוה‬Do not praise a person for his good appearance and do not abhor/detest a person for his hateful appearance”). 39 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Sira, 233.

Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor

159

Sir 11:3

:‫קטנה בעוף דבורה וראש תנובות פריה‬ :‫ בעוף דבורה וראש תנובות פריה‬40‫אליל‬

41

A B

Least is the bee among winged things, but she reaps the choicest of all harvests.42

V. 3 introduces an apicultural metaphor saying. What role does this play within the discussion of the wise poor? Proverbs lauds the ant’s outstanding traits: diligence and foresight (6:8; 30:25). This socio-political depiction invites readers to compare the insect’s features and habits with human social integration.43 In the same fashion, the bee exhibits its eusociality in its high level of organization and productive division of labor.44 As Núria Calduch-Benages observes, the offsetting of its poor flight skills by the honey it produces exemplifies the principle of not judging by appearance that Ben Sira articulates (11:2).45 Its description as ‫ קטנה‬or “small” associates it with the ‫ קטני ארץ‬or the “tiniest [animals] of the earth” (the ant, hyrax, locust, and gecko), whose physical slightness is countered by their perspicacity (Prov 30:24–28).46 This logical infrastructure underlies the heading of the numerical saying: “Four are among the tiniest on earth, yet they are the wisest of the wise” (Prov 30:24). Although Proverbs occasionally cites the praiseworthy characteristics of insects, none of the biblical wisdom literature adduces the bee for its

40 In biblical Hebrew, this serves as noun denoting “worthless” (Isa 10:10; Jer 14:14; Job 13:4; Zech 11:17). In Sirach, it functions as an adjective in analogy with cognate Semitic languages (especially Syriac), and Mishnaic Hebrew, designating “weak, feeble” (HALOT 1:55–56; TDOT 1:285), or as a diminutive of ʽal, “nothing.” See Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, 67 (Hebrew). The Syr employs the synonym ‫“ שיטא‬loathsome/despised.” Scholars view the version ‫ קטנה‬as original; see Segal, “Added Notes on the Leaves of Ben Sira,” 316; Rüger, Text und Textform, 65; Minissale, La versione greca, 61; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 233. 41 Although Mss A and B both witness to a legible text, the latter replicates the verse. The opening stich fully parallels Ms A with the exception of the plene spelling of ‫ ;דבורה‬the closing has ‫“ אליל‬least” for ‫“ קטנה‬small.” LXX: μικρὰ “small.” 42 Cf. the LXX’s rendering of ‫וראש תנובות‬: ἀρχὴ γλυκασμάτων “the chief of sweetmeats” and Judg 9:11: ‫את מתקי ואת תנובתי הטובה‬, τὴν γλυκύτητά μου καὶ τὰ γενήματά μου τὰ ἀγαθὰ. See Rüger, Text und Textform, 65. 43 Cf. ‫“ עם לא עז‬not a strong people” (Prov 30:25a), see Forti, Animal Imagery, 108–9. 44 Cole argues that although the eusociality of ants and bees has only recently been recognized, their swarming and solidarity had long been noted (Cole, “The Political Symbolism,” 163–204). 45 See Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery,” 66–69. 46 The adjective ‫ קטן‬denotes both physical size and inferior social status: cf. Gen 32:11; Deut 1:17; 2 Sam 7:19; 1 Kgs 22:31. ‫ קטן‬occurs as the antithesis of ‫( ראש‬cf. 1 Sam 15:17) and as synonym for ‫ בזוי‬or “despised” (cf. Jer 49:15 = Obad 1:2).

160

Tova Forti

diligence and industry.47 The only exception to this rule is the Septuagint plus in Prov 6:6–8. Appended to the admonitory unit charging the sluggard to emulate the ant’s manners, this reads: 8a: 8b: 8c:

Or go to the bee, and learn how industrious she is, and how earnestly she performs work; whose products kings and commoners use for health, and she is desired by all and respected. Though being weak physically, by having honored wisdom she has obtained distinction.

Ben Sira praises the bee in the spirit of the Septuagint’s expanded version of the ant parable (Prov 6:8a–c), employing the same rhetorical device of two contrasting elements – physical weakness vs. high productive capacity – to convey his didactic message. Sweet honey is a natural image for gaining wisdom, and thus the hope of gaining future life on the basis of the principle of divine retribution: “My son, eat honey, for it is good; let its sweet drops be on your palate. Know: such is wisdom for your soul; if you attain it, there is a future; your hope will not be cut off” (Prov 24:13–13 [NJPS]; cf. 16:21, 24).48 The intellectual virtue of the wise person is associated with the sweet sense of taste: “The wise-hearted is called discerning; one whose speech is pleasing [‫ ;מתק שפתיים‬lit., sweetness of lips] gains wisdom” (Prov 16:21; cf. 16:24).49 The close association between honey, wisdom, and social reputation is corroborated by the Septuagint’s expansion: “Whose [the bee’s] products kings and commoners use for health, and she is desired by all and respected. Though being weak physically, by having honored wisdom she has obtained distinction” (LXX Prov 6:8b, c). The metaphor of the bee and honey in Sirach functions as a scholastic paradigm for the advantage the poor hold in their wisdom over wealth and social class. In addition to serving as a parable for the misleading appearance of the poor wise (11:2), the bee thus represents the tenet, “the poor person’s wisdom lifts his head high and sets him among princes” (Sir 11:1).

47 The high regard in which the bee is held in the Greek version is incongruous with its image as a pest and metaphor for the enemy in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Deut 1:44; Isa 7:18; Ps 118:12). The structural/stylistic duplication of the praise of the bee in LXX Prov 6:8a–c – modeled upon the paradigm of the ant in MT Prov 6:6–8 – reinforces the suggestion that the expanded version is a secondary interpolation by the Alexandrian translator rather than a reflection of a Hebrew Vorlage (see Giese, “Strength through Wisdom and the Bee,” 404–11; Forti, “Bee’s Honey,” 327–41). 48 See Forti, “Bee’s Honey,” 333–36. 49 Forti, “Bee’s Honey,” 333–36.

Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor

161

Conclusion Both Qohelet and Ben Sira adduce an empirical truth embodied in a figurative aphorism to convey a moral lesson. Rather than re-examining its cognitive pattern, the reader/listener is meant to implement its ethical instruction. While Ben Sira directs his readers to emulate the bee’s behavior, however, Qohelet employs the image of the fly to deconstruct the traditional triumph of wisdom over folly, thereby promulgating the fact that the wisdom of the poor not always being appreciated, it cannot guarantee a long-lasting reputation. This discussion of Qoh 9:13–10:1 and Sir 10:30–11:3 reveals that the two sages share a pragmatic-realistic view of social life, both exhibiting an awareness of the ambiguity and complexity of poverty and wealth. Although, like Proverbs and Sirach, Qoheleth is framed as a didactically-oriented wisdom text, commending the right conduct for everyday life, its dialectic discourse belongs to a “reflective, problem-oriented” wisdom tradition.50 Qohelet adopts an intimately personal viewpoint. His observation and reflection casts doubt on certain aspects of traditional wisdom and he “swings back and forth without settling on one side to the exclusion of the other.”51 Ben Sira’s attitude towards the poor and the rich evinces his psychological insight into human social behavior: rather than measuring poverty as a condition of life per se, he evaluates it in light of principles such as honor and self-esteem. While the fact that both writers address the wisdom of the poor wise appears to suggest a degree of literary dependency, this notion is mitigated by the lack of specific textual markers and any substantial conceptual similarity between their texts. The common subjects they address thus appear to be a function of their position of authority and professional sensibilities (sage, scribe, and teacher) and treatment of social injustice. The shared theme in the two passages discussed here thus exemplifies the pedagogic gap between their texts, Qohelet being driven by a skeptical ambivalence, Ben Sira by a conservative didacticism.

Bibliography Backhaus, Franz-Josef. “Qohelet und Sirach.” BN 69 (1993): 32–55. Barton, George A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908.

50 Krüger, Qoheleth, 11. 51 Schoors, Ecclesiastes, 712.

162

Tova Forti

Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. VTSup 68. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Ben-Hayyim, Ze’ev. The Book of Ben Sira: Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language/Shrine of the Book, 1973. (Hebrew). Ben-Hayyim, Ze’ev. “Brief Notes on Several Entries in the Book of Ben Sira.” Leshonenu 37 (1973): 215–17. (Hebrew) Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Animal Imagery in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sirach.” Pages 55–71 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. JSJSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Cole, Richard. “The Political Symbolism of Ants and Bees in Old Norse Sources.” Collegium Medievale 33 (2020): 163–204. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Dell, Katharine J. and Tova L. Forti. “Janus Sayings: A Linking Device in Qoheleth’s Discourse.” ZAW 128 (2016): 115–28. Dell, Katharine J., and Tova L. Forti. Kohelet. IECOT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Forthcoming. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Sirach 10:19–11:6: Textual Criticism, Poetic Analysis, and Exegesis.” Pages 157–64 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: FS D. N. Friedman. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and Michael O’Connor. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Recently Identified Leaves of Sirach in Hebrew.” Bib 45 (1964): 153–67. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Qumran and the Geniza Fragments of Sirach.” CBQ 24 (1962): 259– 63. Forti, Tova L. “The Fly and the Dog: Observations on the Ideational Polarity in the Book of Qoheleth.” Pages 235–55 in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Forti, Tova L. “Bee’s Honey – From Realia to Metaphor in Biblical Wisdom Literature.” VT 56 (2006): 327–41. Fox, Michael V. Qohelet and His Contradictions. BLS 18. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 10–31. AB 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Giese, Ronald L. “Strength through Wisdom and the Bee in LXX-Prov 6, 8a–c.” Bib 73 (1992): 404–11. Gilbert, Maurice. “Qohelet et Ben Sira.” Pages 161–71 in Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom. Edited by Antoon Schoors. BETL 136. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Gilbert, Maurice. “The Wisdom of the Poor: Ben Sira 10,19–11, 6.” Pages 107–11 in Ben Sira: Recueil d’études – Collected Essays. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. BETL 264. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Gilbert, Maurice. Ben Sira: Recueil d’études – Collected Essays. BETL 264. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Goff, Matthew J. 4QInstruction. Atlanta: SBL, 2013. Gordis, Robert. Koheleth: The Man and his World. New York: JTS, 1955. Gregory, Bradley C. “A Reassessment of Sirach’s Relationship to Qoheleth: A Case Study of Qoheleth 3:15 and Sirach 5:3.” Pages 189–200 in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually. Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. LHB/OTS 587. Bloomsbury: T&T Clark, 2014. Harrington, Daniel J. Jesus Ben Sira of Jerusalem: A Biblical Guide to Living Wisely. Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2005. Kampen, John. Wisdom Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor

163

Kister, Menahem. “Some Notes on Biblical Expressions and Allusions and the Lexicography of Ben Sira.” Pages 160–87 in Sirach, Scrolls and Sages. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde. STDJ 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Krüger, Thomas. Qoheleth. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Loader, James A. Polar Structures in the Book of Qoheleth. BZAW 152. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979. Lohfink, Norbert. Qohelet: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Sean McEvenue. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Lohfink, Norbert. “Der Weise und das Volk in Koh 12, 9 und Sir 37, 23.” Pages 405–10 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom – Festschrift M. Gilbert. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1999. Minissale, Antonino. La versione greca del Siracide. AnBib 133. Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1995. Marböck, Johannes. “Kohelet und Sirach: Eine vielschichtige Beziehung.” Pages 275–301 in Das Buch Kohelet: Studien zur Structur, Geschichte, Rezeption und Theology. Edited by Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger. BZAW 254. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Ogden, Graham. Qoheleth. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Peters, Norbert. “Ekklesiastes und Ekklesiasticus.” BZ 1 (1903): 47–54; 129–50. Reymond, Eric D. “Vav and Yod in the Hebrew Manuscripts A and B of Sirach.” Pages 104–24 in Sirach and Its Contexts: The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing. Edited by Samuel L. Adams, Greg Schmidt Goering and Matthew Goff. JSJSup 196. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2021. Rüger, Hans P. Text und Textform im hebraischen Sirach. BZAW 112. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Scott, Robert B. Y. Ecclesiastes. AB 18. New York: Doubleday, 1981. Schirmann, J. “Dappim nosaphim mi-tokh Sepher ben Siraḥ.” Tarbiz 29 (1959–1960): 125–34. (Hebrew). Schoors, Antoon. Ecclesiastes. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. Segal, Moses Z. Sefer Ben Sira ha-shalem. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1953. (Hebrew) Seow, Choon-Leong. Ecclesiastes. AB 18c. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Vattioni, Francesco. “Nuovi fogli ebraici dell’Ecclesiastico.” RivB 8 (1960): 172–73. Vogt, Ernst. “Novi textus hebraici libri Sira.” Bib 41 (1960): 184–87. Weinfeld, Moshe. ‫כבוד‬. TDOT 7:22–38. Whitley, Charles F. Koheleth: His Language and Thought. BZAW 148. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979. Wright III, Benjamin. “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 363–88 in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Sergio Rotasperti and F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz

Living with Wild Animals: A Study of the Imagery in Sir 25:15–16 Abstract: The collection of sayings in Sir 25:13–26:2 employ several metaphors. Sir 25:15–16 presents the serpent, the lion, and the dragon as three animal metaphors for the “wicked woman.” In the first stage of our research, the narrative dynamics of this text will be studied while setting it in its literary context. Subsequently, the metaphors will be studied following a linguistic analysis which will highlight the persuasive strength of the argument. Connections with other books of the Wisdom corpus will be sought, especially with the book of Proverbs. Keywords: women/wives, animal imagery, metaphors, Ben Sira, anger

Women are widely treated in wisdom literature (cf. Prov 1:20–21, 32–33; Job 2:9– 10; Qoh 7:26; Sir 36:24–27) but not always with a high degree of respect. Ben Sira follows that tradition1 and writes about women/wives extensively, mainly in chs. 25 and 26.2 In this paper, we analyze several metaphors used by the sage to refer to women and set them in dialogue with the rest of the Hebrew Bible. In so doing, we acknowledge the work that Professor Núria Calduch-Benages has already done in the fields of metaphor3 and the relationship between women and the Bible as a way to honor our mentor on her 65th birthday.4 The focus of our study will be Sir 25:13–16. Other scholars have already studied this text and we will base our contribution on their findings while proposing our argument. For example, Renate Egger-Wenzel links the serpent with

1 Cf. Calduch-Benages, En el crisol, 244; Calduch-Benages, “Ben Sira,” 37–44; Forte, “Male,” 185: “Ben Sira’s view of women is slightly tainted by the cultural negative bias he had against them.” 2 As Prof. Calduch-Benages rightly observes, to these passages we must add 36:21–26 (Heb) 36:26–31 (Greek) on the good wife, situated inside a section on discernment (36:18–37:31). Finally, many verses scattered throughout the book complete the portrait of the good wife (7:19, 26a; 9:1; 25:1, 8; 28:15; 40:19, 23) and of the bad wife (7:26b; 9:2; 33:19ab; 37:11a; 42:6; 47:19). Cf. Calduch-Benages, “Good and Bad,” 112. 3 Calduch-Benages, “Garment,” 257–78; Calduch-Benages, “Ben Sira 24:22,” 57–72; cf. Rotasperti, Metaphors, 16–30; Signoretto, Metafora, 7–8. 4 Calduch-Benages, Pan de sensatez, 271; Calduch-Benages, “Le donne,” 49–63 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-012

166

Sergio Rotasperti and F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz

sin in Sir 25:24.5 She also highlights this image as referring to the power of evil as reflected in Gen 3 to Rev 12. Thus, she argues that these verses describe the dangers of living with the other animals as no life at all. In our study of the animal metaphors, we observe the following process.6 We begin with analyzing the lexical and syntagmatic elements of the verse which serve as references for the metaphors. Then we attempt an interpretation of each metaphor. Our task is to decode the thought of the author and to uncover new information. We do not apply any specific theory of metaphor but use contemporary re-readings of Aristotle’s thought on metaphor, setting ourselves up to decipher the fields (or the conceptual ideas) from which the dynamism of the expression originates. Finally, we will offer our interpretation, initiating a hermeneutical circle between text and reader. In the case of biblical poetry, Luis Alonso-Schökel’s warning remains valid and always contemporary: “Both the reader and the interpreter of the Bible must alert their imagination when they read or study biblical poetry. What has been written with imagination, must also be read with imagination.”7

1 Context Following the personification of Wisdom in Sir 24, the book of Ben Sira enters its second part which extends to Sir 42:14.8 The sage describes the concept of good and evil wives in Sir 25 and 26 with an alternation of these two categories: bad wives in 25:13–26; good wives in 26:1–4; bad wives in 26:5–12; good wives in 26:13–18.9 The section is preceded by an introduction in the form of a numerical proverb in 25:1–11. The treatment of the good and bad wives is unequal with a stress on the latter. This literary strategy, aimed at the male audience of the book, advises them to avoid a section of the female population, namely the bad women.10 Sir 25:1 works as the section’s programmatic statement.11 The sage speaks in the first-person singular, giving to the utterance and to this section of the 5 Egger-Wenzel, “Denn harte Knechtschaft,” 28–31. 6 Rotasperti, Metaphors, 6–8. 7 Alonso Schökel, Manual, 104. 8 Palmisano, Siracide, 239. 9 Calduch-Benages, En el crisol, 163–64; Calduch-Benages, “Good and Bad Wives,” 112; Forte, “Male,” 174 (this is a study of the LXX and the Latin versions). 10 Palmisano, Siracide, 243. 11 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 340.

Living with Wild Animals: A Study of the Imagery in Sir 25:15–16

167

book his personal weight as a teacher: “My soul takes pleasure in three things, and they are beautiful in the sight of the Lord and of men; agreement between brothers, friendship between neighbors, and a wife and a husband who live in harmony.”12 It is the final statement which will serve as the focus of our study because, in our opinion, it holds the hermeneutical key to the subsequent statements. It seems that the main thrust of this collection is the description and maintenance of harmony within the family. It appears that in this section Ben Sira is writing on marriage as expressed by the verb συνοικῆσαι which elsewhere in the book refers to marriage (cf. Sir 25:8; 42:9–10). The idea of harmony is taken up in Sir 25:8a in Ms C and in Syriac: “Happy is whoever lives with a sensible wife, and whoever is not ploughing with an ox and a donkey combined.”13 This verse picks up the law found in Deut 22:10 and uses it metaphorically to refer in this case to the unequal partnership in marriage between a sensible man and a senseless woman.14 In this way, the sage inserts this saying in his uses of animal metaphors and comparisons in the book,15 which in most instances have a negative connotation.

2 Structure The text we are concentrating on is Sir 25:13–16 which is available only in Greek. We follow Schökel who reads these four verses as a unit.16 The text and its translation is as follows: 13

πᾶσαν πληγὴν καὶ μὴ πληγὴν καρδίας καὶ πᾶσαν πονηρίαν καὶ μὴ πονηρίαν γυναικός

13

Any wound, but not the wound of the heart. Any wickedness, but not the wickedness of a wife.

12 For other cases of first person singular utterances of the Sage, see Sir 24:31–34; 26:5; 27:24; 42:15. 13 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 339. 14 Snaith, 128. 15 Minissale, Siracide, 25, provides a list of animals in Sirach: lamb: 13:17; bee: 11:3; donkey: 33:25; dog: 4:30; 11:30; 13:18; horse: 30:8; 33:6; dragon: 25:15; gazelle: 27:20; hyena: 13:18; lion: 4:30; 21:2; 25:15; 27:10, 28; 28:23; wolf: 13:17; wild donkey: 13:19; bear: 25:16; partridge: 11:30; game: 36:19; snake: 12:13; 21:2; 25:14; scorpions: 26:7; moth: 42:13; bull: 6:2; birds: 22:20; 27:9, 19; animals (in general) 13:14–19. Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery,” 55–71, has studied the presence of animals in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira. 16 Alonso Schökel, Eclesiástico, 235; Skehan and Di Lella (Wisdom of Ben Sira, 343) groups vv. 13–18 whereas Egger-Wenzel (“Denn harte Knechtschaft,” 1) puts vv. 13–17 together.

168

Sergio Rotasperti and F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz

14

πᾶσαν ἐπαγωγὴν καὶ μὴ ἐπαγωγὴν μισούντων καὶ πᾶσαν ἐκδίκησιν καὶ μὴ ἐκδίκησιν ἐχθρῶν 15 οὐκ ἔστιν κεφαλὴ ὑπὲρ κεφαλὴν ὄφεως καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν θυμὸς ὑπὲρ θυμὸν ἐχθροῦ 16 συνοικῆσαι λέοντι καὶ δράκοντι εὐδοκήσω ἢ συνοικῆσαι μετὰ γυναικὸς πονηρᾶς

14

Any attack, but not the attack of those who hate you. And any vengeance, but not the vengeance of the enemies. 15 There is no poison worse than a serpent’s poison, and no wrath worse than the enemy’s wrath. 16 I would rather dwell with a lion and a dragon than dwell with an evil wife.

We follow the LXX received text in v. 15 accepting “enemy” as the correct reading even though other versions such as the Latin and Syriac propose “woman,” a reading accepted by some.17 The LXX underlines an internal chiasm. At the end of each verse, we find the following structure: wife in v. 13; enemy in v. 14; enemy in v. 15; and wife in v. 16 . Further, the construction of the verses is well balanced and both stichs parallel each other within the verse (for example, v. 14: attack//vengeance; those who hate you//the enemies). The internal parallelism also makes vv. 13 and 14 echo each other (wound//attack; wickedness// vengeance; enemy//wife). On the last member of this comparison, Alexander Di Lella interprets this image as a description of a polygamous household in which different women or wives would become enemies to each other.18 We will now study each of the images of the comparison independently and try to draw some conclusions. In our view, the metaphors refer to the relationship that husband and wife may have and point to a situation of conflict and misunderstanding. Rather than a polygamous union, the metaphors depict a one-on-one relationship between male and female. After all, the animals referred to in the saying are solitary and do not tend to group with their own species. In our view, the sage is not concerned so much with female dynamics within the household as with the relationship between a man and a wife.

3 Study of the Images In Sir 25:15–16, there are three animal metaphors: the serpent, the lion, and the dragon. What these animals have in common is that they are wild, dangerous, and aggressive creatures. All are hostile to humans, difficult to tame, and impossible to share harmony with. 17 The term is interpreted as “woman” following Smend, Weisheit, 229. Cf Alonso Schökel, Eclesiástico, 235; Minissale, Siracide, 132; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 347; Spicq, L’Ecclesiastique, 696; Palmisano, Siracide, 243: “enemy.” 18 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 347.

Living with Wild Animals: A Study of the Imagery in Sir 25:15–16

169

3.1 The Serpent The first animal in the series is the ὄφις or serpent In the LXX, the lemma ὄφις occurs in 34 passages.19 From a syntactic point of view, the term is used in most occurrences in the nominative or as the subject of an action.20 In the Torah, the serpent takes on different and sometimes opposite meanings: it is a sign of deception (Gen 3:1, 4, 13) and danger (Gen 49:17; Deut 8:15). On the other hand, it is a sign of life in the desert (Num 21:8–9). The sinful worship of a serpent by the Israelites is mentioned in the reform actions of Hezekiah (4 Kgdms 18:4). In the prophetic tradition, the serpent is associated with opposite meanings: it symbolizes the danger of the enemy (Isa 14:29) or the dreadful arrival of the day of the Lord (Amos 5:19). In a positive sense, it is one of the animals that is included in the dream of an apparently impossible co-existence (Isa 65:25). In the wisdom tradition, there is in general attestation of its dangerous action. For example, in Ecclesiastes the serpent indicates mortal danger (Eccl 10:8, 11). Moreover, the book of Proverbs presents the serpent’s poison as a symbol of danger (Prov 23:32) while in 30:19 the way the serpent traces on the rock represents one of the four things that the wise man does not understand at all. In general, the serpent is associated with various connotations ranging from danger to divination to the protection of life.21 In the Psalms, poisonous snakes are symbolic of the wicked and their speech (Ps 57:5; 139:4) In the LXX of Ben Sira, the metaphor of the snake occurs twice (Sir 21:2; 25:15). In both texts, the poisonous action of the serpent is highlighted. In the first text, the serpent is a metaphor for sin (Sir 21:2). The son is urged by the wise man to flee from sin; even approaching it can be lethal, similar to the bite of a snake. Another aspect of this comparison is human anger. Calduch-Benages wrote a study on the subject 22 while Werner Urbanz has recently published an article on this topic in Ben Sira,23 contextualizing this passion within the cultural milieu of its time. Anger is one of the most powerful passions that drive human

19 Cf. Gen 3:1, 2, 4, 13, 14; 49:17; Exod 4:3, 17; 7:15; Num 21:6, 7, 8, 9; Deut 8:15; 4 Kgdms 18:4; 4 Macc 18:8; Pss 57:5; 139:4; Prov 23:32; 30:19; Eccl 10:8, 11; Job 20:16; Wis 16:5; Sir 21:2; 25:15; Pss. Sol. 4:9; Amos 5:19; Mic 7:17; Isa 14:29; 27:1; 65:25; Jer 8:17; 26:22. 20 Cf. Gen 3:1, 4:13; 49:17; Exod 4:3; Num 21:8, 9; Deut 8:15; 2 Kgdms 18:4; Eccl 10:8, 11; Am 5:19; Mic 7:17; Isa 14:29; 65:25. 21 Wilson, The Serpent Symbol, 65–88; Borowski, "Animals,” 421–22. 22 Calduch-Benages, “Es mejor perdonar,” 419–39. 23 Urbanz, “Variants,” 57–72.

170

Sergio Rotasperti and F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz

beings and it is normal for the biblical author to express the processes leading to anger.24 The biblical account also gives an assessment of emotions, especially anger (Gen 40:1–2; Num 31:14–20; Jer 37:15–16; Qoh 5:16). In the case of Ben Sira, it is always negative (Sir 10:18; 27:30; 28:3; 30:24).25 Urbanz provides a helpful table of the words used for anger in Ben Sira.26 The term θυμὸς is used 16 times and refers to the inner emotions of anger while ὀργὴ is used 20 times. The vocabulary is evenly distributed in the book even though it is more concentrated in Sir 27:30–28:12 which deals with forgiveness and resentment.27 Apart from some references to the anger of God (5:4, 6, 7; 16:11; 39:28; 45:18, 19), all the other descriptions of this passion in Ben Sira describe human anger and wrath. The metaphor of fire for anger, common in the biblical corpus, is also present here (16:6; 28:10; 36:8). Perhaps interesting for our study are some reasons that cause human anger: abuse of alcohol (31:30); a man supported by his wife (25:22) or a drunken wife (26:8). When looking for a wife, one should not look for her riches.28 Neither should one choose a wife without testing her virtue. Anger is proper to the fool and sinner (26:28; 28:1–2) but the wise and those who exercise patience can control it (Sir 1:22–23; cf. Prov 14:17, 29). In Sir 25:15, the venom of the serpent is associated with the wrath of the wife. This image of anger compared with that of a serpent is a hapax not only in Ben Sira but also in the LXX. Here, there is no identification of the serpent with the wife but there is an association between the venom of the serpent and the wrath of the wife.29 Wrath is an emotional reaction, mostly sudden and violent, which tends to be vented with excited words, even with insults or with actions against those who, voluntarily or involuntarily, have provoked this reaction. Thus, the metaphor compares and identifies the poisonous action of the serpent with the emotional action of the wife. Ultimately, the sage warns of the dangers of alcohol consumption in general and by the wife in particular (26:8) and the power of words which act like the venom of a serpent. The metaphor highlights two negative aspects: the instinctive uncontrollability of the action and the deadly consequences it produces: both poison and anger trigger processes that are lethal for survival. In this light, Ben Sira is

24 Cf. Ruiz-Ortiz, Dynamics, 60–66. 25 Calduch-Benages, “Es mejor perdonar,” 427. 26 Urbanz, “Variants,” 62–64. 27 For a study, see Calduch-Benages, “Es mejor perdonar,” 425–28. 28 Minissale, Siracide, 133. 29 In Ben Sira LXX, the term wrath (θυμός) occurs 16 times (1:22, 5:6; 10:18; 18:24; 25:15; 26:28; 28:10, 19; 30:24; 31:30; 36:6; 39:28; 40:4; 45:18, 19; 48:10).

Living with Wild Animals: A Study of the Imagery in Sir 25:15–16

171

probably alluding to the irreversible damage that anger, especially that of the wife, causes in a couple’s relationship.30 Moreover, the danger arises at the level of verbal communication in analogy with the action that comes out of the serpent’s mouth. The wrath coming from the wife thus poisons the husband. There are, however, no other texts stating that the man’s anger can also cause irreversible harm to his wife. This is undoubtedly a one-sided perspective.

3.2 The Lion The second metaphor is that of the λέων or the lion used for the wicked wife (25:16). The image of the lion occurs eight times in Ben Sira. The lion is known as the “king of the beasts.” Its physical appearance, its strength, dignified movements, and fierceness in killing its prey have left a deep impression in the human psyche. The lion has always been an image of danger but also of power. The most powerful emotion which rises in the human heart is fear because the lion poses a tangible threat. While the lion has been connected to the deities in the ANE world,31 the feline refers to humans too. From an archaeological point of view, there is an extensive use of the image of the lion on various objects associated with cult and religion as well as with the person of the king or a mighty person.32 Ben Sira does not deviate from the imagery of the lion evoked in the Torah33 as he takes up analogous metaphors contained in the sapiential texts34 and the 30 Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View, 73–74. 31 New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 36, 63, 76. 32 These discoveries in ancient Palestine/Israel must be understood in the context of the iconography of ANE. For a study of the archaeological data, see Strawn, What is Stronger, 77–128. 33 For example, in Gen 49:9, Jacob blesses Judah who is compared to a lion. In two other blessings the lion appears: in the oracles of Baalam (Num 23:24), where the people stand aggressively like a lion; in the blessing of Moses (Deut 33:22) Gad is compared to a mauling lion, a metaphor adopted to indicate the voracity with which he extended himself to the borders of the Transjordan. 34 In the book of Psalms, the lion appears in 7:3; 9:30; 16:12; 21:14, 22; 34:17; 57:7; 90:13. The lion metaphor is associated with different categories of people who threaten the praying person: the persecutors (7:3), the wicked (9:30; 16:12; 57:7), the enemies (21:4, 22; 90:13), the violent (34:17). In Proverbs, most of the attestation refers to the king or administrator (19:12; 20:2; 22:13; 28:15); other attestations refer to the sluggard and his words (22:13; 26:13) or to the security of the righteous (18:15). In Prov 30:30, the courage of the lion is extolled. Also in the book of Job, the lion often symbolizes the adversity and the possibility of succumbing but its power is also exalted. In most of the occurrences, the image of the lion is linked to the experience of suffering and pain that Job is experiencing and that looms over him (Job 4:10, 11; 6:7; 10:16, 28:8; 38:39).

172

Sergio Rotasperti and F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz

various symbolisms present in the prophetic tradition.35 In biblical literature, the mammal is often used as a paragon of strength and courage but also of danger and threatening power; its roar alludes to greed and terror; if it mauls, it is a symbol of inhuman and oppressive power.36 In Sir 4:30, the wise man is urged not to be like a lion. This verse and 25:16 share a similar context because of the connection found in both between the home and the family environment. The lion is mentioned as a term of comparison. In some cases, the image is a simile and could refer to different nuances. For example, the wise man should have a right relationship with his servants and not to behave like a lion, probably alluding to its fierceness and aggressiveness. There are three further mentions of the lion in the nominative form with different subjects. In Sir 27:10, sin is compared to the lion as it attacks and tears its prey apart. In Sir 29:23, the same metaphor is used in connection with vengeance: just as the lion lies in wait for its prey, so vengeance awaits the proud. Finally, in Sir 28:23, the lion and the panther are mentioned in reference to the seriousness of abandoning the Lord. Here, it is the aggressive action of the lion upon its prey that is highlighted. Similarly, to forsake the Lord is to die: death comes suddenly upon those who forsake the Lord. Other passages in Ben Sira highlight the predatory action of the lion. In Sir 13:19, the rich are compared to lions as they prevail over the poor; their

35 One of the perspectives is the aggression and the effects the lion has on its prey. In Amos, the lion roaring in search of prey is a grim premonition of an imminent message, the consequence of which is fear and terror among those who receive it (Amos 3:4, 8). A few verses later, the Lord and the prophet try to tear from the mouth of the animal what remains, a symbol of a people reduced to shreds (Amos 3:12). The day of the Lord is imagined as the coming of a lion before which all flee (Amos 5:19). To this can be added the sense of panic and fear in the face of suffering and illness: In Isa 38:13, Hezekiah, who is ill, feels as if crushed by a lion. There are texts in the Isaiah that mention the lion in a positive way: Isa 11:6–7 mentions the lion in harmony with the calf and in the ideal vision of Isa 65:25, the lion will eat straw like the ox. In the blessings reserved for Jerusalem there is a lack of lion or fierce beast running through its streets (Isa 35:9). The image of the lion is used to characterize people or categories of people: Jacob (Mic 5:7), Assur (Zeph 2:13–14). In Isa 5:29, God calls a foreign nation as an instrument of vengeance, which comes like a roaring lion; in Jer 4:7, the lion leaping in ambush from the enemy’s thicket is a metaphor for the invading power of the enemy. In Ezek 19:1–14, the lioness is a symbol of Israel and her kings: in analogy with the relationship between lioness cubs Israel also learns to maul. The princes of Jerusalem are compared to lions that maul the people (Ezek 22:25). In Ezek 32:2, Egypt is compared to a lion. 36 Strawn, What is Stronger, 226–28; 294–303; Riede, Im Spiegel, 33–34.

Living with Wild Animals: A Study of the Imagery in Sir 25:15–16

173

treatment of the poor is similar to the way lions attack and kill wild donkeys in the desert. In Sir 21:2, sin is like a serpent biting its victim and like the lion’s teeth that mercilessly grind its prey. There is only one text in which the lion is mentioned in a non-aggressive way and that is in the Praise of the Fathers. King David is a positive example of a monarch who not only succeeds in taming the lions but even jokes and lives with them peacefully (Sir 47:3). Sir 25:16 describes something even more serious and paradoxical. The mention of the lion lurking is a metaphor alluding to terror and the dangerous threat to physical safety and survival. And yet, living with this dangerous mammal is even preferable to living with a wicked wife. In this description of the dangerousness and aggressiveness of the wife, the text contains a hyperbolic dimension. The aggressive and predatory action of the evil wife is not clearly explained but only evoked in the reader’s mind. Mechanisms are provoked in the male imagination and negative effects produced in the husband, namely, despondency, sadness, and heartbreak.37

3.3 The Dragon Along with the lion, Ben Sira includes an equally dangerous animal called δράκων, which is often translated as dragon. It is difficult to identify the exact reference of this term. In the Torah, the term dragon translates the Hebrew word ‫ין‬ and normally refers to the serpent.38 The Greek translates different types of animals from Hebrew. In the prophetic tradition, most attestations associate the term with a dangerous or a devastating or deadly situation, which only the Lord can control.39

37 In Ben Sira, besides the present text, there are four other occurrences where the evil wife and her destructive effects are mentioned: 25:13, 23, 25; 42:6. 38 In Exod 7:9–12, it deals with the staff turned into a serpent. In Deut 32:33, the LXX translates the term ‫ין‬ with δράκων and it stands for the poisonous serpent. 39 Cf. Amos 9:3; Mic 1:8; Isa 27:1(2x); Jer 9:10; 27:8 LXX (MT 50:8); 28:34 LXX (MT 51:34); Ezek 29:3; 32:2. In Amos 9:3, the LXX translates the Hebrew lemma ‫ש‬ (serpent). In the context of the fourth vision in which the collapse of the sanctuary is recounted, all will be killed and even those who attempt to take refuge and escape to the bottom of the sea will be bitten by the serpent. In Mic 1:8, the term dragon translates the Hebrew ‫ין‬ placed in a context of mourning and death, in analogy with Greek mythology. In Isa 27:1, the sea dragon is defeated by the Lord, thus showing his superior strength. In Jer 9:10, Jerusalem itself is depicted as a place of desolation to such an extent that it becomes a refuge for the dragons. Finally in Ezek 29:9 and 32:2, the dragon symbolizes the king of Egypt.

174

Sergio Rotasperti and F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz

In the wisdom tradition, the image of the dragon is found six times in Job.40 It is associated with a water animal, the crocodile, the viper, and the lion. In all its associations, it always appears alongside those animals which are considered aggressive and dangerous. Further the word occurs 11 times, six of them in the Psalms. In Ps 73:13–14 LXX, the Greek lemma translates two distinct Hebrew names: the sea serpent or crocodile (‫ין‬) and the leviathan (‫ן‬). Ps 90:13 contains many assonances with the text of Sir 25:14 since the same animals are listed 41 albeit in a different order (lions and vipers, lions and dragons). In Ps 90:13, the dragon (‫ין‬) is crushed together with the young lion, provided that the righteous man remains under divine protection.42 In Ben Sira, the term occurs only here. It is not clear to which Hebrew term it exactly corresponds. Living with dragons evokes a place of death and devastation that only the Lord can master. This means that it is an impossibility for the righteous. And yet, Ben Sira hyperbolically states that it is nevertheless better to dwell with lions and dragons than with an evil wife. This is a persuasive and effective way of saying that the husband cannot tolerate wickedness in his home even when it is a very familiar and intimate relationship.

Conclusion At the end of our study, we conclude that these metaphors convey a male point of view. They refer specifically to emotions aroused by women in their husbands and never to women as females independent from their husbands. The passion of anger and its consequences are described as originating only from the female partner, never the male. The metaphors encompass all the facets of life: a serpent’s poison refers to verbal communication and the emotions aroused by the words uttered in a moment of anger. While the metaphor recalls the poison of the serpent, the animal also calls to mind an insidious creature which lies hidden and attacks without previous warning. The sage puts the male audience on guard against the wife’s actions which are mainly verbal. Elsewhere the sage has warned his audience against the drunken wives (Sir 26:8) because alcohol produces anger (31:30). 40 Cf. Job 4:10; 7:12; 20:16; 26:13; 38:39; 40:25. The first mention is in Job LXX in a context of aggression. In 7:12, the dragon is defined as a sea-dweller who has been subjected to God. In 20:16, the dragon here is a poisonous viper. In 38:39 LXX, the dragon is associated with the lion in a hunting scene. The last mention is in 40:25–32, where the description refers to the crocodile. 41 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 346. 42 Leviathan also appears in Ps 103:26 simply as a sea animal inhabiting the sea and playing with the Lord. In Ps 148:7, there is mention of sea animals (‫ין‬) praising the Lord.

Living with Wild Animals: A Study of the Imagery in Sir 25:15–16

175

The common features of these animals are their danger, wildness, and aggression. This is more so in the case of the lion and the dragon. Humans do not live with them. Only skilled humans such as king David can tame them (Sir 47:3). These images in our text point then to the impossibility of sharing a home with a wicked wife. Living with a wicked wife produces a worse situation than the one evoked by the two metaphors. It is more dangerous and destructive than being with wild animals leading to a situation of constant fear and desolation. Ben Sira uses the images present in the biblical corpus and develops them in an original way. He employs imagery in a concrete way which appeals to the feelings of his audience. For example, life in harmony with one’s spouse is a goal sought after in Wisdom literature. In the LXX book of Proverbs, life in the desert is preferred to life with a quarrelsome, talkative, and passionate woman (Prov 21:19). This metaphor from Proverbs refers to acts of communication and to aggressive feelings. Our text is more specific in the images used since it does not speak of a generic place but of concrete examples of those animals dwelling in the wilderness. In this way, Ben Sira’s metaphors are more persuasive because they evoke deeper feelings and reflections in the mind of the hearer. In his desire to have “a wife and a husband who live in harmony” (Sir 25:1), our author uses a paradox to warn in an effective and affective way. None of these animals are examples of harmonious living. In the same way, sharing an abode with a wicked wife is more dangerous than the hypothetical cohabitation with a serpent, a lion, or a dragon. Through the means of a metaphor a clear image is portrayed, namely, the wickedness of a wife threatens marital life and has the potential to destroy the peaceful co-existence of a married couple.

Bibliography Alonso-Schökel, Luis. Eclesiástico. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1968. Alonso-Schökel, Luis. Manual of Hebrew Poetics. SubBi 11. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988. Borowski, Oded. “Animals in the Religions of Syria-Palestina.” Pages 405–24 in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Billie Jean Collins. HdO 64. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Le donne nella tradizione sapienziale di Israele: figure, voci, metafore e modelli femminili.” Pages 49–63 in Annali MMXX. Edited by Piero Stefani Calenzano. Biblia Associazione di cultura laica, 2020. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Ben Sira 24:22 – Decoding a Metaphor.” Pages 57–72 in Vermittelte Gegenwart. Konzeptionen der Gottespräsenz von der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels bis Anfang des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Edited by Andrea Taschl-Erber and Irmtraud Fischer. WUNT 367. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

176

Sergio Rotasperti and F. Javier Ruiz-Ortiz

Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Garment Imagery in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 257–78 in The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Markus Witte and Sven Behnke. DCLY 2014/15. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Good and Bad Wives in the Book of Ben Sira: A Harmless Classification?” Pages 109–25 in The Writings and Later Wisdom Books. Edited by Christl M. Maier and Núria Calduch-Benages. The Bible and Women. Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament 1.3. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Animal Imagery in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sirach.” Pages 55–71 in The Texts and Versions of the Book of B Sira. Transmission and Interpretation. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten. JSJSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Ben Sira y las mujeres.” EstBíb 41 (2003): 37–44. Calduch-Benages, Núria. En el crisol de la prueba. Estella (Navarra): Editorial Verbo Divino, 1997. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “‘Denn harte Knechtschaft und Schande ist es, wenn eine Frau ihren Mann ernährt’ (Sir 25,22).” Pages 23–49 in Der Einzelne und seine Gemeinschaft bei Ben Sira. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Imtraud Krammer. BZAW 270. Berlin: De Gruyter. Forte, Anthony J. “Male and Female in Ben Sira: What the Text Does and Does Not Say (Sir 25:13–26:18).” Pages 173–86 in Theology and Anthropology in the Book of Sirach. Edited by Bonifatia Gesche, Christian Lustig, and Gabriel Rabo. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020. Minissale, Antonino. Siracide. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Nuovissima versione della Bibbia dai testi originali. Cinisello Balsano: San Paolo, 1980. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. Siracide. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Nuovissima versione della Bibbia dai testi originali. Rome: San Paolo, 2016. Riede, Peter. Im Spiegel der Tiere: Studien zum Verhältnis von Mensch und Tier im alten Israel. OBO 187. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Rotasperti, Sergio. Metaphors in Proverbs. Decoding the Language of Metaphor in the Book of Proverbs. VTSup 188. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Ruiz-Ortiz, Francisco-Javier. The Dynamics of Violence in the Hebrew Book of Esther. VTSup 175. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Signoretto, Martino. Metafora e didattica in Proverbi 1–9. Studi e Ricerche. Sezione biblica. Assisi: Cittadella, 2006. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906. Strawn, Brent A. What Is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. OBO 212. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Trenchard, Warren C. Ben Sira’s View of Women: A Literary Analysis. Chico: Brown Judaic Studies, 1982. Urbanz, Werner, “Variants and Facets of Anger in Sirach.” Pages 57–72 in Theology and Anthropology in the Book of Sirach. Edited by Bonifatia Gesche, Christian Lustig, and Gabriel Rabo. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020. Wilson, Leslie S. The Serpent Symbol in the Ancient Near East: Nahash and Asherah: Death, Life, and Healing. Studies in Judaism. Lanham: University Press of America, 2001.

Friedrich V. Reiterer

On the Gifts of the Lord in Ben Sira Abstract: The choice of the material was made according to neutral and objective criterion that the Lord is the grammatical subject in verbs that deal with “giving” (in a tight and a broader meaning). Amazingly, the result is that much of the references touch upon subjects, which are of great importance both in Sirach and in the Hellenistic environment. It is therefore necessary to ascertain the basics of the Hellenistic point of view. The comparison of both perspectives makes Ben Sira’s position clearer. Ben Sira sees the Lord active as a giver on the material, physical, social (profane as well as religious), and spiritual levels. In various areas, the gifts of the Lord are the basis for life to be good. Keywords: Creation of human being, gifts to humankind, God as giver, theology, anthropology, Hellenism, wisdom

The acquisition of knowledge and wisdom is difficult and exhausting. Since Ben Sira worked very hard to earn his education (παιδεία) and attain his wisdom, he knew very well that he would not have been able to achieve it on his own. The Lord’s blessing was in the background in his life like a constant shadow: “By the blessing of the Lord I arrived [the aim],” ἐν εὐλογίᾳ κυρίου ἔφθασα,1 I made progress (Sir 33:17a). Knowledge and skills are not a private matter. “I have not labored for myself alone but for all those who seek education,” ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν τοῖς ζητοῦσιν παιδείαν (Sir 33:18; cf. 24:34). All those who look for education benefit from Ben Sira’s efforts. At the heart of Ben Sira’s teachings are statements about the Lord; the message from the Lord and about the Lord is the actual wisdom and education, and they are aimed at a wide distribution. As Ben Sira says: “Thus do I send my teachings forth shining like the dawn, to become known afar off,” ἕως εἰς μακράν (Sir 24:32). His teachings shine up to our time in the 21st century. Hence, it is important to listen to his words in describing the Lord’s deeds, focusing on this particular question: what does the Lord give to human beings? To answer this question, we will examine the relevant verbs in which the acting Lord is the grammatical subject.

1 Sir 33:17 is also in Hebrew. But this investigation uses as basis the Greek versions (GI and GII) because many of the significant references for our investigation are not in any Hebrew manuscript. We quote all biblical passages from the LXX because the comparison within the Greek texts makes more sense. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-013

178

Friedrich V. Reiterer

1 Gifts to Humanity The first words about the creation of the human person show the superiority of the Lord. He created the human being and also brought him back to earth (Sir 17:1). It is significant that Ben Sira speaks of human beings in general: his words are not limited to a special group of people but refer to the whole of humanity. The limits of human beings are expressly emphasized, since the Lord has given (ἔδωκεν) human beings a certain time, ἡμέρας ἀριθμοῦ καὶ καιρόν, (17:2). In addition to the temporal limit of life, there is also the right moment (καιρός), the time human beings have that is right. During this time, he may actualize himself. In order to achieve self-realization, the Kyrios gave humans power, ἔδωκεν ἐξουσίαν, (17:2) over what is on earth. The right of dominion is an opportunity and it includes human responsibility. The Lord gives the necessary life force by blessing. Because of the universal determination and the role of father Abraham (διʼ Αβρααμ τὸν πατέρα),2 “he put down a blessing (εὐλογίαν) for all humankind (πάντων ἀνθρώπων) and a covenant (διαθήκην) upon the head of Jacob” (Sir 44:22c, 23a). The Lord has made a binding decision, or an arrangement (διαθήκη). Following his father Abraham (cf. Gen 12:3), Jacob passed on the blessing to all human beings: what universal promise!

1.1 Organs The Lord takes care of “little things” and has given (ἔδωκεν) humans their organs of tongue, eyes, ears, and heart (Sir 17:6). The heart is the most important organ but the biblical authors including Ben Sira primarily localized various abilities in the heart. In the heart one finds, on the one hand, negative attitudes and emotions such as fear (Sir 2:12; 48:19), insincerity, deceit (1:28, 30), and dangerous desires (5:2) and, on the other hand, the positive ability of considering (21:17), joy (1:12), wisdom (3:29),3 and respect for the Lord (17:8). With their eyes, people delight in creation (Sir 40:22; 43:18). The eye is the organ with which one observes and also judges the well-being of a fellow human being (51:27). Turning one’s eyes to the poor (4:5) shows readiness for social engagement: the eye is therefore an instrument for observing the social environment, evaluating it correctly and acting accordingly.

2 I assume that the 7 parallelisms (Sir 44:19a–22a) form a section. It is only said about Isaac (44:22a) that what was said before about Abraham also applies to him. 3 See in Sir 3:29 ‫( לב חכם‬Heb); καρδία συνετοῦ; cf. Schöpflin, “Weisheit,” 309–11.

On the Gifts of the Lord in Ben Sira

179

The ear is used to pick up music and singing, which are the highlights of a banquet (Sir 32:5–6). The ear is the organ to perceive social needs (4:8). Being able to listen is a valuable contribution in a community (25:9). With the ear, the Creator gives access to the speech of wise men (3:29) so that one can “be wise” (6:33; cf. 51:16). The tongue plays an extremely important role. Wrong speech can destroy families (28:15), friendships (22:20, 22),4 the social community (26:5), and even royal thrones (28:14). As Ben Sira notes, “Many have fallen by a dagger’s edge, but not as many as have fallen because of the tongue” (διὰ γλῶσσαν) (28:18). In contrast, good talk can strengthen private life and a community from within. “Pleasant speech (λάρυγξ γλυκύς) multiplies friends, and a well-speaking tongue (γλῶσσα εὔλαλος) multiplies courtesies” (6:5). Ben Sira thinks much of a wellconsidered word: “Does not the dew give relief from the scorching heat? So, a word is better than a gift?” (Sir 18:16–17a). Even in times of need, a good word is often better than a generous gift. The Lord gave (ἔδωκεν; 51:22) the tongue with which one can praise the Lord. These and similar observations prompt Ben Sira to make a fundamental statement about the role of the tongue: “Four destinies appear, good and evil, life and death; and that which continually is lord over them is the tongue” (γλῶσσα) (37:18). We have seen both the positive and negative aspects of the gift of the “organs.” These opposites are the Lord’s intention. Ben Sira emphasizes that the Lord showed people good and bad in the context of creation (17:7b). It is now up to human beings to choose what is right (cf. 15:16, 20). This is a central concern of Ben Sira: the Lord gives the abilities so that an individual takes responsibility in creation while taking good and bad into account.

1.2 Heritage The Lord bequeathed (κατακληρονομῆσαι) to Abraham and his descendants an area “from sea to sea” (ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἕως θαλάσσης), “from the river to the end of the earth” (ἀπὸ ποταμοῦ ἕως ἄκρου τῆς γῆς) (Sir 44:21). Genesis, however, does not say that Abraham inherited land. With the inheritance, there is a legal claim to what is inherited. The Lord says to Abraham: “Look up with your eyes … toward the north and southwest and east and sea (θάλασσαν). For all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever” (σοὶ δώσω αὐτὴν καὶ τῷ σπέρματί

4 Cf. Corley, Friendship, 191–211.

180

Friedrich V. Reiterer

σου ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος; Gen 13:14–15). Ben Sira’s contact with terminology at this point is not sufficient to verify a direct influence; this also applies to other references5 that describe the territory of Israel in a geographical way. Note, however, that in Genesis the Lord gives (δώσω αὐτήν) the land. Ben Sira’s statement largely coincides with the data on the boundaries given in Ps 71/72:8.6 There does not seem to be a reference to the diaspora but in his commentary on this passage, Burkard M. Zapff rightly sees an interplay of verbs.7 The verbs κατακυριεύσει (Ps 71/72:8) and the Siracid infinitive κατακληρονομῆσαι8 point to an urgent contemporary problem. In the Hellenistic sphere of influence, the rulers have absolute prerogative to rule both over land and the legal system. Where does this conviction and political reality come from? It begins with Alexander the Great and the signs when crossing the Hellespont. “Alexander advanced with his army to the Hellespont and transported it from Europe to Asia. He sailed with sixty large warships into the Troy region, where he was the first of the Macedonians to throw his spear from the ship (ἠκόντισεν μὲν τὸ δόρυ) to ram it into the earth. Then he jumped off the ship. Thus it is indicated by the gods (παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἀπεφαίνετο) that he receives Asia as spear-acquired” (δορίκτητον) (Diod 17,17.1–2). The implications of the term “spear-acquired” or “spear-won” (δορίκτητος), which have been handed down from time immemorial,9 are firmly rooted in the minds of the Greeks. As a “spear-acquired” country, it is completely subordinate to the regent 10 and no one is allowed to interfere with these rights.11 An effective and contemporary consequence of this is that Alexander, to whom the gods gave Asia, is of the opinion that the Persian king Darius III so far “wrongly” rules over Asia, for Alexander is the rightful Great King. And so,

5 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 505, refer to Exod 23:31; Deut 11:24; Josh 1:4; Ps 72:8; Zech 9:10. 6 See Ps 71/72:8: κατακυριεύσει ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἕως θαλάσσης καὶ ἀπὸ ποταμοῦ ἕως περάτων τῆς οἰκουμένης. 7 Zapff, Jesus Sirach, 323: “Wird dort [im Psalm] vom ‘Herrschen’ des (messianischen) Königs Israels über die ganze Erde gesprochen, so geht es hier um die Gabe von Besitz, hebr. lhnḥjlm auf der ganzen Erde an die Nachkommen Abrahams. Möglicherweise sieht Sirach diese Verheißung bereits in der jüdischen Diaspora seiner Zeit erfüllt.” 8 The infinitive shows a statement that transcends temporal dimensions. 9 The availability of what is “spear-acquired” is a long-standing tradition that is already documented in the Iliad. Against all rights, Agamemnon had taken Briseis away from Achilles. Achilles is then deeply bitter and mourns Briseis, whom he loves very much, although she is actually a spoil of war: ἐκ θυμοῦ φίλεον δουρικτητήν περ ἐοῦσαν (Il 9.343). 10 “Das speererworbene Eigentum (ist) jeder vertraglichen Abmachung von anderer Seite entzogen …, sofern der Eigentümer es nicht selbst dafür freigibt” (Instinsky, Alexander, 33). 11 Reiterer, “Wir wollen,” 178.

On the Gifts of the Lord in Ben Sira

181

the war with the Persian king was inevitable and because of the help of the gods, it was decided in advance.12 This legal opinion has far-reaching consequences, as it played an important role for the successors of Alexander such as Antiochus III (223–187 BCE), who ruled Judah at the time of Ben Sira, in evaluating the legal status of Judah, which could at best appear as δορίκτητος χώρα, a “spear-won” land. The political power framework for the Jews is clear: the Greeks rule. They allow the peoples in their spheres of influence as much independence13 as they like. These ideas contradict the Jewish tradition, the Jewish attitude, and Jewish self-confidence and also the political realities under Persian suzerainty, but Hellenists have ruled for more than a hundred years. In Ben Sira’s time, the rule changed from the more tolerant Ptolemies to the harsh Seleucids. Due to the external circumstances and the balance of power, it is therefore understandable that Ben Sira could not carry out a direct attack on the Hellenists. He therefore chooses a smooth form of speech that is nevertheless able to strengthen his people from within. The seniority principle carries great weight throughout the Middle East. And so, according to Ben Sira, the Lord already gave an inheritance to Abraham, whereby Ben Sira himself avoids the keyword “land,” although “land” is meant because of the geographical data. Whoever can give an inheritance must have a right to that inheritance. It is safe to conclude then that on religious and political power levels, it is not the gods who are in charge but the Lord. The Lord is the real master, not the Hellenists. Ben Sira subtly insists on this statement and skillfully emphasizes it again: the area already promised by God as an inheritance to Abraham, the Lord after Jacob allotted (ἐμέρισεν; 44:23) among the twelve tribes. In chapter 36, Ben Sira speaks plainly for those who do not understand the vague hints. In the first sentence of the prayer, Ben Sira chooses the words carefully to make a central claim: Ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, δέσποτα ὁ θεὸς πάντων (36:1). Ben Sira describes God as the absolute divine ruler (δεσπότης) who has sole and universal claim (θεός: no plural) over all (πάντων, probably: all peoples).14 In 36:22d, the temporal dimension is added: Kyrios is God forever: κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν

12 Incidentally, according to Flavius Josephus, Alexander was also received with great honors in Jerusalem (see A.J. 11.317–339). Eckhardt, Ethnos, 69: “In der Ethnos-Figuration des Antiochos III. konnte das judäische Land allenfalls als δορίκτητος χώρα, ‘speergewonnenes Land’, erscheinen.” 13 See the discussion about the existence of a Jewish ethnic group in Alexandria in Zangenberg, “Vielfalt,” 92, 96–107. 14 It is also possible to interpret πάντων as a cosmic statement (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 415: “God of the universe”), but this interpretation does not fit well with the context.

182

Friedrich V. Reiterer

αἰώνων.15 At the time of Ben Sira, the traditional religious and political conditions were out of joint due to external influences. Only the Lord can restore the old order. Therefore, Ben Sira asks the Kyrios to give the land back to the tribes as an inheritance (κατακληρονόμησον) as before (Sir 36:16). In this way, the Lord realistically demonstrates his power over the country. The result is that the Jews, and not the Hellenists, are or will be the masters of their country again. The first occurrence of κατακληρονομεῖν in the Septuagint is in Num 13:30, as in Sir 46:9, in connection with Caleb. Joshua and Caleb (Num 14:6–9) did not join the revolt against Moses. Now, as the Lord said, all of them died before they came into the land, except Caleb and Joshua (Num 14:38; 26:66). Caleb said of the land the scouts had roamed: “We shall go up, and we shall obtain it as an inheritance (κατακληρονομήσομεν), because being powerful we shall prevail against them.” Ben Sira sets a new accent in which he says that Caleb already said with regard to the offspring: “his children obtained it [the land] for an inheritance” (46:9d). With this reinterpretation, Ben Sira stresses what he has previously said. Ben Sira speaks for his contemporaries and the examples from the past serve as role models. How Caleb can prevail is a question that inevitably arises from the unfavorable environment for Israel’s claims to power. It is too weak on its own: Well, the Lord gives the necessary strength: “ἔδωκεν κύριος … ἰσχύν” (46:9a). Also noteworthy is that this power is retained into old age (ἕως γήρους; 46:9a), an indication that is contrary to the natural decrease in powers in old age; the energy directly given by the Lord does not decrease. In sum, Ben Sira wants to say to his people: Like that of Caleb, Israel’s strength will not diminish. What should you learn from it? It is good or attractive16 to join the Lord: “καλὸν τὸ πορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω κυρίου” (46:10b).

1.3 Offices among the People In certain areas the Lord ensures the functioning by laying the organizational foundations. This applies to a) the cultic, and b) the political areas.

1.3.1 The Cultic Area According to Old Testament principles, one cannot legitimately impose the priesthood on oneself. According to the biblical description, disputes over the

15 Note the rare plural αἰώνων. 16 For this meaning of καλόν, see Oswald, Gemoll, 430.

On the Gifts of the Lord in Ben Sira

183

question of cultic legitimacy flared up in early times. Even Aaron’s sons had to pay for their boundary crossing with death (cf. Lev 10:1–2). They had offered a strange fire (πῦρ ἀλλότριον), a fire not dedicated to the Lord, whereupon a fire went out from the Lord (ἐξῆλθεν πῦρ παρὰ κυρίου) and devoured them (Lev 10:1). They died before the Lord (Lev 10:2). The problem of syncretism has more or less always accompanied Israel but the Neo-Assyrian resettlement after the conquest of Samaria was a (from the Israelite side: negative) high point: “And nations by nations were making their own gods” (2 Kgs 17:29). Furthermore, one reads, “and they were fearing the Lord, and they made for themselves priests of the high places” (2 Kgs 17:32). In the polytheistic environment of Israel, there were no elitist families who were solely responsible for the cultic functions. It was a long way in Israel as well until the group that had the cultic competence was formed. According to the Old Testament view, the binding decisions for the cult are made by the Lord himself. Moses explains to Korah and his followers: “God has enrolled and he recognized the ones who are his and who are holy, … those whom he chose for himself (ἐξελέξατο ἑαυτῷ), he brought to himself” (Num 16:5). According to the biblical description, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rebelled against the cultic primacy of Moses and the Aaronic priests, whereupon the earth opened as a sign (Num 16:30) and “swallowed them down” (Num 16:32). After this dramatic event, the people were still dissatisfied and the final decision was made, in which all the tribes of Israel were involved: Twelve rods (Num 17:2) were inscribed with the names of each tribe. The rod that begins to green is the one chosen by the Lord: “The person, if I choose him (ὃν ἂν ἐκλέξωμαι αὐτόν), his rod shall sprout forth” (LXX Num 17:5/17:20). “The rod of Aaron for Levi’s house had sprouted (ἐβλάστησεν ἡ ῥάβδος), and it produced a bud (ἐξήνεγκεν βλαστόν), blossomed flowers (ἐξήνθησεν ἄνθη), and sprouted almonds (ἐβλάστησεν κάρυα)” (LXX Num 17:8/17:23). Ben Sira also alludes to this dispute with Korah (45:18),17 but he does not explicitly portray Korah’s rebellion as an attack on Aaron’s claim to the priesthood; only those who know the tense development from other sources can recognize the cross-connections between the rebellion and the priesthood. The priesthood is not up for discussion for Ben Sira anyway, because doubting its legitimacy would be a direct attack on the Lord. This statement follows from the basic words at the beginning of Aaron’s presentation, where the subject is exclusively the Lord: ἔστησεν αὐτὸν διαθήκην18 αἰῶνος (‫)וישימהו לחק עולם‬

17 See the detailed study of Calduch-Beanges, “Exodus,” 147–50, especially the section entitled “Aaron and Korah’s Rebellion (Sir 45: 18–19).” 18 This passage shows that the sense of Ben Sira’s διαθήκη is by no means to be interpreted as a covenant at every point. The NETS translation “as an everlasting covenant” is not applicable.

184

Friedrich V. Reiterer

καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ἱερατείαν λαοῦ (45:7a,b). The role of Aaron is a decision and ordinance of the Lord.19 Aaron himself received his priesthood as a gift from the Lord (ἔδωκεν); the priesthood is not a personal contribution of Aaron or of any other person. The Lord also provides for the livelihood of the priests by allotting (ἐμέρισεν) first fruits to Aaron (Sir 45:20). Aaron eats from the sacrifices and the Kyrios has mainly prepared (ἡτοίμασεν) the showbread as his portion (45:20). He gave (ἔδωκεν) the first fruits as inheritance (κληρονομίαν) and, more generally, the offerings for food (Sir 45:20, 21). It is significant that Ben Sira is meticulous about the prerogative of the Lord. Despite Aaron’s position of honor, this does not give him any autonomous priestly rights, as one would expect from a heritage. The inheritance is and remains a gift from the Lord. This order laid down by the Lord (cf. ‫ לחק עולם‬and διαθήκην αἰῶνος in 45:7a) also applies to Aaron’s priestly descendants. They do eat of the sacrifices for the Lord (θυσίας κυρίου) (45:21a) but at the same time Ben Sira emphasizes the donation from which the priests are allowed to eat: ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ τε καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ (45:21b).

1.3.2 The Political Area Ben Sira is not interested in speculation that has no relation to reality. Rather, he gives answers to the specific concerns of his time through the interpretive portrayal of important personalities from earlier times. In the Hellenistic environment, Israel was unable to exercise power at its own discretion as Israel would have liked. The superiority of the Hellenistic masters and the principles of power did not allow this possibility. It is undisputed that “Alexander” dominates as a model in Hellenism. Plutarch writes that Alexander “was naturally thirsty for knowledge and he enjoyed reading.” For example, he had books forwarded to him during the Asian campaign, namely “the books of Philistus, a great many of the tragedies of Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus, and the dithyrambic poems of Telestus and Philoxenus” (Alex. 8.3). The Iliad played the most important role, however: “since he thought and called the Iliad a viaticum of the military art, he took with him Aristotle’s recension … and always kept it lying with his dagger under his pillow” (Alex. 8.2). In the Iliad, Alexander read what Cronos, the father of Zeus, said about rulership: “No good thing is the rule of many; let there be one ruler (εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω), one king (εἷς βασιλεύς), to whom the son of crooked-

19 Cf. Wright, “Use,” 195; Reiterer, “Aaron’s Polyvalent Role,” 33.

On the Gifts of the Lord in Ben Sira

185

counselling Cronos hath given (δῶκε) the sceptre (σκῆπτρόν) and judgments (θέμιστας), that he may take ruling (βουλεύῃσι)” (Il. 2.204–206). From this, it follows that one has to differentiate the claims to power: the primeval, divine thesis shows that a higher one has authority and power; he can demand obedience from the subordinate. But to whom is the first in the chain of command accountable? The development of this question comes to an end with Alexander.20 In his intoxication, Alexander killed his lifesaver and friend Kleitos. A scholar, Anaxarchus, consoles him with the argument that Alexander has a special role to play as regent, “because he has to be law (νόμον εἶναι) and the norm of what is right (ὅρον τῶν δικαίων), since he is destined to rule and command (ἄρχειν καὶ κρατεῖν) not to serve! … Don’t you know that this is why Zeus has the Dike as an assessor (πάρεδρον) as well as the Themis, so that everything that is done by the ruler (ὑπὸ τοῦ κρατοῦντος) is right and just (θεμιτὸν ᾖ καὶ δίκαιον)?” (Alex. 52.3–4). Zeus himself and the goddesses of justice described as coregents guarantee the fact that the law is and the right is what the regent determines ad hoc or in principle. The unlimited power (αὐτοκρατὴς ἐξουσία) of a regent as a normal case is a generally accepted principle. Philo uncritically states the same for a king (βασιλεύς) or simply for a ruler (ἡγεμών) (Opif. 1.17). In the biblical context, we also have a “model king.” The fight between David and Goliath has become proverbial from ancient times (1 Sam 17). Because David appealed to the Lord before the fight, “he gave strength (ἔδωκεν κράτος) by his right arm” (Sir 47:5b). It is the Lord who gave strength to David at the right moment. According to Ben Sira, its aim was “to exalt his people’s horn” (47:5d), a claim that is not mentioned in 1 Sam 17.21 The horn is a symbol of an almost insurmountable strength. With his assistance, the Lord gives hope to the people. The people may be small compared to the Hellenists, but the power of the Lord is at work in them. As a further gift, the Kyrios gave (ἔδωκεν) David the covenant for the kings (διαθήκην βασιλέων) (Sir 47:11),22 which probably means the authorization to rule as king (cf. 2 Sam 12:1–4; 7:12–16). We have just presented Ben Sira’s belief that the Lord, and no other God, has the power to provide protection in extreme danger. In Ben Sira’s time, Israel urgently needed this protection. In the face of the Hellenistic threat, Ben Sira begged the Lord to stretch out his hand against the foreign peoples (ἔθνη

20 For details on this topic, see Reiterer, “Wir wollen,” 181–83; Reiterer, “Gesellschaft,” 41– 43. 21 Insulting Israel is also a side issue in 1 Sam 17:25 (“surely he is coming up to defy Israel”) but the focus is on provoking the army. 22 Cf. Xeravits, “Figure of David,” 54, 57–58.

186

Friedrich V. Reiterer

ἀλλότρια) – the plural here refers to the Ptolemies and the Selucids – to show them the power of the real ruler (τὴν δυναστείαν); politically speaking, this was an encrypted attack against the overlords. Ben Sira put it in such a way that his listeners understood him but his speech was still not an open revolt: “Lift up your hand, ἔπαρον τὴν χεῖρά σου, against foreign nations, and let them see your dominance,” τὴν δυναστείαν σου (Sir 36:3). At the end of the prayer, Sira dramatically asks the Lord to bear witness to his creation, δὸς μαρτύριον κτίσμασίν σου, (36:20), referring to the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ): αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ἄνθρωπον (15:13). Now the decision is pending: the opponents even claim divine authority: “Οὐκ ἔστιν πλὴν ἡμῶν” (36:12c; Heb: ‫)אין זולתי‬,23 an allusion to the monotheistic claim of the Lord. But Ben Sira knows: “οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς πλὴν σοῦ, κύριε” (36:5b; Heb: ‫)אין אלהים זולתך‬. Because of the balance of power, Israel is weak compared with the Hellenistic overlords but the Lord, with a show of strength, can correct the balance of power that has fallen out of joint. The priesthood not only had cultic, ritual, and religious obligations but also engagement in other actions as Ben Sira’s report on the high priest Simon (218–192 BCE) shows. He had buildings erected, especially military buildings, including water storage tanks, a cistern for water and a reservoir, a reinforced fortification wall, and powerful retaining walls (Sir 50:2), which also offered protection to the people in the event of a siege (50:4). It therefore does not seem conspicuous that Ben Sira uses the keyword ἐξουσία (45:17b),24 or the authoritative ruling power only here in connection with a priest. But, now the question arises whether political power is also implied here. However, rulership and the force of power now occur on a completely different level and are also not autonomous. First, the Lord gives (ἔδωκεν) his prescriptions (45:17a),

23 Schrader, Leiden, 92, assumes that Antiochus IV is the king who claims this position. In contrast, Palmisano, Salvaci, 224–25, with reference to Dan 11:18–20, writes that such words could also have been prompted by the haughty behavior of earlier Seleucid rulers: “Tuttavia, osserviamo che in Dan 11:18–20 sono descritti con tratti di altrettanta spiccata arroganza e prevaricazione anche i suoi predecessori, Antioco III e Seleuco IV, rispettivamente padre e fratello di Antioco IV Epifane. Il sintagma attribuito al nemico possiede una pregnante rilevanza teologica ed indica che la condizione di oppressione vissuta al momento presente è interpretata da Ben Sira comme opposizione diretta del nemico a Dio.” Since Ben Sira presupposes the recent change of rule (cf. Sir 10:8), Palmisano is right – based on the Hebrew text – with the reference to Seleucus III (223–187 BC). The Greek text shows the shift in accent that occurred up to the time of translation: the plural in 36:12c (ἡμῶν) does not indicate a single king, but rather the attitude of the Hellenists. Incidentally, it is not about an ethical question (arrogance is an interpretation that Ben Sira does not mention), but a theological question, which has political consequences. 24 See the different Hebrew text of Sir 45:17: ‫ויתן לו מצותיו וימשׁילהו בחוק ומשפט‬.

On the Gifts of the Lord in Ben Sira

187

with which he entrusts him (αὐτῷ) with a special task. This task is secured with ἐξουσία, a spiritual power that expresses itself in legal decisions and in the law, but above all in the teaching (διδάξαι) of the μαρτύρια of the Lord: Aaron is a teacher, perhaps also an interpreter, of those testimonies (τὰ μαρτύρια), which the Lord has set from ancient times through people and other signs (45:17c). Aaron follows Moses in teaching (cf. 45:5) and is a forerunner of the modern, standard quotation: “Knowledge is power.”25

1.4 Wisdom Undoubtedly, wisdom and knowledge are very important topics in the book of Ben Sira. In this way, he obviously sets a striking counterpoint to the widespread Hellenistic thinking. First of all, I would like to point out the following words in the Siracid prologue: “it is necessary to praise (ἐπαινεῖν) Israel for education and wisdom” (παιδείας καὶ σοφίας). The keywords παιδεία and σοφία are significant both in the Greek world and in Judaism of the Hellenistic period.26 For an educated Greek, some mnemonic sentences with which one learned to write as a child are very significant. The frequent repetition has engraved these words deeply in consciousness. They formulate a core element of Hellenic or Hellenistic identity: “ὦ φίλε παῖ, θεοδώρητον μάθε τάξιν Ὡμήρου, ὄφρα δαεὶς πάσης μέτρον ἔχῃς σοφίας” (O dear child learn, as God’s gift, the order of Homer, so you have the measure of all the wisdom). Those who learn the Homeric order receive “the measure of the comprehensive wisdom” (πάσης μέτρον … σοφίας). It follows that everyone can acquire wisdom for oneself by studying Homer intensively.27 With the books of Homer, for example, one can study significant military and political processes of power but they do not explain the source of wisdom. The wise Diotima offers an answer in conversation with Socrates (Symp. 201d: σοφὴ ἦν; 208b: σοφωτάτη). In itself, wisdom is with the gods and because they are wise in themselves, they do not need to strive for wisdom: “θεῶν οὐδεὶς φιλοσοφεῖ οὐδ᾽ ἐπιθυμεῖ σοφὸς γενέσθαι – ἔστι γάρ” (Symp. 204a). Because the gods do not interact with people (Symp. 203c: θεὸς δὲ ἀνθρώπῳ οὐ μείγνυται), there are demons (Symp. 203a: οὗτοι δὴ οἱ δαίμονες

25 See details and the history of this phrase: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wissen_ist_Macht. 26 Cf. Wright, “Hellenization,” 35. 27 Cf. another example of practicing writing: “γνῶσις Ὡμήρου παιδεία ἐστίν” / “knowledge of Homer is education.”

188

Friedrich V. Reiterer

πολλοὶ καὶ παντοδαποί εἰσιν) who mediate through a demonic person (Symp. 203a: σοφὸς δαιμόνιος ἀνήρ). Ben Sira differs significantly from these views, although he is also interested in the question of where to look for wisdom’s root. The answer is clear: only one is wise (εἷς ἐστιν σοφός), namely the Lord (Sir 1:8a). He created wisdom (αὐτὸς ἔκτισεν αὐτήν) (1:9a), therefore the roots of wisdom, ῥίζα σοφίας, (1:6a) and wisdom are with him: πᾶσα σοφία παρὰ κυρίου (1:1a). The Lord is not far away; he looks at people (οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους αὐτόν (15:19; cf. 17:19; 39:19) and cares for them (34:19f). Hence, the Lord commands wisdom to “let your inheritance be in Israel” (κατακληρονομήθητι) (Sir 24:8). Human wisdom does not develop with the help of one’s own ingenuity. Rather, it is a gift that the Lord gives (ἔδωκεν) to those who respect the Lord (Sir 43:33). The Kyrios endowed his creatures and his people with various gifts. When equipping humans for their task in creation, Ben Sira lists five gifts (17:6), though GII includes a sixth gift, the intellect (νοῦν), which the Lord gave and assigned, ἐδωρήσατο μερίζων, (Sir 17:5b). The Lord does not blindly grant (χορηγήσειv) wisdom (Sir 1:26) but on the condition that the wisdom student keeps the commandments. He gives (ἔδωκε) it to those who walk in the Lord’s footsteps (50:29). It makes sense, therefore, to ponder the Lord’s instructions and commandments, and the wisdom the student longs for will then be given (δοθήσεται) (Sir 6:37). It is those who love God – generally and without reference to God’s people is said – to whom God grants (ἐχορήγησεν) wisdom (1:10b). In sum, wisdom is a noble gift to humanity from the Lord.

Conclusion One could examine other subjects of Ben Sira where he shows that the Lord profoundly influences daily life, including the field of laws, with the Hellenistic context providing a contrasting foil. But there are also other areas that play a role within the typical biblical tradition, namely free will and responsibility28 as well as the broad area of social behavior and social responsibility. Everywhere, there are statements about how the Lord works and how his instructions guide life towards the good. Ben Sira sees the Lord active as a giver on the material, physical, social (profane as well as religious), and spiritual levels. This investigation concentrat-

28 Cf. Calduch-Benages, “Trial,” 28.

On the Gifts of the Lord in Ben Sira

189

ed on the endowments or gifts given to human beings, on the importance of the organs given by the Lord, on land as inheritance, on the offices of the people (in the cultic and political areas), and wisdom. Again and again, the contrast to the position of legal and natural overlords was observed in light of the Hellenistic point of view. Núria Calduch-Benages also showed polarization in the context of ideas about the cosmos and creation. The question now arises why Ben Sira did not oppose Hellenistic influence more emphatically and publicly. Ben Sira is, of course, familiar with the current balance of power. If he wants to be effective, he always has to take this into account. One can agree with Calduch-Benages’s argument on this question: “How are we to explain this position of Ben Sira? … Instead of quoting … [the views of the opponents] 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 … 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).”29

Bibliography Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Ben Sira and the Canon of the Scriptures.” Pages 3–14 in For Wisdom’s Sake. Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. BZAW 499. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “The Exodus Traditions in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 143–54 in For Wisdom’s Sake. Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. BZAW 499. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “The Hymn to Creation (Sir 42,15–43,33): A Polemic Text?” Pages 242–59 in For Wisdom’s Sake. Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. BZAW 499. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Trial Motif in the Book of Ben Sira with Special Reference to Sir 2,1–6.” Pages 27–39 in For Wisdom’s Sake. Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. BZAW 499. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Corley, Jeremy. Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship. BJS. Providence: Brown University Library, 2020. Eckhardt, Benedikt. Ethnos und Herrschaft. Politische Figurationen judäischer Identität von Antiochos III. bis Herodes I. SJ 72. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Oswald, Renate. Gemoll: Griechisch-deutsches Schul- und Handwörterbuch von W. Gemoll und K. Vretska. 10th ed. Wien: Verlag Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 2019. Instinsky, Hans Ulrich. Alexander der Grosse am Hellespont. Godesberg: Küpper 1949.

29 Calduch-Benages, “Hymn,” 259.

190

Friedrich V. Reiterer

Marböck, Johannes. Jesus Sirach 1–23. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2010. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. “Salvaci, dio dell’universo!” Studio dell’eucologia di Sir 36H,1–17. AnBib 163. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Aaron’s Polyvalent Role according to Ben Sira.” Pages 27–56 in Rewriting Biblical History. Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira, FS Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley, and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter 2011. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Gesellschaft und Religion – Eine ‘historische’ Darlegung des alttestamentlichen Glaubens im hellenischen Ambiente.” Pages 17–52 in Religion and Society – On the Present-Day Religious Situation / Religion und Gesellschaft − Zur religiösen Situation der Gegenwart. Edited by Chibueze Udeanie, Friedrich Reiterer, and Klaus Zapotocky. Intercultural Theology and Study of Religions 5. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2014. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “‘Wir wollen den armen Gerechten unterdrücken!’ Zwei Gesellschaftsgruppen im Spannungsfeld von Macht und Religion nach dem Buch der Weisheit.” Pages 161–89 in Gesellschaft und Religion in der deuterokanonischen und spätbiblischen Literatur. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Thomas Elßner. DCLS 20. Berlin: de Gruyter 2014. Schöpflin, Karin, “Weisheit – eine Herzensangelegenheit. Bedeutung des Herzens für Salomo, Ezechiel, Ben Sira und Wilhelm Hauff.” Pages 297–320 in Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage. FS Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Renate EggerWenzel, Karin Schöpflin and Johannes F. Diehl. DCLS 15. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Schrader, Lutz. Leiden und Gerechtigkeit. Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches. BET 27. Frankfurt: Lang, 1994. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday 1987. Wright, Benjamin G. “Hellenization and Jewish Identity in the Deuterocanonical Literature.” Pages 29–68 in Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books. Edited by Geza G. Xeravits, Joszef Zsengellér, and Xaver Szabó. DCLS 22. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Wright, Benjamin G. “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors.” Pages 183–207 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pápa, Hungary, 18–10 May 2006. Edited by Geza G. Xeravits and Joszef Zsengellér. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Xeravits, Geza G. “The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 49–62 in From Qumran to the Synagogues. Selected Studies on Ancient Judaism. Edited by Geza. G. Xeravits and Ádám Vér. DCLS 43. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Zangenberg, Jurgen K. “Fragile Vielfalt – Beobachtungen zur Sozialgeschichte Alexandrias in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit.” Pages 91–107 in Alexandria. Stadt der Bildung und der Religion. Edited by Reinhard Feldmeier, Felix Albrecht und Tobias Georges. COMES 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Zapff, Burkard M. Jesus Sirach 25–51. NEBAT 39. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelanstalt, 1980. Ziebarth, Erich. Aus der antiken Schule. Sammlung griechischer Texte auf Papyrus, Holztafeln, Ostraka. 2nd ed. KIT 65. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2020.

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior in Proverbs, Sirach, and Vietnamese Folk Sayings Abstract: The article explores some teachings on familial behavior in the Book of Sirach in light of the biblical wisdom tradition in comparison with a selection of Vietnamese proverbs and folk poems. Such a cross-cultural reading points out striking similarities in content and form between these two traditions, especially in the instructions on family ethos and maxims concerning wise behavior. The findings offer grounds for further reflection on the universalism of wisdom sayings and on the nature of divine inspiration in both Ben Sira’s deuterocanonical text and non-biblical Vietnamese traditional teachings. Keywords: Sirach, wisdom tradition, Vietnamese folk sayings and proverbs, family ethos, inspiration

In a thought-provoking article published in 1996, prof. Núria Calduch-Benages indicated some elements of Hellenistic inculturation in Ben Sira’s teaching on “journey.”1 The author affirmed the importance of such an endeavor from the outset: “If we focus our reflection on the study of Sacred Scripture, we will see how biblical texts reveal the passage of many civilizations throughout their history (Canaanite, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Hellenistic …).”2 Inspired by this statement and by other works of the same author, the present paper seeks to go a step further in the study of Sirach in relation to other cultures. It will focus not only on the biblical or Ancient Near Eastern traditions but also on an Asian non-biblical culture, that of Vietnam in the Far East. Specifically, this study will compare the teachings in Sirach with Vietnamese proverbs (tục ngữ) and folk poems (ca dao)3 in order to point out similarities 1 Calduch-Benages, “Elementos,” 289–98. 2 Calduch-Benages, “Elementos,” 290: “Si enfocamos nuestra reflexión hacia el estudio de la Sagrada Escritura, veremos cómo los textos bíblico révelan el paso de muchas civilizaciones a lo largo de su historia (cananea, mesopotámica, egipcia, helenística …).” 3 The corpus of Vietnamese proverbs and folk poems, handed over mostly orally from generations to generations, has been published in many collections in the last century, especially in the two most recent critical editions: 1) Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Ca Dao Người Việt (The Treasure of Vietnamese Popular Poems), and 2) Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ Người Việt (The Treasure of Vietnamese Proberbs), 2 vols. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-014

192

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

between the instructions of these two traditions concerning family ethos and wisdom behavior, including the theme of journey.4 The analysis comprises two parts. First, it will analyze Ben Sira’s instructions on inner-family relationships in light of their interactions with other biblical wisdom writings as well as with Vietnamese equivalents. Next, in the same manner, it will explore some instructions of Ben Sira concerning other issues, which also find an echo in the Vietnamese wisdom tradition. These findings will offer grounds for some concluding remarks on the inter-cultural characteristics of Ben Sira’s teachings, on the universalism of biblical wisdom sayings, as well as on the nature of divine inspiration for both Ben Sira’s instructions and non-biblical Vietnamese traditional texts.

1 Ben Sira’s Teachings on Family Ethos within Biblical-Jewish Tradition and the Vietnamese Folk Sayings The relationship and behaviors within the family are the first great themes in which Ben Sira’s instructions strongly echo other biblical wisdom writings such as Proverbs and at the same time find many equivalents among the Vietnamese proverbs and folk poems. This section will first explore Ben Sira’s teachings on honor for parents to reaffirm their strong connection with the Jewish and Ancient Near Eastern background. Then, it will examine possible echoes of Sirach’s instructions in the Vietnamese folk tradition.

4 I dedicate this paper with gratitude to Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages, the director of my doctoral thesis on Proverbs 23:15–28 at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome some 15 years ago. The present work develops my previous comparative studies on the Bible and Vietnamese culture, particularly, two previously published essays: 1) Nguyen, “The Universal Voice,” 19– 102 and 2) Nguyen, “Przysłowia Wietnamskie,” (“The Vietnamese Proverbs and the Book of Sirach”), 141–51 (Polish). There is already much research on the similarities among the biblical wisdom tradition and other cultures. For a bibliography, see Nguyen, “The Universal Voice,” 21–22; Nguyen, “Przysłowia,” 141–142. However, as far as I know, this present paper is among pioneering studies on potential similarities between Ben Sira’s teaching and Vietnamese folk sayings.

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

193

1.1 Ben Sira’s Teachings on Honoring Parents within the Jewish and Ancient Near Eastern Traditions Ben Sira teaches on filial duty in a long exhortation in Sir 3:1–16 and a concise recommendation in Sir 7:27–28.5 Of these two passages, only the former has a partial Hebrew correspondence from the two manuscripts, Ms A for 3:6, 8–16 and Ms C for 3:14–16.6 The teaching of Sir 3:1–16 seems fundamental to Ben Sira who actually placed it among his inaugural instructions, after the opening lecture on wisdom and fear of God (Sir 1) and trial for those who want to serve the Lord (Sir 2).7 Moreover, the Hebrew sage probably has intentionally organized this extensive passage to expose a thorough vision of filial duty, after which there are only some short comments on the issue, as in Sir 7:27–28. In reality, these instructions expose various aspects of honor due to parents commanded in the Decalogue (cf. Deut 5:16; Exod 20:12). They develop what was already underlined in the Hebrew Scripture. Noteworthy is the language and the form of Ben Sira’s teaching in this regard, which reflect similar sentences in other Jewish wisdom writings, particularly in Proverbs. Here, without entering into various exegetical details, available in specific monographs and commentaries,8 three points are of particular interest for the purpose of this article: the mention of the parents’ old age, which requires more care and absolute respect, the figure of the mother, and the reference to the parental burdens of giving birth and education. The first aspect appears clearly in Sir 3:1–16. After listing the “benefits” children receive from honoring parents (vv. 1–7), Ben Sira recommends his disciples, or “sons,” an unconditional attitude of filial duty in an exhortative section that reaches its climax with intensity in three moments. The discourse starts with a general exhortation with an attached motivation: “Honor your father by word and deed, that a blessing from him may come upon you. For a father’s blessing strengthens the houses of the children, but a mother’s curse uproots their foundations.” (Sir 3:8–9). A complementary teaching follows the previous exhortation but in the prohibitive: “Do not glorify yourself by dishonoring your father, for your father’s dishonor is no glory to you. For a man’s glory comes

5 The analysis is based on Sirach’s Greek version from Rahlfs, Septuaginta. See also Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. The English translation follows the RSV with minor modifications. 6 Cf. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, 23, 129. See also Vattioni, Ecclesiastico. 7 Cf. Segal, Sefer Ben-Sira,13. 8 For commentaries, see Spicq, “L’Ecclésiastique,” 529–841; Duesberg and Fransen, Ecclesiastico; Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira; Minissale, Siracide; Morla Asensio, Ecclesiástico; Sauer, Jesus Sirach; Palmisano, Siracide. For studies on the topic, see Bohlen, Die Ehrung der Eltern; see also Passaro, Family and Kinship; Balla, Ben Sira on Family.

194

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

from honoring his father, and it is a disgrace for children not to respect their mother.” (Sir 3:10–11). The section reaches its climax with its third and last imperative clause: “O son, help your father in his old age, and do not grieve him as long as he lives; even if he is lacking in understanding, show forbearance; in all your strength do not despise him [μὴ ἀτιμάσῃς αὐτὸν].” (Sir 3:12–13). This exhortation differs from the others by a solemn yet cordial call of attention at the beginning, τέκνον “O son,” which could reflect the Hebrew ‫י‬ or “O my son,” as seen also in many other instructions in Sirach with surviving Hebrew correspondences (cf., e.g., 3:17; 4:1; 6:18, 32).9 Through such an appeal, used frequently in the biblical and familial wisdom tradition,10 the Jewish author apparently underlines the “weight” of the message he is about to deliver. Moreover, the importance for a son to literally “participate in the father’s old age” (ἀντιλαβοῦ ἐν γήρᾳ πατρός σου), to “show forbearance” (συγγνώμην ἔχε) and to “not despise” him “even if he is lacking in understanding,” is explained first by the motivations which follow in Sir 3:14–15. Then, it is strengthened by the concluding statement which, in its literary context, refers surely to the situation of an aged father/mother: “Whoever forsakes his father [ὁ ἐγκαταλιπὼν πατέρα] is like a blasphemer, and whoever angers his mother [ὁ παροργίζων μητέρα αὐτοῦ] is cursed by the Lord” (Sir 3:16). Ben Sira’s claim on children’s special respect and care toward aged parents echoes effectively the teachings in the Jewish wisdom writings, especially in Proverbs. Suffice it to quote Prov 23:22: “Listen to your father who begot you, and do not despise your mother when she is old.”11 The parallelismus membrorum in these and other verses of Proverbs and Sirach indicates that every occurrence of “father” or “mother” stands actually for “parent” regardless of sex and the content of every recommendation refers to the children’s duty toward both father and mother. The same parallel structure occurs in other instructions of Proverbs on the topic, among which there is an explicit curse for those who disrespect their parents: “The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures” (Prov 30:17). Remarkably, the LXX version of the sentence dramatizes the situation even more by mentioning the mother’s old age: “the one who dishonors the old age of the mother” (ἀτιμάζοντα γῆρας μητρός). Such a clear condemnation for a son who

9 Cf. Minissale, La versione greca, 49. 10 Cf., e.g., Prov 3:1; 23:15; also 31:2 with the Greek translation τέκνον for a synonym ‫י‬. 11 Another possible translation: “(…) even when she is old” or “because she is old.” See Nguyen, Figlio mio, 188–89.

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

195

lacks respect toward his parents is found also in Prov 17:26, with the same parallelism of father/mother.12 These two sentences reflect the thought of Sir 3:9, 11, 16 about shame and a curse reserved for a disobedient and rebellious son for which the Torah provides a death penalty (cf. Ex 21:17). However, compared with Proverbs, Ben Sira’s teaching on this matter seems more theo- and Torahoriented with explicit references to “the Lord” and clear resonances with the legal Pentateuchal texts. Therefore, it is not by chance that the longer Greek version of Sirach has an additional sentence in Sir 3:7a underlining the core of Ben Sira’s exhortation on honoring parents: “Whoever fears God, honor his father.” This is actually in antithesis with the final condemnation of Sir 3:16, which highlights that a wicked son will be cursed by the Lord.13 The affinity of words and thoughts between Sir 3:8–16 and Prov 23:22; 30:17 suggests that Ben Sira seemingly developed his teachings from those of Proverbs. Indeed, scholars have generally indicated a strong connection between the two writings on many topics and some have even dubbed Ben Sira “commentator of Proverbs.”14 Particularly, R. B. Y. Scott rightly considers Sir 3:2–16 as a good example of how Ben Sira “enlarges upon a single topic,” that of filial duty, by “its grouping together of related sayings and precepts which in Proverbs are scattered haphazardly through the book.”15 Through these and other similarities, Ben Sira emerges clearly as both representative of and contributor to the whole Jewish wisdom tradition. As for the reference to parents’ burden of giving birth and nutrition/education in the recommendation of filial duty, Ben Sira’s teaching in Sir 7:27–28 is clear: “With all your heart honor your father, and do not forget the birth pangs of your mother. Remember that through your parents you were born; and what can you give back to them that equals their gift to you?” Again, the exhortation in Sirach develops the frequent mention of parents’ gift of life to the children

12 “He who does violence to his father and chases away his mother is a son who causes shame and brings reproach.” 13 Interestingly, the Hebrew manuscript HC offers another version of Sir 3:16 in the same spirit of total condemnation, and always from a theocentric perspective: “He insults his father who abandons him, and God will rage against the one who rejects his mother;” “Es beschimpft der seinen Vater, der ihn verlasst, und Gott wird zurnen dem, der seine Mutter verstosst” (cf. Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 62, n.12). The author also records a scholarly opinion considering this Hebrew text as more ancient; cf. Schrader, Leiden und Gerechtigkeit, 41–42. 14 Cf. St. Synowiec, Mędrcy Izraela, 201; Duesberg and Fransen, Ecclesiastico, 70–71. For studies on the relationship between Proverbs and Sirach, see, e.g., Bauckmann, “Die Proverbien,” 33–63; Scott, The Way of Wisdom, 206–11; Sanders, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom, 3– 22; Corley, “An Intertextual Study,” 155–82. 15 Scott, The Way of Wisdom, 207.

196

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

in Proverbs. An example in this regard is Prov 23:22–25 with a touching opening phrase mentioned above. Offering instructions on obedience and respect for parents, as well as on wisdom of life (vv. 22, 23), this parental discourse meaningfully defines the father as the one who begot the son (vv. 22, 24) and the mother as the one who bore him (v. 25).16 The gifts of birth, nutrition, and education are invoked as the fundamental motivation for the parents’ instruction because it is the self-evident and strong proof of their love for their child, which consequently establishes the loving authority and seriousness of their teachings, as seen also in Prov 31:2.17 Remarkably, the description of parental burden/gift of life continues in the later Jewish writings, as seen particularly in Tob 4:3–4,18 in a Qumran sectarian text 4Q416 2 iii 15–19,19 as well as in rabbinic literature, which consequently also recommended concrete duties toward aged parents in both their material and spiritual needs.20 Hence, Ben Sira’s teaching in this issue appears to be

16 Interestingly, the LXX text of Prov 23:22–25 omits the exhortation of v. 23, and thus makes the focus of the whole discourse exclusively on the son’s duty toward his parents who “begot” and “bore” him. 17 In Prov 31:2, the mother of King Lemuel reminds her son at the beginning of her exhortation: “What, my son? What, son of my womb? What, son of my vows?” This was translated in the LXX with even more pathos by an addition: “My firstborn son, I speak to you.” The additional description of the mother as the one who bore/begot a son also occurs in Prov 17:25: “A foolish son is a grief to his father and bitterness to her who bore him.” 18 The text records Tobit’s touching instruction to Tobias in his last will: “Honor her (your mother) during your entire life (…) and remember, son, the many hazards she endured for you, when you were in her womb.” 19 “Honor your father with your poverty and your mother with your lowly status. For as God is to a man, so is his father, and as the Lord is to a person, so is his mother, for they are the crucible (i.e. womb) that bore you. And as he gave them authority over you, and the inclination over the spirit, so serve them; and as he revealed to you through the mystery that is to be, honor them for the sake of your glory and with [reverence] honor them for the sake of your life and the length of your days.” For translation and textual criticism, cf. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 74, n. 164; Reymond, “The Poetry,” 179–83 (the author proposes to read the Qumran text as a poem); also Kampen, Wisdom literature, 73–78, esp. 76–77 (with commentary on each line). For an analysis of other Qumran texts on filial piety (with bibliographical indications), see Nguyen, “What Could Jesus Mean,” 297–308. 20 Cf. Tapiero, “Cinquième parole,” 274; Nguyen, “Figlio mio,” 284–88. As a point of comparison, cf. a fragment of The Sentences of the Syriac Menander, a Jewish OT apocrypha from the 3rd century CE: “More than anything love your father / you shall fear and honor him / and do not despise, do not disgrace your mother / because she brought you in her womb for ten months / and when she gave birth to you, she was on the point of death” (vv. 94–98); cf. Baarda, “The Sentences of the Syriac Menander,” 583, 594–95. For a thorough analysis of honor of parents in the Jewish and rabbinic tradition, see Blidstein, Honor Thy Father; Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, 131–35; Tapiero, “Cinquième parole,” 265–99.

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

197

totally immersed in the cultural and religious tradition of his people.21 On the other hand, these same motifs also occur in several wisdom poems of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures, as in the Egyptian Teaching of Ani (VII,18–VIII,4) with quite tender phrases.22

1.2 Parallels and Echoes in the Vietnamese Proverbs and Folk Poems Curiously, Ben Sira’s teaching on filial duty, which appears to be deeply rooted in the Jewish culture both in form and content, also echoes in the Vietnamese folk tradition with its proverbs and popular poems. Here, noteworthy is not just the affinity of thought but more so, the similarity of some underlying expressions, concepts, and forms. Like Ben Sira and other Jewish sages, the Vietnamese ancient “popular masters” recommend filial duty rarely as a dry legislative command but frequently with motivations appealing to the children’s reason and heart. Moreover, they also regularly highlight the figures of father and mother separately in a structure of parallelismus membrorum, avoiding the collective noun “parent(s),” exactly like the Jewish sages in their own (Hebrew) language. The selected Vietnamese folk sayings that follow will illustrate the point more clearly and show a similar set of explanations on honoring parents found in Sirach and other Jewish writings. The first pertinent illustration comes from a well-known traditional ca dao, which is the most popular Vietnamese ancient teaching on filial duty from generations to generations: “A father’s toil is like a great mountain, and a mother’s love is like water from a spring. Venerating and honoring father and mother with the whole heart, fulfilling the word ‘filial piety’ is the religion of a child.” Công cha như núi Thái Sơn / Nghĩa mẹ như nước trong nguồn chảy ra / Một lòng thờ kính mẹ cha / Cho tròn chữ hiếu mới là đạo con.23 The quoted poem leads one back to the aforementioned teachings in Sirach and other Jewish wisdom writings, especially to Sir 7:27–28. It contains the same

21 Cf. Nguyen, “The Universal Voice,” 70–72. 22 “Double the food your mother gave you, / Support her as she supported you; / She had a heavy load in you, / But she did not abandon you. / When you were born after your months, / She was yet yoked [to you], / Her breast in your mouth for three years. / As you grew and your excrement disgusted, / She was not disgusted, saying: ‘What shall I do!’” Cf. Nguyen, “The Universal Voice,” 44. Translation as in Lichtheim, ed., Ancient Egyptian Literature, 141. See also Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 420. 23 Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Ca Dao, I:712.

198

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

exhortation to honor parents “with the whole heart” and the same reminder of parents’ toil and loving care. What is striking here is that, like Ben Sira’s exhortation, the Vietnamese ancient folk saying refers directly to human reason in the motivation for filial duty toward parents and not to a divine authority. The quoted Vietnamese ca dao recommends every child to consider filial piety, hiếu, as a đạo: a “religion” or “way of life” to be lived, with the words “venerating” and “honoring” in parallel to underline this aspect.24 In other terms, honoring parents is something like the religious duty per se for a child to fulfill. This is why the Vietnamese tradition equated a life wholly dedicated to the care for parents at home to that of a [Buddhist] monastery, as expressed wonderfully in a folk poem: “Where (else) can one lead a religious life than at home? Venerating father and honoring mother, [that] is the true religious life.” Tu đâu cho bằng tu nhà, / thờ cha kính mẹ mới là chân tu.25 The attitude of absolute honor and reverence toward parents has an intrinsic connection with the parental gift of life and sustenance, considered never to be adequately repaid. Such a view lies specifically behind the rhetorical question of Sir 7:28b: “What can you give back to them that equals their gift to you?” This, in turn, finds an interesting correspondence in another Vietnamese folk poem: “The grace of father’s toil feeding three years, nine months of mother’s love bearing in the womb. On the wet side the mother lays, on the dry side the child plays. What can one pay for this love and toil?” Ơn cha ba năm cúc dục / Nghĩa mẹ chín tháng cưu mang / Bên ướt mẹ nằm, bên ráo con lăn / Biết lấy chi trả nghĩa khó khăn?26 The quoted popular poem actually calls to mind Sir 7:27–28 not only with its final rhetorical question but also with the emphasis on parental hardship (cf. Sir 7:27b, 28a). Accordingly, the Vietnamese text seems to dramatize a bit more with a beautiful and touching image of the mother’s sacrifice laying on the wet side (of a bed supposedly on a rainy day), so that the child could play happily on the dry part. The picture summarizes all of both parents’ loving care and hardship, so seemingly aims to make a strong appeal to the child’s reason

24 Cf. Le Gia (Lê Gia), Tiếng Nói Nôm Na, 186; Nguyen, “Przysłowia,” 144; Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 51. The last author rightly states that “in the Vietnamese cultural tradition, filial piety is considered a universal measure to define the ethical value of a person.” (“Trong truyền thống văn hóa Việt Nam, đạo hiếu được xem như một chuẩn mực bao trùm để định giá đạo đức của một con người.”) 25 Cf. Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 165; Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Ca Dao, II:2483. 26 Cf. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Ca Dao, II:1879.

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

199

and heart like the Jewish sages did in their exhortation, although each tradition used description pertinent to its culture.27 Despite cultural differences, there is a common image stressed by both Jewish and Vietnamese traditions in recommending filial piety: the aged mother and father. In this regard, as shown before, Ben Sira develops Proverbs’ sayings as well as the whole biblical tradition, insisting not only on the simple fact of the parents’ old age but also on its effects on their physical and mental conditions (cf. Sir 3:12a, 13). Such a drastic elaboration by no means intends to hold the parent in low esteem;28 it serves simply as an objective extreme situation in which the child is asked to pay even more attention to fulfill his/her filial duty appropriately, i.e., in Ben Sira’s words, “with all your heart” and “in all your strength.” This sensibility resonates powerfully in many Vietnamese proverbs and folk poems, which emphasize the figure of elderly parent and recommend absolute care. Indeed, the Vietnamese folk tradition teaches, “Whether satiated or hungry, be ‘fresh’ [face], stop eating and sleep less, in order to take care of [lit. to nurse] the elderly mother.” Dù no dù đói cho tươi, / Khoan ăn bớt ngủ mà nuôi mẹ già.29 The text highlights unconditional care for elderly parents, expressed by the general action of nuôi “to nurse/nurture/feed” [them]. The (adult) children are exhorted to sacrifice even their essential biological needs of eating and sleeping to care for their parents. The same imperative occurs in another ca dao, but with a significant additional motivation: “With your effort try to care for [to nurse] the elderly mother. As long as she lives and sits there, she is like a great treasure [three money].” Gắng công nuôi chút mẹ già, / Sống mà ngồi đó bằng ba của tiền.30 The allusion of the priceless value of a living mother for the children to take care of (“as long as she lives”) offers a similarity to Ben Sira’s advice to honor one’s father by helping and not grieving him in all his life (cf. Sir 3:12). Observably, in the quoted sayings, the underlying supposition is always the parents’ gift of life and their loving care in raising the child. Life asks for life, as love asks for love. Such a vision is exactly mirrored in a touching Vietnamese

27 In this regard, the following touching proverb, phrased as an open question, is also worthy of note: “O son of mother, do you love your mother? Nine months and ten days bearing [you] heavily and giving birth painfully” (Con mẹ có thương mẹ thay / chín tháng mười ngày mang nặng đẻ đau). Cf. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ, I:745. 28 Pace Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 259 n. 78. The author notes with regard to Prov 23:22: “Sirach does not hold the father in the same high esteem as this book [of Proverbs].” 29 Cf. Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Tục Ngữ, 26. 30 Cf. Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Tục Ngữ, 26.

200

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

proverb reverberating a mother’s voice: “My son, do you love your mother? (For) Nine months and ten days of bearing and giving birth in pains” (Con mẹ có thương mẹ thay / chín tháng mười ngày mang nặng đẻ đau).31 Finally, like Ben Sira, the Vietnamese popular masters declare the future divine punishment for the one who has neglected the filial duty of taking care of parents’ well-being in their old age: “Whoever left father and mother in misery, One day afterwards will be punished by Heaven and will have to stand by the road to beg.” (Ai bỏ cha mẹ cơ hàn / Ngày sau Trời phạt đứng đàng ăn xin).32 Such a statement is intrinsically connected with the strong common belief in the so-called “law of retribution” (Luật nhân quả) among the Vietnamese masters who laconically claim, “Whoever lives good will meet good,” Ở hiền gặp lành.33 On the contrary, “Whoever lives wickedly will meet evil,” Ở ác gặp dữ, or, in a more ancient Vietnamese language, Ác giả ác báo.34 Such was also the view of the sages of Israel and Ben Sira as well. In this regard, whereas Proverbs simply points out in its teachings a “natural” consequence for the evil deed of dishonoring parents, Ben Sira directly invokes God’s curse, as seen in Sir 3:16b (“whoever angers his mother is cursed by the Lord”). Ben Sira’s explicit reference to divine intervention is closely similar to the Vietnamese tradition, which mentions the concept of “Trời phạt” “Heaven punishes,” where “Heaven” stands metaphorically for Divinity. The phrases like “Heaven has

31 Cf. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ, I:745. In this spirit, the Vietnamese folk tradition exalts the child’s absolute care for parents’ well-being, even by giving up marriage to stay home with them, presumably until their old age: “The grace of carrying in the womb like the sea / love of feeding and upbringing like a river. / [Therefore] I decide to stay alone [without a husband], / to take care of my father and mother, to fulfill with all the heart my filial destiny” Ơn hoài thai như biển / Ngãi dưỡng dục tợ sông / Em nguyền ở vậy phòng không / Lo đàng cha mẹ cho hết lòng phận con (cf. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Ca Dao, II:1880.) Such an “absolutization” of filial duty would perhaps sound strange for a Jewish mentality, which allows the children to abandon their father and mother to form a new family (as alluded in Gen 2:24). However, it is not far from Ben Sira’s recommendations of total honor and care for parents with all the heart and strength, as seen before in Sir 7:27 and 3:13b. 32 Cf. Thuy Nga, “Quan Niệm Về,” in https://bvhttdl.gov.vn/quan-niem-ve-gia-dinh-hanhphuc-cua-nguoi-viet-qua-ca-dao-tuc-ngu-20200320114229968.htm, accessed 02/03/2021. 33 Cf. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Ca Dao, II:1869. The quoted proverb also has a developed form with the mention of Heaven as its guarantee: “Whoever lives good will meet good / To the righteous Heaven will reserve grace” Ở hiền thì lại gặp lành / Những người nhân đức Trời dành phúc cho. 34 The two complementary principles are summarized beautifully in another folk poem: “Whoever lives good will meet good. / Whoever lives wickedly will meet evil, and will vanish like ash;” Ở hiền thì lại gặp lành / Ở ác gặp dữ, tan tành như tro. Cf. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Ca Dao, II:1869; also Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 117 (with indication of variants).

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

201

eyes,” Trời có mắt, or “Heaven avenges,” Trời quả báo, are applied usually in ancient Vietnamese proverbs regarding the assured future doom of the wicked, as seen in the following ironic proverb: “[As] Heaven avenges, the tooth is broken while eating porridge!” Trời quả báo, ăn cháo gẩy răng!35 The vision stems clearly from the aforementioned common belief in the Vietnamese tradition: Ở ác Trời phạt, “Heaven [will] punish [those] living wickedly.”36

2 Practical Wisdom Observations/Instructions in Sirach and Vietnamese Folk Tradition Besides family ethos, Ben Sira’s teaching reveals an affinity with Vietnamese proverbs and folk poems in a series of instructions on practical wisdom. The similarity occurs particularly in the advice on the role of “journey” and on aspects of education for wisdom. Moreover, there are some interesting sayings in Sirach about human life that reflect the same vision found in the Vietnamese tradition. A closer look at these areas will shed more light on the intercultural nature of Ben Sira who, although belonging to the Jewish tradition within the Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean cultures, seems to interact in a mysterious and mystical way with the traditional sayings of the Vietnamese people in the Far East.

35 Cf. Nguyen-Lân, Tự Điển Thành Ngữ, 324; Nguyen-Van-Ngoc, Tục Ngữ, 357, offers a longer version: “[As] Heaven avenges, the tooth is broken while eating porridge / the sticks broken while eating rice, the toothpick while cleaning teeth” Trời quả báo, ăn cháo gẩy răng / Ăn cơm gẩy đũa, xỉa răng gẩy chày! 36 The curse upon those who neglect filial piety is sometimes more softly expressed in terms of lamentation, denouncing “filial impiety” and the resulting miserable situation of the parents, but without reference to its negative consequences for the wicked children: “Blame to those who forget the sack after catching the fish, / to those who break the crossbow after catching the bird, to those who forget the parental grace of life and sustenance.” Trách ai đặng cá quên nơm, đặng chim bẻ ná quên ơn sinh thành (cf. Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 51, 163.) There are also Vietnamese instructions on this issue, which take the form of a rhetorical question, like in Sirach: “Where are you going when you leave the elderly mother? / Who will straighten [her] pillows, who will give [her] a cup of tea?” Đi đâu mà bỏ mẹ già / Gối nghiên ai sửa, chén trà ai nâng (cf. Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Tục Ngữ, 26.) Likewise, admonishing implicitly but severely against neglected filial piety, another poem offers a bitter observation concerning the critical situation of an abandoned elderly parent: “An elderly mother lives in a cottage, / Whether she is hungry or satiated, no one knows whether she is clothed or not, no one knows.” Mẹ già ở chốn lều tranh / Đói no chẳng biết, rách lành chẳng hay (cf. Nguyen-Lân, Tự Điển Thành Ngữ, 195–96.)

202

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

2.1 Journey and the Search for Wisdom As Núria Calduch-Benages convincingly points out, Ben Sira’s teaching on the positive role of “journey” greatly reflects the Hellenistic cultural background.37 In this context of literary and notional correlation, it appears quite fascinating that the Vietnamese folk tradition also offers some similar sayings on the topic. Moreover, various sentences in Sirach and the Vietnamese folk sayings on wisdom learning reveal an equally striking common ground. Firstly, Ben Sira’s teaching on journeys, distilled into the three passages of Sir 31[34H]:9–17; 39:4; 51:13a,38 can be summarized in a general maxim, which starts the first block of reflection in this regard: “A man who has traveled knows many things, and one with much experience will speak with understanding. He that is inexperienced knows few things, but he that has traveled acquires much cleverness.” (Sir 31[34H]:9–10). This underscores traveling as an important source for gaining knowledge, experience, and cleverness, or in one word, practical life wisdom. Such an idea occurs equally in a well-known Vietnamese proverb: “Going a day of journey [lit. road], learning a sieve of wisdom,” Đi một ngày đàng, học một sàng khôn.39 Like in Sirach, wisdom learned from a journey embraces all its dimensions, not just theoretical knowledge, but also and above all, practical experience of life, including its ethical aspects. The positive role of journey for wisdom in the quoted Vietnamese proverb finds its expression in other folk poems. These texts show clearly that the principle in question is well-rooted in the Vietnamese cultural tradition. In fact, the aforementioned proverb is also developed in another version: “Going a day of journey, learning a sieve of wisdom, Stepping the feet one step outside is already a good [thing],” Đi ngày đàng sàng khôn học được / Bước chân ra một bước một hay.40 The ancient Vietnamese masters desired to state an experienced truth as an indirect exhortation to their listeners to get out of the home to learn wisdom. In the same spirit, a Vietnamese folk poem exhorts with a rhetorical question: “Traveling to know the places there and here, Staying home with the mother, when will you be wise?” Đi cho biết đó biết đây / Ở nhà với mẹ biết ngày nào khôn?41 Another poem illustrates the point even more: “Going out for a day of market, learning a bunch of wisdom,” Đi một buổi chợ học được mớ

37 Calduch-Benages, “Elementos,” 292–98. 38 Calduch-Benages, “Elementos,” 292. 39 Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ, I:1055. Ngoc and Corrèze (Anthology, 306) offer a poetic English translation: A single day on the road / A whole basket-full of wisdom. 40 Chuong, Tự Điển: Quyển Thượng, I:558. 41 Chuong, Tự Điển: Quyển Thượng, I:552.

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

203

khôn.42 This can be seen easily as a variant of the above quoted proverb on the utility of a one-day journey but with a special focus on the “market” as a place of wisdom, which reflects very much the Vietnamese culture of old.43 Second, concerning the appropriate time to get wisdom, Ben Sira recommends a serious attitude for learning from the early years of life, as seen in Sir 6:18: “My son, from your youth up choose instruction and until you are old you will find wisdom.” The exhortation underlines the necessity of starting the search for wisdom early in youth, in order to possess it fully in old age. Moreover, the Greek word παιδεία translated with “instruction” could correspond to the Hebrew musar (‫ר‬‫ )מוּ‬which is connected with wisdom teaching, as seen in Prov 1:244 and implies discipline/correction, as in Sir 34:11, 17; 35:14; 41:14; 42:5, 8; 50:27.45 This shows a specific vision of learning wisdom that requires seriousness, determination, and patience from youth, in order to get sweet fruits later in life, as also explained in Sir 6:19–22, in particular v. 19: “Come to her like one who plows and sows, and wait for her good harvest. For in her service you will toil a little while, and soon you will eat of her produce.” From the same perspective, the Jewish author, talking about wisdom of the aged in another passage, puts a rhetorical question: “[If] You have not gathered [wisdom] in your youth; how then can you find [it] in your old age?” (Sir 25:3). Interestingly, this echoes the teaching of another Vietnamese folk poem: “[If] you do not learn when you are little, where will you dig from when you are big?,” Nhỏ mà không học lớn đào đâu ra?46 Here, the notion of learning denotes not just the process of accumulating knowledge but also the whole activity of gaining wisdom of life that embraces both the intellectual and ethical aspects. This vision is emphasized in still another popular proverb with the same stylistic figure of merismus adopted frequently by the Jewish sages: “Learn to eat, learn to speak, learn to close, learn to open.” Học ăn học nói, học gói học mở.47

42 Chuong, Tự Điển: Quyển Thượng, 1:558. 43 Cf. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh, “Cái Chợ Trong,” 63. 44 Cf. Bernini, Proverbi, 68. 45 Minissale, La versione greca, 49. 46 The phrase finds its variation in the following, full version: “The sacred writings are an inscrutable forest and sea / [If] you do not learn when you are little, how will you find out when you are big?” Rừng thư biển thánh khôn dò / Nhỏ mà không học, lớn mò sao ra? Cf. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ, 2:2345, with a variant of the beginning: “Rừng nhu biển thánh,” whereas another one “Rừng Nho biển Thánh,” occurs in Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho tàng Ca Dao, II:1980. All versions of the saying, however, most likely refer to the corpus of religious ancient literature from which one could learn wisdom for life. This accumulated wisdom is, therefore, reverentially referred to as “sacred” thánh. 47 Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 100.

204

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

The Vietnamese tradition recommends for this kind of process a constant attention and enduring search for full wisdom until the end of life: “Learning to be wise until death, learning to be virtuous until old age.” Học khôn đến chết, học nết đến già.48 Such a view seemingly lies behind the teaching of Sir 6:18, as we have seen above. Finally, during the process of gaining wisdom, both Ben Sira and the Vietnamese popular masters recommend the careful selection of relationships. The striking point here is not so much similarity of content as manner of expression. Indeed, if the Jewish sage, instructing on the consequences of an association with wicked people, proclaims figuratively that “Whoever touches pitch will be defiled” (Sir 13:1a), the Vietnamese teach the same with a similar image of becoming black due to contact with ink: “Close to the ink, [one] will be black, close to the lamp, [one] will be shining,” (Gần mực thì đen, gần đèn thì sáng).49 Presumably, Ben Sira quotes a proverb of his people in Sir 13:1a and then applies it to his concrete moral teaching: “And whoever associates with a proud man will become like him” (Sir 13:1b). This actually reflects Prov 13:20: “He who walks with wise men becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.” Based on such truths, the sages of Israel recommend avoiding bad company, as seen in Prov 1:15, 23:19–22, and especially Prov 22:24–25: “Make no friendship with a man given to anger, nor go with a wrathful man, lest you learn his ways and entangle yourself in a snare” (cf. also Prov 3:31; 4:14).50 Such teachings find their echo in Sir 8:15–16 that exhorts to avoid the company of foolish and wrathful men for the sake of one’s own life. As seen above, the Vietnamese wisdom maxim has in its second part the same principle but in a positive way: “Close to the lamp, [one] will be shining.” There is another version with the same structure of thought (negative-positive) but with other images: “Close to fire, [one] will get the face burnt, close to the river, [one] will keep the body clean.” Gần lửa rát mặt, gần sông sạch mình.51 The ancient Vietnamese masters seemingly did not want to focus on the negative aspect to be avoided but to draw their listeners’ attention toward something positive to follow: try to be close to the lamp, to the river, or generally to the

48 Cf. Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Tục Ngữ, 52. The author underlines that constant learning of practical and ethical wisdom is the tradition of the Vietnamese people. 49 Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ, I:1218. 50 The biblical instruction of Prov 22:24–25 has a parallel in the known Egyptian Teaching of Amenemope. This highlights even more the strong relationship between the Jewish wisdom literature and that of the Ancient Near East. For a survey in this regard, cf. Cf. Nguyen, “The Universal Voice,” 30–47. 51 Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 98.

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

205

source of light and purification in order to become, metaphorically, shining and “clean.” These thoughts are not quite far from the recommendations of the Jewish sages for their disciples to seek the company of wise and upright men in order to get wisdom and to learn righteousness, as in the above quoted sentence of Prov 13:20a, reaffirmed and developed in Sir 6:34, 36: “Stand in the assembly of the elders. Who is wise? Cleave to him. (…) If you see an intelligent man, visit him early; let your foot wear out his doorstep.”

2.2 Advice on Wisdom Education The teachings of Sirach and the Vietnamese folk sayings contain quite a few common counsels on how to educate children. Both insist on the seriousness of education in the family, which should start from the very childhood and should not exclude elements of discipline or even physical chastisement. In all these aspects, Ben Sira once again continues faithfully and creatively the biblical tradition condensed in Proverbs and other wisdom writings. Thus, the resemblance between his teaching on education and the Vietnamese folk proverbs/ poems reflects in reality some mysterious contact between the ancient traditions of Israel and Vietnam based on common human experiences. A closer look at concrete instructions of both sides will offer more insights in this regard. Firstly, Ben Sira recommends a serious education of children from their early years of life. He makes it clear in Sir 7:23: “Do you have children? Educate them and bend their neck in their youth.” This recommendation occurs at the beginning of a series of instructions on a father’s duties toward his family members in Sir 7:23–26, including an instruction to educate daughters (vv. 24–25), and another on the relationship with one’s wife (v. 26). The suggestive phrase “bend their neck in their youth” is apparently so important for Ben Sira that he repeats it also in Sir 30:12 within another instruction on educating children (cf. Sir 30:1–13). A Vietnamese folk saying proclaims the same thought in Sir 7:23: “Educate children from their childhood,” Dạy con từ thuở còn thơ.52 Interestingly, as in Sirach, it has a complementary verse concerning the education of a wife: “Educate [your] wife from the first moment of coming to [your] house,” Dạy vợ từ thuở bơ vơ mới về. The context is always that of a father’s duties toward his family members, just like Sir 7:23 within the general discourse of Sir 7:23–26. The principle of early education of children emerges also in another Vietnamese

52 Cf. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ, I :876–77.

206

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

folk poem with a comparison to the action of bending a tree: “[As] to bend a tree from the time of being small, To educate children from the time of [their] being inexperienced,” Uốn cây từ thưở còn non / dạy con từ thưở con còn thơ ngây.53 Secondly, concerning the need for discipline in the education of children, Ben Sira declares squarely, “He who loves his son will often use a whip for him” (Sir 30:1a). The phrase opens another long discourse on the necessity of a harsh education for children in Sir 30:1–13, which underscores its importance in the author’s thought. Ben Sira, indeed, reminds the reader several times about the benefit of this educational norm for the child’s future goodness: “in order that he may rejoice at the way he turns out” (Sir 30:1b). The discourse ends with a re-affirmation of the principle: “Bow down his neck in his youth, and beat his sides while he is young, lest he become stubborn and disobey you, and you have sorrow of soul from him. Discipline your son and take pains with him, that you may not be offended by his shamelessness” (vv. 12–13).54 Ben Sira’s view on harsh education resonates well with the biblical tradition. Actually, the discourse of Sir 30:1–13 represents an assortment of teachings found in Prov 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13–14; 29:15, 17. Suffice it here to recall the claim of Prov 13:24: “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.” This is because at stake is the future life of the son himself (cf. Prov 23:13–14). Like Sirach and other biblical writings, the Vietnamese folk tradition insists on the need of using “the whip” in the education of children.55 Moreover, it also

53 Cf. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Ca Dao, II:2506 (with note on various versions); see also a variant in Bình, Gương Phong Tục, 8. In the same vein, another Vietnamese proverb proclaims a truth from daily life as an exhortation for those in charge of children’s education: “Young bamboo is easy to bend,” Tre non dễ uốn, whereas another one offers a complementary observation: “Old bamboo is difficult to bend,” Tre già khó uốn. Such a suggestive image of what happens to a young or old bamboo tree occurs in a more explicit warning: “If a small bamboo is not bent / the old one will turn stiff” Khi măng không uốn thì tre trổ vồng. The perspective is that if education was not applied from the very beginning, it will be too late in the son’s adulthood, with tragic consequences: “Being small [branch] and not curved down, becoming bigger [branch] it will be broken [when bent]” Bé không vin, cả gãy cành. All of these folk sayings confirm the basic viewpoint of the Vietnamese tradition exhorting to educate children from their childhood, which appears almost identical to Sir 7:23. Cf. Nguyen-XuanKinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ, II:2737, 2739; Chuong, Tự Điển Thành Ngữ, II: 696; NguyenNghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 149; Chuong, Tự Điển: Quyển Thượng, 164; Binh, Gương Phong Tục, 8. 54 Compared with the Hebrew version, the Greek text of Sir 30:12b and 7:23b “discloses more severity in the use of punishment,” as observed by Vilhan, The Elusive Power, 49. 55 Cf. Nguyen, “The Universal Voice,” 90–92.

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

207

underlines the same reason for such a radical act: it is all about true love for the child, as claimed in a well-known Vietnamese proverb: “Loving [the child], give [him] whip and lash, Hating [the child], give [him] sweet and pleasure,” Thương con cho roi cho vọt / Ghét cho ngọt cho bùi.56 This saying reflects strikingly not just the teaching of Sir 30:1a but also that of Prov 13:24 with the same mention of the antithetical pair loving-hating. In the same vein, another Vietnamese proverb affirms, “Loving [the child], give [him] strokes, Hating [the child], give [him] play,” Thương cho đòn, ghét cho chơi.57 The subtle caveat against a too indulgent attitude allowing the child to “play” appears quite close to Ben Sira’s reflection in Sir 30:9: “Pamper a child, and he will frighten you; play with him, and he will give you grief.”58 A comment is due regarding the recommendation of the rod. Many scholars from both biblical-theological and Vietnamese folkloristic fields have labeled physical punishment as an obsolete and dangerous means, which could easily lead to abuse.59 In this regard, three considerations are necessary to understand the message of the sages correctly. First, the endorsement of “the rod” in Sirach and the Vietnamese proverbs stems from the patriarchal family model that was common to both Jewish and Vietnamese cultures. In both ancient Israel and Vietnam, there was a belief that the father as head of the family had rights over all the family members.60 As a result, the father had authority over his children and it was his responsibility to safeguard the order and honor of the family in society. The use of rod should then be understood as an accepted measure of education in its cultural context. The second note regards a due distinction between violence and discipline. While approving the latter, the biblical tradition condemns unequivocally the former, and the criticism is particularly frequent and sharp in wisdom litera-

56 Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ, II:2615. 57 Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 162, 168. 58 Similar warnings against a permissive education took also the form of a proverbial statement in the Vietnamese tradition: “The son is spoiled because of an indulgent father” Con hư bởi tại cha dong, and also, “A child is spoiled because of the mother / A grandchild is spoiled because of the grandmother” Con hư tại mẹ, cháu hư tại bà. Cf. Nguyen-Lân, Từ Điển Thành Ngữ, 79; Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 141. 59 Concerning Vietnamese scholars, see Nguyen-Lan, Từ Điển Thành Ngữ, 304; NguyenNghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 168 (“The principle is right, but the rod method is to be avoided;” “Nguyên tắc thì đúng nhưng phương pháp ‘roi vọt’ thì cần tránh.”) For a similar discussion in Western scholarship, see, inter alia, Webb, Corporal Punishment; Ellison, “Conservative Protestantism,” 1–16. 60 Cf. de Vaux, Le istituzioni, 30; Nguyen-Huy-Lai, La tradition religieuse, 62.

208

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

ture.61 Ben Sira continues such advice against wrath with concrete teachings in Sir 8:16a; 10:6, 18; 28:3–5, 7–8; 30:24, in resonance with the instructions of Proverbs on the matter (cf. Prov 14:17; 15:18; 16:32; 27:4; 29:22).62 Coming to children’s education, the biblical sages have left an important warning against excessive physical punishment in Prov 19:18, which shows perfectly how much they distinguish discipline from violence:63 “Discipline your son while there is hope; do not set your heart on his destruction [lit. on killing him!].” In this perspective, Ben Sira, even when recommending harsh physical chastisement toward a slave, issues a caveat: “But do no excess toward anybody, and do nothing without discernment” (Sir 33:20). Such a warning is surely valid also for the education of children. Interestingly, the Vietnamese popular tradition shares a similar view on this issue. It proposes an ideal vision of discipline with a brief and quite imaginative sentence: “Lift up high [the rod], beat quietly [the son],” Giơ cao đánh khẽ.64 Describing the two antithetical actions in a beautiful paradox, the Vietnamese proverb suggests one can and should apply a severe discipline when required but the accompanying physical punishment should be moderate.65 The message is actually reminiscent of the biblical sages, although the form is different, more figurative, and indirect. Third, discipline even with “the rod” is recommended in the context of true parental love and with a clear purpose: so that the son may get true wisdom and conduct a wise life in society. Prov 29:15 underlines the point beautifully:

61 Proverbs make this clear by instructing against wrathful (irascible) and violent men, who are associated with the foolish (cf. Prov 29:11: “A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man quietly holds it back”; also 14:17; 27:3), and even with the wicked (cf. Prov 3:31; 4:17; 21:7; also Ps 140:2). Rooted in the same wisdom tradition, the sage Qohelet exhorts his listeners plainly: “Be not quick to anger, for anger lodges in the bosom of fools” (Eccl 7:9). The authors of Proverbs also deplores the social and religious disorders caused by the irascible: “A man of wrath stirs up strife, and a man given to anger causes much transgression.” (Prov 29:22). It is, therefore, recommended to avoid the friendship of a wrathful man, in order not to imitate “his ways” and not to be tangled “in a snare,” as seen in the instruction of Prov 22:24–25, and more generally and even more explicitly in Prov 3:31: “Do not envy a man of violence / and do not choose any of his ways,” where the term “ways” is a frequently-used symbol of human behaviors and conducts. Cf. Nguyen, Figlio mio, 259; Moraldi, “Ira,” 758. 62 Cf. Minissale, Siracide, 74. The author observes that for Ben Sira, God’s wrath alone is legitimate, because of His holiness and saving will (cf. Sir 5:6–7). See also Moraldi, “Ira,” 757–58. 63 Bernini, Proverbi, 69, 295. 64 Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 212; Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, ed., Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ, I:1292. Both authors register another slight variant: Giơ cao đánh sẽ (instead of khẽ). The meaning remains the same. 65 Cf. Nguyen-Nghia-Dan, Đạo Làm Người, 212. See also Nguyen-Lan, Từ Điển Thành Ngữ, 136, who explains: “Despite harsh correction, still love remains.”

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

209

“The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.” The parents are invited not to use the rod for the sake of punishment itself but to have a serious approach to the education of children, which also requires severe correction and reproof for grave transgressions, with or without whipping! The sages of Israel and Vietnam taught this from their centuries-old experience. Therefore, they exhorted all to grasp the value of correction/discipline in his/her own life, whether it comes from the father or the master (cf. Prov 4:13; 6:23; 23:23; Sir 6:1), or even from God who thus endorsed such action (cf. Prov 3:12).66 The imparted lesson is that every correction/discipline certainly works for future wisdom and is a sure sign of love from the one who disciplines, although it sometimes appears hard to accept.67 In short, as revealed in both Sirach and the Vietnamese folk sayings, this is the true message of wisdom to take to heart: education requires correction but always with love and without violence in any form, neither physical nor mental, nor even verbal!68

3 Concluding Remarks: Rethinking the Divinely Inspired Characteristics of Ben Sira’s Teaching and the Vietnamese Folk Sayings Though still imperfect and incomplete, this attempt to read Ben Sira’s teachings in their biblical wisdom background and in comparison with Vietnamese folk sayings leads to some concluding reflections on the outcomes as well as on the

66 The pedagogical function of correction/discipline is underscored again in Heb 12:5, quoting Prov 3:12. In this regard, Lane’s comment seems pertinent: “The authority of God is presupposed in all biblical statements concerning parental discipline. A father disciplines his child precisely because he loves him and desires him to experience life as approved by God” (Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 422). 67 In this regard, it suffices to recall Ben Sira’s beautiful instruction of to his son (whether physical or spiritual) in Sir 6:18–22 on the fundamental role of discipline/correction to get wisdom from childhood, although it is not always easy to follow. The thought emerges even more clearly in the extant Hebrew text of Sir 6:22, which refers to “discipline” and not generally to “wisdom” as in the Greek text: “[Because] discipline is like her name / she is not easy for many” (cf. Minissale, La versione greca, 48, 50). 68 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 252: “[T]he cleansing rod must be applied with warmth, affection, and respect for the youth. (…) Parents who brutalize their children cannot hide behind the rod doctrine of Proverbs.” For a concise analysis of “discipline” in Proverbs, see Nguyen, Figlio mio, 304–10.

210

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

intercultural nature of Sirach and on the question of divine inspiration for this deuterocanonical writing. First, the present work has shown several important outcomes in terms of similarity and difference between the two wisdom traditions, that of Israel in the ancient Near East and that of Vietnam in the Far East. The affinities occur above all in the recommendations on honoring parents or observing filial piety, on some areas of wisdom education, and on some specific visions of the human being and society. In the analyzed sayings and instructions, sometimes even analogous images or expressions are noticeable. On the other hand, there are also many divergences which show differences of culture and worldview. However, far from excluding one another, these divergences mutually and beautifully deepen the same themes on which both Sirach and the Vietnamese proverbs instructed. In any case, the parallels from the two traditions with similar and dissimilar elements always lead to a better comprehension of their teaching. Second, this study confirms and somehow widens the horizons of Sirach’s “interculturality.” The book appears not just as a synthesis of the Jewish wisdom tradition with a possible creative inculturation of the surrounding Hellenistic culture at the time. It also contains many contacts with the wisdom of Far Eastern Vietnamese culture. The analyzed data speaks much about universalism of Sirach, which is accordingly a well-known feature of the entire biblical wisdom tradition. The present study, however, offers a new appreciation of such a universalism and “interculturalism” which appears much wider, much greater, and much more important than scholars could ever think. Ben Sira’s teachings as a continuation of the tradition of his people go beyond the limits of its historical and geographical background. They resonate in Vietnamese culture as well as in many other cultures of which even Ben Sira had probably never heard. Such a vision of universalism advocates and supports a cross-cultural approach in reading Sirach (and other biblical writings).69

69 The reason for such an approach could stem from the conviction that there must have been a common core in all cultures, which could be called a cultural base of all nations. In the final analysis, as the biblical accounts of human origins theologically suppose, all nations on earth before the confusion of the Tower of Babel spoke one language (cf. Gen 11:1): hence, they could have shared the same culture. This is also the vision of the end of time where all nations will come together once again to sing a new song of praise to one God with one voice and one heart (cf. Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1; also Acts 2:5–12; Rev 7:9–10). What is found similar in the book of Sirach as representative of the biblical Jewish writings, on the one hand, and the Vietnamese folk sayings, on the other, seems to reflect this cultural “commonness” of origin and highlight the rich inter-cultural characteristics of the former as well as the profound “biblical” nature of the latter!

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

211

How can one then understand and explain the inspired characteristics of Ben Sira’s teachings? And can believers, accepting divine inspiration behind the book of Sirach, affirm the same for the similar texts of the Vietnamese tradition? As for the first question, the problem is very complicated already on the level of textual criticism, which must decide the “original” text from the two Greek translations and several recently found Hebrew manuscripts.70 However, the principle of “progressive” or “gradual” inspiration can be of great help here. As some scholars rightly put, the divinely inspired character of Sirach concerns the whole process of its redaction and translation up until its final form, as in the LXX.71 Such an understanding will help to resolve the second question about the inspired nature of the Vietnamese folk sayings similar to the teachings of Ben Sira and generally of the biblical sages. Some ancient proverbs and popular poems of the Viet people could and should probably be also considered as somehow divinely inspired as their biblical correspondences. They reflect wonderfully the presence of God’s Word or semina Verbi, seeds of the Word, already in a non-biblical culture like Vietnam and this happens within a wider context of a mysterious divine preparatio evangelica, “preparation for the Gospel.”72 Thus, the case of Ben Sira’s teachings remains fascinating and significant for further studies from both ethical-theological and cultural perspectives alike. Hopefully, the present work, which is only preliminary, will prompt other inquiries with deeper analyses. The richness and relevance of Ben Sira’s message certainly deserves such attention.

Bibliography Baarda, Tjitze. “The Sentences of the Syriac Menander: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 583, 594–95 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Garden City: Doubleday, 1985.

70 For a list of all extant Hebrew manuscripts of Sirach, see Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira, 13–19. 71 Cf. Minissale, Siracide, 35–37. 72 From this viewpoint, a parallel process can be observed. On the one hand, Jesus Ben Sira crystallized the teachings from the Hebrew Bible and particularly from its Wisdom Writings in his book, which contributed, in turn, to the preparation of God’s chosen people for the teaching of Jesus Ben Joseph! On the other hand, the Vietnamese popular masters coined from the oral tradition and handed over generations various proverbs and folk poems that, after a due discernment to eliminate the influence of purely human language and mentality, can be considered as a providential preparation of the Vietnamese people to receive the message of the Bible and the Gospel.

212

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

Balla, Ibolya. Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality. DCLS 8. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Bauckmann, Ernst G. “Die Proverbien und die Sprüche des Jesus Sirach.” ZAW 72 (1960): 33–63. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Elementos de inculturación Helenista en el libro de Ben Sira: Los viajes,” EstBíb 54 (1996): 289–98. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bernini, Giuseppe. Proverbi. Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 1984. Blidstein, Gerald J. Honor Thy Father and Mother: Filial Responsibility in Jewish Law and Ethics. The Library of Jewish Law and Ethics. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1975. Bohlen, Reinhold. Die Ehrung der Eltern bei Ben Sira. Studien zur Motivation und Interpretation eines familienethischen Grundwertes in frühhellenistischer Zeit. TThSt 51. Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1991. Chuong, Viet. Tự Điển Thành Ngữ Tục Ngữ Ca Dao Việt Nam: Quyển Thượng (Dictionary of Vietnamese Proverbs and Folk Poems: The First Volume). Bien Hoa: NXB Đồng Nai, 2007. Chuong, Viet. Tự Điển Thành Ngữ Tục Ngữ Ca Dao Việt Nam: Quyển Hạ (Dictionary of Vietnamese Proverbs and Folk Poems: The Second Volume). Bien Hoa: NXB Đồng Nai, 2007. Corley, Jeremy. “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira.” Pages 155–82 Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella OFM. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Duesberg, Hilaire, and Irénée Fransen. Ecclesiastico. La Sacra Bibbia. Rome/Turin: Marietti, 1966. Gia, Le. Tiếng Nói Nôm Na. Sưu Tầm Dân Gian. Dẫn Giải 30000 Từ Tiếng Việt Thường Dùng Có Liên Quan Đến Từ Hán Việt. Ho Chi Minh City: NXB Van Nghe, 1999. Ellison, Christopher G. “Conservative Protestantism and the Corporal Punishment of Children: Clarifying the Issues.” JSSR 35 (1996): 1–16. Goff, Matthew. The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction. STDJ 50. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Kampen, John. Wisdom literature. Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Lane, William L. Hebrews 9–13. WBC 47B. Dallas: Word, 2002. Lichtheim, Miriam, ed. Ancient Egyptian Literature: Vol II: The New Kingdom. California: University of California Press, 1976. Minissale, Antonino. Siracide (Ecclesiastico). Nuovissima versione della Bibbia 23. Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 1989. Minissale, Antonino. La versione greca del Siracide: Confronto con il testo ebraico alla luce dell’attività midrascica e del metodo targumico. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1995. Moraldi, Luigi. “Ira.” Page 758 in Nuovo Dizionario di Teologia Biblica. Edited by Pietro Rossano et al. Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 1988. Moore, George F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim. Vol. II. New York: Schocken, 1971. Morla Asensio, Victor. Ecclesiástico: Texto y Comentario. El Mensaje del AT 20. Estella: Verbum Divino, 1992.

Family Ethos and Wise Behavior

213

Nga, Thuy. “Quan Niệm Về Gia Đình Hạnh Phúc Của Người Việt Qua Ca Dao Tục Ngữ (“The Vietnamese View of Family Happiness in Folk Poems and Proverbs”). https:// bvhttdl.gov.vn/quan-niem-ve-gia-dinh-hanh-phuc-cua-nguoi-viet-qua-ca-dao-tuc-ngu20200320114229968.htm. Accessed 02/03/2021. Ngoc, Huu, and Françoise Corrèze. Anthology of Vietnamese Popular Literature. Ha Noi: Red River-Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1984. Nguyen-Huy-Lai, J. La tradition religieuse spirituelle sociale au Vietnam: Sa confrontation avec le christianisme. Beauchesne Religions 11. Paris: Beauchesne, 1981. Nguyen-Lân. Tự Điển Thành Ngữ Và Tục Ngữ Việt Nam (Dictionary of Vietnamese Proverbs and Phraseologies). Ho Chi Minh City: NXB Khoa Hoc Xa Hoi, 1997. Nguyen-Nghia-Dan. Đạo Làm Người Trong Tục Ngữ Ca Dao Việt Nam (The Way to Be Human in the Vietnamese Proverbs and Folk Poems). Ha Noi: NXB Thanh Nien, 2011. Nguyen-Nghia-Dan. Tục Ngữ Ca Dao Việt Nam Về Giáo Dục Đạo Đức (Vietnamese Proverbs and Folk Poems on Education of Virtues). Ha Noi: Education Publisher, 2001. Nguyen-Van-Ngoc. Tục Ngữ Phong Dao Việt Nam. Ho Chi Minh City: NXB Tp HCM, 1997. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, eds. Kho Tàng Ca Dao Người Việt (The Treasure of Vietnamese Popular Poems). 2 vols. Hanoi: NXB Van Hoa, 2001. Nguyen-Xuan-Kinh et al, eds. Kho Tàng Tục Ngữ Người Việt (The Treasure of Vietnamese Proberbs). 2 vols. Hanoi: NXB Van Hoa, 2002. Nguyen, Dinh Anh Nhue. “Figlio mio, se il tuo cuore è saggio …”: Studio esegetico-teologico del discorso paterno in Prov 23,15–28. Analecta Gregoriana 299. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2006. Nguyen, Dinh Anh Nhue. “Przysłowia Wietnamskie a księga Mądrości Syracha” (“The Vietnamese Proverbs and the Book of Sirach”). Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny 64 (2011): 141–51. (Polish). Nguyen, Dinh Anh Nhue. “The Universal Voice of Wisdom in the Family: Reading a Biblical Parental Discourse (Prov 23:15–28) in the Context of Ancient Near Eastern Instructions and Vietnamese Folk Sayings.” Pages 19–102 in The Bible and Asian Culture: Reading the Word of God in Its Cultural Background and in the Vietnamese Context. Edited by Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen. Bible in Dialogue 6. Roma: GBPress, 2015. Nguyen, Dinh Anh Nhue. “What Could Jesus Mean in Recommending His Disciples to Hate Their Parents (Lk 14:26)? The Perspective of Qumran Texts.” Colloquium: The Australian and New Zealand Theological Review 47 (2015): 297–308. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. Siracide: Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Nuova versione della Bibbia dai testi antichi. Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 2016. Passaro, Angelo, ed. Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. DCLY 2012/2013. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Pritchard. James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955. Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 2007. Reymond, Eric D. “The Poetry of 4Q416 2 III 15–19.” DSD 13 (2006): 179–83. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach/Ben Sira. ATD Apokryphen 1. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Sanders, Jack T. Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom. SBL.MS 38. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Scott, R.B.Y. The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament. New York: Macmillan Company, 1971. Segal, Moshe Z. Sefer Ben-Sira ha-Shalem. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1953. (Hebrew) Schrader, Lutz. Leiden und Gerechtigkeit: Studien zu Theologie und Textgeschichte des Sirachbuches. BBET 27. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994.

214

Dinh Anh Nhue Nguyen

Skehan Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Spicq, Ceslas. “L’Ecclésiastique.” Pages 529–841 in La Sainte Bible. Tome VI: Proverbes – Ecclésiaste – Cantique des cantiques – Sagesse – Ecclésiastique. Edited by Louis Pirot and Albert Clamer. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1951. St. Synowiec, Juliusz. Mędrcy Izraela – ich pisma i nauka (The Sages of Israel: Their Writings and Teaching) Kraków: Bratni Zew, 1990. (Polish). Tapiero, Meir. “Cinquième parole: ‘Honore ton père et ta mère …’.” Pages 265–99 in Les dix paroles. Edited by Meir Tapiero. Paris: Édition du Cerf, 1995. Vattioni, Francesco. Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca. Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968. de Vaux, Roland. Le istituzioni dell’Antico Testamento. Genova: Marietti, 1998. Vilhan, Pavel. The Elusive Power of Paternal Authority in the Book of Sirach. Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2011. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Webb, William J. Corporal Punishment in the Bible: A Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic for Troubling Texts. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Academic, 2011. Ziegler, Joseph. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta XII/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Part IV: Ben Sira in Coversation with Some of the Literature of the Second Temple

Francis M. Macatangay and Emilio López Navas

Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira Abstract: Tobit and Ben Sira both express views on the city of Jerusalem in their books. This essay examines their respective visions of Jerusalem by comparing texts from each, namely Tob 13:7b–18 and Sir 36:1–22. It considers how each text views the fate of Jerusalem and their reasons and hopes for the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It argues that Tobit eschatologically envisions Israel’s restoration with a gloriously rebuilt Jerusalem and temple based on his personal experience of God’s mercy while Ben Sira views the restored institutions of his time, such as the rebuilt Jerusalem and the temple where wisdom ministers, as pointing to the future fullfilment of God’s promise to return Israel from their exile and restore the scattered there. Keywords: Tob 13:7b–18, Sir 36:1–22, Jerusalem, temple, restoration, eschatological expectations

Introduction The Davidic city of Jerusalem and its fate loom large in Second Temple thought and imagination.1 Taken by David from the Jebusites who lived in the region (2 Sam 5:6; 1 Chr 11:4), Jerusalem became the royal capital of Israel’s twelvetribe federation (cf. 1 Chr 11:1–9; 12:39–40). David’s installation of the ark in Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:10–16) confirmed the city’s status as the religious and political center of Israel. The Deuteronomistic tradition centralized Israel’s cult in Jerusalem, the place God chose for his name to abide (Deut 12:5,11; 2 Chr 6:6) and for Israel to gather (2 Chr 36:23). In accordance with the deuteronomistic decree, Tobit claims that all the tribes of Israel should offer sacrifice in the “house of David and Jerusalem” (Tob 1:4) as an “everlasting decree” for all Israel (Tob 1:6; cf. Deut 16:16–17). For Ben Sira, Jerusalem is Wisdom’s resting place and domain (Sir 24:11).

1 See, for instance, Bar 4:5–5:9; 1 En. 25:5; 90:28–29; 11QTemple 29:8–10. Jerusalem is also an interest of Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages. See, for instance, her study on the figure of Jerusalem as a widow in “The Name of the Beloved City in Baruch 4:5–5:9” and “Jerusalem as Widow (Baruch 4:5–5:9).” We are honored and pleased to dedicate this short study to our mentor Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages to mark the occasion of her 65th birthday – ad multos annos! https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-015

218

Francis M. Macatangay and Emilio López Navas

This essay is a comparative study of Jerusalem in the books of Tobit and Ben Sira, two roughly contemporary works from the Second Temple period. We will consider passages on Jerusalem in Tobit, with emphasis on Tob 13. After examining the relevant passages in Sirach, specifically Sir 24 and 36, the analysis will show that Tobit and Ben Sira both view Jerusalem’s importance in terms of the temple and the cult. Although they have different emphases, both nonetheless participate in the tradition of Jerusalem as a holy city, the chosen place of God’s dwelling where Israel gathers for worship as a people. Tobit paints Jerusalem with eschatological and doxological colors. Ben Sira, on the other hand, sees the city in conjunction with Israel as an “honored people” to whom wisdom, embodied in the Torah, was given for an inheritance; with wisdom ministering in the temple, Ben Sira’s stress is on the sapiential aspect of the city.2

1 The Holy City in the Book of Tobit Scholars have long observed, not without exaggeration, that the Book of Tobit was written to highlight the importance of Jerusalem and the new temple for all Jews from the diaspora.3 Without wading into the debate about the purpose of the story,4 it suffices to say that the author is fiercely attracted to the holy city, mentioning it 14 times in the text. Although the final goal is to analyze the section concerning the holy city in the canticle in Tob 13, it is best to begin with the overall vision of Jerusalem in the Book of Tobit.

1.1 Jerusalem in the Book of Tobit In the description of his youth in Galilee in the land of Israel after his father’s northern tribe became separated from the true faith, Tobit introduces himself as a regular pilgrim to the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah (1:4–8). The apostasy of the northern kingdom is portrayed as a separation from the

2 In 1992, Robert Hayward wrote an excellent article on Ben Sira’s view of “the new Jerusalem.” The treatment of Tobit is fairly short and understandably serves to underscore Ben Sira’s lack of eschatological concern regarding Jerusalem and its temple. This short study contributes other relevant observations. We thank Prof. Panc Beentjes for pointing us to this article and for his comments on the initial draft. 3 See Virgili dal Prà, Tobia, 1437. 4 See López Navas, De la oscuridad, 11 n. 3; Macatangay, Wisdom Instructions, 256–62.

Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira

219

house of David and the chosen city (v. 4). Jerusalem is the city chosen to be the only place of worship since the temple as the “house of God” through all generations,” ὁ ναὸς τῆς κατασκηνώσεως τοῦ θεου (v. 4), had been built (ᾠκοδομήθη) and consecrated there. Tobit insists that he went alone frequently to the city (v. 6). And yet, when the mysterious Azariah, who is in reality the angel Raphael hidden in human form, introduces himself as the son of Ananias, a close relative of Tobit, Tobit remembers that other members of the family accompanied him (αὐτοὶ συνεπορεύοντό μοι εἰς Ιερουσαλημ) in order to worship there. Tobit also notes that during his pilgrimages to the city, he faithfully offers all his tithes and first fruits to the priests and Levites. He practices charity by giving all his tithes5 in the third year to “orphans, widows and proselytes” (1:8), that is, those most in need.6 More references to the holy city are found in Tob 14 as Tobit gives his last words on his deathbed. Here, the treatment of the destiny of the city is similar. On the one hand, the dying man foretells an ex eventu prophecy that the whole land of Israel will be destroyed and will become a desert (Ιερουσαλημ ἔσται ἔρημος), including the capital city of the northern kingdom and Jerusalem (14:4).7 However, this will occur only for a time as God will have mercy again (v. 5) and will allow the temple to be rebuilt, although not with the same majesty as the first one. When the fullness of time comes (μετὰ ταῦτα), the whole city will be properly rebuilt along with the sanctuary itself as had been foretold in the past. Finally, Jerusalem will be the place where all Israel’s children who truly keep God in their minds will return and live safely (μετὰ ἀσφαλεία) (v. 7). This future reconstruction is an eschatological expectation similar to the description of Jerusalem and the temple in the second part of Tobit’s hymn in Tob 13.8

1.2 Jerusalem in Tob 13 The city of Jerusalem is the protagonist in Tob 13, especially in the second part of the canticle in vv. 9–18.9 The city is not only mentioned six times explicitly

5 This is following GI and Vetus Latina (cf. Wagner, Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse, 6–7). 6 Cf. López Navas, “Las naciones,” 208. 7 It is worth noting that the author is at an advantage: he sets the narration in the 7th century and describes in this verse the events of Assyrian invasion (3rd BCE) and neo-Babylonian (7th BCE), while he probably wrote between the 3rd and 2nd BCE. For the date of composition of the Book of Tobit, see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 50–52; see also Macatangay, When I Die, 3–7. 8 Cf. Priotto, “Epilogo,” 340–41; Biberger, “Unbefriedigende Gegenwart,” 273–77. 9 Cf. López Navas, De la oscuridad, 70–73, where the structure of Tob 13 is analyzed in depth. See also Balla, “Resurrection,” 451–52.

220

Francis M. Macatangay and Emilio López Navas

but is also personified, addressed in the second person; the city gates and alleys even speak and sing with joy. The treatment of the holy city in these four stanzas will be the focus of this section.10 Jerusalem is described as a place in which God must be confessed and acknowledged. In v. 8, Tobit invites the chosen ones to sing praise to the greatness of the Lord.11 The motivation for praise is Tobit’s experience: just as God has had mercy on Tobit, so too the Lord will have mercy on his people who feel punished in exile.12 Just as Tobit praised God after the experience of mercy, so too should Israel. For that reason, even while in the diaspora, the children of Israel are called to recognize God’s greatness in whatever situation they find themselves, certain that God will act to illuminate their darkness, just as he did with Tobit. In the end, Tobit expresses his hopes that his confession in the land of his captivity should be turned into thanksgiving and recognition of the place destined for praising God through the ages.13 Tob 13:9 witnesses to a well-known expression in the narrative: scourge – mercy. While the expression is previously applied to Tobit and the people (vv. 2 and 5), it is personified Jerusalem that is now described in this way. From now on, the canticle addresses Jerusalem in the second person, using all the resources offered by this figure of speech. In this way, the destiny of the holy city is linked with Tobit and the Israelites who are exiled in Nineveh. In fact, Jerusalem will have to behave in the same way as Tobit and the Israelites in order to receive the mercy of God. The hymn reveals how God will show his goodness to Jerusalem: v. 10 speaks of rebuilding the tabernacle, i.e., the temple,14 and of filling the captives with joy and loving those living in misery. These themes will be developed in

10 See specifically the studies by Rautenberg, “Meaning,” 125–39; Henderson, Second Temple, 107–175, among others, for a detailed analysis of these verses. See also Macatangay, “Jerusalem,” 397–403. 11 This reading accords with the Vetus Latina and the Qumran manuscripts. From a textual point of view, this may be the most complex verse in the whole canticle; cf. the study of the problem in Weeks, “Reconstructing,” 40–41 and López Navas, De la oscuridad, 186–89. 12 Nowadays a large number of authors point out that Tobit is a model for his people, for all those wanting to live his faith in exile; cf. Bauckham, “Tobit as a Parable,” 140–49; Macatangay, When I Die, 79–85. 13 In fact, all faithful Jews in the diaspora address their prayers facing Jerusalem, such as Sarah in Tob 3:11; cf. Egger-Wenzel, “Gestures and Locations,” 269. 14 López Navas, De la oscuridad, 230–31. Gregory, “Rebuilding,” 153–72, reconstructs Tob 13:10 in 4Q196 and builds a circumstantial case that the reference to the temple is not a later interpolation but likely dates to the period before the destruction of the Second Temple when such hopes were typical.

Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira

221

the following verses where they will combine to show that joy will come to those who get involved in the rebuilding of the city and the temple. However, v. 11 introduces a new aspect in Jerusalem’s destiny, interrupting this atmosphere: in the future, the capital will become the end point of the pilgrimage of the nations. The nations will come to the city to offer gifts and tributes to a rebuilt temple. So far, the city has been viewed as a place of return for captives who will be filled with joy “in” it (v. 10) but the horizon is now radically expanded as to include numerous nations (ἔθνη πολλὰ, v. 11) that are also welcomed in Jerusalem. This section shows the influence of several prophetic texts, providing this pilgrimage of the nations an eschatological character.15 Jerusalem becomes the end point of this pilgrimage because the King of Heaven, a very appropriate title in this context, can be found there. In fact, people come with gifts in their hands for Him. It is assumed that the city is the King’s dwelling place or, at least, the place where that reign is exercised. But the destiny of the city is still at stake. In fact, the seventh section of the canticle in vv. 12–14 shows two types of people, those who destroy Jerusalem and those who build it. Depending on the group to which they belong, people are either cursed or blessed; the choice they make about the capital will deeply affect their lives and future. In the center of this section, a call for joy over Jerusalem is highlighted because the children of the just will be gathered together to bless the Lord forever (v. 13). Those who grieve over Jerusalem’s afflictions and share in the city’s sorrow will in turn rejoice. It is likely that those who love the city and “rejoice in its peace” will share in the city’s rebuilding and, in that way, they will receive divine blessings. Without a doubt, a call to conversion seems to be hidden behind these verses, veiled in the juxtaposition of the future of those who love and those who insult Jerusalem. In the last section of the hymn in vv. 15–18, the builders disappear. The text becomes enigmatic but it hints that God will be the one to rebuild the city; all the verbs appear in the passive voice, which is often understood as a divine passive.16 The great King will ensure that Jerusalem is transformed in two important respects: the city will acquire the beauty and durability of precious stones and it will receive an enormous reinforcement in safety, since the elements of protection (e.g., doors, towers, bastions mentioned in v. 16) are the first ones to be consolidated. The reconstruction of Jerusalem, therefore, implies

15 Cf. Henderson, Second Temple, 156–59. 16 Cf. López Navas, De la oscuridad, 332, 339; Rautenberg, “Meaning,” 132. See also Macatangay, “Apocalypticism,” 217.

222

Francis M. Macatangay and Emilio López Navas

a renewed city not only in terms of fortification or purposes of defense but also in terms of a metaphorical bride prepared and adorned for her husband.17 The last verse takes up the initial idea with which the explicit references to Jerusalem started: the city is the place of worship of God. However, the eschatological language, which prevails in the last part of the canticle, transforms this honor as something eternal: “your name may be blessed for ever and ever” (v. 18).18 To sum up, the second part of the canticle presents a vision of Jerusalem as a place of worship of God and a place where God will gather the outcasts. It is thus a place of rejoicing and praise. It is also a place that welcomes the nations who come to pay their respects to the great king. The gifts in their hands may be viewed as compensation for what Zion lost in its destruction. For this reason, God will rebuild the city in a spectacular way; God will fortify and reinforce her security and adorn the city like a bride dressed in her nuptial gown, ready to meet her husband on their wedding night.

1.3 The Rebuilding of Jerusalem There is no doubt that it is God who will raise up Jerusalem from its ruins; its rebuilding is due to God’s will. And yet, the city is encouraged to “acknowledge the Lord appropriately” (ἀγαθῶς) as part of its rebuilding. The canticle, particularly in its first half, constantly calls for conversion that will move God to act with mercy upon the exiles. God desires that the city should behave according to the epithet described at the beginning of the hymn: holy. Holiness, of course, is defined not only in cultic terms but also in terms of righteousness. If Jerusalem acknowledges and praises the Lord with deeds of righteousness, the rebuilding will happen in a magnificent way. In comparison with the view of Jerusalem evident in the first chapter, it is obvious that the last two chapters abandon previous points of interest. The emphasis is no longer on the temple as a place of sacrificial offerings and economic activity where begging for alms can be practiced.19 The focus becomes eschatological – the temple rebuilt by God as a place for praise and encounter with God for those who wish to acknowledge him properly.20 Jerusalem is the place

17 López Navas, De la oscuridad, 350–52. See also Macatangay, “Jerusalem,” 402. It has also been noted that Jerusalem exemplifies blessing while Nineveh is emblematic of curse (Dick, “Tales of Two Cities,” 46–48). 18 For textual options, cf. López Navas, De la oscuridad, 326. 19 Cf. López Navas, “Las naciones,” 208–10. 20 Henderson, Second Temple, 173–74.

Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira

223

of intimate encounter between God and the whole of humanity gathered in the holy city to praise the holy name for ever and ever.21

2 Jerusalem in the Book of Ben Sira Ben Sira rarely refers to Jerusalem in his book despite being identified in the Greek text as a “Jerusalemite” (Sir 50:27). And yet, the scarcity of references to Jerusalem belies the city’s significance in the book. In fact, Jerusalem appears in the book’s two crucial passages: in the famous praise of wisdom in Sir 24 and in the national prayer for deliverance in Sir 36. Certain passages such as Sir 48:17 and 50:4 use “the city” and their contexts clarify the denotation of “the city” as Jerusalem. In the Hebrew text of Sir 47:11d, the passage on David in the praise of the ancestors notes that God gave David a statute of kingship and established his throne over Jerusalem. Translating the verse into Greek, Ben Sira’s grandson, however, replaces Jerusalem with Israel. The revision may simply reflect the historical and political fact of the grandson’s time when the Maccabees installed their own high priest in the Jerusalem temple, ending the priestly house of the Zadokites and subsequently eliminating the Davidic succession that Ben Sira seemed to have assumed for the office of the high priesthood (cf. Sir 45:23–24 Ms B). With the revision, the grandson could still claim within the historical context of his time that God established David’s glorious throne in Israel, understood as God’s people.

2.1 Jerusalem in Sir 24:11 In Sir 24, personified wisdom recounts her story of how she came forth from the mouth of God at creation and found a place to pitch her tent.22 Living in the realm of God in the “highest heavens” with a “pillar of cloud” for a throne, wisdom looked for a place to rest. After wandering and searching far and wide, wisdom heeds the Creator’s command to dwell in Jacob and to accept Israel as her inheritance. Just as God chose Israel out of all the peoples on earth to be

21 Rautenberg, “Meaning,” 133. 22 The scholarship on Sir 24 is vast. For a recent discussion of the structure of Sir 24, especially Wisdom’s speech, see Schmidt, Wisdom, 250–67. For a discussion of the tradition-historical background, see Martilla, Foreign Nations, 91–102. See also Beentjes, “Ben Sira,” 11–17; Gilbert, “L’eloge,” 326–48.

224

Francis M. Macatangay and Emilio López Navas

“his treasured possession” (Deut 7:6), so Wisdom, at God’s command, chose Jerusalem. There, in his “holy tent,” Wisdom ministers before God and establishes herself in Zion (24:10).23 Wisdom describes Jerusalem as a city that is as “beloved” as she is, and specifically identifies Jerusalem as her “resting place,” her abode (24:11). The claim that Jerusalem is Wisdom’s place echoes the deuteronomic tradition in which the city and temple are the place where the name of God rests. Wisdom further identifies Jerusalem as literally her “domain” which can be taken to mean that the city is the place where wisdom exercises her power. Keeping in mind Ben Sira’s claim that power and sovereignty over the earth is in the hand of God, a city that is governed by and in wisdom is a city that indeed grows and is “fit to live in” (10:1–5). Given that foreign rulers continue to have hegemony over Jerusalem, however, it is likely that in Ben Sira’s view, the city is merely wisdom’s place of rest, not a place where wisdom wields her domain or influence on governance. It is really in the temple or “the holy tent” where wisdom acts, ministers, and operates.24 The search for wisdom’s instruction ends there. And so, the importance of Jerusalem seems to lie primarily in the fact that it is the location of Zion, the permanent place on earth where wisdom has pitched her tent (24:8) and where she now serves before God (24:10): Wisdom ministers where God dwells. Jerusalem is significant in so far as it is the geographical locus that houses the temple where wisdom is actively and permanently present. Parallel statements frame the sole reference to Jerusalem in this passage. In Sir 24:8c, God tells Wisdom to “make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your inheritance.” In 24:12, wisdom responds saying, “I took root in an honored people, in the portion of the Lord, his heritage.” This framing relativizes Jerusalem, as it seems to de-emphasize the aspect of Jerusalem as a physical city or place where wisdom is exercised in order to stress instead wisdom’s dwelling in Israel identified as “an honored people” to whom God chose to give his “treasured possession,” namely wisdom embodied in the Torah (24:23). That wisdom “took root in an honored people” may be taken as a response to Ben Sira’s earlier question regarding the root of wisdom: “the root of wisdom – to whom has it been revealed?” (1:6). In this case, it is to Israel that wisdom’s root has been revealed even as God has given the gift of wisdom to “all the living”

23 Rickenbacher, Weisheitsperikopen, 161, claims that Zion, temple, and “holy tent” are synonymous. 24 Schmidt observes that “Wisdom is embodied in the cultic service of the Temple” (Wisdom, 256–57).

Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira

225

(1:10).25 Wisdom’s dwelling or resting place ultimately is in Israel, among God’s honored people. In addition to the temple as wisdom’s specific sphere of influence and realm of activity, Israel as a people has now become the reality where wisdom as a presence and principle is known and experienced more intimately. In short, the clustering of Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion/temple in this passage suggests a porous feature in the denotative meaning of Jerusalem.26 Jerusalem is more than a city; it is theologically conceived in relationship to wisdom, which makes Jerusalem, Zion/temple, and Israel as an “honored people” somewhat indistinguishable realities.

2.2 Jerusalem in Sir 33H:13/36G:18 Ben Sira’s second reference to Jerusalem is in the communal prayer for Israel’s deliverance in Sir 33H:1–19 (36G:1–22).27 It follows the discourse on God’s particular attention to the poor and the oppressed whose prayer “pierces the clouds … until the Most High responds” (35:20–21), creating the impression that Ben Sira and the community voicing out the prayer align themselves with “the poor and the oppressed,” equally hoping for God’s favorable response.28 The prayer begins by asking the “God of all” to “save/redeem” (Ms B) or to “have mercy” (Greek) on his people by putting all the nations in fear of God. Ben Sira and the community plead for God to show his glory by working signs and wonders reminiscent of Exodus that led to the possession of the land so that the nations will know that Israel’s God is the one God (36:5, 19–22), thus inspiring and instilling Jewish piety among non-Jewish nations.29 God shows his holiness to the nations by punishing Israel’s sin with subjugation to foreign rulers and reveals his glory by punishing the Gentile overlords for oppressing Israel (36:4). The prayer ultimately begs God to crush and wipe out Israel’s enemies and hostile

25 See Mermelstein, Creation, 22–23. 26 Richenbacker, Weisheitsperikopen, 159, notes that Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion have a “theological weight” in Ben Sira. 27 There is debate whether the prayer is authentic to Ben Sira. For a review of the scholarship, see Martilla, Foreign Nations, 124–30; Calduch-Benages, “Ben Sira’s View,” 299–301. For a recent consideration of the language and transmission of Sir 36, see Reymond, “Thoughts,” 455– 74. 28 Sir 34–35 as context has been used to show that Sir 36 coheres theologically and linguistically with the concerns of this section. On this point, see Gregory, “Relationship,” 311–27; Beentjes, “Fluidity,” 154–57. But see also Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 111. 29 See Goering, Wisdom’s Root, 207.

226

Francis M. Macatangay and Emilio López Navas

rulers.30 Still, the sense behind the seemingly harsh language of the prayer may actually be a call for all the nations to have fear and correct disposition before God.31 The prayer expressly asks God to “have mercy” on Israel, identified as the people called by God’s name and God’s firstborn, followed by a request for God to “have mercy” on Jerusalem and to fill Zion and his temple with majesty and glory (Sir 36:17–19). Here, Jerusalem is described as ‫ קרית קדשך‬which means “your holy city.”32 Sir 49:6 (Ms B) uses a similar phrase in describing a foreign nation’s burning of the holy city and the desolation of its streets. Jerusalem is also described as ‫ מכון שבתיך‬which can mean “the foundation of his throne”33 or “the firm place of your dwelling,”34 an Old Testament expression that often denotes God’s dwelling place (cf. Exod 15:17; 1Kgs 8:39, 43, 49; 2 Chr 6:30, 33, 39; Ps 33:14). The Greek text renders the first description of Jerusalem as πόλιν ἀγιάσματός σου, which literally means “the city of your sanctuary.” The Greek translator imprecisely renders the second description ‫ שבתיך מכון‬as τόπον καταπαύματος σου, which means “the place of your rest.” Here, Jerusalem’s depiction as God’s place of rest echoes the earlier claim that wisdom rested in Jerusalem (Sir 24:8, 11), which likely influenced the Greek translation of the verse.35 In any case, Jerusalem is a city qualified as holy because it is the place of God’s dwelling and earthly sanctuary, setting it apart from other cities.36 And yet, the parallel plea for ‫ רחם‬upon both Israel, the people called by God’s name, and Jerusalem, the holy city and God’s place of dwelling (33:12–13), suggests that the significance of Jerusalem is theologically relativized. That Ben Sira’s prayer groups them together implies a fluid exchange of meanings; they are theological realities more than mere physical references. In his hands, Jerusalem and Israel as the people called by God’s name have very porous semantic

30 Wright, “Put the Nations,” 136, notes that the prayer of lament and the intense language seem to convey “Ben Sira’s true feelings about the domination of Israel by foreign powers.” See also Calduch-Benages, “Ben Sira’s View,” 302: “whoever these enemies were, the aim of the request is not their destruction but that they can know God (lit. see his power).” 31 Palmisano, Salvaci, 157. In Tobit’s terms, the procession of the nations with gifts to Jerusalem shows their profound respect and reverence for God. In Jerusalem, they praise the holy Name forever (cf. Tob 13:18). 32 For the Hebrew text, see Beentjes, Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, 62. All references to Hebrew are from this text. 33 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 422. 34 The translation of the phrase is from Robert Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible. 35 See Martilla, Foreign Nations, 123. 36 Palmisano, Salvaci, 260, avers that the presence of the temple is central to the significance of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira

227

boundaries; Jerusalem is in relationship with Israel as a people. And so, to have mercy on Israel is to have mercy on Jerusalem and vice-versa. Ben Sira prays that Zion be filled with God’s splendor and the temple with his glory.37 In the Greek translation, however, Zion is not paired with the temple; the temple does not parallel Zion. Instead, Zion corresponds to the people. The prayer in the Greek text urges God to fill Zion literally with aretalogy or the celebration of divine virtues and his people with glory. The previous petition to “gather all the tribes of Jacob and to grant them their inheritance as at the beginning” (36:13) may have influenced the Greek formulation that emphasizes the people over the temple as recipients of glory. It is not only in the temple in Jerusalem where God shows his glory and majesty,38 but according to the Greek text, it is in his people that God manifests his glory. Perhaps, when all of God’s people enjoy the gift of land as an inheritance and are gathered to celebrate God’s deeds, God’s power and glory shines. The Greek translation stresses the interconnectivity among Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion/temple already present in Sir 24, which is available only in Greek. Ben Sira seems to view Jerusalem not only as a holy city of God’s dwelling but also in terms of another reality since he does not set the city apart from the reality of Israel as God’s people – both realities of God’s dwelling and God’s people are intimately, even intensely connected. In fact, the grandson has no problem replacing, if not identifying the temple, with the people. And in other manuscript traditions of Sir 49:12, it is the people, not the temple, who are destined for eternal glory. Such semantic porousness or fluidity allows Ben Sira to posit the possibility that what is true of Jerusalem and the temple will also be true of Israel as a people in “the appointed time” (36:10). Since they are intertwined, what was prophetically fulfilled in one serves as the basis of hope for the realization of other covenant promises such as land inheritance. Scholars have detected an “eschatological atmosphere”39 or a “nationalistic eschatology”40 in Sir 36. The petition to gather all the tribes of Jacob, the requests for God to “hasten the day/end and remember the appointed time” (v. 10) and the references to the fulfillment of prophecies all give the prayer an escha-

37 In his analysis of the usages of Israel, Jerusalem, and Zion, Rickenbacher notes that Zion generally refers to the temple (Weisheitsperikopen, 160–61). 38 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 423. 39 See Corley, “Seeds of Messianism,” 311. Flusser, “Psalms,” 556–58, previously classified Sir 36:1–17, along with Tob 13, as an “eschatological psalm.” Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 110–11, notes that Sir 36 “burns with eschatological fervor” but also claims that Ben Sira’s view of history has “no eschatological urgency” or that Ben Sira shows a “lack of eschatological concern.” 40 See Wright, “Put the Nations,” 135.

228

Francis M. Macatangay and Emilio López Navas

tological orientation. Still, the eschatological outlook does not seem to have Jerusalem or the temple in view. Rather, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple in Ben Sira’s time seems to be the historical sign that some of the prophecies have been fulfilled. In the description of the temple built by Zerubbabel and Jeshua, the Zadokite high priest and ancestor of Simon in Sir 49:11–12, the temple is described as “prepared for everlasting glory.” It is immediately followed by a lasting remembrance of Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the city. Finally, Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, continued the reconstruction. During his time, “the house” is said to have been “visited” or “remembered” presumably by God.41 This is perhaps why Simon’s time witnessed the fortification of the temple (50:1), pointing to a period of relative peace and security. Notably, his actions of fortifying the city reflect Hezekiah’s own (48:17). Ben Sira later describes a functioning temple in Jerusalem with the high priest presiding over sacrifices and cultic rituals (Sir 50:12–21). Simon’s service as high priest fills the temple with glory (50:11). And so, the temple built by Jeshua and the city repaired by Nehemiah, which were both fortified by Simon in his day, realize the prophetic ideals. These developments indicate that God has indeed shown his mercy on his holy city Jerusalem and will eventually show the same mercy for Israel as an honored people and “treasured possession.” The references to the house and the temple in Sir 50:1 are clustered with references to the city and the people in Sir 50:4; the fluid connection between the people and the city continues in the description of Simon’s activities. Sir 50:4 states, “he took care of his people against brigands and strengthened the city against enemies.” The city, which is Jerusalem, corresponds once more to the people, showing an instance in which the city is identifiable with its residents. The significance of this identification lies in Ben Sira’s belief that God responds to prayer. His prayer, of course, is founded on a firm basis. The rebuilt Jerusalem and its temple filled with glory serve as the tangible ground for hopes that God will gather all the tribes of Israel. After all, Jerusalem and its “honored people” are wisdom’s place of rest and inheritance. Just as God rebuilt his house in the city of Jerusalem, so too will God rebuild the house of Jacob. The builder of Jerusalem and its temple is also the one who will gather Israel’s dispersed tribes in Jerusalem.42 What remains to be realized is Ben Sira’s prayer for the restoration of all the tribes of Jacob to the land promised to Abraham. In this way, the current state of Jerusalem during Simon’s time serves both as an in-

41 See the helpful comments of Hayward, “New Jerusalem,” 128–29. 42 Hayward, “New Jerusalem,” 134.

Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira

229

stallment and a robust pointer to the future fulfillment of that eschatological hope in which all of Israel is gathered in the land. God’s gift of wisdom ministering in the temple points to the real possibility of another gift. This gathering of all the twelve tribes of Israel will be the eschatological renewal in and about Jerusalem. As Wisdom takes Jerusalem as her dwelling place, so all the tribes of Jacob will take Jerusalem as their gathering place. When it happens, God’s glory and power will truly dwell in Jerusalem and among his people guided by wisdom.

Conclusion For Tobit and Ben Sira, Jerusalem enjoys a unique status among cities because it is the site that houses the temple, the divine dwelling place where God is worshipped and encountered. Jerusalem is indeed the center of Israel’s cultic relationship with God. For Tobit, it is where God is acknowledged properly and where God’s name is praised joyfully. For Ben Sira, it is where wisdom has rested permanently and where the temple whose cultic service embodies wisdom is located. Both certainly have lofty views of Jerusalem but from different lenses – Tobit’s is cultic-doxological while Ben Sira’s is cultic-sapiential. Both Tobit and Ben Sira also share the same hope that the fate of Jerusalem depends on divine mercy – when God grants his mercy, all the scattered will gather and come to Jerusalem. For Tobit, the eschatological rebuilding of the temple will be accompanied by the gathering of all the scattered Israelites who will give thanks and see the glory of God in the new Jerusalem. Ben Sira’s prayer for Jerusalem and for the people called by God’s name is paired with a petition to gather all the tribes of Jacob (Sir 36:13). For both Tobit and Ben Sira, Jerusalem is Israel’s sacred center where all of Israel will gather and come together just as they once did in pilgrimage to celebrate the festivals; both see Jerusalem as the place for a reconstituted Israel. The difference between Tobit and Ben Sira’s views of Jerusalem lies in their attitude towards the temple. Tobit certainly shows respect towards the temple but nonetheless believes that the Second Temple possesses a temporary character as it is not as majestic as the first one. Tobit exudes the eschatological expectation that God will rebuild the temple and restore its splendid magnificence in the fullness of time, attracting all the nations to pay homage and offer tribute to the King of Heaven. Tobit speaks of the new and eschatological Jerusalem metaphorically, following the prophetic description of the city as a bride adorned for her husband. The basis of Tobit’s hope is his experience of

230

Francis M. Macatangay and Emilio López Navas

God’s mercy.43 Ben Sira, on the other hand, does not entertain eschatological views with regard to Jerusalem and its temple. He employs biblical descriptions that simply refer to the city as God’s dwelling, albeit the novel claim that Jerusalem is the place where Wisdom abides. The rebuilt second temple and the glory that fills it from the service of the high priest actually point to the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies and a sign of God’s abiding faithfulness to his covenant with Israel. The return from exile, however, is a reality that is yet to happen. The rebuilt status of Jerusalem and the temple thus provides Ben Sira the sure ground for hoping that God will respond to the petition to gather all the tribes of Jacob (cf. Sir 36:20–22). What has been true of Jerusalem and its temple during his time will also be true of all Israel. If there is anything new at all to expect about Jerusalem, it will be that all the tribes of Israel are finally gathered in the city celebrating God’s mighty acts, inspiring the nations’ piety. Finally, the genre of both books may have influenced or shaped the respective views of Jerusalem. Tobit’s personal story becomes the basis of his hopes for a new Jerusalem and the regathering of those scattered in exile. What happens to a righteous individual will also obtain for the faithful whole. As Tobit was filled with joy, so the city and temple will resound with rejoicing when God shows his mercy. On the other hand, Ben Sira’s is a didactic text centered on the notion that wisdom understood specifically in terms of Torah, rested in Jerusalem and in “an honored people,” giving his work a nationalistic orientation; God’s gift of wisdom serves as a national pride. While Tobit the character stands in for Israel and its institutions, in Ben Sira, there is a strong nexus between Jerusalem, Zion, and the people of Israel. And so, Jerusalem and its temple collectively as a national institution that is gifted with Wisdom provides Ben Sira the basis for the hopeful realization of an eschatological conviction that concerns all of Israel. Jerusalem is eschatological in so far as the city is understood in terms of its honored people. As Tobit’s experience of God’s mercy is paradigmatic for the new Jerusalem and its gloriously rebuilt temple, so Ben Sira’s reestablished national institutions, namely the rebuilt Jerusalem and temple with its magnificent cult where wisdom ministers, point to the future fullness of God’s other promises made in the days of old to his honored people. For both, the eschatological future of restored Israel is closer than it appears. In the end, both Tobit and Ben Sira, despite varying emphasis in their views of Jerusalem, share the eschatological “already-but-not-yet” perspective.” As Bradley Gregory notes, “the return from exile and the rebuilding of the Second

43 See Hicks-Keeton, “Already/Not Yet,” 97–117.

Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira

231

Temple have become paradigmatic categories within Second Temple eschatological hopes.”44 In this light, Tobit could see on the far horizon the return from exile and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple based on his experience of healing and mercy. For his part, Ben Sira is confident that the prayer for the gathering of the tribes of Israel so that God may grant his “honored people” their inheritance as in the days of old will be granted because of the rebuilt temple and its glorious service in Jerusalem.

Bibliography Balla, Ibolya. “Resurrection and God’s Kingship in Tobit 13. The Role of Tob 13:2 in its Context.” BibAn 9 (2019): 447–62. Bauckham, Richard. “Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel.” Pages 140–64 in Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Edited by Mark Bredin. LSTS 55. London: T & T Clark, 2006. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “The Fluidity between the Oppressed of Israel and Israel the Oppressed: Some Additional Notes to B. Gregory’s Analysis of Ben Sira 35:14–26.” JSJP 44 (2013): 154–57. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 068. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “The Book of Ben Sira: Some New Perspectives at the Dawn of the 21st Century.” Pages 1–19 in Goochem in Mokum, Wisdom in Amsterdam. Edited by George J. Brooke and Pierre van Hecke. OTS 68. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Biberger, Bernd. “Unbefriedigende Gegenwart und ideale Zukunft. Gesamtisraelitische Heilsperspektiven in den letzten Worten Tobits (Tob 14).” BZ 55 (2011): 265–80. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “The Name of the Beloved City in Baruch 4:5–5:9” BN 164 (2015): 51–64. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Jerusalem as Widow (Baruch 4:5–5:9).” Pages 147–64 in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by H. Lichtenberger and U. Mittmann-Richert. DCLY 2008. Berlin: 2009. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Ben Sira’s View of Foreign Nations.” Pages 289–308 in Christentum und Europa. XVI. Europäischer Kongress für Theologie. Edited by Michael Meyer-Blanck. VWGT 57. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2019. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Corley, Jeremy. “Seeds of Messianism in Hebrew Ben Sira and Greek Sirach.” Pages 301–12 in The Septuagint and Messianism. Edited by Michael A. Knibb. BETL 195. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Dick, Michael. “Tales of Two Cities (in the Second-Century BCE): Jerusalem and Nineveh.” JSP 26 (2016): 32–48.

44 Gregory, “Rebuilding,” 174.

232

Francis M. Macatangay and Emilio López Navas

Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “Gestures and Locations of Worship in the Book of Tobit.” Pages 261– 75 in Various Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Geza G. Xeravits, József Zsengellér, and Ibolya Balla. DCLY 2016/17. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Flusser, David. “Psalms, Hymns and Prayers.” Pages 551–77 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Michael Stone. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Gilbert, Maurice. “L’eloge de la Sagesse (Siracide 24).” RTL 7 (1976): 326–48. Goering, Greg Schmidt. Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJSup 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Gregory, Bradley C. “The Relationship between the Poor in Judea and Israel under Foreign Rule: Sirach 35:14–26 among Second Temple Prayers and Hymns.” JSJP 42 (2011): 311– 27. Gregory, Bradley C. “The Rebuilding of the Temple in the Text of Tobit 13 and its Implications for Second Temple Hermeneutics.” Textus 24 (2009): 153–78. Hayward, Robert. “The New Jerusalem in the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira.” SJOT 6 (1992): 123– 38. Henderson, Ruth. Second Temple Songs of Zion. A Literary and Generic Analysis of the Apostrophe to Zion (11QPsa XXII 1–15); Tobit 13:9–18 and 1 Baruch 4:30–5:9. DCLS 17. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Hicks-Keeton, Jill. “Already/Not Yet: Eschatological Tension in the Book of Tobit.” JBL 132 (2013) 97–117. López Navas, Emilio. De la oscuridad a Jerusalén. Estudio exegético-teológico de Tob 13. Tesis y monografías 066. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2016. López Navas, Emilio. “‘Naciones numerosas vendrán a ti” (Tob 13,11). Las naciones y la extranjería en el libro de Tobit.” Pages 205–23 in «Sal de tu tierra» Estudios sobre el extranjero en el Antiguo Testamento. Edited by Guadalupe Seijas de los Ríos-Zarzosa. ABE.MB 76. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2020. Macatangay, Francis M. The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 12. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Macatangay, Francis M . “Apocalypticism and Narration in the Book of Tobit.” Pages 207–20 in Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Papers of the Jubilee Meeting of the International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits, József Zsengellér, and Xavér Szabó. DCLS 22. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Macatangay, Francis M. When I Die, Bury Me Well: Death, Burial, Almsgiving, and Restoration in the Book of Tobit. Eugene: Pickwick, 2016. Macatangay, Francis M. “Jerusalem in the Book of Tobit.” TBT 58 (2020): 397–403. Marttila, Marko. Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: A Jewish Sage between Opposition and Assimilation. DCLS 13. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Mermelstein, Ari. Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 168. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Priotto, Michelangelo. “Epilogo del libro di Tobia (Tb 14).” Pages 333–43 in Libri sapienziali e altri scritti. Edited by Antonio Bonora and Michelangelo Priotto. Logos Collana Studi Biblici 4. Leumann: Elledici, 1997. Rautenberg, Johanna. “The Meaning of the City of Jerusalem in the Book of Tobit. An Analysis of the Jerusalem Hymn in Tobit 13:8–18.” Pages 125–39 in Constructions of Space V. Place, Space and Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Edited by Gert T. M. Prinsloo and Christl M. Maier. LHB/OTS 576. New York: Bloomsbury − T&T Clark, 2013.

Jerusalem in the Books of Tobit and Ben Sira

233

Reymond, Eric D. “Thoughts on the Language of Sirach 36:1–22.” DSD 27 (2020): 455–74. Rickenbacher, Otto. Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira. OBO 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Schmidt, A. Jordan. Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 42. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Virgili dal Prà, Rosanna. “Tobia.” Pages 1437–38 in Temi teologici della Bibbia. Edited by Romano Penna, Giacomo Perego, and Gianfranco Ravasi. Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 2010. Wagner, Christian. J. Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse: Griechisch − Lateinisch − Syrisch − Hebräisch − Aramäisch. Mit einem Index zu den Tobit-Fragmenten vom Toten Meer. Mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologische-Historische Klasse 258. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2003. Weeks, Stuart D.E. “Reconstructing Tobit 13.6–10.” Pages 35–47 in The Temple in Text and Tradition. A Festschrift in Honour of Robert Hayward. Edited by R. Timothy McLay. LSTS 83. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Wright III, Benjamin G. “‘Put the Nations in Fear of You’: Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule.” Pages 127–46 in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction. Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. JSJSup 131. Leiden, Brill, 2008. Originally published in SBL Seminar Papers 38 (1999): 77–93.

Michael W. Duggan

Wisdom in Disguise and the Heroism of Widows: Ben Sira and Judean Traditions (Sir 4:1–19) Abstract: Ben Sira depicts wisdom as a woman of substance who disguises herself in order to take her student through a period of testing that is foundational to her educational strategy. The female figure of Wisdom is without analogue in real life as the sage does not mention any woman in the history of Israel. However, Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, and the mother who was martyred with her seven sons are both wisdom teachers who accompany their students through trials in exceptional fashion. As Torah-observant widows whose respective educative commitments took them into the throes of death, they represent evocative reference points for contemplating Ben Sira’s portrayal of Woman Wisdom. Keywords: 2 Maccabees, Ben Sira, life after death, Tamar, widow, Wisdom

The book of Ben Sira is distinguished by its persistent attentiveness to wisdom.1 The sage begins by claiming wisdom as the gift that God lavishes upon those who love him, then sets as its centerpiece the voice of Wisdom describing her journey from the realm of God to her abode in Jerusalem and concludes with a reflection on his enduring attentiveness to personified wisdom (1:1–10; 24:1–22; 51:13–30). His confession that Woman Wisdom was his lifelong teacher represents a marked contrast to his unsparing criticisms of women and his utter lack of reference to a single prominent woman in the history of Israel.2 I reflect on this disparity by first examining ties between his profile of Wisdom and his solicitude for widows as the single category of women with whom he has no problem (4:1–10, 11–19).3 While Ben Sira makes no direct connections between widows and Wisdom, his description of Woman Wisdom assuming a disguise opens up potential associations with Tamar, the widowed daughter-in-

1 The topic of this paper reflects my appreciation for the outstanding contributions that Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages has made to Ben Sira studies and to women’s studies in Ben Sira and Second Temple literature. Her wisdom and friendship are gifts beyond measure. 2 See Calduch-Benages, “Absence of Named Women,” 304–13; Calduch-Benages, “Good and Bad Wives,” 123–25; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 90–92. 3 See Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View, 52–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-016

236

Michael W. Duggan

law of Judah and heroic foreigner in early Judean history (Gen 38). Moreover, in the literature of the post-Maccabean era, the mother who suffers martyrdom after witnessing the executions of her seven sons is seemingly a widow whose wisdom challenges Ben Sira’s insistence that physical death marks the end of one’s personal existence (2 Macc 7:20–29).

1 Care for the Widow and Wisdom’s Teaching Strategy (Sir 4:1–10, 11–19) The language of filial relations connects Ben Sira’s exhortation on social concern (4:1–10) with his depiction of Wisdom’s teaching strategy (4:11–19). He concludes the first poem by speaking of “his son” becoming a “son of God” and introduces the next poem with a description of Wisdom speaking to “her sons” (4:1 ‫ ;בני‬4:10 ‫ ;בן‬4:11 ‫)בניה‬. The unit on social concern consists of two parts, the first of which focuses on the student cultivating proper attitudes in the presence of a destitute person and the second on his taking action in public to address the needs of the poor (4:1–6, 7–10). The student becomes a “son of God” by practicing works of justice that make him a metaphorical father to the orphan and husband to the widow (4:7–10; cf. Ps 68:6). The sage’s poetic description of Wisdom’s teaching strategy subdivides into two parts, each of which consists of two subunits: initially, he summarizes Wisdom’s activities before noting that a student learns wisdom in progressive steps by loving, seeking, embracing, and serving her (4:11, 12–14); subsequently, Wisdom promises the student success, which accrues for generations, before mentioning the sequence of testing, consolation, and evaluation in her pedagogical technique (4:15–16, 17–19).4 Wisdom’s testing of the disciple recalls the Lord’s testing of Israel in the wilderness and of Judah in the furnace of affliction during the exile (‫ בחר‬4:17b; Deut 8:2; Isa 48:10).5 In Sirach, one who experiences “trials,” relives the experience of Abraham and therefore can learn to imitate his faithfulness (cf. ‫ בנסיונות‬in 4:17; cf. ‫ בנסוי‬in 44:20; cf. 4:16; Gen 22:1–19). The student’s change of heart, which results from Wisdom’s pedagogy, continues through a heightened commitment to torah observance (4:17e–18b; cf. Ps 119:11, 32, 34, 36, 69, 80, 111, 112, 113, 161).

4 My comments, related to Sir 4:17–19, are based on the presentation of the Hebrew text in Segal, Sefer ben Sira ha-shalem. For the effect of Wisdom’s strategy in Sir 4:11–19, see Gregory, “Appearance versus Reality,” 62–68. 5 On the link between Sir 4:17 and Deut 8:2, see Calduch-Benages, “La Sabiduria,” 41–42.

Wisdom in Disguise and the Heroism of Widows

237

Wisdom culminates the pedagogical process by revealing her secrets to the disciple (4:18b: ‫)מסתרי וגליתי לו‬.6 The disclosure of divine secrets is the subject matter of a statement in Daniel, whose Aramaic reflects the Hebrew of Ben Sira “[God] … gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to those with understanding, he reveals [‫ ]גלא‬deep things and secret things [‫( ”]מסתרתא‬Dan 2:21–22). In Daniel, this statement is related to the technical expression “to reveal the mystery” (‫רזה גלא‬: Dan 2:19, 28–30, 47). However, one must note that Ben Sira would defy associating Wisdom’s disclosures with any form of apocalyptic speculation (Sir 3:21–24; 34:1–6). Wisdom concludes her discourse with a solemn warning that the student who abandons her will fall into the hands of destroyers (‫ שׁדדים‬4:19). Jeremiah had employed the term to designate the foe who brought about the downfall of Jerusalem in his day (4:19; cf. Jer 6:26; 12:12; 15:8). Such allusions would become particularly poignant for torah-observant Jews who read Ben Sira in subsequent years when the armies of Antiochus IV Epiphanes attacked the holy city and desecrated its temple (2 Macc 6:1–11).

2 Wisdom in Disguise and a Widowed Foreigner in Preexilic Judah In describing her pedagogical strategy, Wisdom states that she will begin by walking with her student “in disguise” (Sir 4:17a). Ben Sira employs the hithpael of ‫נכר‬, a verb form that occurs only four times in the Tanak (Gen 42:7; 1 Kgs 14:5– 6 [2x]; Prov 20:11). The lone occurrence that corresponds with Wisdom’s approach to her student is the behaviour of Joseph who conceals his identity from his brothers by “acting as a stranger” in his first meeting with them as the governor of Egypt (Gen 42:7, ‫)ויתנכר אליהם‬. Various factors confirm the sage’s intent to allude to Joseph in Wisdom’s initial manner with her student. The Genesis narrative describes Joseph’s selfconcealment as integral to his determination “to test” his brothers with ordeals, an action that echoes in Ben Sira’s depiction of Wisdom as challenging her student with ordeals (Gen 42:15–16: ‫בחן‬, niphal; cf. Sir 4:17b, ‫)יבחרנו בנסיונות‬. The “fear of God” also links the narrative to a favorite theme in Ben Sira since Joseph identifies this virtue as the guiding force for imposing the trials that his brothers will have to endure (Gen 42:18; cf. Sir 1:11–30; 2:7–11, 15–18).7 Most

6 Ben Sira also mentions that a sage reflects on God’s mysteries (Sir 39:7). 7 See Di Lella, “Sirach 10:19–11:6,” 160.

238

Michael W. Duggan

significantly, Ben Sira expresses great admiration for Joseph not only by mentioning him in his honorific of the great ancestors but also by alluding to his behavior as exemplifying wisdom in living (Sir 49:15; 21:11–12).8 Nevertheless, the Genesis narrative does not describe Joseph as being “in disguise.” “He acted as a stranger” is the more appropriate rendering of the verb since it corresponds with the harsh manner Joseph demonstrates toward his brothers (Gen 42:7, ‫)ויתנכר‬. Ben Sira’s depiction of Wisdom approaching her student “in disguise” fits more precisely with the portrayal of Tamar earlier in the Joseph story. She makes herself unrecognizable so as to force Judah to produce a descendant for his son Er, who had died without leaving an heir (Gen 38:13– 16). While the verb form is absent (‫ נכר‬hithpael), the narrative offers a detailed account of Tamar exchanging her widow’s garments for a veil in order to conceal her appearance. Tamar has these qualities in common with Ben Sira’s depiction of Wisdom: she is a woman; she deals with a male who is manifestly immature; she takes the initiative to meet him but in disguise; her manner is alien to anything he would have expected from her; she exposes his character weaknesses; and she awakens him to the righteousness, which she possesses and which he lacks (Sir 4:17; cf. Gen 38:6–11, 12–19; 24–26). The story of Tamar engaging Judah at Enaim foreshadows the encounter between Joseph and his brothers in Egypt. At first sight, the Tamar episode seems to interrupt the narration between the Elohistic mention of the Midianites selling Joseph to Potiphar in Egypt and the Yahwistic version of Potiphar purchasing him from the Ishmaelites and setting him to work as the overseer of his household affairs (Gen 37:36; 40:1–6).9 However, the intervening story casts the spotlight on Judah as the figure who provides the continuity between the two narratives, which are seamless in the Yahwist’s version of the Joseph epic (Gen 37:26–27, 28b, 31–35; 38:1–26; 39:1–23). More significantly for our purposes, within the complete Joseph story, the verb “to recognize” (‫ נכר‬hiphil) occurs in only three episodes: (a) Jacob’s perception that the blood-stained garment belongs to Joseph (Gen 37:32–33); (b) Judah’s acknowledgment of Tamar’s innocence (Gen 38:25–26); and (c) Joseph’s reaction in his first meeting with his brothers (Gen 42:7–8). This cognate of the verb “to disguise” (‫ נכר‬hithpael) confirms the profile of Tamar as the feminine counterpart to Joseph insofar as she also is a person who, upon becoming ostracized by the family of Jacob, acts strategically to secure the family’s survival (Gen 38:25–30; cf. 42:7–8; 45:1–2, 4– 5). Judah is the nemesis whom these two figures have in common as he has a

8 See Corley, “Joseph as an Exemplar,” 157–78. 9 Friedman (The Bible with Sources, 92–118) presents the sources in the Joseph narrative (Gen 37–50).

Wisdom in Disguise and the Heroism of Widows

239

hand in alienating each of them from the clan. Judah persuades his brothers not to kill Joseph but to sell him as a slave. Judah subsequently bungles the payment of his pledge to Tamar, whom he relegates to the status of a harlot, and three months later, calls for her execution (Gen 37:26–27, 28b; cf. 38:16–23, 24). Hence, Judah saves Joseph from death but then decrees the death of Tamar. Tamar’s concern to adhere to legislation in the Torah accounts for her affinity with Ben Sira’s portrayal of Wisdom (viz., Sir 1:6; 24:12, 23). Tamar acts to preserve the family line of her husband Er and derivatively of his father Judah. Her behavior demonstrates allegiance to the levirate legislation, which required that, if a man died without leaving a male descendant, the brother of the deceased was responsible to produce a son by the deceased man’s widow (‫יבם‬, Deut 25:5, 7; cf. Gen 38:8).10 Her interactions with Judah are a response to his not having followed through on his promise that Shelah, his youngest son, would assume the duties of the levirate brother-in-law (38:11, 14b). In marked contrast to her prior docility to Judah’s commands, she springs into action upon hearing of Judah’s visit to her region following the death of his wife (38:1–12; cf., 38:13–26). She disguises herself by changing her clothes and her location. She exchanges her widow’s attire for a veil and relocates from her father’s house to a public intersection. She assumes the profile of a harlot and consents to Judah’s wishes precisely so that he would thereby fulfill the responsibilities of a levirate kinsman (38:16). She shrewdly secures his seal, cord, and staff as the identity markers of the man by whom she would become pregnant. Her disguise is so effective that no one can equate her persona with her person. Her comportment as the veiled woman at the crossroads prompts Judah to identify her as a harlot but not his daughter-in-law and his Adullamite friend to consider her as a temple prostitute. When her pregnancy becomes evident three months after she had revested in the garments of widowhood, the people who know her as Judah’s daughter-in-law accuse her of whoredom, and Judah summarily demands her execution at the hands of the local citizenry (cf. Deut 22:21, 24). Tamar’s community viewed her as a Canaanite, a harlot, and a pregnant widow without a husband. With this public profile, Tamar becomes the wisdom teacher of Judah and his clan. True to the thrust of the legislative tradition, as the condemned woman, Tamar has no voice (cf. Deut 22:13–21). Nevertheless, she produces the seal, the cord, and the staff that are unique to Judah in order to certify him to be the father of the children in her womb (Gen 38:25–26; cf.,

10 The narrative of Tamar and Judah reflects an earlier version of the Deuteronomic legislation on levirate marriage (Deut 25:5–10). The Yahwistic narrative gives no indication that Onan or Shelah were to marry Tamar or that she would inherit any property. See Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 52.

240

Michael W. Duggan

38:18). This evidence compels Judah to declare her uprightness and to acknowledge his fault for not having had his son Shelah carry out the requirements of the levirate law (38:25–26; cf. 38:11, 14b). The narrative ends with the note that Judah did not have subsequent relations with Tamar and gives no indication that Tamar entered into marriage after her sons were born (38:26–30). Apparently, she remained the widowed mother of twin sons. Tamar realized her goal of perpetuating the family line of her deceased husband in conformity with Israelite family law governing levirate relationships (Deut 25:5–10).11 In the process of doing so at the risk of her life, she heightened Judah’s self-awareness by awakening him to his wrongdoings. She put Judah through an ordeal, which was minimal in comparison to what he and the community had inflicted upon her. In doing so, she initiated Judah into an educative process which Joseph would have to continue. Whereas Tamar assumed the role of a harlot to disguise herself from Judah, Joseph avoided recognition by acting the part of the foreign overlord toward his brothers (Gen 42:7, ‫)ויתנכר‬.12 Tamar singlehandedly trapped Judah into having intercourse by speaking only a few words in private but Joseph dictated orders to his brothers, set traps for them with the assistance of his administrators, and had extensive conversations with them about family matters (Gen 38:16–18, 25– 26; cf. 42:6–25; 43:16–34; 44:14–34). Judah exercises a leading role in the Yahwistic narrative. He persuades Jacob to allow Benjamin to accompany him to Egypt and then pleads with Joseph not to take Benjamin into custody (43:1– 15; 44:14–34). Judah recounts the family history with recognition of his past wrongdoings. He begins with an ironic confession of deeds that have nothing to do with the silver cup: “How can we clear ourselves? God has found out the guilt of your servants …” (44:16). Being the person who had arranged for Joseph to be sold into slavery, he frames his words with an ironic request that he become the slave of Joseph in place of Benjamin (44:16, 33; cf. 37:26–27). He presumes Joseph to be dead and emphasizes the attendant grief that has set their father Jacob on the path to Sheol (44:20, 31). Judah’s confession prompts Joseph to make himself known to his brothers (45:4–8). Judah’s behavior represents an advance in his character development beyond what he had reflected in confessing that Tamar was more righteous than him only after she produced the evidence that saved her from the public execution he had authorized (Gen 38:25–26). The story of Judah reaches completion

11 This was not a levirate “marriage.” The relationship between Tamar and Judah was strictly aimed at the procreation of Er’s offspring (see Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 52). 12 Joseph’s recognition of his brothers and his concealing his identity from them is a statement in the E source. See Friedman The Bible with Sources, 102.

Wisdom in Disguise and the Heroism of Widows

241

when Jacob blesses him as the foremost among his sons and the patron of the hereditary line that would give rise to the Davidic monarchy (49:8–12). Tamar and Joseph had equipped Judah for such leadership by disguising themselves so as to educate him through testing. From an intertextual perspective, at one level, the Yahwist’s portrayal of Tamar may serve as an illustration of Ben Sira’s depiction of Wisdom disguising herself in order to initiate her student through ordeals that aim to enhance his self-awareness.13 Cultivating such self-understanding constitutes the subject matter of the sage’s instruction that follows his account of Wisdom’s teaching method (Sir 4:20–31). However, one can readily surmise why Ben Sira would not countenance Tamar as an exemplar of Wisdom. By presenting herself as a harlot on the byroad of her township, Tamar exhibits the demeanor of “the strange woman,” who is notorious in the book of Proverbs for seducing young men (‫זרה נכריה‬, Prov 2:16; 5:20; 6:24; 7:5; within 2:16–22; 5:3–23; 6:20–35; 7:1– 27).14 Such a woman reflects the demeanor of woman Folly, the antithesis of Woman Wisdom (9:13–18; cf. 1:20–33; 8:1–36; 9:1–6).15 Ben Sira explicitly warns his student not to draw near to a loose woman (‫אשׁה זרה‬, Sir 9:3). By inference, he supports legal sanctions against apparent marital transgressions (9:9; 23:21, 24; cf. Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). Nevertheless, within Hebrew Scripture, Tamar is celebrated as a widow who gave birth to twins, Perez and his brother Zerah (38:27–30). Tamar, being a Canaanite, provided the precedent for Ruth, the Moabite, who married Boaz according to all the prescriptions for a levirate marriage in the Deuteronomic Code (Ruth 4:1–11; cf. Deut 25:5–10). The townspeople declare their wish that she would follow Tamar’s precedent by extending the lineage of Perez in Bethlehem of Judah (4:12). Ruth gives birth to Obed, the grandfather of David. Hence the widows, who were foreigners, are integral to the royal line of David (Ruth 4:18–21).

3 Wisdom and Women in the Maccabean Revolt The abridgement of the five-volume work by Jason of Cyrene is the story of men who engage in armed conflict over the high priesthood at the temple and over 13 Segal’s retroversion of Sir 24:14a contains the words: Tamar (‫“ תמר‬palm tree”) and the place name En-gedi (‫ )עין גרי‬which recalls both Enaim (Gen 34:18) and the kid goat (38:17). I thank Jeremy Corley for this notation. 14 See Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 118–25. 15 Gregory, (“Appearance versus Reality,” 63) states, “… [Ben Sira] effectively takes the dynamic which characterized woman Folly in Proverbs and inverts it in order to characterize Woman Wisdom.”

242

Michael W. Duggan

control of Jerusalem and Judea on the battlefield (2:19–15:39). The abridger identifies by name sixty-four men and only one woman, Antiochis, the concubine of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (2 Macc 4:30).16 This numerical disproportion is indicative of his comparative lack of attentiveness to Jewish women throughout the narrative. He refers to widows and orphans in a traditional manner, as the intended recipients of funds at the temple during the high priestly reign of Onias III, and as numbering among the beneficiaries who received the spoils of war from Judas Maccabeus (3:10; 8:28–30). He infers the mores of a traditional society when he describes young women in seclusion and older women in public, grieving in solidarity with Onias III over Heliodorus’s determination to rob the temple treasury (3:18–21). He accentuates the violence of Antiochus’s attack on Jerusalem by summarily noting women and children either among his victims or among those he had sold into slavery (5:13, 24). The proscription of Judaism in Jerusalem culminates in his depiction of two mothers being paraded through the streets with their infants hung around their necks and then cast from the city walls (6:10). Within the complete story, the mother of the seven sons stands out as the only woman who speaks (7:22–23, 27–29). Nevertheless, her words are supremely important to the narrative for various reasons: (a) her profile as the afflicted mother of seven sons suggests that she is a metaphor for Jerusalem in desolation (cf. Jer 15:5, 8–9; Bar 4:5–29);17 (b) the episode is self-contained and represents the turning point from the era of divine wrath to the era of divine mercy (2 Macc 7:1–41; cf. 6:12–17; 7:38; 8:5); and (c) her address is the only discourse on creation in 2 Maccabees. This mother is an independent woman as neither she nor her sons mention her husband and their father. The family configuration reflects the conditions of a society in time of war (cf. 2 Macc 15:18). The circumstances suggest she is a widow whose husband had died in the conflict.18 Her courage and wisdom distinguish her as a woman of substance. Her intent on dying a noble death by virtue of adherence to the Jewish dietary laws makes her the female equivalent to Eleazar the scribe (7:1, 21; cf. 6:18, 28). He intended his death as a lesson to the youth and she instructs her sons in a manner that realizes his objective (6:27–28). Her theological eloquence surpasses that of both Eleazar and Razis, the distinguished elder statesman in Jerusalem who subsequently suffered a dramatic martyrdom (14:37–46). The seven brothers are the only characters in the complete narrative who address Antiochus IV Epiphanes in direct discourse. The narrator quotes their speeches but not a word from their

16 See Duggan, “The Family Measure,” 288–93. 17 Goldstein, II Maccabees, 295–301. 18 See Duggan, “The Family Measure,” 293–97.

Wisdom in Disguise and the Heroism of Widows

243

adversary as they condemn the king to everlasting death while expressing their hope for life beyond the grave.19 The mother says nothing to the king as she speaks only to the last of her sons prior to his execution and does so in Hebrew, thereby implying that Judaism rather than Hellenism is the source of her wisdom (7:21, 27; cf. 7:8). She gives theological substance to her sons’ assertions of a life after death in a fashion that suggests she had been their lifelong teacher in the ways of wisdom (7:9, 11, 14). Through an intertextual lens one may view her as Wisdom’s counterpart in the flesh and set her teaching in dialogue with Ben Sira’s. Her second discourse reinforces the first, in the wake of Antiochus’s intervening attempt to entice the young man to ignore his mother and to survive in the comforts of wealth and status as a friend of the king (7:22–23, 26–29; cf. 7:24–25).20 Both iterations of the mother’s teaching follow a three-part pattern in which she: (a) recounts her experience of conceiving and giving birth to her sons (7:22, 27b); (b) depicts the creation of the cosmos and humankind as the work of God alone (7:23a, 28); and (c) envisions God providing her son with life after death by virtue of his being executed on account of his adherence to Jewish law (7:23b, 29). Her connections with her sons in birth and death respectively envelope her descriptions of God’s creative actions in the world at large. She and her son share in common an outlook on the origins of the world and the human populace according to scriptural tradition. However, being a mother, she was intimately present at an event of creation, namely when God brought her son into existence over the course of nine months in her womb. Such consciousness of God’s creative action is not available to her son, or indeed, to any male (including the king). Her experience of her son originating in conception, gestation, and birth endowed her with a unique comprehension of how all reality came into existence. She indicates as much in both of her statements as she suggests that the creation of humankind and of the cosmos at large reflect a coherent divine action. In her initial instruction, she speaks of “the Creator of the world who shaped the origin of humankind and devised the origin of all things” (2 Macc 7:23a). In the subsequent presentation, after asserting that God did not make use of pre-existent matter when creating the cosmos, she states, “And in the same way the human race came into being” (7:28). Her personal experience confirms that as with the cosmos, so too with human beings, God acted alone: “I do not know how you surfaced in my womb. I did not endow you with life and breath, and I did not arrange the components in each

19 See Doran, 2 Maccabees, 164–66. 20 In the first instruction, she speaks of all of her sons and in the second, she focuses solely on the last one to be executed (7:22–23; cf. 7:27–29).

244

Michael W. Duggan

of you” (7:22). The mother’s statement echoes the assertion of Qoheleth that no one knows “… how the breath comes into the bones in the womb of one who is pregnant” (Qoh 11:5). The human inability to comprehend this hidden reality confirms the inscrutability of God’s actions for Qoheleth, whereas for the mother, it constitutes the basis for insight into God’s creative work. The mother goes on to disclose for her son the mystery, which she knows from experience but which had been hidden from him. Her instruction is comparable to Ben Sira’s depiction of Wisdom promising to “reveal her secrets” to the student who has endured the requisite trials (Sir 4:18b, ‫)וגליתי לו מסתרי‬. However, this time, the sources of the discipline are not Wisdom and the sage but the gentile king and his agents who desecrated the temple and mandated the killing of observant Jews (παιδεία 2 Macc 5:15–6:11; 6:12; 7:33; cf. Sir 4:17; 6:18; 23:2). Moreover, the mother’s wisdom about what is hidden from view pertains to her natural experience of childbirth and not to the “secrets” of otherworldly apocalyptic speculation such as Ben Sira had decried (Sir 3:20–24; 34:1– 8; cf. Dan 2:21–22). The birthing process provides common ground with the sage who identifies this experience with motherhood (cf. Sir 7:27; 19:11; 23:14; 50:22).21 The hidden wisdom, which the mother teaches her son, is that God acts alone in giving life to an individual and in creating the cosmos. Just as the Creator formed her sons in the womb without her advice and shaped the cosmos without using pre-existing matter, so God will give her sons life beyond death in an act of new creation. Language that alludes to YHWH forming the first human provides the connection between birth and death (2 Macc 7:21; cf. Gen 2:7).22 The “life and spirit,” which God gave to her sons from their conception in her womb to their birth, are the gifts she anticipates God giving them after death (τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὴν ζωὴν 7:21, 23b). However, the divine motivation distinguishes their re-creation from their original creation. The Creator, who acted without assistance or provocation in giving them life in the womb, will communicate life beyond death only in view of their having adhered to his commandments at the cost of their lives (7:23b). Their experience of life after death is God’s “merciful” response to their torah-inspired deaths (μετ᾽ ἐλέος 7:23b; ἐν τῷ ἐλέει 7:29).

21 For 50:22b-c, HB reads “[God] makes humans grow from the womb and works with them according to his will,” (‫)אלהי ישראל … המגדל אדם מרחם ויעשהו‬. 22 The creation text employs the terms πνοή ζωῆς and ψυχή ζῶσα (LXX Gen 2:7). The link with Gen 2:7 is confirmed by the fact that the wording of the Creator shaping humankind mirrors that of Lord’s activity in the creation narrative (2 Macc 7:23; LXX Gen 2:7). The word πνεῦμα reflects a traditional description of fetal development (see LXX and MT Eccl 11:5).

Wisdom in Disguise and the Heroism of Widows

245

Within this context, the mother refers to God as “the Creator of the world” (ὁ τοῦ κόσμου κτίστης). An alternative rendering of the Greek would be “the founder of the world,” since ὁ κτίστης primarily designates a regent who established a political territory (7:23; cf. 1:24; 13:14).23 As the founder of the cosmos, God stands in opposition to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the overlord of the comparatively meagre Seleucid Empire. Where Antiochus perpetrates the death of observant Jews, God will restore them to life beyond death in response to their adherence to his laws. Ben Sira’s reading of the Yahwist’s creation account differs markedly from that of the mother since he views it as confirming that physical death is the end of an individual’s existence (10:11; 14:16; 17:27–28; 38:21–22). In recalling Gen 2:7, the mother focuses on YHWH’s bestowal of “life and breath” whereas Ben Sira concentrates on the earth as defining the origin and destiny of every mortal human (2 Macc 7:23; cf. Sir 16:30; 17:1–2). He emphasizes the textual links between human composition and decomposition (Gen 2:7; cf. 3:19) and describes death as one’s “return to the earth,” as had Qoheleth whom, as we have noted, the mother contradicts (Sir: 40:11; Qoh 12:7; Ps 146:4). The mother’s assertions that God will bring her sons to life beyond death stand in marked contrast to Ben Sira’s proposition that physical death defines the end of an individual’s existence. Nevertheless, her thesis represents an expansion of principles that are central to Ben Sira. As the wisdom figure in 2 Maccabees, the mother reflects the intimate association between Wisdom, the temple, Jerusalem, and Torah in Ben Sira (Sir 24:8–12, 23–29). She expands the horizon of Ben Sira’s assertions that observance of God’s commandments sets a person on the path to life and away from death (15:15–20; cf. Deut 30:15–20). Moreover, she extends the impact of divine mercy – upon those whom God disciplines – to the afterlife (18:14). The mother expresses the conviction that portions of the Jewish community in Jerusalem gained through witnessing the execution of their most torahobservant members. The outbreaks of anti-Judaism in Alexandria prompted analogous reflections by Pseudo-Solomon in the late first century BCE. Like Ben Sira, he viewed Jewish law as the expression of personified wisdom in practice (Wis 6:17–20). He revised Middle Platonism by asserting that righteousness is the virtue that endows the soul with immortality (1:15). This premise constitutes the basis for his assertion that observant Jews who were the victims of antiSemitic violence share in the life of God beyond death (3:1–9). Their persecutors were the unwitting agents of a divine testing that served to refine the excellence

23 Schmitz, “Cosmos and Creation,” 44–45.

246

Michael W. Duggan

of their character (3:4–6; cf. 2:12, 17–20). Their adherence to Jewish law confirmed their allegiance to wisdom, which endowed them with immortality and thereby confirmed “the secret purposes of God” (2:22–24).

Conclusion Ben Sira’s scribal school crystallized the association of Wisdom with Torah at the temple in Jerusalem but did so without reference to the contribution that women made in shaping the history of Judah. An examination of the stories of Tamar and the mother who was martyred with her sons illustrates how the absence of female heroes limited his depiction of Woman Wisdom. The sage relates motherhood to the birthing process but does not exhibit insight that would derive from reflecting on that experience. Wisdom assumes the profile of an independent woman of stature and therefore is unable to match the courageous earthiness of either Tamar or the mother of the seven sons, each of whom is a widow who speaks in defiance of her impending death by execution. Wisdom disguises herself after the manner of Joseph who exercises authority over society and not like Tamar who is the strange woman on three counts, as a widow of Canaanite origin who is pregnant without a husband. The mother of the seven sons voices wisdom as it originates from the experience of the oppressed. The experiences of pregnancy and birth gave her the impetus for proposing that the Creator of the world would provide life beyond death to those who had adhered to Jewish law at the cost of their lives. As a woman without power in a man’s world, she viewed death from a perspective that differed radically from that of the sage.24

Bibliography Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Good and Bad Wives in the Book of Ben Sira: A Harmless Classification?” Pages 109–25 in The Writings and Later Wisdom Books. The Bible and Women. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 1.3. Edited by Christl M. Maier and Núria CalduchBenages. Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “La Sabiduría y la prueba en Sir 4, 11–19.” EstBib 49 (1991): 25–48.

24 I express my gratitude to Dr. Jeremy Corley whom I consulted throughout the process of researching and writing this paper. He greatly enhanced my understanding of Ben Sira and made invaluable editorial suggestions.

Wisdom in Disguise and the Heroism of Widows

247

Calduch-Benages, Núria. “The Absence of Named Women for Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors.” Pages 301–17 in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Trial Motif in the Book of Ben Sira with Special Reference to Sir 2, 1–6.” Pages 137–51 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands. Edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997. Corley, Jeremy. “Joseph as Exemplar of Wisdom: A Hidden Allusion in Sirach 21:11–21.” Pages 157–78 in The Temple in Text and Tradition: Festschrift for C. T. R. Hayward. Edited by Timothy McLay. LSTS 83. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Sirach 10.19–11.6: Textual Criticism, Poetic Analysis, and Exegesis.” Pages 157–64 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Edited by Carol L. Meyers and Michael P. O’Connor. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1982. Doran, Robert. 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Duggan, Michael W. “The Family Measure in 2 Maccabees: A Mother and her Seven Sons (2 Macc 7:1–42).” Pages 283–99 in Family and Kinship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. DCLY 2012/2013. Edited by Angelo Passaro. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB18 A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Bible with Sources Revealed. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. Goldstein, Jonathan. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 41A. New York: Doubleday, 1984. Gregory, Bradley C. “Appearance versus Reality and the Personification of Wisdom: Ben Sira’s Place in the Early Sapiential Jewish Tradition.” Pages 56–73 in Sirach and Its Contexts: The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing. Edited by Samuel Adams, Greg Goering, and Matthew J. Goff. JSJSupp 196. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Schmitz, Barbara. “Does κτίστης Mean “Creator”? The Lexeme κτι- and Its Implications in the Greek-Hellenistic Context.” Pages 35–53 in Cosmos and Creation: Second Temple Perspectives. Edited by Michael W. Duggan, Renate Egger-Wenzel, and Stefan Reif. DCLY 2019. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020. Segal, Moshe Z. Sefer ben Sira ha-shalem. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 37–50: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986.

Barbara Schmitz

Path Dependence and Institutional Change: The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests in 1 Maccabees Abstract: Unlike Sirach in its encomium on the high priest Simon (Sir 50), 1 Maccabees does not describe an ideal high priesthood. It describes rather how the institution of the high priesthood is used for various political interests. Alcimus is portrayed as a particularly “impious” high priest whereas Jonathan’s ascent to the high priesthood is presented as legitimate. This essay examines above all the rise of the two high priests and the way their rise is narratively presented. The different narrative strategies that serve to delegitimize or legitimize the office of the high priest in 1 Maccabees are analyzed via the concept of path dependence, a concept that originates in the social sciences. Ben Sira may have been a part of the path dependence that offers a Traditiongeschichte which may have helped legitimize the Hasmonean high priesthood. Keywords: 1 Macc 7:1–25, 1 Macc 7:17, Ps 78LXX, path dependence, Hasmonean high priesthood, Alcimus, Jonathan, 1 Macc 10:18–21

How glorious was he as he went round in the temple And as he went out of the house of the veil. As the morning star in the midst of the clouds, As the full moon during the festal days. (Sir 50:5‒6)1

In the encomium in Sir 50, the high priest Simon is praised for the glorious way he carries out his cultic acts and for the liturgical complex as a whole. This Simon, likely the high priest Simon II (ca. 215‒196 BCE),2 carries out his role as high priest in exemplary fashion. Simon II joins a long and ancient tradition of high priests in the Jerusalem temple. In pre-exilic Israel, the chief priest of the Jerusalem temple was subordinate to the king, who was also regarded as sacred and who appointed the high

1 The translation is from Mulder, Simon the High Priest. Unless otherwise indicated, the translation of the texts is from NETS. 2 See on this issue Mulder, Simon the High Priest, 344‒54. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 147‒57, takes a different position. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-017

250

Barbara Schmitz

priest (cf. 1 Kgs 2:35). Judean kingship did not survive the loss of statehood, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, and the exile but the office of high priest in the Jerusalem temple did. Under the rule of the Persians, Ptolemies, Seleucids, and Romans, the office of high priest was able to maintain itself until the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the first century CE. Taking into account only the post-exilic period, the history of the high priesthood in Jerusalem spans a good 600 years. The first half of the second century BCE was a very turbulent time for the high priesthood and the Jerusalem elite. Three partially overlapping issues can be identified in the sources: Seleucid sovereignty beginning in the second century BCE with the associated administrative changes, including the way the high priesthood was awarded; the issue of “reforms” in Jerusalem; and the special challenges faced by the Jerusalem cult during the reign of Antiochus IV. The Maccabees and their movement arose in opposition to these changes; they took up armed struggle against the new elites and, with the rededication of the Jerusalem temple, the Maccabees were successful (1 Macc 4:36–61, 164 BCE). Interestingly, the struggle did not end with this success but continued until, ten years later, one of the Maccabean brothers, Jonathan, was appointed high priest in Jerusalem by the Seleucid king Alexander Balas (1 Macc 10:18–20). The Maccabean family’s path from opposition to the Seleucids and their allies in the high priesthood and the Jerusalem elite to cooperation and collaboration with the Seleucids was relatively short. In this contribution, I analyze from a narratological perspective the literary presentation of the rise of Alcimus, the high priest before Jonathan, and of Jonathan himself.3 The presentation of the two figures or characters4 in 1 Maccabees reflects the later perspective of established Hasmonean rule. Looking back, probably from the time of John Hyrcanus (135‒105 BCE), 1 Maccabees tells the story from a pro-Hasmonean perspective in such a way that the evolution of the Maccabees into the high priestly ruling family appears plausible and inevitable. The decisive step towards their dominance was the high priesthood. Because the institution of the high priesthood plays a key role here, I analyze the process using the concept of path dependence. The concept comes from the social sciences and is used especially in policy research to examine the importance, stability, and potential changeability of institutions.

3 The seven-year vacancy in the high priesthood is ignored in 1 Maccabees. Only from 1 Macc 10:38 is it possible to conclude that there could have been a high priest at the time. See the discussion in Bernhardt, Die jüdische Revolution, 379‒82. 4 The term “character” refers to a figure in the story world, not to a historical person.

The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests

251

1 The Concept of Path Dependence The concept of path dependence was first proposed by W. Brian Arthur, an economist and econometrician, and Paul A. David, an economic historian. They observed that once a particular path has been chosen, there is so much resistance to change that the path continues. The QWERTY keyboard and its arrangement of letters is widely known as an example of this process: this keyboard is still in use today even though there are more efficient arrangements of the letters. This example is a good illustration of what “path dependence” means: a path chosen for particular reasons – at the time, the technical requirements of typewriters – has become so firmly established that the increasing returns5 are built in and there is therefore no obvious alternative. One speaks then of a lockin. The stability of a path is typically the result of a recognizable core of identity that is constitutive of the given path and defines it. Path-dependent processes have therefore a high degree of self-reinforcement.6 And because of this stability, deviations from the path or a change of path often appear to be virtually impossible. The high priesthood in Jerusalem, with its long history going back to pre-exilic times, shows a high degree of path dependence. The concept of path dependence was taken up by Douglass North and others to study the history of institutions7 because it makes systematic conclusions about the stability and transformation of institutions possible.8 Their historicity becomes clear: decisions made in the past and ways of thinking that have become natural and routines all have an effect on the present.9 Path dependence thus narrows the range of alternative courses of action or changes and thereby influences the future direction of development in a decisive way.10 It is true of institutions as well that the path taken does not have to be the most efficient, the best or the most sensible; the decisive factor is rather that following the path offers greater increasing returns than a change. “Path dependence characterizes specifically those historical sequences in which contingent events set into motion institutional patterns or event chains that have deterministic

5 Cf. Pierson, Increasing Returns, 251‒67; Beyer, “Pfadabhängigkeit,” 146–56. Lauth, “Pfadabhängigkeit,” forthcoming. 6 Cf. Beyer, “Pfadabhängigkeit,” 149‒50. 7 Cf. Steinmo, “Historical Institutionalism,” 118‒38. 8 North, Institutions. Cf. Thelen, “Historical Institutionalism,” 369‒404. Orban, Sauermann and Trampusch, “Varianten des Institutionalismus,” 122‒25. 9 Cf. Mahoney, “Path Dependence,” 507‒508; Beyer, “Pfadabhängigkeit,” 6. 10 Cf. Werle, “Pfadabhängigkeit,” 122‒25.

252

Barbara Schmitz

properties.”11 Path dependence can thus be defined as a process of relatively continuous or incremental development determined by the past. But institutions do change for a variety of reasons. This was true also for the high priesthood over its long history. North stresses, however, that institutional changes occur only gradually: institutional change takes place incrementally in a process initiated by actors as well as by organizations. James Mahoney has worked out the mental models for these changes and which models are determined by the past.12 Wolfgang Streeck and Kathleen Thelen have taken up Mahoney’s work and have identified five different types of gradual transformation for the phenomenon of institutional change.13 One of these types, which is particularly interesting for the institutional changes in the high priesthood among the Hasmoneans, they call “conversion,” which “can come about through changes in power relations, such that actors who were not involved in the original design of an institution and whose participation in it may not have been reckoned with, take it over and turn it to new ends. Here, too, there are elements of stability and even lock-in. However, whereas conventional increasing returns arguments point to a dynamic in which actors adapt their strategies to existing institutions, conversion works the other way around: existing institutions are adapted to serve new goals or fit the interests of new actors. … Such redirection may come about as a result of new environmental challenges, to which policymakers respond by deploying existing institutional resources to new ends.”14 In this regard, this essay posits the thesis that the changes that take place in the high priesthood in the second century BCE under Hasmonean rule can be described as conversion within the framework of institutional change. I will demonstrate this by analyzing the narrative staging of the ascent of Alcimus and Jonathan to the office of the high priesthood.

2 The Appointment of Alcimus and His First Steps as High Priest (1 Macc 7:1–25) In the account in 1 Maccabees, Alcimus is the only high priest mentioned apart from Jonathan and Simon. 1 Maccabees mentions two stories about Alcimus:

11 12 13 14

Mahoney, “Path Dependence,” 517; cf. Beyer, “Pfadabhängigkeit,” 150. Mahoney, “Path Dependence,” 517; cf. Beyer, “Pfadabhängigkeit,” 11‒13, 18. Streeck and Thelen, Beyond Continuity, 19‒30. Cf. Beyer, “Pfadabhängigkeit,” 153‒56. Streeck and Thelen, Beyond Continuity, 26‒29.

The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests

253

one about Alcimus’s appointment and his first acts (1 Macc 7:1–25) and the second describes his end (1 Macc 9:54, 55–57). The story of his beginnings in office can be divided into three sections: 1 Macc 7:1–4 describes how Demetrius comes from Rome and assumes kingship over the Seleucid empire. Next 1 Macc 7:5–7 describes how a delegation from Israel led by Alcimus comes to the new king with grievances against Judas. Finally, 1 Macc 7:8–25 tells how Demetrius tries to resolve the situation. The third section is framed by the reference back to 1 Macc 7:9 in 1 Macc 7:25. The third and longest section can in turn be divided into five parts (1 Macc 7:8–9, 10–11, 12–18, 19–20, 21–25): first, King Demetrius gives Bacchides command of the military forces, names (ἔστησαν)15 Alcimus as high priest (1 Macc 7:8–9), and sends the two of them to Judea (1 Macc 7:10–11). Then there is a digression in the narrative describing the peaceful intentions of the Hasideans and their treacherous killing (1 Macc 7:12–18). This digression is especially interesting because it is not mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 12:389– 401). Finally, the actions taken by Bacchides (1 Macc 7:19–20) and Alcimus (1 Macc 7:21–25) are reported. The narrative concludes with 1 Macc 7:25: the unsuccessful Alcimus returns to the king (1 Macc 7:9). In the account in 1 Maccabees, Alcimus leads a delegation from Israel (I Macc 7:5–7)16 after the coup by Demetrius I and his ascent to the Seleucid throne. This delegation is portrayed negatively in two ways: first, the participants are portrayed as “lawless and impious men” (πάντες ἄνδρες ἄνομοι καὶ ἀσεβεῖς; 1 Macc 7:5) and a little later, the evaluation “impious” is again used of Alcimus (1 Macc 7:9). This evaluation is interesting inasmuch as the terms “lawless” (ἄνομος) and “impious” (ἀσεβής) are used in 1 Maccabees in order to portray negatively those in Israel who represent a position different from that of the Maccabees. It is found repeatedly in 1 Maccabees in poetic texts and speeches in which the intent of the story is especially concentrated (ἄνομος in 1 Macc 2:44, 3:5‒6, 20 and ἀσεβής in 1 Macc 3:8; see also 3:15, 6:21). The same narrative construction is repeated when Jonathan takes over the leadership of the Maccabean movement after Judas’s death: Here, too, the “lawless” appear in opposition to Jonathan (ἄνομος in 1 Macc 9:23, 58, cf. 9:69; and ἀσεβής in 9:25, cf. 9:73). In addition, the difference between the narrative text and the speech text serves to portray Alcimus negatively: in his speech before the king, Alcimus

15 Babota assumes that 1 Macc 7:9 refers to Alcimus’s confirmation in the office of high priest (Babota, The Institution, 90). 16 For the historical reconstruction of the beginning of Alcimus’s time in office, see Bernhardt, Die jüdische Revolution, 594‒601.

254

Barbara Schmitz

accuses Judas and calls on the king to take action against Judas but his direct speech is introduced by the comment that Alcimus was actually only interested in taking over the high priesthood in Jerusalem himself (βουλόμενος ἱερατεύειν 1 Macc 7:5).17 The very negative portrayal of Alcimus and his delegation continues in the narrative that follows, especially in the digression concerning the Hasideans (1 Macc 7:12–18).18 In the digression it is mentioned that the king had instructed Bacchides and Alcimus to take vengeance on Judas and his brothers (1 Macc 7:9). They undertake their assignment treacherously and with cunning; they approach Judas and his brothers with peaceful words (1 Macc 7:10) but the latter see through their treacherous plan and pay no attention (1 Macc 7:11). The Hasideans, however, respond differently. The group of Hasideans, who had earlier been allies of the Maccabees (1 Macc 2:42), are the first to respond to Alcimus’s offer, hoping for genuine peace (1 Macc 7:13). They believe Alcimus and trust him (ἐμπιστεύω 1 Macc 7:16), a trust expressed in direct speech because he is descended from the line of Aaron (Ἄνθρωπος ἱερεὺς ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ἀαρών, 1 Macc 7:14). For the Hasideans, a descendent of Aaron and the high priest, whoever he may be, cannot have evil intentions. In the narrative presentation, two levels of knowledge are at play: that of the readers, who have been fully informed of the characters’ intentions, and that of the characters. Whereas the readers know exactly what the intentions of Alcimus and Bacchides are, the characters do not. They must rely on their political astuteness for their assessment of the situation. Because of their privileged position, readers agree with Judas and his men, whereas the Hasideans are presented to readers as naïve. Judas and his brothers for their part have a criterion for judging the situation: they immediately recognize the unspoken intentions of Alcimus and Bacchides from the fact that they have come to Judah with a large army (ἦλθον μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς 1 Macc 7:10, 11). Although the Hasideans see this also (ἦλθεν ἐν ταῖς δυνάμεσι 1 Macc 7:14), they interpret matters differently. In other words, both groups observe the same facts but draw very different conclusions from them. That Judas and his brothers have judged correctly becomes clear from the action that follows: Alcimus lulls the Hasideans into a false sense of security and then kills 60 of them (1 Macc 7:16).

17 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 330. 18 On the Hasideans, cf. Davies, “Hasidim,” 127‒40; Kampen, The Hasideans; Schwartz, “Hasidim,” 7‒18.

The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests

255

In the narrative text, this murder is interpreted via the citation of Ps 78:2– 3LXX, one of the few scriptural citations in 1 Macc, which is even marked as direct speech:19 17

Κρέας ὁσίων σου καὶ αἷμα αὐτῶν ἐξέχεαν κύκλῳ Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς ὁ θάπτων.

17

“The flesh of your holy ones and their blood they poured out around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them.”

Intertextual insertions can be read on several different levels. The first level is the immediate context in which the inserted text has been placed. If one reads 1 Macc 7:17 in the context of 1 Macc 7:1–25, the subject of the third person plural (ἐξέχεαν “they poured out”) is initially open because in 1 Macc 7:14–15 (unlike in 1 Macc 7:12–13, where Alcimus and Bacchides are named together) only Alcimus is the subject and Alcimus alone is named as the actor responsible for the killing of the Hasideans (1 Macc 7:16: συνέλαβεν/ἀπέκτεινεν). The expression “the flesh of your holy ones and their blood” (κρέας ὁσίων σου καὶ αἷμα αὐτῶν) must therefore refer to the Hasideans, in other words, the Hasideans are presented as the “holy ones” and Alcimus as their murderer. The second level is the cited text itself. Ps 78LXX is a communal lament addressing the desecration of the Jerusalem temple and the violence against the people of Jerusalem. Since neither the Hebrew nor the Greek version makes explicit reference to the events of 587 BCE and both speak only of the desecration of the Jerusalem temple (‫טמא‬/μιαίνω) and not its destruction, it has been suggested that the context of the Psalm is not 587 BCE but rather later events in the Persian era. Erich Zenger has noted that Ps 79:1MT is an implicit citation of Mi 3:12 (cf. Jer 26:18) and therefore the psalm is likely from the fifth or fourth century BCE. The descriptions in the Psalm were inspired by the events of 587 BCE but are formulated in such a way as to remain open for later use and adaptation.20 This is supported also by the many references to the book of Jeremiah.21 Various formulations from Ps 78:2–3LXX are taken up in 1 Macc 7:17 and the function of these citations cannot be restricted to the cited texts. Rather, in the case of intertextual reception it is not only the cited text itself that is important but the entire context of the citation is relevant as well.

19 On the question of whether Alcimus wrote Ps 79, cf. Goldstein, I Maccabees, 332‒36; Scolnic, Alcimus, 159‒61. On the introduction, cf. Doran, “Emending 1 Macc,” 261‒62. 20 Hossfeld/Zenger, Psalmen 101‒150, 446‒47. On Ps 78LXX. Ps 79 and its reception in 1 Macc, cf. Schnocks, Ps 79, 147‒160. 21 To be mentioned here are Ps 79:2MT, cf. Jer 7:33, 16:4, 34:20; cf. Hossfeld/Zenger, Psalmen 101‒150, 447, 449.

256

Barbara Schmitz

Ps 78 Ὁ θεός, ἤλθοσαν ἔθνη εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν σου, ἐμίαναν τὸν ναὸν τὸν ἅγιόν σου, ἔθεντο Ιερουσαλημ εἰς ὀπωροφυλάκιον. 2 ἔθεντο τὰ θνησιμαῖα τῶν δούλων σου βρώματα τοῖς πετεινοῖς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὰς σάρκας τῶν ὁσίων σου τοῖς θηρίοις τῆς γῆς· 3 ἐξέχεαν τὸ αἷμα αὐτῶν ὡς ὕδωρ κύκλῳ Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ οὐκ ἦν ὁ θάπτων. 1

1 O God, nations came into your inheritance; they defiled your holy shrine; they made Ierousalem into a gardenwatcher’s hut. 2 They placed the carcasses of your slaves as food for the birds of the air, the flesh of your devout for the wild animals of the earth. 3 They poured out their blood like water all around Ierousalem, and there was no one to bury. 4 4 ἐγενήθημεν ὄνειδος τοῖς γείτοσιν ἡμῶν, We became a reproach to our neighbors, μυκτηρισμὸς καὶ χλευασμὸς τοῖς κύκλῳ ἡμῶν. mockery and derision to those around us. 5 5 ἕως πότε, κύριε, ὀργισθήσῃ εἰς τέλος, How long, O Lord, will you be utterly angry, ἐκκαυθήσεται ὡς πῦρ ὁ ζῆλός σου; will your jealousy burn like fire?

In the case of Ps 78:2–3LXX in 1 Macc 7:17, this means that the context of Ps 78:2– 3LXX must also be read. The subject in Ps 78:2–3LXX are the “nations” named in the first verse (ἔθνη Ps 78:1LXX), which intrude into God’s inheritance, desecrate the temple, and turn Jerusalem into a gardener’s hut (εἰς ὀπωροφυλάκιον).22 This means that the narrative voice in 1 Macc 7:17 interprets the legitimate Aaronide high priest Alcimus as the “nations” who have intruded into God’s inheritance, desecrated the temple, and fundamentally transformed Jerusalem. The “pious,” on the other hand, who in Ps 78LXX refer to Israel in general, are connected in 1 Macc 7:17 exclusively with the Hasideans.23 Thereby 1 Macc 7:17 not only fills the text cited from Ps 78:2–3LXX with new meaning, it also develops other levels of meaning through its intertextual reference to Ps 78LXX as a whole. Against the background of Ps 78LXX the high priest Alcimus is depicted not only as the one who destroys the Hasideans but also as the destroyer of Jerusalem and the temple. Disguised as a citation from the Bible, this is a massive reproach against the legitimate high priest in Jerusalem. Against the background of Ps 78LXX, the presentation in 1 Macc 7:17 provokes the question posed in Ps 78:5LXX: “For how long yet?” (ἕως πότε, κύριε). The negative portrayal of Alcimus by means of the ‘nations’ motif continues in 1 Macc 7. The immediate reaction described is that the “whole people” recognize that an oath has been broken and that there is no truth or judgment

22 The ‫ים‬ in Ps 79:1MT becomes ὀπωροφυλάκιον; cf. Seeligman, Septuagint Version, 227; Cordes, Asafpsalmen, 164‒75. 23 van der Kooij, “Septuagint of Psalms,” 232‒38 concludes therefore that the translator of the Psalms was close to Maccabean circles.

The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests

257

(ἀλήθεια καὶ κρίσις) in Alcimus and Bacchides (1 Macc 7:18). What is striking about the portrayal is that in the formulation “the whole people,” there is the insinuation that this insight is shared by all in Israel, whereas a few verses later, 1 Macc 7:22, 23 speaks of the followers of Alcimus in Israel. In other words, the narrator presents the followers of the Maccabees as the only true people (cf. 1 Macc 3:23, 4:14‒15, 34, 6:24), whereas the rest are excluded from Israel and are thereby implicitly regarded as not-Israel. This fits with the portrayal of Alcimus as a “Babylonian” (1 Macc 7:17 cf. Ps 78:1LXX). The ‘nations’ motif appears once more in 1 Macc 7:23, where Alcimus is again judged from Judas’s point of view (“Judas saw …” εἶδεν Ἰούδας): the deeds of Alcimus and his followers are worse than the deeds of the peoples (1 Macc 7:23). From Judas’s perspective, the verdict previously reached (Alcimus is a “Babylonian”) is once more surpassed. This legitimizes the guerilla attacks of the Maccabees against the Aaronide high priest.24 When Alcimus is first introduced (1 Macc 7:1–25), the narrative voice is significant. Through the representation of perspective and focalization as well as the inclusion of direct speech and poetic texts the narrative voice powerfully stages the negative portrayal of Alcimus. The digression concerning the Hasideans (1 Macc 7:12–18) proves to be a special element of this strategy. The Hasideans, portrayed as naïve, trust Alcimus because he is a priest from the lineage of Aaron (ἱερεὺς ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ἀαρών) and because a high priest from the house of Aaron does no wrong (καὶ οὐκ ἀδικήσει ἡμᾶς 1 Macc 7:14), they find it inconceivable that Alcimus can do wrong. This means that they have confidence in the traditionally chosen and proven path. Interestingly, 1 Maccabees takes this traditional, path-dependent view of the high priesthood to its limits: in 1 Macc 7:12–18, it proves to be short-sighted, deadly even. Whereas the figure of Alcimus is disavowed in the frame narrative (1 Macc 7:1–25), in the inner narrative, the traditional, path-dependent interpretation of the high priesthood is undermined. A lineage from the house of Aaron is no guarantee that a high priest will exercise the office in a good and just way.

3 Jonathan’s Path to the High Priesthood After Judas’s death (1 Macc 9:20–22), a new section of 1 Maccabees dealing with Jonathan begins (1 Macc 9:23‒12:53). We are first told how Jonathan takes over the leadership of the Maccabean movement. The “friends of Judas” (1 Macc 9:28)

24 So also Babota, The Institution, 117.

258

Barbara Schmitz

approach Jonathan with the request that he lead the movement in place of Judas as leader and general (εἰς ἄρχοντα καὶ ἡγούμενον τοῦ πολεμῆσαι τὸν πόλεμον ἡμῶν, 1 Macc 9:30, cf. 9:31).25 The stories that follow (1 Macc 9:23–31, 9:32–49, 9:50–53, 9:54–57, 9:58–73) deal with the battles on the one hand with the Seleucid general and “friend of the king”26 Bacchides and, on the other, with other local groups in Judah, which are again described in 1 Maccabees as “lawless” (ἄνομος) and “impious” (ἀσεβής). Jonathan is portrayed as someone who takes on not only the internal and local opposition but also the Seleucids. The last narrative section (1 Macc 9:58–73) in this sequence adds another facet to the portrait of Jonathan, which has until now had strong military character: Jonathan enters into negotiations with the Seleucids for the first time (1 Macc 9:20–72). A truce is negotiated with the Seleucids and there is an exchange of prisoners. Jonathan is portrayed as a diplomat, strategist, and negotiator who recognizes political opportunities and takes advantage of them. The conclusion of this section is a ‘happy ending’ (1 Macc 9:73): 73

καὶ κατέπαυσε ῥομφαία ἐξ Ισραηλ, καὶ ᾤκησεν Ιωναθαν ἐν Μαχμας· καὶ ἤρξατο Ιωναθαν κρίνειν τὸν λαὸν καὶ ἠφάνισε τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς ἐξ Ισραηλ.

73

And the sword ceased from Israel, and Ionathan lived in Machmas and began to judge the people and removed the impious from Israel.

Here the narrative voice, as so often in 1 Maccabees, turns to archaizing and poetic language27 and describes an idealized situation, thanks to Jonathan. The enemy has been overcome, the people live in peace, and the impious have been driven out. Like Saul (1 Sam 13:2), in an idyll that recalls Isa 2:4,28 Jonathan judges his “people” (laos), bringing to mind the time of the judges in the early years of Israel.29 The narrator paints a picture in which Jonathan has assumed political leadership, as announced in Isa 1:26.30 The challenge was before him and he successfully completed it without an office. In 1 Macc 10:1, there is a change of perspective. Instead of the local conditions in Judah, the scene shifts to the political situation in the Seleucid empire (1 Macc 10:1–14). Alexander Balas prevails against the former king Demetrius I (1 Macc 10:1–2). 1 Maccabees describes the events in such a way that due to

25 26 27 28 29 30

Cf. Goldstein, I Maccabees, 377. Cf. 1 Macc 7:8. Cf. Neuhaus, Studien zu den poetischen Stücken. See Doran, “First Maccabees,” 119. See Bartlett, Maccabees, 127. Goldstein, I Maccabees, 395.

The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests

259

the changed political situation, Demetrius comes to Jonathan in order to win him as an ally against his rival Alexander Balas (1 Macc 10:4‒5). Demetrius makes concessions to Jonathan and formally endows him with military authority: “And he gave him authority to muster forces and to prepare weapons and to be his ally; he also said for the hostages in the citadel to be turned over to him” (1 Macc 10:6). The public reading of Demetrius’s letter results not only in the release of hostages but the Akra in Jerusalem is handed over to Jonathan as well and he makes it his residence (1 Macc 10:7–10). Like King David (2 Sam 5:9–19), Jonathan moves to Jerusalem and rebuilds the city and its fortifications. In other words, the politically important move from Michmash to Jerusalem and the takeover of the city with the Akra is described not as a gain in power sought by Jonathan but as an event initiated from outside by the Seleucids. Jonathan takes advantage of the opportunity and becomes the local power holder in Jerusalem. The change of perspective associated with the changed political situation continues (1 Macc 10:15–21). Again, it is the Seleucid side, now Alexander Balas, that takes the initiative. The narrator hints that the letter from Alexander Balas to Jonathan is motivated not only by the competition with Demetrius but even more because he has heard of Jonathan’s “heroic deeds” (ἀνδραγαθία) and wars (πόλεμος) (1 Macc 10:15). Heroic deeds and wars are the two words the narrator uses in 1 Maccabees to disparage or praise characters. Characters who belong to the Maccabean family and want to perform heroic deeds on their own initiative are portrayed negatively (Joseph and Azarias in 1 Macc 5:56 and some priests in 1 Macc 5:67). But this pair of words is also used to mark the members of the Maccabean family. Jonathan’s fame reached Alexander Balas in 1 Macc 10:15, and this was already the case with Judas’s fame and the Romans (1 Macc 8:2). The narrator chooses these words in his formulaic expression, reminiscent of the royal formula in the books of Kings, to praise Judas (1 Macc 9:22) and John (Hyrcanus) (1 Macc 16:23). The portrayal of Alexander Balas’s initiative is thus to a large extent dominated by the narrator’s voice. In the letter that follows (1 Macc 10:18–20), Alexander Balas appoints Jonathan as high priest and also names him as a “king’s friend.” This double investiture makes Jonathan a legitimate local power holder recognized by the Seleucids. In the case of Jerusalem, the power holder is the local high priest; since the Persian period, the government of Judah has been structured around the temple in Jerusalem and the high priest there. Appointment to the highest local office means also entry into the Seleucid court hierarchy as “friend of the king.”31

31 Cf. Bickerman, Institutions des Séleucides, 40‒46.

260

Barbara Schmitz

Appended to the letter is the narrator’s comment that the king also sent Jonathan a purple robe and a golden crown. This narrative comment in the letter is not confirmed at any point in the text, 1 Maccabees does not mention that Jonathan wore the purple robe and the crown.32 The reason for this is just as clear in the letter: Seleucid interests and friendship are to be preserved (1 Macc 10:20). The narrator presents the appointment of Jonathan as high priest as if this had been done for Jonathan by the Seleucids and strikingly refrains from any evaluative comment. The non-Zadokite Jonathan is then invested during the Festival of Booths in 152 BCE; the investiture is described as “putting on the holy vestments” (1 Macc 10:21).33 The use of “holy vestments” (ἡ ἅγια στολή) in 1 Macc 10:21 alludes to the similar formulation in Ex 28:2, 3, 4LXX (cf. Ex 29:29; 35:19, 36:8, 39:12, 18, 40:13LXX; Lev 16:23, 24, 32LXX; Sir 45:19LXX),34 where the vestments are explicitly connected with Aaron. Jonathan is thereby clearly inserted into the Aaronide tradition; the “holy vestments” make him Aaron’s successor. But there is no indication that Jonathan carried out any ritual acts. Instead, he immediately begins to recruit troops and prepare weapons (1 Macc 10:21 cf. Demetrius’s concessions in 10:6). Jonathan is portrayed as a high priest not in terms of his cultic functions. Rather, the high priesthood is interpreted and portrayed in terms of its military and political functions. In the stories that follow in 1 Maccabees, Jonathan does not carry out any cultic functions. The new political situation, in which Jonathan is established as sole local authority making him the de facto “head of the nation” and “privileged dynast,”35 is the result of the new geopolitical events. This is how 1 Maccabees describes the rise of Jonathan. That Jonathan has this new position because he is a friend and ally (1 Macc 10:16) is made clear by the narrator in the way we have come to expect. The narrative of Jonathan’s rise is embedded in the story that has already been told about Jonathan: he first became the military leader of the Maccabean movement at the request of the friends of Judas and in continuity with his brother. He was then a successful leader, skilled negotiator, and diplomat and finally became a legitimate local power holder. The ascent into office is thus staged narratively as a window of opportunity.36 It was not Jona-

32 Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, 214. 33 Cf. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 33. 34 In most instances, ἡ ἅγια στολή is not a translation of ‫יל‬ (so Tilly, 1 Makkabäer, 215), but of ‫ש‬‫י־‬. 35 So Goldstein, I Maccabees, 399‒400. 36 The definition of “windows of opportunity” in the context of path dependence is as follows: “Ein Window of Opportunity ermöglicht gleichfalls die Fortführung eines Pfades zu prüfen. Wandel und Wechsel sind möglich. Im Unterschied zu Critical Junctures sind dabei keine

The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests

261

than himself who sought the highest office in Jerusalem, which would have required cooperation with the Seleucids; it was imposed on him by the Seleucids. Nevertheless, the narrator is careful to avoid leaving the impression that Jonathan himself on his own initiative or because of his desire for power sought or negotiated for the position as high priest. In this regard, he is carefully differentiated from Alcimus, his predecessor and the only other high priest mentioned in 1 Maccabees. In the case of Alcimus, the narrator describes how Alcimus together with a delegation went to the Seleucid king because he wanted to become high priest (1 Macc 7:5) and was then installed as high priest by the Seleucid King Demetrius (1 Macc 7:9). Jonathan, like Alcimus before him, naturally has to cooperate with the Seleucid court and can only act within the bounds permitted him. With the Seleucid appointment of Jonathan as high priest (and later of Simon), the Maccabees took a decisive step from opposition and armed struggle against the Seleucids to becoming local power holders recognized and legitimized by the Seleucids. It is noteworthy that 1 Maccabees depicts this astonishing change matter-of-factly and at the same time tries to depict it as an almost ‘natural’ step. Functionally, the high priesthood of Jonathan is in no way different from that of Alcimus: both were installed in office by the Seleucids and both were duty-bound to be loyal to the Seleucids. The evaluations in 1 Maccabees could not be more opposed, however. It is precisely this fact about 1 Maccabees that needs to be explained. As 1 Maccabees tells the story, Jonathan is appointed high priest in Jerusalem by the Seleucid king Alexander Balas and elevated to the rank of “friend of the king” (1 Macc 10:18–20). This turn of events is astonishing, since the Maccabees had initially set out to combat what they saw as problematic developments directed against the rededicated Jerusalem Temple, including inappropriate appointments to the high priesthood by the Seleucids. In other words, they opposed Seleucid overlordship in general. The pro-Hasmonean 1 Maccabees has to justify retrospectively how the struggle against the Seleucids turned into cooperation and collaboration with the Seleucids. In Jerusalem tradition, however, cooperation and collaboration with the Seleucid court takes place because of path dependence through the office of the high priest. Institutionally, the path to power led only through the office of the

Krisen oder externe Anstöße notwendig. Es eröffnen sich vielmehr durch unvorhersehbare Ereignisse neue Handlungsräume oder situative Möglichkeiten,” (Lauth, “Pfadabhängigkeit,” forthcoming).

262

Barbara Schmitz

high priest.37 But in order to justify the exercise of the high priesthood, 1 Maccabees retrospectively legitimizes this development. As noted above, an Aaronide origin is mentioned only when Alcimus is portrayed negatively (1 Macc 7:14). On the other hand, it is striking that nowhere in 1 Maccabees is it mentioned that the Maccabees have Aaronide origins; 1 Macc 2:1 mentions only that the Maccabees come from the priestly family of Jojarib.38 This is astonishing, especially since the Aaronide origin of the high priest belongs to the core identity of the office according to tradition and thus constitutes a key element of path dependence. The Maccabees seem to be an example of those who are not involved in the original design of an institution but who take it over and turn it for new ends. In the terms of the concept of path dependence, the changes associated with obtaining the office of high priest can be understood as “conversion.” Moreover, 1 Maccabees shows that Aaronide descent (so 1 Macc 7:1–25) is no guarantee that the high priest will be faithful to the Torah. In the case of Alcimus, the Aaronide high priest behaved like a “Babylonian,” or worse. 1 Macc 7:1–25, particularly in 1 Macc 7:12‒18, narratively paves the way for the upcoming changes. Unlike the Hasideans, Judas and his brothers (including Jonathan, the later high priest) recognize the political and military danger (1 Macc 7:10, 11) and act accordingly (1 Macc 7:23–24). It is clear that it is no longer descent from the House of Aaron that is decisive but military competence, foresight, and political success.39 1 Maccabees thus constructs a displacement in the path-dependent, legitimate high priesthood so that the Hasmonean family appears as legitimate high priests. Streeck and Thelen explain that in the case of institutional changes that take place via conversion, rules are often reinterpreted from below: “actors are strategic and even those not involved in the design of an institution will do everything in their power to interpret its rules in their own interest (or circumvent or subvert rules that clash with their interests).”40 This redirection of institutional resources is told in 1 Maccabees with the introduction of Jonathan as high priest. While his legitimation from the Seleucid side is told in more detail and in a verbatim quotation (1 Macc 10:18–20), his entry into Jerusalem is told only briefly albeit with an emphasis that Jonathan has put on the “holy vestments” (1 Macc 10:21). The “holy vestments” are traditionally associated with the Aaronide high priestly tradition. Jonathan is inserted into the tradition of the

37 Cf. Bernhardt, Die jüdische Revolution, 383: “Die Hohepriesterschaft war das Kernziel hasmonäischen Handelns” (the high priesthood was the key goal of Hasmonean efforts). 38 This is noticeable regardless of how one understands the Maccabees’ origin from the family Jojarib, mentioned only in 1 Macc 2:1; cf. Bernhardt, Die jüdische Revolution, 285‒88. 39 Cf. Wiemer, “Die hellenistische Monarchie,” 305‒39. 40 Streeck and Thelen, Beyond Continuity, 27.

The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests

263

path-dependent Aaronide high priesthood but the high priesthood itself is also reinterpreted. It is striking that 1 Maccabees does not narrate any cultic acts of the Hasmonean high priests. The office is no longer presented as primarily cultic, as in Sir 50, but as a political and military role. 1 Maccabees thereby narrates a conversion of the path-dependent office of high priest. This conversion was already announced in the second chapter, where the narrator has placed a programmatic speech in the mouth of the dying father Mattathias (1 Macc 2:49‒68), in which he places his family in the lineage of Phinehas (1 Macc 2:54; cf. Num 25:7–15), whose zeal (ζηλ-) warrants the zeal of the Maccabees (1 Macc 2:24, 26, 50). Phinehas is the paradigmatic example of a zealous priest prepared to use violence and to whom God promised “priesthood forever” (Num 25:13 cf. Sir 45:23–26, 50:24). Mattathias is not only claiming priesthood forever for his family;41 he is legitimizing his own military actions since Phinehas too participated in the military campaign in Midian (Num 31:6). Above all, the latter notion is taken up in order to make the military dimension a part of the Maccabean priestly tradition, integrating it into the high priesthood.42 Thus, in 1 Maccabees, an alternative tradition is formulated as a core identity for path dependence: the assumption of the high priesthood is founded in the tradition of Israel but at the same time conversion from tradition in the high priesthood in Jerusalem is legitimized.

Conclusion 1 Maccabees narrates the family history from a later Hasmonean perspective in such a way that the assumption of the office of high priest and thus the family’s rule in Jerusalem appears legitimate. 1 Maccabees is thus a narrative presentation in which the current situation is justified ex post facto by telling one’s own story. These narrative presentations have become necessary because historically the high priesthood had changed under the Hasmoneans. With the concept of path dependence, it can be shown not only that the high priesthood enabled the Hasmoneans to maintain a high level of institutional stability but also that their rule led to institutional changes in the office. On the one hand, 1 Maccabees achieves this process described as conversion via the narrative deconstruction of the tradition that Aaronide origins are a reliable guarantor for the proper

41 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 6. 42 So also van der Kooij, “The Claim of Maccabean Leadership,” 46.

264

Barbara Schmitz

exercise of the high priesthood. On the other hand, the extremely negative portrayal of Alcimus in 1 Maccabees functions narratively to initiate a countermovement that begins with Jonathan, although Alcimus is the legitimate Aaronide high priest. How to deal with this? In 1 Maccabees, the model to legitimize the Hasmonean high priesthood and the justification for the militaristic interpretation of the high priesthood is the figure of Phinehas (Num 25). The interpretation of the Hasmonean high priesthood in the light of Phinehas is prepared directly from the beginning in 1 Macc 2, a chapter that is highly shaped by the Hasmonean ideology. In 1 Macc 2:24–25, 27, Mattathias’s violent zeal is compared to Phinehas’s violent zeal (1 Macc 2:26). Because of this, Phinehas (and his descendants) received the “covenant of everlasting priesthood” (διαθήκην ἱερωσύνης αἰωνία, 1 Macc 2:54, see 2:50). Whereas 1 Macc 2:54 is close to Num 25:13 (διαθήκη ἱερατείας αἰωνία), Ben Sira is part of the path dependence that offers traditiongeschichtlich an important step in legitimizing the Hasmonean high priesthood. Ben Sira highlights the role of Phinehas (Sir 45:23–26) by emphasizing not only his zeal but also the high priesthood forever (ἵνα αὐτῷ ᾖ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ ἱερωσύνης μεγαλεῖον εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, Sir 45:24). Moreover, Ben Sira puts Simon, the glorious high priest, in the line of Phinehas: Abiding is his mercy towards Simon and the covenant with Phinehas will stand firm for him, which shall not be broken for him and for his descendants as long as the days of the heavens endure. (Sir 50:24H)

By leaving unmentioned the line of Zadok, it seems that “Ben Sira would be asserting a claim on the high priestly office for all Aaronides of the line of Phinehas.”43 1 Maccabees appears to take up this idea, not explicitly or literarily, but in a sense of Traditionsgeschichte. Thus, Simon’s glorious portrayal as high priest in the tradition of Phinehas is part of the tradition that enables the author of 1 Maccabees to describe the Maccabean brothers not only as legitimate high priests but also to justify the extensive changes in the high priesthood under the Maccabean rule. This narrative legitimization in 1 Maccabees seems to be necessary from the ex post facto perspective, which probably dates from the time of John Hyrcanus (135‒105 BCE), in whose reign the growing Hasmonean power was solidified but not unquestioned. Against this background, it may not be surprising that the

43 Olyan, “Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood,” 270.

The Portrayal of Alcimus and Jonathan as High Priests

265

Greek version of Ben Sira, translated in the time of the Maccabean rule, left Phinehas out in Sir 50:24G.44 In view of these changes in the high priesthood, it is not unexpected that his successors Judas Aristobulus (105–104 BCE; cf. Ant. 13.301; B.J. 1.70) and Alexander Jannaeus (104–72 BCE) could without contention add the title “King” to that of high priest.

Bibliography Babota, Vasile. The Institution of the Hasmonean High Priesthood. JSOT.S 165. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Bartlett, John R. The First and Second Book of Maccabees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Bernhardt, Johannes C. Die jüdische Revolution: Untersuchungen zu Ursachen, Verlauf und Folgen der Hasmonäischen Erhebung. Klio 22. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017. Beyer, Jürgen. “Pfadabhängigkeit ist nicht gleich Pfadabhängigkeit! Wider den impliziten Konservatismus eines gängigen Konzepts: Not All Path Dependence Is Alike – A Critique of the “Implicit Conservatism” of a Common Concept.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34 (2005): 5–21. Beyer, Jürgen. “Pfadabhängigkeit.” Pages 149–71 in Handbuch Policy-Forschung. Edited by Georg Wenzelburger and Reimut Zohlnhöfer. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2015. Bickerman, Elias. Institutions des Séleucides. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 26. Paris: Geuthner, 1938. Cordes, Ariane. Die Asafpsalmen in der Septuaginta: Der griechische Psalter als Übersetzung und theologisches Zeugnis. Freiburg: Herder, 2004. Davies, Philip R. “Hasidim in the Maccabean Period.” JJS 28 (1977): 127–40. Doran, Robert. “Emending 1 Macc 7,16.” Bib 87 (2006): 261–62. Doran, Robert. “The First Book of Maccabees. Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” NIB 4 (1996): 3–178. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 41. New York: Doubleday, 1976. Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalmen 101‒150. HThK.AT. Freiburg: Herder, 2008. Kampen, John. The Hasideans and the Origin of Pharisaism. A Study in 1 and 2 Maccabees. Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1988. van der Kooij, Arie. “The Claim of Maccabean Leadership and the Use of Scripture.” Pages 29–49 in Jewish Identity and Politics between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba. Groups, Normativity, and Rituals. Edited by Benedikt Eckhardt. Leiden: Brill, 2012. van der Kooij, Arie. “The Septuagint of Psalms and the First Book of Maccabees.” Pages 229–73 in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by

44 Mulder, Simon the High Priest, 339.

266

Barbara Schmitz

Robert J. V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry. JSOTSup 332. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. “Pfadabhängigkeit als Forschungsstrategie.” In Parties, Institutions and Preferences: The Shape and Impact of Partisan Politics. Edited by Erik Baltz, Sven Kosanke, and Susanne Pickel. Forthcoming. Mahoney, James. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society 29 (2000): 507–48. Neuhaus, Günter O. Studien zu den poetischen Stücken im 1. Makkabäerbuch. FB 12. Würzburg: Echter, 1974. North, Douglass C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Orban, Agnes, Jan Sauermann, and Christine Trampusch. “Varianten des Institutionalismus.” Pages 115–44 in Politik und Wirtschaft. Ein integratives Kompendium. Edited by Karsten Mause, Christian Müller, and Klaus Schubert. Wiesbaden: Springer, 2018. Pierson, Paul. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” The American Political Science Review 94,2 (2000): 251–67. Schnocks, Johannes. “»Gott, es kamen Völker in dein Erbe«. Ps 79 und seine Rezeption in 1 Makk.” Pages 147–60 in Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit: Herrschaft – Widerstand – Identität. Festschrift für Heinz-Josef Fabry. Edited by Ulrich Dahmen and Johannes Schnocks. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2010. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Hasidim in I Maccabees 2:42?” Scripta Classica Israelica 13 (1994): 7–18. Scolnic, Benjamin Edidin. Alcimus, Enemy of the Maccabees. Lanham: University Press of America, 2005. Seeligmann, Isaac Leo. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah and Cognate Studies. FAT 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Steinmo, Sven. “Historical Institutionalism.” Pages 118–38 in Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Edited by Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Streeck, Wolfgang, and Kathleen Thelen. Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Thelen, Kathleen. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 2 (1999): 369–404. Tilly, Michael. 1 Makkabäer. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. Werle, Raymund. “Pfadabhängigkeit.” Pages 119–31 in Handbuch Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder. Edited by Arthur Benz et al. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2007. Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich. “Siegen oder Untergehen? Die hellenistische Monarchie in der neueren Forschung.” Pages 305–39 in Monarchische Schriften im Altertum. Edited by Stefan Rebenich. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 91. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017.

Matthew Goff

A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception Abstract: In scholarship on the book of Ben Sira over the past generation, one mainstay has been an interest in Sir 15:14. The verse has been important in assessments of what the book says about human evil and divine control over human conduct. The Hebrew form of 15:14 (Ms A) has the phrase “and he put him (humankind) in the power of his snatcher” (‫)וישתיהו ביד חותפו‬. The absence of this statement in the other textual witnesses strongly suggests that it is a secondary addition. On that basis, it has by and large been excluded from scholarly discussion. This reflects the overarching conviction in the field that when we interpret a text we are reading it against the background of the historical context in which it was written. This perspective, while valuable, hinders analysis as to why verses were expanded in their later transmission. Such material offers a crucial window into the reception of the book of Sirach. In this article I explore what we can learn from the Hebrew plus in 15:14 – which adds a demonic “snatcher” into a discussion of human freedom. This creates a form of parallelism between this term and “yeṣer” (inclination). I will argue that this parallelism is profitably understood as a product of scribes reading this passage of Ben Sira in the light of Jewish discourse about human evil in which there is profound ambivalence about its causation – that evil conduct can be attributed to something internal and inherent within the human being and to external, demonic forces which enter the person, causing him to act immorally. Keywords: Sir 15:14, yeṣer (inclination), snatcher, human freedom, evil, reception of Sirach

Introduction The NRSV translation of Sir 15:14 reads: “It was he who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice.”1 The Hebrew states that God put humankind “in the power of their yeṣer.” The word

1 It is a pleasure to honor Núria Calduch-Benages, an excellent scholar and perceptive reader of Sirach, with this essay. I thank James Aitken, Bradley Gregory, Alana Zimath, and Tommy Woodward for their comments on this article. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-018

268

Matthew Goff

yeṣer is often translated as “inclination” and has been the subject of much scholarship. In Second Temple and rabbinic literature, how someone acts, in particular someone who is predisposed to wickedness, is attributed to their yeṣer.2 The Hebrew of Sir 15:14 attests a plus not found in the verse in the other ancient textual witnesses – ‫וישתיהו ביד חותפו‬. This can be translated: “he placed him in the power of his snatcher.” The standard scholarly response, as reflected in the NRSV, is to ignore this text. Scholars generally conclude that the “snatcher” denotes some sort of demonic entity which they can dismiss, on the grounds that it is a medieval gloss which corrupts the text. Miryam Brand for example writes, “The gloss must therefore be disregarded in order for the verse’s original meaning to be understood.”3 There is no question that the “snatcher” plus constitutes a later addition to the verse. But this does not mean we should dismiss it.4 While the Hebrew manuscripts have long excited scholars because of their potential to reveal the “original” text of Ben Sira, it is important to remember that they are medieval documents from Abbasid-era Cairo. The manuscripts constitute crucial knowledge for the late antique and medieval Jewish reception of Ben Sira. The “snatcher” plus in Sir 15:14 can be treated not as a textual problem but rather as an opportunity to assess how later scribes understood the yeṣer. Scholars have struggled to understand the “snatcher” plus. Alexander Di Lella and Patrick Skehan declare it to be “flagrant nonsense.”5 This reaction is a consequence of the critical opinion that the plus is a gloss that should be omitted. Understanding the plus as distorting the text makes it difficult to understand why it is there in the first place. One leading view, endorsed by Brand, is Di Lella’s proposal from the 1960s that a medieval retroversion took place, with language from the Syriac of 4:19b entering the Hebrew of 15:14b.6

 Two recent studies on the topic are Brand, Evil Within; Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires. For more recent scholarship, consult Aitken, Patmore, and Rosen-Zvi, The Evil Inclination. Space does not permit this essay to engage the relevant primary or secondary literature comprehensively, with regard to either the yeṣer or Ben Sira 15.  Brand, Evil Within, 100. So too Böhmisch, “Anthropologie,” 47.  For critique of the extent to which we can know the original book of Ben Sira, see Wright and Mroczek, “Ben Sira’s Pseudo-Pseudepigraphy.”  Di Lella and Skehan, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 269.  Syr 4:19b and Heb 15:14b are indeed similar; both attest the key ‫ חתף‬root combined with the word “hand.” The Syriac reads: ̈   ‫ܗܝ‬‫“( ܐ‬I will deliver him up to the hand[s] of plunderers”). See Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach, 123; Brand, Evil Within, 99. Translations of Ben Sira in Syriac are based on Calduch-Benages, Ferrer and Liesen, La Sabiduría del Escriba.

A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception

269

Current scholarship on Ben Sira, however, is less willing to grant such instances of retroversion.7 And even if one were to grant that the Hebrew of Sir 15:14 was influenced by the Syriac, that in and of itself would not explain why Jewish scribes would seek to retrovert Syriac into this verse. In this essay, I take the “flagrant nonsense” of Sir 15:14 seriously. The verse, when one excludes the “snatcher” plus, helps convey the view that God created people in a way that gives them the ability to make their own decisions. People are exhorted to choose to observe the commandments (v. 15). The passage wants to teach that people, not God, are responsible for their sins. The addition of the “snatcher” foot indicates that the yeṣer was understood not as signifying a human being’s capacity for ethical conduct. Rather, it was construed in more reified and demonic terms. Ishay Rosen-Zvi’s Demonic Desires brilliantly examines the yeṣer in rabbinic literature and how later Jewish usage of the term appropriates and reconfigures older Second Temple traditions. The addition of the term “snatcher” to a verse in Ben Sira about the yeṣer, an issue Rosen-Zvi does not cover, supports his understanding of the issue. While the “snatcher” can be understood as Satan or some other demonic entity, the full line is reasonably understood as an instance of synonymous parallelism – the snatcher as another term for the yeṣer. The root ‫ חתף‬in Sir 15:14 can be understood as conveying how the yeṣer, conceived as a sort of demon with agency and malevolent plans that resides within the human being, lies in wait to attack the person. This language of violence gives expression to the yeṣer’s efforts to lead the person astray from following the covenant and the Torah.

1 The Hebrew Text of Sir 15:14 Sir 15:14 is in both the A and B manuscripts: A (VIr ll. 24–25)

‫אלהים מבראשית ברא אדם וישתיהו ביד חותפו ויתנהו ביד יצרו‬ B (IIr l. 15)

‫ו‬‫ י‬  [‫ ]חותפו‬ ‫הוא מראש ברא אדם וישיתיהו‬

7 Van Peursen, The Verbal System, 20–21, 322. For the history of scholarship on this issue, see Rey, “Doublets.” Rey (pp. 142–45) acknowledges that there are limited instances of retroversion from the Syriac into the Hebrew (e.g., 31[34]:16). Van Peursen likewise asserts that the retroversion theory may be applicable only in Sir 32[35]:17; 30:20; and 31[34]:16. The limited instances of incorporation of text from Syriac manuscripts of Ben Sira into Hebrew ones speak to a larger issue of cultural interaction between Syriac Christians and rabbinic Jews, presumably within a late antique Mesopotamian milieu, that deserves further study.

270

Matthew Goff

This can be translated, following the A version: “God at the beginning created humankind; he placed him in the power of his snatcher and put him in the power of his inclination.”8 The B version attests to a somewhat different version of the beginning of the verse than A. The B form shows an alteration that makes the allusion to Genesis more explicit.9 There are no such changes to the second and third feet of the verse. A and B preserve the same text, although the latter part of the verse in B is unfortunately in a poor state of preservation. This suggests that the statement about the “snatcher” was understood not as a distortion in need of correction but rather as an integral part of the verse. The three feet of Sir 15:14 are not in accord with the common structure of the pericope it is within (vv. 11–20), most verses of which have two.10 But this innovation creates a new kind of literary structure – a parallelism between ‫ חותפו‬and ‫יצרו‬. The formal similarity between the two cola is clear. They begin with roughly synonymous wayyiqtol verbs with a suffix (‫ויתנהו‬/‫ )וישתיהו‬followed by ‫ ביד‬and then ‫ חותפו‬or ‫יצרו‬. This pattern suggests that the later addition of the “snatcher” plus was intended to be similar to the language of the yeṣer foot, creating a parallelistic pair of cola. Appreciating the parallelism of the two feet suggests that the “snatcher” plus should not be characterized, as is often the case, as an explanatory gloss since it comes before the yeṣer colon. The creation of literary doublets in the scribal transmission of Ben Sira is a poetic Tendenz attested elsewhere in the book.11

 The Syriac, like the Hebrew, reads ‫ܪܗܘܢ‬  ‫݂ܢ‬‫ ܐ‬‫“( ܐ‬he consigned them into the hand of their yeṣer”). The Greek reads ἐν χειρὶ διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ (lit. “in the hand of his counsel”) and the Latin similarly reads in manu consilii (K, D: arbitrio) sui. The Ethiopic has ወኀደጎ፡በግዕዙ፡በዘፈቀደ። “And he left him in his nature with what he desires (or: is necessary).” For the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, see www.bensira.org. For the relation of διαβούλιον to yeṣer traditions, note T. Ash. 1:3: “God has granted two ways to the sons of men, and two διαβούλια and two lines of action, two models and two goals.” See Murphy, “Yēṣer,” 336.  For discussion of this revision, see Goff, “Ben Sira,” 185. The B version, attesting evidence for medieval textual scholarship, includes a circulus over ‫הוא מראש‬. This is a notification that a variant of this text is recorded in the right hand margin: ‫]א[ל]יה[ם מבראשית‬, which accords with the beginning of the verse in A. There are several scribal corrections in the A version of the verse. There is a supralinear tet over the shin in ‫מבראשית‬. A supralinear he over ‫ אדם‬presumably corrects the word to ‫האדם‬ (perhaps meant to allude more directly to the creation of humankind in Gen 1:27). Also in A VIr at the beginning of line 25, just before ‫ברא‬, there is an aleph with a correction dot over it (perhaps the scribe started to write ‫ אלהים‬again).  Brand, Evil Within, 99.  Goff, “The Work of Poet-Scholars.”

A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception

271

2 The Demon Within: The Yeṣer in Second Temple and Rabbinic Literature The core meaning of the root ‫ יצר‬is not “inclination.” As a verb, it frequently means “to form.” The term gives expression to ancient claims about the creation of humanity, most famously in Gen 2:7, which states that the Lord God “formed” humankind out of the dust of the earth (cf. Ps 103:14). On several occasions the word denotes thoughts that are formed in the human mind (e.g., Deut 31:21; 1 Chron 28:9; 29:18). The term can express a person’s predisposition to types of behavior in a positive or negative sense. The phrase ‫ יצר סמוך‬signifies a “steadfast mind” (Isa 26:3). In two important instances in the flood story, yeṣer conveys that the human mind has a proclivity towards evil: Gen 6:5 (“that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts [‫ ]כל־יצר מחשבת לבו‬was only evil continually”) and 8:21 (“the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth”). These verses likely employ the word yeṣer to describe thought as the product (formation) of the mind, while explaining that human thought is inclined towards evil. The meaning of the word in Sir 15:14, when one excludes the “snatcher” plus, is consistent with the tradition that the term yeṣer denotes thought. Its key pericope (Sir 15:11–16:23) is also an early Jewish instance of reflection on the divine creation of humankind in a way that is inflected with Gen 1–3 traditions (17:24; 33:10, 13). The nature of the human mind is a consequence of how God created Adam. Ben Sira (15:14) teaches that each of us is under the power of our yeṣer. Modern analogies to the yeṣer so understood would be personality, DNA, or brain chemistry, all of which people use today to acknowledge that our freedom to act or think operates within physiological parameters of which we have little control. The yeṣer in this model is not evil per se but could be of any moral persuasion. Some texts from Qumran employ ‫ יצר‬in a way that is in continuity with the Hebrew Bible and Ben Sira. 1QH 7:26–27 makes the same basic point of Sir 15:14c, that God created in each person a yeṣer that shapes their conduct: “I know that in your hand is the inclination of every spirit (‫)יצר כול רוח‬, [and all] its [activi]ty you determined before you created it.”12 Some Qumran texts use the term “inclination” in contexts that engage Genesis traditions, not unlike Sir 15:14. The so-

12 The Hodayot presents the yeṣer as a basic component of human beings as created by God to make the deterministic point that the deity established a plan for all things, whereas Sir 15:14 invokes the same anthropological term to assert that God made people in a way such that they can make their own choices.

272

Matthew Goff

called 4QParaphrase of Genesis and Exodus, for example, employs the expression “evil yeṣer” in an unfortunately fragmentary context when recounting that Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command not to eat from the tree of knowledge (4Q422 1 12; cf. 4Q370 1 i 3). The text may attest to a tradition similar to that of 2 Esd 3:20, which blames Adam’s transgression on his cor malignum (“evil heart”). While the scrolls attest to the positive ‫( יצר סמוך‬e.g., 1QS 4:5; 8:3; 1QH 9:37), the yeṣer is more commonly associated with sinfulness. The term “evil yeṣer” (‫ )יצר רע‬is first attested in the scrolls, similar to the common rabbinic idiom ‫יצר‬ ‫הרע‬. Several Qumran texts presume that the yeṣer itself has a negative quality and that it is not necessary to specify that it is evil. All humans, the scrolls teach, have a yeṣer. The wicked are that way because they have a yeṣer which is evil. The Hebrew fragments of Jubilees of Qumran blame Esau’s wickedness on his yeṣer: “For you know that Esau’s yeṣer has been evil since its youth” (35:9; 4Q223–224 2 i 49; 1Q18 2 3–4). The speaker in the Hodayot similarly describes the wicked by emphasizing their “yeṣer of guilt” (14:35; ‫ )יצר אשמה‬and “yeṣer of deceit” (21:29; ‫)יצר רמיה‬.13 But not only the wicked have a yeṣer which is evil. The Community Rule warns members of the sect, individuals who have devoted themselves to an intense mode of covenant observance, that their yeṣer can lead them astray: “no one should walk in the stubbornness of his heart in order to go astray following his heart, his eyes or the thought(s) (or: design) of his yeṣer (‫מחשבת‬ ‫ ;”)יצרו‬he should instead circumcise “the foreskin of his yeṣer and of his stiff neck” in order to follow the covenant (1QS 5:4–5; cf. Num 15:39; Deut 10:16; 30:6).14 The Community Rule’s parallelism of the yeṣer with these body parts suggests that it was considered a physical part of the body, or at least similar to the heart or eyes. This attests an increasing tendency towards reification regarding the yeṣer or, as Rosen-Zvi puts it, “ontologization,” which becomes more fully developed in rabbinic literature.15 The Damascus Document similarly urges sectarians to watch out for the yeṣer. They should “walk perfectly on all his paths and not follow the thoughts of the yeṣer of guilt (‫ )יצר אשמה‬and lascivious eyes” (CD 2:15–16), using the same phrase as 1QH 14:35. Here, too, there is a tendency towards embodiment, with yeṣer in parallelism with “eyes.” The speaker in the Hodayot likewise understands himself as having a yeṣer that could have derailed him. He extols

13 Translations of the Hodayot rely on Schuller and Newsom, Hodayot. 14 Brand, Evil Within, 86. 15 Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 48.

A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception

273

God since he “did not abandon me to the devices (or: plots) of my yeṣer (‫זמות‬ ‫( ”)יצרי‬13:8). The difference between the righteous and the wicked is not that they have opposing yeṣarim. It is that the righteous are better than the wicked at resisting the yeṣer within. The rulebooks suggest that this struggle could be difficult. This may be because the yeṣer had some sort of allure. 4QInstruction urges its elect addressee not to let the evil yeṣer “entice” or “deceive” him (‫תפתכה‬, 4Q417 1 ii 12).16 The Temple Scroll uses the verb ‫ פתה‬to denote a man seducing a virgin (11QT 66:8–9). 4QInstruction does not unfortunately state how the evil yeṣer might entice the elect. In any case, the righteous should resist its machinations. The Community Rule conveys this point with the metaphor of circumcision, which evokes obedience to the covenant, conveying that a righteous person has a yeṣer, which is under control, or, one could say, neutered. The presentation of the yeṣer in the Dead Sea Scrolls is in strong continuity with that of rabbinic literature. Yeṣer themes discernible in the scrolls are further developed in this corpus. In rabbinic texts, the yeṣer is more explicitly an independent creature, with agency and an agenda, which resides within a person, plotting ways to mislead them (b. Sukkah 52a). This is evident, for example, in how Sifre Numbers 88 imagines the oath Boaz makes at night (Ruth 3:13): “As the Lord lives! Lie down until morning” (Ruth 3:13) – because his evil yeṣer sat and importuned him the entire night. It said to him: “you are unmarried and you want a woman, and she is unmarried and she wants a man (teaching that a wife is acquired by sexual intercourse). So go and have intercourse with her and she will be your wife.” He took an oath against his evil yeṣer: “As the Lord lives!” – I shall not touch her; and to the woman he said: “Lie down until morning.”17

The yeṣer speaks and has a mind of its own. It tries to persuade Boaz, as a sort of halakhic attack from a rogue rabbi, that he should have sex with Ruth. Boaz’s moral conduct is expressed by his ability to resist the arguments made by his yeṣer. In Sifre Deut. 45, God is depicted as saying “I created your evil yeṣer and there is nothing more evil than it, [but] ‘if you do right there is uplift’ (Gen 4:7) – be occupied with words of Torah and it will not reign over you. But if you abandon the words of Torah, then it will gain mastery over you, as it is said, ‘sin crouches at the door, its urge is toward you’” (Gen 4:7). Language from Gen 4:7 is adapted to imagine the yeṣer as ready to attack at any moment. This passage

16 Goff, 4QInstruction, 177–81. 17 As quoted in Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 18–19.

274

Matthew Goff

also adapts the language of “your enemy” from Prov 25:21 to describe the yeṣer.18 Rabbinic texts often urge one to “adjure” (‫ )להשביע‬the yeṣer, as if it were a demonic entity that must be expelled, using a term rooted in exorcistic traditions (e.g., Sifre Deut. 33). In both rabbinic literature and the sectarian scrolls, following the covenant is the result of successfully struggling against the yeṣer within.19 The physicality of the yeṣer also becomes more explicit in rabbinic literature. In a discussion of Gen 8:21, the Amoraic Genesis Rabbah includes an exposition of the question “from when is the evil yeṣer placed in humans?” (Gen. Rab. 34:10). One answer given is that it is placed only after birth, since a fetus could hardly resist a yeṣer. A yeṣer-controlled fetus, it is argued, would rip through its mother and leave her body. In a similar debate found in Avot de Rabbi Nathan, a rabbi argues that the yeṣer is a natural part of the semen and thus inherent in a human being from conception (ch. 16).

3 The Yeṣer and Cosmologies of Evil Understanding the yeṣer as not simply an “inclination” but an interior evil entity with agency, a perspective that is implicit in the scrolls and explicit in rabbinic literature, helps one appreciate the overlap in the Dead Sea Scrolls between the influence of the yeṣer and demonic powers over human beings. The Hymn of Deliverance from the great Psalms Scroll found in Cave 11 reads: “Let not a satan rule over me, nor an evil spirit; let neither pain nor an evil yeṣer take possession of my bones” (11Q5 19:15–16; cf. 11Q6 4–5 16). This hymn homologizes the intrusion of a demonic spirit into the body, a common way in antiquity to understand disease and illness, and the presence of the yeṣer within the human being. In the hymn, the word satan is parallel with “evil spirit.” This term denotes in the scrolls demonic beings rather than a singular adversary of God,

18 While the Hebrew for “your enemy” in Prov 25:21 is ‫שנאך‬, appeal to this verse may reflect a recognition of the similarity between ‫ יצר‬and ‫“( צר‬adversary”). See Di Lella, The Hebrew Text, 122. 19 These traditions may also influence Paul, who may have had some sort of rabbinic training (Phil 3:5), and his depiction of human interiority. In Romans 7, he says that sin “dwells within me” and that “I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members” (vv. 17, 22–23; cf. T. Reub. 4:6; T. Ben. 6:1–4; Herm. 36:1–9; 44:2). Compare the claim in Rom 2:28–29 that “true circumcision” is not external or physical but rather “a matter of the heart” with the circumcised yeṣer of 1QS 5.

A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception

275

not unlike the Arabic šayāṭīn. A prayer in 4QAramaic Levi urges God to not let “any satan (‫ )כל שטן‬rule over me” (4Q213a 1 i 17; see also 1QH 22:25; 24:23). The scrolls attest to the concept of an exceptional divine power that opposes God (e.g., the War Scroll). They generally use the names Belial or Mastema for this entity, not Satan. The scrolls associate Belial with the yeṣer, as is clear in the Hodayot: “My mind was appalled by an evil plan. For Belial (is present) when their destructive yeṣer manifests itself” (15:6).20 4QCurses connects Melkiresha (the king of wickedness) who is opposed to Melkiṣedeq, with “the inclination of your guilt,” as part of an effort to connect former sectarians with this demonic figure (4Q280 2 2; cf. 4Q286 7 ii 7; 4Q544 2 13).21 The hymnic text 4QBarki Naphshi (Bless, O My Soul) also presents the yeṣer in a way that accords with the demonology of the period. The poet proclaims “the evil inclination you have removed (‫[ )גערתה‬from my inmost parts]” (4Q436 1 i 10; par 4Q435 2 i 1–2), and that God has replaced it with a “pure heart.”22 The verb ‫גער‬, frequently translated “rebuke,” often denotes the expulsion of evil spirits, including “Satan” (e.g., Zech 3:2). The text does not emphasize that God created the yeṣer but that he rather forced it out of a person’s body as a sort of exorcism (cf. 11Q5 24:12–13). In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the ideal member of the sect is in a constant struggle with his yeṣer. The sectarian construction of the self is defined in opposition to the yeṣer. This is quite different from the Hebrew Bible, where the term denotes a person’s inherent disposition to a kind of behavior. It is rather a foreign, evil presence within. This helps explain how an anthropological term denoting human thought came to overlap with discourse about demons. Second Temple literature attests to different etiologies of the yeṣer, that it is there because of how God created Adam (as an integral part of the human being), or that a yeṣer is inside someone because of the machinations of demonic powers (as a sort of ‘malware’ that invades the human being). The former view is generally accompanied by the view that the term yeṣer denotes a predilection for either good or evil conduct. The latter view, as found in the Hymn of Deliverance, presumes that the yeṣer is a source of human sinfulness. Since the late Second Temple period is characterized by the emergence of a supernatural enemy of God, it is perhaps not surprising that in this era we see the yeṣer re-conceived as a catalyst for sin and that it can now be associated with demonic powers opposed to the deity.

20 (ll. 21 22

Context suggests that “their destructive yeṣer” denotes the yeṣer of the speaker’s enemies 8, 10). Brand, Evil Within, 250. Brand, Evil Within, 44. The phrase “my inmost parts” is reconstructed.

276

Matthew Goff

It should also be noted that the conceptions of the self that are rooted in a stark dichotomy between external and internal forces are probably anachronistic.23 In antiquity, the human being was not understood as a closed system. The Enlightenment era concept of a self that was free or autonomous is a much later development. There is in antiquity a type of “emplotment” in which the human being was understood as part of the natural world and subject to forces within it, including demonic beings.24 The Treatise on the Two Spirits offers clear evidence on this point, since it theorizes that all human behavior is subject to two opposing cosmological forces.25 The rabbinic yeṣer, as a scheming, autonomous force within the human being, is consistent with the older view in the scrolls that external evil spiritual forces can negatively affect a person. The increased reification of the yeṣer in rabbinic Judaism is combined with a decline of the view that it is part of a cosmological system in contrast to the earlier Treatise on the Two Spirits. This is why Rosen-Zvi construes the rabbinic yeṣer as a product of an “internalized demonology” that draws on older Second Temple traditions.26 Rabbinic literature is rich in demonic speculation. A demon is understood not simply as an external force that enters the human being; the human can be defined as having a kind of evil, demonic presence within – the yeṣer.27

4 Invasion of the Body Snatcher – From Within Appreciating the mingling of discourse about human interiority and the assault of demons on people provides a context for understanding the ‫חותף‬/‫ יצר‬parallelism in Sir 15:14. The root ‫ חתף‬is a verbal hapax in Ben Sira, occurring only in this verse (cf. 32:21; 50:4). Its usage elsewhere denotes lying in ambush or grabbing something in a sudden or violent manner. In modern Hebrew, it can signify robbery or kidnapping. The term is rare in the Hebrew Bible but expresses in Ps 10:9 how the wicked lie in wait to “seize” the poor; in Judges, it conveys

23 Brand, Evil Within, 275. 24 In this sense demonic beings are best not characterized as “supernatural.” 25 According to 1QS 3:18, God placed two spirits within humankind, with “spirit” denoting human interiority not unlike the yeṣer. One spirit is under the command of an angel of light and the other is orchestrated by an angel of darkness. 26 Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 52. 27 Appeal to demonic forces as a way to explain the human psyche has strong parallels in contemporary early Christian literature, such as the writings of Evargius (Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 36–43).

A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception

277

the Benjaminites’ raid and capture of women they will forcibly marry (21:21). The root with a tav rather than a tet conveys in Job that God can “seize” anyone he wishes (9:12). The term also has the sense of grabbing something suddenly or a surprise attack in later rabbinic texts. The Job Targum clarifies that the term in 9:12 expresses God killing someone, presumably unexpectedly.28 The root can denote a sudden death, probably conveying the idea that God or the angel of death could “snatch” a person away (b. Moʿed. Qaṭ. 28a; cf. Tg. Prov. 13:2). The root can refer to grabbing things hastily, such as a man snatching a bill of divorce out of a woman’s hands (Lam. Rab. 1:1) or people in a rush grabbing lulav fronds during Sukkot (m. Sukkah 4.4; ‫)חטף‬. The term is rare in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It occurs prominently only in 1QH 13 (see also 11Q10 2 2; Job 19:12). The wicked who are associated with Belial lie in wait for the speaker to attack him: “they plot the destruction they have in mind, and wor[ds of] Belial they loosen, a lying tongue like the venom of serpents … they lie in wait in order “to sie[ze] ([‫]ף‬‫( )לח‬with) the po[ison of] vipers for which there is no charm” (ll. 28–30; cf. l. 12; par 4Q429 2 7–11).29 The caustic speech of those allied with Belial is likened to snake poison which infects the speaker: “it has become an incurable pain (‫ )כאוב‬and a malignant affliction in the bowels of your servant” (l. 30; cf. Herm. 17:7). ‫ כאוב‬is the same term found in the Hymn of Deliverance in parallelism with satan and evil yeṣer in its exhortation for them not to possess the speaker (11Q5 19:15). As mentioned above, the speaker extols God in this hodayah for not abandoning him to his yeṣer (13:8). The interior torment that engulfs the speaker can be understood as a Belialallied yeṣer that enters him through interaction with human enemies and then tortures him from within. The Hodayot expresses how external evil forces can affect a human being: they can “seize” (‫ )חתף‬a person; this attack, like snake venom, can poison the body, deteriorating it from within.30 In the early days of Qumran scholarship, Roland Murphy turned to 1QH 13 to make sense of Sir 15:14: “The Hebrew gloss in 15,14 would suggest that the yṣr is allied with the spirit of iniquity (through which Belial works), which ‘seizes’ or ‘despoils’ man.”31 This view understands the full version of Sir 15:14 as funda-

28 The targum reads, with the addition underlined, “Behold he snatches a man from the world” (‫)הא יחתף אנש מן עלמא‬. 29 The verb ‫ חתף‬is attested in the parallel account in 4Q429 2. 30 A poem from the Cairo Genizah (T-S H 18.42) likens the temptation of the yeṣer to a snake bite, not unlike the earlier text 1QH 13. See Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 60, 174. For the role of snake venom in ancient physiological discourse, see Lilly, “The Corporeality of the Self.” 31 He used the old classification system of the Hodayot, according to which the key text is in col. 5. See Murphy, “Yēṣer,” 336; van Peursen, The Verbal System, 25.

278

Matthew Goff

mentally akin to the Treatise of the Two Spirits. Murphy essentially equates the yeṣer with the “spirit of iniquity” (or “deceit,” ‫)עול‬, understood as a power controlled by Belial, to which 1QS 3:18–19 attributes human sinfulness.32 The yeṣer is understood as part of a larger cosmological system, a view discussed above, according to which interior struggles against temptation are animated by external spiritual forces. This accords with the long-held view that the “snatcher” is none other than Satan. G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley asserted this position a hundred years ago, as did Conleth Kearns in the 1950s.33 However, as discussed above, the rabbinic “internalized demonology” that shapes yeṣer discourse does not situate human psychology within a broader cosmological system. This suggests that the Hodayot passage does not indicate that the expanded form of Sir 15:14 is a medieval application of Qumranesque dualism. Rather, the Belialdriven attack in 1QH 13 deploys language of physical violence, including the key verb ‫חתף‬, that later in Sir 15:14 comes to describe the yeṣer itself as something that can “snatch” or lay in ambush. But before turning to understanding the yeṣer as the “snatcher,” one other possibility should be entertained. Late antique Judaism does in fact attest a “snatcher” demon. The term can denote a lilith demon, who is personified as a femme fatale in Jewish folklore. In one late antique incantation bowl from the Schøyen collection (MS 2053/251 = JBA 24), a speaker in the name of a rabbi (Joshua bar Peraḥia) expels demonic spirits from the house of a woman named Mat-Yishu: Liliths, male and female Lilith, the grabb[er] and the snatcher (‫)חטפיתא‬: the three of you, and the four of you, and the five of you. You are stripped naked [and] are not clothed, your hair is disheveled and cast behi[n]d your back. It was heard concerning you, that your father’s name is Palḥas and yo[ur] mother is [the lilith Pa]l[ḥadad]. Go out from the ho[u]se and from the dwelling of Mat-Yishu daughter of Bat-Sahde (ll. 2–4).34

This basic formula is attested in other bowls, such as CBS 9013 (#8) and CBS 2922 (#17), which James Montgomery published in 1913.35 This expulsion formula is 32 It is not clear if Murphy meant that the spirit of iniquity would negatively influence one’s yeṣer (in the sense of one’s predilection for types of behavior) or if he understood the spirit and the yeṣer as synonymous terms. 33 Box and Oesterley, “Sirach,” 371; Kearns, The Expanded Text, 94; Di Lella, The Hebrew Text, 122; van Peursen, The Verbal System, 24–25. 34 Shaked, Ford, and Bhayro, Aramaic Bowl Spells, 137. The historiola by which the speaker claims knowledge of the parental lineage of the demons, found elsewhere in the bowls (e.g., JBA 24 ll. 4, 6), was presumably a way to establish power over them (ibid., 15). See also Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 449. 35 Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, 154–55, 190. The formula is also found in MS 2053/ 132 (= JBA 19 l. 4), with ‫ חטטיתא‬instead of ‫( חטפיתא‬Shaked, Ford, and Bhayro, Aramaic Bowl

A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception

279

directed towards more than one lilith-demon, male and female. “Snatcher” here is in a feminine form and thus reasonably understood as an epithet for a female demon (a “snatcheress”?). In rabbinic literature, lilith demons are seductive and sexually powerful, as in texts such as the Alphabet of Ben Sira. Her “snatching” can be understood in a seductive sense, as in for example b. Shabb. 151b, which warns that any man (husband) who sleeps alone in a house could be “seized” (‫חזתו‬) by a lilith night-demon.36 That bowl MS 2053/251 was produced to ward a “snatcher” lilith demon away from a woman suggests the harmful behavior of such creatures was not restricted to sexuality. Line 5 conveys that the demons were thought to possess the body of Mat-Yishu. It is likely the exorcistic bowl was intended to eradicate a disease she had or perhaps to ensure a stable pregnancy. The fact that the key term is feminine (and in Aramaic; ‫)חטפיתא‬, while in Ben Sira 15:14 it is masculine (and Hebrew; ‫)חותפו‬, problematizes the conclusion that the two “snatchers” should be equated. It also complicates the conclusion that the verse’s snatcher/yeṣer parallelism should be interpreted as a dyad which first mentions an external and then an internal entity. The “snatcher” demoness of the bowls can nevertheless assist in the interpretation of Sir 15:14. The bowl formula gives expression, not unlike 1QH 13, as to how demonic forces attack – violently and suddenly. It is not necessary to posit that the “snatcher” is a reference to Satan or a lilith demon. The construction of snatcher/yeṣer as a parallel unit remains, in my judgment, the best guide for understanding the meaning of “snatcher.” The poetic ambiguity of parallelism is important to keep in mind; it allows readers to decide for themselves how the two cola relate to each other. One can read the “snatcher” as an external power that enters a person.37 But the term “snatcher” can be plausibly read as a description of the yeṣer, a foot added to create a parallelistic dyad that more vividly conveys how the yeṣer attacks. While such an addition does not accord with the teaching in Ben Sira 15 that humans are responsible for their actions, warrants for this plus may have been found in conceptions of sin elsewhere in the book.38 The language of “snatching” in Sir 15:14 is consistent with how rab-

Spells, 123). Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, 157, identified the “snatcher” as a ghul, a type of demonic being in Arabian tradition (whence the term “ghoul”). 36 In the Talmud, the lilith demon has long and disheveled hair, as in the bowl formula (b. ʿErub. 100b; cf. Nid. 24b; T. Sol. 13:2–4). 37 In b. B. Bat. 16a Reish Lakish teaches that “Satan, the evil yeṣer, and the Angel of Death are one, that is, they are three aspects of the same essence.” 38 Ben Sira 21:2–3 likens sin to a snake bite; as discussed above, later Genizah sources likewise compare the yeṣer to a biting serpent; recall also that 1QH 13 uses ‫ חתף‬to describe the influence of Belial as akin to the bite of a poisonous snake. I thank Bradley Gregory for this insight.

280

Matthew Goff

binic literature describes the efforts of the yeṣer to lead someone away from the Torah. The depiction of the yeṣer as “crouching by the door,” an adaptation of the language of Gen 4:7 that often occurs in rabbinic discussion of the yeṣer, fits well with the idea that it lies in ambush, waiting for the right moment to pounce (e.g., b. Ber. 61a; Sifre Deut. 45; Abot. R. Nat. 16). The rabbinic yeṣer is often depicted as crafty and patient. Genesis Rabbah teaches that a yeṣer can stay within a person their whole life but not attack until they are elderly (54:1).39 The lengthy exposition of the yeṣer in Gen. Rab. 22:6, which also incorporates language from Gen 4:7, likens it to a sneaky dog that steals food by waiting for the right moment to act, when no one is looking.40

Conclusion In its Jewish transmission, Sir 15:14 was expanded to form a parallel statement that the human being is under the power of his “snatcher” and his yeṣer. The addition of the “snatcher” foot can be and often is framed negatively, as an addition that unhelpfully distorts the fact that the yeṣer in Sirach denotes a person’s disposition for types of behavior. But the expansion of the verse can be approached more positively, as an opportunity to appreciate how conceptions of the yeṣer in rabbinic Judaism shaped the transmission of the book of Ben Sira. The full form of the verse is reasonably understood as an instance of the “internalized demonology” of rabbinic Judaism discerned by Rosen-Zvi – that the yeṣer is a foreign, hostile entity within the human being. While one can understand the “snatcher” as some sort of external entity like Satan, it is fully compatible with the yeṣer discourse of later Judaism to describe the yeṣer as a ‫חותף‬. This would convey that it can lie in wait to attack suddenly. This language of violence can denote the yeṣer’s efforts to deceive a person. This resonates with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which present the yeṣer as a destabilizing presence within humans that leads them astray from the Torah in a way that overlaps with discussion of the invasion of demonic spirits into people. Sir 15:14 helps illustrate the value of having later Hebrew manuscripts of the book. The verse

39 “This one (the yeṣer) grows with man from his youth until his old age and yet if he can he strikes him down (‫ )מפילו‬even in his seventies or eighties.” See Rozen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 66. 40 “There are dogs in Rome which know how to beguile. They go and sit in front of a baker and make themselves appear sleeping and the owner of the baker nods off and [the dog] knocks the bottom loaf to the group [causing all the loaves to collapse] and until [the baker] gathers them, [the dog] grabs a loaf and leaves with it.”

A Devilish Parallel: Sir 15:14 in its Hebrew Reception

281

demonstrates, in a rare example of the transmission of a Second Temple text that is not in the Jewish canon, that the book became mingled with yeṣer traditions which, while likely not in the ‘original’ book of Ben Sira, are themselves rooted in the late Second Temple period.

Bibliography Adams, Samuel, Greg Goering, and Matthew Goff, eds. Sirach and Its Contexts: The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing. JSJSup 196. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Aitken, James K., Renate Egger-Wenzel, and Stefan C. Reif, eds. Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting: Ben Sira Manuscripts After 120 Years. DCLY 2018. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Aitken, James K., Hector M. Patmore, and Ishay Rosen-Zvi, eds. The Evil Inclination in Early Judaism and Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Böhmisch, Franz. “Anthropologie bei Ben Sira im Zusammenspiel von ‫לב‬, ‫נפש‬, und ‫יצר‬.” Pages 37–55 in Theology and Anthropology in the Book of Sirach. Edited by Bonifatia Gesche, Christian Lustig, and Gabriel Rabo. SCS 73. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2020. Box, G. H., and W. O. E. Oesterley. “Sirach.” Pages 268–517 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by R. H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Brand, Miryam T. Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature. JAJSup 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Joan Ferrer, and Jan Liesen, eds. La Sabiduría del Escriba. Edición diplomática de la Peshitta del libro de Ben Sira según el Códice Ambrosiano, con traducción Española e inglesa. 2nd ed. Estella: Editorial Verbo Divino, 2015. Di Lella, Alexander A. The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study. London: Mouton & Co., 1966. Di Lella, Alexander A., and Patrick Skehan. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Goff, Matthew. 4QInstruction. WLAW 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Goff, Matthew. “Ben Sira–Biblical Sage, Rabbi, and Payyetan: The Figure and Text of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Judaism.” Pages 183–200 in Discovering, Deciphering, and Dissenting: Ben Sira Manuscripts After 120 Years. DCLY 2018. Edited by James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel, and Setefan C. Reif. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Goff, Matthew. “The Work of Poet-Scholars: Creative Repetition, Parallelism and the Book of Ben Sira.” In FS for Shamir Yona. Edited by Mayer Gruber. Forthcoming. Kearns, Conleth. The Expanded Text of Ecclesiasticus: Its Teachings on the Future Life as a Clue to its Origin. DCLS 11. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Lilly, Ingrid E. “The Corporeality of the Self: The Example of the Bitter Nefeš as an Ethnomedical Syndrome.” DSD 28. (2021): 396–422. Montgomery, James A. Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1913. Murphy, Roland E. “Yēṣer in the Qumran Literature.” Bib 39 (1958): 334–44. van Peursen, Wido T. The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Rey, Jean-Sébastien. “Doublets in the Hebrew Manuscript B of Sirach.” Pages 125–48 in Sirach and Its Contexts: The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing. Edited by Samuel Adams, Greg Goering, and Matthew Goff. JSJSup 196. Leiden: Brill, 2021.

282

Matthew Goff

Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Schuller, Eileen M., and Carol A. Newsom. The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa. SBLEJL 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Shaked, Shaul, James Nathan Ford, and Siam Bhayro. Aramaic Bowl Spells. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls, Volume One. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Baltimore/Ramat-Gan (Israel). The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Wright, Benjamin G., and Eva Mroczek. “Ben Sira’s Pseudo-Pseudepigraphy: Idealizations from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages.” Pages 213–39 in Sirach and Its Contexts: The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing. Edited by Samuel Adams, Greg Goering, and Matthew Goff. JSJSup 196. Leiden: Brill, 2021.

Part V: Later Authors in Conversation with the Book of Ben Sira

Oda Wischmeyer

The Book of Ben Sira From a ReceptionHistorical Perspective: Hubert Frankemölle’s Commentary on the Letter of James Abstract: The point of departure of this article is Núria Calduch-Benages’s contribution on Sir 2:1 to the Festschrift for Alexander A. di Lella in 2005 where she pointed out the parallels between Sir 2:1 and Jas 1:2. Hubert Frankemölle, in his two-volume commentary on the Letter of James in 1994, already followed the history of the reception of the book of Ben Sira in the Letter of James and referred especially to Jas 1:2–18 and the motif of peirasmos or trial. In the present contribution, Frankemölle’s interpretive approach is re-examined and by comparing texts from Ben Sira and James, a more precise determination of the Wirkungsgeschichte of Ben Sira’s wisdom writing in the Letter of James is attempted. Keywords: Sir 28:8–26; Jas 3:1–12; control of the tongue, reception history, intertextuality, early imperial literature

1 Sophia Iēsou huiou S(e)irach1 and the Letter of James In recent decades, questions and investigations in the history of reception have gained noticeably in interest for biblical studies. In this context, the book of Ben Sira is of considerable importance. The wisdom book, written in Jerusalem around 190/180 BCE by the independent wisdom teacher Jesus Ben Sira,2 was not given a place in the Tanak but in the Greek translation of the author’s grandson. The Book of Sirach came “into the stream of the broad Septuagint traditions”3 and thereby acquired a canonical status. This means that the first Christian writers, Paul and his school, the evangelists, and the writers of the

1 According to the Greek Mss. 2 Wischmeyer, “Jesus ben Sira als erster frühjüdischer Autor,” 19–38. 3 Sauer, Jesus Sirach, 483–644, here p. 486; Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 17– 20. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-019

286

Oda Wischmeyer

Catholic Epistles, could read and quote the book of Ben Sira in its Greek version.4 One could also call this mode of reception the “use hypothesis.”5 Accordingly, in the appendix of the critical edition of the New Testament by E. Nestle and B. and A. Aland,6 two columns of quotations and allusions – different types of usage – from Sirach are listed for the New Testament writings. For the Epistle of James, Nestle-Aland assumes a self-evident knowledge of the Book of Sirach and records the following seven quotations or allusions: Sir 2:1 Sir 3:17 Sir 5:11 Sir 5:13 Sir 14:1 Sir 15:11–20 Sir 28:12

Jas 1:2 Jas 1:21; 3:13 Jas 1:19 Jas 3:6,10 Jas 3:2 Jas 1:13 Jas 3:10

Nestle-Aland testifies to an opinion widely held by exegetes: the Epistle of James and other New Testament writings know and quote the Book of Sirach. The details, however, are contested and must be checked in each case. For example, Dale C. Allison’s magisterial commentary on the Letter of James considerably limits the reception of the Book of Sirach in the Epistle of James, reducing the references to two examples: Sir 2 in Jas 5:10 and Sir 15:11–12 in Jas 1:13. Both references are conspicuously missing in Nestle-Aland. Allison comments on his list: “Many scholars would argue for additional borrowing, others for less … Frankemölle sees extensive influence from Sirach.”7 In fact, it is Hubert Frankemölle’s commentary that reads the Epistle of James principally against the background of the Book of Sirach and thus makes the Epistle of James an important witness to the history of the reception of the Greek translation of the Book of Sirach.8 Before we consider Frankemölle in more detail, let us take a look back at the history of commentary on the Epistle of James. There is a long history of

4 This means that a comparative study of the Book of Sirach and the Letter of James refers to the Greek text. To make this clear, I will use “Sirach” instead of “Ben Sira” in the following essay whenever I refer to the Greek translation. 5 In German: Benutzungshypothese. 6 In addition to the commentaries on the Epistle of James (see below), cf. Sundberg, The Old Testament of the Early Church, 54; Duensberg and Fransen, Ecclesiastico, 18. 7 Allison, James, 51. 8 Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus 1; Der Brief des Jakobus 2.

The Book of Ben Sira From a Reception-Historical Perspective

287

the question of Sirach quotations in James beginning with Joseph B. Mayor’s commentary. The philologically unsurpassed commentary by Mayor lists a page and a half of parallel texts between Sirach and James and points out one important passage in particular: the text “on the use of the Tongue” (Sir 5:11–14 and Jas 3:1–12).9 Martin Dibelius judges differently in his commentary on James from 1921, which is still highly influential today: “It is more difficult to judge whether James has read the book of the Siracid. Numerous words of our scripture touch passages from Sirach …, but nowhere is the similarity so clear that a literary dependency relationship would have to be concluded.”10 Here, Dibelius raises the question of the extent to which similarities in the motifs of the paraenesis indicate “literary dependence” or the extent to which something like a general cultural knowledge underlies such similarities. Dibelius concedes, however: “After all, it is probable from the outset that a Christian author knew the book, which offered Jews and Christians alike a classic collection of wisdom sayings.”11 Between Mayor and Dibelius lies the transition from the 19th century approach of history of literature (“Literaturgeschichte”) to early twentieth century form criticism (“Formgeschichte”), which involves a major methodological change or reorientation for the Book of Ben Sira and the Letter of James. I would like to describe briefly this paradigmatic change in the investigation and to clarify what consequences this change has for the interpretation of the books in question. As long as wisdom writings like the book of Ben Sira and early Christian epistles like the Epistle of James are understood as “literature” in the classical sense of the 19th century, they belong to the realm of the respective literature: the Hebrew book of Ben Sira to the wisdom literature in Jerusalem shortly after 200 BCE, the Greek version of Sirach to the flourishing Jewish-Hellenistic literary activity in Alexandria in the second half of the 2nd century BCE, and the Epistle of James to the early Christian paraenetic epistolary literature around 100 CE. In this context, questions about the history of reception present themselves as a movement between perseverance and development, more precisely as questions about quotations and allusions12 or as an acquisition of a certain

9 Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, lxxiii. 10 Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, 44. 11 Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, 44. 12 The Greek translation of the Hebrew book by the grandson of Ben Sira is a remarkable literary enterprise of its own. The prologue is a document of translation history of the highest importance. It also sheds light on the quality of the Hellenistic-Jewish literary scene in the 2nd half of the 2nd century BCE in Alexandria. See Aitken, “The Literary and Linguistic Subtlety,” 115–40.

288

Oda Wischmeyer

literary genre. The form-critical view (“formgeschichtlich”), often connected with tradition-critical questioning (“traditionsgeschichtlich”), goes in another direction. The work in question is interpreted against the background of one or more other works that provide, as it were, the worldview and the linguistic images and forms for this worldview, which are often expressed in specific literary motifs. Put simply, one could say: here, an author’s literary treatment of older literary texts (pre-texts) is juxtaposed with a collector’s recourse to traditional ideas, motifs, catch words, and themes, drawing from the rich reservoirs of his oral and written traditions. These different models have consequences for the interpretation of the book of Ben Sira as well as for the Letter of James. I would like to point out only a few aspects here: these consequences concern our understanding of the author and his intention to write a literary work, the literary environment of the author, his educational milieu and intentions, and finally, the foundations of authority claimed by the author. For the author of the Epistle of James, the question arises as to his literary ambitions, his educational horizon, and his literary craft. In what way does he deal with those texts that he understands as exemplary, as his cultural and religious heritage or even as canonical – as “scripture” – and which contents does he want to convey to his reading audience? Is the Book of Sirach one of his literary, ethical, and foundational texts, perhaps even the most important pretext? And most importantly, what changes can we perceive? What did the author of the Letter of James add to the traditions he had taken over and how did he deal with them? Recently, a debate about the literary self-understanding of the author of the Epistle of James has arisen, triggered by the dissertation of Sigurvin L. Jónsson.13 Jónsson argues that the Letter of James may be read in the context of the literary activity of Greek writing authors of the 1st century BCE as the Augustan historian and rhetorician Dionysius Halicarnassus. Jónsson refers primarily to the careful, indeed chosen, semantics and metaphors of the Epistle of James, as well as to stylistic subtleties that indicate a literary ambition on the part of the author. His argument in a way means a return to the former literary-historical perspective on early Jewish and early Christian literature but read in the new comprehensive framework that is no longer of the narrow range of early Jewish literature but of early imperial Greek-language literature which includes Greek-language early Jewish literature among other areas. Jónsson has clearly advanced the discussion on the literary classification of the Epistle of James. Three questions must be asked of Jónsson: first, is there still room here for an

13 Jónsson, James among the Classicists. See also Wischmeyer, “Scriptual Classicism,” forthcoming.

The Book of Ben Sira From a Reception-Historical Perspective

289

author’s treatment of traditions? Second, what evidence does Jónsson have for his thesis of a certain proximity of the Epistle of James to the imperial literary establishment and activity? Third and more specifically, what is the significance of the numerous references to Sirach traditions in the Letter of James, if this letter is a literary exercise in the context of early imperial ethical literature? These questions need to be pursued further.14 Here we need to focus on the following questions: what does Jónsson’s fresh approach mean for the relationship between Sirach and James? If we look at the three periods of Sirach and James research, we notice a similar methodological development: older history of literature (“Literaturgeschichte”), form criticism (“Formgeschichte”,) and contemporary literary criticism (“Literaturwissenschaft”), which has developed new issues such as the new question of the author, the author’s authority or his educational context, and his educational intention. In summary: current research focuses on questions of the cultural and literary framework of the Book of Sirach and the Letter of James. Our examination of the relationship between the two texts must take this as its starting point.

2 Hubert Frankemölle’s Commentary Hubert Frankemölle’s approach was different: he has placed his New Testament work primarily in the context of a wide range of academic and church activities for Christian-Jewish cooperation. This refers in particular to his well-received commentary on the Epistle of James. Frankemölle treats the question of wisdom traditions in the Epistle of James with particular intensity and comes to the following general conclusion: “James not only stands in the broad stream of oral and written wisdom traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and the ancient environment … He is not only characterized by a wisdom horizon, but also receives … besides the book of Proverbs in its Greek edition … primarily the book of Jesus Sirach … In many places, especially in the prologue, a literary dependence can be proved. The Epistle of James presents itself as a re-reading of Jesus Sirach.”15 This classification gives his commentary a certain unique position by making the Book of Sirach the hermeneutical and literary key for the Epistle of

14 See Wischmeyer, “Scriptual Classicism;” Wischmeyer, “Die Konstruktion von Kultur,” 71– 98, esp. p. 82. 15 Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus 1, 85.

290

Oda Wischmeyer

James. At the same time, the reverse is true: in Frankemölle’s view, traditions and motifs as well as literary passages from the Book of Sirach are taken up in the Epistle of James and carried forward into early Christianity. Furthermore, Frankemölle makes it very clear that he is not only thinking of a traditionhistorical connection between Sirach and James but assumes a literary dependence or at least a literary reference of the Epistle of James to Sirach. Thus, we are in the context of the history of literature, not – per Dibelius – of the history of tradition and motifs. Before pursuing Frankemölle’s hypothesis more in detail, I will briefly present his general treatment of Sirach. Frankemölle asks “whether wisdom theology provides the key to the overall understanding of the Epistle of James.”16 On the one hand, he thinks of the broad spectrum of early Jewish wisdom writings and also includes the Logia source Q as well as pagan wisdom traditions and, on the other hand, he focuses his investigation on Jesus Sirach.17 He interprets James in the line of Jesus Sirach as a wisdom theologian who does not represent a wisdom Christology: “James thinks wisdom quite anthropologically-theocentrically.”18 For the theological interpretation of the Book of Sirach, another thought of Frankemölle is important. With regard to the Muratorian Canon, which lists Sapientia Salomonis under the New Testament writings, Frankemölle points out that “in a Christian perspective, the early Jewish wisdom literature could certainly be understood as Christian literature in its own right.”19 Frankemölle speaks of the “identity of Jewish and Christian world experience in wisdom-theological interpretation”20 – a formulation that is of central importance especially in the current debates about “Jesus the Jew”21 and “Paul within Judaism.”22 This judgment sheds new light on the theological significance of the question of the connection between Sirach and the Epistle of James. Further, theological, religious-historical, and cultural-scientific considerations are necessary in this area.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus 1, 82. Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus 1, 85. Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus 1, 87. Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus 1, 87. Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus 1, 88. Recently, Ehrensperger, “Jesus der Jude,” 22–36. Critically, see Wischmeyer, “A Plea for an Intellectual Biography,” forthcoming.

The Book of Ben Sira From a Reception-Historical Perspective

291

3 Perspectives and Instruments of Methodological Comparison The instruments of methodological comparison in the form of the dependence of the later book on the earlier one are manifold. Basically, they include citation, allusion, and borrowing. The larger theoretical framework can be determined in different ways: as intertextuality, re-reading, reception history or, even more comprehensively, as shared literary culture and ancient Jewish and early Christian ethos. If we refer to Frankemölle and take him at his word, we must first look for Sirach quotes in the Epistle of James. It was Núria Calduch-Benages who, unlike the above-mentioned scholars, has made it very clear that we do not find Sirach quotes in the New Testament. Calduch-Benages begins her comparative contribution on Sirach and James with the sentence: “There is not a single explicit quotation from Ben Sira to be found in the NT – neither the author nor the book is mentioned.”23 Nevertheless, Calduch-Benages, a Ben Sira expert, has taken up this theme and compared Sir 2:1 with Jas 1:2. In doing so, she has set standards. Her verdict: “The letter of James is undoubtedly the NT writing that comes closest to the Book of Ben Sira,”24 thus giving us the task to spell out what “comes closest” means. First of all, it is quite clear that the most important instrument of a literarybased text comparison between Sirach and James, the instrument that is used again and again in complicated philological studies, the citation, is eliminated. Scholars who follow this insight have therefore focused primarily on the methodological instrument of allusion and borrowing.25 Calduch-Benages herself avoids entirely conceptual definitions in the sense of “literary dependence” and speaks instead of “numerous points of contact that merit closer study.”26 Before we continue to follow this trail, however, we want to explore the difference between quotation and allusion in a broader sense. The difference

23 Calduch-Benages, “Amid Trials,” 255–63. 24 Calduch-Benages, “Amid Trials,” 257. 25 Allison, James, 51, in his table of the “sources” of the Epistle of James, differentiates between borrowing, quotation, and allusion, but without offering definitions. The differences between these various types of intertextuality are indeed gradual. 26 Calduch-Benages, “Amid Trials,” 258. Calduch-Benages works with precise linguistic comparisons of Sir 2:1 and Jas 1:2: vocative, imperative, the noun “trial” (p. 260). The key term is trial “as a means of education” (p. 262). Calduch-Benages also points to the innovative interpretation of the wisdom concept of “trial” by James (p. 263). She finds the connecting link in the idea of a wise teacher who contributes to the education of his pupils or community (p. 263).

292

Oda Wischmeyer

lies in the concept of authorisation of the author, on the one hand, and education of the readership, on the other hand. An explicit quotation from “Scripture” with introductory phrases like: “as is written …,” “the prophet says,” “Moses says,” etc.,27 means that the text at hand is in agreement or in dialogue with an authority and therefore claims authority itself. The quote serves mainly to support the argument and to endorse the author’s authority. This distinction yields interesting results for the Epistle of James. We find the following introductory formulas in the Letter of James: (1)

Εἰ μέντοι νόμον τελεῖτε βασιλικὸν κατὰ τὴν γραφήν·ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν, You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (2:8), quotation from Lev 19:18.

(2)

ὁ γὰρ εἰπών· μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, εἶπεν καί· μὴ φονεύσῃς, For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” (2:11), quotation from Ex 20:13s.

(3)

καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα· ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (2:23), quotation from Gen 15:6.

(4)

ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει· πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ἡμῖν, Or do you suppose that it is for nothing that the scripture says, “God yearns jealously for the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? (4:5), unknown source.28

(5)

διὸ λέγει·ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν, therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (4:6), quotation from Prov 3:34s.

The citations clearly show which texts of Scripture have particular authoritative strength for the author of the Letter of James, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviti27 On different introductory formulas in scriptural quotations, see Wischmeyer, “Paulus als Hermeneut,” 71–94. 28 The introductory formula shows beyond doubt that the author is quoting from “Scripture” here. For the complicated discussion, see Allison, James, 51–71. Allison is particularly concerned with the Jesus-tradition in James.

The Book of Ben Sira From a Reception-Historical Perspective

293

cus, and Proverbs, and they also show in which way these quotations are used for the argumentation. Two categories can be distinguished. The three quotations from Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus are standard quotations in early Christianity.29 The author uses them to support his main theological message against what he considers to be Pauline theology. We observe a theological argument by quotations and about quotations. The controversial question is: which theologian owns the Genesis quote on Abraham’s faith? The second category concerns the quote from Proverbs and from the unknown scripture: here, the context is a prophetic sermon and it is a matter of reinforcing the ethical appeal or the paraenesis. The double quotation underlines the sharpness and the emphasis of the ethical exhortation. In this very context, the author of James could have quoted Sirach as well as Proverbs if he wanted to ascribe authoritative significance to the Book of Sirach. He also gave the same authoritative meaning to a book unknown to us (4:5) for his argumentation. This circumstance shows that the author’s reading went beyond the narrower canon of the Tanak and that he was not afraid to cite “extra-canonical” texts as scriptural authority. If he does not explicitly cite Sirach, it does not mean that he did not know or appreciate Sirach but only that he felt he did not need the book for his particular ethical argument in ch. 4. Let us also take a look at other ways of theoretically denoting the relationships between texts. Intertextuality encompasses questions of literary history, literary theory, textual theory, literary sociology, and general sign theory. The frame of reference is always the text. In recent times, instead of intertextuality, questions have often been asked about reception, whereby the accent has been shifted from the texts to the transported contents and their effect and further processing on the one hand and to the reading behavior of the readership and its change over time on the other hand. The concept of re-reading is based on the person of the later reader, who deals with the text read in a way that is both receptive and productive. A very open concept is that of shared literary culture and ancient Jewish and early Christian ethos advocated by Jónsson for the Epistle of James. It seems to me to be a suitable way of describing the book of Sirach as well as the relationship between Sirach and James and explaining the clear relationships between the two texts beyond the notions of sources, traditions, and dependencies, all of which have clear methodological weaknesses.

29 Lev 19:18 quoted also in Rom 12:19; 13:9; Gal 5:14 (also quoted in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Exod 20:13–17 quoted also in Rom 13:9, (in a critical way quoted in Mt 5:21); Gen 15:6 quoted also in Rom 4:3, 9; Gal 3:6 (allusion in Heb 11:8).

294

Oda Wischmeyer

4 Jas 3: a Text Example In the following, I would like to illuminate the abovementioned concept by a comparative analysis of Sir 28:8–26 and Jas 3:1–1230 which Frankemölle interprets in an impressive way against the background of Sirach-texts.31 With this textual example, Frankemölle’s comparative method can be both presented and critically discussed. Jas 3:1 Μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί μου, εἰδότες ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα λημψόμεθα. 2 πολλὰ γὰρ πταίομεν ἅπαντες. εἴ τις ἐν λόγῳ οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνὴρ δυνατὸς χαλιναγωγῆσαι καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα. 3 εἰ δὲ τῶν ἵππων τοὺς χαλινοὺς εἰς τὰ στόματα βάλλομεν εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἡμῖν, καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα αὐτῶν μετάγομεν. 4 ἰδοὺ καὶ τὰ πλοῖα τηλικαῦτα ὄντα καὶ ὑπὸ ἀνέμων σκληρῶν ἐλαυνόμενα μετάγεται ὑπὸ ἐλαχίστου πηδαλίου ὅπου ἡ ὁρμὴ τοῦ εὐθύνοντος βούλεται. 5 οὕτως καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα μικρὸν μέλος ἐστὶν καὶ μεγάλα αὐχεῖ. ἰδοὺ ἡλίκον πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει. 6 καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ. ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας ἡ γλῶσσα καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν ἡ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον τὸ σῶμα καὶ φλογίζουσα τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως καὶ φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης. 7 πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις θηρίων τε καὶ πετεινῶν, ἑρπετῶν τε καὶ ἐναλίων δαμάζεται καὶ δεδάμασται τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ, 8 τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δαμάσαι δύναται ἀνθρώπων, ἀκατάστατον κακόν, μεστὴ ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου. 9 ἐν αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν κύριον καὶ πατέρα καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ καταρώμεθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας· 10 ἐ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στόματος ἐξέρχεται εὐλογία καὶ κατάρα. οὐ χρή, ἀδελφοί μου, ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι. 11 μήτι ἡ πηγὴ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς ὀπῆς βρύει τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρόν; 12 μὴ δύναται, ἀδελφοί μου, συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι ἢ ἄμπελος σῦκα; οὔτε ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ. 1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. 4 Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits.

How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. 7 For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, 8 but no one can tame the tongue – a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water?

30 See Mayor (n. 9 above). 31 Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus 2; 485–521. On pp. 485–87, he reprints not only chapter 28 but also the other mentions of the tongue in the Book of Sirach.

The Book of Ben Sira From a Reception-Historical Perspective

295

12

Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh.

Jas 3:1–12 is an independent text on the theme of “tongue.” The author’s intention is twofold. On the one hand, he wants to limit the early Christian teachers’ enthusiasm for discussion and possibly literary publication while, on the other hand, he himself puts his literary ambition into writing a text on the topic of the tongue that is as impressive as possible. The text is carefully constructed: introductory exhortation (v. 1), justification (v. 2), two images from everyday life: first comparison: bridle (v. 3), second comparison: ship’s oar (v. 4). Vv. 5– 10 are the main parts of the text. They are dedicated to the theme of the tongue, which stands for arguments and quarrels. Finally, the author uses the image of the spring with two outlets (vv. 11–12). The ethical teaching on the dangers of speech and the tongue respectively is clear, focused, and descriptive and contains a clear build-up to the emphatic double rhetorical question in vv. 11 and 12. The author uses a number of metaphors and rare words to put his simple ethical message: be careful in formulating doctrines into literary garb. In the context of the New Testament, Jas 3 stands without parallel.32 The subject of the “danger of the tongue” has been a classic part of wisdom exhortation and education since Proverbs, and the LXX addition Prov 24:22a–e is already a short text on the subject. But it is not until Sir 28 that a detailed exhortation is devoted to the subject of “strife,” the individual sayings of which, from a literary point of view, are held together by the two images of fire and tongue. Sir 28 is in any case a pre-text of Jas 3, if we apply the very general theory of intertextuality to both texts. Sir 28:8 ᾿Απόσχου ἀπὸ μάχης, καὶ ἐλαττώσεις ἁμαρτίας· ἄνθρωπος γὰρ θυμώδης ἐκκαύσει μάχην, 9 καὶ ἀνὴρ ἁμαρτωλὸς ταράξει φίλους καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον εἰρηνευόντων ἐμβαλεῖ διαβολήν. 10 κατὰ τὴν ὕλην τοῦ πυρὸς οὕτως ἐκκαυθήσεται, καὶ κατὰ τὴν στερέωσιν τῆς μάχης ἐκκαυθήσεται· κατὰ τὴν ἰσχὺν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ θυμὸς αὐτοῦ ἔσται, καὶ κατὰ τὸν πλοῦτον ἀνυψώσει ὀργὴν αὐτοῦ. 11 ἔρις κατασπευδομένη ἐκκαίει πῦρ, καὶ μάχη κατασπεύδουσα ἐκχέει αἷμα. 12 ἐὰν φυσήσῃς εἰς σπινθῆρα, ἐκκαήσεται, καὶ ἐὰν πτύσῃς ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, σβεσθήσεται· καὶ ἀμφότερα ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου ἐκπορεύεται.

32 The metaphor of the tongue is quoted in 1 Pet 3:10 (Ps 33:14 LXX) and used in 1 John 3:18. 1 Cor 14 refers to the ecstatic phenomenon of glossolalia.

296 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 8 9 10

11 12 13 14

Oda Wischmeyer

Ψίθυρον καὶ δίγλωσσον καταράσασθε· πολλοὺς γὰρ εἰρηνεύοντας ἀπώλεσεν. γλῶσσα τρίτη πολλοὺς ἐσάλευσεν καὶ διέστησεν αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ ἔθνους εἰς ἔθνος καὶ πόλεις ὀχυρὰς καθεῖλεν καὶ οἰκίας μεγιστάνων κατέστρεψεν. γλῶσσα τρίτη γυναῖκας ἀνδρείας ἐξέβαλεν καὶ ἐστέρεσεν αὐτὰς τῶν πόνων αὐτῶν. ὁ προσέχων αὐτῇ οὐ μὴ εὕρῃ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐδὲ κατασκηνώσει μεθ᾽ ἡσυχίας. πληγὴ μάστιγος ποιεῖ μώλωπα, πληγὴ δὲ γλώσσης συγκλάσει ὀστᾶ. πολλοὶ ἔπεσαν ἐν στόματι μαχαίρας, καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ πεπτωκότες διὰ γλῶσσαν. μακάριος ὁ σκεπασθεὶς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς, ὃς οὐ διῆλθεν ἐν τῷ θυμῷ αὐτῆς, ὃς οὐχ εἵλκυσεν τὸν ζυγὸν αὐτῆς καὶ ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐδέθη· ὁ γὰρ ζυγὸς αὐτῆς ζυγὸς σιδηροῦς, καὶ οἱ δεσμοὶ αὐτῆς δεσμοὶ χάλκειοι· θάνατος πονηρὸς ὁ θάνατος αὐτῆς, καὶ λυσιτελὴς μᾶλλον ὁ ᾅδης αὐτῆς. οὐ μὴ κρατήσῃ εὐσεβῶν, καὶ ἐν τῇ φλογὶ αὐτῆς οὐ καήσονται. οἱ καταλείποντες κύριον ἐμπεσοῦνται εἰς αὐτήν, καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐκκαήσεται καὶ οὐ μὴ σβεσθῇ· ἐπαποσταλήσεται αὐτοῖς ὡς λέων καὶ ὡς πάρδαλις λυμανεῖται αὐτούς. ἰδὲ περίφραξον τὸ κτῆμά σου ἀκάνθαις, τὸ ἀργύριόν σου καὶ τὸ χρυσίον κατάδησον· καὶ τοῖς λόγοις σου ποίησον ζυγὸν καὶ σταθμὸν καὶ τῷ στόματί σου ποίησον θύραν καὶ μοχλόν. πρόσεχε μήπως ὀλίσθῃς ἐν αὐτῇ, μὴ πέσῃς κατέναντι ἐνεδρεύοντος. Refrain from strife, and your sins will be fewer; for the hot-tempered kindle strife, and the sinner disrupts friendships and sows discord among those who are at peace. In proportion to the fuel, so will the fire burn, and in proportion to the obstinacy, so will strife increase; in proportion to a person’s strength will be his anger, and in proportion to his wealth he will increase his wrath. A hasty quarrel kindles a fire, and a hasty dispute sheds blood. If you blow on a spark, it will glow; if you spit on it, it will be put out; yet both come out of your mouth. Curse the gossips and the double-tongued, for they destroy the peace of many. Slander has shaken many, and scattered them from nation to nation; it has destroyed strong cities, and overturned the houses of the great.

The Book of Ben Sira From a Reception-Historical Perspective

15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23

24a 25b 24b 25a 26

297

Slander has driven virtuous women from their homes, and deprived them of the fruit of their toil. Those who pay heed to slander will not find rest, nor will they settle down in peace. The blow of a whip raises a welt, but a blow of the tongue crushes the bones. Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not as many as have fallen because of the tongue. Happy is the one who is protected from it, who has not been exposed to its anger, who has not borne its yoke, and has not been bound with its fetters. For its yoke is a yoke of iron, and its fetters are fetters of bronze; its death is an evil death, and Hades is preferable to it. It has no power over the godly; they will not be burned in its flame. Those who forsake the Lord will fall into its power; it will burn among them and will not be put out. It will be sent out against them like a lion; like a leopard it will mangle them. As you fence in your property with thorns, so make a door and a bolt for your mouth. As you lock up your silver and gold, so make balances and scales for your words. Take care not to err with your tongue, and fall victim to one lying in wait.

The moral motto of Sir 28:8–26 is: ᾿Απόσχου ἀπὸ μάχης. The dangers of strife are illustrated from different sides. Sirach stereotypically draws some characters or groups of people that he considers to be prone to quarrelling and strife: the angry, the sinner, and the rich (28:8–12), and uses the metaphor of fire to make the destructive power of strife as vivid as possible. In 28:12, the author adds a complex figure of speech whose antithetical structure (καὶ ἀμφότερα ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου ἐκπορεύεται) is important for Jas 3:10. Other groups that are quarrelsome are mentioned in vv. 13–16: the whistleblower, the slanderer, the person with two tongues. From v. 17 to 26,33 Ben Sira uses the metaphor of the tongue as an aggressive and destructive organ by linking the tongue metaphor with the following other metaphors: with whip and sword in the mode of comparison, as a secondary metaphor (in the genitive case: the “yoke of the tongue”) with yoke and fetters (vv. 17–19). In v. 20, the tongue is brought into connection with death and Hades. While v. 21 takes up the fire motif once more, v. 23 adds anoth-

33 The tongue is the grammatical subject throughout though it is eclipsed by a flood of other linguistic imagery.

298

Oda Wischmeyer

er destructive imagery: lion and panther. Vv. 24 and following are a digression: here the metaphor of the mouth is leading. The final verse has a hortatory character and connects the danger represented by the tongue (ἐν αὐτῇ) once again with a metaphor common in Sirach: a trap. A brief comparison initially reveals a number of differences concerning scope, sentence structure, argumentative dynamics, and the use of linguistic imagery. The text of Sirach is much more extensive than Jas 3. The sentence structure inhibits argumentative progress in favor of self-contained and literarily ambitious text units (stichs), based on individual sentences. Ben Sira emphasizes repetition, doubling, enumeration of examples, and the accumulation of linguistic images even in a single verse. In short, Sirach cultivates a style that seeks to convince through vividness, breadth, repetition and the accumulation of examples. James, on the other hand, develops an argumentative style. Examples are clearly distinguished from argumentative and paraenetic sentences (v. 5). The text culminates in rhetorical questions. Through brevity and thematic concentration, James creates a text that is immediately convincing. The rapid and pointed argumentation of James contrasts with the rather broad and leisurely accumulation of sayings in Sirach, who loves to go into details and does not omit any possible related motif.

Conclusion In terms of motifs, Jas 3 is obviously dependent on Sir 28: strife, fire, tongue, Hades (Jas 3:6 φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης), death: these motifs form a cluster of their own to which James refers. Frankemölle is right in terms of “tradition history” when he writes that James “found this antithetical thinking with regard to the positive and negative powers of the tongue in Jesus Sirach.”34 He is also right when he interprets James against the background of Sirach. But even our brief comparison has shown that the two texts I have chosen as comparative examples follow different literary concepts while dealing with the same subject matter. James has emancipated himself from the wisdom saying, the basis of wisdom literature: he chooses instead the literary genre of the ethical epistle and works with the means of contemporary rhetoric. To put it more pointedly, one could say that the author of the Epistle of James modernizes the ethical concerns of Sirach. This brings us close to Jónsson’s assessment that places the Epistle of James in the context of early imperial literature with its striving for

34 Frankemölle, Der Brief des Jakobus 2, 485.

The Book of Ben Sira From a Reception-Historical Perspective

299

imitatio and aemulatio. This is a step beyond Frankemölle: the Book of Sirach and the Letter of James are no longer read primarily in terms of shared traditions but are interpreted as literary works in their respective religious and cultural contexts and their specific literary ambitions. In this way, not only is light shed on the Letter of James but also the literary achievement of the Book of Sirach becomes clear in comparison. The Letter of James remains an important testimony to the history of the reception of the Book of Sirach but at the same time the comparison makes clear how much the Letter of James is already part of the literature of the early imperial period.

Bibliography Aitken, James K. “The Literary and Linguistic Subtlety of the Greek Version of Sirach.” Pages 115–40 in Texts and Contexts of the Book of Sirach / Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches. Edited by Gerhard Karner, Frank Ueberschaer, and Burkard M Zapff. SCS 66. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Allison, Dale C. James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. ICC. New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2013. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Amid Trials: Ben Sira 2:1 and James 1:2.” Pages 255–63 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, OFM. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Dibelius, Martin. Der Brief des Jakobus. KEK 15. Göttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Duesberg, Hilaire, and Irénée Fransen. Ecclesiastico. La Sacra Bibbia. Rome/Turin: Marietti, 1966. Ehrensperger, Kathy. “Jesus der Jude: Beobachtungen zu den jüdisch-christlichen Beziehungen in der gegenwärtigen Forschung.” TLZ 146 (2021): 22–36. Frankemölle, Hubert. Der Brief des Jakobus. Kapitel 1. ÖTK 17/1. Gütersloh/Würzburg: Gütersloher/Echter, 1994. Frankemölle, Hubert. Der Brief des Jakobus. Kapitel 2–5. ÖTK 17/2. Gütersloh/Würzburg: Gütersloher/Echter, 1994. Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James. London: Macmillan, 1892. Jónsson, Sigurvin L. James among the Classicists. Reading the Letter of James in Light of Ancient Literary Criticism. Studia Aarhusiana Neotestamentica. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach (Ben Sira). JSHRZ III/5. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1981. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York 1987. Sundberg, Albert C. The Old Testament of the Early Church. HTS 20. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964. Wischmeyer, Oda. “Die Konstruktion von Kultur im Sirachbuch.” Pages 71–98 in Texts and Contexts of the Book of Sirach / Texte und Kontexte des Sirachbuches. Edited by Gerhard Karner, Frank Ueberschaer, and Burkard M Zapff. SCS 66. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017.

300

Oda Wischmeyer

Wischmeyer, Oda. “Paulus als Hermeneut der GRAPHE.” Pages 71–94 in Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments. Edited by Markus Witte and Jan C. Gertz. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017. Wischmeyer, Oda. “Jesus ben Sira als erster frühjüdischer Autor.” Pages 19–38 in Autoren in religiösen literarischen Texten der späthellenistischen und frühkaiserzeitlichen Welt. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Jörg Rüpke. Culture, Religion, and Politics in the GrecoRoman World 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Wischmeyer, Oda. “A Plea for an Intellectual Biography of Paul: Paul after the New Perspective and the Radical New Perspective.” Pages XXX in Paulus – Forschungsstand. Themen. Texte. Gesammelte Aufsätze II. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker und Sigurvin L. Jónsson. WUNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. (Forthcoming) Wischmeyer, Oda. “Scriptual Classicism? The Letter of James as an Early Christian Literary Document. Pages XXX in Who was James? Essays on the Letter’s Authorship and Provenance. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker, S. Luther, and Sigurvin L. Jónsson. WUNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. Forthcoming.

Elisa Estévez López

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger (Jas 1:19 and Sir 5:11) Abstract: This article aims to relate the exhortation of James on the proper use of language, the difficulties to control what is said, the evil that it can cause (Jas 3:1–12), and the need to listen and be slow to speak (Jas 1:19–20, 26; 3:1–12), with the convictions that Ben Sira holds regarding the ethics of language (Sir 5:9–6:1). Although the contexts are different, both texts share the belief that the ability to control the tongue singles out wise people and is a way of delimiting the boundaries of identity for their communities of reference. The study uses the personality model with its three interconnected zones: zone of selfexpressive speech (mouth-ears), emotion-fused thought (eyes-heart), and purposeful action (hands-feet). Keywords: Jas 1:9, Sir 5:11, control of the tongue, wisdom from above, identity, three zones of personality

Introduction The ethics of language is part of the concerns of the ancient Mediterranean world. Since words can mean life or death, every culture encourages the proper control of the two organs of the body, namely the mouth and the ears. What is heard and spoken is continually and carefully examined so that it does not transgress the identity boundaries of the groups to which it belongs. This is found in Jewish wisdom literature, in Christian writings, and also in the ethical reflections of the Greco-Roman world. In this article, we focus on James’s exhortations on the proper use of words in relationships with others and the difficulties of regulating what is said and the harm that a word can cause. And so, James urges the need to listen and be slow to speak (Jas 1:19–20, 26; 3:1–12).1 In the style of the sages, James reworks, in light of his faith in Jesus, common elements of wisdom traditions from before him, belonging to both the Hellenistic and the Jewish world. His development is an exercise in the collective memory of the teaching of Jesus in order to serve

1 In James, there are other texts on the use and abuse of the tongue (Jas 2:12; 4:1–2, 11–12; 5:12), to which we will refer, without analyzing them. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-020

302

Elisa Estévez López

the questions of the collective identity addressed by the letter. James draws on the tradition of Jesus and creates his own sayings and reflections to offer the Jewish Christian communities in the Diaspora (Jas 1:1) all they need to live in a suitable (pure) way and, more specifically, to make use of the word in accordance with their Christian faith.2 We will compare specifically the teaching on the ethics of communication in the letter of James with that of Ben Sira, focusing especially on Sir 5:9–6:1.3 The relationship between the two works is widely recognized. As Núria CalduchBenages rightly observed, however, it is not a question of finding a relationship of dependence or direct influence but rather of highlighting the common sapiential background they both share.4 In terms of the ethics of communication, there are specific differences. In the case of James, this is the result of his way of appropriating the distinctive features of Jesus’s teaching in the Gospels. Ben Sira, on the other hand, has strong links with the book of Proverbs, even if it does not contain textual quotations. He develops and adapts its teachings while also dialoguing with other sapiential sources from the Greek and Egyptian worlds.5 From the beginning of his letter, James insists on the necessity of a faith that is not weak (Jas 1:8) or two-minded (δίψυχος) and inconsistent (ἀκατάστατος). Those who define themselves in this way lack wisdom (Jas 1:5–6a) and faith (Jas 1:6b–8) and do not show a proper self-evaluation between rich and poor (Jas 1:9–11).6 At the same time, it is important to note that already at the beginning of his epistle, James emphasizes that speaking with proper control of one’s own passions identifies the wise person with faith (Jas 1:19–21) who, in addition, cares for orphans and widows. The unitary conception of the human being, typical of biblical traditions, will be the model we will use to highlight both the importance of the use of speech and listening (mouth-ears) and their relationship with thought, emotions, intentions, and everything that is related to the moral and spiritual life (heart) and also with concrete actions (hands-feet). The three zones are interrelated, shedding important light on the doctrine of the discipline of speaking.

2 Cf. Bauckham, James, 28. 3 We focus on this text which recalls the passage of Jas 3:1–12. In Sirach we find, however, other poems concerning the control of the tongue: 23:7–15 and 28:12–26 (see Di Lella, “Doctrine,” 233–52). 4 No explicit citation of Ben Sira is found in the New Testament. See Calduch-Benages, “Trials,” 253–63. 5 Cf. Corley, “Intertextual,” 182. 6 Frankemölle, Jakobus, 137.

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger

303

1 An Exercise in Collective Memory The author of the letter of James can be understood in a broad sense as a sage who composes and structures his own sayings and discourses in the style of the Jewish sages, albeit in a more modest way. Like Ben Sira, he transmits and develops tradition by appropriating, recreating, and adapting it to new situations.7 But James also carries out an exercise in collective memory and thus establishes a strong link between the past and the present, between the tradition of Jesus’s sayings and the situation of the Christian groups he addresses. Studies on collective memory, initiated by Maurice Halbwachs (1877–1945), have shown that the public re-evocation of the past has at least two important social functions: to give cohesion to the group and to guarantee its identity.8 The bonds of belonging are recreated and strengthened when people recognize and own their shared past, turning certain events or reflections into core elements of their identity. Otherwise, groups will challenge the established memory and offer an alternative memory where they recognize themselves and others.9 The relationship between memory and identity has been enriched by Henri Tajfel’s (1919–1982) studies on social identity, that is, identity traits of a person that are explained by his or her belonging to a particular group. Social identity is the result of cognitive, evaluative, and emotional processes that lead a person to recognize him or herself as a member of a group, equivalent to and interchangeable with other members of that group; they are processes that both trigger evaluations of one’s own group in relation to others and activate feelings of positive identification with insiders and of differentiation (usually negative) with outsiders.10 On the other hand, collective identity is the definition that a group makes of itself, the result of the peculiarities and traits that are attributed to it by its members when they think not as individuals or independent subjects but as interrelated. Hence, for some authors, the expressions “social identity” and “collective identity” are interchangeable.11 The theory of social identity is particularly relevant as it allows us to approach the process that is triggered in

7 Cf. Bauckham, James, 81–82. Moo, James, 9–10, considers, however, that although James is concerned with some typical issues of traditional wisdom (speech, wealth and poverty, dissensions), the letter is nonetheless a type of homiletic writing and not properly a work of wisdom consisting of a set of proverbs. 8 Cf. Jedlowski, Memorie, 381. 9 Cf. Esler, “Memory,” 156–57. 10 Cf. Tajfel, Differentiation, 63. 11 Cf. Rebolloso, “Conducta,” 788.

304

Elisa Estévez López

a group so that its members identify themselves as such and make its values and beliefs their own, influencing their behavior. The exercise of collective memory that James explores does not simply refer to an individual activity nor to a set of contents as a deposit of tradition but to the way in which he selects, filters, restructures, broadens, and interprets the past in light of the wisdom of Jesus as a focus and principle on the one hand and, on the other hand, in service of the questions and needs that the author had in his time.12 Ben Sira also appropriates the tradition without repeating it and in relation to the new context for which he writes his wisdom maxims. He takes sayings from Proverbs, which he does not quote verbatim but reformulates them, making them his own.13 In recalling the wisdom of Jesus, the epistle of James clearly aligns itself with it and distances itself significantly from the Jewish and also Hellenistic sapiential paraenetical tradition, as can be seen in the following characteristics, as identified by Richard Bauckham:14 1) it is focused on perfection (teleios) and, in this sense, its teaching, like that of Jesus, is very counter-cultural and not aligned with social conventions; 2) it is a call for solidarity with the poor rather than their exploitation and a call for a relationship of brotherhood instead of arrogance and hierarchical position; 3) the perspective of its writing is eschatological, bearing in mind the imminent coming of the Lord (Jas 5:7–8); 4) the image of God as merciful and compassionate (Jas 5:12) who gives generously to all is highlighted (Jas 1:5, 17; 4:6); and 5) the Jewish Christian communities in the Diaspora are asked to live by clearly reflecting God’s laws in their way of life, one that is different from the surrounding beliefs and values. Among the specific concerns of James are the ethics of communication. He devotes ample space to the topic in his letter (Jas 1:19–20, 26; 2:12; 3:1–12; 4:1–2, 11–12; 5:12). It is not absent from the Jewish and Hellenistic wisdom tradition and appears also in some sayings of Jesus (Matt 5:33–37; 12:33–37; Luke 6:43– 47; cf. Matt 15:10–20). Many of the aspects of speaking and listening that this Christian author points out have a common substratum with these traditions. However, the wisdom of Jesus, which he weaves into the thread of his own instruction, shapes his own sapiential reflection.15 In some cases, he departs from traditional Jewish or Hellenistic ethical orientations whenever they differ,

12 Despite the similarities with Matthew, most authors acknowledge that James did not know his gospel, but a tradition about Jesus of the kind in Matthew, similar to that of Q. Cf. Brown, Introducción, 946–48. 13 Cf. Bauckham, “Wisdom,” 78–82. 14 Cf. Bauckham, James, 100–11. 15 Cf. Moo, James, 7.

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger

305

for example, with concerns for self-interest and the centrality of honor and shame. James, on the other hand, stresses the connections between what is said and what comes from the heart, the denunciation of hypocrisy and the prohibition of oaths, or the connections between proper control of the tongue and living the Word that is received. All this is at the service of the configuration of the limits of identity for the group of Jewish Christian communities to whom he addresses his letter and who are going through specific circumstances.16 Among them are situations of poverty and suffering at the hands of the rich and the need to maintain a “pure and undefiled religion” (Jas 1:27), which distances them from the world but brings them closer to God (Jas 4:4). The churches are challenged to live in a way that does not involve making a covenant with the world, which is an expression of an earthly and demonic wisdom (Jas 3:15) – the inclination to honor the rich and discriminate against the poor (Jas 2:1–4); the misuse of speech (Jas 3:1–12; 4:11– 12; 5:9); violent quarrels in the community (Jas 4:1–3); arrogance and divided hearts (Jas 1:8: 4:8) so that they do not act and speak according to the faith they profess (Jas 1:21–27; 2:14–26). James writes to minority and marginal groups in the empire who may be tempted to conform and whom he warns against assimilating to the dominant values.17 Nevertheless, on some issues, such as in its treatment of wealth and poverty, this Christian writing favors what Gerd Theisen called “the patriarchalism of love.”18 Existing social inequalities were not rejected but ethical principles were incorporated to bridge the gap. James speaks of the poor as “rich in faith” and “heirs of the kingdom” (2:5) and exhorts the rich not to affront the poor or oppress them or drag them into courts (2:6).

2 Being a Believer in all Dimensions of the Person In order to understand James’s exhortations on the kind of speaking consistent with one’s professed faith in Jesus Christ and with the traditions on this subject

16 According to Moo, James, 23, the heading of the letter, “to the twelve tribes that are in the Diaspora” (Jas 1:1), retains its more literal meaning, given the Jewish atmosphere of the whole letter and the early date of its writing (for this author in the middle 40s, before the Council of Jerusalem). In contrast, Bauckham, James, 26, describes the letter as an “encyclical” which deals with typical and non-specific situations. 17 For an approach to this theme in the different communities of Christian origins, see Aguirre (ed.). Jerusalén. 18 Cf. Theissen, Sociología, 230.

306

Elisa Estévez López

in Ben Sira, it is necessary to understand the model of the three zones of the personality proposed by Bernard de Gerardon.19 We will briefly present the model from which we will work out the ethical issues relative to speech. Biblical thinking does not understand human personality in dualistic categories (body/flesh and soul/spirit) but in terms of interrelated levels in the person: heart-eyes (intelligence, will, and affection), mouth-ears (language), and hands-feet (activity). Thought, speech, and action are closely related. These three personality zones account for and serve to describe human behavior in a unitary and integral way. Each of them is represented by the various organs of the body and their activities but they are also highly symbolic. Emotion-fused thought zone is represented by the eyes and the heart. The inner zone of the human being is the seat of all the aspects of life: psychic, emotional, intellectual (thought, also the seat of memory and remembrance), volitional (intentions, will, and decision), moral and spiritual (relationship with God). Self-expressive speech zone represented by the mouth, tongue, and ears, is linked to communication and dialogue through language and to understanding and discernment through hearing. Purposeful action zone represented by the hands and feet includes the concrete actions and behaviors of a person, as well as his or her lifestyle or the paths he or she follows. This model presents a non-introspective way of analyzing behaviors in relation to others and things. The behaviors are evaluated based on what is externally observable and according to the levels of heart, mouth/tongue, and hands/ feet. The relationship between these three levels actualizes their dynamism and highlights the person’s harmony or imbalance in his/her relationship with others and with God. This scheme can be identified in both the letter of James and in the book of Ben Sira. We will limit the discussion to a few references. Sir 2:15–17 expresses this unitary and integral conception of the human being: “those who fear the Lord do not disobey his words, those who love him keep his ways. Those who fear the Lord seek his pleasure, those who love him are filled with his Law. Those who fear the Lord have a willing heart, and in his presence, they humble themselves.”20 Sometimes only two areas are focused on, as in Sir 1:28–30: “Do not stand out against fear of the Lord, and do not approach him with a divided heart. Do not be hypocritical before men; guard your lips, Do not exalt yourself, lest you fall and bring dishonor on yourself … for your heart is full of deceit” (heart-lips),21 or in Sir 4:3: “do not aggravate a heart already angry, nor keep the destitute waiting for your alms” (heart-hands). 19 de Gerardon, “L’homme,” 683–95; the proposed model is followed by Mourlon, Hombre; Malina, Antropología cultural, 96–106. 20 Cf. Sir 6:12–15,17; 31:12–14. 21 Sir 21:26.

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger

307

In Jas 1:26–27, we can recognize this tripartite scheme: “If anyone considers himself religious because he does not bridle his tongue, he deceives his heart, and his religiosity is empty. A pure and blameless religion in the sight of God the Father consists in caring for orphans and widows in their need and in not allowing oneself to be defiled by the world” (heart, tongue, hands). These verses provide a very important key to understanding the letter’s exhortation to a faith that expresses itself in deeds, be they adequate words or righteous actions for the poor.

3 Separating Oneself from the Surrounding World by Controlling the Tongue In James and in Ben Sira, the use and abuse of the tongue indicates whether a person is wise or foolish. A person who lives in a unitary and integral way according to the wisdom of heaven is wise but the one who lives according to earthly wisdom is not (moral dualism). We will now focus on three concepts: purity, perfection, and wisdom, which allow us to discover the concern of both works with the boundaries of identity in the proper use of the abovementioned three zones of personality.

3.1 Language of Purity and Personality Zones James delimits the identity boundaries of the Christians he addresses by using purity terminology at crucial points in his composition (cf. Jas 1:21, 26–27; 3:6, 17; 4:8).22 This can be placed in relation to the areas of the personality: it is necessary to purify the hearts (ἁγνίσατε καρδίας, Jas 4:8) and not to deceive the heart (ἀπατῶν, Jas 1:26); to restrain the tongue from defiling (σπιλοῦσα) the whole body (Jas 3:6); to purify the hands (καθαρίσατε, Jas 4:8), and to care for widows and orphans (ἐπισκέπτεσθαι, Jas 1:27). Lived religion is thus not empty (μάταιος)23 but pure and blameless (καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος, Jas 1:27) and wisdom is in turn clean (ἁγνή, Jas 3:17). It is so in the eyes of God, who can truly value and judge it. The contrary is to allow oneself to be defiled by the world (ἄσπιλον, Jas 1:27). The message planted in each one leads to stripping oneself of

22 On the concept of purity, see Douglas, Purity. 23 The term μάταιος is associated with false worship and in the LXX, more specifically, with worship of idols. Allison, James, 359.

308

Elisa Estévez López

every stain (ῥυπαρίαν)24 and evil (Jas 1:21). The various organs of the body and their corresponding functions and actions are demarcated by purity rules that reflect the boundaries of the diaspora communities with respect to the values of the surrounding society, which help to define who is a “friend of the world” and conversely an “enemy of God” (Jas 4:8).25 These demarcate the lines of purity-impurity within the community. According to Jas 1:26–27, true religion, in contrast to assimilation to the world, is characterized by a moderate or temperate way of speaking. It also requires deeds that do not harm the poor and a heart that does not deceive.26 These verses, whose content is closely linked to what is said previously and developed throughout the letter, help to understand how the exhortations on the use of the tongue (zone of self-expressive language) are interrelated with the other two zones of the personality (zones of emotional thought and premeditated action). In the previous context, James emphasizes the need to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger (Jas 1:19–21) and stresses the importance of doing: “be doers of the message and not hearers only” (Jas 1:22–25). The care of orphans and widows prepares the way for the exhortations of the second chapter: do not give privileges to the rich and discriminate against the poor (Jas 2:1– 13) and do not show faith without works (Jas 2:14–17). It immediately moves on to the discourse on the control of the tongue (Jas 3:1–12) and highlights the links with a heart full of resentful envy and unpurified evil (Jas 3:14; 4:8). Accordingly, James does not detach the concern for the use of language from social action and from the heart as the source of good or evil, both in word and in deed. Authentic faith is manifested when the three areas respond to what God wants (Jas 1:27) and the harmony between the three functions of the human being is an expression of a community that has heard the Word of God and has been begotten with the message of truth (Jas 1:18). This threefold conception of the human person provides a great unity among the letter’s themes, which are all in service of a pure and blameless religion.

3.2 Perfection: Expression of Fidelity to God and Personal Integrity The frontiers of community identity are also perceived by looking at the terms used at different points in the letter of James: perfection (τέλειος, Jas 1:4, 17, 25; 24 It refers to moral impurity, moral filth, impurity, uncleanness. It does not appear in the LXX and is a hapax in the New Testament. 25 Cf. Lockett, “Strong,” 391–405. 26 Cf. Allison, James, 351–52.

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger

309

3:2; the verb τελέω in 2:8, 22). It marks the character of a person with an undivided loyalty to God; it also expresses the need to live unified on the different levels of the person and it has an ethical and not only a cultic sense.27 For this it is necessary to receive from God “every good gift and every perfect gift” (Jas 1:17) and it leads to knowing what God wants, who does not change as the heavens do. Unlike the unstable and divided human being (Jas 1:78), God is characterized by his integrity and indivisibility (“not subject to phases or dark periods,” Jas 1:17). The redemptive and christological character of the perfect gift that comes down from heaven is underlined in Jas 1:18: we are begotten with the message of truth, the gospel, to be the first fruits of creation (cf. Matt 11:25–27).28 Wisdom as the perfect gift (Jas 1:17) has practical effects in all areas of personal life: 1) integrity of heart and lack of double-mindedness (Jas 1:8; 4:8); 2) behavior that links faith and works (Jas 1:22–25), which becomes the perfect fulfillment of the law of freedom (Jas 1:25; cf. 2:8–12); 3) ears and eyes that are not forgetful (Jas 1:19–27); 4) control of the tongue (Jas 3:1–17; 4:3, 11–12, 13–17; 5:9, 12); 5) peace and absence of arguments in the community (Jas 3:14–4:1, 11).29 Ben Sira describes Noah the righteous in this way (cf. Sir 44:17). His loyalty to God affirms his integrity, as Gen 6:9 states.30 Integrity (τέλειος) for Ben Sira is also linked to the area of premeditated action: the rich man who is not after gold is blameless (Sir 31:8) and does not transgress the law. He does no wrong and when tested, he is found perfect (Sir 31:10). Like Matthew, James calls for the perfect fulfillment of the Law (Jas 2:10; cf. Matt 5:18) because this leads to wisdom. Both traditions are part of the Jewish wisdom perspective which links law, perfection, and wisdom (Sir 6:23–31; cf. Wis 6:17–20; 9:5–10; Ps 19:7).31 For James, “the law of freedom” (νόμον τέλειον τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας) is identical with “the word planted in you” (ἔμφυτον

27 Generally, it translates the Hebrew terms ‫ שׁלם‬and ‫ תמם‬meaning to be whole or complete, thus referring to an undivided heart (cf. 1 Chr 28:9; Solomon is the example of one who has an undivided heart in 1 Kgs 11:4; 15:3). 28 Cf. Moo, James, 79–80, gives the following reasons: the verb “to bring forth” in Jas 1:15 has a spiritual meaning; “first fruits” is the way of referring to Christians (2 Thess 2:13; Rev 14:4; Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15); “the word of truth” refers to the gospel as the agent of salvation (2 Cor 6:7; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5; 2 Tim 2:15); use of logos in the context of the first chapter of James (1:21, 22, 23). 29 “A complete (teleios) law (1:25), that is, requires complete (teleioi) persons (3:2) who are receptive to the complete (teleion) benefaction coming from God above (1:17) and whose words and faith are completed (eteleiothê) in action (2:22). Cf. Elliott, “James,” 71–81. 30 Job is also called ‫ם‬, perfect; cf. Jb 1:1, 8; 2:3. 31 Cf. Hartin, “Suffering,” 488. In Sir 6:23–31, “the reward is “a splendid crown” (in the LXX, it is a “crown of gladness”). The reward appears in royal terms, which again comes close to James’s νόμος βασιλικός.”

310

Elisa Estévez López

λόγον)32 in baptism (Jas 1:25) and consists of works relating to both the sphere of communication (Jas 1:26–27) and action (Jas 2:1–13). The perfect law of freedom includes the Jewish Law and the Gospel. In addition, it includes doing the will of God which demands loving one’s neighbor (Jas 2:8, 10), which is characteristic of the Old and New Testaments.33 Like Jesus and Matthew, James interprets the Mosaic law according to the guiding principle of the commandment of love.34

3.3. A Dualistic Conception of Wisdom For James, perfection requires the acquisition of “wisdom,” σοφία (cf. Jas 1:5; 3:13, 15, 17). In line with sapiential traditions, perfection without wisdom is nothing (cf. Wis 9:10). From the perspective of purity, the letter’s distinction between two kinds of wisdom, that which is “from above” (Jas 3:15, 17) and that which is “earthly, spiritless and demonic,” (Jas 3:17) is very significant: The adverb ἄνωθεν (“from above”) is used once again in the epistle, accompanying the “perfect gift” (Jas 1:17) which God gives in “the message of truth” which is the gospel, a wisdom closely connected with Jesus. It is given to all generously and without reproach and calls for trust and not doubt (Jas 1:5–6). In this way, the notion of wisdom in Ben Sira is slightly different. While wisdom also comes from the Lord (Sir 1:1; cf. 1:8; 24:1–22; 51:17), it does not have the christological weight as in James. It is eternal (Sir 1:4) and it is given as a gift to Jews and Gentiles (“in all flesh”) but above all to faithful Jews who keep the Law (Sir 1:9– 10; cf. Sir 24:7–12; Deut 6:5; 10:12);35 it is identified with the Law and is acquired through the fear of God and the keeping of the commandments (Sir 19:20).36 Wisdom and tested faith are connected in James (Jas 1:3–4) and the testing of faith leads to suffering with patience (Jas 1:3–4:12) whose fruit is “perfect work”

32 Mussner, Giacomo, 154, justifies his position by establishing the relationship with “he who bends down to look” (παρακύψας) with “stands” (παραμείνας) in 1:25, as well as between “performer of the work” (ποιητὴς ἔργου) and “performers of the message” (ποιηταὶ λόγου) in 1:25 (cf. 4:11) and 1:22. 33 For James, a Jewish Christian, there is only one commandment (Jas 2:10) and therefore there is no opposition between “law” and “word,” between the revelation of God’s will in the Old Testament and the preaching of Jesus (cf. Matt 5:17). For him, therefore, the Gospel is law. Mussner, Giacomo, 155. 34 Cf. Viviano, “Liberté,” 212. 35 Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 138–39. 36 Cf. Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 76.

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger

311

(Jas 1:4).37 The opposite implies a lack of wisdom (Jas 1:5–6a), faith (Jas 1:6b8), and solidarity (Jas 1:9–11).38 For Ben Sira, true wisdom also means enduring affliction, which is shown by patient endurance (cf. Sir 2:4, 14).39 It also means having a steadfast and sincere heart (Sir 2:1–2) that trusts in God (Sir 2:10–11). Unlike pride, wisdom is demonstrated in good conduct and humility (Jas 3:13; 4:6).40 Wisdom bestowed from heaven is clean (ἁγνή), free from all moral pollution (Jas 3:17), and untainted by the world. This wisdom is characterized as peaceful, understanding, and docile; it does not show discrimination or pretense. It is opposed to the wisdom of the earthly (ἐπίγειος), the animal (ψυχική, empty of spirit), and the demonic (δαιμονιώδης), which are associated with resentful envy, rivalry, disorder, and wickedness in the heart 41 (Jas 3:14–18). Like true faith, wisdom from above, which the “double-minded” (δίψυχος) and the unstable (ἀκατάστατος) do not possess (Jas 1:8), is shown in “good fruits.” This wisdom is manifested in the dynamic vitality of the human being as expressed in words, in works, and in the heart. James’s terminology makes this clear: pure wisdom (ἁγνή) is the wisdom of those who serve God alone and which shows itself both in “kind words” (cf. Prov 15:26) and in being “upright in their deeds” (cf. Prov 21:8). James’s characterization of the wisdom of heaven touches on the three planes of the human being, heart-tongue-hand, and gives reason for a proper relationship with God and with others. Jas 3:17 mentions three terms that emphasize 1) εἰρηνική or the peaceful character of the person who is understanding and does not become angry, combative or defensive, 2) ἐπιεικής means that even if provoked, the person adheres to the true teaching willingly and, 3) εὐπειθής means that the person listens attentively to others without attacking them. These three traits basically concern language (tongue-ears) although actions (hands-feet) are not excluded. The next two qualifiers mentioned in Jas 3:17 describe the person who is full of mercy (μεστὴ ἐλέους) and who bears good fruits (καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν).42 So important is this way of conducting oneself that “judgment will be merciless on the one who has no mercy” (Jas 2:13). Moreover, such a person is impartial and does not discriminate (ἀδιάκριτος), which means that the person is absolutely

37 According to Dibelius, James, 74, no mention is made of any perfect work. Hence, he concludes that this expression must be interpreted as meaning that everyone must be perfect. 38 Cf. Frankemölle, “Jakobusbriefes,” 26. 39 “On endurance,” ὑπομονῆς, is the title in codex 248; see Calduch-Benages, “Trials,” 258. 40 Some authors (e.g., M. P. Aymer) consider that Sir 3:17 is being alluded to: “in your affairs proceed with humility and they will love you more than the generous man.” Cf. Allison, James, 571. 41 In Jas 3:6, the expression “in the heart” is abbreviated as explicitly written in Jas 3:14. 42 Cf. Matt 7:17–18.

312

Elisa Estévez López

honest and sincere in words and deeds. This ties in well with the following qualifier, ἀνυπόκριτος, which denotes an individual who is without hypocrisy, sincere, and who acts equally with everyone and does not seek to influence anyone. With these qualities, more emphasis is placed on the sphere of premeditated action with an equal emphasis on the sphere of communication.43 These three levels are equally present in the terminology used for wisdom that is not of heaven, which is identified with a series of qualifiers in crescendo (earthly, spiritless, and demonic). First of all, James refers to the emotion-fused thought zone: bitter zeal or envy (ζῆλος) and partisan spirit or rivalry expressing selfish ambition (ἐριθεία) are the signs of those who are guided by their own desires (Jas 3:16). In societies of limited goods, where the only way to achieve honor and wealth is at the expense of others, envy is a natural reaction and is the root of strife, discord, and murder (Jas 4:1–6).44 This false wisdom breeds disorder and chaos (ἀκαταστασία). It is found in a person who is double-minded (ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, Jas 1:8) and double-tongued (Jas 3:8–12). However, this way of acting denies the truth of the salvation received, as does the one who boasts of his wisdom (Jas 1:14), since the wisdom of heaven is recognized in humility. Attaining the wisdom of heaven involves purifying (ἁγνίσατε) the heart and cleansing (καθαρίσατε) the hands (Jas 4:8). It involves resisting the devil (Jas 4:7) and restraining the tongue that defiles (σπιλοῦσα) the whole body (Jas 3:6). Moreover, one can avoid the world’s defilement (ἄσπιλον) by caring for orphans and widows (Jas 1:27). The lines of purity drawn by James have to do with the three zones of the personality, reflected in the hands, the mouth, and the heart. The virtuous behaviors (in deeds and words) that are applauded are the fruit of a purified heart that does not deceive itself (Jas 4:8; 1:26) while the vices of the wisdom of the world are inspired by “the fire of hell” (Jas 3:6). A pure heart allows access to God, while words and deeds flow from it, enabling interpersonal and especially communal relationships to be framed in terms of friendship with God. From Ben Sira’s perspective, the fear of God and perfect (συντέλεια) wisdom (Sir 21:11) are identified with loving and obeying God (Sir 2:15), seeking to please him in everything (Sir 2:16), keeping his commandments (Sir 2:16), and walking in his ways (Sir 2:15; 15:10). Hence, practical wisdom also leads to distinguishing between good actions and bad. The right choice brings one closer to God. Dwelling in the tent of wisdom can metaphorically refer to the moral life. The virtuous person is wise and pursues wisdom “as one who follows the trail” (Sir 14:22), while the foolish, sinful, proud, and liars turn away from it (Sir 15:7–9). Ben

43 Cf. Davids, James, 154–55. 44 Cf. Hartin, James, 208–9; Pilch and Malina, eds., Handbook, 59–63.

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger

313

Sira’s conception of wisdom, which is based on moral dualism, is expressed in opposing terms:45 pride and humility (Sir 10:15), fire and water (Sir 15:16), the tree of life and the root of evil or impurity46 (cf. Sir 1:20; 14:26; 24:12–19; 40:15), wisdom and folly (15:3, 7). This dualism leads him to underline the necessity of the right choice, which is the one that will attain God’s perfect blessing (τελειωθῇ, Sir 7:32). This divine blessing indicates that the person moves within the limits of purity which are marked by the fear of God and the observance of the Law, whereas injustice is ungodliness whose roots are impure (ἀκάθαρτοι, Sir 40:15). This notion also appears in James. In line with biblical anthropology, Ben Sira also interweaves his reflection on wisdom with the different areas of the personality (eyes-heart, hands-feet, tongue-mouth). The importance of the heart is emphasized when he states that the wise man “ponders [wisdom’s] ways in his heart and considers its secrets” (Sir 14:21) and only those who fear the Lord and keep the law attain it (Sir 15:1). Wisdom or fear of the Lord is not possible if the person has a “divided heart” (ἐν καρδίᾳ δισσῇ, Sir 1:28; cf. Prov 12:3)47 or is full of fraud (πλήρης δόλου, Sir 1:30; 19:26), or is cowardly (δειλαῖς, 2:12), or if he is hypocritical and does not speak the truth or watch his lips (Sir 1:29). The sinner who lacks wisdom walks in two ways (ἐπὶ δύο τρίβους, Sir 2:12) and is full of envy and greed. And so, this understanding shows the strong link between heart and mouth, the former being the source that gives reason for that which the mouth expresses.

4 The Control of the Tongue (Jas 3:1–12; Sir 5:9–6:1) In this section, we focus on the regulation of the use of the tongue in James 3:1–12, to which the apostle has already alluded at the beginning of his letter (1:26) and indirectly in 1:19–20. Sir 5:9–6:1 also devotes a discussion on the use and abuse of the tongue. Both James and Ben Sira treat this theme throughout

45 Hadot, Penchant, 177–92. 46 “The image of wisdom’s root, described as having branches, may be an echo of the Tree of Knowledge in Gen 2:17. A comparable concept occurs in the depiction of wisdom in Prov 3:18: ‘She is a tree of life for those who take hold of her.’ The basic idea of wisdom as a tree (also found in 1 En. 32:3) is developed later in Ben Sira’s book, speaking of the one seeking her: ‘He will place his nest in her foliage, and in her branches he will lodge’ (Sir 14:26 MsA). Such imagery appears especially in the great wisdom poem (24:12–19), beginning with wisdom’s statement: ‘I took root’ (24:12),” (Corley, “Wisdom,” 46–56). 47 This is similar to Jas 1:8 and 4:8 (dipsychos).

314

Elisa Estévez López

their works: Jas 2:12; 4:1–2, 11–12; 5:12; Sir 19:4–17; 20:16–20; 22:27–23:1, 7–15; 28:12–26. The exhortation in Jas 3:1–12 follows the whole reflection on faith and works in Jas 2:1–26. In it he deals with another “work,” that which is done through the word, which is also an expression of “true religion” (Jas 1:26; cf. 1:19–20). Although the pericope is addressed to those who want to become teachers (Jas 3:1), it is addressed to the whole community affected by quarrels, disputes, and speaking ill of one another (cf. Jas 4:1, 11), which may have been due to the desire for prestige that teachers enjoy.48 The reason for his exhortation is immediately known: “we all often fail” in the use of the tongue, with terrible consequences for the whole body (Jas 3:2), a statement in harmony with Sir 19:16 although it does not explicitly relate it to all dimensions of the person. The effects of not restraining the tongue (χαλιναγωγῶν, 1:26) are felt in the whole body (all areas of the personality) which is also not controlled (χαλιναγωγῆσαι, Jas 3:2). Ben Sira claims that “in the tongue of man is his ruin” (Sir 5:13). The aspiration to control the tongue is an ideal for James; it is the expression of a worthless religion (1:26) just as it is for Ben Sira (14:1; 22:27; 25:8; 28:19).

4.1. Listening and Practicing Justice The key to controlling the tongue is in listening, as is made explicit in the three-part proverb, probably coined by the author of the letter of James himself: being quick to listen to others leads to being slow to speak and slow to anger (Jas 1:19).49 The proverb, expressed in a general way, can be applied to very different situations, be they spiritual (cf. v. 21)50 or ecclesial (cf. Jas 4:1– 2, 11–12; 5:12).51 In other words, the explicit description of the relationship between listening, speaking, and anger in Jas 1:19–20 is a brief foreshadowing of what will follow in other sections of the letter.52 Anger is at the root of communication problems. Its proper management is absolutely necessary in order to avoid harming others through speech. James provides the motivation: anger does not promote righteousness since it does

48 So Moo, James, 147–48, who gives yet another reason: vv. 2–12 contain no reference to community teachers. Pace Mussner, Giacomo, 227–28. 49 In this way, memorization and transmission are promoted. Cf. Baker, Speech-Ethics, 85. 50 “The ‘therefore’ of v. 21 shows that the negative warnings of vv. 19–20 act as the basis for the positive exhortation to ‘accept the word’” (Moo, James, 81). 51 See Baker (Speech-Ethics, 87) who also highlights applications to church life. 52 Cf. Moo, James, 81.

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger

315

not result in actions that are pleasing to God (Jas 1:20). According to James, there are two resources available for adequately managing anger: the first, anthropological in character, is to listen attentively to the other person before speaking (Jas 1:19) while the second, spiritual in character, is to keep in mind that anger does not promote God’s justice. The proverb used by Jas 1:19 is also found in Sir 5:11 with a different vocabulary except for the adjective ταχὺς, “quick,” which appears in both texts. However, the emphases in the two works are different. In Jas 1:19, it is an absolute statement while in Sir 5:11,53 it is in connection with what is stated in the following verse: “if you know anything, answer your neighbor; if not, put your hand to your mouth” (Sir 5:12). That is, offer an answer if one has knowledge.54 As we have previously indicated, the concern with the use and abuse of words is frequent in the wisdom of Ben Sira. For this Jewish sage, the risks and benefits of communication have a direct impact on a person’s public esteem. Concern for honor is a very significant motivation to moderate the fury of his tongue: speech “brings honor and brings dishonor, a man’s tongue is his ruin” (Sir 5:13; cf. Sir 27:7)55 while misuse of the tongue brings condemnation (Sir 5:14; 6:1).56 At the same time, Ben Sira also relates it to forsaking God (Sir 28:12) and to sin (Sir 19:16). Hence, he warns against the slip of the tongue lest we fall before the adversary (Sir 28:26). This central concern for honor does not appear in the thought of James, who prefers to frame his reflections in a spiritual and ecclesial framework.

4.2 Difficulty in Controlling the Tongue In a sapiential style, James uses two examples to illustrate the damage that ensues from misuse of the tongue (Jas 3:3–4). The first is the bridle of the horse (Jas 3:3), which is used to control the mouth and thus guide the whole body. The image emphasizes all areas of personality (emotional thinking, self-expressive language, and deliberate action). The second example in Jas 3:4 is much more developed, linking three elements: the ship (large and driven by strong winds), the helmsman, and the impulse or zeal to act as desired (ὁρμὴ). The relations between that which directs the heart (the desire), the means of control (the

53 Cf. Prov 17:28; cf. 10:19; 11:12, 13; 13:3. 54 Cf. Baker, Speech-Ethics, 85, who also provides numerous similar examples in GrecoRoman literature. 55 Cf. Reymond, “Wisdom,” 225. 56 Cf. Prov 3:35: “Glory belongs to the wise, and fools inherit ignominy.”

316

Elisa Estévez López

tongue), and that which is controlled (the ship, namely the whole person)57 are brought out. James continues with another image in James 3:5–6, namely the fire (cf. Sir 28:22). James is convinced that the tongue is the most difficult part of the body to control and insists on how the whole body becomes contaminated through it. All dimensions of personality become defiled (Jas 1:27). His conviction mirrors that of Jesus in Matthew: it is what comes out of the mouth that makes a person impure, namely the mouth expresses what is in the heart (Matt 15:11, 18–19). The heart can be trapped by its own desire (Jas 1:14, 15; 4:2) and lust for pleasures (Jas 4:1:3). Sir 13:25 expresses a similar conviction: “a man’s heart shapes his face both towards good and evil” (cf. Sir 21:26). The misuse of the tongue causes havoc not only in life but also leads to damnation, “burned by hellfire” (Jas 3:6;58 cf. 2:13; 3:18). One senses in this verse that James writes with the imminent coming of Jesus as judge (Jas 5:9).59 This is a notable difference from Sirach. In his exhortation to be patient in waiting for the coming of the Lord, James urges to “strengthen the heart” by remaining faithful in receiving and living the gospel, the perfect law with the faculty to save (cf. Jas 1:21–22; Matt 7:24–27). Sir 6:37 expresses a similar exhortation: “meditate on the precepts of the Lord and do his commandments continually. He will strengthen your heart and give you the desired wisdom.” Sir 22:18 is also similar: “a cowardly heart in its foolish thinking will not endure in the face of any fear.”60 Further, James shows the impossibility of mastering the tongue completely (Jas 3:7–8). Ben Sira does not share this extreme pessimism for he believes that the wise and the just can do it (Sir 14:1; 25:8; 28:22) while “those who forsake the Lord will fall into it (the tongue).”61

4.3 The Inconsistency of Faith Expressed in the Duplicity of the Tongue Finally, Jas 3:9–12 takes up again the criticism of those who have an unstable faith and are “double-minded” (δίψυχος, Jas 1:8; 4:8), i.e., those who try to 57 Cf. Moo, James, 154. 58 Cf. Bauckham, James, 104. 59 The present participle is interpreted as future. Cf. Allison, James, 541. 60 The use of James can be put in relation to other texts of the New Testament: 1 Thess 3:13; 2 Thess 2:17; in the LXX: Judg 19:5, 8; Ps 103:15; 111:8. 61 Cf. Allison, James, 546. Minissale, “Metaphor,” 255–56, presents the 14 passages in which Ben Sira takes up the abuse and the use of the tongue.

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger

317

please both the world and God at the same time. The criticism already appeared in Jas 2:1–12, directed at those who claim to have faith in Jesus Christ and yet discriminate against the poor. Now, the author addresses this duplicity with regard to the use of speech, contrasting two modes of expression: blessing God and cursing people, his image (Jas 3:10).62 He uses some images to reinforce his reflection: it is not possible that one who lives and walks in the presence of God can do good and evil with his words. Only pure and helpful words can come out of his mouth because his heart is pure (cf. Jas 4:8). Ben Sira also warns not to curse or “not to bind with the tongue” because condemnation will befall the one who has a “double tongue” (διγλώσσου, Sir 5:14). He “inherits the evil name” and upon him falls “confusion and reproach” (Sir 6:1). In Sir 28:12–26, he addresses the evils created by backbiting and cursing.63 His harshest warnings are against those who curse and those who have “a threefold tongue” (vv. 14, 15). Their harmful effects on the lives of the victims are concrete: for example, the divorce of the virtuous and faithful wife. The harms are described with very harsh images: falling by the edge of the sword (v. 17), falling victim to his wrath (v. 19), the yoke of iron and chains of bronze (v. 20), and death (v. 21).

Conclusion Ben Sira and James share a concern for the proper control of speech, the difficulty of doing so, and the need for the heart to be purified and empty of fraud. Their exhortations are re-workings of other wisdom traditions before them which they make their own by selecting, filtering, restructuring, and expanding, depending on the identity issues they have in their respective times. The study of the letter of James has shown the sapiential background it shares with Ben Sira, as well as the differences it has with this Jewish sapiential tradition. Faith in Jesus and the emphasis on a faith that is not reduced to hearing but is shown in behavior and self-expressive communication directs James’s reflection while Ben Sira stresses the fear of God, the fulfillment of the Law, and the concern to maintain honor.

62 “The inconsistency of the tongue is a very clear indication of the ‘restless evil’ (v. 8) that it is” (Moo, James, 163). 63 Cf. Di Lella, “Ben Sira’s Doctrine,” 245–50.

318

Elisa Estévez López

Bibliography Aguirre, Rafael, ed. De Jerusalén a Roma. La marginalidad del cristianismo de los orígenes. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2021. Allison, Dale C. James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. ICC. London/New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Baker, W.R. Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James. WUNT 68. Tübingen: Mohr, 1995. Bauckham, Richard. James. London: Routledge, 1999. Bauckham, Richard. “The Wisdom of James and the Wisdom of Jesus.” Pages 75–92 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by J. Schlosser. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004. Brown, Raymond. Introducción al Nuevo Testamento. Madrid: Trotta, 2002. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Amid Trials: Ben Sira 2:1 and James 1:1.” Pages 253–63 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Corley, Jeremy. “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira.” Pages 155–82 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Corley, Jeremy. “Wisdom and Fear of God in Ben Sira 1:11–21: Second Temple Perspectives.” JSP 30 (2020) 46–56. Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James. A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmands, 1982. Dibelius, Martin. James. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Ben Sira’s Doctrine on the Discipline of the Tongue.” Pages 233–52 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger, 1966. Elliott, John H. “The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective. HolinessWholeness and Patterns of Replication.” BTB 23 (1993): 71–81. Esler, Philip F. “Collective Memory and Hebrews 11: Outlining a New Investigative Framework.” Pages 151–71 in Memory, Tradition and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity Christian. Edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher. SemeiaSt 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Frankemölle, Hubert. Der Brief des Jakobus. Kapitel 1. Würzburg: Gütersloher/Echter, 1994. Frankemölle, Hubert. “Zum Thema des Jakobusbriefes im Kontext der Rezeption von Sir 2,1–18 und 15,11–20.” BN 48 (1989): 21–49. de Gerardon, Bernard. “L’homme a l’image de Dieu.” NRTh 80 (1958): 683–95. de Gerardon, Bernard. Le coeur, la langue, les mains. Une vision de l’homme. Paris: DDB, 1974. Hadot, Jean. Penchant mauvais et volonté libre dans la sagesse de Ben Sira (l’Ecclésiastique). Bruxelles: Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles, 1970. Hartin, Patrick J. “Call to be Perfect through Suffering (James 1,2–4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount.” Bib 77 (1996): 477– 92.

Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Slow to Anger

319

Hartin, Patrick J. James. SP 14. Collegeville: Michael Glazier Book, 2003. Jedlowski, Paolo. Memorie del futuro. Un percorso tra sociologia e studi culturali. Roma: Carocci, 2017. Lockett, Darian R. “Strong and Weak Lines: Permeable Boundaries between Church and Culture in the Letter of James.” RevExp 108 (2011): 391–405. Malina, Bruce. El mundo del Nuevo Testamento. Perspectivas desde la antropología cultural. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1995. Minissale, Antonino. “The Metaphor of ‘Falling’: Hermeneutic Key to the Book of Sirach.” Pages 253–75 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000. Mourlon, Pierre B. El hombre en el lenguaje bíblico. Corazón, lengua y manos en la Biblia. Cuadernos bíblicos 46. Estella: Verbo Divino, 1984. Mussner, F. La lettera di Giacomo. Brescia: Paideia, 1970. Pilch, John J. and Bruce J. Malina, eds. Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993. Rebolloso, Enrique. “Conducta de masa y movimientos colectivos.” Pages 763–844 in Psicología social. Edited by J. Francisco Morales et al. Madrid: McGraw-Hill, 1997. Reymond, Eric D. “The Wisdom of Words in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.” Bib 95 (2004): 224–46. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Tajfel, H. Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. European Monographs in Social Psychology 14. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Theissen, Gerd. Estudios de sociología del cristianismo primitivo. Salamanca: Sígueme, 1985. Viviano, Benedict T. “La loi parfaite de liberté. Jacques 1,25 et la loi.” Pages 213–26 in Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004.

Maurice Gilbert

Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple Abstract: The starting point of this essay is the Greek text of Sir 1:27b, which mentions the two virtues of reliability and gentleness that are required of the disciple. These qualities are also ascribed to Moses in the Greek version of Sir 45:4a. The original Hebrew text of Sir 45:4a in Ms B refers to Num 12:3, 7. Comparison will be offered between these two texts praising Moses. The essay also explores the quotation of Num 12:7 in Heb 3:2, 5 which mentions Moses and Jesus. Keywords: Moses, the disciple, Ben Sira, Numbers, reliability, gentleness, New Testament rereading

1 “His Favor: Trustworthiness and Gentleness” (Sir 1:27b) 1.1 The Context There are several problems with Sir 1:27b.1 The first concerns the context in which it is inserted, which already poses some questions. From Sir 1:1 to 3:6bα, the Hebrew text of Ben Sira is lacking in Ms A as well as in rabbinic quotations. Only the ancient versions are available. The most ancient and most valuable is the Greek one, especially its short text, called Gr I, which is anterior to the additions found in the later manuscripts of Gr II. Gr I is the text of the manuscripts found in uncial letters. In this Greek text, Sir 1:22–30 can be divided into three sections; all three set out the basic criteria any candidate who wishes to be a disciple of Ben Sira must fulfill.2 The first condition in Sir 1:22–24 is self-control and mastery of the passions. The second in Sir 1:25–27, which is the subject of this study, specifies

1 It is truly my pleasure to offer these pages to Núria Calduch-Benages. She is one of the most competent researchers on the Wisdom of Ben Sira and on its Greek version. I have known her for more than thirty years and I am still deeply grateful for the two volumes she prepared in my honor in 1999 and 2014. I wish her a felicitous long life in the company of Ben Sira. 2 Cf. Gilbert, “L᾽addition,” 230–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-021

322

Maurice Gilbert

docility as a criterion. This quality can be taken to mean obedience to Wisdom precepts (Sir 1:26a)3 and, therefore, trustworthiness and gentleness. The third condition in Sir 1:28–30 is loyalty or the absence of duplicity. The textual situation becomes complicated in the Latin version. This version was based on a Greek manuscript which predates all the Greek manuscripts of this wisdom book in our possession. This Latin version was completed at the end of the 2nd century CE, probably by a north African Christian. Later, perhaps already at the end of the 5th century, that version was integrated into the Vulgate. The text of the Vulgate gives a different order of verses for the end of Sir 1 from the Greek version: the Latin verses 1:25–40 correspond to the Greek verses 1:20, 25, 21a,4 22–24, 26–30. We do not know why verse 25ab was transferred to that place. This transfer in the Greek manuscript used by the Latin translator is not likely original. In any case, the Greek text of Sir 1:27 is correctly translated into Latin in this ancient version: 34 Sapientia enim et disciplina timor Domini et quod beneplacitum est illi 35fides et mansuetudo et adimplebit thesauros illius.

The last four words of this quotation are an addition in the Latin version. It could be an allusion to the beginning of Sir 1:26Vg = 1:25aGr: in thesauris sapientiae. If so, the Latin translator would have judged correctly the relation between the beginning and the end of the second condition imposed on a future disciple of Ben Sira. In Greek, the two verses 1:25a and 27b concern this second condition, since docility gives access to the treasures of Wisdom.5 On the other hand, the Syriac version, which likely dates from the beginning of the 4th century, is still more astonishing: the Greek verses of Sir 1:22–27 are missing and substituted by a poem of an eschatological nature. Its terms prevent us from understanding it as a Syriac version of a Hebrew manuscript of Ben Sira anterior to the additions. Chaotically transmitted into Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syriac, they reveal a theology more open to the afterlife. We do not know, of course, why the Syriac version proceeds like this. One can certainly ask which Hebrew text the author of the Syriac version intended to translate. Altogether, it cannot be excluded that Sir 1:27b in the Greek version conveys an original Hebrew text of Ben Sira.

3 Concerning this verse, see Gilbert, “Quel est le sens,” 108–10. 4 Sir 1:21 is an addition of Gr II. 5 See also Prov 8:21b.

Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple

323

1.2 The Text καὶ ἡ εὐδοκία αὐτοῦ πίστις καὶ πραΰτης and His favour [are] reliability and gentleness.

What could have been the Hebrew text behind this Greek text? To find out, it is necessary to go to Sir 45:4a, where the two Greek words πίστις and πραΰτης are used together again to describe Moses. The pair is found nowhere else either in the Greek version of Ben Sira or in either the Septuagint or the New Testament. The Greek Sir 45:4a reads: ἐν πίστει καὶ πραΰτητι αὐτὸν ἡγίασεν ἐξελέξατο αὐτὸν ἐκ πάσης σαρκός For [his] trustworthiness and gentleness He consecrated him. He chose him from all flesh.

However, the Hebrew text reads: [‫]בשר‬

‫באמונתו וענותו בהר בו מכל‬

For his trustworthiness and his humility, He chose him from all [flesh].

This is the accurate text of Ms B. As in Syriac, the sentence “He consecrated him” is absent in Hebrew. Therefore, if we omit ἡγίασεν, it is better to read in Greek, with the Hebrew text, not αὐτόν but αὐτοῦ. Now, let us give some detailed information on the main words of Sir 1:27b. The first one is εὐδοκία. This Greek word translates the Hebrew ‫ רצון‬in seven occurrences: Sir 11:17b; 15:15b;6 35Gr(32Hb):14b;7 32Gr(35Hb):20;8 36:22Gr(17Hb);9 39:18a;10 42:15d.11 It must have been the same in Sir 1:27b, as seen in the modern translations of Ben Sira in Hebrew by M. S. Segal and S. Hartom.12 The meaning of εὐδοκία, ‫רצון‬, is favor, goodwill, benevolence. However, as James Aitken

6 On textual discrepancies between Hebrew manuscripts, cf. Prato, Il problema, 221–22; Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom, 269; Aitken, “Divine Will,” 289–91; Mopsik, La Sagesse, 159– 60. 7 Cf. Beentjes, “Happy the One,” 363–64. 8 Cf. De Zan, Il culto, 507. 9 Cf. Palmisano, “Salvaci,” 278–79. 10 Cf. Liesen, Full of Praise, 195–96, 225–26. 11 Cf. Prato, Il problema, 122–23; Bussino, The Greek Additions, 405. 12 After Smend, Die Weisheit, 16; Segal, ‫ספר בן סירא‬, 7; Hartom, ‫בן סירא‬, 16.

324

Maurice Gilbert

observes, in Sir 11:17b, 36:22bGr (17Hb), 39:18a, and 42:20d, the favor of the Lord is active and efficacious in creation as well as in his people.13 The second word of Sir 1:27b is πίστις. In the Hebrew text of Ben Sira available to us, πίστις is used twice as the translation of the Hebrew ‫ אמונה‬in Sir 15:15b according to Ms B14 and in Sir 45:4a, as we have already seen. The Greek word πίστις can be understood as active or as passive. In its active sense, it means faith, belief, confidence, whereas the passive sense means faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness, like the Hebrew ‫אמונה‬, with the idea of firmness, steadfastness, steadiness, which is the basic meaning of the root ‫אמן‬. The third word of Sir 1:27b is πραΰτης, meekness. It appears also in a similar context in Sir 45:4, in which Ms B gives the Hebrew word ‫אנוה‬. Note also that in Sir 13:20a, ‫ אנוה‬was translated in Greek as ταπεινότης, humility. Therefore, the Greek translator did not ignore the first meaning of ‫אנוה‬. However in Sir 3:17a (Mss A and C); 4:8b (Ms A); 10:28a (Ms A), πραΰτης translates ‫אנוה‬. How is it possible to explain the transfer of meaning from humility to meekness? Humility means no pretension, without any arrogance, and hence gentleness, meekness, mansuetude, modesty, courtesy. It is interesting to observe that, whereas the Latin version translates πραΰτης by mansuetudo in Sir 1:35Vg(27bGr), 3:19Vg(17Gr), 4:8Vg-Gr, 10:31Vg(28aGr) and only in these occurrences, the Syriac version in the same verses uses the word humility.15 Confirmation of the nuance of πραΰτης is given in these three occurrences: My son, perform your affairs with meekness and you will be loved more than a giver of gift (Sir 3:17).16 Incline to the poor your ear and return his greetings with courtesy (Sir 4:8). My son, with modesty glorify yourself and give you honor according to the true value (Sir 10:28).

These are wise behaviors, as Ceslas Spicq explained.17 Sir 1:27b adds that such behavior is pleasing to the Lord: it is a religious virtue. Again according to Spicq, πραΰτης is the virtue of people “of low social condition” or “people of small account who underwent a test.”18 These comments were discussed by Jacques Dupont.19 Personally, I think that the disciples

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Aitken, “Divine Will,” 293. Ms A and Ms B give ‫ תבונה‬, intelligence, which makes more sense in the context. Remember that Sir 1:22–27 is not transmitted in Syriac. The second stich is disputed. I follow Ms A. Spicq, “Bénignité,” 327. Spicq, “Bénignité,” 325–26. Dupont, Les Béatitudes, 490–91.

Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple

325

of Ben Sira were not poor but youths of good social standing in Jerusalem. Modest behavior and good manners were expected of them; pride and pretension are discouraged. Ben Sira taught them similar behavior (cf. Sir 10:7, 18). On the other hand, 4QInstruction is concerned with poor but educated people.20

2 Moses in Sir 45:4 ἐν πίστει καὶ πραΰτητι αὐτὸν ἡγίασεν ἐξελέξατο αὐτὸν ἐκ πάσης σαρκός For his trustworthiness and meekness, he sanctified him. He chose him between all flesh (Sir 45:4Gr).21 [‫]בשר‬

‫( באמונתו וענותו בהר בו מכל‬Ms B)

For his trustworthiness and humility, He chose him from all flesh (Sir 45:4Hb).

2.1 The Context There are some discrepancies among commentators on the beginning of the praise of Moses. According to the Greek edition of Joseph Ziegler, the stichs 44:23fg are separated but already part of that praise: καὶ ἐξήγαγεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἄνδρα ἐλέους … The Hebrew edition of Pancratius C. Beentjes follows a similar arrangement after Hermann L. Strack in 1903, Norbert Peters in 1905, and Rudolf Smend in 1906, but others, like Israel Lévi in 1904 and in their commentary in 1987, Patrick W. Skehan with Alexander A. Di Lella put these two stichs at the beginning of Sir 45:1. The Hebrew text of these two stichs can be translated in this way: [He made go] forth from him a man who found favor in the sight of all the living.

The Greek and the Latin versions add “of mercy” at the end of the first stich and at the end of the second stich they read, “of all flesh.”

20 Cf. Rey, 4QInstruction, 130–31; 334–35. 21 Cf. Raurell, “Eccli 45,1–5,” 34–42; Witte, “Mose,” 164–75; Wright, “The Use,” 193; Mazzinghi, “The Figure,” 191–94.

326

Maurice Gilbert

For some commentators, these two stichs could have been originally a reference to Joseph, the son of Jacob.22 However, the various editions of the Bible de Jérusalem and of the Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible are not clearly in favor of this hypothesis. For his part, Luca Mazzinghi observes that Sir 45:4ab is “at the center of the pericope.”23 Benjamin G. Wright III already proposed to see in Sir 45:3c–5d “a kind of chiastic structure over these bicola of a-b-c-b'-a' (although it is not exact in the number of cola on either side):24 a: 3c − commandments b: 3d − contact with God in vision c: 4 − “a rhetorical strategic position” b': 5ab − contact with God in hearing a': 5cd − commandments.

However, Charles Mopsik objected that the Hebrew verb at the beginning of Sir 45:3c does not mean to give commandments but only to assign a task.25 I do not agree with him because of some biblical texts like Exod 6:13, where the Hebrew verb ‫ צוה‬in the piel with ‫( אל‬πρός in Greek) means to give orders to somebody.

2.2 Originality of Sir 45:4 References to moral qualities are not very frequent in the Praise of the Ancestors (Sir 44–49). Several times only one virtue is mentioned and at the beginning of the praise: Sir 44:1a mentions in a general way that all of the ancestors display ‫חסד‬, piety. In Sir 44:16a, Enoch was ‫תמים‬, upright. In Sir 46:7a, Joshua and Caleb together proved their piety; the same virtue is attributed to Josiah in Sir 49:3b but the verb used in this stich is in the hiphil of ‫תמם‬, to perfect. Only rarely are two virtues mentioned at the beginning of a personal praise: in Sir 44:17a, we read that Noah was found ‫צדיק‬, just, and, again, ‫תמים‬, upright; in Sir 45:23ab, Phinehas is praised for his ‫גבורה‬, his courage, and his ‫קנא‬, his zeal.26

22 So Oesterley, The Wisdom of Jesus, ad loc; Spicq, “L’Ecclésiastique,” 804; MacKenzie, “Ben Sira as Historian,” 318. 23 Mazzinghi, “The Figure,” 194. 24 Wright, “The Use,” 194. 25 Mopsik, La Sagesse, 282. 26 Sir 48:22d, about Isaiah, is particular. Cf. below.

Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple

327

In two other occurrences, moral virtue is noted more or less at the center of the praise: ‫ נאמן‬nifal participle, which means trustworthy, is the virtue of Abraham mentioned in Sir 44:20δ, while in Sir 46:15ab, Samuel is noted first for ‫אמונה‬, trustworthiness, and then again for ‫נאמן‬. In Sir 45:4, which concerns Moses, two different virtues are at the center of the praise, in analogy with the praise of Samuel.

2.3 Wise like Moses or Moses as Model of Wisdom? The similarity between Sir 1:27b and Sir 45:4 calls forth a question of priority: is it the figure of the disciple or the figure of Moses? In other words, when our author wrote: “His favor: trustworthiness and gentleness” (Sir 1:27b), does he already have Moses in mind? Or when he wrote, “Because of his trustworthiness and his gentleness, he was chosen by the Lord” (Sir 45:4Hb), does he want to say that Moses was truly a wise man? It seems that in the description of Moses, we have a kind of portrait of a scribe, as we read in Sir 39:1–11, and this scribe is a wise man. The idea that Moses was a wise man appears in Wis 10:16a where it is said that Wisdom “entered the soul of a servant of the Lord,” Moses.27 In the book of Ben Sira, the Praise of the Ancestors aims at their wisdom (Sir 43:33bHb-Gr; 44:15aGr).

3 Moses in Num 12:1–10 3.1 The Context Sir 45:4 refers to Num 12:3, 7.28 Num 12 narrates the disputes of Miriam and Aaron against Moses and is inserted between two other contestations: in Num 11, because of the lack of meat in the desert, and in Num 13–14, when the people refused to conquer the promised land. More precisely, Num 12 recounts two disputes against Moses, the first one about his marital situation and the

27 The wisdom of Moses is again mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas, 139, and by Philo, Leg. all., II,87, 89; see also Acts 7:22; cf. Mazzinghi, “The Figure,” 196sq. 28 Beumer, “Die Gottesschau,” 221–30; Schildenberger, “Moses als Idealgestalt,” 71–84; de Vaulx, Les Nombres, 158–64; Kselman, “A Note,” 500–505; Coats, “Humility and Honor,” 97– 107; Robinson, “The Jealousy of Miriam,” 428–32; Dawes, “Numbers 12:3,” 336–40; Vogels, Moïse, 226–30; Rapp, Mirjam, 31–52; Uehlinger, “‘Hat Yahwe,” 230–59; Ska, Le chantier, 209– 12.

328

Maurice Gilbert

second, about his relation to the Lord. During the last decades, Num 12 was frequently the subject of commentary. I will mention and comment on three of the titles. The first one is a commentary on Numbers published in 1972 by Julien de Vaulx; the second is a presentation on the figure of Moses in the Pentateuch published in 1997 by Walter Vogels; and the third one is a short presentation on Num 12 proposed by Jean-Louis Ska published in French in 2016. The analysis of de Vaulx was published before the great challenge to the classical theory on the Pentateuch’s sources around 1975. The commentator considers the so-called Elohist as the redactor who unified the two narratives. The first one concerns the dispute of Miriam against the marriage of Moses with a Cushite woman: the Lord reacted in anger and punished Miriam with leprosy. The second narrative concerns prophetism: Aaron and Miriam disputed the exclusive relation of Moses with the Lord. The Lord talks directly to Moses and not through visions as he does for the so-called “sons of the prophets’” and ordinary seers. Vv. 3 and 7 of Num 12, to which Sir 45:4 refer, are part of this second narrative, at least according to de Vaulx. He proposed some critical notes for these two verses. So, for the Hebrew word of the Massoretic text in Num 23:3a ‫ענו‬ ketib or ‫ עניו‬qere, de Vaulx gave to the ketib the meaning of “poor” and to the qere, the meaning of “humble.” This is questionable: biblical Hebrew dictionaries by Zorell and by Koehler & Baumgarten give the same meaning to both forms in Num 12:3: modestus, humilis, and poor, humble, meek.29 In Num 12:7b, de Vaulx translated: “Il est établi sur toute ma maison,” which I translate: “He is established over all my house.” In his critical notes, de Vaulx explained, “established as a trustworthy man [‫ נאמן‬or homme de confiance], who received a charismatic authority,” with references again to Zorell: “alqs, ut vir probatae fidei, a Deo in munere constituitur,” to Koehler and Baumgarten: “be entrusted with,” and even to Gesenius and Buhl: “einem Vertrauensposten erhalten.”30 It seems that today there is a tendency to translate in English the Hebrew word ‫נאמן‬, used in Num 12:7 to qualify Moses, with the idea of trust.31 In French and in Italian, this is the case when that word is translated as “homme de confiance” or “uomo di fiducia.”32

29 Zorell, Lexicon hebraicum, 614; Koehler and Baumgarten, Bilingual, 720. 30 Zorell, Lexicon hebraicum, 64; Koehler and Baumgarten, Bilingual, 61; Gesenius and Buhl, Hebräiches und aramäiches Handwörterbuch, 48. 31 So the RSV in 1966, the footnote in the NEB in 1970, and the NAB in 1979. 32 In French, Dhorme, “Nombres,” 425, in 1956; Bible de Maredsous in 1969; TOB in 1975 and 2010; Vogels, Moïse, 1997; La Nouvelle Bible Segond in 2002; La Bible. Traduction liturgique in 2020. In Italian, La Bibbia della CEI in 1971 and 2008.

Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple

329

Moreover, from the literary point of view, which de Vaulx does not treat, it can be observed that Num 12:3 is a consideration of the redactor whereas Num 12:7 is part of YHWH’s speech covering Num 12:6–8. Finally, it is also noticeable that de Vaulx translated Num 12:6–8 into poetic verses. By doing so, he did in fact have some predecessors: Rudolf Kittel in his edition of the Biblia Hebraica in 1937; in French, Albert Clamer in 1940 and Henri Cazelles in 1952 for the Bible de Jérusalem until today;33 in English, the New English Bible in 1970 but not the Revised Standard Version; and in Italian, the Bibbia della CEI in 1971. Vogels suggested different explanations, which are typically literary. The first one is on Num 12:3. Faced with Miriam’s recriminations (Num 12:2), Moses remained silent. When his sister became leprous, Moses unhesitatingly interceded with the Lord for her at Aaron’s request (Num 12:10–13). The Lord accepted his intercession. Vogel’s second explanation came from John S. Kselman, who confirmed that Num 12:6b–8a is a poem. As Frank Moore Cross already observed not so long before him, there are tricola in Num 12:6b and 8a as a frame around the bicolon of Num 12:7. Besides, Kselman showed that Num 12:6b–8a has a concentric structure, which Vogels accepted. Here below is the text with the main Hebrew words included to prove its concentric character: a: If there is among you a prophet of YHWH,34 b: in vision (‫)במראה‬, I reveal myself to him c: in dreams I speak to him (‫)אדבר בו‬. d: It is not so with my servant Moses d: in all my house, the reliable is he. c': mouth to mouth, I speak with him (‫)אדבר בו‬ b': visibly (‫)מראה‬35 and not in riddles a': a form of YHWH he holds.

Therefore, at the center of Num 12:7 is clearly the main sentence of the whole poem. Consequently, also the trustworthiness of Moses or his reliability is the key point of the text which Ben Sira rightly picks up and includes in Sir 45:4. For his part, Ska proposed only a few notes on some of the details in Num 12:6–8. He is inconsistent in his discussion of Num 12:7b since he translates the Hebrew word ‫ נאמן‬in two different ways: “le plus fidèle,” or “the most

33 Clamer, Les Nombres, 313; Cazelles, Les Nombres, 68–69. 34 Cazelles and the Bible de Jérusalem omit the tetragram. On the critical problem of it, cf. de Vaulx, Les Nombres, 158. 35 Cf. RSV: clearly; NEB: openly; NAB: plainly. On the critical problem of this Hebrew word, cf. de Vaulx, Les Nombres, 169. For Koehler and Baumgarten, Bilingual, 563, in Num 12:8 as in 12:6, the meaning is the same: vision.

330

Maurice Gilbert

faithful” which agrees with the Vulgate’s fidelissimus. His philological explanations, however, lead him from time to time to interpret this Hebrew word also as “son homme de confiance,” or “his trustworthy man,” or “the reliable superintendent of God’s house.”36 Moses, in other words, is “the most reliable.” Ska notes that the expression that the Lord spoke with Moses “mouth to mouth” means that it is “without mediation or intermediation.” The expression “my house” in Num 12:7b refers to the people of Israel and the quality of “servant” ascribed to Moses does not amount to a relationship “of a boss to his subordinate” as the term does not necessarily exclude friendship, as can be seen in Exod 32–34, especially in Exod 33:22. The comments of these three scholars have touched on the whole problem raised by this narrative, Num 12:1–10, to which Ben Sira and his Greek translator in 45:4 refer.

3.2 Humble or Gentle and Reliable According to Num 12:3, the virtue of Moses is his humility. How to justify it? Miriam and Aaron had two complaints against him. The first is about his marriage with a Cushite woman while the second deals with the exclusive way used by the Lord when He speaks to Moses. These two complaints were not addressed directly to Moses, but as it seems, to other people: note the name of Moses in Num 12:2 and the Hebrew expression ‫ דבר‬in the piel with ‫ב‬, which means to speak against or to vilify somebody, as again in Num 12:8; 21:5, 7.37 These two complaints relate to Moses’s personal way of life and the manner in which the Lord treats him. Both Miriam and Aaron, according to the present text of Num 12:1–2, criticize Moses in his sexual and his religious behavior. As already mentioned, Moses did not react to these two defamations. His defense was taken by the Lord himself (Num 12:6–8). The humility of Moses was shown in his capacity to keep silent and later, to intercede in favor of Miriam (Num 12:13). He did not feel any resentment. This also testifies to his meekness (πραΰς in the LXX). Num 12:7b mentions ‫ נאמן‬as the other virtue of Moses. We saw that a good number of modern translations understood that niphal participle to mean a reliable or a trustworthy man, like Samuel in 1 Sam 3:20. The next verse, Num 12:8a, gives the proof of the reliability or trustworthiness of Moses: the Lord has an immediate and direct relationship with him.

36 He refers to Joseph in Gen 41:40. See Ska, Le chantier, 210–12. 37 Cf. Zorell, Lexicon hebraicum, 164; Koehler and Baumgarten, Bilingual, 200.

Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple

331

In order to specify the meaning of ‫נאמן‬, let us compare this niphal participle with its translation into the biblical Greek word πιστός. In the Greek version of Ben Sira, there are four cases and in the Hebrew Bible, thirteen. We have already seen the distinction between the active meaning and the passive one of πίστις: the same distinction exists for the adjective πιστός. Its active sense is believer, trustful, confident, and its passive one, reliable, trustworthy, with a touch of firm, steady, lasting. In the Septuagint, the thirteen occurrences where ‫ נאמן‬is translated as πιστός can be summarized in this way: – two occurrences regarding YHWH: in Isa 49:7, where the meaning is faithful and in Jer 42 (49Gr):5, where it means reliable. – in four occurrences, several characters are presented: a faithful priest (1 Sam 2:35a), the trustworthy seer Samuel (1 Sam 3:20; cf. Sir 46Hb:15b), David being faithful to Saul (1 Sam 22:14), and Abraham whose heart is faithful to the Lord (Neh 9:8; cf. Sir 44:20d). – in three occurrences, a mention is made of a firm house for the future priest (1 Sam 2:35b), for David (1 Sam 25:28), and for Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:38). – two verses mention a peg fastened in a sure place (Isa 22:23, 25). – lastly, the moon is presented as a credible witness in the sky (Ps 89 [88]:38b) and a trustworthy messenger (Prov 25:13). In the book of Ben Sira and its Greek version, three figures are mentioned to have been ‫ נאמן‬or πιστός. Sir 44:20d notes that in the test, Abraham “was found faithful” (cf. Neh 9:8). Sir 46:15b refers to Samuel. Even if we read in Hebrew ‫ נאמן‬and in Greek πιστός, the remainder of the verse in both languages is a source of problems.38 It seems that the best solution is to read ‫רואה‬, seer, at the end of the Hebrew stich, with the Greek ὁράσεως, instead of ‫רועה‬, shepherd: “He also by his word was a trustworthy seer”; Sir 46:15 refers to 1 Sam 3:20. The Greek version of Sir 48:22d mentions that, like Samuel, Isaiah was trustworthy (πιστός) in his vision, but in the Hebrew Ms B, the bottom of the sheet has been destroyed and therefore the Hebrew text of Sir 48:22–23 is definitively lost. Today, it is accepted that the Hebrew text of Sir 48:22d would have been similar to Sir 46:15b.39 On the other hand, Sir 31Hb (34Gr):23b deals with a person who offers sumptuous banquets that “the witness of his generosity is lasting” (‫ נאמן‬or πιστός).

38 Cf. Beentjes, “Happy,” 214; Demitrów, Quattro oranti, 128–29, 181–82. 39 Cf. Beentjes, “Happy,” 146, 153–54, 217–18.

332

Maurice Gilbert

This long and fastidious note is only intended to confirm the main idea in Num 12:7, both in Hebrew and in Greek, that Moses had been a trustworthy man.40

4 Moses and Jesus in Heb 3:1–6 4.1 The Context The Epistle to the Hebrews in 3:1–6 is the only text of the New Testament where the passage of Num 12:1–10 is quoted using the Septuagint and commented. The main theme of Heb 3:1–6 is the superiority of Jesus over Moses, because Moses was θεράπων, servant, whereas Jesus was the Son of God. For the unknown author, the comparison between Moses and Jesus runs the full length of the text. Like Moses who was πιστός in God’s house, Jesus was πιστός to God who appointed him (Heb 3:2). Moses was πιστός in all of God’s house as a θεράπων, a servant, in order to testify to the things that were to be said (Heb 3:5). The letter to the Hebrews interprets the house referred to in Num 12:7 as applying to the community of believers if they keep confidence and pride in their hope (Heb 3:6); this house is the church.41

4.2 The Meaning of πιστός in Heb 3:2, 5 In his dictionary of the Greek New Testament vocabulary, Franz Zorell first gives the passive value of πιστός and he offers these Latin translations when the word applies to persons: is cui tuto creditur vel fiditur, fide s[ive] fiducia dignus, fidelis, fidus. Among New Testament references, Zorell mentions Heb 3:5; in Heb 3:2, there is a dative personae cui se quis fidelem exibet.42 In his great commentary on l’Épître aux Hébreux,43 Spicq wrote, “L’argumentation de III, 2–6 repose, non sur l’acception grecque de πιστός, mais sur celle de son correspondant hébraïque ‫נאמן‬, ‘homme de confiance’.” This proposal,

40 Dorival, Les Nombres, 299–306, translates and comments the Greek version of Num 12, and for Num 12:7b, his translation is: “dans ma maison tout entière, c’est mon homme de confiance,” 302; cf. above, n. 32. 41 Cf. the explanation of the “house” in Num 12:7 offered by Ska, Le chantier, 212: the people of the Lord. 42 Zorell, Lexicon graecum, 1067. 43 Spicq, L’Épitre, 373.

Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple

333

which follows along the line of the meaning of Num 12:7 according to many translators is today rarely accepted for Heb 3:2, 5. I mention here two examples: Juan Mateos in the Nueva Biblia Española, published in 1975, translates Heb 3:2 as “Jesús, que tiene confianza” and Heb 3:5 as “Moisés, ademas, tuvo la confianza.” The Nouvelle Bible Segond, published in 2002, translates it as “digne de confiance.” On his part, Albert Vanhoye wrote in 2002 about Heb 3:1–6: “L’auteur invite donc ses auditeurs à contempler le Christ glorifié, intronisé auprès de Dieu (cf. Heb 1:3, 8, 13), ‘couronné de gloire et d’honneur’ (Heb 2:9) et, pour cette raison, digne de toute confiance et de toute foi, lorsqu’il nous parle du haut des cieux (cf. Heb 12:25).”44 It is true that many contemporary versions prefer to translate πιστός as faithful. To name a few, Spicq in the Bible de Jérusalem from 1950 until now; before him, A. Crampon in 1905, and afterwards these versions: the RSV, La Sacra Bibbia, translated by Fulvio Nardoni (Firenze 1961), NEB, NAB, Bible de Maredsous (1970), la Bibbia della CEI (1971), É. Osty (1973), Nuovissima Versione della Bibbia (1983). Vanhoye proposes two renditions of πιστός: “digne de toute confiance” et “digne de toute foi” which means “trustworthy, deserving reliability [like an intendant]” and “credible as witness.”45 Of these two proposals, which one is preferable in Heb 3:2, 5? Because Heb 3:5b says εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων, “to testify to the things that were to be spoken later” (RSV), it seems also that in Heb 3:5, πιστός has to be translated as “digne de foi” or credible. A similar translation is found today in two new versions for the Catholic liturgy, the Bibbia della CEI (2008) and La Bible. Traduction liturgique (2012); it is already found in a note in the third and last edition of the Bible de Jérusalem (1999). Therefore, the meaning of πιστός in Heb 3:2, 5 is not exactly the same as in Num 12:5 and in Sir 45:4 and 1:27b.

4.3 “Gentle and Humble of Heart” (Matt 11:29) According to the Greek version of Num 12:7, Moses was recognized as πιστός. According to Heb 3:5–6, Jesus is recognized as a higher πιστός than Moses, probably in its double meaning of trustworthy and credible. Now, according to Num 12:3, Moses was also the best model of ‫ ענוה‬or of πραΰτης: he was the most humble or gentle of all human beings.

44 Vanhoye, La lettre aux Hébreux, 73. 45 Cf. Zorell, Lexicon graecum, 1067: fiducia dignus or fide dignus.

334

Maurice Gilbert

Could we say the same of Jesus? In Matt 11:29, Jesus is reported to have said, “Learn from me for I am gentle and humble of heart.”46 The expression τῇ καρδίᾳ refers to the orientation of his will, suggesting that his decisions are stamped with gentleness and humility. Moreover, all the oppressed people have to learn from him his own modest and courteous behavior (Matt 11:28). For a Christian, reading Sir 1:27b goes beyond the figure of Moses to the supreme qualities of Jesus as a model: the double expression πραΰς εἰμι καὶ ταπεινός is the best way to translate in Greek the ambiguity of ‫ענוה‬, already seen above.47

Bibliography Aitken, James K. “Divine Will and Providence.” Pages 282–301 in Ben Sira’s God. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Biblical Exegesis & Theology 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Beumer, Johannes. “Die Gottesschau des Moses.” Geist und Leben 21 (1948): 221–30. Bussino, Severino. The Greek Additions in the Book of Ben Sira. AnBib 203. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2013. Cazelles, Henri. Les Nombres. La Sainte Bible. Paris: Cerf, 1952. Clamer, Albert. Les Nombres, Pages 209–481 in La Sainte Bible, II. Edited by Louis Pirot. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1940. Coats, George W. “Humility and Honor: A Moses Legend in Numbers 12.” Pages 97–107 in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature. Edited by David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn and A. J. Hausér. JSOTSup 19. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Dawes, Stephen B. “Numbers 12:3: What was special about Moses?” BT 41 (1990): 336–40. Demitrów, Andrzej. Quattro oranti nell’Elogio dei Padri (Sir 44–49): Studio dei testi e delle tradizioni. Theological Collection of Opole 124. Opole: Faculty of Theology, 2013. de Vaulx, Julien. Les Nombres. Sources Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1972. De Zan, Renato. Il culto che Dio gradisce. Studio del “Trattato sulle offerte” di SirGr 34,21– 35,20. AnBib 190. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. Dhorme, Édouard. “Nombres.” Pages 383–508 in La Bible. I. L’Ancien Testament, I. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 120. Paris: Gallimard, 1956. Dorival, Gilles. Les Nombres. La Bible d’Alexandrie 4. Paris: Cerf, 1994. Dupont, Jacques. Les Béatitudes, III. Les évangélistes. 2nd ed. Études Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1973. Gesenius, Wilheim and Frants Buhl. Hebräiches und aramäiches Handwörterbuch über das Alten Testament. 17th ed. Berlin/Göttingen/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 1962.

46 One of the most accurate analyses of Matt 11:29 is found in Dupont, Les Béatitudes, 3:521– 37. 47 Cf. Jouön, “Notes philologiques,” 346–47: gentle and humble should be a hendiadys for the Aramaic word `anwana.

Reliability and Gentleness: Moses, Jesus, and the Disciple

335

Gilbert, Maurice. “L’addition de Siracide 1, 21.” Pages 223–31 in Ben Sira. Recueil d’études – Collected Essays. BETL 264. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. Gilbert, Maurice. “Quel est le sens de πᾶσα σοφία en Siracide 1,1a? Notes philologiques et exégétiques.” Pages 103–13 in Hokhmat Sopher. Edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey and Martin Starzak. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Hartom, E.S. ‫בן סירא‬. 3rd ed. Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1969. Jouön, Paul. “Notes philologiques sur les évangiles.” RSR 18 (1928): 345–59. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgarten. A Bilingual Dictionary of the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1998. Kselman, John S. “A Note on Numbers XII, 6–8.” VT 26 (1976): 500–5. Liesen, Jan. Full of Praise. An Exegetical Study of Sir 39,12–35. JSJSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 2000. MacKenzie, Roderick A. F. “Ben Sira as Historian. Pages 312–27 in Trinification of the World. FS Frederick E. Crowe. Edited by Thomas A. Dunne and Jean-Marc Laporte. Toronto: Regis College Press, 1978. Mazzinghi, Luca. “The Figure of Moses in the Book of Wisdom. Pages 183–206 in Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Edited by Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. DCLS 22. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Mopsik, Charles. La Sagesse de ben Sira. Traduction de l’hébreu, introduction et annotation. Les Dix Paroles. Lagrasse: Verdier, 2003. Oesterley, William O. E. The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912. Osty, Émile and Joseph Trinquet. La Bible. Paris: Seuil, 1973. Palmisano, Maria Carmela. “Salvaci, Dio dell’Universo!”: Studio dell’eucologia di Sir 35H,1– 17. AnBib 163. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006. Prato, Gian Luigi. Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. AnBib 65. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975. Rapp, Ursula. Mirjam. Ein feministisch-rhetorisch Lectüre der Mirjamtexte in der hebräischen Bibel. BZAW 317. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Raurell, Frederic. “Eccli 45,1–5: la ‘doxa’ dei Moises,” RCT 17 (1992): 1–42. Rey, Jean -Sébastien. 4QInstruction: Sagesse et eschatologie. STDJ 81. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009. Robinson, Bernard P. “The Jealousy of Miriam: A Note on Num 12.” ZAW 101 (1989): 428–32. Schildenberger, Johannes. “Moses als Idealgestalt eines Armen Yahwes.” Pages 71–84 in À la rencontre de Dieu. Mémorial A. Gelin. Le Puy: Mappus, 1961. Segal, Mosheh S. ‫ספר בן סירא השלם‬. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, 1958. Ska, Jean-Louis. Le chantier du Pentateuque. Le livre et le rouleau 49. Namur: Lessius, 2016. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Spicq, Ceslas. “L’Ecclésiastique.” Pages 529–841 in La Sainte Bible VI. Edited by Louis Pirot and Albert Clamer. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1943. Spicq, Ceslas. “Bénignité, mansuétude, douceur, clémence.” RB 54 (1947): 321–39. Spicq, Ceslas. L’Épitre aux Hébreux I. Études Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1952. Uehlinger, Christoff. “‘Hat Yahwe denn wirklich nur mit Moses gerede?’ Biblische Exegese zwischen Religionsgeschichte und Theologie, am Beispiel vom Num 12.” BZ 47 (2003): 230–59. Vanhoye, Albert. La lettre aux Hébreux. Jésus-Christ médiateur d’une nouvelle alliance. Jésus et Jésus-Christ 84. Paris: Desclée, 2002.

336

Maurice Gilbert

Vogels, Walter. Moïse aux multiples visages. De l’Exode au Deutéronome. Lire La Bible 112 (114). Paris: Cerf, 1997. Witte, Markus. “‘Mose, sein Andenken sei zum Segen’ (Sir 45,1) − Das Mosesbild des Sirachbuchs.” BN 107–108 (2001): 161–86. Wright III, Benjamin G. “The Use and Interpretation of Biblical Tradition in Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors.” Pages 183–207 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Zorell, Franz. Lexicon graecum Novi Testamenti. 2nd ed. Cursus Sacrae Scripturae I, 7. Paris: Lethielleux, 1931. Zorell, Franz. Lexicon hebraicum Veteris Testamenti. Romae: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1966.

Juan Chapa

“Useful for Instruction”: The Popularity of Sirach in Christian Egypt Abstract: Despite the problems and challenges to Sirach’s acceptance into the canon, the relatively large number of extant witnesses of this book that comes from Egypt compared with other LXX writings is rather surprising. The present contribution briefly describes the surviving Sirach manuscripts of Egyptian provenance, both in Greek and in Coptic. It also intends to shed light on this matter by explaining the popularity of this book as a confirmation of the statements of the Church Fathers on how Sirach was used to instruct young people and children. Keywords: Sirach, Manuscripts, Bible reception, Education

Prof. Núria Calduch-Benages, to whom these pages are dedicated as a sign of appreciation and friendship, argues that the canonicity of the book of Sirach in the Jewish tradition is highly inconsistent due to the fact that the rabbinic taxonomy between “inside” (canonical) and “outside” (non-canonical) books proves to be unsatisfactory: Many authors who, in theory, denied the sacred character of the book, in practice quoted it as Sacred Scripture and used it to reinforce their views, teachings, and even social behavior. In fact, the rigid distinction between the interior and exterior books leaves much to be desired, because many works belong to both, to the first group as well as to the second one. In other words, they are situated on the fringe of the canon.1

As is well known, the borderline status of Sirach is not exclusive to rabbinic Judaism. The Church Fathers and ecclesiastical authors also harbored some doubts about its canonical role.2 Despite this, from the second and the third centuries CE, we have abundant evidence that testifies to the popularity of this book

1 Calduch-Benages, “Ben Sira y el canon,” 369; Calduch-Benages, “Canon,” 13. The same understanding in Rüger, “Siracide,” 47–69. See also Ellis, “Boundaries,” 46–63. For the use of Sirach in rabbinic literature, sometimes considered as Scripture, Labendz, “Book,” 347–92. 2 It is sometimes listed among the canonical books, on other occasions among those intermediate, and on other occasions among the apocryphal. It was more accepted in the Eastern tradition than in the Western, where it is considered canonical from the fourth century onwards. Cf. Gallagher and Meade, Canon, 280–1. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-022

338

Juan Chapa

among Christian authors.3 This is particularly noticeable in Egypt, where it is well attested that Jews made ample use of it.4 A search for Sirach in BiblIndex, limited to authors located in the Alexandrian area and excluding citations from Philo, gives 388 results.5 It appears from the search that Clement, Origen, and Didymus cite this book most frequently. Athanasius does so to a lesser extent, while hardly any citations are found among the works of Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria. It should be noted, however, that if we compare the number of citations of Sirach with that of Wisdom of Solomon, a shorter book that underwent a parallel fate to Sirach regarding its canonicity, we find that the former is less cited. Wisdom, which is shorter than Sirach, reaches 597 citations, a fact that might be connected with the alleged Alexandrian origins of this book. Yet, as expected of “non-canonical” books, both works are less cited than the “canonical” wisdom literature of the Septuagint. Excluding Psalms, which are by far the most quoted work, BiblIndex – always in the Alexandrian area – gives 2104 items for Proverbs, 1996 for Job, and 935 for Song of Songs. Nevertheless, Sirach is significantly more cited than other “deuterocanonical” books. In fact, we only find 15 items for 1 Maccabees, 64 for 2 Maccabees, 73 for Baruch, 35 for Judith, and 63 for Tobit. Admittedly, these numbers do not tell much, considering also that some books are shorter or much shorter than Sirach, but they might give hints as to what were the most popular wisdom books read in Egypt. Against this background, the following pages provide a brief description of the extant witnesses to Sirach that have come down to us from papyrological sources,6 both in Greek and Coptic, so as to compare to what extent these witnesses agree with the popularity that the number of citations seems to attach to it. The information on each manuscript is limited to the basic data: place of provenance, assigned century, and attested biblical content. Where known, the measurements of the codices or leaves are given (first width and then height; the restored dimensions are indicated in square brackets.) Further data on each of the items can be found in the Leuven Database of Ancient Books (LDAB) and, for the Greek texts, in Rahlfs-Fraenkel (hereafter RF, followed by the page[s]) and, where available, in Mugridge (M).7 3 Vattioni, Ecclesiastico, XXX–XL. See also Gilbert, “Siracide,” 1417–20 and “Jesus Sirach,” 878–906. 4 Horbury, “Inscriptions,” 9–43. 5 https://www.biblindex.mom.fr/ (last view February 2021). 6 Regarding Sirach, Ziegler, Sapientia, mentions four fragmentary papyri (928, 929, 938, 964), five majuscules (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Sinaiticus, Venetus), fifty-seven minuscules and many versions (Latin, Coptic, Syriac, etc.). 7 LDAB: https://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/; RF: Rahlfs–Fraenkel, Verzeichnis; M: Mugridge, Copying. When appropriate, Greek and Coptic papyri are referred to according to their sigla in

“Useful for Instruction”: The Popularity of Sirach in Christian Egypt

339

1 Greek Witnesses 1.1 Continuous-text Manuscripts 1. P.Ant. I 8 (LDAB 3120; RF pp. 285–7; M 107). Antinoopolis. Third century. 26 fragments of 10 leaves from a papyrus codex written in a single column of ca. 30 lines. [16 × 24 cm.] Proverbs (5:3–10:18, 20:4–10), Wisdom (11:20–12:11) and Sir 45:14–15, 20–22 (frag. 19 and 20).8 2. PSI inv. 531 (LDAB 3135; RF p. 125; M 122). Unknown provenance. Late third or early fourth century. Fragment of a leaf from a papyrus codex written in a single column. [ca. 15 × 27–28 cm]. End of stichs marked by vertical double dots. Sir 29:15–18, 25–27. 3. P.Beatty VI (LDAB 3161; RF pp. 103–104; M 123). Aphroditopolis?9 Fourth century (Kenyon; Turner); first part of the fourth century (Cavallo-Maehler); third/ fourth century (Seider).10 Nearly complete leaf and two small fragments of another leaf from a papyrus codex written in a single column of 33–35 lines.11 [17.8 × 26.7 cm.] (Turner); [19 × 28 cm.] (Aland). Sir 36:23–37:22, 46:6–11b, 46:16b– 47:2a. 4. P.Köln (Pap. Theol. 53–60) + P.BYU (091 D562E) (LDAB 145317). Troe (Tura). Late fourth century. Three strips of parchment used to strengthen the binding of a papyrus codex of the Commentary on Psalms by Didymus the Blind. The strips preserve the remains of a leaf from a codex written in a single column of 23 lines. [14–15 × 25 cm.] Sir 38:28–39:4. 5. P.Rain.Cent. 27 (= P.Schøyen I 14) (LDAB 3214; RF pp. 444–5; M 121). Unknown provenance. Fourth or fifth century.12 Two non-contiguous pieces of parchment from a miniature codex written in a single column of 21 lines.13 [9 × 11 cm]. Sir 29:13–26a.

the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (https://papyri.info/docs/checklist). 8 Treu, “Bedeutung,” 143, ponders whether the codex might be from Jewish origin, especially as its text shows marked deviations from the LXX/OG, in part in the direction of the Hebrew text. 9 For a discussion on the provenance, see Nongbri, Library, 122–30. 10 Nongbri, Library, 133 and 152. 11 See also Pietersma, “Folio,” 497–99; it is not mentioned in RF. 12 See also Connolly, “Fragments,” 188. 13 On miniature codices, defined by Turner, Typology, 29–30, as having less than 10 cm width, see Kruger, “Amulet,” 81–94 and Kraus, “Amulett,” 47–67.

340

Juan Chapa

6. P.Laur. III 55 (LDAB 3201; RF p. 114; M 120). Unknown provenance. Late fourth or early fifth century. Two fragments from a miniature parchment codex written in a single column of ca. 20 lines. [? × 11 cm.] Sir 26:1–2, 5–7; 27:29–30; 28:1–8. 7. MPER NS IV 28 (LDAB 3255; RF pp. 411–2). Hermopolis. Fifth century. Fragment of a leaf from a papyrus codex written in a single column. Sir 42:17–19. 8. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Ms. Gr. 9 (C, Codex Ephraemi rescriptus) (LDAB 2930; RF, p. 313–5). Unknown provenance. Original script, fifth century; upper script (Ephrem), twelve/thirteen century. Parchment codex written in a single column of 41–44 lines. 27 × 33 cm. Complete Sirach except ch. 23–26 and 50–51 (+ Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song, Wisdom + four Gospels and Acts). 9. P.Oxy. XIII 1595 (LDAB 3313; RF p. 300). Oxyrhynchus. Sixth century. Almost complete leaf from a papyrus codex written in a single column of 16 lines on each side. [14] × 18 cm. Sir 1:1–9. 10. P. Schøyen I 15 (LDAB 10515). Unknown provenance. Fifth century (ed. pr.); sixth-seventh century (Christie’s website). Fragment of a leaf from a parchment codex written in one column. Currently on sale at Christie’s.14 Sir 40:25–41:10. 11. The Patriarchal Library, Jerusalem. Ἁγίου Τάφου 2 (LDAB 9219; RF p. 162). Hermopolis. Sixth-seventh century (Harris); fifth century (PapadopoulosKerameus); upper script (Exodus and Genesis); thirteenth century. Two leaves from a palimpsest parchment codex, written in two columns of 36–37 lines. 25.5 × 33 cm. Written in stichs except for the prologue. Sir Prol. 19–3:11.

1.2 Unpublished Manuscripts 12. St Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai. ΜΓ 107 (LDAB 7329; RF p. 361). Second half of the seventh century (Orsini); eighth century (RF). Eight leaves of a parchment codex written in a single column of 24 lines. Sir 33(36):13a; 33(30):16b + c, 34(31):1–37:5. 13. St Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai. ΜΓ 77 (LDAB 7330; RF p. 361). Seventh century. Two leaves from a parchment codex written in one column. Sir 10 and 13 in Hexaplaric text.

14 https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6217448 (last viewed March 2021).

“Useful for Instruction”: The Popularity of Sirach in Christian Egypt

341

The provenance of the following two manuscripts is unknown. It is possible that they do not come from Egypt. 14. Rotulus 3/1 (1933): 16, n. 1606 and 3/3–4 (1933): 35, n. 1730 (LDAB 3461; RF pp. 446–7). Now untraceable. Unknown provenance. Fourth-fifth century (von Scherling); fifth century? (RF). Fragment of a leaf from a parchment codex written in a single column. Sirach 1:25–2:11a. 15. Russian National Library, St Petersburg. Gr. 42 (LDAB 10292). Provenance unknown. Undetermined date.15 Two leaves from a palimpsest parchment codex written in three columns, covered by a ninth century minuscule. 31 × 23.5 cm. Sir 4:25–7:27 (+ Wisdom 10:16–13:7). In addition, there are forthcoming four Oxyrhynchus papyri attesting to portions of the book of Sirach.

1.3 Citations The manuscript witnesses mentioned so far probably contained the entire book of Sirach. In addition, there are manuscripts that cite or rephrase passages from this work: 16. P.Köln IV 174 – Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. W. 145 (LDAB 3513). Provenance unknown. Second half of the fourth century. Parchment rotulus containing letters 1–3, 7, 10, 11a of Pachomius. 15.9 × 91.2 cm. Letter 11a.53 quotes Sir 3:29 (cf. also Letter 3.117). 17. P.PalauRib.Lit. 3 (LDAB 3491; RF pp. 15–16; M 109).16 Provenance unknown. Unidentified original washed text assigned to the third century; upper script, fourth-fifth century. Papyrus sheet with 35 lines. 12.7–13.6 × 21.2 cm. It contains a collection of biblical passages including Sir 48:6a, 18a, 50:3, 8c, 14b, 16b, 18b, 22d, 22, 51:2–3. The other passages are from Eccl 1:5–4:11, 7:23–24, 8:14 and Song 4:15.17 The back of the sheet contains sentences from Sextus.

15 It is not mentioned by RF but described by Rahlfs, Verzeichniss, 222–33, as no. 626. For further information on this codex and its problems of date, see Ceulemans and Verhasselt, “Fragments,” 110 n. 25–29. 16 Previously (as in RF p. 15), P. Palau Rib. Inv. 225 r; currently P. Palau Rib. Inv. 73 r. 17 Treu, “Papyri,” 87–88, suggests that, given the apparent lack of relationship between the different texts, the leaf might have been a school exercise of intermediate level.

342

Juan Chapa

18. P.Oxy. XVIII 2194 (TM 35624). Oxyrhynchus. Late fourth or early fifth century. Fragment of a papyrus letter written in Latin and Greek. 31 × 14.5 cm. Theon, the sender, quotes Sirach 12:2, with some modifications, in support of his request to the addressee Pascentius. 19. P.Oxy. XVII 2073 (TM 64489; RF p. 303; M 513). Oxyrhynchus. Fifth century (Papathomas); fourth century (ed. pr.). Fragment of a papyrus leaf written on both sides, probably by different hands. 4.8 × 6.6 cm. On the side, the text runs across the fibers and there are remains of 10 lines perhaps from a homily, where Sir 25:16 is quoted, together with Wis 11:19, Ps 7:12 and 1 Cor 11:3. Whereas on the side where the text runs along the fibers, there is a homily with a reference to a sentence of Sextus. 20. P.Oxy. XVI 1927 (LDAB 6137; RF p. 301). Oxyrhynchus. Fifth-sixth century. Upper part of a papyrus sheet. 11.1 × 30 cm. Hymn that makes free use of numerous biblical formulations, especially from the Psalter. It connects Sir 39:14 with Pss 32:3a and 146:7. 21. Vatican Library, Rome. Museo Egiziano 17 + Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. 8587 a–d + 8594 a–I (LDAB 2452). Provenance unknown. Sixth-seventh century. Eight leaves from a miniature papyrus codex in Greek and Coptic. 10 × 14 cm. Gnomic anthology, with sentences by Pseudo-Menander, beginning with Sir 25:24. There is also a forthcoming papyrus of Oxyrhynchus containing a writing exercise with the Sir 1:1–2 that seems to have been used later as an amulet.

2 Coptic Witnesses There are also numerous extant manuscripts in Coptic that bear witness to the book of Sirach. All of them are written in Sahidic except 1C, which is written in Achmimic. The evidence presented here is mainly based on Feder’s article of 2008,18 in which he offers an overview of the Sahidic Sirach manuscripts. The information not present in Feder has been added from LDAB.

18 Feder, “Version(s),” 11–20. Under no. 10 the author includes Berlin Staatsbibliothek Cod. Or. Berol. in 8. 409 fol. 1–2 + London British Museum Or. 3579 (29), consisting of three pages from a late paper codex (not before twelve century), which I have not considered.

“Useful for Instruction”: The Popularity of Sirach in Christian Egypt

343

2.1 Continuous-text Manuscripts 1C. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Copte 135 B 6 Vo (LDAB 108610). Panopolis. Fourth century. Papyrus leaf in Achmimic written in a single column. 19 × 33.5 cm. The leaf is made up of two sheets of a papyrus roll glued together on the writing side so that the blank sides could be used as a codex leaf. End of stichs marked by vertical double dots without dividing lines. Sir 22:17–23:6. 2C. Papyrussammlung, Berlin. P 15869 (LDAB 108248; Feder 9). Hermopolis. Fourth century (Orsini); fourth-fifth century (Feder). Fragmentary double leaf from a parchment codex written in a single column of 20–22 lines. [13–14 × 16– 17 cm.] Sir 7:10–19, 25–29; 9:14–18; 10:5b–11a. 3C. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Copt. Suppl. 7 (LDAB 220427; Feder 5). Provenance unknown. Fourth-fifth century. Part of a double leaf from a parchment codex written in a single column. Sir 18:18–20, 29–31; 23:19–20, 28–30. 4C. Coptic Museum, Cairo. Inv. 12761 (MSS. Section 6635) (LDAB 108391; Feder 7). Provenance unknown. Fourth-fifth century. Five leaves from a palimpsest parchment codex containing poetic books of the Old Testament. 17.5 × 18 cm. It was reused in the ninth century (Feder) or eleventh century (ed. pr.) to write the Shenoute Prayer. It contains some passages from Ecclesiastes and Sir 8:19– 9:8; 9:10–14; 10:30–11:6; 11:8–14. 5C. Papyrussammlung, Berlin. P 10586 A–D (LDAB 107730; Feder 8). Hermopolis. Late fourth or early fifth century. Two double leaves and remains of one leaf from a miniature parchment codex written in a single column of 16 lines. 13 × 14.5 cm. In addition to the end of the book of Proverbs (31:26–31), it preserves Sir Prol. and 4:2–6:4. 6C. John Rylands Library, Manchester. Copt. Suppl. 6 (LDAB 107916; Feder 4). Provenance unknown. Fifth century. Damaged sheet from a parchment codex written in a single column. Sir 1:5–13, 16–20. 7C. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Copte 161 (1) (fol. 1) (LDAB 108378). Provenance unknown. Fifth century. Four fragments from a miniature parchment codex written in a single column. [12 × 14 cm.] Sir 42:2–6, 7–10. 8C. University Library, Utrecht. Copt. Ms. B5.12.2 + Copt. Ms. B5.12.3 (LDAB 828639). Provenance unknown. Fifth-seventh century. Two fragments of a leaf from a parchment codex written in a single column. Sir 16:17–23, 16:26–17:2. 9C. Museo Egizio, Turin. Cat. 7117 (LDAB 107915; Feder 1). Provenance unknown. Second half of the sixth century. 116 pages of parchment codex written

344

Juan Chapa

in a single column of 26 lines. 16 × 21 cm. It contains the entire book of Sirach with many lacunae and the beginning of the book of Wisdom. 10C. British Library, London. Or 5984 (LDAB 108321; Feder 2). Provenance unknown. Sixth-seventh century. 77 leaves from a papyrus codex written in a single column of 34–36 lines. 26.5 × 36.5 cm. It preserves sections from the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and Sir Prol. 1:1–40:18 (with lacunae). 11C. Antinoopolis. Storehouse, inv. 666 (LDAB 113256). Antinoopolis. Sixtheighth century. Fragment of a leaf from a papyrus codex. [21 × 33 cm.] Sir 29:6– 9, 16–18. 12C. Papyrussammlung der Nationalbibliothek, Vienna. K 8689 (LDAB 699471; Feder 6). Provenance unknown. Seventh century? Small fragment of a leaf from a parchment codex written in a single column of 36 lines. Sir 45:9–10, 13–15. It appears that Sirach was not translated into Bohairic. However, some passages in Bohairic that depend on the Sahidic text are used in the Easter lectionary. This was copied in 1592 from an older text.19

2.2 Unpublished Manuscripts 13C. P. Heid. Inv. Kopt. 438 (LDAB 697548). White Monastery? Late fifth or early sixth century (Feder); tenth century (Schüssler). Three fragments from a parchment codex written in a single column. Sir 28:15–18.21–24.25; 29:1–4.7–10. 14C. Museo Egizio, Turin. Cat. 7117, fr. 1–3 (LDAB 108563; Feder 3). Provenance unknown. Sixth century. Damaged leaf and two fragments from a parchment codex written in a single column of 26 lines. It has been attributed to the same manuscript as LDAB 107915 and 108562. Sir Prol. 1–22, 24–35, 1:1–2. 15C. British Library, London. Or 13825 (1–37) (LDAB 108429). Provenance unknown. Seventh-tenth century. 37 fragments of sixteen leaves from a papyrus codex written in a single column of 28 lines. Sir 13:21–26:7 (the codex contained another book, perhaps Wisdom). 16C. British Library, London. Or 6201 C. Provenance unknown. Parchment fragments containing, among other biblical texts (Luke and Psalms), Sir 23:11–12, 15–17.20 19 Feder, “Version(s),” 16. 20 Bethge, “Bibelfragmente,” 197.

“Useful for Instruction”: The Popularity of Sirach in Christian Egypt

345

2.3 Citations 17C. P.Köln Ägypt. 1 9 (1980) = P.Köln Kopt. 1 (1968) (LDAB 101251). Provenance unknown. Fifth century. Parchment rotulus of 99 lines containing letters 10 and 11a of Pachomius. 10 × 50 cm. Letter 11a cites, among other biblical texts, Sir 3:29. 18C. Chester Beatty Ac. 2556 (LDAB 108078). Provenance unknown. Sixth century. Papyrus bifolium from a codex containing letters of Pachomius (11b, 10, 11a, 9a, 9b are attested). [13.5 × 16.5 cm.] Letter 11a cites, among other biblical texts, Sir 3:29.

3 The Presence of Sirach in Christian Egypt As is well known, archaeological evidence needs to be handled very cautiously, as it depends on chance and editorial criteria. Even so, the data collected above may provide some insights on the use that Christians made of the book of Sirach in the land of the Nile. Bearing in mind that palaeographic dating can only be tentative, the extant manuscripts attesting to Sirach range mainly from the fourth to the seventh centuries, with some exceptions. The two earliest witnesses have been assigned in this way: one to the third century (1) and the other to the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century (2). From the fourth century onwards, the manuscript witnesses both in Greek and Coptic increase in number. From the fourth century there are: 3, 4, 16, 1C, 2C; from the fourth-fifth century: 5, 6, 17, 18, 3C, 4C, 5C; from the fifth century: 7, 8, 19, 6C, 7C, 17C; from the fifth-sixth century: 20, 13C; from the fifth-seventh century: 8C. Later manuscripts are: 9, 9C, 14C, 18C (sixth century); 10, 11, 21, 10C (sixth-seventh century); 11C (sixtheighth century); 12, 13, 12C (seventh century); 15C (seventh-tenth century). Sixteen of these manuscripts are written on papyrus. Of these, six are continuous-text manuscripts in Greek (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9) and four in Coptic (1C, 10C, 11C, 15C); the other six only attest citations from Sirach: three of them are sheets (17, 19, 20); one is a miniature codex with a Gnomic anthology (21); one is a private letter in Greek (18); and one is a codex containing letters of Pachomius in Coptic (18C). The rest of the witnesses are parchments. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, the vast majority of the texts are very fragmentary and testify to a variety of Sirach passages, with very few overlaps. The text is normally written in stichs, which continue either indented on the following line or above or under the end of line. In two early witnesses, 2 and 1C, the stichs are separat-

346

Juan Chapa

ed by vertical dots, with no division of lines. This happens as well in one of the forthcoming Sirach texts from Oxyrhynchus, which can also be assigned to an early date (fourth century). If we pay attention to the number of witnesses published to date, it seems that Sirach enjoyed a remarkable degree of popularity. A quantitative comparison with other witnesses of Septuagint books through a search in LDAB confirms it.21 Psalms, as can be expected, is by far the best attested book: 283 LDAB items in Greek (G) and 305 in Coptic (C). After it, the highest numbers of items correspond to Genesis (42 G / 29 C), Isaiah (29 G / 35 C) and Odes (48 G / 10 C). But it is striking that the book of Sirach – including the five forthcoming witnesses from Oxyrhynchus and without including the two items that might not come from Egypt (14 and 15) – is the most attested work after the four mentioned above: 24 items in Greek and 18 in Coptic. The figures are similar to those of Exodus (25 G / 14 C) and higher to those of Jeremiah (15 G / 19 C), Proverbs (16 G / 16 C), Deuteronomy (14 G / 13 C), Job (12 G / 14 C) and Daniel (10 G / 14 C). Less than half of the rest of the Septuagint books attest to fewer than twenty items, and the rest of them to fewer than ten. True, the value of these figures is very limited (especially because quotations from a book are not always recorded in LDAB). But if we compare them with those from Oxyrhynchus, in so far as this city has yielded a great number of texts and is therefore prima face suitable to offer a more homogeneous picture, the results are quite similar. Using “Greek” and “Oxyrhynchus” as LDAB search criteria for each Septuagint book, we find that Psalms (29 items), Isaiah (6), Genesis (5) and Exodus (5) are the best attested works. Of the rest, if any, the majority range between one or two attestations, and exceptionally three or four. The specific search for Sirach gives three witnesses. This is not much, but, if we add the five forthcoming items, Sirach stands out once again with a total of eight items. Yet these figures can only be provisional. The Egypt Exploration Society, owner of the collection of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, reported on 7th March 2019 that at least twenty New Testament papyri, about ten patristic texts and more than eighty Septuagint and related texts have yet to be published.22 Five of the latter group have already appeared in 2020 and the five forthcoming Sirach items also belong to this group. But the other seventy texts waiting for

21 It has been used as search criteria for each Septuagint book “Greek” and “Egypt” on the one hand, and “Coptic” and “Egypt” on the other, with no distinction between “Jewish” and “Christian.” 22 Egypt Exploration Society, Unpublished Christian Papyri from Oxyrhynchus: Some Numbers: https://www.ees.ac.uk/news/unpublished-ees-biblical-papyri (last viewed March 2021).

“Useful for Instruction”: The Popularity of Sirach in Christian Egypt

347

publication may change the above picture. Nevertheless, for the time being, the number of manuscripts of Sirach is telling. In addition, if we compare the total number of Greek witnesses to the book of Sirach with the BiblIndex figures given at the beginning of the paper, we find that the number of Sirach manuscripts in proportion to the number of BiblIndex citations is proportionally higher to that of other books that seem to be more important: 21 manuscript items of Sirach for 399 BiblIndex citations, compared to 16 items of Proverbs with 2136 citations, 12 items of Job with 2003 citations, and 6 items of Wisdom of Solomon with 629 citations. Thus, if the number of extant witnesses may reflect what was most widely read at a given time, how can we explain the apparent popularity of Sirach? Is it due to liturgical reasons? Most likely not, although we know little of the early liturgical practices in the Coptic church.23 It is more reasonable to think that the high number of witnesses to this book responds to the fact that Sirach was deemed to be used for educational purposes. In the famous Festal Letter 39, Athanasius excludes Sirach from the canonical books but mentions it at the end of the list, within the books prescribed by ancestors to be read τοῖς ἄρτι προσερχομένοις καὶ βουλομένοις κατηχεῖσθαι τὸν τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγον (75.19–22), to catechumens who “wish to be instructed in piety.”24 Similarly, in the so-called Apostolic Canons (ca. 375–80), a writing of Syriac origin containing a set of provisions on ecclesiastical government and discipline, canon 85 lists the canonical works to be read in the assembly. After mentioning the authoritative books of the Old Testament, the canon indicates that, in addition to those writings, προσιστορείσθω μανθάνειν ὑμῶν τοὺς νέους τὰς Σοφίας τοῦ πολυμαθοῦς Σιράχ (VIIl.47.85), “your youth should learn the Wisdom of Sira, the scholar”.25 These references to the use of Sirach for educational or catechetical purposes could explain the presence of the numerous extant manuscript witnesses.

23 In the best preserved Sahidic lectionary (thirteenth century), there are lessons from Sirach for Holy Week. See Feder, “Version(s),” 16–17. Taft, Liturgy, 249–59, does not give any reference to Sirach in relation to Egypt or other places. It is also significant that the Byzantine tradition does not use Sirach for any liturgical function. 24 Gallagher and Meade, Canon, 124–25. Athanasius, however, considered it in practice as Scripture. See Leemans, “Canon,” 265–77. 25 The Syriac version reads as follows: “Outside let the Wisdom of that great of learning, Sirach, be for you all as instruction of the young” (Gallagher and Meade, Canon, 140). The Ethiopic version of this work states that Jesus Ben Sira is one of the books that have to be taught to children together with Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, and the three books of Kufâlé (Jubilees) (cf. Gallagher and Meade, Canon, 138 n. 338.) Origen (Hom. in Num. 27.1.3) mentions that it was common practice to teach beginners the books that were easier to understand, such as Judith, Esther, Tobit, and Wisdom, but does not include Sirach among them.

348

Juan Chapa

It would be a similar phenomenon to that of the Shepherd of Hermas. Although this writing might seem to us not very appealing, it was very popular in early Christianity.26 In fact, the number of extant witnesses to Hermas (11 papyri) is striking, when compared to most of the books of the New Testament.27 One of the explanations that has been given for this popularity is the abundant use of Hermas, if not for catechesis, at least for teaching young people.28 This is not only possible but would also be supported by the numerous manuscripts of Sirach that have come down to us. The high number of witnesses of Hermas and Sirach would be in keeping with the popularity of books that were used for pedagogical purposes. At least the use of Sirach in connection with school activities seems most likely. The bilingual codex of the sentences of Pseudo Menander with the quotation from Sir 25:24 (21), the occurrence of quotations from Sirach in connection with the Sententiae of Sextus (17 and 19),29 and the Oxyrhynchus’ writing exercise with Sir 1:1–2 (forthcoming) strongly suggest it.30 In addition, these examples would endorse the appreciation by the Fathers of the Church and ecclesiastical authors that Wisdom and Sirach were useful for the education and instruction of Christians.31 Even more, it would not be too daring to imagine that, precisely because of this usage that might have implied frequent handling, codices of Sirach (as may have happened also with codices of Hermas) got damaged and, as a result, some of their pages or the whole book ended up in the trash heap.32 This would entail greater possibilities of finding in archaeological sites more samples of these works than of others not used at school or for pedagogical activities. In any case, the borderline status of Sirach that some literary sources refer to must be tested by manuscript witnesses. Despite the limitations they present, they show that theory and life do not always go hand in hand. Perhaps, Sirach was in practice more influential than its marginal and, to some extent, “Cinderella” canonical status, would lead us to believe.

26 See Batovici, “Shepherd,” 89–105. 27 Choat and Yuen-Collingridge, “Hermas,” 196. 28 Choat and Yuen-Collingridge, “Hermas,” 201–203. 29 This work was amply used in monastic environments. Cf. Pevarello, “Traditions,” 262–66. Dysinger, “Sentences,” 230–32. 30 Bucking, “Educational,” 134–35. See also the numerous examples of Psalms in school exercises. Cf. Cribiore, Writing (e.g. n. 169, 295, 297, 317, 321, 388, 396, etc). There is also a school exercise quoting Prov 8:3–13 (see n. 307). 31 Epiphanius, De mensibus 4.122 (Moutsoulas) refers that Wisdom and Sirach χρήσιμοι μέν εἰσι καὶ ὠφέλιμοι (“useful and beneficial”); John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa 4.17 (PG 94: 1180), defines them as ἐνάρετοι μὲν καὶ καλαί (“virtuous and beautiful”). 32 This is one of the possibilities considered by Barker, “Codex,” 140 n. 33. For a larger discussion, see also Luijendijk, “Scriptures,” 243–50.

“Useful for Instruction”: The Popularity of Sirach in Christian Egypt

349

Bibliography Barker, Don C. “Codex, Roll, and Libraries in Oxyrhynchus.” TynBul 57 (2006): 131–48. Batovici, Dan. “The Shepherd of Hermas in Recent Scholarship on the Canon: A Review Article,” ASE 34 (2017): 89–105. Bethge, Hans-Gebhard, “Neue Bibelfragmente: Ein Überblick.” Pages 195–207 in Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millenium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies Leiden 2000. Vol. 1. Edited by Mat Immerzeel and Jacques van der Vliet. OLA 133. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Bucking, Scott. “Christian Educational Texts from Egypt: A Preliminary Inventory.” Pages 132–38 in Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin, 13.–19. 8. 1995. Edited by Barbel Kramer et al. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner, 1997. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Ben Sira y el canon de las Escrituras.” Greg 78 (1997): 359–70. Calduch-Benages, Núria. “Ben Sira and the Canon of the Scriptures.” Pages 3–14 in For Wisdom’s Sake: Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. Edited by Núria CalduchBenages. BZAW 499. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021. Ceulemans, Reinhart, and Gertjan Verhasselt, “Fragments of the Wisdom of Solomon (10:8B– D and 10:15E–17D) from Khirbet Mird (P.Leuven PAM 21 = Rahlfs 888).” ZPE 205 (2018): 107–17. Choat, Malcolm, and Rachel Yuen-Collingridge. “The Egyptian Hermas: The Shepherd in Egypt before Constantine.” Pages 191–212 in Early Christian Manuscripts: Examples of Applied Method and Approach. Edited by Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas. TENT 5. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Connolly, A. L. “103. New Fragments from Sirach.” Pages 187–88 in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979. Vol. 4. Edited by G. H. R. Horsley. North Ryde: The Ancient History Documentary Research Center Macquarie University, 1987. Cribiore, Raffaella. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. American Studies in Papyrology 36. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1996. Dysinger, Luke, OSB. “Sentences.” Pages 230–39 in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Paul M. Blowers and Peter W. Martens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Ellis, Teresa Ann. “Negotiating the Boundaries of Tradition: The Rehabilitation of the Book of Ben Sira (Sirach) in b. Sanhedrin l00b.” Pages 46–63 in Sacra Scriptura: How “NonCanonical” Texts Functioned in Early Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Feder, Frank. “The Coptic Version(s) of the Book of Jesus Sirach.” Pages 11–20 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira Papers of the Third International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Shime’on Centre, Pá pa, Hungary, 18–20 May, 2006. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Gallagher, Edmond E., and John D. Meade. The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity. Texts and Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Gilbert, Maurice. “Siracide.” DBS 12:1389–1437. Gilbert, Maurice. “Jesus Sirach.” RAC 17:878–906. Horbury, William. “Jewish Inscriptions and Jewish Literature in Egypt, with Special Reference to Ecclesiasticus.” Pages 9–43 in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy. Edited by Jan Willem van Henten and Pieter W. van der Horst. AGJU 21. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

350

Juan Chapa

Kraus, Thomas J. “P.Oxy. V 840 – Amulett oder Miniaturkodex? Grundsätzliche und ergänzende Anmerkungen zu zwei Termini.” ZAC 8 (2004): 485–97. Kruger, Michael J. ‘P.Oxy. 840: Amulet or Miniature Codex?.’ JTS 53 (2002): 81–94. Labendz, Jenny R. “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature.” AJSR 30 (2006): 347–92. Leemans, Johan. “Canon and Quotation: Athanasius’ Use of Jesus Sirach.” Pages 265–77 in The Biblical Canons. Edited by Jean–Marie Auwers and Henk Jan de Jonge. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003. Luijendijk, AnneMarie. “Sacred Scriptures as Trash: Biblical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus.” VC 64 (2010): 217–54. Mugridge, Alan. Copying Early Christian Texts: A Study of Scribal Practice. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Nongbri, Brent. God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2018. Pevarello, Daniele. “Pythagorean Traditions in Early Christian Asceticism.” Pages 256–77 in Monastic Education in Late Antiquity. The Transformation of Classical Paideia. Edited by Lillian I. Larsen and Samuel Rubenson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Pietersma, Albert. “The ‘Lost’ Folio of the Chester Beatty Ecclesiasticus.” VT 25 (1975): 497– 99. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Detlef Fraenkel. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, I, 1: Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Rüger, Hans Peter. “Le Siracide: un livre a la frontiere du canon.” Pages 47–69 in Le canon de l’Ancien Testament: sa formation et son histoire. Edited by Samuel Amsler, Jean-Daniel Kaestli, and Otto Wermelinger. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1984. Taft, Robert F. The Liturgy of the Hours in the Christian East. Origins, Meaning, Place in the Life of the Church. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1986. Treu, Kurt. “Die Bedeutung des Griechischen für die Juden im römischen Reich.” Kairos 15 (1973): 123–44. Treu, Kurt. “Christliche Papyri XII.” APF 32 (1986): 87–88. Turner, Eric G. The Typology of the Early Codex. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977. Vattioni, Francesco. Ecclesiastico: Testo ebraico con apparato critico e versioni greca, latina e siriaca. Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica: Testi 1. Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1968. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum, vol. XII/2. 2nd edn. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Stefan C. Reif

M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira Abstract: From his early career in Oxford (1901–1909) until he was a senior figure at the Hebrew University (appointed in 1926 and retiring in 1949), Moshe H. Segal demonstrated a close interest in the language, textual history, and content of Ben Sira. This article attempts to assess that interest and the publications it generated and pays special attention to the edition and introduction that he published in 1953 (Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem) and revised some five years later. It suggests that publication of the volume in contemporary Hebrew may have discouraged many European and American researchers from making adequate use of its rich content. Keywords: Segal, career, study of Ben Sira, modern Hebrew, critical evaluation

1 Purpose The purpose of this essay is to introduce, or re-introduce, specialists in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period in general, and in the book of Ben Sira in particular, to a Jewish scholar, Moshe Hirsch (Zvi) Segal (1875–1968), whose contribution to those topics perhaps merits a closer and more appreciative assessment than it has attracted in some academic circles.1

2 Family Moshe Hirsch Segal was born in September 1875, in what is now Lithuania but was then part of the Russian empire. Life for Jewish families in Tsarist Russia at the end of the nineteenth century was not only economically harsh but their political and social situation was aggravated by growing restrictions, manifesta-

1 It is a great pleasure to dedicate this article to our friend and colleague, Núria, with best wishes for many more years of meticulous and prolific scholarship, especially on the book of Ben Sira. It should be noted that Núria often refers to Segal in her studies, as, for example, in her monograph, En el Crisol de la Prueba. I am grateful to my friend and colleague, Jeremy Corley, for a number of helpful suggestions. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-023

352

Stefan C. Reif

tions of prejudice, and periodic acts of violence against their persons and their property. As a result, many hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrated and found new homes in Central and Western Europe, in the United States of America, and in fewer numbers but perhaps more ideologically ideal, in Turkish Palestine.2 Elias and Etta Segal, living in the little north-western Lithuanian town of Maisyad (Mosedis in Lithuanian), had heard that some of the local Jewish population of around 350 souls had found their way to Scotland and settled successfully in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee.3 They therefore left the Russian empire in 1894 with their six children and made their new home in Dundee, Scotland. The third (or, possibly, the fourth) of those children, Moshe Hirsch, must already have demonstrated in Lithuania a keen intellect while studying the traditional rabbinic texts at ḥeder and, apparently, at the famous yeshivah in Telsiai, known among Jews as Telz/Telshe. Perhaps he also indicated a desire for broader learning, since he was sent to London to acquire better English and a British education. He financed himself, albeit rather inadequately, by working as a journalist in the Yiddish press.4 Hannah Leah was the nine-year-old daughter of a distinguished rabbi and keen Zionist, Aryeh Leib Frumkin, who left his Lithuanian home to settle in Turkish Palestine in 1884. She watched her father work the land and build a home in Petach Tikva, suffered from malaria, and listened as often as she could to the lessons in Hebrew, Bible, Talmud, and medieval Hebrew poetry that he gave to the boys. She also saw her much loved father beaten up by angry Arabs and saved from a worse fate by a kind one of their number who stressed that he was a ḥakham and should not be harmed. After ten years, Rabbi Frumkin fell foul of the Turkish authorities and had to flee to London, soon to be joined in the East End by his wife, Sheina, and their family. There he made his living by opening a wine shop at 162 Commercial Road but he continued to study, teach, and publish.5 In 1896, Hannah Leah had published an article in a Hebrew

2 For the anti-Semitic background, see Poliakov, Anti-Semitism, 4:67–134. 3 Collins, Jewish Experience, esp. 69–70. 4 I am grateful to Professor Naomi Segal, MHS’s grand-daughter, through his son, Professor Judah Benzion Segal (1912–2003), for generously making available to me items relating to MHS from her family archive, some of them through her cousin Charles Merkel, who has also been most helpful. J. B. Segal was Professor of Semitic Languages at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. His appreciation of his brother, “Sam, Lord Segal of Wytham, 1902– 1985,” provides some important family data, a copy of which was kindly provided by the Jesus College (Oxford) Archivist, Dr. Robin Darwall-Smith. 5 He was, for example, the editor of Seder Rav ‘Amram Ha-Shalem. The mother of Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (1947–2020), Libby Sacks (née Frumkin, 1919–2010), was a grand-daughter of A. L. Frumkin.

M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira

353

journal called Hadegel (“The Flag”), which was read by young Moshe Hirsch Segal (henceforth: MHS) who sought out this learned young woman in the wine shop. On the pretext of searching for a mutual acquaintance, he struck up a friendship with her. She thought that Moshe Hirsch’s “gentle, pale face reflected intelligence, modesty and good taste” and they were married in 1899.6

3 Oxford and Jerusalem MHS must have made a degree of progress with his English studies that was nothing short of phenomenal since he was admitted as a student of Bible and Semitic Languages to Oxford and matriculated there in 1903 as a non-Collegiate student. The University of Oxford had made such admissions possible from as early as 1868 for those who had limited financial means. Non-Collegiate students were at that time overseen by the University’s Delegacy for Unattached Students of the University, which many decades later became St Catherine’s College. MHS had moved to Oxford in 1901 and ministered to the Oxford Jewish Congregation while he pursued his studies, presumably in order to finance himself, Hannah Leah, and baby Sarah. It was while they lived in Oxford that their young family expanded through the arrival of Samuel and Alfred. Among the lectures MHS attended were those of one of the most distinguished hebraists and semiticists of the era, Samuel Rolles Driver. MHS excelled, obtaining his BA in 1906 and proceeding to an MA in 1910. He held the prestigious Kennicott Fellowship in 1908–9, enabling him to undertake research on the Hebrew language of the Mishnah. He also won a number of other University scholarships and prizes in 1905 and 1906.7 From 1906 until 1909, he taught students at Manchester College in Oxford but there was no permanency or security for him in that city and he therefore took a post in Newcastle where he attended to the spiritual and cultural needs of the community. It was in that northern city that the two remaining children, Esther and Judah Benzion, were born. While in Oxford, MHS was an active Zionist, with a preference for the kind of cultural Zionism favored by Ahad Haam (Asher Ginzberg) over the political variety of Chaim Weizmann. He and Hannah Leah, though native Yiddish

6 Segal, “A Hundred Years Ago,” V. Bibliographical details of this item were kindly provided by Michael Roodyn of the library at the London School of Jewish Studies. 7 I am indebted to Alice Millea, Assistant Keeper of the Oxford University Archives, for kindly sharing with me the University’s records about MHS. See also the next note.

354

Stefan C. Reif

speakers, preferred to bring up their children as Hebrew speakers and their ideology and the hospitality of their home made an important impact on some of the Oxford Jewish students of the day. Leon Simon (later Sir Leon), who created an early draft of what later (in 1917) became the Balfour Declaration about a Jewish homeland in Palestine, recalled how MHS had introduced him to Hebrew nationalism and thereby saved him from “slipping into indifference and assimilation.” The Segals were similarly active in Newcastle but the call of the Jewish homeland was a strong one and MHS was appointed director of the Jerusalem office of Weizmann’s Zionist Commission in 1918. For various reasons, this appointment was problematic and he returned to England in 1919 and to Oxford in 1921.8 After serving again in rabbinic posts in Swansea and Bristol, MHS and Hannah Leah settled permanently in Jerusalem where he was appointed to a lectureship in Bible in 1926 at the newly founded Hebrew University of Jerusalem. There he obtained a full professorship in 1939, from which he retired in 1949. His tenure there was not without its problems, given that there was little sympathy for the Oxford view of the early 1900s that a Ph.D. was not a sine qua non for an academic career, a suspicion about a rabbi’s ability to teach Bible scientifically, and considerable controversy about the appropriate department for teaching Hebrew language.9 Such matters are not, however, for discussion in the present context.

4 Bible, Semitics, and Rabbinics Considering his background in traditional rabbinic studies, it is no surprise that his research projects and publications demonstrated a mastery of talmudic, midrashic, halakhic, and liturgical sources. By the same token, a scholar who had studied Bible and Semitics at Oxford with S. R. Driver could hardly be expected to approach the history of the Hebrew language with anything other than scientific method and a critical eye.10 Although MHS remained personally loyal to Orthodox Judaism throughout his life, he did attempt to achieve a synthesis of the traditional and the innovative in his studies. He was critical of what he called the “dry casuistical studies” of the yeshivot which “did not draw any sharp distinction between the past and the present.” At the same time, he

8 Simon, “Reminiscences.” 9 Selzer, Hebrew University, 239–44. If memory serves, I also heard something of this from the late Professor Chaim Rabin during a visit to his home in Jerusalem in the 1970s. 10 Driver, “Psalm CX,” 31*.

M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira

355

was by no means wholly appreciative of what he called “the historico-critical literature on Judaism produced by the Jews in central Europe during the nineteenth century,” more commonly known as the Wissenschaft des Judentums. It was all too often an intellectual exercise, an archaeological interest, devoid of any connection with the daily life of the observant Jew. It was his view that modern Jewish learning “must cease to be the exclusive possession of the professional student, and must become again, as it always had been, the common property of the whole Jewish people.”11 It is a moot point whether his studies of the books of the Hebrew Bible and their literary history may genuinely be considered as academically convincing but this is a topic for the relevant specialists to debate.12 Similarly, his grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew and his completion of the eighth and ninth volumes of Ben-Yehuda’s Thesaurus are of primary concern to experts in the history of Hebrew philology.13 What I wish to attempt here is a summary and overview of his linguistic and literary examination of the book of Ben Sira and a brief and tentative assessment of the degree to which it remains of value to the contemporary researcher, half a century after MHS exchanged his Oxford MA gown for a more celestial raiment.

5 Early Interest in Ben Sira When MHS published his weighty tome Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem in 1953, he described it in his preface as the culmination of scholarly work that had preoccupied him, to a greater or lesser extent, for some twenty-six years.14 From his earliest publications, he had taken a close interest in the development of the Hebrew language through the biblical to the mishnaic forms, in Hebrew philology, in the history of the Second Temple period, and in Solomon Schechter’s newly published “Zadokite Fragment,” later entitled the Damascus Document, discovered among the literary treasures recovered from the Cairo Genizah. In his review of that publication, MHS drew attention to the significance of its

11 Segal, “Jewish New Learning,” esp. 177, 185, 201–202. 12 MHS’s views on the origin of the Pentateuch (as in his The Pentateuch) are particularly controversial; see Davies, “Introduction,” 20. My friend and colleague, Professor Graham Davies, has also kindly clarified this topic for me and drawn my attention to the comments of Houtman, Der Pentateuch, esp. p. 168. 13 His lexicographical activity also bore fruit in his work editing a Compendious HebrewEnglish Dictionary and a Concise Hebrew-English Dictionary. For details of MHS’s publications, see the list compiled by Liver in Studies, 7–12. 14 Segal, Ben Sira Ha-Shalem (henceforth, SBSH), XI.

356

Stefan C. Reif

Hebrew language as a kind of intermediate stage between the language of the Hebrew Bible and that of the Mishnah and assigned the author to “the school of writers from which emanated the Palestinian apocalyptic and pseudepigraphical literature” that made use of that kind of Hebrew language.15 It was not a huge step for MHS to move from there to the Hebrew of the Ben Sira fragments, also discovered among the Genizah manuscripts, and it would appear that he worked on an edition for two years between 1927 and 1929. The evidence for that is in the list of his publications which notes that in 1929 he had proofs of his Ben Sira Ha-Shalem covering the book until chapter 17, v. 5, but this was never published.16 Perhaps Abraham Kahana (1874–1946) had already commenced his project to translate the apocryphal books and MHS was therefore not inclined to continue.17 When the opportunity arose to produce a shorter and more popular version of the book for the publisher Darom in Jerusalem in 1933, he accomplished this in eighty-seven pages with an introduction of thirty pages.18 In that little volume, he had, as he later wrote, “tried to convey the original form of the book and omitted the later material that was inserted by scribes and copyists in generations later than that of the original author.”19 At about the same time, he prepared a detailed and more scientifically constructed analysis of the literary history of the Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions of Ben Sira and this appeared in English in 1935 and in it he took issue with some of the theories propounded by Theodor Nöldeke, Rudolph Smend, Israel Lévi, and Adolf Büchler.20 For a scholar such as MHS, who was deeply entrenched in uncovering the background and emergence of Mishnaic Hebrew, the linguistic characteristics of the Hebrew Ben Sira were of major concern and he published an article about this in that same year21 and another about the relationship between Sa‘adya Gaon and Ben Sira in 1943.22 Although many biblical, philological, and lexicographical writings flowed from his pen in the thirties and forties of the twentieth century, the book of Ben Sira was never far from his mind and he clearly had an ambition to complete a magnum opus on that important piece of Second Temple literature.

15 “Notes on ‘Fragments’” and “Additional Notes on ‘Fragments’,” with the cited sentence on pp. 140–41 of the first article. 16 See Liver’s list (n. 13 above), 8 n. 25*. 17 Kahana, Ha-Sefarim Ha-Ḥiṣonim. 18 Segal, Sefer Ḥokhmat Ben Sira. 19 Segal, SBSH, X. 20 Segal, “Evolution,” 91–149. 21 Segal, “Leshono,” 100–120. 22 Segal, “Rav Sa‘adya Gaon,” 99–101.

M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira

357

6 Magnum Opus He realized that ambition with his Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem that was published in Hebrew by Mosad Bialik in Jerusalem in 1953 and was aimed at scholars of the Second Temple period and its literature, many, if not most of whom, as he evidently saw it, were comfortable with reading a scholarly volume written in contemporary Hebrew. When I write “contemporary Hebrew,” I have to qualify that description and note that MHS’s Hebrew style was that of a learned rabbinic specialist of the early twentieth century who had complemented his traditional eastern European studies with a western European academic education. The introduction of seventy-two pages (some 53,000 words in translation) that he provided for that volume, which I have translated into English,23 was impressively extensive, highly informative, and scientifically precise, and it left no aspect of Ben Sira’s milieu, language, and ideas untouched, while also explaining in considerable detail its literary history and its impact on Jewish and Christian thinking. The introduction was virtually a monograph in its own right. In order to assess the significance of MHS’s contribution, it will be necessary to summarize the contents of the introduction, section by section, and what they reveal not only about Ben Sira and his proverbs but also about MHS and his scholarship. The content and methodology of MHS’s commentary will also be summarized and assessed. This will provide the groundwork for assessing in a future study how much Segal built on the pioneering researchers of the early twentieth century and to what extent those scholars who postdate MHS have effectively followed him or taken matters further than he did.

6.1 Preface The preface is, as far as prefaces go, somewhat lengthy. In it, MHS notes the existence of the Hebrew fragments A–E (as then known), explains the system he has used for numeration, the format that he has chosen (to match Psalms, Job, and Proverbs), and the manner in which he has restored the missing Hebrew. He shares with us his conclusion that “the fragments are not a retranslation of the Greek or Syriac translations, or of some lost Aramaic translation, fabricated by some scholars, but neither are they completely original” and he summarizes

23 All the citations from MHS’s volume are from my English translation. I am grateful to my grand-daughter, Nili Reif, a student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who kindly and efficiently prepared for me a first draft of the translation.

358

Stefan C. Reif

for us his scholarly work in the following terms: “I have presented all that we know about the author and his time, explained the formation of the Hebrew book and its long and complicated history, and described its conceptual and linguistic characteristics, as well as the development of its various versions.”24

6.2 Introduction, Chs. 1–3 MHS’s first chapter, consisting of thirteen sections, is devoted to the name, life, character, and generation of Ben Sira.25 As in all his treatments, he utilizes many sources, argues his case in detail, and cites numerous verses from the book of Ben Sira, which he systematically combed through with great assiduity. He prefers the name for the author that occurs in the Hebrew versions, namely, Simeon son of Jeshua son of Eleazar son of Sira, and suggests that the book was written around 180 BCE, that is to say, after the death of the High Priest, Simon, and before Antiochus Epiphanes rose to power in Syria. He describes Ben Sira as coming from an economically comfortable but not wealthy background, and as a scholar who pursued the study of Torah and wisdom (both local and Egyptian), headed his own study center (bet ha-midrash), and wrote his book of proverbs over a period of many years. Ben Sira was “merciful, generous, easy-going, modest and patient,”26 appreciated pleasures in moderation, including festive meals with musical accompaniment, admired attractive and virtuous women, and enjoyed nature’s spectacles. As to the generation in which Ben Sira lived, MHS points out the Seleucid ambition to divert Jewish loyalty from the Ptolemies and the growing Jewish awareness of the wider world around them. The influence of Greek language and thought was not only an intellectual exercise but also produced a class of rich tyrants that was exclusively concerned with its money and its pleasures and a subsequent ethical and moral decline on the part of some inhabitants. Another result of this cultural impact on Ben Sira’s world was that the devout and simple people later rebelled under the leadership of the Maccabees and sacrificed their lives as religious martyrs. In the second chapter of MHS’s introduction, divided into eight sections, he deals with the various titles attached to Ben Sira’s book, some identifying it as wisdom while others place the emphasis on its proverbs, or its moral agenda.27

24 25 26 27

Segal, SBSH, XI. Segal, SBHS, 1–11. Segal, SBSH, 7. Segal, SBSH, 11–16.

M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira

359

Of the number of headings that appear differently, in the Hebrew and the Greek, there are those that may have been original as well as some that were added by copyists. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to the composition and division of the book. Ben Sira appears to have composed sets of proverbs at different times during, and as part of, his active teaching career, and later in his life to have decided to collect and order all the compositions together in one work, for the moral benefit of his own and future generations. MHS supports the suggestion of Peters, based on 24:34–35 [24:32–33], that the book is divided into two main parts, namely, chapters 1–23 and chapters 24–51.28 He does not accept Peters’s view that there are ten sections, nor that of Smend who suggested twenty-two sections,29 he himself opting for a division into eight sections. There are ten sections in MHS’s third chapter, primarily concerned with literary structure.30 MHS compares Ben Sira to the biblical book of Proverbs, even if the former’s parameters are drawn wider, and indicates where some of its content is reminiscent of passages in Psalms and Job. Its verses are built on parallelism, climax, and comparison and while the rhythm of synonymous parallelism is common in Ben Sira, what are more common are the rhythms of different methods of climax. Ben Sira speaks of himself in the first person and addresses his readers in the second and third person, at times using vocatively “son” or “sons.” He also employs interrogatives to begin his discussion of some topics. MHS describes the post-classical Hebrew language of Ben Sira and draws attention to the many linguistic innovations, new words, and novel phrases, which are often based on the linguistic developments that were later integrated into the Mishnaic language. He then provides detailed examples of numerous such innovations, listing them under the headings of nouns, verbs, and phraseology.

6.3 Introduction, Chs. 4–5 Ben Sira’s doctrinal teaching occupies MHS in the fifteen sections of his fourth chapter.31 Here, Ben Sira is not concerned with the Torah commandments but rather with wisdom, which is granted more generously, in his view, to those who are righteous. What he means by the pursuit of wisdom is the great effort to educate oneself in the fear of God, virtue, and good behavior. Such a project

28 29 30 31

Peters, Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus. Smend, Das hebräische Fragment; Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Segal, SBSH, 16–22. Segal, SBSH, 22–36.

360

Stefan C. Reif

must include moderation, integrity, justice, humility, benevolence, and mercy, as well as faith and trust in God. Secular wisdom does not bring humanity to perfection but can in fact be a destructive and immoral influence. MHS regards Ben Sira’s book as a kind of Shulḥan ‘Arukh for life, for all one’s relations with oneself, with one’s Creator, and with one’s fellow.32 He then specifies the individual items of doctrine that are characteristic of Ben Sira’s teaching. Although these include personal providence, freewill and theodicy, a belief in the afterlife had not yet taken root among the circles of scholars and sages but was accepted by only some individuals. MHS is adamant that this does not justify the conclusion that Ben Sira was a Sadducee, nor does he subscribe to the view that Ben Sira was a priest, even if he was singularly supportive of the Temple and the priesthood. Ben Sira was convinced that the wicked suffer evils much more frequently than the righteous, that evil is human and not the fault of Satan, and that death was to be seen as no more than a natural phenomenon. His ideas concerning the status of the Jewish nation match those found in the Bible and in rabbinic literature. Israel is God’s people, who are called by the name of God. In the future-time, God would remove the non-Jewish yoke from Israel, bring His people the redemption they craved, and gather the scattered Jewish people from among the foreign nations. Although Ben Sira predicts that government would then return to the house of David and that the dynasty of Zadok would serve exclusively in the priesthood, he does not pray explicitly for the return of the Davidic rulership nor does he mention, even implicitly, that the future redemption would come through a Messiah from the house of David. In the lengthy and highly informative fifth chapter, MHS describes, in fourteen sections,33 the reception history of Ben Sira’s book, pointing out at the outset the degree to which his sayings, phrases, and ideas became a fundamental part of the spiritual treasures not only of the Jewish people but also of the Christian world, especially in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, as well as “among all the cultured peoples of the old and new world.”34 Having indicated that he has been able to add to Neubauer and Cowley’s list of talmudic and midrashic citations, or alleged citations, from the book of Ben Sira,35 MHS notes all the instances and explains that there are among them items that occur without attribution, those that are used in a very free fashion, some that

32 Written by Joseph Karo in Safed in the sixteenth century, that work of Jewish law became the standard guide to Orthodox Jewish life and MHS’s use of it here, as a parallel to Ben Sira, testifies to his personal rabbinic education and commitment. 33 Segal, SBSH, 36–46. 34 Segal, SBSH, 37. 35 Neubauer and Cowley, Original Hebrew, xix–xxvii.

M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira

361

do not appear at all in our Hebrew version and others that are offered in Aramaic. MHS also notes instances in which ideas that occur in Ben Sira are also found in later literature and cases of parallels in post-talmudic liturgical, poetic, and literary sources. He makes reference to the fact that the book of Ben Sira was available to Sa‘adya Gaon in tenth-century Babylonia in a text with vowels, cantillation, and accents, testifying to a status that was in a sense similar to that of the biblical books. There are parallels between the original Ben Sira and the Hebrew and Aramaic versions of the Alphabet of Ben Sira but since many sayings to be found in Ben Sira itself were known to a wide readership, in various selections and orders, in the post-talmudic and medieval period, there is no reason to assume a direct borrowing. MHS cites other parallels not only in the books of the Jewish Apocrypha and the New Testament but also in ancient Egyptian wisdom literature, and in various versions of the Story of Ahiqar, some from the Elephantine papyri that predate Ben Sira by some two hundred and fifty years. The topic that MHS treats most extensively in this chapter is the passage in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 100b about Ben Sira, noting the apparent contradiction between its classification there as heretical and its obvious use and popularity in Jewish circles, including those of authoritative rabbinic teachers, at that time and later. He explains that R. Joseph’s prohibition of reading the book of Ben Sira was not because it contained heresy but rather because the text of the book in Babylon included foolish things that were later additions to the book. Also, the prohibition concerned only reading the book out loud for the undiscerning but not studying and reading the book quietly to oneself.

6.4 Introduction, Ch. 6 The sixth and longest chapter of MHS’s introduction, in thirty-three sections, covers the availability of the Hebrew book of Ben Sira in the medieval period, describes the Hebrew manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, and attempts to trace the literary history of the Hebrew, Greek, Syriac and Latin versions.36 MHS points to a knowledge of the book in the eastern Jewish centers around the tenth century but also to its loss in later Spain, Italy and Ashkenaz (= Germany and Northern France), where it was confused with the Alphabet of Ben Sira. There was a renewed interest in the book in the modern age of the Jewish Enlightenment when translations were made from the Greek into Hebrew. All these

36 Segal, SBSH, 47–69.

362

Stefan C. Reif

proved more than a little inadequate when Solomon Schechter, Adolf Neubauer, George Margoliouth, Elkan Nathan Adler, Israel Lévi, Moses Gaster, and later, Joseph Marcus, brought to the attention of the world of scholarship the fragments they had discovered of the long-lost early medieval Hebrew version.37 In his dating and description of Mss A–E, MHS describes the characteristics of each of the manuscripts and dates all of them except E. He obviously did not see himself as a historian of paleography since he simply cites earlier views with regard to the dating. Interestingly enough, his secondary suggestions do not differ significantly from recent scholarship on this matter with the exception of Ms C, which he, following Gaster, stated to be the earliest of the Hebrew Genizah texts in the 10–11c though Judith Olszowy-Schlanger has recently suggested that it dates from about three centuries later than that.38 His tracing of the literary history of the versions of Ben Sira is more significant. Although one might have expected the Greek version to be the most pristine and to have been translated directly from the original Hebrew, MHS argues that there are many corruptions in that version, as there also were in the Hebrew version transmitted in the two generations between Ben Sira and his grandson. He then lists many examples of corruption, distortion, omission, and addition. He distinguishes what are known as GI and GII and suggests that Clement of Alexandria’s collections of proverbs from Ben Sira were transmitted orally. The texts of these collections are similar to the texts of the minuscules (“cursives”) and not the uncial MSS, which were based on a new version, or revision, that followed a fresh recension of the Hebrew text which thus differed more or less materially from the Hebrew original of GI. MHS concludes that “the complete document that was the source of these collections of proverbs even predated the rise of Christianity, and was known and widely valued during the times of the Early Fathers of the Greek church; what is more, the Hebrew version, that is the basis of this Greek document, certainly predated the rise of Christianity.”39 In time, the two Greek versions were jumbled by copyists, who began to edit one version based on the other, and to insert additions from one into the other. Regarding the Latin version, MHS’s view is that it should not be concluded that the author of L also used a Hebrew source but rather that the Greek source on which L was based was translated from a Hebrew version that had a few variants, and perhaps also additions, that did not appear in other Hebrew versions.

37 Compare Reif, “Some First Editions,” 39–65. 38 Olszowy-Schlanger, “The ‘Booklet’ of Ben Sira,” esp. pp. 85–86. 39 Segal, SBSH, 57–58.

M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira

363

Concerning the Syriac version, the situation is more complex. MHS argues that the Syriac translator may have been familiar with, and assisted by, a Greek version, but that he was primarily dependent on a Hebrew source but one that differed from that of the Greek and the Hebrew now available to us. At the same time, some of the changes were not derived directly from that Hebrew but represented the translator’s free renderings as well as his expansions, abbreviations or omissions. Given that some such alterations appear to have been theologically motivated, MHS postulates that the translator was a Jewish Christian, still influenced by his original faith but anxious to promote his new one. According to MHS, the Hebrew version used by the Syriac translator occupied a middle position between the Hebrew version that lies behind the Greek of the minuscules and the new, expanded version of H. The creation of the Hebrew version of S must be attributed to the first century after the Destruction, or to the second century CE. As to the new Hebrew version, its language reflects that of the rabbis who were responsible for the tannaitic teachings later edited into the Mishnah, perhaps even as early as the end of the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 135 CE. The Syriac translation itself was composed no earlier than about 300 CE. By way of summary, MHS concludes that the Hebrew version is an autonomous and original version that is dependent on earlier Hebrew versions and not on Greek or Syriac translations. It progressed from talmudic times into the halakhic, midrashic, and piyyutic literature of the post-talmudic and early medieval periods. This conclusion, suggests MHS, is “further confirmed by the style of H[ebrew] in the many passages where the version was not corrupted and where the lyrical style has not been diluted by the influence of mishnaic speech.”40

7 Personal MHS reveals very little of himself in most of what he writes in his introduction and he generally does not express personal value judgements on sensitive topics but limits himself to conveying the ideas he has found in Ben Sira. There are, however, a few instances that do occur and that are worthy of note. He reports (as earlier mentioned)41 that his work on Ben Sira has preoccupied him for twentysix years, decries theoretical wisdom without moral content that has led to the creation of highly destructive bombs,42 and notes (with some angst) that Ben

40 Segal, SBSH, 69. 41 See n. 14 above. 42 Segal, SBSH, 24.

364

Stefan C. Reif

Sira’s view of slaves may not match modern thinking on the subject but was something of an improvement on the attitude of the Greeks who treated their slaves as cattle.43 Faced with Ben Sira’s view that the righteous suffer less than the wicked, MHS cannot resist the temptation to call this seriously into question: This philosophy of Ben Sira is superficial and limited, even in comparison with the views in the books of Job and Qohelet. It is based on the earlier outlooks of the Pentateuch and the book of Psalms, and on the limited experience of a serene and successful householder, whose life was orderly, quiet and pleasant, who never experienced the toil and bitterness of life, or the pain of physical or mental suffering.44

He is equally strong in his opinion of the Alphabet of Ben Sira, describing it as containing “crude stories … and vulgar jokes … foolish remarks and obscene language.”45 More positively, MHS records his great delight that his Hebrew retroversion (from the non-Hebrew versions) of some verses that preceded the publication of a new fragment, have matched the language and style of the verses in that freshly discovered manuscript.46 Unlike in his earlier article in the Jewish Quarterly Review in which he took specific and detailed issue with the views of such scholars as Israel Lévi and Adolf Büchler,47 here, he cites earlier scholars and expresses approval or disapproval but apart from a few minor skirmishes, he does not engage in anything like polemics against them. Regarding the Hebrew version, he categorically describes the theories of retranslation as “fabricated”48 and he does perhaps reveal a small degree of animus towards the Jewish-Christian Syriac translator who, in his view, rendered and modified the Hebrew text in accordance with his theological bias.49 He also suggests that the Greek and Syriac versions may have used the name Jeshua for the author (rather than Simeon) because it was “popular and sacred to the Christians.”50 A little more surprising is that MHS appears to regard the contents of Avot 1 as historically accurate,51 and that someone like him who did such stalwart work on demonstrating that Mishnaic Hebrew was an important form of the language should somehow see Ben Sira’s language as inferior to the classical form (“descends

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Segal, SBSH, 7; 215–16. Segal, SBSH, 32–33. Segal, SBSH, 44, n. 23. Segal, SBSH, X. See n. 20 above. Segal, SBSH, XI. Segal, SBSH, 60. Segal, SBSH, 2. Segal, SBSH, 4 and 31.

M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira

365

from its classical height”).52 At the personal level, it is also noteworthy that the accomplished editor Israel Yeivin (1923–2008), whom he thanks for “his diligent work in checking the volume as well as his remarks concerning the pointing and other technical matters,” went on to have a distinguished career as a specialist in Hebrew language and Masorah and ultimately to hold a professorship at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.53

8 Commentary In addition to preparing an English translation of MHS’s introduction, I have also translated and examined closely a few chapters of his commentary and am now therefore able to offer a summary of how he has dealt with the text, content, versions, and rabbinic data concerning each verse. MHS does not use the common system of placing his comments and exegesis immediately under each verse but prefers to provide whole sections of Ben Sira followed by his discussion of the content, verse by verse. He provides headings that offer neat and brief summaries of the whole sections and additionally describes in detail the content of sets of verses within each specified section. He does not allow the chapter divisions to dictate the topic, in whichever manner he prefers to define it, noting whatever headings occur in any of the versions and commenting on their originality. Having outlined the overall meaning of a verse and indicated how he understands it, he then explains each word, as necessary, making reference in most cases to the non-Hebrew versions and comparing them all. When seeking to establish the original Ben Sira text, he pays due attention to the overall context. He attempts to clarify difficult metaphors but acknowledges when the Hebrew text before him is difficult, or when a possible explanation is a forced one. He cites many other examples of the words, the phrases or the ideas as they occur elsewhere in Ben Sira, in the Hebrew Bible, or in other parts of Jewish or non-Jewish literature, on occasion doing so at considerable length. Where the source is an earlier biblical Hebrew text, he points out when Ben Sira is using that word or phrase in a different sense from that of its precedent. He deploys his knowledge of Semitic languages to define semantic ranges that help clarify a particular usage. He cites other scholars but not extensively, and at times refers to consensus views in order to reject them. He does say when he finds an earlier interpretation far-fetched.

52 Segal, SBSH, 20. 53 Segal, SBSH, XI; see Yeivin, Tiberian Masorah.

366

Stefan C. Reif

He details the variants to be found in Hebrew manuscripts A–E and keeps the reader informed of which Ms covers which verses and when a folio is damaged and the text is therefore defective. He identifies duplications, omissions, corrections, and additions, as well as conflated readings, and draws attention to plene and defective spelling. He explains how some scribal errors have occurred by way of homoioteleuton or homoioarcton, as well as citing glosses and offering his explanation of those. There are occasional errors in his text, most of which are corrected in his list of corrigenda.54 He pays close attention to the Greek, Syriac, and (less commonly) Latin versions and suggests the Hebrew Vorlage that was used by each of the translators, citing the Hebrew of that Vorlage as the Greek, Hebrew or Latin version. He attempts to explain how the translator has dealt with the Hebrew before him and expresses his view as to the better and more original Hebrew of Ben Sira, sometimes even imaginatively. Where no Hebrew is extant in the Mss, he reconstructs according to the nonHebrew versions, often with full pointing of the suggested Hebrew text. Where the translation does not match the Hebrew, he explains how there may have been a corruption in one or more of the versions or why the translator has deliberately chosen to make an alteration. As against the original message of Ben Sira that singing is welcome and should not be interrupted at a feast, a number of Greek Mss omit this negative word ‫אל‬, as if to say, in accordance with the spirit of Christian asceticism, that Ben Sira is instructing the elder to refrain from singing at the feast.55 He compares the verse orders of the various versions and notes free renderings when, in his view, these occur, as well as interpretative and erroneous renderings. He cites the Greek and Latin in the original languages but writes the Syriac rendering in Hebrew script. Unsurprisingly, MHS is especially strong in rabbinic literature and in matters of Mishnaic Hebrew, which was one of his areas of specialization. He makes many references to the development of Hebrew from the biblical to the later forms and explains when word meanings have changed in the course of such development. He also cites the modern Hebrew of his own day when it preserves a sense that was employed by Ben Sira. He sometimes makes use of the medieval Jewish commentators but also acknowledges when the talmudic exegetes may have got things wrong.56 It should also be noted that when fresh manuscript material became available, MHS added an appendix to the second edition of his magnum opus in which he treated the new findings.

54 Segal, SBSH, XIV–XV. 55 See his commentary on Ben Sira 32:4 [32:3] in Segal, SBSH, 202. 56 See, for example, his comment that “the talmudic commentators knew nothing of this custom” in his commentary on Ben Sira 32:1 in Segal, SBSH, 201 n. 1.

M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira

367

9 Assessment It should be clear from the above that MHS’s 465 pages of introduction and commentary are a major – even massive – contribution to the study of the book of Ben Sira. He not only makes available an extensive tranche of significant data but also offers singularly important degrees of analysis and assessment relating to central elements of historical, literary, linguistic, and theological emergence and development. He has made use of the work of the early editors from the turn of the century but has undoubtedly gone beyond that. When, however, we check what has now become the standard English introduction, translation, and commentary of Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. di Lella, we find two interesting comments by Di Lella in his introduction. He commends Segal for offering “the best analysis of the strophic structure” and reports that Skehan “agrees in general with Segal but in several places suggests a different and better strophic division.” As far as everything else is concerned, however, Di Lella states that “Segal’s edition, though readily available, is inconvenient to use and contains some errors.”57 A check of the index reveals that there are forty-three references to Segal in the Skehan and Di Lella volume, that is to say, an average of less than one reference for every ten pages of MHS’s extensive efforts. These three facts appear to amount to scant praise for such a comprehensive treatment. I believe that MHS’s use of contemporary Hebrew for his voluminous study has represented an obstacle to many (but not all) later scholars, who have found it easier to deal with works in European languages.58 It has usually been Jewish scholars, in Israel and in the Diaspora, who have made much more use of MHS’s edition, as is clear from the index of a recently published volume of essays on Ben Sira.59 It seems to me that this state of affairs cries out for correction and that a step towards improving the balance would be the publication of an English edition of MHS’s introduction and his commentary. Having completed the former, I am now at work on the latter.

57 Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 64, 61. 58 Jeremy Corley, on the other hand, makes regular use of Segal’s volume, as in his “Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry;” see also n. 1 above with regard to Núria’s citations from Segal’s volume. 59 See Aitken, Egger-Wenzel, and Reif, ed., Discovering, Deciphering, 396.

368

Stefan C. Reif

Bibliography Calduch-Benages, Núria. En el Crisol de la Prueba: Estudio Exegético de Sir 2,1–18. ABE 32. Estella, Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1997. Collins, Kenneth. The Jewish Experience in Scotland from Immigration to Integration. Glasgow: Scottish Jewish Archives Centre, 2016. Corley, Jeremy. “Ben Sira’s Hebrew Poetry in Comparison with the Psalter.” Pages 243–66 in Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting: Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 Years. Edited by James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif. DCLY 2018. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Davies, Graham I. “Introduction to the Pentateuch.” Pages 12–38 in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Driver, Godfrey Rolles. “Psalm CX: Its Form, Meaning and Purpose.” Pages 17*–31* in Studies in the Bible presented to Professor M. H. Segal by his Colleagues and Students. Edited by Jehoshua M. Grintz and Jacob Liver. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1964. Frumkin, Aryeh Leib, ed. Seder Rav ‘Amram Ha-Shalem. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Zuckerman, 1912. Houtman, Cornelis. Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994. Kahana, Avraham. Ha-Sefarim Ha-Ḥiṣonim. 2 vols. Tel Aviv: Masadah, 1936–37. Neubauer, Adolf, and Arthur E. Cowley. The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXIX.15 to XLIX.11), together with the early Versions and an English Translation, followed by the Quotations from Ben Sira in Rabbinical Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897. Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith. “The ‘Booklet’ of Ben Sira: Codicological and Paleographical Remarks on the Cairo Genizah Fragments.” Pages 67–96 in in Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting: Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 Years. Edited by James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif. DCLY 2018. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Peters, Norbert. Der jü ngst wiederaufgefundene hebrä ische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus, untersucht, herausgegeben, ü bersetzt, und mit kritischen Noten versehen. Freiburg: Herder, 1902. Peters, Norbert. Liber Iesu Filii Sirach sive Ecclesiasticus Hebraice: Secundum Novices Nuper Repertos Vocalibus Adornatus Addita Versione Latina cum Glossario Hebraico-Latino. Freiburg: Herder, 1905. Poliakov, Leon. The History of Anti-Semitism. Vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Reif, Stefan C. “Some First Editions of Genizah Manuscripts of Ben Sira: Approaches and Reproaches.” Pages 39–65 in Discovering, Deciphering and Dissenting: Ben Sira Manuscripts after 120 Years. Edited by James K. Aitken, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Stefan C. Reif. DCLY 2018. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Segal, Judah Benzion. “A Hundred Years Ago.” Jewish Chronicle Literary Supplement 25 (1981): V. Segal, Judah Benzion. “Sam Lord Segal of Wytham 1902–1985.” Jesus College Record (1984/ 85): 53–60. Segal, Moshe Hirsch. “The Jewish New Learning of the Nineteenth Century.” Pages 177–202 in Aspects of the Hebrew Genius: A Volume of Essays on Jewish Literature and Thought. Edited by Leon Simon. London: Routledge, 1910. Segal, Moshe Hirsch. “Notes on ‘Fragments of a Zadokite Work’.” JQR 2 (1911):133–41.

M. H. Segal (1875–1968) and his Abiding Interest in Ben Sira

369

Segal, Moshe Hirsch. “Additional Notes on ‘Fragments of a Zadokite Work’.” JQR 3 (1912): 301–311. Segal, Moshe Hirsch. Sefer Ḥokhmat Ben Sira Ha-Shalem. Jerusalem: Darom, 1933. Segal, Moshe Hirsch. “The Evolution of the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira.” JQR 25 (1934): 91–149. Segal, Moshe Hirsch. “Leshono shel Ben Sira.” Lĕšonénu 7 (1935): 100–120. Segal, Moshe Hirsch. “Rav Sa‘adya Gaon and Ben Sira.” Pages 99–101 in the collective volume Rav Sa‘adya Gaon. Edited by Judah Leib Fishman. Jerusalem: Rav Kook, 1942–43. Segal, Moshe Hirsch. Sefer Ben Sira Ha-Shalem. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1953, 1958. Segal, Moshe Hirsch. The Pentateuch: Its Composition and its Authorship. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967. Selzer, Assaf. The History of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Who’s Who Prior to Statehood: Founders, Designers, Pioneers. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2015. Simon, Leon. “From my Reminiscences of Prof. M. H. Segal.” Pages 13–18 in Studies in the Bible presented to Professor M. H. Segal by his Colleagues and Students. Edited by Jehoshua M. Grintz and Jacob Liver. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1964. (Hebrew) Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Das hebräische Fragment der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Abhandlungen der (Königlichen) Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse 2,2. Berlin: Weidmann, 1897. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: mit einem hebrä ischen Glossar. Berlin: Reiner, 1906. Yeivin, Israel. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated by E. J. Revell. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1980.

Index of References Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 1:27 26, 30 1:27–28 26 2:17 21 2:9 21 3:1 169 3:5 21 3:22 134 4:26 24 12:3 178 13:14–15 180 22:1–19 236 37:26–27 28b, 31–35, 238 38:1–26 238 38:13–16 238 39:1–23 238 40:1–2 170 40:1–6 238 42:15–16 237 42:6–25 240 42:7 237 43:16–34 240 44:14–34 240 49:17 169

Exodus 15:17 226 20:12 193 21:17 195 22:22–23 65, 70 28:35 56 28 55, 56 30:23–30 126 30:25 154 30:34–35 126 32 55 39 55

Leviticus 8 55 10:1–2

183

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-024

19:9–10 65 23:22 65

Numbers 12 55 14:6–9 182 16:5–7 54 16:30 183 16–18 56 17:16–26 58 17:6–15 58 21:8–9 169 24:17 24 25:6–15 60 25:7–15 263 25:11–13 59

Deuteronomy 1:5 42 4:1 41 4:5 41, 42 4:6 45 4:14 41 5:16 193 5:31 41 6:1 41 6:5 310 7:6 224 8:2 236 12:5,11 217 15:7–11 65, 69 15:11 104 15:13–15 70 17:14–20 43 17:18–19 44 22:13–21 239 24:17–22 65 25:5 7, 239 25:5–10 241 27:8 42 29:19 22–23, 26, 27, 130

372

Index of References

31:21 271 31:22 41

Joshua 1:7–9

43, 44

Judges 9:15

132

Ruth 4:1–11

241

1 Samuel 2:8 158 16:7 158 17 185

2 Samuel 7:12–16 185 12:1–4 185

1 Kings 2:1–4 43,44 8:39 43, 49, 226

2 Kings 17:29 183 19:3 114 23:11 82

7:7 141 12:4 84 22:6–7 96 22:24 75 24:10 96 27:6 84 31:39 67 31:4 85 42:7 84

Psalms 1 43 1:2–3 44 8:2 131 19:7 309 21:4 59 37:38–39 135 51:10 130 73:13–14 174 78:2–3LXX 255 89:30 59 90:13 174 91:1 132 103:14 271 104:1 131 106:16 54 119:11 32, 34, 36, 69, 80, 111, 112, 113, 161, 236 146:4 245

Proverbs 1 Chronicles 11:1–9 217 12:39–40 217 28:18 82

2 Chronicles 6:30

33, 39, 226

Ezra 7:10

42

Job 1:21 84 2:9–10 165

1:2 37 1:7 136 1:20–21 165 1:20–33 241 2:16–22 241 3:16 126 3:19–20 138 3:35 140 4:13 209 5:3–23 241 6:6–8 160 6:8 159 6:20–35 241 7:1–27 241 8:1–36 241

Ezekiel 8:18–19 126 9:13–18 241 9:1–6 126, 241 10:24 29, 30, 135 11:4 90 12:9 157 13:18 140 13:20 204 14:17 208 15:33 37 16:21 160 16:31 85 16:32 208 17:26 195 17:5 66, 138 19:17 69, 99, 104 20:1 140 22:24–25 204 23:13–14 206 23:22 194, 195 23:23 209 25:11 83 25:21 274 28:27 69 29:13 138 29:15 208 30:17 194, 195 30:24–28 159 30:25 159

Qoheleth 1:14 141 3:1–8 141 3:19–22 19 9:13–10:1 149 10:8 169 11:5 244 12:12 151 12:1–7 19 12:7 245

Isaiah 5:21 139 5:56 259 7:1–25 253 7:3 88 8:3 884:36–61, 250

9:23‒12:53 257 9:54 55–57, 253 13:8 115 14:29 169 19:11–12 139 19:16 118 26:17–18 115 28:23–29 139 30:30 131 40:18–28 56 42:10–17 116 48:10 236 58 98 58:6–7 96 58:6–7″ 103 58:7 99 59:17 89 66:14 88

Jeremiah 4:22 139 4:31 115 6:26 237 9:12 23, 139 22:23 115 26:18 255 37:15–16 170 50:37 118

Lamentations 4:20

132

Ezekiel 1:4–28 81 7:19 90 8:3 82 10:18–20 82 14:14 81 14:20 81 18:7–8 104 18:7–8 96 27:8–9 81 37:1–14 81 38:16 81 38:22 85

373

374

Index of References

Daniel 2:21–22

Amos 237, 244

5:19

169

Hosea

Jonah

1:2–9 88 2:17 23–24, 133 4:4–5 136 4:6 14, 136 4:6–7 140 4:10b–12a 140 5:5–7 140 5:13 130 7:8 140 8:4 133 8:7 129, 141 9:1–2 13 9:4 11–12, 14, 16, 130 10:1–11 133 13:5–8 141 13:16 130 14:6 88

4:2

Joel

Malachi

2:13 130 3:1 88

3:16 23 3:22 136

130

Micah 3:12

255

Nahum 3:13

118

Habakkuk 2:16 140 2:2 42 3:3 131 3:8 82

Zephaniah 1:18

90

New Testament Matthew

James

5:33–37 304 6:25 101 7:24–27 316 11:25–27 309 12:33–37 304 15:10–20 304 15:11 18–19, 316 25:35–36 101

1:19–20 26, 301 1:21–22 316 1:21–27 305 1:26–27 307 1:5–6 310 2:10 309 3:1–12 287, 294, 301 3:14–18 311 3:17 310 4:1–2 11–12, 314 4:1–6 312 5:11 84 5:7–8 304

Luke 6:43–47

Acts 3:25

304

Revelation 88

22:2

134

Deuterocanonical Works

Deuterocanonical Works Tobit 1:4 217 1:4–8 218 1:8 219 1:6 217 4:12 88 4:16–17 98 4:3–4 196 4:5–6 97 4:7 69 13 218, 219 13:2–5 220 13:7b–18 217 13:9 220 13:9–18 219 13:10 220, 221 13:11 221 13:12–14 221 13:15–18 221 13:16 221 14 219

Wisdom 2:22–24 246 3:1–9 245 6:17–20 245, 309 9:5–10 309 14:27–30 139

Sirach 1:1–10 39 1:6 224 1:11–30 237 1:1–3 35 1:17 126 1:22–23 170 1:22–30 321 1:26 188 1:27 37, 324 1:28–30 306 1:4 310 2:7–11 15–18, 237 2:12 178 2:15–17 306

3:1–16 193 3:8–16 195 3:14–15 194 3:20–24 244 3:21–24 237 4:1–10 101, 154 4:3 306 4:17 38 4:22 71 4:24 37, 38 4:30 172 5:9–6:1 302 5:11–14 287 5:14 317 6:1 209 6:18 37, 39 6:19 126 6:19–22 203 6:22 39 6:23 69 6:23–31 309 6:32–33 189 6:33 74, 179 6:37 188 6:5 72 7:10 73 7:15 74 7:17 87 7:23–26 205 7:27 244 7:27–28 193 8:15–16 204 9:2 71 9:3 241 9:6 71 9:15 74 10:1–5 224 10:11 87, 245 10:18 170 10:30–11:3 149 11:17 323 12:6 74 13:1a 204 13:19 172 14:16 87

375

376

Index of References

14:21 313 14:26 132 15:13 186 15:15 20 15:15–17 189 15:16 20, 179 15:19 188 15:7–9 312 16:6 71 17:1 178 17:2 20, 178 17:27–28 87, 245 17:6 178 17:7 20 18:15–18 154 18:16–17a 179 19:11 244 19:11–12 109 19:16 315 19:4–17 314 20:16–20 314 21:2 169 21:15 151 21:11 312 21:11–12 238 21:17 178 21:19 38 21:22 152 21:26 316 21:27–28 154 22:11 87 22:27 314 22:6 37, 38 23 127 23:14 244 23:2 37, 38, 39 23:27 128 24 223 24:1–22 310 24:1–33 39 24:8 226 24:10 224 24:10–12 90 24:11 217, 223, 224, 226 24:12 224 24:23 224 24:24–34 127 24:30–31 89

24:32 177 24:34 151 25:1–11 166 25:3 203 25:9 179 25:13–26 166 26:13–18 166 26:1–4 166 26:5–12 166 26:8 170 27:10 172 27:19 72 27:30 170 28:10 170 28:12 315 28:1–2 170 28:12–26 314, 317 28:15 179 28:19 314 28:23 172 28:3 170 28:3–5 81, 208 28:8–26 294 29:14–20 104 29:1–7 104 29:23 172 29:8–13 104 30:1–13 206 30:24 170 30:4 87 31:10 309 31:30 170 31:5 74 31:9–17 202 32:16–17 135 32:5–6 179 33:1–19 225 33:11–12 20 33:12–13 226 33:15 74 33:18 177 33:20 208 33:25 38 34:1–8 244 34:1–6 237 35:14 203 35:16 72 35:20–21 225

2 Maccabees 36 223 36:1–22 217, 225 36:3 186 36:4 225 36:5 19–22, 225 36:10 227 36:13 86, 227, 229 36:16 182 36:17–19 226 36:20–22 230 36:24–27 165 38:21 87 38:24–39:11 43 39:10 37 39:1–11 327 39:19 188 39:4 202 39:8 37, 43 40:11 245 40:22 178 40:30 68 41:14 37 41:18 71 41:21 72 41:3–4 87 41:4 69 42:15–43:33 89 42:5 38 42:8 38 42:9–10 167 44–50 51 44:17 309 44:19–23 53 44:21″ 179 44:21–45:5 54 44:23 181 45:1–5 53 45:5 40, 42, 57, 187 45:6–13 55 45:6–14 55, 56 45:6–22 51, 54, 55 45:8–9 56 45:15–22 55, 57 45:18 183 45:20 184

45:23–24 223 45:23–26 263 46:1–49:10 85 46:9 182 46:12 81, 87, 89 47:11 185 47:1–12 61 47:3 173 48:17 223 48:19 109 49:6 226 49:10 81, 87 49:11–12 228 49:12 227 49:8 81, 82 49:9 81 50:1 228 50:4 228 50:11 228 50:12 72 50:1–21 54 50:12–21 228 50:1–24 154 50:2 186 50:4 223 50:22 244 50:27 37, 203, 223 50:4 223 51:13 37, 72 51:13a 202 51:16 37 51:21 68 51:23 39 51:23–29 151 51:27 178

Baruch 4:5–29

242

2 Maccabees 5:15–6:11 244 6:1–11 237 7:1–41 242

377

378

Index of References

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

En. En. En. En. En. En. En. En. En. En.

56 14–16 83 14:18 83 14:18–20 92 26:2 92 39:2 83 71:1–2 83 75:3 83 89:10–12 92 90:4 92

2 En. 42:7a 8–9, 11, 103 2 En. 98 101, 102 2 En. 1–39 102, 105

3 En. 1:1–2:4 83 3 En. 6:1–7:1 83 Jub. 4

24

Sib. Sib. Sib. Sib. Sib.

1–2 95, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106 2 100 2:39–41 98 2:78–87 99 3:8–45 56

Or. Or. Or. Or. Or.

Liv. Pro 3:12

87

Pseudo-Phocylides 95 Pseudo-Phocylides 23b–26

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature 1Q18 2 3–4 272 1Q26 30 1Q27 1 i 3–4 22 1QH 56 1QH 1 30 277 1QH 7:26–27 271 1QH 9:37 272 1QH 13 277, 278, 279 1QH 13 ii 28–30 277 1QH 14:35 272 1QH 22:25 275 1QH 24:23 275 1QHa 4:37 25 1QHa 5:15 30, 25 1QHa 11:23–24 25 1QM 11:6 24 1QM 11:15 87 1QS 56 1QS 3:18–19 278 1QS 4:2–3 84 1QS 4:5 272 1QS 5:4–5 272 1QS 8:3 272 1QS 11:3–4 22 1QSb 3:22–23 92 4Q175 13 24 4Q184 1 i 16 85 4Q213a 1 i 17 275

4Q223–224 2 i 49 272 4Q280 2 2 275 4Q286 1:2 2 83 4Q286 7 ii 7 275 4Q303 21 4Q370 1 i 3 272 4Q385–388 81 4Q385 2:2–3 84, 92 4Q385 2:4 88 4Q385 2:5 88 4Q385 2:5–9 87, 92 4Q385 6.5–6 82, 83, 92 4Q385 6 11, 13, 83 4Q386 1 i 4–10 87 4Q388 8.4 92 4Q391 81 4Q403 15 83 4Q405 21–22.3 7, 9, 83 4Q416 30 4Q416 1 12 25 4Q416 2 ii 6 29 4Q416 2 iii 15–19 196 4Q417 30 4Q417 i 1 22 4Q417 1 i 7–8 22 4Q417 1 i 8–9 22 4Q417 1 i 17 25, 28, 29 4Q417 1 i 17–18 29

99

Plato 4Q417 1 ii 12 273 4Q418 30 4Q418 81 2 25 4Q418 81 + 81a 1–2 4Q420 1 ii 5 84 4Q422 21 4Q422 1 12 272 4Q423 30 4Q423 1 2, 28 4Q429 2 7–11 277 4Q435 2 i 1–2 275

25

4Q436 1 i 10 275 4Q504 21 4Q544 2 13 275 11Q5 19:15 277 11Q5 19:15–16 274 11Q5 24:12–13 275 11Q6 4–5 16 274 11Q10 2 2 277 11QT 66:8–9 273 CD-A 3 :20–4 :2 92 CD 2:15–16 272

Philo Opif. 1.17

185

Josephus C. Ap. 1:8 84 Ant. 13.301 265 B.J. 1.70 265

Mishnah, Talmud and Related Literature m. Hag. 2.1 83 m. Sukkah 4.4 277 b. Ber. 61a 280 b. B. Bat 15b 84, 85 b. Hag. 13a 83 b. Mo’ed. Qat. 28a 277 b. Shabb. 151b 279 b. sukkah 52a 273 b. Yoma 35b 39 Gen. Rab. 22:6 280 Gen. Rab. 34:10 274

Lam. Rab 1:1 Sifre Sifre Sifre Sifre

277

Num 88 273 Deut 33 274 Deut 45 280 Deut 45 273

Avot de Rabbi Nathan 7 100 Avot de Rabbi Nathan 16 274 Tg. Prov 13:2

277

Alphabet of Ben Sira 279, 361, 364

Ancient Greek, Latin and Other Literature Diodoros Siculus

Plato

Hist. 17,17.1–2

Symp. 201d 187 Symp 203a 187–88 Symp. 203c 187 Symp. 204a 187

180

Homer Il. 2.204–206

425

379

380

Index of References

Plutarch Alex. 8.2 184 Alex. 8.3 184 Alex. 52.3–4 185

Manuscripts MS 2053/251 278, 279 Greek 339–42 Coptic 342–45

Herm. 17:7

277

Ani VII,18–VIII,4

197

Story of Ahiqar 361

Index of Authors Adams, Samuel 26 Aitken, James 323 Allison, Dale C. 286 Alonso-Schökel, Luis 166 Balla, Ibolya 3 Barton, John 98 Bauckham, Richard 304 Beentjes, Pancratius 3, 72, 114–15, 325 Bergmann, Claudia 117, 118 Box, G. H. 278 Brand, Miryam 268 Calduch-Benages, Núria 1, 95, 109, 128, 159, 165, 169, 189, 192, 202, 291, 337 Chapa, Juan 5 Clamer, Albert 329 Collins, John 2 Corley, Jeremy 3, 119 Crampon, A. 333 Cross, Frank Moore 329 David, Paul A. 251 de Gerardon, Bernard 306 de Vaulx, Julian 328–29 Dibelius, Martin 287 Di Lella, Alexander 46, 154, 168, 268–69, 325, 367 Duggan, Michael 4 Dupont, Jacques 324 Egger-Wenzel, Renate 165 Elgvin, Torleif 24 Ferrer, Joan 95 Forti, Tova 3 Fox, Michael V. 157 Frankemölle, Hubert 4, 286, 289–90, 291, 294, 298–99 Garcia, Jeffrey 26, 27, 29 Gilbert, Maurice 5 Goff, Matthew 4, 26 Gregory, Bradley 3, 72, 74, 230 Halbwachs, Maurice 303 Harrington, Daniel 24, 27 Hartom, S. 323 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762181-025

Jónsson, Sigurvin L. 288, 293, 298 Kelley, Page 130 Kittel, Rudolf 329 Koch, Klaus 56 Kselman, John S. 329 Lange, Armin 23, 30 Lévi, Israel 325 Liesen, Jan 95 López Estevez, Elisa 5 López-Navas, Emilio 4 Luz, Ulrich 101 Macatangay, Francis M. 4, 97–98 Mahoney, James 252 Marböck, Johannes 83 Mayor, Joseph B. 287 Mazzinghi, Luca 326 Milik, J. T. 22 Montgomery, James 278 Mopsik, Charles 326 Murphy, Roland 277–78 Nguyen, Anh Nhue 4 North, Douglas 251, 252 Noth, Martin 59 Oeming, Manfred 98 Oesterley, W. O. E. 278 Paszko, Pawel 3 Patte, Daniel 55–56 Paul, Shalom M. 88 Peters, Norbert 105, 325 Rankin, Oliver 138 Reif, Stefan 5 Reiterer, Friedrich V. 4 Rey, Jean-Sebastien 20, 24, 26, 28, 30 Rotasperti, Sergio 3 Rosen-Zvi, Ishay 269 Ruiz-Ortiz, F. Javier 3 Sauer, Georg 112 Schmitz, Barbara 4 Scott, R. B. Y. 195 Segal, Moshe H. 89, 323, 351, 355–66, 367 Seow, Choon L. 140

382

Index of Authors

Sheppard, Gerald 127, 136 Sinnott, Alice 90 Ska, Jean-Loius 2, 328, 329–30 Skehan, Patrick 46, 268–69, 325, 367 Smend, Rudolf 83, 325 Snaith, John 56 Spicq, Ceslas 324, 332, 333 Strack, Hermann 325 Streeck, Wolfgang 252 Strugnell 24, 27 Stuart, Douglas 134

Urbanz, Werner 169–70

Tajfel, Henri 303 Theisen, Gerd 305 Thelen, Kathleen 252 Tigchelaar, Eibert 26, 28

Zapff, Burkard M. 180 Zenger, Eric 255 Ziegler, Joseph 325 Zorell, Franz 332

Vanhoye, Albert 333 Venuti, Lawrence 75 Vogels, Walter 328, 329 Weinfeld, Moshe 45 Werman, Cana 25 Wischmeyer, Oda 4 Wold, Benjamin 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Wright, Benjamin 3, 138, 150, 326